Are you opposed to hunting deer? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 06-25-2012, 05:06 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331

First I would like to clarify that I’m a committed vegetarian and that I would never hunt or intentionally harm an animal.

 

But evidence suggests that hunting makes a species stronger. By hunting you reduce over population and starvation (and suffering). Also by culling the weak, sick and old from the heard, you improve the gene pool of the species. The animal will die instantly if you shoot it in the head, and it will not suffer. If you’re worried about your aim, well you can always use oysters for target practice; because evidence suggests that they can’t feel.  

 

And in terms of humans, hunting provides entertainment, income for the state/local gov’t, and business for taxidermist and/or butchers. It’s a win-win situation for all involved.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 06-25-2012, 05:40 AM
gherkin
 
Blobbenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,639
do you eat eggs or dairy, Beancounter?

Blobbenstein is offline  
#3 Old 06-25-2012, 05:44 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blobbenstein View Post

do you eat eggs or dairy, Beancounter?

 

I'm not vegan, but not sure what that has to do with the OP question.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#4 Old 06-25-2012, 05:48 AM
gherkin
 
Blobbenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,639
well, you could be a strict vegetarian, I wasn't sure.

I was just wondering if you worried about oyster whether you also worried about cows, or chickens. Oysters being part of what this thread is about I presume.

Blobbenstein is offline  
#5 Old 06-25-2012, 05:52 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blobbenstein View Post

well, you could be a strict vegetarian, I wasn't sure.
I was just wondering if you worried about oyster whether you also worried about cows, or chickens. Oysters being part of what this thread is about I presume.

 

Oysters are just incidental to the main question of the post.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#6 Old 06-25-2012, 05:59 AM
Beginner
 
Heather Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

 

And in terms of humans, hunting provides entertainment, income for the state/local gov’t, and business for taxidermist and/or butchers. It’s a win-win situation for all involved.

 

In my opinion, anyone who thinks hunting 'provides entertainment' is barbaric and vile. And I believe the innocent deer that gets shot in the head would care to question whether this is a ‘win-win’ situation.

 

I'm glad to hear you would never intentionally hurt an animal, but I really don’t understand how you can say that when write the last paragraph. How can any veg*n (provided they are ve*gan for ethical reasons rather than entirely for their health) consider hunting. I wonder, how many times out of 10 the animal does die quick and painlessly, and how many times the end of his/her life is a blur of fear and agony.

 

I find myself questioning why on earth you want to use Oysters for target practice. What’s the reason these have to die? Is shooting a living being essential to learning how to aim straight?


I love my friends. So I don't eat them
I love animals. So I don't eat them either
Heather Louise is offline  
#7 Old 06-25-2012, 06:09 AM
Beginner
 
runnerveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,538
Do you think that your supposed goals for the species should supercede the rights of individual animals? I would not presume to know how a species should be "improved," and I certainly would not claim it is right to do so at the cost of the lives of some individuals. Animal rights is more consistent with non-interference in the natural world. We're not obligated to reduce suffering except the suffering that is caused by human interference.

Deer do suffer, but mostly due to habitat loss. The way to remedy this would be to increase their habitat. There are less harmful and more effective ways to deal with overpopulation, such as tranquilizing and spaying/neutering animals. Then the existing animals will still occupy the same territory, rather than being replaced by others who will then be more able to reproduce.

In my experience, hunting does not cull the weak, sick, or old. Hunters are looking for healthy animals in their prime.
runnerveggie is online now  
#8 Old 06-25-2012, 06:15 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heather Louise View Post

 

In my opinion, anyone who thinks hunting 'provides entertainment' is barbaric and vile. And I believe the innocent deer that gets shot in the head would care to question whether this is a ‘win-win’ situation.

 

I'm glad to hear you would never intentionally hurt an animal, but I really don’t understand how you can say that when write the last paragraph. How can any veg*n (provided they are ve*gan for ethical reasons rather than entirely for their health) consider hunting. I wonder, how many times out of 10 the animal does die quick and painlessly, and how many times the end of his/her life is a blur of fear and agony.

 

I find myself questioning why on earth you want to use Oysters for target practice. What’s the reason these have to die? Is shooting a living being essential to learning how to aim straight?

 

Thank you Heather. I agree with everything you said 100%. As for oysters, I would not personally want to use them for target practice, or harm them in any way, but a few other members see no problem in exploiting them, due to their lack of sensory organs, so I included that reference in the OP. But the main point is about deer and the theoretical benefits of reducing the herd through hunting.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#9 Old 06-25-2012, 06:23 AM
Beginner
 
peacefulveglady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicagoland IL area
Posts: 2,217

I have mixed feelings about it because one of my favorite Preachers hunts and he does it for to feed the family and even tho its sorta sport here , there are alot of parks near us that bans hunting like in the smokies so it depends why you need to hunt. I would rather have someone hunt then support factory farming .

peacefulveglady is offline  
#10 Old 06-25-2012, 06:25 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnerVeggie View Post

Deer do suffer, but mostly due to habitat loss. The way to remedy this would be to increase their habitat.

 

Yes, but unfortuntely, it's not practical to spay/neuter wild animals, so increasing their habitat would be a better solution. Except that would displace humans. If humans have less space they would be at greater risk for disease, icreased crime, subject to greater concentrations of polution, increase risk of cancer, etc. This would cause increased human suffering.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#11 Old 06-25-2012, 06:46 AM
Beginner
 
Heather Louise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

 

Thank you Heather. I agree with everything you said 100%. As for oysters, I would not personally want to use them for target practice, or harm them in any way, but a few other members see no problem in exploiting them, due to their lack of sensory organs, so I included that reference in the OP. But the main point is about deer and the theoretical benefits of reducing the herd through hunting.

No, I think it's equally as wrong to kill an oyster as I do a deer, but then I am one of those people who is always moving spiders, slugs other creepy crawlies around to stop them getting harmed, where as some people don't see creatures like that in the same light as other animals, like dogs or cats, I do.

 

In theory, what you're saying could be beneficial to an over populated herd, but I'm sceptical to the reality of it and believe there are better ways to get the same result.

 

I don’t know the facts, but would be surprised if there that many area’s that were so over populated animals are starving and suffering to the degree where humans feel they need to intervene. And what is the cause of this? Like RunnerVeggie says, is this due to us destroying their habitat? Because surely we could restore places for them to create their homes so that none had to die.

 

I also agree that it’s doubtful that hunters would actually cull the sick or weak, the people that would be doing the hunting would probably be the sort that find it entertaining and would go for the animals in their prime, as RunnerVeggie said. This would not solve anything and will leave dependant fawns without parents. I think a lot of people would use this as an excuse for a free-for-all in deer shooting, without any intention of helping the species.

 

The same could be said for humans, we have large areas of overpopulation where people are starving to death etc. do you think it would be ethical to cull Africa, or shooting all the illiterate/handicap people in the world in the name of improving the gene pool or reducing suffering?  When it's put like that it sounds atrocious, but surely it's the same thing for the deer?

 

I believe that if human’s go away and leave mother nature to do her job, these animals would be fine. I think we should be putting money and time into conserving what we have for animals to live in peace (WITHOUT us meddling every two seconds trying to 'help') and less time looking for quick fixes.


I love my friends. So I don't eat them
I love animals. So I don't eat them either
Heather Louise is offline  
#12 Old 06-25-2012, 06:50 AM
Beginner
 
runnerveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

 

Yes, but unfortuntely, it's not practical to spay/neuter wild animals, so increasing their habitat would be a better solution. Except that would displace humans. If humans have less space they would be at greater risk for disease, icreased crime, subject to greater concentrations of polution, increase risk of cancer, etc. This would cause increased human suffering.


Why do you think it is not practical? They have already tried it out [url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bs-sp-deer-sterilization-20110212%2C0%2C4577353.story]in Baltimore[/url].

 

As for humans, if we can't deal with the consequences of our own population growth, tough nuggies. I don't see what bearing it has on animal rights.

runnerveggie is online now  
#13 Old 06-25-2012, 06:57 AM
Beginner
 
Plant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: U.S.
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post 

 

And in terms of humans, hunting provides entertainment, income for the state/local gov’t, and business for taxidermist and/or butchers. It’s a win-win situation for all involved.

I know you have 3k plus posts and from reading some of them, I'm pretty sure you're not a hunter and that you know the rules aginst pro hunting arguments: (Pro-meat/hunting/etc debate (will result in an immediate ban).

 

So curious as to why you're doing this.

Plant is offline  
#14 Old 06-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Deer do get overpopulated, people have wiped out most of the natural predators leaving starvation to be a leading cause of death.

Solution, wolves need to be reintroduced everywhere and I do mean everywhere.
Forster is offline  
#15 Old 06-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Beginner
 
LunaVeg87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 222

I'm opposed to deer hunting. Non-human animals are not the ones in need of population control.

LunaVeg87 is offline  
#16 Old 06-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plant View Post

I know you have 3k plus posts and from reading some of them, I'm pretty sure you're not a hunter and that you know the rules aginst pro hunting arguments: (Pro-meat/hunting/etc debate (will result in an immediate ban).

So curious as to why you're doing this.

/sarcasm
Forster is offline  
#17 Old 06-25-2012, 07:08 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Deer do get overpopulated, people have wiped out most of the natural predators leaving starvation to be a leading cause of death.
Solution, wolves need to be reintroduced everywhere and I do mean everywhere.

 

I think this is a good solution. Although I don't entirely agree with "everywhere"

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plant View Post

So curious as to why you're doing this.

 

I am not advocating hunting. This is strickly a theoretical discussion. A way for us to clarify our position and reinforce our beliefs. Think of it as a way to train yourself for debate against real life hunter types. They hold their positions like NRA evangelicals, so you have to be ready.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#18 Old 06-25-2012, 07:12 AM
Beginner
 
'IckenNoodleSoup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not here
Posts: 1,468

I love questions like this. I'm a lot less inclined to engage in debates on controversial topics myself these days, but I definitely enjoy reading through them.

I also think topics like this, if approached in a genuine and non-emotive fashion, can really help to clarify one's understanding of and personal position on some often very complicated issues.

Sometimes even Trolls can have their place (albeit Beancounter obviously isn't a Troll) in provoking constructive discussion, by functioning as the Devil's Advocate.

 

Overall: Grown-up Discussion = thumbsup.gif / Petty Squabbling = thumbsdown.gif

 

ETA: Cross posted w Beancounter above:

 

 

I am not advocating hunting. This is strickly a theoretical discussion. A way for us to clarify our position and reinforce our beliefs. Think of it as a way to train yourself for debate against real life hunter types. They hold their positions like NRA evangelicals, so you have to be ready.

 

Yup.


The sky is purple and things are right every day

'IckenNoodleSoup is offline  
#19 Old 06-25-2012, 07:22 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,395
Is this supposed to be a protest post, testing the mods, or a joke?
LedBoots is offline  
#20 Old 06-25-2012, 07:37 AM
Beginner
 
Plant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: U.S.
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Is this supposed to be a protest post, testing the mods, or a joke?

I think it's a little of all three.

Plant is offline  
#21 Old 06-25-2012, 08:12 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Is this supposed to be a protest post, testing the mods, or a joke?

 

How can the slaughter of innocent animals be a joke?


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#22 Old 06-25-2012, 08:14 AM
Beginner
 
cornsail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 3,150

This thread is clearly part of a conspiracy by which the evil overlord "huddler" seeks to generate controversy in order to draw more people to the site and generate more ad revenue. Also by slowly making it more acceptable for pro-hunting threads and pro-meat threads to be allowed, ad revenue will be increased even further by eventually allowing full blown omnivores to take over the site (I predict this forum will be renamed "omniboards" within a year's time). I suspect the moderators here have all been blackmailed or payed off to join in on this devious gambit and perhaps even subliminal brainwashing/hypnotism is being employed within the new ads and articles. I suspect "beancounter" was hired by huddler to become a "professional poster" and stir things up. Consider the fact that there was never any controversy, trolling or meat ads on veggieboards before huddler.

 

(post not meant seriously)


We are all copies of the same machine. 

cornsail is online now  
#23 Old 06-25-2012, 08:14 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

I think this is a good solution. Although I don't entirely agree with "everywhere"

Where would you exempt so to speak? Just think of the possibilities of reintroducing wolves into Central Park... keep the deer and riffraff under control in one fell swoop.

I also like the idea of reintroducing them into areas that allow people to own ranchettes.
Forster is offline  
#24 Old 06-25-2012, 08:15 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaVeg87 View Post

I'm opposed to deer hunting. Non-human animals are not the ones in need of population control.

 

So if I understand you correctly, are you advocating human genocide?


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#25 Old 06-25-2012, 08:18 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnerVeggie View Post


Why do you think it is not practical? They have already tried it out [url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bs-sp-deer-sterilization-20110212%2C0%2C4577353.story]in Baltimore[/url].

As for humans, if we can't deal with the consequences of our own population growth, tough nuggies. I don't see what bearing it has on animal rights.

Link doesn't work. However, as a general rule I don't think sterilization is a very cost effective or even an effective solution in most situations... not to say it can't be part of the solution. I suspect it would have some success in controlling urban deer.
Forster is offline  
#26 Old 06-25-2012, 08:21 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plant View Post

I know you have 3k plus posts and from reading some of them, I'm pretty sure you're not a hunter and that you know the rules aginst pro hunting arguments:

 

About a year ago, a group of hunters was allowed to debate on VB for a while. This theoretical discussion is hardly like that.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#27 Old 06-25-2012, 08:23 AM
Beginner
 
Beancounter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post


Where would you exempt so to speak? Just think of the possibilities of reintroducing wolves into Central Park... keep the deer and riffraff under control in one fell swoop.
I also like the idea of reintroducing them into areas that allow people to own ranchettes.

 

Is there really a deer problem in Central park? grin.gif

 

I would exempt certain suburban areas where there isn't enough food available to sustain them.


Happiness is not the result of a mathematical equation comparing the good times and bad times someone has had. It is a state of mind.
-nomad888
Beancounter is offline  
#28 Old 06-25-2012, 08:23 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beancounter View Post

So if I understand you correctly, are you advocating human genocide?

lol. A more effective solution would be to round em up and force sterilize peeps. We obviously are incapable of controlling our population otherwise. Personally I think we're going to go the route of deer, continue to overpopulate and go through periods of mass starvation when times are tough. At least until some alien predator decides to to take over earth and hunt us.
Forster is offline  
#29 Old 06-25-2012, 09:09 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,395
Deer birth control has existed for awhile, and now they have a vaccine to prevent reproduction. http://news.discovery.com/animals/deer-birth-control-could-prevent-collisions-110901.html . Just an injection.

And I agree with Forster about the wolves. Re: NYC,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/nyregion/18bdeermb.html

Before You Know It, They’ll Be on the Subway

By CHRIS HARCUM Published: October 16, 2009

It may sound like a plot from a Disney film, but deer, which were driven out of much of Manhattan by deforestation during the Revolutionary era, have been slowly returning to the city over the last 15 years.

Deer have been sighted in Alley Pond Park in Queens, Inwood Hill Park in Manhattan and in some wooded areas in the Bronx and on Staten Island.

“It can be very startling to see them,” said Michael Feller, a naturalist for the parks department. “You’re not used to seeing something that big in New York City.”

Eric Sanderson, a senior conservation ecologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said deer vanished in the 18th century when trees were cut for firewood during harsh winters in a growing city. Ultimately, “Deer were nearly extricated from New York State at the turn of the 20th century,” he said.

Why are they returning now? For the same reason many two-legged creatures arrive — to seek a better life. There is an overabundance of deer in the suburbs because of a diminishing number of predators..."
Rest of story at the link.
LedBoots is offline  
#30 Old 06-25-2012, 09:16 AM
Beginner
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Deer birth control has existed for awhile, and now they have a vaccine to prevent reproduction. http://news.discovery.com/animals/deer-birth-control-could-prevent-collisions-110901.html . Just an injection.

Just the logistics of administering it wide scale are mind boggling though. Again I do think it has merit in limited urban settings.
Forster is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off