Killing for food and clothing is okay. So is killing for fun.

[crimethinker]

It seems immoral to me for people to wantonly participate in behavior that could wipe a species out of existence, or at the very least, dwarf its numbers.

If you care not for the individuals of a group, it seems strange to me that you would care for the group itself. Think of the same idea in human terms: it's okay to kill individual humans, but only as long as it doesn't harm "society" -- or if it helps society.

Maybe this is a concern for ecological balance and diversity? A kind of Earth solidarity? That's fine with me.

[ruksak]

If you care not for the individuals of a group, it seems strange to me that you would care for the group itself. Think of the same idea in human terms: it's okay to kill individual humans, but only as long as it doesn't harm "society" -- or if it helps society.

Maybe this is a concern for ecological balance and diversity? A kind of Earth solidarity? That's fine with me.

I suppose most people recognize the difference between people and animals.

We all have our own moral codes. I don't think it immoral to hunt for sport as long as I don't commit wanton waste. Now, shooting an animal in its hind leg just to enjoy it's response to the injury is immoral in my opinion.

[barts]

Every serious hunter would be up in arms and regulations would ensue fast and furious, I assure you.

Again with the "serious" hunters. As if.

As for "listening", it seems, based on earlier posts, even God's views are not worthy of your consideration. And, those whom don't confirm your bias, no matter their qualification, are peddling 'bull shit'. Serious hunters, indeed.

[ruksak]

Again with the "serious" hunters. As if.

As for "listening", it seems, based on earlier posts, even God's views are not worthy of your consideration. And, those whom don't confirm your bias, no matter their qualification, are peddling 'bull shit'. Serious hunters, indeed.

OK?

I guess I haven't hunted for 30 years and spent countless hours observing, studying and hunting these beasts. I think any objective person could query a fast read through this thread and extrapolate that I know what I'm talking about. I have froze my ass off in sub-zero temps trying to harvest the biggest racks in the Ohio valley. I have spent hours tilling and planting food plots, scouting for scrapes and sign, following wind trends and whitetail behavior. That's what the word "serious" suggests. I didn't stumble into walmart and purchase $1000 in gear with my credit card so I could hope to have a new garnishment for my pool room.

Frankly, I'm confused as to why you seem so offended by my participation in this debate?

I've supported my opinion with science and sources that verify how QDM prevents trophy animals from devolving. Perhaps referring to that paper you posted as "bullshit" might have been too low brow? Maybe I should have said it was "incorrect and based on faulty assumptions"?

Dunno, Bart.....I have yet to see you even to attempt to retort. Instead you have mocked me for my true passion, hunting. So I have to take that as a concession.

[Strawman]

I will point this out: hunting is serious, so serious that it has entered the deep, social consciousness of mankind. We live in a modern, agricultural society, but this is based on ancient, hunter-gatherer type societies. These earlier, primitive societies are responsible for creating the rudimentary forms of law, morality, and other institutions that we enjoy today.

Primitive societies take hunting much further than we do. They actually will make a game out of hunting human warriors from other tribes. Thankfully, we have advanced beyond this point. But the instinct for hunting should be allowed a healthy outlet, and if someone gets off on killing deer, and if they can help deplete over-grown deer populations that need to be thinned out anyway, then they are doing a good thing, and the pleasure they take from it is more than justifiable.

[barts]

Frankly, I'm confused as to why you seem so offended by my participation in this debate?...Dunno, Bart.....I have yet to see you even to attempt to retort. Instead you have mocked me for my true passion, hunting. So I have to take that as a concession.

Offended by your participation in this debate? Not at all. I genuinely and enthusiastically welcome it. I say that with 100% unequivocal sincerity. Indeed, despite the fact I disagree profoundly with the OP, I promoted it to an article on the home page.

That being said, and thanking you for your participation, let's move on.

You say,

I've supported my opinion with science and sources that verify how QDM prevents trophy animals from devolving. Perhaps referring to that paper you posted as "bullshit" might have been too low brow? Maybe I should have said it was "incorrect and based on faulty assumptions"?

In fact, you didn't support your opinion with anything other than baseless attacks on credible researchers. The fact is that, personally, I simple don't give any intellectual credence to that approach.

You say, too, that

I [have] hunted for 30 years and spent countless hours observing, studying and hunting these beasts. I think any objective person could query a fast read through this thread and extrapolate that I know what I'm talking about. I have froze my ass off in sub-zero temps trying to harvest the biggest racks in the Ohio valley. I have spent hours tilling and planting food plots, scouting for scrapes and sign, following wind trends and whitetail behavior. That's what the word "serious" suggests. I didn't stumble into walmart and purchase $1000 in gear with my credit card so I could hope to have a new garnishment for my pool room.

It is ludicrous, in my view, to assume that because someone is good at killing something that they have any understanding of an animal's or an ecosystems evolutionary trajectory. Hunters tend to limit their knowledge of wildlife to the least necessary to kill. This probably won't come as any surprise but that fact you froze your ass off and don't by your gear at Walmart doesn't give me any comfort that your views are credible.

As for your hunting, it seems you bait your deer with food plots. How sporting, ruksak! Why not rent the corner of a farmer's field and bait a Hereford while you're at it?

[Strawman]

Hunters tend to limit their knowledge of wildlife to the least necessary to kill.

The prey, in order to be effectively hunted, must be intimately understood. There can be few people on Earth who understand deer with more expertise and expert knowledge than those who hunt and kill them.

[barts]

I will point this out: hunting is serious, so serious that it has entered the deep, social consciousness of mankind.

Hunting is so deep, and so serious (yeah, right) that with the exception of commercial fishing (which is destroying the oceans), human beings no longer kill wild animals in significant numbers for food. The fact is most people don't hunt and never will. Only 10% of Americans hunt. In fact, 25% of Americans bowl.

Hunting is pathetic and dwindling remnant of bygone era that has no place in a civilized society. Any notion of it being a "serious" activity is self-serving delusion. Yes, some people take enormous pleasure in unnecessarily killing things that pose them no harm or threat. But, to label this "serious" is "silly".

[barts]

The prey, in order to be effectively hunted, must be intimately understood. There can be few people on Earth who understand deer with more expertise and expert knowledge than those who hunt and kill them.

I know people who rescue and rehabilitate deer wounded by hunters and domestic animals, and injured by automobiles. They know more about deer than hunters do. It takes for more knowledge to tend to a deer's injuries, rehabilitate it, and return it to the wild than to kill one. An ignorant idiot can kill a deer or any animal, they cannot save one.

Hunters, apart from the very limited knowledge necessary to bait a deer, tend to be singularly ignorant of anything beyond the minimum necessary to kill.

[Strawman]

Hunting is pathetic and dwindling remnant of bygone era that has no place in a civilized society.

What about the over-grown deer populations? I hate that urban, liberal, sissified attitude which says that it is somehow evil and backward to kill a deer for fun, but then blithely condemns the deer to slow starvation and random death on the road, which can also cause the death or injury of other critters, like humans, by the way.

It is a moral imperative to kill deer. We killed off all the natural predators, and so now we should preform the ecological function that these predators used to preform. It is cruel to allow deer to become overpopulated.

[ruksak]

In fact, you didn't support your opinion with anything other than baseless attacks on credible researchers. The fact is that, personally, I simple don't give any intellectual credence to that approach.

I laid it out pretty well I thought. They suggested that trophy hunting could lead to an assault on dominant genes, reduced antler size and inferior game.

Common sense says they're wrong. People have been trophy hunting for a few centuries, more really. Yet we have record bucks being taken yearly and all evidence points toward resounding success in the area of game management.

The only way that "study" could have legs would be if there was little or no game management. I suppose in certain areas of the world this may be happening. Because the theory is sound. However in a civilized country with strict regulations and millions upon millions being invested into research of game animals, I find it odd that there is absolutely no evidence of devolution occurring among North American trophy animals.

None. Not a mention of it on the world-wide web. Curious?

It is ludicrous, in my view, to assume that because someone is good at killing something that they have any understanding of an animal's or an ecosystems evolutionary trajectory.

Certainly. Any idiot can shoot a bullet into an animals lungs. I, however, study the creatures. It would seem in my extensive reading on them that I would have encountered somebody that agree's with the paper you linked to.

The problem with that article is I cannot read it in it's entirety without paying them money. They mention "Rams", but where? Perhaps they need some regulation wherever these rams, they elude to have possibly studied, live?

As for your hunting, it seems you bait your deer with food plots. How sporting, ruksak! Why not rent the corner of a farmer's field and bait a Hereford while you're at it?

You're demonstrating an acute disconnect with whitetail hunting. The intent is not to bait them, it is to feed them, nurture them and keep them from leaving the free range and going elsewhere due to a lack of food. During rut, the trophy bucks aren't interested in eating. They want to fuck and they pursue the doe's that are nervously traveling their home range, to and from our various plots.

[ruksak]

Hunting is so deep, and so serious (yeah, right) that with the exception of commercial fishing (which is destroying the oceans), human beings no longer kill wild animals in significant numbers for food. The fact is most people don't hunt and never will. Only 10% of Americans hunt. In fact, 25% of Americans bowl.

Hunting is pathetic and dwindling remnant of bygone era that has no place in a civilized society. Any notion of it being a "serious" activity is self-serving delusion. Yes, some people take enormous pleasure in unnecessarily killing things that pose them no harm or threat. But, to label this "serious" is "silly".

Do you think it wise for human kind to lose touch entirely with their ability to hunt and gather? If catastrophe strikes, should I depend on my cellphone for food? Is there an APP for that?