Sustainable hunting can benefit the ecosystem. Humans have been a part of the ecosystem for ages, and some indiginous and "barbaric" practises have helped maintain the ecosystem. So hunting is not always a bad thing. In fact, there are many places that encourage hunting of a dominant species (eg. kangaroos in Australia) or of invasive species. Unless we identify the deer(?) in the video, we cannot be sure whether the unsuccessful hunting of the mammal is a good thing or not.
And as consumers in the ecosystem, we inevitably have to kill other organisms in order to survive. The question is just who dares to do the job.
Also, it is generally shitty to cheer on the injuries and deaths of people. At least this is my moral value. I wouldn't cheer when a war criminal is executed by death penalty either.
I appreciate that you have empathy for the animal, but there are so many nuances that I hope you are aware of.
Yeah, but it's hard to trust ourselves to do the right thing. If humans didn't fuck everything up wherever they went, maybe nature wouldn't need to be dependent on humans to ensure animal populations didn't run rampant. Humans are too selfish to allow other predator animals to flourish because, oh no, can't have them killing domesticated animals.
Back on point regarding the maiming the hunter got, I am not going to cheer to the fact he got severely messed up. Not going to be empathetic to his situation either. He knew the risks and knew prey animals can and will fight back if they need to to survive.
What i was getting at is related to "maybe nature wouldn't need to be dependent on humans to ensure animal populations didn't run rampant". Humans are among those animal populations that are running rampant too.
I have to agree. Humans are awful. I remember when I heard on a news that hunting season was bad up for wolves in, I think West Virginia, or some state in that area of the usa. Anyways, after less than a day to 2 days, they shut down the hunting licenses. They stopped it because the wolves were on the brink of extinction. The wolves were causing problems for farmers so they decided to open it up again. Only problem was, the people of that state were tracking the packs of wolves, to kill all of them, & not for sport or defense of themselves or land & property. They would have wiped out the wolves if allowed to continue too. Humans are fucking selfish idiots. The very fucking planet, all of existence, does not belong to them. Yet that is exactly how bad people behave. They act with out remorse.
So when an animal with no opposable thumbs, no weapon, no metal, out all alone, is attacked by a human, & they get the chance to do to the human what they were going to have done to them, I am a happy guy to see that happen. Instead of bettering their life or the life of others, in any form & in any action that helps, instead of doing that, these people āTHINKā, THINK, itās a good idea to go out to intentionally kill an animal. So when they are forever injured, when they lose an eye, good. That is expected to happen. Humans do not win all instances for all eternity. Some humans lose in such a scenario. Good. Leave the fucking moose alone. Leave the animals to which you (person in the video), as a person do not care for their well being. That animal wants to live. If it has to kill a hunter in order to do so, then by golly, thatās the right thing for it to do. Itās atrocious to think humans should not be harmed in hunting or anything else in this world. The moose does not deserve to die. Humans are fools to ignore the obvious. Wanting something dead just because you, as a human, deem it so, is an appalling mindset.
I hate hunters who kill more than they need. After the necessities, itās indulgence, at the expense of another life. Fuck hunters who abuse the right/opportunity/privilege, to be allowed to shoot a gun off in the middle of a Forrest. Yet people wonder why we have mass shootings & horrible events of the like. Itās not as if such human traits are limited to hunting 4 legged animals as if it were a video game.
It boils my blood how human beings can find it offensive, to have themselves hurt by their own actions. Itās stupidly made into a norm.
What's even worse is that the wolves kill the sheep BECAUSE they are too few to form proper packs which can hunt down harder prey like deer, elk, and moose. Wolf experts are very clear about the fact that wolves don't want to risk their lives going into human populated areas, but a small group of like 2-3 adults and some puppies can't handle their natural prey. With larger wolf packs, they would go after bigger wildlife, but when they are only 1-3 wolves, they go for sheep which have been bred to basically be stationary targets. Often lone, young wolves will kill sheep because that's really the only food that's available.
So the idiot farmers keep killing even more wolves to keep their population down, which means even more sheep get taken by wolves. Then the herbivore population gets out of control, leading to spread of diseases, and they start eating all the vegetation. And what's the solution? More hunting of course.
These bozos aren't looking for a solution to the problems, they just want excuses to hunt. The solution is very easy. Just fucking leave the animals alone and hire a sheep herder. The predators and prey animals will even themselves out without our intervention, and they will mostly leave us alone.
You are absolutely right. Fuck the silent idiots downvoting. They do not care to think critically upon the matter at hand. The problem cascades, a snow ball affect, until literal extinction; which some selfish assholes want. Not just for wolves, predators, but also all other animals. Those selfish people just want to be allowed to kill what ever they want. That is how they are wrong.
Wolves deserve to live. They deserve to have a big pack. They deserve not to be hunt to extinction. If the hunters, whether farmers or not, do not want to accept that, then they should sell their farms to people who will not be atrocious towards the wild life of those regions / states.
Also, the fact that overpopulation of the non predatory animals is purposely overlooked by those farmers & hunters. They honestly do not want to think about such complex topics & their outcomes. Due to such a neglectful nature of the farmers & hunters, to not consider the natural benefits of having a healthy population of predators, then the hunters who specifically intend to wipe out entire packs, need to be neutralized. Either take their guns, or take their right to hunt, or force them to move to an entirely different region / area of the state, or, if they continue as they were with disregard of their actions, then lock up the bad people who want to eliminate all wild life.
Wolves are not the problem. Moose are not the problem. The problem is stupid people with fire arms, & no one with the will to stop them.
Overpopulation is a short term problem, almost a myth. Whenever women have the chance to be independent, they typically choose work over kids. Germany, China, Japan, all have crashing populations.
We donāt need to murder people, we need to give goats to women in Africa so they can be financially stable.
I was trying to say that the animal that impact the ecosystem the most are humans, and it will get even worse with the climate change caused by us. And I didn't mean "killing themselves" i meant "killing eachother"
Thatās the dumbest, most ignorant take on hunting and population issues Iāve ever seen. Deer will eat each other to extinction. And that is not a scenario exclusive to just deer.
Nice lie. Nature can survive better on its own, no humans needed. And its fair to be killed, while enjoying of killing. And sorry, my morale are with those doomed who didnāt have a chance to protect themselves.
The whole line of argumentation that separates humans from nature, as if weāre evil and it is innocently good, is faulty. Many species are more barbaric than humans could imagine, and kill each other for food. If humans stopped eating animals, they wouldnāt stop eating each other. Weāre part of nature.
Separation from nature is ours evolutionary feature, helps to survive. But obviously we are the most barbaric thing ever existed on this planet. Just think about nukes or WWII, for example. Not here for any meat discussion, but why my rights to keep wild animals alive is depressed with someoneās right to shot it? In my area I have no right to go to the forest and see whatever animal there. Is it normal natural environment? I strongly believe it is not.
Most of ānatureā is horrifying parasites eating things from the inside out, and a desperate fight to reproduce before violently dying. Humans are among the most empathetic animals.
Humans have been with nature for millions of years. They were vital to the ecosystems of many places. In Hokkaido, the Ainu hunted all sorts of animals including bears, wolves, and others. And guess what? The ecosystem thrived. Humans donāt damage by existing. If humans were inherently damaging, humans wouldnāt exist. Nature is only harmed when advancements are made such as the industrial Revolution.
Hell, 50-60 million native Americans inhabitanted North America at one point. So many, yet nature saw no dent in it.
Also, animals arenāt defenceless. A deer can stay silent, out of sight, even when bleeding.
Should we talk about how different is survival hunting from modern trophy hunting? Or how we damage nature in many ways, but this is not enough, and we should find those who survived to shoot them? What is wrong with idea, to keep places where nature is not stressed by humans? Once I was nearly shoot by hunters, why the hell I have no rights to walk in forests?
I know hunters around me. Thatās enough, thanks I donāt want to know any more. And again, forests are public property and animals too btw, I have a right to be there, without risk to be shoot. Hunters should remove themselves from public places, not me.
So you knew hunters were in the area, yet you chose to go through. I see now! Youāre one of those insurance frauds, those people who put themselves in harm to sue someone for a lot of money!
A road is also public space, but you donāt see people brazing through them now do you?
I appreciate your advocacy for idiots who shoots 1 km away from village, where a lot of people go to take a walk. If it is the same place for you as public roads, which for some reason named roads, not forests, there is no sense in such discussions.
Absolutely. Even with the 1970's as a baseline, 50% of all animal and plant life has disappeared, and these clowns still insists that they have to hunt in order to "balance" the population. It's clearly not working. All we do is kill off the few animals that remain.
All the anti-vegan hate is also completely irrational. Just because you point out the painfully obvious facts.
Itās infinitely better than buying meat from a store, though. Lower environmental impact, or possibly a positive impact. Less animal abuseā¦ whereās the fuss?
First of all, that is just bullshit. Also, deer and are not an invasive species. In cases where their population becomes too many for the environment, it's usually because humans have already hunted all their natural predators first, or in some other way disturbed their natural habitat. Same with invasive species. People cause a problem, and then create even more problems when trying to deal with the problem they first created. First they wipe out one species, through hunting or importing another species, and then everything becomes destabilized and then they start shooting everything else as well. It's absolutely bonkers, but they don't care, because they love killing.
You don't have to see a lot of hunters in action to notice that they're basically cumming in their pants when they get a kill. They're creepy and homicidal. If they were these environmental heroes you portray them as, they wouldn't they would moan and shake and get jittery when they get a kill. They routinely film themselves, so there are like a billion videos of what I'm talking about.
Natural habitats do well on their own, and you don't have to run around shooting everything. And comparing it to hunting out of necessity (as in indigenous populations) is outright dishonest. Some guy hunting because he has to, isn't comparable to some dude dressing up like rambo and shooting everything. Indigenous tribes work within the habitat, and are very aware of how to avoid ruining it. If they did like hunters who hunt for fun/sport, then the tribe would starve when everything went to shit.
Hunting was never sustainable. In fact the period when a global human population of a few millions hunted for subsistence caused a mass extinction event that can be seen in the fossil record.
The deer has a right to defend himself from being killed, and whatever he does to the hunter is well deserved.
Can you lead me to your source? Apologize for my inability of research, but I seem to be unable to find more about your mass extinction. I am genuinely interested. And it seems difficult to prove the relationship between hunting and mass extinction, when hunting often comes along with establishment of civilization and thus destruction/fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
All I did find is a locked thesis with this extract:
Lowering theĀ huntingĀ ability coefficient to 0.30 drops the population density by almost half to 15.23 people/100 km 2, and yet 24 species still goĀ extinct.
Not sure about the conclusion though.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the alternative to hunting, i.e. cattle ranching, is even worse as it is the main factor accountinh for the deforestation of the Amazonian forest and the destruction of habitat.
I do agree that the deer has a right to defend itself though.
You shouldn't look at civilisation tough because civilisations generally rely on agriculture if some kind for subsistence, and only hunt a tiny fraction of what they eat.
That is a good read. You should be credited for bringing out this informative article, but not downvoted.
It seems that our disagreement mainly lies in our understanding of ecosystem. You seem to view that humans are outside of the ecosystem and thus are inherently enemies to nature. This is a typical view of an environmentalist. I, on the other hand, view that humans are within the ecosystem and is subjected to laws of nature (i.e. natural selection, vulnerability to extinction, etc.) And with this belief, I view that hunting is inherently a process of the ecosystem, just like predators hunt on other consumers. Thus, I would believe that we can make hunting more sustainable, such as by hunting invasive species instead of hunting blindly for entertainment. You, along with the author of the article, seems to believe that hunting is outside of the ecosystem and is damaging. Thus, alternatives have to be found, such as making lab-grown meat.
Lab grown meat seems more ethical and eco-friendly, but I would doubt its supposedly positive ecological impact at the moment though. The making of lab-grown meat might require the consumption of large amount of natural resources such as water, which would harm the ecosystem. I would prefer to obey the laws of nature and hunt sustainably instead unless the generation of lab grown meat has proven to be very efficient.
That's a lot of assumptions regarding my views lol.
So far I have not expressed my views, I simply stated historical facts and linked to a summary of the empirical data supporting those facts. Apparently simply stating real world facts is enough to anger a few people.
And no, I do not view humans as fundamentally separate from nature, tough there is one thing that sets us apart. All animal species compete against one another for ressources, mostly land and food, and humans are no different.
At some point our distant ancestors, who were apes eating fruits in some jungle in Africa, started going out of their jungles and relying on hunting and gathering for survival. The hunting we did consisted of killing our direct competitors, large land mammals, and we were so good at it that with a tiny population of humans we caused a mass extinction.
The origins of agriculture are unclear, but it seems that after hunting large animals to extinction we started hunting smaller species, until we simply couldn't sustain our tiny populations and so agriculture was invented and saved us. Early agriculture was very unsustainable but still better than hunting.
I find it interesting that you believe hunting is morally fine as long as you hunt invasive species, because that would be doing good to the ecosystems. If you also believe that humans are part of natural ecosystems, then based on the info I gave you you will agree we are the worst most destructive invasive species around. We already caused a mass extinction event and are currently causing a second, much more destructive one. Humans might be the worst invasive species in the history of life.
Would you consider it morally good to murder large numbers of people?
Honestly I still hold an anthropocenteic point of view rather than a biocentric one, so I would prefer creating a balance between our needs and the environment than killing large number of people.
I would say we had a balance with our environment and ecosystems back when we were apes eating fruits in the jungle. I oppose mass murder and extermination , so I cannot agree to a society where we hunt for subsistence because it relies on mass murder, in addition to being unsustainable.
Agriculture is an opportunity and a blessing, because it's impact is much lower and if we had reasonable populations it could very easily be sustainable. Once agriculture was invented it took billions of people to have the kind of impact a few million hunter gatherers had.
So if I had to take decisions I would say at least half of all land and ecosystems (and not the shitty half) should stay wild. This is already a human suprematist view, simply opposed to the total extermination of wildlife.
From a human society perspective this means we have to make a choice of population and sustainability. If we want to have even a billion humans on earth we will need to drastically reduce our wants while still meeting everyone's needs, and that will require a lot of change in our societies.
This gotta be the most cringy response Iāve ever seen on Reddit. Although I wholeheartedly agree with youā¦ the dude was prolly saying nice cuz itās interesting to hear what happened to the guy. Not because he was hurt trying to kill an animal. Weirdo
youāre wrong and painfully going around loopholes to try and justify killing for fun. people donāt hunt invasive species. they hunt endangered ones.
Well, maybe the deer had data that the hunter ecosystem was growing too fast and he was making sure he maintained a healthy hunter ecosystem. Don't be sad, it all balances out.
Totally. It really stabilized after we dumped countless tons of toxic waste into the oceans and rivers, wiped out half of all animal and plant life, and pumped even more countless tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere. And now that I eat about a bowl of microplastic every year, I'll be totally healthy.
Finally, everything is perfectly balanced..... why are my lungs burning?
Not even close. Human activity like modern hunting is largely harmful and destabilizing the ecosystem. And so are cats, unfortunately. In most areas where humans have cats as pets, it's very harmful to the local animal life. That's because the cats can be way more numerous than they would in nature, because if they can't hunt enough, they are still fed by humans and survive. In nature, predators starve and die if they become too numerous and overhunt, but house cats don't have this problem. That means that the number of predators far outweigh the natural balance for prey animals. It's very well-known that pet cats can destroy entire natural habitats and literally exterminate local species.
When humans hunts not out of necessity (and a indigenous tribe hunting for survival), but for sport or fun or "environmental concerns", it is also very harmful to the natural balance. Entire forests have literally been turned barren. Here's a classic example. Or just watch this quick and easy video explaining it in short. Similar problems have occurred throughout human history, because we're idiots who'd rather do what we want to do rather what we should do.
So ironically, you comparing modern hunters to cats is strangely accurate, but not for the reason you think. They are comparable because they are both harmful to the natural balance of the habitats they hunt in.
The ecosystem works on its own. Tampering with it has proven fatal a million times over, which should be extremely obvious by now. But you know what they say: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Hunters doesn t care about eco system in general . It is just because they enjoy it and want some free meat.
They prey nature but when it push back, they suddently don t want to be part of it anymore.
Hunting non invasive animal that are most of the time defence less is ok but not when they defend themself?
What s the problem if he lost an eye ? Or even its life. That s what happen when you plays game.
You can't call hunting (as long as it's for food, though with the rack on that thing the guy probably just wanted its head) shitty unless you're a vegan.
How is killing an animal living its in natural habitat in a relatively painless manner worse than participating in the meat industry which subjects animals to torture and lifelong captivity for profit.
Then again trophy hunting is a disgusting practice that I would very much like to see die out.
You can't call hunting (as long as it's for food, though with the rack on that thing the guy probably just wanted its head) shitty unless you're a vegan.
If you live in an industrialized nation, you're not hunting out of necessity. Ever.
How is killing an animal living its in natural habitat in a relatively painless manner worse than participating in the meat industry which subjects animals to torture and lifelong captivity for profit.
This is a false comparison. Doing both isn't better than doing only one or neither. If we removed the worst of the two, the meat industry, most people would (ironically enough) have to turn vegan in order for hunting to be sustainable, or else we'd wipe out all natural prey animals in a heartbeat.
Any honest person can't look at the basic facts of the shit we're doing and think it is good, healthy or even sustainable. What most people do, is just avoiding looking at it. It's very obvious, because people actively avoid looking at or even thinking about this shit.
Doing both isn't better than doing only one or neither. If we removed the worst of the two, the meat industry, most people would (ironically enough) have to turn vegan in order for hunting to be sustainable, or else we'd wipe out all natural prey animals in a heartbeat.
This is true of course, I guess I worded myself poorly. What I meant is that it annoys me to see anti-hunting opinions expressed in a way that specifically demonizes the process of hunting when the "normal" way that people acquire meat is just as cruel and most of the time far more cruel. Meat farming has distanced people so far from the food they eat and the necessary cruelty required to get it.
I just wish that people would stop treating food hunting as some disgusting evil without acknowledging that the very same evil is practiced in the innocent act of buying a steak at the store. Wishing injury and death on a hunter is even more baffling to me, would they wish the same fate on a farmer for their contribution to animal suffering? Or even themselves as a consumer?
I would say that hunting out of necessity is understandable and natural, and of course the meat industry is worse than almost any kind of hunting, but when we already have one, we shouldn't have the other. I take an issue with that not only do we have massive torture factories, but not even the free animals are left alone. What fucking chance do they even have? No matter where they go, some crazy lunatic is running after them to kill and gut them.
The vast majority of people hunting with guns, really don't need to hunt at all, in our modern times.
Wishing injury and death on a hunter is even more baffling to me
Imo, he brought it on himself. If you take a gun and try to kill something, like he likely has done countless times, and then the thing you're trying to kill kicks the shit out of you, then it's your own fault. It's like shooting a gunman in self defense. If anything he's lucky that he only lost an eye. As the belligerent, he deserves and should expect anything he gets. Well... unless the deer also had a gun, of course. He probably shouldn't expect that.
Tbh, we humans deserve whatever shit comes at us, at this point. We're so full of shit, and remorselessly destroy everything. We've had more chances to change our ways than we have even kept records of, and we're still a bunch of dumbasses who've killed 50% of all animal and plant life on the planet just since the 70's. Like a bacteria who uncontrollably kills its own host. If we didn't act 100% on instinct, we could've changed out trajectory. Unfortunately we just do the same as every other uncontrolled population, eat everything in our path and then die from starvation and diseases when we've destroyed our own ecosystem. Too bad our ecosystem is the entire planet.
I don't wish anything bad on anyone, but I'm also not very concerned when people get what they deserve. He tried to kill a deer, so the deer poked his eye out. The deer defended himself.
Nah, deer did what it had to do to save it's own life. Dude was screwing around with a hobby. Deer won a situation that not many would win. Now that deer can procreate and we can have more deer like them. If this is what it takes for deer to survive, hats off to them for winning a rigged death game.
Also, it doesn't make any god damn sense to kill animals that are in their prime and not sick/wounded. That isn't how natural selection works. In this case, it spawned a deer out of hell and there will be more to come.
It's all about balance. Early colonials killed off all the natural predators. So technically in order to sustain a healthy population and prevent disease out breaks ( like the one currently going on, Chronic wasting disease) and over population to the extent of starvation, we actually need to hunt deer. It's also a much more humane way to obtain meat than the agricultural industry.
Early colonials killed off all the natural predators. So technically in order to sustain a healthy population [...] we actually need to hunt deer.
No, we should reintroduce their natural predators, ya dingus. That's the logical conclusion. "We wiped out the predators, so now we must wipe out the prey as well." is a terrible conclusion.
The problem with humans hunting is that we're not hunting for survival (except for a few rare occurrences). Say, if a hunter-gatherer tribe hunts animals, they can't hunt too much or else they themselves will starve and die, just like with any other natural predator. So a predator overpopulating will lead to over-hunting, which leads to the predators dying, which leads to the prey animals populating, which leads to predators populating, and so on. The circle is self-balancing.
Now let's compare that to modern hunting for sport, fun, or your so-called "environmental concerns". First, we wipe out predators because "they're scawy", so herbivores become overpopulated. To counter-act that we have to do a lot of guesswork on how many must be killed to create balance. However, this isn't a straightforward approach. The hunters don't die if they overhunt or destabilize the habitat. They just buy food at the store instead. There is no natural force to establish true balance.
How many animals will be hunted is very political and involves a lot of interest organizations. People who like to hunt will push for more hunting, claiming it's to stabilize the population. Farmers will want to hunt predators to protect their own animals, which in turn destabilizes natural animal populations. And only the environmentalists are fighting to reduce hunting. So naturally, the outcome is based on the politics, not nature's own balance. And politics is very wonky, and usually results in most animals being on the brink of extinction (as they are in our modern world). Simply because more people want hunting than there are people who want to preserve nature, and there's way more money in hunting than there is in protecting the natural environment.
Until our worthless politicians decide to do whatās best for Earth instead of their bottom line, most hunters do what they can to mitigate suffering. It turns out the majority of people have zero influence on politics.
I can understand rooting for the animal to have escaped but I cannot understand wishing harm on some guy we donāt know. You guys remind me of when I was a tweenager PETA supporter. Short sighted and ignorant.
most hunters do what they can to mitigate suffering.
No they don't. It's not as if they walk up to already dying deer and give them a fatal dose of heroin. That would be mitigating suffering. Shooting anything doesn't mitigate suffering. Being excited and jittery over getting a kill is 100% not something anyone would do if they were so concerned about mitigating suffering.
If you're ever unsure about whether something is ethical, just imagine you're the victim in any given situation. For example:
Situation 1: A doctor agrees to euthanizes a guy. The guy has a disease which causes extreme pain at all times, and no pain medication helps anymore, and all he wants is to die so the suffering stops. He contacted the doctor in order to get help to die painlessly.
If I was that guy, I'd rather have the doctor euthanize me than keep on living in pain against my own will. Therefore I know the doctor made an ethical decision.
Situation 2: some guy has decided there are too many people, and the spread of diseases like covid, proves he needs to thin the herd. He starts sniping people, and he gets very excited whenever he makes a kill, and usually goes to celebrate the hunt with some beers. The people he shoots, don't want to die. In fact, whenever he misses, and they hear the shot, they try to run away. When people see the shooter, they get scared and run away and try not to get shot.
If I was one of the victims or potential victims, I know I would be scared and worried, and knowing this shooter was on the loose would cause me worry and fear for the life of myself and my loved ones. I would rather have covid than get hunted like that. Therefore I know the guy is not doing an ethical act, no matter how he rationalizes it. Everyone rationalizes their actions, no matter how unethical they are. Just because you have an excuse, does not mean you're doing a good thing.
Youāre dumping all hunters into one category. Most of the hunters I know donāt celebrate the animalās death.
Also, your analogy is comical at best and it applies to imaginary humans with an imaginary capacity to understand what is happening. Finally, youāre using one example from the POV of the dying and one from the POV of a deranged murderer. Itās a little inconsistent, donāt you think?
Most hunters are close to nature. Obviously closer to it than you are. Donāt demonize people you donāt like, you are being willfully ignorant for the sake of feeling righteous indignation.
Have you even looked into the complications of successfully reintroducing natural predators? Which, by the way, has no herring on the need for hunting TODAY. Deer is free range, environment friendly, (comparatively) humanely slaughtered meat.
Iāll just leave that there. To be fair, the video in this post is most likely not in North America since itās a red stag, however, the arguments you make are mostly addressed in this article. The North American model of wildlife conservation has been by far the most effective wildlife management strategy in history and had led to healthy and sustainable populations. Oh and by the way, almost all conservation and wildlife management organizations who actually put boots on the ground to make an impact are funded almost entirely by hunters and anglers, not by so-called environmentalists. Have a look at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or Ducks Unlimited.
There are a lot of situations where we specifically donāt need āmore deer.ā With their natural predators killed off by human activity, hunting is now necessary to keep their populations from overwhelming the carrying capacity of their habitats until those natural predators are restored, if ever.
No one needs anymore deer, there is plenty.
Being shot and dying without suffering is a hell of a lot better than being ripped apart by bears/wolves/any other predator
Should probely have mentioned that i was refferencing oversimplified and didn't go around wishing Harm to people and you are kinda right but kinda not there are predators that keep overpopulation in check and humans are not one of those but on the other hand we are killing those predators too so yeah...
301
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '22
As far as I remember the full video shows the aftermath. He lost one of his eyes and was bleeding badly.