I live in the heavily populated suburbs outside of Philadelphia. Like all of suburbia, my community is the boundary line between rural and urban America, so I see elements of both. For the past few years, an issue that's been getting a lot of attention in my county is the overabundance of deer. The local government, not really knowing how to handle a problem like this, decided to call in the hunters. And so we've been having controlled, annual deer hunts in the local parks.
The issue: I know a lot of people on this site are environmentalists and animal rights activists (actually, I'm sure we've got a lot of different sorts of people on here), but is hunting the right choice for us? I want their input, and, of course, any proponents of hunting as well.
Here's what's going on with the deer: they've been destroying the vegetation in the country. For instance, an animal expert hired by the county said that one local park could support a deer herd of 20 individuals, at the very maximum. There are over 400 deer currently living in the park, and I am not at all over exaggerating when I say they are an extremely destructive ecological force, not to mention pests to many residents near the park. So, hunting seems like a pretty good idea, because it immediately reduces the population and restores the park's ecological balance faster.
I've heard of other options, like catch and release, or shooting deer with infertility darts to humanely thin their populations. But these two options cost a lot of money. The hunting's done for free.
Are there any other cost effective solutions? I don't want to sound brutish, but from what I've experienced (and I'm not a hunter), the “shoot 'em up, kill 'em” method seems like the best way. It's good for the community and our ecosystems.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If the psycho environmentalists who hate hunting would actually let the hunters hunt in the woods like they're supposed to, then we wouldn't have this dilemma!
I don't understand people being against regulated hunting. If they weren't against regulated hunting, we wouldn't have so many people afraid to hunt, and therefore, we wouldn't have as much of a problem of deer in our precious suburbs.
Get over it. (not you; the psycho anti-hunters.) If you don't want deer in your apple trees and rose bushes, don't plant them. Or let people hunt.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I consider myself an animal rights activist. I am all anti-hunting as well, but I do recognise the problem that people are having with the deer. I think that there should be a VERY limited time in which the deer population can be thinned out (not anywhere where people live, however). Whatever is killed SHOULD BE EATEN (even though im a vegitarian), or sold to people that will eat the meat. Then, which ever deer are left could be caught and released, or sterilized. As humans, we need to also respect the animals and the fact that they have every right to live there just as much as we do. Just a little hippie notion.
I don't see a problem with hunting as long as the hunting is done because people are using the hide and the meat, and not just to further their goal of building a lounge chair out of antlers.
The infertility darts sound good, but really expensive. Catch and release sounds good, except for it just kind of sounds like they're pushing the problem onto someone else, or just moving it somewhere else where it will only be a short-term solution. I really don't know how these things work though, so I'm probably wrong.
I think bringing in hunters would be the best solution.
read my blogs!
ProU
Not ProU
Some mistakes can't be undone/ it'll never be like it was/ and wishing for it only makes it worse
Rocky Votolato
I'm from an area in the states where the deer population is a huge problem. I'm not a hunter, nor is anyone in my family, but I totally support the hunters.
Not only is deer overpopulation a pesky problem for home and landowners, but it can also be dangerous. My hometown area has had many problems involving large numbers of deer dashing across roads and highways. I cannot drive very long before I see carcass after carcass lying in the ditch. The carcasses either lay there and decompose, or city workers have to come in and remove them (on the taxpayers' dime). Countless claims are made annually for vehicular damage done by hitting deer, and occasionally, someone is injured (or even killed) due to hitting these animals.
My dog has become sick numerous times after finding and enjoying a dead deer along the road. It's really nasty.
I have nothing against the animal itself, but when there's so many of them, deer become a serious issue. I'm all for legal hunting with rifles and bows, rather than "hunting" with motorized vehicles.
Most who are against hunting, apart from having watched Bambi too often (hunter joke, no offense meant), don't understand what hunters do.
The impression is that hunters kill animals to steal their horns then leave them to rot.
Truth is, hunters harvest all of an animal, leaving as little to waste as possible.
Apart from what is done with the animal, hunters are only allowed to take as many animals as is in overabundance. This means that the DNR (or whatever your wildlife commission is called) looks at the approximate populations of deer (or other animal) and determins how many the local environment can support. Hunters are then issued permits to take whatever number is left over.
If hunters did not take these animals, they would eat up the local resources and then they would starve to death.
Exactly. That's exactly what I was getting it, only I didn't actually explain, heh.
That's not the only problem, though. If the hunter's don't take them, they end up in suburbs and then we get people complaining that they're eating rose bushes or standing in the roads.
Now, no one I know has ever hunted with dogs. But I do remember a situation a few years back where hunting bears with dogs became illegal.
As a result, apparently, not enough bear were killed by the hunters; the bears grew to enormous populations and ended up in neighborhoods where (gasp) children go to school!
I also remember people complaining that their precious cats and lap dogs were disappearing around that time (although I really never understood why their cats or lapdogs were outside alone in the first place... but that's another argument for another day).
Needless to say, the dog hunting thing was reinstated. Now, at certain times, certain people get a license where they can use their hunting dogs to hunt.
It's the same thing with deer. Let the hunters do their job.
Besides... one deer will fill my freezer for at the very least two months. And that's a family of four. An elk will feed us into the summer [when hunting season is in the winter]. A "hunter," by definition, uses the animal, not it's antlers (I laughed when you said "horns" Lance. I don't know if that was an intentional play on the anti-hunters, or what). If they aren't using the animal, they aren't really a hunter.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I wholly agree, and yes I was dipping into the stereotype of what the anti-hunters say.
I haven't been hunting, but I do hope to go sometime this summer for my first hunt on wild hogs.
In my state, there is no season and you don't need a license unless you're out hunting hogs during a time when licenses are available for some other animal (in which case you have to get the license for THAT animal)
I bought an inexpensive rifle (Russian military surplus from WWII, a m91/30) so that if I DON'T like it, I'm not out hundreds of dollars. (In fact, that rifle, a rail for a scope that doesn't require me to alter my bolt and a red dot sight set me back about 200 bucks total)
I'm looking forward to the pork chops, bacon, ham jerky, pork roast, etc. etc. etc.
Yuck. The only piggy product I like is bacon, so I would never kill a piggy.
Actually, I don't do the actual hunting myself... I don't have the heart to end something's life (I have trouble walking sometimes because I don't want to squish the buggies on the ground)... so I guess I should say I would never be happy with my dad, my brother, or my boyfriend killing the piggies, lol.
Actually, my dad has gone wild hog hunting before. I hear it's pretty difficult. Good luck!
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I guess I'm odd there.
I have no problem killing an animal.
I can't stand to hurt an animal though. I get very upset when I see animals being hurt or abused.
I'd feel much worse if I didn't make a 'kill shot' when hunting, as I know that the animal would be in alot of pain.
Just how I am, I guess.
My one experience with it was not too favorable. It is not "the other white meat" you get from the grocery store. Unless you are hunting Havalena's or Pecary's they are essentially the same animal as you get from the grocery store only feral. They have a completely different diet and they are not universally young. The bigger they are the older they are generally and that does not make them better eating.
My main complaint was grease. As I recall you live in Oklahoma and I bet you folks down there know how to make some awesome pork BBQ that would make just about any hog taste good.
I think it would be fun hunting them though. Wild pigs are one of the few animals in North America that will fight back and occasionally the hunter becomes the hunted. That makes it interesting. I think I would want a side arm as a backup for the rifle.
I've heard a brazillion ways to take care of the 'odd taste' of wild meat, but the one that has always stuck with me is soaking it in milk.
I have had deer, buffalo and a few other animals and the best ones had been soaked in milk for a while first.
I do plan on having my rifle there (m91/30 7.62x54r) and also my 9mm pistols.
I don't climb trees.
Buttermilk or yogurt does even better.
But neither of them cuts the grease.
That's where good ol' slow smoking comes in handy.
Can't get rid of ALL the grease though, or you don't get the goodness (badness?) of eating juicy meat!
My uncle hunts wild boar, and I've always thought it was actually pretty decent... though I'm not sure they've ever actually tried to "get him." It's interesting that he lives in rural Greece, where there are no hunting regulations that I know of. And guess what? They don't have wild animal problems or constant conflicts between animal rights people and hunters.
In fact, even when I was pretty vegetarian, I would eat venison shot by my boss, as I know him to be an ethical hunter, who does not bait the deer, and who is practiced enough that he has never injured a deer and given up on it. If he ever delivers a non-lethal shot, he will track the deer until he finds it and puts it down. It is a far more ethical means of eating than farmed meat, and it is more ecologically sound than eating soy products.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
And much tastier!!
And healthier than red meat, as well (it is much, much more lean than beef).
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
For those who haven't had it, I recommend buffalo.
it is like a dense beef, but MUCH lower fat content.
buffalo is delicious.
My dad used to go moose hunting though, and I think I like moose better than buffalo, though I haven't had it in years. :-(
read my blogs!
ProU
Not ProU
Some mistakes can't be undone/ it'll never be like it was/ and wishing for it only makes it worse
Rocky Votolato
Hunting Ethics is a very important thing.
The VAST Majority of hunters are good folk who do the right thing.
It is only a TINY minority who are not. However, the anti-hunting forces hold up this minority as the norm. Hunting bans are growing across the US.
In Oklahoma, we're likely to have an item on our ballot in November to protect hunting/fishing as a constitutional right.
I don't like hurting animals, which is why I am a fan of hunting. Yes, we deforested their land, we moved in to their space, but we're obviously not going to tear down houses to REforest the suburbs, so the poor deer are left with not enough food in the winter, risk of getting hit by cars, etc. Hunting is the best solution. I think it's funny that people get pissed about them eating their landscaping, though. Serves you right for living in the 'burbs!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've seen statistics that show there are far more deer in the USA than there were when the white man got here. Like coyotes, deer thrive around humans. Our farming and suburban vegetation efforts make the land more productive for the deer. And our game management is favorable to their numbers.
I'm glad you favor hunting because it is the most humane way to manage their numbers.
I live in Wyoming and we have had several warm winters in a row and the deer population is through the roof. People here are pretty enthusiastic about hunting but there just are not enough of us to keep them in check. Before long, nature is going to run its course and we will either have a disease epidemic or a bad winter or both. It will be very sad.
Our town has a bow hunting season inside of city limits. I think people who participate are required to take a special safety course. Arrows are pretty lethal but their range is very limited compared to a deer rifle so it is a reasonable solution.
For the most part, if you are unable to see it, you can't hit it with a bow (in terms of distance). If you miss your shot, your arrow is only going to go a football field or so.
With a rifle? At the right angle, a mile isn't too far out of range.
Think about that next time you see pictures of idiots in the middle easy firing their guns off in the air to celebrate something. Each round goes somewhere..
That makes sense. I am laughing to myself trying to picture people running around Wayzata (a wealthy Minneapolis suburb) with bows and arrows!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Modern bows are pretty high tech looking affairs.
And the arrows are so sharp you can get a cut just by looking at them from across the room.
Within there effective range they are ever bit as lethal as a firearm. I don't personally do it but in my opinion bow hunting takes a lot more skill and is a lot more of a sport than riffle hunting. You have to get much closer which requires cunning and stealth and it requires a lot more practice to learn to be accurate with a bow then it does to be accurate with a rifle.
I've used a bow a few times on targets. I didn't get much relaxation or enjoyment out of it compared to target shooting with firearms.
I do agree that, due to range issues, you do have to get ALOT closer than with a rifle.
I don't know that it takes more skill, per se, as compared to a nice long distance (200+ yard) shot with a good rifle.... but most rifle shots I understand are less than 150 yards (less than 80 for brush areas)
What I do like about the bow is that there is ALOT less restriction on it. You don't need a permit to own a bow or need to pack it into a dozen boxes in order to transport it from one town to another. That makes it easier to practice, though places to practice are few and far between, unless you have a big enough yard. (though be careful, some states consider the arrow to be a type of projectile weapon that is illegal to fire within city limits.)
I used to live near Wayzata when I lived in Minnesota. I even worked a shift or two at the blockbuster there when I was employed there.
Interesting town, to say the least.
oddly enough, I also live outside of Philadelphia. But! I am not from here, I'm from the great state of Michigan, and I spent my high school years in a very very very small town surrounded by rural communities. Needless to say, hunting is a big thing. I'm not one for hunting, and I usually don't make friends with those who are hunters, but I do support deer hunting. Your situation is a lot like Michigan's- a big case of overcrowding. If properly regulated- as others have mentioned- hunting will actually be more humane then letting these animals die of starvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."