They don’t have hands.
What’s your point? It happens in plenty of remote places without the benefit of human intervension. It happened quite regularly before humans were so prolific on this planet. It happens to humans (see many poor African and Asian Nations). Perhaps some hunters should go over there and start controlling population the “more humane way”.
I prefer my animals born and raised in cages or on grazing land. Also, I don’t go out to the farm to butcher my meat. I depend on professionals who do it to make a living. If they found it too hazardous to continue doing it to the point where meat became unavailable, I’d probably stop eating meat. Same with cars. If they stopped building them (god, I hope not!) I’d walk and cycle a lot more.
My point, if I make one at all, is that people should simply say they enjoy the hunt, the kill and subsequent rituals of dressing and eating the animal. Don’t make lame excuses about controlling the population.
Oh well. Back to the drawing board.
Really, Quick, isn’t it a matter of semantics on which is more humane or “better”: starving to death or being shot? Personally, they’d both seem to suck, but I’d rather see a deer shot and it’s meat used than for it to slowly starve to death.
Population control for deer is a very real issue at least here in Michigan. I don’t know how much that applies to other states or other species though.
I agree with QuickSilver. The idea of hunters helping by thinning the herd is lame. Nature does not need your “help”.
Thinning the herd did not seem to help the passenger pigeon much.
To anyone who says they are interested in “helping by thinning the herd”, let me ask this: If you have a choice of shooting a healthy stag or a sickly diseased animal, which would you target?
I’m not pressing the issue about what’s more humane. I’m simply pointing out that population control by hunting is not the only way. Nature seems to have sufficient controls without having to rely on people. It’s ways are often not pretty but quite effective.
And I’d rather people said they hunted for the pleasure it brings them than to use the population control excuse.
Do you suppose that’s because of a lack of natural predators? I mean besides the two legged, gun carrying kind.
Look, I’m not saying people should not hunt. Do it if you enjoy it and are not contributing to the endangerment of a species. But stop pretending it’s for the good of nature.
Well, DUH!; if they don’t have arms, they sure as heck don’t have hands!
Just point out there is a difference between recreational and professional hunters. Professional hunters are the ones who go out and try to keep the environment in balance, recreational hunters go out for the food.
However, if there are enough recreational hunters they will take the place of professional hunters.
The big problem is when hunters don’t have enough knowledge and shoot the wrong animals. This is very prevalent at duck hunting season. They often (in Australia at least) shoot the rare and endangered birds. Well, the activists make sure they get on the news. People should know the difference between a duck and a swan at least.
Culling the heard by hunting is not the first choice for control. Nature is. However, since we got rid of the wolves and put up all of those houses and built cities and roads, etc., just letting nature alone is not really an option anymore. We changed the balance and so now we need to do what we can.
The fish and game departments of various states monitor the size of the herd and adapt the limits accordingly. IF they did not, the population would indeed correct itself, but not until after the population grew beyond sustainable limits. A drought or a bad winter would kill many animals through starvation. A quick painless death is better than starving to death in my books.
That said, I hunt because it satasfies some deep primal urge. Hell, I don’t know why I like fishing either, but I LOVE it. I think it is one of those things you either get or you simply do not get. I don’t understand why I like football, or driving a fast car, or petting a dog…but it doesn’t really matter to my enjoyment.
I don’t feel any need to justify hunting. It is about as natural an act as exists.
**Okay…so you missed my point as I did yours. I do not make excuses for why I enjoy hunting. I like the thrill of the chase, the outdoors, and bagging the game. So, some people think I’m sick and deranged for doing the killing myself and taking pleasure. Fine.
But it is true that the majority of hunters and hunting organizations are devoted to conservation of habitat and game and non-game animal species.
And your reference to starving people in Africa and Asia…That was just dumb. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.
It’s not an excuse, just a fringe benefit…If you want to call it that.
I agree with Quicksilver that people shouldn’t say that’s their only reason, but I think most hunters I’ve met will say they do it for both the meat, the sport and the population control.
Now, quick hijack. I can’t stand it when hunters claim they’re hunting when all they do is sit in a deerstand all morning and wait for the deer that they’ve been feeding all year round to come eat. That uses no more hunting skills than a slaughterhouse does.
(No flames if you don’t do that. I don’t mean all hunters do; just that those who do have the audacity to call that hunting.)
Sick and deranged…naaah. A blood thirsty savage, maybe. 
Dumb is so harsh. I prefer you said… ummm… inappropriate. As in, “It’s inappropriate to compare human life to that of an animal”. Though if I was a hunted animal I should think otherwise… but I digest.
I used to hunt with my dad when I was a kid. I was never that much into it, but I enjoyed it for a long time. It was something that my father, a man whose interests and mine rarely coinceided, could do together. Even more than that, it was an activity that he eagerly wanted me to share in. As I got older, though, it all changed. When I actually got old enough to start plucking the ducks out of the sky, I found I didn’t really like it much. I felt guilty killing things for no good reason. I hadn’t had the same feelings when my dad shot them, but it was somehow different staring at my own kills. So, I had to stop, to give up that one thing that my dad and I did together that he really loved.
Do I begrudge hunters their hobby? Not at all. It’s just not for me. I will confess that hunting for pleasure is something I can’t understand, but there are lots of folks who feel that way. There was a time when I would have given an awful lot to share in it.
**Ahhhh jeeeeez…you’re just saying that.
Hey Quick…That was the word I was looking for. Hey, I hope you don’t take offense to anything I said…I think I might have been arguing a point with you which did not need arguing.
S’Alright jeel. No harm, no foul (or is that fowl in this case? 
)
Sorry, Quick, didn’t mean to come off as “black/white” on the issue. I think its a fine balance: enjoyment plus the aid to nature in population control.
r: Your question on lack of two-legged predators in Michigan. Actually, deer hunting in Michigan is a huge deal. The DNR actively monitors deer populations and sells licenses accordingly. Overpopulation in deer herds can cause problems for farms, as deer raid crops.
I do, agree, however, that some people use the “good for nature” excuse as a way to somehow make hunting more honorable or something. Heck, if you enjoy it, if you’re a responsible hunter, and its legal, go for it.
Another point about the “population control” aspect that I haven’t seen mentioned so far: before “Nature’s methods” of disease and starvation can accomplish their task of reducing overpopulation, the populations involved not only suffer themselves but can cause a lot of suffering and inconvenience to other species. Growing up in rural southern New Jersey, I saw the pressures that under-hunted deer populations could put on the rest of their environment. Starving deer will not only damage trees but will get reckless enough to move into human-populated areas, eating ornamental plants and gardens, spreading parasites, trampling everything in sight, and (most importantly) wandering onto roads and getting hit by cars (which generally does a LOT more damage to the car and/or its occupants than to the deer). If we don’t want human beings to be significantly inconvenienced or endangered by deer (which is not only a nuisance for all-important Us but diminishes popular enthusiasm and support for wildlife and wilderness), we should let the hunters thin the herds before Nature’s “sufficient controls” start making things too difficult for others besides the deer.
This reminds me of a bowhunting article. The author mentioned that his best hunting experience didn’t end with a kill. In a slow rain, he was able to get close enough to a buck to spank it on the flank with his bow. Now, that’s hunting!
As many others have said, hunters don’t shoot pictures for much the same reasons photographers don’t carry guns or bows; it’s just not what they’re into. Of course, there are some who do both.
Sorry, I can’t resist: most hunters also take pictures from time to time, after the kill of course (anyone want to see a half-ton feral hog?)
[Hijack]
Reminds me of an article I recall reading some years ago about a Native American from near Vernal, Utah who was a candidate to run the Olympic marathon for the US team. When asked how he became such a good runner, he replied, “Well, I used to try to run down deer on the reservation. I never actually caught one, but I came pretty close a couple of times.”
[/Hijack]
I’ve got no particular problem with the concept of individuals hunting for meat (although I doubt it makes much economic sense for the hunters themselves), but Great Debaters, what is your opinion of hunters who fly to a private game farm in, say Zimbabwe, and pay thousands of dollars for the opportunity to shoot a leopard?
Count me as someone who has no problem with prey animals being hunted, although I could not do it myself. I’d be happy to help eating the venison, though!
I hope this question is not too off-subject. Is it still the law that one can take only bucks? When it comes to both population control and quality of meat, doesn’t it make more sense to take plump young does? I mean, you can shoot as many bucks as you want, but as long as a few are left, all the does will still get knocked up. What’s the law?