Ok. Asmodean. Next time you want to bag a trophy buck, why don’t you just run up and bite him on the neck?
Peace,
mangeorge
So the solution is to kill what is in our way? Seems like there should be something better to do.
We keep proceeding with that mindset (as we are with what seems to be just about every species), and someday we’ll find that we’ve killed off one species too many and our own survival will be at stake. We need a healthy ecosystem for our own survival.
**
Maybe we could pass out contraceptives to all the deer to encourage safe sex. Seriously though, what solution do you have that wouldn’t end up costing an arm and a leg?
What species do we depend on for survival? Most of the ones that are endangered don’t make much of a difference to us. So long as certain bacteria and insects don’t go extinct I think we’ll end up doing just fine. Most humans change the ecosystem for their own survival to begin with.
Marc
Now I’ve found a situation where I don’t have to right a thing at all. Just read my sig. It’s as simple as that. No arguing, No fighting, Just that.
right= write.
Here’s the entire song.
69
Disgustipated
And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, “Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?” And the angel said unto me, “These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust.” And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, “Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!” Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on…
This is necessary.
It was daylight when you woke up in your ditch. You looked up at your sky then. That made blue be your color. You had your knife there with you too. When you stood up there was goo all over your clothes. Your hands were sticky. You wiped them on your grass, so now your color was green. Oh Lord, why did everything always have to keep changing like this. You were already getting nervous again. Your head hurt and it rang when you stood up. Your head was almost empty. It always hurt you when you woke up like this. You crawled up out of your ditch onto your gravel road and began to walk, waiting for the rest of your mind to come back to you. You can see the car parked far down the road and you walked toward it. “If God is our Father,” you thought, “then Satan must be our cousin.” Why didn’t anyone else understand these important things? You got to your car and tried all the doors. They were locked. It was a red car and it was new. There was an expensive leather camera case laying on the seat. Out across your field, you could see two tiny people walking by your woods. You began to walk towards them. Now red was your color and, of course, those little people out there were yours too.
Regarding pop control eugenics, I’m curious how a hunter could possibly target only the “healthiest” animal, unless s/he gathers blood samples and other data… Point is, the sickly ones die anyway, and a hunter may kill and eat an apparently “healthy” buck, but has the kill really worsened the gene pool? I’d suspect the hunter would have to have been lucky enough to have killed a “genetically superior” specimen to have done so, but the reality of hunting season for most hunters I’ve known ends without a prize. If a buck is had, chances are it’s an ordinary representative of the population.
And if a buck’s offspring potential has not been met, can anyone say that it’s necessarily a bad thing? Seems just as likely that the buck killed shouldn’t have been reproducing anyway. Keeping a deer pop in check reduces its exposure to humans, and keeps the deer tick pop in check, thereby reducing outbreaks of such wonderful diseases like Lyme.
I’ve never hunted, mostly becuase it’s something I’ve never had time for. (I’ve also never skiied down a mountain, same reason) but I’ve never heard a compelling reason to stop hunting, ever. Much of the arguments seem to be emotional, ranging from “why would you want to” (like it’s any of your business) to animal’s rights (largely a matter of opinion and a separate GD). But none of these arguments ever would compel a hunter to stop, nor convince legislators to outlaw the activity.
On the other side, the plusses are compelling. IIRC, Ted Nugent hunts fertively. His venison is donated to homeless shelters by the hundreds of pounds. Sounds like a win-win-win situation: Ted gets to hunt with friends, deer population is kept in check, and some homeless folks get a decent meal.
Ted Nugent. What ever happened to thay guy, anyway?
Is he still out there, selflessly feeding the poor?
Peace,
mangeorge
Mangeorge
See your local TV guide for Ted Nugents “spirit of the wild”
Wrath
Right on.
FWIW
I saw this 17 real live wild deer this morning and never left the house.Is there a population problem???
Anyone want to drive fast past my house tonight???
I’m not anti-hunter, but I think some of the arguments are weak. Nature does not need us to control the population and if the deer population is higher because their natural predators are no longer around, this would seem to be the fault of our population control of unwanted pests. If you are worried about hitting a deer w/ your car, maybe you should think about weather the deer are on your road or if your road is cutting through thier forrest. On the other hand we are animals and we hunt (not me personally) and I don’t feel it is necessary to make up excuses for doing so. It tastes good, and I assume it feels good for some.
jonas, I think the argument is not that nature needs us to control the deer population, but that WE need us to control it. Nature is not doing a very good job of it as far as we are concerned. Sure eventually the population may control itself, but wouldn’t it be better if we helped it along a little so that your child doesn’t get bitten by a tick and contract a fatal disease like Lyme, or perhaps before a wandering pack crosses the highway in search of food, right in front of you, forcing you to swerve off the road and crash, possibly fatally injuring yourself and your spouse… are you gonna think about whose road it really is then?
And I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate!
Peace,
mangeorge
contraceptives! that’s it!
But seriously, you’re right…there is no easy answer. Reducing future urban sprawl may help. Spending extra money on new road construction (like fences in high-risk areas) may help. Moose whistles (or whatever those noise makers that you mount on the front of your car are called). Driving slower (gasp!). That kind of thing. Feel free to mock these ideas now.
Overall, yes, human safety is very important. Organized hunting may have it’s place in some areas, but I don’t think it’s the only solution. And I certainly don’t think that’s the motivation of most hunters. IMHO, many/most hunters do it for the thrill of the kill…which is wrong. But I guess it’s easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department.
That’s my point. We don’t know. The interconnections in an ecosystem are complex and we may unwittingly eliminate a beneficial species. Therefore it would be wise to act cautiously. But I’m getting off-topic here. (a world of humans, insects, and bacteria…sounds like a fun place)
Phobos,you said
“But I guess it’s easier/cheaper for a State to control a deer population through issuing hunting licenses than it is to put money into a Parks Department.”
The park system may be part of the problem.It provides a hiding place for deer but they leave it to feed.Thus they become the driving hazard. Also many parks have their own hunting season,permit only, because of over grazing.
IMHO:
Uh, I could be off base, but Nature was doing a fine job for many, many years. As a number of people had mentioned, it’s the human intervention (roads, urban sprawl, industry, etc.) that had aided in upsetting the natural balance.
Regarding the OP, I’ve thought of hunting with a camera for years. Not that I have anything against killing game, but I have a really nice camera and some spectacular zoom lens’ that I would really like to try in a new environment.
I might go hunting, weapon hunting, someday too. When I do, it won’t be to control the population or thin the herd, it will be because I want to experience hunting, a skill that has been around as long as man. Plain and simple.
Oh, and FWIW, my sister lives in MI and had one of her cats snatched by a coyote. I would see no substantial issue with sniping that creature if it, a predator of sorts, is invading urban/sub-urban areas and snatching pets (Will someone think of the children!).
Of course “nature” was doing a fine job - we weren’t around!. But now we are here and we aren’t getting along. Sorry, but no deer is more important than me or my family, (or you and your family) and “nature” acts too slowly.
BTW, aren’t humans a natural element of this earth, and thereby just as natural as nature itself? Why when folks talk of “nature” are humans somehow removed from the equation?
I’ve heard these arguments before from animal lovers - that wild bears once roamed the isle that is now Manhattan, and they should be allowed to return. Is this basically your position? If you think we should leave these animals alone and go live somewhere else, then let’s all do it. You first.
Actually we,humans,are the ultimate predator.
We alone have the intellegence and means to wipe out an entire species. Including our own.
The fact that we are trying not to let that happen,and IMHO are doing a pretty good job of it.says that we are doing things right.
Take deer for instance,Look up the population figures from 1900,you’ll see that we have far more than the estimated population from that time.
Another documented case is the wild turkey.
Neither of these would have made a come back were it not for the money spent by hunters.
To get back to the OPs question,I see no documented proof of any contributions by photographers.But I have an open mind if you can show me a significant monetaty contribution I’ll consider changing my opinion.
Well maybe they contributed monetaty but what about money/
Monetary
monetary
monetary
**
All of which are unacceptable because they end up costing to much money and they aren’t all that effective. Ok, whistles and driving slower don’t cost extra money I admit.
**
Personally I put it at a higher priority then animal safety. Even endangered animals.
**
In most areas it is probably the quickest and cheapest way to solve the problem. Of course it doesn’t help that some people insist on treating the deer like pets and putting feed out for them.
**
Most states already fund some sort of parks department. Their jobs cover a lot more then deer population though.
I’m not to worried that missing a few species is going to upset the balance to such a degree that life becomes impossible for us. Europeans seem to be doing just fine without all those wolves, bears, or the forest that used to cover a larger portion of the continent.
Marc
I should have specified…I meant putting extra $$$ into the Parks Dept to run a deer population control program in addition to their other duties.
It is we that have invaded coyote country. If you don’t want coyotes in your yard, then put a fence around it…don’t wipe out the species. Plus, similar to what MGibson was saying, having such animals approach human homes is often a result of people knowingly or unknowingly attracting the animals (putting out food for pets, not covering garbage, owning delicious house cats, etc.)
I’m certainly not recommending either of these extremes. I’m just saying it would be better to plan developments & work with an ecosystem rather than steamrolling it without consideration to the long-term effects and the immorality of killing without a valid reason (e.g., food, self defense).
Which is why I said there’s no easy solution. But a little from Column A and a little from Column B depending on the specific situation may help.
Agree. Definitely a bad idea.
You’re right that a few missing species probably won’t affect us. It hasn’t so far and a TON of species have already gone extinct in recent history. Point is – at some point it may affect us and we don’t know what this point is.
I don’t think you can really judge the long-term viability of Europeans’ lifestyle based on just the past few hundred years unless your concern is only for the near-future. By the way, have you seen the heavily-industrialized parts of Europe lately?..quite the environmental mess.
Phobos
I should have specified…I meant putting extra $$$ into the Parks Dept to run a deer population control program in addition to their other duties.
How in the world would they do that?
In conjunction with a money saving program,I don’t even want to imagine the horrors that would present.