84
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

Big strong predator that sucks at hunting so much that they need to lure the deer to stand directly in front of their gun.

At that point you're not even a hunter, you're a slob that might as well be ordering from a menu. Pathetic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Am I being trolled, is this some weird carnist realism bit? Eat vegetables. Some tofu maybe. Use your intelligence to realize you don’t have to kill sentient life to eat. Your point isn’t great anyway, each bullet to the heart robs the deer of years of life.

[-] SerLava@hexbear.net 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It doesn't really. Killing these large animals is an essential function of a natural or even a partially artificial ecosystem. They can't have their full lives. If wolves fail to torture them to death, and humans fail to shoot them, they literally kill most of the rest of the plants and animals in their environment. If humans became allergic to meat next year and only ate vegetables, we would keep shooting deer and use the meat as feed or fertilizer.

Long life is not on the table and never has been. One of the biggest failures of western forest management has actually been to let the deer live too long. So the difference really is the manner of death.

[-] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 10 points 6 months ago

And that's just talking about deer and not the 30-50 wild hogs running through my back yard

[-] SerLava@hexbear.net 13 points 6 months ago

That's why we need the BabyKiller Mark 7 fully automatic grenade launcher like our forefathers intended

[-] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 3 points 6 months ago

source? Sounds more like game warden / hobby-hunter bullshit than ecology. Also, we don’t need to shoot deer for fertilizer if we stopped eating meet. If plants or ecosystems are imbalanced, it should be the work of ecologist not hunters

[-] SerLava@hexbear.net 16 points 6 months ago

The ecologist would generally prefer to introduce wolves or, if they weren't allowed to, they would shoot the deer. In fact those are the 2 main things they are doing and encouraging in various out of wack, deer overpopulated ecosystems.

[-] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago

Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.

[-] SerLava@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago

They should be reduced in various areas or replaced in all areas by natural predators. I assure you there are areas with not enough hunting because a) the bears and wolves were exterminated 100 years ago, b) livestock farmers lobby the local and state governments against introducing those predators and c) hunters either don't hunt enough or only try to trophy hunt

[-] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

I think the people who think hunting is the only options should be reduced in various areas

[-] SerLava@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

I mean yeah, natural predators are much more effective

[-] ingirumimus@hexbear.net 12 points 6 months ago

Here's an article.

The abstract:

Due to chronic high densities and preferential browsing, white-tailed deer have significant impacts on woody and herbaceous plants. These impacts have ramifications for animals that share resources and across trophic levels. High deer densities result from an absence of predators or high plant productivity, often due to human habitat modifications, and from the desires of stakeholders that set deer management goals based on cultural, rather than biological, carrying capacity. Success at maintaining forest ecosystems require regulating deer below biological carrying capacity, as measured by ecological impacts. Control methods limit reproduction through modifications in habitat productivity or increase mortality through increasing predators or hunting. Hunting is the primary deer management tool and relies on active participation of citizens. Hunters are capable of reducing deer densities but struggle with creating densities sufficiently low to ensure the persistence of rare species. Alternative management models may be necessary to achieve densities sufficiently below biological carrying capacity. Regardless of the population control adopted, success should be measured by ecological benchmarks and not solely by cultural acceptance.

As this ecologist notes, hunters are essential parts of maintaining healthy, biodiverse ecosystems.

[-] crispy_lol@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.

[-] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago

"hunting is the primary population management tool" and "hunting should be reduced" are not mutually exclusive statements. You're not clever for demanding people have a degree in ecology to give you information.

[-] ingirumimus@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago

Love that this person demands everyone else have a phd to argue with them about a subject they clearly understand less than a middle schooler

this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13445 readers
784 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS