If the option was to get rid of all meat farming and in it's replacement have a return to hunting animals when someone wants meat. Then yes, I can agree to that. Unfortunately that's never going to happen, and hunting does nothing to reduce the impact of mass industrial farming; it's just adding to the amount of dead animals. Current laws on hunting means anybody can shoot anything for any reason. Putting restrictions on hunting is a battle that can (and in many cases, has been) won. Shutting down the industrial meat industry is just too big of a goal.
I have, and find issue with most of this.
1. You've been arguing against the hunting and did not give me a clear answer. I was serious when I wanted to know which you thought was more 'inhumane'.
2. Hunting adds to the dead animals? How so? If I can eat venison for a month (I have a freezer), do I have a need, want, or demand for more meat? The slaughter house doesn't want you to hunt. I swear.
3. There is no such thing as too big a battle. In fact, California recently changed it's laws regarding how it obtains its eggs and the conditions of the chickens that lay them. I would still say the conditions suck, but it happened. It changed.
4. Have you even been hunting before? It's not all too exciting. Like I said before, it's not unheard of to get back in your car with nothing more than an empty bag of trail mix. Okay, so I didn't say you'd come home with an empty bag of trail mix, I said empty handed same-same.
You should try to actually hunt
something. I think that's why I'm so irritated at this. Hunting is no longer 'acceptable' in several people's eyes as they chomp down on their farmed beef and chicken. We shouldn't own guns, we shouldn't hurt anything, we shouldn't do this or that. . . I'm growing tired of all the semantics and weeping groups.
I prefer my meat as fresh as possible, and if I can I'll take the wild game. If you are indeed a vegan, I'll let this slide off into oblivion, but if you're not part of the solutions, well, I hate to break it to you pal but you're part of the problem like the rest of us so I think I should help you off that horse so you don't fall off, because it's real high.
Just 'buy' my chicken free range? What if I went out to hunt for a pheasant and I didn't manage to get one that day? I'd say that pheasant gets to live another day, but if I bought chicken the demand for chicken would increase. There are already pretty sensible restrictions on hunting and restricting it more may cause issues. Again, hunting may or may not be the contributing factor for the reduction in the population of forest life: deforestation and the destruction of habitats is.
A bit late to this discussion, but I was raised to understand that with synthetics nowadays there shouldn't be a reason for humans to hunt animals for fur (specifically). It should all be based on necessity i.e. Inuits who hunt seals for food and foxes / rabbits, etc. for fur (because synthetics are not readily available and would be super expensive).
My dad would never allow fur in the house :pink_nod: He thinks it's outdated. He's not a huge nut or tree hugger or anything, but he does think that it's wrong in some way.
I think it's a necessity thing now, too, as well as to control populations that have become out-of-hand. This is probably human error, too, given that we've probably driven its predators out of the area causing those populations - deer, etc. - to multiply at rates where nature cannot sustain such populations anymore. In those cases, though, the pelts and parts should be given to those who require them in other places where synthetics aren't available.
And of course, if you're eating what you hunt, that makes sense, too. I don't support hunting for fun :pink_no: It's messed up to kill things for "fun". Psychiatrists look into killing or harming animals "for fun" (which, to me, is equivalent to "for sport") as warning signs for psyche-related issues. Hunting isn't a "sport" to me; it's messed up unless it's for survival mainly. Even population control bugs me; it wouldn't be out of control if humans were more conscious in regards to developments which displace animals, food, etc.
You may have missed it, but I believe I made a pretty good touch on why there is a difference between hunting for 'sport' and 'poaching'. Poaching is:
"Sociological and criminological research on poaching indicates that in North America people poach for commercial gain, home consumption, trophies, pleasure and thrill in killing wildlife, or because they disagree with certain hunting regulations, claim a traditional right to hunt, or have negative dispositions toward legal authority."
Hunting for sport is not "I'm so glad I get to shoot something" but imagine it as the excitement of the hunt. You wouldn't be into the trophy of a sports event if it was just handed to you, you'd like to work to get it at least, and hunting is just like that: work. Sure, calls can make it easier, but the forests aren't exactly tripping over deer. Just how fishing can be seen as a 'sport'; it's not the holding of the fish that is the sport, it's the struggle to succeed that is the sport. Much like it's the struggle to find the deer, track it (don't make sound by the way) and succeed.
Sport = reward is the hunt. Poaching = reward is the trophy. Hunting for sport yields meat and other useful items that are used. Poaching is just for any reason without giving a proper reason, like, you could just be glad you got to shoot at something with your gun and kill it, and that's not what 'hunting for sport' is all about. 'Hunting' for the pure sake of killing is not 'hunting'.
