>>770311
If I lived in a forest I would hunt dear and such.
I would only kill predators if an actual wildlife surveyor (or whoever decides these things) made it known that the population must be thinned to preserve the food supply.
I wouldn't take a tacky trophy photo like that but I would keep the skin.

I am currently working on my hunting licence, but I'm already certain what I will do with it.

I will not kill to have hunted. I will hunt to kill.

This killing will be either for the reason of getting the meat out of it and for population control as part of my job.

Trophy hunting is just sad.

Animals suck. Kill em all

>>770377
>trophy hunting is just sad
Yes. If a human is able to kill a bear in melee combat then I will be impressed, otherwise it's just masturbatory target practice.

>>770311

>I know nothing about population ecology

Absolutely nothing wrong with trophy hunting so long as it is done in a responsible and regulated way.

>>770388
>responsible, regulated
If it has a purpose other than the trophy then it isn't trophy hunting.

>>770311

Funds from hunters pay for most state wildlife conservation, including purchasing/protecting lands, doing research, etc.

>>770411
Oh so this doesn't fall under the forest ranger's offices or whatever you have in Usa?

Here in Germany every patch of forest and it's inhabitans fall under some office.
But then again Germany is much smaller.
Still though I think nature converment should be governmental

>>770446
>Still though I think nature converment should be governmental
It is. We just allow the people to participate in the consumptive aspects of it and pay for that participation.

>>770406
>If it has a purpose other than the trophy then it isn't trophy hunting.
I bet you'd have a hard time defining what is a trophy and what isn't.

>>770387
>Yes. If a human is able to kill a bear in melee combat then I will be impressed, otherwise it's just masturbatory target practice.
Nobody is claiming to be tougher than a bear. It's really telling that people assume they are.

>>770362
>I wouldn't take a tacky trophy photo like that but I would keep the skin.
How is that in any substantive way different or better? How is being in a photographic with the whole carcass tacky but displaying the chemically tanned hide on your floor isn't?

>>770411
>Funds from hunters pay for most state wildlife conservation, including purchasing/protecting lands, doing research, etc.
I'm not so sure about that
I think it is another one of those myths like gas taxes are enough to fund roads
http://www.nrwm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Smith-Molde-Wildlife-Funding-spreadsheet-Rev-F2-19Jun15.pdf

>>770557
Yeah that claim about it funding all conservation in NA is a bit spurious, but it does have the impact of making it economically worthwhile to keep areas relatively wild that would otherwise be exploited more heavily by industry.

People forget that for thousands of years, humans were part of the food chain in nature. We killed off huge numbers of deer, bears, wolves, geese etc for food, clothing, and protection.

Only in recent history did we dramatically cut how much wildlife we killed, and a lot of their populations are out of control.

The wolf and coyote population around here is soaring cuz nobody hunts them anymore. They're turning up in the middle of towns, killing pets and being a nuisance.

>>770970
These populations are soaring because these animals live in the cities and eat trash and Pets.
In nature they are regulated by the populations of prey animals which get regulated by these predators.
Here in germany in the last decade wolves returned. But there didnt occur big problems.
They sometimes eat sheep and get regulated in car accidents.
Only one had to be shot because it got very close to people and their dogs.
How many wolves are there in the states?

>>770387
Ill body slam the fucking intestines out of a bear. Fuck with me bro I dare ya!

As much as I hate to kill wolves we need to do it. Where I lived up north in the Yukon we had a major issue with wolves, little to no moose, caribou, deer any animal for that matter. Now we hunt them and trap them and we are seeing record high return of animals back to the area. Been trapping and hunting for 8 years and without us doing such (smartly and not over taking like we did) all is fine. Got any issues saying what I did is wrong? You can go fuck yourself because it aint.

>>770446
>Germany
Then you should know, if you're OP, that stuff like deer, boar etc need to be controlled by hunting because their predators like wolf are gone (save an insignificant few in the East) so they'd go out of control

>>771030
Not op but another germanfag.
Why do hunters feed deer and doe in the winter and mainly take the male ones if not for trophy hunting?
At least that is my observation.
There are way too many; almost hit one with my bicicleta yesterday.

>>770311
http://www.worldanimalnews.com/content.php?content_ID=659

>One of Zimbabwe’s largest wildlife reserves, the Bubye Valley Conservancy, recently announced that they must reduce their number of lions, currently at 500, by at least 200. This “issue” is being called “The Cecil Effect” by some, as the overpopulation is being attributed to the fact that trophy hunters are afraid to hunt after the uproar over Cecil the lion’s death at the hands of American dentist Walter Palmer.

>save the animals
>but only if they have cute names and it doesn't cost me anything

>>771058
Its to keep them healthy, you want to get the big buck

Getting rid of the dominant male of an area gives younger the chance to spread their genes instead of the older male having a monopoly for years on end, this helps ensure genetic diversity of herds so they are less susceptible to illnesses

>>771058
And a buck is bigger so you get more meat

>>771072
Yeah, but wouldnt it be wiser to reduce the female ones since it basically only needs one Buck to impragnate all of them?
Every 10th doe gets killed in a car accident i read somewhere. It is madness to breed them.

>>770992
About 1,000 or so in the mountain states & the PNW. I think there are over 7,000 of them in Alaska, and rouggly ten times that number spread across all of Canada.

a huge population of feral hogs exists throughout much of Texas. they're a foreign species with no predators that competes with pretty much all the other native species for food. they will eat anything including crops, gardens, saplings, acorns, insects, birds, small mammals, and their own young. they root and wallow through the earth and uproot plants that didn't evolve to survive such activity. they disrupt any habitats in Texas from pine forests to brushland to wetlands. they're a vector for disease to infect livestock. they're intelligent, hardy, adaptive, and fecund. and they were introduced by settlers during the colonization of Texas.

so where does our responsibility lie? how do we approach a problem that we caused? do we even presume to try to guide or control an immensely complex system which we barely understand? what should our guiding principle even be? human wellbeing? nature wellbeing? what sorts of losses are acceptable for what sorts of gains? how do we measure success and failure?

so i don't think posting a flippant thread about a shot bear on 4chan will be of any help. yes, overcrowding and overpopulation are problems. this is obvious to anyone who's ever planted too many plants close together or kept too many certain species of fish or whatever in too small a habitat.

stop posting dumbass appeals to emotion and educate yourself because maybe the decline and destruction of living beings and our planet is an issue to be taken seriously.