An Issue of Animal Conservation

Just to be clear (desperately trying not to come across as a hunter hater) I have no problem with people that hunt to put food on their table. I hunt. I don’t mean I have trained the animal to come to one spot to eat and then blow it away with a hand cannon at point blank range from a concealed location. I track, stalk, and consider not only the animal that I am about to take but how and to what effect I can. There have been many times when I have observed and let them go being no more than twenty-twenty-five feet away.

I have issue with the needles taking of life for “thrill”, “sport” or because “you can.”

I agree that taking meat by hunting can be (and usually is) far more civil than anything that comes out of the meat farms of the world. I view all life as sacred and to be treasured. Not as something for anyone to do with as they see fit for whatever reason they dream up.

Human beings are ill-equipped as predators and if it were not for the power of invention and communication we would be at the bottom of the food chain if not extinct by now. Hahhahahha

Akkarin wrote:
I want to let you know Leandros that I entirely respect your position. I don't know if you are a vegetarian or not but I have half a mind to become a vegetarian when I am a more able cook (though I almost am already - though more out of practicality than anything else).

I'm a meat eater, I have no problem with killing an animal if you are going to utilize the sum of it's parts.. this isn't about that however it's about hunting for "game/sport". like yourself however i have been planning on motivating myself to an at least 70% vegan diet, for my own health if nothing else.

That being said I find positions like your's unhelpful in a debate, can you see how your view is going off at a tangent?

I'm sorry you feel that way, you'll notice however I wasn't saying whether or not I believed any of the given scenarios were right or wrong, only offering the same situation given different subjects. and asking peoples opinions on whether or not they thought it was morally justified and then if yay or nay how does it relate back to the original situation.

You have to accept that your position is not going to be the one they will take. They will hunt.

Again I didn't state a position on it.... for the record however, I say let them hunt each other, or let them hunt the rhino with primitive tools... whats sporting about giving the animal no chance against a huge cal rifle ??

I was never asking anyone to adopt my view, only warping the situation to be viewed from a different position.... :whistle:

I'll out however if you find I am distracting from the topic good sir.

steamboat28 wrote: The rhino has roughly 2-4 tons more in its favor than a typical human (most of that being muscle) that they can move at an average of 50 km/hr. It has a sharp horn on the top of its head. It has plenty of capacity to "fight back." In every instance of true hunting, the animal outclasses man in almost every regard except range.


Some of us hunt to survive. The world economic system has produced rampant poverty and even the most cheaply-produced hateful-murder-meat (from industrial farms) is too expensive for some families who go hungry daily. With a small investment in equipment, a single hunter in a single season can provide enough meat to last his family the year. Ask me how I know.

Yeah, it does have capacity to fight back.... using a huge bore rifle is kind of lame though right.... if you wanna hunt it hunt it with a knife... that's sporting... I know where I'd wager my money.

I love watching football (soccer) .... can you imagine however how boring it would be if one team had no legs.


as for hunting to fend for oneself or ones family / career.... no problem... the situation above however is not that.

Leandros Von wrote: Yeah, it does have capacity to fight back.... using a huge bore rifle is kind of lame though right.... if you wanna hunt it hunt it with a knife... that's sporting... I know where I'd wager my money.

If he proposed to take it with a bow, or a spear, so that he could understand (first-hand) the survival instincts necessary to his ancestors, would you still have a problem with it? Because, I'll be honest, were there ever a chance to trophy hunt something that could very easily kill me in a way that wouldn't hurt their populations, and they'd let me do it with a "primitive" weapon, that would be my exception to "trophy hunting is inherently stupid". Heck, I'd probably sell a kidney to try.

steamboat28 wrote: so that he could understand (first-hand) the survival instincts necessary to his ancestors, would you still have a problem with it?

The point is not to understand the survival instinct, I just think that a Rhino toddling along minding it's own business then *BANG* high powered gun... and it's down... it's not very sporting so why call it sport...

Get up close and personal, make the Rhino aware of your intentions, then... then when the Rhino knows it has to fight back.... then it's sport.

I'd respect you for having a go.

This harks back to the human EGO, because we "invented" a way to kill the Rhino, I marvel at our ingenuity and ability, but at the same time it then saddens me that we use our knowledge for destruction and then use "because we can" or "because our intelligence allows us to" as an excuse.

Intelligence....

Where would you place humans on the food chain if we could only use our bodies and wits the same as the animals ??

That's worth thinking of in my opinion.

For me, this all continuously circles back to man's arrogance about our place in the universe.

Granted, we have technologically advanced beyond a rhino's ability to defend itself. It puts us at the top of the food chain. Yay for us. Some people use this technology in a way others find offensive. Boo to them. Other people would claim to know what is right for the rhino, or all animals for that matter. They would be wrong.

Despite our ego, we are just another organism in a system too big for our "intelligence" to comprehend. We may be higher than most animals on a food chain, but it only takes one earthquake, tornado, tsunami, or meteor to put our actual "importance" into perspective. Sometimes we forget that fleas proved to be a pretty effective enemy when combined with the Black Plague. The fate of rhinos, or ourselves for that matter, is ultimately out of our hands.

The best I can do is try to live my life the best that I can as an individual and hope that I am setting an example that others may choose to follow. If a person ignores my opinions on the matter and still chooses to waste $350,000 to hide behind a gun and kill an animal with no chance to defend itself, so be it. He'll be in the same predicament with me should this universe no longer have a need for us.

Now that I've got that pessimistic rant out of the way, I will say this: In the specific case here and when it comes to animal conservation in general, put me on the side of the rhino.

The best way to conserve an animal species is to farm it for human consumption. Just look at cows... they're absolutely everywhere.

ren wrote: The best way to conserve an animal species is to farm it for human consumption. Just look at cows... they're absolutely everywhere.

hahhahahhahahha :woohoo:

Right!!!


I wouldn't say that it was "best" for the animal, but humans do have a way of insuring their lust for something will not be interfered with. :ohmy:

Wescli Wardest wrote:

ren wrote: The best way to conserve an animal species is to farm it for human consumption. Just look at cows... they're absolutely everywhere.

hahhahahhahahha :woohoo:

Right!!!


I wouldn't say that it was "best" for the animal, but humans do have a way of insuring their lust for something will not be interfered with. :ohmy:

It's btter than extinction I would think?

I think cows are actually the most populous large mammal after humans. followed by sheep. Other mammals (non-farmed) are very successful: rodents, and that's because they tend to either eat our rubbish or live in our fields. Which point to another successful mammal: cats. Which became first domesticated thousands of years ago by farmers... Because they were taking care of the rodent problem... (though, technically --I mean they're cats after all-- it's the cats that domesticated the farmers, they showed up on the farms on their own and decided to stay. Chose to keep the farmer alive for its milk extraction capabilities )