This is morally disgusting...

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Such as hunting season all across the USA. Of course many people do this for needed food but I sure don't believe that when a see a brand new f350 with a 10 point buck strapped to the top of it. :unsure:

Actually, most legal hunting in the USA is heavily regulated and is usually used as a measure to re-introduce population controls for deer, ducks, rabbits and the like who don't have many remaining natural predators due to human expansion. As much fun as setting wolves free in suburbia so might sound, most people living there would prefer the occasional hunter.

 

Similarly the USA has a population problem with cats and dogs. Why not regulate and control hunting of them or legalize and regulate animal fighting? It's better than keeping them in tiny cages or poorly in the wild, only to be later hit by an automobile or suffocated in a plastic bag by animal control.

[mgbeach]

There are several terrible games like this out on the market. One where your character travels around catching wild and domestic animals, keeping them in confined spaces and forcing them to fight each other. Unfortunately it's very popular in Japan, so they probably won't do anyhing about it, called pokemon or something.

Vick-achu, I choose YOU!

[Korodic]

Similarly the USA has a population problem with cats and dogs. Why not regulate and control hunting of them or legalize and regulate animal fighting? It's better than keeping them in tiny cages or poorly in the wild, only to be later hit by an automobile or suffocated in a plastic bag by animal control.

 

Actually, most shelters now are either kill or "fix" shelters. By fixing the pets they ill not reproduce, as you know there are a ton of breeders who have more dogs then they can handle, which is usually why puppy mills are created and have such disgusting conditions. My mom's friend bought a dog from a puppy mill, it died not too long after. At least in a well looked after shelter the animal has a chance to have a nice life in a home from someone who won't hook up car batteries to it's nipples then pit it against another dog to the death watching it's skin and bones be torn off by another dog in the same position.

 

I'd know, I used to volunteer for the humane society.

[Vagrant0]

Similarly the USA has a population problem with cats and dogs. Why not regulate and control hunting of them or legalize and regulate animal fighting? It's better than keeping them in tiny cages or poorly in the wild, only to be later hit by an automobile or suffocated in a plastic bag by animal control.

 

A) People generally don't eat dogs or cats, atleast not the ones who live on the street and are likely to carry disease. Most animals people hunt legally are animals that they also eat. Even illegal hunting is usually about some portion of the animal that has food, medicinal, or token value. Why would they do it exactly? Civic responsibility?

 

B) The population generally frowns upon people walking around cities with loaded weapons, it doesn't matter what city, guns make people nervous. Then there are all the reported "hunting accidents" as hunters (who happen to be wearing the wrong colors) "accidentally" shoot eachother in broad daylight, or shoot innocent bystanders who "happened to be in the wrong place while some stray cat ran by".

 

C) MUCH harder to differentiate a lost pet, an owned pet which has some freedom, and a stray. It takes a rather cruel person to want to shoot an animal with a collar around its neck. Then there are the countless legal issues as people have their pets gunned down in cold blood by some "civic minded vigilante". I mean, really...

 

D) Animals used for fighting are almost always bred for fighting. Having legalized fighting would only make the problem WORSE as you would have more people breeding extra animals for profit. Fighting remains small, and those who participate don't have dozens of animals caged up simply because it is ILEGAL and staying small means less chance of being caught. Legalizing it would mean allowing people to run mills with 80-100+ animals who are abused, malnourished, cramped, or worse just for fighting. And what do you think would happen when one of these "owners" ends up having money trouble and has to liquidate their stock? Or when some animal rights activist decides to sneak in and uncage these dozens of vicious, tormented animals onto the population?

 

E) The fights themselves are also more horrific than any sort of act taken out by Animal Control. Even if Animal Control were manually beating animals to death instead of gas, suffocation, freezing, or injections, it would STILL be a step up from animal fighting. It's bad enough that I don't even want to link to videos of it as this might glorify this behavior in some way.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

I'm not particularly against hunting or anything, but it's interesting to see the responses when a counter view is given. However personally I think the excuse of animal control as a proponent of hunting is weak. There are obviously too many humans in this world, as nature usually sorts out animal population it's self.

 

As for everyone running around with guns, you should come over here to Detroit some time, it's pretty much the norm.

[Korodic]

I'm not particularly against hunting or anything, but it's interesting to see the responses when a counter view is given. However personally I think the excuse of animal control as a proponent of hunting is weak. There are obviously too many humans in this world, as nature usually sorts out animal population it's self.

 

As for everyone running around with guns, you should come over here to Detroit some time, it's pretty much the norm.

 

In my personal opinion, we live in a world where some people have 18+ kids. This is EXACTLY why the world is overpopulated and the number of poor are increasing (spreading the wealth is creating a thin line). China has the right idea, if each individual has 1 living child, then the world would be at a -1 total. Why a -1 total? Well if a male and a female have 1 child, and they both die, that leaves the world with 1 less human total. I would say have 2 at the most, but anything more is contributing to overpopulation.

[dazzerfong]

@ Vagrant0:

 

There's a correct way to maintain animal control, and shooting them is not it. Again, shooting animals because of the extensive population is morally incorrect in my mind: castration of the male populous in my opinion is a much more morally correct manner.

 

Also, remember: you, Vagrant, are raised in a world where you (like me) are conformists. You conform to everyday standards, and hence would be incredibly difficult for us to comprehend people not like us. Be empathetic, don't comment and act like you're the only correct denomination.

 

If you think that's morally wrong, let's run through some things that's morally ambiguous in Western society:

 

Guantanamo Bay

Vietnam War (McNamara set the whole thing up)

Enron

 

In our eyes, we might see it as wrong, I share the same opinion, but remember they might not necessarily be brought up with the same compassion as us. Be empathetic.

 

One more thing, though: how DO you know everything about dog-fighting?

Edited December 31, 2011 by dazzerfong

[Korodic]

castration

nah, vasectomy.

[dazzerfong]

Vasectomy's too complex, and for the same result, castration's much better.

[Vagrant0]

@ Vagrant0:

 

There's a correct way to maintain animal control, and shooting them is not it. Again, shooting animals because of the extensive population is morally incorrect in my mind: castration of the male populous in my opinion is a much more morally correct manner.

 

Um, just so I have this straight... You're suggesting that we go out into the forests and grasslands, hunt, trap, sedate, and just sterilize the wildlife (deer, rabbits, game birds, wild pigs, ext) until we have some idea of what a good percentage of the population is just merely sufficient to keep the genepool alive while allowing sterile animals starve or push the ecosystem even more out of whack for the animals that we can't necessarily get around to making sterile? As opposed to just killing a portion of the population each year, usually turning that animal into some form of food?

 

Sorry, I don't see how that makes sense or is practical to carry out on any scale.

 

And as far as sterilization practices go, rendering female animals sterile tends to have a far more significant effect on the overall population since you are directly limiting the number of potential births, rather than just the number of potential fathers.