5 ms·
I don't think it would actually be the case: Banning hunting as a hobby would be a massive win. There is an artificial imbalance in the ecosystems introduced b
by _notreallyme_ 4y ago
I don't think it would actually be the case: Banning hunting as a hobby would be a massive win.
There is an artificial imbalance in the ecosystems introduced by hunters who feed specific animals at certain times in order to have more, and thus easier to hunt, preys. Because of that, there is a need to restore a viable ecosystem in some areas.
This kind of thing should not be let to the "elite", but to professionals...
- iLoveOncall 4y agoWell yes my point was there would just be a lot less if it was only for the elite.
- HarryHirsch 4y agoYou wish - the pestilential whitetail deer multiply without anyone's help and destroy tree seedlings and even peoples' gardens. When you encounter skeletal deer that look as if they has escaped Auschwitz you know that hunting increases animal welfare.
- collegeburner 4y agoyeah facts and this is to say nothing of how overpopulation has spread chronic wasting disease (nasty ass prion) around a lot. and if you think deer are bad try feral hogs... nasty, can kill you, aggressive, tear up anything and everything.
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoMost hunters aren't feeding animals.
- topspin 4y agoHmm. Where I am there are a number of "Deer Feed" sellers and the buyers bring large trucks. Serious hunters do indeed attract animals with food. In general you're correct, most hunters don't. But some hunters -- particularly the ones that hunt the most -- do feed prey. On the high end of that histogram are people that acquire property in communities that are designed to accommodate hunters. They feed a lot of game.
- betwixthewires 4y agoIts like fish bait. You set these feeders out to get them to hang around an area so that when you're ready to hunt you have an easier time finding them. Hunters don't feed anything near the amount of food mass needed to increase the wild population, this idea of an ecological imbalance due to feeding is wildly inaccurate, its like saying fishermen increase fish stocks with fish bait.
- topspin 4y ago> this idea of an ecological imbalance due to feeding is wildly inaccurate That is likely the case. General farming on behalf of human consumption is likely to be an order of magnitude greater impact on whatever "ecological imbalances" you care to measure. Humans have been "imbalancing" ecologies thus for a long time.
- chayesfss 4y agowhy I leave my bacon grease outside at night, feed some the food zi might just need one day and wtf am I gonna do with it anyways, throw it away?
- technothrasher 4y agoHunting is usually well regulated in most places, with professional biologists watching the game animal populations and assigning the number of hunting tags to keep the populations in balance. Here in Massachusetts, the places we have the most problem with deer populations is in the east, where anti-hunting sentiment is high. The deer are overpopulated, unbalancing the ecosystem, and leading to all kinds of issues such as tick infestation, car accidents, and stress on some native plants, not to mention less healthy deer.
- chayesfss 4y agoagree, I'm 30 min south of worcesterrrrr
- betwixthewires 4y agoProfessionals... A state has an asset. They can assess the population of a certain animal, assess its growth rate, assess the impact it can have, both to human populations and to the ecosystem, and determine how many need to be culled each year to prevent negative impacts. Now it has a choice. It can get people to pay to do it for them, or of can tax you and pay someone to do it. They can consider the animals assets or liabilities. A government that would turn something very valuable from a source of revenue to an expense is an incompetent government full of bumbling idiots that have no business governing a territory of natural resources or a population of human beings.