General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why is Hunting Part of Republican Culture? [View all]Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Every demographic that hunts probably has their own reasons.
Personally I only hunt once a year with a group of friends to fill my freezer. After travel, lodging, guide and processing it costs each of us less than $2.50 a pound for all-natural organic meat. That price is hard to beat, plus we get a cheap vacation in one of the most beautiful places in the US.
Over population is just as harmful as under population. Here on the east coast where I live, white-tail deer populations before European settlement were at about 20 per square mile. In the early history of settlement the deer's natural predators (wolves, mountain lions, bobcats and bears) were either killed or displaced due to settlements in the area. On top of that, the deforestation/cultivation of the area actually gave the deer and easier life by providing them with a much broader and steady diet. By the end of the 1860's the deer population had increased to about 25 to 35 per square mile.
Fast forward to the turn of the century deer populations were hunted to near extinction. However through conservation efforts by the late '30s the deer population had swelled to over 40 per square mile. This however caused other issues with damage to crops and hemlock. The latter being consumed at a pace faster than it could grow.
Today the PA game commission has a target goal of 20 per square mile, with actual populations being around 30. Sure, we could all stop hunting, but that would have devastating consequences to the vegetation in our area.
Life, all life is a delicate balance. We should all work to protect the entire environment, not just particular species. Sometimes to maintain a healthy environment, hunting can benefit the conservation of that same species.