Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."........Albert Einstein.
Yes, the animal 300 yards off is so harder to hit. That is why there are so many more yahoos shooting at it and merely wouding it to die horribly over time, than marksmen who can make a 300 yard kill shot and humanely kill it down in a few minutes.
So what if a fenced in animal does not die immediately from a 50 yard shot. "Prolonged end". You have no clue what you are talking about. A fended animal has nowhere to hide. The shooter can immediately follow up and shoot the animal dead after a bad first shot. Unlike in the wild, where an animal that has his bleeding back leg smashed by the bullet from a bad shot, winds up having to drag that leg around for a couple of days in pain while the animal slowly and painfully bleeds out.
You don't get it.
I have no clue how you people think.None at all. Feelings before logic.
Pot, meet kettle.
An argument that hunting a wild animal in the wild is somehow less humane than hunting a captive animal in a cage is not a serious argument. If you want to argue that both are bad, have at it. It's not a hill I'm going to die on. But there is no world in which "hunting" a captive animal (for fun) that cannot escape is somehow "nicer" than hunting a wild animal which can escape, is likely harder to find (do you know how often hunters go hunting and don't even see the game they're hunting?), and is harder to hit.
Your scenario is silly. Have you ever seen an injured animal panic? Especially one in an enclosed space Good luck just walking over and putting a second bullet in "Bambi" to end it. An injured, cornered animal (especially a deer or larger game) is not just hard to hit, it can be dangerous.
Quote:
Once again, a cow has no chance to escape the stockyard slaughterhouse either. Why is Bambi any different? Just "cuter"?
Again, because one is necessary for the nation's food production and the other is just killing for fun. Make no mistake, this is not a defense of the nastier elements of the slaughterhouse industry. Those animals do not live good lives. There a lot of things that should change. But it exists to provide reasonably priced and readily available food to the country. Captive Hunting exists for purely for "fun."
Except cheap meat made available by cruelty & suffering isn't a necessity evil. Just an evil.
If I'm coming across as advocating for the cheap meat industry, that's not my intent. But if the slaughterhouses disappeared today, then people would starve. So until we have a suitable replacement, it is a necessary evil. Hopefully it's not that way forever.
Ending captive hunting today changes nothing. Nobody starves. Nobody even loses the ability to hunt. So in that regard, the two are not the same thing.
Really? "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."........Albert Einstein.
He was a pretty smart guy, I'm all for that transition. But evolution takes time. If the slaughterhouses all disappeared today, food prices would skyrocket, large segments of the economy would be in crisis, and people would potentially starve. Would the same be true if captive hunting disappeared?
And nobody cares about fish. Fish are ugly, so what the heck if you wreck their face with a hook, bash their heads and leave them squirming on a stringer all day long. But Bambi! Oh noes, don't shootz cute Bambi!!!!!
I've always found our morality on eating some animals but not others so weird. Remember certified dolphin safe tuna? I bet the tuna was wishing we'd switch to something certified tuna free!
An argument that hunting a wild animal in the wild is somehow less humane than hunting a captive animal in a cage is not a serious argument. If you want to argue that both are bad, have at it. It's not a hill I'm going to die on. But there is no world in which "hunting" a captive animal (for fun) that cannot escape is somehow "nicer" than hunting a wild animal which can escape, is likely harder to find (do you know how often hunters go hunting and don't even see the game they're hunting?), and is harder to hit.
Your scenario is silly. Have you ever seen an injured animal panic? Especially one in an enclosed space Good luck just walking over and putting a second bullet in "Bambi" to end it. An injured, cornered animal (especially a deer or larger game) is not just hard to hit, it can be dangerous.
Again, because one is necessary for the nation's food production and the other is just killing for fun. Make no mistake, this is not a defense of the nastier elements of the slaughterhouse industry. Those animals do not live good lives. There a lot of things that should change. But it exists to provide reasonably priced and readily available food to the country. Captive Hunting exists for purely for "fun."
While there are canned “hunting” operations that are akin to shooting Bessie the cow in a five acre, cleared pasture, such are not the norm. Research high fenced hunting operations in the locations where such operations work very well (see Texas and South Africa to learn about how it’s done). Is there a fence? Yes. But that fence encloses thousands of acres. It would be common for a hunter going to one of these operations to see the fence when they first enter, and when they finally leave, but never during the rest of their hunt. Your concerns about an animal’s inability to escape are unfounded, due to the large size of these preserves.
If one doesn’t want to hunt, fine. But a little education about the issue would go a long way. . .
While there are canned “hunting” operations that are akin to shooting Bessie the cow in a five acre, cleared pasture, such are not the norm. Research high fenced hunting operations in the locations where such operations work very well (see Texas and South Africa to learn about how it’s done). Is there a fence? Yes. But that fence encloses thousands of acres. It would be common for a hunter going to one of these operations to see the fence when they first enter, and when they finally leave, but never during the rest of their hunt. Your concerns about an animal’s inability to escape are unfounded, due to the large size of these preserves.
If one doesn’t want to hunt, fine. But a little education about the issue would go a long way. . .
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Rhode Island? It's the smallest state in the nation and one of the most densely populated. "Thousands of acres" of enclosed land for hunting isn't realistic in Rhode Island regardless of what the laws are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
