Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
A wolf pack on the hunt or a cougar waiting to pounce cares not a whit for the intelligence of it's prey, or even whether it has a fair chance. The idea of a humane kill is (as the name implies) a human trait. I have previously seen coyotes eating an animal that was still living. That could hardly be considered humane treatment.
Population control is ultimately for the benefit of the animal in question as much as it is for us, or such is my belief. Extending deer season or raising quotas means I'm less likely to trash my car on a deer. It also means that some hunter has more meat and an extra trophy for his wall. But aside from all that, it means the surviving animals have less competition for food and shelter. It means that the deer left standing have more food in the forest and are therefore less likely to wander into someone's back yard, where they might mistake antifreeze for a sweet and tasty treat, or onto the road where they'll have a fatal disagreement with an 18 wheeler.
|
(edited quote)
This is a good point to make. I'd like to get your thoughts on the manner we take animals from the forest. A wolfpack seeks to eliminate the weakest members of the herd in order to reduce risk for themselves. A human, with his or her powerful weaponery, has the ability (and often uses it) to take the strongest or choiciest member of their prey. This sets a new evolutionary standard, and perhaps a very destructive one. The biggest, strongest, best of the species are taken each and every year. Is this in the best interest of hunters, our people, or the world in general? Should there be a movement to promote taking smaller, weaker animals instead of the biggest or best?