I apologize because this isn't exactly MMA related. But there seems to be significant discussion here since Dan Hardy called Matt Hughes a piece of s--t after Hughes' hunting show was announced.
Here are the options as I see them for managing wildlife:
1A - Confinement - Humans and animals keep to their own areas. As prey flourishes their food dwindles and the population becomes unhealthy. As predators flourish they over-kill prey. As the predators die out the prey flourishes and the whole thing cycles.
1B - None - Animals and humans encroach on each others land. People are killed by animals. Animals are killed by people to protect themselves, crops, and livestock.
2 - Management - Hunting is permitted and regulated to keep predators and prey in relative balance, and overall numbers in check. Some get enjoyment from hunting. Local economies get money from taxes, travel, lodging, food service, tourism, etc.
Some people seem to think that animals in the wild die of old age with all their fat grandchildren at their side. They don't. They generally die an ugly death of disease, starvation, or as prey.
Sure, some "hunts" are in enclosed areas shooting baited animals at close range; calling that sport is bullshit. But they aren't all like that, and either way is that a reason not to go with option #2? Is there any reason not to go with option #2?
As far as I'm concerned option(s) 1 is a waste of natural resources where the animals die anyway. So why does participating in option #2 makes Hughes a "real piece of s--t"?