Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they do not like hunting or the explotation of animals.
That`s right. Sorry. When I had read and answered your post, since this thread's argument from my point was one of ethics, I thought you were giving your friends' situation as one that matched this thread's main point.


While I do agree that some hunting is pointless and a waste of time.
We agree. Whether it is some or most, is up for debate.

They are not putting money into the farms that produce beef, chicken etc. Instead they are taking what they need, just like our ancestors.
Factory farming is the worst, which I clearly stated before. But both are exploitation and neither is really needed in our modern societies or even in the many rural areas.

"Just like our ancestors" however, is a strange phrase to use. Sure, nutritional needs harvested are the same. But, method of harvesting is indeed no where near like how our ancestors did it. And which ancestors are you referring to? Whichever sub group you choose will be an arbitrary choice, won`t it? Our ancestors of 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago all had different methods/tools for huntng and therefore the chances of animals not being killed as they are pitted against hunter/man also differed.



You live in a country where people can live in isolation from the rest of the world. They could live in towns and buy their meat from Sainsbury or Tesco, but they want to be more with nature.

"Wants" do not make it right.


They gather and hunt what they need. Would you deny these people this? Would you lock people in a cage and deny them their instincts, while letting animals follow thiers?

If there is no need to cause killing and suffering, I cannot condone it. If it were preventable, then I think it should be prevented. There is nothing about locking people up in cages just by not permitting them to hunt.

Animals need to follow their urge to hunt in order to survive. After all, they can`t go to the supermarket and buy their food, can they? Humans can do that.


In fact I will put money down that if you were put in a survival situation you would hunt, trap and kill. Ethics go out of the window in a survival situation. You'll shake your head at this going "no I won't", but when it boils down to it your life is more important than any animal, especially when faced with starvation.
Mycernius, no where in this thread have I ever said that hunting for survival was wrong. In fact, I think I referred to some isolated places in the Arctic or the Amazon where it is a necessity. Those now are places that are not the norm of modern life. They are anomalies. Remember, this thread topic is referring to sport -- not hunting as a need to survive.

If my plane crashed in the Sahara, and I knew for a fact that thousands of hot desolate sand stretched out before me in either direction, and two lone camels walked by, and I was on the verge of loosing all strength to continue my life, I would kill one camel to survive and consume it. Consuming life, even animal life, for survival in severe situations is indeed justified.


Like it or not man is a predator, only our intelligence lets us make a chioce, but in certain situations that primitive side will come out, no matter how many times you try to deny it.
Exactly Mycernius! "Certain" situations dictate when it is justified. Not enjoyment for a sport or just wanting to obtain pleasure by living in the mountains because we choose to. That is exploitation based on pleasure. AS our inteligence, like you said, lets us make a choice, it also lets us to recognize respect for life based on ethics and to understand that taking life should only be when it IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to continue our life in a battle with nature in nature just as a wolf would have to do.