I was wondering what people think about deer and their management. There is a National Trust park near us called Charlecote Park, and they keep deer for grazing. However the park can only hold a maximum of 200 deer, so they cull some every autumn. Those deer usually end up getting eaten. So is this good or bad? I mean they need the deer in the park as they cannot simply mow it as the park is covered in ant hills which would destroy machinery, and besides they encourage green woodpeckers and their subsequent predators. But deer can be a pest if there are too many of them, for example they eat the shoots of trees when you coppice them etc. What do people think?
animal "management" in general is because we created the problem by cutting off habitat in a variety of ways (sprawl, roadways, pipelines, etc)
we have quite a few mule deer & elk here on the South rim of the Grand Canyon~I like having them around
The reduction or elimination of large predators (such as wolves and mountain lions) by humans and introduction of non-native species (such as pigs in Hawaii) are also major factors, in a lot of places. I think its more of an environmental issue rather then dietary. In the case of feral pigs in Hawaii, they literally deforest the land and destroy the native ecosystem. Removal them by any means deemed safe and effective(usually hunting) is the Sierra Clubs current policy.
I don't think it's okay to eat the deer after we lowered the carrying capacity of their habitat. I think whoever is in charge of the destruction should get taxed based on the amount of "homeless" deer, kinda like a carbon tax.
I'm not sure it's fair to point the finger at the parks people. Specifically if you guys are all living in mainstream society and not in some farm commune in the woods. Since, after all you are contributing to said sprawl that's taking away the animal habitat. It's not really fair to enjoy all the amenities of society, driving on the roads, taking trains, etc etc; while on the other side of your mouth blaming the parks people for not having enough space for deer. That said I'm not an advocate against hunting an animal like deer unless it's with a knife or bow and arrow (fairs fair). But really, taxing the parks people? Blaming us? What are you doing to fix the problem? As for the reduction of large predators, that is a huge factor in a lot of areas. However, "we"(any meat eaters) have replaced those large predators. As cute as deer may be, nature has an order, and since the animals that were in place to naturally keep it in check are gone, what are we to do now? Let's also not forget the reason there is a capacity is available resources. With too many deer the quality of life for each one would suffer greatly and result in MORE dead ones. THINK about it. The parks department, on the whole, is a fantastic thing and we're lucky to have so much open space. Granted I wish there was more and more animal habitat as well, but compared to several other "developed"(to our extent) places in the world we have quite a large animal habitat.
I didn't mean tax the park rangers, I meant tax big business. (construction,oil) Of course that will never happen because our economy is run by these companies.
well sure, but again it's not REALLY big business' fault in the first place. It's our own damn fault as a society for enabling it again and again. I'm all for screwing big business, but step #1 is standing up and not partaking, and you can't just arbitrarily tax someone, that's no better than what we have done to us. Sorry to sway off topic.
And, being that this is the vegetarian forum, "standing up and not partaking" in the killing of animals is exactly what we do. I've learned a lot and done some growing over the last couple of years. I used to have a similar all-or-nothing idealistic view of things. The problem is, I was born into U.S. citizenship in 1983. There is nothing I can do to change the world I was born to. What I do instead is the best I can to make a difference in the world as it's been given to me. Yes, I do stand up and try to influence change for the better. Yes, I do live in a suburban house and use the roads, go grocery shopping in a big store, etc. I've made the conscious decision that as good as it sounds, I will NOT bow out of society to live a solitary life homesteading in the Yukon or something. That helps nobody but myself. Instead I do the best I can with what world I've been given. On one level I work to try and influence policy, on another level I try to educate people about their options, and on yet another level I do what I can personally to make all the difference one consumer can make: I don't eat animal products, I walk at least as much as I drive for local errands and such, I make re-usable cloth grocery bags, menstrual pads, and everything else I can think of, I line dry my laundry, and garden at home. I live as efficiently as I can, and get better at it all the time. I try to live and lead by example, and the people around me are noticing and becoming inspired to change their own habits a little at a time. Do you still think that my opinions about urban sprawl and the "population control" of animals are invalid just because I use roads?
Absolutely. I don't think there's anything wrong with how we all chose to deal with the spread of babylon/the world around us. And it's fantastic that you're doing so many things in a natural way. But we can't point fingers at the parks department and "responsible" (slippery slope I know...) hunters for doing the same thing. It's living a double standard. They are just trying to do the best with what they have been given as well... which is a relatively small piece of land to protect. An overpopulation of anything is bad for everything (just look at humans). It would be fantastic if we could have larger parks and restore the natural order of things, but that's not always how it goes. So, as you do, make the best with what we have been given.
