Comment on Littering 🚯

• Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead. What’s 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.

  I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?

  source

  • graycloud@leminal.space ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Where I grew up, most people use a Have-a-Heart trap or a snare, then a knife or captive bolt gun (no bulltets).

    source

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Scenario A: You’re minding your own business, when a bullet passes through your heart/lungs and you’re 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, I’d prefer Scenario A.

      source

      • graycloud@leminal.space ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Have-A-Heart traps are used by animal welfare groups and animal shelters, so I don’t know if it’s 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. I’ve 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. You’ve 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 ‘humane.’ If you eat red meat, the cow was likely killed with a captive bolt gun.

        source
    • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      That works. I’m not saying you can’t hunt with other methods. I’m just saying that I can’t see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons aren’t a significant portion of the danger from firearms, mostly handguns or rifles like the AR-15). People can hunt however they want, or not at all, as long as it is controlled to healthy levels and doesn’t cause any other issues, and, ideally doesn’t cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.

      source

      • graycloud@leminal.space ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        There isn’t any argument for gun control. Tell the CIA to stop grooming kids on Discord and Telegram to do school shootings, problem solved. Notice this never happens in Iceland. That’s because their version of the CIA isn’t on Discord.

        source
  • Senal@programming.dev ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead.

    In the isolated context of lead poisoning alone, sure, banning lead is an answer.

    In the greater context of gun ownership in general, it’s more tricky.

    But i wasn’t advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting aren’t mutually exclusive.

    What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever?

    There are some , but i wasn’t pushing for any so i’m not sure they are relevant here.

    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.

    Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.

    If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don’t see how banning them is the best option in general.

    As was said previously, in this isolated context you are probably right, in any kind of wider context, not so much.

    I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. It’s entirely statements of observations. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?

    That’s possibly my bad, i meant more that you were making statements without any (written) consideration to the wider context in which they were made.

    I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.

    ---

    Examples:

    I will preface this by saying that my perspective on “nature” is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so it’s not like we can really do anything “unnatural”, i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didn’t have such an outsized effect on natural processes.

    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 don’t like to be attacked by wild animals.

    That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.

    Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.

    This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.

    It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.

    Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.

    I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either.

    Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for “sport” (think fox “hunting”).

    Those were just off the top of my head.

    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

    an equilibrium, not the only equilibrium, it also mentions evolution of equilibriums but is presented from a perspective that the equilibrium presented is now fixed (it is not).

    we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.

    Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.

    Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).

    ---

    source

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.

      If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.

      That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.

      Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.

      Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.

      This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.

      I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.

      we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.

      Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.

      Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).

      No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.

      A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.

      source

      • Senal@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.

        Animals don’t need to be culled, for the maintenance of the current pseudo equilibrium it’s probably a good idea, but it’s not an absolute requirement.

        I never said “naturally healthy”

        I literally quoted you.

        I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.

        Hunting is the one of the current mechanisms we use to (roughly) maintain the status quo, it’s not the only mechanism, nor is it the only option, it’s just one of the ones we are using right now.

        Healthy is relative in multiple ways, there would be a new equilibrium on the other side of the shitstorm that would probably arise from us dropping our current efforts with no replacement.

        That might be subjectively bad for us, but it would exist.

        Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.

        Unless there’s some sort of magic book that already has the answers to what is and isn’t viable then we very much do need to rule them out, that’s how decisions and policies are made.

        No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.

        I’m not sure what the no is about given the following sentences basically say the same thing i did.

        If they aren’t fit they die off, a new equilibrium is reached or the ecosystem collapses.

        “They boom and collapse.,This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while.” is one way an equilibrium is reached if the species(singular or plural) don’t die off.

        A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.

        I’d be interested to see where you’re seeing an argument against hunting from me as, afaik, i haven’t said anything to that effect.

        My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.

        source

        • -> View More Comments