3 ms·
This is the wrong way to think about it. With reasonable game management, killing a doe has no impact on future deer because the population is at carrying capac
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
This is the wrong way to think about it. With reasonable game management, killing a doe has no impact on future deer because the population is at carrying capacity. In that case, killing a doe means one less deer starves over winter.
Where I live, government biologist have recommended several times to issue doe tags to increase the population and been rejected. Over the winter, old infertile does outcompete the young deer who starve.
- JoeAltmaier 2y agoYet the topic was all about non-reasonable game management. What would be required to feed people routinely. It was in fact the entire purpose of the conversation to 'think about it' like that.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThe post I responded to stated "Even hunters forget that when you kill a doe, you are killing 4-8 future deer, not just the one today." as if this was a general truth, outside the context of your thought experiment. The article is about if some game (specifically unwanted meat) can help feed some people. If the conversation is about if we can feed the entire US population on wild deer, then of course not. The numbers dont work. The numbers don't work out because there isn't enough carrying capacity, not because it is impossible to kill a doe without lowering yield per sector.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]