Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig188
not quite sure where you're going with the above.
which is more detrimental to our ecological system, to our conservation attempts?
-hunters and fisherman, who fund most of the above, or
- ban hunting and fishing-and lose 9/10ths of the funding, and lose most of those who take the lead on protecting our habitats, fisheries, and wetlands?
unless you have a better plan--other than to compare hunters to charitable serial killers--btw, serial killing IS illegal. hunting isn't.
|
Legality does not equate to morally right...the analogy is accurate if you believe that hunting for sport is morally wrong (as I and others do). The burden does not fall on me to come up with another source of funding to replace killing animals, this is not a discussion about economics but about morality. You can take the position that hunting is morally Ok, but using economics to support a moral position doesn't work. If, as I believe, killing animals for sport is morally wrong, then all the money in the world doesn't change that!