Hunting Isn’t the Answer to Animal ‘Pests’

State wildlife agencies might want to first try ending their policies of increasing the deer population for no reason other than to kill them

  • Share
  • Read Later
Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Wildlife conflicts are a real problem in some communities, but hunting is not the solution. Whether the problem is deer eating tulips or colliding with cars, Lyme disease, or bears getting into garbage, there is always an effective, nonlethal way to handle it.

(MORE: America’s Pest Problem: It’s Time to Cull the Herd)

The first step is for state wildlife agencies to stop increasing the population of certain species, especially deer. These agencies are currently funded fully or partially by the sales of hunting and fishing licenses and their mission statements include hunting, both explicitly and under the guise of “recreation,” “use” or “benefit” of the citizens. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wrote in the insert to its 2006–07 Fish and Wildlife Annual Report, “Your purchase of hunting and fishing licenses and stamps enable us to raise hunting and fishing opportunities to a new level … We rank first in the country for the highest single-year deer harvest on record and are number one for deer harvest over the past decade.” The agencies bolster the deer population through tactics like clear-cutting sections of forests to create the edge habitat that deer prefer, and leasing land to farmers while requiring the farmers to plant extra crops to feed the deer. State agencies, along with private landowners, also plant deer-preferred vegetation to try to maximize hunting opportunities. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources boasted in a June 9, 2004, press release, “Few other states have kept pace with Kentucky in trophy-deer production. Kentucky wildlife managers have earned the right to be proud of that fact.”

Decades of managed hunts in the U.S. have failed to solve human-deer conflicts, including costly ones like crop and landscaping damage. Besides, rural and suburban neighborhoods with corn or tulips will attract deer no matter how many there are. Landowners can fence their property, use repellants or choose plants that do not attract deer. A 2008 study of deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs) by the Jack H. Berryman Institute examined a variety of possible solutions, including reducing the deer population, and found that “multiple studies have shown properly installed and maintained fences combined with wildlife crossings to be the most effective method of reducing DVCs.”

To take another example, Lyme disease is transmitted by the black-footed tick, which sometimes feeds on deer. Efforts to reduce Lyme disease with deer hunting are ineffective because the ticks feed on a wide variety of host species – mice, squirrels, raccoons, etc. The only places where hunting is effective are in isolated areas — islands and peninsulas — where the ticks have few alternate hosts. To reduce the incidence of Lyme disease in humans on the mainland, the number of ticks needs to be reduced, not the number of deer. A 2011 study published in Public Health Reports found that a tick-killing device led to a reduction in the incidence of Lyme disease in humans in the area, while deer hunting “did not show a clear decreasing trend.”

As for bears, hunting is also not a solution to conflict, as garbage will attract black bears no matter how small the bear population. Professor Ed Tavss of Rutgers University found that nonlethal management — bear-resistant garbage cans and dumpsters — reduces human-bear conflicts, while hunting does not. And, obviously, intentional feeding of bears must also stop so that bears do not learn to associate people with food.

Hunting is a failed experiment, and it’s time to employ effective, nonlethal methods. The obvious place to start: stop increasing the population of deer for no reason other than to kill them.

Doris Lin is an animal-rights attorney and the director of legal affairs for the Animal Protection League of New Jersey. The views expressed are solely her own. 

Click here to join TIME for as little as $2.99 to read David Von Drehle’s cover story on America’s pest problem.

42 comments
GunnerBragg
GunnerBragg

Yes, in hunting something usually dies.  However the biologists in these state agencies are out to manage game species at levels that provide opportunities for hunters and minimize conflict.  This does not necessarily they are always trying to increase the size of the states deer herd.  I know that here in Virginia they try to manage the herd below the Maximum Sustained Yield (1/2 Biological Carrying Capacity).  Doing this allows for a very healthy herd of deer.  The deer I have seen this year have been in excellent health.  The problem is seeing them.  Many deer have become quite fond of the edge habitat that we humans like and create.  They like it much more so than the surrounding forest/wild land that we have not allowed to burn or be cut.  This is because mature forests do not produce the forage that deer need to survive.  Thus squeezing them into closer proximity with people and causing more conflicts (DVC's, crop damage, disease).

Do we open places in the forest to be release valves, or reintroduce predators, or allow urban hunting?  We certainly have to consider all solutions and apply them where needed.  Hunting is a tool, a tasty tool to be sure, but a tool of wildlife management none the less.

JimSylvester
JimSylvester

Just remember Ms. Lin, the only reason you're alive today, free to trash people who hunt wildlife, is because your ancestors hunted wildlife. Prehistoric vegans usually didn't live long enough to reproduce.

stuhutch
stuhutch

One important thing missing is that whitetail deer are legitimate meat animals and have been hunted with the bow over twenty thousand years. White tail deer are a native species (not an invasive) and live a far better healthier life then factory farmed animals with none of the associated pollution.
Any farmer that could provide such free range habit, natural food and have the hunter’s acknowledgment and respect for the taking of each animal’s life would be given sainthood by many animal right groups!
Urban Bow hunting programs that harvest over abundant wild, free running deer are, as nature intended a win - win sustainable situation that has been proved to work in reducing deer herd densities.
There are a number of towns in SW CT whose bow hunting programs have over time steadily reduced their deer populations closer to the number of deer per square mile that all wild life biologists agree on.

Mowemdown
Mowemdown

Hunting - a practice that has existed for centuries and serves as a means of life for many - is a "failed expirement"? All of you hypocrites will likely sit down to your steak or burger dinners tonight... from an animal that was raised in poor conditions for the sole purpose of being executed to end up on the tip of your fork. Author, you are a" failed expirement".

kkaliszewski
kkaliszewski

Yes, there's a horrifically destructive pest species breeding out of control on Planet Earth. And that species isn't deer or rabbits or turkeys or geese.... Hey, there, fellow humans! How goes the environmental apocalypse...?

mercyanimals
mercyanimals

Doris Lin is absolutely right. The real, virulent pests on this Earth are ruthless people who cannot mind their own business or respect the lives of others.

Ardithgal
Ardithgal

Time to cull Mexicans next?  And other non-whites?  Everything living must die according to the original Time article author, so we can have endless subdivisions of McMansions and cement  and freeways.  Nothing nice must survive.  The original author of the Time article is an eccentric character.

brookedcombs
brookedcombs

It is incredibly obvious that this author is from a densely populated state where agriculture is not a major source of income. The idea that a farmer should put an eight foot tall fence around 2,000 acres of land to keep deer out is beyond absurd. Not to mention if farmers fenced in their land, the wildlife would be forced to live in the ditches along roads. The author's other solution, to choose plants that wildlife will not eat or use repellents is equally naive. What food are you going to farm that deer will not eat but humans will? What repellent are you going to use that will deter deer but won't be poisonous to humans? 


Hunting is a far more humane source of meat than the beef a person might buy at a grocery store. The animals live a much fuller life in the wild than cattle raised domestically. Venison is also much healthier than beef. It seems that this author's heart was in the right spot but she lacks the experience and knowledge to make a valid argument.

SkipCarlsbaugh
SkipCarlsbaugh

The author of this piece is totally clueless.   For example here in Pa hunters harvest around 300k deer annually.   How many crop damage issues car collissions etc. do you think would occur if that were not the case?   Quadruple what we have now???

Its ridiculous to think hunting or anything else will completely ALLEVIATE ALL conflicts, that will exist to some degree as long as the animals and man coexist.    We should strive however to keep the animal populations within reasonable limits based on human conflict but also on the health considerations of the habitat and animals themselves.   That is exactly what hunting does and does well.

To suggest natural predators are the answer is asinine.   Many areas of the country are now far too populated by humans to expect reintroduction of large dangerous predators. 

Jojensen
Jojensen

I found the original article very unbalanced, sensationalized and the author's provence questionable, motive wise. As for anniefw comment below....please allow me to edit/and rephrase what you have posted. Note the additional qualifiers: Gun and compound bow hunters. Otherwise, I don't think your comment is balanced either. This is closer to the truth, IMHO:

 

Gun hunters undoubtedly want large density of deer to make it easier to hunt as do the state's that manage them. It is a revenue source for the latter; recreational imperative for the prior. Many gun hunters also prefer to kill bucks over does. A study by biologist Roger Latham in the 1950s showed that the deer were overgrazing forests even back then, and then starving in the winter. The solution was to bring the population of deer down by killing only females. A recent book called “Deer Wars” by Robert Frye, 2006 discussed the problem of gun hunters interfering with proper deer management, and the adverse effects of too many deer on Pennsylvania forests. Robert Frye had his life threatened for advocating his views at wildlife meetings by gun hunters. The management of deer and other wildlife should be carried out according to solid wildlife science—it does exist and its contrary to many management objectives—not for what gun and compound bow hunters or city dwellers want. Gun and compound bow hunters also do not like competition from predators such as wolf and coyote, which also contributes to an imbalance of predator/prey. I look forward to the day when wildlife agencies consider all populations, not just gun and compound bow hunters. One option would be a small across the board tax. You don't want animals killed? Fine, help pay for management. As it stands, wildlife agencies give priority to hunters because they pay for the permits which fund the agencies. But this is an old system. Wildlife belongs to all of us and should be managed for all of us and for the wildlife's own sake.  


anniefw
anniefw

Thank you Doris Lin for contributing this article. I have been telling people on blogs for years, that deer are overpopulated by design, by wildlife agencies who take their direction from hunters. Hunters want large density of deer to make it easier to hunt. They also want to kill bucks over does.  A study by biologist Roger Latham way back in the 1950s showed that the deer were overgrazing forests and then starving in the winter and the solution was to bring the population of deer down by killing only does. But hunters do not want to do that. A recent book called “Deer Wars” by Robert Frye, 2006 discussed the problem of hunters interfering with proper deer management, and the adverse effects of too many deer on Pennsylvania forests. Robert Frye even had his life threatened for advocating his views at wildlife meetings by hunters. 


The management of deer and other wildlife should be done based on good science, not on what hunters want. Hunters also do not like predators such as wolf and coyote and this also contributes to an imbalance of predator/prey. I look forward to the day when wildlife agencies are run for all people, not just hunters. People could be taxed a small amount. As it stands, wildlife agencies say that hunters pay for the permits which fund the agencies. But this is an old system. Wildlife belongs to all of us and should be managed for all of us and for the wildlife's own sake.

AshaStone
AshaStone

Thank you, Doris, for bringing some rational arguments into this discussion.  It's a shame that your "opinion" piece is so much more factual than the cover article that was instead filled with regurgitated rhetoric and propaganda typical of the pro-killing groups.  America needs a new paradigm in our environmental management programs based on current science, ethics, and compassion.  Nonlethal methods are often proving to be the very best alternatives to archaic and expensive wildlife killing programs, which are largely funded by the general taxpayers for the benefit of only a handful of people.  Nonlethal techniques work with a wide range of species but articles like the one TIME printed as its cover story are based on the failing policies of archaic and irrational management schemes.  TIME needs to apologize to its readers for this terrible cover story and redo the whole thing in a future issue.  They could have done so much better. 

WildlifeBio
WildlifeBio

At the turn of the 19th century, wildlife populations across the nation had been exploited to the point where they had crashed and were in danger of extripation. It was during this period that states formed agencies to manage wildlife populations and to manage wildlife conflict. Their missions was to implement the North American Model of Wildlife Management. In this model, agencies sell hunting permits to the public to generate money. That money is used to enforce wildlife laws, improve habitat, and manage wildlife populations. After states implemented those changes, wildlife populations increased dramatically to what they are today. The North American Model of Wildlife Management is the single biggest financer of wildlife conservation and is the reason many wildlife populations were not wiped out to begin with. Hunting is often the best and least expensive tool to use to address human-wildlife conflicts. Critics of wildlife agencies, such as animal rights groups, and non-consumptive wildlife advocates often do not understand that hunting generates wildlife conservation. Such critics do little to generate funding that goes towards wildlife management or conservation. And most of the time their proposed alternatives to resolve wildlife conflicts either do not work or are too costly to be viable.  

oaktree9560
oaktree9560

The comments from hunters on articles like this are always such a hoot.  At least one always breaks out the socialism card, another sneers that we're all Bambi-loving hypocrites, while yet another says we're divorced from nature, as if butchery displays respect.  These folks know their days of privilege are waning, that the vast majority of Americans who are not hunters are beginning to demand that we control our wildlife, not the small bunch of gun and blood fetishists.  They're scared of change, and try to lie and distract people away from their failed out outdated livestyle.  Too bad guys, your day is almost done.  You might as well expend energy learning new ways of thinking instead of clinging to your past. 

Eliza
Eliza

Maybe this has more to do with gun-obsessed, low-brow decline than interest in wildlife populations.Perhaps we should discuss loss of habitat and human encroachment.  

Defenders
Defenders

It’s ironic that Time published an article (Time to Cull the Herd) advocating for the shooting of recovered wildlife in the same month that our nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act.Yes, many species that were in decline have bounced back thanks to conservation efforts. Yet, at the same time, the human population continues to expand into important wildlife habitat that species need to survive and thrive.There are many things we can do to coexist with wildlife. We help landowners use tools such as electric fencing to keep bears out of chicken coops and apiaries, guard dogs and range riders to keep wolves away from livestock. No matter where you live, you can make sure your trash, food and other attractants are not easily accessible to wildlife and encourage the conservation of enough habitat for wildlife to survive.Restoring the balance of predators and prey would also go a long way to ensure healthy places for people and wildlife.

Jonathan Proctor, Defenders of Wildlife, Denver  www.defenders.org

stats101
stats101

The author cited a study 2011 study published in Public Health Reports, that contradicts what she said earlier in the paragraph about the black-footed tick.  Lin states the the tick "sometimes" feeds on deer, while the study she cited states "more than 95% of adult female ticks feed on white-tailed deer."  The study itself has serious flaws when it comes to the deer hunting population (original treatment area in figure 3 and table 3) that shows an incidence so low that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate statistical significance.  It isn't that unusual for someone to glean what serves their perspective by reading the abstract of a study, but relatively poor form to publish their perspective as fact using a study that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

J.R.Morrissette
J.R.Morrissette

So when did "Time" partner with PETA?  Your item, Ms. Lin starts with two wrong suppositions presented as fact.  I expect that kind of behavior from Fox Views.


But then it was "Time" that got caught with their plagiarism fingers in the ethical cookie jar.  Stock in trade behavior for those at Fox.





suji53
suji53

Shame on David Von Drehle's recent article ,America's Pest Problem.  In fact after reading his article  I was really questioning  whether or not  I ought to subscribe to Time Magazine next year or buy subscriptions to my family for Christmas. Nevertheless, shooting wildlife for the sake of controlling population is not a great  mentality.  And yes, I do know some humans who tell me forest fires, war, and other disasters are good for controlling all kinds of  populations too. When I worked for a wildlife rehab center in Tucson Arizona  we taught people  how to live with wildlife. We do have Javalinas ( looks like a wild pig) walking the city streets of Tucson. And no we don't remove them. If they make havoc in our backyards, we learn to close the gate and cover  trash cans. If you ever observe wildlife, you may notice they have strong  families too. Too bad teen age boys like to take their b-b guns and shoot them to the point of suffering and eventually  rehab. This includes all kinds of wildlife.  

JanetPiszar
JanetPiszar

In order to effectively address deer and wildlife populations issues, you must address the core problem.  For a century, the publicly owned wildlife resource has had trustees that are dominated by  hunters.   Deer and wildlife management has been by hunters for hunters with a goal of high inventory for hunter success and satisfaction.  While environmentalists take aim at deer, they refuse to  incriminate the state agency despite the facts of the inherent conflict.   The Division of Fish and Wildlife must keep the inventory of deer, as big game animals, high in order to sustain annual hunting license sales which also qualifies the state for federal grants via the Wildlife Fund for RESTORATION.


Until the public demands equal control of its ownership of wildlife and game animals, the cycle to perpetuate the culture of recreational hunting will continue........to the detriment of the public.

The basic premise of the Public Trust Doctrine is that the publicly owned wildlife resource be managed for the public benefit.   In the 59% of  Deer Mangement Zones managed for deer increase, Open Public Records responses reveal that there are no studies on vehicle-deer collisions, no studies on forest degeneration, and that farmers cannot control deer damage to crops and must apply for Farmer Depredation Permits ......all negative consequences of the state's management of deer and gam animals for recreational hunting and revenue.

Janet Piszar, Founder

PUBLIC TRUST Wildlife Management

PUBICTRUSTWildlifeManagement@verizon.net

rucrazy
rucrazy

Was "America's Pest Problem" written by the NRA? With all the trigger happy gun nuts around, I worry about  walking out into a barrage of bullets. There are many more effective ways of curbing pest population than a shooting free for all.

PhillyCannabis
PhillyCannabis

I'm also against hunting. I feel it should be banned in all states. Although animals should be controlled for the good the ecosystem and people living in the ecosystem. I am mainly against hunting as a business. Citizens should not have the right to go out and kill animals for any reason accept to protect their own lives. I am also against hunting as a culture. I understand it's how males bond. And the alpha male must prove to the beta males he is the best hunter. Thus ensuring his status among the male hierarchy. Howerver these are mainly social constructs. And these can be dismantled through education and kindness.

nstaley401
nstaley401

Im not sure I understand this article, sure these animal populations could be controlled by means such as fences, or other preventive measures. But it seems safe to assume the states you mention bolster deer hunting because they enjoy it as a sport, and less as a means of control? 

goerizal
goerizal

soon her mission creep will keep pork, turkey, chicken, beef  etc. from the table, then fish , then earthworms - earthworms??? but she will say it is good for our high cholesterol level. you can't keep a good woman down.

smarterthantheauthor
smarterthantheauthor

If the first rule of improv comedy is to always accept the premise as true, that is what I will do...

"Wildlife conflicts are a real problem in some communities, but hunting is not the solution."

Hunting is NOT the solution.  We should have conversations with the wildlife and find out how to solve our problems like adults.  Maybe we could talk to the wildlife's parents to try to resolve this.  Perhaps a wildlife preacher or other religious figure might be able to come in an mediate.  I used to be bullied by wildlife but after getting to know them, I found we have more in common than we originally thought.  We're now besties and are thinking about starting a band.

"The first step is for state wildlife agencies to stop increasing the population of certain species, especially deer."

I know many wildlife agencies that are artificially inseminating wildlife with electric eels and spiders.  They are trying to breed a SuperDeer that will not only cause car accidents but also electrocute the victim while also laying thousands of deer eggs. This is just plain wrong to do.  Anyone want to start a Change.org page with me?

"To take another example, Lyme disease is transmitted by the black-footed tick, which sometimes feed on deer.  Efforts to reduce Lyme disease with deer hunting are ineffective because the ticks feed on a wide variety of host species – mice, squirrels, raccoons, etc."

Since hunting is not the solution, I suggest carpet bombing these troubled communities with DDT and gaseous cyanide.  We could easily kills all of the deer, mice, raccoons, and the most terrifying host of all - the etc's.


The author of this post is the Supreme God of Legal Affairs for the Common Sense Justice League of Glass Houses.

Dude_who_cares
Dude_who_cares

"Hunting is a failed experiment" Really I didn't know it was an experiment, and I'm pretty sure it plays a big role in yours and my existence. Why would hunting stop DVC's? The objective as a hunter is not to kill everything you see in the woods, therefore there will always be deer around and with all the miles of roads we have some will no doubt be struck by vehicles. Either A you can stop driving your car, or B live with it.

By the way this article reads I'm going to assume you've never hunted anything in your life, I would recommend going with someone who's an experienced hunter. There are many life lessons to be learned from the experiences one can have while hunting. 

Here's a story of an experiment that worked. There's a big park within the city limits that is completely surrounded by homes on all sides. Deer in this park thrived, as no one was able to hunt them to "control" the population. There were hundreds of deer in this city park that eventually led to car accidents. There are no fences around the park to keep them in, and eventually the deer look for food outside their usual boundaries. Guess what happens next, they send in the hunters with bow and arrows (this was wise) to knock down the population. Problem solved.

So what is your "non-lethal" way to handle this situation since there is "always" one. Let me remind you, tax payers are not wanting to spend money on deer where I live, so be creative!

RichardAB
RichardAB

@SkipCarlsbaugh

Then maybe the solution is to be more responsible, responsible, and educated, and not disrupt more and more the ecosystem, only to complain that there is a conflict. We humans create the conflict.

JuanDelgado
JuanDelgado

well said. Also the PR act. Which generates more revenue in taxes from hunting gear and equipment. Other methods of controlling populations are costly and time consuming such as contraceptives for deer. Implementing management techniques also considered public desires and needs, most of whom voice there concerns are hunters or those losing money in damages (crops, vehicles, insurance companies), or just any one cares about the issue. Man, managing wildlife just isn't easy. 

Helanto
Helanto

@rucrazy As far as the intelligence and reality level of this rant of yours is concerned, it might be time for you to start questioning extreme left-wing propaganda. Attempts at labeling large groups of law-abiding citizens can be an effective tool, as another branch of socialists proved in central Europe some eighty years ago, but these days people in general are far more educated than they were back then and the "eco" or "green" socialism mainly appeals to antisocial individuals who lack the ability to make themselves productive members of society.

As the former vice president of NRA Finland and currently a certified mental health professional, I'm quite worried about the personal implications of rants like what you just wrote. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, like liberty and responsibility in general, but the amount of what clinical psychology calls projection identification in your text is highly alarming. Have you consulted a mental health professional about your imaginary phobia issues lately?

Helanto
Helanto

@PhillyCannabis As strong as your "opinions" (and I use this term in a very loose sense of the word) are, it all boils down to certain ideological groups' total alienation from nature, imagining that some "cute" species are capable of metacognitive thinking and last but not least, purposefully disregarding the fact that all life on this planet is based on food chain.

The utter form of hypocrisy is accepting that someone else kills your food for you - be it plant or animal based - and spewing idiotic "opinions" about what "should be" banned when those still in touch with the nature as it truly is are NOT outsourcing their "killing". Or killing, without quotation marks, because the only organisms that can live on this planet without KILLING something for their nutrition are plants.

Seeing convoys of trucks transporting soy beans and kik-peas, thousands of miles from south America to feed "aware" vegans makes me sick, but that's THEIR choice, which I respect. I'd expect them return the favor by not screaming at the top of their lungs when I choose to cook venison I shot a walking distance from my home, especially because that's as local as food gets and herbivores, by definition, are by far the most efficient way to transform inedible biomass to extremely nutritional food That's the definition of food chain. Enjoy your imported salad while you think about it.

(Not to mention putting the perceived, distorted animal rights - as defined by self-righteous "environmentalists" -  above HUMAN needs... but that's a much longer story so try to learn cold hard facts, one at a time, please.)

TerryHarrison
TerryHarrison

@PhillyCannabis Hey drug boy, do you eat any meat? If so, you are killing animals every day. If not, how about those clothes your wearing? Leather belt? Dead cow. Certian food flavorings contain beaver castor. Your hands are just as bloody as a hunters, you just like to think they're not since you pick up that meat neatly wrapped in cellophane at the store.

Hunters on the other hand know what they are harvesting and are not hypocrites becasue they know exactly where thier food comes from.

suji53
suji53

I wonder if shooting them with bows and arrows was the first idea that came into  to mind . Or did they seek out any other options?   I have have stunned animals with a blow dart/drugs  to relocate  wildlife . Volunteer style. All free. That worked too.

TerryHarrison
TerryHarrison

@Dude_who_cares I'm betting that the author's idea includes giving the deer annual birth control shots (at taxpayers cost) administered by PETA (or other animal friendly org, at taxpayers cost). Where as now, sportsmen PAY the goverment for the right to harvest the animals.

As to her comment "Hunting is a failed experiment, and it’s time to employ effective, nonlethal methods. The obvious place to start: stop increasing the population of deer for no reason other than to kill them".

I have yet to see any agency increasing the population except by limiting hunters bag limits. Unless she's FOR increasing hunters bag limits this comment doesn't make any sense.

CharlesW
CharlesW

Really?Were we planted here by aliens? Feel free to live by your words and surrender whatever land you own now.  I thought evolution was settled science? I do not care if you are a Peta activist, a creationist, or secular humanist, etc, etc.Either you believe in evolution 100%, or you do not.If we had not developed and evolved into the apex predators that we are, some other species would have and replaced our position in the food chain, or may still in some future age.Nature is cruel and survives regardless. Contemplate that as you wolf down your next cheeseburger.If you are vegan, thank you for at least being consistent.

John'Genryu'
John'Genryu'

@Helanto 


You don't even know what socialism is. Your post was an embarrassment to read. Please get an education.



suji53
suji53

@Helanto--All due respect but remind me to  go to someone else  if I ever need counseling. Humans can either read @rucrazy  post in the best possible interpretation or they  can slam  him with  Freud's psycho babble. Maybe we need to   study the Natural Science of Behavior  and operant conditioning instead. I know I 'see' (   'imagine or visualize' ')  future problems  and that is because humans  are pretty smart  at survival skills.  . Yes,  I can  think about  kids playing in an  empty area    when  hunting is allowed in city limits.  Like I said before... I hope we have much stricter laws with intoxication and hunting. I worked in trauma and have seen too many disasters  and too much suffering that could have been prevented.

suji53
suji53

At least I know that our  industry who slaughters food for us does it in the most  humane way.  I have rehabbed too many animals who have suffered r/t to a sport and fun. I just hope there are stricter laws with drinking alcohol and hunting within the  city limits. Slight misses can lead to suffering. Death should come quick and easy.

jjobie1969
jjobie1969

@suji53 I love hearing people deride things like clinical psychology as 'psychobabble' when they A) don't understand it B) are scared of it C) don't believe in it [for reasons A or B above) or D) simply don't care what it says about people and their motivations - which speaks volumes about the person terming it "psychobabble."

Alamar
Alamar

@oaktree9560 Agree!  The best decision that I've personally made is to become a vegan.  I really don't know much about the original author who wrote the article, but the fact that it was on the cover of Time magazine speaks loudly to me that there are hidden messages behind it.  Only thing I know and I will stick to my principles, no matter whatever people are saying, is that I will not kill any animal, for foods, for clothing, for medicinal, or for any purpose.  I am not an animal activist in any way, but reading and seeing animals get hurt in ways that we contribute isn't something I feel good about.

oaktree9560
oaktree9560

@suji53 While I agree with you on hunting, you are 100% wrong about humane slaughter.  Seeing the truth of big ag will turn you into a vegetarian, just as it did me 30 years ago.  You owe it to yourself to learn where your food comes from.  If you can't look at the truth, you know you've lost the moral high ground.  The best thing you can do for animals and the environment, by far, is to stop eating meat.