Koar, just to explain a little about hunting, especially herbavores such as deer, in North America.
In terms of human history, North America was sparsley populated until the last few hundred years, unlike your part of the world that has seen civilizations come and go over thousands of years.
The "settlers" , the pioneers who crossed the vast open wilderness, of north America were in constant competition with the natural predators, like wolves, coyotes, big cats and bears. They saw these other predators as a threat to their survival. Wolves, Coyotes, and Bears were hunted mercilessly down to pitiful numbers, in order to allow the pioneers and settlers the ability to hunt the prey animals that normally would have been the wolves dinner.
It was simply a matter of survival.
Once farming and agriculture took hold, the predators were hunted down even more, as they were threats to livestock.
As things became more civilized, we ended up with a lot of Prey animals, like deer, and very few, if any, natural predators.
others have already mentioned it, but, I want to explain it further, these prey animals will and have overpopulated themselves and they MUST be hunted and their populations culled.
The feral boars are actually not even natural to the environment, and are very very destructive, which is why in many palces they can be hunted year round, with no limit. They are considered big Rats.
I live on the East Coast of the US, which most think is all concrete and cities.
We have so many deer, due to many years of strict hunting laws, that they need to be culled. It is also bad for their species to restrict the hunt. Our deer population is losing size and mass due to overpopulation and inbreeding. What would have been a 200 lb. buck 20 years ago, is now 150 lb. or even as low as 120 lb. Some of them are more like hunting a greyhound dog than a deer.
Once the population is culled, and the gene pool re-invigerated with diversity, the species will get back to a normal size and be all around healthier.
This is just one facet of hunting, population control. Prey animals need natural predators to ensure the health of their species, sounds counter-intuitive, but, the more you kill, within reason, actually the better off they are.
I agreed in the beginning there may have been a set-up or troll in this thread. Which is why I abstained from posting at all. It appears that due to difference in timezones and a slight language barrier may have had something to do with it.
With all that said , about population control, let me now say I do not hunt.
I have hunted, I know how to hunt, and don't have any qualms about killing and gutting an animal. I can clean a fish blindfolded having grown up on the water. Catch and release is nothing new to me, our family has always kept the big ones and thrown the little ones back, wish everyone had done the same long ago.
Hunting/Fishing is simply the direct method of feeding yourself. Cut out the slaughterhouse and grocery store. If someone gets a little adrenaline boost out of it, good for them!
I don't get a rush out of hunting like some people do. Mostly because I am impatient. (Don't ask why I am fisherman). To me hunting is more mechanical, a means to an end. It's like building a shelter or making a campfire, sure I feel good knowing I can take care of myself, but that TV image of the hunter just isn't me.
My neighbors do their duty culling our deer population, and I have considering taking a couple myself, since we are having such a problem with the deer, but, I wouldn't be doing to make myself "feel good" in a hedonistic sort of way, it would be to stock up on some lean meat, and assist with population control. If someone does get a thrill from the stalk and the hunt, thats great, it's in our human DNA, from the past million years, telling us "Meat=survival".
I have friends and neighbors who now embrace their bow hunting a lot more, because the rifles and slug guns just weren't giving them the same satisfaction, and/or because they also want to hone their skills, just like someone thinning their 60 lb. hiking pack down to 40 lbs. and finding a way to do more with less. And that is fine too.
I am actually surprised that Hunting wasn't written into our US Constitution as a Basic Right. perhaps it was so taken for grnated they never even gave it a thought, it's the natural progression of things.
When I go into the wilderness, I have my food issues squared away, for the most part. I don't go for weeks on end, and would never plan a trip where I would depend solely upon game to keep me alive, mostly because there are hunting seasons, legal means of hunting, and I wouldn't want to be harvesting animals for immediate nourishment, and breaking the law.
I support legal ethical hunting. And like anything else, there are a few idiots out there that give it a bad name. Thee are also a number of people that are removed so far from nature, that they don't understand anymore.
I don't mean city people or couch potatoes, either. There are many people who visit parks and the outdoors, but they view them like they are artwork in a museum, behind a rope, not to be touched, these folks are too, also, removed from nature.
Now, to bring this all back around to the beginning of my reply:
The tree-huggers who vote for excessively restrictive hunting are actually the ones doing the most damage to the prey species. With no natural predators their species is not as robust. With overpopultion, these species destroy plant life and make a mess of the environment.
As with most things there is a happy medium. Hunting animals to extinction would be dumb. But, on the flip side, not hunting them at all, and allowing their species to overpopulate is irresponsible and negligent.
I hope this helps explain WHY hunting is needed, and why hunters are actually better for a given species than the tree-huggers.
In terms of human history, North America was sparsley populated until the last few hundred years, unlike your part of the world that has seen civilizations come and go over thousands of years.
The "settlers" , the pioneers who crossed the vast open wilderness, of north America were in constant competition with the natural predators, like wolves, coyotes, big cats and bears. They saw these other predators as a threat to their survival. Wolves, Coyotes, and Bears were hunted mercilessly down to pitiful numbers, in order to allow the pioneers and settlers the ability to hunt the prey animals that normally would have been the wolves dinner.
It was simply a matter of survival.
Once farming and agriculture took hold, the predators were hunted down even more, as they were threats to livestock.
As things became more civilized, we ended up with a lot of Prey animals, like deer, and very few, if any, natural predators.
others have already mentioned it, but, I want to explain it further, these prey animals will and have overpopulated themselves and they MUST be hunted and their populations culled.
The feral boars are actually not even natural to the environment, and are very very destructive, which is why in many palces they can be hunted year round, with no limit. They are considered big Rats.
I live on the East Coast of the US, which most think is all concrete and cities.
We have so many deer, due to many years of strict hunting laws, that they need to be culled. It is also bad for their species to restrict the hunt. Our deer population is losing size and mass due to overpopulation and inbreeding. What would have been a 200 lb. buck 20 years ago, is now 150 lb. or even as low as 120 lb. Some of them are more like hunting a greyhound dog than a deer.
Once the population is culled, and the gene pool re-invigerated with diversity, the species will get back to a normal size and be all around healthier.
This is just one facet of hunting, population control. Prey animals need natural predators to ensure the health of their species, sounds counter-intuitive, but, the more you kill, within reason, actually the better off they are.
I agreed in the beginning there may have been a set-up or troll in this thread. Which is why I abstained from posting at all. It appears that due to difference in timezones and a slight language barrier may have had something to do with it.
With all that said , about population control, let me now say I do not hunt.
I have hunted, I know how to hunt, and don't have any qualms about killing and gutting an animal. I can clean a fish blindfolded having grown up on the water. Catch and release is nothing new to me, our family has always kept the big ones and thrown the little ones back, wish everyone had done the same long ago.
Hunting/Fishing is simply the direct method of feeding yourself. Cut out the slaughterhouse and grocery store. If someone gets a little adrenaline boost out of it, good for them!
I don't get a rush out of hunting like some people do. Mostly because I am impatient. (Don't ask why I am fisherman). To me hunting is more mechanical, a means to an end. It's like building a shelter or making a campfire, sure I feel good knowing I can take care of myself, but that TV image of the hunter just isn't me.
My neighbors do their duty culling our deer population, and I have considering taking a couple myself, since we are having such a problem with the deer, but, I wouldn't be doing to make myself "feel good" in a hedonistic sort of way, it would be to stock up on some lean meat, and assist with population control. If someone does get a thrill from the stalk and the hunt, thats great, it's in our human DNA, from the past million years, telling us "Meat=survival".
I have friends and neighbors who now embrace their bow hunting a lot more, because the rifles and slug guns just weren't giving them the same satisfaction, and/or because they also want to hone their skills, just like someone thinning their 60 lb. hiking pack down to 40 lbs. and finding a way to do more with less. And that is fine too.
I am actually surprised that Hunting wasn't written into our US Constitution as a Basic Right. perhaps it was so taken for grnated they never even gave it a thought, it's the natural progression of things.
When I go into the wilderness, I have my food issues squared away, for the most part. I don't go for weeks on end, and would never plan a trip where I would depend solely upon game to keep me alive, mostly because there are hunting seasons, legal means of hunting, and I wouldn't want to be harvesting animals for immediate nourishment, and breaking the law.
I support legal ethical hunting. And like anything else, there are a few idiots out there that give it a bad name. Thee are also a number of people that are removed so far from nature, that they don't understand anymore.
I don't mean city people or couch potatoes, either. There are many people who visit parks and the outdoors, but they view them like they are artwork in a museum, behind a rope, not to be touched, these folks are too, also, removed from nature.
Now, to bring this all back around to the beginning of my reply:
The tree-huggers who vote for excessively restrictive hunting are actually the ones doing the most damage to the prey species. With no natural predators their species is not as robust. With overpopultion, these species destroy plant life and make a mess of the environment.
As with most things there is a happy medium. Hunting animals to extinction would be dumb. But, on the flip side, not hunting them at all, and allowing their species to overpopulate is irresponsible and negligent.
I hope this helps explain WHY hunting is needed, and why hunters are actually better for a given species than the tree-huggers.
