Social Question

Facade's avatar

How do you feel about hunting for sport?

Asked by Facade (22937points) June 14th, 2011

Pretty simple question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

76 Answers

redfeather's avatar

I don’t really like it. If you don’t need to hunt to eat then don’t shoot at living things. Go to the shooting range.

nikipedia's avatar

I think it’s pretty fucked up to kill anything for fun. The level of fucked up increases as the organism’s ability to experience suffering does.

poisonedantidote's avatar

I don’t like the use of guns, I’d have no problem if all the hunters were using was a bow and arrow they fashioned out of some tree branches.

When you use a gun you are not really hunting anymore, you are using a sophisticated killing machine on animals.

marinelife's avatar

I don’t care to do it, but I don’t mind if others do as long as they eat the meat.

Facade's avatar

I have the same views as @nikipedia. I think it’s pretty disgusting.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

A sport is when both participants know they’re playing.

Cruiser's avatar

I don’t never have and have no desire to have an animals head hanging in my den or office.

@Adirondackwannabe I hear what you are saying but fishing is a sport and I am sure the fish has no clue it is supposed to be playing.

Jude's avatar

I hate the idea of it.

WestRiverrat's avatar

I love it. If I didn’t do it for sport, I would shoot my deer with a high powered rifle from several hundred yards away instead of trying to sneak within 25 yards to shoot them with my pistol.

I also believe that none of the animals taken should be wasted, if I can’t use it myself it goes to the local food pantry.

I don’t need to hunt to eat, but the quality of the meat is better, as well as the health benefits of lean, low cholesterol meat that hasn’t been injected with hormones and steroids.

crisw's avatar

I feel that it’s immoral. Destroying any sentient being for pleasure is not a sport, it’s barbarism.

Coloma's avatar

Absolute survival yes, protecting ones domestic animals and livestock, yes, sport no.

YoBob's avatar

Depends on what you mean by “sport”.

If you are talking about going out and killing something just for the heck of killing something, then I can think of little more reprehensible.

OTOH, if you are talking about the wild harvest of game and deriving pleasure from the whole process of wildlife management and stewardship that goes with it, it is one of my favorite activities.

ucme's avatar

It’s not hunting, that implies both parties have an equal chance of success. The animal has more or less no chance of competing on a level playing field when it’s been tracked down under the sights of a high powered rifle.
I’d be reluctant to call it a sport, again that suggests fair play & it’s also something I love, which can’t be said of hunting.
On a related topic, bullfighting is an atrociously sadistic spectacle. Just thought i’d slot that in for no good reason.

JLeslie's avatar

Does “for sport” mean not for the meat? Just to kill it for killings sake? I find it sick that someone gets some sort of psychological charge out of the death of another living creature. I know people who go down to some place in MS where you can shoot tons of birds on any given day, no limit, because it has been decided the particular bird species is overpopulated. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. I can understand feeling good about the accomplishment in terms of hitting a target, but even then, it is hard for me to identify with it. Even when killing for sustenance, I hope the hunter has a moment of thought regarding a life has been taken.

I am hypocritical, because I eat meat, and wear leather. If I had to be the one to pull the trigger I would probably be a vegetarian or eat significantly less meat. I feel bad when I kill a spider, but I do it if he is in my house.

YoBob's avatar

Just curious how many of you “hunting is immoral” types are vegans?

Do you really think that raising a sentient being in prison like conditions for the express purpose of killing it for food is more moral than promoting an environment where wildlife thrives in a natural state until one fine day when one or two of the herd are harvested in a relatively quick fashion?

Just because your meat is presented to you on a nice little tray covered with plastic wrap and you don’t have to see the ugly part does not make it any more moral than if you do the dirty work yourself.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Those of you saying the animals don’t have a chance are misinformed.

The cow in the feedlot has a 0% chance of surviving. Deer have a 17.2% chance of being taken by a hunter. That is over 82% chance of surviving the hunting season.

In my state they issue about 180,000 tags for deer a year. Last year was a good year, hunters filled 48% of the tags or harvested about 87,000. There are about 1.3 to 1.5 million deer in the state. Car deer accidents accounted for about twice as many deer killed as hunting does.

jonsblond's avatar

@JLeslie Would you have a problem killing fish if they threatened an ecosystem? Asian Carp are threatening Midwestern waterways. Many people along the Illinois River hunt these fish, hoping to curb the population. People have been injured by these fish because they hop right out of the water and into your boat. They are not small. I’ve known of some people who have been knocked unconscious because of these fish. There’s an annual fishing tournament in Bath, Illinois every year called The Redneck Fishing Tournament. The purpose is to rid the Illinois of this invasive species.

Asian Carp edge out the other native species in the river until they are one of the only kinds of fish left. It is catastrophic to the natural ecosystem, and a problem for the fishing industry in the U.S., which looks at Asian Carp as an undesirable fish to eat.” The Great Lakes are in trouble if Asian Carp get past the Illinois River.

crisw's avatar


“Just curious how many of you “hunting is immoral” types are vegans?”

This is irrelevant. If killing for fun is immoral, it’s immoral no matter who is making the argument.

“Do you really think that raising a sentient being in prison like conditions for the express purpose of killing it for food is more moral than promoting an environment where wildlife thrives in a natural state until one fine day when one or two of the herd are harvested in a relatively quick fashion?”

Again, one practice may be more immoral than another, but that doesn’t make the lesser evil moral.

crisw's avatar


There is a moral difference between protecting an ecosystem by actually seeking to eliminate a real threat versus an entire system (state game departments) devoted to producing more targets for hunters.

YoBob's avatar

@crisw – Just curious if you consider it immoral for wolves and coyotes to kill other sentient animals to support their dietary habits?

God/nature made us omnivorous predators and, IMHO, it is no more or less immoral for a human to participate in the food chain as it is for any other predatory species to do so.

JLeslie's avatar

@jonsblond I actually am very worried about the Asian carp in the Mississippi and getting into the Great Lakes, funny you mention it. From what I remember they were artificially introduced to our waters. Much like the Kudzo, which is covering so many of our trees where I live. I guess killingnthe carp is trykng to restore the balance. Is that whatkilling those birds is, or just that they are a nuisance to human beings? I don’t know. I hear people say we need to kill off deer, is that because they dent our cars when we hit them on the road? Or, because it is negatively affecting the balance in our ecosystem?

Like introducing African bees to the Americas, that just really pisses me off.

I already said I am a hypocrite on these matters, live somewhat in denial.

Coloma's avatar

Well, for the first time ever, I considered trapping/hunting Coyotes last year because of the on going issues of them killing livestock and domestic pets.

The local fish&game warden in over run and he has yet to check out our zone over here.

He was going to set snares and hide out with his rifle too.

So far so good again for the last few weeks, but, some losses about a month ago over the combined acreage of myself and several neighbors.

I do not like the idea of killing Coyotes, they need to feed themselves too, but, if they insist on eating cats and lambs and small dogs inspite of an abundance of wild turkeys, and other small natural game…well….

I am probably jinxing myself writing this, as it has been a few weeks since they have been marauding my property in mid-morning with that lean, mean. hungry look in their eye. Drooling at my cat while she naps on the deck rail. lol

It comes in cycles up here, the last 2 years have been really bad, but, only a few losses in the prior 20. It’s ALL a matter of discovery for these guys, they find a food source and return every day til every chicken, cat, whatever is ‘harvested.’ :-/

Sooo…4–6 weeks ago they nabbed about 11 chickens at my neighbors, and the other neighbors have lost every single cat they had, 6 in total, some pets, some barn cats, and a few other episodes of other livestock chasing, injuries, deaths.

Hopefully they have moved on again, for now.

crisw's avatar


“Just curious if you consider it immoral for wolves and coyotes to kill other sentient animals to support their dietary habits?”

Wolves and coyotes cannot make moral decisions. Humans can.

“God/nature made us omnivorous predators”

Evolution also made us capable of rape, murder, and infanticide. All of these are “natural.” All of them are engaged in freely by other primates. That doesn’t make them ethical for us humans. What truly sets us apart from other animals is our capacity for a morality that extends beyond our family or tribe and our ability to follow an ethical system that respects the rights of all sentient beings.

JLeslie's avatar

@Coloma The coyotes freak me out. A neighbor of mine asked me if we wanted to go in on having them hunted and shot, because we had been hearing them quite a bit, and he had seen a couple on his property. We didn’t do it, and the last couple years had seemed calmer. This year I saw one on my property, not sure if the crazy weather had discombobuated the wild animals?

crisw's avatar


“I hear people say we need to kill off deer, is that because they dent our cars when we hit them on the road? Or, because it is negatively affecting the balance in our ecosystem?”

The problem is that state fish and game departments are not in place to promote balanced, diversified ecosystems. They are in place to service what they see as their “constituency”- hunters and trappers. Thus, while well over 90% of Americans do not hunt, and while state constitutions specify that wildlife are owned by all citizens of the state, wildlife is “managed” primarily for “consumptive uses”- i.e.- killing.

Look at Montana and Idaho. The return of the gray wolf was an ecological miracle. The trophic cascade of benefits of wolf reintroduction was immense. Overpopulated elk herds were brought back into balance with their environment. Wolves kept them on the move so they didn’t over-browse riparian vegetation. That led to more beavers that need such vegetation. That meant more fish and songbirds that like beaver ponds. Wolves also drive off coyotes. That meant more voles survived to bury seeds that need this to grow, and more pronghorn antelope calves survived because coyotes eat them but wolves don’t bother. And so on.

So did the hunters shout with joy that the wolves were doing a fine job of keeping things in balance, so they could now stop killing elk and hang up their guns? Hell no. The rage of the hunters was immense and unstoppable, and they called for wolf blood- lots of it. To make a long story short, hundreds and hundreds of wolves, freshly off the endangered species list, will die this fall and winter…because the hunters want to kill more elk. And the game departments are only too happy to oblige them.

crisw's avatar


I think we have talked about the coyotes before :>) You really may want to do a little reading about coyote behavior and ecology and calm your fears. They really are amazing animals. Here’s a start.

JLeslie's avatar

@crisw We did talk about the coyotes, i wasmjust responding to @Coloma. I do believe that the coyotes are likely to leave humans alone if their natural habitat is intact and they have the food they need.

Since you seem to know about these things, why is there wasps? I want every wasp to die.

redfeather's avatar

@JLeslie Also, mosquitoes. Why are they here? Eff those suckers.

crisw's avatar


Well, if you enjoy Fig Newtons, thank a wasp. (You may never eat Fig Newtons again!)

And predatory wasps eat lots of nasty bugs.

YoBob's avatar

@chrisw – I hardly think that providing for our natural dietary needs falls into the same category as rape or infanticide. Further, I am quite comfortable with the morality of my maintaining 250ish acres in a predominantly natural state and harvesting the bulk of the read meat supply that my family consumes from the local deer population, especially when the choice of harvest is chosen with thought to maintaining a healthy population balance.

JLeslie's avatar

@crisw Blech. But a fig wasp is not a wasp wasp.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@JLeslie coyotes are lazy, if they have the choice between a wild rabbit they have to chase or a rabbit in a pen, they will take the rabbit out of the pen. They don’t have to expend lots of energy chasing it.

crisw's avatar


But they are also very, very smart and cautious. When I raised miniature goats, I had a guard llama. Even though we saw/heard coyotes on a daily basis, they never once harmed one hair on one goat. They stuck to chasing those wild rabbits!

Coloma's avatar

I have carpenter bees in my garage, I like hearing them buzzing in their little hols under the eaves. lol

OpryLeigh's avatar

It disgusts me and I pretty much agree with every point that @crisw has made.

Stinley's avatar

@YoBob not sure that this is the question. Hunting for sport is different to hunting for food. I would hunt for food but not for sport because otherwise it’s a waste of a life, never mind that good meat. You can be against hunting for sport but be a meat eater.

Granted our plates have become disconnected from the animal that fills them and a lot of people have a problem eating meat that they’ve seen being killed rather than shrink wrapped on a plastic tray. That is hypocritical but not the question

WestRiverrat's avatar

@Stinley Why do you have to be one or the other? I know plenty of ethical sport hunters that eat their kills, or donate the meat to food pantries and soup kitchens. I also know several people that hunt for meat that also do it because they enjoy hunting.

crisw's avatar

Whether the killing is for food or for sport makes absolutely no difference to the animal who is killed. He or she is just as dead either way.

Stinley's avatar

@WestRiverrat not saying that you can’t enjoy it, just saying that if you only do it for the enjoyment and don’t respect the animal by eating it then that’s a waste and selfish beyond that which is necessary for survival. I hate waste and I hate excessive selfishness and hunting for sport seems to be both these things.

YoBob's avatar

@Stinley – I contend that the essence of the true sport of hunting is for the harvest of food. Further, I contend that those who do not consume or otherwise utilize their harvest are not really engaged in the sport of hunting but are rather engaged in the activity of murder for pleasure, and I quite agree, there is a difference.

I find it unfortunate that the majority seem to assume that the motivation of hunters is to take pleasure in killing something. However, it has been my experience that, in general, most hunters are quite aware of their role in that whole “circle of life” thing.

@crisw makes a good point: “Whether it’s killed for food or for sport makes absolutely no difference to the animal who is killed. He or she is just as dead either way”

Of course, that commercially raised cow, chicken, turkey, or pig on many peoples plate is also just as dead. Alas, it did not get the opportunity to live a full and natural life before being whacked. Game animals, OTOH, enjoy a free life in natural habitats (generally set aside and maintained by those “evil” hunters) until such time as they may be unlucky enough to be the one singled out for harvest.

Stinley's avatar

@YoBob think we are saying the same thing but differently. :)

QueenOfNowhere's avatar

Sport? OH PLEASE! I wish I could have control over some human beings in this universe but unfortunately, I can’t. That’s why I’m not going to get mad, nor have a close relationship with those who don’t think the same way as I do in this. Hunting is a horrible “sport”. Tell me, you are stopping a heartbeat. Killing an innocent being that is more innocent than any human being you’ll EVER meet. And you feel satisfaction afterwards… To me, that’s murder. And stopping a breath and heartbeat is the worst thing one could do in life. Yet, if they choose to, be far from me… I have nothing to do with such beings.

tinyfaery's avatar

Do you really need to ask? I have no respect for anyone who derives pleasure from the suffering and death of another living creature. I think people who can kill so easily are dangerous, a person who could turn on you at any moment. I would not want to be around someone like that.

crisw's avatar


Once again, how does the fact that domestic animals have a terrible existence in and of itself justify killing wild animals?

Plucky's avatar

I view it the same way I view sport fishing. Wrong. Immoral. Ignorant. Disgusting.

If it were humans that these sport hunters were hunting would be called murder.

“Hunting is not a sport. In a sport, both sides should know they’re in the game.” ~Paul Rodriguez

YoBob's avatar

@crisw – Occupying our place in the food chain does not require justification. I am simply pointing out that unless you are a vegan it is quite hypocritical to claim moral superiority to those who are willing to take an active part in the harvest of the food they consume.

dannyc's avatar

Personally I do not understand it. But as long as it is legal, that people eat meat in droves and enjoy same, there will always be those who will enjoy this barbaric practice. Barbarism, a necessary trait in our foraging ancestors, has not been eradicated from our psyche, so no surprise it appeals to a percentage of humans animal instincts. It does not shock me, though, as my local superstore has plenty of meat that it has hunted in just a more sophisticated form.

crisw's avatar


“Occupying our place in the food chain does not require justification. ”

Of course it does. Every action that harms another sentient being requires some form of justification.

YoBob's avatar

@crisw – Feel free to wallow in guilt for the egregious crime of being human if that’s what works for you. As for me, I will continue to revel in my humanity and joyously participate in “the dance of life”.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@crisw then why do you give the wolves and coyotes and exemption? If they are sentient beings, harming another sentient being would therefore require justification.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

It’s not of my interest though I like to hunt for food I’ll eat.

Berserker's avatar

Freaks me out that some people like to kill things for the fun of it. It’s pretty macabre, I’d say. Sawing heads off and sticking them on your wall…that’s pretty awesome; in horror movies. Sure, if I was starving, I’d kill some animal. But not just for the hell of it. O_o

Brian1946's avatar


Are zombies capable of making moral decisions about the brains and therefore the well-being of sentient beings? ;-)

Berserker's avatar

Don’t make me write a huge ass paragraph about zombies…XD Because I will. :D

Brian1946's avatar


“Don’t make me write a huge ass paragraph about zombies…XD Because I will. :D”

Yikes! ;-o

At the risk of incurring your prolixity: would zombie wolves only eat the brains of living wolves, or are we poor humans always the victims of zombies, regardless of the zombie species?

Berserker's avatar

Indeed, and unfortunately, we humans always seem to be on the menu. Some sources; Dungeons & Dragons have zombie everything. Resident Evil has zombie dogs. Who’s always on the receiving end? Us, of course. D&D can be complicated with it, as there are many species besides humans for people to play as. But generally, if you’re hot blooded and a mammal, you’re fucked.

We must remember the concept of the zombie. The zombie is not a thing, it is not a creature, nor is it a being. It’s a curse. And that curse is always aimed at man, whether it’s magical or scientific. It would be boring otherwise, for all aims and purposes. The undead require the flesh of the living, no matter what shape it comes in. A wolf is not zombified naturally, it’s always something like a spell, damnation, or a curse, and that disposition is aimed at a purpose, usually us.

For the sake of convenience, there’s probbaly some trope saying that whatever state of zombiehood comes from something that isn’t supernatural, like a virus, always just happens to function on the consumption of human flesh.

There are always exceptions, but generally, a zombie wouldn’t be a zombie if it didn’t want us.

crisw's avatar


“As for me, I will continue to revel in my humanity and joyously participate in “the dance of life”.

Well, I am very glad I am not your dance partner, as most dances do not lead to one member of the dance getting killed. Nor do I imagine that you would participate quite so gladly should you be the one in the rifle sights.


“why do you give the wolves and coyotes and exemption?”

If you really want a serious explanation, here you go.

Sentient beings are any beings that are the subject of a life. That is, they have individual personalities and preferences, and things can go better or worse for them. Their lives matter to them, and they seek to avoid those things that bring them pain and find the things that give them pleasure.

Sentient beings fall into two divisions when it comes to morality- moral agents and moral patients. “Moral agents” are beings who are intellectually capable of making moral judgements. Normal adult human beings fall into this category. “Moral patients” are all sentient beings who cannot make moral decisions themselves and thus cannot be held accountable for their actions. Babies, children, the severely mentally disabled, the senile, and animals fall into this category. While we have moral duties to these beings- they are not mere objects to treat as we wish- they do not themselves have duties, as they are incapable of comprehending them. Therefore, while we have duties to the wolf, the wolf has no duties to us.

Ajulutsikael's avatar

It’s not a sport if the other “player” isn’t aware they’re playing a game. Then again many sports don’t involve the other players being intentionally killed. I only consider it a sport if both parties are on the same playing field. Seeing as there are humans using scopes or silencers on their bows, even using compound bows to help with aiming and pulling, then that is what most people call cheating.

I’m ok with hunting if the person is using the meat and everything else for food and other things, not trophies.

YoBob's avatar

@crisw – I notice you have conspicuously avoided stating whether or not you are a vegan, and if not, how do you justify, in light of your statement “Every action that harms another sentient being requires some form of justification.”, your consumption of animal products?

crisw's avatar


Two things.

One- as I have stated, any argument must be judged entirely on its own merits (and you have just as conspicuously avoided actually directly addressing most of the arguments I have made.) Even if I were a fur-coat-wearing, steak-eating, little-bunny stomping hypocrite up the wazoo, do you understand that that would have absolutely zero bearing on the merits of my arguments?

As it is, I am not a vegan, but I am close to one. Some animal products can be derived without harming any sentient animals. For example, eggs from uncaged hens raised in flocks do not involve suffering. I do not see such products as immoral.

But again- and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough- what I do has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, or the lack thereof. I wish you’d address the arguments themselves, and not their presenter.

Plucky's avatar

@YoBob Being vegan, vegetarian or meat eating has nothing to do with this. Most of the people I know are meat eaters. Most of them view sport hunting as I do. I’m vegetarian. Avoiding the actual arguments put forth, and side tracking it with something else, is a cop out in my opinion.

Sport hunting has nothing to do with necessity. Those that claim otherwise just seem to be trying to justify their indecent hobby.

Population control ..right. That is not the main motivation of hunters who engage in population control. Hunters go after the most impressive trophy (the largest racked males), which removes the most healthiest animals in the herd and disturbs the sex ratio. This does not help in culling a herd. It disables the herd ..which, in turn, upsets the ecosystem around it.

I think humans need to start controlling their own population before destroying other species. I guess we should start hunting the healthiest members of humanity ..afterall, they’d be the most impressive trophies. Since the government would be all too willing to give incentives to us do this, why not get something out of it? Then we can all sit around and talk about how much good we just did for society justified our actions were.

This is the manufactured, and flawed, cycle in which we live. It’s about profit. Nothing else. One day, humanity will look back on sport hunting and wonder how we were so stupid. If we last that long.

SavoirFaire's avatar

I have no problem with hunting when the animal’s remains are to be used (for meat and such). Sport hunting, however, is a waste. Trophies are for little boys.

YoBob's avatar

@crisw (and @PluckyDog)

It seems to me the fundamental philosophical differences revolve around the morality of hunting. It appears that the vast majority of the “hunting is evil” crowd object to the practice on the grounds that it involves killing an animal. I have pointed out that unless you are a vegan, you too are involved (albeit indirectly) with the killing of animals to fulfill your dietary habits. Further, I have pointed out some key differences between commercial animal farms and natural areas maintained by hunters. So, to @PluckyDog‘s point, not only does your choice of consuming animal based products, regardless of their source, have a significant bearing on this conversation, the total impact of producing those products provides a sharp contrast in terms of human “footprint”. Do you really want to analyze the environmental impact of commercial farms vs. the wild spaces funded and maintained by hunters?

To @crisw‘s earlier point. Do we require moral justification to follow our natural diet as omnivorous predators? To this I can only say that I am a software engineer, not a philosopher. However, I am not a vegitarian, and as such do not believe the source of the bulk of the meat I consume is any less acceptable from a moral perspective than eating steroid injected, methane farting, deforestation promoting beef from the feed lot, or for that matter eggs and cheese, the commercial production of which also contributes to the destruction of natural green space. In fact, the green space maintained as a result of the desire for a hunting area I believe to be a net global environmental gain.

@PluckyDog – I’m afraid you know nothing of population management. FYI, those largest bucks have already had several years of breeding opportunity and have reached their latter years. Removing some of them gives opportunity for the younger bucks to spread genetic diversity. Also included in an effective population management effort is the harvest of doe to reduce the demand on available food resources, etc… I can point you to some scholarly works if you want, but I’m sure your search engine works as well as mine.

As for the thread, I’m afraid we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

Plucky's avatar

@YoBob On the contrary, I know quite a bit about population control or population management – whatever you want to call it. I also know the real reason most hunters choose to take part in it. Profit and bragging rights. Sugar coating it does not work for those that actually study the subject. I know of the reasons you mentioned. However, I find that much of them just look nice on paper.
By the way, you think having a meatless diet has bearing on this conversation your standards, your meat eating and hunting has just as much bearing. So I guess, in some sense, we are all just biased on the matter.

There are much better, and more humane, ways to attempt to control a population than sport hunting.

There are so many arguments to be had on this topic.
You’re right ..we’re getting nowhere. We most likely won’t go much further either. I respectfully agree to disagree.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@PluckyDog What better ways?

It was sport hunters that established the national parks, national forests and annual limits on game hunting in the first place. Without the moneys supplied by the PIttman Robertson act, there would be no FWS.

Teddy Roosevelt was an avid sport hunter, he is the one that signed the laws creating Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks. And ws the first president to limit logging on Federal lands.

crisw's avatar


It was not “sport hunters” who established national parks and national forests. It was a diverse group of early environmentalists. While some were hunters, many others, such as John Muir, were not.

The PIttman-Robertson taxes do not in any way fund the federal Fish and Wildlife Service; they are distributed to the states for use in habitat projects. And P-R is an example of the kind of program that, no matter how beneficial its intentions, continues the hunter-dominated stranglehold of wildlife management. Similar taxes on wildlife-watching or birdfeeding equipment have been opposed by some hunting groups because they don’t want any other interest group having a say in wildlife management.

I noticed you haven’t addressed the points I made above regarding management of populations for hunting purposes rather than ecological health. Nor have you addressed the ethical explanation I gave, after you asked for it. I’d appreciate some input on those.

crisw's avatar


Oh, and as to “What better ways?”

For starters-

Stop all predator hunting. Reintroduce predators wherever feasible.

Stop all programs designed to artificially boost ungulate numbers.

Stop all stocking of any species solely for the purpose of hunting.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@crisw You mean the bill that transfered all the money from the dedicated fund to the general fund? The hunters I know were not opposed to taxing the other wildlife groups, they were opposed because of the language that removed the statutory use of the P_R funds for wildlife development.

Stop all predator hunting? We tried that in SD, we had mountain lions showing up on school playgrounds. The only species our GFP stocks are endangered species, species that are locally extinct and being reintroduced and those that lost their traditional spawning grounds.

SD game is currently managed for ecological health, otherwise we would not continue to reintroduce black footed ferrets and other nongame species.
There are private reserves that do manage for hunting purposes, but they are strictly regulated, and can no longer bring nonnative species into the state. Wild horses and pheasants are now considered native species.

crisw's avatar


“You mean the bill that transfered all the money from the dedicated fund to the general fund”

No, I mean PR funds in general. They go to states, not to FWS.

“Stop all predator hunting? We tried that in SD, we had mountain lions showing up on school playgrounds.”

Hunting doesn’t stop mountain lion incidents. In fact, the latest research shows it increases them because it disrupts mountain lion social structure. That’s why California has many fewer incidents than most other Western states despite its huge lion population- its lion population has been unhunted for 40 years now.

“The only species our GFP stocks are endangered species, species that are locally extinct and being reintroduced and those that lost their traditional spawning grounds.”

Remember, this isn’t just about South Dakota, which until the 1990s was actively releasing ring-necked pheasants, a non-native species (they cannot be “considered native”- they aren’t.)

“SD game is currently managed for ecological health, otherwise we would not continue to reintroduce black footed ferrets and other nongame species. ”
Ecological health? Your state is slaughtering mountain lions in an unsustainable manner and poisoning prairie dogs, as just two programs I know about off the top of my head.

Plucky's avatar

:::puts @crisw in back pocket::: I need someone like you around you say what I want to say much better than I do.

WestRiverrat's avatar

The prairie dogs are being poisoned because the FWS introduced black footed ferrets and burrowing owls into the ecosystem. When they did this they prohibited the farmers and ranchers from using traditional means to keep prairie dog numbers in check. GFP is tasked with controlling the expansion of prairie dogs in these areas so that they can do so using means that will not harm the ferrets or the owls,which cannot be hunted.

The poisoning of the prairie dogs does nothing for sport hunters, this is no more relevant than someone eating meat is to this topic.

I agree the method of hunting lions in SD is bad, but many or the worst restrictions were recommended by HSUS and PeTA to ‘prevent undue suffering’ of the lions. They have shut down several attempts to change the hunting methods to more sustainable methods.

crisw's avatar


“The prairie dogs are being poisoned because…”

The prairie dogs are not being poisoned because of ferrets or owls. They are being poisoned because managers are valuing cattle more than wildlife. And environmental groups opposed the poisoning because it would harm black-footed ferrets – it certainly was not to help them!

“many or the worst restrictions were recommended by HSUS and PeTA to ‘prevent undue suffering’ of the lions.”

Please provide your sources. I provided mine. The lions are being overhunted, and HSUS and PETA have nothing to do with this.

crisw's avatar


Thanks. This issue (especially concerning the hunting of predators) is one of my passions.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther