What is an expert's opinion on whether or not hunting is wrong?

Answer 1

We need to let nature run its course, but a vegan lifestyle is not for everyone. Something important to remember is that humans ARE part of nature. The day we can find our place in this world, a place that is both predator and prey, is the day we've done something right.

FlyingDove

Answer

Life on this planet cannot be sustained if humans continue to consume meat. While most will agree that factory farming is horrible, those same people may not consider that human beings can no longer be sustained as hunter-gatherers. If all humans turned to hunting instead of factory farming, there would be no animals left to eat, there are simply too many of us. Therefore, the only logical conclusion can be to allow nature to take its course without human interference - if we stopped murdering the predators, we wouldn't need to worry about 'keeping populations in check', which is really just a hunter's excuse. We must turn to a Vegan lifestyle, which is far more healthy in the long run, as humans were intended to eat very little meat, if any at all (and such meats were usually easily digested fish.) *Avarice*

ANSWER . . .It all depends on the person you are asking. I personally think it's wrong because its human interference in nature, but here are both sides:

Hunter's View: Since many predatory animals have decreased in numbers, it is up to humans to control the animal's population. Plus, hunters do not hunt unlimitedly - there are limits to how many animals each hunter is able to hunt.

Wildlife Preserver's View: Humans have no right to interfere with nature because nature always has a way of doing things. Hunters will break nature's cycle. Also, hunters kill mostly healthy young animals which are vital to the population.

Hope this helped, SMARTIIZ.

AnswerI am an expert at carpentry, since you did not specify what type of expert you wanted I will take this opportunity to answer. If a wild mink does not hunt it will not be able to eat it will then not be able to live. Either way a animal will die. However everything that has ever lived on earth either has died or will die therefore one must conclude that it is essential part of this ecosytem. The mink by choosing to hunt is not going against this conclusion (its inevitable death) only providing another animal the chance to finish its destiny. If the question you intended was is the practice of hunting as sport or entertainment right or wrong this could only be ansered by your personal beliefs. Do you believe it is wrong for the earth to require all life to agree to die before it is allowed to exist? Is death wrong or the journey one takes to get their? Currently in parts of the world men hunt men this in some places is called war if the men they where hunting would just shoot animals instead of the men/women they are hunting would they be wrong. I once read a quote that throughout all the tribulations of mans search for civilization thir has been one constant, while rome burned,as France revolted as d-day happened as Hiroshima and nagasaki exploded as Jesus Allah gandi propheted somewhere unknown to them all the hunter hunted. In my mind this is our basic survival instinct.To outlaw it in this country would be to say to all generations to follow civilization will take care of you. However Rome burnt and the hunter might not even have seen the smoke perhaps. Content with his existence, treating every kill as sustinecnce ,and a gift, as his dead body will be a gift someday to something if not ravens and vultures then to the worms and microscopic animals living in him. Thier is no way hunting can be wrong giving that the outcome is inevitable to all beings on earth death . Are there way that are unethical that hunting takes place? Is fishing not hunting? Is a hook in the mouth before death better then a bullet or arrow in the heart or some place else worse then being taken from the life giving water abnd allowed to suffocate on land for fish. Isnt the agony of the most painful death still a part of life? Could the suffering be wrong since the death is inevitable anyway but one could suffer from starvation longer then bleeding to death, so is less suffering less wrong. Does the muscrat the mink kills not suffer because it was killed by a mink instead of man?

ANSWER

define expert, hunting expert, animal expert,

im just a person who knows some things about life and basically hunting is in nature, its in all animals to hunt, for food and even for fun, yes other animals do do this,( whales and sharks torture baby seals and whales and play with them before they kill them.)

i used to despise all forms of hunting etc, but as i got older i saw what nature is, and we are just part of the big picture not the big picture itself

hunting does cause pain, its does seem pointless, but its in all our instincts to hunt

humans have tried to take themselves out of the evolutionary life and create 'civilized' society but to then let a dog rip a fox to pieces while its alive its totally cruel and barbaric and most certainly NOT civilized, so really the question is not whether its right or wrong but whether we can accept our own hypocracy.

the biggest reasons to stop hunting or to suggest it is wrong are that is is often barbaric, causes suffering to the animal, and is often done in ignorance of the fact that any animal can be hunted to extinction,

just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean there are endless amounts, a species of dolphin has just been suggested to be extinct only yesterday due to hunting,

whales (which are infact related to dolphins) were hunted to near extinction not long ago

also the eco system is a very delicate thing, when one animal, especially an animal as big as the whale, nearly dies out the plankton in the sea would go wild, they would over populate in the sea due to not being eaten by the worlds largest mammal (this was seen in some places the whale was dissapearing) and that causes a chain effect, ie every living thing would eventually become affected down the line other animals would over populate, other animals would die out due to the changed in the food chain.

and even people who previously hunted (not all but a few) are now fighting to save animals because they realize not only does the animal suffer horrifically but they were almost gone because of their hunting so i think those people are almost what you could define as an 'expert's opinion on hunting and when they start to question it and drastically change their ways you have to stop and think, maybe they have a point.

f4

Another Hunter's View:

Allowing other comments to stand and starting fresh.

As a volunteer outdoor education instructor for my state I've used the proximity to wildlife managers and biologists to expand my knowledge, but still I've found that it comes down to this: One cannot respond to emotional arguments with science. Persons who are opposed to the harvest of animals (particularly the cute ones who were subject to anthropomorphism by Walt Disney) will not hear or accept the facts as presented by those who work where the rubber meets the road.

For instance, many animal activists recommend wildlife contraception as an alternative to hunting of deer populations to control their numbers. Unfortunately, no such contraceptive exists. There is no chemical or hormone that can simply be put out in food or salt or apple licks (put it out and forget it!) that will result in birth control for wild deer or any other mammal.

The contraceptive used in controlled environments such as zoos or even on the "wild" (but captive) ponies on Assateague Island must be administered in several doses, and the animals must be tracked (which is made possible by the ponies' unique markings) to avoid under or over dosing.

I think one activist expressed her true motivations best when she suggested that we hunt all white tail deer to extinction (which is highly unlikely because of their prolific breeding and adaptability to urban living and fondness for ornamentals and flowers) in order to completely eliminate the suffering of deer!

At the same time other activists advocate the re-introduction of predators to control deer numbers and restore the "balance of nature". This would indicate that it isn't deer suffering that motivates antis, because there's no evidence to support the assertion that deer would rather be killed by cougars than hunters. Because the majority of anti hunting activists are women, it would seem that the real reasons for opposing our oldest tradition may be elsewhere.

The same activists who would stop me from hunting the meat that I enjoy most would also stop me from fishing, while buying fish products to feed their cats. So, it would appear that a little bit of animal suffering is fine if it makes Fluffy and her human companion happy. But, if I take young hunters afield and teach them how to humanely harvest animals and to safely handle the tools and the meat, then I'm a barbarian from an era that's best forgotten. Never mind that women (and men) worshiping cats dates back to Cleopatra and certainly before. And, when I try to tell cat lovers that Fluffy has no "natural right" to roam and to kill birds and small mammals just for practice (cats are hard wired to pounce even though they're subsidized and don't eat their kills) I've found that women who abhor hunting could kill me as readily as I harvest game.

Summary: If animals have "rights" then who are we to decide for them whether or not they breed, or to hunt them to extinction to eliminate their "suffering?" (They don't agonize like condemned persons waiting their turn at the gallows at the prospect of being hunted by animal or human predators)

And, why is scorching the Earth with powerful chemicals (with unknown long term consequences and environmental impact like DDT or BGH in milk) preferable to the scientifically managed harvest of delicious, healthy, lean meat? Is a scorched Earth policy really something that true nature lovers would advocate?

_HOUNDDAWG in DELAWARE 2/13/08

Answer: I'm no expert, but I think that we Humans are just as much a part of the environment as other predators, and as long as we eat the meat and respect the kill then it is no offense. And as for interfering with nature, We are nature too. Maybe super-advanced nature, but still nature.

________________________________________________________________________________

awild1 adds:

i am a vegitarian because i don't think it is right to kill animals for food! for info on vegitarian eating and things e-mail me at girlzrule1998@yahoo.com

AMMEH1:

As an enthusiactic hunter myself, i have no objecting to killing the vermin which others consider to be animals i.e foxes. They destroy the livelyhood of all farmers, and since the ban, their numbers have been increasing rapidly, furthermore many hound have been but down, as their primary function cannot be forfilled and they have been too expensive to keep. In addition the careful balance and businesses of the country has been tipped over, farriers, grooms, professional clippers etc... have found that they are out of a job as the hunt and hunter horses have not been needed. This is an outrage and i believe that those from the cities who protest animal rights should come and see it for themselves, before they even considered ruining the lives of so many in the country.