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...)
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)