3 ms·

You are the only person in this thread putting that reason forward. Overpopulation of deer is bad for the ecosystem as a whole, and it is widely agreed that the

by stouset 12y ago

You are the only person in this thread putting that reason forward. Overpopulation of deer is bad for the ecosystem as a whole, and it is widely agreed that their population needs to be kept in check. If you truly care about the ethics of the situation, hunting should be vastly preferred as a means of obtaining food over the current status quo of factory farming. A quick death by bullet is far, far better than a life of squalor and misery followed by, far more frequently than we'd like to realize, an agonizing and slow death.

kbenson 12y ago
I agree, they should be kept in check. I'm just arguing about the method. Is it impossible to look for other paths? I don't believe the discussion should be reduced to the two extremes of "shoot them with guns" or "factory farm them". Our current and past situations need not be the only choices when facing the future.
- stouset 12y ago
  Another straw man. Nobody is arguing that we would oppose some new, as-yet-undiscovered, ethically and environmentally optimal way of keeping deer populations in check. But until then, we have limited options at our disposal. Death by predator is probably the best all-around option, but in a world where that's politically untenable, death by rifle really isn't a bad alternative. It's in all honesty probably the least painful option on the table for a deer's eventual death, while at the same time providing a decent supply of food that reduces demand for factory-farmed meats. You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. We do not live in such a world. Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators or drawn-out death by poison. If we do nothing to control their populations, those that survive will eventually age to the point where most will become infirm enough to die slowly by starvation. Unless you propose to sent vets into the woods armed with tranquilizers and materials for lethal injection, a bullet is virtually certain to be the least terrible way for a deer to die.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    > Another straw man. I said, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for hunters not being able to hunt. Then I clarified, I thought killing of animals should be justified, and gave specific examples of where I thought it was, and was not, justified. For the record, ecosystem management (population control), in the absence of better options, is a good justification for hunting in my eyes. If the the animal population doesn't need management, do I think enjoyment of hunting or tradition justifies it? No. > You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. That, there, is a straw man argument being set up. I haven't said this, and I believe my other responses around this topic have made that abundantly clear. Please don't put words in my mouth. > Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators Yep. So what? There's a reason for that. The life of the predator and the ecosystem as a whole works because of this process. I'm just not sure what I'm expected to believe hunting, for hunting's sake, is supposed to contribute.
- robwilliams 12y ago
  The only way to keep their population in check is to kill them, no? How would you humanely kill them without shooting them? Couldn't introducing another predator to hunt them cause even more unforeseen ecological problems?
  - kbenson 12y ago
    I don't know, is it? Maybe instead of introducing a new predator we reintroduce the old ones we removed? In in the absence of those, or if we are concerned about the outcome of reintroducing a predator, yes, manage them as needed, which may mean shooting them. Does that change whether I feel sympathy for hunters who hunt for enjoyment or tradition that no longer get to? Not at all. I see these as entirely different things.

by stouset 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

I agree, they should be kept in check. I'm just arguing about the method. Is it impossible to look for other paths? I don't believe the discussion should be reduced to the two extremes of "shoot them with guns" or "factory farm them". Our current and past situations need not be the only choices when facing the future.

stouset 12y ago
Another straw man. Nobody is arguing that we would oppose some new, as-yet-undiscovered, ethically and environmentally optimal way of keeping deer populations in check. But until then, we have limited options at our disposal. Death by predator is probably the best all-around option, but in a world where that's politically untenable, death by rifle really isn't a bad alternative. It's in all honesty probably the least painful option on the table for a deer's eventual death, while at the same time providing a decent supply of food that reduces demand for factory-farmed meats. You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. We do not live in such a world. Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators or drawn-out death by poison. If we do nothing to control their populations, those that survive will eventually age to the point where most will become infirm enough to die slowly by starvation. Unless you propose to sent vets into the woods armed with tranquilizers and materials for lethal injection, a bullet is virtually certain to be the least terrible way for a deer to die.
- kbenson 12y ago
  > Another straw man. I said, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for hunters not being able to hunt. Then I clarified, I thought killing of animals should be justified, and gave specific examples of where I thought it was, and was not, justified. For the record, ecosystem management (population control), in the absence of better options, is a good justification for hunting in my eyes. If the the animal population doesn't need management, do I think enjoyment of hunting or tradition justifies it? No. > You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. That, there, is a straw man argument being set up. I haven't said this, and I believe my other responses around this topic have made that abundantly clear. Please don't put words in my mouth. > Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators Yep. So what? There's a reason for that. The life of the predator and the ecosystem as a whole works because of this process. I'm just not sure what I'm expected to believe hunting, for hunting's sake, is supposed to contribute.
robwilliams 12y ago
The only way to keep their population in check is to kill them, no? How would you humanely kill them without shooting them? Couldn't introducing another predator to hunt them cause even more unforeseen ecological problems?
- kbenson 12y ago
  I don't know, is it? Maybe instead of introducing a new predator we reintroduce the old ones we removed? In in the absence of those, or if we are concerned about the outcome of reintroducing a predator, yes, manage them as needed, which may mean shooting them. Does that change whether I feel sympathy for hunters who hunt for enjoyment or tradition that no longer get to? Not at all. I see these as entirely different things.