First, I want to get something out of the way: it bothers me when I find out that one of my friends hunts for sport, but I don't hate it. I can be friends with someone who doesn't believe the same things I do.
In defense of hunting (for survival, not sport)...
I am a vegetarian, but I realize that not everyone has access to meat replacements. Some people need to hunt; they don't do it because it's fun, they do it because they will die if they don't.
I have a question for the people who think all hunting is wrong, be it for "fun" (ick) or survival. Do you hate it when an animal other than a human hunts? Wolves, leopards, lions, tigers, polar bears, spotted hyenas, wolverines, sea lions... even your cat! They are all hunters. What is the difference between them and us? Personally, I think humans are on the same level as every other living thing. Carnivores are a fact of life. It's not wrong, it's nature. (Again, talking about survival, not fun. Killing for fun is sick and twisted.)
K5-HOWL said: "Marlenelover101 Then why are you in the animal rights spot?"
You don't have to be against human hunters to be an animal rights supporter. Marlenelover101 likes a hunter; that doesn't mean she loves the fact that he hunts.
Wolves kill to eat because they can't pick what to eat as we can. As an intelligent species. You would think, many of us could atleast activate our intelligence.. hmm
I know some hunt for survival not sport but the magority of it's for sport. Did you know in Alaska wolves are being hunted to raise Elk population so the sport hunters can kill them? They are killing to kill more.
-HuddyLove- said: Do you hate it when an animal other than a human hunts? Wolves, leopards, lions, tigers, polar bears, spotted hyenas, wolverines, sea lions... even your cat! They are all hunters. What is the difference between them and us?
The difference is we are Omnivores they are Carnivores.
A omnivore can eat both meat and plants. A carnivore can only eat meat.
I agree K5-HOWL. Some people may not have access to much food, but they can eat plants instead. We are smarter, we have a choice, so we should make it.
K5-HOWL said: "I know some hunt for survival not sport but the magority of it's for sport. Did you know in Alaska wolves are being hunted to raise Elk population so the sport hunters can kill them? They are killing to kill more."
I completely agree that it is wrong to hunt for sport. I don't approve of this at all. Another thing that bothers is how it's so easy for hunters to kill. They go out with guns (what is the animal supposed to do to defend themselves?) and if they miss, they have a guide behind them ready to shoot. Modern hunting is far from a fair fight.
"A omnivore can eat both meat and plants. A carnivore can only eat meat."
Omnivores are meant to eat both plants and meat. The reason some people can be healthy on a vegetarian diet is that they have access to a variety of fruits, veggies, and other sources of protein. But not everyone can get these foods, so it wouldn't be possible for them to eat a balanced vegetarian diet. However, the people who have the option to go vegetarian should. For animal rights, for the environment, and for their own health.
No. We can survive without meat nowadays because we have access to a wider variety of foods and can get proper nutrition from alternate sources of protein. Humans are omnivores, as you pointed out. Omnivores eat both plants and meat. Just because we were meant to eat meat doesn't mean we can't survive without it. Cats are meant to be carnivores, but there are vegetarian cats.
Omnivores have the ability they DONT need to eat both if we did need to eat both I would be dead no matter how much protein we can get from other things
I didn't say we needed to eat both plants and meat, I said we were meant to. It's the way we evolved. Like the cat example; cats can survive on a vegetarian diet, even though they are carnivores.
I understand the second comment but if we were meant to eat both then we would be dead. Its just a fancy way of saying we need to.
LOL fancy is a funny word
Okay, here me out. There is a reason human beings are omnivores. We can eat both plants and meat - so why shouldn't we be allowed to eat meat? We ARE omnivores, after all. Throughout history, humans hunted for survival. Even now that we are in a modern age, that instinct to eat meat is still there. No, we do NOT need to eat meat to survive, but we can if we choose to. Many wild animals are carnivores and need the meat to survive. If the carnivores can hunt them, why not us?
Okay, so my view on hunting is a little weird. I think hunting the prey - deer, rabbit, etc. - is okay, because they are prey for a REASON. They are the herbivores, and they are there so the carnivores and omnivores can eat them, so they, in return, survive. It's called the circle of life. The problem is, most people become so greedy with the way they hunt that they obsessively over-hunt until the species becomes endangered, all thanks to the human race. Carnivores and omnivores hunt to survive, but we don't need to hunt for survival anymore. That means we need to be cautious on how much we hunt. (Unfortunately, people these days over-hunt A LOT.) My opinion on this subject is: if the species is thriving, why not? If the predators are dropping low on the number, the herbivores could come to dangerous over-population, and humans could need to step in. But if the species is NOT thriving - ex. they had a bad winter, not many offspring survived - then SERIOUSLY, step away from the gun and let the animals do all the hunting for a change! They need it more than we do! I think humans should only hunt when conditions are fine, and/or the species becomes over-populated. But since we don't NEED to hunt, if the prey is having a horrible year, we should have the ability to leave it to the actual predators - the ones who really need the meat.
My view on hunting PREY has become pretty clear - but I absolutely will not tolerate hunting the PREDATORS. (Wolves, tigers, bears, etc.) I believe that prey is prey for a reason and predators are predators for a reason. Prey animals have different social structures than predators do, which allows them to take the situation better if another animal in their "family" (for lack of better word) dies or is eaten. For example, deer herds are large for a reason - to increase their chance of survival. It is harder for wolves to isolate a sick deer if it is surrounded by hundreds of other deer. But if a deer unfortunately gets left behind, the wolves will eat it. The herd moves on faster over the death of one of its own. But wolves on the other hand - they are predators, and they have different social structures than the deer do. Unlike their prey, who stick together for protection, wolves stick together for better hunting success - and, of course, for family reasons as well. Unlike the deer herd, wolves have a social hierarchy - not as big as humans once thought, but a social hierarchy nonetheless. The wolves' reaction to the loss of one of their family members is drastically different to the deer herd losing one of their members. Other predators go through differences from their prey as well, and there is a reason for that. The prey is more adapted and ready to losing one of their members - predators are not. I'm not saying predators don't get killed off, I'm saying there's a reason the prey deal with it better. Which is the reason why the prey should be hunted, not the predators. Prey, the ones beings hunted, live in large groups, and the death of one of their own isn't noticed that much. But for predators, they live in smaller groups, and the deaths of THEIR members are easily more pronounced.
Of course some animals can be both predator AND prey - take seals, for instance. They both hunt fish and are hunted by sharks. The difference is, they are still prey, so they have the benefit of surviving on meat, while they are still able to deal with the death of a member... But that's just my opinion.
Well my reason is we are the top species and omnivores we have the ability to change the world better then any other species.
We couuld wipe out a whole species with ease, like the Wolves in the earlier 1920's who were wiped out from 49 of the USA states
i used to hunt before i was a vegetarian but i realized why should i kill for my appetite i understand some people need meat to survive but most people i know who hunt do it for sport.some types of hunting though such as steel jaw traps are wrong no matter what. i have aquaintences who hunt but not any good friends who do.
Im a vegetarian but you need to remember Im speaking of sport hunters, those who hunt without reason and such. I understand this is a ANIMAL RIGHTS spot. Its pretty obvious, I can read. I dont know anyone who is like me in everyway so please dont take words out of my mouth.
In defense of hunting (for survival, not sport)...
I am a vegetarian, but I realize that not everyone has access to meat replacements. Some people need to hunt; they don't do it because it's fun, they do it because they will die if they don't.
I have a question for the people who think all hunting is wrong, be it for "fun" (ick) or survival. Do you hate it when an animal other than a human hunts? Wolves, leopards, lions, tigers, polar bears, spotted hyenas, wolverines, sea lions... even your cat! They are all hunters. What is the difference between them and us? Personally, I think humans are on the same level as every other living thing. Carnivores are a fact of life. It's not wrong, it's nature. (Again, talking about survival, not fun. Killing for fun is sick and twisted.)
K5-HOWL said:
"Marlenelover101 Then why are you in the animal rights spot?"
You don't have to be against human hunters to be an animal rights supporter. Marlenelover101 likes a hunter; that doesn't mean she loves the fact that he hunts.
I know some hunt for survival not sport but the magority of it's for sport. Did you know in Alaska wolves are being hunted to raise Elk population so the sport hunters can kill them? They are killing to kill more.
-HuddyLove- said: Do you hate it when an animal other than a human hunts? Wolves, leopards, lions, tigers, polar bears, spotted hyenas, wolverines, sea lions... even your cat! They are all hunters. What is the difference between them and us?
The difference is we are Omnivores they are Carnivores.
A omnivore can eat both meat and plants. A carnivore can only eat meat.
"I know some hunt for survival not sport but the magority of it's for sport. Did you know in Alaska wolves are being hunted to raise Elk population so the sport hunters can kill them? They are killing to kill more."
I completely agree that it is wrong to hunt for sport. I don't approve of this at all. Another thing that bothers is how it's so easy for hunters to kill. They go out with guns (what is the animal supposed to do to defend themselves?) and if they miss, they have a guide behind them ready to shoot. Modern hunting is far from a fair fight.
"A omnivore can eat both meat and plants. A carnivore can only eat meat."
Omnivores are meant to eat both plants and meat. The reason some people can be healthy on a vegetarian diet is that they have access to a variety of fruits, veggies, and other sources of protein. But not everyone can get these foods, so it wouldn't be possible for them to eat a balanced vegetarian diet. However, the people who have the option to go vegetarian should. For animal rights, for the environment, and for their own health.
LOL fancy is a funny word
Okay, here me out. There is a reason human beings are omnivores. We can eat both plants and meat - so why shouldn't we be allowed to eat meat? We ARE omnivores, after all. Throughout history, humans hunted for survival. Even now that we are in a modern age, that instinct to eat meat is still there. No, we do NOT need to eat meat to survive, but we can if we choose to. Many wild animals are carnivores and need the meat to survive. If the carnivores can hunt them, why not us?
Okay, so my view on hunting is a little weird. I think hunting the prey - deer, rabbit, etc. - is okay, because they are prey for a REASON. They are the herbivores, and they are there so the carnivores and omnivores can eat them, so they, in return, survive. It's called the circle of life. The problem is, most people become so greedy with the way they hunt that they obsessively over-hunt until the species becomes endangered, all thanks to the human race. Carnivores and omnivores hunt to survive, but we don't need to hunt for survival anymore. That means we need to be cautious on how much we hunt. (Unfortunately, people these days over-hunt A LOT.) My opinion on this subject is: if the species is thriving, why not? If the predators are dropping low on the number, the herbivores could come to dangerous over-population, and humans could need to step in. But if the species is NOT thriving - ex. they had a bad winter, not many offspring survived - then SERIOUSLY, step away from the gun and let the animals do all the hunting for a change! They need it more than we do! I think humans should only hunt when conditions are fine, and/or the species becomes over-populated. But since we don't NEED to hunt, if the prey is having a horrible year, we should have the ability to leave it to the actual predators - the ones who really need the meat.
My view on hunting PREY has become pretty clear - but I absolutely will not tolerate hunting the PREDATORS. (Wolves, tigers, bears, etc.) I believe that prey is prey for a reason and predators are predators for a reason. Prey animals have different social structures than predators do, which allows them to take the situation better if another animal in their "family" (for lack of better word) dies or is eaten. For example, deer herds are large for a reason - to increase their chance of survival. It is harder for wolves to isolate a sick deer if it is surrounded by hundreds of other deer. But if a deer unfortunately gets left behind, the wolves will eat it. The herd moves on faster over the death of one of its own. But wolves on the other hand - they are predators, and they have different social structures than the deer do. Unlike their prey, who stick together for protection, wolves stick together for better hunting success - and, of course, for family reasons as well. Unlike the deer herd, wolves have a social hierarchy - not as big as humans once thought, but a social hierarchy nonetheless. The wolves' reaction to the loss of one of their family members is drastically different to the deer herd losing one of their members. Other predators go through differences from their prey as well, and there is a reason for that. The prey is more adapted and ready to losing one of their members - predators are not. I'm not saying predators don't get killed off, I'm saying there's a reason the prey deal with it better. Which is the reason why the prey should be hunted, not the predators. Prey, the ones beings hunted, live in large groups, and the death of one of their own isn't noticed that much. But for predators, they live in smaller groups, and the deaths of THEIR members are easily more pronounced.
Of course some animals can be both predator AND prey - take seals, for instance. They both hunt fish and are hunted by sharks. The difference is, they are still prey, so they have the benefit of surviving on meat, while they are still able to deal with the death of a member... But that's just my opinion.
(Please correct me if I made any mistakes!)
Gaaah, I rant a lot.
EDIT: Grammar and spelling mistakes.
We couuld wipe out a whole species with ease, like the Wolves in the earlier 1920's who were wiped out from 49 of the USA states
登录或者加入潮流粉丝俱乐部来发表你的评论