[mmirate]

Indeed. If you're hunting large animals, you want to cause plenty of destruction to a vital location in a single shot, so that the animal dies quickly and humanely. (And you certainly don't shoot at their face, parallel to their face.)

If you own dangerous tools that don't happen to be useful outside hunting (bolt-action, small magazine, high-penetration cartridges), you also want to store the dangerous tool in a secure manner. That clearly was not the case in this story.

[Markoff]

why anyone need to hunt animals again? killing animals for fun seem like odd hobby in country so focused on no harm done during shooting movie or other times to any animals, seem animals there get better treatment than many citizens with exception of hunting

[roguecoder]

One example: deer are vermin that frequently overbreed and destroy the landscape since we've wiped out many of the natural predators and provide reliable food sources to them, but on the other hand they make great stew.

[gambiting]

Especially in the US, deer are extremely destructive to any environment they appear in, with herds numbering hundreds of thousands and eating every crop they happen upon. They were allowed to grow that much, partially because we have killed their natural predators, but also because hunting them has been aggressively frowned upon for decades now. So any suggestion of culling the herds is immediately and fiercely met with groups protesting any sort of hunting, without offering any sort of alternative solution.

[Markoff]

don't you have professional huntsmen/forester/whatever name over there? i don't see reason why general public should be taking care of this with guns

[gambiting]

My understanding is that yes, rangers can cull down the population, but it's actually not a bad solution to issue say $500 permit to hunt deer(that allows you to shoot say 2-3 animals), and that way you cull the numbers without engaging already thin group or rangers.

But the issue exists no matter who does the shooting - there are groups who protest any kind of animal shooting, even if their population is wildly out of control.

[mmirate]

It's better to take payment for a license granting the privilege of doing a job, than to go through the rigamarole of hiring someone to do it, paying them, and keeping them paid even if there's no work for them at the moment. The reduction in payroll expenses, plus the license revenue, can then be invested into conservation-related projects. Plus, as fun as hunting may be to those who find it fun, many such people have other skills too, and wouldn't want to stop honing them just to be paid to hunt.

[Hextinium]

I was also confused at one point why someone would go hunting until i had it explained to me: it's a challege at its core. People go hunting because even with rifles it is still hard to identify a target and without alerting it, fire. And not miss. You can be out for hours and spend counrless hours at the range and lose all that time in 5 seconds if you mess up. Its a rush and as for everything its not for everyone but that is a bit of the mind of a hunter.

[danso]

I’ve gone out hunting and yes, it is absolutely work even with a gun. It’s a lot of waiting and preparation to be in range for a shot. As paradoxical as it may seem, I’ve found hunters to be generally more appreciative of nature than the average person. Also, hunting license fees fund a huge part of conservation. The decline of active and paying hunters is a significant threat to the preservation of nature reserves: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-...

[beachy]

In my country deer are an introduced species that decimate the local flora. Alongside pigs, cats and other animals that are simply in the wrong place thanks to humans.