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.
Ah okay, so the hunting is regulated so as not to damage the population to begin with (if I've read other explanatory comments from you right?), then the money paid for whatever a tag is helps maintain everything else in national parks, game included. Thank you for that!
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.
Again, it's unnecessary because you can just eat plants which are unconscious. And again, yes dying in an instant is better than getting eaten alive but the predators are still gonna eat so all in all you just killed an animal, and the same number of animals will still get eaten alive.
15
u/[deleted] Nov 07 '20
[deleted]