Should Hunting for Sport be Banned?

[San Lumen]

I dont care. Its a travesty to shoot a wild animal causing no harm to you and this was not done for food. There is no reason to hunt wolves or any other wild animal. Let them be.

We should let local communities and counties decide whether or not to allow hunting instead of pushing it as a nationwide or international ban on recreational hunting.

That's a fair trade off. Colorado had a referendum last year to reintroduce gray wolves.

[Ifreann]

Your definition is thrill shooting without substantive reasoning like meat, population control, or protection of wildlife and property right? Or is it just thrill shooting irrespective of whether a substantive purpose was accomplished?

If its to control invasive species then it is ok.

What if someone has fun while controlling an invasive species?

[Neutraligon]

Do you consider going after the invasive species, like say pythons in the everglades, hunting for sport?

No as its not the same.

What about native species whose population has gotten too high. Deer in certain parts of MD are so highly overpopulated that they are being pushed into urban areas and are a danger to people.

[The united American-Isreali empire]

overpopulation anybody? it helps with that.

[Greater Cesnica]

If its to control invasive species then it is ok.

What if someone has fun while controlling an invasive species?

No one knows what's in someone's heart. If it accomplishes a substantive purpose, then it should be permitted.

[Paddy O Fernature]

We should let local communities and counties decide whether or not to allow hunting instead of pushing it as a nationwide or international ban on recreational hunting.

That's a fair trade off. Colorado had a referendum last year to reintroduce gray wolves.

Reintroducing an apex predator into an ecosystem that's adjusted to life without them where they themselves have no natural predators is just asking for bad things to happen.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Many nations in Africa rely on it, and without it their people would be even poorer, not to mention that in some places much of the money that’s made from that is used to support endangered species. So I don’t think it should be banned, I personally just don’t approve of it.

[Nilokeras]

That's a fair trade off. Colorado had a referendum last year to reintroduce gray wolves.

Reintroducing an apex predator into an ecosystem that's adjusted to life without them where they themselves have no natural predators is just asking for bad things to happen.

'adjusted' is quite the euphemism for a system which is in significant disequlibrium, subject to pandemic disease and in which forests are failing to regenerate because of overgrazing

[Kernen]

Recreational hunting is a fiscal and ecological boon. Any immorality is purely an academic concern. Immoral, legal actions bear no concerning consequences.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Reintroducing an apex predator into an ecosystem that's adjusted to life without them where they themselves have no natural predators is just asking for bad things to happen.

'adjusted' is quite the euphemism for a system which is in significant disequlibrium, subject to pandemic disease and in which forests are failing to regenerate because of overgrazing

It has regardless, adjusted nonetheless.

Simpler solution would be to issue more tags and extend hunting season in such areas. State gets a much needed injection of money to support various programs, hunters get to enjoy themselves for longer and increase their chances of a successful hunt, and the animal population gets a much needed thinning out.

[Nilokeras]

It has regardless, adjusted nonetheless.

In the same way a car with the parking brake left off will 'adjust' by rolling down a hill and off a cliff. Hence the euphemism.

Simpler solution would be to issue more tags and extend hunting season in such areas. State gets a much needed injection of money to support various programs, hunters get to enjoy themselves for longer and increase their chances of a successful hunt, and the animal population gets a much needed thinning out.

Adding more bureaucracy to support extended hunting seasons is 'simpler' than introducing predators that will autonomously suppress prey populations 365 days a year?

[Kernen]

It has regardless, adjusted nonetheless.

In the same way a car with the parking brake left off will 'adjust' by rolling down a hill and off a cliff. Hence the euphemism.

Simpler solution would be to issue more tags and extend hunting season in such areas. State gets a much needed injection of money to support various programs, hunters get to enjoy themselves for longer and increase their chances of a successful hunt, and the animal population gets a much needed thinning out.

Adding more bureaucracy to support extended hunting seasons is 'simpler' than introducing predators that will autonomously suppress prey populations 365 days a year?

Yes. Because expanding the season is very little bureaucracy, and introducing predators is biologically and ecologically complex. The damage is done. Its harder to reverse it than adapt to the new normal.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It has regardless, adjusted nonetheless.

In the same way a car with the parking brake left off will 'adjust' by rolling down a hill and off a cliff. Hence the euphemism.

Simpler solution would be to issue more tags and extend hunting season in such areas. State gets a much needed injection of money to support various programs, hunters get to enjoy themselves for longer and increase their chances of a successful hunt, and the animal population gets a much needed thinning out.

Adding more bureaucracy to support extended hunting seasons is 'simpler' than introducing predators that will autonomously suppress prey populations 365 days a year?

Simpler and has more net gain to boot.

[Nilokeras]

In the same way a car with the parking brake left off will 'adjust' by rolling down a hill and off a cliff. Hence the euphemism.



Adding more bureaucracy to support extended hunting seasons is 'simpler' than introducing predators that will autonomously suppress prey populations 365 days a year?

Yes. Because expanding the season is very little bureaucracy, and introducing predators is biologically and ecologically complex. The damage is done. Its harder to reverse it than adapt to the new normal.

Wolf reintroduction in particular is quite remarkable in its efficacy in restoring ecosystem functioning and requires very little monitoring or intervention.

[TRIEADMORE]

I can’t think of any purpose for hunting animals for sport.Other than royalty,or rich and famous people boosting their inflated egos,perhaps? Yes hunting for sport should be banned.

[Salus Maior]

Yes. Because expanding the season is very little bureaucracy, and introducing predators is biologically and ecologically complex. The damage is done. Its harder to reverse it than adapt to the new normal.

Wolf reintroduction in particular is quite remarkable in its efficacy in restoring ecosystem functioning and requires very little monitoring or intervention.

I think that's a good idea for a lot of places, but maybe not everywhere.

Wouldn't want people to start getting attacked by wolves

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I've shot coyotes for a different reason- livestock protection.

my thought process was state-sponsored bounty programs, since the topic is sport hunting. While shooting coyotes shouldn't be the first option for livestock protection of course, I don't know if it can cease to be an option.

Only time they did a bounty system in recent memory over n Wisconsin was when CWD hit and DNR declared a large swath of land must be cleared of ALL deer, the reward for killing a deer was a permit to kill yet another deer.

You still had to pay to play, though.

When that didn't work they sent in the Nat'l Guard with AH-64 Apaches to finish them off.

Went about as well as the Emu war.

Wisconsin's proposal for confronting the new outbreak of CWD is radical: Since the disease is difficult to diagnose and impossible to treat, the only way to contain the disease is to get rid of all deer around the infected zone. "We really are going to go after every one" of the 15,000 deer, says wildlife ecologist John Cary.

When amateur hunters run out of steam, the state Department of Natural Resources may send in teams of sharpshooters to kill survivors. Although helicopters may be used to drive deer toward shooters, Cary considers that unlikely due to predictable public backlash.

[Nilokeras]

Wolf reintroduction in particular is quite remarkable in its efficacy in restoring ecosystem functioning and requires very little monitoring or intervention.

I think that's a good idea for a lot of places, but maybe not everywhere.

Wouldn't want people to start getting attacked by wolves

Wolves very rarely attack people because they avoid highly built up environments. And with most large predators the patterns is almost uniformly that they only attack humans either when they're desperate (either because of injury or sickness) or when defending their young.

[Neanderthaland]

Wolf reintroduction in particular is quite remarkable in its efficacy in restoring ecosystem functioning and requires very little monitoring or intervention.

I think that's a good idea for a lot of places, but maybe not everywhere.

Wouldn't want people to start getting attacked by wolves

I imagine they wouldn't, but fortunately it's unlikely to ever become a real problem. Wolf attacks are incredibly uncommon. Even in places where wolves exist in numbers, you're vastly more likely to be attacked by a deer.

What would be a problem is the tendency of wolves to murder people's beloved family dogs.

[Salus Maior]

I think that's a good idea for a lot of places, but maybe not everywhere.

Wouldn't want people to start getting attacked by wolves

Wolves very rarely attack people because they avoid highly built up environments. And with most large predators the patterns is almost uniformly that they only attack humans either when they're desperate (either because of injury or sickness) or when defending their young.

Still, 1-2 wolf attacks a year somewhere is higher than 0. In my view, that's 1-2 people who would die or be badly injured that could have been avoided by not reintroducing wolves to places near where there's a decent amount of people.

In places like that, hunters can pick up the slack fine.

What would be a problem is the tendency of wolves to murder people's beloved family dogs.

Or children.

[Neanderthaland]

Wolves very rarely attack people because they avoid highly built up environments. And with most large predators the patterns is almost uniformly that they only attack humans either when they're desperate (either because of injury or sickness) or when defending their young.

Still, 1-2 wolf attacks a year somewhere is higher than 0. In my view, that's 1-2 people who would die or be badly injured that could have been avoided by not reintroducing wolves to places near where there's a decent amount of people.

In places like that, hunters can pick up the slack fine.

Except they don't. Hunters don't control populations they way predators do, and they don't change prey behavior the way predators do.

What would be a problem is the tendency of wolves to murder people's beloved family dogs.

Or children.

The last time a child was killed by a wolf it was in 1989, and the family had been keeping the wolf as a pet. She died when the wolf slammed her down on the ground, in what was probably not a deliberate attack.

The time before that was 1943, and the animal had rabies. He died of rabies.

This is a non-issue.

[Salus Maior]

Still, 1-2 wolf attacks a year somewhere is higher than 0. In my view, that's 1-2 people who would die or be badly injured that could have been avoided by not reintroducing wolves to places near where there's a decent amount of people.

In places like that, hunters can pick up the slack fine.

Except they don't. Hunters don't control populations they way predators do, and they don't change prey behavior the way predators do.

Or children.

The last time a child was killed by a wolf it was in 1989, and the family had been keeping the wolf as a pet.

The time before that was 1943, and the animal had rabies.

This is a non-issue.

Hunters are predators, technically. Humans aren't separate from nature.

That's a disingenuous example considering the wolf populations near human population centers were displaced or destroyed well before the 40's and 80's. One could argue that the lack of wolf attacks is mostly due to the lack of wolves.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Except they don't. Hunters don't control populations they way predators do, and they don't change prey behavior the way predators do.


The last time a child was killed by a wolf it was in 1989, and the family had been keeping the wolf as a pet.

The time before that was 1943, and the animal had rabies.

This is a non-issue.

Hunters are predators, technically. Humans aren't separate from nature.

That's a disingenuous example considering the wolf populations near human population centers were displaced or destroyed well before the 40's and 80's. One could argue that the lack of wolf attacks is mostly due to the lack of wolves.

And where there isn't a lack of wolves, the lack of fatalities has more to do with the human will to survive by scramming into the nearest car/building or scrambling up a tree (true story, a camp ranger actually got tree'd by wolves for a night like a week before a troop of Boy Scouts came to visit) than the common decency of the wolf.

Plus wolves still see a domesticated beef herd as an all-you-can-eat buffet.

[Neanderthaland]

Except they don't. Hunters don't control populations they way predators do, and they don't change prey behavior the way predators do.


The last time a child was killed by a wolf it was in 1989, and the family had been keeping the wolf as a pet.

The time before that was 1943, and the animal had rabies.

This is a non-issue.

Hunters are predators, technically. Humans aren't separate from nature.

Sure, but as I said: "Hunters don't control populations they way predators do, and they don't change prey behavior the way predators do."

Be a part of nature all you want. Dance in fields with flowers on your head. It won't change the fact that wolves would do a better job at this.

That's a disingenuous example considering the wolf populations near human population centers were displaced or destroyed well before the 40's and 80's. One could argue that the lack of wolf attacks is mostly due to the lack of wolves.

Wolves avoid human population centers even where there are wolves. All attacks are necessarily rural, and there have been rural populations in contact with wolves in the US and Canada continuously. And even in those places, attacks are EXTREMELY uncommon.

In fact, deer are vastly, VASTLY more likely to attack a human. And coyotes are vastly more likely to approach humans and human population centers. Controlling their populations with wolves would reduce the number of attacks on humans overall.

[Salus Maior]

Hunters are predators, technically. Humans aren't separate from nature.

That's a disingenuous example considering the wolf populations near human population centers were displaced or destroyed well before the 40's and 80's. One could argue that the lack of wolf attacks is mostly due to the lack of wolves.

And where there isn't a lack of wolves, the lack of fatalities has more to do with the human will to survive by scramming into the nearest car/building or scrambling up a tree (true story, a camp ranger actually got tree'd by wolves for a night like a week before a troop of Boy Scouts came to visit) than the common decency of the wolf.

I mean, if I were confronted by something like this I probably wouldn't react much differently.

They're pretty badass.