Amazon.com Widgets

Should a hunter who lives off the land and counts on a disappearing species for their owner survival be punished legally?

  • Yes: A Hunter Killing A Disappearing Species Should Be Punished

    This is an unfortunate conclusion driven by the collective destruction of the planet. This hunter, unfortunately, must be an advocate for the dying world that he is attempting to live off of, rather than take the last of its creatures for his own survival. In reality, we need to be living closer to the land like the hunter, but we cannot do this by killing off dissappearing species. Rather, society as a whole must transform.

  • Plenty To Choose From

    I believe a hunter who lives off the land and kills endangered species for their own survival should be punished legally. There are plenty of animals in the wild that are not endangered that can be used for survival, finding and killing the one that is endangered would have to be done on purpose at this point. There is no reason to allow this to happen.

  • No, he needs to survive.

    A hunter who depends on hunting for survival should not be punished legally. However, he should be educated on the impact of his actions. For example, he should be informed about the disappearing aspect of the species and of alternative species that are better to hunt. There is very likely to be a better animal to hunt in the area, so diverting his hunting somewhere else is more beneficial than legal action.

  • They are the natives.

    No, a hunter who lives off the land and counts on a disappearing species for their own survival should not be punished legally, because that is the way the natives live. For all of the environmentalists who want us to return to living in mud huts, they should not punish someone who actually does.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.