Do you think it is wrong for hunting to be used as a sport?

[midori1999]

We only shoot things we are going to eat and yes, smaller animals that are often considered 'vermin'. Wood Pidgeon and rabbit smainly and then when we have permission/get to attend a specially arranged shoot grouse and pheasant. All these animals are killed outright with a shotgun.

If we aren't going to eat it or use it (feed to the dogs, ferret etc) then there is no need to kill it. As I said, shooting is the sport we are interested in and that includes clays/targets, but as we also eat meat it makes sense to shoot animals we can eat and as I said, I consider it far more ethical than buying intensively farmed supermarket meat.

 

[xemmax]

We only shoot things we are going to eat and yes, smaller animals that are often considered 'vermin'. Wood Pidgeon and rabbit smainly and then when we have permission/get to attend a specially arranged shoot grouse and pheasant. All these animals are killed outright with a shotgun.

If we aren't going to eat it or use it (feed to the dogs, ferret etc) then there is no need to kill it. As I said, shooting is the sport we are interested in and that includes clays/targets, but as we also eat meat it makes sense to shoot animals we can eat and as I said, I consider it far more ethical than buying intensively farmed supermarket meat.

i do agree that it is more ethical than factory farming animals.

i don't agree with taking the lives of animals at all but that is an argument which is irrelevant to this debate.

 

[blahblahblah]

I'm not against hunting as long as it Is done in a humane and quick way I.e. Shooting. Not watching a pack of dogs rip it to pieces that Is disgusting.

As for foxes being a nuisance yes they may well be but they have to eat. And they cannot say " ooh there's s farmers sheep I won't touch them because it will be wrong to do that". They can't make that distinction. They hunt to eat and survive. What's are excuse? X

The trouble with foxes is that they don't just kill to eat and survive. If they get into a chicken enclosure they can only eat 1 - maybe 2 chickens, but they will kill every single one in there simply because they can.

Anyway, for me, it comes down to what, how and why.

As long as the hunter is killing something for a good reason (food, population control of vermin), and uses the quickest and least painful method they can, I think that's reasonable. If they can do that and still term it as 'sport', that's fine by me

 

[iceylou]

i understand ppl hunting for survival but not when its for "fun".

when i was younger ppl would go hunting around the fields where i live. at around 13 or 14yrs old my friends and i went up to see what they were doing as we didnt like them hunting foxes or rabbits (we have no other animals for hunting here), well to our shock there were about 30 men with about 4 dogs and walking around 2 farmers fields having a few cans of beer lol, it was their way of getting away from the wives and kids and cleaning up after the sunday dinner. they never caught or hunted anything, they did this for about 30yrs with their fathers etc. typical irish men lol

 

[bubbles123]

No, hunting for sport is always wrong. You should only kill a wild animal if you are starving and have nothing else to eat or live in a community such as rural Africa where there are no other sources of protein available. If you live in the west, there is no need to eat meat at all.

Animals such as foxes are native to the UK as are wolves etc to the States. They belong there and the animals they often kill (chickens and other livestock usually but also domestic cats) are not always native and are brought in for human profit/companionship/food etc. So, if the foxes kill them it is because humans have messed with nature by introducing non native creatures who are unable to defend themselves against the foxes/wolves. So to kill the foxes is wrong, they are only doing what foxes do. Chickens should be in the forests of Asia where they belong.

 

[Nibblenic]

Humans are defined as different for adapting thier enviroment to suit thier needs.

So saying we 'messed with nature' is to go against eveything that makes us different from these animals that we hunt and kill.

 

[Sarahkka]

No, hunting for sport is always wrong. You should only kill a wild animal if you are starving and have nothing else to eat or live in a community such as rural Africa where there are no other sources of protein available. If you live in the west, there is no need to eat meat at all.

Animals such as foxes are native to the UK as are wolves etc to the States. They belong there and the animals they often kill (chickens and other livestock usually but also domestic cats) are not always native and are brought in for human profit/companionship/food etc. So, if the foxes kill them it is because humans have messed with nature by introducing non native creatures who are unable to defend themselves against the foxes/wolves. So to kill the foxes is wrong, they are only doing what foxes do. Chickens should be in the forests of Asia where they belong.

In a post where you talk about "messing up nature" by domesticating animals, you are advocating that western nations should instead meet our protein needs by raising crops? Are those monoculture plantations not also introduced species that "mess up" native ecosystems?
I have no problem with vegetarianism, but can't handle the bad science used as reasoning for the diet choice.

 

[wishuwerehere]

I only have a quick point to make about culling for pest control: if you think hunting to control animal populations is unpleasant, look up Myxomatosis and what it does to rabbits and then decide if you think it's more cruel to shoot an animal (which is relatively quick) or if populations should be controlled by a hideous disease that can cause an animal to suffer for days or even weeks...