Hacker News Reader

There's a reason why raising farm animals is called husbandry. In a way, it can be a form of conservation vs. preservation. I worked on a small dairy and hay farm, it's a complex relationship, and the animals aren't treated like they are in a industrial farming operation.

In the deer example, as noted in the article, overpopulation strips forests down. Saplings get chewed down by starving deer, bark gets stripped from others, etc. The elimination of forage impacts other wildlife. By being "nice" to Bambi, you'll have a dead forest in 30-40 years, assuming a condo complex isn't dropped down from the sky.

So, in an effort to refine my argument, as well as accept some of your justification, let me rephrase.

Apart from extinction, I don't care how the deer population as a whole is managed. Individually, I would prefer to cause the least amount of pain to an animal as possible for the needed outcome, where that outcome is dictated by the needs of society and the individual (and in this specific case, I don't consider entertainment a need). I'm fully accepting of, and vastly prefer. the idea of animals raising in traditional farm settings when we need to cull them, and if they need to be killed, doing so in a quick and humane manner.

I am not disputing that deer need to be managed. If the only way we can seem to do that is through hunting, then okay, I consider it justified. I think effort should also be put into finding alternatives to managing the population. We need this in many other cases as well, where hunting isn't feasible. The salient point for me is that the hunting fulfills a need for society and the ecosystem, and if that need subsides, so should the hunting.

Individually, I would prefer to cause the least amount of pain to an animal as possible for the needed outcome

A large bullet through the heart and lungs is probably not going to be much worse than slaughtering livestock. (This is also why states set minimum caliber for hunting deer -- too small increases the risk of the deer dying too slowly.)

The salient point for me is that the hunting fulfills a need for society and the ecosystem, and if that need subsides, so should the hunting.

This is already the way of things. The number of licenses issued for a given year is the DNR's response to the current state of the deer population.

And this all started because I expressed a lack of sympathy for hunters who found it hard to hunt where they previously did. I'll fully accept that I was too broad in saying I hadn't heard a good justification for hunting. It's caused a of of people to assume a stance on my part and reply disputing that stance, which doesn't really exist. I don't believe hunting for enjoyment or tradition is really justifiable, but beyond that, I'm mostly open to the needs justifying our actions.

You are the only person in this thread putting that reason forward. Overpopulation of deer is bad for the ecosystem as a whole, and it is widely agreed that their population needs to be kept in check.

If you truly care about the ethics of the situation, hunting should be vastly preferred as a means of obtaining food over the current status quo of factory farming. A quick death by bullet is far, far better than a life of squalor and misery followed by, far more frequently than we'd like to realize, an agonizing and slow death.

I agree, they should be kept in check. I'm just arguing about the method.

Is it impossible to look for other paths? I don't believe the discussion should be reduced to the two extremes of "shoot them with guns" or "factory farm them". Our current and past situations need not be the only choices when facing the future.

Another straw man. Nobody is arguing that we would oppose some new, as-yet-undiscovered, ethically and environmentally optimal way of keeping deer populations in check. But until then, we have limited options at our disposal. Death by predator is probably the best all-around option, but in a world where that's politically untenable, death by rifle really isn't a bad alternative. It's in all honesty probably the least painful option on the table for a deer's eventual death, while at the same time providing a decent supply of food that reduces demand for factory-farmed meats.

You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. We do not live in such a world. Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators or drawn-out death by poison. If we do nothing to control their populations, those that survive will eventually age to the point where most will become infirm enough to die slowly by starvation. Unless you propose to sent vets into the woods armed with tranquilizers and materials for lethal injection, a bullet is virtually certain to be the least terrible way for a deer to die.

> Another straw man.

I said, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for hunters not being able to hunt. Then I clarified, I thought killing of animals should be justified, and gave specific examples of where I thought it was, and was not, justified. For the record, ecosystem management (population control), in the absence of better options, is a good justification for hunting in my eyes.

If the the animal population doesn't need management, do I think enjoyment of hunting or tradition justifies it? No.

> You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep.

That, there, is a straw man argument being set up. I haven't said this, and I believe my other responses around this topic have made that abundantly clear. Please don't put words in my mouth.

> Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators

Yep. So what? There's a reason for that. The life of the predator and the ecosystem as a whole works because of this process. I'm just not sure what I'm expected to believe hunting, for hunting's sake, is supposed to contribute.

The only way to keep their population in check is to kill them, no? How would you humanely kill them without shooting them? Couldn't introducing another predator to hunt them cause even more unforeseen ecological problems?

I don't know, is it? Maybe instead of introducing a new predator we reintroduce the old ones we removed? In in the absence of those, or if we are concerned about the outcome of reintroducing a predator, yes, manage them as needed, which may mean shooting them. Does that change whether I feel sympathy for hunters who hunt for enjoyment or tradition that no longer get to? Not at all. I see these as entirely different things.

Is "they're tasty" a valid justification? Perhaps you're a vegetarian, but if you aren't there's a logical inconsistency there. If you are, kudos for walking the walk.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't think there's a logical inconsistency as clear as you're assuming. I'm well aware that in many instances, the condition farm animals are kept in is much worse than whatever problems I am describing with the act of hunting. At the same time, I'm not sure the very essence of being a farm animal necessitates a worse situation that hunting; there may be a regime, and associated cost, at which farm animals are not significantly worse off than their wild counterparts, and as long as their end is quick and painless, I'm not too adverse to that.

Ideally though, I would like vat grown meat. To many, that sounds disgusting. To me, it sounds like a reproducible process that can eventually be perfected to give very specific types of meat as needed. Perfect steaks every time. It solves a lot of other problems at the same time, so bonus.

I'm aware that the previous, and my stance on hunting, is all very pie-in-the-sky. I still think it's a worthwhile discussion.

This article is making the argument that removing some of these deer is beneficial to the environment.

(In the sense that a controlled deer population results in greater diversity of plant species over the long term. Of course the relative value of plant species and deer are subjective)

There is very little young cedar, directly as a result of deer. If you drive along US 2 in the UP of Michigan, you can see that all the trees along the road look like they are trimmed. It is from deer browse, they eat everything they can reach.

I was replying to a comment, and specifically the sentiment that it's a shame when people move in and the existing hunter population has a problem continuing to hunt. I did mention that I think there must be a better way to curb an animal population that shooting them.

I was responding to you calling it a cost to remove something from the environment.

That's why I pointed out that it is better for plants to have less deer. It's subjective, but it's possible to believe that shooting a deer is a direct, net benefit to the environment, rather than a cost.