Re: What's Wrong With Deer Hunting?

   I didn't see this come through, so I'm resending. It's a draft - hopefully a
final one.

   You get the last word after this response.

usual suspect wrote:

> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> >                    WHAT'S WRONG WITH DEER HUNTING?
>
>                                 Nothing.
>
> >     The purpose of this document is to provide animal protection
> > activists...
>
> "Animal protection activists"?! No, you mean kooks.

   If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you not write like a pro-hunting

zealot. If you just want to preach to the ever-shrinking choir, be my guest.

>
>
> > with a set of rational counter-arguments  against the most
> > common reasons given by  hunters to justify killing deer for sport.
>
> Too bad your counter-arguments don't live up to the billing of rational,
> much less factual.
>
> > It deals primarily with deer hunting in North America, and the
> > United States in particular. Distribute it freely, but please don't
> > change the contents without my permission.
>
> Dumb request given the nature of usenet.

   So far you've lost about half of the people who might be inclined
to take you seriously. Insult is not rational argument.

> >
> >            "Hunting controls deer populations effectively."
> >
> >
> >   No, it doesn't, for two reasons. First, buck hunting, which is the
> > mainstay of this "sport", is virtually useless in effectively managing
> > deer populations. Why? Because deer are not monogamous, and a single
> > surviving male in a population of deer can impregnate all of the
> > surviving females. Doe hunting can offer some measure of control, but
> > despite their claims to the contrary, most sport hunters have merely
> > a slight interest in hunting does. The only really effective lethal
> > controlling measure against deer, however, is killing does.
>
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/hunt/regs/2004/animal_listing/#whiteTailDeer
>
> Notice something in that block called "antlerless season"? Along with
> the standard set of tags, licensees receive a set of antlerless tags FOR
> HARVESTING OF DOES. TPWD encourages doe harvesting at the beginning of
> each season, especially in counties where deer populations are at or
> near carrying capacity. TPWD has also extended the number of
> antlerless/doe days to encourage doe control.

   Nowhere do I claim that does are not hunted. My claim is that from the
perspective of controlling polulation, only doe permits have a real,
lasting effect. Right below I note that game managers do allow does to be
"harvested", but only in sufficient numbers to keep the herds fairly healthy
and producing "surplus" deer. This is one example that shows that you
did not read the entire post before responding.

>
> > Our current
> > system of game management allows does to be killed mainly to leave enough
> > forage to produce another year's worth of "Trophy Bucks". There must
> > always be a yearly "surplus" of deer to satisfy the hunters who are
> > essentially the paying customers of wildlife managers. This arrangement
> > places the interests of the hunters above the goal of having a
> > biologically ideal, diverse deer population.
>
> Wrong. I don't know what the deer population is like where you live, but
> Texas is considered the best state for white-tailed deer. Our mild
> climate and vast expanses of ranch land are conducive for deer quantity
> and quality. We have no shortage of trophy bucks.

    You aren't responding to my point, which is that placing the most
emphasis on hunting the most robust male deer is not biologically
sound. I don't deny that deer populations have withstood this counter-
productive approach so far, but then a hundred or so years isn't even
noticeable on an evolutionary time scale in most cases.

>
> Wildlife managers understand the concepts that lead to healthy herds. So
> do hunters. Most deer leases (deer hunting in Texas is done on private
> land) have requirements about the size of deer that may be harvested to
> keep the gene pool as diverse as possible.

   Virtually as soon as bucks are old enough to have a chance at
reproducing, they also meet the size standards. This means that
diversity is *not* protected. It also means that the selection
practiced by hunters is not natural.

>
>
> >    Second, not only does killing substantial numbers of male deer not
> > prevent an immediate resurgence in population, it actually works to help
> > bring about this resurgence. Why? Because most wild animal populations
> > have evolved a response to large die-offs: they produce more offspring.
>
> Deer will only produce more offspring under certain conditions. Those
> conditions do not include "large die-offs." They do include the
> availability of water and food. Food availability is a variable that may
> be affected by herd size, but it's also be affected by cessation of
> drought conditions.

   Most mammalian species will respond to die-offs with an increased
reproductive rate. You can argue that it's only because more food
becomes available, but this doesn't explain every instance of it. It
doesn't really matter for the purposes of this argument, though, because
killing a lot of deer in one area increases the food supply dramatically
for the ones who remain. This means that even if there is no mechanism
at work other than food availability and supply, killing large numbers of
deer will produce a subsequent rebound in population.

>
>
> > In the case of deer, especially whitetails, does who would normally have
> > one or two fawns will 'respond' to a drop in herd population by having
> > two or three fawns the following year.
>
>         In her first year of breeding, a female generally has one fawn,
>         but 2 per litter (occasionally 3 or 4) are born in subsequent
>         years.
>         http://tinyurl.com/quuw

   The reason for "occasionally 3 or 4" is not given there, but it can
be found in plenty of other places, including 'The Deer of North
America". It is, as you have already acknowledged, availability
and quality of food. Does who have an unlimited supply of alfalfa,
for example, are much more likely to produce 3 or 4 fawns, and
these fawns are much more likely to survive into the age of
reproduction. When you kill a large fraction of a herd, there
is more food for the rest.

>
>
> > This is due both to the increase
> > in high-quality food brought about by the reduction in the herd and to
> > the herd reduction itself; the sudden drop in population appears to be a
> > direct trigger for increased reproduction .
>
> Not entirely accurate; what was your source for this?

   Many passing references. I can't find one specific enough for me,
but at http://www.langara.bc.ca/biology/mario/Biol1215notes/biol1215chap52.html
one possible (and simple) explanation can be found: biotic potential vs
environmental resistance. IOW when a large die-off occurs that is not
caused by environmental factors like long-term shortage of food, the
'brakes' on reproduction are reduced for the surviving members of a group.
In the case of deer, this is combined with a greatly increased proportion
of does in the surviving members of the herd. So, between decreased
resistance to herd expansion and a higher proportion of females in a
species that is polygamous, a rapid rebound effect is inevitable as
long as there is sufficient food. Killing mostly bucks produces a
rebound in population. This is how nature works with species like
the Whitetail.

>
>
> > This information is not
> > secret or controversial. Quite the contrary: game managers include it in
> > their calculations when they decide how many deer are to be killed. If
> > these managers were truly interested in controlling populations for the
> > benefit of the deer, as opposed to keeping them at artificially high
> > annual levels, they would ban most buck hunting and instead issue
> > licenses to kill only does, and only when needed - generally once every
> > two to three years. Such hunts would only be needed every few years
> > because only does can replenish the herds by increasing fawn births.
>
> What were you smoking when you wrote this? If you tamper with the ratio
> of does:bucks, you'll only increase competition for territory and
> mating. This has a very negative effect on deer, not to mention other
> species.

   Heh! You promote a "sport" that "tampers with" the ratio of males to
females in one direction, and then worry that tampering with it in the
other direction is a bad thing. Pass that joint, Bro! Seriously, what
you appear to be implying is that reducing the number of bucks who
get to reproduce will cause problems; this ignores the fact that in
most herds, there are already many males who don't get to reproduce.
The species has evolved with this aspect. It has not, however, evolved
under conditions under which the biggest, strongest males are specifically
targeted for killing. (Fights between bucks are rarely fatal.) This is natural
selection reversed.


>
> > Between that and the ban on bucks, however, this kind of lethal control
> > would be wildly unpopular with hunters, and so will not be enacted.
>
> It would also be devastating on the deer population. Balance is *not*
> created by leaving aggressive males to compete for fewer rutting does.

   You misstate the reason for buck aggression. It isn't the number of
females available, but is in fact the "rut", which is triggered each
year in bucks whether there are 2 does in a herd or 200. You posit a
problem that doesn't exist.

>
>
> >    Remember, however, that when game managers *really* need to
> > reduce populations of deer, they increase the number of doe killing
> > permits issued.
>
> Doe management is already being done. As noted above, we have special
> antlerless seasons in addition to antlerless tags.

   Which are used to keep the herds at or near "carrying capacity", so that
hunters won't be up in arms (as it were) about a shortage of "surplus"
deer to "harvest". This does nothing to rebut me, and I have already
noted it.

>
>
> >        "Hunting is the natural way to control deer populations."
> >
> >    This argument is both widely used and widely accepted, but it ignores
> > a crucial fact: many prey populations increase and decrease much more
> > quickly than predator populations.
>
> That fact is not so crucial. Most prey species are also weaned earlier
> than predators as well. We could go through all the differences between
> predator and prey species and note many such factors that influence the
> ebb and flow between inter- and intra-species populations.

   You just sidestepped what is in fact *the* crucial point in this argument:
that deer reproduce too fast to be controlled mainly by predators (except
in a few now-rare environments), and that it is the numbers of prey in this
case who control the numbers of (non-human) predators.

>
>
> > If nonhuman predation really were
> > the primary factor in controlling wild populations of deer, then one
> > would expect to see relatively stable populations of both kinds of
> > animals in the wild.
>
> Nature's constant flux doesn't exactly lead to homeostasis -- not a pure
> homeostasis anyway -- but instead is like a pendulum.

   I describe this "pendulum" in detail, and my use of the word
"relatively" acknowledges that true homeostasis wouldn't exist.


> Thus, your
> paradigm is faulty. So, too, is the misanthropic gesture in removing
> humans from an equation to see if it balances: we, too, are part of
> nature, and we are predators.

   You have misinterpreted my "paradigm". Humans are not "natural"
predators of deer in any meaningful sense of the word; deer evolved
into their modern form long before humans arrived in North America,
and current hunting methods and goals do not meet any reasonable
standards of "natural". We prey on deer, but do so in a *very*
unnatural manner. That is why I used the "nonhuman" qualifier,
not because of any "misanthropy". I can't very well talk about how
deer populations would look without human intervention, while
still including human intervention, now can I?

>
>
> > Instead, what has been observed in the absence of
> > human intervention is a gradual but pronounced 'up and down swing' in
> > both deer and predator populations, with the predator populations
> > lagging behind both the increases and decreases. Why does this happen?
>
> Because nature is in constant flux.

   So you agree with me...here. Below you are going to contradict yourself.
This is another sign that you didn't read the whole piece before responding:
a few paragraphs earlier, you criticized me for not acknowledging the very
process I just described about. You even said my paradigm was wrong, you
cad! ;-)  Seriously, I suggest you reread long posts before you send them.

>
>
> > Because it is *starvation*, not predation, that is the primary control
> > on most truly wild deer populations. (Deer living in mature forests,
> > with wolves as their primary predator, do tend to have more stable
> > populations. This is because food in this environment is more limited on
> > an ongoing basis, as long as the forest remains undisturbed.)
>
> Partially true. What happens, though, to wolves and cougars when deer
> populations increase? They also increase. Then the balance swings the
> other way: more predators leads to a reduction in prey. The result is a
> full pendulum shift for both predators and prey. It eventually swings
> back the other way and continues in flux.

   And there is the contradiction.
   I describe the very process below, but in the correct order: first
the deer die off due to exhaustion of food supply, then the predators
(after briefly enjoying some easy meals of dead and dying deer)
experience their own food shortage, and either die off or relocate.
In that order.

(This is noted in one of my cites, which you snipped.)

>
>
> >    When a herd of deer first enters an area with abundant nourishing
> > plant food, their population increases rapidly over the course of two
> > or three years. As the population of deer 'explodes', the number of
> > carnivores who prey on them, like canids and large felines, begins to
> > increase, albeit at a slower rate.
>
> Not entirely accurate. Predators are wont to extend range to areas where
> prey is most plentiful, and they usually extend their range more
> significantly than prey extends its own range. Under such circumstances,
> it's possible for predators to reproduce at rates commensurate with, or
> exceeding, that of prey.

   This is not what generally happens, however. Talk to some wildlife
biologists (not working as game managers) about what happens when
prey species reproduce much faster than their predators.

>
>
> > The plants upon which the deer feed
> > are unable to replenish themselves as quickly as they are consumed or
> > damaged, and the food supply eventually undergoes a rapid decline.
>
> Simplistic and inaccurate. The relationship between ruminant and forage
> is accurate, but decline of forage is a function of more variables than
> that.

   So when hunters claim damage to habitat as either the worst or
second worst (along with deer/car collisions) effect of deer overpopulation,
they are lying...right? No, they aren't, although they do tend to put too
much emphasis on damage to ornamental plants in suburbs...
   Of course there are other variables; a drought may kill off the plants
before the deer do, but under normal conditions, the deer deplete the
forage, then starve. Snow cover, where applicable, also has a big
effect on forage. This is so uncontroversial it is used by game
managers as an argument for deer hunting. (They just kind of keep mum
about their own efforts to encourage deer reproduction anyway.)

>
>
> > Before the population of predators can expand enough to effectively halt
> > the growth of the deer population through predation, the food supply
> > runs out. Deer begin to starve, and over the course of another one to
> > three years, the population of deer collapses, leaving only some of the
> > strongest individuals. As the "doomed surplus" deer die of starvation,
> > the predators receive what may at first seem like a blessing: plenty of
> > easy prey to eat and scavenge. Their populations continue to expand.
> > Once the mass starvation of deer has slowed and then stopped, however,
> > the predators in turn face starvation. Some of them relocate over large
> > distances to find food, while others die. It is this sequence of events
> > that produces the 'lag' in deer predator populations compared with prey
> > populations, and it is this cycle that disproves the myth that it is
> > predation that naturally controls wild deer populations outside of
> > mature forests. Weather and other environmental conditions have also
> > been observed to have a more pronounced effect on deer populations than
> > do predators: a harsh Winter will decimate deer herds on a scale that
> > wolves and big cats don't approach, although this can be partially
> > masked by predators killing starving or stranded animals that are
> > destined to die in any event. The interactions between predator and prey
> > populations can be quite complex, but if we want to reduce them to one
> > simplistic scenario, then for typical deer herds at least, that scenario
> > is not "predators control prey populations". It is, instead, "prey
> > populations control predator populations".
>
> Already covered sufficiently in my responses above.

   No, it isn't. You make a claim that flies in the face of what is known
about wildlife populations.

>
> > Food supply primarily controls the prey populations.
>
> It also controls the predator populations.

   For gods' sake, man - you just told me I'm right, again! Make your mind up,
please. Either argue or argree, don't do both.

>
>
> > Human habitation and, especially, agriculture have
> > greatly changed the original dynamic, and it is thus hard to argue against
> > *some kind* of human intervention in deer herd populations.
>
> The "original dynamic" is still operative. Your misanthropic paradigm
> doesn't change that.

   The original dynamic is a North American continent that doesn't
contain farms, suburbs, cities, or any humans at all. This isn't
"misanthropic", it's just factual. Do you think that humans were
here a million years ago? Two? Three? The most recent estimate
I've seen has humans arriving in North America about 100,000
years ago. That's LONG after deer had evolved into their present
form here. The original dynamic only operates in areas where
humans have no agriculture, no forestry, and no hunting. How
many places here can you name that still fit those criteria...?

>
>
> > We do have
> > plenty of reasons, however, to argue against the current system, which is
> > run by game managers for the benefit of hunters.
>
> What benefits hunters also benefits deer populations.

   Yeah, and what is good for General Motors is good for America.
That's just an opinion. The facts of deer overpopulation don't support
it.

>
>
> >    Hunters can certainly try to argue - although their case isn't as
> > clear-cut as it may at first sound - that the current system of
> > *artificial* predation is kinder to the deer,
>
> What's artificial about human predation? Does "HUNTER-gatherers" ring a
> bell?

   See above. There were NO, Zero, Zip humans here when these animals
evolved, and we haven't been here long enough to have a significant
effect on their evolution, although we sure do seem to be trying to
mess with their gene pool now.

>
>
> Man is every bit a part of nature and what's "natural" as deer, wolves,
> cougars, and forage. Excising man from your equation is a superficial
> tactic taken to achieve a superficial result.

   See above.

>
>
> > but they cannot argue that it is "natural".
>
> I can, and I have. The only thing unnatural about it is that we manage
> it as we would other resources, which has its benefits and downfalls.

   See above. And again you imply agreement with me...

>
>
> > They also cannot argue that it is best for the deer,
> > most efficient, or even the most scientific approach.
>
> Doe harvests have increased significantly over the last twenty years.
> You're argument is either archaic or ignorant.

   That smacks of desperation. Since killing does was actively
*discouraged* 30 years ago, any increase will be "significant".
It does establish that game managers *eventually* learn from their
mistakes, and it underscores my contention that the only lethal
controls that work on deer are the ones on does. Hunting bucks
is done for other, generally selfish, reasons.

>
>
> > They can only
> > argue that it gives them the most reliable supply of healthy "surplus"
> > deer to "harvest" each year.
>
> Strawman. You're ignoring so many other factors of game management, not
> to mention starting from a position that separates man and nature.

   See above. You cam't rebut me by repeating things ad nauseum - especially
when one of the things you keep repeating (that humans are natural predators
of deer in North America) is just plain *wrong*.

>
>
> > Deer have gone from being completely
> > wild animals to being essentially semi-wild "resources", subject to both
> > artificial measures (like forestry) that increase their numbers, and to
> > being "harvested" by hunters who are deluded into thinking that they are
> > acting out some age-old drama of carnivore and prey.
>
> Hyperbole. Deer are still completely wild, even urbanized deer who seem
> quite tame. Our practices of forest and game management are not
> "artificial," as we are part of nature. Our practices are open to
> contriving certain results, but that's the kind of species we are.

   And now you agree that deer are managed to benefit hunters.
For someone who has agreed with almost every one of my points,
you sure do like to argue. You also use the nonsensical argument
so favored by the Right: that *anything* humans choose to do is
"natural".

>
>
> > We convert
> > old-growth forest (which tends to limit deer breeding by limiting the
> > food supply) to farm fields that allow deer to breed unchecked, while
> > displacing them from their increasingly scarce wild habitat into the
> > suburbs that we build over it...and then we blame the deer.
>
> Most farm land in North America is converted prairieland -- NOT
> old-growth forest. Maybe you didn't know that, either.

   I never said that it was. That was a blatant strawman. I'm talking
about human development in deer habitat, not in the prairies.

>
>
> >    Another, related argument used by hunters is that hunting keeps deer
> > populations "healthy". If one accepts that natural selection has proven
> > itself to be the most effective way for populations to survive and
> > adapt, then current deer hunting practices are, if anything,
> > counter-productive.
>
> Natural selection still occurs with human hunting. A fawn isn't a trophy
> buck; trophy bucks get that way by living long lives, which means their
> progeny are most likely to be numerous.

   Natural selection *kills fawns*, weeding out the weaker, slower,
less clever (and less lucky) ones. And "trophy bucks" are getting younger
on average, due to hunting pressures. IIRC, the average age for a "trophy
buck" is now about 3.5 years. Since a prime buck can reproduce from
about age 2.5 to about age 7.5, hunters are depriving them of *most* of
the years they'd naturally be passing on their genes.

>
> BTW, if you're REALLY for natural selection, will you join me in calling
> for Congress to cease all welfare programs, programs for the elderly and
> disabled, affirmative action, and every other fiasco which puts slackers
> and the infirm on equal footing with strong-willed people like me?

   I just love it when my opponents write things like that. Thank you! Isn't
it a bit...odd that it's the hunter who compares deer directly to humans,
and the AR activist (me) who notes that they are very different?

>
>
> > By hunting plump does and prime "Trophy Bucks", deer
> > hunters are in fact practicing a form of 'unnatural selection'. Killing
> > the most magnificent specimens is hardly the way to ensure the long term
> > viability of the herd.
>
> Again, they don't grow massive antlers ("racks") or get plump in their
> first year. It takes a while. Those skittish traits which allow them to
> become trophies or plump does are passed along to their offspring. Your
> argument is funny, though, because I often hear ARAs complaining that
> our hunting practices are leading to bigger deer -- just as we've bred
> livestock to mature quickly and with greater size.

   You first fail to respond to what I actually wrote, then you introduce
either a strawman or something that someone else has said. That was
a complete failure to rebut or even address my point.

>
>
> > If deer hunters *really* wanted to do their part
> > for the health of the deer herds, they would hunt as do natural predators,
> > by killing old, sick, injured and emaciated animals, and even fawns unable
> > to find enough food, as their first choice. Again, don't expect that to
> > happen for the foreseeable future.
>
> Most trophy bucks, in fact, are quite old.

   Gods man, you're  repeating one of the very fallacies I wrote this
'FAQ' to rebut. Thanks for the example!   Most "trophy bucks"
are about 4.5 years old. Many are as young as 3. A "quite old" buck
would be about 8-10 years old (deer fed in captivity on soft foods
can live into their late teens). Trophy bucks *have to be in their prime*
in order to produce those antlers you hunters are so fixated on. They
*cannot* be "quite old".

> As for sick and emaciated
> animals, there are some health concerns for humans that warrant against
> that. Chronic Wasting Disease, for example, may be hazardous to humans.
> As our species outlives other predators several times over, it's
> probably best to leave those to the wolves, cougars, and coyotes.

   Hey, you don't have to eat them. Just kill them, take a photo, and
then - and only then - you can brag to your buddies about being a
"natural predator". The scavengers will thank you, provided they
are immune to CWD. BTW, CWD is just the sort of disease that
a biologist would expect to see appear in a population that was
not in relative balance with its environment. Game managers are
doing a piss-poor job.

>
>
> > "It's ok to kill "Trophy Bucks". They are old and will die soon anyway."
> >
> >    This one is just nonsense. Why? Because of the following facts:
>
> It's also a new one to me, and I've hunted (I started hunting again this
> season; I've donated all the meat to a hunger program) and been around
> hunters my whole life. If you think my being vegetarian is at odds with
> hunting, tell me why it's more acceptable for me to run over deer than
> to shoot them.

   It's quite an old one on usenet, and in hunting circles. (I come from a
family that hunts.) Running over a deer intentionally is no better than
shooting one. Now, who exactly does that...?

   I doubt that you're actually a vegetarian, but who knows? There are
all kinds of people out there...

>
>
> > *   Old deer usually die of starvation, unless they are injured.
>
> Uhhhh, trophy bucks are often in their prime or just past it. They're
> not so old that they've no teeth. Most old deer do not die of
> starvation, even outside of human contact. They usually die of predation.

   Make up your mind: are trophy bucks "quite old" or not?
  Care to tell me how a predator can kill a deer without injuring it? ;-)

>
>
> > *   This starvation, unless due to an inadequate food supply, occurs
> > because their teeth have worn down to the point where they no longer
> > function well enough to adequately chew food.
>
> It makes them easier to catch for cougars and wolves.

   Moot point though, now; hunters kill most bucks before they have a chance
to even hit middle age.

>
>
> > *   Bucks lose their antlers every Winter or Spring, and have to
> > completely regrow them the following year.
>
> This is beside the point you raised. So were the redundant points that
> followed.

   No, it is central to the point: old bucks have worn teeth, and so
cannot eat well enough to produce trophy antlers.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> >       "People who oppose deer hunting suffer from "Bambi Syndrome."
> >
> >    It's true that some hunting opponents tend to assign to animals
> > like deer attributes that are more human-like than may be appropriate.
>
> I am glad you admit this.
>
> > This "Bambi-ism" is not as universal as hunters would like to believe,
> > however, and the real irony is that hunters themselves suffer from their
> > own anthropocentric delusion. This delusion is that, by killing healthy
> > deer, they are "saving" them from the very population control that they
> > have experienced for approximately a million years. Starvation for deer
> > is certainly not pleasant, but it is the natural (and let's not forget
> > the importance that hunters place on that concept) way for deer to die
> > when they are overpopulated. It is much more natural, in fact, than for
> > them to be killed while plump and in their prime - or younger. Killing
> > a starving deer may well be a kindness, but killing a healthy,
> > well-fed deer is not.
>
> It's not a delusion for man to hunt, nor to assign any justification for
> it. Indeed, the "need" to make any justifications for hunting is a very
> recent thing. Humans are hunters and gatherers by nature. The Bambi
> Syndrome slightly precedes the history of animated movies, but few (if
> any) people in the 1800s were concerned with the plight of a ruminant
> species that is *not* -- and never will be -- endangered.
>
> Your subjective aesthetic judgments (killing being kindness or not) are
> irrelevant. You are certainly entitled to hold such opinions, but others
> are also entitled to hold opinions to the contrary.

   You failed to address my charge about anthropomorphism among
hunters. I'll take that as a concession that it's true.

>
>
> You failed to point out that encroachment between urban and rural areas
> leads to inter-species conflicts. One of those conflicts is the number
> of deer -- often large, healthy ones -- that dart out in front of
> traffic. Here in Austin, we have a very serious problem with urban deer
> herds. It's not that people have moved out into the country and are
> causing problems (though that is also happening), but that deer in the
> city have gotten out of hand because of the lack of predation and the
> presence of forage. The result of car-deer crashes isn't good for deer,
> cars, or (too often) passengers.

   Agreed, with one exception. So why not insist that only does be killed,
so that the deer population can be reduced, and the number of deer/car
crashes be lowered?

   The exception is the idea that people moving to the country doesn't affect
deer populations. It does, both by increasing the amount of 'edge habitat'
that deer favor, and by increasing the numbers of deer/human conflicts.

>
>
> >               "Humans have a natural instinct to hunt."
> >
> >    If so, then we are certainly remarkably bad at expressing this
> > alleged instinct. Less than 8% of the U.S. population hunts, and there
> > aren't exactly lines of would-be hunters being turned away from the
> > woods.
>
> Given the mass-urbanization of our own species, it's to be expected that
> people would lose touch with the natural and replace it with the
> artificial. Urban youths hunt, but they tend to hunt each other. Our
> culture has replaced a feel for dirt with asphalt. Urbanization has
> literally ungrounded humankind.

   "Urban youths hunt, but they tend to hunt each other"

   Hah! Care to give a cite for this? Maybe you can also explain how
interactions among humans that form heirarchies are actually "hunting"
behaviors, rather than the natural primate drive to...form heirarchies.
If they were actually hunting each other, dude, they'd do a lot more
killing. And, contrary to some racist/anti-urban propaganda, violence
isn't particularly rampant among urban and suburban children.

>
>
> > Hunting is a declining "sport" as a matter of fact, and it is
> > extremely unlikely that we are, in the course ofjust a few short
> > generations, losing any genuine instinct.
>
> As noted above, we stalk and kill each other now. Some are quite brutal
> killing machines. That's what happens when you remove man from nature.
> Are you happy?

   I'm always unhappy when I see that someone has bought into propaganda.

>
>
> > Humans are and always have
> > been opportunistic omnivores, and for us hunting has always been
> > something that we did to acquire food or fur or skin, and also to
> > varying degrees as a cultural activity, not one that we are driven
> > to engage in by our very natures.
>
> You're underestimating the cultural aspects of hunting. Perhaps you
> would do well to read books on earlier hominids.

   Culture activities are not inherited, so what was common culturally
in the past is not especially relevent now, with the probable exception
of the heirarchical drive I mentioned earlier.

>
>
> > Even if one accepts the shaky
> > proposition that we have an instinct to hunt (and biologists are
> > becoming increasingly reluctant to use the word "instinct" to describe
> > any human behavior), this "instinct" is clearly a weak one, and, like
> > some of our other less than noble inclinations, we would be the better
> > for ignoring it.
>
> First, the proposition is not shaky. Second, biologists are less keen to
> delve into psychology and sociology than psychologists and sociologists
> are (blows ya away, huh). More psychologists, sociologists, and
> anthropologists are linking modern human behaviors with earlier human
> behaviors: rather than hunting in packs, we have urban gangs; rather
> than taking a deer or whale, we shoot each other.

   Just what percentage of urban populations do you believe engage
in these activities? If it's above 8%, you have no argument whatsoever.
I could just as easily say that 8% of people in general like to kill, and
the ones who live near wildlife kill nonhumans. That would also be
unsupported - just like your wild ideas about urban "hunting".

>
>
> The thinking extends to other societal ills. The emptiness of the modern
> misanthropic paradigm...

>

> And the remedy is to go out and kill wildlife? I think not.
>
>>
>
> (...)

--






               http://www.albany.net/~mjc1/index.html