Sure, you can hunt without guns. I donât really see an argument for not using them though, as long as thereâs 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, itâs more tricky.
But i wasnât advocating either , simply pointing out that banning guns and allowing hunting arenât mutually exclusive.
Whatâs really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever?
There are some , but i wasnât pushing for any so iâm 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 havenât 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 donât 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 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?
Thatâs 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 donât 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 ânatureâ is that we are part of it, even will all the fucked up self destructive stuff we have going on , so itâs not like we can really do anything âunnaturalâ, i use the term natural below to mean nature if we didnât 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 donât like to be attacked by wild animals.
Thatâs only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which Iâm sure youâll agree is absolutely not the case.
Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.
This magical ânaturally healthyâ state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.
It also doesnât consume many resources, as theyâre just living their lives in nature.
Also requires a natural equilibrium or regulation as a baseline.
I donât think thereâs any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. I canât construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you canât either.
Overhunting and ecosystem collapse, trophy hunting, selective hunting (think ivory), disease control, hunting for âsportâ (think fox âhuntingâ).
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 arenât hunted by humans.
Until a new equilibrium is reached, because thatâs how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).
graycloud@leminal.space â¨13⊠â¨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).
GraniteM@lemmy.world â¨8⊠â¨hours⊠ago
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.
graycloud@leminal.space â¨7⊠â¨hours⊠ago
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.
Cethin@lemmy.zip â¨9⊠â¨hours⊠ago
That works. Iâm not saying you canât hunt with other methods. Iâm just saying that I canât see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons arenât 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 doesnât cause any other issues, and, ideally doesnât cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.
graycloud@leminal.space â¨7⊠â¨hours⊠ago
There isnât 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. Thatâs because their version of the CIA isnât on Discord.