This is a common cliché that would merit some discussion. 'Healthy' is a problematic concept to apply to a machine and ecosystems are like machines in many senses. A 'healthy ecosystem' in this context is often a synonym of 'convenient for hunters'.
Ecosystems without apex predators are more unstable but not necesarily in danger. A breed colony of emperor penguins or a small lake in winter after the resident couple of loons migrate is not an ecosystem about to collapsing or that must be fixed. Many desertic, arctic and pelagic areas are free of apex predators 340 days/year. Apex predators quit and recolonize areas constantly. Is a natural process.
If preys can fly/run away and are free to quit the area the ecosystem will be fine.
If not, a smaller predator will be quickly 'hired' for the job. Could be a desert fox, a parasite or a bacteria, but the ecosystem is constantly fixing itself and will be quickly rebuild with the remaining items.
Hunting can be a temporary solution, but is neither the only answer to this problem nor the best necessarily (and is an obstacle to the recolonization of the area for apex predators in the future, that should be the real goal here). You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
In this situation, the only permanent solution to maintain something resembling a normal ecology is hunting, because hunters replace the role of apex predators. That said, we'd need to modify our hunting behavior to better replicate what actual predators do - the sick, weak and slow, rather than the biggest buck.
Desert and arctic ecosystems are completely different from what we have east of the Mississippi. Where would you relocate the 'surplus' deer, and how? Virtually the entire eastern US has a surplus of deer! I hear deer being shot every day - it's hunting season right now - and I still see a half-dozen deer every day driving to work, jumping in the road, I can't step into the woods without deer running away in every direction - they're everywhere. If it weren't for hunters barely keeping the population in check, they'd be heading for a major population crash. But worse, this surplus of deer is doing major ecological damage all on its own - it isn't only deer that are affected, it's the forests, the brush, smaller animals, etc.
[1] I had previously been under the belief that wolves almost never attacked humans, but there are a few documented modern cases, and it seems to have been relatively common pre-Contact and in Europe.
Ignorance of the massive economic value provided by the role of superpredators, greed and also tradition.
The effect of wolves on pets is not so simple as "but wolves will eat our pets". The real pet killers currently, apart of cars of course, are Leishmaniosis, Lyme disease, Ticks, etc... Wolves could help to keep under control some of those, and of course will kill lots of coyotes, saving the life of thousands of pets each year... Cats for example could be much safer living in wolf territory than living among coyotes.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20110629/NEWS/3062...
In farming areas like Missouri, without hunting, the deer populations will get out of control and dramatically affect the farmland. Most don't realize this, but the common reproductive result is always twins. Deer populations ramp up much quicker than other animals.
Besides, venison is delicious, lean meat. I know hundreds of people that hunt deer religiously every November, and they are not jackass trophy hunters, they are primarily hunting to fill their freezers.
A couple of aggressive seasons could dramatically lower the population without impacting viability of the herd, but the state DNR won't do it because it would impact license revenue and tourism.
There has been some work to reestablish wolves. There are already lots of people eager to kill them (estimated population in the UP is 600-700; estimated deer population is north of 200,000).
Good luck relocating thousands of whitetail deer, they are a problem roughly everywhere they exist.
> You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
Yes, very important interventions. But these solutions don't get humans fed. I need to eat.
We need to put ecological corridors alongside hunting programs alongside different farming techniques, from "vegan" farming to advanced integrated crop/livestock rotation, and then really look at what the animal costs are to support a given nutritional profile for humans.
We all know many meat eaters ignore this accounting. But vegans seem to think you can escape it. You can't. Some of the most passionate advocates of careful accounting of animal costs are hunters. They are people who count every animal life as sacred, and accept their responsibility for removing food from an ecosystem as such. See: vegans lambasting Native Americans, although realize some of your quintessential redneck hunters are just as careful and just as respectful.
I am an advocate for a plant-based diet, but only some plants. And I am an advocate for hunting, but only some hunting. And I see both as part of the same program of advocating against animal cruelty.
1) This is an spurious reasoning. First because (deer) hunting is a particularly unefficient way to feed a lot of people. Moreover, big cities were created around rivers because water and alluvial soils were here, and agriculture needs lots of water and rich deep soils. The best 'number one' areas for producing human food are today under concrete, replaced by skyscrapers, empty streets, weekend houses, parking lots and underused roads. If your goal is to feed people you are free to promote the idea of cleaning and returning this valuable land to agriculture again.
2) The reasons for managing a natural area or a national park aren't making food for people. There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
3) I'm not talking about animal cruelty. This is not the point here.
Is ok to hunt, is a regulated activity, but, please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
Maybe a little hunt will do not harm?. Maybe. The problem is that when you give up and cross this line economic interests are created, and is over. You aren't free to manage this natural area under scientific premises anymore. Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more game in this place and make more hunters happy?" and there is not an easy point of return from here. Each stolen public acre is an acre lost.
That's an empirical claim. What's your evidence?
I suspect hunted venison has lower animal cruelty impact than the equivalent amount of this stuff: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=vegan... I wouldn't advocate serving pounds of it to a person every week, but in small doses I would be surprised if "no venison" is the level of venison which creates the lowest level of animal cruelty.
That's just a suspicion though. I would love to see the studies done. Vegans will never do them because they don't want to consider the possibility that their "plant-based" food has non-negligible animal cruelty costs.
> please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
We sort of agree. People hunt for the food, at a certain price, the same reason vegans buy Field Roast patties. My assertion is: we must kill to survive. Vegan food is the result of killing animals. Vegans refuse to count those animals.
> Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more deers in this place and make hunters happy?"
I think this is where I realize we're having slightly different conversations. I think maybe you're saying that not all hunting is good. Agreed. And perhaps you are saying any hunting allowed is a slippery slope that leads to overhunting. That's an interesting argument, I would be happy to follow.
My argument is just that some hunting is virtuous. You say:
> There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
"Saved" in this sentence is a euphemism for "cleared by killing or destroying the habitat of all the animals who might interfere." Regardless of whether it's cattle or corn, animals die to make your food. Vegan food often involves less killing, but it's not no killing, and sometimes venison or an egg involves less than plant-based equivalents. Especially "typical" equivalents in your average Whole Foods basket. Although of course there is an ultimate level of low-impact eating which is vegan, seen practices by buddhist monks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_temple_cuisine
Most vegans don't eat that way. Yet they'll disparage conscientious hunters who are closer to that ideal than they are.
Saved in this sencence means reserved (yet). Not more, not less.
> animals die to make your food.
I'm perfectly aware of that
> Vegan food often involves...
Again, I'm not talking about animal cruelty or veganism. This is not about "we or them". Is not about moral decisions. I'm talking about ecosystem management for conservation purposes, that is a theme in a totally different galaxy than food personal choices
I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether.
Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.