Are you opposed to hunting deer?

do you eat eggs or dairy, Beancounter?

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.

 

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?

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

/sarcasm

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 =  / Petty Squabbling = 

 

ETA: Cross posted w Beancounter above:

 

 

 

Yup.

Edited by 'IckenNoodleSoup - 6/25/12 at 7:15am

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

I think it's a little of all three.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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