First off, as I pointed out earlier, the problem lies not only with the ethics of the farmers / ranchers who hire them, it also lies with their UNBELIEVABLE STUPIDITY. Instead of PAYING money to hire these losers, they could actually make money by charging hunters, who would be somewhere on an order 10 to 100 times as ethical as these jokers.
Hunters paying a hundred or two hundred dollars to harvest a pig or two will do very little, likely nothing in terms of affecting the hog population. This doesn't begin to address the logistic/liability problems of having many strangers (it would have to be a huge number to get enough paying people to kill enough hogs to matter) on your land. Opening the land up creates a whole different set of problems and expenses and is simply unlikely to affect the population. I know of people who hunt hogs nearly every night of the week and the population is still going strong in the areas the hunt.
(at least until a zealous prosecutor gets a hold of these videos and takes a look at the vaguely- and broadly-worded animal cruelty laws and decides to charge them)
I take it you are not an attorney, have no legal training, and don't even bother to look up laws before referencing them. Maybe in the blue states they draft animal cruelty laws that way but where I live they specifically have provision exempting hunting and agricultural practices. Also the state many places uses similar tactics themselves to control the population of various animals. If one can put a catch dog in a pen with a trapped hog to train it and be perfectly clear of such laws shooting from a helicopter would be a mighty stretch. Go look up ALL pertinent laws before before you spout such non sense.
Others have sufficiently pointed out how stupid your comments about move to the city and get a job are.
But you either have a conscience and morals
That is a good logical fallacy to throw in there. It is on par with the rest of your post in terms of logic and soundness of argumentation.
I find it interesting that you feel free to assign your values and perceptions of certain actions to people and assert they are definitive. Do you hunt at all? Many people point out that what you refer to as "ethical hunting" causes animals to be wounded, lost to die slow deaths, and even in better situations exposed to cruel pain and torture. They assert correctly that few hunters need to hunt to eat and thus it is simply needlessly inflicting pain on poor animals for the pleasure of killing. They assert that anyone with morals would not condone it. Your assertions echo theirs, the line is simply drawn in a different place. Who is right?
Are you a vegetarian? Look at industrial farming practices. Look at where your chicken come from. People argue that eating it is immoral and no one with a conscious would ever do it. They also sound a lot like your soap box post.
Continuing to insist that it does demonstrates the number of sociopaths in our society, which is frightening, frankly.
What is scary is how many people are perfectly willing to think that their subjective views of right and wrong ought to be binding on other people. It is even more frightening when people exhibit a clear lack of understanding of the underlying issues and still insist their views are correct, morally superior and the only acceptable view point. It reminds be of anti gun folk, anti hunting folk, and radical Islamists amongst others.
To say normal hunting can't control the hog population ignores what far fewer hunters armed with far less powerful/efficient weapons did to the bison herds of the Great Plains.
This statement ignores the fact that Bison are radically diferent than hogs in several important respects. For example when was the last time you saw a bison being trailed by six calves? You may want to look into the gestation periods of the two animals as well.
Insanity such as "calling in an air strike" simply isn't needed nor is it close to cost effective.
How do you purport to know that with out knowing the cost of damages from the hogs and the cost of hiring these people to shoot them. Large farming operations are out to make a profit. I have studied enough economics to a little bit about marginal costs and marginal benefits and how they drive peoples decisions. I am guessing that if a business looking to turn a profit has resulted to hiring them there is a good chance they believe it is cost effective. With out knowing the numbers I cannot say, but neither can you.
It would be interesting to hear how people would change their tune if
their livelihoods were at stake.
As others have said this is not hunting it is population control and it is likely needed in many places.
