| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What is your view on hunting?; Does hunting contribute to conservation? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 20 2014, 03:19 AM (8,751 Views) | |
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 03:35 AM Post #46 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My thoughts exactly. There is no honour in bringing down a bear 500 feet away with a gun powerful enough to blast through a brick wall. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 04:58 AM Post #47 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To your belief my friend. I do not believe such things. We don't believe the same things thats all. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 05:00 AM Post #48 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That I suppose is a good way to put it. Why not help both? I would, but like I said if I only had time for one it would obviously be humans. |
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 05:00 AM Post #49 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem there is that you are objectively wrong. Humans being animals isn't a belief thing, it's just a fact. I don't have a problem with your religion, but saying humans aren't animals is just denying facts. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 05:03 AM Post #50 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You nijad me. We are mammals so that technically does make us animals, but unlike animals we know the difference between right and wrong, etc, and the list goes on about the differences. |
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 05:07 AM Post #51 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's another debate for another thread/time then. Of course, we're arguing from different backgrounds entirely so I doubt we'd reach any agreement on that. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 05:09 AM Post #52 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And I think its disgusting morally to kill your own fellow man, your fellow human being. Peoples morals these days are totally messed up, I'm sorry, but that just disturbs me. Let me put it this way. I value you paleogirl as my fellow human being more than an animal. If everyone wants humans to be destroyed because we don't take care of the earth then just remember that includes you and the people who say it. They basically want themselves dead. I see you paleogirl and all the members of this forum as having extremely great worth and value, and being fearfully and wonderfully made. I value you all as my fellow people more than animals. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 05:13 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can't tell me that its like one tiger to one animal because I do not share your beliefs, and you do not share mine. I believe that we were created in Gods image and were made to rule and have dominion over the earth. Well, I should't have to explain, you know what young earth creationists believe. Anyway, there is no point discussing this anymore because our beliefs differ and we won't agree whatsoever. I leave this thread for others to comment in.
|
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 05:17 AM Post #54 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know it includes me and everyone I know when I say that, that doesn't change my opinion. It certainly isn't nice but in the end I just can't bring myself to excuse the damage we do. I don't even see things as valueing people people more than non-people, I just see it as valueing your fellow life forms the same and, by association, judging them based on what they've done. While it certainly isn't fair to those who don't actively damage the environment to be treated the same as those who do, history shows us that even those who live in balance with nature (paleolithic humans, native americans, etc) eventually reach a point where they must become destructive to survive. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jul 3 2014, 06:02 AM Post #55 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Valuing humans more than thousand animals is of course utterly ridiculous, but when thinking outside of caricatures, it is obvious that valuing the own species more than the others is nothing unnatural. It is simply the will of preservation lifeforms have. From a species neutral viewpoint, a cow is as much worth as a human. From a human view, this doesn't hold true, the same probably holds true if you'd ask the cow. I of course also would choose the 1,000 animals, but I am simply against saying I would treat animals exactly the same way as other humans just for sounding like a very big-hearted person. Especially because I just wouldn't do this (simply impossible to enforce in real-life situations) and saying so would sound hypocritical. Humans are meant to be extremely social animals and therefore see members of the own species as something different than all other animals. This is also nature. |
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Jul 3 2014, 06:07 AM Post #56 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Personally, I have mixed views on hunting. On the one hand, unregulated hunting has contributed to the endangerment of many animal species today; some animals went extinct in the past due to hunting, for example the bluebuck, a species of African antelope. A factor of the current decline in wild lion populations in Africa is trophy hunting. Canned hunting is a disgusting industry; one particularly pernicious practise is that they export lion bones to Asia, thereby increasing further pressure on the beleaguered wild tiger populations there. So hunting can and does have negative consequences. However, it must be acknowledged that hunting has also made important contributions to conservation. Examples that come to mind include Ducks Unlimited in North America, or the return of the blackbuck to India from hunting ranches in Texas. The springbok is very common on game and hunting farms here in South Africa and its population is increasing (one of the FEW antelopes to do so, by the way). Trophy hunting can take much of the credit for the continued survival and population expansion of the southern white rhino. In 1968, when legal hunting of white rhino was allowed again, there were only 1800 rhino left in South Africa. Forty years later, the southern white rhino has increased to 19,000 animals with around 5000 of these on private land. As animals were auctioned off to hunting outfits, the money was plowed back into conservation. Historically, much of the old-growth forests in Europe survived because they were the private hunting grounds of nobility and the monarchy - no other people were allowed into these areas. So it's thanks to hunting that the Białowieża Forest and other European jewels exist today, because they would have been cut down and cleared by peasants for farming. And yes, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with subsistence hunting, especially when it is for survival. People in the Arctic, for example, had to (and no doubt in some areas still) depend heavily on the animals around them for survival, whether it be marine mammals or reindeer/caribou for example, as obviously there is little in the way of edible plantlife in the polar regions. It's hypothesised that hunting/scavenging for meat and the art of cooking was what allowed our massive brains to evolve to the point they are now. The only forms of hunting I oppose are trophy hunting of carnivores (since I really don't think that these contribute to the conservation of these species in any meaningful way) and elephants (for similar reasons). The trophy hunting of rhinos I am not happy with, but if it contributes to the conservation and perpetuation of the rhino in the long run via expanding populations and giving an immediate economic value to the animal, then I am not opposed to it. It is the regulations which need to change, as the weaknesses and loopholes of regulations regarding hunted rhino have been exploited by unscrupulous and greedy individuals who are involved in the current illegal rhino horn market. As it is, the market in illegal ivory and rhino horn have mushroomed despite laws banning the hunting of these magnificent megafauna in range countries. It is interesting to note that the two African countries which host the largest rhino populations in the world are Namibia and South africa, both of which allow rhino hunting. I also have no qualms with hunting if the targeted species in question is abundant and in no immediate danger of extinction - springbok and impala come to mind. As someone who regularly consumes meat, I am interested in learning to hunt myself, as it would be sheer hypocrisy for me to oppose hunting for meat when I eat (farmed) meat myself, and I trhink I need to learn what it means to kill another creature for my own sustenance. In terms of the suffering experienced by animals when they are hunted, it is best to render them the quickest death possible as so to keep the suffering to the absolute minimum - preferably so quick that the animal is dead before it experiences any pain. For this reason, I would favour medium-to-short-range firearms, and hunt on foot as so to give the animal a chance to escape (the fair chase principle). Hunting on foot would allow me to be more fully immersed in nature as well (though if I were to go out for this particular reason - experiencing nature - just a walk or wildlife-watching would more than suffice). |
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Jul 3 2014, 06:20 AM Post #57 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I honestly don't see it from a human view, I've always looked at this sort of thing from a neutral perspective. While we are naturally going to choose our own over other species we are also gifted with the ability to see beyond this and recognize that we really aren't the most important or worthy to exist. We have the ability to defy our natural bias. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 06:30 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It may be ridiculous to you, but to others it would be the morally right thing to do, especially if you are a Christian. Animals don't have souls, they don't think like we do, they feel pain and can have emotions, but they don't know the differences between right and wrong. Saying that its utterly ridiculous to value a human child more than 1,000 animals whether it be a mouse o a rat, cow or hose is just your matter of opinion. We aren't going to agree here so I see no point in continuing this discussion. I know I said I was doe here in my last post, so now I'm done. Now we know where we each stand here. |
![]() |
|
| Cape Leopard | Jul 3 2014, 06:39 AM Post #59 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
AS one who believes in God, I ahve no trouble in saying that evolution took place and that the difference between humans and other animals is only one of degree; there are few if any clear-cut characteristics which belong to humans alone. Yes, this extends to morality as well, especially in social animals.Monkeys and dogs seem to exhibit a sense of "fairness" if I recall correctly. It's not really surprising because evolutionary pressure would have favoured morality (no matter how basic) in species whose members are in contact with one another regularly. But as noted by others above, it's a subject matter for another thread entirely. Let's stick to hunting. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jul 3 2014, 06:48 AM Post #60 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can't believe in God and evolution at the same time. To believe in God, you believe that He created the earth and the universe. But when you believe in evolution, you believe everything evolved, and just happened to come into existence. You can't believe both, as they do not agree. Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jul 3 2014, 06:48 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)




Anyway, there is no point discussing this anymore because our beliefs differ and we won't agree whatsoever. I leave this thread for others to comment in.


9:48 AM Jul 11