Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrewton5  When we've discussed it he always raises the issue of population control, that if hunters didn't shoot deer, rabbits, squirrels and such that the population would just get overrun....and I guess I can kinda see his point |
Animals that are hunted as a means of population control and to fend off disease neither works nor is a viable means of control.
[FONT=Arial]''Reducing starvation-level populations of deer, elk and other animals through hunting neither works nor helps manage disease, found a University of Georgia study published in the August 22, 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Although hunting wild animals to cull population is a popular method to reduce disease transmission in the US, Great Britain and Europe, researchers from the university’s Institute of Ecology found that it does not take into account the extent to which surviving animals compensate—and often overcompensate—by reproducing in larger numbers. When hunting was used in Europe to control the spread of swine fever, the number of infected animals actually increased by 25 percent''
Vegetarian Times
[FONT=Verdana]If hunting to control animal populations was a viable means why kill the often healthy animals instead of the sick? Why use [/FONT][/FONT]muzzleloading guns and bows and arrows which take time to reload, not killing the animal in one shot and risk letting the animal stray and get away wounded? Why not use marksmen with one single shot and sufficent guns? Instead hunters make it into a sport and stray away from their so called duty of ''population control''. In fact deers account for only a small fraction of the animals hunted with 40 million doves being hunted each year in america alone.
"Sport" usually suggests competition. Not only is the playing field not anywhere near equal for the hunted animal, but hunters routinely get rid of their competitors. This again is not consistent with the population-control argument. It is no secret either that the same tax-funded government agencies that are supposed to protect wildlife claim justification in "reducing the numbers" (killing) of a predator species in order to increase a prey species’ numbers, all for the benefit of hunters.
Furthermore hunting actually increases animal reproduction rates.([FONT=Arial]University of Georgia study published in the August 22, 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.)[/FONT]The abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors,resulting in a higher birth rate. Hunting is merely a sport not a means of population control at all. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt, but, rather, take steps to reduce the animals' fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. In actuality, many predator species are killed in order to produce more and more "game"; animals for hunters to kill.
Fish / Hunt FAQ
The population control argument is neither valid nor justified. Prey species reproduce to overcompensate for lesser numbers resulting in a surge and a larger increase in the population then the last year. Hunters hunt for sport and not to control population numbers.
[FONT=Arial]
[/FONT]