Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just had a deer show up in my back yard about a week ago. It's the first time in the 12 years that I've lived here. The funny thing is that it hasn't touched anything in my garden. I did notice that the garlic mustard and plantain has mostly disappeared from my yard. They are edible plants (weeds) but I rarely use them. I mostly grow sprouts for greens. If the deer keeps eating the weeds and leaves my tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and eggplants alone, it's more than welcome to stick around.
Deer hunters will not be happy until they kill the last deer standing, though. Then they'll have to find some other creature to kill.
Unless you yourself are a strict vegetarian for animal welfare reasons, I call BS on your "ethics" and that nasty comment, as well as your poor understanding of the intersection of food politics and sport.
Ugh. It's Yankees like you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by andthentherewere3
More than a bit. That's because all the hunters I've known are arrogant.
You must not meet many people. Nor go many places. Seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860
Agreed. Deer are such sweet beautiful animals that are so docile and harmless. Really kind of sick people kill them for fun.
Acquisition of food and useful articles such as leather and fur do not fall solely under the category of "fun." Far better an animal lives its life as it was intended in nature, before being taken by a hunter, than a life of misery and pain on a stinking, polluting, nightmarish factory farm.
Full disclosure: You will find no animal lover greater than me. I refuse to pass by animal that is suffering and do nothing--that is to say I have taken some very loud and drastic measures. I very rarely eat meat, usually when someone else serves it. Wearing animal skins makes me feel sad yet grateful. I neither hunt nor fish, but I wholeheartedly support those who do, and appreciate their understanding of where their food actually comes from. I cannot bring myself, personally, to kill anything. Accidentally stepping on an ant leaves me wracked with guilt for days. So let's save the holier-than-thou biz for Michael Vick and the practitioners of true bloodsport.
Last edited by unpopularopinion; 09-15-2013 at 02:31 AM..
The less deer the better, I don't need lyme ticks in my yard.
Deer, no deer, you will have ticks and Lyme disease all the same, as they travel just as handily on rats, mice, other rodentia. (I believe there are both a Harvard and a Yale study are very often inaccurately referenced as evidence that a reduced deer population would mean fewer ticks and less Lyme. To the contrary, these studies found that the tick population and prevalence of Lyme would *not* decrease with the deer population, and there is no positive linear correlation between their population numbers. In fact, deer do not infect ticks with Lyme, and the presence of deer has been shown to reduce the prevalence of Lyme in tick populations.)
Deer, no deer, you will have ticks and Lyme disease all the same, as they travel just as handily on rats, mice, other rodentia. (I believe there are both a Harvard and a Yale study are very often inaccurately referenced as evidence that a reduced deer population would mean fewer ticks and less Lyme. To the contrary, these studies found that the tick population and prevalence of Lyme would *not* decrease with the deer population, and there is no positive linear correlation between their population numbers. In fact, deer do not infect ticks with Lyme, and the presence of deer has been shown to reduce the prevalence of Lyme in tick populations.)
Still don't care if the deer pop decreases. They are overpopulated and not controlled enough, especially in populated areas like the shoreline along 95.
Deer, no deer, you will have ticks and Lyme disease all the same, as they travel just as handily on rats, mice, other rodentia. (I believe there are both a Harvard and a Yale study are very often inaccurately referenced as evidence that a reduced deer population would mean fewer ticks and less Lyme. To the contrary, these studies found that the tick population and prevalence of Lyme would *not* decrease with the deer population, and there is no positive linear correlation between their population numbers. In fact, deer do not infect ticks with Lyme, and the presence of deer has been shown to reduce the prevalence of Lyme in tick populations.)
But aren't deer the primary vector by which the ticks travel long distances, and therefore spread Lyme disease over a larger area? I agree that rats and mice will carry the ticks as well, but they don't travel long distances and at least have natural predators that keep their populations in check. Other than man, deer have no natural predators in this part of the country.
But aren't deer the primary vector by which the ticks travel long distances, and therefore spread Lyme disease over a larger area? I agree that rats and mice will carry the ticks as well, but they don't travel long distances and at least have natural predators that keep their populations in check. Other than man, deer have no natural predators in this part of the country.
But aren't deer the primary vector by which the ticks travel long distances, and therefore spread Lyme disease over a larger area? I agree that rats and mice will carry the ticks as well, but they don't travel long distances and at least have natural predators that keep their populations in check. Other than man, deer have no natural predators in this part of the country.
This theory is under review. There is little debate about ticks being serving as primary vector, but recent studies have shown less mature ticks traveling via mice and other smaller rodents to be more virulent. Happy to supply studies if requested.
More than a bit. That's because all the hunters I've known are arrogant.
Prob hecause arrogant people tend to hangout together..
Deer kill plenty of people every year in our roadways. And Ive never known some one to kill a deer and not harvest the very healthy meat.
Prob hecause arrogant people tend to hangout together..
When they come onto my private wooded property while hunting then get nasty when I tell them to leave, I am not "hanging out with them". Or when I am out hiking and come across a hunter, (Paugusset State Forest etc.) and they get nasty and say, "can't you see I'm hunting here" and ask me to go elsewhere, that's not "hanging out with them". I am a frequent hiker and have come across more than a few legal and illegal hunters. I'm sure there a few hunters who have good manners, but unfortunately it's the arrogant ones I meet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
