# Ethics



## [bt] (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm sure this has been broached here before, but I am very interested in the ethics of fish-keeping. "But it's the same as having any other pet", I hear you say. Well, no.

Par example;
Today I've been searching for information about Dwarf Frogs, Harlequin Rasbora and Neon Tetra. I've come across all manner of amateur and professional sites and forums and have read a lot of postings.
Within several discussions on frogs, I came across numerous posts where the owner of the frog had written things like, "It's grown too big. I don't want it any more. Will the shop take it back?" and "It's eating my fish - can I release it in my garden?".

Similarly, I have noticed several occasions on this forum ("bored with my fish" etc).

Basically, there's a air of disregard for fish. When it becomes difficult or starts acting in a way that it would in its natural environment, we have no time for it.

I have always had a tough time ethically when it comes to fish, perhaps more with the act of fishing (bit of a shame seeing as I live in a huge sea fishing community!). I have opinions on how fish can be caught for sport and then merely released after all that stress on the fish. One would not catch a deer or bird, parade it around for photo's and then release it, would we?

I think it boils down to the fact that fish seem to be treated more as 'objects' and play-things than other animals. I don't know whether this has anything to do with them being small (as hamsters, mice, insects also seem to get this treatment also) or whether it's because there's just so many of them (although rapidly dwindling in the wild due to over-fishing).

If you'd like to offer your thoughts on this, please do. I would be very interested to hear them.
Here are some quotes I found very interesting:
"Its seems to me that attitudes to animals in the west are majorly shaped by the idea that God gave us animals to do with as we want. "
"I have never heard a persuasive argument in favour of animal rights. But denying the case for rights is not the same thing as supporting cruelty."
Taken from this BBC forum.


----------



## chrisinha (Jan 24, 2005)

To me fish are pets just like any other animal and they are treated the same way I treat my dogs, my cat and my turtle. My b/f always says that I treat my pets better than myself. For instance, I dont cook for myself or for anybody else, but I do cook for my pets.

Anyways, I dont agree with the "i want to get rid of" statement. I dont return my fish no matter what. Instead, first, I try to solve the problem in a different way. That's why i started with one 10 g tank and now I have 5 different sized tanks. I might give them away to someone I trust if I run out of options, but I dont return them to LFS


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

I would say that if you plan on keeping them as pets it is your responsibility to study before you buy and be ready to keep them for their full life. Just as any other pet. Many people that buy parrots dont realize how long they live and get rid of them early. 

Never release into the wild. although many do this with dogs, cats, birds, and fish it is only letting them go to their death or in the case with fish you could be ruining a entire ecosystem in some ponds. 

With eating fish - Well some people keep pigs as pets. Im sure they have eaten bacon or ham. And that is the more interactive type of pet. You pet it train it and can snuggle with it. So eating fish is not a issue. Fish eat fish for survival so why is it wrong if we do it? 

I would avoid eating fish kept as pets though it may cause many emotional problems and if they have been medicated while in the tanks there are hazzards to humans with those medications.


----------



## [bt] (Mar 3, 2005)

fish_doc @ Sun Mar 27 said:


> I would say that if you plan on keeping them as pets it is your responsibility to study before you buy and be ready to keep them for their full life. Just as any other pet. Many people that buy parrots dont realize how long they live and get rid of them early.


I quite agree. If you buy just one fish, say an ordinary goldfish, you have effectively decided to look after that fish, no matter what. Therefore you should have done your research and should be willing to do what it takes to care for it.

I find it strange that people can quote that they like to keep their tanks clean and the water healthy as it's only fair on the fish, then say they're bored of them and want to get rid of them.


----------



## Ron the handyman (Jan 18, 2005)

I agree also before I got my first tank I did my home work and I did a fishless cycle, I have a friend that is a chemist and he got me 39 % ammonia for it. cycling went fast R.


----------



## fishfreaks (Jan 19, 2005)

i agree, fish are just like any other pet. They all need pretty much the same amount of care, just in a different way.


----------



## UgLy_eLf (Feb 26, 2005)

I think that MOST people dont think of fish as pets because the first thing I usually hear when someone wants to set up a tank is "I need a center piece for the room" "They're so pretty" Those people dont CARE about the FISH they want something asthetically pleasing to the eye in their house.

I like how you used Game fishing as an example, no one trots around a deer, they kill it instead in stick it on a wall, yeah real men use guns to hunt :roll: eh they even to the same to fish...


----------



## [bt] (Mar 3, 2005)

UgLy_eLf @ Mon Mar 28 said:


> they want something asthetically pleasing to the eye in their house..


Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at. 
I know most people here purposefully set out to care for their fish, but it's a common occurance to see posts like "we bought a tank for my son and now his fish are dead. I need to get him some more, but ones that last longer".

There's a line that we've drawn somewhere that defines how much of a priority we give to certain animal life.
Look at this way - you see a chimp rescue program or advert on the tv and more often than not you feel sympathy and want to give money. It's the same with most large mammals, especially ones that "look cute" or have some form of "intelligence" (whatever that is).
But no-one bats an eyelid when they see film of trawlers hauling in thousands of cod. Imagine seeing film of a large bulldozer and dumper, scooping up chimps hundreds at a time......

I'm interested in the line that's been drawn, when it happened and why. Do you think we've always seen fish as aesthetic food? Right back to say our own Paleolithic period?


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

I know that I eat beef but I had problems when I saw video of thousands of cows being buldozed into pits during the mad cow outbreak a few years back. I guess survival killings vs needless killings are the difference for me. Killing for food is fine but needless death is hard for me to take. I do agree that the mad cow slaugher was needed but It was still hard to take because the meat was not useful so it felt like needless murder.


----------



## TylerFlom89 (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm a avid fisherman, I'm also probably about to make a ass of myself :wink: 

First off, I would actually rather tranq. a deer and take some pics, then let it re-awake and leave if i could. Second off, fishing is shown to be the oldest thing done for fun. also, it's a lot more challenging then almost any other sport. Studies show that fish don't feel pain, and it has been proven that they don't have the part of the brain that inables them to feel pain, if they did, why do they always fight it? You could easily say that keeping fish in 4x2 foot tubs of glass is inhumane. I'll think of more later, and I'm sure this subject will be around for awhile. Finally, I am an avid fisherman, and also an aspiring fish___ (not sure what a person into the aquarium hobby is called hehe). I mean no offense, and I am just arguing for the sake of arguing, and since I'm a teen, it's the law I must oppose all adult thoughts :wink: !!!


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Unfortunately "tranqing" a deer is not black and white to shooting one. When you tranq, you have a lot of factors that could go wrong... wildlife managers are required to have a vet on call to tranq a wild animal. They can go into shock if you dose it too much, hurt itself if you dose it too little. Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd.  lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side. Also yeah fish don't feel pain in the maxillary area... but I think they feel pain in the body region. Also I believe that you can submit to a fishes needs in a 4X2 foot tub of water. They get food, water, and shelter... much easier than in the wild... but its up to us to keep the water quality up/stocking it correctly.


----------



## UgLy_eLf (Feb 26, 2005)

Im growing weary of the "its just as inhumane to keep animals caged up" argument. Most of these animals are bred in tanks correct, now let's think about it this way.

You grow up in a nice home, you've got money, food, you're comfortable ahh its nice to have a heater in the winter time, and one day, PETA wants to free you!

They strip ya butt naked and toss you out into the woods, have fun fending for yourself.

I'd rather be in my room eating cookies.


----------



## TylerFlom89 (Mar 28, 2005)

Fishfirst @ Mon Mar 28 said:


> Unfortunately "tranqing" a deer is not black and white to shooting one.  When you tranq, you have a lot of factors that could go wrong... wildlife managers are required to have a vet on call to tranq a wild animal.  They can go into shock if you dose it too much, hurt itself if you dose it too little.  Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd.  lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side.  Also yeah fish don't feel pain in the maxillary area... but I think they feel pain in the body region.  Also I believe that you can submit to a fishes needs in a 4X2 foot tub of water.  They get food, water, and shelter... much easier than in the wild... but its up to us to keep the water quality up/stocking it correctly.



Sorry, should of made it clearer. I know it's not practical, I meant if it was, It would be nice.


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

just a few things:


> Studies show that fish don't feel pain, and it has been proven that they don't have the part of the brain that inables them to feel pain, if they did, why do they always fight it?


fish can feel pain. there have alos been many studies showing they can. but, they may not feel the pain of a hook in their cheek, since usually where the hook breaks through the skin there isnt much actual tissue. its instinct to get away when in danger, even if there is pain, many animals do so, even ones that we know can feel pain. like deer, I've seen them tangled up in a mess of barbed wire, and when someone approached they would rip and tear themselves out. if the fish felt it was in grave danger, it wouldnt simply give up at the first sign of pain.

but I also fish. but catch and release.



> Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd. Smile lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side


nature has its own system of keeping populations under control, the 'ol predator prey relationship. as the prey population increases, so does the predators, as the predators increases the preys decreases. in areas where natural predators have been completely eradicated fromt hey should be reintroduced.

but thats all I'm gonna say about that.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

we have eradicated many preditors in this country. That is why many populations of deer are out of control. Which is why we hunt here in wisconsin. In many areas of the state it is not possible to reintroduce Wolves, and Cougar... its just not enough wilderness and the deer have become quite accustomed to urban sprawl.


----------



## [bt] (Mar 3, 2005)

Think we've gone a little astray from the debate I originally proposed.

However, I would like to put across my own views on some of the comments made recently.

"we have eradicated many preditors in this country. That is why many populations of deer are out of control. Which is why we hunt here in wisconsin"

1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves. 
Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.

2. Why on earth would you want to knock out a deer just so you could take a few pictures of yourself with a sleeping deer?!!! 
If things don't occur naturally in the wild (like a deer stopping to pose for a photo with you), then what right have we to force it? Especially when it involves some amount of suffering on behalf on the animal.

Which brings me back to keeping fish.
Why get rid of an animal you decided to raise and care for, just because you don't like it any more?

But now I think perhaps this debate should be moved to the chit-chat forum.


----------



## osteoporoosi (Jan 27, 2005)

> Why get rid of an animal you decided to raise and care for, just because you don't like it any more?


 If a person who considers pets as toys, etc, it is often better to give it to someone who really cares about it.
In my opinion parents should teach their kids to handle their pets(or not to get any). Some people really seem to have lost their touch with nature.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

I agree... we don't own this planet and we are definately over populating it. But I rather shoot a deer to keep their population from exploding to the point where a good percentage of them would die from starvation. Starvation is a much worse fate than a gun shot IMO.


----------



## cjdirri (Feb 21, 2005)

> 1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves.
> Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
> If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.


Yes Deer populations can get out of control and have been even before we humans came along. Deers breed like rabbits and have the great skill of being able to live in just about any kind of area. There numbers can get high very quick but nature takes care of this by killing them off with not having enough food and such things. All hunting does is get the numbers down, you have never spent much time the woods of north america if you try to tell me there are not to many deer.

Let me put another way using rabbits and foxes. The number of rabbits in one area is huge, foxes being the main hunters of rabbits are enjoying one of the best years of rabbit kills ever, due to their good health they are breeding and living longer then they did in the years before. This means the number of foxes growing well the number of rabbits is getting smaller. Soon the foxs will be running out of rabbits and the weak and old ones will be begain to starve to death due to the lack of food. Soon the number of foxs in the area will go way down allowing the rabbits to once again making more babies and taking their numbers higher.

Good hunting just helps keep this cycle from getting to bad, most deer have no predators besides humans. Wolfs have been brought back to many areas but unless you kill every human right now they would never be enough to keep the deer levels in check.

Plus hate to sound like a asshole but I get to be the top of the food chain, I try to protect animals as much as I can but sometimes due to life reasons that little goldfish is going to be taking a swim down the crapper and due to the fact there is 10,000 more of him down the street I don't feel bad.


----------



## chrisinha (Jan 24, 2005)

[bt said:


> @ Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:44 am]Think we've gone a little astray from the debate I originally proposed.
> 
> However, I would like to put across my own views on some of the comments made recently.
> 
> ...


i like you


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

> its just not enough wilderness and the deer have become quite accustomed to urban sprawl.


that is because we are pushing into more and more wilderness.



> Let me put another way using rabbits and foxes. The number of rabbits in one area is huge, foxes being the main hunters of rabbits are enjoying one of the best years of rabbit kills ever, due to their good health they are breeding and living longer then they did in the years before. This means the number of foxes growing well the number of rabbits is getting smaller. Soon the foxs will be running out of rabbits and the weak and old ones will be begain to starve to death due to the lack of food. Soon the number of foxs in the area will go way down allowing the rabbits to once again making more babies and taking their numbers higher.
> 
> Good hunting just helps keep this cycle from getting to bad, most deer have no predators besides humans. Wolfs have been brought back to many areas but unless you kill every human right now they would never be enough to keep the deer levels in check.


foxes have ways of controlling their population, like territory, and at the first sign of a dwindling food source the female sex organs shut down. it keeps them more balanced, without sudden crashes of populations. but yeah, thats the predator prey relationship. which humans don't abide by, even if there isnt food to supply the ever growing populations of humans, we still reproduce like mad. and now we have also overcome many other density dependednt factors, like disease, and space.

hunting may keep the population down, but so do predators, and when you kill a deer, its one less deer for a natural predator. there may not be predators that can take a full grown deer down, but they can still effectivley control the population by eating the fawns. Deer will leave their fawn to divert predators, so the parent deer isnt there to protect their young, allowing even small predaors eat them. predaors alos go for the weakest, sickest, oldest, smallest anyway.

you dont _need _to hunt for food nowadays, natural predators do.

and then theres trophy hunting. people go out and try to find the biggest best deer they can. this disturbs the whole "survival of the fittest". when predators take down deer they look for the oldest, weakest, sickest, smallest of the bunch, eliminating those inferior traits. but when a hunter eliminates the best traits, it leaves the sick and such to reproduce passing on the inferior ones, de-evolving the population.


----------



## fish_doc (Jan 31, 2005)

> Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans


They can get out of control. When this happens they get a sick with somthing called Chronic Wastings Disease. WHich is similar to mad cow but in deer.


----------



## [bt] (Mar 3, 2005)

cjdirri, I agree and yet disagree.



cjdirri @ Tue Mar 29 said:


> All hunting does is get the numbers down, you have never spent much time the woods of north america if you try to tell me there are not to many deer.


Obviously not. I live on the south coast of England. Also I don't remember trying to tell anyone there weren't too many deer.

I think the point I was trying make about the deer population is that we have no right to try and 'control numbers for their own sake'. Keeping numbers down because we don't want to see them suffering is practically farming. It's us humans controlling the environment to keep it how we like it. 
Life ebbs and flows. Sometimes there is too much, sometimes not enough. Animal populations follow the same course. Keeping numbers eradicated for 'welfare' sake is ridiculous.
Now, if you were to say they were being culled because they were eating precious crops, then I'd wholey welcome a different debating standpoint.



> Plus hate to sound like a asshole but I get to be the top of the food chain, I try to protect animals as much as I can but sometimes due to life reasons that little goldfish is going to be taking a swim down the crapper and due to the fact there is 10,000 more of him down the street I don't feel bad.


Agree with your reasoning, possibly not with the superiority complex.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

I wish you could see the deer by schmeekley reserve Shev. You'd understand what I'm talking about. They reproduce and reproduce... and yet the schmeekley reserve is home to lots of "small preditors" such as fox, racoon, coyote, and oppossums. To an extent, an over-abundance of these small preditors. Deer populations are still out of control here because there isn't any hunting going on. 
Hunting has changed since the 1900's. We now take a lot more does, which relieves pressure on the mature bucks around here. And you wonder why many people don't kill mature bucks? Why a 10 point deer is considered a trophy? Because most of those mature bucks are smarter than the average deer hunter. (Not that hunters are dumb) I shine for deer on our land every year. And I see lots of 10 pointers, 12 pointers, and up, but come hunting season, we manage to bag only two or three of these bucks a year. Its not survival of the fittest, its survival of the smartest. 
The truth is are few "natural preditors" out there anymore. Wolves were erradicated from the state, but now are thriving in some parts of the state because we STILL have a deer problem. There are over 500 wolves here in wisconsin, and their population is just starting... but if you knew anything about wolf biology, they rather stay away from urban areas, which leaves out a good percentage of the state. Hunting culls the deer herd in these parts of the state, as well as where wolves are present... yet wolves are still increasing in number, even with the low amount of land there is for them to live on because we have the most deer ever in the history of the state, right now.


----------



## TylerFlom89 (Mar 28, 2005)

I'm going to rant, but I'm not sure at who hehe. Who (if any) is against hunting or fishing?


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Definately not I


----------



## Thunderkiss (Mar 19, 2005)

> Im growing weary of the "its just as inhumane to keep animals caged up" argument. Most of these animals are bred in tanks correct, now let's think about it this way.
> 
> You grow up in a nice home, you've got money, food, you're comfortable ahh its nice to have a heater in the winter time, and one day, PETA wants to free you!
> 
> ...


That isn't the same thing as saying it's right.

People would cage rainbows if they could figure out how.

I don't hunt or fish, and have nothing against either, as long as it is done responsibly. And as far as i'm concerned, fish stores are equallt to blame for the forgotten fish syndrome because they often fail to educate the customer about the specifics of the fish (or any other animal for that matter).


----------



## Thunderkiss (Mar 19, 2005)

> Im growing weary of the "its just as inhumane to keep animals caged up" argument. Most of these animals are bred in tanks correct, now let's think about it this way.
> 
> You grow up in a nice home, you've got money, food, you're comfortable ahh its nice to have a heater in the winter time, and one day, PETA wants to free you!
> 
> ...


That isn't the same thing as saying it's right.

People would cage rainbows if they could figure out how.

I don't hunt or fish, and have nothing against either, as long as it is done responsibly. And as far as i'm concerned, fish stores are equallt to blame for the forgotten fish syndrome because they often fail to educate the customer about the specifics of the fish (or any other animal for that matter).


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

> 1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves.
> Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
> If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.


they can get out of hand. overgrazing is one of the leading causes of desertification, they run out of food and starve, and disease spreads. their population should be maintained, but I think their natural predatiors have worked even before us.

Mountain lions, grizzly bears, and wolves are the most effective natural predators for controlling the deer population. Mt lions used to roam wisconsin until about a hundred years ago. wolves are there, and bears once were I think, maybe they still are. cougars should be reintroduced, even at the cost of a few hikers and small children. just kidding, ever single one I've encountered are quite timid, and I dont think there has ever been a single documented attack of a wolf. and as for urban sprawl, they wouldnt be there if it wasnt for people expanding into their areas, and they have been pushed there by expanding populations, wolves would slim the population out in the wilderness, allowing the deers territory to contract.




> And you wonder why many people don't kill mature bucks? Why a 10 point deer is considered a trophy? Because most of those mature bucks are smarter than the average deer hunter. (Not that hunters are dumb) I shine for deer on our land every year. And I see lots of 10 pointers, 12 pointers, and up, but come hunting season, we manage to bag only two or three of these bucks a year. Its not survival of the fittest, its survival of the smartest.


natural pressures from the land are what pushs evolution forward, and not in every direction. mutations are completely random, but natural pressures such as competition, predation, and disease, cut out the weaker, and leave the stronger traits. the deer population should not have to adapt to resisting hunters, its unnatural. evolution take lots and lots of time naturally, but when done artificially it can speed up and deteriorate the species.

no offense hunters, but if it wasnt for laws, they would still hunt irresponsibly. you can educate hunters all you want, but its the laws and restrictions that affect them most. lets take connecticut for example. from about the beginning of the 1700's all the way to the 1900's deer were very uncommon due ot over-harvesting for venison and for furs, hankfully laws were enacted to protect the deer, which allowed their population to rebound.

people are still against the reintroduction of natural predators, education can only do so much, laws should also be enacted protecting the predators.

but here in montana there is no reason for hunting in many areas, like where I live, there are plenty of natural predators, bears, pumas, wolves, of which i have not been attacked by any.t eh deer population is not out of control here. depending on the area.

grizzly bears are now included on the endangered species list, but their food source is still hunted. which is why cannibalism is a major cause of death of grizzly bears here. even though there is a lot of grizzly bear habitat, deer roam off and on. vegetation make sup most of a bears overall diet, but there are seasons that bears eat mostly vegetation, like when they stop hibernating in the spring, then grass becomes harder to digest and they eat more meat.




> I think the point I was trying make about the deer population is that we have no right to try and 'control numbers for their own sake'. Keeping numbers down because we don't want to see them suffering is practically farming. It's us humans controlling the environment to keep it how we like it.
> Life ebbs and flows. Sometimes there is too much, sometimes not enough. Animal populations follow the same course. Keeping numbers eradicated for 'welfare' sake is ridiculous.
> Now, if you were to say they were being culled because they were eating precious crops, then I'd wholey welcome a different debating standpoint.


you have it backwards  . precious crops can be protected.


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

double post, sorry


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

> Mountain lions, grizzly bears, and wolves are the most effective natural predators for controlling the deer population. Mt lions used to roam wisconsin until about a hundred years ago. wolves are there, and bears once were I think, maybe they still are.


That would be true, except for black bears, not grizzlys.  But the fact remains that there isn't a great number of these preditors.  Hunting is needed to control deer populations as well as many other populations of animals (take waterfowl for example).  Over population has occured not because the preditors aren't there, but more of a habitat change for deer.  Wisconsin was mostly forested until the 1800s where now its open and edge habitat, making it more suitable for whitetailed deer.  Unfortunately wolves cougar and bear are not able to control this population because of this. (I just had a lecture in my graduate class on this)



> natural pressures from the land are what pushs evolution forward, and not in every direction. mutations are completely random, but natural pressures such as competition, predation, and disease, cut out the weaker, and leave the stronger traits. the deer population should not have to adapt to resisting hunters, its unnatural. evolution take lots and lots of time naturally, but when done artificially it can speed up and deteriorate the species.


Are we not a preditor?  Are we not Intra specific competition? I think we are apart of this earth, it is natural for us to hunt... we cut the ones who aren't smart enough, aren't fast enough, aren't skilled enough.  Evolution cannot be done artifically unless its in a lab... the world is not a lab.



> no offense hunters, but if it wasnt for laws, they would still hunt irresponsibly. you can educate hunters  all you want, but its the laws and restrictions that affect them most. lets take connecticut for example. from about the beginning of the 1700's all the way to the 1900's deer were very uncommon due ot over-harvesting for venison and for furs, hankfully laws were enacted to protect the deer, which allowed their population to rebound.


I do take offense to this statement.  I think a lot has changed in the mind set of hunters since the 1700's.   I'd like to think more and more people are creating better habitat, respecting the land plants and animals a lot more, and now since we do not need to rely souly on deer and other wild animals for food, we can hunt with modesty.  Moderation is good with populations that don't rebound quickly such as Moose, Bear, and Cougar, but not for white tails in wisconsin.

*** Edit: Interspecific Competition (Between species), not Intraspecific (among species).


----------



## TylerFlom89 (Mar 28, 2005)

dude you have no idea what your talking about, deer were way more present back then, and it is becuaase of education, that we don't hunt as much, you think back then they were thinking at all about conservation? They thought there would never be a shortage of game. You have it backwards.


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

> But the fact remains that there isn't a great number of these preditors. Hunting is needed to control deer populations as well as many other populations of animals (take waterfowl for example). Over population has occured not because the preditors aren't there, but more of a habitat change for deer. Wisconsin was mostly forested until the 1800s where now its open and edge habitat, making it more suitable for whitetailed deer. Unfortunately wolves cougar and bear are not able to control this population because of this. (I just had a lecture in my graduate class on this)


wolves have adapted to a number of habitats that vary a lot, from deserts and tundras to forests and grasslands.they dont mind edge habitats, but habitat fragmentation will disrupt their populations, but habitat fragmentation is probably caused by new roads didviding it up. with mt lions and bears, they use territories to control populations, but wolves use packs. a pack of wolves can have from 5-20 members, depending on the abundance of food. their territory can encompass 1000 square miles, also depending on how much food is available, and other packs territories. individually wolves can take down small prey, but in large groups they can take down elk, deer, and even moose. wolves will kill and leave animals behind, not completely eating them, leaving scavengers like foxes, wolverines, vultures, and even bears to pick up the scraps.

since we've gotten here (europeans, not native americans) we've tried to eliminate predators that me competed with for food. at about the 20th century wolves were almost extinct. I think it was roosevelt that ordered thousands of natural predators of deer killed, the population exploded, destroyed the land, they were starving, and then he had to have thousands and thousands ran off a cliff.



> Are we not a preditor? Are we not Intra specific competition? I think we are apart of this earth, it is natural for us to hunt... we cut the ones who aren't smart enough, aren't fast enough, aren't skilled enough. Evolution cannot be done artifically unless its in a lab... the world is not a lab.


_intraspecific_ competition is between the same species, you must have meant _interspecific_ competition, which is between 2 organsims of different species. maybe you did mean intraspecific, but were not really. we dont cut out the dumb, slow and unskilled, they still reproduce and pass on those traits. the smart fast and skilled arent the only ones reproducing. people with certain defects are set aside to die, although thats what hitler wanted to. dwarfism is a recessive trait, both parents need the trait for it to be shown in their siblings, but dwarves typically have kids with other dwarves. we never originated here, people from asia came across the bering straight long ago, but that would mean we're only natural predators to africa and areas around it. evolution is the change of a species over time. natural selection is where the best are selected to pass on those traits. artificial selection is where we choose traits that we want to be passed on. not only in labs is this done. take bettas, dogs, and most domesticated animals for example.



> I do take offense to this statement. I think a lot has changed in the mind set of hunters since the 1700's. I'd like to think more and more people are creating better habitat, respecting the land plants and animals a lot more, and now since we do not need to rely souly on deer and other wild animals for food, we can hunt with modesty. Moderation is good with populations that don't rebound quickly such as Moose, Bear, and Cougar, but not for white tails in wisconsin.


if only. even if some are trying to create a better habitiat for them, it fails to compare to what is happening to theirs.


----------



## shev (Jan 18, 2005)

> dude you have no idea what your talking about, deer were way more present back then, and it is becuaase of education, that we don't hunt as much, you think back then they were thinking at all about conservation? They thought there would never be a shortage of game. You have it backwards.


I was only talking about CT, but it was much more widespread than that.


> History in Connecticut: Due to over-harvesting for venison and deerskins, market hunting, and a general loss of deer habitat caused by extensive clearing of the land for farming, white-tailed deer were uncommon in Connecticut from 1700 to approximately 1900. The numerous laws enacted during this period to protect the dwindling deer resource, plus the improvement in deer habitat as farms were abandoned, contributed to a slow but steady rebound in deer numbers. In 1907, legislation was passed allowing landowners to shoot deer causing crop damage on their land. Since then, harvest regulations have been gradually liberalized to deal with the growing herd and increasing deer damage problems.





> In the early 1900's there were an estimated 500,000 white-tailed deer in the United States. Unregulated commercial hunting and subsistence hunting threatened to eliminate the white-tailed deer from much of its range. At that time, many state wildlife agencies were formed with the goal of conserving the nation's depleted wildlife resources. Hunting regulations were put into place, and the harvest of antlerless (female) deer was prohibited. The rebound of white-tailed deer populations that followed is considered a wildlife management success story. Today there are over 20 million deer in the United States and numbers are rising.


by the 1900s deer were extirpated from many states, including ohio and ct.


> As the colony prospered and human populations multiplied, unregulated market hunting and the destruction of habitat (deforestation) caused deer populations to decline drastically throughout the 1700s. Market hunters sold deer meat to colonists and shipped deer hides to England's large leather industry. With settlements expanding across the state during the 1800s, deer populations continued to drop, and mountain lions and wolves were exterminated. By 1900, white-tailed deer only inhabited limited sections of far Western Maryland.





> you think back then they were thinking at all about conservation?


nope, are they now? the majority of hunters arent. if you havent found a deer, because its an off year for them, maybe there was a harsh winter, are you going to not shoot one if you come by it?

...


----------



## Jobrien323 (Jan 19, 2005)

\


> nope, are they now? the majority of hunters arent. if you havent found a deer, because its an off year for them, maybe there was a harsh winter, are you going to not shoot one if you come by it? \
> 
> 
> > That's why there are quotas. I will admit there are 'irresponsible' people out there that do not abide by laws, but this holds true for all areas of society, not just hunting.
> ...


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Deer love habitat fragmentation (edge is created this way). Wolves do not. I'm not arguing about the adaptability of wolves or diversity of wolf habitat, I'm saying they just do not like human interaction. Which is why deer populations in the Eastern half of this country is out of control. Even if we did have a LARGE population of wolves, we would still need to harvest deer to keep their numbers in check. Almost a half million deer are killed each year by deer hunters here in wisconsin alone, not to mention the numbers killed by car accidents. That would mean if a wolf say, ate 20 deer a year (exceptionally LARGE quantity) you would need 25,000 wolves to kill all these deer taken by hunters. Times that by a home range of 25 square miles per wolf and you get 625000 square miles of prime wolf habitat to sustain all of there territorial needs. It just WON'T and CAN'T happen. If we were back before the forestation of wisconsins old growth we had less than 25000 deer in our state, making it more manageable for wolves to control that population. Now its different, we are harvesting more than that, and the population is still increasing! We do sometimes take healthy, strong animals out of the population... but out of the total deer herd we aren't taking enough animals to derail the evolutionary scheme. I ask this one thing now... whats the population of deer in CT right now? I bet its over what it has been in the past... Deer have a remarkable trait, they are more like mice than a large mammal. You bring the population down, and they explode once over exploitation decreases. As a wildlife management major, I know that Wisconsin is doing all it can to lower deer numbers, and its still not enough. I just don't understand where we are arguing majorly here? It IS Ethical to hunt deer, as with many other species... we aren't merely trying to take trophies for our walls, we are eating tastey venison, enjoying hours in the woods, and increasing our knowledge of nature. We aren't out to destroy it, we are out to protect it, being a preditor is what we do. I much rather eat a deer that came from a woods, flowing stream, and natural medow, than a cow that sat in a barn all its life, it means I will always treasure that woods, stream and medow.


----------

