A. Well I would not want to pull the "I have seen how at times man can't conquer nature/animals" kind of argument, but in many cases, there are still times when man has not triumphed over nature. I'm from a shitty third world country so it's not an exaggeration. Haha!
Sure, and once every few years a bear manages to eat a drunk college student where I'm from. (Wish I were kidding.) But ,ultimate point is that animals are no longer a threat to us as a species. Sucks to be you and sucks to be the drunk college student who gets eaten by a bear, but the rest of us aren't really frightened that the bears are going to win.
There is also a distinction I must draw here and now between animals and all of nature. Truly, humanity often gets their collective asses kicked by hurricanes and earth quakes and such things could if the correct set of circumstances worked out, destroy us. But the dolphins ain't part of that.
B (and C). Well in some cases of the world, that need to put the populations down stemmed from man laying waste to some species of predators, leading to increased herbivore populations upsetting the flora balance. Meaning, we created the problem in the first place.
Calling it a problem is very strange to me. If by mere existence you mean we created a problem, then sure. But that seems ridiculous...back then the bears tried to eat us or our farm animals. They had to be dealt with our WE would not survive. <--I don't like humans that much, but I like them a hell of a lot in the context of me getting to exist.
That man vs nature survivor instinct can be achieved without sport hunting though. I would understand if you were camping and you were out to feed yourself (because your supplies ran out), eating wild game is legit. I experienced that, having to hunt a wild boar myself. And I don't understand why people would want to kill one and then put up a trophy to show that they triumphed. I found it more natural to eat it, since that's what my primal instinct tells me.
Your ability to understand is neither here nor there. Some people enjoy that sort of thing and you're going to need a damn good argument to say they should forgo that pleasure. Also, it isn't usually a problem to eat the animal and also put it up for show. That's the magic of taxidermy.
But if you want the thrills of a fight, I'd daresay, sign up for a war. Survivor instincts should go waaaaaay up!
We want the thrill of a fight without the chance of death being very real. Still, your joke is taken.
Right right, looked at your study, and here's the little queer problem I see. The fact that the predators are dying is allowing game animals to take over by eating too many trees...game animals are named game animals because of well...yeah, hunting. SO really this study could be taken as further proof that hunting is necessary.
Just because the wolves aren't about to manage the eco system doesn't mean we aren't. This study would only seem to agree that humans hunting is necessary at this point.
What do you mean sentient.
Also it hasn't been proven humans have free will as well.
It has been proven that they have higher brain power and the ability to choose against their own survival instincts. Animals haven't had either of these functions demonstrated at least currently.
You can delete the word animal and put in human.
Can't. And pretend it were true, humans kill each other all the time and that seems alright. So really you'd be asking that animals were treated better than humans treat each other.