Should hunting ducks, deer and other animals with high populations be legal?

Yes.

Hunting animals should not be legal, period. I think hunting and shooting illegal aliens along the border should be legal though.

Yes, but with some regulations in place off course. Also, I would prefer they try to feed the homeless or starving people in 3rd world countries with the killed animals instead of just letting them die right there.

Yes

No, never. Hunting for sport is barbaric and animal cruelty of any kind should not be tolerated. Grosses me out to think there are people out there who hunt for the fun of it.

I don't know how I feel about hunting.

Yes. Animals whose populations are large enough that they are becoming pests--this is especially the case with deer, which don't have enough predators in the wild anymore--require population control. That has to come from humans. If people want to control the population by making it a sport, I don't really have a problem with that.

Yes. And it is.

Most of the hunters where I live don't hunt for sport; they hunt to feed their families.

That, to me, is a very different situation. I just get grossed out by the fact that people think this is FUN, like a sport and a hobby. I do not see anything wrong with eating the animals you kill because you need to live. My own mother used to tell me they raised chickens for food and ate them. I just don't like killing for sport and fun and if one has to kill something, I'd hope the killing would be as humane as possible.

Hunters are good for the environment.

Yes, it should be; hunting ducks, deer and many other animals is legal and has been for many decades.

To start, I'm not a fan of hunting at all. Sometimes, though, I gotta admit that some critters are just a nuisance. But capital punishment for being a nuisance? I dunno. I live on an orchard and we have deer all the time eating the fruit. We don't shoot them, we tie Irish Spring soap to the trees and they'll leave those trees alone. Everybody's happy.

My town is having a huge problem with rabbits running loose through downtown and the city council is hopelessly lost in political correctness and trying to balance how to "nicely" cull the rabbits without causing anybody distress. So far, nobody's come up with an answer. Some groups want to euthanize the bunnies, some want to trap them and eat them, some want to collect them and neuter/spay them and put them back, some can't stand the thought of the primary school kids on the school bus looking at the carnage from their windows, others want a free-for-all 'cause they're eating everything in sight - did you know that they'll even nibble on the underside of cars?!

Maybe it's another survey question, but if you have an answer, shout it out!

Not sure/don't know.

Depends. How high is the population? Bad case of the muchies I must say to hunt.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!! If you think yes, then you should be hunted too.

Saying a species is over populated and therefore they should be hunted, is no different than saying human beings are over populated and should therefore be hunted.

It's hypocrisy, we are no more important than animals, we are all the same: living creatures!

Aren't human beings pests also?

Only if we can do the same thing with humans in overpopulated areas.

If anyone's interested in playing, I've developed a complex points system that could be a lot of fun.

> Aren't human beings pests
> also?

Yes! The worst kind.

I don't see why not, especially if the meat is going to be eaten and the rest of the body is going to be used up in some way. Animals are our food, and there are several ways about obtaining that food. I don't see how hunting animals is any different than buying frozen meat from the supermarket.

Sure, it's all a matter of perspective. I have no problem putting a higher value on human life, though.

Should hunting ducks, deer and other animals with high populations powered rifles be legal?

It's easy for a human to put a higher value on human life!

Bears put a higher value on bear life than human life

It's easy for any animal to value the life of a member of its species above the life of a member of any other species. Since we have these enormous brains and these fancy larynxes, though, we get to have tiresome discussions about it, too.

Exactly. Therefore it means that this train of thought isn't logical

Yes. Eat!

> Should hunting ducks, deer and other animals with high populations
> powered rifles be legal?


Shooting them with high powered rifles would probably be more humane. They would die faster, hence feel less pain.

Should Hunting men be legal yes it should in all cases open Hunting season on men "giggles" tehehaha

> Bears put a higher value on bear life than human life

Oh the Bears are coming out looking for food in all the wrong places which get them in deep trouble and i am talking places like downtown Denver they are seeing real Bears come into the city ?

It's okay for them to eat us, but not for us to eat them?

It already is legal.

So then, are you a vegan?

I say animals should be hunted. Do you really want to come and hunt me down?

No but I could be without feeling any hardship - the cook (my neighbor) likes to cook healthy meat/fish/chicken dishes so I do eat meat. I would not want to have to kill an animal, or fish, for my own food either -- and certainly not for sport or fun which was my main point in the survey. But since I do not have to kill anything myself, I do go along and sometimes eat supermarket meat, chicken, and fish. I could live without it if I had to though. I personally mainly like dairy foods, veggies and fruits/nuts most. But my main point is that I feel strongly that animals should be killed humanely if they must be killed for food, and am turned off by the idea that people get off on killing animals for sport.

I must tell you that I hunt quite a bit, and the "sporting" hunter you describe is a rare species indeed. In fact, I can't think of any hunter I have ever met as a trophy hunter. I know they exist, but I have never met any. Further, most hunters I have met have a greater respect for animal life in general; many even engage in some rituals thanking God and the animal. Personally, I say a prayer every time I take a deer, thanking God for allowing me to do so.

As far as what is humane, at least hunted animals have the opportunity to get away; animals slaughterd at farms have no chance whatsoever.

Frankly, what I've noticed of the anti-hunting community is that they really have no idea of what most hunters and hunting is all about. I also can't help but wonder if this survey is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit Sarah Palin. If it is, I would suggest there are many other things you could discuss to prove that a stewardess shouldn't be running the country.

They don't have the intelligence that we have. And it is completely different: they eat meat to survive, we DON'T have to eat meat to survive.

Also, on a scale of magnitude, animals barely eat any humans compared to how many we kill

It's not my job

Palin was once a stewardess? I hate politix so I'm not up on their backgrounds as much as others. I got the idea for the survey from another survey on the Internet. But yes, I can't stand that woman and any discrediting she gets is fine with me.

Not actually, no. But she seems about as qualified as a stewardess to be VP. In fact, it's becoming her nickname here in DC...at least to those Non Republicans.

Of course, to be fair, Obama doesn't have the crendentials to be president. So, does it really matter? I think we are pretty well fudgeed regardless of who wins.

But it is your job to tell me my life has no more value than a pig's? We have an expression here in America; "put your money where your mouth is," or even better, "don't let your mouth write a check than your ass can't cash." The obvious implication here is that since you consider meat eaters to be, in a sense, cannibals that should be killed, what are you willing to do to further your convictions?...write inflammatory posts on silly little websites, or actually do something. What are you willing to do to pursue your belief that people who hunt, like me, should be hunted?

Thanx for clarifying. I'll be voting for Obama cuz my first choice, Nader/Gonzalez, don't have a chance, so to me anything's better than a Repub.

I think that if you want Nader to be president, you should vote for him. Your vote says I want XXX to speak for and represent me. When the fit hits the shan after whomever wins, at least you can say that XXX doesn't speak for me; I didn't vote for him. Just a thought.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I've been doing this for years -- none of my preferred guys have ever won and I've always said that, "Well, I didn't vote for him, don't blame me!" as in Reagan, Bush, etc.

I don't actually understand what you are talking about here. My point is that we have no right to hunt animals just because their populations are high in the same way that we have no right to hunt Chinese people because they are over populated.

As for hunting your down, I don't get it?? I have never said cannibals should be killed, I myself, am a meat eater. I only eat meat that from high animal welfare sources! I have also never said that you should be hunted, only that it would make things fairer if you do the same thing back.

reread your own post...

"NO!!!!!!!!!!!! If you think yes, then you should be hunted too."

Well, I think animals should be hunted; hence, you feel I should be hunted.

"Saying a species is over populated and therefore they should be hunted, is no different than saying human beings are over populated and should therefore be hunted. It's hypocrisy, we are no more important than animals, we are all the same: living creatures!"

This is absurd, if animals are equal, then why not fudge a sheep? Why not allow animals to run freely in your domicile? Why not hit a small child in order to avoid an animal the next time you are driving?

The point is that we are at the top of the food chain and consume lesser animals for nourishment. Additionally, and specifically regarding overpopulated animals, hunting is a humane practice. Overpopulated animals die from disease and starvation because there are not sufficient numbers of natural predators to control populations, so the ecosystem can't support the overpopulated species.

Ok, I want you to be hunted, you obviously won't let up until I say it. Doesn't mean I would hunt you down, rather that if you hunt for the pleasure of the kill (which you seem to do), you also deserve to be hunted. Yet I don't make the rules so I don't need to "put my money where my mouth is" - an English phrase by the way, not American.

"This is absurd, if animals are equal, then why not fudge a sheep?"

Just because animals are equal, doesn't have anything to do with having sex with a sheep. And the only reason it's illegal is because of human law, again, a biased viewpoint thinking from the perspective of only a human being.

"Overpopulated animals die from disease and starvation"

Doesn't the same thing happen in Africa with human beings? Are you therefore advocating mass murder?

The balance of life eventually evens everything out everything anyway so hunting just interfers with the process.

You are a meat eater, but don't think people should hunt animals? Is it the method of killing (hunting with a gun) you have a problem with?

No, it all depends of what purpose the hunting is for. If the purpose is for sport, I abhor it. If the purpose is purely for food, then that's not as bad. I still find it terribly upsetting to think of an animal in the wild being shot, no matter what the reason.

Most sport hunters use the meat for food. It's illegal to hunt and then leave the animal to rot.

Yes but what is the main purpose? It sounds like there are two here

Does it matter? As long as the meat isn't going to waste, it's not much different than buying meat at the store.

Damn right it matters!!!

Why and how? Hunting for sport and eating/sharing the food is no different than hunting for food. Also no different than buying it from a store. A dead animal is a dead animal, and a full belly is a full belly, no matter how the meat was obtained.

Because someone who gains pleasure from hunting an animal, then giving it one act of humiliation by eating it is pretty sick.

As for your other comment:

"A dead animal is a dead animal"

I find that very low:

So...
a battery chicken whose short life has consisted of force feeding, no space to roam around, severe muscle problems, no outdoor access
and
a free range chicken whose longer life is spent outdoors, with space to be able to walk and live a natural life

is irrelevant. A dead animal is a dead animal, no matter how it was obtained???

Okay, so it's the method you don't like. Hunting vs raising animals to be slaughtered?

Yes, but my main point is 'raising animals to be slaughtered' isn't a sport unlike hunting, and no pleasure is obtained from it, except the food once it is on the plate.

> Ok, I want you to be hunted,

I kind of do. Hunters suck. People who take pleasure in taking life suck.

> we have no right to hunt animals just because their populations are high

Humans exist in an equilibrium with nature, but we are generally the most capable entity in that equation. With this power comes responsibility. It may seem humane to not hunt animals, but leaving them alone actually causes more animal suffering (e.g. starvation). For example, here's an article about the situation on Long Island: http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=31447 ("residents made hunting illegal", "overpopulation had created a stunted sickly herd of deer", ...)

Animals hunt each other. This is a fundamental aspect of how nature works. Humans are part of nature. If we stop hunting there are side effects. Hunting is the most responsible thing we can do in many cases.

I think culling should be legal.