Recreational Hunting

Animals are rarely shot in the wild out of necessity for food. Modern industrialized farms butcher millions of animals each year to put nature's table at our grocer. There is no 'practical' reason for hunting. Con is desperately trying to lump practicality and morality in to one usage, when its clearly not the case. Con is trying to tell you that your recourse, for the purposes of morality, is to exercise the practical solution, and partake of modern day contrivances. At all times. No exception. You are not allowed to harvest your game, for your own purposes. That would be immoral: Con has provided for you. Are we confident we can abide by that loss of independence?Remember, Con is coming from the position that the poor defenseless deer whom is stalked (recreationally), hunted (recreationally) shot (recreationally) and whose meat is ate (recreationally) -- and that death on the altar or morality need not be leveraged against the demonstrated millions that went to waste for 'practicality'. Yes, Pro will happily assert that the handful of deer taken in recreational hunting (whom had MUCH better odds of survival than any random slaughterhouse bull whose meat was wasted) is MUCH more moral than the so called 'practical' alternative. Con wants that caricature to persist. The hunter, shooting up the landscape with no regard life, limb, and probably safety, leaving dead animals in their wake, ignoring all forms of bag limits and whistling a jaunty tune. If reason, rules, and regulation get injected into the mix, it starts becoming the mundane task that it is. Killing an animal for its hide, or its meat, or both, as man has done since we crawled from caves.Pro sees things in a rather different light. If you want duck, hunt a duck. Sure, you can hit up your local ethnic food emporium and get it, but... why? Why not go out and get some fresh air, and practice a discipline. Why not plunk down a few bucks for a permit. Oh, permits. That's right... state and federal permits and licensing, hunter safety courses, duck stamps etc. Con seems to have opted not to argue how much money returns to conservation efforts for all this recreating. Not to mention the cottage industries that cropped up around it, the various lodges, stores, butchers, etc that are employed by this simple act of recreating. Con has decided not to argue how much an 'immoral' big game hunt can do for the surrounding villages in impoverished nations. Considering the bounty of programs and continuing research that recreational huntsmen's dollars have contributed, Pro would let that dog lie, too. As we wind down this discussion, Pro would like to take a moment to inform our audience that 'recreational hunting' is 'hunting' when it comes to modernized societies. The reason for going out on the trail might be one of wanderlust, it might be one of independence, even communing with nature. Pro does not see recreational hunting as strictly a kill for pleasure event. There is practice involved, there is patience involved, there is field craft involved. Pro has never fought the contention that 'it need not be done'. But Pro never got his question answered: if we are to look at the morality of killing an animal for sport, and enjoy all the spoils that harvested game might bring us, why are we not applying that morality to the stock yard? If killing one because we can is immoral, then how is wasting millions, and giving them no life other than hormones and no land to roam before we waste them the practical/moral option? Its this reason that is making hunting (recreational or other) impractical. Men will always kill animals, and eat their flesh. The true test of this, though, is how good we feel about ourselves as we do it. Pro would urge you to find the true morality of the situation, and fully apply the implications of the 'practical' choice presented by Con.Based on the evidence of conservation efforts, the monies dedicated to those countries that could use it, developed skills, and abject horror of calling the 'practical' choice the moral one, I urge you to vote Pro, that Recreational hunting is both a sound environmental choice, and a moral one.Thank you.