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.

  • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    4 months ago

    It doesn’t really. Killing these large animals is an essential function of a natural or even a partially artificial ecosystem. They can’t have their full lives. If wolves fail to torture them to death, and humans fail to shoot them, they literally kill most of the rest of the plants and animals in their environment. If humans became allergic to meat next year and only ate vegetables, we would keep shooting deer and use the meat as feed or fertilizer.

    Long life is not on the table and never has been. One of the biggest failures of western forest management has actually been to let the deer live too long. So the difference really is the manner of death.

    • crispy_lol [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      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

      • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        16·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            2·
            4 months ago

            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

      • ingirumimus [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        12·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            “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.