3 ms·

> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. Any ideas? I imagine the main caus

by baddox 12y ago

> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. Any ideas? I imagine the main causes of death for deer are predation (by humans, or other animals depending on location), and getting hit by cars. I imagine the latter is at least as painful as the former on average, and the latter also kills and injures a lot of humans.

kbenson 12y ago
Well, the problem is that we messed up the ecosystem by removing the predators. I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found. It's an interesting, and hard, problem. I was very specific in my wording. It started as "There are better ways" and changed to "I imagine there must be a better way" before submitting precisely because I think it is a hard problem, but I'm confident there's some answer that's better that shooting with guns. Even if there isn't, it's a worthwhile thing to study, IMHO.
- baddox 12y ago
  > I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found. Are you suggesting that non-human predators cause less pain to deer than human hunters with guns? I highly doubt that is the case.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    It's not purely about causing pain, it's about causing pain and justification. The need of the wolf and and benefit of a functioning ecosystem provides the justification, in my eyes.
    - ghettoCoder 12y ago
      If the pain inflicted on the deer is relatively equal and the desired outcome (lower deer population) is achieved then what difference does the method make. The ecosystem you speak of was destroyed when the apex predators were removed generations ago . Re-introducing predators does two things (look it up): 1) Disperses the herds thereby extending their range, and 2) causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey (rabbits, deer, moose, etc...) until equilibrium is reached (if ever) Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect. Of course, releasing enough predators to "thin the herd", so to speak, requires an unsustainable predator population once the thinning is complete. So you get mange, starvation, fido goes missing, etc... Hunters on the other hand only get as many deer tags as needed to control the populations. With that said, I agree that predators should be brought back in limited numbers and allowed reach natural sustainable levels within the ecosystem. But to use them as a short term way of controlling deer density is silly. You don't fix a complex, interconnected system build over decades with a band-aid.
      - kbenson 12y ago
        I wasn't proposing introducing predators as a short term fix, but more as a possible long term solution to reduce the need of other methods of population control. Really, I 'm espousing looking for long term, natural solutions to predator control, rather than allowing humans to fill the need just because they enjoy it. Hunting may be a vital part of population control, but IMHO whether the hunters enjoy it should have zero relevance to how likely we are to use that solution (other than it's effect on cost, which I'll concede is a factor). In truth, this is all fairly removed from my original statement and intent, which was that if some hunters are no longer allowed to hunt an area and feel disgruntled, I have little sympathy.
      - pvaldes 12y ago
        > Disperses the herds thereby extending their range, Thus the vegetation can cope with loses as ever did and not just dies. > causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey Peaks and valleys are caused by diseases and famines, wolves are the worst enemy for livestock and wild deer diseases, so the final result is deer populations more stable and health in fact. People, specially children, would be also much more safe with wolves than without them, because... first of all, less car accidents with deer, second: less americans killed or having pain by Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Tularemia, Ehrlichiosis, Relapsing fever, Colorado tick fever or Babesiosis. All tickborne diseases, spread by deer or small carnivores, that are a much bigger threat for children playing outdoors because ticks are everywhere in deerland. > Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect Not necessarily, because the "ecology of fear" change the behaviour of preys. You don't need to wipe out all deer at all. In Yellowstone wolves changed all for better in just five or six years if I'm not wrong.
    - baddox 12y ago
      How do you compare the needs of a single wolf with the needs of a single human? In, for instance, a human was on a hike and was attacked my a wolf, would you approve of the human killing the wolf in defense (even though the human is essentially "trespassing" on the wolf's habitat)?
      - kbenson 12y ago
        Yes, as I value a person's life more than a wolf's life. I also value bin able to be in nature. Do I think the person't life is always more important that the wolf's? Possibly not, but it would take an extreme situation. That said, I do not value a person't enjoyment of hunting more than I value the life of the animal they are hunting. That's not to say hunting isn't without benefit due to extenuating circumstance, such as it being agreed that in this area during this time this is a net good gook for the ecosystem or the people living there (e.g. population control (something I was missing originally but gladly concede at this point).
- cgh 12y ago
  Actually, as stated in the article, the other main problem is habitat creation for deer via sprawl. Deer are extremely adaptable and are perfectly happy hanging out on highway verges, fields and the like. Wolves don't like those things. Simply reintroducing predators won't work if those predators don't adapt to these new suburban ecosystems. Coyotes do adapt but they aren't generally capable of taking down deer. But humans with guns are. As a hunter myself, shooting deer is a quick for the deer and good for the hunter in various ways, not all of which have to do with eating.
  - nacho_weekend 12y ago
    Not to mention that fresh venison can be excellent when prepared correctly. The argument for more people "harvesting" their meat for the season can be expanded upon.

by baddox 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

Well, the problem is that we messed up the ecosystem by removing the predators. I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found. It's an interesting, and hard, problem. I was very specific in my wording. It started as "There are better ways" and changed to "I imagine there must be a better way" before submitting precisely because I think it is a hard problem, but I'm confident there's some answer that's better that shooting with guns. Even if there isn't, it's a worthwhile thing to study, IMHO.

baddox 12y ago
> I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found. Are you suggesting that non-human predators cause less pain to deer than human hunters with guns? I highly doubt that is the case.
- kbenson 12y ago
  It's not purely about causing pain, it's about causing pain and justification. The need of the wolf and and benefit of a functioning ecosystem provides the justification, in my eyes.
  - ghettoCoder 12y ago
    If the pain inflicted on the deer is relatively equal and the desired outcome (lower deer population) is achieved then what difference does the method make. The ecosystem you speak of was destroyed when the apex predators were removed generations ago . Re-introducing predators does two things (look it up): 1) Disperses the herds thereby extending their range, and 2) causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey (rabbits, deer, moose, etc...) until equilibrium is reached (if ever) Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect. Of course, releasing enough predators to "thin the herd", so to speak, requires an unsustainable predator population once the thinning is complete. So you get mange, starvation, fido goes missing, etc... Hunters on the other hand only get as many deer tags as needed to control the populations. With that said, I agree that predators should be brought back in limited numbers and allowed reach natural sustainable levels within the ecosystem. But to use them as a short term way of controlling deer density is silly. You don't fix a complex, interconnected system build over decades with a band-aid.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      I wasn't proposing introducing predators as a short term fix, but more as a possible long term solution to reduce the need of other methods of population control. Really, I 'm espousing looking for long term, natural solutions to predator control, rather than allowing humans to fill the need just because they enjoy it. Hunting may be a vital part of population control, but IMHO whether the hunters enjoy it should have zero relevance to how likely we are to use that solution (other than it's effect on cost, which I'll concede is a factor). In truth, this is all fairly removed from my original statement and intent, which was that if some hunters are no longer allowed to hunt an area and feel disgruntled, I have little sympathy.
    - pvaldes 12y ago
      > Disperses the herds thereby extending their range, Thus the vegetation can cope with loses as ever did and not just dies. > causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey Peaks and valleys are caused by diseases and famines, wolves are the worst enemy for livestock and wild deer diseases, so the final result is deer populations more stable and health in fact. People, specially children, would be also much more safe with wolves than without them, because... first of all, less car accidents with deer, second: less americans killed or having pain by Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Tularemia, Ehrlichiosis, Relapsing fever, Colorado tick fever or Babesiosis. All tickborne diseases, spread by deer or small carnivores, that are a much bigger threat for children playing outdoors because ticks are everywhere in deerland. > Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect Not necessarily, because the "ecology of fear" change the behaviour of preys. You don't need to wipe out all deer at all. In Yellowstone wolves changed all for better in just five or six years if I'm not wrong.
  - baddox 12y ago
    How do you compare the needs of a single wolf with the needs of a single human? In, for instance, a human was on a hike and was attacked my a wolf, would you approve of the human killing the wolf in defense (even though the human is essentially "trespassing" on the wolf's habitat)?
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Yes, as I value a person's life more than a wolf's life. I also value bin able to be in nature. Do I think the person't life is always more important that the wolf's? Possibly not, but it would take an extreme situation. That said, I do not value a person't enjoyment of hunting more than I value the life of the animal they are hunting. That's not to say hunting isn't without benefit due to extenuating circumstance, such as it being agreed that in this area during this time this is a net good gook for the ecosystem or the people living there (e.g. population control (something I was missing originally but gladly concede at this point).
cgh 12y ago
Actually, as stated in the article, the other main problem is habitat creation for deer via sprawl. Deer are extremely adaptable and are perfectly happy hanging out on highway verges, fields and the like. Wolves don't like those things. Simply reintroducing predators won't work if those predators don't adapt to these new suburban ecosystems. Coyotes do adapt but they aren't generally capable of taking down deer. But humans with guns are. As a hunter myself, shooting deer is a quick for the deer and good for the hunter in various ways, not all of which have to do with eating.
- nacho_weekend 12y ago
  Not to mention that fresh venison can be excellent when prepared correctly. The argument for more people "harvesting" their meat for the season can be expanded upon.