Idea to ban hunting AND control species oerpopulation

[bighead384]

Say we banned hunting and instead sent out government funded teams of people to sterilize animals for population control purposes?

[MOTO13]

lol...good one. How high do you actually need to get to think of this stupid shit?

[bighead384]

lol...good one. How high do you actually need to get to think of this stupid shit?

It might be expensive but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

[MOTO13]

It might be expensive but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Your logic is impeccable. Tell us exactly what the benefit would be?

You apparently are not a hunter, so you do not have the first friggin clue what you are talking about.

[_Lost_]

There are organizations associated with animal shelters that do this in some parts of the country with feral cats. A 'catch and release' sort of program.

[bighead384]

Your logic is impeccable. Tell us exactly what the benefit would be?

You apparently are not a hunter, so you do not have the first friggin clue what you are talking about.

It would greatly reduce cruelty towards animals. And why would I need to be a hunter to have an opinion on this? That's ridiculous.

[Chainsaw]

What does the animal care if it gets shot in the head by a government employee or some hunter?

Ha, okay I read that way wrong I think (black ops style squads hunting animals was what I thought you meant).

["Melyssa K" Kennedy]

Both methods are stupid. With sterilization, how are we sure it is not the strong genes that would be beneficial to the species that we are sterilizing. We don't sterilize the genes, but the animal with the genes, you know what I mean. Do they do genetic tests on each animal before sterilizing them? I doubt it. It's just cutting the balls off of the random animal, which is not imitating natural selection at all.

With hunting for population control purposes, the stupid hunters are always looking for that big, strong, healthy animal to shoot when they should be hunting the weak, injured and old, which is what their natural predators would do. By hunting and killing the strongest for trophies, we are removing those best suited for passing on their genes and leaving the weak and sick to breed. Or, we are killing the strong and the weak and sick leftover are just going to wither and die, anyway, so who's left to breed at all?

Neither way is beneficial to the species as a whole, which is what population control is supposed to be about since humans purged natural predators.

[MOTO13]

It would greatly reduce cruelty towards animals. And why would I need to be a hunter to have an opinion on this? That's ridiculous.

Greatly reduce what cruelty? Are you assuming hunting/hunters are cruel? Most I know are quite the opposite. Ever seen an animal starve to death? Better of being hunted and the meat used. Also, I am not sure the animal has a preference who is hunting or killing it. Be it a hunter or a douchebag government employee. Maybe you have spoken to Smokey the Bear or Woodsey Owl and possibly have insight on this you could share with the rest of the class.

Tell you what, the next time you want to sterilize a honey badger, have at it. Just dive right in and chew his nuts off.

[AllIn All It's Not So Bad]

Can we get rid of bighead instead? I think his absence contributes to overpopulation