If we do not allow and encourage it in areas where herds are over-running their territories, the number of animals soon becomes large enough that the herd cannot overwinter on the standing vegetation. When this happens, they have been known to actually kill smaller trees while nibbling deep into the bark....and...very often the entire herd will collapse (die) of starvation.
Which would you rather? Permit liberal hunting [especially for those who take and use all of the animal] or allow the group to swell to such numbers that some winter it starves to death.
1600 1700 pounds max. Still HUGE, and the Alaskan moose is the biggest of the moose, as far as "meese" go.
I hit a moose at about 0'dark thirty when returning from Anchorage (from an AC grad weekend-really "walkin" huh? Hah!) on my way home to Kenai. I was fortunate that none of us were injured, and that my 79 Thunderbird received "only" $2000 damage. When I finally got my car under control and went back to shoot the moose and put it out of it's misery, it had walked off! And so, I didn't hit a moose, a moose hit me! And fortunately, he/she didn't come throught the windshield, decapitating us. Moose are way taller than cattle or deer, and because of this, their legs get knocked out from under them, and they slide across the hood of the car with all sixteen hundred pounds coming through your windshield. Fortunately for us, I hit him/her in her hind quarters with my right front end and she glanced off our windshield on the right side, shattering it in front of my wife's face. Scared the crapola out us!!
And, where natural predators have been reduced in number, Man, through quality game management should (and in many places does), become the predator to keep things in check. Besides. We are animals too. We didn't come from Mars...
And I am sorry, but, "neutering"? That is simply ridiculous. Where in the wilds of Nature do you see Mother Nature "neutering" fellow animals with darts and chemicals? What you do find in Nature is predator's slaughtering fellow animals and gobbling them up.
David, I know you wouldn't do that. I was just contrasting your post re: watching the deer with other people's contentions that these innocent creatures are "SOBs." Sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like you'd actually do such a thing. I don't think for a minute you would.
Vegan, Waysider is right. Where I live, predators of deer are scarce, but deer have overpopulated. It's a manmade problem, to be sure, but the deer only suffer when their herds are too large. As Krys has pointed out, starvation is a big problem.
I'd much rather see deer herds culled by hunters, and their meat given to people who need it, as Waysider has said, than see them starve to death. The effectiveness of using deer birth control to thin herds is still controversial.
Where I live, like Drty Dzn said, we don't have a deer problem. We do however, have a problem with Canadian Geese. The solution to their overpopulation was to round them up and kill them, and distribute their carcasses to food banks to feed the poor. The geese that were deemed inedible were to be given to companion animal food companies, to become Fluffy or Spot's dinner.
Lots of problems occurred with this. One was, the food banks didn't want the wild geese. How can anyone test to see if they are fit for human consumption? There is no testing facility in place and wild geese are different than domestic geese, so you cannot use the same methods to test both. The food banks didn't want the liability if someone died from eating a Canadian Goose.
I don't see where I advocated letting animals starve, or bringing in predators to control deer population. I just said this is how nature does it, and does it effectively. I did advocate TNR which has worked for feral cats. Here's a site that can answer any questions about wildlife birth control:
Good night, if hunting was such a good way to control the population, why is this thread even here? Obviously hunting does not control deer population.
Here in the GREAT STATE of TEXAS the Texas Parks and Wildlife offer management serves to ranchers. They survey your property and then tell you how many deer and of what sex they are to take that year.
What really happens is the land owner leases the property out to hunters from the cities and they shot their dear. Then we have a bonus season to fill out what the management report says needs to happen. Then all the poor folks (me) go out and do game management. This puts meat in the freezer.
As far as trapping nurturing and releasing. The state doesn't have enough money to do that. Their are an estimated 250000 deer in this county. That gives a population increase every year of abut 100000. We are just one of 254 counties. We are talking billions of dollars.
We have three bears, a few mountain lions, a few coyotes, and a bunch of Ferrel dogs(thanks to all the city people who bring their dogs out and dump them). They don't even touch the deer population. Then about 2000 a year to cars. Then the hunters take about 20000. Its almost impossible to control their population.
Natures answer is to let the predators come back. Just one problem. I hope you dont like to eat meat.
Good night, if hunting was such a good way to control the population, why is this thread even here? Obviously hunting does not control deer population.
In many areas where there is an over population problem, such as the DC Metro area where I grew up, people who advocate hunting to control the problem are at odds with people who do not want to see the deer shot and killed for a good purpose. It is a controversy that runs into the snag of well meaning but misinformed environmentalists and animal rights groups. In the menatime, the population of deer runs amuck.
There is no good reason to stop the hunting of deer in thes eareas, or upping the take on how many deer can be taken by hunters. The only reason that has been given by animal rights groups is one soley based on emotionalism. Here in Alaska, I am allowed four deer. If the previous winter was very mild, then they usually allow one extra deer in one's "game bag". It's called management. Anyway, I have to go, for, I am going deer huntimg over on Douglas Island!
And I am sorry, but, "neutering"? That is simply ridiculous. Where in the wilds of Nature do you see Mother Nature "neutering" fellow animals with darts and chemicals? What you do find in Nature is predator's slaughtering fellow animals and gobbling them up.
If we are going to stick to what we see in Mother Nature, get rid of your weapons when you go hunting. Man has the ability to use technology to control the deer population by neutering if it wanted to, but it doesn't want to cull the herd so small that the hunters have a hard time enjoying their "sport". They could lower the numbers of the herd to very low levels by hunting to reduce the frequency of car accidents too, but that is not acceptable either. They need a large herd so that the sport isn't too challenging.
How about clearing 50 yards on either side of the roads and reducing the speed limit to 25mph to reduce the frequency of accidents? Then you could have your cake and eat it too, albiet at a slower pace.
You are being ridiculous. The simple answer is to follow Nature's lead, and as predators do, cull the herds by hunting, and if necessary, hire sharp shooters to take out the high numbers of deer in problem areas. This has been done with success in some areas, although not without controversy coming from those who are too soft to see the logic in it. And of course the meat can be donated to the needy. I for one do not hunt for sport, I hunt to fill my freezer. It may interest you to know that I do not even enjoy putting an animal down. It is not a sport to me. But I do enjoy feeding my family with wild game, a food source that I can trust for it's health benefits. I have even set free a number of beautiful trout because I wanted them to live another day and procreate. I love Wildlife. The author of this thread has expressed their dismay at losing yet another vehicle to the overpopulation of the deer in her area. Thank God her husband was not killed. What if your wife or significant other was killed in a wreck caused by a sweet little Bambi in an overly populated area? You might be singing a different tune.
As far as using a firearms is concerned, well, I can think of no other humane way to kill a deer, moose, or elk. I witnessed a pack of coyotes killing a mother deer and her fawn out in the Oklahoma Panhandle one time. It was aweful! It lasted an hour, while the Mama deer fought valiantly as the coyotes attacked her and her fawn. She kicked and she fought and she screamed! It was an aweful sight and sound. But, the pack won the day, and had their food for a few days. It was really sad when they grabbed the fawn. I was in a tree house on a creek reading a book in the morning sunshine when this happened. When I heard the ruckus and looked across the creek, I saw the whole thing and it was horrible. But, even though I could have gone to the rescue and chased off the coyotes, I let Nature play it's course, and Let It Be. Sometimes I wish I hadn't it was so aweful. That Mama and Baby Bambi died such a horrible and prolonged death, I was bummed all the rest of the day, and many times afterward, when I let myself think about it. It was Nature. And what, we Humans are not part of Nature? What are we, from Mars?
And, it is a complete and total misnomer that the predators out there "only kill the sick, the weak, and the occasionally healthy adult prey animal". Those predators will kill sometimes just for the fun of it and leave the carcasse behind, as do the wolves here in Alaska.
You are being rediculous. If we are going to follow nature's lead, then we would be killing our prey in the same sadistic manner as you described. If man desired, we could solve the problem of overpopulation using neutering instead of hunting. But we don't want to. Mother Nature is cruel and man is bound and determined to tame her. Civilization and the wild do not mix. If you want wild animals to hunt, then they will clash with civilization. Neutering is just a more civilized way of reducing the numbers of the wild animals to reduce the conflict.
Part of the problem is that deer are migratory animals they don't necessarily stay in the same locations year round. Man made boundaries such as buildings, houses, schools, fences, and roads can block or intersect migratory paths that have been established among deer herds for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
No matter how many deer, they will move when the seasons change, and use these established paths, just like fish return to the waters of their birth to spawn. Also, any water source near the road will also attract deer.
Get some deer whistles for your car they really help, look for movement and breaks in the light at the far end of the road at the farthest edge of the light of your headlamp beams.
You are being rediculous. If we are going to follow nature's lead, then we would be killing our prey in the same sadistic manner as you described. If man desired, we could solve the problem of overpopulation using neutering instead of hunting.
Sorry for flaming you up there Jerry. I shouldn't have used the words "being ridiculous". Sorry.
Jerry, the point is simply this. Nature kills for two reasons. To feed the killer, and to keep the balance. Why is it wrong for humans to also kill for the same two reasons: To eat what is killed, and to keep the balance? And, you are right. We humans can kill in a much more effective and humane manner. But the overall point is that of "killing". Why is this wrong? Opponents to hunting say that is is cruel, and, or, as you say; "uncivilized". And once again, what, we humans are not part of Nature? Are we from Mars?
You see, it is just a Belief that the taking of wild game is wrong. Many Vegans believe that meat is not what man was designed to eat, and that killing animals for food is wrong. Well, it is fine for Vegans and others (maybe including yourself) to have these beliefs. But, those beliefs are not my beliefs. And when these activist then try to turn their beliefs into a Law that takes away my right to practice my own beliefs, then we have a problem. I do not appreciate having my right to shoot wild game taken away because someone else has proclaimed me to be "uncivilized". This is a bit off topic (which is the controlling deer populations), but it is very relative, because there is a serious movement to abolish hunting, and many of those who want to abolish hunting are behind the movement to stop controlling the herds via culling via hunting as well. Check out this website
Ya know, these people have their beliefs. But they are trying to abolish the practice of my belief, and that is wrong. And, the simplest way to cull the herds is to allow private citizens, sharpshooters trained and licensed to a standard of safety, be able to come into problem areas and cull the numbers with either rifle or bow, and use the meat for their own purposes, or give to those in need. But the Beliefs of others have stood in the way as a road block...
Sorry for flaming you up there Jerry. I shouldn't have used the words "being ridiculous". Sorry.
Apology accepted and bounced right back at you from my side.
Jerry, the point is simply this. Nature kills for two reasons. To feed the killer, and to keep the balance.
I don't think nature kills to maintain a balance, its more of a consequence to when population gets out of balance. It will correct itself eventually (as what may happen to the human species), but man is in a unique position to oversee that the balance is kept under control. A lot of times his efforts backfire or produce other problems. We got rid of the natural predetors and now must do their job.
We decide what the size of the population that we want to maintain. It can be done through killing, the quick way, or by neutering, which would require a lot more work and planning. Its probably unrealistic to think that the quick fix wont be employed for many generations to come. But most activists have some pretty lofty goals.
The problem of deer getting in the way of cars is a symptom of the bigger conflict that areas that man inhabits come into conflict with Mother Natures design. That is how we are separate from nature.
No, the above message wasn't from me, because I would have addressed certain things. Like how its illogical to think that just because we are part of "nature" we should use animals as role models. And how its not a "right" to hunt. And how the simplest method is not always the best. And how those in need don't want your meat. Oops, already talked about that point.
You know Jonny, people talk about vegetarians and how we are always trying to shove our way of thinking down someones throat. My first post on this thread said the government was keeping the deer herds high so that they could get money from hunting. It was anti-government, not anti-hunting. But people hear what they want.
Ya know, there won't be a Utopia until God Almighty sets things straight down here. In the meantime, He has said "kill and eat". He has also said that they who prefer herbs should enjoy them, and that they who enjoy meat should enjoy meat. I enjoy deer meat in particular, and I see the over population of deer in suburban areas a boon for those who also enjoy deer meat. And for the "Gubmint" to charge for hunting permits is only fair, in order to have some idea as to who is out there with a deadly firearm. Unfortunately we do not live in Utopia yet, and the World will be getting worse and worse.
For those who live far and away from The Wild, like I Do Not, it is probably very hard for them to see the deer on the highways slaughtered by cars. They would certainly see far less of all of that if there were fewer deer in those areas. And the simple way to cull them is through bigger bag limits, as well as allowing sharp shooters to operate in areas of "concern, interest, and need". Oh, sorry 'bout that "Corps-ism". The cost of capturing, neutering, and returning is way above and beyond the cost necessary to deal with this problem. Leave the solution in the hands of private Citizens who enjoy hunting and who enjoy the meat provided from such hunting, and the situation can be fixed. Man wiped out the Buffalo almost completely, and so, with regulations, Man can "whittle down" the population of the deer to where there are far less problems, and less unsightly deer slaughters on the highway, not to mention injuries and fatalities to humans. Yes, deer are pretty and they are beautiful. But, they are not that pretty after they have been obliterated by a car or truck. Even when dead by a bullet they appear prettier than after having been slaughtered by a Dodge Caravan driven by a Soccer Mom with a van full of kids. Or, would that be a dead Soccer Mom and a van full of dead Kids? Hopefully not your kids. Not very pretty, that...
Reality is hard and it is harsh. But, Reality is what it is. Do what is simple. Do what is Right....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
13
6
8
Popular Days
Nov 7
13
Nov 10
11
Nov 18
10
Nov 11
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Watered Garden 7 posts
J0nny Ling0 13 posts
dmiller 6 posts
VeganXTC 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 7 2006
13 posts
Nov 10 2006
11 posts
Nov 18 2006
10 posts
Nov 11 2006
8 posts
krys
There is a third purpose to hunting.
If we do not allow and encourage it in areas where herds are over-running their territories, the number of animals soon becomes large enough that the herd cannot overwinter on the standing vegetation. When this happens, they have been known to actually kill smaller trees while nibbling deep into the bark....and...very often the entire herd will collapse (die) of starvation.
Which would you rather? Permit liberal hunting [especially for those who take and use all of the animal] or allow the group to swell to such numbers that some winter it starves to death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Moose simply do not get this big. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/moose.php
1600 1700 pounds max. Still HUGE, and the Alaskan moose is the biggest of the moose, as far as "meese" go.
I hit a moose at about 0'dark thirty when returning from Anchorage (from an AC grad weekend-really "walkin" huh? Hah!) on my way home to Kenai. I was fortunate that none of us were injured, and that my 79 Thunderbird received "only" $2000 damage. When I finally got my car under control and went back to shoot the moose and put it out of it's misery, it had walked off! And so, I didn't hit a moose, a moose hit me! And fortunately, he/she didn't come throught the windshield, decapitating us. Moose are way taller than cattle or deer, and because of this, their legs get knocked out from under them, and they slide across the hood of the car with all sixteen hundred pounds coming through your windshield. Fortunately for us, I hit him/her in her hind quarters with my right front end and she glanced off our windshield on the right side, shattering it in front of my wife's face. Scared the crapola out us!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
And, where natural predators have been reduced in number, Man, through quality game management should (and in many places does), become the predator to keep things in check. Besides. We are animals too. We didn't come from Mars...
And I am sorry, but, "neutering"? That is simply ridiculous. Where in the wilds of Nature do you see Mother Nature "neutering" fellow animals with darts and chemicals? What you do find in Nature is predator's slaughtering fellow animals and gobbling them up.
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
David, I know you wouldn't do that. I was just contrasting your post re: watching the deer with other people's contentions that these innocent creatures are "SOBs." Sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like you'd actually do such a thing. I don't think for a minute you would.
Vegan, Waysider is right. Where I live, predators of deer are scarce, but deer have overpopulated. It's a manmade problem, to be sure, but the deer only suffer when their herds are too large. As Krys has pointed out, starvation is a big problem.
I'd much rather see deer herds culled by hunters, and their meat given to people who need it, as Waysider has said, than see them starve to death. The effectiveness of using deer birth control to thin herds is still controversial.
Edited by Linda ZLink to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Where I live, like Drty Dzn said, we don't have a deer problem. We do however, have a problem with Canadian Geese. The solution to their overpopulation was to round them up and kill them, and distribute their carcasses to food banks to feed the poor. The geese that were deemed inedible were to be given to companion animal food companies, to become Fluffy or Spot's dinner.
Lots of problems occurred with this. One was, the food banks didn't want the wild geese. How can anyone test to see if they are fit for human consumption? There is no testing facility in place and wild geese are different than domestic geese, so you cannot use the same methods to test both. The food banks didn't want the liability if someone died from eating a Canadian Goose.
I don't see where I advocated letting animals starve, or bringing in predators to control deer population. I just said this is how nature does it, and does it effectively. I did advocate TNR which has worked for feral cats. Here's a site that can answer any questions about wildlife birth control:
http://www.pzpinfo.org/faq.html Its not as goofy an idea as some would suggest.
Good night, if hunting was such a good way to control the population, why is this thread even here? Obviously hunting does not control deer population.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
Here in the GREAT STATE of TEXAS the Texas Parks and Wildlife offer management serves to ranchers. They survey your property and then tell you how many deer and of what sex they are to take that year.
What really happens is the land owner leases the property out to hunters from the cities and they shot their dear. Then we have a bonus season to fill out what the management report says needs to happen. Then all the poor folks (me) go out and do game management. This puts meat in the freezer.
As far as trapping nurturing and releasing. The state doesn't have enough money to do that. Their are an estimated 250000 deer in this county. That gives a population increase every year of abut 100000. We are just one of 254 counties. We are talking billions of dollars.
We have three bears, a few mountain lions, a few coyotes, and a bunch of Ferrel dogs(thanks to all the city people who bring their dogs out and dump them). They don't even touch the deer population. Then about 2000 a year to cars. Then the hunters take about 20000. Its almost impossible to control their population.
Natures answer is to let the predators come back. Just one problem. I hope you dont like to eat meat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
In many areas where there is an over population problem, such as the DC Metro area where I grew up, people who advocate hunting to control the problem are at odds with people who do not want to see the deer shot and killed for a good purpose. It is a controversy that runs into the snag of well meaning but misinformed environmentalists and animal rights groups. In the menatime, the population of deer runs amuck.
There is no good reason to stop the hunting of deer in thes eareas, or upping the take on how many deer can be taken by hunters. The only reason that has been given by animal rights groups is one soley based on emotionalism. Here in Alaska, I am allowed four deer. If the previous winter was very mild, then they usually allow one extra deer in one's "game bag". It's called management. Anyway, I have to go, for, I am going deer huntimg over on Douglas Island!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
If we are going to stick to what we see in Mother Nature, get rid of your weapons when you go hunting. Man has the ability to use technology to control the deer population by neutering if it wanted to, but it doesn't want to cull the herd so small that the hunters have a hard time enjoying their "sport". They could lower the numbers of the herd to very low levels by hunting to reduce the frequency of car accidents too, but that is not acceptable either. They need a large herd so that the sport isn't too challenging.
How about clearing 50 yards on either side of the roads and reducing the speed limit to 25mph to reduce the frequency of accidents? Then you could have your cake and eat it too, albiet at a slower pace.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Jerry,
You are being ridiculous. The simple answer is to follow Nature's lead, and as predators do, cull the herds by hunting, and if necessary, hire sharp shooters to take out the high numbers of deer in problem areas. This has been done with success in some areas, although not without controversy coming from those who are too soft to see the logic in it. And of course the meat can be donated to the needy. I for one do not hunt for sport, I hunt to fill my freezer. It may interest you to know that I do not even enjoy putting an animal down. It is not a sport to me. But I do enjoy feeding my family with wild game, a food source that I can trust for it's health benefits. I have even set free a number of beautiful trout because I wanted them to live another day and procreate. I love Wildlife. The author of this thread has expressed their dismay at losing yet another vehicle to the overpopulation of the deer in her area. Thank God her husband was not killed. What if your wife or significant other was killed in a wreck caused by a sweet little Bambi in an overly populated area? You might be singing a different tune.
As far as using a firearms is concerned, well, I can think of no other humane way to kill a deer, moose, or elk. I witnessed a pack of coyotes killing a mother deer and her fawn out in the Oklahoma Panhandle one time. It was aweful! It lasted an hour, while the Mama deer fought valiantly as the coyotes attacked her and her fawn. She kicked and she fought and she screamed! It was an aweful sight and sound. But, the pack won the day, and had their food for a few days. It was really sad when they grabbed the fawn. I was in a tree house on a creek reading a book in the morning sunshine when this happened. When I heard the ruckus and looked across the creek, I saw the whole thing and it was horrible. But, even though I could have gone to the rescue and chased off the coyotes, I let Nature play it's course, and Let It Be. Sometimes I wish I hadn't it was so aweful. That Mama and Baby Bambi died such a horrible and prolonged death, I was bummed all the rest of the day, and many times afterward, when I let myself think about it. It was Nature. And what, we Humans are not part of Nature? What are we, from Mars?
And, it is a complete and total misnomer that the predators out there "only kill the sick, the weak, and the occasionally healthy adult prey animal". Those predators will kill sometimes just for the fun of it and leave the carcasse behind, as do the wolves here in Alaska.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Jonny,
You are being rediculous. If we are going to follow nature's lead, then we would be killing our prey in the same sadistic manner as you described. If man desired, we could solve the problem of overpopulation using neutering instead of hunting. But we don't want to. Mother Nature is cruel and man is bound and determined to tame her. Civilization and the wild do not mix. If you want wild animals to hunt, then they will clash with civilization. Neutering is just a more civilized way of reducing the numbers of the wild animals to reduce the conflict.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
DrtyDzn and Vegan -- I can respect your sentiments.
Honestly -- I do.
However -- they don't/ can't work (practically).
According to the DNR here in Minney-soda (as of Nov. 3rd, 2006),
there are 1.3 million deer here in the state.
It isn't feasible to trap, neuter, and release,
when you're dealing with that number of deer population.
While that is a noble thought, these are NOT cats and dogs,
that can easily be taken to the local vet for neutering.
I don't hunt or fish, but I see the reality of over-population,
and the need to regulate it (on human terms).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Neutering and birth control for wildlife does work. It works in New York: http://fairharbor.com/fhca/ca2206deerimmuno.htm and it works in Maryland: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/deer.htm
Hunting just leaves room for the surviving deer to breed and fill in the gaps.
I think sometimes its hard for people to think outside their comfort zone, and to look at alternatives that they haven't tried before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Part of the problem is that deer are migratory animals they don't necessarily stay in the same locations year round. Man made boundaries such as buildings, houses, schools, fences, and roads can block or intersect migratory paths that have been established among deer herds for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
No matter how many deer, they will move when the seasons change, and use these established paths, just like fish return to the waters of their birth to spawn. Also, any water source near the road will also attract deer.
Get some deer whistles for your car they really help, look for movement and breaks in the light at the far end of the road at the farthest edge of the light of your headlamp beams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Please note that it was Rumrunner that played the Lyme disease card, not me...
:)
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Hahahahahah Shaz, but I guarantee, we thought of you when he played it!
Nice to see ya!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Sorry for flaming you up there Jerry. I shouldn't have used the words "being ridiculous". Sorry.
Jerry, the point is simply this. Nature kills for two reasons. To feed the killer, and to keep the balance. Why is it wrong for humans to also kill for the same two reasons: To eat what is killed, and to keep the balance? And, you are right. We humans can kill in a much more effective and humane manner. But the overall point is that of "killing". Why is this wrong? Opponents to hunting say that is is cruel, and, or, as you say; "uncivilized". And once again, what, we humans are not part of Nature? Are we from Mars?
You see, it is just a Belief that the taking of wild game is wrong. Many Vegans believe that meat is not what man was designed to eat, and that killing animals for food is wrong. Well, it is fine for Vegans and others (maybe including yourself) to have these beliefs. But, those beliefs are not my beliefs. And when these activist then try to turn their beliefs into a Law that takes away my right to practice my own beliefs, then we have a problem. I do not appreciate having my right to shoot wild game taken away because someone else has proclaimed me to be "uncivilized". This is a bit off topic (which is the controlling deer populations), but it is very relative, because there is a serious movement to abolish hunting, and many of those who want to abolish hunting are behind the movement to stop controlling the herds via culling via hunting as well. Check out this website
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/index.html
Ya know, these people have their beliefs. But they are trying to abolish the practice of my belief, and that is wrong. And, the simplest way to cull the herds is to allow private citizens, sharpshooters trained and licensed to a standard of safety, be able to come into problem areas and cull the numbers with either rifle or bow, and use the meat for their own purposes, or give to those in need. But the Beliefs of others have stood in the way as a road block...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
We decide what the size of the population that we want to maintain. It can be done through killing, the quick way, or by neutering, which would require a lot more work and planning. Its probably unrealistic to think that the quick fix wont be employed for many generations to come. But most activists have some pretty lofty goals.
The problem of deer getting in the way of cars is a symptom of the bigger conflict that areas that man inhabits come into conflict with Mother Natures design. That is how we are separate from nature.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
The above post was from me, not my wife. LOL
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
No, the above message wasn't from me, because I would have addressed certain things. Like how its illogical to think that just because we are part of "nature" we should use animals as role models. And how its not a "right" to hunt. And how the simplest method is not always the best. And how those in need don't want your meat. Oops, already talked about that point.
You know Jonny, people talk about vegetarians and how we are always trying to shove our way of thinking down someones throat. My first post on this thread said the government was keeping the deer herds high so that they could get money from hunting. It was anti-government, not anti-hunting. But people hear what they want.
Say what you want. I'm tired. I'm done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Hey, I firmly believe that there is room for all of God's creatures.
Right next to the mashed potatoes.
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Ya know, there won't be a Utopia until God Almighty sets things straight down here. In the meantime, He has said "kill and eat". He has also said that they who prefer herbs should enjoy them, and that they who enjoy meat should enjoy meat. I enjoy deer meat in particular, and I see the over population of deer in suburban areas a boon for those who also enjoy deer meat. And for the "Gubmint" to charge for hunting permits is only fair, in order to have some idea as to who is out there with a deadly firearm. Unfortunately we do not live in Utopia yet, and the World will be getting worse and worse.
For those who live far and away from The Wild, like I Do Not, it is probably very hard for them to see the deer on the highways slaughtered by cars. They would certainly see far less of all of that if there were fewer deer in those areas. And the simple way to cull them is through bigger bag limits, as well as allowing sharp shooters to operate in areas of "concern, interest, and need". Oh, sorry 'bout that "Corps-ism". The cost of capturing, neutering, and returning is way above and beyond the cost necessary to deal with this problem. Leave the solution in the hands of private Citizens who enjoy hunting and who enjoy the meat provided from such hunting, and the situation can be fixed. Man wiped out the Buffalo almost completely, and so, with regulations, Man can "whittle down" the population of the deer to where there are far less problems, and less unsightly deer slaughters on the highway, not to mention injuries and fatalities to humans. Yes, deer are pretty and they are beautiful. But, they are not that pretty after they have been obliterated by a car or truck. Even when dead by a bullet they appear prettier than after having been slaughtered by a Dodge Caravan driven by a Soccer Mom with a van full of kids. Or, would that be a dead Soccer Mom and a van full of dead Kids? Hopefully not your kids. Not very pretty, that...
Reality is hard and it is harsh. But, Reality is what it is. Do what is simple. Do what is Right....
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I was thinki
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tonto
Oh no! Who stole Jonny's "ng?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Maybe it was just a quick thought? :huh:
Or is that what happens when one does it too much? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.