Animal groups' criticism bounces off hunters who feed hungry

[Are_grits_groceries]

During a recent deer hunt in Southern Maryland, Blaise Higgs killed a doe and then took it to a butcher shop for dressing. After setting aside several pounds of venison for his family, he donated the rest to an organization that helps feed the hungry.

"A lot of people are having a difficult time putting food on the table, so if you can help them, why not?" said Higgs, 38, a resident of Mechanicsville and a hunter since he was 6.

In the long-running dispute with animal rights advocates over the ethics of deer hunting, Higgs and other sportsmen have found what they believe to be the moral high ground: stocking food banks and soup kitchens with their kills.

One day last week, about 50 people dined on venison chili at the Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen, which operates out of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Leonardtown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504770.html?hpid=news-col-blog

The only way my brother and some of my other relatives can survive now is by filling their freezers with venison. They don't trophy hunt or overhunt. They use what is needed and give the rest to others who can't hunt.

[The Straight Story]

1. Damn, hunting and a soup kitchen run by a church in same thread? Heads will explode

Just like some deny evolution I have seen many deny that churches or hunting are good for anything....

Good on those hunters!

[Dorian Gray]

33. It's like the perfect DU post

A confluence of topics that are destined to agitate and lead to argument. I don't know whether to go on reading or to run out of the thread in fear.

[cliffordu]

40. I'm going to man up and read...First a little ammunition......

:popcorn:

[harun]

60. I'm going to run :-).

[TexasObserver]

2. A wise use of meat harvested from hunting.

There are many things about hunting for which I do not care. The principal one is the theme of taking a trophy: Kill the biggest rack, not kill the animal the herd can most afford to lose. A secondary one is the attitude about hunting some exhibit, which is too quick on the trigger to kill for the sake of killing.

However, I believe hunting is a natural part of the human experience, in our DNA, and a part of us. We find being predator or prey exhilarating, whether in reality or in essence.

I gave up hunting decades ago, but when it's done right, it is the experience of stalking and killing game for food.

[jmowreader]

12. Trophy hunting is better for the herd anyway

You're hunting from a stand and see three bucks at different azimuths. The buck at zero degrees has an 8-point (Western count) rack, the buck at 120 degrees has a five-point rack and the buck at 240 degrees has a three-point rack. (Westerners count the points on only one side; Easterners count both antlers. If these three deer were in the east, one would be a 16-point, one a 10-point and the third a 6-point.) You're best off killing the big one because he's preventing the other two bucks from mating. Trophy hunting leads to genetic diversity in the herd...the only thing size in a buck proves is he's good at evading hunters, not necessarily that he's good at siring fawns or that the fawns he sires are quality animals.

[TexasObserver]

24. No, it isn't. That's pure bullshit.

Nature takes out the weak, the small, the ill, the lame, the animals that lack the ability to compete and stay alive. Hunting replaces that with some ignorant rube who climbs into a blind with a high powered rifle and shoots a deer that has been coming to eat corn at the same place for months. That's not hunting. That's yanking yourself and calling it hunting.

Save your simple minded notions for others like you.

[jmowreader]

47. Never actually BEEN hunting, I see

There are three kinds of hunters, and very few of them are what you described.

Type 1 is the trophy hunter. He will go into the woods to kill, say, a seven-point bull elk. One of my brothers-in-law is like this. He wants to kill at least a six-point bull--his thinking on this is, if he kills an animal that large he won't have to buy beef next year--a bull elk that size will feed two people all year, no problem. He's been hunting for 25 years and has killed three of the nine elk he's seen during hunting season.

Type 2 is the kinda-trophy-hunter. They will trophy hunt until they see a legal animal, then they'll kill it, haul it to the butcher and trophy hunt next year.

Type 3 are meat hunters. They go out, find a legal animal, kill it and go to the butcher.

The animals that are harvested during hunts are the weak, small, ill, lame, noncompetitive ones who can't figure out how to hide during hunting season.

[TexasObserver]

62. I have far more experience hunting than you.

I speak from knowledge. I've killed, gutted and butchered hundreds of animals: cows, pigs, chickens, goats, deer, wild birds.

Unlike you, I really know how to hunt. I'm experienced with hunting that isn't done from a blind, that isn't shooting glorified pets you've been feeding corn for six months.

I have butchered hundreds of deer, most killed by others who don't know the first thing about gutting, skinning and butchering animals. Guys like you. All you know how to do is ambush Bambi with a howitzer, then lug Bambi to someone like me to butcher. I haven't done it in years, because I don't like to butcher animals any more, just like I don't like to hunt any more, mainly because now days most hunters are idiots and are dangerous.

Why do you novices always think you're such pros?

[G_j]

41. insanity nt

[jmowreader]

55. It's insanity to increase the number of bucks who get to breed?

That big guy ain't gonna let the smaller bucks mate. That's proven. It doesn't matter if he's sterile, or has bad genetics, or if half the herd has his genes; that big buck is going to drive off and/or kill any other buck in his territory.

Given the options, I'd much rather see someone kill the 6-year-old worn-out buck so the 2-year-olds in the area can infuse some fresh genetic material into the herd.

[SteveM]

25. I agree with most of your sentiments...

So far this year I have killed one buck: a 10-point, 17+" inside spread, some consider trophy quality in the NE Hill Country of Texas. The land owner estimated the buck at 5.5 yrs age, which puts it at the end of its reproductive life (and maximum distribution of his good DNA). In all likelihood, he would die within one year had I not shot him; in the meantime, he would still be eating, but not reproducing. Coryell County has an antler restriction which allows only the taking of larger bucks like this one -- and that's a good thing, not only to maximize the survival rates of younger bucks, but to cull out the old "trophy" bucks which have "shot their wad," so to speak.

Next week, it's off to Uvalde County where I hope to take another deer, maybe a turkey. Hunting is both exhilarating and serious.

[ET Awful]

3. Well . . . I don't eat meat, but here's my take on it . . .

I don't meat primarily because I don't approve of factory farming and the attendant abuse.

While I personally would not eat meat from a hunted animal because I just don't care for it, I have few if any of the same moral objections to hunting your own game as I do to factory farming.

I see no problem with this to be honest.

[Bonn1997]

4. There are plenty of very cheap vegetarian foods you can give instead.

Beans would not cost much more if any more than the money spent on bullets plus time spent hunting. Even if you reject the AR claim that all sentient individuals including nonhuman animals have a right to life, you can still argue that these animals have a symbiotic relationship with other species in nature that we're interfering with. Predators depend on the deer for their survival and the deer as a species depend on these predators to weed out the weakest deer (enabling only the strongest deer to survive and reproduce).

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. My brother has a parttime job that barely pays the bills.

He can't afford to buy anything to give to someone else. He does garden, but the plot isn't very big because he can't manage that much.
He is nearly 60 years old. He doesn't take hunting lightly.
He would love to be able to have a decent job that would allow him some leisure time or a pension.
Meh!

[pipoman]

6. And reproduce, and reproduce,

until the deer run in herds eating entire crops and causing millions in property damage, then after a few years of dramatic over population, chronic wasting disease, lack of food cause numbers to drop dramatically. Culling game in the US has lead to healthier overall populations, introduction of new and reintroduction of indigenous species and most of the revenue to keep state parks and habitats funded.

[murielm99]

7. Thank you for pointing that out.

Hunting does indeed cull the deer population.

We don't get as much chance to hunt as we used to. My husband's best hunting buddy died, and he has not gone out much since.

When our kids were small, we went through a period of unemployment and underemployment. We barely hung on to our home. During that time, pheasant and deer we killed helped get us through the winter. Putting food on the table was of primary importance.

[Bonn1997]

8. Here are some common (and I believe strong) counterarguments

"Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads...Opponents also argue that hunting does not reduce the deer population because removing some individuals from the population results in more food per deer, which leads to the births of more twins and triplets. This also means that hunting is unnecessary because the deer will self-regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce. If the deer population needs to be further reduced, immunocontraception can be used.

Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, for hunters.

Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of Americans do not hunt."
http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/HuntingArgument.htm

I'll just add that those tax dollars could be spent on education and/or health care while feeding humans a healthier vegetarian diet.

Also,
"Most people find it incredible that their state wildlife management agencies are trying to keep deer populations high when so many residents complain that there are too many deer, but the agencies have financial incentives for pleasing hunters. The agencies depend on sales of hunting licenses for their funding, and hunters like a high deer population."
http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/DeerManagement.htm

[pipoman]

10. And conservationists and nonhunters

like cheap or free access to parks and undeveloped state owned habitats. The sale of Federal Duck stamps and state hunting/fishing licenses have funded more conservation and renewal than any other single funding source..this doesn't include .orgs like Ducks Unlimited or the National Turkey Federation. In my state, 30 years ago, there were no wild turkeys at all. The state, spending revenues from hunting licenses, introduced turkeys on state lands around 25 years ago. Now wild turkeys are in most tree lines and wooded areas of the state. Since, the bobcat and fox populations have increased exponentially and the coyote mange and famine problem has nearly dissipated. Also in my state, hunting revenues to land owners have kept large parcels of privately owned rural land in native grasses as opposed to being farmed or used as range for livestock...more habitat. Oklahoma has had a similar program as that in the OP for a number of years..

In the 2003-04 deer hunting seasons alone, more than 21 tons of donated venison was served statewide through a network of community shelters and food pantries.

-snip-

“Although we receive many donations of canned goods and other non-perishable food items, meat is one of our least-donated foods,” said Hendrix.

“When you consider how many pounds were donated last year (more than 42,000), and a typical venison burger or other meal consists of approximately one-quarter pound of meat, the Hunters Against Hunger program is providing a tremendous amount of meals to hungry Oklahomans.”

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Oklahoma/Hunters_Against_Hunger_Program_Feeding_Thousands_07160412.html

These numbers don't count the amount of food supplied to the hunters themselves and friends and neighbors of the hunters. my family have eaten only game for meat many years when money was very tight.

[Bonn1997]

15. There are alternative foods to donate and ways to raise money. I won't be deceptive though...

it's not a financial issue to me. I believe every sentient animal (human or nonhuman) has a right to life and to live free of pain and suffering and that we can violate those rights only when it's necessary for survival. If someone truly is in a situation where there are no options other than killing and eating animals (like those near the north pole), I do not object to their hunting. I don't find any financial arguments compelling when there are other inexpensive options at your local grocery store and you could spend the time spent hunting either working at another job or continuing your education.

[pipoman]

23. The local grocery store which sells the chemically and genetically

engineered plant products and sells non chemical and genetically engineered food products for premium prices not affordable to most people? The same chemical companies which peddle their poison which kills and displaces wildlife, degenerates the land, and pollutes water supplies. Further, meat is a significant part of human food consumption. Some people choose to live vegan, damned few, the number has to be a fraction of a percentage point. I hear a lot from anti hunting people but see little results from their voluntary donations to environmental causes. Without hunting/fishing license revenues, my state would have little public land and natural habitat. Many rural communities here depend on hunting revenues for year round survival.

[Are_grits_groceries]

11. My relatives have inadvertently

filled their freezers by running into deer. It wasn't during hunting season either. It is a nasty way to go, and it totals the vehicle much less the deer

The Wildlife Management Agency in SC does not bait deer. Hunters do that and only in the coastal plain. There is an ongoing argument about the practice and the WMA biologists oppose it for a number of reasons.

The laws that govern deer hunting in SC are numerous. I get a headache trying to figure out who can hunt what when and how many. It differs all over the state. The regulations on types of firearms used are also strict. Would that there was that much attention paid to other guns out and about.

As for enforcement, my brother will not hunt out of season period because the game wardens are about and will fine his ass. He hunts when he is allowed for food. what would you have him eat since he has little money? Air?

I am not fond of trophy hunting or game preserves. This isn't that situation.

[Bonn1997]

14. There are many very cheap, healthier alternatives to eating animals

beans and rice, pasta, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

[Are_grits_groceries]

18. WTF part of he doesn't have money

don't you understand??????????

He has bills to pay to keep an effing roof over his head and to keep insurance on his truck plus maintenance.
He has to try to buy BP drugs so he doesn't keel over.
He grows what he can to supplement his food supply.
He doesn't have extra money to nip down to the grocer no matter how cheap that food appears to you. He needs any savings he can to just get by.
So if he has to hunt an effing deer or two good on him.
Go ride your high horse some where else.

[Bonn1997]

20. How much do bullets plus time cost? How much do cheap vegetarian options cost? If you are right and

it truly is a matter of survival for him, then I would not object to him hunting until or if he is able to get a higher paying job. I don't know how much hunting equipment costs and the price of time is something economists debate and we won't be able to answer here. You do sound a bit angry. It's just a message board discussion of food.

[Are_grits_groceries]

22. It's now a matter of survival for him

and others I know. So forgive me if I get a rankled. It's not just a discussion about food.
And I am oh so glad that he has your approval to hunt until he gets a fulltime job. He probably will die of old age first. He has had a rifle forever because he lives in the middle of nowhere with varmints of the 2-footed and 4-footed kind about. That point is moot.
I'd like for you to try to survive one bloody month on what he has to handle.

[SteveM]

30. Well, it is a message board with serious content...

I am over 60 myself, with no income, no health insurance and a very slim IRA. I venture to say my "footprint" on the environment is about as heavy as Tinker Bell's.

FYI, factory ammunition for deer is about 85 cents @ round; a hunter will expend far more practicing at the range than on a killing shot (usually one round). As for time, day-to-day I gotta a lot of that!

I find it troubling that you "would not object to him hunting until or if he is able to get a higher paying job." This strikes me as rather imperious. Just what is it you are arguing for/against? If the man is poor, he can hunt; if he makes just enough, he can't?
Is there ethical/moral content here?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. For many people, time does not always = money.

In an economy with very high unemployment, available labor is in high supply (therefore low cost). You could have all the time and skills in the world and if you can't find an employer, your time is worth very little. Even for people with jobs their total hours are likely limited (underemployed) or they are working a maximum amount of hours (40hrs for most people) - both cases are probably most common in america and both cases value spare time at very little worth. All this being said, I think it's very valid assumption that a vast majority of Americans' spare time is worth very little or nothing in the way of potential income.

So lets assume a person has the skills to accurately shoot a firearm and field dress a carcass. Most people who consider hunting already own a suitable gun and knife which will last them forever. But they will need permits and about $20 worth of ammo for practice and taking a few deer. An average deer might yield about 60-80 lbs of meat. Permits around here run $80 for 4 deer (2 bucks & 2 doe maximum)... so a hunting season could cost as little as $100 for 4 tags and ammo.

That's around 35 cents a pound for some of the leanest all natural meat you could eat.
I'm very skeptical that high protein veggie options are this affordable.
If you're really handy, it'll get you some nice skins and antlers too.

[jmowreader]

56. Ammunition isn't that expensive

Ammo comes in boxes of 20. If you have a .30-30, expect to pay around $15-$20 per box. A box of ammo should last two seasons.

Hunting equipment? There are two kinds--your truck and clothes, which you can use for other things, and hunting specific items like your gun. The gun will last a long time if you clean it.

What's time worth? Exactly what someone will pay you for it.

If you bring a 200-pound (hanging weight) deer in, it will cost you between $20 (for wrapping materials, if you cut it yourself) and $100 to have it prepared for the freezer. Add ten dollars for ammo and maybe $40 for gas. $150 for 200 pounds of meat isn't that bad.

[cliffordu]

42. I dunno, grits....

I understand and completely agree with you...I think that one has the purity disease and a whack view of what's possible in the lives of others........

Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

[WolverineDG]

53. You're talking to someone who just doesn't want to understand

what it's like to have to hunt something to put in the pot for dinner that night or go hungry.

Not everyone now has a parent (or two) who grew up during the Depression. My dad & his brothers had to hunt every day if they wanted something to eat, & they had to be good shots because they couldn't afford the ammo. That turned them into expert marksmen...an ability that came in handy once WWII rolled around....

Hats off to the hunters who help out food pantries!

dg

[SteveM]

29. I see nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet for most people...

I even re-cycle the refuse of a vegetarian cafe in Austin. But I must question your statement about "cheaper, healthier" alternatives. Once you have covered the cost of a rifle (or bow), ammo, clothes, etc., licenses & fees, gas (for travel) and your own cooking are the costs of killing and eating a deer; take two deer and you lower the costs more. I would point out that deer, for the most part, eat off the land that is there. Agriculture, on the other hand, must take land and convert it from a viable ecosystem to an artificial contrivance for the production of food for people. I do NOT argue against agriculture, and only point out the many hidden costs of the practice -- the destruction of ecosystems being a big one (though difficult to quantify). Deer hunting has eliminated store-bought beef from my diet.

When I drive 200 miles (round trip) to take a deer, how does this use of fossil fuels stack up against an equivalent amount of beans & pasta (in terms of energy for humans) once over-the-road fuel consumption is taken into consideration, not to mention energy consumption for plant operations, packaging, etc.?

BTW I do eat high-energy food like peanut butter & jelly and GORP while sitting under a tree, waiting.

[SteveM]

28. Problems with the "counterarguments..."

I'm not sure what "studies show" deer are "frightened out of the woods...," but hunting seasons nearly always occur during that time we call the "rut." During the rut, bucks expand their range (from the usual 1-2 miles square they live in) in search of estrous does. The does also give a merry chase. Bucks being boys kind of lose their sense of caution and have been known to walk right up to an unsuspecting hunter because they had their snoots to the ground or in the behind of willing does.

"Imunocontraception can be used." The question is: Where has it been used successfully?

"state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high" for hunters. Where is the support for this declaration? In Texas (and other states), there are vigorous attempts to keep a lid on the population by use of antler restrictions and the issuance of more doe tags. The purpose is NOT to keep deer populations high or low, but to control and improve the deer populations.

"Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars..." Well, how about that? In Texas, over one hundred million dollars are collected each year from hunters (licenses, stamps, fees, surcharges, permits, etc.); yet less than thirty million dollars winds up supporting management areas, hunting programs and parks. Seems "those tax dollars" are ALREADY being spent on education and/or health care."

Please understand: humans are predators, and they fit into the scheme of life, just like all other creatures. I prefer to kill deer and eat them than to see them "self-regulate" and rot away -- out of sight, out of mind.

[Gormy Cuss]

49. I truly hate it when someone like Lin argues the case without doing any research.

If I had all day I could counterpoint each citation in her bullet asserting that hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, but I'll just point to the AZ mission statement used as support of this argument.
Since hunting is a legal recreational use of wildlife resources, it's natural for it to be mentioned in the mission statement. The contention that the state therefore is intentionally keeping the population high solely for hunters however is not supported by the brief mission statement.

Furthermore, the AZ department's own economic analysis of the revenue impact of hunting would suggest that there is little incentive to keeping the deer population for hunting -- if anything, they'd have an incentive to maintain high populations for the nature lovers who want to gawk at deer and other wildlife. Hunting activities contributed only a small fraction to spending and even when combined with spending related to fishing these activities contribute less to the state economy that watchable wildlife activities. See excerpt below.

The Economic Importance of Hunting and Fishing
Fishing and hunting recreation generates spending that has a powerful effect on Arizona’s economy. More than 255,000 anglers spend an estimated $831.5 million on equipment and trip-related expenditures annually. Hunters, more than 135,000 of them, account for an additional $126.5 million in retail sales. This combined $958 million in spending creates an economic impact of $1.34 billion to the state of Arizona. Furthermore, this spending supports more than 17,000 jobs, provides residents with $314 million in salary and wages and generates more than $58 million in state tax revenue. ....

Economic Impact Analysis for Noncomsumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation in Arizona
Expenditures made by watchable wildlife recreationists generate rounds of additional spending through the economy. This results in numerous direct, indirect, and induced impacts. The sum of these impacts is the total economic impact resulting from the original expenditures. These economic figures show the total economic effect from 2001 watchable wildlife activities in Arizona to be $1.5 billion. In addition, watchable wildlife recreation supports over 15,000 jobs in the state, providing total household income near $430 million and generates over $57 million in state taxes.

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/survey_results.shtml

FWIW, elsewhere on the AZ G&F site a 2008 document states that the deer population in the state has been in decline for the past two decades. So much for keeping it high for hunters.

And for the record, I don't hunt and find it pretty appalling that this activity is ever done for 'sport.' I do however respect that for many families it's an inexpensive way to add plenty of protein to the larder.

[Fla_Democrat]

52. A little clarification

if you would be so kind...

"Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of Americans do not hunt."

Would that be from The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act?

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html

Or from other sources of tax revenue?


From the website......

Then a remarkable thing happened. At the urging of organized sportsmen, State wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, Congress extended the life of an existing 10 percent tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting, and earmarked the proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. The result was called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson (or "P-R") Act after its principal sponsors, Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, and Representative A. Willis Robertson of Virginia. The measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937.


<snip>

Shared Costs, Shared Benefits

Federal Funding from P-R pays for up to 75 percent of project costs, with the States putting up at least 25 percent. The assurance of a steady source of earmarked funds has enabled the program's administrators, both State and Federal, to plan projects that take years to complete, as short-term strategies seldom come up with lasting solutions where living creatures are involved.

In the more than 50 years since P-R began, over $2 billion in Federal excise taxes has been matched by more than $500 million in State funds (chiefly from hunting license fees) for wildlife restoration. Benefits to the economy have been equally impressive. National surveys show that hunters now spend some $10 billion every year on equipment and trips. Non-hunting nature lovers spend even larger sums to enjoy wildlife, on travel and on items that range from bird food to binoculars, from special footwear to camera equipment. Areas famous for their wildlife have directly benefited from this spending, but so have sporting goods and outdoor equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers. Thousands of jobs have been created.

<snip>

Non-Hunters and Non-Game Benefit, Too

Although Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by firearms users and archery enthusiasts, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but do enjoy such wildlife pastimes as birdwatching, nature photography, painting and sketching, and a wide variety of other outdoor pursuits. Almost all the lands purchased with P-R money are managed both for wildlife production and for other public uses. Wildlife management areas acquired by the States for winter range also support substantial use by hikers and fishermen, campers and picnickers. Wetlands for summer waterfowl nesting are useful to nature lovers in other seasons. Recent estimates indicate about 70 percent of the people using these areas are not hunting, and in some localities the ratio may go as high as 95 percent.

Emphasis denoted by bold print is mine.


So, to the 95% enjoying the great outdoors on my dime..... you're welcome. :smoke:

[michreject]

13. So it's OK for a predator to kill a deer for survival

But not a person?

You're a little confused if that's how I read this.

Predators depend on the deer for their survival

[Bonn1997]

19. Predators that need deer for survival? Yes. Humans, who do not? No. The reasoning is as follows

I believe all sentient animals (human and nonhuman) have a right to life and freedom from pain and suffering. That right can be violated only when it *must* be for survival. These are moral axioms I start with because you cannot have a functional society without them. In the context of human animals and animals who suit their needs, most humans agree with these rights. I believe the distinctions we do make among species (within the context of meat consumption) are arbitrary. In the US, people find dog eating disgusting but eat cows. Hindus find cow eating morally disgusting. Many eastern countries proudly eat dogs. (Research has found that dog eating is a symbolic rebellion against the west that these countries' citizens do take pride in.)

[yellowcanine]

34. No, deer need predators to have healthy populations.

Their populations will be controlled - either by vehicle collisions, disease, starvation or predators. The most humane way without introducing wolves or mountain lions is to have human predation. And I would argue that human predation is more effective and will result in less, not more pain and suffering.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. 100% correct

Culling deer (with hunters) to control populations is far more humane than:
More deer getting hit by cars
Starvation
Unwanted migration (upsets the food chain in new area)
Disease
wipeing out food for other species

The fact that it saves money by mitigating the inconveniences of wild animal overpopulation is just a bonus. It sounds crazy, but the humane killing of animals to control thier population is really the best thing for them, the environment, and other cohabitating species. It results in healthier populations with a much greater quality of life in the environment.

[GoCubsGo]

39. And, that is the irony of it...

In my state (South Carolina), the deer are smaller in size because there are so many of them. They're stunted because they're starving. So, in not culling them, they starve right along with the poor people. That's if they don't die an equally unpleasant death by getting hit by a car. Lots of that in these parts, too.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. You wanna see some more proof (and irony)?

The earth's temperature is rising, entire ecosystems are disappearing, pollution is killing off competing species, and starvation is becoming an epidemic across the globe. We're talking about the human species, of course. It's clear that the overpopulation of humans is naturally unsustainable. If we continue, starvation, habitat destruction, and global warming will decimate our own species. One way or another, nature will control the population.

Deliciously ironic, huh... talk about your ethical lose-lose situations.

[cliffordu]

43. Your last little sentence about dog eating being rebellion against the

West is complete bullshit.

Or it was when I ate dog with some Vietnamese. They ate dog when they were hungry, and I didn't know WTF it was at the moment.

And I think you're view of the world is only possible if you are a rich, pampered 'precious snowflake' of a person, lecturing all you see on how YOU believe they should like.

Now, where else do we see this kind of demented 'moral authority' lecturing.......???

[Fla_Democrat]

54. Should I be in jail?

or do you think maybe my cat should?



I believe all sentient animals (human and nonhuman) have a right to life and freedom from pain and suffering. That right can be violated only when it *must* be for survival.

My cat caught a bird this morning. Killed it. My cat doesn't need to hunt for food, he is very well taken care of. So he deprived the bird of it's rights, as you see them, with out the just cause of survival. If you've never seen a cat kill, let me tell you, there was no shortage of 'pain and suffering'.

Now, since rights, in your belief, are extended to 'all sentient animals (human and nonhuman)', then a wrong was committed, perhaps one could even say a crime. Since I am the guardian of 'Fluffy' (not going to get into the whole fiasco over owner/guardian word usage), who should be held accountable for denying that poor Blue Jay of his 'right to life and freedom from pain and suffering'?


Oh, but wait, it's not a law, so prosecution and jail time are out, for now. It would be an ethical/moral situation... so, tell me... is my cat going to hell? :evilgrin:

[Rhythm]

64. Your cat is going to join Basement Cat...

You are going to Hell. :hide:

[jmowreader]

16. But now humans are the requisite predators

After 200 years of human development--farming both plants and animals over deer habitat, building housing on deer habitat and killing the predators that used to keep the deer population in balance so the predators wouldn't eat our cattle and sheep, we've come to the point where we have to take over the role of predator...which we do by hunting.

IIRC I was in Mississippi when I heard this on the radio, but it may have been Louisiana: in the 2008 hunting season tens of thousands of deer were taken by hunters and they STILL had an overpopulation problem. If there was a proper predator/prey balance there wouldn't be an overpopulation problem. Hence, WE are going to have to help.

[SteveM]

26. You may have forgotten that humans are predators, too...

That said, there are plenty of deer in this country; in some areas they have become a sad nuisance. I prefer to kill a deer or two every year than to see another ecosystem destroyed and given over to development, factory farming ...or beans.

BTW, mountain lions (cougars, pumas) are spreading over the country to "consume the supply." So are coyotes which prey on fawns and smaller deer. Wolves will eventually draw down the population of elk to more sustainable levels. But in many areas of the country it is the two-legged predator which barely keeps deer populations in check ("we" outstrip cars and feral-dog packs when it comes to weeding out the weakest deer). Further, "trophy" bucks (arguably, I've taken one this year in a fair-chase hunt), are at the end of their reproductive life and are themselves consuming deer habitat without contributing much.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

50. Humans aren't obligate carnivores. You're hopelessly confused.

And kindly stop calling a a significant percentage of the DU population who self-identify as animal rights' supporters "whackos," unless you're going to call any other groups that have "weird" diets the very same thing.

I suggest you start with the Jews. After all, those "whackos" don't eat pork. "T'ain't natch-url!"

[snooper2]

57. Buy a few cans of beans to make up for a hundred pounds of meat

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Rhythm]

63. In most places there are no predators to naturally cull the herds

...because humans have eliminated them.

[MercutioATC]

9. My girlfriend's father did just that about 2 weeks ago.

The first day of deer season, he got a good-sized 8-point buck.

He donated it to an organization that feeds the hungry.


He does that every year.

[Canuckistanian]

17. I see no problem with this

Deer are overpopulated everywhere, with no natural controls now that predators are non-existent.

Deer strikes on the highways are increasing and farmers' cereal crops are being raided.

Here where I live, it's said that the deer are so good to eat because they feed on soybeans and corn.

And donating to food banks or churches is a fine idea.

[seabeyond]

21. i couldnt kill something for anything. if i was starving, i would appreciate those that could

sharing with me.

[cliffordu]

45. Believe me, kiddo, you get hungry enough and you'll eat Bambi's eyes.

[snooper2]

61. or if you get really hungry

the arms of the pilots who crashed the plane :9

[proteus_lives]

65. Or have a large pot of kitten stew.

Yum.

[X_Digger]

27. The only reason I'm here today is because of hunting..

I grew up in rural appalachia, both parents were underemployed / frequently unemployed. Every fall we'd take two weeks to go hunting. That deer lasted well into May or June, especially when mixed with cheap ground chuck.

What we couldn't fit in the deep freezer went to neighbors or the local church. Much of that went to elderly or disabled coal miners and their families.

[Lyric]

31. Same with me.

My parents were dirt poor West Virginians; Dad was a carpenter, and that kind of work tends to become scarce as the weather gets cold. He hunted deer, rabbits, turkey, and grouse, and that kept the freezer full until springtime. Mom had a small garden in our trailer park. She grew tomatoes, beans, peppers, squash, and cucumbers, and between the game meat and her canned veggies, we only had to buy rice and potatoes to make it through the winter. Sometimes we didn't even have the rice and potatoes; when you have three kids who all need new winter coats, shoes, and cold medicine for their winter colds, "cash money" (as Dad called it) doesn't go very far.

His hunting also allowed us kids to have at least a small Christmas every year. He'd make deer sausage out of the scraps and trim and leaner, tougher roasts, and sell it along with extra apples from our apple tree at the local farmer's market to make extra money for Christmas.

Dad hunted deer with a compound bow, not a rifle, by the way. The only ammunition he ever had to buy was a cheap box of small-game shot to take a few rabbits, grouse, etc.

[X_Digger]

51. I hunted squirrels and rabbits on the weekends..

Take my little 22 rifle, a pot to make tea, a skillet to cook in, and a sleeping bag. I'd come back Sunday afternoon with a string of game, clean it up, and into the freezer it'd go. During trout season, I'd head the other way over the mountain to a stream that was stocked by the us fish and wildlife service.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. That is highly commendable. K&R.

Trophy hunting, on the other hand, is petty, cruel, and stupid.

[SIMPLYB1980]

37. As it should.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. So... everybody's happy.

Hunters get to hunt, the hungry get to eat, and the PETA types get to be poutraged.

[cliffordu]

46. Sounds like a win-win-win to me....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. i support hunting of non-endangered animals if they were used for food

i dont see how this is less moral than factory farmed food.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. i support hunting of non-endangered animals if they were used for food

i dont see how this is less moral than factory farmed food.

[proteus_lives]

66. Good on the Hunters!

They are doing a good deed.

:thumbsup:

[Lasher]

67. States have sponsored these programs for years.

The one here in West Virginia is called Hunters Helping the Hungry. The one in Maryland is called Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry.

I just put my second deer in the freezer. The burger makes excellent chili. I make big batches to share with friends and family.

[nemo137]

68. When I was a little kid

we had a neighbor who hunted. It wasn't the line between starvation or anything, but it sure made our lives easier. So I've got a soft spot in my heart for hunters who donate.