Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What is your view on hunting?; Does hunting contribute to conservation?
Topic Started: Jun 20 2014, 03:19 AM (8,750 Views)
Palaeogirl
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jul 3 2014, 06:48 AM
Cape Leopard
Jul 3 2014, 06:39 AM
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.
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.
Evolution only deals with the way life develops, you can believe in God and evolution but you can't believe in biblical literalism and evolution. A lot of people believe in God and think that he caused the Big Bang and the rest happened by natural processes. All you have to do to believe in God is to believe that he exists. What you're describing is creationism and biblical literalism.
Edited by Palaeogirl, Jul 3 2014, 06:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cape Leopard
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Oh, but the majority of Christian denominations and Christian scientists disagree with you there, Canadianwildlife.

"Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education" - see here: http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution

Also see The Clergy Letter Project: http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cape Leopard
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Now that that ridiculous claim has been refuted, shall we get back to the topic of hunting?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Palaeogirl
Jul 3 2014, 06:52 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jul 3 2014, 06:48 AM
Cape Leopard
Jul 3 2014, 06:39 AM
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.
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.
Evolution only deals with the way life develops, you can believe in God and evolution but you can't believe in biblical literalism and evolution. A lot of people believe in God and think that he caused the Big Bang and the rest happened by natural processes. All you have to do to believe in God is to believe that he exists. What you're describing is creationism and biblical literalism.
Yeah, thats true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vegetarian
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Don't feed the trolls and the Canadianwildlife
Edited by vegetarian, Jul 3 2014, 05:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ARM0R
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jul 3 2014, 05:03 AM
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.
The concept of right and wrong is the result of human intelligence. Intelligence itself doesn´t change the fact your body consists of flesh, blood and bones - it´s nothing but a specialization which helped us survive and get on top of the food chain. You might as well say:

- there´s cheetahs and animals because animals aren´t as fast as cheetahs or
- there´s blue whales and animals because animals don´t grow as big as blue whales or

etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nordred
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
All types of hunting are bad and cruel for me...

But hunting only for fun and provoking species to extinction only for make happy to patetic people who likes steal lives of inocent animlas... for me is one of thousands of human decadence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Palaeogirl
Jul 3 2014, 06:20 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Jul 3 2014, 06:02 AM
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.
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.
You can use that neutral view, but it is not enforceable in real life, it is that simple. I question the honesty of the people who think they can do so. In philosophies, everything is possible, but what conclusions about this should I draw for my life? The benefits another human or another animal brings to me are completely different ones, applying equality would fail. Larger animals are treated differently than insects and that not for supremacy reasons, but for benefit questions. This also would force vegetarianism because I would never eat another human.

P.S. I know that talking about benefits sounds plainly selfish, but I just wanted to provide an illustration why equal treating is problematic. Another reason would be communication which leads me to understand the thinking of another human more and therefore (not always intentional) valuing him more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Imperator
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
It depends on where, what you're hunting, how, the scale of the hunting... here's something I posted on another forum about a similar topic. I'm gonna copy/paste it.

It's not a spectrum of opinions on the issue of taking large predators out of the population, IMO. Go look up how many of this planet's large predators are threatened, endangered, or dangling right off the brink.

It's no secret, no more research need be done, into how much an ecosystem suffers when the large predators at the top of the food chain are removed from the food web. And, due to the loss of the vast majority of this planet's large predators... believe me, they dont need us to take individuals out of the population to keep it in check. We've been hacking away at the numbers for centuries. We dont need to take any more. We need to work to protect the remaining individuals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Troodon
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
vegetarian
Jul 2 2014, 04:21 PM
Troodon
Jul 2 2014, 03:11 PM
I am not against hunting for food, since predators hunt their prey all the time in nature. I actually think it's understandable to be against farms and supermarkets (since no other predator domesticates their prey and slaughters them in factories), but I really don't see any moral reason why hunting is bad. Predators hunt all the time; it's a natural part of life.

However, I only think hunting for food is okay. Hunting for money, clothing, or pleasure is bad. And of course, endangered species should never be hunted at all, no matter what.

From an animal rights perspective, hunting is perfectly fine (in my opinion). I think animal rights activists should focus more on improving living conditions for animals in farms.
animals that kill other animals to eat them do so because they can not eat anything other than meat. people can eat something else, but people prefer to kill animals for food. why?
Bears can also survive on a diet of only plants, but they still prefer to eat meat sometimes. Does that mean bears are evil? No, they just like the taste of meat. Humans are the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vegetarian
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jul 3 2014, 01:02 AM
Some people in third world countries only have meat as an option, killing animals for survival. You have to be grateful for what you get. Either way eating raised animals in my opinion is completely fine and natural- we will always keep doing it and there is nothing anyone here can do to stop it so there is no point discussing it anymore. I would help one starving, homeless child any day over 1,000 animals and even more. All the poor children in Africa don't deserve to be in the conditions they are in, I would concentrate on people and not animals at this rate. Well, I could help both, but if I only had time for one, then it would most certainly be children, your fellow human beings, and your fellow man. Animals are not dumb though, I can't stand when people say that. We still should not mistreat or abuse animals or the enviroment, but take good care of it, maintain the populations and help keep the ecosystems polution free, but if people are in dire trouble, you know which I would help first.
Wait ... a man is worth more than 1000 animals?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ss far as it is used to acquire food, hunting is a natural part of human behaviour (and that of many primates actually), essentially there is nothing wrong with it. I think it’s a little arrogant of humans to discuss whether their natural behaviour is still ethical actually, especially when they replace it by something even worse. I don’t see why it is better to eat an animal that has been raised in captivity–which is actually way more problematic imo since it does not give the animal fair chances of survival.

The problem hunting poses is that since many animals are endangered it requires control to not cause extinctions, especially since human populations have gotten really big. But that’s a modern problem and not so much a matter of hunting itself (after all, every carnivore hunts, that’s a physiological and ecological necessity, and humans are partially carnivorous).

"Hunting" is far too broad to give a catch-it-all statement. As long as it is in moderation and done for a (natural) reason, I think it’s ok. It’s not ok to do it just for fun, sport or trophies, without regard to species survival, or in an active attempt to extinguish a species.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
My view on this is simple:

If you are a person who goes around and kills abundant prey animals for food/controlling their population/both, you are okay in my book.

If you are a person who kills endangered animals so that he or she can get their d ick or c lit hard when they kill a lion from three hundred feet away, and hang its severed head on a wall like a freaking psychopath, you are an ass hole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Palaeogirl
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I think humans go a little far with the whole "population control" justification. We don't need to be controlling any populations, even ones that multiply to a detrimental amount. They'll eventually experience a crash or a new predator will arive. Natural selection did just fine without a sapient helper, and interfering with it seems wrong to me. We sometimes go to great lengths to do what we think will help the biosphere (keep populations of indigenous species low, try to save species which became endangered for reasons aside from humans, cull invasive species, etc), forgetting that natural processes exist that will take care of it itself. This may not be the most beneficial way for us to deal with problems in nature but to me the continued evolution and progression of nature as a collective whole without interference is far far far more important than the progress of a single species.
Edited by Palaeogirl, Aug 4 2014, 03:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The reason why human population control is sometimes necessary is that humans are the reason why those invasive species exist, or why those natural predators don’t exist.

Not all the processes in today’s biosphere are entirely natural, at least given that we consider human intervention non-natural. In some cases extant ecosystems may collapse if humans don’t fix the damage they have done.
Edited by theropod, Aug 4 2014, 03:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply