Do you suport Hunting as a way to control the overpopulation of wildlife?
92205
Yes.  Paranoid and uneducated people have killed most of the predators and created this problem to begin with, now its our duty to control it.  I don't like the trophy hunter method as it eliminates the strong and allows the weak to breed, ultimately reducing the quality of the rest, but we do need to keep the population in check.  People need to hunt legally with permits and should use as much of the animal as they can.
780677
Honey, you nailed it. There is nothing wrong with it.  I personally think hunters have gotton a bad rep because of the booze hound idiots that tie the dead deer to the hood of the car like a buick ornament. Which i believe to be very disrespectful to such a beautiful creature.  My sweetie hunts every weekend, and because of that I havnt bought ground beef in over 3 years.  He doesnt go "killin" for sport.  He does it for the meat. You are right. The population, unchecked would be devastating for the environment.  People that are too damn sensitive, think its "cruel" and "mean".  But these are the same people that enjoy a good veal steak without a second thought as to the misery they put that animal through and the hormones and antibiotics they are consuming. They probably wear fur coats too, and i wont get into how barbaric a practice that is.  Not to mention, hunting is a wonderful recreation. It teaches patience, respect, safety, and a general appreciation for nature to young folks.  SO no, there is nothing wrong with hunting.  And dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
246832
Most systems, when left alone, will tend to come to a "steady state" or be at rest.  In the case of balancing the ecosystem, overpopulation is a situation that I tend to think would eventually be controlled by the environment.\n\nAs an example, consider bacteria and viruses for which not everyone is immune nor is there necessarily a vaccine.  The increase in population ensures: a) that there are more hosts for these agents to travel; and b) that the agent doesn't have that far to travel, so it does so quickly.  Epidemics have a way of balancing out overpopulation.\n\nIn some cases, people make the mistake of introducing some 'agents' (not necessarily viruses, but such as in a recent case with toads) into an environment in which they help control the population in one aspect, but then the agent itself overpopulates.  Eventually, as it runs out of food (unless it has several plentiful sources in the environment to which it's been transplanted) it too will experience a loss in population.
1141050
When done right, selective logging helps to open the forest up and let more botanical species thrive.\n\nBy halting it, you run the risk of increased, and more dangerous fires, such as those seen n recent times in the western USA.  \n\nEither way you look at it, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't
240795
Hunting is NOT bad. Particularly deer hunting in my opinion. I grew up in an area where auto accidents caused by deer were extremely common - the deer were just EVERYWHERE. There are no more natural predetors around to cull the deer population, so hunting really helps to keep the population from getting TOTALLY out of control. Plus, there were several programs in the area that took donations of deer hunters killed, butchered them properly, and then donated the meat to homeless shelters and other causes.
803802
Different people hunt for different resons. Here is mine. I eat meat. Meat comes from two sources. Farms where they are fenced in or penned up and then hauled off to be killed and cut up for sell in the store. Meat from this source is ok, but there is the issue of growth hormones in the feed and so on and fat content. The other way to get meat for eatin is by hunting. The meat from here is running wild and free and often times goes without gettin taken by the hunter. The meat is leaner and taste better to me and i know how it was handled afterwards. I know it was kept clean and processed right. I cant know how store bought meat was handled before i buy it. \n     Some people hunt with their minds toward trohpies or in the case of varmit hunting it is target shooting and maybe population control of a animal that is sometimes desctructive to property and maybe other wild animals. I dont hunt for trophies and i dont use animals for displays of my shootin abilities. I hunt for meat/food. And i will also shoot a coyote from time to time as they play hell with the baby deer in the spring and have really run down the groundhog population here. In some ways coyotes are a non native animal to indiana.\n     If people didnt hunt deer there would many more deer/car wrecks which might be you or someone you care about being hurt or killed. Ive seen cases where deer have overpopulated and starved themselves in a location. I dont like the hunting shows on TV. They give a bad impression of whats really going on. There are people who hunt who i dont like, and i dont like their wreckless attitude, but hunting in the right way and for the right reasons is not a bad thing. It is just not for everyone i guess.\n        shane
845807
I do agree with you on what you do on your land is your buisness and that you should be able to hunt and fish on it but you should think about the big picture as far as game management the wildlife around your area could depend on what happens on your land if you overfish in a stream or river the spawning could have a impact same with game that buck or doe that you harvest will not have the opportunity to breed.to me if your freezer is getting empty it is time to do what you gotta do to survive just dont over do it and dont advertise what you are doing.
838683
I agree that you should be able to harvest fish and game on your privately owned land, and I see no problem if landowners are exempt from game licensing and seasons.  The land is yours and your farming analogy is compelling.\n\nI do believe, however, that there needs to be some limitation to your activity.  The minimal level of regulation that I would like to see is that endangered species be protected.  But I also think it would be reasonable to have bag limits or a restriction against commercial uses, i.e. harvests would be limited to personal use.
883667
There are those who are opposed to hunting wildlife.  If I didn’t grow up in a quasi subsistence lifestyle, I might have felt different.  It is easy to see how hunting can be cruel.\n\nFor instance, if you walk into a restaurant and shoot a person at the salad bar, it is murder.  If you walk into a hay field and shoot a deer, it is dinner.  I have seen deer with arrowheads lodged inside and animals with injuries because of bad shots.  That is the dark side of hunting, the animal suffering that is thought of as a price the animal must pay.\n\nSo why hunt?\n\nSmall game animals have a sufficient number of predators to keep their numbers in check.  Even if there wasn’t, an overpopulation of squirrels and rabbits might be an annoyance, but not a real threat to humans and their health.  The habitat can usually support many more animals than current populations.\n\nAs animals get bigger, the number of predators get fewer.  Not many things that I have seen bother raccoons or geese.  Some animals will attack and kill these larger animals, but small animals tend to be an easier kill for a predator.  While overpopulation of these animals can cause a concern for humans.  Again, the habitat can usually support many more animals than current populations.\n\nAs you move to larger animals like deer, coyotes, and similar animals, there are few if any natural predators still around.  If the population is let go, the animals become a threat to humans either through predatory instincts or just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time (ie. Car deer accidents).  As the animals are large, they require greater amounts of food.  A large deer population can be devastating to a farmer’s crop, not to mention spread disease to livestock intended for human consumption (like bovine tuberculosis).\n\nEven small animals can be devastating to crops.  The dove population in Argentina is so large that a flock can eat thousands of tons of grain in a day.  Fields can be wiped out in under a day by the larger flocks.  \n\nHunting helps restore the balance that humans have destroyed.  As predators are gone, humans have become the predators.  Without the predators, animals like deer will consume all the food available in their habitat and either starve to death or die of diseases like CWD, bovine tuberculosis, or others  (neither sounds like a good way to die to me)\n\nSo what good is hunting?\n\n1.Keeps populations of certain game under control.  In some states, if hunting were eliminated for a year or two, the current deer populations would be well beyond the carrying capacity of the land.  Granted, many animals are not in the same predicament as the deer, but are getting to be.\n\n2.It provides an activity that allows families to spend time together and pass down traditions.  Yes, there are other things families can do, but hunting happens to be an activity built on tradition.\n\n3.It provides a heck of a lot of money into economies that otherwise wouldn’t have tourism.  I hunt deer in Tomah, WI.  Any other time of the year, there is nothing going on in the town.  However, when the gun deer season comes around, all of the hotels are full, the restaurants have waiting lists, the gas pumps are flowing, and local stores are selling things that the hunters need or forgot.\n\n4.Provides an overall boost to the economy.  Hunting is expensive (very expensive if you think about it).  Gun deer hunting requires a rifle, which a cheap one will run $500.  The rifle needs a scope which is another $250.  The scope needs rings which is $30.  A box of ammo will set a hunter back $20.  The hunter needs to sight in their rifle every year at $15 a visit.  Boots wear out at $100 a pair.  A GPS is needed after getting lost in the woods last year for about $150.  The kids stole my compass, making me part with another $10.  I can’t see over the brush anymore, so I need a deer stand at $160.  This goes on and on for any hunter (at least deer hunters…).  This money tends
144747
This is a very tricky question.  See i am a woman, I grew up on a farm.  Im 36 and a single mother of two.  To me, if you are hunting animals, then it had better be for food.  Not for decorations, fur, or for something to do.  I dont believe that it should be just a sport.  There are times, when I didnt have any meat to put on the table, and no money to buy meat.  I sure wish at those times, I knew how to hunt.  It is hard to buy meat, i think, it is extrememly expensive, I get tired of bologna and hamburger.  But this is just one persons' opinion.  I hope I helped.  Barb(indiana)
694315
I do.  What are we going to do though?  With a rising population you have to put them somewhere right?  I'm for setting aside large chunks of land as reserves now while we have them to set aside.  Unfortunately, our culture's attitude towards land usage and the environment in general is ignore, ignore, ignore, panic.  I don't think we've reached panic yet, but we will. I'm not for the grid system either.  I think that is one of the worst ideas of all time.  Like in Arizona, for example, the land that can be developed, and the land that can't, are arranged in a checkerboard.  So what happens to animals that roam or migrate?  When all the 'boxes' of land have been developed around the reserved block the animals inside are cut off - the population either has to move to another block or it dwindles and possibly dies off.  Plus they have all kinds of run ins with the surrounding communities.  Some people that live in these communities think that it doesn't adversely affect the environment but it does.  They say "What do you mean?  The deer aren't dying off - I just had one in my backyard the other day."  They don't see how that is a problem.  The checkerboard is not a solution - it just worsens the effect of development.  And Phoenix is a classic example of urban sprawl.  Like a cancerous tumor its neverending grid of streets spreads out in all directions.  We aren't there yet - and we may not see it in our lifetimes - but the earth is so going to kick all of our a**e* eventually.   And, as a cultural, we will stand bug-eyed and bewildered - scratching our collective empty head over how it came to this.
47389
- There is possiblities to overpopulate on the earth.\n- But think more population always leads to more destruction.\n- The nature will become imbalance because of over population and often tragedies like tsunamies, earth quakes might kill scores of peoples.\n- Wars and Malnutrition also will become a major cause for the destruction of human lives.\n- So There is possibilities to control overpopulation of human beings to balance the earth.\n- Scientific figures might say what will be population after 100 years or thousand years.\n- But the God and the nature decides what to be on the earth and what should not be.\n- Dont forget there is also the possibilites to exist no human life in this planet.
963654
The US wildlife service has chosen to reintroduce the wolf back into Yellowstone and other Northern Rockies area.  It has been very successful.  I think that helping to manage what man has destroyed is a good idea.  Look at the overgrown deer population in many parts of the country - a danger to people, a nuisance with no natural enemies, and often starving.    \n\nScotland is doing the same thing.\n\nI don't think that a genetic defect or inbreeding has much to do with it.  Ultimately the lack of population would be man's fault as we encroach and destroy.  It's a red herring.
362609
Yes. As a matter of fact, I will. And I do. What really gets my bug is when hunters come up from the cities and they throw their empty plastic bottles and aluminum cans away in the woods. No respect whatsoever. Who's gonna pick it up, the deer? After the season is over and they all go back with their bad selves and their inflated stories I go around and pick up garbage. And the apple piles I find, get my bug too. Hunters? Not even. They feed them so they can pick the big one. We have up to 29 deer coming to our yard feeder, but we call them our extended family. If everyone would take a one day to pick up garbage this world would be a more beautiful place. And my many thanks to the people that do. ARE you a hippie? (smile)
514654
We let a forest fire free burn and we learned how fast a ecosystem can regrow itself.\nRe-populated it with wolves. Now wolf hunting is allowed to control the population.\nHighly studied area. (Super Volcanoes, geysers, wildlife)\nThe park service tries to limit the impact of humans.
300145
I think that foxhunting causes significant levels of pain and distress to animals, and that to do so merely for frivolity and entertainment is wrong, so I support the ban.\n\nHowever, I do understand the need to control animal population levels, particularly if excessive numbers of a certain species are damaging the ecological balance. This should, as far as possible be done in a quick and humane way, without the protracted fear and stress induced by a hunt.
1056823
Yep.\n\nNot just them, \nthere is just too many people now. We (we as in all)are destroying this land.  No more Northern Woods. We are depended on others (countries) to feed us-couldn't grow enough for all our own if we had too. They say more farms what they don't say is we purchase a hundred acres farm and used 60 acres for development  and divided it into smaller farms so the count looks good. Our water supply is short unless you want to drink the lakes. Wildlife has been limited in many areas. Its like no one sees the long term effects-------shortsighted.  If they themselves don't feel it -they don't see it. Then you get those I see plenty of land-well if everyone who lived here (cities included) wanted it divided how much do you think it per each would it come out too? Every see Japan's crowed areas would everyone like that?\n\nNo easy solutions. But how many people can United States of America hold and still be beautiful?\n\nJust look Wikpedia says 298.217,215 people/ land is 3,000,00,000 sounds good now if you take away the deserts,mountains,swamps, ect it brings it down less than 1/3 of a lot. Also consider some is used for businesses and commercial and service (hospitals, fire, police,schools, parks ect). Gee I don't think anyone can come till our kids stop populating like rabbits.