• It ironically saves animal lives

    100 kg of chicken meat kills hundreds of chickens. The meat is not as healthy and the chicken dies a painful death.

    100 kg of venison kills just 1 deer. The meat is healthy and the deer dies by gunshot, which is not the most painful way to die.

    What is worse for animals now, farming or hunting?

    Posted by: asta
  • Yes, with conditions.

    Hunting animals may seem inhumane, but it can actually be useful instead of harmful to the environment; however, only on very strict conditions. People could hunt with certain guns that aren't overly-powerful or too destructive, and only hunt species that are able to replenish and/or overpopulated. While this is okay, big-game hunting should be banned altogether. Most big-game animals, like elephants, lions, and tigers, are extremely endangered and close to extinction. Big-game hunting will only make this matter worse. So, while we keep the sport for overpopulated or easily-replenishable species, we should ban the hunting of certain species and in certain areas for the sake of the beautiful world we live in.

  • But without weapons

    I think the law should be amended so that - if you want to kill an animal, you are allowed providing you use your bare hands.
    This way, a highly skilled and trained MMA fighter for instance may kill a jaguar at a push. However a mild mannered dentists looking for a cheap thrill to fulfill his mundane life would be lucky to put down a large rabbit.

    Nobody would ever kill a rhino, elephant or whale... And if you did manage it... Like, if you managed to single handedly kill a blue whale using nothing but your bare hands... Well then you deserve to sell that blubber and hang that carcass from your garage roof.

    Personally I think id be able to put down a medium to large goat... Or maybe a small shark.

  • Yes, but in moderation

    Whether people should hunt animals or not is one of the controversial issues worldwide. From my perspective, hunting animals for research or other scientific purposes is acceptable and essential for the further development of the world. Besides, a variety of species of animals should be hunted because they are the sources of food for human beings. Nevertheless, we cannot hunt a great majority of animals in a short period of time because they play different important roles in ecosystem, and protecting animals helps maintain the ecological balance.

  • Regulated hunting is necessary.

    Regulated hunting, hunting controlled by a state's game commission or similar regulatory body is necessary today. The largest threat to animals is loss of habitat and regulated hunting is used to cull animal populations that are outgrowing their local environment and the funds from hunting licenses (and firearms, archery equipment etc in the US), are used to further conservation causes. Without regulated hunting, animals can over populate an area and cause serious environmental damage, harming other species as well. By hunting overpopulating species, the damage to the environment is minimized.

  • No, we should not hunt animals.

    Humans don't seem too bothered when it's the humans killing the animals in the animals home, but as soon as an animal kills a human, be it anywhere, the animal is killed as means of "revenge" or "justice". For the reason of animals being different in intelligence (if not more intelligent than humans), animals are seen as "less than" humans. With all the equality debates rising, I think animals are being pushed out of the way as they cannot communicate with humans as humans can amongst themselves.
    Plus, animals have enough predators already without the fear of humans, who are already destroying the world. The humans that would eat the meat from these hunted animals have already enough to eat without requiring farming or hunting, therefore it isn't necessary.

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