Idea to ban hunting AND control species oerpopulation

Quote:

---

It seems like your problem is simply my vegetarianism. You haven't pointed to a flaw in the enactment of what I proposed: dramatically increased, state-funded sterilization efforts. I know my solution wouldn't be very agreeable to non-vegetarians, but I was hoping that people would focus on analyzing my proposed solution from a perspective of effectiveness and feasibility (even if they disagree with the vegetarian philosophy). Also, I know my proposition wouldn't go over well today, but society is dynamic and maybe someday, we will move closer to what I have in mind.

---

The problem is, there's really no reason for the government to take over an industry that already (A) provides a valuable boost to the economy and is well-regulated to begin with (people having to pay for licenses and, in some areas, rent booths or stalls to hunt from, for example); and (B) doesn't pose any real detriment to the environment or to the economy/society. Libertarians will tell you that it's just less cost-efficient to take people who are spending their own money hunting out of the game, and put government employees (who are presumably funded by the government) in to do the same job but for pay instead....and in a rare twist of fate, I actually agree with that position.

The hunting industry is already well-regulated with hunting seasons that coordinate with animal breeding habits to ensure a steady population, so speaking solely on behalf of law-abiding hunters, there's really no threat to the ecosystem. It's not like the chem industry with hundreds of metric tons of toxic waste being dumped into rivers and ruining entire ecosystems, so there's really no need for much more oversight than what already exists, as far as I'm aware. And it's not like healthcare or banking, where the private market's artificial tinkering with rates and gambling with profits/policies has artificially made a necessary service inaccessible or impractical to many. This is one of those situations where there's just not much of a point in dedicating government time and money to an industry overhaul.

bighead, your country can't afford to pay for public education or public healthcare or a welfare system worthy of existing in the developed world, your public housing programs are so notoriously awful and crime-ridden that the entire world thinks of them when they hear the word 'ghetto', your armed forces took over a decade to win a war against a tiny third-world nation, and took so many casualties your government actually considered bringing back conscription. Whenever you have an earthquake or hurricane you have to beg for disaster relief from third world countries. You have citizens working two or three jobs and barely earning enough to survive, your police can't control your gang problems, your drug problems or your illegal immigration problems, your courts can't keep up with police arrests, and the prison system can't keep up with the court's convictions ; and you think this is what your government should be spending it's money on?

Hunters are willing to shoot animals for free in America. That's a gift. Take advantage of it. Here, the government has to pay professional shooters to control animal populations ; and every single one of those shooters only takes a tradesman's wage instead of an educated professional's, and they generally kill 600-800 animals per day, for as long as their contract lasts.

Just think how many trained professionals you'll need to pay, and how much equipment you'll need to buy, and how many days of fucking around in the wilderness they'll need before they even get close to catching and sterilising a single deer. Your country can't afford it. No country can. It's a stupid idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bighead384

It seems like your problem is simply my vegetarianism. You haven't pointed to a flaw in the enactment of what I proposed: dramatically increased, state-funded sterilization efforts. I know my solution wouldn't be very agreeable to non-vegetarians, but I was hoping that people would focus on analyzing my proposed solution from a perspective of effectiveness and feasibility (even if they disagree with the vegetarian philosophy). Also, I know my proposition wouldn't go over well today, but society is dynamic and maybe someday, we will move closer to what I have in mind.

---

The entire premise of your thread is fucking stupid. I replied because it made me kind of laugh at the sheer thought that someone was dumb enough to even present such an option. I gave you some well intentioned ribbing for it and that is all it was. Your approach is neither fessible nor effective in any way. Can you imagine just the loss in state revenue for the proposed ban on hunting just in the area of licenses? Lost revenue for sales tax? Lost revenue for hunting parties that visit bars, restaurants, gun manuf, gas sales. Then add in the gross incompetence and over-reach of the state implementing such a dipshit idea? Like I said...it is a gigantically stupid idea with no benefit whatsoever.

I would be curious as to how you even perform this mass sterilization. Would you dart the deer and cut off his nuts? What do you do with the nuts? Sell them? Maybe shellac them and hang them around your neck? What? Suppose the deer gets an infection? You gonna rub lotion and creams on his now nutless area? Maybe you could have show and tell with the furry little woodland bastards showing them all the problems with their pro-creation. Also, what if after your show and tell some of the horny son of a bitches continue fucking? Do they have to pay some sort of animal state screw tax? You know, screwing is kind of fun and getting them to stop may be more effort than you think. The more I think about it, you have not thought this shit through at all have you? All that I know is that if you have a plan to get squirrels nuts, we need to hear it.

His idea's stupid enough without you making strawmen of it. You're the worst, moto.

And by the way, deer shooting is for faggots too conservative to admit they're faggots. Real hunters hunt wild boar, and they do it with a pair of bull arabs and a knife, and they know that people who need guns to hunt are no better than vegetarian girly-men.

Well, isn't that a real special kind of hello. First off Rambo, I hunt because I ENJOY the woods and like the meat I get. Unlike you, I do not do it to compensate or prove something. Do ya rub it's blood all over you when it's done or do you just sit and chant? Also hunting a wild pig, of which there are not any near me, makes it damn near impossible, so that ain't gonna happen. Pig fuckers...I mean hunters, usually use dogs to hunt them down don't they?

I hear that down Austrailia way they are hunting great whites with salad tonges...might be right up your alley, you being all super manly and all.

Hunting is something quite a few people do to feed them and their families so it's survival and I don't see a problem with it. But hunting just to show off is wrong, if you ask me. It would be pointless to ban hunting anyway, because people would just do it illegally.

Wouldn't sterilizing a ton of animals cost loads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy

Both methods are stupid. With sterilization, how are we sure it is not the strong genes that would be beneficial to the species that we are sterilizing. We don't sterilize the genes, but the animal with the genes, you know what I mean. Do they do genetic tests on each animal before sterilizing them? I doubt it. It's just cutting the balls off of the random animal, which is not imitating natural selection at all.

With hunting for population control purposes, the stupid hunters are always looking for that big, strong, healthy animal to shoot when they should be hunting the weak, injured and old, which is what their natural predators would do. By hunting and killing the strongest for trophies, we are removing those best suited for passing on their genes and leaving the weak and sick to breed. Or, we are killing the strong and the weak and sick leftover are just going to wither and die, anyway, so who's left to breed at all?

Neither way is beneficial to the species as a whole, which is what population control is supposed to be about since humans purged natural predators.

---

In species that tend to overpopulate in the first place, who's to say that it's good for the strongest genes to survive? It will just lead to further overpopulation if they do.

And I'm also not sure if hunters actually kill big, strong, healthy animals in disproportionate amounts, and even if they do, I doubt that they're the biggest and strongest. Just because hunters seek out the big prize buck doesn't mean that those animals represent the majority. I don't have any firsthand experience witnessing this, though. I should ask my former co-worker who's now a game warden in Texas.

There are situations in which sterilization makes a lot of sense, but it's not something that our government needs to have a hand in, especially not now. In Nicaragua, you can hardly go anywhere without seeing deathly skinny malnourished feral dogs all over. Domestication has left them with no survival instincts, and not being a natural part of the ecosystem, prey can be scarce even for the ones that are strong enough to hunt. All they know how to do is fuck. Sterilization really seems like the only logical way to deal with that situation.

There's also a small island in North Carolina that's home to a population of "wild" horses (they're not wild; they came from Spanish settlers, but they're called wild to promote tourism). It wouldn't actually do any harm to let them die out or to integrate them with another population, but the people like having them there, so they spay all of the females after their first birth in order to prevent inbreeding. I imagine that if we do ever come to a day where sterilization is practiced for overpopulated species on a broader scale, similar measures would need to be taken.