peta.org end hunting now......?

Question

To see exactly how hunting is destructive to an ecosystem, let’s look at a specific game animal. Probably the most widely hunted animal in North America is one of the common species of deer (white-tailed, mule deer, or black-tailed with an aggregate of about 50 subspecies) 

Let’s consider a naturally segmented area has sufficient browse to feed a deer herd of 400 animals. Wildlife biologists would describe this by saying that the biological carrying capacity of the area for deer is 400. A territory has associated with it a carrying capacity for each species that has naturally evolved there. Nature has mechanisms in place to ensure that the carrying capacity that is appropriate for that species is not exceeded. What would happen if the deer population increased to substantially over 400 in one year? 

Let’s say that with all normal control mechanisms in place (including natural predators) the herd size reaches 500 healthy individuals. At the start of the next rut, several mechanisms would kick in to ensure a smaller amount of fawns the following year. If deer are hungry (not starving, but not well fed either), the sex drive of the bucks declines and the does stop ovulating or become receptive less frequently than they would if plenty of browse is available. Since the browse is now insufficient to feed all 500 animals, a portion of the deer population would not reproduce during that season. With the normal die-off during the winter and the smaller than normal birth during the spring, the total population would be reduced to less that 500. 

Within a few seasons the populations would again stabilize around the capacity of the territory. If the herd size dropped substantially below the carrying capacity (say to 300), other natural mechanisms would kick in (for example, does who have lots of browse during the rut are more likely to have twins or triplets) to bring the population back up to the normal carrying capacity of 400. Many other mechanisms, some simple and some fairly involved and not yet completely understood, are used by nature to maintain the population at the carrying capacity. 

These mechanisms with which the species have evolved have, built into them, assumptions that have been true for millions of years. Human hunting totally destroys some of these assumptions 

 

Based on an 80/20 gender ratio, a 100 animal winter die-off, and normal browse conditions there will 240 does and 60 bucks in the surviving herd. The 240 does will give birth to 240 fawns of which 160 will survive. At the next rut the herd size is now 460 instead of 400. That’s a 15% increase over the normal her size. A few successive seasons like that and the herd approaches conditions where massive, catastrophic starvation and die-offs are inevitable. 

Hunting is not the cure but the cause of overpopulation and starvation. Luke Dommer, the founder of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, has proposed to several times to various state wildlife agencies that if they are serious about using hunting as a population control tool in areas where the sex ratio is already badly distorted, they should institute a doe-only season. (Taking no bucks but only does until the ratio is again stabilized at 50:50). All agencies have rejected that proposal – thereby giving up any pretense of ecologically motivated sound wildlife management. They quite consciously and openly state that they are in business to provide the maximum number of live targets to hunters each year. 



The only way that these ecosystems can recover is to prohibit human hunting and all other forms of non-sustainable consumptive uses of these animals. We should allow for the unfettered reintroduction and re-immigration of predators (which is occurring naturally). Stop “managing” the environment of those areas. When it comes to managing the environment, our knowledge is inadequate to do an even passable job. Even given an ethically sound motivation, which the state agencies now lack, we simply don’t know enough to do a better job than nature. 

Rather than playing God, we ‘re acting more like the three stooges, when it comes to managing ecosystems. For the sake of life on earth, we must not allow the hunting and gun-manufacturing lobbies to continue to dictate wildlife management policies.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Back again with yet another new user ID.  What a waste of  bandwidth....

Anonymous · Answer

PETA also believes that pets should be left as wild animals and not kept in homes.  I could not care less about any of PETA's statistics or opinions.  My pets are going to live long happy lives because they are in my homes.  Especially my hunting dog.

4Her4Life · Answer

This is the DOG section, and most of your information is incorrect...

First off, carry capacities assume ONLY "natural" sources of food (grass, brush, etc). The "carrying capacity" is MUCH higher when the deer realize (as any starving deer will) that corn and wheat and potato plants are good to eat - thus, the only way this "natural" method will work is if we stop growing crops or completely eliminate deer from any area where we want to grow crops.

Second, you ignore the ACTUAL major cause of population reduction which is predators. The catch is similar to the first point, if a predator can take down a deer, they can take down a calf or a sheep or a human being no problem. Only if we eliminate humans from the picture does that "natural" cycle work without causing needless human deaths.

Third, both starvation and being killed by a predator are about 100x more stressful, painful, and sustained than a bullet - or even than a couple of bullets, though any decent hunter makes quick and pretty clean kills. You're saying that starving and freezing to death or having your entrails consumed while your front end is still trying to get up and run away is more "humane" than a bullet? Get real.

Fourth, the "doe-only" season info you cite is a flat-out LIE. Most states I am aware of strongly encourage the harvest of does and give tags specifically for "antlerless" (gender can be hard to tell at a distance). I know that, for example, Minnesota has 6 separate deer seasons divided by antlered or antlerless, and whether you are using a bow, black powder, or conventional firearms.

Fifth, a specific example, if this was true, how did there end up being 350 deer in a park in a major city when that park could only sustainably support 50? No one was hunting them, no predators, and yet they managed to grow to SEVEN TIMES what you would call the "carrying capacity".

Please do a little research on how the real world works, stop listening to the PETA propaganda (lies) and stop spamming the forum with irrelevant-to-dogs posts.

Lacey UD, RE · Answer

I don't know.  The small town that I live in is over run with mule deer.  They are being maimed by cars because they are in the road ways.  I think that a quick euthanasia by bullet or arrow and the meat stowed in my freezer would be more humane and useful then being allowed to be a town cripple because of a fractured leg.   I guess a car could be a predator in this case.

:) · Answer

What is you question?

I think GAME hunting is wrong. How could hunting an animal in their habitat with a high powder riffle be a game? Anyone who gets enjoyment out of killing another animal freaks me right out.

When hunting is an aboriginal or cultural trait or for food to survive I see nothing wrong. People who live in northern provinces use this meat to survive on as they cannot buy meat. It's not done for fun or sport it's something that is done for food and lively hood.

I buy only free-range chicken age, and free-range beef and chicken meat. They live a fulfilled (while short) life and are killed in the most humane way possible. I try to keep it as moral as possible without being a vegetarian.

I do respect PETA. They are at least pushing for something good. However, just because something is moral or good doesn't mean it is 100% realistic. I totally believe animals need to be better protected and cared for.

Lady of the Bitter Sea · Answer

Typical PETA BS. If you want people to take you seriously try using informantion that isn't so disgustingly biased and pulled of of a smelly vegan ***. Did you know that PETA abuses and euthanizes more animals than all the killl shelters?

Braelyn · Answer

Nobody here supports PETA (I hope) so your point is fairly moot to post here.

ragapple · Answer

funny I live in PA special regulation 1 buck 4 doe bag limit many years
Hunting begins with "how much room is in freezer?"

•Poppy• · Answer

I'm not against hunting - for food. What I AM against is hunting animals as pure sport; bucks for their antlers, bobcats or coyotes for their fur, birds just for something to shoot at.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to legislate the *type* of hunting that is done and far too many people like to feel powerful by aiming their gun at something and taking a life.

Now, I DO personally own a rifle and I DO know how to shoot it and do frequently. But there is a very clear divide between the motives behind the hunting.

Beth Strawberry · Answer

What's the question?

Trending News

peta.org end hunting now......?

13 Answers