Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[Senkaku]

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.

...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.

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

[Punished UMN]

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.

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

I don't know what the plan is but it's pretty grim. Some estimates say that it's already killed over half of the North American deer population. In some areas where it's particularly widespread they do away with regulations and tell hunters to kill any deer that moves and bring them in for incineration to prevent migration into healthy herds.

[UniversalCommons]

I am all for hunting invasive species and hunting to limit overpopulation of critters like deers or bears. People become overly sentimental about animals. There have to be specific reasons and focuses for hunting.

[Punished UMN]

And yeah, 100% death rate for it AFAIK, it's basically Mad Cow Disease but is transmissible like the common cold.

[Disgraces]

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.

Hunting for sport is hunting for fun, isn't it?

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.

That person is barbaric, the reason for his actions isn't.

[San Lumen]

I am all for hunting invasive species and hunting to limit overpopulation of critters like deers or bears. People become overly sentimental about animals. There have to be specific reasons and focuses for hunting.

sentimental about animals? Humans arent all that matter.

[Senkaku]

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

I don't know what the plan is but it's pretty grim. Some estimates say that it's already killed over half of the North American deer population. In some areas where it's particularly widespread they do away with regulations and tell hunters to kill any deer that moves and bring them in for incineration to prevent migration into healthy herds.

F. Sounds like we're on the market for a new mid-sized cosmopolitan browser.

And yeah, 100% death rate for it AFAIK, it's basically Mad Cow Disease but is transmissible like the common cold.

So basically if anyone successfully weaponizes it, they'd better have really good lab safety or we're all toast?

[Katganistan]

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

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

Seriously?

[The Marlborough]

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.

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

For now the latter. It's a TSE (Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) which are notoriously hard to tackle. Think mad cow disease and CJD in humans for comparable problems.

[The Marlborough]

And yeah, 100% death rate for it AFAIK, it's basically Mad Cow Disease but is transmissible like the common cold.

Yes, TSE's are always fatal.

[Disgraces]

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

Seriously?

Totally serious.

[San Lumen]

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

For now the latter. It's a TSE (Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) which are notoriously hard to tackle. Think mad cow disease and CJD in humans for comparable problems.

This is getting off topic but i will say few scientists would be dumb enough to experiment with something like this. I don't think they want a Resident Evil like situation.

[Greater Cesnica]

I do not like trophy or thrill hunting where there isn't an element of a conservation or population control purpose. And of course with regards to hunting for meat, I support that over buying meat from some brand-name company at a supermarket. On principle I wouldn't want such trophy and thrill hunting banned- rather, I'd want to make it legal for people to defend animals where such a secondary purpose for hunting (conservation, population control, meat) isn't present.

[Katganistan]

100% death rate? RIP to North American deer I guess, do we have any GMO deer in the works or resistant populations, or is the plan to just keep playing whack-a-mole forever and hopefully stay a few steps ahead of things?

For now the latter. It's a TSE (Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) which are notoriously hard to tackle. Think mad cow disease and CJD in humans for comparable problems.

Yeah, they had a hell of a time wiping out mad cow disease in the UK, and for years would not let anyone who had been in areas that had had the disease donate blood. In fact, the ban went into effect in the 1980s and was not lifted until October 2019....

[Nilokeras]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, wolves are hundreds of times more effective hunters than humans are and hunt year round - releasing wolf population controls would be a much more effective way of suppressing deer populations.

Not necessarily true, while yes wolves hunt for prey yearly, there is hunting seasons and bag limits set upon modern world for humans. Having said that, without said limits humans could easily decimate an animal population.

We're talking in modern terms with modern limitations on hunting. Wolves are also effective opportunistic predators of juvenile deer, which also helps suppress population growth and is an important management goal.

[Tsaivao]

I was referring to "killing animals is barbaric". No fun was mentioned in the clause.

Hunting for sport is hunting for fun, isn't it?

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.

That person is barbaric, the reason for his actions isn't.

This is dependent on where exactly we're basing our morals here. If someone has all the intentions to act in a way that is ethical, but for unethical motivations, does that make them ethical or not? Is it fair to judge a person for their motives when their actions do not present those motives? There's too many problems with this interpretation and it gets pretty muddy very fast. It would be like if you were to ask a christian "is it fair to send someone to hell if they think about sinning but never actually doing it?" You'll get different answers from different people. While I don't want to bring up religion and completely threadjack this, my point is that not everyone is in agreement. So what if someone has fun killing animals in a responsible way? How does that change your life or perception of that person? Would you ever know if that person is hunting animals purely for fun if they never say anything about it?

I don't think that dismissing them as "barbaric" is apt. if they're following the word of the law, only killing animals at times where it's appropriate, handling all the remains safely, performing the act of killing as quickly as possible, then what difference does it make which way the hunter's heart lies?

[Greater Cesnica]

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.

Well we regard such species as pests generally. The secondary elements present are population control and improving the quality of human life.

[The Marlborough]

For now the latter. It's a TSE (Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy) which are notoriously hard to tackle. Think mad cow disease and CJD in humans for comparable problems.

Yeah, they had a hell of a time wiping out mad cow disease in the UK, and for years would not let anyone who had been in areas that had had the disease donate blood. In fact, the ban went into effect in the 1980s and was not lifted until October 2019....

In Canada we still have restrictions on people donating blood from the UK, W. Europe, and Saudi Arabia because of that period.

[Greater Cesnica]

Hunting for sport is hunting for fun, isn't it?

That person is barbaric, the reason for his actions isn't.

This is dependent on where exactly we're basing our morals here. If someone has all the intentions to act in a way that is ethical, but for unethical motivations, does that make them ethical or not? Is it fair to judge a person for their motives when their actions do not present those motives? There's too many problems with this interpretation and it gets pretty muddy very fast. It would be like if you were to ask a christian "is it fair to send someone to hell if they think about sinning but never actually doing it?" You'll get different answers from different people. While I don't want to bring up religion and completely threadjack this, my point is that not everyone is in agreement. So what if someone has fun killing animals in a responsible way? How does that change your life or perception of that person? Would you ever know if that person is hunting animals purely for fun if they never say anything about it?

I don't think that dismissing them as "barbaric" is apt. if they're following the word of the law, only killing animals at times where it's appropriate, handling all the remains safely, performing the act of killing as quickly as possible, then what difference does it make which way the hunter's heart lies?

Ultimately, there is no difference in the end result. Taking into account what someone's thinking and feeling is only relevant when there's no beneficial purpose to the hunt, just pure thrill-seeking and trophy-collecting.

[Washington Resistance Army]

While I sympathize with claims that it's barbaric and such things there are some animals it's necessary for. Wild hogs devastate crops and property if left unchecked.

[Greater Cesnica]

While I sympathize with claims that it's barbaric and such things there are some animals it's necessary for. Wild hogs devastate crops and property if left unchecked.

Well that has a distinct purpose besides hunting for fun. That's population control, protecting crops, human livelihoods.

[The Marlborough]

While I sympathize with claims that it's barbaric and such things there are some animals it's necessary for. Wild hogs devastate crops and property if left unchecked.

If it runs, it's a wild hog. If it stands still, it's a well disciplined wild hog.

[San Lumen]

While I sympathize with claims that it's barbaric and such things there are some animals it's necessary for. Wild hogs devastate crops and property if left unchecked.

aren't there other ways to prevent that without killing them?

[American Pere Housh]

The state allows hunting for conservation purposes, not just because it's fun. Also most hunters do eat what they kill or at least give it to other people to eat, as not doing so is illegal in most places.

I dont care. Its a travesty to shoot a wild animal causing no harm to you and this was not done for food. There is no reason to hunt wolves or any other wild animal. Let them be.

I see no reason to hunt wolves in North America since there have been no instances of wolves purposely hunting people.

[Greater Cesnica]

While I sympathize with claims that it's barbaric and such things there are some animals it's necessary for. Wild hogs devastate crops and property if left unchecked.

If it runs, it's a wild hog. If it stands still, it's a well disciplined wild hog.

Point of the matter is, hunting wild hogs because they pose a threat to property, crops, and livelihoods is very different from hunting wild hogs because you despise them for some reason (and they pose no threat to anything).