Why hunting is bad
First Prev
of 42
Next Last
sally

Edinburgh, UK

#1 Aug 19, 2011
source -(pleasebekind). "Some people call hunting a sport, but a sport is an activity that involves people who want to play. Some people think hunting is great fun, but how can it be fun to kill an animal?

Hunters say that they play an important role in keeping animal populations down. They say if it wasn’t for them, the animals would starve in the winter because there isn’t enough food for them. This isn’t so. Most species of animals regulate their population and have more babies when there’s plenty of food and less babies when there isn’t. It’s been found that in places where hunting is legal, populations grow faster than in places where hunting isn’t allowed. Hunters also kill predators of deer including bears, bobcats, mountain lions and coyotes. If they really wanted the population of deer to decrease, they would leave the predators alone.

In nature, weak, old and injured animals usually die off first and the strongest survive. Hunters on the other hand usually kill the biggest, healthiest and strongest who probably would have survived the winter anyway. That’s bad for all the animals."

Judged:

24

24

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sally

Edinburgh, UK

#2 Aug 19, 2011

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3 Aug 19, 2011
Learn the TRUTH about hunting here: http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_003.htm

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#4 Aug 19, 2011
sally wrote:
source -(pleasebekind). "Some people call hunting a sport, but a sport is an activity that involves people who want to play. Some people think hunting is great fun, but how can it be fun to kill an animal?
Hunters say that they play an important role in keeping animal populations down. They say if it wasn’t for them, the animals would starve in the winter because there isn’t enough food for them. This isn’t so. Most species of animals regulate their population and have more babies when there’s plenty of food and less babies when there isn’t. It’s been found that in places where hunting is legal, populations grow faster than in places where hunting isn’t allowed. Hunters also kill predators of deer including bears, bobcats, mountain lions and coyotes. If they really wanted the population of deer to decrease, they would leave the predators alone.
In nature, weak, old and injured animals usually die off first and the strongest survive. Hunters on the other hand usually kill the biggest, healthiest and strongest who probably would have survived the winter anyway. That’s bad for all the animals."
Great post. The trolls are busy comment decorating as usual, lol.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#5 Aug 19, 2011
The problem is most hunters are middle aged, uneducated, backwoods, egotistical idiots who need an excuse to feel important. Nature can take care of itself. Not only does hunting jeopardize nature’s balance, it also exacerbates other problems. There are 30 million deer in the U.S., hunting has been a useless method to “control” populations. People need to quit swallowing their lies, open their eyes, and do something about these inbred retards.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sally

Edinburgh, UK

#6 Aug 19, 2011
LiddySays wrote:
Learn the TRUTH about hunting here: http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_003.htm
good link.

the effect on animal populations bit is very true but hunters would want us to believe different.

anyone that believes the lies they say are stupid morons that dont realise the damage hunting has done to animal populations and the environment.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sally

Edinburgh, UK

#7 Aug 19, 2011
LiddySays wrote:
The problem is most hunters are middle aged, uneducated, backwoods, egotistical idiots who need an excuse to feel important. Nature can take care of itself. Not only does hunting jeopardize nature’s balance, it also exacerbates other problems. There are 30 million deer in the U.S., hunting has been a useless method to “control” populations. People need to quit swallowing their lies, open their eyes, and do something about these inbred retards.
very true.

we all have a job to educate the clueless about the damage hunting does on animal populations and the environment. some people dont realise that hunting causes overpopulation and has driven many species to near extinction.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#8 Aug 19, 2011
sally wrote:
<quoted text> good link.
the effect on animal populations bit is very true but hunters would want us to believe different.
anyone that believes the lies they say are stupid morons that dont realise the damage hunting has done to animal populations and the environment.
I agree. It's because of hunting that apex predators have been removed from almost every ecosystem, which in turn has caused the herbivorous species populations to profusely grow. Hunting has also been the direct cause for many species going extinct. Human beings are not equipped to do natures job.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#9 Aug 19, 2011
Sorry to burst your collective bubble but hunting is GOOD for both the hunted species and humans when regulated by wildlife experts who know quite a bit more about it than you do. History has proven that properly regulated hunting is a benefit to all. I hate it when people comment on something that they know absolutely nothing about, I refer to them as judgmental assholes.(sound familiar?) In just 27 days bow season will open again, right on schedule, and those of us who are living in the real world will take part in an activity that is as old as life itself and there will be meat in the freezer that in no way supports the factory farming industry. It's free from antibiotics and hormones too. Venison, it's what's for dinner.

Judged:

25

24

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#10 Aug 19, 2011
Didn't take troll #1 very long to sniff out this post, lol.

No matter how ethical and responsible an individual hunter is, hunters as a group do more harm than good to the very ecosystems they claim to love and protect. Game management policies encourage the overpopulation of herbivorous species, especially deer and elk. Game management plans for deer specifically encourage the fragmentation of habitat by clearcutting, favoring deer while pushing out animals that require large areas of intact habitat, and by planting artificial food plots of corn or other crops even in supposedly "natural" wildlife preserves. State agencies that manage deer populations have a financial incentive to keep deer populations artificially high. They are typically funded primarily by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and in some cases by taxes on gun and ammunition sales.

The clearest evidence that hunters do not control overpopulation of deer and other ungulates but actually exacerbate it comes from the bitter fight being waged over the reintroduction of the gray wolf. The gray wolf, once the dominant predator across most of the North American continent, was virtually eradicated from its previous range by the early decades of the 20th century, thanks mainly to pressure from farmers, ranchers, and hunters.

By demanding large populations of deer, elk, and other game and by supporting the eradication of large predators viewed as competitors, hunters contribute to the very overpopulation of game animals that they frequently claim to prevent. Hunting causes disruption to natural herd structure and breeding practices. In some regions of the country, thanks to restrictions on doe hunting, the pressure on whitetail bucks is so great that only 1 in 100 bucks reaches the age of four.

We need science-based management policies, not hunting. That means reintroducing natural predators where possible, and conserving them where they already survive. Instead of supporting sound ecological management, you have hunters howling about how good venison tastes.

“FED UP WITH TOPIX”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#11 Aug 19, 2011
Squach wrote:
It's free from antibiotics and hormones too. Venison, it's what's for dinner.
Ever hear of a vegetable?? also free from antibiotics and hormones, we can't say the same for you.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#12 Aug 20, 2011
LiddySays wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever hear of a vegetable?? also free from antibiotics and hormones, we can't say the same for you.
Why, yes, yes I have. I'm very partial to broccoli and spinach. I like greens too, collard, turnip, mustard etc. Fresh salads go great with steak. Being of Irish descent, I can honestly say I've never met a potato I didn't like. The key is balance. I eat a balanced diet of meat, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and grains. Which means that meat is about 20% to 25% of my intake. The ideal diet for an omnivore. Of course we all have hormones but I don't have any injected for added growth like factory farmed animals (at 6'4" and 200 lbs. I don't need any growth) and I try to stay away from antibiotics unless there is a dire need because they are over prescribed and bacteria becomes immune with regular use. I prefer not to have either added hormones or antibiotics in the meat I consume. There you have it, the basics of a balanced diet.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#13 Aug 20, 2011
LiddySays wrote:
Didn't take troll #1 very long to sniff out this post, lol.
No matter how ethical and responsible an individual hunter is, hunters as a group do more harm than good to the very ecosystems they claim to love and protect. Game management policies encourage the overpopulation of herbivorous species, especially deer and elk. Game management plans for deer specifically encourage the fragmentation of habitat by clearcutting, favoring deer while pushing out animals that require large areas of intact habitat, and by planting artificial food plots of corn or other crops even in supposedly "natural" wildlife preserves. State agencies that manage deer populations have a financial incentive to keep deer populations artificially high. They are typically funded primarily by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and in some cases by taxes on gun and ammunition sales.
The clearest evidence that hunters do not control overpopulation of deer and other ungulates but actually exacerbate it comes from the bitter fight being waged over the reintroduction of the gray wolf. The gray wolf, once the dominant predator across most of the North American continent, was virtually eradicated from its previous range by the early decades of the 20th century, thanks mainly to pressure from farmers, ranchers, and hunters.
By demanding large populations of deer, elk, and other game and by supporting the eradication of large predators viewed as competitors, hunters contribute to the very overpopulation of game animals that they frequently claim to prevent. Hunting causes disruption to natural herd structure and breeding practices. In some regions of the country, thanks to restrictions on doe hunting, the pressure on whitetail bucks is so great that only 1 in 100 bucks reaches the age of four.
We need science-based management policies, not hunting. That means reintroducing natural predators where possible, and conserving them where they already survive. Instead of supporting sound ecological management, you have hunters howling about how good venison tastes.
Excuse me, legal regulated hunting IS a science based management policy. The rules and regulations are adjusted annually by and army of scientists called "wildlife experts". They have moved away from the "bucks only" method of years ago to a more balanced policy. We even have a does only season now because the experts, through scientific study, have determined that the doe population needs to be managed better. There are very stringent laws and regulations dictating what sex, what area, and what times a hunter may harvest the particular species. All of these laws and regulations are based on scientific study and aimed at sound management of the species in question.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#15 Aug 20, 2011
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me, legal regulated hunting IS a science based management policy. The rules and regulations are adjusted annually by and army of scientists called "wildlife experts". They have moved away from the "bucks only" method of years ago to a more balanced policy. We even have a does only season now because the experts, through scientific study, have determined that the doe population needs to be managed better. There are very stringent laws and regulations dictating what sex, what area, and what times a hunter may harvest the particular species. All of these laws and regulations are based on scientific study and aimed at sound management of the species in question.
by <an> army...
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#16 Aug 20, 2011
In this country, hunting is not a sport, pasttime, activity,'management plan' or tradition. It is an industry. An industry that produces a product (game animals) for sale to consumers (hunters). Hunters can spin it any way they want, but it still comes down to money. Hunting is a business. A business that has reduced beautiful creatures to an industrial resource or raw material like iron ore, coal, timber or water. Their motives for 'conserving wildlife and habitat' are altruistic to the same extent that Weyerhaeuser's are.

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#17 Aug 20, 2011
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
In this country, hunting is not a sport, pasttime, activity,'management plan' or tradition. It is an industry. An industry that produces a product (game animals) for sale to consumers (hunters). Hunters can spin it any way they want, but it still comes down to money. Hunting is a business. A business that has reduced beautiful creatures to an industrial resource or raw material like iron ore, coal, timber or water. Their motives for 'conserving wildlife and habitat' are altruistic to the same extent that Weyerhaeuser's are.
You can be as cynical as you want about the motives for hunting (and fishing) and it won't change a thing. Hunting and fishing combined stimulate the U.S. economy in excess of $70 billion annually. ARAs will never even come close surmounting that status. In reality, the only way to sensibly manage these resources is by regulated hunting and fishing, overseen by wildlife biologists. You can pretend it is otherwise but science and experience will trump you every time.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#18 Aug 20, 2011
hiss of death wrote:
<quoted text>You can be as cynical as you want about the motives for hunting (and fishing) and it won't change a thing. Hunting and fishing combined stimulate the U.S. economy in excess of $70 billion annually. ARAs will never even come close surmounting that status. In reality, the only way to sensibly manage these resources is by regulated hunting and fishing, overseen by wildlife biologists. You can pretend it is otherwise but science and experience will trump you every time.
In 2006, the direct expenditures of wildlife watchers generated $122.6 billion in total industrial output. This resulted in 1,063,482 jobs, a federal tax revenue of $9.3 billion, and a state and local tax revenue of $8.9 billion. The report details the economic impacts of wildlife watching expenditures by State. The top 5 States ranked by economic output include California, Florida, Texas, Georgia and New York. Direct expenditures by wildlife watchers were for items such as cameras, binoculars and bird food, as well as trip-related expenses such as lodging, transportation and food.

Which is greater, 122.6 billion, or 70 billion ?

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#20 Aug 20, 2011
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2006, the direct expenditures of wildlife watchers generated $122.6 billion in total industrial output. This resulted in 1,063,482 jobs, a federal tax revenue of $9.3 billion, and a state and local tax revenue of $8.9 billion. The report details the economic impacts of wildlife watching expenditures by State. The top 5 States ranked by economic output include California, Florida, Texas, Georgia and New York. Direct expenditures by wildlife watchers were for items such as cameras, binoculars and bird food, as well as trip-related expenses such as lodging, transportation and food.
Which is greater, 122.6 billion, or 70 billion ?
Your "wildlife watcher" stats include hunter contributions who also purchase these items. ARAs would conveniently like to leave them out but it isn't working. Hunters and fishermen simply pay far more for conservation than any other group. No amount of "jerry-rigging" the figures will change that fact.
Virginia Vegetarian

Stafford, VA

#21 Aug 20, 2011
hiss of death wrote:
<quoted text>Your "wildlife watcher" stats include hunter contributions who also purchase these items. ARAs would conveniently like to leave them out but it isn't working. Hunters and fishermen simply pay far more for conservation than any other group. No amount of "jerry-rigging" the figures will change that fact.
Not everyone who purchases a hunting or fishing license hunts or fishes, just like not everyone who purchases weapons and ammunition uses it to hunt, so your claims are opinion only. Hunters don't pay for conservation, they pay to ensure a steady stream of supply and only do it because they are forced to. There is no altruism. The conservation efforts put forth by the agencies that receive a portion of license and tax revenue are to make habitat better for game animals; non-game animals also benefit, but that is not the goal, and any direct help to non-game species is to appease the vocal opposition and usually only comes about as the result of a lawsuit. How many hunters would be willing to spend $1,000.00 per year, every year, to help a game animal species they could not hunt ?

hiss of death

“Bowhunting Is Euphoric”

Since: Jan 09

Double Lung em

#22 Aug 20, 2011
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everyone who purchases a hunting or fishing license hunts or fishes, just like not everyone who purchases weapons and ammunition uses it to hunt, so your claims are opinion only.
My claims are far more accurate than yours and anyone who cares to do a modicum amount of research and math can figure this out.
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Hunters don't pay for conservation, they pay to ensure a steady stream of supply and only do it because they are forced to. There is no altruism. The conservation efforts put forth by the agencies that receive a portion of license and tax revenue are to make habitat better for game animals; non-game animals also benefit, but that is not the goal, and any direct help to non-game species is to appease the vocal opposition and usually only comes about as the result of a lawsuit.
This is your jaded and misinformed opinion coated in a large serving of wishful thinking and no more.
Virginia Vegetarian wrote:
<quoted text>
How many hunters would be willing to spend $1,000.00 per year, every year, to help a game animal species they could not hunt ?
Many, many more than the number of ARAs who contribute virtually nothing to conservation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 42
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Animal Rights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Leaving a dog in a hot car in Michigan could se... 3 hr Squach 152
News Vegan teens: Why are so many young people dropp... Sat Squach 1
News Guilty plea in cat-torture case; feline pelted ... Fri USA R0CKS 9
News Owner accused of abusing Chihuahua in South Pas... Fri USA R0CKS 6
News 'Come get us': Teens post animal abuse images o... May 27 USA R0CKS 13
News It's Not An Animal Problem; It's A People Problem (Jun '12) May 27 Poppyann 377
Dog wallpaper beautiful for destop May 25 Sylvia 8
More from around the web