I already said that there's a difference - its just not different in any way that actually matters, for what we're talking about. What you're trying to do is concoct this absurd moral discrepancy in your head, because the idea of hunting doesn't seem as 'normal' to you.
Oh my god, this fucking shit again. Well since this assertion keeps coming up from a bunch of internet jackoffs who have never actually tried to converse with a hunter (because oh, how appalling) how about I show you what the actual 'statistics' say?Modern hunting is something people do for pleasure.
https://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/new-re ... z2iIaF0wVQ
There are plenty of hunters who state that the primary reason for hunting is indeed the sport - it's far from the majority. Even among those that state recreation as the primary reason - as the study points out - it's not to say those people aren't collecting resources from the animal, as well. They are, in nearly every instance because there are actually a lot of laws around that sort of thing in the states. There are foraging laws protecting bears, if you have the intention of hunting them without collecting their meat, for example.
With that said - hunting for sport =/= "feels good to blow the life out of something;" That is the most grotesque interpretation you could make from such a statement. It's hard to explain this to someone who has never hunted before, but in the same way that fishing for recreation is not about torturing fish with oxygen deprivation and tricking it onto a spiked hook. That's not what's going through most people's mind when they're doing this.
No, not a difficult job - it's an impossible one. Very, very, very few animals out in the wild are living to the full extent of their potential life; We are pretty much the only animals on the face of the earth who have managed to do this. The vast majority of elk, boar, duck, etc are going to go off to be viciously slaughtered by coyotes, wolves, or mountain lions. And the same thing happens to those animals, as well. Just like the poachers were in the article you linked to in the OP; There's no discrimination to them, here.It makes them feel good to blow the life out of something that is only doing its best to survive in the wild--a difficult enough job without some gun-happy moron with a he-man complex creeping about with an idiot-proof rifle pointed at it.
That is, if they haven't been taken by untreated parasites, bacteria, cancer, or starvation yet. Death by being 'hunted' is a significantly less painful way for these creatures to die. Its convenient for the animal-rights loons to departmentalize this fact from their brain, because it puts them in an awkward position where hunting (regardless of the motivation) actually becomes the more humane option, but they still intuitively feel as though it's wrong.
That's great - humans have hunted for even longer than that. What's your point?Humans have farmed animals for thousands of years.
I completely agree with you that we shouldn't hunt rhinos. But I'm also not sure those two statements can really mix - if it's done due to superstition, it's probably not an act of psychopathy; If someone genuinely believes that a rhino horn holds the power to eternal youth... wouldn't it make sense for that person to try to get their hands on one?The rhino is extremely endangered, and for nothing more than pathetic superstition. The killers are psychopaths who don't give a second thought to the horrible death they are condemning any offspring to--like being pecked to death by vultures. You really think someone like that deserves sympathy??
And I don't know, what about the vultures that have chosen to peck the baby rhino to death? Do they not have any culpability in this? Is this sympathy game just a one-way street for other animals, we have all this culpability for viciously killing them, but they have no culpability when they viciously kill themselves? That seems pretty convenient, to me.