Planetside Software Forums

Just a friendly reminder: I WILL LOCK THIS THREAD IF IT BECOMES UNCIVIL. :)

I have recently been faced with a difficult choice. My employer (once a year voluntary charity work) has decided to also employ a Big Game Hunter (headline act at a festival). I will go into more details depending on the results of this poll.
I'd like to gauge the opinion of the community as I have on other communities I have interactions with.

I realise this can be a contentious issue so please keep it civil.

More info here on my Facebook page

Thankyou for reading and taking part in the poll.

I tried to answer the question but... :o
What is this Big Game Hunting? exactly?

Killing large animals for their trophy heads.

It is NOT planed hunting conducted by professionals for population control.

Lions and elephants in Africa for example, buffalo and bears in the states for example.

Do you have a link for your facebook page? Searched and couldn't find it. :(

Quote from: cyphyr on May 25, 2014, 03:26:12 PM
Killing large animals for their trophy heads.

Thx Yossam :)
In this case I wote NO!

Ah, sorry forgot to add the link

https://www.facebook.com/removeMetallica

really depends. I am for hunting in general though.

Can you give your reasons ?
I am specifically NOT talking about wildlife management, controlled professional culling. There are good reasons for this.
I am specifically talking about so called "sport" hunting.

Hunting for sport seems cruel and sick. Hunting for food is another matter and if I am starving and need to eat I will hunt to survive. Should there be laws against it? I do not think Government should dictate those laws. I am sure issues like this could be solved without the use of force on a local level. If enough people disapprove of such a thing locally, then they can voluntarily get together to stand against those who are choosing to hunt for sport. Other then that, we can not stop everyone from doing what they want in an imperfect world. I have to wonder what drives these type of people to commit to such actions to begin with? Are they capable of finding something else to do? Do they get some thrill out of killing? Are they proud of killing and hanging a trophy of an animal head?

Also, I think and correct me if I am wrong Ted Nugent only hunts for food sustainability and not for sport.

QuoteI am specifically NOT talking about wildlife management, controlled professional culling. There are good reasons for this.

You cannot separate these things though. and anyway I was previously talking about food. But I will expand since you asked. Please bear with me...

Where I live some people hunt for food because thats how they get a large part of their meat. Some do it because they have to, but most do it because they prefer it (among those who hunt I mean). I just want to give you some context so you will understand better my position.

In the state I live people come from all over the world, pay/spend lots of money to hunt and fish the lands here. It is a HUGE source of revenue for my state. The money funds our state parks, and helps to finance preservation projects. The money sustains many many livelihoods in many different ways.

In my state and I think several others particularly, but in most of the country to some degree, hunting is a human right.
Where I live it is a means of teaching young people about land management, liberty, gun safty, and even various spirtual perspectives depending on the people and their own traditions. And of course clean natural food!
Hunting fishing and farming are, almost if not equal, to God Country and Family here for just about everyone north of the state capital.

Where I live even vegans and peta tread very lightly on this subject.

Now I realize you wanted to narrow your topic and not talk about some of the things that I mentioned. But where I live they are inseparable. Just as I imagine they must be in places where you can hunt a lion or some other "exotic" animal.

I am sure that there are a number of places in the world where hunting trophy animals (anything that is hunted for reasons other than food) are the primary sources of income for large amounts of people. Big game hunting is not cheap! Nor should it be. And when properly managed as a natural resource I am for hunting for trophy for the sake of the people who depend on the resources of the lands and animals in question. We can hunt Bear here, we also have wolf and cougars (but we cant hunt the last two yet). It is very very hard to get a bear tag, and not cheap.

Now let me go just a little deeper please.
You have suggested a moral dilemma. lets assume that there can be such a thing as morality and right and wrong. If the lives of people (not just quality, but the very lives) depend on trophy hunting as means of survival (income and such), then how can you in your developed secure life in the UK pass judgment? How can you say that you won't associate with a charity group because they do not condemn something you have no right to judge your self? I mean, you don't have to, so how can you understand the need? I am not just talking about understanding a intellectual idea or question. Im talking about watching your family starve, what that must feel like. OR here, having to take handouts when you could just hunt for your dinner (as people here do, regardless of it they have to).

Now for me personally, I more than likely would never hunt an animal like in your scenario. I don't need to and I don't want to. But I see no difference between a 12 point buck (stag) and a lion. Except that the deer would be tasty and the lion would only make for a really nice rug. Otherwise, its pretty much the same thing.
I say this because you proposed the moral perspective in the first place. You see, if there is such a thing as morality and right and wrong, then it must be a question of degrees. (a word I much prefer to color schemes like "grey area"). Because however majestic an animal may be, or however rare, there is not one that I would not kill to save my son. So how can I hate another man (in say Africa for example) for helping someone else to kill a animal, so he can feed his family by participating. And how can he do that if people don't want the trophy? That hunt may be all he knows or has to trade/sell... and in many places being a hunting guide is not just good work, its the only work.

All animals must be managed just as any other resource. Because there is no such thing as a sacred animal, to me. And there is no way to separate out the idea of resource control from the hunting of any animal be it for food or sport. You want to remove from the conversation fundamental aspects of the subject so that you can have your moral perspective. But I think that is impossible.

Again, where I live hunting is regarded as a human right. The right to provide by ones own means, to hunt fish and farm any lands that you have access to. So from my own experience, and from my observations of the world around me here, its very hard to understand your problem. Unless you are trying to say that killing a giraffe is worse than killing a... duck, deer, fox? If its different, its only because you want it to be, not because it is *in my opinion*.

One day there may be no need for this kind of industry (sport hunting) But that time is not yet. And anyway, I don't see the problem if its managed well. I will never except that animals are equal to man, or that animals should be protected in the same way. So even though I would never do it (because I don't like it either) I would not try to stop it. I sure would not stop participating in a charity I believed in because someone else was participating who disagreed with me on a different topic.

But you are keeping some facts from the conversation so far. So whatever else there is, may create some circumstance where I would say something different. But in general what I wrote is how I see it.

Hope this can somehow help you figure out what you will do.

Good topic! And an interesting way of bringing it up for conversation.

Cheers.

NO is my only answer to the pool question.

Now, I believe that controlled hunting is a must at times, but since we are not killing machines (well, not all of us at least) then we should also be wary when we should and when we shouldn't hand out death. Hunting deals with life and death and with great power comes great responsibility. I think that, what I call, "controlled hunting" is the only way in which you can do it with little or no remorse. I mean, you DO kill.

Badger, you say that hunting is a way for some people to make ends meet, or yet again, for some to get prime quality food. Agreed. Now, you can call me racist but take this into consideration - African tribesmen and poachers kill, sometimes torture, animals because in their simplistic worldview they believe this is the way for them to feed their family. Well, fine! But for how long? If it is not, again, controlled hunting the animals that give this or other community income will be long gone before you can say "Ham and cheese". So my question then is - what next? See my point? It is not complicated to just decimate something that you can make living from.

I am especially enraged at two types of hunting:

- When people hunt in order to meet their sick ambitions and gain fifteen minutes of fame (check Melissa Bachman's bright smile)
- When people just get greedy (check seal murderers, banging helpless animals on the head with a sharp hook).

These two examples are a part of developed countries' mots famous (notorious, you might say) people who call themselves "hunters". Wonder whether Bachman or my boss are starving, or have malnourished families? Don't think so...

And where do you think the food you buy in the store comes from? Willy Wonka land, where animals grow on trees and then when their ripe fall down gently to the earth in burger form? If you eat meat you bought in the store I promise you that that animal suffered in every way worse than any food I have ever killed my self.

And whats the difference between a cute seal, and a cute calf? Have you ever even been close to either of them?

Just a friendly reminder: I WILL LOCK THIS THREAD IF IT BECOMES UNCIVIL. ;D

Thanks for your input guys.
Obviously this is an emotive subject to many with stark differences on both sides of the argument.
The points you raise Badger are good but I would say that there is a big difference between wild animals and farmed food animals. In both cases neither would survive in the others environment. I'm sure you've seen the result of caging wild animals, it is unnatural for them and you can plainly see the torment in their actions. I  remember seeing a wolf pack in a reserve in Aviemore, Scotland, they had worn a deep furrow about the perimeter with their constant pacing back and forth looking for a way out.
Similarly if we were to release a cow or a sheep or a pig into the wild they would not last long, even with the lack of predictors nowadays, we have simply bread their wildness out of them. Cows for example would die very quickly if they are not milked regularly, sheep would overheat in the summer etc. Our farm animals bare little resemblance to their wild forebears and so a comparison is not especially valid in this case.

As regards our "right to hunt", because our ancestors did it, well two things there. Firstly I don't believe in the concept of "rights" in the first place. "Rights" are an entirely man made concept and these rights change from culture to culture, the only "right" that exists is the "right of might". If you're stronger enough to do something then you can go and do it, no one can stop you so you may as well say you have the "right" to do it. A pretty lame argument really. Secondly our ancestors lived and died in an entirely different world; it really was a choice of hunt or die. This is very much not the case now-a-days.  Very few people have to hunt to survive, that's what the farming industry is for. It is their choice to go and live in an environment that requires hunting to survive. They have imposed them selves of that wildness, not the other way around. Also there are very few such areas left anywhere in the world.

However this is all moot since I do make a distinction between Big Game Hunting and hunting for food and survival. In Big Game Hunting you are hunting for a prize, pitting your wits, skill and prowess against a formidable foe. Makes a great story but that's about it. It is not hunting for conservation where the weaker diseased members of a population are culled since these make poor prizes. It is not hunting for food to feed ones self.

As regards the revenue that hunting brings in, this is an entirely manufactured economy. For example the Kodiac Bear hunt issues 496 tags a year at roughly $16k each, about $8m. Tourism and bear viewing holidays bring a heck of a lot more.

I have considered learning to hunt myself so I am somewhat conflicted. Of course round here there are no large predators to hunt, the largest animals would be Red Deer and they are farmed anyway ... I might try my hand a rabbit and of course fishing.

By the way what state are you in?

Cheers all :)

Ps attached pic shows the sort of Prize hunting I am specifically talking about.

Gosh, that's an eerie image...

I'd yet like to comment on what Badger said. As far as your question is concerned - yes. As a teenager I spent months with various farm animals - cows, chicken, pigs, pigeons, additionally building affinity with baby ducks. The difference between them and seals, tigers, deer is that they are strong in numbers and actually I can't imagine a situation in which, say, pigs suddenly become endangered species. Think about it. This is the reason why I oppose the notion of "hunt for fun". Raising animals for food is exactly what I understand by necessary killing or to keep my previous thought "controlled hunting". This IS a question of survival. When you hunt an animal which is rare while you don't have to that's just a waste. Plain waste.

Let me return fire (nudge, nudge) with the Willy Wonka notion of yours. Don't you think that Big Game Hunters regard natural environment in just the way? That nature is a system which magically regenerates itself and deer and ducks pop out of the soil? I mean... come ON! :) People don't care about natural wonders. They think these will always be around no matter what they do with it.

Organized hunting that serves some purpose is fine by me, because this is the way human can put nature back on track to fix what he messed up. Hunting just for fun and selfies? Ye gods! ???

Like animals are hunting also but only for food/survival. They will not go to kill another one for fun...

Definitely no!
Population control is something different, and I'm aware, that, if I want to eat a steak, an animal has to be killed.
But calling this a sport is ridiculous. I never heard the expression Big Game Hunting before. Game???? What is the game factor here?

In Germany we have some hunters here as well, but they all have to have a license. You are not allowed to go into the forest and shoot whatever you want. You are not even allowed to have a gun, unless you have a license, and it's not easy to get. Thank god!
Most of the hunters take care of the population control, but there is a big amount of very traditional, ceremonial (and questionable) "rites". So they have a certain dresscode, they have special horn signals depending which animal they have just shot, they are shooting "wonderful" photos of the carcasses with the aroused smiling huntsmen in the background, and they even have their own words especially for some bodyparts of the animals. I have no idea why for example the official huntsmen language term for (animal's) testicles is "rut balls" (direct translation) and not testicles. I have to explain that noone else says "balls" for testicles in german (we say "eggs"! :)). And the tail of the rabbit is called "lamp"  (???)
Some might think, the longer the gun, the shorter their...


nose.



I think everything except population control and killing for food supply is perverted and abhorrent to nature. The lack of species-appropriate husbandry in the meat industry is another problem, but I don't think it belongs to this topic.

Score: 9:1  :D :D

This image of James Hetfield says it all:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1496228330590977&set=a.1496215653925578.1073741828.1496196227260854&type=1&relevant_count=1
I like the comment of Daphne Cavanah below.

Brings to mind the famous quote from Oscar Wilde describing fox hunting: " The Unspeakable in pursuit of the Inedible".  I've known a number of "Big Game Hunters" over the years. Almost all were pretty wealthy folks; takes loads of money to jet to Nepal to 'bag' a wild high mountain ram, plus the expensive permits, guides, etc. But, just because it benefits a local economy, and a few individuals doesn't justify the activity in my opinion. The World's wildlife 'Big Game' population can not be so great that wealthy people can just pay to kill at their whim, even if their wealth helps support those very populations (think migratory bird hunting over special interest sponsored 'wetlands'). Poachers obviously are a greater problem, but once again that's driven by poverty more than the desire to kill: people need the money to survive. The worst class is the fanatics who believe that stuff like tiger genitals makes old men virile and employ the poor locals to harvest the gore. Or, ever see a Bull Fight? It may be someone's 'Cultural Tradition', but watching the dying agony of the animal, spurting blood thru it's nostrils can hardly be called entertainment. All of the above are pretty much "Big Game Hunting" in my estimation as they entail wanton slaughter. The 'Food Chain' has a certain brutal elegance, protein acquisition is distributed thru the ecosystem and 'morality' is difficult to consider (read John Stenibeck). However killing for the sake of killing, without the necessity towards survival is "Unspeakable".  That's my rant  ;), I vote "NO!"

Quote from: Hannes on May 26, 2014, 09:45:28 AM
I like the comment of Daphne Cavanah below.

Yeah....that is a good one. Agree with Daphne hehehe....

I didn't vote because there was no button for "Under Certain Conditions". I am all for population control and even using sports hunters for this purpose since it is an additional source of revenue to be used for wildlife management. It doesn't matter to me what goes on in the mind of the killer as long as they take animals that are expendable under the guidelines laid out by sound population management practices. The problem with it is that hunters want to kill the biggest and healthiest animals. They do not have the same effect as natural predators which take mostly the weak and dying. Hunters put an end to the genetic lines of the animals that should have propagated and leaves the weak and dying to pass on their genes to the next generation. A hunter friend of mine says they do "management" meaning that officials try to make up for the best animals lost but I know that the bucks they use to repopulate are few and this leads to a lot of in-breeding which is also not good.

One of my pet peeves is so many people who say you should kill an animal only for food. Many think they are speaking great wisdom and they are not. The problem with this is that you are not managing the populations for THEIR needs but simply using them for YOUR human needs. This is the worst kind of (even lack of) management because it doesn't consider the needs of the population we are trying to help. In the worst scenario, ALL of the animals would be killed because there are so many hungry people or even diners who simply have a taste for wild meat. I think this mind-set leads to negligence.

Collecting animal trophies has some strange primitive aspects that might be better kept in check. This incident happened recently in my state where hunting Mountain Lions is prohibited. The hunters first tried to fake the excuse of self defense.



(http://imgick.mlive.com/home/mlive-media/width620/img/news/baycity_impact/photo/14437992-mmmain.jpg)

""Our investigation and other evidence we have ... tells us that at no time, at no point, was there ever, ever anyone's life in danger. Never," said Mike Hammill, a conservation officer for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Hammill added that after the cougar was dead, the father and son cooked and ate the feline's heart."



But now I find I want to stalk, harpoon, and eat a wild sardine. I'm so tired of eating them out of the can. After I eat its heart and brain to acquire its bravery and intelligence I'll mount its head on my wall for all to see...

lol.
Really, its just to muchnone sense for me.

QuoteAs regards our "right to hunt", because our ancestors did it, well two things there. Firstly I don't believe in the concept of "rights" in the first place. "Rights" are an entirely man made concept

I did not say because of my ancestors. My ancestors did not have rights, they were from Europe. The human right to hunt is the right not to starve. And while I do not need to hunt to eat. It is good to know how. And it is my right here whether or not you believe it. Like some other things, you believes do not determine if something exists or not.

I actually don't hunt or fish as much as it may sound, but I am definitely for hunting in general.

Quote"Rights" are an entirely man made concept

so is your morality. Everything you believe is a construct.

QuoteHowever this is all moot since I do make a distinction between Big Game Hunting and hunting for food and survival

That is just picking and choosing based on your own constructed reality. You are saying what you like is fine, and what you don't like should be banned.

And again, I would not hunt an animal like a lion or some exotic animal, or a bear. But there really is no difference. I just think the hypocrisy is self evedent in this thread.

QuoteScore: 9:1  :D :D

Yeah, I guess that means I must be wrong. Truth and facts are determined by voting you know. By the way, Hitler was very much for animal rights. he agreed with you guys. Does that make him a good person?

And where I live poaching is a very serious crime. So showing images of poached animals is really just cheap. And anyway, big game hunting is a very small part of hunting in the world. But yet again, I will say I am not a big lover of it. I just think that its funny how you guys can be so sure you know whats best, here, but condemn interventionism on behalf of people in other cases.

QuoteI have considered learning to hunt myself

Just go fishing. It is essentially the same thing (more or less) and fish are better for you.
Thats a great looking black bear by the way. There are so many here in the great lakes area. They can be real pests.

@Hannes
You need a license here to hunt as well. Its highly regulated. And violations of law in this area are usualy federal level crimes. Hunters here support nearly all of our hunting laws.


Lastly for me,
yet again, ill say Im not really for Big game hunting. But I think it should be allowed under regulated conditions.

Quote from: TheBadger on May 26, 2014, 02:59:29 PM
Score: 9:1  :D :D

I did not wrote this to make u wrong Badger at all. I was happy to see the standings that;s all as I am against this Big Hunt crap myself.

Well Hitler was an ...hole regardless he liked the animals or not. This will not describe the person. If I want to judge someone I will see both side of the person as IMHO all of us have some good and bad. If the person has more good than bad like if he is more social than antisocial then I would be most probably friendly with him. Liking the animals was probably the only positive in Hitler.

Quote from: archonforest on May 25, 2014, 03:23:27 PMWhat is this Big Game Hunting? exactly?

"Big Game" are large animals, presumably larger than a human. The word "Game" comes from sports hunters who view it as an unnecessary entertainment activity. On my first trip to sub-Saharan Africa I was taken aback by this term. It seemed to me that the 20th Century had not yet reached Southern Africa. My wife and I were there primarily to watch birds along with the tourists who were there to only observe. We did outnumber the hunters where we stayed but most hunters were probably staying at ranches that catered more to their needs and kept their activities away from tourists who might be offended.

Another term some of you may not have heard of is "The Big Five". It basically means Elephant, Rhino (even though there are two species), Hippo, Lion and Leopard. These are the main animals that people want to make sure they see when they come to Africa (or shoot if you are a hunter).

Quote from: fleetwood on May 26, 2014, 11:27:10 AMBut now I find I want to stalk, harpoon, and eat a wild sardine. I'm so tired of eating them out of the can. After I eat its heart and brain to acquire its bravery and intelligence I'll mount its head on my wall for all to see...

;D
Did you know that a "Sardine" is a young Pilchard, a kind of Herring. Since they must be six inches or less in length to be called a Sardine, a trophy would not be much to brag about and its head would probably not be worthy of mounting on your wall. I would like to see your sardine harpoon.

Also,
Im not really as passionate as it may sound in this topic. But I was surprised to see how many other topics this one relates to when I started to think about it an make arguments. Also, I kinda like that you guys are all against killing animals but presumably eat meat. Thats pretty entertaining.

It's not about killing animals (not the rare ones) to eat them. It's about killing animals for fun. As a sport. As a game.
Big Game Hunting may be some kind of traditional, so why not bringing back real gladiator fights into the collosseum?
Or take bullfight in Spain. Hey, what a great tradition! Torturing bulls for fun.  ::) ::) ::) ::)

Badger, since you are so bent on "Eat or die" idea then I have a proposal that could save you a lot of grief.

Just go to Kwik-e-Mart and buy some pork chops! See? It's faster and easier. No stress connected to death by starvation and you can feed anyone you like! And it's super-savings for you too! No ammo, no expensive hunter license, no rather-expensive rifle required...

I agree with Hannes, and voted against the big game hunting, as I see it as a disgusting way of proving oneself. Might be people with a low self-esteem. It's a primitive urge from early mankind, so I can feel a little (theoretically speaking) what power it could give to overpower a big animal (it's in the genes after all), but I thought civilization should have ended such behaviour by now. But, of course, mankind will probably never throw off all these primitive animal-like urges, such as competition, war, killing.... we're still animals, in the broad sense of the word.

Quote from: TheBadger on May 26, 2014, 08:23:18 PM
you guys are all against killing animals but presumably eat meat.

Don't think this is the case....
I think many of us against the idea of killing animals for fun! If u hunt something down Badger for food and survive I would not say anything. This is part of life. If you not kill that animal it might be killed by a puma or so... so what? Cant do anything about it. Part of the nature. But if you would go out to kill a bear for fun that would be another matter.
And lastly when you kill an animal in order to have food I call that "kill". When someone kills for fun I called that "murder"

Quote from: N-drju on May 27, 2014, 03:26:20 AM
Badger, since you are so bent on "Eat or die" idea then I have a proposal that could save you a lot of grief.

Just go to Kwik-e-Mart and buy some pork chops! See? It's faster and easier. No stress connected to death by starvation and you can feed anyone you like! And it's super-savings for you too! No ammo, no expensive hunter license, no rather-expensive rifle required...

Well thats just my point man. If your eating food from most super markets, your eating factory farm products. And trust me, factory farms treat their animals far worse than hunters do. Your basically eating animals that suffered their entire lives then were killed in a manor that can only be described as terrible. So this is why I mentioned hypocrisy if you read my posts.

Europe has 500,000,000 million people. So you think your all easting natural foods? HA! Your eating animals that were pretty much torchered to death. And the chemistry in the meat will probably give you cancer.

Where I live there are mostly family farms. I can skip the market and buy right from the farm, animal and produce. I can know exactly what Im eating, how the animals and produce were raised/grown. whether the plants are organic natural or gentic modified. And if the animals were grazed or not. I can know if there were hormons used or steroides or antibiotics. And I don't pay the mark up like at the super market.

And when we go hunting or fishing our diet is even better. Fresh water fish are great here (no mercury to speak of). And Venison is one of the leanest meats you can get.

But yet again, Im not for big game hunting. I just don't understand why hunting tags can't be sold when the animals will be killed anyway?
If there is to be a population reduction, why can't the tag be sold? It makes no sense. And I think you know you make no sense or you would not bring up poaching and such which has nothing to do with this thread.

And I would really like to know how you can think bull fighting/running is hunting? Besides, as I understand it, the bull often wins those things. Not that Im for that kind of thing either.

Anyway, keep eating your supermarket mystery meat. Ill keep doing what im doing. And nothing in the world will change. So what? ;)

Got you there...

I know it is slightly off the topic but let me just say...

I've been to many farms. I mean, Poland is mostly about agriculture and farm industry. When you go out of the city it's, like, really hard to turn around without stepping on someone's pastures. I can only tell you one thing - we outlawed growing genetically modified food. It's been legally regulated for around eleven years now. Also, we have a pretty robust system of veterinarian control over farms and industry. What is more we have numerous medium and small sized companies popping up who offer quality food just for the people like you and me. People who are fed up with mass-produced chemical nutrition. I really do know what I'm eating man. In fact, our meat is better than any on even your best family farm. ;)

I don't think you can tell one death is good and other is inhumane. It is still death. What, do you talk to the deer's corpse? Something like "I gave you a good, clean death. A soldiers death." That's ridiculous! :( And why do you think poaching does not belong here?

We all live because something else dies no matter how you look at it. We perceive that animals suffer but plants do not. We will be wiser for it if we understand that animal suffering has played a major part in making animals what they are. That's why the creationists can't comprehend the wisdom of God. Their paradigm doesn't accommodate this reality. So in my book, preservation of biodiversity is a more important issue than preventing animal cruelty. Though we should try to keep suffering to a minimum, saving plant (as well as animal) species from extinction trumps this issue in importance by a wide margin.  For that matter, it should be the main perspective to be considered in using hunting as a tool for wildlife management. In the end, as a theist, I believe we will all be held accountable for what we did with the biodiversity over which we elected ourselves to be in charge. You can always stop an animal from suffering tomorrow but you can never recover a species that took two billion years to evolve into what it was yesterday. The right to suffer goes hand-in-hand with the right to exist as an animal.

If we believe that the individuals that make up the cultivars that man uses for food and other purposes should not be suffering because of man's use of them, then we must come to the conclusion that they should not even exist. They also live because other life dies for them so logic dictates that they should be destroyed. They should not be taking land and resources that should otherwise belong to the wild types they came from which are much more valuable in terms of biodiversity.