Either I hit a deer with my 12-gauge slug, or you hit that deer with your Prius. I’d rather make chili out of the deer than have it full of hybrid battery.

“Slap the anti-hunters silly.” - Ted Nugent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXUI5hAxFYI

While I thought the article was well written, I still have to argue pro-hunting. It is necessary to control the population of deer not only because of the potential damage they could inflict on property, but because if we do not do end some of their lives quickly and cleanly, they will suffer a longer death of starvation over the winter when food shortages occur because of overpopulation. The people who say they hunt for sport may not be aware of the benefits of their doing so. The man who kicks and kills his dog has no benefits resulting from that action.

It seems to me that you have completely disregarded the fact that deer hunters (all of the ones that I know) eat essentially the whole of the deer that they have shot. That contributes to the environment in a very real way by forwarding the sustainable food movement — all of these people will not be eating animals killed thousands of miles away and then shipped to their grocery stores in trucks. In addition to eating the deer, most hunters also save the rack, the skull, and often the fur of their kill. So I would argue that while most deer hunters do indeed shoot for sport, they also honor the animals they kill much more than any cattle farm ever would. If this piece is an argument for vegetarianism then come right out and say so. Otherwise, please don’t ignore extremely relevant points just to make your view seem stronger.

How about coming across a herd of deer on an interstate going 70 m.p.h? Now picture that there are cars around you when you come across that herd of deer going 70 m.p.h. The reason why intentionally killing dogs as a sport is both illegal and immoral is because there is no logical justification for doing so. You will never come across a pack of wild golden retrievers on an interstate going 70 m.p.h.

There is a need to limit the deer population (i.e. SAFETY). The fact that that government chooses to allow people do it for recreation does not matter. Would you feel better if deer hunting was totally illegal but the govt. use your tax dollars and hire snipers? Would you rather society just take the risk of PEOPLE dying on highways to look after the “welfare” of the finite number of deer that the DNR issues tags for?

First I would like to say that your column was well written and that I respect your opinion. However, the overwhelming majority of hunters have an immense respect, not exactly the whacked-out Ted Nugent kind, for the game we pursue and find no joy and little satisfaction in the actual act of killing. It is merely a fact of life that in order to eat meat, animals must be killed.

I was very disappointed that you completely failed to mention that the motivation shared by the vast majority of hunters is to put food on the table. Not only is venison delicious, it is also a high quality source of lean protein and much cheaper than buying an equivalent amount of beef, pork or chicken at the grocery store. In fact, I know several families from my hometown that might not have enough food on the table if it weren’t for hunting.

Whether you are eating venison harvested from the woods or a hamburger from McDonalds, an animal still has to be killed. The only difference is that one knows exactly what they are eating and how it was handled when you harvest a deer from the woods and process it. I guess I would rather consume meat from an animal roaming the wild, harvested and processed by myself, than from a sprawling, disgustingly unsanitary feed lot. Which animal do you think had a higher quality of life?

Also, those hunters who choose not to eat their kill or harvest more deer than they can eat donate the deer to food pantries across the state. This helps multitudes of needy families who otherwise might not have enough to eat.

Prior to the modern age, one had to butcher domestic animals or hunt to provide meat to their families. Hunting is a vital component of preserving the health of our ecosystem and a long standing tradition of camaraderie rooted in sustenance.

A trend I have noticed over the past several years in my area of the state is that the overall health of the deer population is improving. I no longer see nearly as many deer that look like they are struggling to survive the winter. This is a direct result of hunters helping to manage the deer population, meaning that more forage is available to each animal through the winter months when food is scarce. Overall, this leads to a healthier ecosystem.

I wish all of you hunters a safe and successful hunt this year. Good Luck!!!

Are not there more deer alive now than there have ever been?

Are you really going to suggest that it would be better to introduce non-human predators to do the neccessary work of reducing the number of deer? Are you going to comfort those who lose HUMAN loved ones to those predators, or reimburse the those who lose animals?

BAH!!! I like my place at the top of the food chain and will seek to maintain it.

I agree with the fellow who made the vegetarian point. It’s all to convenient for his argument to focus on the death/killing and disregard the fact that the animal is consumed. If the author is in fact a vegetarian then he should have said so, if not then to argue against the killing of animals for food (which is the essence of deer hunting)is entirely hypocritical and illogical. I enjoy eating deer just as I enjoy eating beef which is no worse than taking enjoyment in the pursuit and inevitable killing, the only difference is that I’m taking responsibility for ending the life of the deer in order to eat it. The short story is that anti-hunters who are not vegetarians are es.

The correct answer to the fill-in-the blank is “you want to eat it.”

As the cold cruel steel of your knife slashes through the carcass of an innocent beet, and its lifes blood irrevocably stains your saliva flecked murderous lips, know Oh Sanctimonius Feeders On Flora that YOU also have killed to survive another day!

Vegetables have the same moral standing as Vegetarians!

Invictus Maneo

hey bozo. If you’re so worried about animals feelings, worry about cows that are forced to suffer for years before slaughter. Don’t worry about the deer that are allowed to run free in the wild and a killed in a matter of seconds by people who do the same thing, eat the meat from the animal.

Second, several friends of mine and my parents have been killed in car accidents due to collisions with deer. If deer were not kept in check by hunters, there would be a lot more deer automobile deaths. Maybe this doesn’t matter to you because it sounds like you have never left the city to learn a thing about deer hunting.

Just another city kid writing about stuff he doesn’t have a clue about.

I have to say being a hunter I have heard all the sides of this argument over deer hunting being imoral. I know many people that don’t hunt feel that the hunting of wild animals is wrong but think about all the animals we eat each day that don’t come from the wild, but from the family farms across the country. Is killing those animals imoral? You would probobly say no because you eat them everyday. I would maybe agree with this guy if it came to mass killings of deer for a McVenision sandwich at McDonalds but its not, its hunters out carrying on a tradition past down to us by generations of past hunters and the founders of this great country. The pilgrams wouldn’t have been able to survive that first winter without being taught to hunt by the native americans. Hunting has been part of their history since the begining of time. The fact is hunting is part of our culture and who we are and for someone to consider that imoral they need to step back and look at all the reasons we hunt first. The fact is the person who wrote this article deffinetly did not look at all the reason for hunting these animals. I honestly have to say this person has probobly never set foot in the woods non the less ever seen a deer in the wild just at the zoo. If we didn’t hunt deer the population would soar till it was past the point of being controllable. The fact is deer are already coming into the cities and spreading disease through out their own populaton and the populations of other animals. The deer population can only be controlled by the help of the hunters otherwise we could have even worse problems then we already do with them. The fact is the guy who wrote this review has the ability to write but has no common sense for real life. There is a reason he is majoring in philosphy and its because his head is in the clouds. Your ideas maybe great in a perfect world but this is real life and you need to go out and try hunting before you bash it because you just assume its imoral. P.S. The chair that you are sitting in to read this response does exist!!

Deer kill more people than any other animal!

Deer = vermin Deer = tasty

Good combination.

Most veterinarians don’t support this viewpoint. In fact, a bunch of the veterinary students are taking their exams this Friday (instead of Monday) so they can go hunting over the weekend. Other vet students are heading to deer registration stations across the state to collect samples for Chronic Wasting Disease research. Many of those researchers and veterinary students would appreciate if you would go out and hunt, and help cull Wisconsin’s deer to slow the spread of CWD and before they start to spread more dangerous zoonotic diseases such as Tuberculosis. There were most likely 400,000 deer in WI before 1950 and now there are over 1,000,000.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/popgoal.htm http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/deerbirds.htm

Always a controversial conversation. Always guaranteed to get both sides riled up. Always will be differences in opinions. I’ll always be an avid hunter. Others will always oppose.

Decatur man dies after vehicle hits deer on U.S. 36.

See the full story: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/11/16/decaturmandiesaftervehiclehitsdeeronus_36

The herd would practically double each year if it weren’t for hunting.

Inflicting pain and death on a living thing capable of suffering is justified when _.

Answer: I’m not a raging pussy

I love how basically everyone, from almost all vantage points, have come out in support of hunting. I feel hunters have been represented well by these comments for the most part, too. There will always be those nutjobs that just like to kill stuff, and their obnoxious behavior overshadows the respectful and tasteful hunters. I know hunters that I wish would just shut up because they give hunters a terrible reputation. Please understand the issues and listen to the majority of deer hunters that respect deer, harvest them tastefully, use the meat entirely, etc. Oh… an angle you missed… how about the food pantries that benefit from Hunt for the Hungry? For the least fortunate, hunting season provides more than you could imagine.

I learned more from reading Uncle Ted Nugent than a whole semester of Plants and Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aauk7Ub_JGQ

I do not think the column was well written. I am a hunter, and the author did not accurately portray my motives for hunting, nor the motives of my friends and family that hunt. Furthermore, the arguments provided were simplistic and flawed. He ignored much of what I would consider are the real reasons why people hunt and the justifications for hunting.

I wrote a paper a while back about the morality of deer hunting, and I’ll include some excerpts here:

“Today, hunting is unnecessary in terms of nutritional demand. This is the result of the globalization of the food market, the knowledge in nutritional requirements and contents of foods, and a growing industry of dietary supplements and substitutes. However, are these morally and ethically better alternatives? We can fulfill our nutritional needs without eating meat, but often times it requires something more extreme, such as the importation of foods from areas that have nutrient-rich soils or extended growing seasons or the input of synthetically produced vitamins. The former requires the development of industrial agriculture and roadways to transport the produce, and the latter has been under scrutiny for some time over its effectiveness in absorption. Michael Pollan makes an agreeable statement regarding this issue saying, �The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply.� Ruminants, like deer and cattle, are able to digest plant matter that humans cannot. In areas where conditions are not suitable for agriculture, these herbivores turn the vast amounts of unpalatable food into a nutritious form that humans can digest. Their existence and success is essential if humans are to eat locally and nutritiously. … There are two concerns about the argument against hunting and eating of meat. The first derives from the fact that many people are removed from the natural world. This can be seen in two ways, the way we view ourselves apart from nature and the way we live apart from nature. The first is a philosophical problem. Either humans view themselves as animals and amongst nature or as a higher being and above nature. The argument against eating meat places us in the context of being superior to animals with consciousness and morals that dictate our actions. However, this argument is supported by stating that animals endure pain, have desire, and a sense of being. These seem to contradict themselves and point towards the conclusion that humans and animals are not that different after all, and this brings up a counter argument. If animals and humans are more alike than we once thought, then what prevents humans from being the omnivorous animal we have always been? Again, refuting this means we must put humanity on moral high ground compared to other species, and the slippery slope begins. Secondly, society is also deeply removed from the consciousness of how of food arrives on the dinner table. One of the best examples comes from a personal experience. I was in Phoenix, Arizona, talking with family and friends about my life in Wisconsin and was discussing the past year�s hunting season. One of my uncles interjected and stated how he thought it was unethical and cruel to hunt. He could not understand how I could possibly partake in such an activity. The significance of this response lies in the fact that he eats meat. I do not blame my uncle for his views, as ignorant as they may have seemed to me; however, I cannot help but be seriously disturbed by their development. To him, the beef or pork that arrives at the grocery store is taken for granted with no consciousness of how it got there, while I can guarantee that the venison I eat is provided in the most humane way possible with the outmost respect given to the animal.

Personally, I feel that hunting plays a crucial role in protecting the environment, in conservation, and in sustainability. With the exception of foraging or growing home gardens, hunting is the simplest means of obtaining food with the smallest environmental impact. No other food resource can be produced locally without altering the habitat. At the very least, hunting deserves to be regarded by the public as the most ethical means of obtaining meat. Through hunting, I have displaced my consumption of industrially produced meats and completely cut pork and beef from my grocery list. As far as meat goes, I eat almost entirely venison and fish that I harvest. The meat comes from the natural environment without the input of fertilizer, hormones, pesticides, or herbicides. In addition, all this occurs within fifteen to thirty minutes from my house. I do not believe there is a more ethical or environmentally friendly alternative.

If anyone would like another good article on hunting and the environment/conservation, here is one from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401640.html

I do not think the column was well written. I am a hunter, and the author did not accurately portray my motives for hunting, nor the motives of my friends and family that hunt. Furthermore, the arguments provided were simplistic and flawed. He ignored much of what I would consider are the real reasons why people hunt and the justifications for hunting.

I wrote a paper a while back about the morality of deer hunting, and I’ll include some excerpts here:

“Today, hunting is unnecessary in terms of nutritional demand. This is the result of the globalization of the food market, the knowledge in nutritional requirements and contents of foods, and a growing industry of dietary supplements and substitutes. However, are these morally and ethically better alternatives? We can fulfill our nutritional needs without eating meat, but often times it requires something more extreme, such as the importation of foods from areas that have nutrient-rich soils or extended growing seasons or the input of synthetically produced vitamins. The former requires the development of industrial agriculture and roadways to transport the produce, and the latter has been under scrutiny for some time over its effectiveness in absorption. Michael Pollan makes an agreeable statement regarding this issue saying, �The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer, since food would need to travel farther and manure would be in short supply.� Ruminants, like deer and cattle, are able to digest plant matter that humans cannot. In areas where conditions are not suitable for agriculture, these herbivores turn the vast amounts of unpalatable food into a nutritious form that humans can digest. Their existence and success is essential if humans are to eat locally and nutritiously. … There are two concerns about the argument against hunting and eating of meat. The first derives from the fact that many people are removed from the natural world. This can be seen in two ways, the way we view ourselves apart from nature and the way we live apart from nature. The first is a philosophical problem. Either humans view themselves as animals and amongst nature or as a higher being and above nature. The argument against eating meat places us in the context of being superior to animals with consciousness and morals that dictate our actions. However, this argument is supported by stating that animals endure pain, have desire, and a sense of being. These seem to contradict themselves and point towards the conclusion that humans and animals are not that different after all, and this brings up a counter argument. If animals and humans are more alike than we once thought, then what prevents humans from being the omnivorous animal we have always been? Again, refuting this means we must put humanity on moral high ground compared to other species, and the slippery slope begins. Secondly, society is also deeply removed from the consciousness of how of food arrives on the dinner table. One of the best examples comes from a personal experience. I was in Phoenix, Arizona, talking with family and friends about my life in Wisconsin and was discussing the past year�s hunting season. One of my uncles interjected and stated how he thought it was unethical and cruel to hunt. He could not understand how I could possibly partake in such an activity. The significance of this response lies in the fact that he eats meat. I do not blame my uncle for his views, as ignorant as they may have seemed to me; however, I cannot help but be seriously disturbed by their development. To him, the beef or pork that arrives at the grocery store is taken for granted with no consciousness of how it got there, while I can guarantee that the venison I eat is provided in the most humane way possible with the outmost respect given to the animal.

Personally, I feel that hunting plays a crucial role in protecting the environment, in conservation, and in sustainability. With the exception of foraging or growing home gardens, hunting is the simplest means of obtaining food with the smallest environmental impact. No other food resource can be produced locally without altering the habitat. At the very least, hunting deserves to be regarded by the public as the most ethical means of obtaining meat. Through hunting, I have displaced my consumption of industrially produced meats and completely cut pork and beef from my grocery list. As far as meat goes, I eat almost entirely venison and fish that I harvest. The meat comes from the natural environment without the input of fertilizer, hormones, pesticides, or herbicides. In addition, all this occurs within fifteen to thirty minutes from my house. I do not believe there is a more ethical or environmentally friendly alternative.

If anyone would like another good article on hunting and the environment/conservation, here is one from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401640.html

power

I personally have no respect for left-ist tree huggers, but Mr. Slocum does have a point here. I am a deer hunter and proud to say it and to say that I hunt because I want to control the deer herd is absurd. I hunt to kill shit…period. Is the deer herd a problem? Yes, but im not about to convince you hippies that I hunt for the sake of society. I like the feeling of my steel going through animal flesh. I hate to be controversial, but if there was a season for dogs I’d hunt them too. This is America people, don’t hide who you really are. Especially you deer hunters…say it loud and proud.

You do not represent me as a deer hunter, nor any of the deer hunters that I know. Thankfully, the people with your crude view of hunting are few and far between compared the majority of hunters who are ethical and respectful towards all species.

I am proud to be a hunter, but I am will not put myself in the same boat as the above poster.

While the column is well organized, I think that some of his points are irrelevant and flawed. The fact that the author compares deer hunting to “kicking a dog” right away in the article sets the naive and immature tone throughout the entire article. No sir, I do not go out into the woods with the intention of making a deer, or any other animal for that matter, suffer a painful and prolonged death. The goal of sportsmen, yes, sportsmen, is to make a lethal killing shot, whether with a bow or gun, to cause the deer as less pain and suffering as possible. Now, I’m not going to sit here and use mindless third grade arguements like so many of my peers, which only succeed in making most pro-deer hunting people seem like mindless idiots. If you take a completely objective view on deer hunting in general, it can really be simplified. Humans have a need for agricultural goods. Deer feed on these crops, therefor, deer are competing with humans for food. Now, I don’t know about you, but I know that humans are on the top of the food chain. So if a deer has to lose it’s life so that humans may survive, then so be it. Also, let’s paint the picture that deer hunting itself was completely outlawed. Now it’s illegal to kill a deer. Sure, the population would grow, and everyone would seem to be happy. But the basic rules of population growth is that the deer population will grow exponentially, until there is no food. So imagine being a deer in a Wisconsin winter, with not enough food to survive, slowly starving to death as your own organs consume themselves. A hunter’s bullet doesn’t sound so bad now does it? His arguement on the fact that hunters don’t hunt “to protect the property of people around the state” is absurd. Of course, no one wakes up and says, “Well, it’s time to protect agriculture”. I have a quick question, when you go to eat at McDonald’s do you do so for the sole reason of providing business to the minimum wage workers so that they can pay their bills? Let’s take a look at one last point that the article makes. “When alternatives exist that could accomplish the same goal but do not involve killing living things, they should clearly be preferred.” What other solutions do you propose? It is easy for anyone to say that something should be done about a so called problem, but then sit back and wait for others to come up with a solutions. So until you propose a viable solution to maintaining a healthy deer population without killing deer, I suggest you hold your criticism on the current solution. You have a great start to your arguement, but I suggest you do some more research.

You sir are completely clueless and out of touch. Rely on more than PETA hippies for information.

It’s them or us. Deer kill more HUMANS than any other animal.

If nobody hunts and kill the deer then they will kill even more HUMANS!

Your attempt to illegitimize the sport of hunting will not work very well in the state of Wisconsin. When hunters here hunt for deer they are mostly hunting for the meat. Even the hunters that hunt for heads still eat the meat. Hunting is just like any other sport; it has rules, a season, and you play it because you enjoy it. Another thing that hunters do is help control the deer population. If Wisconsin was to stop hunting it would be over-run with deer. Last year 15,821 accidents occured due to the high population of deer in Wisconsin. This is no longer an issue of the morality of a sport. This concerns the safety of everyone living in Wisconsin. Hunters do the state a great service by keeping these deer off the road and in their freezers. CWD is another thing that hunters help keep control over. By killing deer we help scientists learn more about this disease so they can prevent it in future deer heards and also learn how the deer get this. When you bring up the environment and how going green is good thing, I think that people spend too much money on this and they don’t even know what their buying. People should foccus on preserving land, not building green buildings all over the place.

Your attempt to illegitimize the sport of hunting will not work very well in the state of Wisconsin. When hunters here hunt for deer they are mostly hunting for the meat. Even the hunters that hunt for heads still eat the meat. Hunting is just like any other sport; it has rules, a season, and you play it because you enjoy it. Another thing that hunters do is help control the deer population. If Wisconsin was to stop hunting it would be over-run with deer. Last year 15,821 accidents occured due to the high population of deer in Wisconsin. This is no longer an issue of the morality of a sport. This concerns the safety of everyone living in Wisconsin. Hunters do the state a great service by keeping these deer off the road and in their freezers. CWD is another thing that hunters help keep control over. By killing deer we help scientists learn more about this disease so they can prevent it in future deer heards and also learn how the deer get this. When you bring up the environment and how going green is good thing, I think that people spend too much money on this and they don’t even know what their buying. People should foccus on preserving land, not building green buildings all over the place.

Inflicting pain and death on a living thing capable of suffering is justified when _.

it might kill you or some other HUMAN!

GOD PUT US AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN FOR A REASON-ARMY RANGERS