Hunting: Necessity or Luxury

[Dr Super Good]

Please view this post to see the origin of this discussion thread.

If mooses weren't hunted, it would cause significant rise in moose related driving accidents. So hunting them saves more lives than hunting accidents take.

This is the biggest joke I ever heard. You are aware that hitting a moose will hardly ever be a fatal accident (for the human in the car, it will be very fatal for the moose). People who swerve to avoid the moose would do so because they do not want to harm it and thus they would also support the hunting ban. I see tons of accidents near my home yet there are no large animals on the road, explain that?

I will tell you why, drunk driving and irrisposnible driving cause far more accidents in straight roads than wild animals can ever possibly cause.

I don't know about other places, but here we regularly eat meat that is hunted instead of grew in farms (I haven't heard of moose or deer farms anyway).

99% of meat sold here is farmed. Obviously fish is an exception to this but they are not very fond of fish up here in the first place.

 

[I3lackDeath]

I have to point out that this is false in so many places. If mooses weren't hunted, it would cause significant rise in moose related driving accidents. So hunting them saves more lives than hunting accidents take. I don't know about other places, but here we regularly eat meat that is hunted instead of grew in farms (I haven't heard of moose or deer farms anyway).

I just dropped by to say this tiny little thing, merely wanting to add another facet to this discussion:
Hunting ≠ Population Control

 

[Nuclear]

This is the biggest joke I ever heard. You are aware that hitting a moose will hardly ever be a fatal. People who swerve to avoid the moose would do so because they do not want to harm it and thus they would also support the hunting ban. I see tons of accidents near my home yet there are no large animals on the road, explain that?

I will tell you why, drunk driving and irrisposnible driving cause far more accidents in straight roads than wild animals can ever possibly cause.


99% of meat sold here is farmed. Obviously fish is an exception to this but they are not very fond of fish up here in the first place.

Why does it have to be fatal to matter? They cause over thousand accidents in this country every year, which doesn't sound like much, but it's over thousand cars to repair in a land of a 5 million people. It's a fact that if the moose population wasn't controlled, it would cause increase in accidents. Really I can't say anything about UK or other countries, but most of my country is rural area, and saying "you can't hunt anymore" would be total idiocy and madness.

 

[Dr Super Good]

but it's over thousand cars to repair in a land of a 5 million people.

It's a fact that if the moose population wasn't controlled, it would cause increase in accidents.

It is a fact that thousands of accidents is nothing compared to the number of accidents humans cause by themselves. Also seeing how a moose is a great big lump in the middle of the road how can you fail to put the breaks on?

Maybe your road infustructure is to blame? Why not make moose crossings? To me is sounds like people are too lazy to think of a real solution and instead use it as an excuse to hunt rather than fixing the root cause, the fact moose must cross the road in the first place.

Speed limit reductions in moose crossing areas, fencing out of moose crossing areas and even moose underpasses in areas with high traffic could reduce the number of moose related road accidents to near 0. The fact is your people are too lazy (hopefully not too stupid) to apply them.

Really I can't say anything about UK or other countries, but most of my country is rural area, and saying "you can't hunt anymore" would be total idiocy and madness.

Or would it spoil their fun? Are you people animals or something?

 

[Nuclear]

It is a fact that thousands of accidents is nothing compared to the number of accidents humans cause by themselves. Also seeing how a moose is a great big lump in the middle of the road how can you fail to put the breaks on?

Maybe your road infustructure is to blame? Why not make moose crossings? To me is sounds like people are too lazy to think of a real solution and instead use it as an excuse to hunt rather than fixing the root cause, the fact moose must cross the road in the first place.

Speed limit reductions in moose crossing areas, fencing out of moose crossing areas and even moose underpasses in areas with high traffic could reduce the number of moose related road accidents to near 0. The fact is your people are too lazy (hopefully not too stupid) to apply them.


Or would it spoil their fun? Are you people animals or something?

Your comments seem to be so detached from realities I don't really know what to say. The roads are pretty good here, thanks for asking. Wasn't the "deer crossing" thing a radio prank someone did a while ago where a person proposed crossings for deers? I'm not sure if the moose would care about the signs indicating a good place to cross.

Speed limit reductions in moose crossing areas, fencing out of moose crossing areas

This is being done in high traffic areas such as highways, but looks like you didn't read my comment at all, most of this country is a very forestry and rural area, and the cost would be tremendous if they did that to every single road. Not to even mention how distances between cities and places are so long nobody would like to drive them at 40km/h.

Or would it spoil their fun? Are you people animals or something?

Yes, humans are animals. It is a good hobby that gives you exercise and consumes time, and it also keeps moose population under control. So what's the thing with "oh that's so brutal"? Happily eating farmed meat and then complaining when a free animal is hunted, I think that's quite hypocritical.

 

[fladdermasken]

Gawd this is one trainwreck of a tangent.

Also seeing how a moose is a great big lump in the middle of the road how can you fail to put the breaks on?

Have you ever even driven a car?
At night?
In really low temperatures or pouring rain?
Heard it takes roughly a second to even react and put on the brakes?
Tried putting on the brakes when the roads are slippery?
Given any serious thought to how far a distance you actually travel even after you lean on the brakes?

Speed limit reductions in moose crossing areas

You don't think they already do that? Just because you put something on a sign doesn't mean people pay it any serious thought. People probably think,

seeing how a moose is a great big lump in the middle of the road how can you fail to put the breaks on?

fencing out of moose crossing areas

But then the moose can't cross.

Are you people animals or something?

You have an incredibly large ego, DSG. But you're a primate like the rest of us.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Have you ever even driven a car?
At night?
In really low temperatures or pouring rain?
Heard it takes roughly a second to even react and put on the brakes?
Tried putting on the brakes when the roads are slippery?
Given any serious thought to how far a distance you actually travel even after you lean on the brakes?

Although I have never driven a car (too expensive) I have grown up in a country with bad snow problems. The general rules is to go slower, like driving in rain. As your car has less traction to the surface you cannot support going at the road's regular speed limit. Old cars used to allow you to feel the wheels slipping on surfaces but due to all the automatic traction control in modern cars this is hidden resulting in morons driving faster than they should on bad surfaces.

The main factor with breaking distance is the speed you are travelling at. As vision is impaired at night you are required to drive slower since that will greatly reduce your breaking distance to compensate. Additionally hitting a moose is only really a problem for light vehicles such as cars, and vans. Trucks should only take minor body damage due to their mass compared to a moose. This can be seen with trains and how they easily mangle cars with minimal damage at all.

Just because you put something on a sign doesn't mean people pay it any serious thought.

Yes but it is not the fault of the moose that people are too stupid or ignorant to read a sign. Why should they be killed for it?

But then the moose can't cross.

That is another ecological problem I do admit. However it will make hunting moose for reason of road safety an invalid reason since moose could not get onto the road in the first place then.

You have an incredibly large ego, DSG. But you're a primate like the rest of us.

Do you want humans to act like them? Or would you rather humans move on from their animal ancestry? Yes it is obvious we are animals if you have ever done PE at school, however that does not mean that is a good way to behave in modern society. There are too few resources and too many people on this planet to behave like that.

 

[Nuclear]

Seriously, what's up with hunting being brutal and evil when you can happily support megafarms loaded with animals stuffed into small cages? That's both hypocritical and argumentum ad passiones.

There are too few resources and too many people on this planet to behave like that.

This is a false dilemma, we use farms here too. Because the population density is low and there is a lot of forest, hunting is a no-brainer.

 

[rulerofiron99]

DSG, the UK is a very small country. You can easily drive from one end of the country to the other in a day without even speeding.

Your arguments against bad driving practices are sound, but you cannot really make comment on long-distance driving.

I've driven on ~1500km road trips, and even with a co-pilot it is really tough. And down here (South Africa), the roads are straight and open with not a tree or moose in sight.

Meat from hunted animals is also healthier than farm-processed beef.

But I do agree with your main argument on gun control - hunting absolutely cannot account for the millions of guns in some countries.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Meat from hunted animals is also healthier than farm-processed beef.

1. Beef is a rather unhealth meat in the first place apparently (if you believe food science).
2. A lot of natural habitats are now poisoned with waste so although that may be true for some areas, it certainly is not for others.

I object that people use sufisticated killing devices to hunt animals that were created through civilization and abstract thought. There is no way an animal can survive or defend itself from a gun. If the animals could use guns on you it would be fair but currently it is a very one sided battle. I am sure more hunters using guns die from hunting accidents with other humans than from their prey killing them. The step up would be automated robots which could kill thousands of animals in under a minute.

I've driven on ~1500km road trips, and even with a co-pilot it is really tough. And down here (South Africa), the roads are straight and open with not a tree or moose in sight.

Wow... Imagine what it must have been like for my parents when cars could not go at the speeds they can now, nor did they have air conditioning and some had breaking distances measured in many km.

 

[Zakamutt]

If you're going to talk about the unhealthiness of meat, please provide sources. There's a reason vegetarians have more problems with malnutrition than meat-eaters.

I personally see no issue with hunting, provided regulations and general attitude ensure kills are quick and merciful. it's no worse a way to die than anything else in nature could offer, really. Unless you're actually a vegetarian, I really don't see how you can live with yourself; farms are just a prolonged sophisticated killing system for farm animals as well.
You won't need many hunters, either, and you can choose to only license weapons that would be very hard to conceal / operate in close quarters to hunters. The automated bot idea actually sounds good in theory (inb4 AIIsACrapshoot).

 

[Nuclear]

DSG what's your point? Do animals at farms have bolt guns too and they duel with the executors? Why does it have to be "fair"? I don't get it.

 

[fladdermasken]

Although I have never driven a car (too expensive) I have grown up in a country with bad snow problems.

What, England?

The general rules is to go slower, like driving in rain. As your car has less traction to the surface you cannot support going at the road's regular speed limit. Old cars used to allow you to feel the wheels slipping on surfaces but due to all the automatic traction control in modern cars this is hidden resulting in morons driving faster than they should on bad surfaces.

It's easy putting it out like that, but how do you make people comply? I'm sure everyone knows it's stupid to drink and drive, but "what the hell, I just had a couple anyways, and I feel just fine."

The main factor with breaking distance is the speed you are travelling at.

Yeah. The main factor is kinetic energy to be precise. E_k = ½mv². The braking distance is exponential. Double the speed, four times the kinetic energy.

Additionally hitting a moose is only really a problem for light vehicles such as cars, and vans. Trucks should only take minor body damage due to their mass compared to a moose.

Yeah but driving heavier veichles like trucks come with different problems. Emission rates, road wear and cost of productions.

Yes but it is not the fault of the moose that people are too stupid or ignorant to read a sign. Why should they be killed for it?

No it's the fault of a faulty system stupid people drive. If I had to choose between being road kill or christmas steak, I'd probably go with the latter.

That is another ecological problem I do admit. However it will make hunting moose for reason of road safety an invalid reason since moose could not get onto the road in the first place then.

It actually does happen, but there would be a significant decrease, sure.

Do you want humans to act like them? Or would you rather humans move on from their animal ancestry? Yes it is obvious we are animals if you have ever done PE at school, however that does not mean that is a good way to behave in modern society. There are too few resources and too many people on this planet to behave like that.

I think history has proven that when we don't behave like animals we are the most harmful to ourselves and others.

There is no way an animal can survive or defend itself from a gun. If the animals could use guns on you it would be fair but currently it is a very one sided battle. I am sure more hunters using guns die from hunting accidents with other humans than from their prey killing them. The step up would be automated robots which could kill thousands of animals in under a minute.

There's prey, and there's predators who hunt them. It's never, or very rarely, a close fight. If it was, the hunters were dead stupid hunting that prey in the first place.

Your arguments against bad driving practices are sound.

But they emphasize the problem, not the solution.

Meat from hunted animals is also healthier than farm-processed beef.

Sure it carries my point forward, but for the sake of it... _{[citation needed]}

Because I actually want to know.

But I do agree with your main argument on gun control - hunting absolutely cannot account for the millions of guns in some countries.

It's not the sole reason. You can't ban guns completely becuase people use them for hunting. The first like, three pages, discuss societal reasons.

 

[rulerofiron99]

Sure it carries my point forward, but for the sake of it... _{[citation needed]}

Because I actually want to know.

Article with references.

To sum up wild animals live healthier lives; which results in venison having

• Fewer calories
• Less fat
• More protein
• 50-100% more vitamins in most cases, the same amount in some

 

[Dr Super Good]

Fewer calories

Calories by themselves are not unhealthy, they are just energy. You can eat a lot of low calory food or very little high calory food and still end up over weight as you are eating too much for other reasons.

Less fat

Again fat by itself is totally harmless. The problem is certain types of fat (such as artifical fats in margarine) or fat containing contaminents (heavy metals and other toxic compounds usually build up in the fat). Eating fat from herbivours is mostly harmless if they were raised on un-polluted land. On the opposite extreeme is eating fat from humans (as an example of a bad fat, not that it happens much) as we are long living omnivours so our fat is actually classable as toxic waste (yes, humans are known as toxic waste).

More protein

Quantity of protein means nothing. As our bodies are incapable of storing proteine it just means more harmful byproducts we have to expel. It is better to eat less proteine all the time than 1 huge meal of protein and then days without any. Also the types of protein are important as we are very bad at making our own.

50-100% more vitamins in most cases, the same amount in some

The same you get from a single pill... Vitamines are not a reason to eat something any more as they are easilly extracted and turned into pills that are even easier to absorb.

 

[rulerofiron99]

The point remains, venison > beef.

We don't know what type of growth hormones the farmers might have used, and what affects those might have.

 

[Nuclear]

Major point: taste.

 

[fladdermasken]

Major point: taste.

Yes, but if I fed you tinged beefsteak cooked to rare and told you it was tenderloin, you probably couldn't tell if you had no reason at all to doubt me.

Trust me, palate isn't everything in cooking psychology.

The point remains, venison > beef.

Why not have both? They're not exclusive.

We don't know what type of growth hormones the farmers might have used, and what affects those might have.

Yes, but isn't it more intuitive that we know less about what a wild animal has been exposed to, than domestic cattle in human control?

---

By the way, why don't we split this topic already? This is a far cry from anything gun control.

 

[EloTheMan]

Major point: taste.

This.

To bad we didn't get any moose or reindeer meat this year, some of my relatives has it as a tradition since they hunt and save some meat for Christmas (reindeer meat is bought, not hunted )


Now a bit more on topic.
I think hunting rifles should be strictly licensed to people who are mentally healthy, got a clean criminal record and are members of a hunting club. The main reason is that each year a number of wildlife creatures must be hunted to maintain the population so they may not cause damage to our farmlands, forests, property, traffic etc.
Each year they must hunt down 100'000 (yet again) Moose within the Swedish border and it is accomplished by 250'000 hunters, and its not only Moose that are hunted but also wolfs, deers, wildboars. This can not be done by the government since the numbers are to high for them to manage economically even if they were to set in armed forces to do the job.

 

[I3lackDeath]

I created this thread to separate this discussion from the original Gun Control thread.

Additionally, I have moved the respective posts here.
Feel free to continue discussing this, but please stay on track.

 

[fladdermasken]

@13lackdeath
Okay I don't care about my pasghetti post anymore anyways!

I think hunting rifles should be strictly licensed to people who are mentally healthy

What constitutes mentally healthy?

notrainwreckdefinitionpl0x.

This can not be done by the government since the numbers are to high for them to manage economically even if they were to set in armed forces to do the job.

It's not that they can't manage it. It's that they don't have to.

 

[EloTheMan]

What constitutes mentally healthy?

notrainwreckdefinitionpl0x.

Sometimes I ask myself the same question...
But to write it down simply, its people who does not have a disease that interferes with their decision making, judgment, temperament, memory etc.

It's not that they can't manage it. It's that they don't have to.

If there is no population control on wild animals they will start to move further in on our communities than what they already are doing today to get food.
Farms and traffic are usually the ones that take the most damage from a high wildlife population.

Hunting is not perfect but its a working solution for the moment. The states who allow hunting will get extra taxes and fees for allowing the hunters to go on with their activity, it helps the government fund wildlife projects and they wont have to constantly deal with population control.

I have heard of a county that hired a hunter to deal with the pigeons in their park because there were so many of them.
(offtopic: I don't know how it all went for that pigeon problem because the main point of why the guy was talking about it was because an old lady started hitting the hunter with her cane for shooting pigeons.)

 

[fladdermasken]

Sometimes I ask myself the same question...
But to write it down simply, its people who does not have a disease that interferes with their decision making, judgment, temperament, memory etc.

So, a diagnosis?

If there is no population control on wild animals they will start to move further in on our communities than what they already are doing today to get food.
Farms and traffic are usually the ones that take the most damage from a high wildlife population.

No, I meant, if hunting solves the problem in the first place, why would any government have to set in armed forces? They don't manage it because hunting already took care of it, was my point.

I have heard of a county that hired a hunter to deal with the pigeons in their park because there were so many of them. (offtopic: I don't know how it all went for that pigeon problem because the main point of why the guy was talking about it was because an old lady started hitting the hunter with her cane for shooting pigeons.)

He did it publicly without shutting off the perimeters?

 

[EloTheMan]

So, a diagnosis?


No, I meant, if hunting solves the problem in the first place, why would any government have to set in armed forces? They don't manage it because hunting already took care of it, was my point.


He did it publicly without shutting off the perimeters?

1. Yes a diagnosed person. Its basic requirement that most countries already have today.

2. Well I meant that if we remove all the guns from hunters there wouldn't be any population control on wild animals.

3. Nope, it was the lady who walked through the perimeter. I think it was back in the 60' or early 70's so security measures are questionable, they probably just put up signs.

 

[fladdermasken]

1. Yes a diagnosed person. Its basic requirement that most countries already have today.

What about an arbitrary diagnosis, like ADD?

2. Well I meant that if we remove all the guns from hunters there wouldn't be any population control on wild animals.

Oh. Wasn't that the point I brought up a page back that sparked this whole discussion?

Are we running circles?

EDIT: Okay that post was apparently left in the old thread.

There are always guns.

A. You can't ban guns because people use them for hunting.
B. Gun trade doesn't stop. It's only out of legal hands. Where there's demand there will be supply.

3. Nope, it was the lady who walked through the perimeter. I think it was back in the 60' or early 70's so security measures are questionable, they probably just put up signs.

.

 

[EloTheMan]

What about an arbitrary diagnosis, like ADD?

I would personally not allow a person with ADHD or ADD to buy a gun, however those types of diagnosis's can be inaccurate or completely wrong.

So no, they would not be included.

 

[Radicool]

If mooses weren't hunted, it would cause significant rise in moose related driving accidents. So hunting them saves more lives than hunting accidents take.

If anybody is going to argue that its good dears are killed so we dont crash into them. Shame on you. Get a brain cell please. I shouldn't have to analyse this point, its just stupid.

As for hunting dear. I beleive a dear should not be hunted unless its going to be put to good use. I mean, hunted to be eaten.

Fewer calories
Less fat
More protein
50-100% more vitamins in most cases, the same amount in some

As Doctor said, this point isn't very important. Calories are not bad, fat is not bad and natural animals don't neccicarily have more vitamins.

However, being hunted means it is usually fresher and less processed. Less processed usually means better for you (artificial preservatives, flavours, colouring are usually not good for you and its been prooven). Thats not to say all meat has any of that artificial stuff in it though.

What about an arbitrary diagnosis, like ADD?

Well ADD or ADHD for that matter is not really that much of a threat. Of course it depends on the degree of which this affects the individual. I know many people with ADD and ADHD and they are perfectly fine. They just didn't pay much attention in class. Funny I gave a cliche' response, not paying attention in class, but thats really all it comes down to. They are not retarded and they can understand that a gun is dangerous. Its not like they are mentally unstable and will shoot people accidently. Of course, some people have serious cases of it, which need to be considered.

I'd also like to raise a point of my own. Buying meat from a supermarket is expensive (if you don't buy 2 minute stake, lol). You may/may not agree with that. However, a mate of mine buys a calf every year for $100-200, and leaves it on his mates farm for 2-3 years unattended. Fully grown by that time, he kills it and butchers it himself. That 1 cow supplies him with food for a year (of course he doesnt eat beef every day). $100-200 for year's supply of beef. I think thats cheap.

There is nothing wrong with doing the above. You can hunt an animal is you want, given its not wasted. Just dont endanger the species or waste the meat and your fine.

 

[Zakamutt]

>If anybody is going to argue that its good dears are killed so we dont crash into them. Shame on you. Get a brain cell please. I shouldn't have to analyse this point, its just stupid.

Please do, because you're really confusing me here.

Also, by the gods your spelling is sometimes terrible. There are several browsers with built-in spellcheck (it's useful even to me!). Look into it, and your posts will become more persuasive (people will unconsciously judge you by your spelling accuracy. Really.)

 

[fladdermasken]

If anybody is going to argue that its good dears are killed so we dont crash into them. Shame on you. Get a brain cell please. I shouldn't have to analyse this point, its just stupid.

But... wouldn't you rather they were christmas steak than roadkill?

Get a brain cell please.

lol.

Terrible.

Well ADD or ADHD for that matter is not really that much of a threat. Of course it depends on the degree of which this affects the individual. I know many people with ADD and ADHD and they are perfectly fine. They just didn't pay much attention in class. Funny I gave a cliche' response, not paying attention in class, but thats really all it comes down to. They are not retarded and they can understand that a gun is dangerous. Its not like they are mentally unstable and will shoot people accidently. Of course, some people have serious cases of it, which need to be considered.

That's why I said arbitrary.

It's characterized by distractibility, disorganization, procrastination, and forgetfulness. Millions of people fit the description without having a diagnosis to show for it. It also appears to be a contextual disorder. Recently they amended the definition to include that kids with ADD are capable of normal attention in certain specific circumstances.

Is this really any diagnosis at all?

Are typical human traits malady?

Besides,

Aren't you getting pissed at the double spacing here.

Pretty annoying isn't it?

I'm getting derailed now.

Aren't you?

Do we suffer from a deficit attention span?

Or are we just not that into paying attention to ramble we don't find interesting?

...

Beef?

Oh yeah, beef.

I'd also like to raise a point of my own. Buying meat from a supermarket is expensive (if you don't buy 2 minute stake, lol). You may/may not agree with that. However, a mate of mine buys a calf every year for $100-200, and leaves it on his mates farm for 2-3 years unattended. Fully grown by that time, he kills it and butchers it himself. That 1 cow supplies him with food for a year (of course he doesnt eat beef every day). $100-200 for year's supply of beef. I think thats cheap.

2 questions:

What did he eat the first 3 years and how do you measure time and effort in $USD?

No but really, in general, there are lots of costs you can avoid by putting more effort into it. But what about efficiency?

 

[Radicool]

But... wouldn't you rather they were christmas steak than roadkill?

You can't be soo parnoid as to kill off dear numbers so you reduce the risk of running into one on the road. You dont destroy a certain species because they pose a problem to you. Its nature, you work around it, not wipe it out of the way.

That's why I said arbitrary.

My argument was to towards you specifically. But I'm not sure what your arguing other than the fact that you have ADHD yourself

What did he eat the first 3 years and how do you measure time and effort in $USD?

He bought meat from stores. After that, his own meat.

But what about efficiency?

Well, I'm not sure about efficiency. He just left it on a farm. No maintenance. Good sized cow in the end. Butchering didn't take long. He did it himself.

 

[Nuclear]

Moose are killed to avoid roadkills and damage to forest, I can't see why this is an unbelievable thing. Of course they aren't "wiping them out." The hunters do it for free because it's their hobby, it's the best method of population control with minimal usage of taxpayer money. It's baffling to me really, maybe you live in a big city. Come visit me in this middle of a goddamn nowhere village sometime and we'll go hunting together and you'll see.

 

[EloTheMan]

Here are some statistics for Moose hunting and related traffic accidents in Sweden:

Number of killed Moose

Number of traffic accidents related to Moose and Deers

Blue line is Deer and Olive line is Moose.


And as you can see on the charts, the traffic accidents started to increase in the late 70's so they increased the maximum hunting numbers for Moose and the traffic accidents started to decrease over the 80's.
And since Deers weren't hunted the same way as the Moose the amount of traffic accidents increased a lot more with them because the population was constantly growing and car traffic on the roads increased a lot between 1970 to 2000.

 

[Radicool]

Yes. If you kill an animal, it will stop moving and wont run on the road. I think everyone understands that killing off dear will decrease road accidents.

Arn't dear a native to America? So why would you try to kill them off? surely there are other solutions, like fencing etc. Costs are involved. Maybe we need to consider what dear do for the environment. Nearly all animals benefit nature in some way. You should be careful trying to control them.

Pherhaps they are just a pest and they should be eliminated. What is it?

In Australia, we have kangaroos, etc crossing the roads in the country. They cause accidents, but we avoid them. Signs to warn people of the dangers. I don't think we, as Australians, would kill our kangaroos. However, kanagroos are only abudandant in country regions, where the population is much lower. So to be honest I probebly couldn't fully understand your problem. All I'm saying is it sounds a bit wrong to be killing off a native species because they cause a problem to you.

 

[Zakamutt]

FOR FUCKS SAKE ITS DEER NOT DEAR

THANK YOU
-Grammar Police

 

[EloTheMan]

Moose are very lethal to hit with a car since their center mass is above the hood of the car and will usually smash the driver seat (unless you are driving a SUV or a jeep with reinforced body parts). Even though they are big and should be easy to see, they mostly reside in forests which can be very tight. And right now we only have like 3-8 hours of daylight throughout the country which makes it even harder to spot these slowpokes, and not to mention the immense number of country roads that are covered with ice and snow.

But traffic accidents is the smaller reason why they want population control, most wild animals will either damage property or farming fields in search of food and the economic loss is considerate for the owners. Wildboars for example will rip your entire garden up just for a mouthful of roots.

By the way, I heard Kangaroo is a delicacy in Australia. You even produce wine that goes well with it too.

FOR FUCKS SAKE ITS DEER NOT DEAR

THANK YOU
-Grammar Police

lol Chrome autocorrected it to "dear"

 

[Radicool]

By the way, I heard Kangaroo is a delicacy in Australia. You even produce wine that goes well with it too.

Yes, some of us eat kangaroo, although I don't think its as popular as you might think, lol. I think my point was taken the wrong way. I dont think we'de think of killing kangaroos simply because they pose a threat on our roads. Not to say we dont kill the for actual reasons, such as for eating.

 

[Strikest]

Hunting isn't a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. People need to stop bullshitting and just admit that killing poor defenseless animals for sport is fun. Oh, and they taste good, so that's a nice prize at the end of the road.

 

[Ender]

why hunt? there are lots of reasons, first off its healthy (hiking around, searching for a deer, and then stalking it); secondly Vensison tastes better then beef you buy in the supermarket (though I prefer free range beef myself); third it encourgaes wilderness conervation (hunters need wilderness areas) this benefits hikers, and backpackers; fourth its the reason deer and moose are still around.
now Iwould like to expand on the 4th point I will use deer as a model species. Without a means to control the deer population, the deer population would expand expontionally and then crash (yellowstone park) there are four methods you could use to deal with this 1 Exterminate all of the deer, why do this? well the deer popultion expanding at an uncontrolled rate would harm a lot of other species, wipe out a generation of saplings, wipe out species of bushes, and finally end up with a lot of deer starving to death. So if you aren't going to control the population it would be more humane to exterminate them then to let them starve to death.
option 2 Import natrual predators to maintain the population what are the advantages? well humanitarians would feel good about themselves while deer are getting killed by wolves etc.. in the natrual way, and you would help endangerd creatures recover their population.
Disadvantages there are a reason most of those predators were gotten rid of for a reason, you city folk wouldn't understand as you think wolves are like fido, but how would you feel if we went and dropped a pack of wolves in your backyard? where your children play? Wolves are intelligent predators and go after the slowest, softest prey which includes children, cattle, humans etc... I would like to give an exapmle of how importing predators doesn't work I am using wolves as a model predator. Wolves were imported to Idaho (where I live) we ended up exterminating them because of the reasons they were killed off in the first place, they hunted Cattle and humans, luckily there were no reported deaths of humans, but that was probably connected to the 3 S's.

then there are 2 more ways to deal with the problem, one pay people to control deer/elk/moose/whatever population and waste meat, killing the deer for no reason other then stopping their growth, or you could make people pay for the privilege of controling the whatever population and not be wasteful.

and finally why not hunt?

 

[Nuclear]

Yes. If you kill an animal, it will stop moving and wont run on the road. I think everyone understands that killing off dear will decrease road accidents.

Arn't dear a native to America? So why would you try to kill them off? surely there are other solutions, like fencing etc. Costs are involved. Maybe we need to consider what dear do for the environment. Nearly all animals benefit nature in some way. You should be careful trying to control them.

Pherhaps they are just a pest and they should be eliminated. What is it?

In Australia, we have kangaroos, etc crossing the roads in the country. They cause accidents, but we avoid them. Signs to warn people of the dangers. I don't think we, as Australians, would kill our kangaroos. However, kanagroos are only abudandant in country regions, where the population is much lower. So to be honest I probebly couldn't fully understand your problem. All I'm saying is it sounds a bit wrong to be killing off a native species because they cause a problem to you.

No-one is wiping out the entire population... Hunters are doing it for free, and it's a good hobby that gives you lots of exercise and fitness.

 

[Blackhole]

No-one is wiping out the entire population... Hunters are doing it for free, and it's a good hobby that gives you lots of exercise and fitness.

Killing is a good hobby, excercise? Fitness? Good let's start shooting everything that moves cause it's real fun to kill.

Sorry, I won't understand killing being fun, even if it is for animals that usually end up in the meal (at least we don't personally kill them).

Then again that's the masses of today, with likewise thinking and such. Firstly starts with animals, once you hit your head, you start shooting in all directions and may one day turn on people. Guns forever!

 

[Nuclear]

Killing is a good hobby, excercise? Fitness? Good let's start shooting everything that moves cause it's real fun to kill.

Sorry, I won't understand killing being fun, even if it is for animals that usually end up in the meal (at least we don't personally kill them).

Then again that's the masses of today, with likewise thinking and such. Firstly starts with animals, once you hit your head, you start shooting in all directions and may one day turn on people. Guns forever!

Nice straw man. Apparently you think that hunters just go to their back yard and the animals will come to be killed. It involves hours of travelling and waiting in the forest, and that seems like a good exercise. The third paragraph of your post isn't even worth refuting since there's no sense in it.