fossilesqueLittering đŻ
SolumbranâChoose lead free ammunitionâ
No?
Just stop shooting guns and murdering things like a crazy ape?
OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.
From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).
From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people donât like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesnât consume many resources, as theyâre just living their lives in nature.
I donât think thereâs any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. Thatâs fine, and you can just not do it. Iâve never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. Itâs not really something I want to do. I canât construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you canât either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they arenât hunted by humans.
Crazy ape comment aside (iâd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but thatâs just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting arenât mutually exclusive.
Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.
I donât know if itâs on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I donât really see an argument for not using them though, as long as thereâs no lead. Whatâs really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms. If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I donât see how banning them is the best option in general.
I didnât make any proposals in my above comment. Itâs entirely statements of observations. I donât know what you mean by saying you donât see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isnât negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
its snowingWhere I grew up, most people use a Have-a-Heart trap or a snare, then a knife or captive bolt gun (no bulltets).
Scenario A: Youâre minding your own business, when a bullet passes through your heart/lungs and youâre dead in seconds.
Scenario B: You get caught in a trap and wait for hours for an ape with a knife or a bolt gun to come along and finish the job.
Honestly, if I were an animal, Iâd prefer Scenario A.
Have-A-Heart traps are used by animal welfare groups and animal shelters, so I donât know if itâs so bad to wait in the trap, unless said animal groups are incorrect to use said traps. Admittedly, cats who have never encountered these traps sometimes freak out when first trapped, and cats who have seen them before can outsmart them easily. Iâve never thought they were good for trapping cats, as they are specifically designed NOT to trap cats.
Have-A-Heart traps are intended to trap furbearing animals but allow for the release of cats, dogs or endagered species. Youâve probably seen them before. These staps are box rectangle shaped, chrome colored, and are activated when the animal places their weight on the lever in the back of the trap. These are also called double door traps.
Bolt guns are commonly used in animal slaughter and are often considered âhumane.â If you eat red meat, the cow was likely killed with a captive bolt gun.
Iâm familiar with all of the technology involved, but Iâm not sure about the applications youâre describing.
With a Have-A-Heart, the specific goal is live capture and release. There is no killing involved. The animal might be properly freaked out at the experience of being trapped, but that is specifically so as to permit an animalâs live relocation.
With a bolt gun, itâs meant to be used in a slaughterhouse scenario, which is a whole moral discussion of its own, but at bare minimum one wants the animals to be kept as calm as possible until the bolt gun is applied, because stressed out meat tastes worse than calm and placid up until the moment of death.
With hunting, the goal is to kill the target as cleanly as possible, preferably with a single bullet. Thatâs the Scenario A Iâm describing above.
If one were hunting an animal with the intent of killing it, then a trap, followed by a knife or bolt gun, would maximize the terror felt by the animal to be killed. Sure, one may be putting less lead out in the environment, but at the cost of putting the animal through⌠almost the most appalling experience of death possible, with the admitted exception of a poorly-aimed bullet or arrow, followed by a wounded flight through the woods and slowly bleeding out.
So⌠if oneâs absolute maximum goal is to reduce environmental lead, yes, that is one way to do it, but the moral implications of that method seem pretty rough.
I am extremely confused by your scenario.
We are not âhuntingâ an animal and stalking it, and then coming at it with a big trap, then leaving it there for hours before itâs killed. The trap is set, and then the trapper leaves. The animal usually doesnât see the trapper until right before the moment of death.