In this instance, I’m going to side with the person who owns the land and has a problem, perceived or otherwise.
And at what point can society step in and say the land owner is wrong? Before or after a species is hunted to extinction? I’m not saying the land owner is wrong. I am saying that just because some annoying creatures are on his side of the property line, he in not automatically right in destroying them.
Is the animal endangered or at risk of being endangered??
No?
Okay, not here.
Before.
I agree.
My dad used to shoot porcupines up at the cabin - there was a population explosion of 'em at one point and they will eat almost anything when there are too many - including tops of treas (sometimes killing the tree), the wooden bits of the house, the gas line from the car, etc. A real nuisance.
He also hired a “humane trapper” (no legholds) when he had a problem with a beaver invasion (beavers make inconvenient swamps). Now, he just uses a “beaver baffler” on their dams (essentially, a siphon). No need to kill 'em.
If they are legally tagged as varmints, then there is no problem with their population other than an excess of them. Kinda by definition.
As long as the population remains stable, fair enough. But how many black footed ferrets have you seen lately? I suspect they might have an opinion about conservation efforts.
It’s not like there’s a bright clear line between “vermin hunting” and “hunting for food”, either. My grampap, for instance, would shoot groundhogs primarily to keep them from eating the garden. But once they were shot and he had dead groundhogs, he still used the meat from them, since there’s no sense in letting it go to waste. I imagine that this is a rather common attitude, in rural areas.
I live in a suburb. We are overrun with squirrels. I don’t mind a few here or there. But last year they chewed up 3 off our LARGE decocative plants down to ground and killed em. They get the large majority of stuff from the garden. My hot ass peppers are about the only thing they leave alone.
The ONLY reason I aint out shooting and killing them is I am too much of a softey. But, honestly, that era is about to come to a close. My neighbor across the street has trapped and killed 17 in the past week alone. Pretty soon I think I’ll be borrowing his trap.
Seems to me the only real debate here is what constitutes a varmit.
When I was a teen, we lived on an 8 acre hobby farm. I expect that I killed roughly 300 gophers in our perhaps 3 acres of pasture over the course of 5 years. Sure, some (mostly city dwellers) think it unnecessary and cruel, but then again, they’ve never gone knee deep into a hole that opened under their feet, or seen one of their animals do the same.
Shot quite a few rats, one feral cat that was attacking my barn cat, and at least one extremely aggressive red winged blackbird that liked to divebomb us any time we set foot in our backyard.
A few years back a co-worker of mine went home to Indiana to help his family take care of a pack of about 20 wild dogs that were raiding area farms, killing livestock and endangering people. Mostly pets that stupid people had abandoned in farm country, that had banded together like a pack of wolves.
Oh yeah, when I lived in the city, I would trap and kill the occasional squirrel too. Damned tree rats would tear up my lawn and destroy pretty near anything I planted.
Unfortunately that’s against the law in Pennsylvania although hand-fishing may be legal in most of our waterways.
As for varmints (groundhogs in particular) I say kill more more MORE! But having flipped a tractor in a chuckhole and having friends killed that way, I have a certain bias.
The feral/wild hog population in east Texas is way out of control. There are services that utilize helicopters to locate herds and eradicate them from the air, but it’s not cheap and there are so many in the region, even if you do manage to reduce the population on your property, another herd will move in to fill the void in no time. It’s a scourge without an easy solution. Hunting them from the ground is ineffective and dangerous. You may succeed in taking a couple of the herd out but when the sows are giving birth to 8 at a time, a couple of times a year you’re fighting a losing battle.
Depends on how they’re shooting.
What if one of them just shot to wound?
Should be get in trouble or let off, simply because the animal was a “varmint”?
I’m personally opposed to killing of animals for non-food or non-self-defense purposes. The varmint hunters I know around here are not ridding farmers of pests - they go out to prairie dog towns on vacant, non-farmed land, and sit and wait and just blast the poor critters with .22-250’s and .220 Swifts and such (OK, it’s been a looooong time since I’ve seen a Swift in action, so maybe .270’s or .243’s). They rack up double-digit body counts every time, and leave the carcasses to rot and laugh about the “stupid” critters. A family I know in the southern part of this State shoot armadillos, rabbits, and squirrels as varmints - not for any particular reason (the armadillos do dig, but they don’t have any plants they care about), just because it’s “fun.”
I’m a strong supporter and believer in the 2nd Amendment, but to use an actual NRA quote, “the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting”, and I do not believe there is any Constitutional right to hunt, nor any right to just indiscriminately slaughter the animals.
Awesome. Hopefully the meat is recovered. That’s bacon right there.
Your computer runs on electricity, and that electricity comes for coal. And the mining of coal indisputably induces pain in many millions of animals. Since your use of your computer doesn’t serve a critical need it is , by definition, an act of cruelty. The same can be said for the animals struck by cars used by peopel driving to their favourite hiking or skiing locations, or to any other recreational activities.
All recreational activities are non-critical. All recreational activities induce pain on animals. Those are simple facts of human existence.
So this argument is total hogwash.
2) Target shooting, especially shooting with high powered, long ranged weapons poses an unacceptable risk to the public.
It obviously is acceptable, because we live in a democracy with rule of law, and the public accepts it. Any other standard of “unacceptable” is a True Stotsman of the worst kind.
So this argument is total hogwash.
And this argument simply says that farmer’s, ranchers and sporting shooters should have to suffer losses without any compensation whatsoever because there is some nebulous theory that maybe it works.
When there is strong scientific evidence for this belief, based upon controlled studies, then you might have some sort of basis for starting a discussion. And that discussion will include monetary and other compensation to those who are being affected by this for the benefit of society as a whole. If society wants this then they can pay for it. If they are unwilling to pay, they don’t really want ti.
But with the state of the evidence as it is, it’s just hippy nonsense being used as an excuse to stop people doing things that they find distasteful.
Of course not. You don’t take people’s rights away without having a damn good reason for doing so. And if the *best *arguments for doing so are the ones presented in this thread then there’s no reason at all for doing it, much less a good one.
Not a lot of actual debate in this thread. Almost everybody is arguing over fine distinctions in definition. I haven’t needed a bullet-proof or flame-proof vest even though I was attempting to be provocative.
Where are the cowards who believe in killing animals for fun? There must be one or two them who know how to read and write.
I have never met someone who kills animals for fun, or uses them as target practice.
This, despite the fact that I’ve been around the country, living in quite a few areas, and met a very large number of shooters in my life (everyone from sustenance hunters to national level competition shooters). I’ve heard second hand accounts of these people my entire life, but typically not from shooters.
We aren’t going to get a good argument going with that kind of reasoning.
I agree, I expected a much more vigorous response from the sport shooting/hunting=animal cruelty faction. I guess people are more reasonable, or less interested, than I thought. For the most part, I believe we have consensus that as long as shooters follow the rules of trying to put the animal down cleanly, don’t shoot all of them, protect people, pets and property while you’re shooting the unwanted critters and don’t claim to be some brilliant hunter then all is well.
With that being said though, I should add one other thing.
emphasis mine*
I am guilty of this for both crows and prairie dogs. The crows still don’t bother me and I consider them fair game but I don’t shoot prairie dogs anymore. Maybe at one time I would have thought that I had a good reason for shooting them. That’s what my dad and my uncles and my grandpa did so that’s what I did too. Looking back now though, they were just something to shoot at.
Crows though, where’s my napalm?