are you for or against the hunting of deer and why??

Answer 1

Since we have eliminated the natural predators, hunting takes the place of them. The hunters help keep the deer population in check.

Also, the fees that hunters pay help pay for various wildlife conservation efforts.

To those who say it is a right, it is not a right. You will find nothing in the Bill of rights or constitutional amendments that protects hunting. It can be outlawed. The second amendment gives the right to own and bear arms, however, it is not a guarantee of hunting rights. Hunting it is a privaledge, not a right. Please, remember this. If too many people start to abuse hunting because they believe it is a right, then more laws will be passed limiting hunting and perhaps taking it away from private individuals.

Answer 2

I am for it. If the deer population is not kept down by hunting, the deer could end up starving to death. A square mile of land is only capable of supporting a certain amount of deer. There are also great programs in place for hunting deer. Like "Hunt for the Hungry" that take in deer to feed those that need it. I personally eat what I harvest, but I also try to take 1 every year for the program.

Answer 3

I had the good fortune to grow up hunting in one of the oldest hunting clubs in my state. There were no deer in that part of the state at the time, and only a few thousand in the entire state. They stocked and managed. The original members, along with those from a few other clubs, lobbied for a state Game and Fish Commission and recommended to the government how to set it up and run it. They lobbied for wildlife laws and went to court when needed to protect wildlife. On a grander scale, nationally, hunters lobbied for the Pittman-Robertson Act, which is the basis for wildlife management in the US. The taxes from that and state licenses fund wildlife management. Without hunting, the wildlife simply wouldn't be there.
I also recall back in the 60's when the game biologist came to our camp and told us one winter we had to kill 300 does to control the population. There were maybe thirty hunters in camp. Next morning, my little brother and I brought in a dozen, sick about it, and found one of the old original members at the skinning rack with tears running down his face. Since then, we've all been careful to kill the right number and mix of deer. By the way, the state now has more deer than people, and the deer are larger and healthier than ever. We hunt deer because we love them, and it would be horrid not to do so. If you've never seen the "browse line" in the woods in winter, with overpopulation and starvation, you may not understand, but it's something of a moral imperative for those of us who know.

Answer 4

Completely & unequivocably for hunting. One of the replies you've received indicates that deer will go extinct if hunting continues. Nothing could be more false. There are studies, (& no, I can't recall the sources), that have indicated there are more whitetail deer in the USA now than when this country was founded. Hunting is the ONLY viable option, (short of hiring snipers), to control their population. (Another topic hotly debated at times.) Benefits of hunting are numerous but the most obvious is the quality of meat (venison), the money generated by license sales for wildlife conservation & the money spent in pursuit of this magnificant animal helps the economy far more than people might expect.

Answer 5

I personally don't hunt because of the expense and time involved. I don't have the time, and I'd rather spend $6.00 for a butt steak than $100.00 a pound for what I get back from the meat processor.

I hunted for years. I shot deer. I love venison.

Nothing tastes better to me than a venison chop, well basted with herbs and merlow, fried over a hot open wood fire, supported by a good Italian bread, fried potatoes with onions, and a half dozen stalks of asparagus, grilled with a butter wash. I'd enjoy this with a good bottle of cold pilsner and a couple of good buddies after a day in the woods.

I'm not against hunting at all. There are very good economic reasons in today's world for keeping the deer population in check. Deer are involved in thousands of vehicle wrecks each year. I recently saw a statistic by the WI DOT that found that 1 in 99 WI drivers will be involved in a deer vs. vehicle wreck in their driving career. When there are excessive deer populations, there is crop damage, damage to home gardens and shrubbery. Over the years, there have been excess populations that have literally starved for lack of food. There are documented stories of deer populations that have destroyed a forest one year, and died of starvation the next.

I do not support killing deer as blood sport. I believe that venison should be utilized as the great protein food supply that it is. I just can't afford the time or the investment any more. I hope one of my buddies remembers me when he gets his venison from the butcher this year once again.

Answer 6

I don't hunt, but have no problem with those who do as long as they follow the rules. There is a reason we have those rules.

I don't know about where YOU are, but in this part of the country the overpopulation of deer is becoming a real problem.

Too many deer means less food for all of them, and in theory it can lead to the death of all of them. Diseased deer have a better chance of infecting the whole herd if they are weak from lack of food.

Other predators prey on deer in the natural order of things. The grocery store bit and "only take what you NEED to feed your family" are valid points. The moral issue is a personal choice and something we must each come to terms with.

I don't hunt because I choose not to. It's not our place to make that decision for others.

Answer 7

Personally, I support it. The main reason I do is hunting helps to control the deer herd. Granted, humans are encroaching on deer habitats; however, people are not going to give up their living spaces for animals (just the way it is). I would hunting is a safe method of thinning the deer herd, hunting (if done properly) does not cause signficant suffering to the animal, and it is more cost effective for the country as a whole. Without hunting, deer would likely die either from cars, or lack of nutrition in tough winters (both likely to be cause more suffering to the deer). In truth, hunting does not do much to actually thin a deer her, but does help to maintain it. But without deer hunting, there would be many more car-deer accidents, costing lives and money.

Answer 8

I am definitely for deer hunting. The deer population is to high. I know of a few people who got into car accidents because a deer ran out in front of them, one of which happened on the inner state and the car had to be towed. My boyfriend is a hunter and he just got a 10 point buck that dressed at 215lbs.Hes getting it mounted. If deer were on the edge of extinction they would be on the protective endangered species list and obviously their not .

Answer 9

Quite a few years ago the bambi lovers convinced the parks people in montana to cut down on the number of deer tags sold; fewer deer were hunted. The next year there was an overpopulation of deer that were eating shrubs off porches in towns and so on, then the overpopulation caused an outbreak of bubonic plague and thirteen people died from it in montana alone. It is part of a check and balance system. Check out rabbits in idaho, they didn't allow killing them for a year or so and they had rabbit plagues, had to burn entire sections of the countryside to kill them off and get them under control. Whenever we screw with mother nature we generally mess it up.

Answer 10

to mizzlipglawss,

Actually scientists and state conservation offices ask hunters to shoot a certain amount of deer each year because the populations are getting way to high. Also, in each of those years, hunters have NOT been able to meet the quotas.

So, it is good to hunt because it keeps the deer population vibrant and healthy. Also, it saves peoples lives from car accidents.