who here is for and against the capturing of wild animal for both sports such as big game hunting and fox hunting, the captureing of whales sure as thy do in japan and other things such as for science.

I think this could make a very good argument with a lot of input please dont just poy for aor aginst but your reasons

me I am very much against any of this type of activity and would be more then happy to stand up and be heard against this I beleave we should treasure all out wildlife as there lifes are so important to the bio diversity of this planet and we spend meny hours enjoying these animals and sould allow our children to see them in there natural habitat and that means perserving that aswell.

Yes I have ruined a fox hunt and nearly got a criminal file for it but i think it would be a small price to pay for such an act

hope you all post your thoughts

matt

ps if this is in the wrong topic then please move it or tell me thanks th:

Matt, you are the MAN!!! I am totally with you and wouldn't hesitate a second in joining you to fight this horrible activity. Not only are these creatures helpless, but they are the reason this corrupt world remains beautiful.
Thanks for bringing this to the Forum's attention.
-Heather

I have posted on the subject of environmental protection before on this forum and will continue to remind that all of us have to do something to respect our planet and all of life on it. And to do our part in preserving our environment by recycling, driving less, and eat vegetables, fruits and less meat. Many of the abuses of our planet is caused by big farms, dams, oil and coal companies, etc...We need to keep the light shining on these abuses of our natural resources including the dwindling water that we consume.

I'm not against occasional hunting for food of abundant species. If we want grasslands and trees in order to sustain all species, some elephants migh need to be culled. I'm not keen on trophy hunting, and the "canned lion hunting" that takes place is disgusting. Fox hunting and capturing of whales is really not necessary.

I don't go the circus - can't stand what is done to those animals.

My sister works for a research institute that use animals as models, most work is done on typical lab animals, or domesticated animals (e.g sheep). Very rarely other species are used. If primates are involved (usuall baboons) Nature Conversation bodies are also involved. She is also responsible for sourcing their food - they eat fresher food than many humans.

I agree with Tony, we can do a lot by changeing our lifestyles. I once objected to a person from an affluent area who was trying to coax money out of me to save some species - I live in an area where we breath the dust of the power station that supplies her electricity.

This is just my opinion but I believe that man no longer needs to hunt for food. I do not understand the need of some to hunt whether they actually eat the meat or not. And as for population control, I believe that nature takes care of that. At this time we are the prime species at the top of the food chain but this is not going to last much longer at the rate we consume land for rich people's homes and not build homes that are easier for lower income people to buy. A lot of the big cities are dying slowly from the center out. This is disgusting and the segregation of income, racial or foreign people has not dwindled here in the U.S. Resources are being wasted, budgets under attack from the need to maintain or rebuild infrastructure. New Orleans is an example of mother nature striking back and destroying the foundations of our institutions and our society. Our destruction of the wetlands near New Orleans and all over the country is causing nature to strike back and expose our weakness as humans. And it is going to get worse, not better, unless we learn to take care of the planet we live on. Soon, we will be superseded by another species if we do not start acting now. We have to drive just to reach the basic needs of ourselves and the households we live in. There is nothing to walk to or take a bus if we have to. And then these stores that we drive to are huge big block buildings that concentrates most everything under one roof and then surround it with a lot of acreage just to park our cars on. Something is wrong with this picture. We no longer have neighborhoods where you can walk to everything that you need or even to see friends and family. Oftentimes at these big stores you cannot find something because they are not the big name products or labels. And the books you find at these stores are the mass produced books with "big name" authors who crank out books on a nearly annual basis. Even our own dear Clive Cussler is a "big name" author. Very few bookstores have large collections on many topics and writers. Anymore, I find myself ordering online or going to a library booksale or secondhand bookstores because the "big box bookstores" are too far to drive on a regular basis. There are few bookstores where you can go and are not the big box type but a combination of new books with older ones still kept for those looking for certain writers or topics. Forgive me for rambling on but I better end this before writing a book here. :lol:

More than half of the world live under the poverty line, so hunting for food is often done by these people. I had friends who not too many years ago, living in a coastal town, had to resort to fishing - that was their prime source of food.


Nature used to take care of population via predators - there are not enough of them to keep herbivores at bay. In South Africa, we are really starting to have problems with the elephant numbers. Those are the facts.

I would rather have natural herds of impala, and they being used as food, than the overgrazing of cattle.

Plus the game meat is "organic" :)

I love the replies this thread is getting so far and really hope to see lots more, I totally agree with what you said Tony as to the big stores and that nature will come back to bring the world back to an equlibrium, its like science, has it really got any where? if you look that people used to die of a cold or smallpox and many of the childhood illnesses yes science found a cure to stop these deaths but have only really been replaced with cancer and aids (natures way of culling the human)

I have always beleived in phrases like" do unto others as you wish do unto yourself"

I belive that if you leave nature to sort out the problems they will always turn out right as some of you was saying there are to many elephants give it time and something will happen and bring the population down.

I think this saying by the cree tribe of america say it all :

"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realise that you cannot eat money"


Matt

Hunting for thrill of it is cruel and needs to be banned. People who in our area hunt for deer and use it for food. The deer population is out of control. The senseless killing of them makes so sense. The county has elimition programs that are not working and they are not useing the meat to feed the hungry in our area. Yes there are hungry children all over the United States that in our great country should make us ashamed. We are not a third world country that can't afford to feed our people. If you must hunt do it for a good reason.

Whale hunting needs to be banned. They are a spieces that has been hunted relentlessly to the point that they are vanishing. We have to protect our sealife to
keep the balance of nature intact. WE are the preditors and need to contain the people who are inflicking this harm on our lands and oceans. :wub:

Eating certain species because it is a delicacy is another one, even though there is no "hunting thrill". I cheer every time that abalone poachers (on our west coast) is arrested. Abalone is nice, but definitely not worth threatening a species for it (IMO). But some people will pay a fortune to have it on their table.

I'd like to add one or two other dimension to the discussion of hunting. First, it should be remembered that humans have been on this planet for an estimated 20 million years--all but the last 12,000 or so as nomadic hunter-gatherers. This establishes our niche in the environment as a predator, and as such our predatory behavior is part of the natural balance. When a prey species loses its natural predator, the result can be catastrophic--there's a famous incident in the early 1900's where a large plateau was set aside as a deer reserve. Hunting was forbidden and all natural predators were relocated. The deer propsered and soon overpopulated their closed environment. Within a few years, the population had crashed. Like it or not, predation is part of the natural balance.

Not only have we largely forsaken our own role as predators, choosing the easy (and ultimately more destructive) path of grocery store carnivores, but we have also wiped out most of the other predators to protect our herd animals. So hunting becomes a very necessary part of population control. Without it, game animals population swells with disastrous consequences.

Now, where does sport hunting figure into the equation? Well, although the Humane Society is opposed to sport hunting on ethical grounds, it should be remembered that some of this countries greatest conservationists have been trophy hunters. Legitimate sport hunters (not Billy Joe Bob the spotlight poacher) tend to be very active in matters of habitat preservation. It may sound counterintuitive, but some one who hunts for "fun" is more likely to care about the preservation of the species than someone who is just hungry (either for game meat, or for the money that comes with selling all or parts of the animal.)

Now, does this kind of thinking apply to every situation? Of course not. But what it does illustrate is that sometimes a situation is more complex than our emotional response will lead us to believe. I'm an environmentalist, but I have also learned that everything about our world is more complex than we believe. Anyone who can come to a hasty opinion on any subject related to our environment probably hasn't done their homework.

Well phrased Nick! It is true locally (and hunting is BIG business here), that the hunters are often actively involved in nature conservation. We often forget we are part of the food chain, and are most probably the only part who looks after our food. ;)

Hunting is often not the only, or biggest danger. Animals and plants are sometimes endangered bacause they are sought for medicinal purposes, some not even proven.

I guess being in that world can be difficult. What does the KNP do with its masses of confiscated ivory - leave it locked up in a room, or sell it and use the money for conservation programs? If elephant culling is needed, let trophy hunters pay for what has to be done in any case, and use the money again for other projects?

With regard to another comment: If the elephants are left to roam, nature will take it's course. There will not be enough food for all animals, and a lot will die from starvation. A few species might even vanish.

The only proper natural disaster that can effect population is drought, or a new unknown disease.

Hunting is always a touchy subejct where I'm from (southwestern Saskatchewan) and even where I live now (NE Bristish Colubia). I can remember in Grade 9 Science we were debating this very issue (the explotation of animals in our culture, whether it is for sport or science). Out of a class of 23 students I was the only against. I was raised in a non-hunting non-ranching family (we fished but we ate what we caught and gave the rest back to the scavengers) way out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by families who ranch and hunt. Lets just say after that debate I wasn't exactly Miss Popularity becuase of my strong opinions on it. But after an hour and a half of arguing (and name calling, not on my part though, although I did earn nicknames such as Miss Greenpeace, coyote hugger, and a few others that can't be said on here) the teacher sided with me because of my conviction and educated points. Yes hunting does have it's place, but it's also what got us into trouble in the first place. We've altered our lives through convienence but we haven't altered our practices to compensate. This is what created this imbalance. There are those who do hunt in the name of conservation but really don't have the first clue what the word means. I have absolutely no problem with traditional hunting, as long as it is done in the traditional method. If you're going to claim rights from the 1800's or the like to hunt a particular animal or at a particular time, you better be doing it in the same way they did. As for experimentation, with the way technology is advancing we can find out more through computer models than we can with destroying little critters. Even if a test is successful the animal is euthanized, doesn't sound like a fair deal to me. Unfortunately, this is another one of those things that we as a whole have caused so much damage to it's going to take something catastrophic to change.

You learned at an early age what it is like to have different views from other people. It's to bad that you can't have them without name calling. Kids learn from the adults around them and we need to teach our children to be more tolarent of our peoples views. w:

Im not exactly an expert on all of this, and I really don't want to affend anyone :unsure: , but hunting for sport or fun, to me, in most cases, is just not right. To kill just for the thrill of getting to mount one more trophy on your family room wall or boost one's ego by bragging to a friend is totally unnessisary, cruel and disgusting.
I do realize, however, that not all people who hunt for sport are like this, but unfortunately, some are. :(

Wow Nick!! I totally agree. I grew up in a family where almost all of my male (and sometimes female) members hunted. They hunt for a few reasons and there are strict laws on hunting and when it can be done. They have to take a gun safety class, which is wonderful and everyone should take it! There are certain times of the year that a particular species can be hunted and even when you can or cannot hunt male or female of a species. One of the reasons (and the least liked by myself) is for the trophy. But my father is picky about what he will or will not shoot and how many he will shoot. He doesn't want to kill off all ov the large Bucks because then by the time he was older the deer would have started getting smaller and smaller. I grew up on deer meat and I still ask my dad or uncle if they will bring back some venison for me. I see nothing wrong with hunting. I have a huge problem with poaching or killing for no good reason.

There are certain places in the United States that the local governments are having to hire sharpshooters because there are less and less hunters quelling the deer populations. Not to mention the fact that many animals all over the world are not natural to the habitat that they are currently in. There are snakes, rats, pigs, and the like that are tearing up a new habitat that they never should have been introduced to. Is it wrong to hunt off those species?

We have either killed off or destroyed habitats of the larger predators which in turn makes the prey species overabundant! If they do not have a natural predator then good ole' mother nature (aka God thru nature) has wildfire or diseases that will help weed out certain species. Us good hearted humans stop wildfires from happening or put them out when they naturally occur and we take care of the sick animals and help them to live. We need to stop trying to help or hurt nature. Amazingly it can take care of itself (this is under the assumption that we don't harm it either!).

I do not agree with places or groups that take wild animals out of their habitat just so us humans can take a gander at em'! I only agree with keeping animals for show if they are:
a. injured and unable to properly recover.
b. born in captivity and are unable to learn to hunt for themselves.
c. privately owned and not afraid of humans.

On an interesting note: A foreign tourist flicked a cigarette on the slopes of Table Mountain in Cape Town. The resulting fire caused the death of a person (another foreign tourist) and destroyed 40-50% of the world's silverleaf tree population, a species that only occurs in one place.