Instead of hunting to "control population", how about controlling land development?

Question

Jim A: Please define what you believe "real people" to be. Drop the name calling.

Answer 1

Troll! I doubt you have a degree in anything! Because you dont know squat about wildlife management.

Maybe if we deported people like you there would be more room for real people and wildlife.

MORE FOR U;

Real people = people who do not mandate their beliefs on others.

The reason I think your full of it about the degree is this. More habitat will not help control deer or animal populations. We have too many deer because we cut down all the dense forests, deer prefer grazing land, not deep forests that lack a food supply for them. Also the deer are over populating due to more food sources from farmers and ranchers and because of a lack of predators to control their numbers. If we try to reintroduce wolves near cities to control deer populations they will also prey on pets and livestock.

Fact is we can’t turn back the dial, we have infringed on and changed the wildlife bio-system to a point there is no going back.  Artificial means to control deer populations has been very spendy and a failure.

If you had a degree in wildlife management you would know that and not suggest reducing the population of people and increasing habitat for animals.

People should have more rights than animals. People should come first animals last. If I wanted 6 kids that’s my business not yours, uncle sams or anyone.

You have the scent of a communist and I think you are indeed a socialist. You disregard any other opinions and make things up. Beedsarefun did not insult you but you claimed he did. You lied.

You’re the type of people that is a danger to human freedoms and wildlife in general. Why don’t you stick to sick pet Q&A’s and leave us be?

You didn’t ask a question, no you just wanted to push your anti-American agenda on us.

I don’t care what you believe in you have that right. But you do not have the right to shove your idealist agenda on others. And if you were running for a political office and had limiting the number of kids we can have they would tar and feather you.

You remind me of the Taliban, same closed mind, same greater than thou attitude and the same ignorance and arrogance.

All you have proven here is what a threat you are to our way of life.

Answer 2

Destroying the South American Rain Forests?

Oh, yeah, a big can of worms to control human population. China practices that and has nifty punishments for violators.  Why don't you go give the Chinese an hand?

Answer 3

If you were simply asking a question, that would be one thing. Your approach is designed to offend and when it does so, you get defensive. Say what you mean and be done with it. If you dont like hunting or are a vegan or whatever, say so instead of trying to couch your question as though it was intended to stimulate open, honest dialogue.

I dont know about the rain forrest but I know there are more trees in the US now than there was in the 1600's.People in your own field agree on that. I believe there is also more deer due to lack of hunting for sustenance by indigenous people. ( Who also lit prairies on fire to drive game animals)

The animal population is doing great. Cougars are making a comeback in Illinois when they have been virtually gone since 1900. Heck, they shoot them in downtown Chicago a few blocks from Wrigley field. I am convinved the only reason there is not a massive deer kill season in Illinois is because State Government is afraid of groups like PETA and others and deosnt want to "lose votes" Hunting is one of the reasons people like you have your job is because hunting pays for a portion of it.

You may have a great heart and love animals but you have to use your head along with your heart. How are you going to make sure animals " obey the rules" of where they  go when you have restricted human access to them. Will you also somehow restrict animals to certain areas where they dont destroy crops or cause car wrecks or harm humansor even starve themselves to death due to over-population?

Just be real and if you disagree with hunting... so be it. Just dont try to say you are MERELY asking a question when you came onto a hunting forum and purposely try to offend others with talk about human population control versus animal.

Answer 4

You ask about hunting to control population.

Please allow me to introduce you to the Texas wild hog problem.

The wild hog over population is a prime example of hunting to control population. I have a small tract of land, less than 30 acres, and I produce hay on 7 acres of it. Last year I lost about 2 acres of hay to the wild hogs. They breed fast and populate fast and destroy the crops. We, the farmers, hunt them to keep the population low so we do not loose our crops. I am not saying we harvest them to nothing, but we keep them under control. Over the last 5 months I have killed 9 hogs for a total of about 1,200 pounds worth of pork going to the Hunters for the Hungry program. So far i have only lost about 1/8th acre of my crop and am half way through the growing season. So for hunting to control population works on the hogs.

Answer 5

You state that controlling human population is a viable option

How are you gonna do that

You have been asked repeatedly now so how about you elaborate

I want to hear your explanation of how it is morally superior to artificially control human population instead of animal population

How are you going to regulate land development more than it is

Millions of acres of federal land are set aside for the animals in America alone

Millions of acres of state land is set aside

Millions of acres of private land is leased by the state and set aside plus the private land being leased to individuals and clubs and the landowners that are using their land for private hunt camps

What else do you propose?

Here's the kicker

How are you proposing to pay for that land?

The money being used now comes from hunters and sportsmen and gun owners in general

The millions of dollars in taxes paid for hunting licenses and taxes on hunting goods and supplies and ammo go to pay for that land

How much have you donated?

How have you raised money for the cause?

Answer 6

Your never going to stop hunting, it's part of life, all animals do it.

If you think farmed meat is a better way to go, then eat farmed meat. If your a vegetarian or vegan then practise your beliefs and don't push it on to others (your not going to change us).

But I think your correct in mentioning people control, I believe this plaint is becoming over populated

Answer 7

population dynamics wouldn't change.  There is a limited amount of space, be that 100 square miles, enough to support 200 deer, or 10,000 square miles, enough to support 20,0000 deer. No matter how big the space, animals will reproduce and fill it, so you are right back where you started

EDIT TO ADD

you talk about controlling land development, and then get mad when people jump to conclusions.

How are you going to control land development?  There are only two ways to control land development.  #1 Buy it and say no development.  No one is going to have a problem with that, it is your land then, you get to say what goes on.  Do you have enough cash for that? Probably not. #2 Draconinan laws enacted and enforced by the government.  Let me make this clear.  When the US government and it's agencies begin seizing privately held lands against the will of the owner for the sake of animal habitat, it is time for the true purpose of the 2nd amendment to be used.

Also, you talk about population control as making birth control available.  Guess what? That only impacts unwanted pregnancies, it has absolutely zero impact on continued population growth when it is based on people wanting more than 2 children.  Again, the ONLY way to control the human population is through draconian measures.  Once the government starts saying 'you cannot have more than X children' again, it is time for that government to be overthrown, and any agent of that government is 'fair game' for a high velocity dosage of lead.

Obviously you are not saying "We should inneffectually controll land development" or "We should inneffectually control human population" because those are non-starters. You cannot fix the problem with a solution you know to be inneffecual.

So anyone who calls for those two things is either branding themselves as a total moron, or calling for the same draconian measures as were used in Communist China, n**i Germany, Stalinist Russian, etc.

Answer 8

How is that going to generate the millions of dollars that come from hunters every year to support game management programs?  Through their taxes and donations, hunters provide the income to purchase the land and operate wild life management areas.  Game Wardens and wildlife biologists are paid by these taxes.  Who will pick up that financial burden under your plan?

Let's look at an other aspect of your plan to control land development.  What is being done with this developed land?  Some is going into commercial development such as factories.  Factories provide employment and income form millions of people.  Where factories build, ther will be a need for  housing, roads, water treatment, sewerage, etc.  All of this generates income for more people.  These people pay taxes to support the many programs for the betterment of the people.  These workers buy food, clothing, gasoline, etc. from local merchants who, in turn pay taxes also.

So, you see, your program of limiting development will have a drastic impact, not only on the local area but on the U.S. as well because of lost income generating factories.  If these factories cannot get land and labor here in the U.S. because of limited land development, where do they go?  Off shore to Mexico, China, Korea, etc.  We don't need any more factories going off shore, we need development here in the good old USA.

Given proper conditions, game animals are a very sustainable resource.  Unchecked, deer can quickly over populate an area and become a pest to home owners.  The same is true of rabbits and squirrels.  Hunters can control this over population and at the same time provide an income for the various game related jobs.

If it is the death of animals that concerns you, the hamburger that you eat, the bacon in the morning, the leather shoes that you wear, etc. all result from the death of animals.  Will you give up eating all animal products and wear only Crocks on your feet?

Your idea of controlling the human population is rather ridiculous.  Just how do you propose to do that?  Perhaps the same way China is doing it?  Do you really want the government having THAT much control over your life?  In China thery are allowed only one child.  Their society holds boys to be more desirable so, if a family has a girl they may decide to just kill her so they can try again for a boy.  If they were to just have a second child, thery would be subject to severe punishment.  Just kill the baby girl, dispose of the body, the govenrnment just looks the other way as long as no one makes a fuss about it, and they try again for a boy.  Does that sould like something that you want here in the U.S.?  Perhaps the old n**i solution of forced streilization is more to your taste.  You can have one child and then you are sterilized.  No questions asked.  See any problem there?  How about where a child dies of an accident or severe illness?  The couple has been sterilized and can never have a second child.............oops!  Well, if none of these plans for human population control suit you, how about some form of bedroom police to be SURE that you always use some form of birth control?  Perhaps hidden cameras in your bedroom ceiling or unexpected knocks on the door at night.

You know, I don't think you have thought this idea of yours through.  You'd better go back to the drawing board and start again.

Answer 9

Clarice, in your post about trophy hunting I asked you why you felt that it was ok to criminalize an activity just be cause you don't like it?  Now you are talking about controlling the human population.  How?  Enforced abortions?  Forced sterilization of men and/or women?  Please explain yourself.  I don't mean this in an insulting manner, but your tendency to recommend criminalizing activites you don't approve of (which actually translates into imprisoning people who do something you don't like) and now population control (which could only be accomplished through government mandates and criminal enforcement of people who don't comply) is the height of arrogance and is, unfortunately, a dangerous attitude that many people have now days.  I also must say, that I simply cannot believe that you have a degree in Wildlife biology and/or that you work as a biologist in a National Park.  You alone, may be harmless, but there are many people like you, who want to dictate and control other people, and to take away our rights and freedoms.  If you are a government employee you are the most dangerous type of bureaucrat (again I really don't believe you) and I hope your personal attitudes don't color your professional decisions.  I hope that against hope, because you appear to be extremely intolerant of people who disagree with your personal philosphy concerning wildlife resources.  I pray that you actually work at convenience store on the the night shift and that you actually don't have any type of postion of responsibility with the government.

Whew!  I got a little nasty there!  Sorry.  I was still fired up over the trophy hunting question when I read this one.  Here's a calmer response.  Controlling land development is absolutely necessary in wildlife managememt but, in my opinion it must be used "with" hunting, not "instead" of hunting.  I'm sure you have read the comments that point out that hunters have been one of the main forces in wildlife protection, the fight against poaching, etc.  A very good example is Ducks Unlimited which has been a huge factor in the conservation of waterfowl habitat and the management of waterfowl populations through conservation and setting of seasonal limits.  All the hunters who are members pay dues that go to that end.  There are many other hunting organizations like that.  As a hunter I do sometimes feel that I am under attack by people who want to dictate to me what I should do and how I should live my life.  I have the tendency, to lump people who question hunting into one catagory and that's not a good thing.  Many antihunting groups are fueled a misplaced love for animals that, at times, is not rational.  Some of them seem to believe that because they don't like the killing of animals for ANY reason, that I should be punished, and/or looked down on because I do.  I do realize that other people are entitled to their opinions, but I'm not trying to dictate to them how they should think or live, and so I get resentful when I feel they are trying to do that to me.  As for controlling development, I do agree that it's a necessary factor in wildlife conservation.  I live on a river in NC that is not highly developed.  Most of the land around here is classifed as wetlands, so development is not going to be a huge factor in the near future and I love that.  However the fact of the matter is that I live here, and so actually my house is encroaching on part of the environment.  To say that I am totally against development would therefore be hypocritical.   You question made me think, and I do acknowledge that I, like many others, agree with controlling development as long is I (meaning ME ME ME) get to live here.  That's pretty selfish actually.  There are extremes in everything.  On one hand I can't stand greedy real estate developers who destroy natural environments just to make lots of money.  I imagine most of the hunters here can tell you stories about a favorite hunting area that is now a subdivision.  On the other hand, I also do not understand, people who advocate controlling public lands to the point that people are not even allowed to go into an area at all (on foot or otherwise) at all, to keep it "pristine".   (this doesn't apply to nesting areas during certain seasons, I do agree with that)  People who hunt/fish are by definition environmentalists and, in my opinion, take an even more active role in protecting wildlife habitat than many extreme environmental organizations (such as ELF).  When someone questions hunting I need to remind myself that lumping people like you with radical environmentalists is no more fair than catagorizing me with people who poach, exceed limits, and shoot protected species.  We all have the same goal, which is protecting our natural resources, so really we should be working together.  Anyway, as usual I have run on and on.  Good question.  Thanks.

Answer 10

Well, it does need to be done, there's no question about that.  Aquifers are being overpumped, food prices are skyrocketing because there's not enough to go around, ditto for fuel.  The billions of people are destroying the environment with pollution, deforestation, etc.  We've got food riots, Israel's expected to run out of water this year, and I've heard reports local governments in the US handing out famine preparedness pamphlets.

What we need is a good pandemic.  Personally, I have high hopes for peak oil, which I believe to be already underway.  In the late 90s, the Saudi king said the oil boom was over, and numerous studies put the peak around 2005-2007.  It coincides pretty well with the gas prices, the war in Iraq (which I believe to be a resource war), the probable 2008 president's desire to invest billions of dollars in "green" (ie; non-petroleum based) energy sources, and other politician's desires to dig here and there, looking for some new sources of oil.

Answer 11

Question:  Instead of hunting to "control population", how about controlling land development?

Answer:  There is only so much land to control and if wild life is not controlled it can lead to environmental problems you can't even begin to imagine.  Take Whitetail deer for example.  If they are not hunted they will over-populate, damage crops (foodstuff for the starving human masses), become diseased and/or die a slow, lingering death of starvation.  Death & starvation in any species is the harbinger of plague and other ills that will affect not only wildlife but Mankind as well.

I just saw a special on TV yesterday that pointed out that the Whitetail deer is the most hunted animal in the USA.  Yet it is not anywhere near endangered as it is very prolific.  You know another critter here that is even more prolific and in spite of the fact that it is hunted year-round is still approaching epidemic proportions in many States of the Union, AND this critter is dangerous, too!  The Wild Boar.

Now if you don't like to hunt that's fine, but don't bash those who do.  Also, concerning your second question about 'human population control as well,' I've always noticed how animal-rights advocates have less concern for human rights.  'Human population control as well' indeed!  I'll bet you don't think abortion is murder, do you?

H

ADDENDUM:  It is insinuated,  all you have to do is read between the lines.

H

Answer 12

You can't grill and eat "land development" pal...

Answer 13

Well if your about controling the Human Population ( Killing Human beings) You are more than welcome to take your self out to get started.

I am just kidding so laugh with me. mwahahaha

Answer 14

Why? As in, what's the benefit to changing the current policy? Hunting by humans as a control works to the benefit of all creatures concerned. Convince me that wasting the resource is a better option.

Answer 15

Well the last time I checked, it was illegal to hunt people so that pretty much ruins anything I can do for human population control.

Answer 16

I'm all in favor of a Gang Banger hunting season. It should run from 1/31 to 1/30  It will help control the human population plus drop the crime rate

Answer 17

I'm 100% with akluis.  There are many case studies that show he effects of unmanaged wildlife.  The results are wild swings in population among flora and fauna.  What wildlife management does is level off the highs and fill in the lows. If you do have a degree in wildlife biology, you should already know this.  Unless you went to a school that does not value knowledge.

On to human population control.  You don't really want to control human population.  Everything you have written indicates you want to control human behavior.  People who want to control human behavior are known as tyrants.  Sad fact, but true.  I am certain by what you have written, that if humans stayed within city limits, never created suburbia, and never ventured out, you would have never brought up human population control.

Here is another tip: the only people who worry about animals enough to want to ban wildlife management and/or hunting are those who are so rich that they don't have to worry where their next thousand meals are coming from.  Thus, I challenge you.  Take a sabbatical from your fat government park job, and spend a year in East Africa or Burma.  Take one change of clothes with you and don't forget your yellow fever shot.  Try to survive in either of those environments living like the natives.  Then come back and preach to us about hunting and game management.

Answer 18

Human population control and land development control are both socialist ideas. In theory it's a good idea. In practice it's not. Who will decide what is best for all of us? Hunting is monitored and controlled by the state government. If the population is to large they give more days to hunt or increase the number that can be taken, if to few, the opposite. What people do you plan on controlling? If 1st world people lower their birth rates, and 3rd world countries don't, soon the 1st world will be overran or pulled down to the level of the 3rd world. It's a lot more complicated than I can describe. Maybe nature will solve the problem for you. Anytime that populations of any kind get to large, disease breaks out and culls out the weak, the old and others that can't adapt to fight the illness off. With my luck, I could solve all of our problems, then we would get hit by a comet.

Answer 19

If we stopped building and restricted the population, we'd still need to impact animal habitat, and even if we didn't, we'd still need to manage wildlife. It's just too brutal not to do so.

Answer 20

Control the human population??? Now how would you do that -- 1 child only and forced sterilization like china or more direct means like the genocide hitler did??  Clarify this -- I cant wait...