Hunting is evil
- Thread starter Red_Wind
- Start date
- Status
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
First, paragraphs are your friend.
I'd love to see the study that indicates does have more fawns when the population is depleted by hunting.
It's my understanding that wolves are not very good at thinning herds, and they mainly eat things like squirrels and mice. They do take deer, and other large animals, but not as many as most people believe.
One of the aspects of high population of deer that you are completely missing is that effect of habitat. Deer don't live in the woods. They live on the edges of woods. Suburbia is all edge, forming a near perfect habitat for deer. Do you think that the increase of habitat, in heavily traveled areas might have more to do with roadkill than hunting?
I'd love to see the study that indicates does have more fawns when the population is depleted by hunting.
It's my understanding that wolves are not very good at thinning herds, and they mainly eat things like squirrels and mice. They do take deer, and other large animals, but not as many as most people believe.
One of the aspects of high population of deer that you are completely missing is that effect of habitat. Deer don't live in the woods. They live on the edges of woods. Suburbia is all edge, forming a near perfect habitat for deer. Do you think that the increase of habitat, in heavily traveled areas might have more to do with roadkill than hunting?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Red_Wind said:
This is long, but it's good information. People being "kind" to deer and feeding them has caused more problem than any hunting.
The overpopulation of deer is causing many problems for a town here in Texas. This is just one example. This is not written by anyone pro or anti hunting, it just presents the facts.
The main point is here:
When cities begin to enact local ordinances allowing the discharge of firearms in city limits, you know the deer population is out of control. What do you recommend, we get some little deer condoms and run around helping them out?
pcf
Member
Vegans like to eat to eat, deer like to eat, they like the same types of food.
Is it evil to cull pest to protect and maintain profitable levels of agricultural production?
"Non-Organic" agriculture depends heavily on the use of nitrate fertilizers.
With the exception of ammonia, nitrate fertilizer runoff is a serious issue and health risk. Ingesting high levels of nitrates, for example from runoff that polutes drinking water, prevents the body from absorbing oxygen. When catalysed in the body nitrates turn into nitrites. Nitrites convert the hemoglobin in the blood to methemoglobin, the blood cannot absorb oxygen and suffocation occurs. In general nitrate posioning occurs at levels of 52ppm (.0052%) of nitrate nitrogen, or 318ppm (.0326%) of potassium nitrate. Agricultural nitrate runoff can often be measured in parts per thousand. For humans, nitrate posioning commonly occurs in young children and is also known as "blue baby syndrome". Unlike humans, wildlife has no concept of potable water, it's water to them whether its crystal clear or glowing green with fertilizers. A cup of heavily nitrated water can kill a cow, and significantly less for a deer an eighth of the size.
Nitrates also kill some aquatic life. Surface algae, however, thrives in nitrated waters. Thrives to the extent the algae can absorb every last molecule of oxygen from a surface water source and and block out sunlight, killing of aquatic plants. The result is a dead body of water, increased erosion, habit loss, and increased risk of flooding.
I know you want be a good vegan and will only eat "organic" products, so you do not not contribute to the nitrate problem. Oranic farming relies heavily on the use of soaps and nicotine sulfate to control pest, insects in this case. Soaps help control insect, and as a bonus a fertilizer. Runoff from soaps, contains phosphates. Generally runoff is not anywhere near toxic levels, but surface algae thrives on phospates and surface water sources are still negatively affected.
Nicotine sulfate is an "organic pesticide", it works in a way similar to diazinon, it blocks nerve impulses from reaching the muscle, and death is the result. Insects develop resistance to pesticides. As resistance increases, the levels of pesticides in/on an insect body increases, animals that consume these insect consume higher levels of pesticides. Most pesticides, including nicotine sulfate, are fat soluable, they build up in fat stores, as anyone who has ever tried to loss weight can tell you, the body doesn't like to let fat stores go. The results are increased levels of pesticides in the fat that result in deformed, injured, and sterile animals or animals that produce defective offspring. It's not just nicotine sulfate but many types of pesticides.
Culling pest with the use of poisons is not very "organic", hunters and trappers (not the trap and release type) play an important role in culling larger pest on "organic" farms.
Organic farming has less of an enviromental impact than traditional farming, but it still has a detrimental impact.
If hunting is evil, the impact agriculture has on wildlife is evil beyond description. It's not a slam against agriculture, it's the reality of feeding and supplying a country of 300 million people. If you compare the "evil" of hunting to the "evil" of fertilizers, pesticides, habitat loss, flooding, erosion, insect evolution, and salinization, there is no comparison.
Is it evil to cull pest to protect and maintain profitable levels of agricultural production?
"Non-Organic" agriculture depends heavily on the use of nitrate fertilizers.
With the exception of ammonia, nitrate fertilizer runoff is a serious issue and health risk. Ingesting high levels of nitrates, for example from runoff that polutes drinking water, prevents the body from absorbing oxygen. When catalysed in the body nitrates turn into nitrites. Nitrites convert the hemoglobin in the blood to methemoglobin, the blood cannot absorb oxygen and suffocation occurs. In general nitrate posioning occurs at levels of 52ppm (.0052%) of nitrate nitrogen, or 318ppm (.0326%) of potassium nitrate. Agricultural nitrate runoff can often be measured in parts per thousand. For humans, nitrate posioning commonly occurs in young children and is also known as "blue baby syndrome". Unlike humans, wildlife has no concept of potable water, it's water to them whether its crystal clear or glowing green with fertilizers. A cup of heavily nitrated water can kill a cow, and significantly less for a deer an eighth of the size.
Nitrates also kill some aquatic life. Surface algae, however, thrives in nitrated waters. Thrives to the extent the algae can absorb every last molecule of oxygen from a surface water source and and block out sunlight, killing of aquatic plants. The result is a dead body of water, increased erosion, habit loss, and increased risk of flooding.
I know you want be a good vegan and will only eat "organic" products, so you do not not contribute to the nitrate problem. Oranic farming relies heavily on the use of soaps and nicotine sulfate to control pest, insects in this case. Soaps help control insect, and as a bonus a fertilizer. Runoff from soaps, contains phosphates. Generally runoff is not anywhere near toxic levels, but surface algae thrives on phospates and surface water sources are still negatively affected.
Nicotine sulfate is an "organic pesticide", it works in a way similar to diazinon, it blocks nerve impulses from reaching the muscle, and death is the result. Insects develop resistance to pesticides. As resistance increases, the levels of pesticides in/on an insect body increases, animals that consume these insect consume higher levels of pesticides. Most pesticides, including nicotine sulfate, are fat soluable, they build up in fat stores, as anyone who has ever tried to loss weight can tell you, the body doesn't like to let fat stores go. The results are increased levels of pesticides in the fat that result in deformed, injured, and sterile animals or animals that produce defective offspring. It's not just nicotine sulfate but many types of pesticides.
Culling pest with the use of poisons is not very "organic", hunters and trappers (not the trap and release type) play an important role in culling larger pest on "organic" farms.
Organic farming has less of an enviromental impact than traditional farming, but it still has a detrimental impact.
If hunting is evil, the impact agriculture has on wildlife is evil beyond description. It's not a slam against agriculture, it's the reality of feeding and supplying a country of 300 million people. If you compare the "evil" of hunting to the "evil" of fertilizers, pesticides, habitat loss, flooding, erosion, insect evolution, and salinization, there is no comparison.
JohnBT
Member
Welcome. Now, about your years of research and your statement...
"After speaking with a hunter myself"
I suggest you devote a little more time to field work. Get out there and meet some more hunters - real hunters, not road hunters, poachers, sky blasters and spotlighters. They're what are usually referred to as slob hunters and are the kind of minority that can be found cutting corners in any field of endeavor.
I know it will be hard to get out and meet people when you aren't old enough to drive, but the effort will be worth it.
John
"After speaking with a hunter myself"
I suggest you devote a little more time to field work. Get out there and meet some more hunters - real hunters, not road hunters, poachers, sky blasters and spotlighters. They're what are usually referred to as slob hunters and are the kind of minority that can be found cutting corners in any field of endeavor.
I know it will be hard to get out and meet people when you aren't old enough to drive, but the effort will be worth it.
John
ReadyontheRight
Member
Since you are 15, and willing to reach out into the unknown to explore your questions...I have a long series of comments that I hope can make you better understand a viewpoint other than yours. Take it or leave it.
Whan I suggested that you spend some time in the woods to understand what hunting is all about, I meant some real woods...where no one is around for miles and the deer are not domesticated (or possibly sick - if he let you touch him) by suburban protection. And not a governmentally-controlled Park, where hunting is not allowed and rangers make paths, roads, campgrounds, etc.
I have no idea where you live. Get out into a place where people actually hunt - the woods of Maine, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Minnesota, Washington, etc. Look around at the people you see on the way there. They probably wear a lot of hunting clothing year-round. It's most likely all they can (or want to) afford. This is their land and hunting is their way of life.
Your views and the way you live your life are your own, but the "hunting is evil", "hunting never solved any problems" rhetoric you are touting is prejudiced bigotry. Hunting solves the problem of hunger for many many people.
Hunting for sport rather than food is a tradition that connects mankind to our roots. If you don't like it...don't do it.
It sounds like your parents have provided a very nice environment for you to sit back in judgement. You reach out in judgement from your protected lifestyle and tear apart my family's hunting tradition that dates back to hunting the same land since they first discovered it while serving as laborers building a railroad to the Pacific.
Hunting and gun ownership are a proud tradition to me because my family clawed its way up from Irish roots where only the Irish Lords were allowed to hunt, through the days where my grandfather had to sell his rifle every year after getting enough meat for the winter and to today where these stories, traditions and quiet solitude wandering the same woods with a rifle in hand pass on to my children.
Environmentalists TALK about saving ecosystems. Hunters over the past centuries - particularly in the USA - have designed and paid for the preservation of ecosystems. The only reason there are overpopulation problems with deer in the suburbs is because an artificial environment has been created where preditors like wolves cannot do their job and humans only get outdoors if they can afford to golf.
So you want to be a vegan. Great! Go do it. Don't pass judgement on others who don't share your views.
Although I would NEVER try to stop anyone from living their life the way they want, I personally think the vegan lifestyle is extremely selfish. I could easily pass judgement on vegans with logic similar to that used against hunters.
Meat is an excellent, concentrated source of nutrition -- especially protein. If everyone on the planet decided to stop eating meat, do you think the earth's soil could support the new requirements? We would be competing for soil with other herbivores -- and humans would win. To support a growing human population, crops, forests, wetlands and open areas would have to be converted to grow the high protein plants humans need to eat. First the meat animals would die off, then the wild animals.
It still would not be enough. The real problem is all the people. First, the "blame America" crowd would say "Americans are too fat" and we would all be placed on strict diets. That would not be enough, and populations would need to be controlled. The only way to achieve a utopia where people live in harmony with nature is to have a significantly higher soil/person ratio. Since we still only have one Earth, a reduction in people is the only answer.
Easy answers like "hunting is evil" and "meat is murder" tend to have significant unintended consequences. A totalitarian regime would be the only way to institute a true solution to save the Bambis.
A final solution would have to crush ideas and lifestyles like those espoused on this website.
My $.02.
countertop
Member
Yep.
Thank god for pesticides and GMOs!!!!
countertop
Member
??????? I don't get it
What is wrong here??? I think I'll follow your sage advice
I suggest you follow Kingcreeks
trueblue1776
Member
Human's have been hunting since there were human's, like what, maybe 30,000 years or somthing? I dont know. I suppose we can stop because it hurts someones feelings.
Para1911
Member
As someone who does alot of driving deer do not run out in front of cars because of gunshots. I have seen deer run out of the most desolate woods with me being the only person for miles in the middle of the night.
Also the reason you have deer in your back yard is not because of over populatin, it is because you and your parents have probobly moved into a development that was once woods. It is so typical of people to move out into remote areas and complain about the wildlife. I understand that you are not complianing but alot of people do. Look at the people in Califonia moving out into the mountians and getting attacked by moountain lions. It's there own fault.
Sorry I kind of went on a rant there, but people llike this get my blood boiling.
Also the reason you have deer in your back yard is not because of over populatin, it is because you and your parents have probobly moved into a development that was once woods. It is so typical of people to move out into remote areas and complain about the wildlife. I understand that you are not complianing but alot of people do. Look at the people in Califonia moving out into the mountians and getting attacked by moountain lions. It's there own fault.
Sorry I kind of went on a rant there, but people llike this get my blood boiling.
browningguy
Member
I just like to hunt, don't really care about the why, don't care about any statistics on deer collisions, just like to hunt.
hmm
I suppose this is what bothers me. . .your inability to look at the facts, and to look at yourself honestly. . .to me this is a selfish post, the FACTS suggest that hunting directly causes deer/car collisions, and would you still hunt if you knew you were endangering the lives of people in those cars? I am sorry that you have bought into the myths that hunters create in an effort to tell the people of this world that their "practice" or their sport is humane. Can you look at me in the face and tell me that when you miss a deer's vital organ and it limps into the woods that hunting causes no suffering? The lead (though fortunately is banned in some parts of Canada and in America though I don't know which states) used to shoot ducks in some areas (assuming you miss) will ultimately fall into the lake or wetland and poison the animals there. And if you don't hunt, and the lead punctures a less vital part, that duck too will ultimately die in a lingering death. Hunters aren't helping the environment, they are destroying it. And why else do you pay for conservation efforts? More cities=less area to hunt, I am sorry but I must question your motives on that.
Though I am not disappointed in your arguments. . .I have heard much worse from hunters, though the facts still remain. . .hunting causes suffering.
browningguy said:
I suppose this is what bothers me. . .your inability to look at the facts, and to look at yourself honestly. . .to me this is a selfish post, the FACTS suggest that hunting directly causes deer/car collisions, and would you still hunt if you knew you were endangering the lives of people in those cars? I am sorry that you have bought into the myths that hunters create in an effort to tell the people of this world that their "practice" or their sport is humane. Can you look at me in the face and tell me that when you miss a deer's vital organ and it limps into the woods that hunting causes no suffering? The lead (though fortunately is banned in some parts of Canada and in America though I don't know which states) used to shoot ducks in some areas (assuming you miss) will ultimately fall into the lake or wetland and poison the animals there. And if you don't hunt, and the lead punctures a less vital part, that duck too will ultimately die in a lingering death. Hunters aren't helping the environment, they are destroying it. And why else do you pay for conservation efforts? More cities=less area to hunt, I am sorry but I must question your motives on that.
Though I am not disappointed in your arguments. . .I have heard much worse from hunters, though the facts still remain. . .hunting causes suffering.
someone wanted my statistics sited?
Well here you go. . .
Based on state-wide statistics and statistics from other local communities that have allowed hunting into their communities, deer/vehicle accidents have increased dramatically, because injured and panicked deer scatter from the killing area and run blindly out into the highways. The Erie Insurance Company noted that the number of deer/car collisions rose nearly five times on the first day of buck season and doe season. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also stated that most deer/car collisions happen during hunting season. With this dramatic increase in deer/ vehicle collisions, someone will eventually get injured or worse.
From the c.a.s.h website (commitee to abolish sport hunting) I believe they provide info on both sides, and the best argument against hunting I have seen
Well here you go. . .
Based on state-wide statistics and statistics from other local communities that have allowed hunting into their communities, deer/vehicle accidents have increased dramatically, because injured and panicked deer scatter from the killing area and run blindly out into the highways. The Erie Insurance Company noted that the number of deer/car collisions rose nearly five times on the first day of buck season and doe season. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also stated that most deer/car collisions happen during hunting season. With this dramatic increase in deer/ vehicle collisions, someone will eventually get injured or worse.
From the c.a.s.h website (commitee to abolish sport hunting) I believe they provide info on both sides, and the best argument against hunting I have seen
ReadyontheRight
Member
So -- Why don't we outlaw driving? That would certainly eliminate the number of car/deer accidents and also reduce the number of vehicular deaths.
Children are hit by cars more often after school starts. Perhaps we should stop sending children to school.
Your point that hunters cause deer/vehicle accidents is just as ridiculous.
Children are hit by cars more often after school starts. Perhaps we should stop sending children to school.
Your point that hunters cause deer/vehicle accidents is just as ridiculous.
ReadyontheRight
Member
By the way...Buck deer are in rut during hunting season. They move around more and will often chase anything that smells good or appears to be a doe or competing buck. Does tend to run around more during this time as well (for obvious reasons).
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
blech
It was after legal hunting hours that the hunter shot at this little guy as he ran away. The panicked young buck tumbled down a ravine. Morning light revealed the horror of the blood trail. We buried the anger and disgust we felt toward another fellow human being, focusing our energies instead on finding the "injured" animal. Our horror over the blood trail paled in comparison to what we felt as we came upon the small deer that had lain on the freezing ground for over eighteen hours. He looked helplessly up at us, his rear leg shattered and his hindquarters mutilated.
Hmm. . .real humane guys
Hunters use the poor excuse that they are reducing deer populations, when in actuality they are a cause of overpopulation. Deer populations are manipulated by wildlife agencies paid for by hunters for the purpose of producing maximum targets and revenue. Make no mistake, a state's deer herd is a "cash crop" to the state. The deer herd is intentionally cultivated and harvested in the same way a farmer grows his crops. This is done by selectively killing the males, thereby skewing the natural 1:1 sex ratio. In some areas, hunting has caused the sex ratio to rise to as many as 25 females for each male. Deer are polygamous and a male will breed with as many females as are available. With this female-to-male imbalance, more breeding females are left available to increase the herd size. Fish and game reports show that even when female deer are killed, the remaining females compensated and had increased birth rates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd. Despite all of the hunting and killing, deer populations increase, and that is exactly what hunting commissions planned.
hmm?
Hunters also use the excuse to kill that weak deer "might" starve, and that's a cruel way to die, so instead, hunters injure thousands of deer and leave them to suffer in agony; and kill others, dismember their bodies and eat their flesh in order to "save" the deer from cruelties. Hunters don't shoot scrawny starving deer anyway, they target big healthy ones
hyprocrites are you not?
It was after legal hunting hours that the hunter shot at this little guy as he ran away. The panicked young buck tumbled down a ravine. Morning light revealed the horror of the blood trail. We buried the anger and disgust we felt toward another fellow human being, focusing our energies instead on finding the "injured" animal. Our horror over the blood trail paled in comparison to what we felt as we came upon the small deer that had lain on the freezing ground for over eighteen hours. He looked helplessly up at us, his rear leg shattered and his hindquarters mutilated.
Hmm. . .real humane guys
Hunters use the poor excuse that they are reducing deer populations, when in actuality they are a cause of overpopulation. Deer populations are manipulated by wildlife agencies paid for by hunters for the purpose of producing maximum targets and revenue. Make no mistake, a state's deer herd is a "cash crop" to the state. The deer herd is intentionally cultivated and harvested in the same way a farmer grows his crops. This is done by selectively killing the males, thereby skewing the natural 1:1 sex ratio. In some areas, hunting has caused the sex ratio to rise to as many as 25 females for each male. Deer are polygamous and a male will breed with as many females as are available. With this female-to-male imbalance, more breeding females are left available to increase the herd size. Fish and game reports show that even when female deer are killed, the remaining females compensated and had increased birth rates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd. Despite all of the hunting and killing, deer populations increase, and that is exactly what hunting commissions planned.
hmm?
Hunters also use the excuse to kill that weak deer "might" starve, and that's a cruel way to die, so instead, hunters injure thousands of deer and leave them to suffer in agony; and kill others, dismember their bodies and eat their flesh in order to "save" the deer from cruelties. Hunters don't shoot scrawny starving deer anyway, they target big healthy ones
hyprocrites are you not?
Steve499
Member
The fact actually is that hunting seasons for deer are scheduled by really, really evil people to correspond with the breeding cycles. The breeding cycle is responsible for the greatly increased deer movements which are responsible for the increased car/deer accidents. If hunting actually was responsible for the increase in the accidents as you say, it would seem those accidents should be occurring when the hunters are actually out hunting. The facts are that most car/deer accidents happen during the time between sunset and sunrise when hunters are doing whatever twisted things they do during the time of darkness when they can't see to kill stuff.
Steve
Steve
Cosmoline
Member
Red_Wind said:
Where are you getting this business about hunters scaring deer into oncoming cars? A citation would be helpful.
Also, why is admitting you like to hunt selfish or dishonest? It seems very honest to me. I also like to hunt and kill animals just as I like to catch and kill fish. I'm an animal myself, and no food on this planet is as good as freshly smoked wild king salmon you just caught and killed a few hours before. It's sublime. Moose backstrap is also excellent. You just can't argue with things like this. And so very many of my animal cousins agree, from bear to ravens.
"Ending suffering" is a immature goal. As Jose Ortega y Gasset noted, life *IS* suffering. The only way to end suffering is to destroy all life forever. (""All of life is the struggle, the effort to be itself. The difficulties which I meet with in order to realise my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilise my activities, my capacities."--Revolt of the Masses)
This is a fair point. Of course animals feel pain before they die. So what? If you want to eat them and use their skin, you've got to kill them first.
You need to learn more about the origins of the conservation movement. It was CREATED by hunters, and the most successful conservation efforts without exception have been led by those who utilize the resource to be protected, including hunters. It's no accident that Alaska, with a huge percentage of citizens who hunt, has a vast and thriving wildlife population while California has some skinny coyotes with the mange and a few big vultures that are on the verge of extinction. (I note the donation of Malibu citizen Tim Treadwell to help feed the bears here, but it really wasn't helpful in the long run).
ReadyontheRight
Member
trickyasafox
Member
so you came here just to start a flame war? i hunt for food. should i starve because you have an ethical issue with my means of gathering food? if hunting increased population of animals, do you really think NJ would have enacted a black bear season this year to control populations?
go to your PETA pep rally and euthanize some innocent dog. at least the deer can run away
go to your PETA pep rally and euthanize some innocent dog. at least the deer can run away
blech part two
THE POLICIES of fish and wildlife departments are devoted not to "controlling" the number of deer, but to furnishing hunters with the maximum number at the start of hunting season. The food supply is increased by clear-cutting and burning forest areas to create more browse. This practice not only discriminates against tree dwellers like birds, squirrels and raccoons, but also results in many ground dwellers being burned or asphyxiated.
conserving the habitat. . .though I usually try to improve the habitat. . .but your way works too. . .
In "Pennsylvania hunters are the best way to control deer population" (2/26/04), Joe Mattie admits that hunters "stocked deer in the state at the turn of the century."
Deer are stocked so that hunters have more targets to shoot. . .this is impractical and immoral. Think what you want, but we have the facts.
Also hunters say that they keep deer from starving. . .deer store up a fat reserve during the autumn months to help hold them over during the winter months. . .
After intentionally creating this overpopulation, hunters and their government sugar daddies demonize the deer. They blame deer for:
1. deer/car collisions, though auto insurance statistics demonstrate that most collisions occur during hunting season, as terrified animals flee onto roads.
2. Lyme Disease, though public health agencies confirm that hunting does not decrease the incidence of Lyme disease, and may increase it.
3. deer starvation, though hunting causes deer to run off needed fat reserves, and wounded deer cannot eat.
THE POLICIES of fish and wildlife departments are devoted not to "controlling" the number of deer, but to furnishing hunters with the maximum number at the start of hunting season. The food supply is increased by clear-cutting and burning forest areas to create more browse. This practice not only discriminates against tree dwellers like birds, squirrels and raccoons, but also results in many ground dwellers being burned or asphyxiated.
conserving the habitat. . .though I usually try to improve the habitat. . .but your way works too. . .
In "Pennsylvania hunters are the best way to control deer population" (2/26/04), Joe Mattie admits that hunters "stocked deer in the state at the turn of the century."
Deer are stocked so that hunters have more targets to shoot. . .this is impractical and immoral. Think what you want, but we have the facts.
Also hunters say that they keep deer from starving. . .deer store up a fat reserve during the autumn months to help hold them over during the winter months. . .
After intentionally creating this overpopulation, hunters and their government sugar daddies demonize the deer. They blame deer for:
1. deer/car collisions, though auto insurance statistics demonstrate that most collisions occur during hunting season, as terrified animals flee onto roads.
2. Lyme Disease, though public health agencies confirm that hunting does not decrease the incidence of Lyme disease, and may increase it.
3. deer starvation, though hunting causes deer to run off needed fat reserves, and wounded deer cannot eat.
Cosmoline
Member
LINKS, young jedi. LINKS. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Browingguy stated that he hunts because he likes it .. and you jumped all over him for it. He's certainly not a hypocrite. Make up your mind.
Why in the world should anyone have to provide an excuse to legally kill an animal? It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to realize that all life is based on consuming something that was once alive. Why do YOU and your anti-hunting bigots get to draw the line for me?
There's an up side and downside to nearly everything. The pluses far outweight the minuses in regard to hunting. The revenue generated alone, is responsible for the resurgence of many species, and the preservation of millions of acres of habitat. Are there more whitetail because of the popularity of the sport? Yes. But leep in mind, that whitetail (and many other species) were nearly driven to extinction from over-hunting, in many areas, in the early part of the 20th century. I'm suprised that whitetail weren't producing a half dozen fawns each in 1930. Herd management is well controlled these days IMHO. I do believe in high ethical hunting standards, and I try to be as humane as possible. Those who aren't, shouldn't be able to enjoy the privilage. Hunting itself is not cruel and unethical, although some hunters are. But the circle of life and death goes on regardless of our hand in it.
12-34hom
Member
Hunting is evil?
In the world we live in today, there would be many notable things that would warrant a label as "evil".
Osama and his thugs, serial killers, pedophiles, pornographers, other like minded actions that dehumanize and predatory actions.
I never considered myself as an evil person while hunting or others for doing so. To label a group of people as evil for a sport that in the scheme of things is legal, state regulated is rather narrow-minded and shows a lack of experience in the overall view of such matters.
As a peace officer i can tell you that Car Vs.Deer accidents happen at all hours of the day & night. Since deer are nocturnal by nature the majority of these type collisions occur between dusk & dawn. Typical deer movements are caused by many factors, weather, availability of food, breeding cycles, plus numerous other factors that come into play. Hunting pressure is low on that list. Where i happen to live {Iowa} there are literally thousands of deer that free range across the entire state. The vast amount of food and forage + habitat have increased their #'s - with the help of DNR management practices and hunters who contribute i many differing ways.
Welcome to THR.
12-34hom.
In the world we live in today, there would be many notable things that would warrant a label as "evil".
Osama and his thugs, serial killers, pedophiles, pornographers, other like minded actions that dehumanize and predatory actions.
I never considered myself as an evil person while hunting or others for doing so. To label a group of people as evil for a sport that in the scheme of things is legal, state regulated is rather narrow-minded and shows a lack of experience in the overall view of such matters.
As a peace officer i can tell you that Car Vs.Deer accidents happen at all hours of the day & night. Since deer are nocturnal by nature the majority of these type collisions occur between dusk & dawn. Typical deer movements are caused by many factors, weather, availability of food, breeding cycles, plus numerous other factors that come into play. Hunting pressure is low on that list. Where i happen to live {Iowa} there are literally thousands of deer that free range across the entire state. The vast amount of food and forage + habitat have increased their #'s - with the help of DNR management practices and hunters who contribute i many differing ways.
Welcome to THR.
12-34hom.
- Status
