I realized this. In general it’s alright to hunt deer, salmon, or duck. But when it comes to bears, lions, or eagles; it’s unacceptable. Why does this double standard exist? I’m not saying it’s right or wrong either way, just that I realized it and find the fact interesting.
Basic ecological stability. Too few predators, and the prey animals breed out of control, eat all the food, and die of starvation- or leave the area and become invasive somewhere else. And since most predators will prey on humans if they get hungry enough, and we REALLY don't like that, we've killed or driven into hiding almost every last animal that could threaten one of us, leaving a vacuum in many places.
What, on the North American continent, is big enough to hunt a full-grown deer? -Wolves, which occupy very restricted ranges.
-Mountain lions, which don't exist east of the Rockies.
-Coyotes, if they band together; mostly, they'll just go after fawns.
-Alligators, which don't exist outside of Florida and tiny bits of Louisiana.
-Crocodiles, which don't exist north of Miami.
-Orcas, which you'd think wouldn't be able to eat a land animal, but they don't let that stop them- still, they're limited to coastal areas, for obvious reasons.
That leaves most of the country at the mercy of cloven-hoofed leaf muchers- don't laugh. Deer are strong, tough, and a serious threat to vegetable gardens, and potentially even general agriculture.
Enter human hunters. Hunting is VERY regulated here in the States, and for good reason: humans are an important part of the ecosystem, and keeping things in check. It's not just "here's your gun, here's your orange vest, go kill some deer". Many hunters are also dedicated conservationists, and in fact it's because of falconers, first and foremost, that the American peregrine falcon even still exists outside of the history books.
Apex predators dont get hunted in the wild therefore the breeding cycle is a lot slower then other animals lower on the food cycle. Everything ends up carefully balanced in an ecosystem.
On top of that meat eaters are awful to eat. You can try it but you're happier off with a well done of a welldone beef steak. That's the only way to eat predators because they carry everything they ever eat with bugs and parasites that end up eating your brain.
It's a numbers game. They've worked out an area can tolerate the removal of X numbers of deer, perhaps even benefit from it. As for predators it's the same but unless they're a pest species they'll issue less permits. Shoot too many predators and you lose diversity lower down as one prey species explodes in numbers.
Another factor is its bad publicity for shooting. It's easy to justify shooting deer. It puts food on tables and deer do a lot of damage to woods and farmland. But shooting a bear or lion
just for a trophy is harder to justify.
Makes no difference to me, I'll shoot a coyote or bear, just as readily as I would a deer or moose.
Opinion
5Opinion
I don’t know the laws but firstly, the populations of “prey” are more, yes? Secondly I don’t think you’d be prosecuted for killing a bear lion or eagle unless it’s endangered.
The dentist who shot Cecil just got lambasted on social media I believe. Maybe he poached, I don't know.
They serve totally different functions in the environmental systems they inhabit. A prey animal regulates vegetation, while predators regulate the number of prey animals available to consume vegetation.
Many are threatened species, like wolves (in the lower 48) pumas, bobcats/lynxes and bears. Coyotes are very aggressively hunted and not threatened at all.
Because if you piss off predators - they will kill you, and everything in their fucking way.
Kill off a family of prey, and you will never run fast enough to catch the survivors.
In addition to ecological stability like NamerOfStars said, it’s not just about prey vs predators. It’s also unacceptable to hunt species in danger of extinction.
