Deutlich has brought up another debate.
I'd like to know your take on hunting.
Is it a perfectly legit sport? Do you think it's all right so long as the animals killed are eaten? Or do you think it's just completely wrong?
What about the hunting of nearly extinct animals to make ends meat (no pun intended)? Pandas, Elephants, Tigers and the like are slaughtered for various reasons in some regions of the world, often due to extreme poverty.
I consider myself a conservationist, of the Theodore Roosevelt variety. I am not a preservationist, there is a difference. I enjoy the outdoors. While I don't hunt very often, I understand the place it has in our society.
Hunting is a culture, and at times a necessity. It is a legitimate sport, as it requires skill, physical ability, and discipline. People hunt for food, for profit, or for trophies. All three are valid reasons. However, I feel it must be a fair and sporting event. I detest canned hunts. Go and track, stalk, and take down the animal yourself, don't have someone tie the creature down so you can pull the trigger.
As a conservationist, I understand that rules must be in place and enforced to regulate the use of the land, lest jackasses screw it up for the rest of us. For the most part, hunters have been at the forefront of conservation efforts. Hunters founded conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited and the Safari Club International, they also pushed for congress to pass the Wildlife Restoration Act and the Federal Duck Stamp Program.
As for the hunting of Endangered Big Game, I believe that the populations should be closely monitored, and only a certain number be allowed to be hunted each season based on the recent population estimates. Each kill must be reported to ensure accuracy in the next estimate, and people who poach, should be punished severely. Poaching is essentially stealing from the next generation of hunters, and you know my stance on that.