:
So by your logic it would be more fair if I were to wrangle a deer and stab it numerous times with a makeshift knife, causing a great deal of pain to the animal in a drawn-out and unnecessary struggle, rather than track it and stay downwind as I put a bullet in it to end it's life quickly?
And yes, in some cases it does do good for the planet. For instance, if an animal population were to grow out of control it would cause problems. If the land were overpopulated with too much of one species, it would unbalance the food chain. Other species may die out because of the overpopulating species' consumption of a shared resource, which in turn could cause the predators of said other species to die out because of a lack of prey, and so on.
|
By my logic, if you want to go hunting for animals at least make it interesting and go in unarmed, like the animal is. Either that or teach the deer how to operate a hunting rifle. I don't think you'd be wanting to go into that forest in either of those two scenarios.
Even IF overpopulation becomes a problem, which it won't because stuff like that should be left up to nature, it is not up to individual hunters to make the call on which species is overpopulated and how many of their brains have to be blown out to reach the quota. I am aware that there is such a thing as hunting seasons to deal with the above problem and permits are being issued, but I will not believe for a second that a hunter gets up in the morning, having pain in his heart because he HAS to go out and shoot something again.
Hunters kill for the thrill, not for the good of the animal. You can't be good for the animal by killing it, that's a fucking paradox no matter how many bends and turns you try to twist it in. It's a bit like saying 'Hey, you've got a fever. Maybe a bullet to the head will fix it.'
Nature will fix itself as long as we leave it alone.