So why not just let nature take its course?Quote:
Originally posted by wolfsoul
Actually, an old deer will slow down an entire herd or small group making them vulnerable.
Printable View
So why not just let nature take its course?Quote:
Originally posted by wolfsoul
Actually, an old deer will slow down an entire herd or small group making them vulnerable.
If I came across an old cripple deer, I would harvest it. Why? It would most likely die during the harsh Wisconsin winter because it would not be able to find enough food, it would be tracked a lot by the wolves that prey heavily on the cripples during winter, and it would supply me with meat. It's benefiting the animal by putting it out of its misery. It's like when you put a pet to sleep to end its pain. When the deer are young and have bad genetics you can tell by the deformities it displays. A young buck with bad genetics might display an odd rack- such as an uneven rack with odd amounts of tines on each side. One side of the rack might have 2 tines and the other side of the rack might have 6 tines. A young doe could display nubby tines/horns which would be a sign of bad genetics. The deer could also display skeletal deformities, such as bowed legs, short legs, knock knee, arched back, etc. You want the fittest of deer, so the ones that get past the hunters stay strong and live a healthy life; producing good offspring do keep a healthy population of deer.Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
I wasn't going to say anything but here it comes... :X
Okay, I may not know much about hunting or deer, but what if a "cripple" was just an old deer? How would that be bad genetics? They're old - they can't help it! And putting them out of their "misery" isn't an excuse to shoot and kill them just to speed up their dying process.
Another thought - Okay, so the deer was born a cripple... So shoot it. But would you shoot a crippled or sick child, so they don't pass on their bad genetics? :rolleyes:
Comparing a sick/crippled child to an animal is just not the same. Many genetic problems that kids have keep them from reproducing, such as Down syndrome, progeria, etc. There is a lot of medical technology to help kids with debilitating illnesses that slow down the progression, rid of it completely, and lower the pain.
So what you're saying is, you would rather let that entire herd die from natural causes, than let some of them be hunted?Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
So why not just let nature take its course?
Most of the time it does.Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
So why not just let nature take its course?
Cancer is inheritable and passed on.. Same with HIV/Aids, asthma, etc.Quote:
Originally posted by YellowLabLover
Comparing a sick/crippled child to an animal is just not the same. Many genetic problems that kids have keep them from reproducing, such as Down syndrome, progeria, etc. There is a lot of medical technology to help kids with debilitating illnesses that slow down the progression, rid of it completely, and lower the pain.
Ok yeah, deer eat our crops, reproduce, etc, but they're just trying to survive, like we as humans are.. I mean, they live on this planet too.. The earth does NOT belong to PEOPLE... We all have to share it. Every species has its problems. There's about 6 BILLION people on the planet now... According to one study, the number of people on the planet could rise to more than NINE billion in the next 50 years!!!! :eek: Do you actually believe every one of those people will be healthy, free from disease, and well-fed? Of course not! People starve to death, and people get sick and died too. So why not kill the homeless and prositutes? They just make more unhealthy, poor people.
:rolleyes:
Well, I'm just doing my part to help keep the animals I leave behind healthy and keep my belly fed. If you want me to leave the sick animals alone so they can suffer and live a horrible life, I'll just do that.
Actually the numbers are decreasing rapidly in most parts of the world due to China's new one child per couple rule, and the newer birth control methods. The only thing that's slowing us down now is India's population growth. Personally it is my belief that anyone with an inheritied disease should not be able to procreate, but that law will never be enforced anyways.Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
According to one study, the number of people on the planet could rise to more than NINE billion in the next 50 years!!!! Do you actually believe every one of those people will be healthy, free from disease, and well-fed? Of course not! People starve to death, and people get sick and died too. So why not kill the homeless and prositutes? They just make more unhealthy, poor people.
As for the homeless and prostitue thing..you lost me there. Sure, lots of people are unhealthy and die as a result. Lots of deer are unhealthy and are hunted as a result. So I don't understand what you are trying to say.
A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members. They aren't going to sacrafice the masses for one. They let nature takes it's course and if that one can't keep up, the rest of the herd keeps moving. If hunters really do pick off the sickly ones to "put them out of their misery", then a meal was just taken away from the predatory animals who depend on the sickly ones to survive, leaving them to wander on to farms and kill pinned farm animals, which in turn pisses off the farmers who demand that the predators be killed. So who really benefits from hunting here? Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.Quote:
Originally posted by wolfsoul
So what you're saying is, you would rather let that entire herd die from natural causes, than let some of them be hunted?
Like I said before, nature was doing fine on it's own, before humans came on the scene.
Not when they are running away from prey no, but generally they do keep at a slow pace for it's old or challenged.Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members.
Well I'm assuming tha here in Canada you are only allowed to hunt a certain amount as well, and I know people that hunt deer that have had better days (not sick deer, but injured or physically retarded ones).Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.
Ok, think here...Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
A herd of any animal usually won't stay behind for just one of it's members. They aren't going to sacrafice the masses for one. They let nature takes it's course and if that one can't keep up, the rest of the herd keeps moving. If hunters really do pick off the sickly ones to "put them out of their misery", then a meal was just taken away from the predatory animals who depend on the sickly ones to survive, leaving them to wander on to farms and kill pinned farm animals, which in turn pisses off the farmers who demand that the predators be killed. So who really benefits from hunting here? Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.
Like I said before, nature was doing fine on it's own, before humans came on the scene.
There are so many injured and old animals in the woods, far more than a hunter can kill, leaving the predators with more than enough food to get. Not all wolves go for deer, they also go for smaller animals which are easy for them to obtain. Not to mention the little helpless fawns in the spring time which they prey on all the time. A wolf pack can easily take down a healthy deer- that is why they hunt in a pack- it's called teamwork. The wolves wander on to the farmers land because the farmer took away their land/territory to raise his family and herd- cows are an easy target for a wolf- and they are in their territory. Either way you look at it- there is no clear winner of the hunter/animal "game"- it's all ups and downs.
I'm trying to watch my temper, but it is extremely hard in situations such as these.Quote:
Here in America you can only hunt a certain amount of deer per season, so hunters aren't going to waste that opportunity or amo to put a sick animal out of it's misery.
You do not hunt. You have never been hunting. You honestly don't have a CLUE about hunting (from experience). I hunt- I know what I am talking about. It is not a waste of ammo to put a sick deer out of it's misery. Hunters do have a heart you know, shocking as it may sound to you. We are human, we do have feelings. Thank you very much. Why do you think hunters spend so much time sighting in their guns? To make sure they are shooting accurately so they can ensure a quick kill that won't cause the animal to get away and suffer! Obviously, sometimes that is always not the case and some are injured, sadly. A hunter WILL "waste" their time and ammo to go after a sick deer. Here in Wisconsin you can only shoot one deer during the regular 9-day season. However, you can go to a DNR registration station and purchase "bonus" tags to get more deer. There really is no limit to how many you can purchase- why!? Because they need no limit- it is extremely hard to get more than 2 deer in the season. If hunters were coming out of the woods with 10 deer a piece there would be a very strict limit. I have gone the last 3 years without getting a deer- can you believe that? Probably not. Hunters don't always walk out of the woods with an animal. This past deer season, I had two doe 20 yards away from me- NEVER saw them until they smelled me and ran away (saw their white tail). That happens ALL THE TIME!
I get so sick and tired of having to explain myself as a hunter all the time, and defend my fellow huntsmen, and correct the dumb, false, comments anti-hunters make. It's like people talking bad about Pit Bulls- when they don't even own one or really have a clue about them......
If you are a responsible hunter and not a trophy hunter doing it for the pure "sport", then you shouldn't get so defensive because it doesn't really apply to you. I've heard the "population control" excuse from my uncle who hunts and while that may sound like it's all for the benefit of the animals, then why does he have heads mounted on the wall? I see the "heart" in that :rolleyes: Again, if it wasn't for the overpopulation of humans then there wouldn't need to be population control for wild animals. True, I don't hunt, I don't have the heart to take an animal's life myself. I don't have a "clue" from experience, but I've heard enough from hunters themselves. While you may have the heart to put a sick animal out of it's misery, your average knuckle dragging barbarian looking for that trophy buck doesn't. (I haven't ever seen a sick deer mounted on a proud hunter's wall.)
Before this heated discussion goes any further, lets just agree to disagree. Hunters and non-hunters have all made their points and they are getting no where with each other.
Of course I am going to get defensive when one makes blanket statements about hunting and hunters. It does apply to me. Please do not tell me you eat meat and wear leather whilst bashing hunters and hunting?! Just wondering...Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
If you are a responsible hunter and not a trophy hunter doing it for the pure "sport", then you shouldn't get so defensive because it doesn't really apply to you.
Just because you have a head on the wall doesn't mean you are a trophy hunter- it's HOW the animal was obtained. Was it on a game farm or from the wild? Did the hunter purposely seek it out, or was it just out of chance?
My last comments, hopefully.
That's what I was trying to say..Quote:
Originally posted by Pit Chick
Again, if it wasn't for the overpopulation of humans then there wouldn't need to be population control for wild animals.
I personally would never have the heart to kill an innocent animal. I don't understand how someone would have the heart to shoot an innocent being and just watch it die. :( That just seems really cold to me.
But, like Pit Chick, I am willing to agree to disagree. I understand that you were raised to believe those things and I respect your decision to hunt. No one is going to change anyone's views on the subject, so I also believe just agreeing to disagree is the best way to end this heated discussion.
And yet billions of dollars per year are spent to pay for the deaths of millions of slaughtered animals that end up on our plates. Atleast when you shoot a wild deer, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that this wild animal had a life of freedom --- when you buy a nice big slab of beef, do you get satisfaction in knowing that you just paid for an animal that was kept in a pen too small to turn around in, for it's entire life? Does this mean that we don't have hearts? What's more cold?Quote:
Originally posted by BCBlondie
I personally would never have the heart to kill an innocent animal. I don't understand how someone would have the heart to shoot an innocent being and just watch it die. :( That just seems really cold to me.