Are you against hunting?

Question

Okay, I know that this is a big issue for some people. My family is big hunters. I live in WI where the deer population is high. 7 out of 9 people in my family hunt. We do it for the meat. We are not into "trophy hunting" Are you against hunting or are you for it? I am totally for it. If deer don't get hunted then they will just get hit by a car anyways. What are your opinions? Do you think it is cruel?

We don't use the hides. But we donate them. We just use the meat.

When I said we are not into trophy hunting I didn't mean that we don't keep the horns. If a buck has a nice rack we will keep it. I mean we are just not into killing a deer just to say we killed it.

Answer 1

I am against hunting, and this is why:

Deer/Car Collisions:
If it weren't for hunting, then there would be fewer deer/car collisions, because deer are scared into running into the streets. An excerpt from the C.A.S.H website: "The Erie Insurance Company noted that the number of deer/car collisions rose nearly five times on the first day of buck season and doe season. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration also stated that most deer/car collisions happen during hunting season.
State wildlife agencies know that hunting increases deer population and deer/car collisions. In 1978, NYS regional wildlife manager Terry Moore admitted, "We will attempt to increase the number of deer until we experience high incidences of deer-car collisions, depredation of agricultural crops becomes intolerable, and/or the effects on deer habitat begin to result." What works? Deer reflectors have been proven to reduce deer/car collisions from 60% to 100%."

Manipulated Deer Populations:
Also, deer populations are manipulated, so there will be more for hunters to shoot. Forests are clear cut to offer more browsing to 'game deer' and predators (like wolves) are 'culled' so that deer populations stay high enough to ensure that hunters can partake in their sport. Why are wolves being slaughtered from airplanes in Alaska? Because they are more effectively lowering the ungulate populations in Alaska than hunters. So hunters claim that deer are overpopulated, than clear cut forests and kill their predators just when their numbers are truly being lowered, and shoot them for sport after the populations are risen without the predators. It's circular logic.

Hunting doesn't work: (Another excerpt from C.A.S.H)
"Cogan: "If we reduce the herd by 14 percent, we will have a much higher replacement rate of younger, healthier specimens. It's hard to make people see that, because say 'hunting' and people think of reducing the herd, not helping it to increase." AND "We have a million deer hunters in this state who hunt that herd hard and we still have trouble keeping deer numbers in line with habitat." "

Most game animals aren't overpopulated:
Deer represent only 3% of the animals hunted, yet hunting is "justified" because 3% of the animals hunters shoot are 'overpopulated'.
An excerpt from Hunting Facts: "When hunters talk about shooting overpopulated animals, they are usually referring to white-tailed deer, representing only 3 percent of all the animals killed by hunters. Sport hunters shoot millions of mourning doves, squirrels, rabbits, and waterfowl, and thousands of predators, none of whom any wildlife biologist would claim are overpopulated or need to be hunted. "

Hunting still involves starvation:
An excerpt from Hunting Facts (see sources)
"Hunters also shoot nonnative species such as ring-necked pheasants who are hand-fed and raised in pens and then released into the wild just before hunting season. Even if the pheasants - native to China - survive the hunters' onslaught, they are certain to die of exposure or starvation in the nonnative environment. While hunters claim they save overpopulated animals from starvation, they intentionally breed some species and let them starve to death."

No fair chase:
Personal experience here: I've been within 15ft of a deer. Walked right up to a buck, and it was never afraid. Wary yes, had it's tail up, but not bothered enough to run from me, and I could have easily shot it and it wouldn't have seen anything coming. How is this fair?
An excerpt from Hunting Facts (see sources)
"Most deer, for example, would not perceive anything that is within the effective range of a big game rifle (up to 400 yards) as a predator or a source of danger. A wolf at that distance, even though detected, would be totally ignored. Even the much smaller range of bow-hunter (about 50-75 feet) is barely of concern to deer. Deer may start to keep an eye on a hunter at that distance, but the evasion instinct doesn't kick in until it's too late."

We don't need meat:
As vegetarians, we are much healthier, and don't need the meat. So hunting any animal is unnecessary. I do believe that hunting is more admiral than consuming factory farmed animals, but I choose to eat neither. Having said that though, I personally have no problem with people that hunt for food only, and if the hunted animals are the only meat they consume. Otherwise them calling nonhunters hyprocrites for eating cows doesn't work for me if they do it too.

Answer 2

I personally am for hunting in general, it keeps the population down and hunters get the meat and hides out of it. The only way I would be against it is if the hunter were taking careless shots at the animal and injuring it, not killing it. Any time we harvest deer, we make sure it is a clean shot, that will kill the animal.

Answer 3

Im all for hunting. The deer population around has grown so much that the wildlife department has issued more tags and extended seasons. Oh by the way my mom hit a deer the other day coming home from work (thank goodness for the brush guard )

Answer 4

I live in WI also, and I am for it. Anyone who is against it has never had their car totaled by hitting a deer!

If a hunter is responsible, it is not cruel. It is far MORE cruel to allow the population to become so large that many deer die a slow death from starvation.

Answer 5

I'm not against it. My family hunts too, for the meat. Also, think of it this way. More forests and areas taht people hunt in are not going to be torn down to be built on because of hunters use it. So it does help the environment in ways. Also, it keeps populations down that could become pests. (deer for instance.) Its not all bad.

Answer 6

Like Carl said, if hunting were banned then society would collectively have to either foot the bill through taxes or donations to keep our state, federal and lease hunting lands kept and manage the wildlife or lose millions of acres of prime land to developers and private interest groups. It is through programs like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and others like it including your states Game and Wildlife programs that buy land (preserve ecosystems) for every type of animal. The majority of funding for this preservation comes from the fee that hunters have to pay for each hunting tag they purchase. That money goes back into our state parks and recreation areas! I think the bigger debate is the misconception that hunters have a negative impact on wildlife or environment wildlife live in general and the misinformation that is spread because of individual beliefs to that fact.

Also, Nuktora is extremely misinformed. Deer and most every other animal have natural migratory patterns that happen whether roads are there or not. I would say that there is more pressure from housing/industrial development on wildlife than hunting.

Food for thought... While debating this matter whether your "for" or "against" hunting, you should consider the evolutionary necessities it took developmentally for humans to progress to the point we are at currently...
"Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social." (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html)

I would argue that even the president of PETA has ancestors that hunted and ate meat, and besides hunting IS the healthiest, cleanest and most humane way to feed your family meat.

Answer 7

As an anti hunting person are you ready to pay the cost that would incur if hunting were stopped. You taxes would go up to pay the cost of saving the environment you are so fond of. Your taxes would pay for game management, habiate for the birds and other wildlife you love. ducks would have no freedom to migrate, because there would be no swamps left for them to rest and build nest. We hunters pay for that by the taxes and fees and our work to improve and preserve the woods, swamps, land, for wild life. I could go on, but you folks in you high rises do not care about a world with out concrete and public transportation. Get out and walk the woods, and other outdoor places and remember if there is no hunting you will have to pay more taxes and eat less veggies.

Answer 8

I'm all for hunting I love it it's a great way to bond with the family and it gives you free unprocessed meat also gives you great exercise

Answer 9

No I am not against hunting, because I am opposed to the slow, painful torture of death by starvation of the deer herds that anti-hunter prefer for the deer. Anti-hunters support the deaths of far more deer than can be taken by hunters.

Answer 10

John S: last time I checked, deers were herbivores....and humans were omnivores. There is no more humaine meat out there than wild game, that is the bottom line. If you're not a vegan, then you are confused, a hypocrit, and probably an idiot.