Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[People republie of alaska]

I do agree

[Katganistan]

And even if it were true in this specific instance, it still wouldn't be a valuable condemnation of sport-hunting overall, which is done for conservation the vast majority of the time. Moreover, sport hunting is a huge boon for many poor countries which otherwise would have little means of attracting foreign capital.

Don;t care. Hunting for sport is totally unacceptable and morally wrong.

Well, thread end for you, since your mind's made up. You might actually want to talk to conservationists, rangers, and other experts who understand the field, though, instead of just "killing puppies bad!"

[Salus Maior]

Cats are far worse killers when it comes to wildlife. They mostly kill for fun.

If you’re really worried about it we should ban cats. People can use bunnies or something else as comfort animals.

[Katganistan]

No and in a number of instances it's necessary for certain animals to keep them under control. For example wild pig populations run havoc on American farms and its necessary to allow them to be hunted for sport to even have a chance to keep them under control. It's why there are basically no limits on hunting them.

Besides. Bacon. And ham.

[Punished UMN]

Not really, it's pretty much mandatory for hunters to process their kills into food. Leaving your kills in the field is a serious crime in every US jurisdiction.

Learning a new thing here, so to move the goalposts slightly (and also to ask a genuine question), how much of the animal, and how much actually gets eaten by anyone in such cases?

I still think it should be banned; if a population needs managing that seems like a job for the Fish & Wildlife Service, not just anyone hanging around with murder in their heart or whatever (so that, for example, you don't end up killing like 150% as many wolves as planned). I also think your earlier mention of some countries using it to attract foreign capital is kinda fucked and another reason to ban it-- rich people in developed nations flying to the Third World to kill rare animals doesn't strike me as a mode of eco-tourism that's sustainable or normatively desirable. Doesn't bring in that much money compared to developing actual economic sectors, pushes important and charismatic at-risk species closer to the brink, is just brutal from an emissions perspective, and gives our new postmodern patrician class some fucked-up ideas about their relationship both to the proles in their own countries and to people in the countries they're sauntering around killing things in. There's plenty of ways to monetize charismatic megafauna that don't involve inviting foreigners to brutally murder them and make off with their remains.

It depends on the jurisdiction, as well as local and temporary regulations. I know under normal circumstances, the hunter can leave the "gut pile" in the field (because the contents of the digestive system can ruin the meat and there may not be enough time between to process once the animal is killed. It also dramatically reduces the weight of the animal and allows hunters to remove the rest of the carcass more easily), but the remainder is taken to a processing facility (or the hunter can actually process it themselves) to be turned into cuts like you'd get in a store. The hunter can either take these for himself or donate them to food banks and homeless shelters, which is a very common practice. I couldn't tell you how much is actually processed into food, but it's comparable to when livestock is killed. However, the recent CWD pandemic in North American deer populations has resulted in regulations that make it so that hunters in many areas must bring the entire carcass (including the gut pile) to specialized sites where the carcass is incinerated in order to prevent the spread of the disease.

[Katganistan]

Unless it's for certain cultural practices, it definitely should.

I really, really, really, dislike the idea of something being legal for certain classes but not others.

In the US, anyone who wishes to hunt can hunt, so long as they have a hunting license and are hunting whatever in season.

[Disgraces]

Absolutely. It is barbaric.

[Katganistan]

Cats are far worse killers when it comes to wildlife. They mostly kill for fun.

If you’re really worried about it we should ban cats. People can use bunnies or something else as comfort animals.

Domestic cats are murder on birds, small rodents and even rabbits. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to roam and should wear belled breakaway collars.

[Senkaku]

Cats are far worse killers when it comes to wildlife. They mostly kill for fun.

If you’re really worried about it we should ban cats. People can use bunnies or something else as comfort animals.

It probably wouldn't kill us to at least make people keep their cats on their property, we don't generally tolerate dogs running around the neighborhood at all hours of the night but somehow no one ever minds the neighbor's cat creeping through the daffodils or whatever lol

Probably not absolutely essential, since most of the bird species in the major conurbations where most people (and therefore most pet cats) live, like pigeons or crows, aren't particularly at risk, but if avian biomass starts showing trends like insects' as the climate continues to go to shit, there could be a stronger case for it

[Tsaivao]

Hunting definitely should receive more oversight, my home county has a big problem with poaching. It wasn't uncommon to see animal carcasses in trash bags on the side of the road from where their bodies were simply wasted. I also don't personally like hunting at all.

However I don't think it should be entirely banned, because as mentioned before, the wolf population here is not endangered at this time, and there was not much of way hunters could have known in the moment that the kill rate had been exceeded. Hunting and fishing are necessary not only for the longevity of the environment but also the conservation efforts that protect the other animals. Remember that the entire reason we have national parks in the first place is because they were supposed to be government-sanctioned hunting grounds lol.

Again, I do get squeamish, I can't even stand fishing, but I don't think banning hunting because of the act itself is an indicator of some sick mental behavior in individuals who hunt.

[Salus Maior]

I didn't mean they literally just toss the bodies in a dumpster or whatever lmao you understand what I'm saying

Not really, it's pretty much mandatory for hunters to process their kills into food. Leaving your kills in the field is a serious crime in every US jurisdiction.

It’s almost as if these moral busybodies just want to tell people what to do without actually understanding what they’re doing.

[Grinning Dragon]

Absolutely. It is barbaric.

Calling it barbaric is subjective.
Is it barbaric to kill mice, rats, cockroaches, flies, mosquitos? Is killing one species more acceptable than killing a different species?

[San Lumen]

Hunting definitely should receive more oversight, my home county has a big problem with poaching. It wasn't uncommon to see animal carcasses in trash bags on the side of the road from where their bodies were simply wasted. I also don't personally like hunting at all.

However I don't think it should be entirely banned, because as mentioned before, the wolf population here is not endangered at this time, and there was not much of way hunters could have known in the moment that the kill rate had been exceeded. Hunting and fishing are necessary not only for the longevity of the environment but also the conservation efforts that protect the other animals. Remember that the entire reason we have national parks in the first place is because they were supposed to be government-sanctioned hunting grounds lol.

Again, I do get squeamish, I can't even stand fishing, but I don't think banning hunting because of the act itself is an indicator of some sick mental behavior in individuals who hunt.

I dont see how anyone could get thrill or fun out of killing a living creature.

[Grinning Dragon]

Hunting definitely should receive more oversight, my home county has a big problem with poaching. It wasn't uncommon to see animal carcasses in trash bags on the side of the road from where their bodies were simply wasted. I also don't personally like hunting at all.

However I don't think it should be entirely banned, because as mentioned before, the wolf population here is not endangered at this time, and there was not much of way hunters could have known in the moment that the kill rate had been exceeded. Hunting and fishing are necessary not only for the longevity of the environment but also the conservation efforts that protect the other animals. Remember that the entire reason we have national parks in the first place is because they were supposed to be government-sanctioned hunting grounds lol.

Again, I do get squeamish, I can't even stand fishing, but I don't think banning hunting because of the act itself is an indicator of some sick mental behavior in individuals who hunt.

I dont see how anyone could get thrill or fun out of killing a living creature.

Meh, the only thing I ever felt was a lil recoil.

[Punished UMN]

Hunting definitely should receive more oversight, my home county has a big problem with poaching. It wasn't uncommon to see animal carcasses in trash bags on the side of the road from where their bodies were simply wasted. I also don't personally like hunting at all.

However I don't think it should be entirely banned, because as mentioned before, the wolf population here is not endangered at this time, and there was not much of way hunters could have known in the moment that the kill rate had been exceeded. Hunting and fishing are necessary not only for the longevity of the environment but also the conservation efforts that protect the other animals. Remember that the entire reason we have national parks in the first place is because they were supposed to be government-sanctioned hunting grounds lol.

Again, I do get squeamish, I can't even stand fishing, but I don't think banning hunting because of the act itself is an indicator of some sick mental behavior in individuals who hunt.

I dont see how anyone could get thrill or fun out of killing a living creature.

Because humans are predators.

[Disgraces]

Absolutely. It is barbaric.

Calling it barbaric is subjective.
Is it barbaric to kill mice, rats, cockroaches, flies, mosquitos? Is killing one species more acceptable than killing a different species?

Killing animals for fun is barbaric. Killing insects (they're animals too, I know) [not for fun] isn't.

[Grinning Dragon]

Calling it barbaric is subjective.
Is it barbaric to kill mice, rats, cockroaches, flies, mosquitos? Is killing one species more acceptable than killing a different species?

Killing animals for fun is barbaric. Killing insects (they're animals too, I know) [not for fun] isn't.

Again, completely subjective. You say barbaric, I say it's normal.

[San Lumen]

I dont see how anyone could get thrill or fun out of killing a living creature.

Meh, the only thing I ever felt was a lil recoil.

Maybe you feel nothing but I could not ever shoot another creature and not feel terrible about it afterwords.

[Disgraces]

Killing animals for fun is barbaric. Killing insects (they're animals too, I know) [not for fun] isn't.

Again, completely subjective. You say barbaric, I say it's normal.

Then I say you're barbaric. Go ahead, report me.

[Tsaivao]

Absolutely. It is barbaric.

Calling it barbaric is subjective.
Is it barbaric to kill mice, rats, cockroaches, flies, mosquitos? Is killing one species more acceptable than killing a different species?

Quite frankly, yeah. That's part of why this argument doesn't really make much sense to me, as we know that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways for animals to be killed. It's considered acceptable to kill pests in the home, especially insects, but not every method can be used against rodents (Remember when Logan Paul electrocuted a rat? We electrocute bugs all the time, but doing that to a rat is, rightfully, disgusting. It's an interesting difference).

Part of the problem is that some animals just don't experience pain the same way others do. Cats, deer, fish, and insects, if they can feel pain, have an entirely different experience to it compared to humans. Cats and deer are much more resistant to pain, and insects and fish are thought to not even be complex enough to experience pain.

The problem is that saying "Killing animals is barbaric" is trying to assign a black-and-white to a very moral gray. Sometimes it just seems like it varies enough from species to species, and I don't think that's enough justification to ban it.

[Senkaku]

Learning a new thing here, so to move the goalposts slightly (and also to ask a genuine question), how much of the animal, and how much actually gets eaten by anyone in such cases?

I still think it should be banned; if a population needs managing that seems like a job for the Fish & Wildlife Service, not just anyone hanging around with murder in their heart or whatever (so that, for example, you don't end up killing like 150% as many wolves as planned). I also think your earlier mention of some countries using it to attract foreign capital is kinda fucked and another reason to ban it-- rich people in developed nations flying to the Third World to kill rare animals doesn't strike me as a mode of eco-tourism that's sustainable or normatively desirable. Doesn't bring in that much money compared to developing actual economic sectors, pushes important and charismatic at-risk species closer to the brink, is just brutal from an emissions perspective, and gives our new postmodern patrician class some fucked-up ideas about their relationship both to the proles in their own countries and to people in the countries they're sauntering around killing things in. There's plenty of ways to monetize charismatic megafauna that don't involve inviting foreigners to brutally murder them and make off with their remains.

It depends on the jurisdiction, as well as local and temporary regulations. I know under normal circumstances, the hunter can leave the "gut pile" in the field (because the contents of the digestive system can ruin the meat and there may not be enough time between to process once the animal is killed. It also dramatically reduces the weight of the animal and allows hunters to remove the rest of the carcass more easily), but the remainder is taken to a processing facility (or the hunter can actually process it themselves) to be turned into cuts like you'd get in a store. The hunter can either take these for himself or donate them to food banks and homeless shelters, which is a very common practice. I couldn't tell you how much is actually processed into food, but it's comparable to when livestock is killed.

Hmmm, good to know. Answering this would probably require a lot of tedious followup with different rural and suburban food banks about the size of a proxy for donated hunting meat (their venison stockpiles would probably be the best), and the percentage they actually end up using before it spoils/weight of venison they toss uneaten every quarter and every year, which I am not presently motivated enough to do.

However, the recent CWD pandemic in North American deer populations has resulted in regulations that make it so that hunters in many areas must bring the entire carcass (including the gut pile) to specialized sites where the carcass is incinerated in order to prevent the spread of the disease.

...so you're telling me we've probably emitted thousands of tons of carbon incinerating deer carcasses so people can keep hunting them for fun?

[Disgraces]

Calling it barbaric is subjective.
Is it barbaric to kill mice, rats, cockroaches, flies, mosquitos? Is killing one species more acceptable than killing a different species?

Quite frankly, yeah. That's part of why this argument doesn't really make much sense to me, as we know that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways for animals to be killed. It's considered acceptable to kill pests in the home, especially insects, but not every method can be used against rodents (Remember when Logan Paul electrocuted a rat? We electrocute bugs all the time, but doing that to a rat is, rightfully, disgusting. It's an interesting difference).

Part of the problem is that some animals just don't experience pain the same way others do. Cats, deer, fish, and insects, if they can feel pain, have an entirely different experience to it compared to humans. Cats and deer are much more resistant to pain, and insects and fish are thought to not even be complex enough to experience pain.

The problem is that saying "Killing animals is barbaric" is trying to assign a black-and-white to a very moral gray. Sometimes it just seems like it varies enough from species to species, and I don't think that's enough justification to ban it.

Dude, how is killing animals for fun a very moral gray?

[Punished UMN]

It depends on the jurisdiction, as well as local and temporary regulations. I know under normal circumstances, the hunter can leave the "gut pile" in the field (because the contents of the digestive system can ruin the meat and there may not be enough time between to process once the animal is killed. It also dramatically reduces the weight of the animal and allows hunters to remove the rest of the carcass more easily), but the remainder is taken to a processing facility (or the hunter can actually process it themselves) to be turned into cuts like you'd get in a store. The hunter can either take these for himself or donate them to food banks and homeless shelters, which is a very common practice. I couldn't tell you how much is actually processed into food, but it's comparable to when livestock is killed.

Hmmm, good to know. Answering this would probably require a lot of tedious followup with different rural and suburban food banks about the size of a proxy for donated hunting meat (their venison stockpiles would probably be the best), and the percentage they actually end up using before it spoils/weight of venison they toss uneaten every quarter and every year, which I am not presently motivated enough to do.

However, the recent CWD pandemic in North American deer populations has resulted in regulations that make it so that hunters in many areas must bring the entire carcass (including the gut pile) to specialized sites where the carcass is incinerated in order to prevent the spread of the disease.

...so you're telling me we've probably emitted thousands of tons of carbon incinerating deer carcasses so people can keep hunting them for fun?

No, the destruction of CWD-infected deer is necessary, it's a horrible and extremely contagious disease with a 100% death rate that has already wiped out much of the North American deer population.

[Tsaivao]

Quite frankly, yeah. That's part of why this argument doesn't really make much sense to me, as we know that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways for animals to be killed. It's considered acceptable to kill pests in the home, especially insects, but not every method can be used against rodents (Remember when Logan Paul electrocuted a rat? We electrocute bugs all the time, but doing that to a rat is, rightfully, disgusting. It's an interesting difference).

Part of the problem is that some animals just don't experience pain the same way others do. Cats, deer, fish, and insects, if they can feel pain, have an entirely different experience to it compared to humans. Cats and deer are much more resistant to pain, and insects and fish are thought to not even be complex enough to experience pain.

The problem is that saying "Killing animals is barbaric" is trying to assign a black-and-white to a very moral gray. Sometimes it just seems like it varies enough from species to species, and I don't think that's enough justification to ban it.

Dude, how is killing animals for fun a very moral gray?

I was referring to "killing animals is barbaric". No fun was mentioned in the clause. I personally do not agree that killing animals purely for entertainment is an ethical action, but at the same time there are legitimate reasons to kill animals. If someone is killing an animal, and has fun doing it, but is doing it for an important conservatory effort, would that make it moral or immoral? This is what I mean.

[Senkaku]

Not really, it's pretty much mandatory for hunters to process their kills into food. Leaving your kills in the field is a serious crime in every US jurisdiction.

It’s almost as if these moral busybodies just want to tell people what to do without actually understanding what they’re doing.

Yes, I'm just a moral busybody who wants to tell other people what to do, utterly without motivations or desires or goals of my own, existing only to interfere in other people's business and prevent them from doing what they want. There are no deeper motives to anything I do, in contrast to the incredible profundity of simple, virtuous folk like yourself. What a tidy little explanation!

Hunting definitely should receive more oversight, my home county has a big problem with poaching. It wasn't uncommon to see animal carcasses in trash bags on the side of the road from where their bodies were simply wasted. I also don't personally like hunting at all.

However I don't think it should be entirely banned, because as mentioned before, the wolf population here is not endangered at this time, and there was not much of way hunters could have known in the moment that the kill rate had been exceeded. Hunting and fishing are necessary not only for the longevity of the environment but also the conservation efforts that protect the other animals. Remember that the entire reason we have national parks in the first place is because they were supposed to be government-sanctioned hunting grounds lol.

Again, I do get squeamish, I can't even stand fishing, but I don't think banning hunting because of the act itself is an indicator of some sick mental behavior in individuals who hunt.

I dont see how anyone could get thrill or fun out of killing a living creature.

Meh, they say they do, I can sorta see why even if I don't myself, I don't see any need to challenge that.

Also, isn't this thread about banning sport hunting by private individuals, not banning hunting altogether? If you're seriously advocating for the latter, rather than the former, as I understood from the OP, then I'm outta here.

Quite frankly, yeah. That's part of why this argument doesn't really make much sense to me, as we know that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways for animals to be killed. It's considered acceptable to kill pests in the home, especially insects, but not every method can be used against rodents (Remember when Logan Paul electrocuted a rat? We electrocute bugs all the time, but doing that to a rat is, rightfully, disgusting. It's an interesting difference).

Part of the problem is that some animals just don't experience pain the same way others do. Cats, deer, fish, and insects, if they can feel pain, have an entirely different experience to it compared to humans. Cats and deer are much more resistant to pain, and insects and fish are thought to not even be complex enough to experience pain.

The problem is that saying "Killing animals is barbaric" is trying to assign a black-and-white to a very moral gray. Sometimes it just seems like it varies enough from species to species, and I don't think that's enough justification to ban it.

Dude, how is killing animals for fun a very moral gray?

It does depend on the animal, that's not an irrelevant point here. I have a lot more of a problem with someone killing an elephant than I do with someone killing a cockroach.