|
You would rather a deer starve and feed the coyotes than be hunted and feed humans?
Yes -- this makes much more sense to me than hunters removing a part of the food chain and interrupting the natural process.
...however, with the hunting of predators that has already taken place (along with general reduction due to development), there aren't enough to properly control the populations.
We are doing our duty in the food chain. I should have been more clear.
Maybe. I still don't buy the whole "genetic limitation in a population through the dominance of a SuperDeer" idea.
The hawks, snakes, cats, and my silly dog for that matter will help control the mice population as usual.
Hmm. Mice was a bad example.
There are plenty of animals out there that are not hunted and do not have natural predators that have normal populations through natural regulation. Alligators have no natural predators and we are not stepping on them as we walk out the front door in Florida -- their population is very normal and it is not due to them being hunted.
But to take away all hunting would be like the example of the farmers and the wolves mentioned earlier. It's all a balance. We just have the ability to make killing deer illegal that the wolves don't.
You might be correct on this -- I haven't read enough from the DNR group or understood enough about the trend of wild animal populations. Of course, all I can find are very biased reports in quick searches. The NRA and hunters' associations say hunters are essential and we'd be overrun by deer without this form of control, while IDA ("In Defence of Animals") says that population studies indicate that after the hunting season, the numbers quickly return to a plateu and that number reduction from hunting makes no difference when viewed in the long run.
So I'll continue to do what I always do and argue my point with little or no information, being that I can't find any decent studies at the moment. Damn media groups.
:p
|