|
|
|
|
|
|
by nacho_weekend
4082 days ago
|
|
|
This is a key argument here. In a hypothetical, perfectly moral ecosystem, could we find some way of "birth control" to limit the population AND the pain? Perhaps, the population of deer is staggeringly immense, and the financial compensation and minimal fiscal benefit behind such a plan seems like a potential path of waste and failure behind whomever enacts the program. So we enter a cost/benefit analysis of the situation, and the cost of "humane" solutions are immense. On the other hand, ethical hunting is a "lesser of two evils" that you've mentioned, but more importantly, it brings money back into the organizations protecting the environment. Many people don't realize the cost of a single hunting tag is very well calculated, regulated, and almost 100% of the profits go into ecosystem preservation and conservation. Closest thing to a win-win scenario we can get at the present, not to mention the act of hunting can be an industry in and of itself generating revenue and business. |
|
|