The Student Room Group

Hunting : Your views?

Scroll to see replies

Hunting for sport is wrong, but if you are hunting for survival then I can understand.
im against it. i understand people like the adrenaline rush, hunting an animal for fun and killing it seems wasteful and silly. that pic with you grinning annoys me!
Killing for fun? No.

But you're cute, so K.
Original post by DiddyDec
I think you missing the point, hunting can be done in a plethora of way not just the horse and hounds method. That is also about shooting and culling and even trapping if that is what you are in to.



Non issue to me. Far more important things to fight against than shooting and culling
Reply 104
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
I have actually passed numerous mental evaluations over the past seven years due to various Job's if it is's any consolation?

I have mild OCD, otherwise i'm fine.


So your fine if it's for culling reasons or if you fancy some Vennison?


Maybe two hundred years ago, now it's almost exclusively the province of the working to lower middle class, and we don't go around in bands of nine on horseback either.

Generally in bands of one or two, through cold snow, muddy fields and murky forests freezing our tits off.


So people aiming to preserve our countryside and the species that reside within it are morons?
Cool.


I'm a vegetarian. Regardless, meat is part of a staple diet, some people through concerns of health require this. This is justified unlike hunting for pleasure.
Strongly against it... Killing an animal that was just getting on with its own business living life is stupid. If you want a thrill go skydiving or something...

Posted from TSR Mobile
If it's for food I don't see a problem. I would personally like to do the same but would rather hunt without a firearm, e.g. set traps. Personal preference I guess but something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to using a firearm. Seems a bit cowardly to me.
Anyone who isn't a vegetarian can't really complain about hunting.
Original post by Fizzel
But you're still using a trap which is a man made tool. The odds aren't 'fair' so to speak either way. In terms of being humane I think I'd prefer to kill an animal with a clean shot from a rifle than trap it where it could remain for hours before you come back to check the trap.


I knew these arguments were coming, it just doesn't seem particularly impressive or fair to use a firearm. If we're talking about being humane I would rather be trapped by my leg and have a chance to get away than be killed, you're going to cause the animal (by our definition) the ultimate suffering anyway.

You can say a trap is a man made tool but that's my line. None of us are truly consistent in our beliefs, the people saying they are so against it would happily wear leather shoes or use medication that's been tested on animals if they were seriously ill and so on.
Original post by TheSoulWithin
Hunting for sport is wrong, but if you are hunting for survival then I can understand.

I somehow doubt he was hunting for survival
Original post by mrfletch
I somehow doubt he was hunting for survival


Not talking specifically about ThreeMileSprint. I was talking generally.
Original post by pinejuice
im against it. i understand people like the adrenaline rush, hunting an animal for fun and killing it seems wasteful and silly. that pic with you grinning annoys me!


It's not really wasteful the overwhelming majority of Hunters utitlize the carcase as best they can, I mean it costs money to get out there and hunt, you want to get some return for your time even if it is just some Venison on Saturday evening.
Original post by Wilfred Little
If it's for food I don't see a problem. I would personally like to do the same but would rather hunt without a firearm, e.g. set traps. Personal preference I guess but something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to using a firearm. Seems a bit cowardly to me.


The odds aren't meant to be fair. You are the predator and they are the prey. We have developed more advanced ways of hunting which will give us the advantage. The prey has not developed more advanced ways escaping and that is why they are the prey. The animals kingdom is not about fair or unfair. Do you think it is fair that a fox will kill a defenseless lamb?
Reply 113
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
I actually have done that.

But I assume that you still kill?
Original post by miser
But I assume that you still kill?


Oh absolutely.
I think that at times it's very easy to subjectively think about this from a human perspective. The main problem is that we simply cannot entirely empathise with the suffering of animals - from their own perspective - and so we, on some level, prefer to imagine that they have no real emotions. We believe it to be far more heinous to kill a human than an animal; mostly because we are the same as them, and thus we can recognise and understand their emotions. It all goes back to when we lived in caves - where it was advantageous to sympathise with others in the pack, yet to remain entirely indifferent to the suffering of those that we hunt. Really, the only thing that has ever allowed me to comprehend the suffering of animals is this; and even that has been ignored for the most part.
Another issue is that of freedom. If we were to protect the rights of animals, by removing the rights of humans - the right to hunt - then do we not replace one issue with another? Not only would we be replacing one inequality with another, but we would also be increasing the likelihood of an armed hunter beginning to inflict his/her aggression upon humans. Not that I'm generalising all hunters, but certainly there are a few that hunt simply to act out deep psychological problems.
Original post by Three Mile Sprint
It's been conclusively proven that a clean kill from a(human) hunter is far less painful and stressfull than the way big-game is killed by any other predator.
It's also far less distressing than the way a lot of Animals die of old age.


I can't find any studies supporting your assertion that this has "been conclusively proven", but there are many instances of hunting accidents and non-clean kills. The only other objection that I would raise is that even if it is less painful and distressing than the way they die of old age, some of the nonhuman animals which are regularly hunted likely have some self-awareness and wish to go on living, ergo it's not for us to decide when they die.

Original post by Three Mile Sprint
99% of Hunters only hunt controlled populations.

For instance I primarily hunt British Deer, British Deer are not endangered, they are grossly overpopulated..they are a vermin.
In fact there are so many of them, that the deer are damaging the ecosystems and new targets mean we need to kill an extra 18'000 more a year than we currently do in order to protect other species of animal and plant life from serious and irreparable damage.

I agree any Species that is endangered or suffering from low population levels should not be hunted.


Pending your response on the pain and suffering issue, and considering the fact that not all animals hunted will necessarily be particularly self-aware, I think it can be said that at least some forms of hunting are morally permissible. Still (I haven't done much research yet), if there are better alternatives to conservation, I think we should pursue them - ending a potentially self-aware being's life which wants to go on living is quite risky, morally. Similarly, there are better alternatives to combatting human overpopulation than randomly killing newborn babies, which are even less rational and self-aware than adult nonhuman animals are: they don't have any sense of their existing over time.

Original post by RFowler
You could say the same about loads of aspects of human life. There's lost of things humans do/use today that could be described as unnecessary.

I would also like to bring up the point about culling for conservation, not just sport and food. Deer are culled to prevent damage to woodland, as are rabbits. Mink are culled to protect water voles. Grey squirrels are culled to protect red squirrels. Most woodland creation projects require control of some species like deer and rabbits. All of that is necessary, and all of it heavily involves hunting, trapping and shooting. In this debate, we need to remember that hunting/shooting is done for many different reasons.


Yes, ‘therapeutic hunting’ doesn't appear to be as much of an issue, if at all, when compared to 'sport hunting'.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
I can't find any studies supporting your assertion that this has "been conclusively proven", but there are many instances of hunting accidents and non-clean kills. The only other objection that I would raise is that even if it is less painful and distressing than the way they die of old age, some of the nonhuman animals which are regularly hunted likely have some self-awareness and wish to go on living, ergo it's not for us to decide when they die.

All life wishes to go on living, it's the reason for life.
Plant's want to go on living, it's quite literally the only thing they exist for.

While an emotional argument, it's not really a valid one.

Similarly, there are better alternatives to combatting human overpopulation than randomly killing newborn babies, which are even less rational and self-aware than adult nonhuman animals are: they don't have any sense of their existing over time.

Alternatve methods, have been found to be less expensive and practically unsustainaible/ineducable.
Original post by Zen Baphomet
All life wishes to go on living, it's the reason for life.
Plant's want to go on living, it's quite literally the only thing they exist for.


Plants are not self-aware. They do not want to go on living: they cannot think.


Original post by Zen Baphomet
Alternatve methods, have been found to be less expensive and practically unsustainaible/ineducable.


Could you give me an example of these "alternative methods" please?
Original post by viddy9
Plants are not self-aware. They do not want to go on living: they cannot think.

They do however have a Biologically ingrained desire even if they lack sentience.

The only difference between us and a plant is the complexity of that desire and its chemical and electrical expression(i.e thought)




Could you give me an example of these "alternative methods" please?

Could you?

Provide one of the methods you think is a viable alternative to culling and ill show you why its unviable.
It makes more sense since you made the initial proposal, better than me guessing methods your aware of.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending