Do you believe that hunting controls the animal population, or harms it?

Question

I am up in arms on this issue at this point.

What do you think?

Answer 1

If people didn't hunt we wouldn't be able to eat bacon or hamburger or turkeys.

Answer 2

Hunting does help control the animal populations, it does not harm them.

Hunting serves the purpose that the decimated major predators used to do.  BTW, those major predators were not killed by hunters but more by farmers and ranchers, to protect their interests.

Don't you think Ducks Unlimited helps the waterfowl populations?  These hunters have contributed millions of dollars to protect breeding grounds for ducks and geese and you know what, many other non-game animals are also protected with these umbrella species.  The fees for licenses and special taxes on hunting supplies also go to provide sanctuaries and preserves for wildlife.

Most hunters are conservationists teaching future generations the value of sportsman ethics and behavior that will make them better people.

The wildlife professionals determine what the safe take will be and regulations are set to protect the populations and allow for wide and deep gene pools so all animals are healthy.

Not all hunters are trophy hunters, many enjoy the hunt and will take game for the table, not the wall.

Answer 3

With out a doubt hunting is needed to control the population.

Drive in Pennsylvania sometime.  Look at the number of deer that are killed along the side of the highways killed by cars driven by people how get harmed or killed as well in these collisions.

Answer 4

I'm personally against hunting, but as long as people are hunting animals that are in season (and NOT poaching) I think it keeps the animal population out of the human population.

Answer 5

Hunting definitely saves wildlife; hunting reduces the animal numbers in order to lighten the grazing and browsing pressure on the veld/habitat. The reduction of the animal numbers is important to allow the remaining animals to have a better chance at survival during the dry season. Having to many animals in an area damages the habitat and tends to result in bush encroachment and wild animals dying of malnutrition

Answer 6

Hunting definitely helps to control the animal population.  The hunting numbers for last years deer season just came out.  In Illinois just over 200,000 deer were killed last year out of an estimated population of 800,000 to 1,000,000.  

When deer breed the first year they normally have one baby and every year after that they have twins.

Wild predators do take a toll on some of the animals, but since we lack some of the larger predators humans have to step in and fill that role.

Without hunters the population of deer would explode.

There are some great articles on population control at most department of natural resources websites.

Answer 7

'up in arms'??  what does that mean, does it mean you are pro hunting or anti hunting?  if you are as I suspect anti-hunting, I assume you are also vegan, in your eating habits?  I mean, if you do not want animals killed, you should mean all animals, right?  Or are  you only concerned with 'game' animals, that someone else hunts for food?....you are not a hypocrite, right???

Answer 8

depends is the animal endangered or close to endangered then yes,if its ur average deer ...i dont like the idea but it does keep everything in check just know this if there are less deer there are less bears,and cougars,and less native americans!

Answer 9

The idea of hunting is supposed to help the population (I'll use deer for this), by controlling the numbers where natural predators do not exist. The problem is that no hunter is going to act like a natural predator. Hunters (human) want the biggest, fattest, best looking buck to go on their wall. They're not going to pay any attention to little button-bucks or to the ones that are sick or injured. By not following the rules of nature, hunters are hindering the population by taking out those deer (animals, w.e) that would otherwise be best suited for breeding.

Long story short- hunting hinders the population more than it helps, because it takes away the healthy breeding stock, leaving a small, sick herd (flock, w.e) behind.

Answer 10

As many have already pointed out, Man tends to remove the relatively few large predators from the ecosystem. The result is an overpopulation of the prey and the destruction of what the prey feed on. The cougars removed to protect the livestock were controlling the deer that would otherwise feed on the crops. If you would like a frightening explanation of what happens when predators are removed and there is no control of the prey, google "Kaibab Plateau".

The movie Bambi did more conservation damage than any movie before or since. As a result, deer die or starvation and disease, slowly, rather than quickly from predators or human hunters.

Answer 11

I HAVE A GREAT IDEA MAN LISTEN UP! LETS NOT HUNT THE ANIMAL POPULATION WILL SKY ROCKET AND THEN WE CAN SEE DEER UP CLOSE THROUGH OUR WINDSHIELDS! GOOD IDEA EH! Put your arms down and grab a gun!

Answer 12

Well honestly, we've screwed the ecosystem up so much that otherwise prey will be too overpopulated. The reason why is because most of the predators' populations have been decimated.

The funny thing is, people complain that prey are overpopulated, and they reintroduce wolves, cougars, etc. Then ranchers and farmers complain about their animals being eaten, so the predators are either removed or killed.

It's a vicious cycle that HUMANS have created. In a normal predator/prey relationship area, there are spikes and drops that balance each other in population. When the population of deer/elk is lower, the population of wolves will be higher, and when the deer/elk population is higher, the wolves' will be lower. That is how it SHOULD work, but we've messed things up beyond repair.

Answer 13

Why are you "up in arms"?  Got too many guns?  

You know, when there are too many species that people get confused and angry, then God makes a poacher to come along and get rid of the big, bloated, useless ones. It's nature.

On a serious note, having too many deer around does harm the plant life, and no one wants more big predators around (people hate having cougars in their back yard for some reason), so hunters serve the purpose of population control, just like in the cave man days.  Humans are part of nature also.

Answer 14

I personally would never hunt or be able to shoot an animal..but I am not against hunting if it is done legally.  Hunting IS actually a form of wildlife management.  It also puts LOTS of money back into protecting wildlife.  Most hunters are environmentalists..they do not want to kill everything as this would leave them nothing to hunt. They understand the balance of nature and work with it.   Also, hunting preserves natural habitats.  Because hunting brings in big money...large wild areas are preserved for hunters.  Without hunters these areas would most likely be plowed and mini-malls or condos would be put in their place.  Also, hunters actually save the lives of millions of birds each year.   Duck/hunting clubs provide habitat and food not only for waterfowl, but many shorebirds, and songbirds as well.  While the hunters may shoot a couple thousand ducks throughout the season, thousands more who would have starved otherwise without the shelter, habitat and food the hunters provide, survive and thrive.  Like I said..this resting place/habitat  would NOT exist if not for hunters.

Answer 15

Well I hate the whole hunting thing but I have read some studies that have stated that during hunting season it is hard on the animals to live and is why we have the hunting season.

I still don't like it and I think the study is ridiculous but I am an animal activist and believe they have ever right to be here as we do. It's not our decision to make if they live or die. BUT that's just me.