Hunting Debate

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Heres the post: "Ok...look at it this way. In Hawaii there are many species of birds, and when boats started to come to Hawaii, along came rats. Do we call the rats natural predators? No, we don't. Since they were there long after the birds were first put there. Deer were put in North America long before the first humans arrived. So if we consider rats and cats unnatural predators in Hawaii, we must do the same with people in North America."

But I don't consider rats and cats to be unnatural predators in Hawaii, so the argument doesn't apply. Like I said, anything which exists is by definition natural.

Quote by: Matt Natural predation would spare the younger, healthier ones, with more life to live, hunting would not.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of controlling deer population.

Quote by: Matt It could be killed by a natural predator earlier, but at least what killed it needed its flesh to live.

This argument has already been addressed. The "natural predator" will only need the prey's flesh to survive if we humans go to the trouble of introducing said predator to the ecosystem. There's no reason that we should.

Quote by: Matt Well, then go argue about it with Meriam Webster. It is the dictionary definition of the word, and thats what we should follow.

No, it's a definition of overpopulation and it's not the one to which my argument refers.

Quote by: Matt I think neutering the male deer would still be a good option. It would control overpopulation, no natural predators would have to be re-introduced, and hardly any hunting would have to be done to keep the population in check.

I doubt it would be practical or cost-effective to neuter an entire population of deer.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But I don't consider rats and cats to be unnatural predators in Hawaii, so the argument doesn't apply. Like I said, anything which exists is by definition natural. Which isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of controlling deer population. This argument has already been addressed. The "natural predator" will only need the prey's flesh to survive if we humans go to the trouble of introducing said predator to the ecosystem. There's no reason that we should. No, it's a definition of overpopulation and it's not the one to which my argument refers. I doubt it would be practical or cost-effective to neuter an entire population of deer.

How are they natural predators? Explain. They were introduced there, and if you talk to people who study animals, I'm sure they will call them unnatural predators. And you can't argue with National Geographic and other shows like those who call them unnatural.

I find it very hard to debate with you, because I personally cannot understand how you just care that deer are not overpoulated, but not for the deer themselves.

Its not just about overpopulation, its about the deer themselves, and it should be whats better for the deer. People hunting them is not better then introducing natural predators or neuturing the males.

Look at the other definition, basically says the same thing.

Also, so far this debate has been a very 'one animal' debate, so to speak. I find it interesting how people are just focussing on deer (probably because they can use the overpopulation thing as a point), but no one has mentioned the hunting of moose, elk, bear, cougars, wolves, ect. I wonder why...its because there are pretty much no knowledgeable reasons on why to hunt them.

[Gods_Mercenary]

If we're talking about compassion for animals, I think I'd rather be shot than neutered, especially if I don't really have a possibility of devoting myself to studies or something, just wandering around the woods.

[Anmon]

I think hunting should be made mandatory for children, blood them with rabbits etc also teach them to gut and skin them as well.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If we're talking about compassion for animals, I think I'd rather be shot than neutered, especially if I don't really have a possibility of devoting myself to studies or something, just wandering around the woods.

Oh come on, I think a reality check is needed. The two choices: You get your balls chopped off, but you can have a long life and not get hunted, or you get killed with your balls still on (which after your dead you wont care if you have or do not have them).

Quote by: Anmon I think hunting should be made mandatory for children, blood them with rabbits etc also teach them to gut and skin them as well.

I know your little game...'lets see what reaction can I get from Matt by saying this!'. You only reafirm the stereotypical view of hunters, good on ya mate!

Also, when people make comments like those in debates, it actually makes me feel good. Since you have nothing knowledgeable to say, and if you did say something you know you would loose.

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's not the choice, Matt, since a dear doesn't have the entertainment options open to humans, I'd imagine mating is what keeps him going. Does wandering around looking at all the other males do what nature intended while your biggest thrill is raiding my neighbors garden sound like a fun existence? Whats the point of evading coyotes and bears if your life has no meaning? If a deer had thumbs he'd probably take the gun himself and say at least he is no longer a drain on the other dear's resources (O.K. that part was a joke)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt How are they natural predators? Explain. They were introduced there, and if you talk to people who study animals, I'm sure they will call them unnatural predators. And you can't argue with National Geographic and other shows like those who call them unnatural.

Yes I can. People use words incorrectly all the time. The fact remains that nature is defined simply as the physical world and everything in it. Hence anything which exists is natural.

Quote by: Matt I find it very hard to debate with you, because I personally cannot understand how you just care that deer are not overpoulated, but not for the deer themselves. Its not just about overpopulation, its about the deer themselves, and it should be whats better for the deer.

And what's better for the deer is to have a population which doesn't exceed their habitat's ability to cope with them.

Quote by: Matt People hunting them is not better then introducing natural predators or neuturing the males.

Again, neutering is not a practical solution to the problem and you still haven't provided any reason that a deer would prefer to be killed by a wolf than a hunter.

Quote by: Matt Look at the other definition, basically says the same thing.

The other definition refers to population exceeding carrying capacity, symptoms of which can be environmental degredation etc. That's not the same as simply environmental degredation.

Quote by: Matt Also, so far this debate has been a very 'one animal' debate, so to speak. I find it interesting how people are just focussing on deer

Your opening post suggested that all hunting was a bad thing. People are simply using an example to prove this wrong.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary That's not the choice, Matt, since a dear doesn't have the entertainment options open to humans, I'd imagine mating is what keeps him going. Does wandering around looking at all the other males do what nature intended while your biggest thrill is raiding my neighbors garden sound like a fun existence? Whats the point of evading coyotes and bears if your life has no meaning? If a deer had thumbs he'd probably take the gun himself and say at least he is no longer a drain on the other dear's resources (O.K. that part was a joke)

A deer would rather live then getting killed. Period. Lets not get stupid here.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Yes I can. People use words incorrectly all the time. The fact remains that nature is defined simply as the physical world and everything in it. Hence anything which exists is natural. And what's better for the deer is to have a population which doesn't exceed their habitat's ability to cope with them. Again, neutering is not a practical solution to the problem and you still haven't provided any reason that a deer would prefer to be killed by a wolf than a hunter. The other definition refers to population exceeding carrying capacity, symptoms of which can be environmental degredation etc. That's not the same as simply environmental degredation. Your opening post suggested that all hunting was a bad thing. People are simply using an example to prove this wrong.

I'm seeing you are trying to make your own 'laws', like saying the definition of the dictionary wasn't right or now, saying those aren't unnatural predators. Your point of view on something does not trump most peoples, including most people who study animals, views. So unless you can find where people who study animals say "rats and cats on Hawaii are natural predators", you are wrong.

Meanings of natural:

"being in accordance with or determined by nature"

"occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural"

"growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>"

Those are some meanings of natural for you. Came from:

natural - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Look at the last one, natural is considered something that has not been toyed with by humans.

In most places in Canada, where alot of deer hunting takes place, the deer are not overpopulated. And only in some places are deer in the USA. I have a question, do you agree then where deer are not overpopulated and wont become overpopulated, that they shouldn't be hunted? Your main point is that deer hunting is needed to keep the population down, and since in many, many places deer are not overpopulated, you don't have any good reasons to kill them there, do you?

Its pratical at saving lives...which is more important then money. I did, I said deer would prefer natural predators since they would go after the ones who will die sooner, like sick or old ones, and the younger ones who have more life to live, are spared. Plus deer, after they are dead, know how they were killed and know what happened to there body. I'd much rather know my remains went to help another creature live, then see my head hanging up on a wall and seeing my meat wasn't needed.

Where did I say 'all' in my opening post?

They haven't proved me wrong so far. Its fine if people want to focus on the one thing they think they have the best chance of winning on, but if no one takes me on about hunting of other species, I guess I win on those.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt I know your little game...'lets see what reaction can I get from Matt by saying this!'. You only reafirm the stereotypical view of hunters, good on ya mate! Also, when people make comments like those in debates, it actually makes me feel good. Since you have nothing knowledgeable to say, and if you did say something you know you would loose.

Its not a game Matt, I was not trying for any reaction from you either, tbh I gave you no thought at all.
I believe hunting is a good thing, I enjoy it and my nephews do too, we go rabbit shooting sometimes, its challenging and it helps remove an introduced pest from Europe as well.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Its not a game Matt, I was not trying for any reaction from you either, tbh I gave you no thought at all. I believe hunting is a good thing, I enjoy it and my nephews do too, we go rabbit shooting sometimes, its challenging and it helps remove an introduced pest from Europe as well.

Well, I do doubt that, the comment was an instigating one if I've ever seen one, "blood them with rabbits". Also, why do you think it should be mandatory?

Do you use the rabbits you kill (eg. eat the meat)?

In a city near me, there is a rabbit overload. Tons of rabbits all over the city parks, lawns, ect. The city is now catching the bunnies and neutering the males. They are also considering making a special 'bunny reserve', a fenced in place, probably like 5 acres.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I'm seeing you are trying to make your own 'laws', like saying the definition of the dictionary wasn't right or now, saying those aren't unnatural predators. Your point of view on something does not trump most peoples, including most people who study animals, views. So unless you can find where people who study animals say "rats and cats on Hawaii are natural predators", you are wrong. Meanings of natural: "being in accordance with or determined by nature" "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural" "growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow>" Those are some meanings of natural for you. Came from: natural - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Look at the last one, natural is considered something that has not been toyed with by humans.

Well, that isn't included in OLD at all and is one in about twenty eight definitions in MWD.

But I'll come clean here, Matt, and say that I have no idea what point this originally related to. So, what does that fact that humans interfered in the population of deer have to do with the question of whether we hunt them?

Quote by: Matt I have a question, do you agree then where deer are not overpopulated and wont become overpopulated, that they shouldn't be hunted?

In a place such as a national park, in which the deer population is kept at a optimal level, I have no problem with banning hunting.

Quote by: Matt Its pratical at saving lives...which is more important then money.

Emotional nonsense. Why should we be forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money in order to save the lives a herd of deer? To put it bluntly, what have they ever done for us?

Also, you haven't properly addressed Merc's point about neutering being worse than death. Two of the greatest instincts for an animal are survival and reproduction. An animal can't suffer if its ability to survive is taken away from it, since it's dead and can't feel anything. The same doesn't apply for an animal losing its ability to reproduce.

Quote by: Matt I did, I said deer would prefer natural predators since they would go after the ones who will die sooner, like sick or old ones, and the younger ones who have more life to live, are spared.

This will benefit neither the deer which is killed, nor the species as a whole. Also, I've still not seen evidence that hunters prefer to kill young and healthy deer.

Quote by: Matt Plus deer, after they are dead, know how they were killed and know what happened to there body.

How can they know anything after they're dead?

Quote by: Matt I'd much rather know my remains went to help another creature live, then see my head hanging up on a wall and seeing my meat wasn't needed.

You're not a deer though.

Quote by: Matt Where did I say 'all' in my opening post?

The post refers to hunting; not to hunting animals other than those which will become overpopulated.

[Anmon]

[=Matt;495706]Well, I do doubt that, the comment was an instigating one if I've ever seen one, "blood them with rabbits". Also, why do you think it should be mandatory?

Sorry Matt, but I gave you no thought at all when I made that post, I was blooded when I was nine with rabbits as well.
It should be mandatory so kids know survival skills (gutting and skinning, draining the blood out, and cooking it on a stick over a fire) so when they become adults they are prepared and not squeamish about killing animals if they have to.

Do you use the rabbits you kill (eg. eat the meat)?

There were a lot sometimes, we usually took home a few to throw in the freezer, the rest we just left there.

In a city near me, there is a rabbit overload. Tons of rabbits all over the city parks, lawns, ect.

You should be shooting them then, they taste good.
It makes sense, food prices going up, bills to pay, and here a free source of available food, that is high in protein, cut down on bills.

The city is now catching the bunnies and neutering the males. They are also considering making a special 'bunny reserve', a fenced in place, probably like 5 acres.

Will they be killing them eventually and selling them for meat?

[Gods_Mercenary]

A deer would rather live then getting killed. Period. Lets not get stupid here.

Prove it, the only basis we have to go on is our own sense of compassion, which depends on our own perspective, which for me involves enjoying a usually quick death rather than a shadow of an existence. That is, unless you read deer minds, in which case I'll cede the point and to their wishes.

[Gods_Mercenary]

. I'd much rather know my remains went to help another creature live, then see my head hanging up on a wall and seeing my meat wasn't needed.

You'd rather have your bowels ripped out while you are still alive than take a bullet to the heart or lung and die within all likelyhood in a few minutes, wow, you're sommpassionate. I'd also like to point out that a deer probably doesn't see it that way, as it most likely would deny a wolf a meal any chance it got.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Well, that isn't included in OLD at all and is one in about twenty eight definitions in MWD. But I'll come clean here, Matt, and say that I have no idea what point this originally related to. So, what does that fact that humans interfered in the population of deer have to do with the question of whether we hunt them? In a place such as a national park, in which the deer population is kept at a optimal level, I have no problem with banning hunting. Emotional nonsense. Why should we be forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money in order to save the lives a herd of deer? To put it bluntly, what have they ever done for us? Also, you haven't properly addressed Merc's point about neutering being worse than death. Two of the greatest instincts for an animal are survival and reproduction. An animal can't suffer if its ability to survive is taken away from it, since it's dead and can't feel anything. The same doesn't apply for an animal losing its ability to reproduce. This will benefit neither the deer which is killed, nor the species as a whole. Also, I've still not seen evidence that hunters prefer to kill young and healthy deer. How can they know anything after they're dead? You're not a deer though. The post refers to hunting; not to hunting animals other than those which will become overpopulated.

Most of the other 17 definitions related to human emotions or things like that, if I remember correctly.

No, it related to me calling humans unnatural predators in North America. You haven't given me any evidence that we are natural predators in N. America, except for your opinion that everything is natural.

Hunting is already banned in national parks here in Canada I believe. But what about banning hunting of deer in non-park areas that won't become overpopulated?

Well, they have fed early settlers to North America with life saving food, and there skins were used as clothes, when people couldn't afford or couldn't get cotton, or other materials to make clothes out of. Also, we can't always say "Well, since that deer isn't doing anything for me, I'll go kill it!". If everyone had that opinion, this earth would be a dead zone, literally. We have to give...not just take from the earth.

How do you know that? How do you know that breeding is thee most important thing in a deers life? Have you telepathicly talked to one before? I know breeding for animals is very important, but that isn't all thats to life. Is breeding all there to life with humans? If you can some how prove that living with out balls is worse then being killed, be my guest. Men tend to put an emotional thing onto balls, and they put it onto other animals too, ever see the neuter your pet debate here? Only men, if I remember correctly, were saying that neutering can be bad.

I have a question for you, would you rather die right now, or live and get neutered? I know I would choose the latter one.

Have you ever seen a hunter go after a very old or weak deer? I haven't. I just googled deer hunting, and it seems alot of it is about "and we went looking for the biggest buck..." sort of things. Do you ever see a hunter come back and say "Look at this nice old sick deer I killed!"?

They do know what happens to them after they die....just like we would. Do you want some evidence?

Quote by: Anmon Sorry Matt, but I gave you no thought at all when I made that post, I was blooded when I was nine with rabbits as well. It should be mandatory so kids know survival skills (gutting and skinning, draining the blood out, and cooking it on a stick over a fire) so when they become adults they are prepared and not squeamish about killing animals if they have to. There were a lot sometimes, we usually took home a few to throw in the freezer, the rest we just left there. You should be shooting them then, they taste good. It makes sense, food prices going up, bills to pay, and here a free source of available food, that is high in protein, cut down on bills. Will they be killing them eventually and selling them for meat?

I actually think that would be an ok idea to do in school for kids, it would turn them to anti hunting faster then a.... "Mommy, I saw a dead rabbit someone killed today! I never want to do that to a poor bunny!". Though I think making a kid do that is cruel, and I'm sure the kid would be traumatized.

Why do they need to learn how to hunt ('survial skills')? You don't have to hunt to survive anymore. Why should they not be squeamish about killing animals? They should be squeamish about it...so they kill less.

So the rest were wasted for your enjoyment? I'm sorry, but that is just cruel.

Why would I want to snuff the life out of a poor animal that I didn't need? If I lived in that city, I'd be neutering the males myself (first learn how too) so I could put them with the females in an inclosure I would make for them.

No, the rabbits would be able to live out there lives in peace. None would be killed or eaten.

[guitars_are_fly]

Quote by: Technosoul If you eat a living plant are you sure it is dead before you bite into it? Did you know that plants are aware of what is happening?

Surely, we're not debating that plants are entitled to civil rights? That would be completely stupid. Of course they don't. They don't think. They don't reason. They don't communicate.

It seems like we should be debating whether or not killing animals for enjoyment is right or wrong. If that's the debate, I have to say that no animal-- not even an entire population of animals -- is equal to one of any of the least of the human species. It is a grim reflection on our human culture that we question the rights of animals to their life, but deny the rights of fellow men.

I suppose my point is thus: What is the difference between a cow and a human?

Let's explore that:
A cow is not a human. It is not of the species Homo sapiens. It does not "think" or "reason" beyond a limited scope, and no amount of bovine physical or mental development will render a cow able to do think or reason. Cows were domesticated by humans. Cows have been consumed by humans for food for thousands of years.

Humans are human. They are of the species Homo sapiens. They are able to think and reason -- to extreme degrees -- and from the womb, display faculties to develop mental capacities surpassing the smartest of lesser species. Humans domesticated cows. We have been eating them for food for thousands of years. There will never be a Great Cow Rebellion, where frustrated members of some factious Bovine Alliance will rise up against the tyrannical oppression of the "greater species."

Animals serve a succint purpose: they create a food chain. At the bottom of the food chain, dirt is eaten by worms. At the top, everything palatable is eaten by humans. We are THE apex predator. Generally speaking, we always have been. No one can reasonably contend that your average human technology is threatened by your average primate technology.

Look at it like this: predators are equipped with weapons by nature. All of our are. Lions have big, pointy teeth. Tigers have big, pointy claws. Sharks have a whole bunch of big, pointy teeth. Humans have intellects. Humans have the capacity to create weapons. That is our greatest weapon: our intellect. Our minds place us atop any food chain.

Cows did not invent the wheel.
Pigs did not harness fire.
Deer did not invent automobiles.
Rabbits did not build cities.
Monkies did not put a man on the moon.
Donkeys did not elect George W. Bush president.
(Elephants did.)

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Prove it, the only basis we have to go on is our own sense of compassion, which depends on our own perspective, which for me involves enjoying a usually quick death rather than a shadow of an existence. That is, unless you read deer minds, in which case I'll cede the point and to their wishes.

So you are saying you would rather die then live with out balls (I'm assuming you are a guy)?

I can only prove it with common sense. Common sense=choice between dead or alive....choose alive. We know most of us would rather have a life missing balls, then death. We all know (hopefully) that life isn't all about sex and mating (though I'm sure some guys would argue that....).



Next time I see a deer, I'll be sure to ask him what he would like.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You'd rather have your bowels ripped out while you are still alive than take a bullet to the heart or lung and die within all likelyhood in a few minutes, wow, you're sommpassionate. I'd also like to point out that a deer probably doesn't see it that way, as it most likely would deny a wolf a meal any chance it got.

I don't think cougars have changed to that way of killing....or is that a new trend on the front page news? Cougars in places where they still exsist (they have basically be killed off in the east, by no other, but humans) are thee biggest predator of deer. Wolves do kill deer, but not to the same extent (they like going after elk). Wolves kill pretty fast in most cases (with deer)...probably on average equal to a hunters bullet. Also, alot of bullets aren't placed in the heart or lungs, and it can cause a very painful death if a bullet is misplaced.

Quote by: guitars_are_fly Surely, we're not debating that plants are entitled to civil rights? That would be completely stupid. Of course they don't. They don't think. They don't reason. They don't communicate. It seems like we should be debating whether or not killing animals for enjoyment is right or wrong. If that's the debate, I have to say that no animal-- not even an entire population of animals -- is equal to one of any of the least of the human species. It is a grim reflection on our human culture that we question the rights of animals to their life, but deny the rights of fellow men. I suppose my point is thus: What is the difference between a cow and a human? Let's explore that: A cow is not a human. It is not of the species Homo sapiens. It does not "think" or "reason" beyond a limited scope, and no amount of bovine physical or mental development will render a cow able to do think or reason. Cows were domesticated by humans. Cows have been consumed by humans for food for thousands of years. Humans are human. They are of the species Homo sapiens. They are able to think and reason -- to extreme degrees -- and from the womb, display faculties to develop mental capacities surpassing the smartest of lesser species. Humans domesticated cows. We have been eating them for food for thousands of years. There will never be a Great Cow Rebellion, where frustrated members of some factious Bovine Alliance will rise up against the tyrannical oppression of the "greater species." Animals serve a succint purpose: they create a food chain. At the bottom of the food chain, dirt is eaten by worms. At the top, everything palatable is eaten by humans. We are THE apex predator. Generally speaking, we always have been. No one can reasonably contend that your average human technology is threatened by your average primate technology. Look at it like this: predators are equipped with weapons by nature. All of our are. Lions have big, pointy teeth. Tigers have big, pointy claws. Sharks have a whole bunch of big, pointy teeth. Humans have intellects. Humans have the capacity to create weapons. That is our greatest weapon: our intellect. Our minds place us atop any food chain. Cows did not invent the wheel. Pigs did not harness fire. Deer did not invent automobiles. Rabbits did not build cities. Monkies did not put a man on the moon. Donkeys did not elect George W. Bush president. (Elephants did.)

Umm...and your point is? Lets use your 'a human is more important then a entire population' logic...see how it goes:

You have a choice...kill every cougar everywhere or a human. With what you said, you would choose to kill every cougar. Now what happens...let examine it...

Every cougar on the earth is killed, you create outrage among millions of people because of your choice. A few years later, people start noticing very high populations of deer, everywhere. The ecosystem is very out of balance, and theres not enough hunters to keep the populations down. The deer run everywhere, even on the highway it great numbers, more then before. A family of 5 is just heading to a relatives place for Christmas...a deer runs into the middle of the road...the car crashes into it...and the front page news story reads "2 Chlidren killed in deer accident". Just like that, you have taken one more human life then you saved, not the mention all the other crashes and deaths which have happened with the heightened population. I know alot of deer crashes happen now, but the numbers would be doubled if not tripled with out cougars and wolves.

Cows did not cause global warming.
Dogs didn't cause AIDs to sweep all over Africa.
Sharks didn't make polution a killer in big cities.
Cats were never part of the Halocaust.
Snakes never caused the slaughtering of Rwanda people.
Gorillas never throwed nuclear bombs on cities.
Goldfish never started the first World War.

And I could just go on and on...

[Anmon]

[=Matt;495847] I actually think that would be an ok idea to do in school for kids, ,,

not really, with our current nannystate school system, you would have teachers presenting it as a bad thing, going over the top as usual to influence the kids.

it would turn them to anti hunting faster then a.... "Mommy, I saw a dead rabbit someone killed today! I never want to do that to a poor bunny!".

You cant kill a dead rabbit matt, its already dead.
And this kid here sounds like a complete wuss, 'be quiet kid and and grow a set.'

Though I think making a kid do that is cruel, and I'm sure the kid would be traumatized.

Yes everything seems to traumatize these kids easily in your view?
I think you must have weak minded easily frightened kids in mind then.
wusses

Why do they need to learn how to hunt ('survial skills')? You don't have to hunt to survive anymore.

You may have to one day but, this world is falling to bits, and if we are reduced to depending on survival skills again, the children taught to hunt will logically have a better chance of survival than the ones who dont know how.
Try seeing how squeamish you feel about dead animals when theres nothing else much to eat.

Why should they not be squeamish about killing animals? They should be squeamish about it...so they kill less.

See above point.

So the rest were wasted for your enjoyment? I'm sorry, but that is just cruel.

No it was to help keep the rabbit population down, and to improve our aim.
they all died for a reason, not just slaughtered for the hell of it.

Why would I want to snuff the life out of a poor animal that I didn't need? If I lived in that city, I'd be neutering the males myself (first learn how too) so I could put them with the females in an inclosure I would make for them.

Why bother to neuter and put them in cages, just kill them.

No, the rabbits would be able to live out there lives in peace. None would be killed or eaten.

There just rabbits, their a food source thats meant to be eaten, and if theres too many of them, then blow them away.