# Hunting **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2000, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038 "2000-10-07T03:55:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/61 "2000-10-12T21:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > After reviewing your review of my review of your comments (whew!), I am scratching my head a bit at your indignation. You say “to-MAY-to,” and I say “to-MAH-to,” I guess. You asserted generalizations. Specifics are not only necessary but crucial considering that they greatly modify the meaning. Regardless, let’s let that one slide. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Yep. I find that opinion idealistic - and misguided. Making such a statement with no clue as to what to put in our agricultural and pastoral system’s place, and without acknowledging that almost 100 percent of people would not be interested in making your change. Yep. Idealistic. And misguided. I’ll agree that my view is idealistic. I happen to be an idealist in many aspects. Despite that fact, I did not suggest to rid ourselves of agriculture and pastoralism. Almost 100% of people would place a higher value on an arbitrary monetary system (e.g., a drop in crop yield) than the environment? I’d like a cite for that one, please. Finally, would you care to elaborate on the misguided nature of my persepective? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > How 'bout doing some statistical sampling of your own neighborhood? Go knocking door-to-door, tell people what you propose, record their response and let me know what they think. Perhaps you should endeavor to undertake the survey. You are the one claiming that nearly all of them agree with you. I would consider that an acceptable citation were the survey statistically sound. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > At a certain point, no. We could; but we’ve decided we don’t like the crop/lawn damage, expense, the occasional disease. Oh, perhaps you mean it isn’t profitable, rather than practical, eh? > [@](#): > > \*\*Isn’t it also impractical to adopt an unstable sociocultural system over one which is stable? \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > I don’t understand what you mean. Our society is one of the most stable in the history of the planet. The opposite is true. Bands and tribes are far more stable than industrialized states. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > No, I don’t. I give humans a little more leeway than deer. Perhaps you don’t. I guess we’ll just disagree there. What do you mean by giving humans more leeway than deer? > [@](#): > > \*\*I find it amusing that one asserts an argument that it is more moral to hunt deer to decrease the population than to allow the deer to die for other reasons. Personally, in such instances, I am more inclined to appeal toward the latter as natural selection will have a great influence. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > And I and millions of other people are more inclined to give a wild animal a more humane death, and also provide food for our table. Another disagreement. See you in the meat department at the supermarket, though. Although I disagree with the term “humane” when applied toward other animals, I don’t really disagree with you. It is advantageous to us to benefit from the flesh of the animal. It is advantageous to the population of deer that the weak be eliminated through natural selection. Different environment pressures (e.g., lack of food supply versus predators) will result in different adaptations. I simply disagreed with your moral attributions. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Sorry. I just don’t subscribe to tearing it all down and replacing it with something else. I don’t think it’s all THAT bad. And I think there are _a few_ others out there who agree. You are entitled to your opinion and I am sure there are others who feel similarly. I don’t suggest tearing it all down. I just feel that people have made a choice to live in a particular fashion and they must live with the consequences. I don’t believe that killing animals for living on land that is no more your property than theirs constitutes proper motivation for hunting. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Agreed. Well! We’re starting to get somewhere. > [@](#): > > \*\* We also have the capacity to pave every square millimeter of this earth. Does that fact make it a prudent choice? \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > No. Who said it would be? That would be environmentally irresponsible and detrimental. Hunting isn’t. The analogy is awful. You were taking my quote out of context. The analogy isn’t between hunting as a whole and paving the earth. You stated that we are simply using our faculties. It is within our power to guns for hunting just as it is to pave the earth. My point is that possessing the faculities does not dictate prudence. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > I think the line is drawn at having respectable, learned biologists carefully monitor an area’s wildlife populations; determining what a prudent population would be for particular “management units” that sustains healthy numbers of the animals and a habitat that sustains them and other animals, and also takes into account societal factors such as disease and crop-damage control; and then using hunting through conventional methods to maintain the targeted goals within those management units. > > In other words, the system we have now. It is the “conventional methods” with which I disagree. I agree on having input from biologists, although I disagree with the societal factors as I indicated before. Your concept of conventional methods is an issue which concerns me. Consider using the following four items to hunt a deer: nuke, rifle, bow and arrow, and knife. Wielding a knife in deer hunting would require so much skill that I doubt any endeavors would be fruitful. Using a nuke would be radically excessive. I think we can agree on those two counts. When using a rifle one can pick off a dear at a several hundred feet. How does the animal get to use it’s senses to defend itself? How does natural selection play a role? If one were to use a bow and arrow those factors become present, thus the species becomes better adapted. Killing the animal is not the issue at hand. Precisely how the animal is killed is. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/62 "2000-10-13T12:33:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > \*\*I acknowledge that those who think like you may feel inconvenienced in their use of public lands during hunting season. Why would I do that? I don’t think you’re really incovenienced. I acknowledge that _you perceive this_ as an inconvenience, because of your refusal to accept the necessity of hunting.) > > Are others harmed? No. I don’t acknowledge that. The number of non-hunters killed or injured in hunting accidents is so microscopically small as to be statistically insignificant. More people are probably injured by pizza burns. \*\* I’m certain, of course, that the families of those who have been killed will feel your sympathy at being “statistically insignificant”. (re: SI - currently we have congressional inquiries, lawsuits, publicity, corporatate heads stepping down over 60 deaths nationwide linked to tires. SI?) \*\* Milo \*\* I’m curious. If, as you now contend, “The dual goals (of crop protection and maintaining herd levels for hunting) can be and are accomplished, year after year.” then why all the prior emphasis on how much damage the deer do to farms and how much better off the farmers are, etc. etc. that was the thrust of your prior arguements? And, frankly, if protection of crops is the desired end, then why wait until the harvest season to start shooting deer? Why not allow, encourage farmers who’s farms are being ravaged by the errant deer population to take care of any deer that come on their property? If protection of the crops is the aim, then taking of does should be encouraged (not discouraged as is current, with the requirement of additional payment) and limits would be non existant. And, in this scenario, NO one would be in danger on public lands. No, it seems clear that the true aim and purpose of the DNR’s management policy is to continue to sustain a herd of deer for the enjoyment of the 0.08% of our state’s population that hunt. And \*\* Milo \*\* if I am "apparently operating from the premise that hunting is an evil that needs eradication, " because of the \*\* dangers \*\* and denial of rights to non hunters, then, I also submit to you that you are operating from the assumption that allowing 0.08% of the population to take up arms and cause danger to the other 99.92% of the population for several months is not only fair, equitable and right but necessary for crop protection and ‘herd maintenance’. A word on flame orange. Flame orange \*\* may \*\* be of some protection from the responsible hunter with good aim. Flame orange offeres zero protection from the irresponsible hunter who shoots at movement, the drunken hunter, the hunter with poor aim AND the stray bullets of ALL hunters statistics on how many people are hurt each year do not take into account how many people stay OUT of the woods 'cause it isn’t safe. Remember the kids at my sister’s elementary school? they don’t go out for recess during hunting season. Cause it’s not safe. \*\* aside to Mr Z \*\* Hunting is the only sport where the one participating is actively causing dangers to other non participants. all of the other sports and hobbies can coexist nicely - but if you have hunters in the woods, it is less safe for hikers, bird watchers, cross country skiers, naturalists, campers, photographers etc. My ex, an avid hunter, agreed that, even as a hunter, going into the public hunting areas was less safe, since one never knew how many hunters there were, where they were, who they were, if they were safe/responsible etc. \*\* > [@](#): > > If, while you’re out there, however, you interfere with the hunt, then **you** are interfering with **their** rights, and you’re in violation of the law. \*\* Excuse me? gee, I thought I’d made it plain, over and over again. I stay out of the woods during the season. It’s not safe. try answering arguments presented, please, it makes it much easier. and \*\* Milo \*\*. Please, I’ve tried to refrain from sarcasm, to disagree with you without resorting to disrespect. This: > [@](#): > > " Suck your lower lip enough, and I’m sure someone will give you some orange stuff. > > If you feel that’s too much of an inconvenience, sorry. Society disagrees with you. Wear buckskin and take your chances." was, I feel, both rude and unneccesary. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/63 "2000-10-13T15:15:09Z")
wring, this will be my last response to you. I think you’re just being contrary, and I’ve hijacked this thread enough. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m certain, of course, that the families of those who have been killed will feel your sympathy at being “statistically insignificant”. (re: SI - currently we have congressional inquiries, lawsuits, publicity, corporatate heads stepping down over 60 deaths nationwide linked to tires. SI?) \*\* Yeah, that’s really fair, wring. I’m sure the pizza burn families are really sad, too. Can you still go to Pizza Hut? > [@](#): > > \*\*If, as you now contend, “The dual goals (of crop protection and maintaining herd levels for hunting) can be and are accomplished, year after year.” > then why all the prior emphasis on how much damage the deer do to farms and how much better off the farmers are, etc. etc. that was the thrust of your prior arguements? \*\* Are you denying that overpopulation of deer in particular areas where we don’t want them cause millions and millions of dollars in property damage annually in Michigan alone? Despite the numbers I gave you in the IMHO thread? I don’t know what to tell you, when you speak from a position of ignorance and ignore facts. > [@](#): > > \*\*And, frankly, if protection of crops is the desired end, then why wait until the harvest season to start shooting deer? Why not allow, encourage farmers who’s farms are being ravaged by the errant deer population to take care of any deer that come on their property? If protection of the crops is the aim, then taking of does should be encouraged (not discouraged as is current, with the requirement of additional payment) and limits would be non existant. \*\* Owners of orchards and farms frequently have the ability to exceed the standard kill limits, take more does, have a longer hunt, etc. Why is the hunt in the fall? A primary reason is because that is the season of the rut, when deer are moving and easier to harvest. And despite that fact, hunters average fewer than one deer each, and many hunters don’t even get a shot off. Are you beginning to understand the difficulty? Why do I doubt it? > [@](#): > > \*\*you are operating from the assumption that allowing 0.08% of the population to take up arms and cause danger to the other 99.92% of the population for several months is not only fair, equitable and right but necessary for crop protection and ‘herd maintenance’. \*\* Close. It is fair, equitable, right and necessary for crop AND property AND personal property protection; and ‘herd maintenance.’ But I don’t believe it causes danger to the other 99.92 percent of the population. I have statistics to back me up. You have … what, again? Oh yeah, feelings and opinions and outrage and a complete lack of understanding of hunting. > [@](#): > > \*\*Flame orange offeres zero protection from the irresponsible hunter who shoots at movement, the drunken hunter … \*\* It also doesn’t offer protection from murderers, rapists, robbers and other criminals such as those you cited. When those wrong-doers are caught, however, they are prosecuted. That’s how our society works. > [@](#): > > \*\* … the hunter with poor aim AND the stray bullets of ALL hunters … \*\* The only people being injured by these two are hunters. You may be able to find isolated anecdotes to the contrary, but I can find isolated anecdotes of people being hit by meteors and by lightning twice. Hunters know the risks involved with hunting, and they and society are willing to accept them as a trade-off for the benefits of hunting. For the fifty thousandth time, wring, THEY VOTED AND YOU LOST. THEY VOTE EVERY YEAR, AND YOU LOSE. > [@](#): > > \*\*statistics on how many people are hurt each year do not take into account how many people stay OUT of the woods 'cause it isn’t safe. Remember the kids at my sister’s elementary school? they don’t go out for recess during hunting season. Cause it’s not safe. \*\* If they see this as a problem and great inconvenience, they should go to their local governments, and see if a restricted area can be established around their playground. I’m sure it can be. I would be extremely surprised if hunting restrictions aren’t imposed a safe distance around a damn elementary school. You have no solutions to anything, wring. You don’t acknowledge facts and statistics, and you’re being disingenuous, because you know that I pulled up all kinds of numbers for you in the IMHO thread, which you ignored there, too. Your solution to deer population problems within regions is “somebody should study alternatives,” and “yes, there will be cost and manpower, but at least 100.0 percent of people won’t be slightly inconvenienced in their public land use some months of the year.” Typical expensive liberal drivel. Go ask a farmer who’s lost his farm in Alpena, Mich., because of bovine TB spread by the wild deer what he thinks about your inconvenience. Any other hunting supporters want to pick up the banner against this illogic, have at it. I’m out. Declare yourself the winner, wring. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/64 "2000-10-13T20:45:37Z")
> [@](#): > > According to the DNR website in Michigan, there’s 781,000 hunters. Population in 1994 (most recent figures available on the state site) show 9,440,299. Which means that for three months this year, less than .08 percent of our population gets to use our public areas. The “inconvenience” is that unless the other 99.92% wants to risk being shot, they should stay out of these same public areas. Excuse me, but your percentage claims keep coming up and I can’t believe no one has caught this yet. It is most certainly **NOT**.08%. It is 8.27%. That’s a decent difference. How many of that 9.4 million actually _ever_ use the public lands? I’m sure there are many elderly folks and infants that never go in the woods. I’m fairly sure that there must be many city dwellers that never enter them either. I’d say the hunters are probably a fairly decent sized proportion of those that want to go into the woods. Not to mention, I’m sure there is a population of out-of-staters that come in every year to hunt, especially around the borders. And also that the hunters only get to hunt the land for 1/4 of the year. And also, that people are **not** prevented from going into the woods anyway. After all, the hunters are entering the woods, aren’t they? Oh, and for the record, I also acknowledge that some people may feel inconvenienced by hunting. PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Roach1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a5b964/32.png) [@Roach1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roach1850)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/65 "2001-11-29T15:25:37Z")
You are a moron. Your views are conceded and illogical. I would like to congratualte the following people on this years hunt (so far!) Dad - 115lb Spike Horn Jake - 115lb Doe Butler - ??lb Buck Congrats boys, I can’t wait for the game dinner! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/66 "2001-11-29T15:34:35Z")
You dredged this thing up after fourteen months to make your triumphant point (ironic typo and all?) ---
**Author:** ![Roach1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a5b964/32.png) [@Roach1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roach1850)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/67 "2001-11-29T16:13:26Z")
I didn’t notice that it was from Oct. 2000… I thought it was last month :o)… ---
**Author:** ![butler1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@butler1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler1850)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/68 "2001-11-29T16:56:01Z")
He dragged the thread out of the past due to a debate on another mailing list, in response to my taking of a 4 point 130# buck. He was shot with a 12 Gauge shotgun slug, directly through the heart/lung area, and he dropped within 100 feet of where he was shot. Cleaned and butchered, he resulted in 65# of meat, which has been processed, some of it ground and made into burger and sausages. It is now in my freezer, and I look forward to eating it during the coming winter months. It is mostly the process that appeals to me, the challenge of finding a very elusive creature, one comfortable in it’s surroundings, and aware of intruders (me!). The reward was there regardless of my success in killing the deer. It is an added bonus that I was able to bag my first deer, one which will feed many in great satisfaction. On the safety issue, like any thing which has a risk involved, the answer is in proper training. I attended a hunter safety class, I’ve spent time at the range practicing so that my shot would be accurate, and making sure that all people that walked into the woods that day walked out intact. Very simple rules for hunting day… no booze, no drugs, MUZZLE CONTROL, watch your safety, watch your buddy, and only point the weapon at what you are going to shoot, and then ONLY IF THE AREA BEHIND THE TARGET IS CLEAR. My personal choice is to sit on a rise, and shoot down into the valley below. By doing this, I insure that a “miss” would impact the ground behind the target, and not continue on to damage anyone or their property. Hunting is a long tradition with many good benefits for the ecology of the area. I can’t count the number of times I’ve almost run into deer walking across the road in my home area, and I feel I’ve done my part to help control the herd in a responsible manner. If you don’t want hunting, don’t hunt, and require those that do to be safe. But… unless you’ve gained real experience in what happens out there in the woods, don’t knock what you don’t know. I don’t try to make rules on medical ethics, as I’m not a doctor. I can tell you about how to hunt safely, as I am a hunter. -Ed aka Butler1850. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/69 "2001-11-29T18:15:00Z")
Welcome to the boards, you two! Roach, watch out for flaming people here unless absolutely needed. And then you should go to the BBQ pit. In great debates, beat them with reason. My usual strategy is to swear and yell at my screen but not in my posts. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/70 "2001-11-29T19:03:44Z")
OK I’ve read the _ENTIRE_ post and some posters questioning the ethical purposes of hunting are a little off. How can hunting [for food, recreation] be considered wrong? Vegan herbivores aside- The human race was founded on hunting. Sorry folks but your great great great great great X 100 grand father was a hunter,this goes for all of you. He held a spear and killed animals for food and the good of his family. We are Hunters and gatherers. It is in our genes and can not be removed until legislation is passed to approve human cloning and the genes can be identified and removed. Personally, this would be silly, and is most likely not possible. This also discludes all those idiots who go around shooting animals and leaving them there, just shooting for the fun of it. Thats just plain ignorant. But for those who would ever think hunting should be illegal…Thats an irrational thought. That ranks right up there with filing our teeth down so we can not eat meat. Granted, shooting Bald Eagles or Californian Condors is not ever advocated, but shooting a deer or a pheasant both of which are in no danger of becoming extinct should not be a problem. I do not understand the big problem with hunting. Fine some people were born and raised in the city and do not understand the thrill of the hunt. Thats fine, no big deal at all, guess what they don’t have to understand. There are enough hunters out there who enjoy it and practice good gun safety. Hunters aren’t out to convert anyone. jeez. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/71 "2001-11-29T21:01:21Z")
First to the OP: I’m firmly for items D through G. On G, with the caveat that: A. The particular animal is _not_ an endangered species, and B. The rest of the animal carcass is used as well. Simply killing the animal for a trophy is wrong, IMO. **Alessan:** while I wouldn’t go so far as to actually agree that _only_ military training will suffice, I do agree that _some_ form of training, be it a safety course taught by the NRA or a local gun club (does anyone know if the National Safety Coucil teaches Firearm Safety?) or just many years of stolid, patient tutoring by family (which I readily admit can be a hit-or-miss propostion) is a very good idea, possibly enough for it to be mandatory. **wring:** with “urban sprawl” encroaching on previously isolated areas, I can see your point. Would you characterize your geographic area as typical of this phenomena, and also typical for the entire United States? > [@](#): > > Since great quantities of people stay OUT of the woods during hunting season (cause it’s not safe, remember?) the lack of folks getting hurt does not prove that it’s not a danger. If people don’t go into your pool, you won’t have any drowning deaths, either. A good many people stay off the roads after midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings, because of all of the drunk drivers out there. Some people (like me) stay off of ski slopes because of all of the testosterone-laden punks who zip around slower, less experiences skiers in a dangerous manner. Life is risk. I can agree with you that hunting areas do need separation from urban/suburban areas, if for no other reason that the distance a bullet can travel if it misses its target. > [@](#): > > You quote an official’s stance that “not even the army”… this is your most valid (IMHO) point. However. other places have problem with vermin, and their responses don’t generally include charging a fee and letting the populace take over public lands to shoot them. I think there needs to be more effort into what options there may be. Okay. Since it’s your position that there should be other ways of controlling a herbiferous animal population devoid of natural predators, why don’t _you_ suggest something rather than just criticizing the current method, which incidentally raises revenue for the respective states and is a mulit-billion dollar a year industry, from firearms and ammunition, to camping equipment, outdoor clothing and camouflage, to expert game guides and even television cooking shows. If there is an actual (and not just hypothetical) unnecessary risk, then perhaps an updated risk-assessment needs to take place, and the boundaries of hunting areas needs to be redefined. But the blanket lambasting of a time-honored “hobby” and its practitioners is irrational. You haven’t made an argument (or I should you haven’t made _much_ of an argument); you’re just being contrary. > [@](#): > > That’s wonderful for you. Really, I’m happy that you’ve been able to connect in a positive way with your ancestors. But. why should that involve taking over public lands and making them less safe (you apparently object to the words “unsafe”) for others? Public lands. less safe. Because that’s where the game is, and the democratically elected representatives, from municipal to federal level, have been empowered by we the people to make those decisions. Hunting licenses are a revenue-positive way to solve the problem of of an unchecked animal population, wherever they may be found, including public lands, which are administered by the state (from municipal to federal). Legislators are within their mandate to decree certain areas “open season” during certain periods of the year. May I suggest a letter or petition to your elected representatives to address your concerns? One devoid of sarcasm, and with respect to hunter’s rights? > [@](#): > > I’m certain, of course, that the families of those who have been killed will feel your sympathy at being “statistically insignificant”. And I’m sure that the families of those unfortunate people who are injured or killed when their speeding cars hit a deer wandering onto a road will feel _your_ sympathy when you patiently explain to them that due to an “IS” number of hunting related injuries/fatalities, you and others have deemed hunting impractical and have had it banned. I’ll flip your argument: how does your right to occassionally go for a walk in the woods supercede mine and other’s rights to live in areas free of vermin that eat our crops, damage our property, and wreck our cars wandering into inhabited areas looking for food because uncontrolled population growth is forcing them to increase their natural range? How are the poor, poor second graders going to feel watching Miss Crabapple the second-grade teacher geting gored or stomped to death by an aggressive buck in rut on the playground? How are they going to feel watching Bambi getting shot by wildlife game control officers on their playground? You can’t just chase the deer off; they _will_ be back, in search of graze. And that nice, green, grassy schoolyard looks to a deer as a magnificant salad buffet does to a vegitarian. The fact that hunting coincidentally is a time-honored and enjoyable activity for literally _millions_ of Americans is just that: happy coincidence. It does not mitigate that fact that many of the artificial methods of controlling deer population have been dismal failures. A hunter with a rifle in the woods is still the best method of controlling them. If urban sprawl happens to place a public building (like your school) near a hunting area, then work to move the hunting area. Just don’t be suprised to find your hunt-free forest next door to the school bulging with hungry, horny pissed-off deer, like my home town in Illinois did and still does. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/72 "2001-11-29T21:15:53Z")
**Roach1850** : > [@](#): > > You are a moron. Your views are conceded and illogical. [Moderator Hat ON] You are NOT to call your fellow posters names in this forum. If you _must_ insult people, do it in the BBQ Pit forum. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Fishhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@Fishhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishhead)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/73 "2001-11-30T22:54:18Z")
{holding my nose and jumping in} Ok - Another reason to hunt, touched on somewhat by Scylla: Hunting is a great way to teach yourself about and reach an understanding with animals and the environment. And you never feel such a part of the ecosystem when just walking through the woods. I’m an avid birder, and for years hiking has been one my family’s primary recreations. My kids (7 through 12 years) all know the names of trees and birds and wild plants much better than most adults. But there is something about inserting yourself into the ecosystem in such an _interactive_ way that is not easily reproduced without becoming a hunter. I agree that products from animals should be used as much as possible, but all this about saving the skin (pelt, cape, whatever) is mostly bull, except in rare cases. Processing plants (for those that take their deer to one) sometimes send deer capes to be made into deer leather. But I prefer to process my own deer. I used to make the 40 minute drive to the processor to give the hide in return for grinding the parts of the deer that I want ground. (the charge for this in New Franklin MO, grinding the meat back into my own pan, for me to package, would have been only about three dollars). Then they told me they didn’t want the cape anymore, so I bought a grinder and saved the drive. Now I discard the cape. If you’ve ever tanned a deer hide you only want to do it once. Actually, I’ve never done a deer, but I have done a fox and a raccoon. That was too much work to want to even try a deer. And then there’s squirrels, rabbits, or birds of any kind - I’ve never heard of anyone keeping those pelts. Lets face it - you keep the parts that are USEFUL. My dog loves deer bones, though. wring is write, sort of, about it being a bit dangerous to go out in the publid lands during the rifle deer season. (That is partly because the season is so _short_. There are too many people out there at once). But the rifle season, here at least, is 10 days in the fall, just before Thanksgiving. (after the color is long gone, and during a time that very few non-hunters would be out there anyway. Its usually just too cold and nasty out.) Not three months. There are other seasons, of course, for other animals, but the only time you have deer rifles in the woods is those ten days. Other forms of firearms and archery equipment are MUCH less dangerous to non-hunters. I don’t buy the argument that any tiny increase in danger is too much. You can’t do anything outdoors without causing danger to others. I’m much more worried about my kids being run over by a mountain biker on a trail than I am about being shot by an archer or dove hunter. (Oh, and if you count all the seasons, it is much more than 3 months - heck the squirrel season goes from May to November.) ---
**Author:** ![Fishhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@Fishhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishhead)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/74 "2001-11-30T23:02:11Z")
{holding my nose and jumping in} Ok - Another reason to hunt, touched on somewhat by Scylla: Hunting is a great way to teach yourself about and reach an understanding with animals and the environment. And you never feel such a part of the ecosystem when just walking through the woods. I’m an avid birder, and for years hiking has been one my family’s primary recreations. My kids (7 through 12 years) all know the names of trees and birds and wild plants much better than most adults. But there is something about inserting yourself into the ecosystem in such an _interactive_ way that is not easily reproduced without becoming a hunter. I agree that products from animals should be used as much as possible, but all this about saving the skin (pelt, cape, whatever) is mostly bull, except in rare cases. Processing plants (for those that take their deer to one) sometimes send deer capes to be made into deer leather. But I prefer to process my own deer. I used to make the 40 minute drive to the processor to give the hide in return for grinding the parts of the deer that I want ground. (the charge for this in New Franklin MO, grinding the meat back into my own pan, for me to package, would have been only about three dollars). Then they told me they didn’t want the cape anymore, so I bought a grinder and saved the drive. Now I discard the cape. If you’ve ever tanned a deer hide you only want to do it once. Actually, I’ve never done a deer, but I have done a roadkill fox and a raccoon. That was too much work to want to even try a deer. And then there’s squirrels, rabbits, or birds of any kind - I’ve never heard of anyone keeping those pelts unless they like stuffed critters all over their house (bleach). And how many stuffed mallards can a guy use, anyway? Lets face it - you don’t hunt animals that don’t have useful parts, but you only keep the parts that are USEFUL. And I don’t have anything against most trappers either, whether they eat the meat or not. wring is write, sort of, about it being a bit dangerous to go out in the publid lands during the rifle deer season. (That is partly because the season is so _short_. There are too many people out there at once). But the rifle season, here at least, is 10 days in the fall, just before Thanksgiving. (after the color is long gone, and during a time that very few non-hunters would be out there anyway. Its usually just too cold and nasty out.) Not three months. There are other seasons, of course, for other animals, but the only time you have deer rifles in the woods is those ten days. Other forms of firearms and archery equipment are MUCH less dangerous to non-hunters. I don’t buy the argument that any tiny increase in danger is too much. You can’t do anything outdoors without causing danger to others. I’m much more worried about my kids being run over by a mountain biker on a trail than I am about being shot by an archer or dove hunter. (Oh, and if you count all the seasons, it is much _more_ than 3 months - heck the squirrel season alone goes from May to November.) Fishhead ---
**Author:** ![Fishhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9f8e36/32.png) [@Fishhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fishhead)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/75 "2001-11-30T23:05:08Z")
Sorry about the double post - I thought I had cancelled the first one before it went through. The two posts are not exactly the same. Read the second one, or maybe the moderator will delete the first post?? ---
**Author:** ![Turbo\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Turbo\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turbo_Dog)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/76 "2001-12-02T03:49:56Z")
I’m a hunter. I have been since I was 13. I enjoy hunting but haven’t been for a few years. Why do I enjoy it? For the reasons that Scylla mentioned. It’s the hunt. Do I care if I get an animal? No. Getting an animal is a bonus, not a requirement. Why do I hunt instead of just nature walk? Because I enjoy that bonus. I’m a meat hunter. I like the meat, the hide, the parts, everything. I think there should be an open season on trophy hunters. If you aren’t using every bit of animal possible, or giving it to someone who can, you should be skinned yourself. (Assholes who go sheep hunting just for a head as an example). Do I inconvenience anyone when I hunt on public land? Some think so. For 23 total days of a year I’m allowed to be out in the woods with a rifle. If that makes people nervous, so be it, but everyone is still allowed to be out hunting without a rifle during that time. Are other hunters inconvenienced by having to walk through an area where other hunters might be? I could be a real pain and say that it’s non-hunters that inconvenience me for 342 days, but I know why hunting seasons exist and why they exist when they do. Sorry if I’m not sympathetic but I’ve lived in cities where it was a larger inconvenience for me to walk down the street at any time of year due to a much greater and realistic risk of being shot by punk kids with more rights than I have. Yes, there are some assholes out there that think hunting involves drinking and shooting at sounds. These are the same assholes that drive down the road at all times of the year shooting road signs and shit like that. Last year in this area, a man was found walking down the side of the road with his arms and rifle tied behind his back with barbed wire and a sign around his neck saying “I shoot at sound”. Hunters have less regard for these type of assholes than non-hunters. A great deal of state forests, wildlife refuges and preserves exist/are maintained due to revenues from hunters. Very many conservation groups and activities exist solely because of the same revenues. Most hunters care more about and are involved more in public lands than the non-hunters that they inconvenience for three weeks. Think hunting is a horrible activity? That’s your opinion… don’t hunt. I think snowboarding is pretty dangerous, so I don’t snowboard. Think I’m evil because I like to hunt? That’s your opinion… if you are going to judge me based on that alone, you aren’t somebody I care to know. Want to get rid of hunting because it’s an inconvenience? Sure… soon as you get rid of all jetskis that inconvenience me when I’m trying to fish and all slow people when I’m trying to shop. Want to stereotype me as a bloodthirsty, beer guzzling redneck that Rambo’s through the woods looking for any reason to shoot my rifle? Like hell. And if you really do find yourself in a dire need to have to get out and be one with nature without a gun during hunting season, ask a private landowner who doesn’t allow hunting if you can nature walk on their property. My bet is that no matter where you live, you’ll find more of that type of land than what is being publicly hunted. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/77 "2001-12-02T04:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MysterEcks \* > \*\ ***sandyr** , I’m going to amend your list to include an H, or perhaps just a modifed D–some people are pro-hunting because they eat meat, and they understand that having someone else do the dirty work and sell it does not make it “better.” Anyone who thinks hunting is cruel but buying meat is not should take the time to go see a slaughterhouse in operation. (But I’ll warn anyone who’s never seen one–it ain’t pretty.) > > \*\* I’ll agree on the addition. Here’s an honest anecdote: I’m sitting around with my family eating at a restaurant. I mention that I’m thinking about getting a hunting license (I want to be able to survive off the land, if need be, and so I want to become skilled in this area.) Both of them, of course, simultaneously gave me the “how could you possibly kill an animal?” knee-jerk reaction. Both of them, of course, put down their meat-filled sandwiches right before they said this. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/78 "2001-12-02T13:18:54Z")
Man, I am so pissed that I read that whole thread and it is a year old. I was looking forward to the anti-farming thread. ::smacks Roach in the back of the head:: I still want to take my one pot shot though: [potshot] Nen Said: > [@](#): > > I do believe that implementing a partial return to tribalism would be beneficial. Yeah, since tribalism seems to work so well in Afghanistan and Somalia… [/potshot] ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2001, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038/79 "2001-12-02T14:35:46Z")
Oh no; not again! Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the woods … 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hunting/36038.md?page=3)