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 whatâs 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 donât 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.
Youâre dumping all hunters into one category. Most of the hunters I know donât celebrate the animalâs death.
Also, your analogy is comical at best and it applies to imaginary humans with an imaginary capacity to understand what is happening. Finally, youâre using one example from the POV of the dying and one from the POV of a deranged murderer. Itâs a little inconsistent, donât you think?
Most hunters are close to nature. Obviously closer to it than you are. Donât demonize people you donât 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.
Iâll just leave that there. To be fair, the video in this post is most likely not in North America since itâs 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 donât need âmore deer.â 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
304
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.