Opinions: Final Thoughts on Big Game Hunting

15 Comments

1. I’m on the ranchers’ side. On one half, it is good to kill animals if more come, but not to have them be extinct. That woman is NUTZO if she thinks that will help the animals.

2. I am on the ranchers side too. I just think he is right. He is right about averting.

3. I am on the rancher’s side of it as well. I think getting the money from hunting 1/10 and breeding the endangered animals is great! The Animals Rights woman is not giving anything to the animals that they do not have already. She is making their lives worse and even worse giving them a habitat where they will not survive. THAT IS RIDICULOUS! They have been living happily for a long time so why take it away? That lady in my opinion is CRAZY! 100% ranchers all the way!

4. I think that both of the ranches are fine. It doesn’t matter WHERE the endangered animals are located (as long as that place is safe), but it does matter whether or not they have a chance of surviving. At the ranch where they are allowed to shoot 10% of a herd, that’s a 90% chance they survive. If they are at the reserve, or worse, in the wild, they have a 90% chance (in my opinion) to get killed. Plus, that woman that wants the animals in Africa kind of creeps me out. If you asked me, I think it’d be appropriate for the animals to be at the ranches.

5. I think that I an half n’ half. I think that the Texas ranch is fine other than the fact that it is a hunting ranch. But I really don’t get the point that you have to hunt the animals to keep them alive. Then again I think that woman that is incharge of the Animal Rights government is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY CRAZY, I mean she is supposed to keep animals safe and still she would rather dead or extinct than living on the ranch! Though is they had to kill the animals I think it would be best if
   they only had one animal killed every three months, because that would make sense so that they would have more room for new animals.

6. I think I’m stuck in the middle because at the ranch its not their real habitat but if their getting killed on the ranch is just mean. But they didn’t kill all of then they just killed one from each pack at the least. But thats not all I also think they should got back to their natural habitat so they can live the life the way you should. And thats my opinion.

   • i feel that at that price for every killing is breeding about 20 more and that is better than 0 ! I also think that Texas is an goog as long as they are helthy and not all dead. They seem to be happy, and by moveing them will not do a thing other then hert them and lose a fite that she thought she was fighting but rally just is keeping them from knowing that she was just keeping them from the truth which is that they are keeping the animals alive wether she likes it or not.

7. Notice that on the ranch there are no predators so humans have to acts the predator. Mr. Mason said that 2 people in are class die for the rest to live when also 3 students enter the class to substitute. I think that if you want a more fair hunting ground make everyone use swords.

8. I think that the people that own the ranches are right. There saving the animals that were getting killed in there natural habitat of Africa. I also think that that lady that is against the ranches is totally wrong. Even though they are getting killed it’s only 10% of a herd that is getting shot. By doing what she is doing she is killing the animals not saving them. Out of the couple animals that are shout tons more come. A few endangered animals for more than that are shot is definitely worth it.

9. I think that it is inhumane and unnatural to let animals live on hunting ranges when 1/10 will be killed. No matter what the numbers, I still think that it is wrong to kill at all. I would much rather that they live out their lives on Nature Preserves in Senegal in their Native habitats. Even humans will go extinct hundreds of millions of years from now humans will go extinct and die out. That is not to say that we have caused extinction among many, many species.

10. I partially agree, but at the same time I’m furious. Yes, sure, if you send these antelopes to Africa they’re going to get mowed down by a predator, but isn’t dying by how this good green planet better than getting shot? For example, let’s say there’s estimates of a nuclear apocalypse. You buy a bunker and share it with a few other people. Years later, you run out of food and start going cannibal on each other, then eventually die. Isn’t it just better to die by the nuclear explosion NATURALLY instead and get it over with? Exactly. It probably is much more painful to get eaten by your friend who also is human opposed to just dying by nature? It is.
    In conclusion, I’m not actually sure which side to choose. Being eaten is a slow and painful death, but if you’re natural enemies, that’s how it works! Foxes eat bunnies (I’m ruling out Zootopia’s plot), wolves eat deer, birds eat worms, etc.
    Meh. I’m not sure.
    🙂

11. I think that keeping the animals on the ranches in Texas is good for keeping the animals safe, but I think that killing the animals is not the right thing to do. I am also wondering why the ranch owners would kill the animals before selling them. Why don’t they sell the animals to a reserve or zoo because you would think that you would earn more money from selling a living animal than a dead one.

12. I am in the middle I think the numbers on the Texas ranch are good. I do not understand that the lady would rather have them extinct in there home land. Basically I’m more on the Texas ranch but they could give some of there animals to their homeland. So I’m a leaning on the Texas ranch but they could be in there homeland doing this. 🙂

    • same with me

13. I think that you can kill them. You can kill them so you can make more. If you could make ten out of one one could produce one hundred.