Not through properly managed sport hunting, in fact the general consensus is that it helps the species being hunted because it has to be conserved for hunters to hunt it.

Where was the mistake of killing giraffes for sport learned?

I personally think that people being against hunting, which after millions of years is clearly instinctive, is the ultimate example of socialization.

But this is part of my point, you can't really explain recreational sex to a pre-pubescent child because recreational sex is largely instinctive. You can explain sex logically to a child. You can explain hunting logically to anyone, but if they haven't done it I don't think they fully understand the recreational aspect of it. That was my experience anyway.

So you witnessed it, you didn't do it. Not the same thing. Anyone can go out and witness it. You can videotape it and watch it on TV.

Yes, it's more humane imo to go sport hunting, because the animal has at least lived a somewhat natural life, unlike an animal raised purely for consumption.

And that animal may not have had that life without hunting, because if it wasn't popular to hunt them, there would be no need to conserve them.

In my experience, hunting is more baiting or drive by's.

I'm all for leaving the fluffy animals alone and making hunting more viable by releasing convicted criminals into the forest and having the fat hicks hunt them down. It would certainly make the "sport" less one sided

My point was that while most of us might reasonably decide that we wouldn't enjoy having a man thrust himself up our Gary without having to try it, your creed,

"It's easy to be against something you've never done. Go do it then form an opinion, that's what I always say to people who are against it."

would seem to demand that you give it a spin straight after you put down the meth.

This is a dodgy assertion, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's cows, for example, lead a pampered life sheltered from disease and predators. Not being cows, we're ill placed to speculate if blundering around a forest freely for a couple of years then being fatally injured by some blundering amateur is a better deal than being well tended to before being shot by a professional but it's not obvious that one's better than the other.

But you're talking about a physical assault on a person, most people have been physically assaulted so they've formed an opinion.

The point I'm making is that hunting is an instinct, obviously a million years ago there were no hunting rifles but the principle is the same. If you haven't actually done it, you can't really know what it's like.

In which case you can't argue it either way. Just as likely hunting is better than being killed in an abattoir than vice-versa.

Of course it's an opinion, you can't prove it one way or the other.

For the animal. The argument against is that it degrades the hunter, like assaulting people but with less chance of a fair fight resulting.

I have to disagree that hunting is instinctive.

Back in the day it may have been because humans needed to for food. We don't need to anymore. And as omnivores even if all the shops etc disappeared - those that couldn't hunt would probably live on wild strawberries and nettles (or whatever you find growing in the bush).

Hunting is purely a sport with the added bonus of having some noms at the end of it.

It is enough to know I found it sad, upsetting and disgusting.

One person's food is another person's poison and all that

Indeed - and that was only my opinion, obviously.