Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spooky23 | Hacker News Reader

I grew up in rural upstate NY and can attest to this. Once subdivisions reach further out into the countryside, the denziens of these developments (another disease afflicting the land, IMO) apply their city-thinking to the environment around them.

In my town, farmers were harassed out of business by McMansion owners who built houses abutting farms, but were offended by the odor that come with pigs and cattle. Hunters parking on the side of county roads were pushed out by do-gooders complaining about the parking situation (in an area where 5 acres is the minimum building lot!) resulting in a rash of "parking on pavement" tickets. Then came the banishment of rifles for deer hunting, because "think of the children".

The end result... the culture changed. The first day of deer season used to be literally a school holiday. Now, it's a fringe thing, and my parents routinely see herds of 100+ deer at night -- when you drive up their road at night, it's spooky... you see dozens of eyes reflecting in the headlights! When I was a kid in the early 90s, I never saw more than a dozen at a time.

View on HN

We recently moved out of Hunterdon County, NJ - that's the part of the state near Bethlehem PA, where there are still trees. It's rural by NJ standards, with 5 acre zoning, etc. But that's perfect for deer - there's enough plantlife (including our own gardens) to feed them, but the houses are still close enough together that there's really nowhere safe to hunt.

The result is an explosion of deer, to the point where you can't walk across the front yard without being careful of stepping on their landmines. They're also a serious danger to motorists - my wife had three deer accidents inside of two years.

This article doesn't mention another effect on the environment that I've observed in NJ, and also at a cabin that we have in NY's Catskills - that is, the rise of coyotes and "coydog" hybrids. Although these predators are shy and rarely seen, you can frequently hear them yipping and howling.

One thing that impressed me about the rise of the coyotes was a few Christmases ago. On Christmas Eve, a deer that had apparently been struck by a car dragged itself to our front yard and died. Not wanting to wake up Christmas morning to that, I tied a rope around the body and dragged it way off into the woods. A week later, my wife was curious about what had become of it and we walked back to look. Just one week after being dumped there, the only sign there had been a deer at all was a spine attached to a pelvis, and a bunch of ribs. One week farther on, even those were gone.

So it looks to me like, while the rise of deer is damaging the plant ecology below it, it's also changing the predator ecology above as well.

Many towns in Massachusetts have adopted a Right-to-Farm bylaw which "encourages the pursuit of agriculture, promotes agriculture-based economic opportunities, and protects farmlands within a town by allowing agricultural uses and related activities to function with minimal conflict with abutters and town agencies."

As far as I know there's not much of an issue with the farms and orchards in town. (On the other hand, it's a pretty rural town and doesn't have much in the way of new high-end residential developments.)

I'm a bit unhappy about the notion of any sort of "right-to-farm" program.

I used to live in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was a suburb of Denver, it was named after the abundance of farmers in the area. My dad and grandparents lived there when you could still see cattle or horses on in some places. The local high school's sports team is even named "the Farmers."

So there was something romantic about having the one of the last farms in Wheat Ridge right next to my neighborhood. The owner was too stubborn to sell until a couple of years ago, because the city had no means of forcing the sale of the land. Despite the nostalgia, everyone pretty much hated the farm because it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it.

In my view, agriculture seems to work against the interests of an expanding suburb or city, and shouldn't be encouraged if it has a negative impact on surrounding homeowners.

> In my view ... shouldn't be encouraged if it has a negative impact on surrounding homeowners

So... You support the idea that we will eventually get rid of all farms in favour of suburbia? How will this not end up negatively affecting the world around us?

No no, just move all the farms to California!

>because the city had no means of forcing the sale of the land.

I'd find it pretty horrible if the city did have the means to force the sale of the land so that developers could build more houses. Gentrification of any sort has plusses and minuses but I'm generally pretty opposed to the government imposing it by forcing people to move out and sell their property.

How dare that farm that was there prior to all the sprawl continue to exist. Why can't that farm owner consider the property values of his beleaguered new neighbors who only had full knowledge of the existence of a nearby farm when they purchased their property.

It astonishes me how obstinately self-centered people can be.

That's the mentality that has made "right to farm" programs necessary.

The farm was there long before the interlopers built their houses. It's not selfish or stubborn for a farmer to continue to farm, even if other people have recently decided that the land would be better used for McMansions.

It's one thing if we're discussing the expansion of farming into suburban areas but this is suburban sprawl into rural land.

First come, first served and all of that.

I disagree. I submit that it is both stubborn and selfish to insist that because the past was convenient for you, the future must also be so in the same way. This is the sort of mindset that serves to manufacture housing crises.

That's a ridiculous and disrespectful position.

The family of the farmer that I described elsewhere in the thread had literally farmed their 500 acre land for nearly 400 years. Their original land grant from a Dutch Patroon called for annual taxes of 2 pigs and 5 bushels of wheat. They did nothing wrong. They have title to the land.

Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes?

> Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes?

They aren't. They also aren't inherently superior and deserving of special privilege by virtue of being older. Otherwise we'd kick off the farmers, the natives who were there before, and every single form of life until the area degenerated to nothing but blue-green algae.

Also, the idea that a position is wrong because it offends or fails to respect someone else's beliefs in arbitrarily selected (but unspecified) ways is one that is offensive and disrespectful.

What "special privilege" are you referring to in the example given? The special privilege to not have the property that they own sold out from under them against their wishes?

Or the "special privilege" of using their land for the purpose for which it was acquired and had been used ever since?

The special privilege of extra legal protection, such as a "right to farm".

This is probably hopeless but all towns/cities dictate how properties in given areas can be used (i.e. zoning). They may change those rules but, for good reason, those rules are rarely retroactive. "Too bad about your house on one acre. We have five acre minimum zoning now. You'll have to tear it down--and good luck selling that property."

So there are restrictions on pretty much any use of property in a given town or state. The ability to build a house, run a farm, or build an asphalt plant is allowed or not allowed by the zoning. It's not about having a special "right to farm" any more or less than it's about having a special "right to build a house."

EDIT: Just add that the "right to farm" bylaws are mostly a reminder, especially to newcomers, that people have, um, a right to farm based on existing zoning. So don't move into our country town and then start a petition to close down the dairy farm down the street because it gets a bit smelly now and then during the summer.

When you live a place, you can and should have a right to attempt to change it. This is a basic tenet of American government (taxation, representation, etc.). Just because a place has "always" been a given way does not and should not mean it can never be different.

That, I suppose, is a long way of saying that zoning can change. And sometimes other regulations change in ways that are inconvenient for some, especially when those people have failed to make a compelling case for why things should not change. We call this "democracy".

Oh, it certainly can change. When the rightful owner of a property decides that it's time.

You have no legitimate right to demand that anyone do anything with their property based on your preference.

Only to the extent that details like democracy, zoning, and free speech permit.

Which is to say you can demand all you like, but until enough people agree with you the right way it doesn't matter.

It's intellectually dishonest to cling to the principles of democracy on the municipal level but then complain about them at the state level.

"Right to farm" rules are an example of democracy in action.

Cities don't need to expand outward. They can expand upward. Farms can't.

With the rise of vertical farming, both cities and farms can expand upwards.

One is economically feasible on a large scale in 2015 and the other isn't... care to guess which one?

Unless you are growing MJ or cocaine, the cost of farming in the middle of a city in a vertical farm is prohibitive. That area can be better used for residences and offices.

Your example is true in as much is it discredits your overall stance. A, if not the, major cause of housing crises (meaning keeping people affordably sheltered, not as in housing bubbles) is zoning law.

At its best, it keeps industrial sites from being built within certain residential areas. At its meanest, it's used to create economically and racially segregated communities, oust families from their homes, and freeze cities in time. Upholding its use for any of the latter could generally be assumed to be the result of particularly stubborn and selfish mindsets towards one's own convenience.

Also troubling about current US zoning practices are its weird exclusive use-per-zone rules, the threat to one's right to unencumbered use of their land, arbitrary development cost increases within cities (contributing to sprawl), and rent increases from zoning exploitation to artificially raise a community's median property values, and, as a side effect, driving up the rent in surrounding areas.

I consider these and any act which would potentially lead to the eviction of someone from their home to be much larger threats to the availability of equitable and affordable housing than people with the wealth to be mobile being bothered by not having the right to control what others do on and with their own property.

I agree. We should turn the farms over to the native americans.

> As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was a suburb of Denver

> Despite the nostalgia, everyone pretty much hated the farm because it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it.

Only 40 houses? Do you realize how much "everyone pretty much hate"s suburbanite breeders like you?

Chill with the name calling.

And yet "there was something romantic about having the one of the last farms in Wheat Ridge right next to my neighborhood"??

Hypocrite.

it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it.

While those 40 homes lead to greater tax revenue, the amount of expense they demand is even greater.

Anywhere I've lived, even sky-high property tax NJ, the property tax coming from a single home is rather less than the town is paying to educate a single child. So unless the average child density in that development is much less than 1 (say, 0.75 children per house), despite the town collecting more taxes, they'll be spending much more on schools, and it'll be a net loss. And that's before we consider the cost of other services at all...

Forcing farmers out because new residents weren't smart enough in scouting their new home location is stupid.

That said, I'm not sure I can muster any indignation that hunters can't hunt as much, or that the first day of hunting season is not "literally a school holiday" anymore.

I used to belong to a local Fish and Game club that had skeet shooting fields. (Skeet are fun to shoot but the meat is very tough.) The club was forced to close the shooting ranges due to neighbors that moved into the area around the club because they didn't like the noise. The club had been shooting there for 80 years before that...

Very, very tough.

My apathy stems from the act of hunting a live animal. While I understand hunting for food for survival, hunting for sport or hunting for food when it's not essential doesn't sit well with me.

As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some bleeding heart when it comes to animals, they aren't all perfect snowflakes of uniqueness, I don't don't see the reason to cause an animal that can feel pain to feel that pain without a good cause. To me, "we've been doing it for generations" is not a good cause.

Edit: I'm still interested in having this discussion, but preferably along one of the established threads sprouting from this, unless the point of view hasn't been covered in a reply. There's as little point in me replying the same thing multiple times as there is in having multiple replies to this stating the same thing, but that doesn't mean there aren't interesting things to be said on this topic.

Would it help if someone pointed out that wild animals will eventually die in pain whether hunters shoot them or not? There are no vets in the wild to give them morphine to put them down when they get too old to survive. They will either get sick, starve, or get eaten.

Firstly, that's a rather odd argument. I wouldn't assume I could kill some old or sickly person in some remote region of the world where there were no doctors. Why does the same logic not apply to an animal? It may not apply, but at least make the case, rather than leaving it an assumption.

Secondly, I'm not sure how we can assume that the old and sickly animals are the ones being killed when humans hunt. I would assume it's a statistically higher percentage of them, but I would also assume it much less statistically relevant than with a bow, and that less than with a spear. On the other end of the spectrum, I would imagine killing deer by dropping a bomb on them would result in no statistical difference in the kills compared to the normal herd make-up. Technology lessens the "we kill the old and sickly" argument.

> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them.

Any ideas? I imagine the main causes of death for deer are predation (by humans, or other animals depending on location), and getting hit by cars. I imagine the latter is at least as painful as the former on average, and the latter also kills and injures a lot of humans.

Well, the problem is that we messed up the ecosystem by removing the predators. I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found. It's an interesting, and hard, problem. I was very specific in my wording. It started as "There are better ways" and changed to "I imagine there must be a better way" before submitting precisely because I think it is a hard problem, but I'm confident there's some answer that's better that shooting with guns. Even if there isn't, it's a worthwhile thing to study, IMHO.

> I'm not sure how well reintroducing the predators would work, I'm sure there's some evidence to be found.

Are you suggesting that non-human predators cause less pain to deer than human hunters with guns? I highly doubt that is the case.

It's not purely about causing pain, it's about causing pain and justification. The need of the wolf and and benefit of a functioning ecosystem provides the justification, in my eyes.

If the pain inflicted on the deer is relatively equal and the desired outcome (lower deer population) is achieved then what difference does the method make.

The ecosystem you speak of was destroyed when the apex predators were removed generations ago . Re-introducing predators does two things (look it up):

1) Disperses the herds thereby extending their range, and 2) causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey (rabbits, deer, moose, etc...) until equilibrium is reached (if ever)

Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect. Of course, releasing enough predators to "thin the herd", so to speak, requires an unsustainable predator population once the thinning is complete. So you get mange, starvation, fido goes missing, etc...

Hunters on the other hand only get as many deer tags as needed to control the populations. With that said, I agree that predators should be brought back in limited numbers and allowed reach natural sustainable levels within the ecosystem. But to use them as a short term way of controlling deer density is silly. You don't fix a complex, interconnected system build over decades with a band-aid.

I wasn't proposing introducing predators as a short term fix, but more as a possible long term solution to reduce the need of other methods of population control. Really, I 'm espousing looking for long term, natural solutions to predator control, rather than allowing humans to fill the need just because they enjoy it. Hunting may be a vital part of population control, but IMHO whether the hunters enjoy it should have zero relevance to how likely we are to use that solution (other than it's effect on cost, which I'll concede is a factor).

In truth, this is all fairly removed from my original statement and intent, which was that if some hunters are no longer allowed to hunt an area and feel disgruntled, I have little sympathy.

> Disperses the herds thereby extending their range,

Thus the vegetation can cope with loses as ever did and not just dies.

> causes some serious (unmanageable) peaks and valleys in populations of prey

Peaks and valleys are caused by diseases and famines, wolves are the worst enemy for livestock and wild deer diseases, so the final result is deer populations more stable and health in fact.

People, specially children, would be also much more safe with wolves than without them, because... first of all, less car accidents with deer, second: less americans killed or having pain by Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Tularemia, Ehrlichiosis, Relapsing fever, Colorado tick fever or Babesiosis. All tickborne diseases, spread by deer or small carnivores, that are a much bigger threat for children playing outdoors because ticks are everywhere in deerland.

> Apex predator birth rate is low and it would take years to have a noticeable effect

Not necessarily, because the "ecology of fear" change the behaviour of preys. You don't need to wipe out all deer at all. In Yellowstone wolves changed all for better in just five or six years if I'm not wrong.

How do you compare the needs of a single wolf with the needs of a single human? In, for instance, a human was on a hike and was attacked my a wolf, would you approve of the human killing the wolf in defense (even though the human is essentially "trespassing" on the wolf's habitat)?

Yes, as I value a person's life more than a wolf's life. I also value bin able to be in nature. Do I think the person't life is always more important that the wolf's? Possibly not, but it would take an extreme situation. That said, I do not value a person't enjoyment of hunting more than I value the life of the animal they are hunting. That's not to say hunting isn't without benefit due to extenuating circumstance, such as it being agreed that in this area during this time this is a net good gook for the ecosystem or the people living there (e.g. population control (something I was missing originally but gladly concede at this point).

Actually, as stated in the article, the other main problem is habitat creation for deer via sprawl. Deer are extremely adaptable and are perfectly happy hanging out on highway verges, fields and the like. Wolves don't like those things. Simply reintroducing predators won't work if those predators don't adapt to these new suburban ecosystems.

Coyotes do adapt but they aren't generally capable of taking down deer. But humans with guns are. As a hunter myself, shooting deer is a quick for the deer and good for the hunter in various ways, not all of which have to do with eating.

Not to mention that fresh venison can be excellent when prepared correctly. The argument for more people "harvesting" their meat for the season can be expanded upon.

I think the viable alternatives are pretty much poison or more predators.

Feeding them is going to result in an even greater population. Moving them probably isn't viable (they will just do the same thing in the new spot).

Poison to ecology is like trepanation to modern medicine. Not so useful as expected, and only as a last resort for very special cases when you don't mind to nuke the entire community. Useful wipping all rats and cats from islands for instance. The worst weapon available in most other cases.

And of course, strictly herbivore species are very good at their main business. They fight and win every day against the poison maker's masters: plants and mushroms. If you put an alcaloid in a potato, in most cases even the dumbest deer know 1) What is this thing and what plant produces it. 2) that this is not safe to eat just smelling it at 5 miles of distance.

Reintroducing predators seems to be the only alternative to population control by rifle. But being maimed by wolves is probably not a more peaceful death than being shot.

More peaceful, no. But that supports and ecosystem, which has other benefits, and the wolf that kills the deer uses the deer to survive, so while the deer dies, the wold lives. I find that justifiable.

Ok so to curtail an excessive deer population, humans force some wolves into the region.

So now instead of excessive amounts of deer, there are excessive amounts of wolves in the region.

..Introduce snakes to curtail wolves now? And than mongoose.

The Mongoose will die off in the winter.

There is not such as excessive amount of a top predator, top predators avoid this being territorial and having less cubs.

Your plausible options are rifles, predators, and poisons.

I'm all for reintroducing more predators, but suburban sprawlers tend to get upset when their pets get eaten regularly.

One of the DEC guys I talked to was a big proponent of more fences. When you put up deer fences around fields, you don't just protect the crops inside, you also restrict the deer's movement and access to food.

Of course, at the end of the day you're still ultimately in a "the deer population stabilizes at the point that deer start starving to death" situation, but you can at least lower the deer population to minimize both their impact on the environment and the number of adverse deer-car interactions.

Yep. A buddy of mine growing up had large numbers of feral dogs and cats running around. Solution: Dishes of antifreeze everywhere. There were too many to shoot, but antifreeze was cheap and effective. He said he had trouble sleeping because the dying animals screamed so much.

The problem with this viewpoint is that it's horribly ignorant, I'm sorry I mean no offense by that. It's just that if you are unfamiliar with farming and hunting it might be easy to draw those kind of conclusions. The fact is that almost universally hunting is a more ethical form of gathering meat than farming. There are certainly unethical hunters but far FAR more care deeply about the animals and there well being. By far the most committed and caring ecologists that I've meet, I've volunteered for over 10 years for various ecological causes, have mostly been hunters/fishermen.

> he problem with this viewpoint is that it's horribly ignorant

It may be, but please justify that statement. I think I've outlined in depth my point of view farther down multiple of these responses, and while obviously I don't think I was being ignorant, it's not clear to me that you are responding to an actual point of mine, or whether you are making assumptions as to my reasoning and responding to that.

> The fact is that almost universally hunting is a more ethical form of gathering meat than farming.

What type of farming? Is it more ethical than traditional farming? Who says this discussion is just about gathering meat. There's also the consideration of managing a deer population.

> By far the most committed and caring ecologists that I've meet ... have mostly been hunters/fishermen.

Did I make some argument that hunters were bad people? I don't remember that, and if it was implied, it was accidental.

This topic touches on a few highly charged areas of discussion; hunting, farming, animal population/ecosystem management. People have strong points of view on this, and have an idea of what their opponents already believe. I think I deserve the benefit of a doubt before being labeled with specific beliefs.

In most places, hunting season tends to be used as local animal population control. If you don't hunt the animals for meat, they are liable to become roadkill. It becomes a danger to people to have animal populations grow unrestricted.

Of course, this wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have cities and highways everywhere, but we're pretty much past that.

Which doesn't really effect my feelings towards those who are upset they can't hunt a location they were previously able to. If the hunting is beneficial and there's not a better solution, the ability to hunt there may return. If it's about people's feeling of entitlement, them my original assessment stands.

You know, I have never heard someone use the word 'entitlement' in a meaningful and productive manner. It is pointlessly dismissive.

Pain is a part of life.

Every animal will feel pain at one point or another.

If an area's deer population is too high to be supported, there will be a lot of pain. Deer will starve to death. Deer will wander out looking for food and be struck by automobiles. Deer will contract CWD and that's really not a good way to die.

I don't think that anyone would claim that a rifle bullet is a "good" way to die but it is a lot less torturous than these others.

This is a key argument here. In a hypothetical, perfectly moral ecosystem, could we find some way of "birth control" to limit the population AND the pain? Perhaps, the population of deer is staggeringly immense, and the financial compensation and minimal fiscal benefit behind such a plan seems like a potential path of waste and failure behind whomever enacts the program.

So we enter a cost/benefit analysis of the situation, and the cost of "humane" solutions are immense. On the other hand, ethical hunting is a "lesser of two evils" that you've mentioned, but more importantly, it brings money back into the organizations protecting the environment. Many people don't realize the cost of a single hunting tag is very well calculated, regulated, and almost 100% of the profits go into ecosystem preservation and conservation. Closest thing to a win-win scenario we can get at the present, not to mention the act of hunting can be an industry in and of itself generating revenue and business.

"As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them. "

This is a natural, humane view. IMO, it comes from a good place. If I didn't have the knowledge I have, I would also hold this view.

Bonafides: I grew up hunting. I wouldn't say it was subsistence hunting, but it was a substantial portion of our winter protein. I was blissfully ignorant of it at the time, but we were what you would consider poor today. (Pretty much all my friends were poor too.)

I stopped hunting after college when my father did - we both liked nature but we didn't like killing.

Hunting is probably the least terrible way for an animal to die. If you are removed from nature, you may not realize that nature while beautiful, is also horribly, horribly cruel. In winter, the deer starve, get weak and then are run down by predators and killed or freeze to death. If the snow it deep, they may not even have to be weak since they can't run as fast in the deep snow.

I can only think of 2 less cruel ways for population control: extinction (or a localized equivalent) and birth control. The 2nd option might be viable...

For me, the desire to not cause pain is offset by the needs of the ecosystem and humanity. We may need to manage certain animal populations through killing members of that population, and allowing hunting may be the most humane way to accomplish that, at least with our current understanding and capabilities. If someone enjoys hunting, and it serves a cause, such as population control, which we don't have a better method for enacting? I'm fine with that. It's suffering, but it's justified. If that needs subsides, but people still want to hunt because they enjoy it, or it's something they were raised doing and they want to continue? I'm not very sympathetic in that case.

It's surprising, given that you understand all that, that you object to hunting for food when that food is not strictly necessary. Even if you are not a subsistence hunter, it can still be good. The hunter can enjoy hunting, the department of fish & game can use the hunter to manage populations, the burden on industrial agriculture & farming is reduced...

Strictly speaking, I don't. I think there are better choices than factory farming, and better choices than hunting, but they may not be ready or sustainable currently. If it was purely a choice between cattle, pigs and chicken raised in horrible conditions and hunting, then I would prefer people hunt. But it's not as simple as that, and there are other options on an individual level. They may not be appealing (to me either), but that doesn't mean I think people should be able to ignore the consequences of their actions. This may be a case where the actions are ethically troubling but helpful for society. The problem arises when it becomes less helpful to society, but people feel entitles to continue their prior actions. I think forcing people to confront the ethical portion the entire time helps prevent this, to a degree.

I can see where you are coming from I think - hunting for pleasure when there are other alternatives is something you aren't sympathetic to.

I sympathize with your view. The thing is, the alternatives to hunting are all crueler than hunting. The dilemma thus becomes choosing between

(a) humans taking pleasure in killing animals (which should bother anyone IMO)

(b) animals suffering more when nature does its thing

Those are admittedly sucky choices but that is the reality at this point in time at least. The modern "solution" is to hide the reality behind some facade that lets us maintain our a more pleasant mental model of our world and our place in it e.g. I don't torture chickens, I get my eggs from the grocery store.

A lot of people are putting forth (b), but without a lot of justification other than disease, predation, old age. What I'm interested in at this point is how is that different than applying to towards people. What's wrong with "people die of alzheimer's, car crashes, old age, etc. and these are arguably worse than just allowing some people that enjoy killing other people from saving them from that burden."

The question is somewhat ridiculous, there are easily many differences depending on your stance on the importance of sapience, etc, but that doesn't mean there aren't important facets to examining why it's different, and what beliefs hold up or do not under careful examination after deciding what the important differences are.

This is a worthwhile thought exercise. I'm not sure why people are down-voting you.

I thought about it some and I think the difference is that for humans, we have other less horrible choices than animals.

Our choices aren't (a) get eaten by wolves or (b) starve to death (c) get shot by a hunter

At end of life we humans can get palliative care for example. I sympathize with your rebellion if you will, against the cruel choices nature has presented the other denizens of our planet. However, one must consider the reality not what we simply wish the reality was unfortunately.

> As for an overpopulated animal, I imagine there must be a better way to deal with that than allowing people to shoot them.

A) Why do you imagine that?

B) Why do you think what you imagine is a fact that's relevant to this discussion?

Our imaginations suck. This is just a fact. We can imagine a dozen impossible things before breakfast, and then fail to imagine a dozen possible things after lunch.

This is why the discipline of science is so important: it forces us to test our imaginings before asserting they are interesting or relevant, at which point they are no longer just imaginings, but evidence.

To the question at hand, hunting is, on the evidence, one of the most efficient, most effective, most humane ways of limiting the population of wild animals. As well as contributing to conservation efforts financially, hunters are a tool used by fish and wildlife departments to limit populations that would otherwise face periodic catastrophic crashes due to disease and starvation. There are other ways this can be done, but they are in general more expensive, less effective, and less humane. It's hard to kill animals like deer, and the fact that there are people willing to pay for the privilege of doing it is a boon to wildlife management.

Charlotte Rifle + Pistol club has a solution for that. When the real estate developers discovered that the land around them was cheap (because of the noise, mainly), the club put up a huge sign by their entrance: "Your friendly neighbors since 1913". The house-shoppers couldn't help but notice it.

> "I'm not sure I can muster any indignation that hunters can't hunt as much"

Once a rural area with an overabundance of deer becomes re-zoned as a "residential area" the hunters often can't hunt at all, and a heavily overpopulated species becomes effectively a protected species in that area.

A lot of times it isn't that they weren't smart enough at all, they intended to move into the area and push out the farmers. Think of it as 'rural gentrification'.

That's a great personification of the problem described. Folks with more "urban" attitudes show up with contempt for the folks around them.

You had a situation where generations of people kept things in balance. Farmers got rid of the wolves, hunters naturally managed the herd of deer. Many people relied on venison as a staple food. Then people show up who are afraid of hunters/guns/noise/etc and do dumb things like feed the wildlife and call the cops when they become a nuisance.

It's not contempt. I feel that if you're going to cause pain to something that can feel pain, you should have a good reason. I don't consider "we've been doing this for generations" a good reason. Repeating something because it was done before is hardly ever a good justification. It may be there are good reasons to repeat earlier actions, and we just don't know enough to fully explain it, but that doesn't remove the responsibility people have to justify their actions.

That's not to say someone won't come up with a justification that I'll fully accept. I didn't say "oh, hunting is horrible, how could a person ever do that!", I said I didn't have much sympathy, and that's because I don't agree with the justifications I've heard to this point.

My personal point of view is that wildlife are both a natural resource and living animals., As a natural resource, the usage should come with some sort of associated cost, to account for the damage it's usage and/or removal causes to the environment (e.g. burning coal has negative externalities that are poorly accounted for to this point). As living animals that feel pain, I think there should be a reason to cause that pain, and or kill them. It needs to be justifiable, but for me the bar is not impossibly high. "I needed the food to survive" is fully capable as a justification in my eyes, while "It's fun" is not. obviously there's a fuzzy space in the middle, which I'm not sure the details of.

Is "they're tasty" a valid justification? Perhaps you're a vegetarian, but if you aren't there's a logical inconsistency there. If you are, kudos for walking the walk.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't think there's a logical inconsistency as clear as you're assuming. I'm well aware that in many instances, the condition farm animals are kept in is much worse than whatever problems I am describing with the act of hunting. At the same time, I'm not sure the very essence of being a farm animal necessitates a worse situation that hunting; there may be a regime, and associated cost, at which farm animals are not significantly worse off than their wild counterparts, and as long as their end is quick and painless, I'm not too adverse to that.

Ideally though, I would like vat grown meat. To many, that sounds disgusting. To me, it sounds like a reproducible process that can eventually be perfected to give very specific types of meat as needed. Perfect steaks every time. It solves a lot of other problems at the same time, so bonus.

I'm aware that the previous, and my stance on hunting, is all very pie-in-the-sky. I still think it's a worthwhile discussion.

This article is making the argument that removing some of these deer is beneficial to the environment.

(In the sense that a controlled deer population results in greater diversity of plant species over the long term. Of course the relative value of plant species and deer are subjective)

There is very little young cedar, directly as a result of deer. If you drive along US 2 in the UP of Michigan, you can see that all the trees along the road look like they are trimmed. It is from deer browse, they eat everything they can reach.

I was replying to a comment, and specifically the sentiment that it's a shame when people move in and the existing hunter population has a problem continuing to hunt. I did mention that I think there must be a better way to curb an animal population that shooting them.

I was responding to you calling it a cost to remove something from the environment.

That's why I pointed out that it is better for plants to have less deer. It's subjective, but it's possible to believe that shooting a deer is a direct, net benefit to the environment, rather than a cost.

You are the only person in this thread putting that reason forward. Overpopulation of deer is bad for the ecosystem as a whole, and it is widely agreed that their population needs to be kept in check.

If you truly care about the ethics of the situation, hunting should be vastly preferred as a means of obtaining food over the current status quo of factory farming. A quick death by bullet is far, far better than a life of squalor and misery followed by, far more frequently than we'd like to realize, an agonizing and slow death.

I agree, they should be kept in check. I'm just arguing about the method.

Is it impossible to look for other paths? I don't believe the discussion should be reduced to the two extremes of "shoot them with guns" or "factory farm them". Our current and past situations need not be the only choices when facing the future.

Another straw man. Nobody is arguing that we would oppose some new, as-yet-undiscovered, ethically and environmentally optimal way of keeping deer populations in check. But until then, we have limited options at our disposal. Death by predator is probably the best all-around option, but in a world where that's politically untenable, death by rifle really isn't a bad alternative. It's in all honesty probably the least painful option on the table for a deer's eventual death, while at the same time providing a decent supply of food that reduces demand for factory-farmed meats.

You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep. We do not live in such a world. Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators or drawn-out death by poison. If we do nothing to control their populations, those that survive will eventually age to the point where most will become infirm enough to die slowly by starvation. Unless you propose to sent vets into the woods armed with tranquilizers and materials for lethal injection, a bullet is virtually certain to be the least terrible way for a deer to die.

> Another straw man.

I said, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for hunters not being able to hunt. Then I clarified, I thought killing of animals should be justified, and gave specific examples of where I thought it was, and was not, justified. For the record, ecosystem management (population control), in the absence of better options, is a good justification for hunting in my eyes.

If the the animal population doesn't need management, do I think enjoyment of hunting or tradition justifies it? No.

> You seem to want to live in a world where animals live peaceful lives and die gently in their sleep.

That, there, is a straw man argument being set up. I haven't said this, and I believe my other responses around this topic have made that abundantly clear. Please don't put words in my mouth.

> Right now, the alternative to shooting them is to have them violently eaten by predators

Yep. So what? There's a reason for that. The life of the predator and the ecosystem as a whole works because of this process. I'm just not sure what I'm expected to believe hunting, for hunting's sake, is supposed to contribute.

The only way to keep their population in check is to kill them, no? How would you humanely kill them without shooting them? Couldn't introducing another predator to hunt them cause even more unforeseen ecological problems?

I don't know, is it? Maybe instead of introducing a new predator we reintroduce the old ones we removed? In in the absence of those, or if we are concerned about the outcome of reintroducing a predator, yes, manage them as needed, which may mean shooting them. Does that change whether I feel sympathy for hunters who hunt for enjoyment or tradition that no longer get to? Not at all. I see these as entirely different things.

There's a reason why raising farm animals is called husbandry. In a way, it can be a form of conservation vs. preservation. I worked on a small dairy and hay farm, it's a complex relationship, and the animals aren't treated like they are in a industrial farming operation.

In the deer example, as noted in the article, overpopulation strips forests down. Saplings get chewed down by starving deer, bark gets stripped from others, etc. The elimination of forage impacts other wildlife. By being "nice" to Bambi, you'll have a dead forest in 30-40 years, assuming a condo complex isn't dropped down from the sky.

So, in an effort to refine my argument, as well as accept some of your justification, let me rephrase.

Apart from extinction, I don't care how the deer population as a whole is managed. Individually, I would prefer to cause the least amount of pain to an animal as possible for the needed outcome, where that outcome is dictated by the needs of society and the individual (and in this specific case, I don't consider entertainment a need). I'm fully accepting of, and vastly prefer. the idea of animals raising in traditional farm settings when we need to cull them, and if they need to be killed, doing so in a quick and humane manner.

I am not disputing that deer need to be managed. If the only way we can seem to do that is through hunting, then okay, I consider it justified. I think effort should also be put into finding alternatives to managing the population. We need this in many other cases as well, where hunting isn't feasible. The salient point for me is that the hunting fulfills a need for society and the ecosystem, and if that need subsides, so should the hunting.

Individually, I would prefer to cause the least amount of pain to an animal as possible for the needed outcome

A large bullet through the heart and lungs is probably not going to be much worse than slaughtering livestock. (This is also why states set minimum caliber for hunting deer -- too small increases the risk of the deer dying too slowly.)

The salient point for me is that the hunting fulfills a need for society and the ecosystem, and if that need subsides, so should the hunting.

This is already the way of things. The number of licenses issued for a given year is the DNR's response to the current state of the deer population.

And this all started because I expressed a lack of sympathy for hunters who found it hard to hunt where they previously did. I'll fully accept that I was too broad in saying I hadn't heard a good justification for hunting. It's caused a of of people to assume a stance on my part and reply disputing that stance, which doesn't really exist. I don't believe hunting for enjoyment or tradition is really justifiable, but beyond that, I'm mostly open to the needs justifying our actions.

> You had a situation where generations of people kept things in balance.

I think you may be romanticizing things a bit. How many generations are you using for a sample-size, and how do you know things were any more "in-balance" as opposed to just a different equally-artificial arrangement?

I'll grant you "nobody complained of too-many deer around their house", but that's a far cry from some sort of "we were one with the land and lived in harmony with all the cycles of nature".

Hunting is a vital part of wildlife management and a healthy ecosystem involving humans. Not having hunters being able to provide population control is bad for local wildlife and the people who live there in situations where humans are the only dominate predators around. It's our responsibility to fill this role in the 'circle of life'.

> I'm not sure I can muster any indignation that hunters can't hunt as much

Why not?

A few years ago, while moving there was a small herd of deer in the middle of the road, around a bend and I was doing 55 in a rather large moving truck... I had to swerve into the other lane (glad nobody was coming the other direction) to make it into an opening. I remember as a kid deer were very skirmish around people and cars. Now, it's like there's no fear there.

On the flip side, I do think we should probably migrate some deer populations to those areas seeing desertification to encourage more plant/brush growth. It may be more homogenous, but it's better than barren land. I'm thinking that there should be some efforts to make venison more appealing to people, and perhaps start stocking it in regular grocers.

If I recall correctly (at least here in NYC) you can only buy farm raised venison unfortunately. It's because of all the meat regulations (probably a good thing in my opinion), but it'd be nice if there were some sort of effort to make wild venison a viable product.

Upon thinking about it, I'm not sure there are many wild meats you can buy outside of fish (and fish is almost always frozen to negative temperatures to reduce exposure to possible bacteria).

It makes a lot of sense for a large population but it'd be nice if there was a viable way to use wild venison (and maybe horse, aren't mustangs running wild in the west?).

Same here. As a kid in rural South Carolina the first place I saw a deer was at a county fair locked up in a pen. We had over hunted them to the brink. There were also many plants you no longer see today. All kinds of hardwoods and shrubs have almost disappeared.

Today when I pull into my driveway at night there are always several deer peering back. before they dart off into the woods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com