NationStates Jolt Archive

Well its getting to that time of year again. What does everybody here think of hunting.

If you dislike hunting please tell why.

Well its getting to that time of year again. What does everybody here think of hunting.

If you dislike hunting please tell why.


I love hunting but I hate field dressing and then humping out of the freaking mountains with all that dead weight .

I don't go hunting. But I am not against it either.

i don't care. hunt if you want, try not to do it all inhumane if you'd be so kind, and just don't do it in my back yard

If people are going to use the animal for something then I am all for it. If they are just going to shoot something and simply stuff it or leave its carcass to rot then I hardly approve.

I have no problem with hunting.

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

i dislike hunting because i live in the woods 100 yards from the rio grande. sometimes when people on the OTHER side of the river are shooting at deer or turkeys they dont realize that they are aiming right at my house.

other than that, im fine with it as long as the quarry isnt artificially hampered--tied to a tree, drugged, clipped wings, whatever.

What's more fun that shooting defenseless animals with big guns? I enjoy hunting year-round, though.

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

makes them feel like big men? :confused:

If people are going to use the animal for something then I am all for it. If they are just going to shoot something and simply stuff it or leave its carcass to rot then I hardly approve.

Whats the difference? It's just going to get eaten by something else anyway.

What's more fun that shooting defenseless animals with big guns? I enjoy hunting year-round, though.

I'm assuming that wasn't sarcasm...

So you actually enjoy killing things which in no way can defend themselves, just for killing them? Really, I don't understand why you do that. Please enlighten me.

Whats the difference? It's just going to get eaten by something else anyway.

Yeah, but can you let nature take its course and just let another animal, who has to kill it to survive, kill it then eat it, instead of shooting it and leaving it there, just for fun?

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

I sort of agree. If the animal is killed rather painlessly and is going to be used as food (not left to rot), I'm fine with it. I'm completely against hunting for sport though. "The Most Dangerous Game" is a relatively good example of why.

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?


First thing, I helps keep t the animil population under control, which means that when winter comes around there is more food. how is just outright killing them is more cruel than letting them live for months starving to death?

They have a chance. Most people only get a deer every 3 years. If you make even the slightest move the animal will run. have you ever even tried to keep a steedy aim at something moving at up to 20 mph?

To me, it's conditional. If hunters are reducing the numbers of an animal toward extinction, it's bad. As long as the species continues to exist, I don't mind. It's when they get endangered that it bothers me.

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

think of it as a heritage thing.

do you disapprove of alaskan natives hunting walrus? do you disapprove of the !kung of the kalahari hunting gazelles?

its a tradition passed down from father to son (mother, daughter, whatever) through the generations. as long as it is done responsibly, what is wrong with it? the alternatives suck.

So you actually enjoy killing things which in no way can defend themselves, just for killing them? Really, I don't understand why you do that. Please enlighten me.

Why is anything fun? Some people enjoy posting repetitive tripe on NationStates forums and some people like shooting animals. Why do we enjoy doing anything at all? There's no real objective reason except that we interpret it as fun.

I'm assuming that wasn't sarcasm...

So you actually enjoy killing things which in no way can defend themselves, just for killing them? Really, I don't understand why you do that. Please enlighten me.

The enjoyment comes from the skill, the tactics, the tension, the excitement of the hunting. Not just the idea of killing animals.

Yeah, but can you let nature take its course and just let another animal, who has to kill it to survive, kill it then eat it, instead of shooting it and leaving it there, just for fun?

There over 15 million deer in the US. if we just let nature take its course, then most of them would starve to death.

First thing, I helps keep t the animil population under control, which means that when winter comes around there is more food. how is just outright killing them is more cruel than letting them live for months starving to death?

They have a chance. Most people only get a deer every 3 years. If you make even the slightest move the animal will run. have you ever even tried to keep a steedy aim at something moving at up to 20 mph?

1. In case you haven't noticed, nature is doing a fine job of keeping the population under control herself. And if she wants them to starve, fine. She made them, so she should be allowed to control how they die, not you.

2. They don't have a choice if you are the one with a sniper rifle and they are the ones who are hundreds of feet away, and therefore cannot run away from you, and therefore will be shot.

Whats the difference? It's just going to get eaten by something else anyway.

Possibly. Or maybe it will be able to live out its life.

Have you ever seen My Cousin Vinney? Marisa Tomei describes how evil hunting is quite eloquently. :D

think of it as a heritage thing.

do you disapprove of alaskan natives hunting walrus? do you disapprove of the !kung of the kalahari hunting gazelles?

its a tradition passed down from father to son (mother, daughter, whatever) through the generations. as long as it is done responsibly, what is wrong with it? the alternatives suck.

And why do they kill those? TO SURVIVE. It's the only way they can survive. They can't survive like we can, with heaters and vitamins. They must survive by killing walruses and gazelles.

1. In case you haven't noticed, nature is doing a fine job of keeping the population under control herself. And if she wants them to starve, fine. She made them, so she should be allowed to control how they die, not you.

Nature also made me, and I am nature's proxy when it comes to kill animals. She is controlling how they die by creating other animals who prey on them. :)

1. In case you haven't noticed, nature is doing a fine job of keeping the population under control herself. And if she wants them to starve, fine. She made them, so she should be allowed to control how they die, not you.

2. They don't have a choice if you are the one with a sniper rifle and they are the ones who are hundreds of feet away, and therefore cannot run away from you, and therefore will be shot.

So you can hit a deer from hundreds of feet?

1. is shooting a dog more creul than letting it starve to death?

The enjoyment comes from the skill, the tactics, the tension, the excitement of the hunting. Not just the idea of killing animals.

Yes, but what does it all end in? A dead animal. Nothing more.

There over 15 million deer in the US. if we just let nature take its course, then most of them would starve to death.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. You're saying that by killing the deer, we will allow their species to survive? I'm detecting heavy insane batshit here.

You see, the problem I have with hunting is that hunting takes place in THE GODDAM COLD.

So you can hit a deer from hundreds of feet?

1. is shooting a dog more creul than letting it starve to death?

Some people do. And the deer has no idea what hit it. No choice in that.

It depends. Did the dog have any chance at all of not starving to death when you shot it? If it had a chance of not starving to death, then it's cruel.

You see, the problem I have with hunting is that hunting takes place in THE GODDAM COLD.

If you shoot a bear, then you can make yourself a nice coat.

And why do they kill those? TO SURVIVE. It's the only way they can survive. They can't survive like we can, with heaters and vitamins. They must survive by killing walruses and gazelles.

what century are you living in?

they live that way because it is their choice and their cultural heritage to do so. as well they should

so you think its BETTER to let deer starve to death rather than have them be hunted? starvation is much more cruel and since dead is dead, whats it to YOU if its from a bullet to the head or heart instead of slow starvation?

Nature also made me, and I am nature's proxy when it comes to kill animals. She is controlling how they die by creating other animals who prey on them. :)

Yes, but those other animals have made things not of nature. That isn't mother nature doing what she wants. That's animals she's made breaking away from nature and screwing her plans up. If you killed them with your bare hands, then that's nature. Other wise it's just humanity.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. You're saying that by killing the deer, we will allow their species to survive? I'm detecting heavy insane batshit here.

I'm talking about killing a few. Not all of them. Regulated, legal hunting is what caused the rapid increase in deer population. 80 years ago there were less than 50,000 white tail deer left in the entire US. with regulated hunting, and habitat manegment the poplatuion has increased by 300 times in 80 years.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. You're saying that by killing the deer, we will allow their species to survive? I'm detecting heavy insane batshit here.

With all of the buildup of civilization the deer's habitat has been savaged. Now they often live in city parks and the like. If they are allowed to breed unhampered then their population will not be able to be sustained with the resources available. I suppose it could be argued that shooting them to reduce their numbers is better then having them starve.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. You're saying that by killing the deer, we will allow their species to survive? I'm detecting heavy insane batshit here.

Generally it's pretty true.

Given that there are no longer any natural predators for most species of deer in the US, there is a pretty severe overpopulation problem. As a result of this overpopulation, there is also a really big problem with insufficient food resources for the deer, and for the other herbivorous animals of the general American woodland. Overeating and destruction of forest resources would result if it were not for the thinning of the North American deer herds.

The problem is so severe in some places that American police departments have had to thin the herds with police snipers.

what century are you living in?

they live that way because it is their choice and their cultural heritage to do so. as well they should

so you think its BETTER to let deer starve to death rather than have them be hunted? starvation is much more cruel and since dead is dead, whats it to YOU if its from a bullet to the head or heart instead of slow starvation?

No, they only live that way because the people with the ability to allow them to live like us, with heaters to keep them warm without fur and vitamins to give them nutrition without meat aren't willing to give it to them without something in return. And, unfortunately, they having nothing to give in return.

And read my other post, please.

I just don't see the point of hunting. People say they do it for the "joy" of hunting, but what's so joyous about stalking an innocent deer at three in the morning when it's cold and wet? Screw that. And I hate venison. Oh, and everyone I know who hunts is a prick. not saying you're a bad person if you DO hunt, it's just not for me.

You see, the problem I have with hunting is that hunting takes place in THE GODDAM COLD.

what?? you have a PROBLEM with getting up befor dawn, putting on more clothes than the little brother in "a christmas story", driving for an hour then traipsing about the woods in subfreezing temperature in hopes that you will be able to shoot bambi before your fingers go too numb to pull the trigger?

what? that doesnt sound like FUN?

With all of the buildup of civilization the deer's habitat has been savaged. Now they often live in city parks and the like. If they are allowed to breed unhampered then their population will not be able to be sustained with the resources available. I suppose it could be argued that shooting them to reduce their numbers is better then having them starve.

But starving is so much more... Natural than shooting them.

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

It's the only way to keep the animal population under control.

Generally it's pretty true.

Given that there are no longer any natural predators for most species of deer in the US, there is a pretty severe overpopulation problem. As a result of this overpopulation, there is also a really big problem with insufficient food resources for the deer, and for the other herbivorous animals of the general American woodland. Overeating and destruction of forest resources would result if it were not for the thinning of the North American deer herds.

The problem is so severe in some places that American police departments have had to thin the herds with police snipers.

So... You're saying that before humans appeared on the continent, and before the Europeans came here with their guns and destroyed the deer population, North America was hell-in-a-hand-basket? That food shortages were everywhere? That nothing was able to survive? That deer overran everything?

But starving is so much more... Natural than shooting them.

But shooting is so much quicker and more painless.

But starving is so much more... Natural than shooting them.

But it is cruel to let them starve. the majority of the deer would not be here if hunting had been stopped 80 years ago. many animals would be exinct.

I'm talking about killing a few. Not all of them. Regulated, legal hunting is what caused the rapid increase in deer population. 80 years ago there were less than 50,000 white tail deer left in the entire US. with regulated hunting, and habitat manegment the poplatuion has increased by 300 times in 80 years.

And not killing them at all with only decrease their population and destroy their species?

So... You're saying that before humans appeared on the continent, and before the Europeans came here with their guns and destroyed the deer population, North America was hell-in-a-hand-basket? That food shortages were everywhere? That nothing was able to survive? That deer overran everything?

No, I'm saying that we greased all of the natural predators.

But it is cruel to let them starve. the majority of the deer would not be here if hunting had been stopped 80 years ago. many animals would be exinct.

Ok, please, can someone explain to me how not hunting animals will destroy species left and right, but hunting them will actually preserve them? I AM SO FUCKING CONFUSED RIGHT NOW!

It will not destroy the specis.

well then you must think it isn't cruel to starve a dog?

No, I'm saying that we greased all of the natural predators.

And that while the natural predators were still there, before humans and then the Europeans came to North America deer was on the brink of extinction? And even if that was true, it's still nature on it's course. We shouldn't have intervened in that case. It's screwing up nature's plans. We should have allowed deer to go extinct. We should allowed nature to put in a new species to fill the niche that deer left.

Ok, please, can someone explain to me how not hunting animals will destroy species left and right, but hunting them will actually preserve them? I AM SO FUCKING CONFUSED RIGHT NOW!

Because overforaging will decrease resources so rapidly that the ecosystem cannot recover over the summer, and each year the ecosystem gets into worse shape and is unable to rebound. Each year the ecosystem finds itself in worse and worse shape, until both the deer population and the ecosystem are totally destroyed.

It will not destroy the specis.

well then you must think it isn't cruel to starve a dog?

I think it's cruel to lock up a dog on a chain and don't give him food and water, but I don't think it's cruel to let a wild dog out into the wild, where he naturely lives, and then, because he was unable to catch enough prey, have him starve. That's just nature.

Ok, please, can someone explain to me how not hunting animals will destroy species left and right, but hunting them will actually preserve them? I AM SO FUCKING CONFUSED RIGHT NOW!

Since we destoyed their natural hunters then we must fill the gap. With a good sized population of their natural predadors they fill the gap that we took out. this ensures survival of the specis.


only 3% of all hunters hunt for sport. the others hunt for the meat and will shoot any deerthat they can, instead of just waiting for a large buck.

Because overforaging will decrease resources so rapidly that the ecosystem cannot recover over the summer, and each year the ecosystem gets into worse shape and is unable to rebound. Each year the ecosystem finds itself in worse and worse shape, until both the deer population and the ecosystem are totally destroyed.

So while we weren't hunting deer (A.K.A. Before the Ice Age), and before the Europeans got here with their mass death machines, that was happening to the ecosystem?

So while we weren't hunting deer (A.K.A. Before the Ice Age), and before the Europeans got here with their mass death machines, that was happening to the ecosystem?

it was just fine. we hurt the ecosystem and now we are trying to fix it.

Since we destoyed their natural hunters then we must fill the gap. With a good sized population of their natural predadors they fill the gap that we took out. this ensures survival of the specis.


only 3% of all hunters hunt for sport. the others hunt for the meat and will shoot any deerthat they can, instead of just waiting for a large buck.

Then explain to me why we destroyed the species in the first place. Is it because we want to be the ones to be killing everything? Or is it the natural human audacity of thinking that we do things the best, even keeping animal populations under control?

And you pulled that percentage out of your ass. I know that MUCH more than just 3% of hunters don't hunt for the sport. And if that number IS true, which I know it isn't, why don't they just eat cow instead of hunting other animals?

So while we weren't hunting deer (A.K.A. Before the Ice Age), and before the Europeans got here with their mass death machines, that was happening to the ecosystem?

Back then the deer had natural predators, wolves, bears, etc. When we came over we killed all of those natural predators, thus the ecosystem is unbalanced, the herbivore population would become too large to be sustainable.

No, they only live that way because the people with the ability to allow them to live like us, with heaters to keep them warm without fur and vitamins to give them nutrition without meat aren't willing to give it to them without something in return. And, unfortunately, they having nothing to give in return.

And read my other post, please.

no really, every alaskan native, every kalahari bushman, every pygmy, every inuit, every native greenlander, every WHATEVER could just up and move to "civilization". they stay from choice. no alaskan native ever need kill a walrus, whale or caribou ever again. they keep their heritage and culture alive by keeping to their cultural traditions.

so does your average american hunter. he is following a cultural tradition he received from his parents and grandparents. (some few are from non hunting families but thats pretty rare). why is MY cultural tradition less worthy that an inuits?

you have posted many posts, which one are you referring to?

And that while the natural predators were still there, before humans and then the Europeans came to North America deer was on the brink of extinction? And even if that was true, it's still nature on it's course. We shouldn't have intervened in that case. It's screwing up nature's plans. We should have allowed deer to go extinct. We should allowed nature to put in a new species to fill the niche that deer left.

Nature does not have plans, it just trundles along, unconscious, unplanned.

The deer were not on track to extinction before their predators were eliminated.

Furthermore, if the deer were allowed to overpopulate, they would destroy the ecosystem, strangle it. They'd consume all of the resources, and destroy the ecosystem, if it were not for the culling of the herds.

I think it's cruel to lock up a dog on a chain and don't give him food and water, but I don't think it's cruel to let a wild dog out into the wild, where he naturely lives, and then, because he was unable to catch enough prey, have him starve. That's just nature.

So you think it is cruel to treat animals with modern medicine, and that, instead of putting one down, we should just release it to die?

it was just fine. we hurt the ecosystem and now we are trying to fix it.

So you're saying that what you said previously was false? That we don't allow the ecosystem to be stabilized? That nature doesn't need us to keep the ecosystem stabilized? You just contradicted yourself, my good friend.

Then explain to me why we destroyed the species in the first place. Is it because we want to be the ones to be killing everything? Or is it the natural human audacity of thinking that we do things the best, even keeping animal populations under control?

And you pulled that percentage out of your ass. I know that MUCH more than just 3% of hunters don't hunt for the sport. And if that number IS true, which I know it isn't, why don't they just eat cow instead of hunting other animals?

For one thing that was meant to be 30%.

And the fact that deer is so much better for you than beef. it is so much leaner.

So while we weren't hunting deer (A.K.A. Before the Ice Age), and before the Europeans got here with their mass death machines, that was happening to the ecosystem?

The natural predators served the purpose of thinning the herds.

Coyotes, wolves, bobcats, they all did what we do now, but, because they stalked and killed herds of domesticated farm animals, people hunted and killed them. The unexpected side effect being that the deer population would explode and set to destroying the ecosystem.

1. In case you haven't noticed, nature is doing a fine job of keeping the population under control herself. And if she wants them to starve, fine. She made them, so she should be allowed to control how they die, not you.


actually good sir (or madame), God created the Earth and everything that inhabits it. NOT your sick, perverted "Mother Nature". Oh and by the way, in Genesis ( which is a part of the Bible, which you clearly haven't even touched) God basically gives us permission to do what we wish with the Earth as long as we dont completely screw it up. And, its not like we are comitting deer genoicide here. Just a few kills now and then.

Me shooting deer while eating popcorn chicken = :sniper:

Back then the deer had natural predators, wolves, bears, etc. When we came over we killed all of those natural predators, thus the ecosystem is unbalanced, the herbivore population would become too large to be sustainable.

But you were all just saying that WITHOUT humans to hunt ANYTHING the ecosystem will go wild and destroy itself.

So you're saying that what you said previously was false? That we don't allow the ecosystem to be stabilized? That nature doesn't need us to keep the ecosystem stabilized? You just contradicted yourself, my good friend.

we hurt it when erupoens got ot the americas. by we i mean our ancestors.

How is killing an animal any worse than killing a plant? Those damn vegetarians are much more morally wrong than hunters -- I can sustain myself on one animal per day, but I doubt any vegetarians eat only one brussell sprout each day.

This whole I-hunt-so-the-deer-won't-starve debate is idiotic. Just because there arn't big bags of chow labeled "Deer Food" laying around the forest doesn't mean that they, wild animals, can't find food in the forest, or in your garden. Have you ever had an entire bed of flowers ripped up by deer? How about berry bushes? Ever heard of those? Believe me, by shooting a deer you're not doing it any favors.

The deer were not on track to extinction before their predators were eliminated.

BUT YOU WERE JUST ALL SAYING THAT!

I have no problem with hunting so long as the animal isn't killed solely for 'fun'. I would hope that at the very least the meat would be eaten, and preferably that the skin and any other useful parts of the animal were used for something.

As for the issue of species preservation...

For the last few hundred million years, the over-population of any one species will have led to a decrease in the numbers of said species to a sustainable level, because of a shortage of food, higher population of predators, whatever. To say that we need to kill some animals to maintain their numbers is ridiculous, unless, perhaps, they are dominating the local ecosystem with no apparent adverse affect to them. In that case, hunting could be considered acceptable, though there are other methods (the introduction of myxomatosis in Australia springs to mind). If we need to increase the population of a species that is under threat of extinction, the setting up of safe natural habitats for them is surely more humane and sensible than killing them?

How is killing an animal any worse than killing a plant? Those damn vegetarians are much more morally wrong than hunters -- I can sustain myself on one animal per day, but I doubt any vegetarians eat only one brussell sprout each day.

Take this to the "Vegetarians" thread.

BUT YOU WERE JUST ALL SAYING THAT!

The deer were on the track to extinction after the predators were eliminated, sometime in the early-middle eighteen hundreds. Prior to that natural equilibrium was maintained.

i don't care. hunt if you want, try not to do it all inhumane if you'd be so kind, and just don't do it in my back yard
How big's your back yard?! ;)

How is killing an animal any worse than killing a plant? Those damn vegetarians are much more morally wrong than hunters -- I can sustain myself on one animal per day, but I doubt any vegetarians eat only one brussell sprout each day.

haha. hes right. Help join my cause to stop the mass-murderers that call themselves vegetarians. Together, we can stop the madness. ( this message brought to you by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants, or PETP)

to quote a friend: For every anmial that vegetarians don't eat, i will eat three.

It balances out the ecosyetm.

You had to hgave learned about ecosyetms.

If you destroy the numbers of a large predator like thw wolves, all the numbers of the anaimals that they once preyed on will increase but so will sickness and starvation.

Ok, listen.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?

And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?

And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?

So you're saying that what you said previously was false? That we don't allow the ecosystem to be stabilized? That nature doesn't need us to keep the ecosystem stabilized? You just contradicted yourself, my good friend.

The ecosystem will not stabilize itself on it's own, we have done sufficient damage to it that until we are able to fully reintroduce the natural predators, if we take our hands off suddenly, then the ecosystem will melt down.

But you were all just saying that WITHOUT humans to hunt ANYTHING the ecosystem will go wild and destroy itself.

I never said that, and humans did play a role in the ecosystem but not that crucial a role at first. After we destroyed all the natural predators in the ecosystems we inhabited, it became quite important that we keep the herbivore population in check.

Ok, listen.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?

And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?

And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?

Which is what we're doing; but right now it will most likely take in excess of a century to get to that point.

actually good sir (or madame), God created the Earth and everything that inhabits it. NOT your sick, perverted "Mother Nature". Oh and by the way, in Genesis ( which is a part of the Bible, which you clearly haven't even touched) God basically gives us permission to do what we wish with the Earth as long as we dont completely screw it up. And, its not like we are comitting deer genoicide here. Just a few kills now and then.

Me shooting deer while eating popcorn chicken = :sniper:
Do you know that I am a dysthiest? I believe that I don't know anything about the higher power besides the fact that it's a complete and total asshole?

Ok, listen.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?

And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?

And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?

Because there isn't suffienct habit for that.

There's no magic pill to solve the problem of predator depopulation and prey overpopulation. It will take an extremely long time to fix the problem we created.

Ok, listen.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?

And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?

And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?

maybe so, but its just more fun to shoot animals.

Ok, listen.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?

And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?

And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?

Everyone, please read this post. It will most probably end this pitiful arguement.

Can we all agree that we were the ones that killed the deer's predators?
thats what i've been saying.
And can we all agree that because we did that, we ourselves fucked up the ecosystem?
Yup.
And can we all agree that because of that, we need to REINTRODUCE their predators in regular numbers in order to balance out the ecosystem naturally, instead of just taking the responsibility upon ourselves?
We should reintroduce predators, but I don't think they will be able to do the jobs solely by themselves. Remember, even when we were cavemen we were killing animals, en masse too.

There's no magic pill to solve the problem of predator depopulation and prey overpopulation. It will take an extremely long time to fix the problem we created.

But can we at least try?

did you really think that we're not?

We should reintroduce predators, but I don't think they will be able to do the jobs solely by themselves. Remember, even when we were cavemen we were killing animals, en masse too.

Yeah, when we were cavemen. When it was the only way we could survive.

But can we at least try?

It won't work, not on the short term. We'll be dead before humanity can solve this problem.

did you really think that we're not?

From some of your guys's posts, it seems like you would really rather have it not happen, so that you can keep having fun killing animals.

It won't work, not on the short term. We'll be dead before humanity can solve this problem.

BUT CAN WE AT LEAST TRY?!?! It may take hundreds, maybe thousands of years, but we need to at least try.

I support hunting and enjoy it, however, taking upon myself the obligation not to kill more than I can use.


For the question of predators vs. hunters: No, hunters don't replace predators. The latter are selective, often capable of eating only sick, old, or otherwise weakened animals, and sometimes even already dead or dying. Firearms are not selective.

From some of your guys's posts, it seems like you would really rather have it not happen, so that you can keep having fun killing animals.

I have only shot animals twice, the first one was a rabid coyote on my grandparents farm. It was attacking the cows. The second time I shot a groundhog that was doing damage to the foundation of an extremely old barn.

I didn't enjoy it either time. I did it out of necessity, and if it weren't for that necessity, I wouldn't have.

From some of your guys's posts, it seems like you would really rather have it not happen, so that you can keep having fun killing animals.

Like Andaluciae said it is a long term fix, us hunting is the short term fix. it will take aleasta hundred years fror us to fix this problem.

BUT CAN WE AT LEAST TRY?!?! It may take hundreds, maybe thousands of years, but we need to at least try.

We are trying, but until the conditions are right, we cannot just stop hunting, if we do, then we face an ecosystem meltdown.

Yeah, when we were cavemen. When it was the only way we could survive.

Doesn't change the fact that we killed animals. Also, I seem to remember that caveman would scare whole herds of buffalo off of cliffs, killing 500-1,000 of them at a time. Not really bare-bones survival is it?

Like Andaluciae said it is a long term fix, us hunting is the short term fix. it will take aleasta hundred years fror us to fix this problem.

Well can we atleast push the short term cure only as much as it's needed? And can we be running the long term cure in the background, and NOT be killing the long term cure in the process of making it? And once the long term cure is finished, can we no longer use the short term cure?

Doesn't change the fact that we killed animals. Also, I seem to remember that caveman would scare whole herds of buffalo off of cliffs, killing 500-1,000 of them at a time. Not really bare-bones survival is it?

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying that we don't need to do that anymore.

Well can we atleast push the short term cure only as much as it's needed? And can we be running the long term cure in the background, and NOT be killing the long term cure in the process of making it? And once the long term cure is finished, can we no longer use the short term cure?

we would still hunt, just not as much. there are places that allow you to take asmany as 5 deer in a weekend. that will be reduced to maybe 1.

we would still hunt, just not as much. there are places that allow you to take asmany as 5 deer in a weekend. that will be reduced to maybe 1.

Still going to be immoral...

Well can we atleast push the short term cure only as much as it's needed?
We do, are you acquainted with the hunting laws in states with deer population problem? They tend to be rather stringent.

Or how about if you hit a deer when you're driving? You have to report it to the game warden, and it's considered to be counted off of your total permitted amount for that year.

Or the limits on killing does. There are a lot of restrictions.

And can we be running the long term cure in the background, and NOT be killing the long term cure in the process of making it?

We generally aren't killing the long term cure, but it's something that is incredibly difficult to carry out.

And once the long term cure is finished, can we no longer use the short term cure?

That's a policy question for our great-grandchildren. Until that time, we cannot make the decision with full knowledge, and making blind decisions is not somethign I support.

Still going to be immoral...

*Sigh* there is no hope for you.

Still going to be immoral...

I believe it's pretty clear that I don't believe in objective morality.

Still going to be immoral...

Morality is a perspective.

Tom Lehrer's famous work of satire: The Hunting Song


Almost every day during the hunting season you see at least one item in the newspapers about somebody who has shot somebody else, under the impression that he was a deer with a red hat, perhaps. Maybe a large flesh-colored squirrel. At any rate, it seems to me that this marks an encouraging new trend in the field of blood sports, and deserves a new type of hunting song which I present herewith.


[I]I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day!
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.

People ask me how I do it,
And I say "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.

I don't hunt. I only condone killing animals to eat or if they are trying to kill you or someone/thing you love. I don't agree with hunting as a "sport", or way of keeping a population down. There is nothing sporting about killing something that doesn't even know your there with a high powered rifle. If your going to call it a sport then use some kind of melee weapon.

I have no problem with hunting, provided that it's done for some useful purpose (e.g. eating the animals in question), that it's reasonably humane (no fake safaris with caged animals or any disgusting nonsense like that), and that reasonable safety precautions are taken (hunting in populated areas while drunk = stupid idea).

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that freezing your balls off just to shoot at random woodland herbivore isn't the type of thing I'd do with my time.

I have no problem with hunting, provided that it's done for some useful purpose (e.g. eating the animals in question), that it's reasonably humane (no fake safaris with caged animals or any disgusting nonsense like that), and that reasonable safety precautions are taken (hunting in populated areas while drunk = stupid idea).

As a little note, before going hunting, it is also important to be able to tell the difference between a quail and a six-foot-tall 78-year-old lawyer with a bright orange vest.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that freezing your balls off just to shoot at random woodland herbivore isn't the type of thing I'd do with my time.

I must say: that does not sound like a pleasurable passtime. I prefer- oh, say death.

If youn have a problem with hunting that is your own fault. Its not cruel because it helps control animal populations. If a preditor animal of the deer goes extinct, thats more roadkill and more property damage to peoples' cars and the more deer, the more damgae done to peoples' yards. I hunt white-tailed Deer, ducks, turkeys and Black Bears. Im a hunter and I'm proud of it :sniper:

Oh yeah. For you people who care so much for these so called "defenseless" animals, they are everything but that. The deer have horns and hooves, turkeys got spurs, claws, and beaks, ducks, well all the do is fly or run, but the bear hase its paws with 4 inch claws that can kill you in one hit and its massive bone-crushing jaws. I may hang the head of an animal on my wall but i eat the meat that comes on it. I can tell the difference from a person from a human unlike those who drink and hunt and the people who poach. That is why a little thing called Hunter's Safty/ Hunter's Ed. was invented along with the " You must have 50% of your body covered with blaze orange or other brightly colored material during deer season." You critics leave the hunting to the hunters and you go about your daily thing. Got it?

As a little note, before going hunting, it is also important to be able to tell the difference between a quail and a six-foot-tall 78-year-old lawyer with a bright orange vest.

Oh, come on, you know they both fly poorly! It's an easy mistake to make!

If youn have a problem with hunting that is your own fault. Its not cruel because it helps control animal populations. If a preditor animal of the deer goes extinct, thats more roadkill and more property damage to peoples' cars and the more deer, the more damgae done to peoples' yards. I hunt white-tailed Deer, ducks, turkeys and Black Bears. Im a hunter and I'm proud of it :sniper:

Remind me never to run into you in a dark alley.

Ever since I hit a deer with my car three years ago that caused well over five thousand in damage, I have gotten a hunting liscense, and decided that it is my job to kill as many deer as I am legally able to. I also love vennison, its healthier than beef, and tastes DAMN good. Right now I rifle hunt, but I think I wanna try bow hunting...

Oh, come on, you know they both fly poorly! It's an easy mistake to make!

And they were both in the vacinity of Dick Cheney, which makes them both equal targets... I haven't been to Washington in years.

I think hunting is a bit stupid these days. In the past it was perfectly acceptable as it was necessary for the people as that was their main source of meat. But today you don't need to hunt- ever heard of a butcher shop or super market......duh!

I think hunting is a bit stupid these days. In the past it was perfectly acceptable as it was necessary for the people as that was their main source of meat. But today you don't need to hunt- ever heard of a butcher shop or super market......duh!

First thing deer is much leaner than beef. that is why some people hunt, for the health benifits.

And they were both in the vacinity of Dick Cheney, which makes them both equal targets... I haven't been to Washington in years.

Neither has Dick, he's always off in his secret bunker.

First thing deer is much leaner than beef. that is why some people hunt, for the health benifits.

The health benfits of whom? Clearly not the deer...

Neither has Dick, he's always off in his secret bunker.

Technically, it's an "undisclosed location."

Technically, it's an "undisclosed location."

Ahh, political correctness...

Fair enough if its healthier to eat or is nicer. But why does it take 20 hounds and 20 men on horses to take down one deer. They chase it around the country side for hours on end for no reason, can they not just get a rifle with a scope and shoot it from a distance. That way the deer doesn't suffer.

Fair enough if its healthier to eat or is nicer. But why does it take 20 hounds and 20 men on horses to take down one deer. They chase it around the country side for hours on end for no reason, can they not just get a rifle with a scope and shoot it from a distance. That way the deer doesn't suffer.

?

Fair enough if its healthier to eat or is nicer. But why does it take 20 hounds and 20 men on horses to take down one deer. They chase it around the country side for hours on end for no reason, can they not just get a rifle with a scope and shoot it from a distance. That way the deer doesn't suffer.

Oh, but if there's anyhting Dick Cheney and his hunting pals have taught us, it's that suffering is fun! Why else do you think we're stuck in Iraq!?! It's our sado-masochistic gift to the world...

Fair enough if its healthier to eat or is nicer. But why does it take 20 hounds and 20 men on horses to take down one deer. They chase it around the country side for hours on end for no reason, can they not just get a rifle with a scope and shoot it from a distance. That way the deer doesn't suffer.

Thats what we do, just take a .30-06 and blow it away. The horses and hounds thing is fox hunting, and its been banned.

If people are going to use the animal for something then I am all for it. If they are just going to shoot something and simply stuff it or leave its carcass to rot then I hardly approve.

That's a terrible indictment. Do you have personal knowledge of hunters that do this?

Well, I personally think hunting is wrong. I think so because it's generally wrong to kill animals in my opinion, especially for sport. I'm not trying to "take-a-shot" (no pun intended) at hunters, they do as they please. I do not wish to debate the morals of it, as anyone understands my opinion, it's just up-to-them to judge it's validity.
Do not expect to reason with me. I reason, and anyone who opposes me probably reasons, it's just a of different (not for certain worse, or better) kind then mine. Your brain offers a different conclusion from the same facts, so PLEASE don't attack me, or try to argue with me, as I very much doubt we can change one-another's opinion.

I think hunting is a bit stupid these days. In the past it was perfectly acceptable as it was necessary for the people as that was their main source of meat. But today you don't need to hunt- ever heard of a butcher shop or super market......duh!

So it's better to 'fatten up the cow' and 'free-range the chicken' than it is to hunt for food yourself ?

Don't get me wrong, to each their own. But for all the eco-lovers out there who say "It's wrong to hunt, we don't have to", you're forgetting one very basic truth: that animal husbandry & agriculture, especially as practiced currently (i.e. antibiotics, pesticides, water use & pollution) does more to harm the beloved eco-system than any hunter, or group of hunters, can.

For example, look at how much water is used to grow grain. And how much grain it takes to feed a cow. And how much water pollution is affected by by pesticide / animal waste run-off. To simply say "we don't need to hunt, we have better ways" is extremely short-sighted.

Besides, I like meat. I like to hunt. And vegetables exist to feed my food.

"Meat tastes like Murder. Murder tastes Good" -- Denis Leary

"Fuck the Caribou" -- Dennis Miller

Sorry, got my animals mixed up.

I think its okay to kill deer to control the population, but the deer should be killed straight away, not chased around for ages.

As long as you eat the animal and use other parts of it, fine. But just killing for fun I don't like. It's just plain pointless and really shouldn;t go on. Not because it's cruel, although sometimes it is, but because it's stupid and pointless. If you are killing for food, that's fine and natural, but killing just to kill...that should scare people.

Thats what we do, just take a .30-06 and blow it away. The horses and hounds thing is fox hunting, and its been banned.

I noticed you said "we." Tell me, do you eat the animals (every last one of them) that you kill or do you shoot things for fun?

Basically, are you a German or a Welshman... or are you a Los Angeleno?

I'm a vegetarian. In other words I think hunting is just a cruel and unusual sport where you kill living beings which have done nothing to you.

Seriously though, why do you enjoy killing living beings which have done nothing wrong? They just go along, eating plants, or other animals. Then you come along with your rifle and shoot them. Then you hang their head up on a wall as a trophy. Why do you enjoy killing these animals?

Well, I agree with you, but I'll explain it (I am a vegitarian too): first-off, I assume it generally has a challenge (if the animal is running), if it doen't probably poeple like it for the same reason people like sniping in video games. It certainly (I would imagine, I have no-idea) feels good to kill to some poeple. I am NOt saying hunters are sickies (though they may be *shrugs*), serial-killers are sickies, the human-killers.

BUT CAN WE AT LEAST TRY?!?! It may take hundreds, maybe thousands of years, but we need to at least try.

And while waiting for your utopia to re-appear, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of starving and diseased animals that die miserable deaths because the proper balance has not yet been struck. Even then, things aren't going to work out quite the way you expect. New Jersey had a diminished Black Bear population. Hunting them was correctly prohibited. The bear population is now recovering to the point where there are many unwanted encounters between humans and bears. Here's where the 'hands off' attitude needs to be abandoned and some limited hunting needs to be allowed.

Deer in urban areas present many of the same problems. It's not as easy to just say, "Let's leave them alone for a hundred years", and hope there are no further problems. Humans populate too much of the country and animals are going to naturally seek out easy sources of food around us.

I noticed you said "we." Tell me, do you eat the animals (every last one of them) that you kill or do you shoot things for fun?

Basically, are you a German or a Welshman... or are you a Los Angeleno?

I don't hunt, I was referring to "We" as americans in general. I thought hunting was banned in England?

My grandfather hunts, and I watched him shoot a deer. The corpse creeped me out, I hate dead stuff.

So it's better to 'fatten up the cow' and 'free-range the chicken' than it is to hunt for food yourself ?

Don't get me wrong, to each their own. But for all the eco-lovers out there who say "It's wrong to hunt, we don't have to", you're forgetting one very basic truth: that animal husbandry & agriculture, especially as practiced currently (i.e. antibiotics, pesticides, water use & pollution) does more to harm the beloved eco-system than any hunter, or group of hunters, can.

For example, look at how much water is used to grow grain. And how much grain it takes to feed a cow. And how much water pollution is affected by by pesticide / animal waste run-off. To simply say "we don't need to hunt, we have better ways" is extremely short-sighted.

Besides, I like meat. I like to hunt. And vegetables exist to feed my food.

"Meat tastes like Murder. Murder tastes Good" -- Denis Leary

If we all hunted (and none of us went to markets anymore), do oyou know how fast the food supply would run out? We simply aren't preserving nature and animal habitats enough to even have a reliable food source for a small fraction of us. You want to use natural animals a food source? Fine. But first you're going to need to beef up their numbers, stop encroaching on their habitats, and turn every forest into stocked hunting grounds.

Then there are the logistical problems. Do you know what would happen if a hundred thousand people all went to hunt in even a large forest all at once. I tell you, the death toll will be soaring. You think it's bad with a group of elderly politicans and lawyers on single ranch in Texas where everyone was wearing proper hunting gear and was experienced at the sport, just you wait and see what would happen if the whole world joined in. I'll repost a Tom Lehrer quote I posted earlier. Perhaps it may help.

If you really want to think about it, a starving deer goes through much more pain because of food shortage then it does if it takes a bullet to the heart or head. Unless you can't aim straight and hit it in the leg of the stomache then it will suffer more. But think about how much money deer can cost you in damages to your car and property. I get paid from my grand-father to kill as many chipmunks as I can with a .22 loaded with .22 birdshot because they tear his backyard and birdfeeders up and his dogs get one every so often. The only time the dogs claim a chipmunk now is if I shoot one with the BB gun or it doesn't get hit fully with the birdshot. If you wanna know what speices management is around his house, its me. The foxes that were by his house havn't come back, and the badgers cant get the chipmunk worth shit. And the bears that also tear his feeders down at night won't bother eating a chipmunk. He lives in Northern WI and I in Souther WI. The only time i shoot in my yard is with my air-soft BB Gun at the squirrles that get on the birdfeeders in my back yard. Can't shoot a real gun in my yard, you might hit someone's car or house or you might just plane hit them. The only enjoyment i get from killing those chipmunks is being able to practice my hunting skills, watch the dogs be happy and get their exercise and to be able to run around in the woods were I can feel happy and relaxed. Otherwise screw it. I live in the largest city in WI. the only woods by my house is by this field along a road, by my school, and by the Little Menominee River that the city constantly dredges so it can clean the toxic waste out of it that a company buried Illeagaly. So my only pleasure is to escape to Northern WI. Getting away from the noise of cars and the sirens feels good. Thats why i take every chance possible to get up there. At least there I can get a good nights rest before waking up to the smell of my grandmother's homemade bread in the toaster and the smell of eggs and baconn on the stove and the sausages in the oven.

If we all hunted (and none of us went to markets anymore), do oyou know how fast the food supply would run out? We simply aren't preserving nature and animal habitats enough to even have a reliable food source for a small fraction of us. You want to use natural animals a food source? Fine. But first you're going to need to beef up their numbers, stop encroaching on their habitats, and turn every forest into stocked hunting grounds.

Then there are the logistical problems. Do you know what would happen if a hundred thousand people all went to hunt in even a large forest all at once. I tell you, the death toll will be soaring. You think it's bad with a group of elderly politicans and lawyers on single ranch in Texas where everyone was wearing proper hunting gear and was experienced at the sport, just you wait and see what would happen if the whole world joined in. I'll repost a Tom Lehrer quote I posted earlier. Perhaps it may help.

The point of my post was to refute the 'we don't need to hunt, we have better ways' notion that popped up, especially as it relates to the ecosystem.

We couldn't revert to a hunter-gatherer state any more than we could eliminate the pesticides et.al. that I spoke of in my post, for the same reason that you cite: food would run out. We can't produce enough food for the world's population WITH these techniques that poison our planet (and ourselves), let alone without. Not to mention the booming population problem, as it relates to food, water, etc.

Although shooting lawyers & politicians could certainly ease that burden...

The point of my post was to refute the 'we don't need to hunt, we have better ways' notion that popped up, especially as it relates to the ecosystem.

We couldn't revert to a hunter-gatherer state any more than we could eliminate the pesticides et.al. that I spoke of in my post, for the same reason that you cite: food would run out. We can't produce enough food for the world's population WITH these techniques that poison our planet (and ourselves), let alone without. Not to mention the booming population problem, as it relates to food, water, etc.

Although shooting lawyers & politicians could certainly ease that burden...



Well I wouldn't mind hunt a little lawyer or politician. I would go for the biggest out of them all. George Bush. Just get me a plane ticket to D.C. and a .50 high-powered sniper rifle and I'll make sure all of congress goes " Bye-Bye."

I like my meat alot, I'm definitly not vegetarian but I still love vegetables especially brocoli! But I don't like the animal having to suffer in order to feed me. So it's better to 'fatten up the cow' and 'free-range the chicken' than it is to hunt for food yourself ?

Don't get me wrong, to each their own. But for all the eco-lovers out there who say "It's wrong to hunt, we don't have to", you're forgetting one very basic truth: that animal husbandry & agriculture, especially as practiced currently (i.e. antibiotics, pesticides, water use & pollution) does more to harm the beloved eco-system than any hunter, or group of hunters, can.

For example, look at how much water is used to grow grain. And how much grain it takes to feed a cow. And how much water pollution is affected by by pesticide / animal waste run-off. To simply say "we don't need to hunt, we have better ways" is extremely short-sighted.
Who are you allin short sighted? Hunting is no longer a realiable food source with the population of the world today.

Yes, agriculture does pollute the environment and I would like to see a change in farming methods. My dad is a farmer and I am trying to get him to involved in the "Countryside management Scheme" to potect the environment. Too many farmers don't care, for them it always has to be the easiest and cheapest way to get something done, and the environment doesn't come into this.

This is my thought- If you own land/ part of countryside, it is your duty to look after it, preserve it. Kind of like a steward to the countryside.

I don't hunt, I was referring to "We" as americans in general. I thought hunting was banned in England?

My grandfather hunts, and I watched him shoot a deer. The corpse creeped me out, I hate dead stuff.

First of all, good. I'm glad you hate dead stuff. It would be unnerving if you didn't. I have a friend who wants to be a coroner (and, yet, it is unnerving), and she once pickeled a squirrel (She thought it was wonderful how marvelously intact it was even though it had been rammed by a car.). What does one even say to that?

Secondly, how should I know if there's hunting in England? If you look at my username, you may notice that the location listed right below it says: "California, Mr. Dude, sir." which states, I think quite clearly, that, due to our shoddy public education syatem, I reserve every right to be ignorant. Given the budget cuts at Californian schools, I feel it is my perogative.

As a little note, though, Wales is not in England. There are, however, both part of the U.K. Either way, I have no idea what's legal there, but I thought (and I could be wrong) that they still hunt. You'll have to ask a Brit.

Well I wouldn't mind hunt a little lawyer or politician. I would go for the biggest out of them all. George Bush. Just get me a plane ticket to D.C. and a .50 high-powered sniper rifle and I'll make sure all of congress goes " Bye-Bye."

I'd advise an edit on that thar post, before the mods see it. They don't smile upon death-wish type of talk. Forum punishment, no good.

Well I wouldn't mind hunt a little lawyer or politician. I would go for the biggest out of them all. George Bush. Just get me a plane ticket to D.C. and a .50 high-powered sniper rifle and I'll make sure all of congress goes " Bye-Bye."

Yes, that old Cesaerin line needs to be updated for your sake. "Beware the NSA..."

I hate hunting. I can see doing it if it neccessary to eat, but that's not the case in America. Even hunters who eat the meat are doing it for sport. I can't see the sport, pleasure or enjoyment anyone could get out of killing another being. Though I dislike all hunting, there are some types that are more reprehensible than others.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2002/03/11/hunting.html

Well I wouldn't mind hunt a little lawyer or politician. I would go for the biggest out of them all. George Bush. Just get me a plane ticket to D.C. and a .50 high-powered sniper rifle and I'll make sure all of congress goes " Bye-Bye."
My father says there should be one hunting season- Republican hunting season

I was always under the impression that, at least in my area, if we let the deer population grow w/o control that they would use up all their resources in a short amount of time and then the deer would starve in addition to everything else. If hunting can stop that then im all for it.

My father says there should be one hunting season- Republican hunting season

I think your father and I would get along just fine...

I like my meat alot, I'm definitly not vegetarian but I still love vegetables especially brocoli! But I don't like the animal having to suffer in order to feed me.
Who are you allin short sighted? Hunting is no longer a realiable food source with the population of the world today.

Yes, agriculture does pollute the environment and I would like to see a change in farming methods. My dad is a farmer and I am trying to get him to involved in the "Countryside management Scheme" to potect the environment. Too many farmers don't care, for them it always has to be the easiest and cheapest way to get something done, and the environment doesn't come into this.

This is my thought- If you own land/ part of countryside, it is your duty to look after it, preserve it. Kind of like a steward to the countryside.

I'm calling anyone who thinks that hunting is a bigger problem to the eco-system than modern agriculture or animal husbandry short-sighted. As well as anyone who didn't see my earlier retort to the whole 'hunting is not a reliable food source' problem. Yes, the problem exists; I did not deny it.

It would be great for LOCAL populations if the modern techniques that have produced the larger crop yields could be/would be abolished. But the problem that opens up is that we can't produce enough food anyways (for the WORLD population). Meaning that even morepeople would starve in the world. The same technology that has produced greater crop yields are yielding the problems with the environment.

I suppose it's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. I guess I'll just go make some deer jerkey.

The point of my post was to refute the 'we don't need to hunt, we have better ways' notion that popped up, especially as it relates to the ecosystem.

We couldn't revert to a hunter-gatherer state any more than we could eliminate the pesticides et.al. that I spoke of in my post, for the same reason that you cite: food would run out. We can't produce enough food for the world's population WITH these techniques that poison our planet (and ourselves), let alone without. Not to mention the booming population problem, as it relates to food, water, etc.

Although shooting lawyers & politicians could certainly ease that burden...

I'd advise an edit on that thar post, before the mods see it. They don't smile upon death-wish type of talk. Forum punishment, no good.

Its not a death-wish type of talk. Its hate talk. I don't like Bush or his congress and I'd do it if I knew I could get away with something like that but I know I can't. And I was just thinkin' out loud. I wouldn't go around and kill people. If its a video-game like this game i play called Black for Ps2 and it was for real I'd do anything to kill someone. But since its not, I'm not goin to go around and take out the president and the rest of congres

My father says there should be one hunting season- Republican hunting season

Hey you know what. Tell him I agree :sniper:

I hunt because I enjoy hunting. The thrill of the hunt is not something we have lost because of civlization, but it can be suppressed. I find those who do hunt are far more attuned to nature than those that mock them.

My uncle said that if he loses his job Because of Bush, he would go to D.C. and have a lil' " Fun " with Bush and everyone in the White House

My uncle said that if he loses his job Because of Bush, he would go to D.C. and have a lil' " Fun " with Bush and everyone in the White House

Unless W is his direct supervisor, I highly doubt he'll lose his job because of 'Bush'. Is your uncle's name Dennis Rumsfeld ?

My uncle said that if he loses his job Because of Bush, he would go to D.C. and have a lil' " Fun " with Bush and everyone in the White House

Didn't some kid have the secret service come to their house b/c they made comments like this b4?

If hunting is banned I'll go ballistic on the envormentalists. And for you enviromentalists, why don't you try sitting in a tree-stand in the middle of winter when its -10 and theres 40mph winds blowin. I had to last deer season. I couldn't sit up there for 30 min. without having to climb down and walk around then climb back up and because of that nature awarded me of letting me see the fatest Doe I'v ever seen. But the BITCH did it at the wrong time. The BITCH did it when I was climbing down out of the tree-stand. That's 1 for you and the BITCH and 0 for me. But thats all goin to change this season

Didn't some kid have the secret service come to their house b/c they made comments like this b4?

I dunno but im just sayin what hes sayin. its not like hes gonna do it. its one of those things where someone says something but they really arnt gonna do it

Unless W is his direct supervisor, I highly doubt he'll lose his job because of 'Bush'. Is your uncle's name Dennis Rumsfeld ?

No his name isnt dennis Rumsfeld. his 1st and last init. arnt even close to D and R