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
> 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.