4 ms·

I strongly believe that any wildlife hunting/fishing should be prohibited, no matter if it's recreational or for selling. If it isn't grown specifically for fa

• sithadmin 7y ago
  >I strongly believe that any wildlife hunting/fishing should be prohibited, no matter if it's recreational or for selling. In some cases, culling of certain wild animal populations is actually beneficial to the ecosystem, e.g. in the case of invasive species, or certain native species whose populations have become unsustainably fast-growing due to external factors (habitat changes; predator or prey population changes, etc.).
  • uhtred 7y ago
    Humans would meet the criteria for an invasive species.
    • sithadmin 7y ago
      What point are you trying to make? Let invasive species flourish uncontrolled? Cull the human population?
      • cygx 7y ago
        The latter, presumably: Culling humanity for its own good is generally considered immoral, while it is deemed acceptable in case of nonhuman animals. That mismatch requires justification.
        • sithadmin 7y ago
          >That mismatch requires justification. Only when looking through the lens of fringe ideologies. The overwhelming majority of humans don't subscribe to moral ideologies that ascribe equivalent moral standing to humans and nonhuman animals.
          • cygx 7y ago
            It also took quite a while for people to come up with the concept of universal human rights, we're still bad at overcoming tribalism, and basing morality on majority vote isn't necessarily the best idea. That aside, you're right that I also do not assign equal moral standing to humans and nonhumans. However, that does not mean that the same arguments that make me reject culling humans don't also apply to other animals to some degree. I would argue the ethically most defensible approach would be nonlethal fertility regulation.
            • sithadmin 7y ago
              >basing morality on majority vote isn't necessarily the best idea It isn't an idea; it's a reality. Establishing any sort of standard for moral behavior is necessarily an exercise in consensus-building.
              • cygx 7y ago
                And change in that consensus can only driven by those who reject it.
• rubidium 7y ago
  Wildlife didn’t stand a chance against bows and traps either when applied too often. It’s not the tech, it’s the frequency. Your stance doesn’t match current conservation best practices. Best practice is to determine ideal population balance and help that occur. Deer hunting is a necessity in much of the US to have any regular population control.
• exabrial 7y ago
  This is a pretty uneducated world view. Some species population is purely controlled by their food supply, predators, or disease vectors, eg: deer. They're a massive pestilence in many areas because humans have displaced their natural predators, increased their food supply, and have reduced diseases. As a result, it's incredible important to thin their numbers in a cycle that would mimic the course of natural cycles. That's why Rifle and Bow seasons issue are carefully permitted and populations are counted all year. Hunters are the single largest group in the USA contributing to preservation of habitat.
  • drak0n1c 7y ago
    Yes, if humans have adopted an ecologically vital role as an apex predator in certain spaces (like with hunting deer, boar, or fishing certain species), we shouldn't artificially remove ourselves from the ecosystem.