this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
473 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
21599 readers
1670 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't mean to sound insensitive to your culture, but there are other activities that can be done outdoors, can you tell your country please?
We know. There's also paintball, and dynamite fishing!
/s
Even though I'm very glad that I live in a country where guns are heavily restricted, I can't deny that shooting is kinda fun.
You mean bow hunting like a caveman?
We don't have walkable cities, and in rural areas infrastructure may be so underwhelming that shooting stuff might be the best you can hope for excitement.
(Fortunately it's usually in a non harmful way like target shooting or plinking).
Sometimes the gunshots are just dinner hitting the ground
Truthfully since most predators have been eliminated many species need population control.
Either the average person hunts or fish and wildlife has to go out there and perform culls.
"Hunters have been destroying the environment for centuries, and now the environment is fucked up, so the solution is more hunting!"
Really a copy paste of the "against mass shootings, we need to give more weapons to people so they can shoot the shooters", an argument that is absurd to everyone outside of the US, and to anyone in the US who has a brain.
Yeah I spent the better part of my adulthood working to preserve lands with the park service.
Over population happens it's an issue. Some parks like Yellowstone have been able to reintroduce wolves. It was great. Other parks actually host hunts. However sometimes when populations get out of control people have to go and cull species. Culling is most wasteful imo, and expensive for public lands
I'm sorry these are the facts. Ecology doesn't really care how you feel about it.
Also recrational hunting didn't cause predators to go extinct. That was a direct action of the government paying bounties to kill North America's natural predators. Wolves would have still been killed by farmers, but the hunting was driven by the government then.
Personally I prefer reintroduction of predators. The issue is it gets political fast and every farmer within 500 miles of a planned reintroduction calls congress and lobbyists get involved. When that option is gone, managed hunting becomes the most effective in terms of practically and cost to manage populations.
Please stop comparing scientifically backed land management to conservative dog whistles
Yeah, just like people try to prevent forest fires because they feel like it's an environmental problem, and then researchers are suggesting that preventing forest fires completely actually causes them to be worse and more frequent.
Maybe at some point the idea that when an environmental problem arises, you need to completely take control over it, is not such a good idea. And as you said, reintroducing predators that have been exterminated by hunters (whether it was from a government incentive or not doesn't really change who did it) is probably the best solution that we have available, but it's not done because fuckers keep on thinking that mass killing is an alternative solution. If people stopped loving hunters so much, the idea of "culling" or mass murdering a species would not be seen as a possibility, and everyone would shut up about reintroducing predators.
Justifying hunting is never, in no shape or form, helping anything. It just makes things worse for everyone (except the hunters, that are enjoying their lives of murder-hobos)
Wow talk about false equivalency.
Environments are designed for forest fires. They need fire to function. Which is why there are intensive control burn programs.
The issue is before we began trying to let our forests burn properly people spent decades not burning the forests and trying to stop every fire immediately. This led to way too much fuel being available and combined with climate and you get fires that are outside of what they should be naturally. Hopefully we can continue to correct to the point where we can let fires burn naturally. Sometimes people struggle to understand that we've been shaping the environment for decades and it's going to take decades of work to fix. Just walking away would not have the intended result.
Anyway back to the need to cull or manage hunts, you clearly have no idea the ecological issues overpopulation causes. When populations get out of control you can have an environment that becomes completely overgrazed. This is a disaster for the plant communities, and causes ripple effects throughout the whole ecosystem. Leading to the extinction of threatened plant and animal species and a loss of biodiversity.
Naturally it would not get to that point. We should reintroduce predators. Until then it is absolutely necessary to cull some species. I'd much rather people go and kill a couple hundred deer every few years (most parks do not do yearly hunts) than to lose vulnerable species.
And like I said it's not the hunters preventing predator reintroduction it's primarily ranchers with a helping hand from NIMBYs. Truthfully I've never heard a case of hunters saying anything at all about reintroduction.