Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
The most egregious example is probably clearcutting. In an attempt to boost deer populations, state wildlife management agencies, which are run by hunters for hunters and make their money from the sales of hunting licenses, will clearcut the forests on public lands in order to create the edge habitat that is favored by deer. In their literature, they seldom admit that this is the purpose of the clearcutting, and often vaguely claim that it benefits "wildlife" or "game." Many Americans believe we already have too many deer, and would not tolerate attempts to increase the deer population.
==================================================
Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth
Hunters claim to take the place of other predators in controlling the populations of prey species. There are several problems with this argument:
The populations of prey species do not need to be controlled. As discussed above, deer populations are artificially increased to maximize hunting opportunities. Hunters increase the deer population to create the illusion of deer overpopulation in order to gain public support for hunting.
Hunters do not act like other predators. While other predators target the old, the young, the sick and the weak, hunters target the largest specimens with the biggest tusks, antlers or horns. Instead of culling the weakest members of the species and helping the species to evolve to be stronger, hunters are what Newsweek magazine calls "evolution in reverse" and "survival of the weak and scrawny." Bighorn sheep now have smaller horns compared to thirty years ago, and fewer African and Asian elephants have tusks.
If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.
In addition to artificially increasing wild populations of deer, state wildlife management agencies also breed animals specifically to be hunted. Predators do not breed pheasant and quail so they can be hunted.
Hunters often say that a population of animals is "overabundant," which is not a scientific term, but misleads the public into thinking that the animals are overpopulated. Overpopulation is a scientific concept, and exists when a species exceeds its biological carrying capacity. This deceptive terminology gains public sympathy for hunting and creates an illusion that hunting is desirable or even necessary.
If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.
In addition to artificially increasing wild populations of deer, state wildlife management agencies also breed animals specifically to be hunted. Predators do not breed pheasant and quail so they can be hunted.
Hunters often say that a population of animals is "overabundant," which is not a scientific term, but misleads the public into thinking that the animals are overpopulated. Overpopulation is a scientific concept, and exists when a species exceeds its biological carrying capacity. This deceptive terminology gains public sympathy for hunting and creates an illusion that hunting is desirable or even necessary.
I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.
More human dominance over the natural world to its detriment. I cannot wait to hear the apologists come along and dispute this; should be fun!
The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.
The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.
Mostly its not an increase in the number of bears so much as it is the increase in housing developments in the mountains where formerly no housing existed.
The Poconos was torn to pieces by the LAND SHARKS starting the 70s.
Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
The most egregious example is probably clearcutting. In an attempt to boost deer populations, state wildlife management agencies, which are run by hunters for hunters and make their money from the sales of hunting licenses, will clearcut the forests on public lands in order to create the edge habitat that is favored by deer. In their literature, they seldom admit that this is the purpose of the clearcutting, and often vaguely claim that it benefits "wildlife" or "game." Many Americans believe we already have too many deer, and would not tolerate attempts to increase the deer population.
==================================================
Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth
Hunters claim to take the place of other predators in controlling the populations of prey species. There are several problems with this argument:
The populations of prey species do not need to be controlled. As discussed above, deer populations are artificially increased to maximize hunting opportunities. Hunters increase the deer population to create the illusion of deer overpopulation in order to gain public support for hunting.
Hunters do not act like other predators. While other predators target the old, the young, the sick and the weak, hunters target the largest specimens with the biggest tusks, antlers or horns. Instead of culling the weakest members of the species and helping the species to evolve to be stronger, hunters are what Newsweek magazine calls "evolution in reverse" and "survival of the weak and scrawny." Bighorn sheep now have smaller horns compared to thirty years ago, and fewer African and Asian elephants have tusks.
If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.
In addition to artificially increasing wild populations of deer, state wildlife management agencies also breed animals specifically to be hunted. Predators do not breed pheasant and quail so they can be hunted.
Hunters often say that a population of animals is "overabundant," which is not a scientific term, but misleads the public into thinking that the animals are overpopulated. Overpopulation is a scientific concept, and exists when a species exceeds its biological carrying capacity. This deceptive terminology gains public sympathy for hunting and creates an illusion that hunting is desirable or even necessary.
Hunting and the Environment - Are Hunters Environmentalists
I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means. More human dominance over the natural world to its detriment. I cannot wait to hear the apologists come along and dispute this; should be fun!
Is this is worthy of debate?
Is this is worthy of debate?
Probably not.
As I said in a different thread, first we wiped out all or most of our natural predators so that a very few people could use various animals for target practice.
Each time that approach failed, as it inevitably will, we either introduced yet another non-indigenous species to "control" the ones we don't like or we increased the hunting "season". Each time THAT approach failed, we did it again. And, again.
And, even though we know our "management" methods will fail, we will do it again and again.
The result is that we have opportunistic species over-running and pushing out the indigenous species while hunters continue to demand more animals to shoot at.
Even though white tail deer "management" has been a total disaster, they are often cited as the poster child of wildlife management. In fact, the white tail constitutes only about 5% of the animals "hunted". By far and away, most are birds such as doves and quail and they have proved to be just as disastrous as white tail deer.
The good news is that less than 7% of US hunts and that number gets less and less every year. But still, that minority does enormous damage to our environment.
In answer to the OP's question - Do hunters love nature?
Probably not. Most hunters get their guns out once a year, clean them, buy some ammo and beer and go out in the woods to be able to say "fuck" and spit and pretend to be big hunt 'n' grunt he-mans.
They "love" what they want to be able to kill. Hence, "duck stamps" and the like.
Non-game animals are on their own.
Probably not.Is this is worthy of debate?
As I said in a different thread, first we wiped out all or most of our natural predators so that a very few people could use various animals for target practice.
Each time that approach failed, as it inevitably will, we either introduced yet another non-indigenous species to "control" the ones we don't like or we increased the hunting "season". Each time THAT approach failed, we did it again. And, again.
And, even though we know our "management" methods will fail, we will do it again and again.
The result is that we have opportunistic species over-running and pushing out the indigenous species while hunters continue to demand more animals to shoot at.
Even though white tail deer "management" has been a total disaster, they are often cited as the poster child of wildlife management. In fact, the white tail constitutes only about 5% of the animals "hunted". By far and away, most are birds such as doves and quail and they have proved to be just as disastrous as white tail deer.
The good news is that less than 7% of US hunts and that number gets less and less every year. But still, that minority does enormous damage to our environment.
In answer to the OP's question - Do hunters love nature?
Probably not. Most hunters get their guns out once a year, clean them, buy some ammo and beer and go out in the woods to be able to say "fuck" and spit and pretend to be big hunt 'n' grunt he-mans.
They "love" what they want to be able to kill. Hence, "duck stamps" and the like.
Non-game animals are on their own.
I am unable to find any truth at all in your post. You sound like one of those "nature lovers" who would faint if their feet ever ventured beyond concrete and asphalt and get all your facts from the cartoon channel. Bambi wasn't a real deer. Get over it.
Fawns are baby deer. They don't have embryoes because they are not mature. The writer of this piece is a complete ignoramus, wouldn't you agree?
I bet other predators would if they knew how.
I speak who know, living on a farm with entirely too many predators running around killing everything en masse that isn't securely fenced against them.
Maybe they don't say "overpopulated" because what they mean is what they said: overabundant. The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance. From a human perspective, that is an "overabundance" of bears. The writer of this piece is perhaps not a native English speaker, and is certainly not well educated.
Why exactly do you think it would be fun? You sound very angry; you aren't having fun now.
If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.
Fawns are baby deer. They don't have embryoes because they are not mature. The writer of this piece is a complete ignoramus, wouldn't you agree?
I bet other predators would if they knew how. Predators love to hunt and kill. I speak who know, living on a farm with entirely too many predators running around killing everything en masse that isn't securely fenced against them.
Maybe they don't say "overpopulated" because what they mean is what they said: overabundant. The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance. From a human perspective, that is an "overabundance" of bears. The writer of this piece is perhaps not a native English speaker, and is certainly not well educated.
I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.
Do you mean "serve their ends"? You seem to have means and ends confused here. I wonder if you wrote the quoted piece: your comments seem to have the same problem with using the English language as the quoted piece does.
More human dominance over the natural world to its detriment. I cannot wait to hear the apologists come along and dispute this; should be fun!
Why exactly do you think it would be fun? You sound very angry; you aren't having fun now.
I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.
The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.
Mostly its not an increase in the number of bears so much as it is the increase in housing developments in the mountains where formerly no housing existed.
The Poconos was torn to pieces by the LAND SHARKS starting the 70s.
No, my reading says there are SUBSTANTIALLY more bears, hundreds more. We see them follow the streams down from PA every summer now in my county in Maryland, though it's heavily populated. The last one ate a dog. It was chained to a doghouse. They called out the SWAT team.
Of course you are right that there is gross overpopulation and overbuilding resulting from that. The planet is crowding up with people at a terrifying rate.
It's just that the people are urbanizing to such an extent that family farms are abandoned and so very few are hunting the deer and predators and wild geese and all the other animals that used to be kept down properly. Sort of the worst of all possible worlds for those of us left in the country.
In the state of Washington the fish and game department takes the money from our license fees and uses it to lure and herd wild animals into state and federal parks two weeks before hunting season opens. That way they cannot be hunted. How is it that my money makes the department my slave?
You have obviously never hunted.
