I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.
The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.
If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical. But if you’re using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you’re hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I’d argue that’s the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.
Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There’s a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It’s obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.
Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation
I agree but I do have a little issue with the “wasting resources” part, that’s a very anthropocentric view to take. There’s an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There’s obviously a lot of “ifs” involved but I wouldn’t generalise by saying that because a human didn’t get to eat it the resource was “wasted”.
It’s unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we’re obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we’ve inherited.
wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical.
Why is leaving the carcass to degrade naturally unethical? Is it better for the nutrients in the meat to end up in a water treatment plant or dumped into a river? Or do you prefer most of the nutrients to be used exclusively by humans?
I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don’t particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.
I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.
The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.
If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you’ve culled, it’s absolutely unethical. But if you’re using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you’re hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I’d argue that’s the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.
Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There’s a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It’s obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.
Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation
I think if factory farming were more stringently regulated a lot more people would hunt than buy a $500 steak.
I agree but I do have a little issue with the “wasting resources” part, that’s a very anthropocentric view to take. There’s an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There’s obviously a lot of “ifs” involved but I wouldn’t generalise by saying that because a human didn’t get to eat it the resource was “wasted”.
It’s unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we’re obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we’ve inherited.
Chronic Wasting Disease is a particularly scary prion disease that is highly dependent on deer population density.
IMO this makes “wasting” the meat more acceptable, because the consumption of wild venison could lead to an outbreak of this in humans
Why is leaving the carcass to degrade naturally unethical? Is it better for the nutrients in the meat to end up in a water treatment plant or dumped into a river? Or do you prefer most of the nutrients to be used exclusively by humans?
I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don’t particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.
Wild boars are also quite a nuisance.