Once again, the risk has not been identified by anything other than “common sense”, which is often a bad way to determine public policy. I do think they are minimal, so it seems we are at an impasse.
People’s risks are raised by other people’s actions every day. As I said, driving 50 mph is more risky to others than driving 45 mph, but we consider it an acceptable risk. Some people make a hobby of flying model airplanes and helicopters, which could surely hurt someone. Some campers create fires in the wilderness and end up burning homes down, but that is an acceptable risk. Skateboarding can be dangerous to pedestrians, and in some places it is acceptable and others not. People who drink are more likely to get into a fight with someone else. Freedom of speech and the press have often put people at risk. Having AIDS and then going into the workplace surely puts other workers in mortal danger.
I know these things don’t sound very dangerous, but surely it is not right that ANYONE’S risks be raised by some one else’s actions, even if the risks are minimal.
My point is that I have walked around in the woods plenty of times during hunting season and not been shot. Take some precautions if you prefer, such as wearing blaze orange, but I am not convinced that people need to completely stay out of the woods during hunting season.
As for the money thing; different states charge different amounts. Surely if you were to hunt in a state that you are not a resident in, it would cost many times that amount. Camping spots and pavillions require maintainence and supervision to a much greater extent than the middle of the woods, so they should cost more. They also sully the wilderness to a greater extent than hunting.
By that thinking, most people get it for 9 months for free, eh?
** Milo ** you used this same arguement the last time.
please, if you will, explain how bullets flying in the woods do NOT increase the risk to people in the same woods.
bullets flying=more danger
no bullets flying= less danger.
trying to paint the picture that driving and hunting are in the same category does not address this point. Driving a car is not the equivelent of shooting a bullet (unless it is your contention that people driving are doing so with the intent to cause damage to other living things)
Yes, one risks things by driving, by breathing etc. Some risks are inherant to living. However. Risk of injury by flying bullets is NOT one of those ‘oh, everything’s a risk’ categories. we legislate this. people are not allowed to shoot guns in city limits (for example, often, YMMV). One may also decide that they enjoy a certain amount of risk by taking up say, ski diving, but then generally, one is risking one’s own neck, not projecting a risk onto someone else in the shape of a bullet.
why should SOME people’s desire to hunt be allowed to cause anyone else even a slight increase in the risk of being shot? Person X’s desires should not be weighed more than person Y’s right to life.
and, in your answer, please avoid : “gee the risk isn’t that great” since it does not address the point.
I think we are going around in circles. You seem to agree that there are risks involved in many things. Why is hunting so different? Because it involves those evil guns? I pointed out a number of ways someone could do something that risks others’ lives, but these things are acceptable. Why isn’t hunting acceptable to you?
I know you said not to say, “gee the risk isn’t that great”, but you asked me this question:
So I will try to answer it without annoying you. Two points:
People are generally aiming at the animal they are hunting when they hunt, and while they may be off by a few inches or even a foot or two, they are rarely such bad shots that they shoot someone else.
Many times people hunt for years without firing a single shot, so they don’t always add to the number of bullets flying.
It’s agreed that the danger is increased when there are hunters (whether it is a lot or a little), but there seems to be a discrepancy in your argument that I tried to point out in my first paragraph.
Just for the record, I am of the opinion that it is worth a little danger for some more freedom. Allowing a large portion of the population to do something they greatly enjoy and that is not without benefits is worth, to me, a small increase in danger for people walking around the wilderness for 1/4 of the year (and usually the 1/4 with the worst weather anyway).
Milosarrian, I am an advocate of hunting; however, I believe my concept of hunting differs from yours. I consider pastoralism a bastardized form of hunting. From an anthropological perspective, the movement from band and tribe systems to cheifdom and state system has resulted in a change from hunter/gatherer base to an agricultural/pastoral base. The band and tribe types are inherently stable and establish an equilibrium with the environment whereas cheifdoms and state are inherently unstable and are in a state of dischord with the environment. I said:
To which you replied:
“We live where we live. Our farms are where our farms are.” I agree with these statements; however, our demography and economic production dictate this facts and their impact on the environment. Hunting to protect agriculturalism or pastoralism is only necessary to perpetuate the existing system. It is not althogether necessary. Perhaps you view that as idealistic, but I attribute greater value to the environment than arbitrary monetary systems. It isn’t practical to not kill wild animals which invade our alleged “territory?” Isn’t it also impractical to adopt an unstable sociocultural system over one which is stable?
You have just proven my point. Consider your statement as modified with the parenthetical nouns and substitute. “Over-population of deer(/humans) in isolated areas causes disease and damage to the ecosystem that not only leads to a cruel death for deer(/humans) but other animals.” Do you understand how the analogy holds?
How am I “out of touch?”
It is also addressed by diminishing food supply and ensuing increase in wolf populations over time (that is, if we haven’t wiped the local wolf populations for pastoral profit). If 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.
Firstly, I have not dismissed the issue. Secondly, the problems people face are self-imposed and results from a choice of life-style. Thirdly, seeking a balance with the environment is a realistic solution.
I wouldn’t have a farm in Northern Michigan. Most importantly, I hate cold weather. Secondly, I am opposed to agriculturalism and pastoralism.
We also have the capacity to pave every square millimeter of this earth. Does that fact make it a prudent choice? I realize that this concept is very “gray” at best, but one must draw a line somewhere. I could use a nuke to hunt deer. Using your logic that option is viable. Could you provide another argument which would help me elucidate the where this line should be drawn?
Pee Queue, I am against farming. There isn’t much more to it than that, although I will elaborate. Consider a population of people approximately five hundred in number. They are able sustain themselves through hunting and gathering by establishing camps. As the population increases to one thousand they find that to keep the population intact, they must become sedentary and resort to agriculturalism and pastoralism. As the population continues to increase they must intensify their efforts toward economic production. On a societal level, stratification, nucleation and centralization ensue while the surrounding environment is altered to perpetuate the system without regard to the plant and animal inhabitants. There is no respect for other species in such a system; moreover, the system which is perpetuated (and of which agriculture is founded) is inherently unstable. Does that clarify my perspective?
Wow. I’m not sure I should continue along these lines because I don’t want to hijack, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing before. You believe we should have stayed / should revert to hunting and and gathering?
Wouldn’t we develop better and better strategies for hunting such that our population would increase to the point that the wildlife could no longer sustain us, thus making them extinct just before we go extinct?
Alternatively, should we have limited our population growth artificially so as not to reach such a point?
If we did that, would we no longer need governments because of our small population and nomadic tendencies?
It seems to me that there is no way around the fact that hunting inconveniences other leitimate uses of public lands during hunting season. Lots of people with guns = less safe.
So does the use of four wheelers.
We don’t ride our horses in the woods during hunting season and we don’t go near ATV trails anytime. ATVs also make the woods less safe, and impact others’ use of the land. That doesn’t mean that it is not a legitimate use. Neither is hunting.
It is a great source of revenue. There are lots of hunters, and they pay to hunt. It costs very little to allow them to do this, and the revenue allows other services and programs on public land that benefit everyone.
Hunters also provide a service. We have effectively wiped out most natural predators, and efficient agricultural technology allows for a great deal of food during the growing season. Deer for one breed fast. Bring the agriculture, and the lack of predators into account and without some form of culling you get real problems with exploding deer populations VERY quickly.
Hunters perform this service, and they pay to do so. If they did not, there would be less revenue and an alternate form for culling the deer populations would be needed at public expense.
In nearby Gettysburg there is no hunting on the battleground, and the deer have become a problem in spite of several expensive population control programs. They finally had to resort to hiring a crew with nightscopes that goes around blowing the deer up at night when nobody’s on the battlefield. This too, has caused some problems as you might expect. Because they’ve outlawed hunting, they had to hire hunters. Kind of silly considering there are people willing to do it for free.
I certainly don’t deny that hunting causes problems and inconveniance to non hunters. It also provides benefits. All in all it is a good solution to a tough problem.
I strongly support hunter education, conservation, and harsh penalties for hunters who trespass or act irresponsibly or recklessly. They are the minority, and nobody hates them more than the responsible hunter who finds his favorite spot shut down because of them.
I would be against the idea of restricting rifle hunters. As I’ve pointed out, there are problems with bowhunting, too. If I lived in an area of plains, bowhunting would be silly. Here in the hills and woods, it’s viable. It’s also a matter of choice.
I am equally responsible with a bow or a gun, and an irresponsible hunter is equally dangerous.
As has been pointed out bad drivers don’t mean that driving should be outlawed. The same goes with hunting. It IS a legitimate and beneficial use of state land, and while it has its inconveniance it also allows things like trail maintenance, dedicated campsites, education programs, ranger salaries, and various conservation efforts.
Due to the nature of your questions, I would highly recommend it if you wish to pursue this matter further. I would forsee responses requiring additional clarifications, and in effect, a outright hijack would take place.
You apparently advocate destruction of our cities, farms, and system of government; reverting back to tribalism; allowing wild animals to run amok everywhere as nature intended [ :rolleyes: ]; and rebuilding the wolf population for proper predation. (I guess I’d have to be much more careful stumbling home from a bar after 2 a.m.)
If this were talk radio, you’d be the Caller of the Week!
Wring:
You are showing the same annoying tendency you did in the IMHO thread - rejecting the logical, factual, and statistic-supported answers you receive, refusing to answer with anything but your mantra of “I’m inconvenienced because I can’t walk around the state forest in a buckskin coat on November 15.”
Hunting, while a pastime that is enjoyed, also happens to be necessary, for the many reasons I have cited (and you have continually ignored).
Why aren’t the feelings weighed of non-hunters who want to enjoy the forest without wearing blaze orange for two months of the year? They HAVE been weighed, and they have been rejected.
You don’t think anti-hunting groups do their speil before Natural Resources governing boards annually? Not only have the powers that be decided that the societal and ecological benefit of hunting outweighs their concerns, they have made criminal penalties amazingly stiff for those who attempt to interfere with a hunt out in the wild. In some places, they have amazingly reduced the penalty for hunters assaulting said protestors.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing. But I do think it’s an indication that we’ve considered the hunting issue, and the decision has been made.
So, what’s the solution to controlling a deer herd population that is too large in a particular area, hunting opponents? Set it up there, so I can knock it flying.
Bullets do not fly.
Wring keeps using that statement like they are warplanes searching for her.
I do not know what the average time a bullet stays in the air but it ain’t long.
** Scylla ** thanks again, for conceeding what ** Milo ** refuses to - that hunting inconvenineces (at best, at worst case harms) other persons. You, at least seem to understand that there’s a trade off.
The point of “bullets” flying is that despite the one person’s assertion that hunters aim at targets, bullets don’t always hit what you aim at, aim is not always perfect etc. There’s also a target range near my home, the house next to it has bullet holes all over it from straying bullets. Don’t know another term other than “flying” that would explain that.
** Milo ** we disagreee. Part of the problem as I see it, is that you seem to refuse to admit that hunting has ** any ** negative effects on others. People who are killed by hunter’s errors? well, there’s fewer of them than get killed by deer/car accidents. We should collectively thank all the hunters for saving us from these troublesome deer and be grateful that you allow us safe access to public lands the other months of the year.
You’ve also relied on the standard that “this is how our state curbs the deer population. Curbing the deer population is a necessary thing. therefore, hunting is necessary”. I suggest that we’ve not investigated other methods of curbing the deer population. Do I have suggestions ? Not really since that’s not my area of expertise. However, I have NOT seen any attempt at any other proposal.
But, frankly, until you can see that hunting has negative consequences as well as the benefits, this is pointless. Have fun during the season.
I find it most amusing that my detailed rebuttal of your assertions remains unanswered with the exception of a presentation of poorly extrapolated exaggerations; moreover, these hyperboles are stated without having been exposed to my beliefs in their entirety and are uttered with extreme sarcasm. You present quite the argument in this debate, Milo.
Nen - My apologies. Please tell me where my perception of your stated viewpoint is inaccurate or exaggerated.
wring - You are inconvenienced during hunting season. I acknowledge you are inconvenienced during hunting season. OK?
Then you ask why this is allowable, because those are public lands. You are given an answer.
Are you capable of acknowledging that our political leaders, wildlife management experts, biologists, etc., have determined it’s worth the price to inconvenience you and those who think like you? Indeed, that society has made that determination? Because if that isn’t the case, why haven’t those misguided bastards been thrown out of office? Why hasn’t the Department of Natural Resources been dismantled in every state?
I was glad to hear you acknowledge that you don’t have a clue as to any other way to effectively control burgeoning regional wildlife populations other than hunting.
Can you also acknowledge, even in pure speculation, that any solution other than hunting would involve manpower and expense? That, because of the size of the populations in question and the vast areas where they roam, that this manpower and expense would by necessity be very large?
If you can’t acknowledge these things, please tell me a logical reason why. If you can, please explain why we would then scrap a system of regulated hunting that is effective and not only doesn’t cost money, it raises money for local economies?
do you also acknowledge that other people are inconvenienced? harmed? etc. (ie not just me)
I’ll answer the rest of your post as well, but please, the tone? “are you capable of acknowledging” . You again dropped the number of months from 3 to 2, so, unless you’re too busy, are you “capable of acknowledging” that you’re wrong on that again as well?
I ** do ** know that our state has chosen this method. And, yes, I am questioning ** if ** any real discussion went on other than “how can we milk money out of hunters”.
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.
And, as far as your contention that hunting is used for deer control, and gosh darn, that’s such a lofty and necessary task that we shouldn’t worry about this very small percentage of folks taking over the public lands:
According to Rebecca Humprhies, DNR Wildlife Division Chief in the press release ( http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/ go to "2000 Deer prospects), “our goal is to ** maintain ** a quality herd in balance with it’s habitat to yeild healthy fawns, does and bucks” (emphasis mine)
So, the goal appears to be to maintain a herd, to maintain hunting as an industry, not to eradicate a problem deer population. Since you’ve established that deer have no other natural predators around these parts, why would a “herd” need to be maintained? No, I’m not advocating the complete descimation of deer, but it certainly sounds like the DNR is interested in maintaining sports levels more than decreasing the problems associated with errant deer population.
My answer to the rest of your statements about “what else are we to do” is to suggest that some time and effort be made exploring different options than to allow 781,000 ametures taking over the public lands. Yes, there would be costs involved. But, to give preferential treatment to such a small segment of our population for 25% of the year, seems, well, wrong.
and effective? same site states they expect this bevy of hunters to bag 500,000 deer. less than one apiece. for 3 months worth of hunting? like I said, amatuers with guns do not seem to be effective tools.
Odd, I live in a state that has a huge number of hunters. In fact, they fly here from all over the country to hunt here. I cam a lot and have never had a problem with hunters.
In fact, I have never heard of a shooting death of a non hunter. I would be inrterested to see stats on what that number is. All homocides and gun accidents come to about 13,000 nation wide. Given the number of hunters, I would say that the risk is about the same as winning Superball.
To be fair on the stats of people using and not using public lands, you have to admit that a small number of people ever use public lands. Few people (thank God) do use public lands.
I don’t think that the the convenience factor is a real good one for making public policy. No sport that did not have a majority could be allowed. No Kayaking on a trout stream, no ATV’s in the woods.
The other thing to consider is that this is not an all or nothing issue. Hunting can beallowed in certain areas and banned in others. then everyone canenjoy the woods.
Milossarian, thank you for the apology. I truly appreciate it.
Pertaining to the explanation, you stated:
I’ll take this phrase by phrase.
I never stated that we should destroy our cities, farms and system of government. Although you may argue otherwise, destruction is a term which does not immediately recognize a concept of replacement. Would I like to change the existing systems? Yes. Would I like to willy-nilly run across the planet ridding ourselves of our existing system without carefully assisting the population in the acclimation to a new system? No. I had submitted no proposal (which is coming in the other thread presently); ergo, you had no basis from which assume what actions I believe should be taken.
Again, I never stated that we should revert back to tribalism. Due to our enormous population, the hunting and gathering ways of a tribal society would not be effective. Please read the following carefully, as I do not want you to misinterpret my intentions. I do believe that implementing a partial return to tribalism would be beneficial. Although you have been partially correct in your assumption, you have exaggerated my perspective insofar as you imply totality in a return to tribalism. Again, I will elaborate upon this idea shortly in the other thread.
Yes, although I only suggested this indirectly, I do advocate allowing wild animals to run amok everywhere as nature intended. Actually, they do for the most part currently. Many tend to avoid high population centers of humans, but beyond that, they appear to go where they please. I do have a problem with bisecting their habitats pavement. In effect, this point is the only one you haven’t been inaccurate or exaggerated about. I am curious as to why you deem this concept “rolleyes-worthy.”
I did not suggest that humans take an active role in rebuilding the wolf population. The wolf population would increase naturally due to the abundance of food (assuming the indigenous wolves had not been eradicated). I was merely presenting an alternative option to hunting as a means of population control. Remember, I am an advocate of hunting.
By the way, I would still appreciate a response to my other responses in the post time stamped 10-11-2000 02:09PM.
I acknowledge that those who think like you may feel inconvenienced in their use of public lands during hunting season. If you would like to include bow, firearm, and muzzle-load, the length of their perceived inconvenience will be increased by a month to three months total. (You make it sound as though I’m intentionally obfuscating the length of the 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.
Your point?
As the lady states, the goal is to maintain a quality herd in balance with its habitat. I take that to mean that if hunting did not occur, the herd’s population would swell to a level unsustainable by its habitat, and the herd would then be subject to disease and starvation, thus no longer yielding healthy fawns, does and bucks.
You disagree, apparently?
The dual goals can be and are accomplished, year after year.
You make it sound like it’s shocking news that there is some effort to provide a population of deer for a “quality hunt.” That’s because you are apparently operating from the premise that hunting is an evil that needs eradication, because of its inconvenience upon non-hunters. That’s not the premise decision-makers and the vast majority of the public is operating from. Your side has been heard and rejected.
Are you still rejecting the idea that deer in areas where we’ve decided we don’t want them cause millions and millions of dollars in property damage annually? Didn’t I show you those numbers from the IMHO thread?
Again, operating from the premise that there is a “problem” with hunting that needs “fixing.”
Where will the money come from to “explore different options,” and then to implement them? Just throw another tax out there, right?
So hunters aren’t members of the public, and have no right to use public lands? I don’t recall them saying you can’t be there. You can. It’s suggested that you take some precautions, such as blaze orange. You don’t have to. It’s up to you. 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.
To save you the typing time, “Why should I have to buy blaze orange? It’s just so NOT FAIR!”
If you don’t want to buy it, ask the DNR or some local hunter organization, or a local resale shop. 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.
I already understood that you have no concept of what is involved in hunting and what it’s about, but thanks for the reiteration.
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.
Anyway, you wanted me to answer some of your questions.
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.
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.
At a certain point, no. We could; but we’ve decided we don’t like the crop/lawn damage, expense, the occasional disease.
I don’t understand what you mean. Our society is one of the most stable in the history of the planet.
No, I don’t. I give humans a little more leeway than deer. Perhaps you don’t. I guess we’ll just disagree there.
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.
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.
Agreed. Hunters, generally, are far more interested and involved in environmental and wildlife protection and preservation than non-hunters. And they put their money where their mouth is.
No. Who said it would be? That would be environmentally irresponsible and detrimental. Hunting isn’t. The analogy is awful.
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.
