does it seem really stupid that they hunt and kill deer and bears to help control their populations? they say that when the population gets too high there wont be enough food for them and many will die anyways...instead of being shot to death. isnt that reallllyy hypocritical considering how many humans on the planet are starving and hungry but somehow it isnt humane to shoot them like it is deers....i dont think they should be killing them what are your thoughts on it?
These decisions are made by folks who want lots of deer so that hunters can hunt them. I suspect they know their business. (i.e. they know how to maintain a good population of deer.) "isnt that reallllyy hypocritical considering how many humans on the planet are starving and hungry but somehow it isnt humane to shoot them like it is deers" No it isn't, people are not deer. The ethics of killing them are different.
We don't have the right to kill them. Might doesn't make right. Nature has it's own way of leveling out populations, and anyone that doesn't believe it can check out any bio of ecology book. "Leveling the population" is an excuse that hunters use. Since when should the welfare of animal populations be put in the hands of people who get off on killing?
Since they were the first people to say that animal populations needed to be increased. Hunters were the first to notice declining animal populations. Their concern and the data they collected led to limits on hunting. It is not odd that hunters (particularly non-commercial hunters) were the first to notice that human impacts were reducing animal populations. Nor is it odd that they were more concerned about this than other people. Of course the resulting laws reflected their desire to maintain huntable animal populations. (BTW, "Might makes right" is one of nature's ways of leveling out populations. Your ecology books should have a discussions of both preditors and parisites.)
Hunting is a way of gathering food and materials to help your family survive. This is what took place millions of years ago. That was acceptable, no different from the cheetah chasing down the antelope. There are still people in this world (such as my DH's step father) who hunt because they use the meat as food throughout the year. MURDER is when Jo Blow Redneck takes dat der shot gun and goes and hunts heself a big ol' broad horns so he can stick it's head up on his wall and make a big whopper of a huntin' story out of it. I started out writing an arguement against the killing of wild game to "keep down the population", but the more I wrote, the more I confused myself. This is what I started to write: "You know what happens when there's more deer? There's more coyotes!!! Why? Because that's NATURE'S way of balancing the deer population. Coyotes kill the deer. When there's too many coyotes, and the deer have died away, what happens to the coyotes? They will begin feeding on farm animals. What happens then? Farmers shoot them. THAT is why there's so much hype about killing the deer to "keep down the population". The chain of events leaves dead farm animals. And dead farm animals are not profitable. Furthermore, the deer meat is not being consumed by humans, it's being consumed by coyotes, who grow healthier and have healthy pups, thus increasing their population." But then I started thinking, "Hmmm... if they kill off 10 deer, that's 10 less deer that the coyotes eat. That's 10 less litters of pups. That's 10 less livestock killed by coyotes. And that is 10 less coyotes killed for killing the livestock." So if they kill one deer, saving the birth of more coyote pups, saving the death of the livestock, saving the death of the coyotes by the farmer because they're doing what is in their nature to do, is that better or worse than letting nature run its course? Furthermore, if there are more deer, is it safe to say that there will be enough food and space for them to live healthy lives? The rate at which farmlands consume land is attrocious, so the homes of these deer might quickly be overtaken by farms. So would we end up with sick, weak deer in the end anyway? Hmmm, now I have more to think about than I bargained for. This is a fantastic question, drew. Thanks for asking it. I think the clincher in this arguement would be, "What are they doing with the carcasses after they kill the deer?" If the meat was going to someone for food and the body parts going for some better use, then one might consider it. However, I'm told that oftentimes, these carcasses are simply burned (air pollution, waste of meat and hide, etc.). I think I'd need to know a lot more before I came to a solid decision on this one. The other part of your question though: yes, it does seem hypocrtical to say, "Well, we're just killing off the deer so that they don't starve to death. We're doing them a favor!", when at the same time, just as many little children are starving in disease filled villages and bustling cities all over the world. Should we shoot them all and say, "Well, we're just killing off the kiddies so that they don't starve to death. We're doing them a favor!" Ask some little church going old lady who sponsors eight kids in Sierra Leone and see what she says. The thing is, yes, it is hypocritical, because it's still taking a life. What must be considered is the value of a human life versus the life of a deer, and how it effects the surrounding organisms. I don't know, the more I write on this one, the more I confuse myself. I'm very tired. Bright Blessings! Aphrodite Pretty
It sounds that you would be interested in basic ecology. The preditor/prey balance that you describe with deer and coyotes is a part of any ecology text.
Thanks, I should do that, before I make a rational decision on my stand. Bright Blessings! Aphrodite Pretty
In another thread, someone made a great point: Hunters always go for the biggest, healthiest, strongest deer in the herd. This is the opposite of the natural predator who trims off the weak & sickly. Hunting is seriously f***in up the balance. I have zero tolerance for hunters who masquerade under such wimpy excuses as "population control". Jeez... hunt because you want meat or because you want to kill... but don't say you're doing nature a favor!
MikeE--- No, ecology books do not have ethics in them - just empirical facts. Your thinking of "might makes right" is out of context here. Might allows something to happen. If something is possible, odds are it will happen. The word "right" in the phrase implies ETHICS, not whether it does/will happen or not. As intelligent beings, ethics should come into play in our everyday lives. We are given beautiful minds capable of abstract thinking and compassion. To understand that even though we are CAPABLE of something does not imply JUSTIFICATION. We are blessed with the ability to make decisions based on compassion. To ignore that would be a terrible thing to waste.
My mistake. The way you wrote "Might doesn't make right. Nature has it's own way of leveling out populations" led me to beleive that you thought that the might was not nature's way of leveling populations. Thank you for clarifying your position. I still believe that the ethics of our dealing with humans is very different from dealing with animals. This is based on two things, first humans are the only creatures who recongize the concept of "ethics". Secondly, I am a human and see nothing wrong with "specieism". I beleive that there are people who have knowingly given their live's to save another person. Can you imagine someone knowingly and willingly giving their life to save an animal? Not "risking their life", but knowing that they will die. I would move the questions of "animal rights" from the ethical sphere into the sphere of engineering or resource management. Rather than "what are the moral ways to deal with animals." I would ask, "what are the sustainable efficiant ways to deal with animals."
I find speciesism just as bad as racism or sexism. A rose is a rose. Exploitation is exploitation. There are many people who would die for the cause of animals, not everyone though. Just as there are many people who would not die for another human.
