This question left me a little bit shocked I've to admit: https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/11631/why-is-hunting-considered-as-a-bad-thing-in-the-us?noredirect=1#comment28684_11631

I didn't want to break down a discussion about hunting. However, I feel like the down-votes and the close-flags are rather emotional. Is it right to do so if you just disagree with a particular topic?

  • I did vote to close but not down vote because I think it's opinion based. There were some highly emotional comments which I considered flagging for a mod to intervene. My decision wasn't emotional though, I just don't think it was really answerable. :)
    – user2766
    Apr 27 '16 at 10:26
  • Now that the question is deleted the link above is broken. Is there still a way to see what the question was or its completely gone? Apr 30 '16 at 20:47
  • Essentially Why is hunting considered as a bad thing in the US? @ErikvanDoren
    – user2766
    May 20 '16 at 8:55

I think there were two problems with the question:

  • you began with a position that actually conflicts with what others see as reality, rather than proposing a purely fact-based question
  • you were asking about the opinion of a population

And in addition, as Liam pointed out, hunting is one of those very emotional topics so it will rarely attract an unbiased, objective answer.

Personally I object to the way most hunting is managed and carried out, but have no problem with hunting to stay alive. Some individuals object to all hunting, or all meat eating. Others may be incredibly supportive of it. There will be no consensus to say why hunting is approved of in country X, even if that premise is actually correct. I know in the UK we assume the US is fanatically pro-hunting, as that is what TV shows us, and we know that at home there is only a tiny pro-hunting minority.


You say you didn't want to break down a discussion about hunting, but that is exactly what the question is asking for.

Why is hunting considered a bad thing


Also, (nearly) everyone knows about the positive effect on the fauna

Moreover, you state there is a difference between the US and Europe, but you provide no evidence for this statement.

Personally, I am against hunting and I normally ignore hunting questions. I do not downvote them and I accept that they are on-topic. They aren't many. But your question specifically goes into the politics of hunting, so if you do not want a discussion about hunting, I have a hard time understanding what it is you're after. Even so, I still did not downvote because I don't like hunting: I downvote because the question is loaded and contains serious unfounded statements.

  • 2
    Perhaps the ethics of hunting should be expressly off topic? It's only going to cause problems...
    – user2766
    Apr 27 '16 at 10:47
  • 1
    Just to clarify I'm not against hunting. I have no personal issues with it. I'm just stating that's it's a highly emotive subject where you will likely never get a consensus.
    – user2766
    Apr 27 '16 at 10:49
  • 1
    Ethical questions are primarily opinion-based and closed for that reason. A discussion on whether hunting is necessary is about the politics of wildlife/nature management and has implications for economy, ecology, agriculture, food, outdoor recreation, etc. All those effects can be studied but I don't think TGO is the best place to address them.
    – gerrit
    Apr 27 '16 at 10:52
  • 2
    Thanks for the input! I've deleted my question. Maybe I'll completely rework it and ask it once again.
    – OddDeer
    Apr 27 '16 at 11:11

Setting aside any emotional reactions, almost any question of the form "Why does X country hold Y opinion" is going to be a bad question. If it wasn't a well known op (as you are) I would actually suspect the op of trolling.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .