this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
77 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13198 readers
375 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Big strong predator that sucks at hunting so much that they need to lure the deer to stand directly in front of their gun.

At that point you're not even a hunter, you're a slob that might as well be ordering from a menu. Pathetic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

source? Sounds more like game warden / hobby-hunter bullshit than ecology. Also, we don’t need to shoot deer for fertilizer if we stopped eating meet. If plants or ecosystems are imbalanced, it should be the work of ecologist not hunters

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The ecologist would generally prefer to introduce wolves or, if they weren't allowed to, they would shoot the deer. In fact those are the 2 main things they are doing and encouraging in various out of wack, deer overpopulated ecosystems.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They should be reduced in various areas or replaced in all areas by natural predators. I assure you there are areas with not enough hunting because a) the bears and wolves were exterminated 100 years ago, b) livestock farmers lobby the local and state governments against introducing those predators and c) hunters either don't hunt enough or only try to trophy hunt

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the people who think hunting is the only options should be reduced in various areas

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I mean yeah, natural predators are much more effective

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Here's an article.

The abstract:

Due to chronic high densities and preferential browsing, white-tailed deer have significant impacts on woody and herbaceous plants. These impacts have ramifications for animals that share resources and across trophic levels. High deer densities result from an absence of predators or high plant productivity, often due to human habitat modifications, and from the desires of stakeholders that set deer management goals based on cultural, rather than biological, carrying capacity. Success at maintaining forest ecosystems require regulating deer below biological carrying capacity, as measured by ecological impacts. Control methods limit reproduction through modifications in habitat productivity or increase mortality through increasing predators or hunting. Hunting is the primary deer management tool and relies on active participation of citizens. Hunters are capable of reducing deer densities but struggle with creating densities sufficiently low to ensure the persistence of rare species. Alternative management models may be necessary to achieve densities sufficiently below biological carrying capacity. Regardless of the population control adopted, success should be measured by ecological benchmarks and not solely by cultural acceptance.

As this ecologist notes, hunters are essential parts of maintaining healthy, biodiverse ecosystems.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Funny, are you an ecologist? First article I found in google scholar concluded hunters should be reduced.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"hunting is the primary population management tool" and "hunting should be reduced" are not mutually exclusive statements. You're not clever for demanding people have a degree in ecology to give you information.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Love that this person demands everyone else have a phd to argue with them about a subject they clearly understand less than a middle schooler