Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: Hurt I think they'd miss out on having the chance to decide on missing out on a higher chance to have cancer or heart disease.

I don't think so. Young kids are not capable of realizing it could cause cancer or heart disease, parents are though. Parents are responsible for making healthy food choices for kids when they are young. Once they get older then they should decide for themselves.

Not eating vension is not missing pretty much anything. Though if they do eat it the deer is missing alot.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, it was a gift. We were put on the top of the food chain by God, and we must use our power wisely.

If you argue from a religious viewpoint that is completely subjective, I don't think we are capable of debating this at all. I can just as easily say that my god commands me to slaughter as many animals as possible.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Matt I don't think so. Young kids are not capable of realizing it could cause cancer or heart disease, parents are though. Parents are responsible for making healthy food choices for kids when they are young. Once they get older then they should decide for themselves. Not eating vension is not missing pretty much anything. Though if they do eat it the deer is missing alot.

But if you're going to evaluate food based on nutrition.. then you might as well just tell us to stop eating anything that's unhealthy. We'll all just start taking pills rather than getting our nutrients from foods that can cause heart disease because we lose control of ourselves. Maybe we should shift the blame from food to people? better idea.

[Maryjane]

Matt,
Hunting is necessary for the following reasons:

Problems Associated with the County's Current Deer Population Odocoileus Virginianus, better known as white-tailed deer, is perhaps the county's most beautiful and graceful species of wildlife. Its habitat includes the county's woodlands and open spaces, and its traditional food source consists of the young branches and tops of trees and small plants, grasses and fruit such as acorns and berries. Even though much of the county has lost its rural appearance, Fairfax has many more deer now then it did during the early 1900s. Many experts say this increase in deer population is due to a number of factors including: deer's ability to adapt to urban environments, their high reproductive rate, the absence of predators, the restriction of hunting in populated areas, and increased nutrition from ornamental plants and fertilized lawns. The facts show that the overabundance of deer is aggravating a number of problems that have significant costs for our entire community. These problems include Road Safety - During 1998, 4,000 - 5,000 deer-vehicle collisions occurred in the County resulting in serious injury to motorists, the deaths of over a thousand deer, and property damage averaging $1,982 per vehicle. Three motorists have been killed as a result of collisions with deer and many others have been hurt and hospitalized. Wildlife Habitat Destruction - By overbrowsing the county's forests and stream valleys, deer are destroying their natural habitat as well as the habitat of birds, amphibians, and micro-organisms that are necessary to sustain our natural environment. By destroying native vegetation, deer allow introduced (invasive) species of plants to dominate already devastated habitats in the parks. If left unchecked, long term damage to the county's plant and wildlife diversity can be expected. Forest Regeneration - A healthy forest in the Piedmont section of Virginia should have an understory of trees and shrubs of diverse ages, sizes, and variety. An overabundance of deer clears wooded areas of the indigenous plant life essential to our forest ecosystem. Plants most vulnerable include young oaks, maples, and popular trees among others. Ornamental Plant Damage - While deer eat many types of plants that are native to our area, they also appreciate non-native vegetation found in residential areas and parks. Azaleas, hostas, and daylilies are favorites of deer. Along with the frustration caused by this type of loss, the cost of this damage can be estimated at over a million dollars a year. Deer Health - With intense competition for food and space, deer are more susceptible to weight loss, starvation, parasites, and epizootic hemorrhagic disease. This was the case in the fall of 1999 when 53 deer succumbed to epizootic hemorrhagic disease (53 were found, many more were not) in the southeastern portion of the county. Too many deer living too close together reduce the overall health of the county's deer population. Human Disease - An overabundance of deer subjects County residents to a greater risk for Lyme disease. More deer in more areas of the County increase the chance that deer ticks infected with the disease bacteria will come in contact with people. While Lyme disease is often easily treatable if caught in time, it can cause serious complications if early symptoms are overlooked. Devaluation of Deer - Deer are one of the county's most treasured natural resources. In some areas of the county, however, an overabundance of deer has caused residents to view deer as pests. By implementing an on-going deer management program and reducing the pest aspects of their presence, the county hopes to help all residents enjoy the beauty of deer and live with them safely.

Deer Management Activities - Fairfax County, Virginia

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Well, I found it as one of the top results. If you call deer ignorant (ignorant is a word directed at mostly humans, not animals, btw) because they don't know they shouldn't be eating our garden, then you again are putting them up on our level. You are saying they should know our property, and our laws. Be my guest at doing so, it will just make your side of the debate harder to defend.

I’m not saying they should know; I’m just saying they don’t.

Quote by: Matt We cannot apply our 'property lines' to deer, they are totally different from us, after all, we aren't animals, they are. It would be stupid to ask a hamster to roll over, be pretty, shake-a-paw, etc. since they don't have the mental capacity to do so like a dog could. Same goes for a deer, it doesn't have the mental capacity to see a non-animal's property line.

No one is saying it does. That’s why we hunt them instead of putting a sign up saying “No Deer”.

Quote by: Matt Like I said, if they do not want to do one of those options, I guess they will have to live with deer sharing their property. They can't have their cake and eat it too. People can't expect to put no effort out and not have deer on their property.

They’re not unprepared to make an effort. The effort is to hunt the deer.

Quote by: Matt Destroy our property? I don't think the deer will come crashing into the living room and smash everything up. You seem the believe deer are some property wreckers, don't you? Deer are peaceful animals that have been driven out of their habitat and have been forced to move in with us. I don't consider a deer eating a few tulips as destroying a property

Someone who’s put a lot of time and effort into their garden probably would though.

Quote by: Matt Try to catch the cockroaches and let them go somewhere they can live.

Catch every single cockroach by hand?

Quote by: Matt The wasp nest, well, it would pose a danger to humans,

Not if the residents of the house simply boarded up the room containing the nest and never went in there again.

Quote by: Matt My points are valid and have yet to be proven wrong. Since you are the one tyring to prove me wrong, not vice-versa, feel free to bring those points up again and counter them. I'll be happy to respond.

You don’t debate by posting an opinion and saying “Prove it wrong”. You post your opinion, provide something to back it up with and others attack it, which is what I have been doing.

Quote by: Matt Find where I said it should be illegal please.

We’ve been through this. The debate thus far has been on the issue of the legality of hunting, as I have argued against in the majority of my posts and you have thus far accepted.

Quote by: Matt So if someone owns a house, and that person dies, you then think a racoon family should move in, since they were the first to get in the house after the person died? It doesn't work that way, as you can see, humans would move in, not racoons. Same with the deer, since we destroyed a long dead deer's habitat, it doesn't mean it is no longer a deer's habitat.

That’s exactly what it means. Just as North America is no longer the Native Americans’ land; our homes are no longer the deer’s habitat.

Quote by: Matt I looked at post 76. Can't see a thing, maybe I'm just not looking well enough. Could you please quote the section where I said that?

"the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash"

Quote by: Matt Neither is needed.

Food is needed and hunting is cheaper than buying from a shop.

Quote by: Matt And if you think you can get all you essential nutrients from meat, go ahead.

I wouldn’t be so foolish as to claim that a person can survive on one form of food alone, be it berries or meat.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you argue from a religious viewpoint that is completely subjective, I don't think we are capable of debating this at all. I can just as easily say that my god commands me to slaughter as many animals as possible.

My view is we were put atop of the food chain, we never faught for that position. I have tried to keep religion out of it, but at that point I felt I could not, after you stated you evolution ideas.

Quote by: Hurt But if you're going to evaluate food based on nutrition.. then you might as well just tell us to stop eating anything that's unhealthy. We'll all just start taking pills rather than getting our nutrients from foods that can cause heart disease because we lose control of ourselves. Maybe we should shift the blame from food to people? better idea.

Woah...don't we take things out of context. I was stating it is healthier for kids to eat tofu, soy, etc. then meat. It all started after GM said "Where are the kids going to get their protein?" and I explained.

Quote by: Maryjane Matt, Hunting is necessary for the following reasons: Deer Management Activities - Fairfax County, Virginia

I find it interesting how people like to nit pick on one point, that point is deer, and where they are overpopulated, and not hunting as a whole like the debate was intended to be. I guess all other hunting is too hard to defend, isn't it? Like I suggested, the problem could be fixed by neutering them or probably re-introducing predators. Both would take a little more time, but they would work, so your statement that hunting is necessary is false.

I also find it interesting how deer are being called enviroment destroyers, yet not humans. Quite biased, eh? We will look at other creatures who have done minimal damge to the enviroment in that report for example, but no mention of humans ruining the enviroment in the first place. I wish we would start realizing we are the ones who have caused this all.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I’m not saying they should know; I’m just saying they don’t. No one is saying it does. That’s why we hunt them instead of putting a sign up saying “No Deer”. They’re not unprepared to make an effort. The effort is to hunt the deer. Someone who’s put a lot of time and effort into their garden probably would though. Catch every single cockroach by hand? Not if the residents of the house simply boarded up the room containing the nest and never went in there again. You don’t debate by posting an opinion and saying “Prove it wrong”. You post your opinion, provide something to back it up with and others attack it, which is what I have been doing. We’ve been through this. The debate thus far has been on the issue of the legality of hunting, as I have argued against in the majority of my posts and you have thus far accepted. That’s exactly what it means. Just as North America is no longer the Native Americans’ land; our homes are no longer the deer’s habitat. "the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash" Food is needed and hunting is cheaper than buying from a shop. I wouldn’t be so foolish as to claim that a person can survive on one form of food alone, be it berries or meat.

They don't know, and if people get mad at them since they ate their pansies and want to kill them, then those are quite ignorant people.

We want to keep the populations from getting overpopulated. Re-introducing natural predators would most likely do a better job then hunting. Isn't this about keeping the deer from not being overpopulated? Or is it now changed to "so they don't destroy our property". I'm confused.

I don't think the people who's gardens are getting eaten are the ones hunting deer. Our society shows a very sad trend, we do not want to share, and we will kill so we don't have to share.

I put alot of time and effort into my garden. Anyhow, then if people want to make sure deer don't 'destroy' their property, put up sprinklers. Simple. Or get a dog.

I'm not one of those "I better not mow the lawn...I could hurt grass" types, just to be clear. I am not unreasonable. So to me spraying the wasps may have to be done, and boarding up the house isn't really an option. Though getting a sprinkler or a dog is

I have been doing the same.

Still give me proof where I said it should be completely illegal.

Humans can fight humans, and if they win they get the land. I accept that, since it is human vs. human. I don't with animals, since they are on a different level with us and we can't just 'conquer' them. I guess some people think all the deer should be killed, but those people don't have very good morals then.

The dictionary said that. And as I stated, re-introducing natural predators would cause almost all the signs of overpopulation in deer to go away. On the other hand, hunting wouldn't in the long run, since it won't be sustainable and humans cannot control nature very well, which has been proven in the past.

Food is needed, but not meat.

I wouldn't be so foolish to claim that either. A balanced, moral, dinner is what I like

I feel like we are going around in circles in this debate. The fact is hunting is not necessary nor needed. The fact is deer hunting can be replaced by more sustainable (we all know wolves and cougars will hunt till the end times, they wont change, though we probably will) and more humane ways.

[Osborn F Enready]

People don't need to hunt.

People sometimes need to hunt, therfore have the natural right to hunt should reasonable means dictate it for survival.

[Kamehameha34]

So let me get this straight:

You think it's OK to hunt and kill animals.. just as long as the hunter isn't human?

If hunting was truly murderous as you imply, what you suggest makes about as much sense as disallowing humans to be murdered, unless you're using a crowbar.

What's the point? Cut out the middle man. Let humans continue to hunt.

[Thanatos]

Matt, Maryjane

Problem: we shot everything that eats deer for a reason and it can't come back now anyways. Anything that eats deer will also eat sheep and goats and the occasional human. Sustaining breeding populations with all the predator habitat fragmented would be impossible anyway. A single cougar needs an incredible amount of space to support itself.

In other words, what works in Yellowstone may not go so well everywhere else.

You also can't neuter deer. I don't think you realize how ambitious that suggestion is. Neutering every cat in a 50 cat feral colony (I've had some weird jobs) can take a year and thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't want to think about the vet bills for a larger animal that can't be enticed into a cage with cat food. You'd need helicopters to carry them out, teams with tranquilizer darts, mobile vet labs for deer populations away from veterinary centers...this would be a nightmare.

On the other hand, rednecks with shotguns and bows are free and do not suffer from habitat fragmentation problems. This is just the best way of doing things.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt We want to keep the populations from getting overpopulated. Re-introducing natural predators would most likely do a better job then hunting. Isn't this about keeping the deer from not being overpopulated? Or is it now changed to "so they don't destroy our property". I'm confused.

Like I said, it’s the same thing. If deer leave their habitat and enter ours, it is a sign that their own habitat can’t sustain them and that they are therefore overpopulated.

Quote by: Matt I don't think the people who's gardens are getting eaten are the ones hunting deer. Our society shows a very sad trend, we do not want to share, and we will kill so we don't have to share.

You may not like it, but people don’t have to share property if they don’t want to. That’s sort of the definition of property.

Quote by: Matt I put alot of time and effort into my garden. Anyhow, then if people want to make sure deer don't 'destroy' their property, put up sprinklers. Simple. Or get a dog.

Or go hunting. It’s cheaper, more fun and leaves your house and garden as you want it.

Quote by: Matt I'm not one of those "I better not mow the lawn...I could hurt grass" types, just to be clear. I am not unreasonable. So to me spraying the wasps may have to be done, and boarding up the house isn't really an option.

And for some people, getting a dog, an expensive sprinkler system or a fence, is not really an option. You can’t draw a completely arbitrary line for how much control we should let pests have over our property and argue that it’s any more valid or moral than another person’s arbitrary line.

Quote by: Matt Still give me proof where I said it should be completely illegal.

Read any of my posts which argue against hunting being illegal. If you hadn’t been arguing for hunting being illegal, you wouldn’t have replied to the posts.

Quote by: Matt Humans can fight humans, and if they win they get the land. I accept that, since it is human vs. human. I don't with animals, since they are on a different level with us and we can't just 'conquer' them.

Why not? The land we took from Native Americans is no longer theirs and the land we took from deer is no longer theirs. What’s the difference?

Quote by: Matt The dictionary said that. And as I stated, re-introducing natural predators would cause almost all the signs of overpopulation in deer to go away.

It wouldn’t stop the deer from destroying our property.

Quote by: Matt On the other hand, hunting wouldn't in the long run, since it won't be sustainable

Still no proof of this.

Quote by: Matt Food is needed, but not meat.

Protein is needed, and in terms of economics, hunting meat is the best way to get it.

Quote by: Matt I feel like we are going around in circles in this debate. The fact is hunting is not necessary nor needed.

If we want to maintain control over our property, hunting is needed.

[Maryjane]

I find it interesting how people like to nit pick on one point, that point is deer, and where they are overpopulated, and not hunting as a whole like the debate was intended to be. I guess all other hunting is too hard to defend, isn't it? Like I suggested, the problem could be fixed by neutering them or probably re-introducing predators. Both would take a little more time, but they would work, so your statement that hunting is necessary is false. I also find it interesting how deer are being called enviroment destroyers, yet not humans. Quite biased, eh? We will look at other creatures who have done minimal damge to the enviroment in that report for example, but no mention of humans ruining the enviroment in the first place. I wish we would start realizing we are the ones who have caused this all.

Who's nit picking? Be more specific next time. I only pointed out that white tail deer in my area ( well, all over but...) are a problem. For the record, if I'm going to shoot something, it's going to be skeet, targets, or an intruder.

My brothers- in- law all hunt. (and fish). One uses dogs. I think it's lazy, but I guess that's the way they do it down here? If you think introducing predators is a good idea, you might want to consider that a bullet or an arrow is a lot more humane than something being torn apart alive. Besides, what's going to keep the cougar's away from fluffy the cat, fido the dog, or your kid out on the swingset in the back yard? Who's going to innoculate these deer with birth control? Do you have any idea how much that would cost?

There is a herd of deer that regularly visit my yard. The doe has two to three babies a year. Sometimes there are 10 or more in the yard. They nibble my hostas and azaleas, I don't like it but there's not much I can do about it. The only way to keep them out would be a 12ft+ high fence. Not practical. I enjoy watching them. They are safe until they get near the road. I' had to call the police once to put one out of it's misery after it had been hit. Not a pretty sight.

You might consider the damage they do to crops, not just home owners property. For a person that suggests not hunting them, you sure haven't thought this out.

This publication suggests various management practices to help prevent or control damage by deer to field crops, orchards, landscapes and gardens. Because every field, orchard, landscape, and garden is different, there is no way any or all of these management practices will achieve perfect deer control, but they should help reduce the damage. Usually, deer damage plants by browsing on new vegetation during the growing season. However, when food is scarce, deer will eat just about anything to survive. One of the reasons that deer are becoming more of a problem in many parts of the United States is that their numbers are increasing. An Associated Press article on October 15, 2000 stated: The national deer population, now estimated at 25 million to 30 million, has been growing for decades. Not only have deer adapted to encroaching suburbia, but they have benefited from a series of mild winters, an increase in newly developed areas being declared off limits for hunters and a decline in hunting in some parts of the country . . . Some forecasters believe there could be a point when the deer population will become so large it just can't sustain itself. But no one knows when. "We're not certain when it will max out," Curtis [wildlife biologist Paul Curtis of Cornell University] said. "Deer populations are already at densities a biologist wouldn't have dreamed of 10 years ago." (Associated Press, 2000) The cost of damage by deer will vary greatly, according to the crops and plants being grown in relation to the number of deer browsing. In the article "Oh, Deer" in the June-July 2002 Farmer's Digest, Jim Armstrong, associate professor and wildlife specialist with Auburn University, explained that it is not uncommon for some growers in the Southeast to have $20,000 to $30,000 in crop damage (peanuts and cotton) during a crop year. He says: It's a widespread problem in agriculture. The problem is that it tends to be very site-specific. Depending on the habitat around the field, one person can have no damage and the next can have a lot of problems. Deer prefer a fragmented habitat that consists of both woodland for cover and open cropland. Farmers may notice more feeding near the edges of the fields near woods, where the deer can feed without straying too far from cover. (Mullen, 2002) The USDA estimates that total deer damage from auto collisions and crop and timber losses reaches at least $1 billion a year. (Mullen, 2002)

btw...check with any forestry division or state park for their "non bias" opinon.

Deer Control Options

[Maryjane]

Quote by: Thanatos Matt, Maryjane Problem: we shot everything that eats deer for a reason and it can't come back now anyways. Anything that eats deer will also eat sheep and goats and the occasional human. Sustaining breeding populations with all the predator habitat fragmented would be impossible anyway. A single cougar needs an incredible amount of space to support itself. In other words, what works in Yellowstone may not go so well everywhere else. You also can't neuter deer. I don't think you realize how ambitious that suggestion is. Neutering every cat in a 50 cat feral colony (I've had some weird jobs) can take a year and thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't want to think about the vet bills for a larger animal that can't be enticed into a cage with cat food. You'd need helicopters to carry them out, teams with tranquilizer darts, mobile vet labs for deer populations away from veterinary centers...this would be a nightmare. On the other hand, rednecks with shotguns and bows are free and do not suffer from habitat fragmentation problems. This is just the best way of doing things.

our posts crossed.. don't get me started on feral cats! They are a problem here too. I keep a jar of fire crackers by the back door...just for them.
I live in redneck country.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Not eating vension is not missing pretty much anything. Though if they do eat it the deer is missing alot.

venison is much healhier meat to eat, and it is deer we should be farming in great numbers and fattening, not cattle.

[Matt]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So let me get this straight: You think it's OK to hunt and kill animals.. just as long as the hunter isn't human? If hunting was truly murderous as you imply, what you suggest makes about as much sense as disallowing humans to be murdered, unless you're using a crowbar. What's the point? Cut out the middle man. Let humans continue to hunt.

See, the thing is, hunting by humans is not needed, we don't need the meat, natural predators do. The deer would rather natural predators, since they kill less deer, but keep them from getting overpopulated.

You know, if hunting never damaged any lives, I'm fine with it, but that is an oxymoran statement. It does damage lives.

I know for the next 25 years or so there will most likely be alot of deer culls, if only sooner the slefish eyes of human kind could realize it cannot control nature so thousands of innocent lives wouldn't have to be killed.

Quote by: Thanatos Matt, Maryjane Problem: we shot everything that eats deer for a reason and it can't come back now anyways. Anything that eats deer will also eat sheep and goats and the occasional human. Sustaining breeding populations with all the predator habitat fragmented would be impossible anyway. A single cougar needs an incredible amount of space to support itself. In other words, what works in Yellowstone may not go so well everywhere else. You also can't neuter deer. I don't think you realize how ambitious that suggestion is. Neutering every cat in a 50 cat feral colony (I've had some weird jobs) can take a year and thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't want to think about the vet bills for a larger animal that can't be enticed into a cage with cat food. You'd need helicopters to carry them out, teams with tranquilizer darts, mobile vet labs for deer populations away from veterinary centers...this would be a nightmare. On the other hand, rednecks with shotguns and bows are free and do not suffer from habitat fragmentation problems. This is just the best way of doing things.

It may be the easiest way of doing so, but like I said previous, humans in the long run won't be able to control nature. All these problems were caused by us, and it is horrible the deer have to pay for our crime. This won't be realized soon, alot of people will think they can control nature, and the deer population will just grow and when hunting slowly dies off, it will be unstsustainable. With this deer issue, we cannot just focus on the near future, we have to look out way into the future and see what will work best in the long run, which I don't see many people doing.

What should be done is all the places that have not been damaged by humans that much should become parks (in where the deer populations are high), and hopefully the parks are big enough so some natural predators could be re-introduced.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Like I said, it’s the same thing. If deer leave their habitat and enter ours, it is a sign that their own habitat can’t sustain them and that they are therefore overpopulated. You may not like it, but people don’t have to share property if they don’t want to. That’s sort of the definition of property. Or go hunting. It’s cheaper, more fun and leaves your house and garden as you want it. And for some people, getting a dog, an expensive sprinkler system or a fence, is not really an option. You can’t draw a completely arbitrary line for how much control we should let pests have over our property and argue that it’s any more valid or moral than another person’s arbitrary line. Read any of my posts which argue against hunting being illegal. If you hadn’t been arguing for hunting being illegal, you wouldn’t have replied to the posts. Why not? The land we took from Native Americans is no longer theirs and the land we took from deer is no longer theirs. What’s the difference? It wouldn’t stop the deer from destroying our property. Still no proof of this. Protein is needed, and in terms of economics, hunting meat is the best way to get it. If we want to maintain control over our property, hunting is needed.

Here we go again.... their habitat is eveywhere. Them going onto our 'so-called' habitat is their habitat also.

No, they don't have to share. But if they were thinking about creatures other then themselves, and not being selfish, they would.

More fun for who? Not the deer, that is for sure. Money doesn't=lives.

What I'm saying is, if they are not willing to put one of those options in place, then they themselves are to blame if the deer eat their garden. And they should be getting mad at themselves, not the deer. But humans tend to have a hard time realizing they are in the wrong, especially when it has to deal with another animal.

And remember how I was stating hunting is not sustainable?

http://www.deer-library.com/artman/p...cle_145.shtml]
Rural tradition of hunting shows signs of decline | csmonitor.com
Hunting, fishing decline hurts states - Life - MSNBC.com
AR-News: (US) STATE OF HUNTING: DECLINE CONTINUES WITH FEWER HUNTERS KILLING FEWER VICTIMS, REPORT REVEALS

It is interesting to see, in the last link, that Mourning Doves and Squirrels were the two most hunted animals. Maybe we should focus a little attention to them, shouldn't we? The murdering of doves and squirrels are un-needed and stupid. I don't think anyone can prove me wrong there.

I also talked to someone who studies these sort of things (and no, this is not a made up person, nor did I bias him, I just asked him "Do you think hunting in declining in North America?"). He said it is declining and is a dying sport.

Dying Sport=Unsustainable.

The difference is one is a human, and one is an animal. We cannot technically 'take' land from animals, it just doesn't work that way. It is crazy to think we should wrap deer up in our property lines.

Please give me proof hunting is the best way of getting protein.

No, hunting is not needed there either, since it is not the only option to keep deer off our property, fences, sprinklers, and dogs can do the same.

Quote by: Maryjane Who's nit picking? Be more specific next time. I only pointed out that white tail deer in my area ( well, all over but...) are a problem. For the record, if I'm going to shoot something, it's going to be skeet, targets, or an intruder. My brothers- in- law all hunt. (and fish). One uses dogs. I think it's lazy, but I guess that's the way they do it down here? If you think introducing predators is a good idea, you might want to consider that a bullet or an arrow is a lot more humane than something being torn apart alive. Besides, what's going to keep the cougar's away from fluffy the cat, fido the dog, or your kid out on the swingset in the back yard? Who's going to innoculate these deer with birth control? Do you have any idea how much that would cost? There is a herd of deer that regularly visit my yard. The doe has two to three babies a year. Sometimes there are 10 or more in the yard. They nibble my hostas and azaleas, I don't like it but there's not much I can do about it. The only way to keep them out would be a 12ft+ high fence. Not practical. I enjoy watching them. They are safe until they get near the road. I' had to call the police once to put one out of it's misery after it had been hit. Not a pretty sight. You might consider the damage they do to crops, not just home owners property. For a person that suggests not hunting them, you sure haven't thought this out. btw...check with any forestry division or state park for their "non bias" opinon. Deer Control Options

We should have to reep what we sow. The report also said about the decline in hunting as well. It is not sustainable, and with the way society is going, hunting will go the way of the do-do bird. We need a long term solution.

Deer are not overpopulated where I live. The reason for that is humans haven't ruined the natural habitat yet. Plain and simple.

Of course I know the damage they do to crops, but like I said, reep what we sow, or start creating more parks and re-introducing natural predators.

Quote by: Anmon venison is much healhier meat to eat, and it is deer we should be farming in great numbers and fattening, not cattle.

It is not needed, also.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt It is not needed, also.

Why not, I just told you its healthier than eating beef, farm them for meat instead of cattle.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Why not, I just told you its healthier than eating beef, farm them for meat instead of cattle.

It maybe healthier then eating cows, but neither is needed.