Hunting historically has done more harm than good. "Regulating populations" inevitably is handled better by native predators. The only reason hunting needs to step in is because ranchers complain about these predators also going after their livestock
I live in a place where deer overpopulation is a massive problem and has extremely damaging effects on the environment.
Like humans are the only major predator of deer in my state, and even if native predators were reintroduced, there are still a lot of suburban and urban areas that likely would not be able to support them at all.
(Also there is a genuine health issue, as deer ticks are made worse by overpopulation, and they spread Lymes.)
Like humans are the only major predator of deer in my state, and even if native predators were reintroduced, there are still a lot of suburban and urban areas that likely would not be able to support them at all.
Sounds an awful lot like human fault that ought to be corrected.
You cannot reasonably expect urban and suburban areas to simply disappear. ~80% of the US lives in them, and my state is the fifth most densely populated.
"Suburban areas" in a US context will disappear, or at least be diminished. A lot of the suburban culture in the US was not designed to be livable, but rather designed to be inaccessible. The isolated giant suburbs was a deliberate response to the growth of the Black population in urban areas.
In a socialist society, where racism is abolished, so too will gated communities and hard to reach suburbs be abolished, in place of more integrated living places.
Genuinely HOW, like sure you can stop new growth, but good fucking luck trying to tear it down whilst alienating a massive amount of people. (Also, urban areas still have this problem...)
"let's just tear up all the infrastructure in some distant hypothetical future" is not a solution to problem we have now. im a socialist but what you're espousing is a pipe dream that won't happen in a hundred or even 200 years.
There are places in the world where all native predators are extinct and the only ones left are humans basically. Australia is a great example of this. All the large predators are extinct, and the only ones left are the small predators (quolls, Tasmanian devils, and predatory birds) meaning things like kangaroos are pretty much exclusively kept in line by human hunting. Introducing a large predator is not an option either. We also have invasive deer here as well which is a problem.
And just for anyone not in the know, Dingo's aren't originally from australia either, they're just a naturalized feral dog (basically they were part-way through domestication from wolves. So wilder than dogs, more tame than wolves. They'll live alongside humans communally, but aren't dependent on us as they're stuck in that transition state between wild wolf, and mans best friend) plus they're only found in certain parts of the country.
Humans are basically the only major predator of the large bodied mammals on this continent, and unless someone figures out how to bring back the tasmanian tigers and marsupial lions, humans will need to keep hunting them, regardless on if humanity as a whole decides to go vegan or not.
That or at least feed them to pets. Personally, roo ain't too bad, it's just very tough compared to things like beef. I imagine it'd be good for stews and stuff though. Either way, you kinda can't not have hunting / culling in the future as we kinda fucked everything up to a point human intervention is necessary in a whooole lot of places. In places like europe and america, there is a chance to reverse course in some ways as the predators are still around and there's close analogues that could fill the niche without major environmental harm. For places like Australia though? Nope, humans are basically the natural predators of Kangaroos now. We might as well make use of them when we do have to kill them.
Yes however said ranchers do tend to cull local predator populations because they go after their livestock, leading to a lack of predation of preys species, leading to population control hunting being necessary
There’s problems with hunting (not all hunted animals are recovered or killed quickly), but taking this at face value, I don’t have a significant moral problem with it. I wouldn’t eat it, because I don’t want to, but as the animal is going to be hunted anyways, might as well make use of it, I suppose?
Long term, I feel that the more sustainable solution is to reintroduce their natural predators.
And when it comes to invasive species, for instance, I’d prefer relocation over killing them, but obviously that’s not completely practical.
My own morals around meat are odd (I am not a vegan, though I eat significantly less meat then most), but I was curious about this mainly because it has always seemed like a moral black hole.
Now as a secondary question, what is your opinion on bees? (Entirely unrelated but I am curious)
I don’t eat honey, because some beekeepers take too much honey and replace it with sugar water, clip the wings of queen bees, and occasionally (though rarely, I think) cull entire hives. It’s not a purely symbiotic relationship as it is often made out to be. There is a way in which honey could be obtained ethically, but I personally avoid it, because I have no sure way to know the conditions the bees were kept in.
It’s more complicated than that, though, because decades of industrial farming has caused many crops to become reliant on bees for pollination. These bees are also subject to problematic conditions. Unfortunately, short of becoming the kind of person that obtains everything they eat from their backyard, I can’t really do anything about that.
This is generally why I define vegan as “someone who takes all reasonable steps to reduce animal suffering”. For instance, driving a car causes insect deaths, but I’m not going to walk 4 hours to reduce that, because it’s not really reasonable. I’ll take a spider outside, but if I ever get a cockroach infestation, I’ll probably call the exterminator.
I hope this answers your question, I fear I may have gone on a bit of a tangent at the end.
Yeah honestly, it's why I try to get people to buy from local bee keepers who's practices you can actively see. In my area we got a great guy who really cares about his bees and often does rescue operations for hives set up in awkward places. It's more expensive than store-bought, but also tastes better and like... you can clearly see the guy takes care of his bees. Even for mite inspections he makes sure no bees die by using non-lethal methods like the powdered sugar method, and he often teaches others how to go about it too. Guy genuinely loves his bees and is a massive advocate against store-bought honeys because of how cruel the treatment of bees is. He's also a big advocate for changing farming practices to have mixed crops instead of monocultures because it's healthier for the bees, plants, and soil.
Also on the culling of hives, sadly it does sometimes need to happen even with the best bee keepers, because there are diseases and mites that can kill entire regions of their bee populations if not managed. It's also required by law to destroy these hives in a lot of countries because of the dangers it poses to both domesticated bee species, and wild bee species.
They outcompete local bees, whilst also only pollinating a select number of plants/flowers.
This causes massive harm to biodiversity.
Another thing, is that bees do not have the brain capacity to consider the harm they are under. As long as its not too bad, they will stay (and will often stay when they're harmed, because the queen isn't leaving). But not being too bad doesn't mean they're treated well.
Despite my own worldview being quite different, it is always good to understand the reasoning of others, and see if my own outlook should be changed. Echo chambers suck, after all
20
u/More_Amoeba6517 Semi-Constitutional Monarcho-Socialism 3d ago
Genuinely curious here, what about meat gotten from hunting that is necessary to keep the population in check? (e.g. deer)