Do You Agree With Deer Hunting?????

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to be "pro" hunting or "pro" gun. Not at all. Everyone is entited to their own opinion. I do not, however, like to see someone criticize an entire group of people for the actions of a few. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter if it is directed at race, sex, political view or hobby. It is always wrong to make judgements about every member a certain group of people, based on nothing more than their membership in that group or a very limited experience. What is the difference in saying, "I don't like hunters because when I was a kid I saw some hunters doing stupid things." and saying "I don't like African-Americans because when I was a kid one called me a bad name at school."? What's the difference in saying, "All gun owners are irresponsible and dangerous because I heard on the news about a few of them." and saying "All Columbian-Americans are dangerous drug dealers because I haeard on the news about a few of them."? I HATE prejudice of any kind, and I would just as vehemently defend vegetarians, pacifists, women, teenagers, Moslems, etc. if there was a thread condeming the entire group for the actions of a few.

Well, perhaps I have made my posts unclear, but I do not see how I have criticized an entire group of people, or shown "prejudice" against hunters. I do strongly disagree with the practice of hunting. I do strongly disagree with parents allowing children have access to guns. I'm not trying to make an argument that hunters are stupid or that they are all irresponsible jerks. I'm also not trying to make this disagreement personal, and I dislike that you are personally attacking me now. I think it is ok to disagree with an idea without personally attacking a group of people.

I disagree with people who hunt- fine, but that doesn't mean that I am making a statement about what kind of people they are. I do think that it is "wrong" to allow young children to handle guns, but I know that in our society hunting is considered "ok." Fine. That is fine, I don't think people who hunt are terrible people, but I do have a problem when they are unsafe.

Finally, I have noticed that Americans who believe that guns are dangerous and should be more closely monitored are seen as "anti-American." Somehow, because I dislike guns and point out that they are, in fact, tools to kill, I am prejudiced against gun owners. Personally, I am more concerned about a right to free speech than a right to own a tool that blows things off the face of the earth.

[cassiesmom]

I'm not going to vote, I'm just going to comment. Near my house there is a four-lane road adjacent to the forest preserve. When I go that way I will sometimes see deer at the edge of the woods (especially does). It's that time of the year where the deer are more active because they are eating and mating. They are much more suburban than they used to be. Maybe people think they're tame and try to feed them; they seem to get struck by cars more often these days. Striking a deer can hurt the car and the occupants as well as the deer. Drivers need to be more careful because the deer are a lot less shy at this time of the year. They didn't used to come clear up to the edge of the woods, or even try to cross the roads, like they do now. I'm not sure that hunting can be categorized as always good or always bad.

[Twisterdog]

Finally, I have noticed that Americans who believe that guns are dangerous and should be more closely monitored are seen as "anti-American." Somehow, because I dislike guns and point out that they are, in fact, tools to kill, I am prejudiced against gun owners. Personally, I am more concerned about a right to free speech than a right to own a tool that blows things off the face of the earth.

I wasn't meaning to attack you personally at all. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was just getting into the debate, that's all. Nothing personal.

And, I also feel it's just as wrong to label anyone who doesn't like guns as "anti-American." Another example of prejudice. Yes?

[elizabethann]

Personally, I don't hunt, but my family does. My brother, bil & nephew are up North moose hunting as I type this.

[buttercup132]

Well I seem to have a different opinion than most people who posted, so I will say what I think at least.

I think hunting is a lazy way to "bring balance" to overpopulation. What about reintroducing natural predators and setting up preservation or conservation areas for them to live in? Too often we rely on a "quick fix" that will really not help the problem in the long run. Unless we keep shooting and killing overpopulated animals there will be no "balance." It's people's fault that it is this way, and I think it should be our responsibility to fix it, in the most natural, humane way possible.

I also have a big problem with bears and other animals that ARE NOT overpopulated being hunted. It's disgusting in my opinion to kill for sport. Also, growing up in the midwest I know that MOST hunters DO NOT use the animal for food. I had a friend whose father had 20 deer carcasses piled up in his garage every deer season.

I also think hunting is dangerous. Too often, you hear of hunting accidents (even the vice president accidently shot a friend) and pets being accidently killed because the hunters thought they were a deer or something.

Ditto Ditto Ditto

[Lady's Human]

I have yet to meet a hunter who doesn't use the animals taken for food. You can't base an entire group on the actions of one. The person with 20 deer carcasses piled up in his garage wasn't following hunting laws, as most states have a VERY low per hunter bag limit on deer, except for nuisance herds.

As to bears not being overpopulated, in some areas they have an extremely high population. NY, NJ, some parts of Mass, all are having problems with bear overpopulation and the ensuing human/bear run ins.

[Argranade]

As to bears not being overpopulated, in some areas they have an extremely high population. NY, NJ, some parts of Mass, all are having problems with bear overpopulation and the ensuing human/bear run ins.

The only reason there over populated is because US humans have taken over so much land and there's not enough room for the poor bears to spread out by.

[Lady's Human]

Actually, there's more woodland in Mass now than there was in the 1800's.

[Argranade]

Yes SOME areas have more land than others but on WWF they showed many acres being cut down and bears did not have enough room same for wolfs.

I still want more land for the animals than humans.

[Karen]

Yes SOME areas have more land than others but on WWF they showed many acres being cut down and bears did not have enough room same for wolfs.

I still want more land for the animals than humans.

Have you ever looked at population density maps for your own province? I am certain that in Ontario, there's more land for animals than people, just not in the city.

[*future vet*]

I agree with hunting because it helps to control the population. I think it's a sport that many people enjoy, even if they don't get a deer they can appreciate the beauty of the outdoors.

[sumbirdy]

I don't like it but it is a big thing where I live. Most people around here just do it for fun though and won't hunt the animal down if it is wounded and ran away like they are supposed to.

[columbine]

I'd rather eat meat from a hunted animal who ran around in the woods all their life than one who'd stood immobile in a stall, although I guess wandering around a pasture isn't bad. But I only agree with food hunting (subsistence or sale), not trophy hunting (although of course selling the skin & antlers reduces waste and I'm all for it), and the hunting itself is done SOBER.

[Marigold2]

All hunting is horrible, some might be warrented if over population is a factor. If the animal is used for food, that is a different matter then stuffing the head on a mantal.

[king2005]

I'm sure I posted here somewhere, but don't have the time to check.

I'm all for hunting for a couple reasons.
Its better meat as it hasn't been drugged or abused. It actually gets to live a life & serve its purpose in the balance of nature. The populations in some areas NEED to be thinned out with hunting, or the poor things starve to death or get hit by cars left right & centre (There is no way in HELL I want to stand beside another deer & watch it garge blood until the poor thing dies).

Just go to Ottawa, Ontario, Canada & see the deer there... There is THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of deer in that city. If your in Kanata (its part of Ottawa now), try driving on Richmond Rd going into Bells Corners, without seeing atleast 6-10 deer in that open field. So many deer get hit there.. You see dead bodies all the time. If your walking on the trails, the deer are never fat. They are ALWAYS thin... The trees are always chewed up (meaning there no very little food, as all the food as already been eaten, hence bare trees).

I ONLY believe in 1 kind of hunting! & Thats hunting for food. I don't care who eats the meat, but aslong as the whole animal is used, I'm happy.

Selling the pelts for blankets, the antlers for coat racks, bones for dogs, is great!!! I have a game rabbit pelt (nearly 10yrs old) for my table, & a game rabbit foot for a key chain (its nearly 15yrs old now).

I totally support hunting for food. Game hunters deserve to be SHOT!! The sick BEEPs!!!