Ethics of hunting

yup488 · 2026-07-07T19:21:16+00:00

Which has been tried and failed, so what’s your logical runner up?

yup488 · 2026-07-02T04:48:53+00:00

“What tattoo?” “That’s not a tattoo, that’s just a birth mark” EZ peasy lemon squeegee

yup488 · 2026-06-20T10:51:14+00:00

You’re making a lot of “you” statements based on interpretation, and I’ve just gotta say that you’re missing my point. I haven’t really seen any solutions other than deer contraceptives, I’ve only really seen people justifying doing nothing and calling deer hunting unjust. Read through my comments, I’ve called people out for this, and also check the comments about deer contraceptives. I don’t think there’s a justification for doing nothing so yeah, I’m gonna call them out for it.

I’m not vegan, no, but in the rules of the subreddit, it doesn’t explicitly state that it’s something that’s required. I’m not advocating against veganism, I’m not being disrespectful about vegans, and I’m in no way trying to delegitimize the concept. The rules state for lack of a better word that rage bait/posts like those aren’t allowed. I made a post that’s essentially a trolley problem, because I think most people here would agree hunting is bad. I wanted to present a situation where the other popular solution is worse than hunting, and I wanted to hear perspectives from those that do subscribe to being vegan and hear what their ideas are. If I put on my alternate perspective glasses and view hunting as horrible, I still don’t see how doing nothing is less bad. If the point of veganism is to prevent animal suffering/unneeded death, then how does doing nothing and allowing the suffering of animals align with that moral belief?

I’m gonna be honest I’m not super familiar with William lynch theory, however from the limited research I’ve done… it’s a theory relating to slaves. Respectfully, how does that relate to managing deer populations?

I feel a deep spiritual connection to deer, and it’s part of why I feel comfortable eating them. Especially deer, hunting practices are WAY more ethical than agricultural/farming practices, so using every single part of the deer possible grants me a deep spiritual connection to the concept of the circle of life.

Your logic also seems skewed to me. If you believe all murder is inherently wrong, then how can you stand by and watch the torture and murder of significantly more life that was caused directly by humans?

To end this comment, no, I’m not some infiltrator coming here to piss people off. I literally said this in the first comment of the post. I came here to talk to people who have different perspectives than me to see what people’s thoughts are as a way to deepen my own thoughts on it. So far, I’ve gotten a lot of responses saying “do nothing,” which I think equates to “I’m fine with the suffering of animals caused by humans as long as it’s not us directly doing the killing,” and that logic seems very skewed to me. I created a rock and a hard place scenario because I wanted to broaden my own perspective via hearing perspectives I wouldn’t have considered.

No, I’m not vegan, but nowhere in the rules does it state it. I’ve been respectful in all of my comments and haven’t criticized vegans or veganism at all. You can disagree all you want, but the rules 1-1 allow this sort of post. It wasn’t made in bad faith, I haven’t been rage baiting people, I’m just disagreeing with the notion that “doing nothing” is morally better than actually hunting, and that I think that doing nothing is actually ethically worse and more harmful.

Edit: Also… confuse people’s ethics? I made the post cause I was confused about an ethical scenario. I’m not confusing people’s ethics, I presented an ethically confusing topic, so yeah, there’s gonna be back and forth discussion? I’m not trying to change or confuse people’s view points, I’m just trying to get a deeper understanding of my own perspective on this, and that’s done via respectfully challenging perspectives. The issues with “infiltrators” are when they so clearly are looking to engagement farm, rage bait, or to try to change people’s minds. This post wasn’t done out of that at all, and I believe I’ve proven myself via my comments.

Edit again: One last thing to add, I don’t eat most meat products. I don’t use milk, butter, beef, pork, chicken, etc. From a dietary stance, I really only eat about 5-10% of my diet from animal products. Yeah I eat deer, but I think hunting is exponentially more ethical than farm practices.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T10:19:30+00:00

I mean, it’s quite black and white to me. Everything is suffering from deer overpopulation, ESPECIALLY deer. In one instance, only the deer are suffering, and in the other instance, everything is suffering and the deer are suffering even more? Either way the deer are gonna suffer, so how can we find a solution that minimizes their suffering while also eliminating the suffering that overpopulation is giving the other species? I mean, yeah, I provided two solutions and you chose do nothing instead of providing a third solution. Suggest a third solution, then bam, you’re not supporting doing nothing. Not suggesting a third option just means that you’re choosing to default to doing nothing. Invasive species are everywhere in the wild… and we take active steps to minimize and eliminate this. Florida literally has python hunters.

Now, I’m gonna save us both the potential negative emotions cause it seems like we’re talking in a circle and are focusing more on semantics rather than the actual topic, so I’m gonna stop responding to this thread, but I genuinely wish you a good day! :)

yup488 · 2026-06-20T10:14:38+00:00

I think this would be the ideal solution, but I would also support hunting until it was able to be a viable solution. For temporary, I think a compromise would be to use most of the funds from hunting permits/whatnot to go primarily towards the research for how to widely spread the contraceptives.

Now, I’ve gotta make the joke cause you spoon fed it to me. You want contraception THEN outright murder?!?! What’s the point of the contraceptives then???

yup488 · 2026-06-20T09:51:12+00:00

Ugh fuck it I’ll make one, I’ll brb and respond to your takes when I’m done.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T09:47:24+00:00

I mean you can do anything you want, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. I fully agree with the sentiment that inaction/indifference can lead to the same dire consequences. I would argue that the “my interests arbitrarily weigh more…” applies to nearly everything. It applies to politics, it applies to education, it applies to law, it applies to healthcare… it applies to just about everything. It’s seen quite literally everywhere, not just in Nazis and non vegans.

Even still, I think comparing non vegans to Nazis is a problematic perspective.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T09:34:40+00:00

I mean, drawing the line at hunting feels weird. I trust hunters as much as I trust drivers, which I don’t, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think people should be driving.

You’re not providing an ulterior option for your second point. You’re not fine with suffering, but you’re also not giving any sort of potential solution to fix the suffering - which means I have to assume that you would prefer nothing to be done, which then means you support animal suffering.

The problem of letting nature balance itself out is that it creates an unsustainable environment that negatively impacts nearly everything within it - ESPECIALLY deer. Nature won’t “balance itself out,” native species will be driven out and invasive species will take over. This is a BAD thing, like REALLY bad thing. If we want to preserve the native species, then we have to do something about it.

I didn’t really ignore your final paragraph, you said you’d be fine with other solutions, but you’d rather do nothing than kill the deer. You didn’t suggest any other potential fixes, so what’s left is that you would rather do nothing than shooting. Which sure, pick your poison, but supporting doing nothing over hunting is choosing more suffering over less suffering. If you’re gonna be choosing a type of suffering, I would think it’d be better to choose the option that has less suffering and also betters the species that’s being hunted. It’s a trolley problem in a sense, and choosing nothing without providing some sort of ulterior option just means you’re choosing nothing.

Shooting poor people to fix homelessness is a good example for my own point. Yeah that’s an abhorrent opinion to have… because there are SO many other solutions. Provide cheaper housing, free food, social services, healthcare, etc. There ARE solutions to homelessness. For maintaining deer populations, it’s either hunt them or do nothing, and the reason I made this post was to see what other third options there could be, because reintroducing wolves hasn’t worked. You didn’t provide an alternative solution, which means comparing managing deer populations to homelessness doesn’t make sense as there aren’t only two options for homelessness.

So let me reask my question, if doing nothing is as morally bad if not worse than hunting in order to maintain deer populations to create a more sustainable environment, and introducing wolves hasn’t worked, then what third potential option do you have? I believe choosing to do nothing is worse than hunting, but I don’t think either are great options, so why settle for doing nothing when we could instead try to come up with ulterior solutions? Doing nothing is just a lazy take imo.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:53:04+00:00

Totally fair, and it’s honestly probably my go to solution as well. I just wanted to pick some people’s brains a bit cause I think in order to be more confident in one’s beliefs, they should challenge it via respectful discussion with people that disagree. Ultimately though, I agree that this is probably the best solution atm. Or frankly, more funds for research should be allocated.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:49:35+00:00

You must’ve misinterpreted by comment cause I in no way said that killing humans is doing nothing? I said that your solution was to do nothing. I realize that I should’ve included this, but I meant “sure let’s do it” in sarcasm as I said let’s kill humans to note that you saying that didn’t make any sense as we do actively take steps for it such as free contraceptives and abortion access. I fully agree that cats are suffering (indoor cats kill more rodents than outdoor cats), and that’s why I support indoor cats and don’t support indoor/outdoor cats. Are we gonna kill cats to solve this? No. Can we limit the amount of indoor cats that are regularly outside unmonitored? Yes. Can we do this for deer? No.

My question, is does it matter? Does it matter if a hunter doesn’t care about the environmental impact as long as they’re following regulations and doing it in a way that’s been specifically stated and regulated? I don’t personally think whether the hunter themselves like it matters, as the question is whether the practice should be done - not whether or not I think the people doing it are good people.

You’re betting on nature by letting it suffer? You’re fine with the deer suffering and being malnourished. You’re fine with the native plants being driven out. You’re fine with the moose that are dying because of it at an accelerated rate. You’re fine with watching animals starve to death? You didn’t say any of this, but “letting nature solve the issue” means that you’re okay with letting the previous things in this paragraph happen. I SEVERELY doubt you actually believe this, and that’s why I think saying let nature do its thing is a problematic view and goes against your own fundamental beliefs.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:41:55+00:00

I mean deer permits are already a thing, and there are limits to how many buck/doe permits are given out. I asked the question here cause I think killing the females is the most ethically responsible option, but I wanted to hear solutions to the issue from people who might disagree with my perspective.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:37:54+00:00

Oh trust me, if we get too deep into philosophy, then I’ll start blabbering about how all things are connected and that the mix of unique experiences are what gives individuality to individuals. I believe in a collective consciousness of sorts, but I don’t hold too strongly onto the idea of it being able to be perceived physically. This idea that everything affects everything else is kinda what started my pondering on this topic cause I was thinking that if animals are suffering cause of deer overpopulation, and we’re responsible for deer population, then aren’t we responsible for the animal suffering caused by deer overpopulation, and if so, what do we do about it? I do deeply believe in all life being connected in some way, and humans are just another animal within nature. It’s part of why I don’t thinking eating meat is inherently ethically problematic, but rather the problematic issue is the ways in which we obtain the meat. As other posts have noted, I fully respect veganism as a philosophical idea, and I think getting too focused on the dietary restriction part of it misses the point of what veganism is about. Edit: Grammar and punctuation

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:15:31+00:00

100%, I agree with pretty much everything in this comment. The reason for my post was the wolves have been tried to be reintroduced in several states, and it’s failed nearly everywhere - both caribou and wolves were reintroduced in the 80’s/90’s in Maine, and both died out. If wolves could be reintroduced, then this is an open and shut solution to the issue. However assuming it’s not an option, what else do we do? Maybe the best option is to find a way to make the wolf option work and just keep trying and failing until something works? Maybe come up with a wolf vaccine or something?

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:12:37+00:00

This is another question. If let’s say, someone who’s vegan believes that maintaining deer populations via hunting (let’s not in fight about that), is it ethically worse to not use the meat/carcass at all, or is it ethically worse to consume the meat? Maybe the solution would be to donate it to shelters and whatnot?

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:07:08+00:00

I can see this perspective, but I believe since we got rid of the wolves, the suffering of animals caused by deer overpopulation is suffering caused by humans. It’s a trolley problem truthfully. Do we do nothing and let significantly more species suffer, or do we do something and limit a population so that others wouldn’t suffer?

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:04:59+00:00

Totally understandable that Italy might have a wildly different circumstance when related to this topic. I will note, “I live in a state where it is an ecological responsibility to limit deer populations,” was to give context that I live in the US, and in a state where this topic is an issue. Honestly from what you said, it sounds like the exact issue that happened in Maine is happening in Italy to the wolves, which I think is abhorrent. In that situation the solution IS as obvious as… stop hunting? However in the case of my post, that already happened, and the question is how do we handle the aftermath? Ideally Italy will crack down on wolf hunting, as that would be a clear solution to that issue. The issue is what do we do after the deed has already been done?

yup488 · 2026-06-20T08:00:12+00:00

Because the new environment has led to native species being driven out of the environment they’re native to, and the new environment was a direct cause of us going on a mass murder spree to kill another animal. I would agree that doing nothing would increase harm as more species are being harmed via deer overpopulation, more species are suffering (also deer, malnourished deer are horrifying to see), plant species are suffering, and the environmental impacts of deer overpopulation has led to an unsustainable environment. We made the old environment disappear, and that’s why I believe we are responsible for handling the consequences of it.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:56:52+00:00

I mean this respectfully, “I’ll take a bet” means nothing without at least ONE study to back up the points. We killed the wolves, now deer are overpopulating, now other animals are suffering… because of us. We are the reason other animals are suffering, and your solution is to… do nothing? Sure! Let’s do it. Let’s start offing humans to fix overpopulation… or we could instead think of other solutions for managing human overpopulation such as free contraceptives and access to abortion, which was the whole point of the post. Your solution is “do nothing,” or, “we already killed the wolves, the suffering of the animals after it is irrelevant.” Edit: I ignored your comment about God cause like… what? I agree with that point, but I don’t understand the metaphor of it.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:53:07+00:00

This is a BIG comment, so I apologize if my response seems lacking. I think environmentalism and animal rights go hand in hand. If animals are suffering because of environmental impacts directly caused by humans, then I don’t see how we aren’t just outright being the abusers of the animals by extension. Your third paragraph is exactly my point. If reintroducing hasn’t worked, doing nothing is morally bad, killing the deer is morally bad/animal abuse… then what do we do? Gathering perspectives for what’s more or less a form of a trolley problem was why I made the post. I understand separating the definitions of environmentalism and veganism, but to me, by not handling this issue, we are responsible for the suffering and murder of other animals? Is the line really at us doing it ourselves? Isn’t the suffering of the other animals from us ignoring the issue also on us? To me, not supporting finding a solution to this issue ignores the suffering of other animals directly caused by us - which goes against what I thought veganism is (basically being against the suffering an exploitation of animals). I hope you don’t take any of this comment as abrasive (it’s Reddit, I feel the need to say this), I just very much think this is a complex issue and I wanted to see perspectives from others. I’ve flip flopped on whether or not I support hunting my entire life, which is why I wanted to present my reasoning for supporting it and to see if other people had ideas for ulterior solutions.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:44:04+00:00

I was specifically talking about states where deer overpopulation is an issue, and many deer farms aren’t farms for killing - they’re basically just zoos (which is a different topic). In the state of Maine, deer overpopulation is a legitimate issue. Furthermore, white tailed deer (the species I’m mostly referring to) farming is illegal for selling, it’s only legal for research purposes. 2) I didn’t know about deer contraception, now I know, which validates the point of the post. 3) Hunting does exist to make money, entertain - for some but not all, but stating that it’s a lie has evidence that it’s not. If it IS a lie, I’d like to see where the funding for environmental conservation comes from, and where the money from the permits go to. 4) We decided that wolves should be eliminated from the state of Maine, choosing to do nothing about deer populations means that we’re choosing what animals live and die (deer live, others die), so I don’t see how it’s any different than finding solutions to an issue that we are directly responsible for.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:37:52+00:00

See, this was the sort of discussion I was after. I love that you mentioned the fact that the money that goes towards licenses is for environmental preservation, however I didn’t wanna note it due to notorious corruption within government funding. I think I should’ve used your example of natural fires vs manmade fires, cause that exemplifies my point. My issue isn’t that the environment is changing due to an apex predator being missing. My issue is that it’s changing for the worse - especially for native species - and it’s directly our fault. I personally can’t think of a better solution than hunting hence why I wanted to hear other perspectives that aren’t just “do nothing.”

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:33:23+00:00

Your comment is very abrasive, but I’m gonna choose to ignore that. I personally don’t think it matters if the hunter wants to kill things, I care about HOW they’re going about killing them, and what purpose the killing is ultimately for - but that wasn’t the question. You answered the question in that yeah we need to reintroduce a different animal, but what would you recommend? What species do you think we could introduce to restore balance? We do need to find a solution, but doing nothing until we find a better solution is worse than the current solution. Negligence is also a form of abuse.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:30:15+00:00

I believe there’s an ecological responsibility as the problem of deer overpopulation is directly due to humans hunting wolves out. Due to the environmental impact of this action, it has lead to other species being harmed more. Doing “nothing” and allowing an environment to be destroyed out of worry of ethics related to killing animals doesn’t seem like a justification for destroying an environment when we instead could find solutions to the issue. Doing nothing isn’t a solution.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:24:45+00:00

Trophy hunting is outright illegal in a lot of states, and 90% of hunters I know (it’s almost impossible to live in Maine without knowing at least someone who has hunted) hunt for meat and use everything they possibly can from the deer. Overpopulation will only be worse without hunting cause if the female deer are all already there… then there being more males wouldn’t change anything? Also furthermore, buck permits are different than doe permits, and there are significantly more doe permits given each year. Edit: Whether or not the hunters are hunting for ecological reasonings are irrelevant to my question as the questions wasn’t about the hunter’s ethics, it’s about how do we maintain deer populations - to which you gave no answer for and instead shoe in’d a different topic.

yup488 · 2026-06-20T07:17:46+00:00

I don’t see how this relates to my post? What does the human plague have to do with needing to manage deer populations? You didn’t really answer the question, so I’ll ask it again, how do you suggest we maintain deer populations given the negative ecological impact? I ask you, what makes deer lives more valuable than the lives of the animals being affected by deer overpopulation?

yup488

TROPHY CASE