You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

That’s only true if there are enough carnivores like wolves and bears around. If not: goodbye forests. Hunting is pest control.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This is not proven at all. It’s at best controversal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Its pretty proven at a 5th grade reading level of study, and even more proven with every grade up.

Its actually kind if hard to find a more proven aspect of biology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

You are confidentaly wrong here, my friend.

For one it realy is something that depends on the global and local region. There are multiple studies that point to a lack of evidence towards a clear answer. I’m not invested enoth to hunt down to many examples, so I’ll just quote this 2016 Australien study:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305655680_Can_recreational_hunting_control_pests_on_public_lands

Public lands in Australia are increasingly being made available to recreational hunters to take introduced mammals such as wild pigs, goats, deer and canids. These species can cause substantial damage to environmental or agricultural assets, and it has often been argued that recreational hunting contributes to the amelioration of these impacts by reducing pest population densities. This position has been vigorously disputed by some parties. However, there is little locally-relevant evidence to support either side of the debate, and hence little evidence on which to base useful policy.

Even clearly pro hunting websites have liste of pros and cons to hunting as pest control, like this one

https://huntingandnature.com/index.php/2023/09/04/hunting-as-a-form-of-pest-control-pros-and-cons/

So no. It is not a clear cut matter, nor is it proven beyond any doubt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s very much proven in some ecosystems where humans introduced new animals, which ate all the plants and caused tons of new erosion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Show me a study tust proves it then please.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

No it isn’t. This is the noble excuse hunters came up with to justify murder.

Nature has this funny way of balancing itself out. Humans are unique in that we somehow view ourselves as above that rule. But as you’ll see in the coming years we’re at the mercy of that equilibrium.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Right, all those noble ecologists who spent decades studying this just decided to fake their results cause they get so horny over killing.

Nature balances out over a couple thousand years. What you are asking for is to speed up the current extinction event.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do you hunt?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

I mean, if there has been a forest somewhere for the last 100 years, chances are there are enough carnivores anyways. Nature finds its balance, hunting only adds chaos to the equation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Wolves had been extinct in western Europe for hundreds of years, only slowly spreading again after the fall of the Iron Curtain 30-something years ago. And, consequently, the hunting quotas for deer are being lowered.

The chaos caused by eliminating wolves is slowly getting back to balance.

By the way: a 100 year old forest is in its early childhood. Hasn’t even reached puberty yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Green - An environmentalist community

!green@lemmy.ml

Create post

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

Community stats

  • 221

    Monthly active users

  • 599

    Posts

  • 2.6K

    Comments