If you wish to ban hunting... - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 07-18-2006, 10:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Bios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 685
What do you do about seriously overpopulating wildlife?



Where I live is a mixture of pasture/hayfields, corn and bean fields, and woods. We have deer. Many many deer. More deer than people. In fact, some of our farmers make more money from renting hunting land than from farming. The five rows of any field closest to the woods are considered a loss to the deer. And this is _with_ significant hunting pressure.



The habitat is better now for deer and turkey than it was when it was prarie and woods (more corn to eat now). But the habitat is too fragmented to support the large predators that used to keep deer in check -- we have the odd panther and bear; but no more wolves.



While I find the annual 'deer harvest' display pretty unpleasant (especially on the part of the imported city hunters), I can't think of a realistic, logistically sound way to keep the deer from overpopulating until the death rate from disease, starvation, and exposure knocks them down. And I don't want any species to have to live like *that*; being shot would be preferable imo.



So what alternatives are there?
Bios is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 07-18-2006, 10:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
What should we do about the seriously overpopulating human race? Countless humans will face a death from starvation and diseases.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#3 Old 07-18-2006, 11:12 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tesseract's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

What should we do about the seriously overpopulating human race? Countless humans will face a death from starvation and diseases.

Birth control in the water! Seriously, setting aside the fact that it's not technologically feasible at this time, that's honestly my ideal solution for the human population problem. Put contraceptives in all municipal water supplies. Let anyone who wants to reproduce go down to the local fertility office, get a free fertility kit containing medication that will temporarily counteract the birth control, and correctly follow the instructions. No tests, no fees, no lottery system, no artificially complicated instructions. All you have to do is consciously decide you want a baby, and get off your ass and go do something about it. Alternatively, anyone who doesn't like the idea of being on long-term contraceptives and has the means can arrange for their own private water supply.



Other animals, I dunno, but then I'd much rather ban factory farming than hunting.
Tesseract is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 07-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
MaryC1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,204
Not so long ago we had a deer overpopulation issue (more like humans taking more and more land and then getting mad because the deers who once lived there didn't "get" the whole thing about new ownership and ate their gardens) and they began sterilizing some of the female deer. That cut the population WAY down but then the hunters started whining that they had nothing to shoot atso they stopped doing that and then the population (surprise surprise) got out of hand again so the hunters got the chance to show off how talented they are with guns.

So I do believe there are alternatives to hunting but those alternatives don't bring the revenue of hunting licenses and they bring the contempt of those who wish to participate in the "sport".

Mary
MaryC1999 is offline  
#5 Old 07-18-2006, 11:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Mr. Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,956
If you were on a raft in the amazon river and there were 12 people with you and it was a cloudy day and the current was running the wrong way...



People come up with these hypothetical situations to get veg*ns into a bind about what they would do in a particular situation. Now I realize the situation that you present is a real-life scenario but you have to look at the bigger picture. If people actually valued animals and the environment then we could all live comfortably and eat food that didn't cause so much needless animal suffering. But we value the economy and wealth so that takes precedence over so many other considerations. As Sevenseas points out, we have a lot of problems with the overpopulation of humans and a lot of them are suffering terribly. If we (all people) wanted to remedy the situation we could. We could aim at reducing the human population (ever notice how certain well-off western countries have lower birth rates) and having everyone live with a certain standard of food, shelter and clothing. But we don't so we don't.



So what could we do for alternatives to the situation you presented? Well, we could focus on a long-term solution that would involve giving wildlife the proper habitat space, reintroducing animals that were killed off (by humans) and then fencing off agricultural land so that the wildlife couldn't enter into those areas. To have a drastic reduction in the "need" for agricultural land we would probably have to have people switch to a *gasp* vegan diet. That would also address other problems such as the dire water situation the world is coming to grips with.



But people don't want an animal friendly solution right now. So we will stick with the annual deer torture, um, I mean "harvest". Yes, it's true that not every hunter has perfect aim and a certain percentage of those deer will be hit and will get away to bleed to death. And I'm sure I've read many times here on VB about how deer will populate themselves to suit the food situation. Less available food = less deer. But I'm not sure how that all works so I'll let someone else explain it.



Basically it comes down to what we value. If we value the earth and the animals we will come up with a solution that takes them into consideration. If we value humans then we will choose not to "harvest" the excess humans.
Mr. Sun is offline  
#6 Old 07-18-2006, 11:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesseract View Post

Seriously, setting aside the fact that it's not technologically feasible at this time, that's honestly my ideal solution for the human population problem.

But that's the thing - as long as it isn't technologically feasible, are more violent measures to control the human population justified, and if not why not, and what implications does this have for the ethics of how to treat non-human populations, etc.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#7 Old 07-18-2006, 11:33 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,973
>>Seriously, setting aside the fact that it's not technologically feasible at this time, that's honestly my ideal solution for the human population problem. Put contraceptives in all municipal water supplies.>>



Good ****ing lord.

We should also keep in mind that many of the sites of overpopulation lack such things as municipal water supplies.



ebola
Gnome Chomsky is offline  
#8 Old 07-18-2006, 11:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sun View Post

So we will stick with the annual deer torture, um, I mean "harvest".

I think it's interesting to notice the language hunters use. To me, the term 'harvest' in one word renders all talk about hunters having respect for animals null and void. Their view on animals is even more objectifying and anti-individualistic than an average Western consumer's: animals are simply mass.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#9 Old 07-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

What should we do about the seriously overpopulating human race? Countless humans will face a death from starvation and diseases.



It does seem very silly to me that we consider killing overpopulated animals the humane and responsible thing to do, yet if you even mention the idea of killing humans or not allowing them to be born (abortion, birth control), people flip a sh*t.



Why worry so much about other species becomming overpopulated? It's our own overpopulation that's causing many of these problems anyway, so it's our own overpopulation we ought to be worried about, not the deer's.
Moechalatte is offline  
#10 Old 07-18-2006, 01:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
I see, so some homosapiens came into an area, killed off all the natural predators. Prey animals such as deer started to overpopulate. To make matters worse, the same primates stole more and more of the land, pushing the deer into a smaller and smaller area.



to all hunters;

Do you feel like a man when you kill someone for 'sport'? Does it make you feel all big and strong inside? That you could end the life of someone yourself? Do you pour his blood over your body and bask in the shimmering red scent of death? And put his antlers over your fireplace as a trophy. to remind yourself how much of a man you really are?



sanguinarius atrocis.



βάρβαρος
troub is offline  
#11 Old 07-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sun View Post

............ And I'm sure I've read many times here on VB about how deer will populate themselves to suit the food situation. Less available food = less deer. But I'm not sure how that all works so I'll let someone else explain it..........



In an ideal situation (think millions of years ago, IMO) this is 100% true. You put enough food for 6 fish in your fish tank, you'll keep your 6 fish; you only put enough food for 2 fish in your fish tank, you're eventually going to end up with 2 fish. That's the way nature works - many animals become more "abundant" during certain times of the year or during certain longer cycles depending on food availability, amount of preditors in the area, etc.



I don't know a lot about why deer (and others) are overpopulated, but I've heard a lot of evidence stating that it's because of humans - so we can hunt them. If we stop feeding the deer in order to hunt them, their population will balance out naturally and there will be no need for us to 'harvest' them, or whatever it was called.
Moechalatte is offline  
#12 Old 07-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moechalatte View Post




Why worry so much about other species becomming overpopulated? It's our own overpopulation that's causing many of these problems anyway, so it's our own overpopulation we ought to be worried about, not the deer's.

I think it's harder to deal with human population issues because we don't really have the same kind of control over it like we do with animals. Obviously deer hunts exist etc (not that I agree with it). Also, human population issues aren't in our back yard so much...not in the US at least. At the same time, our current administration has thwarted birth control efforts in Africa so that is our problem.
gaya is offline  
#13 Old 07-18-2006, 01:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesseract View Post

Birth control in the water! Seriously, setting aside the fact that it's not technologically feasible at this time, that's honestly my ideal solution for the human population problem. Put contraceptives in all municipal water supplies. Let anyone who wants to reproduce go down to the local fertility office, get a free fertility kit containing medication that will temporarily counteract the birth control, and correctly follow the instructions. No tests, no fees, no lottery system, no artificially complicated instructions. All you have to do is consciously decide you want a baby, and get off your ass and go do something about it.



Possibly real hard on other animals who are affected by hormones and chemicals in the water.
Ludi is offline  
#14 Old 07-18-2006, 01:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

I think it's harder to deal with human population issues because we don't really have the same kind of control over it like we do with animals. Obviously deer hunts exist etc (not that I agree with it). Also, human population issues aren't in our back yard so much...not in the US at least. At the same time, our current administration has thwarted birth control efforts in Africa so that is our problem.



Yea, that was exactly my point - we think it's alright to kill other species to control their population, but we can't even allow women the right to birth control or abortions, let alone bring up the idea of killing humans to control their population.



So of course it's harder to deal with other species' overpopulation than our own - we pull out a completely different set of morals for each.
Moechalatte is offline  
#15 Old 07-18-2006, 01:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Also, human population issues aren't in our back yard so much...not in the US at least.





Yes they are, I think. We use 25% of the Earth's resources with only 5% of the population. Thus, we have much larger "population issues" even than a place like India where the average person uses 1/30 the resources the average American uses. 1 American = 30 Indians.
Ludi is offline  
#16 Old 07-18-2006, 02:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Mr. Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,956
Quote:
we think it's alright to kill other species to control their population, but we can't even allow women the right to birth control or abortions, let alone bring up the idea of killing humans to control their population.



There are those that argue that abortion is the killing of humans and does in some respect control the human population. I bring that up because I believe (I can't find any link) that the Eskimo used to kill a certain percentage of newborn females to control (balance) their population. The men of course were the hunters and so many of them would die while hunting so this was their way of ensuring equal numbers of males (who provided the food) and females (who prepared the food) within their communities.



It seems to me that if the Eskimo had a way of killing those females inside the womb that that would be the preferred method because then nutrients wouldn't be wasted on bringing that baby to term.



All this to say that controlling the human population, on a small scale, within certain communities, has been acceptable.



Oh, I did find a link:



Quote:
The means for changing the P/C ratio was through

infanticide practiced on newborn females. But the

Netsilik had to legitimize infanticide. Whether it be

via sexual abstinence, abortion or infanticide, human

societies seem to require cultural legitimization for

behavior that runs counter to maximization of individ-

ual fitness. For the Netsilik, legitimization was

achieved through a cultural definition that personhood

did not accrue to a developing organism until it has

been named.



The birth-mother names her offspring for

one of the spirits that helped her during childbirth,

hence infanticide by abandoning a newborn that has

not yet been named was not considered murder (see

cultural practice labeled (A) in Figure 1). An aban-

doned child could be adopted and the adopting couple,

by providing the newborn with a name, gave the new-

born its personhood and thereby became its parents.

As a consequence, the Netsilik, like other Inuit groups,

do not distinguish between biological children and

children obtained through adoption. Through a cultur-

ally constructed naming practice, the Netsilik provided

a window of opportunity during which infanticide

could occur without it being considered murder.



http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4...a&ct=clnk&cd=1
Mr. Sun is offline  
#17 Old 07-18-2006, 02:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

Yes they are, I think. We use 25% of the Earth's resources with only 5% of the population. Thus, we have much larger "population issues" even than a place like India where the average person uses 1/30 the resources the average American uses. 1 American = 30 Indians.

Oh, I agree. My only point is that we have less births. I don't think our numbers have anything to do with our use of resourses...not necessarily at least. We could probably decrease births even more as a nation but I wonder if that would really affect our usuage.
gaya is offline  
#18 Old 07-18-2006, 02:12 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moechalatte View Post

It does seem very silly to me that we consider killing overpopulated animals the humane and responsible thing to do, yet if you even mention the idea of killing humans or not allowing them to be born (abortion, birth control), people flip a sh*t.



Let's see...maybe that is because of either:

a.) the humans in question have legal rights which cannot be summarily taken away by others without due process

or

b.) religious beliefs which cause people to be against certain activities for morl reasons.



Now why is it silly again?
Tame is offline  
#19 Old 07-18-2006, 02:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Oh, I agree. My only point is that we have less births. I don't think our numbers have anything to do with our use of resourses...not necessarily at least. We could probably decrease births even more as a nation but I wonder if that would really affect our usuage.





Yes, but sheer number of births is irrelevant, I think, what is relevant is use of resources. Do you see what I'm saying? There's no "population problem" if a population is within the carrying capacity of its ecosystem. That can not be said for the US, as we take resources from 1/4 of the entire world, with only 1/20 of the population. Yet we always ***** about the "overpopulation" in other countries where people use, both as individuals and as a population, far far fewer resources than we do...



But yeah, I agree, fewer Amurricans might not equal more equitable resource use...
Ludi is offline  
#20 Old 07-18-2006, 02:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moechalatte View Post

So of course it's harder to deal with other species' overpopulation than our own - we pull out a completely different set of morals for each.

Exactly. And the thing is, this doesn't even hinge on the question of whether "humans and animals are equal" or not. The question is how to weigh suffering (starvation, diseases) with killing (hunting healthy deer). So the issue is about the moral status of suffering and death relative to each other. How important deer and humans are compared to each other is irrelevant to this question.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#21 Old 07-18-2006, 02:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

Yes, but sheer number of births is irrelevant, I think, what is relevant is use of resources. Do you see what I'm saying? There's no "population problem" if a population is within the carrying capacity of its ecosystem.

Sure, I see what you are saying and agree...tho I do believe at some point we could reach carrying capacity. I read an article some time ago about how our breathing affects the environment but I can't seem to locate it. Maybe it was in that book "no non-sense guide to climate change" but I could be wrong about that.

Quote:
That can not be said for the US, as we take resources from 1/4 of the entire world, with only 1/20 of the population. Yet we always ***** about the "overpopulation" in other countries where people use, both as individuals and as a population, far far fewer resources than we do...

No doubt.



Quote:
But yeah, I agree, fewer Amurricans might not equal more equitable resource use...

Yea and americans can easily be replaced by immigration and is to a certain extent.
gaya is offline  
#22 Old 07-18-2006, 02:46 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

Let's see...maybe that is because of either:

a.) the humans in question have legal rights which cannot be summarily taken away by others without due process

or

b.) religious beliefs which cause people to be against certain activities for morl reasons.



Now why is it silly again?



A: So we can have legal rights, but we can't allow any other species to have rights? Sounds like an omni arguement to me.



B: I'm not religious, and that's one of the reasons why.



Yes, it is very silly.
Moechalatte is offline  
#23 Old 07-18-2006, 02:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sun View Post

There are those that argue that abortion is the killing of humans and does in some respect control the human population. I bring that up because I believe (I can't find any link) that the Eskimo used to kill a certain percentage of newborn females to control (balance) their population.....



I understand that some people view abortion that way, but I didn't want to get into that argument - also, we aren't talking about people aborting deer's babies - it's about deer being shot with guns to control overpopulation. We don't do anything like that to other humans.



That is very interesting about the Eskimos ... Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong,' it's very cool they thought to do something like that to control their population.
Moechalatte is offline  
#24 Old 07-18-2006, 03:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
Moe, infanticide was probably the most common form of population control used by non-civilized (hunter-gatherer) populations, as many of them did not have other effective means of contraception or birth control. Population control was practiced by most or all non-civilized peoples, because they had to. According to Jared Diamond in his book "Collapse," the Tikopian islanders performed suicidal ocean voyages as one form of population control. Other groups had different sex taboos and what might be considered weird sexual practices which might have aided them in reducing pregnancies.
Ludi is offline  
#25 Old 07-18-2006, 03:18 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843
I have learned a lot about practices like these that were forced upon civilizations by their rulers, but I don't know much at all about civilizations who did this on their own free will ... it's definitely very interesting. I feel kind of dumb for not knowing this
Moechalatte is offline  
#26 Old 07-18-2006, 03:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
No, these were not "civilizations" from an anthropological meaning of the word "civilization" that is inaccurate use of the word! Cultures, but not "civilizations." Most cultures have not been civilizations.
Ludi is offline  
#27 Old 07-18-2006, 03:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Moechalatte's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 843


Eck... I'm so embarrassed... My boyfriend would shoot me if he knew I'd just written that...



Thank you
Moechalatte is offline  
#28 Old 07-18-2006, 03:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Ludi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,934
It's ok!
Ludi is offline  
#29 Old 07-18-2006, 04:09 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,973
>>Yes, but sheer number of births is irrelevant, I think, what is relevant is use of resources. Do you see what I'm saying? There's no "population problem" if a population is within the carrying capacity of its ecosystem.>>



The issue is more complicated than that. The use of resource-intensive technology can increase the carrying capacity of a given locale temporarily at the cost of non-renewable resources in the long term.



ebola
Gnome Chomsky is offline  
#30 Old 07-18-2006, 04:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Mr. Sun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moechalatte View Post

I understand that some people view abortion that way, but I didn't want to get into that argument - also, we aren't talking about people aborting deer's babies - it's about deer being shot with guns to control overpopulation. We don't do anything like that to other humans.



I don't want to get into a debate about abortion either but you brought it up twice so I thought I would address it. I'm personally opposed to abortion in general but I can see instances where abortion would be the lesser violence and in those cases I would be in favour of it. And that's how I see animal killing as well. Sometimes eating meat or killing an animals would be the lesser violence and at those times I would be in favour of it. Well, not really in favour of it but I recognize there are degrees of violence and I choose to support what I see as the lesser violence.



As far as shooting deer to control population: I'm not sure why you say we don't do anything like that to humans. Later-term abortion and infanticide seem comparable to me.



And to get off the abortion topic: human population control through direct killing takes place in Brazil.



Quote:
On 31 March 2005, 29 people were killed in the Baixada Fluminense district of Rio de Janeiro. The killings were attributed to a group, believed to consist of military police officers, who drove through the Baixada Fluminense between 8.30 and 11pm, shooting randomly at passers by...



Over the past 25 years, violent crime, in particular homicide, has soared.(23) Socially excluded groups have been the principal victims of the most brutal crimes.



http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr190252005



Apparently the killings happen because there are too many people and so gunman are hired to kill off those socially excluded people. I haven't read through the whole article cited but from other sources I've heard that the "problem" is that these "excess" people move into the cities and are bothersome to shop owners because of theft concerns and intimidation to potential customers. I guess they would also be a problem for the government who would be expected to provide basic necessities to those people.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Moechalatte View Post

That is very interesting about the Eskimos ... Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong,' it's very cool they thought to do something like that to control their population.



I totally don't get you. I think you are saying that killing deer to control their population is a bad thing but that to kill infants to control human population is very "cool". I'm so confused. How do you decide when killing for population control is "bad" or "cool"? It seems to me that it would've been cooler if the Eskimo had learned that women are also capable hunters and therefore they could've avoided killing the newborn girls. But then it would've been far cooler if they had moved south and become farmers.



And I know I'll be accused of being culturally insensitive. I guess "cool" is in the eye of the beholder.
Mr. Sun is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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