Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth

[PaulS1950]

An apex predator is by definition at the top of the food chain. Man, when being a predator, is an apex predator. We have hunted, killed and eaten every animal on earth. All apex predators when young and inexperienced suffer attacks from other predators. Even though man is ill suited for hunting he has developed technology that keeps him at the top in most situations. By "ill suited" I mean that our natural senses are not as highly refined - the common dog has 1000 times the ability to distinguish the different smells, our vision is marginal even in bright light and poor in low light conditions, Our hearing is far below that of other predators and lower still in comparison to the prey we hunt, yet we are as successful as any other predator on the ground. We are omnivorous like the wolf and bear which allows us to eat most anything to survive. We are THE apex predator on land in the world.

 

[DarkLion]

An apex predator is by definition at the top of the food chain. Man, when being a predator, is an apex predator. We have hunted, killed and eaten every animal on earth. All apex predators when young and inexperienced suffer attacks from other predators. Even though man is ill suited for hunting he has developed technology that keeps him at the top in most situations. By "ill suited" I mean that our natural senses are not as highly refined - the common dog has 1000 times the ability to distinguish the different smells, our vision is marginal even in bright light and poor in low light conditions, Our hearing is far below that of other predators and lower still in comparison to the prey we hunt, yet we are as successful as any other predator on the ground. We are omnivorous like the wolf and bear which allows us to eat most anything to survive. We are THE apex predator on land in the world.

Whether or not mankind is an apex predator was never an issue here.


We cannot take the place of the natural apex predators within an ecosystem. You are not looking at the larger picture, which goes far beyond just killing prey animals. When wolves are around, yes they kill prey animals. But they also keep the largest territories, allowing fewer breeding opportunities for foxes and coyotes, species whose populations have soared in the absence of wolves. Man cannot replace that intangible. Nor can he create the "climate of fear" that the mere presence of wolves creates among an entire ecosystem.

As I just mentioned, foxes and coyotes live within a much more diminished capacity in both territory and breeding opportunities. Prey animals alter their migration routes and grazing habits when wolves are around; this allows trees to grow taller and stronger, making for more stable stream beds and stronger trees benefit beavers. And more beavers building dams means more, ponds, which means breeding ground for fish and amphibians. Wolves also mean carrion, which benefits crows and ravens.

There is more to it than just killing animals. Read the links I provided; especially the first one which talks about "keystone predators" and what purpose they serve within an ecosystem. There is a cascading effect that goes so far beyond killing animals.

 

[Missourian]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I was looking at how-to pages and designs for the stock of my 12 gauge, ran across this bastardization of Oppenheimer/Bhagavad Gita.

Had to share it...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I was looking at how-to pages and designs for the stock of my 12 gauge, ran across this bastardization of Oppenheimer/Bhagavad Gita.

Had to share it...

--LOL

you might want to send that picture to [MENTION=43245]Pop23[/MENTION] over on the

"squirrels are eating my car-help" thread

 

[daveman]

So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.

So my message to them is simple: change the way you view wildlife. Support the reintroduction of wolves and other predators, because they have a place and you have no right to deny it to them. They benefit the ecosystem more than you do, and their purpose is more important than a couple of human lives or a bit of inconvenience to a few humans.

Get over yourselves, and remember you are not the only inhabitants of the earth and animals have every bit as much claim to it as you do.

Perhaps you should kill yourself in expiation of your sins as a human against Mother Gaea.

 

[Montrovant]

So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.

So my message to them is simple: change the way you view wildlife. Support the reintroduction of wolves and other predators, because they have a place and you have no right to deny it to them. They benefit the ecosystem more than you do, and their purpose is more important than a couple of human lives or a bit of inconvenience to a few humans.

Get over yourselves, and remember you are not the only inhabitants of the earth and animals have every bit as much claim to it as you do.

No one really needs to back things up with what is entirely a judgement call.

Who says whether wildlife has claim to anything? Who says whether people have a right to deny wildlife any particular place? Who says whether the purpose of certain animals is more important than any human lives?

You can link anything you want. Those are completely subjective opinions.

Also, I find it a bit ironic that you'd decry human intervention in the ecosystem and want to correct it with human intervention in the ecosystem.

 

[Missourian]

So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.

So far, you've only been prove correct in one assertion...

 

[Missourian]

Huh!
According to many of the fundamentalists on this board and elsewhere, thanks to homos and the SCOTUS, dogs will soon be able to marry humans.
Next they'll get the vote...it's a slippery slope after all.

So, if they can get married and vote, why can't they go and die for their country...or have I got that argument backwards?

I'm not so sure about marriage, but sexual relationships..why not?

Not really the topic I set out to make here, but perhaps we can tie it in somehow.

From the thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/7575307-post43.html


I'm not sure there is anything left to say after that.

/thread

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Are you a strict vegan?

I mean strict...no fish, nothing that contains or uses animal byproducts.

If not, you hunt by proxy.

You should be ashamed to hunt by proxy then proclaim that you would be ashamed to admit it.

Don't try to pretend hunters do it for food. It's about the joy of the hunt. The food is icing on the cake. When the supermarkets close down and there's no other way to obtain food, then maybe you'd have an argument that hunters do it out of necessity to feed themselves. Until then, it's disingenuous to say so.

Who cares what motivates the hunter? If the hunter is consuming as much of the animal as possible, the kill isn't going to waste, regardless of how the hunter felt when he pulled the trigger. Good lord, when did motives start mattering more than the real life consequences of one's actions?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.

That's kind of a cop out. Let's say we could develop all but the worst of rocky, desert and mountain terrain and be able to sustain our survival. "Wildlife" as we know it would cease to exist, leaving only very small zoo-like preserves as windows into what the earth used to be. Would you support a world like that?

I'm just trying to see how far you'd go. How much does the wild, untamed and undeveloped world mean to you?

If human overpopulation gets to the point where all that development is necessary, I would absolutely support it. High density farming and all. No more deer for hunting because, at some point, deer habitat simply isn't as efficient a use of potential agriculture and housing space as we're capable of facilitating. If the survival of the human species eventually required the mass destruction of all wild habitat on the planet, so be it.

I'm all about survival. I am willing to kill any creature that I am capable of killing if that's what's necessary to achieve that survival. I wouldn't demand that any other human view the world any differently.