Why do hunters hunt? Why don't they take pictures?

[Measure for Measure]

I don't hunt and have never felt any inclination to. So I'm skeptical about the existence of a "hunt-drive". It seems more like an acquired taste.

But I support hunters, mainly because I'm an environmentalist and don't want to alienate a possible member of the coalition. (Handgun and "assault rifle" regulation is a separate issue.) Plus I care a lot more about species than individual critters. (More info: I've never owned a mammal, so my sentimentality for non-primates fairly limited).

I have met hunters who claim that hunting isn't about killing. Ok. I have also met hunters who say they enjoy, "Picking off squirrels". So there appears to me to be a range of opinions in the hunting community.

So here's my question for hunters: why not track wild things and take photos of them? You get to go camping, tracking, standing under a blind if you like that. You even get a trophy and an indicator of your skill.

I know, it's not the same. But -seriously- why wouldn't it be the same? Is it an issue of difficulty? Is it the post-killing ritual? Is it a culinary issue?

[carnivorousplant]

I think the deal is that in order to eat them, you must kill them.

[DrFidelius]

Because elk is a heck of a lot tastier than beef.

[absoul]

pheasant with wild mushrooms and rice... hmmmmmm...

[red_dragon60]

Hunting helps to thin the population. It is a neccesary part of the environment to nail a few deer. Otherwise, they starve from overpopulation. Hunters sometimes want to help the environ around them, and a way to do this that does not waste much is hunting.

[AHunter3]

I like eating squirrels. I think also I like occasionally acquiring my own meat rather than buying it from the supermarket. I don't consider it to be some sort of act of cruelty, but I'll accept the legitimacy of someone having that perspective if they also deplore eating meat purchased at the local Piggly Wiggly. (Folks who decry hunting as somehow cruel yet still shop the meat department for veal chops have no credibility).

[Measure for Measure]

Because elk is a heck of a lot tastier than beef.
Sounds good to me.


Hunting helps to thin the population. It is a necessary part of the environment to nail a few deer. Otherwise, they starve from overpopulation. Hunters sometimes want to help the environ around them, and a way to do this that does not waste much is hunting.
Ok, I find that argument plausible for ecosystems which lack apex predators (e.g. the Northeastern US). But in a true wilderness, hunting may (partially) displace grizzlies, wolves, pumas and other creatures, depending of course on its extent.

[carnivorousplant]

In Arkansas the whitetailed deer population when it was not 'managed' was horribly diseased and starving. The game wardens or whatever they had in the 1920's had to go out and kill them.
When they are hunted and limits observed (although I think they are able to kill more every year) they do very well.
If they aren't hunted they become overcrowded, sick and starve.

[barbitu8]

As much as I deplore hunting, I find it is a necessary evil, the ecosystem aside, to do stuff I do enjoy, such as the preserves. Hunters pay fees for licenses and, I guess, they pay various amounts of other monies, which help support the nature preserves I go birding and walking in.

[Torgo]

Here's a great article about a first-time hunter's experience:

http://www.citypages.com/databank/19/940/article6776.asp

[RoboDude]

Have you ever tried to eat a picture of a deer?

[cjharker]

My info comes from my husband, who grew up in south Arkansas.

While hunting licenses aren't too expensive, assuming the hunter bags a deer, the fees that (s)he must pay to the landowners of the leased land, which is often the only hunting land available, are outrageous. If the deer hunter doesn't actually kill the deer, (s)he wastes hundreds of dollars.

And venison and wild boar meat are delicious, btw. Most hunters I know love deer meat.

[Welfy]

It's venison! Get it right, you :wally

Not only is venison delicious, but it's healthier and leaner than other red meats.

[kabbes]

Why do hunters hunt?

Well then they wouldn't be hunters.

Why don't they take pictures?

Then they would be photographers.

Ah, don't you just love being facetious?

pan

[Freedom]

If taking pictures was the goal, then there would be a whole skill to be learned on how to take the best picture. As someone pointed out already, we call guys who enjoy that photographers. You wouldn't expect all photographers to shoot still photos in a studio all day would you?

There is a desire among (some) shooters (bow hunters) to put the skill of shooting into a practical application. So while eating and thining the herds are correct answers, there is also a part of shooters who want to see if THEY are really that good. Hunting is kinda like taking pictures out in the real world instead of the studio.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by Welfy


venison healthier than other red meats.

I must take exception or at least ask you to clarify that. Hunters will not eat deer rare because of the associated parasites.

[BunnyGirl]

Carnivorous, I'm sure Welfy was probably talking about fat content and such. Plus, its the rare deer I see in GNC taking hormones and supplements like they give most feedlot cattle ;)

Anyway, my dad hunts for the meat (venison - yum!) and to keep the deer population on his land controlled.

He is starting to get some of the larger predators on his land (wolf, bobcat, lots of bear [black - more omnivorous than carnivorous]) but the herd still needs management.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by BunnyGirl
its the rare deer I see in GNC taking hormones and supplements like they give most feedlot cattle ;)



My point.
:)

[QuickSilver]

Not that I care one way or the other for hunting.... I don't eat game or venison so I would not go out to kill something just for the sport. (For the record: beef, chiken and bacon are high on my list of yummy foods).

Still, the argument that says hunting is necessary for population control is quite lame. Nature is pretty adept at controlling itself. Overpopulation of deer leads to lack of food, followed by famine, followed by death. The result is less animals to procreate and an end to overpopulation. Deer don't need hunters to shoot them in order to maintain their population.

To make hunting more interesting I'd like to see the animals armed and shooting back. Now that would be a real sport. Care to speculate how many hunters would lose their taste for venison if that were to happen?

[jeel]

Originally posted by QuickSilver
Not that I care one way or the other for hunting.... I don't eat game or venison so I would not go out to kill something just for the sport. (For the record: beef, chiken and bacon are high on my list of yummy foods).

Still, the argument that says hunting is necessary for population control is quite lame. Nature is pretty adept at controlling itself. Overpopulation of deer leads to lack of food, followed by famine, followed by death. The result is less animals to procreate and an end to overpopulation. Deer don't need hunters to shoot them in order to maintain their population.
Yeah...let em starve and do it[control their population] the natural way!!!!

To make hunting more interesting I'd like to see the animals armed and shooting back. Now that would be a real sport. Care to speculate how many hunters would lose their taste for venison if that were to happen?

Let's arm the pigs, chickens, and cattle too and send them to Quick's house. Then maybe Quicksilver will lose the taste for those meats too.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by QuickSilver

To make hunting more interesting I'd like to see the animals armed and shooting back.

They don't have hands.

[QuickSilver]

Originally posted by jeel
Yeah...let em starve and do it[control their population] the natural way!!!!


What's your point? It happens in plenty of remote places without the benefit of human intervension. It happened quite regularly before humans were so prolific on this planet. It happens to humans (see many poor African and Asian Nations). Perhaps some hunters should go over there and start controlling population the "more humane way".


Let's arm the pigs, chickens, and cattle too and send them to Quick's house. Then maybe Quicksilver will lose the taste for those meats too.


I prefer my animals born and raised in cages or on grazing land. Also, I don't go out to the farm to butcher my meat. I depend on professionals who do it to make a living. If they found it too hazardous to continue doing it to the point where meat became unavailable, I'd probably stop eating meat. Same with cars. If they stopped building them (god, I hope not!) I'd walk and cycle a lot more.

My point, if I make one at all, is that people should simply say they enjoy the hunt, the kill and subsequent rituals of dressing and eating the animal. Don't make lame excuses about controlling the population.

[QuickSilver]

Originally posted by carnivorousplant
They don't have hands.


:D
Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

[BunnyGirl]

Really, Quick, isn't it a matter of semantics on which is more humane or "better": starving to death or being shot? Personally, they'd both seem to suck, but I'd rather see a deer shot and it's meat used than for it to slowly starve to death.

Population control for deer is a very real issue at least here in Michigan. I don't know how much that applies to other states or other species though.

[DrMatrix]

I agree with QuickSilver. The idea of hunters helping by thinning the herd is lame. Nature does not need your "help".

Thinning the herd did not seem to help the passenger pigeon much.

To anyone who says they are interested in "helping by thinning the herd", let me ask this: If you have a choice of shooting a healthy stag or a sickly diseased animal, which would you target?

[QuickSilver]

Originally posted by BunnyGirl
Really, Quick, isn't it a matter of semantics on which is more humane or "better": starving to death or being shot?


I'm not pressing the issue about what's more humane. I'm simply pointing out that population control by hunting is not the only way. Nature seems to have sufficient controls without having to rely on people. It's ways are often not pretty but quite effective.


Personally, they'd both seem to suck, but I'd rather see a deer shot and it's meat used than for it to slowly starve to death.


And I'd rather people said they hunted for the pleasure it brings them than to use the population control excuse.


Population control for deer is a very real issue at least here in Michigan. I don't know how much that applies to other states or other species though.

Do you suppose that's because of a lack of natural predators? I mean besides the two legged, gun carrying kind.

Look, I'm not saying people should not hunt. Do it if you enjoy it and are not contributing to the endangerment of a species. But stop pretending it's for the good of nature.

[Fear Itself]

Originally posted by carnivorousplant
Originally posted by QuickSilver

To make hunting more interesting I'd like to see the animals armed and shooting back.

They don't have hands.

Well, DUH!; if they don't have arms, they sure as heck don't have hands!

[FloChi]

Just point out there is a difference between recreational and professional hunters. Professional hunters are the ones who go out and try to keep the environment in balance, recreational hunters go out for the food.

However, if there are enough recreational hunters they will take the place of professional hunters.

The big problem is when hunters don't have enough knowledge and shoot the wrong animals. This is very prevalent at duck hunting season. They often (in Australia at least) shoot the rare and endangered birds. Well, the activists make sure they get on the news. People should know the difference between a duck and a swan at least.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Culling the heard by hunting is not the first choice for control. Nature is. However, since we got rid of the wolves and put up all of those houses and built cities and roads, etc., just letting nature alone is not really an option anymore. We changed the balance and so now we need to do what we can.

The fish and game departments of various states monitor the size of the herd and adapt the limits accordingly. IF they did not, the population would indeed correct itself, but not until after the population grew beyond sustainable limits. A drought or a bad winter would kill many animals through starvation. A quick painless death is better than starving to death in my books.

That said, I hunt because it satasfies some deep primal urge. Hell, I don't know why I like fishing either, but I LOVE it. I think it is one of those things you either get or you simply do not get. I don't understand why I like football, or driving a fast car, or petting a dog....but it doesn't really matter to my enjoyment.

I don't feel any need to justify hunting. It is about as natural an act as exists.

[jeel]

Originally posted by QuickSilver

What's your point? It happens in plenty of remote places without the benefit of human intervension. It happened quite regularly before humans were so prolific on this planet. It happens to humans (see many poor African and Asian Nations). Perhaps some hunters should go over there and start controlling population the "more humane way".
Okay..so you missed my point as I did yours. I do not make excuses for why I enjoy hunting. I like the thrill of the chase, the outdoors, and bagging the game. So, some people think I'm sick and deranged for doing the killing myself and taking pleasure. Fine.

But it is true that the majority of hunters and hunting organizations are devoted to conservation of habitat and game and non-game animal species.

And your reference to starving people in Africa and Asia...That was just dumb. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

My point, if I make one at all, is that people should simply say they enjoy the hunt, the kill and subsequent rituals of dressing and eating the animal. Don't make lame excuses about controlling the population.
It's not an excuse, just a fringe benefit...If you want to call it that.

[cjharker]

Look, I'm not saying people should not hunt. Do it if you enjoy it and are not contributing to the endangerment of a species. But stop pretending it's for the good of nature.

I agree with Quicksilver that people shouldn't say that's their only reason, but I think most hunters I've met will say they do it for both the meat, the sport and the population control.

Now, quick hijack. I can't stand it when hunters claim they're hunting when all they do is sit in a deerstand all morning and wait for the deer that they've been feeding all year round to come eat. That uses no more hunting skills than a slaughterhouse does.

(No flames if you don't do that. I don't mean all hunters do; just that those who do have the audacity to call that hunting.)

[QuickSilver]

Originally posted by jeel
So, some people think I'm sick and deranged for doing the killing myself and taking pleasure. Fine.


Sick and deranged....naaah. A blood thirsty savage, maybe. ;)

And your reference to starving people in Africa and Asia...That was just dumb.


Dumb is so harsh. I prefer you said.... ummm... inappropriate. As in, "It's inappropriate to compare human life to that of an animal". Though if I was a hunted animal I should think otherwise.... but I digest.

[Ptahlis]

I used to hunt with my dad when I was a kid. I was never that much into it, but I enjoyed it for a long time. It was something that my father, a man whose interests and mine rarely coinceided, could do together. Even more than that, it was an activity that he eagerly wanted me to share in. As I got older, though, it all changed. When I actually got old enough to start plucking the ducks out of the sky, I found I didn't really like it much. I felt guilty killing things for no good reason. I hadn't had the same feelings when my dad shot them, but it was somehow different staring at my own kills. So, I had to stop, to give up that one thing that my dad and I did together that he really loved.

Do I begrudge hunters their hobby? Not at all. It's just not for me. I will confess that hunting for pleasure is something I can't understand, but there are lots of folks who feel that way. There was a time when I would have given an awful lot to share in it.

[jeel]

Originally posted by QuickSilver
Originally posted by jeel
So, some people think I'm sick and deranged for doing the killing myself and taking pleasure. Fine.


Sick and deranged....naaah. A blood thirsty savage, maybe. ;)
Ahhhh jeeeeez.......you're just saying that. ;)

Dumb is so harsh. I prefer you said.... ummm... inappropriate. As in, "It's inappropriate to compare human life to that of an animal". Though if I was a hunted animal I should think otherwise.... but I digest.

Hey Quick...That was the word I was looking for. Hey, I hope you don't take offense to anything I said...I think I might have been arguing a point with you which did not need arguing.

[QuickSilver]

S'Alright jeel. No harm, no foul (or is that fowl in this case? :) )

[BunnyGirl]

Look, I'm not saying people should not hunt. Do it if you enjoy it and are not contributing to the
endangerment of a species. But stop pretending it's for the good of nature.
Sorry, Quick, didn't mean to come off as "black/white" on the issue. I think its a fine balance: enjoyment plus the aid to nature in population control.

r: Your question on lack of two-legged predators in Michigan. Actually, deer hunting in Michigan is a huge deal. The DNR actively monitors deer populations and sells licenses accordingly. Overpopulation in deer herds can cause problems for farms, as deer raid crops.

I do, agree, however, that some people use the "good for nature" excuse as a way to somehow make hunting more honorable or something. Heck, if you enjoy it, if you're a responsible hunter, and its legal, go for it.

[Kimstu]

Another point about the "population control" aspect that I haven't seen mentioned so far: before "Nature's methods" of disease and starvation can accomplish their task of reducing overpopulation, the populations involved not only suffer themselves but can cause a lot of suffering and inconvenience to other species. Growing up in rural southern New Jersey, I saw the pressures that under-hunted deer populations could put on the rest of their environment. Starving deer will not only damage trees but will get reckless enough to move into human-populated areas, eating ornamental plants and gardens, spreading parasites, trampling everything in sight, and (most importantly) wandering onto roads and getting hit by cars (which generally does a LOT more damage to the car and/or its occupants than to the deer). If we don't want human beings to be significantly inconvenienced or endangered by deer (which is not only a nuisance for all-important Us but diminishes popular enthusiasm and support for wildlife and wilderness), we should let the hunters thin the herds before Nature's "sufficient controls" start making things too difficult for others besides the deer.

[cornflakes]

Originally posted by Freedom2
There is a desire among (some) shooters (bow hunters) to put the skill of shooting into a practical application.
This reminds me of a bowhunting article. The author mentioned that his best hunting experience didn't end with a kill. In a slow rain, he was able to get close enough to a buck to spank it on the flank with his bow. Now, that's hunting!

As many others have said, hunters don't shoot pictures for much the same reasons photographers don't carry guns or bows; it's just not what they're into. Of course, there are some who do both.

Sorry, I can't resist: most hunters also take pictures from time to time, after the kill of course (anyone want to see a half-ton feral hog?)

[El_Kabong]

The author mentioned that his best hunting experience didn't end with a kill. In a slow rain, he was able to get close enough to a buck to spank it on the flank with his bow. Now, that's hunting!

Reminds me of an article I recall reading some years ago about a Native American from near Vernal, Utah who was a candidate to run the Olympic marathon for the US team. When asked how he became such a good runner, he replied, "Well, I used to try to run down deer on the reservation. I never actually caught one, but I came pretty close a couple of times."



I've got no particular problem with the concept of individuals hunting for meat (although I doubt it makes much economic sense for the hunters themselves), but Great Debaters, what is your opinion of hunters who fly to a private game farm in, say Zimbabwe, and pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to shoot a leopard?

[teela brown]

Count me as someone who has no problem with prey animals being hunted, although I could not do it myself. I'd be happy to help eating the venison, though!

I hope this question is not too off-subject. Is it still the law that one can take only bucks? When it comes to both population control and quality of meat, doesn't it make more sense to take plump young does? I mean, you can shoot as many bucks as you want, but as long as a few are left, all the does will still get knocked up. What's the law?

[DrFidelius]

I hope this question is not too off-subject. Is it still the law that one can take only bucks? When it comes to both population control and quality of meat, doesn't it make more sense to take plump young does? I mean, you can shoot as many bucks as you want, but as long as a few are left, all the does will still get knocked up. What's the law?

As far as I know (and I really haven't given it any great thought or research), the individual states set their own requirements. A hunter can get a doe license if he or she wishes, or is only hunting for meat. Most hunters seem to want a trophy as well, so many more buck licenses are sold.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
I agree with QuickSilver. The idea of hunters helping by thinning the herd is lame. Nature does not need your "help".

Thinning the herd did not seem to help the passenger pigeon much.

To anyone who says they are interested in "helping by thinning the herd", let me ask this: If you have a choice of shooting a healthy stag or a sickly diseased animal, which would you target?
I've read every post here, and didn't find an answer to DrMatrix's question. The part about choosing to shoot a "sickly diseased animal". I think it's an interesting question.
Also, why do so many hunters choose to kill predators? Few are good to eat. Wolves, Coyotes, Mountain Lions and other predators do tend to kill the weaker animals.
I am not anti-hunter. It's just that some hunters (a lot) are abusive of the concepts of hunting expressed here.
Peace,
mangeorge

[grain farmer]

Well Quicksilver how about we close all the hospitals and get rid of all the doctors? If we are going to apply your theory of wildlife management lets make it totally fair and include the human wildlife also.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
If you have a choice of shooting a healthy stag or a sickly diseased animal, which would you target? [/B]
The point is not to kill the ill, but make a smaller population to compete for limited resources. Your house is sitting where their dinner table used to be.
:)

I've seen pictures of a straving herd in the 1920's and it was terrible.

[cjharker]

Originally posted by mangeorge
Also, why do so many hunters choose to kill predators? Few are good to eat. Wolves, Coyotes, Mountain Lions and other predators do tend to kill the weaker animals.
I am not anti-hunter. It's just that some hunters (a lot) are abusive of the concepts of hunting expressed here.
Peace,
mangeorge

I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that meat-eaters taste bad. And most meat-eaters will also eat carrion if it's the only thing available.

For the record, I am 100% opposed to sport hunting.

[mangeorge]

I was going to ask another question here, but it'a too far from the OP. So I'll start another thread,
Peace,
mangeorge

[Measure for Measure]

Population Control:
If the carnivores have been killed off, some force has to keep the deer population in check. That could be starvation, professional hunting or recreational hunting.

Anyway, my dad hunts for the meat... and to keep the deer population on his land controlled. He is starting to get some of the larger predators on his land (wolf, bobcat, lots of bear [black - more omnivorous than carnivorous]) but the herd still needs management.
But this is puzzling. Does anyone have a cite to suggest that a variety of carnivores cannot sufficiently control the deer population? (And jeez, how much land does your dad own?)
...what is your opinion of hunters who fly to a private game farm in, say Zimbabwe, and pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to shoot a leopard?
This non-hunter thinks it's great. If you grow crops, endangered carnivores can be a deadly nuisance. If Westerners (like myself) wants to preserve ecosystems in desperately poor countries, they have to give them some incentive to do so. My understanding is that photo/backpackers like myself tend to spend a small fraction of what big game hunters do. Keep paying those big bucks!
That said, I hunt because it satisfies some deep primal urge. Hell, I don't know why I like fishing either, but I LOVE it...I don't understand why I like football, or driving a fast car, or petting a dog....but it doesn't really matter to my enjoyment. I don't feel any need to justify hunting. It is about as natural an act as exists.
No, you don't have to justify it (at least to me). But this non-hunter is still curious. Do you perceive fishing or fast driving as satisfying a "deep primal urge"? I figure if it was overwhelmingly primal there would be a _lot_ more hunters.


There is a desire among (some) shooters (bow hunters) to put the skill of shooting into a practical application.
I suspect this is not the case for most hunters, but I appreciate the comment: it is surely a motivation for some.

Keep those hyjacks coming. For those interested, in another thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51403, Scylla penned a pretty good narative on why he likes hunting.

[Donovan]

Kimstu indicated that we keep the deer population down because with the 'natural way', population can explode to a level where it is detrimental the rest of the environment (short sum-up, I'm too lazy to quote).

To further this line of thought, where I live (in Wisconsin), I have heard (if y'all need a cite, I will try to run one down) the deer population is larger than it was before Europeans arrived. This is due in part to removal of predator species, but due more to change in environment. Wisconsin has lost much of its forest cover and is now FILLED with farmland (and no, not just dairy farms). Your average corn farm can support a much larger deer population than the same acreage of forest. If we removed the major predator (which at this point is the human), the deer population would continue to increase until the environment could not sustain their numbers.
Any guesses on what most of this overly large population would turn to if when all of their 'natural' (non-human grown) food supplies are gone? They will continue to grow the population on cropland, to the detriment of the human population, which does depend on man grown crops for food.

In other words, yes, hunger would eventually lower the deer population if we took a hands off approach. Unfortunately, they would be munching on 'our' food while their population climbs. (As it stands, they do a decent amount of crop damage already, and I have heard farmers refer too deer as 'tall rats').


---And no, I am not a farmer either (lives in Wisconsin, does not farm or hunt, all you from the coasts must think I'm an aberration)….

[BunnyGirl]

what is your opinion of hunters who fly to a private game farm in, say Zimbabwe, and pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to shoot a leopard?

I support hunting if the meat is used; I have issues with strictly "sport" hunting. Of course, then we get to the point of "what happens when hunting is again needed for population control in carnivores" and I haven't thought it through that far, to be perfectly honest.

Besides, aren't most leopard species endangered or on some kind of cautionary list?
If you grow crops, endangered carnivores can be a deadly nuisance.
Can you clarify what you mean? I'm a little confused.

Flow, my dad owns 365 acres in the beautiful UP of Michigan, a land covered with spreading stands of conifers...and swamps. :D 40 acres of his land is old pasture, there is the original farm house that he's rehabbed, plus some outbuildings (being a good Finn, we have a sauna too!).

[justwannano]

Actually photography is an expensive hobby.
You can buy a used shotgun for as little as $85.00 or so. The gun,a box of shells and a hunting licence and you can be eating squirrel and or rabbit and or pheasant More licecnce and you can eat duck or goose. Even more licence and venison could be on your table.Then there is elk moose bear...
For the same money you could buy a used AE1 but no lenses,tripod film etc.

Have you ever taken a picture of a deer and when you got the pictures back you could only make out a dot.Well thats what you've got without a very good telephoto lense.

[Phobos]

So far, the response to the OP seems to be (1) for meat and (2) for population control.

I'm not convinced. Admittedly, I don't know many hunters, but the ones I've talked to seemed to do it for fun. They seemed to prefer a trophy over meat and they certainly weren't discussing the current status of the deer population at the time.

I do live in the Northeast, where there is less wilderness and less of a hunter population, so I may be missing out on the overall hunter mindset. Deer meat is certainly not a big ticket item in this area.

And what about hunting animals other than deer? Is the squirrel and duck population suddenly getting to be too big? Are squirrels tasty?

I agree with DrMatrix's question. If population control was the goal, then the sickly animals should be targeted, not the healthiest.

And then there's bow hunting which seems to be an unnecessary cruelty given that the animal's death is slower.

Overall, I see rationalization to cover-up the thrill of the kill. I can understand the fun of the hunt, but I agree with the OP that the kill is unnecessary in most cases.

[cjharker]

Squirrel meat is pretty tasty, but really, not worth the trouble. I have to admit that I'm a big coward. The very thought of shooting an animal fills me with dread, so I only eat animals that other people have killed. I can handle the sight of a dead and skinned squirrel/deer/whatever, but the thought of taking the life of said creature makes me want to cry.

I know, I should be a vegetarian rather than a hypocrite, but I'm not. Feel free to flame me.

[BiblioCat]

Originally posted by pugluvr
I hope this question is not too off-subject. Is it still the law that one can take only bucks? When it comes to both population control and quality of meat, doesn't it make more sense to take plump young does? I mean, you can shoot as many bucks as you want, but as long as a few are left, all the does will still get knocked up. What's the law?
As someone else said, it depends on the state and the time of year. There are also regulations about the type of weapon...guns, crossbows, etc. for different times of the year.
My husband went hunting over Thanksgiving weekend and was only allowed to go after bucks. I think they can get does at a different time of year. I'm not sure of the specifics here in MD, I just know he could only get a buck.

He enjoys the hunt...no, he is not one to spend all day in a tree stand. He will use one sometimes, but he would rather track a deer. More sportsmanlike, I guess.

We now have a freezer full of meat, and in fact I just took out some venison steaks this morning for dinner tonight.

[justwannano]

I don't know if anyone has noticed my post in snow etc etc but we have 18inches of snow on the ground right now.

It will be the death of most of the pheasant population.

Squirrels bury in the ground much of the food it stores for winter and is often seen hunting for corn in nearby corn fields in the middle of winter.

Rabbits are pretty hardy and will burrow into a snowbank for food if it can find any.

Deer founder in the deep snow and have a harder time than most if there is a crust of ice on the snow.

Coyotes have dificulty in the deep snow too.

All the wintering birds will have dificulty surviving.

Surviving.Thats what they do in the winter.

We can help them by relieving the over population pressure.

We haven't had a bad winter for several years now and this looks to be one of the bad ones.Record snow and colder than normal -11 this morn. Normal is +32.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by justwannano

We can help them by relieving the over population pressure.


I hope you're not in the medical profession. :)

[zwaldd]

dove hunting is popular here in texas. besides good eating, doves are a challenge to shoot. they fly very fast at different elevations and can twist and turn unpredictably. at a good location that attracts a lot of hunters, it's also a challenge not to get shot yourself. the limit of 15 per day can feed 4 people. there's a certain feeling of self-reliance that comes from hunting, cleaning, cooking, serving, and eating your own food. this is definitely not a type of hunting that can be substituted with photography.

[mangeorge]

You keep bringing up the "over population" thing.
Think it through. As others have stated here, nature deals with this problem by taking the weakest. This tends to strengthen the gene pool.
Hunters seek to harvest the prime specimens, which may weaken the gene pool.
I grew up with hunters. I've gotten drunk and stoned and had earnest conversations with these guys. I've been on a couple of hunts, and know that an instant kill is a rare thing indeed. I know that a lot of hunters feel at least a twinge of guilt, or remorse, when they kill an animal, and that these feelings are usually covered up with a lot of bluff and bravado.
So I guess my point is, if you don't really like to kill, why not take photographs. All the fun of a hunt, but no bad dreams.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Snickers]

Another Wisconsinite weighing in. I'm with the "don't lie about population control" crowd, but with a slight bit of confusion (the OPs put me in quite the dither!). I understand that an overpopulated herd can cause quite a bit of damage, and all I can say is, "Stop shooting the damn wolves!!!" My hometown (near Eau Claire) had two large predators in the area--a brown bear and a timberwolf. Both were shot. Why? Largely, I suspect, due to farmer's fears for their cattle. Unfortunately, bears and wolves probably don't eat fenced-in, barned up cattle at night. But I digress.

I don't understand sport killing or getting that trophy rack for your living room. My father hunts elk in CO every winter (much to our chagrin), but at least he brings home his portion of the meat. And we eat it. But not every hunter does--some only go for that trophy. My grandfather poached in CO to feed his family--he couldn't afford to buy from the grocer's. He would've been arrested if caught, yet some hunters only go for the stuffed head (or whatever) and nothing happens. This angers me.

Yet we are stuck--we've created the environment, now we've got to live with the ramifications of those changes. And try to fix them. However, WI's deer herd this year was one of the largest on record, and hunting seasons have been extended all around. This in spite of all the previous hunting seasons we've had--our "control" does not seem to be working. And driving in October towards twilight is increasingly scary.

I guess I don't know what the solution is--maybe education to farmers (and other assorted people, I don't mean to pick on one group) that predators are not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe a year-round hunting season--would this decrease the "trophy hunters" salivating for hunting season to start and increase those who hunt for food? Or would this be too disasterous? I don't know--ideas?

Snickers

[yosemite]

As I have recently mentioned on another thread - I don't see how shooting and eating a deer is less desireable than eating the meat of an animal that was born and bred (under rather miserale conditions, often.) That seems to be the case with most commercially-produced meats that you find in grocery stores. These animals do not have the relatively "normal" lives that wild game do. And, as has been mentioned before, they are often pumped full of hormones, etc. At least the deer was probably happy happy happy until one day, BAM! (if the hunter is good at their job) and it's all over. I don't think the same can be said for animals raised in factory farms, which apparently can be quite appalling sometimes.

I am a vegetarian, so I'm out of all of this. Don't want to eat (or kill) a deer, a squirrel, or anything. It does not appeal to me. So pardon me if I do not see such a great distinction between someone eating the meat of a dead cow or chicken, or a dead deer. In the end, it's still a dead animal on your plate. And no, I am not criticising or judging the meat-eater. (I don't want to eat any meat - so that means more for you, OK?) But I don't get it. Could someone explain, please?

[cjharker]

Originally posted by Snickers
I guess I don't know what the solution is--maybe education to farmers (and other assorted people, I don't mean to pick on one group) that predators are not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe a year-round hunting season--would this decrease the "trophy hunters" salivating for hunting season to start and increase those who hunt for food? Or would this be too disasterous? I don't know--ideas?

Snickers

Hunters might be able to correct me on this, but I think year-round hunting would be disastrous because you risk taking away the parents from the fawns.

To yosemitebabe:

You're right. There is no difference between shooting it yourself or buying it from the store. A dead animal on your plate is still the result.

[cjharker]

States allow hunting because people want to do it, but they regulate length of season and number of kills for population control.

[justwannano]

Yosemitebabe
I'll double that answer.
You're right.
The guy on the killing floor at IBP does the killing.

The animal is still shot.Bet most don't know that.

As far as conditions go at factory farms ,most are humane.
The animals are comfortable.
It does more harm than good for the conditions not to be comfortable
.
The problem shows up when the farmer cannot pay his bills. The bank is after him by freezing his assets.
He cannot pay for feed and he cannot sell the animals.The proverbial rock and a hard place.

[mangeorge]

So maybe KFC's "non-chicken" is the right idea after all. ;)
Peace,
mangeorge
BTW; I know it's an urban legend. If you don't, go to snopes and type in KFC.

[cornflakes]

Originally posted by cjharker
States allow hunting because people want to do it, but they regulate length of season and number of kills for population control. This sounds like a great idea.

[mangeorge]

This, from britannica.com, is population control;
[QUOTE]"Wolves move and hunt mostly at night. A wolf pack feeds primarily on large herbivores such as deer, moose, and caribou, which it catches by a stalk and a chase. The pack gorges when food is available, usually reducing the carcass to hair and a few bones. In its hunting the gray wolf performs an important natural function in controlling the numbers of large herbivores and in weeding out those less fit for survival."[/QUOTE
So can we please quit with all the grandiose claims?
And maybe re-introduce wolves (and other predators) where they have been removed?
Peace,
mangeorge

[mangeorge]

Here, I'll fix it. " ] "
There ya go. :)
Peace,
mangeorge

[Donovan]

This is not necessarily a viable option. In many areas with a large deer populations, we also have relatively large human populations. Predators will not necessarily stay in areas where they 'should' be. Tell most people in my neck of Wisconsin 'we're ending hunting, but releasing a pack of wolves 15 miles from your house'.
I wouldn't mind it (I would be elated). Most people I know wouldn't think it a wise idea- especially if they have children or pets. I live within an hour or Milwaukee, and people in outlying suburbs very rarely lose a pet to a coyote, but it happens. There are then bigass news stories and the inevitable point comes up: 'Oh, it could have been a child'. These are coyotes.
There are large deer populations in the semi-rural area I live, and large human populations too. People generally don't worry about deer attacks, but they would definitely worry about wolf attacks. (Especially when these are people who lived in the suburbs all their life, then move 15 mile further from the city to 'get away from the people'- and bitch when deer eat their expensive ornamental plants... )

Personally, I am aware that wolves are generally harmless, and I would love to see them reintroduced throughought the state. Just try selling that idea to the public.

I don't think most hunters are hunting primarily because of altruistic feelings toward the herd; they want to go out and blow away an animal. But I think we should be aware that at the same time, they are performing a necessary service to the ecosystem and human population around them.

[Kimstu]

DrMatrix and mangeorge, I think your arguments that population control is not a valid reason to hunt, because hunters worsen the gene pool by killing the strongest animals whereas "natural" predators kill the weak and diseased animals, are flawed. A buck's genes are not kept out of the gene pool unless he's killed before reaching sexual maturity and reproducing (and I believe there are laws against killing bucks before maturity, as there are against killing does at practically any time, I think). Yes, a big prize trophy male would have more offspring over his life if he weren't offed by a hunter, but he will not necessarily end up having fewer offspring than weak and diseased males (who tend not to be selected for mates as much, yes?).

Also, don't sport hunters most dearly prize a really big rack of antlers, which a buck only develops over the course of quite a few years? So the really big trophies are the older bucks who presumably have already had plenty of opportunities to reproduce. Unless I've got my facts seriously wrong, I think that kind of knocks out the "bad eugenics" objection to hunting for population control.

[yosemite]

The thing I can't figure out is - what does it matter what the "excuse" or "reasons" are for hunters wanting to participate in this activity? If it is to thin out the herd, to help the environment, to feed their starving family - or if they just like to "blow things away"? If you want to eat meat, you must realize that someone had to "blow it away". If you don't approve of the activity, you shouldn't be eating the meat.

Why do I detect this element of superiority (or condemnation) amongst some of you because you don't want to hunt? And you attach motives to hunters (they like to "blow it away") as if that makes them creeps, or something. If someone didn't kill animals, you wouldn't be able to eat their meat. I think it is a little more than hypocrisy to feel superior to people who (for lack of a better phrase) "kill their own food", when all you do is pay someone to kill your food for you.

I don't believe that all of you think this way, and I certainly don't blame someone for not wanting or liking to hunt. But feeling superiority (or irritation) at hunting as a whole makes no sense, if you eat meat. (And for the record, as a vegetarian, I don't feel "superior" to hunters, or meat eaters. Just leave me to my nuts and seeds, thankyouverymuch.)

[justwannano]

Wait a minute Yoseminitebabe.
You eat nuts and seeds???
Can't have that.
The deer and mooses need that.;)

[justwannano]

yosemitebabe
yosemitebabe
yosemitebabe
Spelling practice
OK got it.

[Donovan]

Yosemitebabe
Why do I detect this element of superiority (or condemnation) amongst some of you because you don't want to hunt? And you attach motives to hunters (they like to "blow it away") as if that makes them creeps, or something. If someone didn't kill animals, you wouldn't be able to eat their meat. I think it is a little more than hypocrisy to feel superior to people who (for lack of a better phrase) "kill their own food", when all you do is pay someone to kill your food for you.

Since I believe it is I who attached this motive "blow it away" to the many hunters I know, am related to, and am the progeny of, I feel I have to defend the comment.

The phraseology was an attempt to make light of the argument over motives. Most of my friends who like to hunt enjoy the act of finding their prey and taking it out. Most hyper-environmentalists (of which I am one) I know do less proactive things to make real changes in the environment than your average hunter and/or hunter groups (check out Ducks Unlimited) do. I do not feel that, taken in context of the entire post, I was trying to say hunting gives me the creeps, and I sure as hell don't feel superior to those who hunt: I would just rather be doing other things.

The thrust of my argument was that we NEED hunters, especially in areas where wilderness and human settlement overlap (BTW, I agree completely with the kill your own vs. pay someone else to kill it comment).

God, this is the first thread I've posted to more than once and it's about hunting...

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Kimstu
Also, don't sport hunters most dearly prize a really big rack of antlers, which a buck only develops over the course of quite a few years? So the really big trophies are the older bucks who presumably have already had plenty of opportunities to reproduce. Unless I've got my facts seriously wrong, I think that kind of knocks out the "bad eugenics" objection to hunting for population control.

Disagree. Although there is still opportunity for the healthy bucks to reproduce, the overall number of their (potential) offspring is reduced. In the long run, these small losses can add up.

[jeel]

Originally posted by Snickers
I don't understand sport killing or getting that trophy rack for your living room. My father hunts elk in CO every winter (much to our chagrin), but at least he brings home his portion of the meat. And we eat it. But not every hunter does--some only go for that trophy. My grandfather poached in CO to feed his family--he couldn't afford to buy from the grocer's. He would've been arrested if caught, yet some hunters only go for the stuffed head (or whatever) and nothing happens. This angers me.
Snickers [/B]

Snickers I don't agree with trophy hunting for the most part, but don't worry. Most, if not all, trophy hunters either take the meat home and eat it themselves or donate it to someone who will eat it. I know this because I helped outfit an elk hunt where the guy who was after only a trophy donated the meat to a local rancher I knew.

As for the people who don't buy the population control and thrill of the chase argument, maybe this is what you want to hear. I am an avid hunter and I LOVE to kill! I love seeing animals suffer and bleed to death! I love to brag about my superiority over animals because I have an opposable thumb and can fire a rifle!!!!!!! I wish I could be killing an animal right now!!!!

Seriously though...the challenge of hunting is most of the lure for me. If you don't think hunting is challenging, then you've never been hunting with someone like me. Like I said in another post, I must be a mediocre big game hunter as I have never personally killed a big game animal.

I don't consider duck hunting or other types of bird hunting to be any more cruel than killing a chicken raised on a farm. At least the ducks, pheasants, doves, etc. have a chance to get away.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally posted by BunnyGirl
...aren't most leopard species endangered or on some kind of cautionary list?
If you grow crops, endangered carnivores can be a deadly nuisance.
Can you clarify what you mean? I'm a little confused.

In Africa and parts of Asia, tigers can eat the children of rural residents. Elephants can trample crops and people.

In Europe and the US, wolves posed similar problems to humans and livestock. The response, alas, was to wipe them out. (My understanding is that the wolves that remain are rather wary of humans and tend to avoid them.)

Again, if we wish the residents of third world countries to co-exist with endangered species, we have to give them an incentive to do so. Issuing limited numbers of hunting permits for, say, leopards, (as they do in Zimbabwe) helps assure the long-term survival of these magnificent creatures.

An example of this approach is outlined here:

http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/end-zim.html

[justwannano]

Lets talk about antlers for a minute.

If I am a trophy hunter and I get lucky and shoot a thirty point buck (HEY the humor is free folks) that buck had been fathering his kind for a long time.The biggest rack means he is probably the meanest sob in the valley. He has bred every doe that he can gather into his harem for a long time.
Sooner or later he is going to run out of unrelated females. Do I have to explain further?
So trophy hunting is not such a bad idea after all.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Kimstu
(most importantly) wandering onto roads and getting hit by cars (which generally does a LOT more damage to the car and/or its occupants than to the deer).
Really? I find that very difficult to believe. How many deer have been killed this way versus humans?

[Kimstu]

Well, when it comes to actual fatalities, the deer certainly appear to have the worst of it: this source (http://detnews.com/2000/macomb/0011/10/c05-146628.htm) says that over 600 deer per year have been killed of recent years on highways in Michigan's Macomb County, while in 1996 (http://www.msp.state.mi.us/division/tss/cardeer.htm) only 6 people died as a result of car/deer collisions in all of Michigan. The number of human injuries resulting from those collisions, though, was 2,221, and the total number of 1996 collisions was 68,000! The deer walks away from the majority of those accidents; and I have known people (in southern New Jersey) who totaled their cars in deer collisions after which the deer (not necessarily unscathed, of course) went leaping off into the woods. Wild deer are pretty tough hombres and they are big. We are not talking running over a possum or squirrel here. Deer on roads do indeed constitute a serious threat to the safety of drivers and their cars.

[Kaboodle]

Ohio hunter here. If you want some facts about hunting check out the website of your state department of natural resouces.

ODNR Notes on White-tailed Deer (http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/education/wildnotes/deer.html)

The whitetail buck grows its first set of antlers when it is a year old. (snip) In a sound environment -abundant and nutritious food and water- racks can grow to massive size. Deer in poor habitat will not only appear thin, but have small antlers as well. Unlike horns of cattle, antlers are not a permanent part of a male deer’s body. In Ohio, bucks typically shed or drop their antlers in December and January, following the fall breeding season.

Antlers (on White-tailed Deer) are not necessarily an indication of a deer's age. When a deer is taken during huting season it is required to be taken to a checking station where the deer's age is determined from it's teeth among other things.

As for population control:
Whitetail deer are perhaps the most intensively managed wildlife species in the state. Deer are many things to many people. They may be viewed as superb game fare and a trophy by sportsmen and women, a prized addition to the landscape by the nature enthusiast, a threat to crops by the forester and farmer, or a road hazard for the motorist. Accommodating these diverse interests has been the responsibility of the Ohio Division of Wildlife since deer
began returning to the state in 1923.

The Division’s official deer management goal is to maintain county deer populations at a level that provides maximum recreational opportunity including hunting, viewing, and photography, while minimizing conflicts with agriculture, motor travel, and other human activities. Each year wildlife biologists evaluate deer herd population numbers and establish appropriate hunting season dates and bag limits for white-tailed deer.

Hunters are one of the tools of the ODNR's management policy. Population control may not be the main reason that I hunt but that doesn't mean that I am not achieving that end.

[Sterra]

I don't see why you would release wolves for population control when you have humans already there.

Also you can not mess up evolution, its just not possible. If the biggest and the best deers all die then guess what? Those deer werent the best at surviving. The best at surviving live. Hence natural selection.

[mangeorge]

Ok. Asmodean. Next time you want to bag a trophy buck, why don't you just run up and bite him on the neck?
:D
Peace,
mangeorge

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Kimstu
Deer on roads do indeed constitute a serious threat to the safety of drivers and their cars.

So the solution is to kill what is in our way? Seems like there should be something better to do.

Originally posted by Asmodean
Also you can not mess up evolution, its just not possible. If the biggest and the best deers all die then guess what? Those deer werent the best at surviving. The best at surviving live. Hence natural selection.


We keep proceeding with that mindset (as we are with what seems to be just about every species), and someday we'll find that we've killed off one species too many and our own survival will be at stake. We need a healthy ecosystem for our own survival.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Phobos
Originally posted by Kimstu
Deer on roads do indeed constitute a serious threat to the safety of drivers and their cars.

So the solution is to kill what is in our way? Seems like there should be something better to do.


Maybe we could pass out contraceptives to all the deer to encourage safe sex. Seriously though, what solution do you have that wouldn't end up costing an arm and a leg?


We keep proceeding with that mindset (as we are with what seems to be just about every species), and someday we'll find that we've killed off one species too many and our own survival will be at stake. We need a healthy ecosystem for our own survival.

What species do we depend on for survival? Most of the ones that are endangered don't make much of a difference to us. So long as certain bacteria and insects don't go extinct I think we'll end up doing just fine. Most humans change the ecosystem for their own survival to begin with.

Marc

[MaynardJK]

Now I've found a situation where I don't have to right a thing at all. Just read my sig. It's as simple as that. No arguing, No fighting, Just that.

[MaynardJK]

right= write.

Here's the entire song.

69
Disgustipated
And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary.

It was daylight when you woke up in your ditch. You looked up at your sky then. That made blue be your color. You had your knife there with you too. When you stood up there was goo all over your clothes. Your hands were sticky. You wiped them on your grass, so now your color was green. Oh Lord, why did everything always have to keep changing like this. You were already getting nervous again. Your head hurt and it rang when you stood up. Your head was almost empty. It always hurt you when you woke up like this. You crawled up out of your ditch onto your gravel road and began to walk, waiting for the rest of your mind to come back to you. You can see the car parked far down the road and you walked toward it. "If God is our Father," you thought, "then Satan must be our cousin." Why didn't anyone else understand these important things? You got to your car and tried all the doors. They were locked. It was a red car and it was new. There was an expensive leather camera case laying on the seat. Out across your field, you could see two tiny people walking by your woods. You began to walk towards them. Now red was your color and, of course, those little people out there were yours too.

[Wrath]

Regarding pop control eugenics, I'm curious how a hunter could possibly target only the "healthiest" animal, unless s/he gathers blood samples and other data... Point is, the sickly ones die anyway, and a hunter may kill and eat an apparently "healthy" buck, but has the kill really worsened the gene pool? I'd suspect the hunter would have to have been lucky enough to have killed a "genetically superior" specimen to have done so, but the reality of hunting season for most hunters I've known ends without a prize. If a buck is had, chances are it's an ordinary representative of the population.

And if a buck's offspring potential has not been met, can anyone say that it's necessarily a bad thing? Seems just as likely that the buck killed shouldn't have been reproducing anyway. Keeping a deer pop in check reduces its exposure to humans, and keeps the deer tick pop in check, thereby reducing outbreaks of such wonderful diseases like Lyme.

I've never hunted, mostly becuase it's something I've never had time for. (I've also never skiied down a mountain, same reason) but I've never heard a compelling reason to stop hunting, ever. Much of the arguments seem to be emotional, ranging from "why would you want to" (like it's any of your business) to animal's rights (largely a matter of opinion and a separate GD). But none of these arguments ever would compel a hunter to stop, nor convince legislators to outlaw the activity.

On the other side, the plusses are compelling. IIRC, Ted Nugent hunts fertively. His venison is donated to homeless shelters by the hundreds of pounds. Sounds like a win-win-win situation: Ted gets to hunt with friends, deer population is kept in check, and some homeless folks get a decent meal.

[mangeorge]

Ted Nugent. What ever happened to thay guy, anyway?
Is he still out there, selflessly feeding the poor?
Peace,
mangeorge

[justwannano]

Mangeorge
See your local TV guide for Ted Nugents "spirit of the wild"
Wrath
Right on.

FWIW
I saw this 17 real live wild deer this morning and never left the house.Is there a population problem??????
Anyone want to drive fast past my house tonight???

[jonas]

I'm not anti-hunter, but I think some of the arguments are weak. Nature does not need us to control the population and if the deer population is higher because their natural predators are no longer around, this would seem to be the fault of our population control of unwanted pests. If you are worried about hitting a deer w/ your car, maybe you should think about weather the deer are on your road or if your road is cutting through thier forrest. On the other hand we are animals and we hunt (not me personally) and I don't feel it is necessary to make up excuses for doing so. It tastes good, and I assume it feels good for some.

[Wrath]

jonas, I think the argument is not that nature needs us to control the deer population, but that WE need us to control it. Nature is not doing a very good job of it as far as we are concerned. Sure eventually the population may control itself, but wouldn't it be better if we helped it along a little so that your child doesn't get bitten by a tick and contract a fatal disease like Lyme, or perhaps before a wandering pack crosses the highway in search of food, right in front of you, forcing you to swerve off the road and crash, possibly fatally injuring yourself and your spouse... are you gonna think about whose road it really is then?

[mangeorge]

I can't stand intolerance!
And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate!
Peace,
mangeorge

[Phobos]

Originally posted by MGibson
Maybe we could pass out contraceptives to all the deer to encourage safe sex. Seriously though, what solution do you have that wouldn't end up costing an arm and a leg?


contraceptives! that's it!
But seriously, you're right...there is no easy answer. Reducing future urban sprawl may help. Spending extra money on new road construction (like fences in high-risk areas) may help. Moose whistles (or whatever those noise makers that you mount on the front of your car are called). Driving slower (gasp!). That kind of thing. Feel free to mock these ideas now.

Overall, yes, human safety is very important. Organized hunting may have it's place in some areas, but I don't think it's the only solution. And I certainly don't think that's the motivation of most hunters. IMHO, many/most hunters do it for the thrill of the kill...which is wrong. But I guess it's easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department.

Originally posted by MGibson
What species do we depend on for survival? Most of the ones that are endangered don't make much of a difference to us. So long as certain bacteria and insects don't go extinct I think we'll end up doing just fine. Most humans change the ecosystem for their own survival to begin with.
[/B]

That's my point. We don't know. The interconnections in an ecosystem are complex and we may unwittingly eliminate a beneficial species. Therefore it would be wise to act cautiously. But I'm getting off-topic here. (a world of humans, insects, and bacteria...sounds like a fun place)

[justwannano]

Phobos,you said
"But I guess it's easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department."

The park system may be part of the problem.It provides a hiding place for deer but they leave it to feed.Thus they become the driving hazard. Also many parks have their own hunting season,permit only, because of over grazing.

[thinksnow]

Wrath
...Nature is not doing a very good job of it as far as we are concerned. Sure eventually the population may control itself, but wouldn't it be better if we helped it along a little ...

IMHO:
Uh, I could be off base, but Nature was doing a fine job for many, many years. As a number of people had mentioned, it's the human intervention (roads, urban sprawl, industry, etc.) that had aided in upsetting the natural balance.

Regarding the OP, I've thought of hunting with a camera for years. Not that I have anything against killing game, but I have a really nice camera and some spectacular zoom lens' that I would really like to try in a new environment.

I might go hunting, weapon hunting, someday too. When I do, it won't be to control the population or thin the herd, it will be because I want to experience hunting, a skill that has been around as long as man. Plain and simple.

Oh, and FWIW, my sister lives in MI and had one of her cats snatched by a coyote. I would see no substantial issue with sniping that creature if it, a predator of sorts, is invading urban/sub-urban areas and snatching pets (Will someone think of the children!).

[Wrath]

Originally posted by thinksnow
Uh, I could be off base, but Nature was doing a fine job for many, many years. As a number of people had mentioned, it's the human intervention (roads, urban sprawl, industry, etc.) that had aided in upsetting the natural balance.

Of course "nature" was doing a fine job - we weren't around!. But now we are here and we aren't getting along. Sorry, but no deer is more important than me or my family, (or you and your family) and "nature" acts too slowly.

BTW, aren't humans a natural element of this earth, and thereby just as natural as nature itself? Why when folks talk of "nature" are humans somehow removed from the equation?

I've heard these arguments before from animal lovers - that wild bears once roamed the isle that is now Manhattan, and they should be allowed to return. Is this basically your position? If you think we should leave these animals alone and go live somewhere else, then let's all do it. You first.

[justwannano]

Actually we,humans,are the ultimate predator.
We alone have the intellegence and means to wipe out an entire species. Including our own.

The fact that we are trying not to let that happen,and IMHO are doing a pretty good job of it.says that we are doing things right.
Take deer for instance,Look up the population figures from 1900,you'll see that we have far more than the estimated population from that time.

Another documented case is the wild turkey.

Neither of these would have made a come back were it not for the money spent by hunters.

To get back to the OPs question,I see no documented proof of any contributions by photographers.But I have an open mind if you can show me a significant monetaty contribution I'll consider changing my opinion.

[justwannano]

Well maybe they contributed monetaty but what about money/
Monetary
monetary
monetary

[Odesio]

contraceptives! that's it!
But seriously, you're right...there is no easy answer. Reducing future urban sprawl may help. Spending extra money on new road construction (like fences in high-risk areas) may help. Moose whistles (or whatever those noise makers that you mount on the front of your car are called). Driving slower (gasp!). That kind of thing. Feel free to mock these ideas now.


All of which are unacceptable because they end up costing to much money and they aren't all that effective. Ok, whistles and driving slower don't cost extra money I admit.


Overall, yes, human safety is very important.


Personally I put it at a higher priority then animal safety. Even endangered animals.


Organized hunting may have it's place in some areas, but I don't think it's the only solution.


In most areas it is probably the quickest and cheapest way to solve the problem. Of course it doesn't help that some people insist on treating the deer like pets and putting feed out for them.


But I guess it's easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department.


Most states already fund some sort of parks department. Their jobs cover a lot more then deer population though.



That's my point. We don't know. The interconnections in an ecosystem are complex and we may unwittingly eliminate a beneficial species. Therefore it would be wise to act cautiously. But I'm getting off-topic here. (a world of humans, insects, and bacteria...sounds like a fun place)

I'm not to worried that missing a few species is going to upset the balance to such a degree that life becomes impossible for us. Europeans seem to be doing just fine without all those wolves, bears, or the forest that used to cover a larger portion of the continent.

Marc

[Phobos]

Originally posted by justwannano
Phobos,you said
"But I guess it's easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department."

The park system may be part of the problem.It provides a hiding place for deer but they leave it to feed.Thus they become the driving hazard. Also many parks have their own hunting season,permit only, because of over grazing.


I should have specified...I meant putting extra $$$ into the Parks Dept to run a deer population control program in addition to their other duties.

Originally posted by thinksnow
Oh, and FWIW, my sister lives in MI and had one of her cats snatched by a coyote. I would see no substantial issue with sniping that creature if it, a predator of sorts, is invading urban/sub-urban areas and snatching pets (Will someone think of the children!).


It is we that have invaded coyote country. If you don't want coyotes in your yard, then put a fence around it...don't wipe out the species. Plus, similar to what MGibson was saying, having such animals approach human homes is often a result of people knowingly or unknowingly attracting the animals (putting out food for pets, not covering garbage, owning delicious house cats, etc.)

Originally posted by Wrath to thinksnow
I've heard these arguments before from animal lovers - that wild bears once roamed the isle that is now Manhattan, and they should be allowed to return. Is this basically your position? If you think we should leave these animals alone and go live somewhere else, then let's all do it. You first.


I'm certainly not recommending either of these extremes. I'm just saying it would be better to plan developments & work with an ecosystem rather than steamrolling it without consideration to the long-term effects and the immorality of killing without a valid reason (e.g., food, self defense).

Originally posted by MGibson
All of which are unacceptable because they end up costing to much money and they aren't all that effective. Ok, whistles and driving slower don't cost extra money I admit.


Which is why I said there's no easy solution. But a little from Column A and a little from Column B depending on the specific situation may help.

Originally posted by MGibson
In most areas it is probably the quickest and cheapest way to solve the problem. Of course it doesn't help that some people insist on treating the deer like pets and putting feed out for them.


Agree. Definitely a bad idea.

Originally posted by MGibson
I'm not to worried that missing a few species is going to upset the balance to such a degree that life becomes impossible for us. Europeans seem to be doing just fine without all those wolves, bears, or the forest that used to cover a larger portion of the continent.


You're right that a few missing species probably won't affect us. It hasn't so far and a TON of species have already gone extinct in recent history. Point is -- at some point it may affect us and we don't know what this point is.

I don't think you can really judge the long-term viability of Europeans' lifestyle based on just the past few hundred years unless your concern is only for the near-future. By the way, have you seen the heavily-industrialized parts of Europe lately?...quite the environmental mess.

[justwannano]

Phobos

I should have specified...I meant putting extra $$$ into the Parks Dept to run a deer population control program in addition to their other duties.

How in the world would they do that?
In conjunction with a money saving program,I don't even want to imagine the horrors that would present.

[thinksnow]

Wrath
thinksnow
Uh, I could be off base, but Nature was doing a fine job for many, many years

Of course "nature" was doing a fine job - we weren't around!. But now we are here and we aren't getting along. Sorry, but no deer is more important than me or my family, (or you and your family) and "nature" acts too slowly.

BTW, aren't humans a natural element of this earth, and thereby just as natural as nature itself? Why when folks talk of "nature" are humans somehow removed from the equation?

Well, we've (humans have) been around for quite some time, and it's a fairly recent, relatively, development of species extinction due specifically to human hunting. No, I can't site anything, so I'd be willing to back off of that position should someone be able to provide info otherwise.

Of course humans are a natural element of the Earth, I never said otherwise. Nature seems to have a few ways of dealing with our over-population, too (earthquakes, flooding, tornados, inbreeding).

I've heard these arguments before from animal lovers - that wild bears once roamed the isle that is now Manhattan, and they should be allowed to return. Is this basically your position? If you think we should leave these animals alone and go live somewhere else, then let's all do it. You first.

Uh, no. I like Manhattan. I like urban sprawl. I'm not a hunter simply because I've not gotten to it yet, but I'm surely not an "animal lover" in the context you mean it. I love my cats, but I feel no qualms eating steak, veal, lamb, quail, venison, buffalo, ostrich, or chicken. Thanks for playing, though. :D
Phobos
It is we that have invaded coyote country. If you don't want coyotes in your yard, then put a fence around it...don't wipe out the species. Plus, similar to what MGibson was saying, having such animals approach human homes is often a result of people knowingly or unknowingly attracting the animals (putting out food for pets, not covering garbage, owning delicious house cats, etc.)

Hey, I'm just saying that given the option of allowing coyotes that, for the past 20 or so years (read: known history of property), have had exactly zero presence, to roam and poach in my (or my sisters back yard) or to shoot them on sight, well, I'll opt for snuffing the furry little things.

[mangeorge]

So far, the response to the OP seems to be (1) for meat and (2) for population control.
Well Phobos, I guess we can now add to your list;
(3) Human safety, and (4) To protect kittens.
:D
Does anyone else think that maybe this debate is getting just a littli silly?
Peace,
mangeorge

[thinksnow]

"...silly..."

NEVER!!!

[Wrath]

Originally posted by thinksnow
Well, we've (humans have) been around for quite some time, and it's a fairly recent, relatively, development of species extinction due specifically to human hunting. No, I can't site anything, so I'd be willing to back off of that position should someone be able to provide info otherwise.

"Nature" did a pretty good job of species extinction long before homo sapiens came about. I agree that we have "artificially" accelerated the extinctions (or the threat thereof) of countless species, but thanks to awareness, animals like the Bald Eagle are starting to make a comeback.

I would argue that while hunting may have done in a few, other human factors such as pesticides, waste management, urban encroachment and leisure activities (boating is wiping out the manatees), are doing far more harm than hunting ever did - at least in America. The Great Apes of Zaire are dying off pretty fast due to loss of environment and poaching.

Today, hunting is a pretty well licensed, seasoned and controlled sport here, and threatened species are protected. Even fishing has limits.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by justwannano
I should have specified...I meant putting extra $$$ into the Parks Dept to run a deer population control program in addition to their other duties.

How in the world would they do that?
In conjunction with a money saving program,I don't even want to imagine the horrors that would present.

Exactly my point. (I wasn't recommending the extra $$$, I was saying that the State would rather take in license money and let hunters take care of the problem rather than dishing out $$$ for a new program.)

Originally posted by mangeorge
Does anyone else think that maybe this debate is getting just a littli silly?


It has meandered a bit from the OP hasn't it? I had better stop before I get a reputation as a deer-hugging liberal around here! Maybe I can find a GD about the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism.

Wrath I agree with your last post. :)

[thinksnow]

Just so we're clear, I'm agreeing with you, wrath.

I'm for controlled hunting. I'm for protection of the environment and endangered species, whether they be endangered due to pesticide use/abuse, errant highway construction, idiots on power boats or (over-)hunting.

The issue isn't neccessarily black and white, I think we'll all agree and it has been discussed earlier. There is hunting and there is slaughter (see Japanese whalers). I support hunting, but I also want to snap a few pictures of nature.