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

chapotraphouse

13505 readers
1025 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
 

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
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (13 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (12 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)