Fairness In Hunting Animals As Sport
I have come to the conclusion that Americans who hunt animals for sport should not be allowed to use guns to kill any wild creatures. It is unfair for a human to enter the forest, desert, or jungle and be outfitted with modern automatic weapons for the purpose of fun. This is an outrageous inhumane practice and it should be stopped completely or changed dramatically.
My solution for this disgusting pastime is to only allow American sport hunters to go kill wild animals for pleasure the use of crude home made bows and arrows, stone tomahawks, or slings and stones to take out nature's creatures. Oh, I know, there would be great howls of protests from American gun owners who have paid so much money for their arsenals. But for me their fancy guns are just toys that the gun industry wants them to have to increase profits of the fatcats. That's called Consumer Excess in my book.
Just think about it dear readers, wouldn't it be much more fair if American hunters were forced to hunt wild animals the way the American Indians had to before Europeans occupied their homelands? Furthemore, to this same end all fancy contraptions such as night vision equipment, GPS units, motion detector cameras, drones, helicopters, etc, should also be banned from the forests to be used by sport hunters. Why not force American hunters to go out in to the wild armed with a stone hatchet and a loincloth in order to kill a deer, a moose, or a bear? So what if some hunters would end up getting killed by the dangerous creatures they seek to kill. That would be real sport wouldn't it?
Comments
Dawnwriter wrote on August 28, 2015, 1:27 AM
I am sure all the wild animals in Africa and elsewhere will thank you for this post but the problem is many people depend upon hunting licences to just survive in these countries. I am against shooting of animals but sometimes things are not black and white.
morilla wrote on August 28, 2015, 4:25 AM
Actually, the hunting methods used by most (though not all) sportsmen is more 'humane' than how domestic livestock is often slaughtered. The bottom line is that if you eat meat, you are as 'guilty' (if not more so) of the 'disgusting act' you claim it to be as any hunter; the only difference is that you pay to have someone else do the 'dirty work' for you. Do I agree with putting out feeders, canned hunts, using helicopters/drones, etc.? Not really. Then again, for various reasons, I don't necessarily define that as hunting . Do I have a problem with someone going out and collecting various animals by walking/hiking, carrying a gun, etc. so they can feed themselves and their family? Absolutely not.
It used to be that the fees for hunting licenses were used for a considerable amount of game and habitat management. The same with the taxes which are charged (but seldom acknowledged) on the manufacture of firearms, fishing equipment, and similar. While that's not as rigorously adhered to these days, the fees and taxes are still there; so talk to your politicians about the diversion of funds. Why? Because the hunting groups such as Ducks Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Foundation, etc. (not to mention similar fishing groups) have done more for true conservation over the decades (in some cases, longer) than many of the high profile, so-called 'enlightened' agencies claiming to protect wildlife from 'disgusting practices.'
By the way, there are many, many hunting enthusiasts who DO hunt by primitive means.