You don’t have to kill them to protect the environment and what you say about hunters as efficient and precise killers is incongruent with existing statistics. “I support going vegan” - are you vegan then? Clinging to a violent status quo while refusing to even so much as acknowledge the moral worth of its victims, because you feel as though they are so beneath you that you can take their lives and their bodies at will, is not something I would expect from a leftist, or even a decent person to begin with. Bad take.
So you’re saying that we shouldn’t kill individuals based on how much they destroy the environment actually. Not being native doesn’t warrant execution and neither does being numerous. Some places have programs for neutering certain problematic species and while I would be careful about condoning those programs it certainly beat being shot and bleeding to death.
You could try and reintroduce the predators that were hunted instead of hunting more. And that doesn’t address the point of killing innocents for what, the environment? If environmental damage is a reason to kill someone wouldn’t humans be top of the list?
Hunting still purposefully kills individuals who don’t want to die. “Population control” wouldn’t be necessary if hunting organisations didn’t purposefully increase populations in order to have more to hunt. And eating their flesh is necessary in what way? Why not leave it to the wild animals then?
Why kill innocent chickens for mouth-pleasure tho
I never said “for any reason at all”. I said killing innocents against their will is wrong. I’m not necessarily opposed to all forms of euthanasia. A sterilisation program would not be worse than slaughtering countless individuals and neither would be reintroducing predators that you hunted to extinction.