NationStates

https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/o ... 16e8c51a58

https://www.startribune.com/hunters-and ... 600026878/

The Wisconsin Wolf hunt ended after only two days due to hunters exceeding the kill target. The Department of Natural Resources closed the season after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

These animals were killed not for food or protecting people but for sheer ruthless fun and its utterly despicable.

Hunting for sport is morally and ethically wrong and there is no reason for it. Wolf cubs will now be left without parents and not be able to survive. Packs will be destroyed and whole ecosystems possibly disrupted. Hunting for sport should be outlawed as their is no justification for it. Getting a thrill out of killing a wild animal is disgusting.

Your Thoughts NSG?

In the absence of an ideal world where large predators can be re-introduced across their native range in North America hunting can be a valuable tool of population control for large ungulates and other herbivores that at the moment have few natural predators. Large predator hunts, on the other hand, which are almost solely done for trophies or entertainment rather than food, should be mostly banned as they serve no conservation purpose.

First Nations traditional hunting and foraging practices are also beneficial to maintain, as the total catch and impact even on large predators is usually low and is part of a suite of land management practices that indigenous peoples have maintained for millenia and that have proven to promote ecosystem stability.

Nilokeras wrote:In the absence of an ideal world where large predators can be re-introduced across their native range in North America hunting can be a valuable tool of population control for large ungulates and other herbivores that at the moment have few natural predators. Large predator hunts, on the other hand, which are almost solely done for trophies or entertainment rather than food, should be mostly banned as they serve no conservation purpose.

First Nations traditional hunting and foraging practices are also beneficial to maintain, as the total catch and impact even on large predators is usually low and is part of a suite of land management practices that indigenous peoples have maintained for millenia and that have proven to promote ecosystem stability.

and this had no benefit other than for someone's sick idea of fun.

Absolutely. Hunting for sport is cruel entertainment for rich aristocrats who have to inflict pain on suffering on animals once they've gotten tired of doing that to normal people

Unless it's for certain cultural practices, it definitely should. Killing animals to simply kill them and nothing more (not for food or population control) is completely cruel, detrimental to ecosystems and all in all just really despicable. So yes, in most cases it should be banned.

San Lumen wrote:https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-wolf-hunt-ends-early-hunters-trappers-exceed-kill-target/89-6f8059e4-ae02-47b3-97cb-1516e8c51a58

https://www.startribune.com/hunters-and ... 600026878/

The Wisconsin Wolf hunt ended after only two days due to hunters exceeding the kill target. The Department of Natural Resources closed the season after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

These animals were killed not for food or protecting people but for sheer ruthless fun and its utterly despicable.

Hunting for sport is morally and ethically wrong and there is no reason for it. Wolf cubs will now be left without parents and not be able to survive. Packs will be destroyed and whole ecosystems possibly disrupted. Hunting for sport should be outlawed as their is no justification for it. Getting a thrill out of killing a wild animal is disgusting.

Your Thoughts NSG?

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.

San Lumen wrote:

Nilokeras wrote:In the absence of an ideal world where large predators can be re-introduced across their native range in North America hunting can be a valuable tool of population control for large ungulates and other herbivores that at the moment have few natural predators. Large predator hunts, on the other hand, which are almost solely done for trophies or entertainment rather than food, should be mostly banned as they serve no conservation purpose.

First Nations traditional hunting and foraging practices are also beneficial to maintain, as the total catch and impact even on large predators is usually low and is part of a suite of land management practices that indigenous peoples have maintained for millenia and that have proven to promote ecosystem stability.

and this had no benefit other than for someone's sick idea of fun.

The reason for the wolf hunt was fears of overpopulation due to federal protections for wolves.

Punished UMN wrote:

San Lumen wrote:https://www.kare11.com/article/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-wolf-hunt-ends-early-hunters-trappers-exceed-kill-target/89-6f8059e4-ae02-47b3-97cb-1516e8c51a58

https://www.startribune.com/hunters-and ... 600026878/

The Wisconsin Wolf hunt ended after only two days due to hunters exceeding the kill target. The Department of Natural Resources closed the season after hunters and trappers had killed 178 wolves, which was 59 more than the state's target of 119. Hunters and trappers exceeded their target in all six of the state's management zones.

These animals were killed not for food or protecting people but for sheer ruthless fun and its utterly despicable.

Hunting for sport is morally and ethically wrong and there is no reason for it. Wolf cubs will now be left without parents and not be able to survive. Packs will be destroyed and whole ecosystems possibly disrupted. Hunting for sport should be outlawed as their is no justification for it. Getting a thrill out of killing a wild animal is disgusting.

Your Thoughts NSG?

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.

It depends on each case, but of we're talking about all trophy hunting, then no. Income from trophy hunting produce substantial financial benefits of which many conservation efforts depends upon, and is likely to be supported by local communities. Said financial benefits also incentivized local governments to "institutionalize" trophy hunting in the form of conservation parks and protect the animals there from illegal poaching, which is often far more damaging especially in less well-governed places such as Africa.

San Lumen wrote:

Punished UMN wrote: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.

If you don't hunt them for conservation purposes, overpopulation will result in dangerous interactions between people and animals (predatory attacks on humans have increased because bear populations have gone up, and the first fatal predatory attacks on humans by wolves and coyotes happened recently), and disease would spread which could potentially be totally destructive on the population and could be transmissible to other species.

Punished UMN wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
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.

If you don't hunt them for conservation purposes, overpopulation will result in dangerous interactions between people and animals (predatory attacks on humans have increased because bear populations have gone up, and the first fatal predatory attacks on humans by wolves and coyotes happened recently), and disease would spread which could potentially be totally destructive on the population and could be transmissible to other species.

Yet there is no evidenced of overpopulation and the target was exceeded therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conversation.

San Lumen wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:If you don't hunt them for conservation purposes, overpopulation will result in dangerous interactions between people and animals (predatory attacks on humans have increased because bear populations have gone up, and the first fatal predatory attacks on humans by wolves and coyotes happened recently), and disease would spread which could potentially be totally destructive on the population and could be transmissible to other species.

Yet there is no evidenced of overpopulation and the target was exceeded therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conversation.

Those statements don't logically follow.

"There is no evidence of overpopulation", from where are you getting this information? That wolves are no longer endangered would seem to suggest otherwise.

"the target was exceeded" yes, "therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conservation", this part doesn't follow, the people hunting wouldn't have known the target was exceeded.

Punished UMN wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
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.

If you don't hunt them for conservation purposes, overpopulation will result in dangerous interactions between people and animals (predatory attacks on humans have increased because bear populations have gone up, and the first fatal predatory attacks on humans by wolves and coyotes happened recently), and disease would spread which could potentially be totally destructive on the population and could be transmissible to other species.

Or more likely, such threat will incentivize the local population to hunt them for non-sport purposes. Especially if they start threatening local farms or whatnot.

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.

Punished UMN wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Yet there is no evidenced of overpopulation and the target was exceeded therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conversation.

Those statements don't logically follow.

"There is no evidence of overpopulation", from where are you getting this information? That wolves are no longer endangered would seem to suggest otherwise.

"the target was exceeded" yes, "therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conservation", this part doesn't follow, the people hunting wouldn't have known the target was exceeded.

They became endangered because of hunting.

Nature has other ways of controlling populations. Humans should not be mindlessly killing beautiful creatures on the off chance a disease could spread. Perhaps we should stop encroaching on forests?

Resilient Acceleration wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:If you don't hunt them for conservation purposes, overpopulation will result in dangerous interactions between people and animals (predatory attacks on humans have increased because bear populations have gone up, and the first fatal predatory attacks on humans by wolves and coyotes happened recently), and disease would spread which could potentially be totally destructive on the population and could be transmissible to other species.

Or more likely, such threat will incentivize the local population to hunt them for non-sport purposes. Especially if they start threatening local farms or whatnot.

The law doesn't distinguish between hunting for sport purposes or non-sport purposes, the state still has to legalize you hunting them or at least give you permission specifically for it.

NO.

San Lumen wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Those statements don't logically follow.

"There is no evidence of overpopulation", from where are you getting this information? That wolves are no longer endangered would seem to suggest otherwise.

"the target was exceeded" yes, "therefore people were doing this for a sick thrill and not for conservation", this part doesn't follow, the people hunting wouldn't have known the target was exceeded.

They became endangered because of hunting.

Nature has other ways of controlling populations. Humans should not be mindlessly killing beautiful creatures on the off chance a disease could spread. Perhaps we should stop encroaching on forests?

"on the off chance disease has spread", this is just plain ignorance, did you know that Deer in the United States are facing a devastating pandemic that could wipe out the entire deer population in North America, and that one of the reasons it is spreading is because of an inadequate amount of hunting?

Punished UMN wrote: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.

San Lumen wrote:

Punished UMN wrote: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.

So are a lot of things, there's still situations where many of them are justifiable. Having a rigidly Kantian sense of morality where everything that is immoral can never be done ever no matter the consequences is not a useful moral code.

San Lumen wrote:

Punished UMN wrote: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.

No it isn't.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Don;t care. Hunting for sport is totally unacceptable and morally wrong.

No it isn't.

Why is killing an animal not harming you not morally and ethically wrong? Some of those wolves killed likely had cubs who now will not be able to survive.

Punished UMN wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
and this had no benefit other than for someone's sick idea of fun.

The reason for the wolf hunt was fears of overpopulation due to federal protections for wolves.

There's also unfortunately a conflict of interest at work here too. In states like Montana for example, much of the landscape (particularly federal lands out West) is leased to ranchers for sheep and cattle grazing. Ranchers get upset when they lose sheep, but that's also the natural consequence of allowing your animals to graze freely in wilderness where wolves can disperse from source populations in Canada. Should we cull wolves because ranchers are upset that letting their animals free sometimes leads to predation?

I grew up in a small town literally surrounded by thick forest on all sides, and it was well known that there was all kinds of bears and wolves and the like out there-but the way it's always been there is you only kill what you plan to eat. Hunting for sport just doesn't make sense logically, much less ethically or environmentally.
I always thought that you shouldn't take pride in the act of killing, even if you do need it for food or pelts or bones or whatever. The act of taking another creature's life to ensure the continuation of your own should be done only out of necessity, and when it is, it should be done with respect for the creature and the death you have caused. To hunt for sport is the worst possible thing you could extend this to; killing just to kill, with no concern for the ecological damage it may do or the effects of the act. How many animals could have eaten this thing you have killed out of necessity? How many children did it depend on? It is an action that bears great consequences for which we could not possibly answer.
Yes, it should be banned, and those who hunt out of necessity should be provided education on how to hunt responsibly and to mind the consequences of the act of killing. Many people depend on the hunting of wild animals to survive, but it's not necessary especially when you consider the cost and availability of food within western nations like the United States where this took place. No need to kill, and no excuse for this kind of mindless, needless genocide.

San Lumen wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:No it isn't.

Why is killing an animal not harming you not morally and ethically wrong? Some of those wolves killed likely had cubs who now will not be able to survive.

According to whose morals and ethics? It isn't universal and completely subjective.
If you need to interject emotion into it, the argument isn't very sound.