Hunters...the biggest fukking

[~primetime~]

factor farming has a level of cruelty far surpassing anything hunters do. all i am saying is if you're not a vegan you're a hypocrite for having a problem with hunting, and i stand by that.

Agreed...I try to eat cage free whenever the option is there for me

I was just trying to point out that wild game and farmed meat have very different concepts behind them. Some one could see it okay to eat one but not the other.

[rezznor]

[DeuceWallaces]

And excatly how do populations control themselves now, not millions of years before we arrived and with our development affected every animal species directly or indirectly?

You can't figure out how a population would control themselves without human intervention?

[rezznor]

You can't figure out how a population would control themselves without human intervention?

what are your views on population control for an invasive species? feral hogs in texas, pythons in florida, etc?

[LBJ 23]

I dont care about hunting to eat. Id even respect it if people were at least a little sporting. Go hunt with a bow and arrow. Not one of these super ones that are a notch below a gun. A good old school bow and arrow.

Id respect the hell outta 10-15 people who hunt and kill buffalo the way cavemen used to. Your wits...the landscape. Hand tools. Chase them off a cliff. Whatever. I dont much respect waiting for an animal to happen by or luring it in with scents or its food source and killing it with a gun.

I dont have a big problem with it....

I just dont give props for it.

I live in the south now. The number of people I hear tell stories about killing a ____ from ____ yards gets real old.

You didnt do shit. You sat safe and snug in a deer stand and shot something that didnt know you were there....dont act like a badass.

Hunt a bear on foot with one shot and no reload. I'll sit in awe as you tell that story.

Agree. That's why my primary hunting method is over 4000 years old. I'm a falconer and right now I have 3 falcons and 1 sparrowhawk which I use for hunting. I became a hunter because in my country there is a law which says that if you want to legally become a falconer, you have to become licensed hunter aswell.

I use a gun for hunting foxes, martens and other predators which are over populated and besides road traffic have no natural predator so their numbers have to be regulated by hunting. With a gun I hunt deer aswell but there's another reason for that, it's related to my questions to DeuceWallaces which still haven't been answered by him.

[DeuceWallaces]

what are your views on population control for an invasive species? feral hogs in texas, pythons in florida, etc?

[LBJ 23]

You can't figure out how a population would control themselves without human intervention?

I don't need to figure it out. I've seen it first hand and had to intervene too many times. On the other hand it's you who probably has yet to step in the woods and see that nature it's not as friendly and pretty as you see on TV.

[DeuceWallaces]

I don't need to figure it out. I've seen it first hand and had to intervene too many times. On the other hand it's you who probably has yet to step in the woods and see that nature it's not as friendly and pretty as you see on TV.

You don't know much about nature if you can't figure out how populations control themselves without being hunted.

[D-FENS]

It's nature's way. If we weren't meant to shoot animals then we wouldn't haven the intelligence to be able to make such weapons. I'm sure all the natives back in the day that hunted with bows and spears would take a gun in a second if it guaranteed their life a little better.

Hunting is used to control population issues, but a lot of is simply for sport too. It's part of nature. It'll probably bite us in the ass eventually. The Earth will be here a lot longer than we ever will probably.

Aliens gonna get you first. They'll will probably choke on your embarrassing facal hair though

[MavsSuperFan]

You don't know much about nature if you can't figure out how populations control themselves without being hunted.

ya but feral hogs destroy a lot of farmers crops. their an economic drain. Culling them is the only economically feasible solution

[LBJ 23]

You don't know much about nature if you can't figure out how populations control themselves without being hunted.

I know. I was just waiting for you to tell us since you said that hunting as a population control method is the stupidest argument there is. Populations control themselves or better said, nature controls overly increased populations with an outbreak of diseases. And when that happens it's not nice and pretty and usually it almost wipes out that species or gets it to the minimum. I could write here all day about it and give you soo many examples but I will try not to be to long.

Lets talk about foxes. Here where I live they have no predators which would regulate their numbers. Here and there you find fox being killed as a road kill and that's it. Because of that and a lot of sources of food their numbers increased significantly to a point where the natural environment could not handle their big numbers anymore and the outbreak of scabies was
inevitable.(scabies are scientifically proven to outbreak when specific species outgrows the capacity of the environment which is populated by the said species)

People were calling hunters because sick foxes eaten alive by scabies could barely move and lost all fear and started searching for food around the houses. Foxes were eating cat and dog food because they could not catch their own food, they were suffering for months and were dying in garden sheds, it was all bones covered in rotten meat. We found hundreds of rotten bodies in the woods. Now, 1-2 years passed and you can barely see a fox in our region and it became almost extinct. It will take years for that particular species to recover.

That's nature for you and how it works, it's not nice and it's not pretty. Its actually pretty terrifying considering what all those animals had to go through, months of agonizing pain to ultimately die. And it's not just foxes, there are plenty of other species which suffer the same faith and plenty of diseases which are scientifically proven to outbreak when population is to big. It's just that all that is usually happening in the woods, hidden from the general public and city boys like yourself so you can't see that.

So I ask you, it's not better to regulate the numbers of particular species with hunting so the population is not too big nor to small, but somewhere in the middle where mortality due to diseases is maintained at a minimum?

Yes you have to shoot the animal and kill it, but what's better, animal being killed with a clean shot(there are exceptions when bad shot happens) when it dies in a matter of seconds and probably doesn't even feel any pain due to shock, or is it better to let the nature take care of it and wipe out the population with a disease where animals suffer for days, weeks, months to ultimately die in agony?

Here's a picture for you how it looks when you find a fox drowning in scabies and is just begging you to take it out of it's misery.

[DeuceWallaces]

I'm right. And yes density dependent controls will take place and usually only last a season; whether it's disease, starvation, or whatever.

The point remains, hunting as population control is a dumb ****ing reason, especially when many times the populations need controlling because they were inflated due to management that relies on hunting fees.

[Meticode]

Aliens gonna get you first. They'll will probably choke on your embarrassing facal hair though

I have no idea what you mean, but okay.

In the end we hunt, we're humans, a lot of humans are going to want to hunt. It's in our nature to as hunter and gathers. Whether it be morally right or not as far as need and want goes in today's society. Get over it.

[DeuceWallaces]

I'd also like to add that your story wreaks of bullshit, because I can't imagine a situation where you'd find hundreds of foxes dead in the woods. They have decent sized ranges and are territorial. It's also fairly uncommon outside of Europe to be overrun with foxes, because no matter the location they have few predators to begin with outside of traffic and eagles.

[Kblaze8855]

Animals dont need population control for any reason that isnt human created or based on human interference. It worked itself out for 4 billion years before we had a hand in it and it will do so till the sun burns out.

Animals dont need anything from us but to be left alone.

A fox dying doesnt mean we need to go kill foxes.

Lots of species only have numbers so great because of something we did to give one or two species in an area an advantage.

Bring them where the ecosystem isnt prepared to stand up to them. Bring in prey animals in such numbers much larger populations of predators are possible than if we didnt.

This world gets along fine. nothing needs to be killed to save them from themselves.

If anything the rest of nature needs us to be killed to save them from us.

Most of the issues of "overpopulation" are because the animals are annoying to humans, bothersome to see, or destroy crops we put right where they live and expect them not to eat.

The only species overpopulated to the extent they truly hurt the world are us and various parasites that carry disease.

And really...the world got along fine with the mosquito for a long time. they infect and sicken weak animals that then die....and the strong resistant ones carry on and pass along strong genes.

The system works. Works well.

Only natural disasters and humanity are a threat to the wild.

Nature kills off species every day and would no matter what.

Natural selection. We dont have to interfere for any reason but our own comfort.