this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
229 points (96.0% liked)

Data is Beautiful

1165 readers
53 users here now

Be respectful

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 85 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I used to be very opposed to deer hunting. Until I took a biology course and there was some discussion about how humans have eliminated, or nearly eliminated all their natural predators in the United States.

The way their population ends up being controlled in the absence of those predators is disease, famine, and cars. Unless we hunt them sufficiently in areas where wolves in particular have been eliminated.

If you are hunting and wasting the resources of an animal you've culled, it's absolutely unethical. But if you're using all of the resources you can provide by the animal, and you're hunting in an area where the only natural population control mechanisms are famine and disease, I'd argue that's the most ethical way you can hunt in a modern society.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also organizations like hunting lodges put a lot of effort and money into wildlife conservation and wilderness preservation. There's a lot of natural habitat that is protected today specifically because of the work of groups of hunters. Without them that land would have been used for something else. It's obviously self-interested, but it benefits more than just them.

[–] SandbagTiara2816@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, taxes from hunting and fishing equipment and licenses are earmarked for wildlife conservation. Which is a good thing, but potentially becoming a problem as fewer people in younger generations are hunters, meaning less funding for conservation

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I think if factory farming were more stringently regulated a lot more people would hunt than buy a $500 steak.

[–] punkfungus@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago

I agree but I do have a little issue with the "wasting resources" part, that's a very anthropocentric view to take. There's an entire ecosystem of organisms that would love to use those resources, and in many cases leaving the carcass behind is better for that system than taking it away and depleting it of that biomass. There's obviously a lot of "ifs" involved but I wouldn't generalise by saying that because a human didn't get to eat it the resource was "wasted".

It's unfortunate that our ancestors have left us with this kind of ecological trolley problem, where in order to keep the system balanced and prevent collapse we're obligated to go out and kill a lot of creatures, but such is the world we've inherited.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Chronic Wasting Disease is a particularly scary prion disease that is highly dependent on deer population density.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baggins@beehaw.org 11 points 2 months ago (5 children)

This relates to Britain, not the United States. Results will be different.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sonori@beehaw.org 8 points 2 months ago

I’d argue that even if you waste everything from hunting deer, in most areas of the US fact their is now one less deer is definite ecological benefit all on its own.

A forest with a large deer population where people don’t landscape and fence every tree is going to become either a near monoculture with the only exceptions being invasive species. This is because deer eat most but not all native saplings before they can grow to the point they can survive a deer attack, and with most forests in the US having far, far higher populations than natural we get far fewer native trees than natural.

Normally anything like modern deer levels would have led to a population explosion of predators to keep them in check, but because most deer predators are far more vulnerable to human presence, activity, and historical control efforts than deer, which thrive in human dominated areas, the result has been significant damage to forests.

As such, anything like hunting that can lower the deer population back towards natural is very enthical as it doing far more to protect the forest than any number of newly planted saplings could ever do. Your mileage may very, all forests arn’t the same, check the ecology of your local forest before hunting to figure out what the forest needs more of and what it need less of, etc…

[–] Swallowtail@beehaw.org 5 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I'm vegan and still recognize the need for deer hunting in the US (and anywhere else where all their natural predators have been eliminated). I don't know of any other effective method for controlling their population when no other species exists to do it. I would be totally open to reintroducing wolves, bears, big cats etc to areas where they existed historically, but I just don't see enough popular support growing for that that it seems likely to happen anytime soon. People like their meat too much and wild predators kill free ranging livestock, plus I suspect most people are not going to want to worry about encounters while they're out in nature (see my link below for how things have been going with the red wolf re-introduction to North Carolina, US). I mean I'm an animal lover and it still makes me a tiny bit nervous when I go out into bear country in the wild parts of my state (not that that would stop me from supporting re-introduction). Lots of people are ignorant and don't give a shit about harming ecology if it benefits them in some way.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2023/09/04/endangered-red-wolves-need-space-to-stay-wild--but-there-s-another-predator-in-the-way---humans

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

I live in an area in central Europe with a lot of deer and while I don't particularly like hunting, it is absolutely necessary to keep the deer population at bay here. With no natural predators, their population would explode without hunting and they are already numerous. I can walk out of the door here and within a matter of minutes I can spot a deer or two.

Wild boars are also quite a nuisance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm guessing farmed meat isn't on the list, because adding it becomes an anchor that throws everything else off. It's easily more brutal than a circus but has single-digit non-participation, and people don't want to look inconsistent.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder now, what happens to the results if you put the question about factory farming at either the beginning or the very end?

My guess is that when at the beginning, the percentages would shift significantly into the acceptable range because of the not wanting to look inconsistent.

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 6 points 2 months ago

Oh bother I can't remember who did the study, but Earthling Ed in his book talks about it, whereby participants were either served meat or not during questions regarding diet, and those who were eating meat became almost obtusely against vegan diets. I tried searching for it just now but can't think of the right keywords to find it.

[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

I used to be cool with the idea of elephant riding, seemed cool and it’s not like such a big animal is even going to notice a human on its shoulders. Then I was at a ren fair or something like one that had an elephant to ride. When we got in line for it I saw just what they do to get an elephant to walk around. I think you have to be a real piece of shit to poke an animal with a sharp stick all day for a job.

[–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 15 points 2 months ago

They're also quite intelligent and are likely to be extremely aware of their captive situation. It's basically slavery.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

The MD renn fest had an elephant.

There was a divide between the folks who thought “ohhhh it fine” and the rest of us who thought “elephants don’t live in Maryland and definitely don’t give rides to screaming children, willingly”

The MD renn fest elephant was also used as Trump advertising at other events, which did NOT help the communities view here in MD.

There was a noticeable boycott until they stopped abusing the elephants at the MD renn fest.

[–] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

I went to an elephant sanctuary in Thailand. They explained that riding elephants is incredibly stressful for the elephant's back, and that in order to train them to obey, torture is usually involved.

I'm against zoos as well. I know some do good work with rehabilitation and such (and we should support them), but a lot just capture animals for our enjoyment. Even if they're not explicitly mistreated, it's pretty cruel to just keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 43 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Surprised how many people were opposed to hunting deer with guns. I know that's super popular in some places.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It makes more sense as the survey was conducted on British adults.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Ah, makes sense. In Texas, everyone does that lol.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if this odd result is from the question not specifying trophy hunting vs. food hunting. If you eat meat it wouldn't make sense to be against food hunting, but it would make sense if you think they're hunting deer just to hang a big antler head on your wall

[–] SandbagTiara2816@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Good point. Most vegetarians and vegans I’ve met have had relatively favorable views of hunting for food, compared to animal agriculture, since it’s such a more sustainable and ethical way to acquire meat

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

Well, it can be. I knew a guy who talked about some of his (incompetent) deer kills in a way that made me pretty sure he was extending the suffering deliberately. That or he was just a callous dick and a bad shot.

He did kill himself in a 4-wheeler accident though, so sucks to suck I guess.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  1. It’s British adults, not Americans. Private gun ownership is uncommon-to-rare, and hunting even less so.
  2. It’s British adults, so you need to read almost everything through the lens of classism and/or class jealousy. Most hunting in the UK is done by the upper class - there are genuine outdoorsmen hunting types but the norm is posh folk hunting for sport.
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] baggins@beehaw.org 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The headline says British adults so it's not going to be applicable outside Britain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think far less than 41% of the population actually won't wear leather. Also, apparently riding a donkey is worse than riding a horse, and dog races are worse than horse races.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Note they merge 'somewhat unacceptable' and 'unacceptable' into the bars, which is.... a choice.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dog races are worse than horse races, mostly because the dogs are trained to be more-or-less psychotic. Horses, you can see as understanding the competition they're in and being (at least mostly) willing participants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Pretty surprised at the difference between leather and fur. Poor cows need better PR.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 7eter@feddit.org 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Where is "eating animals from livestock"?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Who the fuck is in the 6% who are fine with dog fighting?

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Winners of dog fight bets probably

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spoot@mander.xyz 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't like how they had four data points, but combined them into only two.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand the opposition to mobile zoos of reptiles/snakes. Are people just voting 'ick' factor, or is there something horrifying I've missed?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SandbagTiara2816@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’m surprised that deer hunting is shown as so unacceptable here. Who was sampled for this, and where do they live? I’m guessing not the Midwest lol

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago

The demographics sampled are adults from the UK.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago

TIL you only need a 26% approval rate for a controversial practice to be widely legal and accepted.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm pleasantly surprised at how many people are against fishing.

[–] UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm by no means a vegan, but it has always weirded me out how people see no problem of dragging an animal out of the water by using a hook in the animal's mouth. Even weirder is it when people then throw the fish back into the sea to be "ethical". It's just plain recreational torture at that point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I don't understand why there are any who oppose riding horses

Is it bad for them or something?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›