Percentages of british adults who found each activity involving animals acceptable or unacceptable
Percentages of british adults who found each activity involving animals acceptable or unacceptable
You're viewing a single thread.
I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.
The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.
If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you've culled, it's absolutely unethical. But if you're using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you're hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I'd argue that's the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.
Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There's a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It's obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.
Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation
I think if factory farming were more stringently regulated a lot more people would hunt than buy a $500 steak.
I agree but I do have a little issue with the "wasting resources" part, that's a very anthropocentric view to take. There's an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There's obviously a lot of "ifs" involved but I wouldn't generalise by saying that because a human didn't get to eat it the resource was "wasted".
It's unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we're obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we've inherited.
Chronic Wasting Disease is a particularly scary prion disease that is highly dependent on deer population density.
IMO this makes "wasting" the meat more acceptable, because the consumption of wild venison could lead to an outbreak of this in humans
This relates to Britain, not the United States. Results will be different.
What are the natural predators of deer in Britain?
As someone else mentioned, it used to be wolves, lynxes, bears etc. But we killed them all so that humans could eat the deer. Then hunting deer became the sport of the king and associated royalty. This is why eating venison became associated with wealth and only eaten on special occasions. When it used to be available for all.
We now have a problem as there is no natural predator to keep the numbers down.
Wolves, lynxes, and (used to be) bears
Wolves have been extinct in Britain since 1680. Bears in 500 AD. Lynxes, at best, in the 1700s, going by reported sightings, but possibly even in 600 AD, going by proven examples.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Well, it's worse than I was aware of then. I am not British and just thought of animals that at least were there. I'm guessing there isn't anything that will eat deer there anymore.
I’d argue that even if you waste everything from hunting deer, in most areas of the US fact their is now one less deer is definite ecological benefit all on its own.
A forest with a large deer population where people don’t landscape and fence every tree is going to become either a near monoculture with the only exceptions being invasive species. This is because deer eat most but not all native saplings before they can grow to the point they can survive a deer attack, and with most forests in the US having far, far higher populations than natural we get far fewer native trees than natural.
Normally anything like modern deer levels would have led to a population explosion of predators to keep them in check, but because most deer predators are far more vulnerable to human presence, activity, and historical control efforts than deer, which thrive in human dominated areas, the result has been significant damage to forests.
As such, anything like hunting that can lower the deer population back towards natural is very enthical as it doing far more to protect the forest than any number of newly planted saplings could ever do. Your mileage may very, all forests arn’t the same, check the ecology of your local forest before hunting to figure out what the forest needs more of and what it need less of, etc…
Yeah, I'm vegan and still recognize the need for deer hunting in the US (and anywhere else where all their natural predators have been eliminated). I don't know of any other effective method for controlling their population when no other species exists to do it. I would be totally open to reintroducing wolves, bears, big cats etc to areas where they existed historically, but I just don't see enough popular support growing for that that it seems likely to happen anytime soon. People like their meat too much and wild predators kill free ranging livestock, plus I suspect most people are not going to want to worry about encounters while they're out in nature (see my link below for how things have been going with the red wolf re-introduction to North Carolina, US). I mean I'm an animal lover and it still makes me a tiny bit nervous when I go out into bear country in the wild parts of my state (not that that would stop me from supporting re-introduction). Lots of people are ignorant and don't give a shit about harming ecology if it benefits them in some way.
wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical.
Why is leaving the carcass to degrade naturally unethical? Is it better for the nutrients in the meat to end up in a water treatment plant or dumped into a river? Or do you prefer most of the nutrients to be used exclusively by humans?
I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don't particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.
Wild boars are also quite a nuisance.