It sounds like foxhunting is cruel to me. I wouldn't have a problem with it if their death was humane. But a dog attacking them sounds brutal.
Printable View
It sounds like foxhunting is cruel to me. I wouldn't have a problem with it if their death was humane. But a dog attacking them sounds brutal.
Really? sorry, I didn't know that:o Either way though I still don't like any kind of hunting...Quote:
Originally posted by YellowLabLover
The endangered speices aren't hunted (unless illegally poached- which is another story)...because their population is low. Red Foxes are abundant England like deer are in the US- they are far from endangered so fox hunting will not pose a large threat to their numbers. It will just keep them in a reasonable population.
I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.
I have grown up in a family that hunts. Our family uses the meat off the animals we hunt, and barely buy beef. We use our deer for meat. I talked to my dad about this one time, and he said that he thinks that fox hunting is cruel, and I agree with him. There are some hunting that I think is ok, such as deer, pheasants, coyotes, etc. For deer, I live in a area where deer are EVERYwhere. If people did not hunt them they would starve during our really harsh winters and there wouldn't be enough food for them all. As for pheasants, people are only allowed to hunt the roasters. The reason behind that is because the roasters will stand on top of the females during the winter months to stay away from the snow, and then the females die. If all the females die then it would become harder for them to breed. I'm not saying that they would all go extinct but there wouldn't be as many females to have babies. For coyotes, where I live there LOTS of them, and when there gets too many they don't have as much food, and then they get sickly and get diseases like mange, and they just suffer. I don't like hunting, but I don't think its wrong. I could never do it...I cry. Its not my cup of tea, but there are instances where its ok to hunt, but foxhunting is NOT one of them.
I agree. What kind of sport is it that there is 1 defenseless animal, and multiple people on horseback with guns and dogs? Now, if it was hundreds of animals with guns to fight back...that might be something (I'm being cynical here...)Quote:
Originally posted by moosmom
I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.
Hunting for sport is no sport in my opinion. It's just sick.
People who hunt and actually use the entire animal (deer, pheasant, turkey, squirrel, rabbit) is a different story. I personally don't like any kind of hunting, and wouldn't do it, but I don't have as big of a problem with it, as long as the hunter is humane and uses the animal he kills.
You are allowed to harvest hen pheasants. The ROOSTER pheasants do not stand on top of hens to stay out of the snow- where the heck did ya hear such a thing? :confused: The main killer of pheasants during the winter months is heavy predation (mainly from coyotes), freezing to death, and starvation. Hens do not die from roosters standing on them in the snow.Quote:
Originally posted by Miranda_Rae
As for pheasants, people are only allowed to hunt the roasters. The reason behind that is because the roasters will stand on top of the females during the winter months to stay away from the snow, and then the females die. If all the females die then it would become harder for them to breed. I'm not saying that they would all go extinct but there wouldn't be as many females to have babies.
Also- there is plenty of food for coyotes. We actually need more coyotes to control the small animal population that is getting way out control. They keep entering heavily populated areas though, sadly, which is not good. .The reason why there are so many coyotes, is because there is enough food in the niche to supply them. Their main diet is rabbits, mice, and other rodents- there are plenty of those in Wisconsin and Minnesota!
I agree with YellowLabLover. Most predator animals won't reproduce if there isn't enough prey to sustain them. And it's not our job to keep the wildlife population under control, that's what predators are for. But since we keep driving them away and killing them, then the other animals are going to overpopulate. My uncle that hunts tries to give me that "if we don't hunt them, they'll starve to death" speech. Well in the wild it's survival of the fitest and if they aren't fit enough, they won't survive and I don't see any hunters going after the sickly starving deers to put them out of their missery, they go for the "trophy bucks". I don't have a problem with people hunting for food, it's actually more humane than a slaughter house. But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?
For me it depends on the situation. I don't agree with something dieing so horribly, like a dog ripping it apart. If it was a gunshot to the head, that would be a lot more humane. All of the animal would also have to be used, like the meat, and the fur, and the bones.
Over here, there are tons of deer, bear, and cougar, and the population needs to be controlled, so I agree with hunting them. The number of bear and cougar attacks on people and animals here is outrageous, as well as the number of deer that are hit on the road. We also have TONS of coyotes, but nobody really hunts them.
Personally I can't see the reason behind someone saying they disagree with ALL types of hunting when they, themselves, eat meat. Killing an animal in the wild and killing an animal in a meat pen that was raised to be slaughtered is really not that different. Atleast the animal in the wild got some kind of life before it was killed.
Over here, everybody does. My dad's friend makes bear jerky out of the bears he hunts..Yum.Quote:
But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfsoul
Over here, there are tons of deer, bear, and cougar, and the population needs to be controlled, so I agree with hunting them. The number of bear and cougar attacks on people and animals here is outrageous, as well as the number of deer that are hit on the road. We also have TONS of coyotes, but nobody really hunts them.
It may seem like there are tons, because their habitat is shrinking, leaving them with nowhere to go but into civilization where they hunt what's available. If a road is built in the middle of a deer migratory path, they're gonna cross it. People decide to build a neighborhood in the middle of a couger's territory, then yes, people are going to be attacked, but that doesn't mean the couger should die. People are the ones that need population control, not the animals. They were keeping themselves under control long before humans invaded. With so many people that hunt, I don't see how these animals could possibly be overpopulating.
There haven't been any new communities built in the forests here for years. Even so, there is so much forest here and tons of room for the animals. Since the fire, there have been way more wild animals showing up in the city area. It's better to hunt them than to let them get hit by cars. Over here, there are no wolves. I don't know if cougars regularly hunt deer, but if they don't, the deer have no natural predators. There is a chart of the deer population in BC, and it's continually rising very dramatically, especially in high-forest areas like Kelowna.Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
People decide to build a neighborhood in the middle of a couger's territory, then yes, people are going to be attacked
I COMPLETELY agree.Quote:
Originally posted by moosmom
I'm against ANY form of animal cruelty. And fox hunting is cruel. I am also against bull fighting, cock fighting (now RICHARD, be nice), ANY kind of hunting where you kill for the thrill, and not as a source for food. That's just my opinion.
I must have heard it wrong. I thought my dad said something like that. I'm so sorry. :( I guess I was wrong in what I've heard. As for the coyotes, I guess I was wrong also. I'm sorry for misleading anyone. I guess I got my facts mixed up or something. :o :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by YellowLabLover
You are allowed to harvest hen pheasants. The ROOSTER pheasants do not stand on top of hens to stay out of the snow- where the heck did ya hear such a thing? :confused: The main killer of pheasants during the winter months is heavy predation (mainly from coyotes), freezing to death, and starvation. Hens do not die from roosters standing on them in the snow.
Also- there is plenty of food for coyotes. We actually need more coyotes to control the small animal population that is getting way out control. They keep entering heavily populated areas though, sadly, which is not good. .The reason why there are so many coyotes, is because there is enough food in the niche to supply them. Their main diet is rabbits, mice, and other rodents- there are plenty of those in Wisconsin and Minnesota!
Please don't throw all hunters into the "trophy buck" category. You don't see any hunters going after any sickly deer- you don't even hunt, so of course you wouldn't see what hunters do. ;) I get really sensitive when I'm included in that group. I do not go for the biggest buck in the woods. A LOT of hunters do take down "cripples" when they run across them so they do not reproduce and pass on their bad genetics and mess up the population- it's called deer management. Personally, our large hunting group as taken a lot of sick deer that we've come across. The DNR in Wisconsin also came up with a new plan called "Earn a Buck" where you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck- this is another method of deer management which benefits the deer more so than the hunters.Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
Well in the wild it's survival of the fitest and if they aren't fit enough, they won't survive and I don't see any hunters going after the sickly starving deers to put them out of their missery, they go for the "trophy bucks". I don't have a problem with people hunting for food, it's actually more humane than a slaughter house. But how many hunters eat coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, or bears after they kill them?
Real hunting is incredibly hard, it's not made for everyone. Going on a game farm to get a supplement fed "fake" animal, only caring about the size of the horns- that is not hunting- and should not be viewed as hunting, because it makes REAL hunters look bad and gives hunting a bad image.
(Oh- bear is really good by the way. Especially bear jerky! Way better than beef. I've tried coyote before, it was pretty good, but bear is better.)
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :XQuote:
Originally posted by YellowLabLover
A LOT of hunters do take down "cripples" when they run across them so they do not reproduce and pass on their bad genetics and mess up the population- it's called deer management.
Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it! And putting them out of their "misery" isn't an excuse to shoot and kill them just to speed up their dying process.
Another thought - Okay, so the deer was born a cripple... So shoot it. But would you shoot a crippled or sick child, so they don't pass on their bad genetics? :rolleyes:
Actually, an old deer will slow down an entire herd or small group making them vulnerable.Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :X
Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it!