23 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

What a biased report. Not once do I see a quote from any deer to get their POV.

;o)

23 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Well, since deer live on the precept of "kill or be killed" everyday, they probably feel the same as they always have.

Or, to look at it another way - since they live on instinct, and not feelings, they probably feel...like deer.

;)

23 Nov 2004 | Jeremy Flint said...

The deer cooking in the crockpot at my house right now probably feels pretty warm.

23 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

OK, I'm stupid. You made that joke already with the title of the post.

23 Nov 2004 | John Doe said...

Velvety.

23 Nov 2004 | BradNelson said...

Well, that's what the deer get for being so tasty.

They just have it coming. You can't defend it.

23 Nov 2004 | Zac said...

...since they live on instinct, and not feelings...

Not trying to start anything here...but I very respectfully disagree. Deer brains may not be advanced as our own, but they definitely possess feelings, emotions, and sensations similar to ours.

Feelings are a useful survival advantage for even non-human species. A doe may be unable to consciously verbalize "my baby is missing," but she still feels the related emotions -- they're the only reason she has to try to raise her kids successfully. Along the same lines, a buck may not know why a shotgun is frightening -- but he knows it doesn't feel good to take a bullet in the head. Without a keen sense of pain, fear, and sadness, deer (like many other animals) would have died out a long time ago.

Again, I'm not trying to start anything, and I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but the post was controversial to begin with, so what the hell? ;)

23 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

Zac -

I would think the "my baby is missing" response would more reflect the instinctual response to fear more than anything related to emotion.

For a deer, I would see "my baby is missing" = "there's a preditor on the hunt for deer, better scidaddle, or kick its ass and eat it."

23 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Along the same lines, a buck may not know why a shotgun is frightening -- but he knows it doesn't feel good to take a bullet in the head.

Yet they still can't comprehend '2 bright lights heading at you = pain'. Maybe there is a breed of kamikaze deer out there hell-bent on getting rid of us?

(I type this after just learning my brother totalled his vehicle yesterday by hitting a dear in the same area as this shooting ;o)

23 Nov 2004 | Cozy said...

Us deer feel like ANIMALS! Who wants to party?!@

23 Nov 2004 | Zac said...

I would think the "my baby is missing" response would more reflect the instinctual response to fear more than anything related to emotion.

I wouldn't... because the fear response has to be actuated somehow -- and emotions seem like the most efficient method. If deer don't feel, then what is the mechanism that translates the understanding that "a predator is nearby" into the urge to run? I'm not saying that deer fall in love or get excited about finding a new cache of berries. But I do think they're equipped with a basic set of emotions - to the extent that they're useful as a survival advantage. Pain, fear, happiness, and sadness all have obvious utility in the natural world, especially for animals who raise their young.

Of course, I'm not a biologist. So everything I say should probably be taken with a grain of salt. :)

Yet they still can't comprehend '2 bright lights heading at you = pain'

A human infant probably couldn't either... but I still wouldn't feel right shooting it.

23 Nov 2004 | Unearthed Ruminator said...

A question for discussion: if you are OK with animals being held in captivity for the purpose of feeding humans (i.e. chicken, cow, fish, etc.), then there isn't anything wrong with hunting (is there)?

23 Nov 2004 | David Schontzler said...

Deer hunting is essential in keeping a healthy, viable population of deer.

23 Nov 2004 | Brian said...

I'm sure deer feel something when they're starving to death due to overpopulation (from fewer than 500,000 nationwide at the beginning of the 20th century to greater than 25 million now).

23 Nov 2004 | R. H. said...

You know you live in the country when.... you say "vehicle" instead of "car" or "truck" or "automobile" :)

23 Nov 2004 | R. H. said...

Also, this event really doesn't have anything to do with hunting, but with psychotic murder.

Maybe it has to do with "outsiders" and local "insiders" in conflict, but the fact that they were hunters in circumstantial.

23 Nov 2004 | lisa said...

You know, one of the wildest things i saw in NewZealand were the deer farms. I wonder why we don't farm them here.

23 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

There is alot that's unclear about this. Now, they guy may have been psychotic, I don't know, maybe he just flipped. He was already trespassing/poaching, so that leads me to think he knew what he was doing. It's not like he just got off the boat/plane yesterday, so the "they don't understand private property" line I've read in many articles on this doesn't hold much water with me.

However, if one of those other hunters was pissed about him being in their tree stand and carelessly pointed his rifle at him, then it would've been a strong case for self-defense if he'd only killed one. But six?

The whole thing's a damn shame.

As far as how the deer feel...if you make a clean shoulder/heart/lung shot with an appropriate caliber they don't feel much cause they die pretty quick. Every deer that me, my wife, or my son have killed with firearms have pretty much dropped in place and died instantly.

Bowhunting's a little different although if you make a clean heart/lung shot, they typically die within a minute or two.

23 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

'Well, since deer live on the precept of "kill or be killed" everyday, they probably feel the same as they always have.'

Um. Deer kill? I don't count getting hit by a vehicle late at night as a suicide attack on humans either. ;-)

There are all sorts of huge problems that humans have created because of our intelligence we have more abilities than strictly biological evolution has given us. It isn't like we developed the ability to run really fast to catch a deer and kill it with our claws. The development of weapons to hunt developed incredibly quickly in terms of evolutionary time, so we are able to destroy balances that took thousands and thousand of years to develop naturally.

Just look at the deer population throughout the country. We eleminated wolves and the deer went unchecked. Hunting is not as effective though because there are little nuances that the whole ecosystem relies on to keep balance.

For instance, in the parks where wolves have been re-introduced native fauna have made a comeback because the deer have re-developed a more natural eating pattern, no longer able to leisurely graze near rivers and streams because these are known ambush spots. The native plants have made a comeback because of this little nuance of the natural predator and prey relationship. Human hunting simply cannot replicate it and we have no where near the level of understanding necessary to properly manage every aspect of an ecosystem. In many ways, nature knows best.

As for the intelligence aspect and emotion... we know fatty foods are bad for us, that cigarrettes cause cancer and drinking and driving don't mix... yet we do it. There are many studies that show emotion and intelligence in animals that cannot simply be chalked up to instinct, especially mammals and birds.

Anyway, in the end we'll have to move almost entirely to an agricultural based food source as population continues to grow... meat simply isn't an efficient way of getting energy and the amount of land and energy required to raise animals as food just is not sustainable.

23 Nov 2004 | John B said...

Multiple responses...

"the post was controversial to begin with, so what the hell?"

It was? Compared to what? Abortion? The war in Iraq? The recent election? Anything deer related ranks pretty low on the grand scheme of things.

"Um. Deer kill? I don't count getting hit by a vehicle late at night as a suicide attack on humans either."

Yes. I seem to recall recently, I think it was somewhere near Missoula, MT, a deer killed someone's dog, a weimaraner I believe. Gored and trampled it good. No, the dog wasn't going after it's baby. It was going outside to pee. Granted this is the exception to the rule. I killed a deer with my VW Golf in 2000. Good thing, too, who knows how many dogs I saved.

"A human infant probably couldn't either... but I still wouldn't feel right shooting it."

Comparing a human baby to a deer? Really? Wow. That pretty much invalidates anything else you might say. Can't argue with insanity, but I'm a glutton for punishment so let's try. Let's revisit abortion.

Are you pro-choice? I don't want to generalize but I think it's safe to say, demographically and stereotypcially, most people (::cough::liberals::cough::) that would defend the deer would also defend a woman's right to kill her unborn fetus. Is it just me or is that a bit incongruous? A deer's life is worth more than a human's? Really?

Crazy, man, crazy.

John
(No, I'm not pro-life, but I can pretend...)

24 Nov 2004 | Mark said...

"...The development of weapons to hunt developed incredibly quickly in terms of evolutionary time, so we are able to destroy balances that took thousands and thousand of years to develop naturally..."

I don't understand your logic. The superior capability of man's brain to innovate and develop more efficient weaponry also developed naturally, so how do you figure the balance was destroyed?

24 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

Yeah, I was waiting for the response that basically anything humans do is natural... the point is that because of our ability to develop beyond the ability of the rest of the ecosystem makes our actions that much more potentially distructive. An alien species is "natural" but putting it into an alien environment where its natural predators do not exist upsets a balance that had been struck over thousands of years. It isn't a discussion of natural = good or bad, its the issue that we, as humans have an immense impact that we cannot understand the consequences of. No other species has had the impact that we have on all other species and ecosystems on the whole.

24 Nov 2004 | Mike said...

Equating animals to humans (often done by attributing animals with human-like feelings vs. animal instinct) leads to policies that cause increased suffering by human beings-some of which may be your loved ones.

Biblical basis

Tony Blair defends science against eco-and animal-Nazis

Madness of PETA

24 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

"leads to policies that cause increased suffering by human beings"
That's simply not true. Your links don't provide anything more than biased, one-sided ranting and un-thoughtful analysis. Eco-terrorism is stupid. PETA does probably more harm than good for its causes. And children being abused should be taken care of. But that doesn't mean that torturing animals unnecessarily or destroying the environment in a short-sighted money making venture are right.

If you want to degenerate every discussion to focus on radical positions as a way to make your point... then your point is only about radical positions and misses the real discussion.

24 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Comparing a human baby to a deer? Really? Wow. That pretty much invalidates anything else you might say.

And that pretty much invalidates anything else you'd say.

I don't want to generalize but I think it's safe to say, demographically and stereotypcially, most people (::cough::liberals::cough::) that would defend the deer would also defend a woman's right to kill her unborn fetus.

I don't want to generalize but I think it's safe to say, demographically and stereotypcially, most people (::cough::anti-abortion-zealots::cough::) that would fight abortion at all costs would also see little reason to stop capital punishment, prevent war, feel no need to support things like social welfare, socialized health care, more support for day cares, increased education spending, after school programs, living wages, etc.

(and yes, that IS generalizing ;o)

24 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

If you want to degenerate every discussion to focus on radical positions

I wouldn't even say PETA is in the realm of 'radical'. They're more 'ultra-way-out-no-chance-of-ever-coming-back-almost-insane-radical'

They really don't have a place in any sane discussion of animal welfare.

Which is sad, because they do have some very good points. Alas, all their wacko points kind of drown out the few good ones.

24 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

I guess the latest news is that the shooter is claiming that he was threatened and shot at first, but also admits to chasing down the other victims.

I take solace in knowing that crazy hunter season is almost over. Then we can welcome crazy drunk snowmobiler season!

24 Nov 2004 | Zac said...

John B. -

"the post was controversial to begin with, so what the hell?"

It was? Compared to what? Abortion? The war in Iraq? The recent election? Anything deer related ranks pretty low on the grand scheme of things.

From my experience, people tend to get fired up (on both sides) whenever animal welfare/rights issues come up. So that leads me to believe it's a controversial topic. Am I wrong?

"A human infant probably couldn't either... but I still wouldn't feel right shooting it."

Comparing a human baby to a deer? Really? Wow. That pretty much invalidates anything else you might say.

Why?

If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I wasn't comparing the value of a deer to a human infant. I was only arguing that intelligence alone isn't a valid method of determining a living thing's value.

Are you pro-choice? I don't want to generalize but I think it's safe to say, demographically and stereotypcially, most people (::cough::liberals::cough::) that would defend the deer would also defend a woman's right to kill her unborn fetus. Is it just me or is that a bit incongruous? A deer's life is worth more than a human's? Really?

You don't want to generalize? Then you shouldn't have. Because, despite what you probably guessed, I'm not in favor of abortion. I'm not in favor of causing any unnecessary death or suffering -- to any sentient creature. Call me a crazy liberal if you want - but what's incongruous about that?

24 Nov 2004 | PW said...

It looks as though some people don't recognize a troll when they see one.

24 Nov 2004 | sloan said...

PW, are you new to this site? ;-)

24 Nov 2004 | John B said...

That's pretty much the response I expected.

PW-

Is trolling a troll still trolling?

24 Nov 2004 | Brandon said...

I love deer. Sandwiches.

24 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

That's pretty much the response I expected.

Way to not engage in a discussion that you started.

25 Nov 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

Deer hunting is essential in keeping a healthy, viable population of deer.
The human god attacks again. The results keeping *anything* viable are not very impressive so far.
Sloan pretty much said everything already.
Regarding this incident, I find hunters in general, more violent than average. In my country most of the violent crimes are committed with hunting rifles and also there's some freak accidents with children every year. I don't have that kind of weapons (or others) in my house and I think it's better that way.
Regarding hunting in general, in theory I'm not against it, but in the real world I am. Usually an hunter shoots everything that fly, walks or crawl and has the bad luck to cross in their path.

26 Nov 2004 | PW said...

Jose -
And I think basketball players are more violent than average. Whatever...

Oh, and make sure that you shout a lot should you be walking through the woods next week. My friends, relatives, peers and myself wouldn't want to mistake your movement for that of legitimate game and blast you when you crawl in our path. We do have itchy trigger fingers. All of us.

It's arguements like this and his preceding that sparked my previous troll comment. No matter how people justify one side of an arguement, those that disagree will throw out some other justification for the opposite. Just let those that hunt, hunt and those that don't, stay home. It's a shame that takes groups as radical sounding as the NRA to defend gun ownership and hunting. It's also a shame that it takes whack-job groups like PETA to defend animal rights. Some people vote for Bush, some Kerry. Neither group is stupid. Similar comments can be made for many of the discussions on this blog. It gets kind of funny almost.

Well, I'm going back to lurker mode. Fire away.

26 Nov 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

A ball it's a little different from a gun -- if you don't see it, it's your problem --, shows me how much the "gun thing" is already embedded in your mind. For you it's a regular item to carry or have around a house.
A ball it's a little different from a gun -- if you don't see it, it's your problem --, shows me how much the "gun thing" is already embedded in your mind. For you it's a regular item to carry or have around a house.
You know you are and feel a "little god" behind your little gun, "blasting" just what the law says it's to blast. But, you know, some of your peers are not that civilized and they "blast" everything that moves and they hunt illegally too. Not to mention that most still use lead in the ammunitions, contaminating earth and water. Really good pals, all they care is nature, specially if it's theirs to use and abuse.
Regarding "those that hunt", who told you the animals are your property to kill? And who told you people want to stay home? Actually I like to walk in the woods, take some pictures and see the trees and animals. Do I have that right at least? Or the natural heritage (what's left) is property of the hunters?
In the end the important is to laugh a little with some friends, have some beers and kill some animals. Nowadays hunt is just kill for pleasure. That is something I'll never understand.

28 Nov 2004 | DanD. said...

Nowadays hunt is just kill for pleasure. That is something I'll never understand.
oh yeah? I eat every pound of meat I get off of my deer. And sure, it's fun to be out in the woods. That's why I go hunting. and honestly, it does not matter if I get a deer. I just enjoy the companionship of a good friend, and being in the quiet of the woods all day. Natural heritage? it's our heritage to like the outdoors, to want to leave the stress of the city and walk in the wild. But it is also our heritage to hunt and own guns. when our fathers created this nation, they saw it fit to allow people to own guns. Most hunters are really good people, and people that don't hunt usually are too. Look at how many hunters go out and drink beer and hunt, and then look at the rest of us who hunt. the number of those who do things like hunt while under the influence is low. People who poach and hunt while drunk aren't real hunters.
"And who told you people want to stay home" I believe that the person who said that was talking about people who don't want to hunt. "Not to mention that most still use lead in the ammunitions, contaminating earth and water." Do you have a car? do you know what that does to the environment? thousands of times more people drive cars than people who hunt. cars pollute the environment much more than any bullets will.