A Study Says that Deer Hunting Stresses a Man's Heart too Much. Is This a Liberal "Farce"?

Question

The study says that walking in rough terrain and dragging a heavy deer can strain a man's heart.

Should men quit cutting the lawn and shoveling snow too?

Is this a study funded by liberal environmentalists to get rid of hunting? Or do they truly care about men --- the stress their hearts go through when mowing the law and shoveling snow?

The study even said that many of the men smoke too much and are obese. The cause of the men being "at risk" of a heart attack while hunting isn't the hunting. It's their lifestyle during the other 51 weeks of the year.

If these men quit hunting, would libs focus on improving the men's terrible health? Or would the Libs just be happy to have "saved a deer" even though many of the men will die of a heart attack one day anyway?

Will the majority of wives now start mowing the lawn to save their husbands?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070817/hl_nm/deer_risk_dc

The one thing left out by the study is how a week at deer camp is often the most wonderful, friendship building times in a man's life. It's a vacation to relieve a year's worth of mental stress. That can be priceless and wonderful for a man.

Would this study prefer that men have few friends, no fun, and keep being stressed-out?

This certainly seems like a rigged study. Why? How did the researchers end up with such a high number of men who are very at risk for a heart attack --- overweight, smokers, etc.?

Great studies typically use random samples.

How about if we promote this kind of study: Find a bunch of obese, heavy smokers, bacon-loving, McDonalds consuming men and women.

Then we study whether or not it's good for them to even walk from their car to their desk at work, clean their house, take a walk with their kids, etc.

Surely with a biased sample of out-of-shape adults, we can prove that almost any movement is dangerous for them.

The doctor behind the study seems to say she's surprised that the men who had already been diagnosed with very serious heart conditions and were at risk of heart attack were at risk when they hunted, which is a form of exercise.

Anyone else surprised?

Answer 1

I suspect women with an agenda are behind this study. LOL

Answer 2

I am a Liberal who is a deer hunter and this statement is a generalization. It is true that there are a lot of hunters who have heart attacks every season because this is the first time some of them have gotten off the couch and done anything strenuous like walk many miles while dragging a heavy carcass. Some of the rest of us pride ourselves on being in excellent physical condition. I work out all year round.
I would hope that the people who did this study really do care about men.

Answer 3

Deer hunting, and about any other kind of hunting as well, can put a strain on the heart. Ever drag a150 pound whitetail deer up a hill in cold weather, much less pack out part of a field-butchered elk? Hunting is best done with a partner who has the sense to stay reasonably close and with both hunters carrying cellphones. Cell phones are better than two-way radios because you can reach the paramedics if it ever becomes necessary. People in poor health should use good sense about hunting or any other stressful activity at a distance from medical help.

Plenty of liberal voters are sport-shooters. We just hope that they all realize that many of their political leaders, including the Clintons, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, Chris Dodd,.John Kerry, Caroline McCarthy, Frank Lautenbach and many others have ALWAYS tried to supress or eliminate our rights under the Constitution to own and use firearms. A vote for Republican leaders is, like it or not, the ONLY way to maintain your right to own and bear arms.

Right now, the cities of Hazelwood and Maryland Heights in Missouri are attempting to pass local legislation that would make it unlawful to hunt or to discharge any firearm, FOR ANY REASON, including self-defense, within the city limits, unless attacked within your own home. These proposed laws would negate the recently passed Missouri State "castle doctrine" law that permits shooting in self- defense if attacked within your own car or tent. The proposed laws would also negate the recently passed Missouri State law that permits hunting on public flood-plain land. There is a lot of huntable flood-plain land in Maryland Heights, which extends to the Missouri River, although it might be reasonable to limit hunting in those areas to shotguns or slug-guns only.

Because of wide-spread negative reaction by residents to these opressive shooting bans, Hazelwood has postponed action on their proposed law and has sought the counsel of the National Rifle Association. Hopefully they will end up with something reasonable.

Answer 4

You've got to be blind to think this study doesn't have some sort of political agenda, or otherwise some sort of bias. This was a piss-poor study done solely for personal and biased reasons; there's barely a hint of science or professionalism in this. Let's trace the steps, ok?

1) We have a group of researchers who suddenly decide to do a report to find out if hunting causes stress. Now, lets think about this. What kind of person would wonder about the "stress" of hunting? Obviously they've never hunted themselves; as you pointed out in your Details, anyone who hunts would consider it a stress reliever and a generally positive event, but obviously these researchers are searching for negative aspects of hunting. So we need to think, "What kind of person would have never hunted before, and also be searching for bad things to say about it?" Obviously, the answer is a liberal. No conservative would be searching for roundabout ways of saying "hunting is bad."

2) So we've established that the people doing the research are humans, and liberals. So because they are humans, the report they publish will be biased, and because they are liberal, there's also a good chance it will be biased in that direction. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; its human nature, there's no such thing as pure objectivity. But when we're reading this report, its important to keep this in mind.

3) Now lets look at other details to this. The lead researcher is a woman; in a study of men, shouldn't the person in charge be male? Many women seem to feel that abortion is a women's issue, and men should not say anything, but apparently it is okay for a woman to do a report on men's health. Even beyond personal feelings, we need to consider objectivity. A good study would seek to eliminate all sources of bias and establish as much control as possible, both with the subjects, the data, and the researchers in charge. A study focusing on gender should make every effort to eliminate gender differences in their staff, as well as their data. That the head of this study was a different gender than the subjects being studied seems to be a minor flaw to me; I do say minor, but it still seems a flaw nonetheless.

Lets look at other details:
Why just hunting? The men were sent out hunting, and then sent on a treadmill as a control. But why just hunting, unless the researchers were trying to make a biased report about hunting? If it were really about trying to determine men's health, they would have sent the men into other physical activites as well for comparison. Instead, they have treadmill heart rate vs. deer hunting heart rate. Perhaps with more data, they would have found that the men began to get irregular patterns playing softball, or basketball, or shoveling, like you said. But the researchers failed to do this, indicating at best simply sloppy research, and at worst an intentionally biased and malicious study.
Also, since we've established that the goal was not to determine men's health (otherwise they would have tested the men doing other activities), why were no women tested? Is deer hunting bad for them, too? Shouldn't women have been used as another form of comparison? They weren't determining men's health, so why not make the extra effort that good research demands, and find that deer hunting is bad for any gender's health? Again, the only explanation is bias.
Another factor, which I'm sure the article about the study didn't explain well enough but the study probably did, is why most of the men tested had histories of heart trouble. There should have been more groups tested, maybe one group with known heart trouble, and a control group of otherwise healthy men. Again, sloppy research practices, leaving the only explanation to be bias.

I think that the bias of this research probably wasn't meant to be liberal; I have a feeling this Susan Haapaniemi was probably upset at her husband's deer hunting, or just the idea of husbands in general hunting. She published a faulty and biased report in order to make a point that hunting is bad; I can't tell whether its because she wants men to stop going out, or because she feels sorry for the little deer. We'd need more information about this Susan Haapaniemi and also who funded the study to determine that.

But either way, this study was biased against hunting, and you'd have to be a moron to believe what it says. Many studies conflict with each other, and to just read one and take it for fact is foolish.

Answer 5

Dragging a deer and shoveling snow stress the heart -- that's merely a medical fact -- fat out of shape guys who smoke probably shouldn't do either ...

Why you are working yourself up into a frenzy about liberals because of these facts is another question -- and also bad for your heart.

Answer 6

I don't understand how you equated this with liberal. I come from a family of liberals and friends. Many of them hunt. I'm not talking the beer swilling, shoot ya in the face hunt. I'm talking for food hunting. There is nothing like venison or elk in the freezer for winter. So to me your premise is convoluted. Not one of them have ever had a heart attack.

Answer 7

Face it....everything in daily life is going to be suspect. Tomorrow they will tell you to hunt because it's good exercise.

And who are the 'experts' who do this study...hmmmm?

My father lived his life under the saying...

'Something in the world is going to kill me...at least before then I'll be happy doing what I love.'

I don't participate in hunting season in the Poconos...but if they (whoever 'they' are) save the deer from being shot during hunting season...that same deer is almost guaranteed to be creamed by a truck on Route 80!

Answer 8

Not for everyone. From the article: "with heart disease or risk factors for it, research findings suggest. " So, if one doesn't have a heart problem the study inferrs there should be no problem. Why do you read into it what is not there. Why blame liberals? What in the article specifically states that liberals are behind this? Please show me...Oh that's right you didn't even read the above line quoted herein how can I expct you to read the ENTIRE article?

Answer 9

Oy vey. The study is simply saying that if a man lives a sedentary lifestyle then overexerts himself, he can damage his heart. Because the study focused on hunting you've decided to make a political issue of it. The knee jerk partisanship in this country has gotten completely out of hand.

Answer 10

I hardly think that the study is a liberal plot. Of course I realize that the hunt stresses out the deer.And then they die. I have no problem with hunting for food, just don't approve of it for sport.That's all.

Answer 11

Good point.

Don't let Mexicans mow your lawn, dig a ditch for your cable, build your house, or put a new roof on your house.

Those manual labor activities are bad for men. They might die.

Give everyone an easy job.