except you’re not “just asking questions.” you’ve thrown in a ton of assumptions and conjecture built around the idea that Americans (especially rural Americans) all act like some stereotype you yourself have invented.
I don’t understand at all how being torn to pieces by wolves is a more humane death than being shot.
It also seems kind of obvious that allowing deer hunting doesn’t result in running out of deer if it’s at all controlled, simply because deer hunting is common in North America and there’s still a bazillion deer. They let people shoot deer and deer are still an absolute pestilence; they’re everywhere.
the growing problem is the abundance of deer in and around residential areas where hunting is prohibited. I live in one of Detroit’s inner suburbs (hardly rural,) and I see deer all the time. There’s plenty of food for them, no hunting allowed, and their only real “predators” have four wheels and headlights.
Lack of hunting opportunities are a real problem for Truckasauruses. Thankfully they only need to hunt on Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!
Yup. For three reasons: Most Americans are actually pretty rules-abiding, and hate it when others get ‘unfair advantage’ by breaking the rules, and because most hunters understand game management theory on at least an informal and basic level, and lastly, because if n poachers aren’t controlled, not only is the game supply harmed (smaller harves limits next year!), but the very access to hunting at all might be jeopardized.
In densely populated areas, the generally accepted safe, cheap, and fast method is professional hunters, using specialized eqipment (low velocity suppressed rifles) and procedures (hunting at times when very few people are out and about). This is still more expensive than having hunters pay for the game tags, but realistically, there’s no better effective answer in tight urban areas.
It might be good to develop a program where actual hunters could qualify to become game management hunters. They would have to have the proper equipment and skills and the proper background. I imagine they would work for free.
Or even pay for the privilege. I endorse this.
There is no such thing as lax quotas in any state that I know of. The quotas of fish and game are redetermined every year based on the most current data. That determines the dates and length of the legal hunting season as well as the bag limits. For things like deer, bear and moose hunting, each hunter gets an official tag that has to be attached to any kill. God have grace on you if you don’t follow those rules exactly.
The only animals that you can kill on sight are invasive species like feral hogs in some areas but that is also specified by game and firearms laws. This isn’t the Wild West we are talking about. Hunting is an expensive and labor intensive activity and the people that enjoy it want to understand the rules so that they don’t end up in jail or lose their privileges for life.
Also, Game Wardens do not generally work under local law enforcement or even the county Sheriff. They are usually managed by the state as a whole under the Wildlife and Game Commission or the equivalent. They are full law enforcement officers (police) but they have some unusual rights that other law enforcement officers do not because part of their job is arresting groups of armed violators on private property by themselves.
You don’t want to mess with Game Wardens. They tend not to be very likable people but real hunters hate poachers even more so they are happy to tip them off for violators. Unlike other law enforcement officers, a Game Warden’s main job is to protect animal populations rather than people.
This. ^^
Varmints, and the like - Which is also species management - just that in this specific case the Fish and Wildlife/Game Department has decreed that they want as few of that specific kind of aniimal around as possible.
See, I have a very different experience with Wardens - As do most everyone I know. The only folks I know of as don’t want them around and really don’t like them are folks as are inclined to habitual violations. Sure, folks as get their bag confiscated bitch and whinge, but then so do folks as get speeding tickets. Wardens, as a group, are generally as helpful and professional and polite as any other LEO.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect them greatly. They just have a really dangerous job. Most hunters are perfectly law abiding but then there is the 0.001% of people that decide that spotlighting deer in a remote field at night is a fine finish to a drunken night. They are armed by definition and they know they are all going to jail if they caught so a lone game warden can get into some serious situations.
The Game Wardens I have known have all been hardasses but I would be too if that was my job. That is their general reputation across the country and that is probably to their benefit. I am sure many of them are great when it comes to education and conservation contexts but I still wouldn’t want to have a run-in with one.
It’s worth noting getting a rifle licence in the UK is hard. Basically, if someone’s managed to get one, they know how to shoot and they’re not a complete muppet.
It’s not like the US where in many places pretty much anyone over the age of 18 can go into a sporting good store, buy a bolt-action hunting rifle over the counter and walk out the door with it.
To the OP, I understand that you have a bias against hunters but almost every broad brush accuasation you’ve made against them is factually wrong.
Uncontrolled deer populations are dangerous. In addition it’s also crueler to the deer to allow them to suffer through starvation, which they will. Permit hunting by humans is efficient and proven. The notion you have that once a deer hunter enters the woods he shoot anything that crosses his path is, frankly, hilarious.
Are there a few “hunters” who break the law. Of course, but they will be breaking the law regardless of any new system to full herds. There is absolutely no cause and effect between those two things.
Shotguns are easier to get, right? In fact, people can’t use rifles for big game in some states. It’s less a gun control issue than that shotguns, even with rifled barrels and slugs, have a lower effective range. IIRC Indiana just recently started allowing rifles, but even then it’s a restrictive list of calibers.
These days, “I have a right to hunt” goes hand in hand with “obeying the Limits to protect the ecology is important” because hunters in the US are very aware that an awful lot of people have the perception of and about the same level of knowledge about hunting (in the US) as you are displaying here. I don’t mean that to criticize you, just as an observation.
Also, my experience is that hunters are the one citizen group that is most consistently active in conservation efforts of habitats and ecologies because they know that without those, they lose the right to hunt. Also, I would change where you used the word limits to the word laws to make a more accurate statement. There are a lot of laws regulating hunting and woe be to the hunter who gets caught violating one even accidentally.
Since I was a novice hunter waaaay back in the early 1980s the two rules changes that stick out in my mind are these;
In the late 80s Idaho re-instituted a doe season to help control herd size and health, without looking up the info, I believe there have only been a few years since without a doe season.
More recently, there has been a lowering of the age when a minor is allowed to take hunters ed classes. Traditionally the age was 12, and a few years ago made some rule changes to allow age 8 to hunt small upland game (birds and rabbits, furbearers, predators and unprotected species) age 10 to hunt big game, turkeys and sandhill cranes. These younger hunters must be accompanied by a hunting licensed adult hunting mentor (over 18) and have restrictions on size of firearm and hours allowed to hunt. However these programs are only available to (obviously) first time hunters. At age 10 you can take hunters ed (required for all minors) and get a hunting license, but are still required to hunt with a licensed mentor in the field with you. This is not the same as the programs allowing 8 and 9 year olds to hunt. Hunters age 12 and up can hunt independently.
So, when the various hunting seasons (mainly deer) are in full swing, Fish and Game sets up “check stations” along the various roads and hunters are legally required to stop and report if they harvest a deer. A lot of times hunters will stop and check in even if they don’t bag a deer. These stations are manned by both enforcement officers (wardens) and Fish and Game biologists. These folks have been doing this a long long time and pretty much have it down far as what questions to ask and how to ask them and how to interpret the answers they get. For the guys that just cruise on by with out stopping to report their harvest, well, the enforcement guys have been doing this a long long time and have gotten pretty good enough to have a “better than chance” record of knowing which vehicles need to stop and which don’t. I won’t claim they’re perfect. And remember, the report at check stations during hunting season is only one tool of many that they use, but a pretty good tool when you think about it. There are only so many F&G biologists to go around, and lots more hunters. The info you get may not be the absolute-laboratory-bestest-most-accurate, but it’s pretty good and the hunters know its in their best interest too, since it helps with conservation and herd management, which in turn help preserve their hunting rights.
You know, I typed all of that, and I suddenly realized, this info is very easily found online. Heck I couldn’t remember details for the rules changes regarding ages and had to look them up. Don’t take the word of a hunters ed instructor who had to stop for lack of time (in ID hunters ed instructors are all volunteers) or anyone else who isn’t a game warden. Look it up, find out for yourself, that way you’ll know better than if you just listen to what we all say here.
Marginally easier. It’s still quite difficult to obtain a Shotgun Certificate (licence to own a shotgun in the UK); magazines are restricted to three shots at most (higher capacities requre a harder obtain Firearms Certificate) and you can’t buy solid slugs unless you hold a said Firearms Certificate.
Personally, I wouldn’t use a shotgun for deer hunting - but Australia and New Zealand have a lot of open spaces so a centrefire rifle is your best option; especially because you’re not likely to get close enough to a deer to humanely despatch it with a 12-gauge.
It’s not that hard to get a Shotgun Certificate, it’s just a bit of a faff. If you’ve no relevant criminal convictions, and a straightforward physical and mental health history (self-declared), then all you need to do is fill in the forms, install a secure gun cabinet and have a police officer come round to visit (to give you and your gun cabinet a once-over, basically). It’s not like you need to personally petition Her Majesty the Queen or anything 
A Firearms Certificate is a bit more difficult though.
Shotgun hunting for deer is largely circumstantial - What kind of distances are involved? How built-up is the region? How much brush and cover is around?
There are a number of US states, for instance, that restrict deer hunting to only shotguns, or have a specific shotgun hunting season - Beause heavy foliage, and high populations. Locally, for instance, a hundred-yard shot is rather long. Now, you won’t find folks using buckshot at those ranges (Hells no!), but a slug, well, that’s a game-getter. I woudn’t personally use buck, even at closer ranges, because it would heavily restrict the kinds of, and opportunities for, the shots I could take.
I live (including my own yard) where there are wolves, coyotes, the occasional cougar, moose, deer and bears. Here, wildlife management includes hunting, both by traditional subsistence hunters, and by recreational hunters. Wildlife management (as a subset of habitat management) helps keep things in balance.
The cull is not based on how much hunters want to hunt, but rather what population levels of which particular species are best for all species in a balanced habitat. Different wildlife management units will have different quotas in different years.
In short, hunting deer is effective in managing populations of deer near built up areas where wolf and coyote populations are contraindicated.
People where I live keep dogs to scare off the carnivores. Interestingly, my nearby city is balancing its deer problem and its reasonable desire to not have people shooting of guns in neighbourhoods, by permitting hunters to use bows and arrows.
Note that I live in Canada, where we do not have a gun and violence fetish. It is possible to have environmentally sound wildlife management that makes use of hunting without ending up with a violent gun culture resulting.
Here’s the link to a deer cull program in a Pittsburgh suburb. Deer Management Program Summary | Mt. Lebanon, PA - Official Website
It should answer many questions as to how this works.
This one was divided into a bow hunting phase and a rifle phase.
The bow hunters had to be certified, and were tested on their experience etc.
The rifle hunters were mainly off-duty cops, set in fixed locations, near bait stations and with designed fields of fire (I.e. backdrops were pre-planned etc.). Their phase lasted less than a week.
The cost was around 100k, for which just under 100 deer were culled.
It was a warm week in Feb during the rifle phase, meaning it wasn’t neatly as effective as a colder time would have been.
There was resistance to this cull in the community (by a minority of the population), with signs in the yard protesting the cull. Also, a number of the concerned people had taken to feeding the deer, making the bait stations less effective. While some cited safety, many of the opponents just believed it was barbaric to kill deer.
In my opinion, those people are fucking nuts. Before the cull, and this is no exaggeration, deer would walk in small groups down the middle of suburban streets, entirely unperturbed by honks etc. I hit a deer backing out of my garage once. I tend to back out at a speed of about 5mph, so the deer just decided not to move. Fortunately my car was fine, unfortunately so was the deer - ready to stare down some other car, possibly at higher speed and more serious consequence.
While in many areas people are encroaching on animal habitats, with deer in the eastern U.S. it is the opposite: deer are moving into the burbs and even cities (Detroit, for example). They destroy biodiversity, do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, and, worst of all, make it impossible for me to grow some tulips. Deer are tall rats, the movie “Bambi” is a lie - but I digress.
The point furthest in the mainland UK from a metalled road is on Ruadh-stac Beag, in Wester Ross. The distance is only about 7 miles. It’s easy enough to find this detail in various discussions online, but the primary source - an article on the Ordnance Survey site - seems to have disappeared, alas. So yeah, even the remotest parts of the UK aren’t all that remote.