Hunting can be green just like anything else. It all depends on what you hunt with and what you are hunting. If you hunt with lead buckshot and don't cleanup after yourself, I wouldn't call it green.

Much of the US national parks system owes its existence to hunters who setup the system when they noticed overhunting of certain wild animals. Furthermore, if certain animals weren't hunted they could become overpopulated and starve, as well as start to become viewed as nuisances which are then viewed as enemies and hunted to extinction.

Granted, I personally wouldn't hunt as I'm against killing, but that doesn't mean I don't see its value.

I am all for hunting. I haven't met many hunters that don't clean up after them self. As ling as they eat what they kill of course. We are among these creatures natural predators.

What utter nonsense! Hunting is hardly green. Even if you walk to the wilderness and hunt your prey with darts on foot. Even if you are hunting for food, buying your food at the supermarket surely involves much less in terms of energy and environmental tolls to bring meat to the table. Think about it- if every person had to drive to the wilderness (invariably in some kind of gas gulping truck or SUV) to hunt for their own meat, imagine all of the lead discharged, all of the fuel consumed, all of the car emissions, all of the forests destroyed by foot traffic and all of the animals that will be supplanted from their natural habitat or are otherwise too stressed to breed.

Any way you look at it, the consumption of meat is harmful to the environment. The energy expended to cultivate and process meat, the emissions from belching/farting livestock, the coliform polution from wastewater run-off, and numerous other impacts. Imagine how much less of our GNP we would be spending on healthcare if people would stop eating animal-based food and start eating foods based on vegetables, fruits and grains. The last time I checked, veggies did not cause hypercholesterolemia, hardening of the arteries, or cancer. We could be spending this money on developing renewable energy resources, building green low-income housing and pursuing other environmental causes.

The last time I checked, veggies did not cause hypercholesterolemia, hardening of the arteries, or cancer.

Any kind of unbalanced diet can cause anyone trouble. Stuff enough avacadoes, cococut oil, and sugar down your gullet and see what happens. Just because something's vegetarian doesn't make it healthy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting so long as it is legal. Without hunting, like some have said before me, there would be a definite population boom amongst all hunted species (deer, elk, turkey, bear, antelope etc.). We as people, from the time we walked upright, have hunted animals. Yes, we have rose to the astounding numbers of 9 billion people and the animals numbers have lowered, but thats where hunting licensing comes into play. As long as everyone hunts legally with license in tow there should be no complaint about hunting from anyone, but at the same time hunting should not be solely a "Trophy Sport," but instead a "Sport" in which the "Trophy" is a year's worth of wild game for the hunter's consumption.

Then there is the obvious "suffering" of the hunted. Yes, I do believe it can be an awful suffering for a recently stricken animal. I myself have been hunting with relatives of mine, although I did not hunt myself, I did enjoy watching and found no harm in it at all (given I was only 10 or so at the time). My uncle simply shot the elk, we went to it and to "put it out of its misery" he slit its throat. Like I said, given my age, I though it was cool how she then started gargling and choking on her own blood trying to get air into her slit airway, but have now come to realize that that in itself did not "put the animal out of its misery," but instead made things worse for it, for a shorter amount of time. I think instead that a smaller hand gun would be more appropriate for a hit to the head that would make things more immediate.

I myself don't think I would ever be able to shoot an animal, go on another hunting trip yes, but never hunt myself. It isn't for me and maybe not for you either, but those that do enjoy it should not be shunned because so. Its a good thing, no doubt.

Hunting will always be here, and with proper precautions the animals will be here as well.

I hunt with a bow and arrow.Not lead.I reserve bullets for criminals.My police dept issues full metal jacket rounds.They are copper.The inner core is lead.The jacket will not come off without major help.Like shooting a steel plate.

Isn't this a "too many people" issue, again (like every environmental issue)?

Ed's case argues too many people hunting will tear up the environment. Others argue domesticated meat production is destroying the environment. But I think both argements are based on the fact that our population has exceeded it's sustainable limit.

Native Americans were not destroying their environment by hunting. So, I don't think "anyway you look at it, the consumption of meat is harmful to the environment." And I don't think driving to the woods is any different than driving to the store. Here in Oregon, the store is often farther away and visited frequently.

Look at how the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and their subsequent hunting of caribou, has restored the FLORA to a healthier, more balanced state.

I think hunting is way down on the bottom of the list, with other activities like camping, and going to the movies. If we get to the point that these types of activities are our main concern, we will be doing very well.

The natural way to cut global emissions in half across the board? Have half as many children. Plus, that generation, and those to follow, can lead richer lives than we are, with the bonus of the advancements we've made in sustainable living.

I am happy to see that hunting is being considered as a "possible" green activity. I doubt any of the people claiming that hunting either is not or cannot be green have ever hunted or they would not be speaking so negatively about it.

Hunting (and gathering) allows the land to exist in as near to a natural state as possible and still be used to supply food for people. You may only need to hunt a few times a year and most people hunt on foot with less impact than a hiker. I would go so far as to suggest hunting probably has less impact on the land than raising a similar quantity of sustainable organic produce.

Please try to keep an open mind on this.