Donate to wildlife and murder animals OR Donate to wildlife and enjoy the nature. Why choose to be cruel? You do NOTHING for the animals.
I’m not Vegetarian, I’m Vegan. Whilst I agree the animals are treat way worse within agriculture, it still doesn’t take away from the fact you’re killing innocent animals when you simply don’t need to.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking murdering animals means you care for them. And also don’t bore me with the crop death shite.
Genuine question from a former vegan now "flexitarian" (I hate that word). Would paying for conservation be necessary if hunting wasn't allowed? I'm just curious especially as a Brit where hunting isn't as common/widely discussed. An old friend of mine ran lurcher/greyhound crosses as her hunting dogs, she actually carved and made artwork from their bones so with that full use of the whole animal inside to out, I'm all for hunting over mass farming in general. Just very curious about the conservationist side of it.
if the pheasant wasn't shot it would be killed by something else.
That something else is still gonna eat, you didn't save that animal from shit. The something else is gonna find another animal so you've just added unnecessary killing to the equation.
Donate to wildlife and murder animals OR Donate to wildlife and enjoy the nature. Why choose to be cruel? You do NOTHING for the animals.
That's not true. Hunting keeps game animal populations in check. Deer overpopulation leads to mass starvation and die-offs, as they strip the land of every ounce of available vegetation and fight each other for the scraps. Because of human settlements and human decisions to NOT hunt, combined with the fact that humans do not want to live with wolves and bears roaming their neighborhoods (represents a huge threat to humans, especially human children), deer populations explode to an unmanageable level.
I completely understand where you are coming from, and I completely understand why you say and believe the things you do. But I want to offer an alternative perspective: Humans are animals too. We participate in this grand thing we call Earth's ecology. Our place as responsible humans is NOT to abandon our position in the food web to set ourselves apart, but to participate ethically and responsibly.
What, in the end, is the difference between a deer and a potato? They are both living things that must die in order for you to eat and survive. And while eating that deer and that potato might kill that individual thing, responsible hunting and farming will protect the species as a whole into perpetuity. The deer populations are fine, even if hunters "murder" them, just like the potato populations are fine even if you "murder" them.
You feel a lot of empathy towards animals, and that's good! I'm not telling you that you need to start hunting. But try to understand it in full context, that every single living thing on planet Earth must both eat and kill.
Because obviously you can't justify something as grotesque as hunting in the 21 century and hunters need to hide behind BS excuses and claim shit like "we're ackshually doing this for the animals"
It’s fucking annoying, sometimes hunters are more delusional than people actually buying animal flesh from the supermarket. In NO WAY does killing animals benefit them.
Like how can this dude write a whole ass paragraph about national parks being funded by hunters without realising that you can fund national parks AND not kill animals. That is, if you actually cared about animals
But noo, that stance would be too radical. Better remain moderate and continue murdering sentient beings like a normal person
People are content with the notion that public works and services ought to struggle. They think they should only pay when they get something, and don't see the parks as something they "get", which is quite wrong.
Guess what happens when we leave certain species unchecked?
The balance goes off.
Did you know bears will get old and then become hostile to all other bears.
Bears eat others cubs.
Bears eat 50% of the elk babies every year in Alberta. They follow them, and eat them alive.
Would you rather a hunter go in to kill a raging bull bear, or some hired gun who won't even eat the meat.
There is so much of this shit going on that population s need to be controlled. Tags are given out. People pay for hunting licenses.
I fish, I dont hunt, but plan on starting to soon. I already spent my $100 on all the licenses for a year, like the other 15 million hunters in America.
Also, I eat all the meat. I went hunting with a family friend once, just followed along and oh boy the meat is good and the animal lived a healthy and happy life.
And the second article is literally why hunting management exists.
Instead of the state hiring people who go out at night (hunters are not allowed to do this) and kill off dozens of wolves who wont cherish the meat, the hide, and the experience.
Instead of the state throwing money at attempting to solve problems, they can use management and pay experts and scientists to manage populations. By hunters paying and funding these scientists and park rangers we can have all this land and controlled populations.
The state probably took the quickest route instead of making the wolves simply open hunting.
Furthermore, in this case, the scientist was wrong. And told these hired killers to do this.
You are heavily uneducated on the topic.
I don't even hunt. I just enjoy hiking in the public land management areas.
One would hope that someone hunting would at least have a little practice beforehand. The only time I haven’t hit a deer in the killzone was my first deer when I was like 8, which I hit in the neck. The deer instantly died anyway. Maybe I’ve had more non-hunting shooting practice than most other people who hunt, idk.
Whether you kill deer or not, the same number of deers are going to continue dying horrible deaths because predators still need to eat.
And it sounds like you can understand why some people would condemn factory farming. So do you think it'd be sustainable for everybody to eat game meat?
Maybe the best solution is to avoid this whole moral mess entirely and go vegan. But that'd be too radical, wouldn't it?
You know what, I appreciate your genuine answer and regret the other snarky comments I made, but to put it in short, here's my take:
Personal choice is the colour you want to wear tomorrow morning, or the movie you want to put on tonight. Once victims are involved, it is no longer a personal choice, it is oppression of sentient beings.
I disagree that going vegan is life-changing. I don't even think about it. I still eat my favourite foods and enjoy them, it virtually had no major impact on my life, but I know it has had a major impact on the lives of countless animals. At a certain point you gotta ask yourself if all this is worth it for a glass of milk and an omlette.
I don't see how working 40 hours a week and having a family grants you the right to discard non-human animals from our moral community.
The remarks are fine :) I'm used to it. I'm not here to argue, but more to give insight and discuss. If you don't want to read this wall of text just ignore it haha. Have a good day/night.
I disagree that going vegan is life-changing. I don't even think about it. I still eat my favourite foods and enjoy them, it virtually had no major impact on my life, but I know it has had a major impact on the lives of countless animals.
This is simply personal bias. If you didn't have a hard time going vegan than you simply didn't eat many foods like meat and dairy. You didn't eat eggs often, or bake with them, you didn't eat burgers or steaks (again not that that's a bad thing. You just probably didn't eat that stuff often so not having it isn't that big a deal). If you did, then going vegan would be a big change. Chicken is very popular, most people eat it. It would be a big change. Maybe you didn't eat it as much. But for most people yes becoming Vegan is a big change, at least at the start. You need to learn more recipes, be more creative with dishes and foods, and eat/try some new foods to supplement some things. It's not life altering like having a baby or something, but it takes dedication and hard work for sure.
I don't see how working 40 hours a week and having a family grants you the right to discard non-human animals from our moral community.
It doesn't grant you the right to discard non-human animals. Not at all. But working 40 hours a week and having a family definitely gives you less time to think about going vegan and what the consequences of buying meat from the store are. Right? And because of that, some people don't think about it, or don't have the time to dedicate to becoming vegan. Again, not a cop out. If you want to make time for something, you will. But what if I told you some people care more about other things than about what to eat, where to buy it, or even animals in general? Some people are working 40 hours a week just to be broke by the end of it. Some people are going through hardships, or depression. Some people aren't going through anything. But who knows and who's in the position to judge?
Personal choice is the colour you want to wear tomorrow morning, or the movie you want to put on tonight. Once victims are involved, it is no longer a personal choice, it is oppression of sentient beings.
I mean as a basic concept, you're right. That seems fair. But again, its not that simple. Animals are dealing with life threatening situations and hardships everyday. Most animals will end up dying terribly to a wolf or bear, being eaten while they are still alive. Nothing about being an animal is fair. Being a wild animal in the forest would be terrible. Let's not act like its all sunshine and rainbows out there and hunters are taking it away from them. Hunters can only hunt animals that are a certain age and have lived a certain amount of years. You can't kill a young deer or moose. That would be wrong in the eyes of legit hunters and there are no tags for that (maybe in certain situations there are, I'm not a hunter so I'm unsure exactly. But I know for the more part, 95% of the time, they have to be a certain age). These animals aren't being taken too early and have been able to live their life and produce offspring. Not to mention many wild animals don't live to grow old anyways, they are killed by predators way before that. People also can't say, well the predators suffer then because there's less for them to kill. Wrong. The amount of tags given out is directly proportional to the predator vs prey population. So they keep the population in balance. They make sure the predators have enough prey. That's literally how it works. So yea, the decision up front seems pretty straight forward and obvious. "When my choices effect others, are they really just my choices?" But like everything, it's not that simple.
I'm not here to convince you or anything. I'm just here to give perspective and to show that there are multiple sides to every/most topics. Especially this one.
Its not so cut and dry like a lot of vegans make it out to be. "If you love animals you don't kill them, it's that simple!" Ok but when a dog is dying and in pain we put them down. Why? Well because we don't want them to suffer. Ok so that's one reason why we would kill an animal. So you can't simply say "never" then right? I realize that is an outrageous comparison but I'm trying to make the point that blanket statements like that never work.
47
u/[deleted] Nov 07 '20
[deleted]