I don’t know why, but I get the impression that most of the people saying hunting is bad live in places where they do not regularly see deer.
That being said, the woman’s attitude was a little disconcerting. I, personally, wouldn’t have been in favor of shooting it. I like cool things, and an albino deer would have qualified as “cool”.
I can haz albino backstrap?
Let me first state that “canned hunts” are not really hunting - - it’s a reprehensible practice that usually invovles conditioning game animals to rely on feeders to consistently bring them within range of a place where they can be shot. The shooter has typically paid (or his company has paid) a large fee for the “tropy” animal. Such practices disgust me, and disgust other hunters.
For those who haven’t followed amarone’s link, RPA is Responsible Policies for Animals, Inc. I’ve attempted to track down the cited studies, but have had very limited success. Given RPA’s objectives, it seems reasonable to assume that they have not posted research that shows figures that do not support their position. As such, I’ve attempted to find other refereed or peer-reviewed research on the subject. That effort has had only limited success as well. As such, it looks like synthesis papers are in order.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife report that included this data summary:
"The state of California was sued over the issue of allowing an archery hunt on black bears in 1990. As a result of this law suit, an extensive review of the literature was completed in 1991. The following is a summary of some of the issues addressed in the literature.
"Bowhunters have a lower success rate than firearms hunters - In California in 1990, archery hunters had a success rate of 7% compared to a general hunter success rate of 10%. Similar results were found by Downing (1971), Fuller (1990), Stormer et al. (1979), Langenau and Aho (1983), Lemke (1990), Benke (1989), and others.
“Broadhead arrows cause less trauma to surrounding tissue than bullets. - Little disagreement exists on this issue. Work by Ludbrook and Tomkinson (1985) shows that, when an arrow fitted with a sharp broadhead strikes a nonvital area, a minimum of surrounding tissue damage occurs. They stated that arrow wounds sustained by animals in nonvital places were most likely to heal completely because of the lack of extensive tissue damage compared to gunshot wounds. Similar conclusions can be drawn from data collected by the Lonestar Bowhunter Association (1989), where archers experienced “through” shots (total pass through of the arrow) on 46 of 102 deer killed.”
I also found this article. Rather than copy and paste it, here’s the URL:
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031103/009705.html
I think it basically summarizes this discussion in this thread. Research exists that supports both hunters’ claims and animal rights activists’ claims. As such, it looks like I’m not going to convince people who disapprove of archery hunting and folks who disagree with archery hunting aren’t going to convince me.
I have first-hand experience with rifle hunting and with bow-hunting. In both cases, unless the hunter has scored a stopping blow, the game will run away. Vitally injured animals will typically not run very far, as they will either bleed out or bed down. Prudent rifle and archery hunters will wait before tracking the animal for several reasons. Foremost, the hunter doesn’t want to cause the animal to get up and continue running - - he wants it to expire as quickly as possible. Tracking the animal under such a scenario is much more difficult. Second, the hunter does not want to increase any suffering the animal endures.
Unfortunately it looks like we may be back to square one here.
I got interested in hunting because I’m an omnivore. I feel that it is dishonest for me to eat meat unless I’m willing to go out and get my own. I got interested in bowhunting because it seemed a more honest way to hunt, and fairer for the animal. Rather than perch in a box at the edge of field, line up the animal in a scope from 100 yards away, I would have to study the woods and get myself in position to be at minimum 30 yards (though I most often shot at 20 yards). At that distance the deer have the advantge as their senses of sight, smell, and hearing increase their odds of knowing I’m out there. Admittedly, not everyone gets into hunting for those reasons, but I thought I’d share my philosophy.
Humans are an inextricable part of practically every ecosystem on earth, and have been a part of many ecosystems for a few million years (counting earliest hominids) or 100,000 years (counting more modern incarnations). A segment of the modern human population wants to continue to engage in hunting for a variety of complex social and historical motivations. We have an overabundance of deer in the United States. Sterility programs and large carnivore reintroduction programs cannot be effectively applied in all areas that need deer populations managed.
Banning hunting will lead to overpopulation, disease, starvation, and death. Deer/car accidents will increase. Which is more cruel to more animals? Culling herds through hunting or allowing nature, in the absence of predators, to take its course?
I am an omnivore too, and given the choice of lentils or killing my own steak for dinner, I’d do the slaughtering. It is not killing animals per se that I object to (I have worked on livestock farms and a butcher’s shop - I am not an ignorant city type who thinks that shrink-wrapped filets grow on trees) , it is killing animals for recreational purposes. There are several reasons that I regard as valid to kill animals: food, pest control, and, yes, population control. But even if the recreational hunting does give a “good” end result, e.g. population control, that to me still does not excuse “killing for fun”. It is an “ends justifies the means” argument. I would kill an animal for food, but feel pretty disgusted with myself if I enjoyed that killing.
Whenever such views are expressed on this board, hunters respond to say that “fun” or “enjoyment” is not why they or many others hunt. While I would not want to say that they are lying (and I am certainly not questioning your philosophy that you shared with us), I know many hunters and they do it for fun. They are not beer-swilling rednecks - they all have professional jobs and good incomes. But from fall to early winter their favorite pastime is to go into the woods and kill things. That is what I do not understand and, to be honest, find morally wrong. Enjoyment is simply not a good enough reason to kill.
There really is no question that albinistic deer are selected against under natural conditions. The trait is generally detrimental to survival, even if an occasional individual gets lucky and does survive until adulthood.
We’re getting rather far from the point, here. The question is whether there is any reason to refrain hunting an albinistic deer compared to a normal deer from a conservation point of view. As long as hunting is allowed, there is no reason that a hunter should not shoot an albinistic deer. In fact, from the point of view of the species, it is preferable to shoot such a defective animal instead of a normal one.
Again irrelevant. Whether or not the deer is living under highly artificial conditions, there is no conservation reason to refrain from killing it versus a normal deer.
Did Darwin include the idea of luck in his theories about natural selection? No? So then, is it possible that an albinic buck might survive to adulthood becaue, unlike the typical albino, it was fit? I may be speculating here, but so are you. And again, I have evidence on my side: the buck survived to adulthood. You say luck, I say fit, and no one knows for sure.
Is that the question? I don’t think it is. You said it would be good for the herd to cull this buck specifically because it’s albino, and it NEVER would have survived in a “natural” setting. I’m offering proof that it was in a pretty “natural” setting, and that maybe, just maybe, it has something to offer the gene pool. It is a pretty extraordinary animal, to have made is so far with so many obvious disadvantages. You could be right about its survival as a fluke, an artificial occurrence. I could be right, that it has other positive qualities that helped it survive. If you’re basing your assertion that it was positive to eliminate it from the gene pool (too late, I’d add) just because it was albinic, I’d say you were using just one criterion and ignoring others. But I don’t make conservation decisions… and I don’t particularly trust those that do, so I guess we’re at an impasse.
So you keep saying. And I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
There’s no compelling reason to kill it either, and there are reasons not to. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree, because I don’t seem to be making my point to you about this buck’s survival and its arguable worthiness to reproduce. C’est la vie.
First of all, I am sure you know that Darwin has been quite left behind as the be all-end all of evolution science, so it’s a little silly with the “did he include” thing.
I mainly post now because I wanted you to recognize what I pointed out earlier, which is that you are inappropriately expounding on how old this creature might have been. Depending on weather/food conditions there is no reason to assume this albino deer was any more than 2 years old. Because of this thread and my rack size/age comment earlier I did some looking and it seems age can only be properly calibrated by teeth examination. A yearling buck can apparently get a 6 point rack if he had an easy winter and a good spring.
Proper sportsmen feel free to correct me.
He made it to adulthood, didn’t he? Colibri said that never happened. There are lots of factors against him making that far (I saw the picture and he looked like an adult to me). So, I don’t think I’m “inappropriately” expounding on anything.
There *are * many enjoyable aspects to hunting. The challenge is enjoyable. Getting into the woods (or marsh or fields) is enjoyable. Ditto spending time with friends before and after the hunt. The traditions and the multi-generational aspects. The dogs. Learning about the seasons and the critters in a way that you do not, can not, learn by hiking or backpacking. Providing food for your family.
The act of killing is not enjoyable, for me at least. I’m sure that it is for some - - guys I hunted with referred to that class as killers. Again, based on my personal experiences, the act of killing wasn’t what was enjoyable or what served as the primary motivation for the other hunters I have known.
It probably seems like splitting hairs - - that one can parse out the ultimate objective of hunting as an unpleasant necessity while enjoying the process. A much more elegant treatment of this viewpoint can be found in the book Deep Enough for Ivorybills by Jim Kilgo.
So is hunting a lifestyle choice, or an simply essential part of who some people are? 
Since I grew up out in the sticks, and around firearms, I started killing stuff when I was really young. Later, when I was in the armed forces, I demonstrated in training that I’d have no hesitation to kill another human being (which surprised everyone around me because I ordinarily come off as meek and nonchalant).
Killing never bothered me, but that realization about myself did bother me, so I haven’t killed anything for years. I just subsidise Hmong immigrant meat processors in the Midwest to do it for me.
I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of fitness, in regards to evolution. It’s not fit versus unfit, it’s fit versus fitter. The entire concept of natural selection relies on the idea that certain traits give an animal an advantage - usually very slight - in competing for food or resources. It’s not a matter of, “Animal has gene X, animal lives. Animal has gene Y, animal dies.” It’s more a case of, “Animal has gene X, lives for a long time and has lots of offspring. Animal has gene Y, doesn’t live quite as long and doesn’t have quite as many kids.” Eventually, the Animal X genes are present in the entire species, because animals with those genes have had an incremental advantage in survival for many, many years.
So when we say that it’s better that this deer got killed instead of a regular deer, it’s not the same as saying this particular deer wasn’t fit. It just wasn’t as fit as a non-albino.
Of course Darwin took chance into account. Natural selection is probabalistic, not deterministic.
In any case I am not interested in arguing over one particular deer. In general, all else being equal, albinistic individuals are selected against. The general point stands. There was no particular reason to refrain from killing this particular individual as opposed to a normal one.
Again, I’m not interested in arguing about a single individual.
The Fighting Ignorant will always be with us.
That’s mainly because your points are purest bullshit. If you want to oppose all hunting, fair enough. But as long as hunting is allowed there is no reason to refrain from killing an albino compared to a normal individual.
Since that’s what we’re discussing, then I guess we’re not having the same discussion.
Do you have to such so supercilious? Honestly. We’re fucking talking about deer here.
There are reasons. People, who have created this artificial environment which allows them to have power over what animals live and which are selected out, have created the need for people like you, who manage these animal populations and make decisions about which animals to cull. Some of those people have decided to preserve albino deer. You might not agree with their reasons, and I’m sure you think that your philosophy is correct and theirs is wrong. Nonetheless, there are people who are in the field you claim to be in who choose to preserve albino deer and protect them by law. So I guess they are full of the purest bullshit too. It must be nice to be so secure in your way of thinking that you can call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant and full of shit, but there are multiple cites in this thread of states who think this individual deer and others like it SHOULD NOT BE KILLED. So call me names all you want, but you are not the last and only word on this subject. And you’re not really all that good at making your point. I’m a layperson, you’re an “expert.” But other experts agree with me. Thus, we’re at an impasse.
I got to wondering why some states protect albino, piebald, and other white-where-they-ought-to-be-brown deer. There is certainly no biological reason to do so, as these “abnormalities” are often shunned by other deer and have no special characteristics that are likely to improve the genetic condition of the herd.
I couldn’t find a definitive answer. Schools of thought:
**Protect people ** - too many hunters trying to shoot a white deer could cause an accident.
Native American Spirituality - some people think some tribes revered white deer, so prohibitions are in deference to that.
Well-intentioned but biologically-challenged lawmakers - rules passed despite objections of the wildlife agencies.
A possible contributing factor, based on some message boards I found in googling: white deer are often fed by well-meaning animal lovers. This would also fit in the protecting people category.
I also mentioned Eco tourism earlier as a possible reason which ties in with that.
Rubystreak, I’m really not sure if any “experts” agree with you. Certainly the existence of legislation isn’t proof of it.
Well, it was a white deer.
Regards,
Shodan
Missed that, sorry. Good call.
Fish and Wildlife Services issued the ban on killing the ones in Montana, per my cite. I guess those people are “experts.” Like I said, you may not agree with their reasons, but if it became state law, there must be a number people who think they are worth protecting. Are they all ignorant idiots who are full of shit? Maybe, I guess you’d say so. That’s fine, that’s your prerogative. Despite all that protection, if the albino deers’ genetic defect is a real problem, they would still die before reaching maturity, so all the protection in the world isn’t going to help an animal that isn’t viable.
Sorry, but lieu nailed this from the get-go. People were managing forests 15,000 years before Robin Hood itched his dad’s quiver. A herd in Montana means nothing in the vastness we call the west . . .
I suggested a number of motives last page , as Ivorybill did on this one, that might be behind the laws that have nothing to do with being ignorant idiots but still isn’t “expert reasoning” on genetic diversity or strengthening the deer population. Nature isn’t generally kind to “freaks” so my WAG is that even if this albino had managed to live through a winter or two is no reason to think that it would get a mate to breed with, anyways.