hunting anyone?

[Haris]

I wouldn't mind going hunting or fishing (obviously two very different things).

I have no objections to hunting for food and think it can be a very rewarding activity.


Hunting merely for sport however is something that I do not support at all. As they do (or did, I don't remember the specific changes in the law) in rural England with the hunting dogs and the trumpets charging into the forests catching foxes for sport - That is a part of English culture & tradition too but that does not make it alright and the English people, for the most part, realise that and made the appropriate changes.

On an induvidual basis however, on a small scale, to catch prey to be eaten, I think is perfectly fine. If I had the opportunity to do so, I would.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

EXCUSE YOU, at no time did I EVER claim Islam for justification of any sort. I am extremely offended that you would attempt to redirect the discussion in that manner. If you genuinely believe that, then you need to go take your ADHD meds and read again.

from a religious POV God made us responsible for caring for his creation (whether our fathers have done so is irrelevant to our own actions) and hunting is a tool for that care.

So you didn't mean Islam when you said this?

because i didn't know which forum was best suited for the thread that means i have no need to engage in hunting, that is the MOST ASSININE leap of logic i've ever seen.

But you said yourself you put it here because in the West it's view as a sport. Sport = amusement. No need to be disingenuous. Of course it's asinine to you, because you're not applying logic.

It is not a required course in my Wildlife Management curriculum. However what I've read of it does not preclude human management.

Wildlife Management? That explains EVERYTHING!!!

Further nothing that does take a hands off view is taken seriously by wildlife management professionals, particularly in view of the abysmal results of attempts to take a hands off approach. Every example of hands off management has had horrific results for wildlife, people & the environment.

t's unanimously agreed by the scientific community; most of the major environmental problems today with species extinction, loss of biodiversity, land , water and air degradation- are anthropogenic.

So based on that meta-analysis a "HANDS ON" approach, is precisely the source of the problem.

If you need example checkout the results of California's mountain lion problem since hunting them was banned, Florida & New Jersey's bear problems, Yellowatone wolves or perhaps Kenya's elephant issue.
All hands off views are emotionally driven with no basis in sound science.

Wrong

http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions

A major report, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released in March 2005 highlighted a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth, with some 10-30% of the mammal, bird and amphibian species threatened with extinction, due to human actions.

No that is your claim, I claim to enjoy a necessary activity.

It's already established that your activity in Modern Industrial/Post-Industrial/Digital Age society is not necessary. Thus your enjoyment is entirely recreational.

Subsistance hunting by primative nomads, as people normally think of it, is believed in the scientific community to have extincted native wild horses & mammoths in north america,

That's a theory yes, but that's a survival driven naturally selective process.. Not something done out of luxury as yours is.

you're either ignorant of American society & economy, or you're being willfully misleading. because our public libraries offer free use of computers with internet even people that live on park benches and sleep in cardboard boxes "have internet."

Which means you're in a well off industrial society and have access to modern amenities No matter how you cut it or try to rehash it to make it seem like you're living on the fringes. You're Not in a society that depends on hunting as a means of survival. You have no ethical/moral ground to walk on here.

I happen to be using a government owned laptop provided for my government run class on the Pashtu language.

Reinforcing you're in good enough conditions where hunting is not needed.

I won't repeat everything i've said above about the adverse consequences of failing to act.

You don't have to the argument has been debunked by currently available evidence.

I will say that the failure of our grandfathers to limit their adverse impact by direct action does NOT in any way make acceptable the equally damaging impact of failing to act which you have espoused as the ideal management technique.

It does when the evidence shows more damage is caused by unnecessary human intervention.

now your just spouting nonsense. whether you believe the design was performed by evilution or a deity is immaterial. the fact is our structure is optimized for predatory function and no legitimate biological scientist will dispute this.

This isn't true we're omnivores, we can subsist on much more than hunted meat. We're not a predator species in the strictest sense of the word.

we have forward facing binocular vision like a bear.

So do gorillas and Gorillas are primarily vegetarian; you really have no idea what you're saying.

our eyes are tuned to movement more than color & shape like a cougar.

Then we would not have depth perception, again no idea what you're talking about.

we have moderately good sense of smell like a lion.

We can't "smell" out our prey though; so this argument is moot.

we have an extremely well developed cardiovascular system designed for endurance running like a wolf.

Humans don't have anywhere near the cardiovascular endurance of ANY large canine. And we're talking sprinters and marathon racers here.

we have a dental structure that combines meat shearing incissors, cuspids & bicuspids w/ all purpose grinding molars, almost identical to a chimpanzee.

our gastrointestinal tract produces strong stomach acids & enzymes that disolve fresh meat and kill a lot of bacteria, but not as strong as the acids & enzymes in true scavengers which destroy the bacteria and toxins in really rancid meat.

yes obviously we're omnivores; but we don't "NEED" to hunt our meat.

while it is true that in our modern societies & cities most people are scavengers living off the meat other people kill, not every person is content to be a scavenger.

There you go again; you are invoking nonsurvivalist argument.

only a fool would let his children walk naked or live on the street so he could buy the food he can get for free. again that claim is entirely in your own twisted mind & offends me greatly.

There's no one in America doing that. Not even the homeless. Get real.