Cursing and quoting the bible in the same post.
Covered quite a bit of ground there.
But to the point.
“The righteous care for the needs of their animals...”
Yes they do.
Especially when caring for the animals needs mean some must be killed.
With wild animals, the most efficient way is hunting.
The permits and fees paid by the hunter are used to manage the animals and their habitat to maintain a healthy animal population.
“but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.”
And so too the kind acts of some righteous.
Is it better to leave the lion to over populate his habitat, which will endanger the survival of *every other* species in the habitat.
When a lion is hungry, it eats.
It eats whatever it can kill.
An overpopulation of lions would severely depress the wildebeest, for example.
At some point, there won’t be enough wildebeests left to keep the species going.
That would be devastating to the local ecology.
Take just *one* animal species out of the picture and the ecological order is upended.
It could mean the collapse of the entire ecological system.
So which is the best stewardship, judicial hunting of all animals or leaving them all to wither and die?
We must always look beyond the point just in front of our own noses to see the big picture in order to provide the best stewardship of the ecology.
Yeah, nothing quite like dropping an F-bomb trying to prove one’s scriptural perspicacity.
I smell a rat.