It really does depend on what it is being hunted but yes, in most cases it's done to control population. The most prominent example I can think of is deer. They breed like crazy, they are voracious eaters, and given the chance, an overpopulation of them can strip a forest bare. They need to be culled to control their population and to conserve resources.
Hunting is an unfortunate but necessary tool to help temporarily curb population growth of animals (such as deer, pigeons and Canadian geese) whose populations have grown too big to support themselves and present dangers to human civilization. Even though these growths in population are often due to human factors such as elimination of their predators, we must control their population in order to prevent the spread of disease and limit animal suffering. However it is only a short term solution and equilibrium of their environments must be re-established in the long term.
It is necessary to control the animal population because there are some animals that arent even native to this country that have become serious pests and they need to be removed as quickly as possible. Other animals that are native have populations that have gotten out of control and the only way to control them would be by hunting.
In rare instances, hunting has been deemed necessary by states to help control the population. Part of the problem is that we have eliminated natural predators from our states, making it possible for prey animals to reproduce in abundance. As an example, some states have deer overpopulation because of the fact that natural hunters, like wolves, have been eliminated from the area. So it's a sad by product of messing with the natural balance of the ecosystem.
Hunting can be a required act for certain animal control populations. For deer, in particular, they will grow out of control if we don't have a hunting season to trim their population down. They are almost like a pest, really. But for other animals it is not required to hunt to control.
Where I live, if deer were not hunted, they would take over. It becomes very evident, each and every year, that the deer population increases quite regularly because in the months prior to hunting season, they are easier and easier to find. This means that car wrecks involving deer tends to escalate through the fall months, until deer season is open, and the population decreases. So, yes, hunting is necessary to control the animal population.
Hunting is absolutely necessary to control the anima population. With that in mind, we couldn't control animal populations in a more effective way. Hunters get to enjoy their recreational sport, and these populations stay under control. Allowing the populations to overrun a given area can lead to plenty of problems.
Hunting is sometimes necessary to control a particular animal population. This is particularly true where the animal in question is either a top of the food chain predator itself, or where the animal seeking to be controlled has too few predators in the area. In those cases, hunting may be necessary.
God said we could harvest animals and they were ours to enjoy. Food is great and vegetables are not food for me. Vegetables are my food's food. A grill is sexy with a big slab of homegrown meat on it. It is a tradition in the south to hunt any and everything
I live in the UK, and since we've killed off the wolf, the bear and the lynx (unfortunately) we are the sole predator of our far overpopulated deer population. Even if we game up hunting them and let them be, our forests would disappear, as the deer would eat them up. That's why we need to control them through hunting and culling - to preserve what little wilderness we have left.
First of all the populations will just even out it doesn't take that much of a brain to figure it out. If there's not enough food then the animal above them in the chain would lower in population. I personally believe in god and if you think an all loving god would really want you to kill another species even though it's wrong, because it tastes good then you're in denial and trying to justify the killing of a species. Oh yeah that's what christians constantly do... You all are pathetic if you think killing another species is justified, because god said so.
You can capture and spay and neuter or other form of birth control to control populations. They do this with elephants and other animals in Africa. I'd argue that this is a more humane way to manage population. I eat meat but I think it' immoral to do so. I wold prefer we put research into synthetic meat personally. They are coming a long with with it.
Hunting is not needed to control the population of animals. Nature can take its course and animals will die off sooner or later. Someone claiming this is just trying to justify hunting animals. Nature can take of itself and has shown it can do so throughout history. There is no need for hunting.
The government makes money off of every tag or license sold so if the deer weren't over populated then state governments would not even make half of the revenue that they do. It would make sense for them to eliminate natural predators so that the deer will breed more and more so they can thus make more and more money. They aren't going to let deer populations dwindle because that would mean they would lose their main source of income. They purposely let the deer populations breed to abundance and even help the natural process and stock deer populations in certain hunting areas. If we were not allowed to kill wolves for trophy (like the government wants us to) then the deer population and the wolf population would even out to the natural carrying capacity for each area. The deer would not be overpopulated and neither would the wolves. If we let nature take over then the deer would breed like normal, the wolves would breed like normal and if the wolves were too abundant and ate too many deer then their numbers too would start to dwindle if the deer became to abundant and their food source became scarce (the grass, leaves, mice etc. yes they do sometimes eat rodents) then their population would naturally go down to maximum amount that their environment could hold. No humans do not need to interfere, we do not need to play God. Didn't y'all take biology class? That's one of the first things you learn about. Hunting is not necessary by any means. Also no, I'm not some crazy conspiracy theory lunatic. It's just basic knowledge of how he economy works supply and demand etc.
I think hunting is bad because some of us human beings just do it for fun an the more we do hunting there is less animals and you get addicted to killing and you wont stop until someone does. I think population can control its self it helps if nature does its own job.
Hunting is one of the most cruelist and most vile things i know of. If you find killing innocent animals "fun", then you must be one sick dude. Hunting is not needed for population control, deer birth control has been developed and proven effective (not to mention easily administerd). When people hunt (side note: im referring to deer in this), the reduction in population leaves more food for the does, which causes them to give birth to more young, thus INCREASING the population. The reason we dont see this is because A: the dnr and the dfw are corrupt and run by hunters; and B: the hunters kill so much deer that the population growth is massivly diminished. This is why the population grows so fast when hunting stops. Another reason the population grows is partly becuase of an illusion. As the human population increases, people take up more space which push out the deer (or, if they choose to stay, they become "pests" and are killed) confining them to an ever smaller area. This makes it seem that the population is growing, which gives the hunters to participate in thier favorite pastime; killing.
Note: even though i was referring to deer (more specificaly white-tailed deer mule deer and elk) the same thing could be said about most hunted animals.
First, you need to understand that humans are animals. Second, we are no better than the next animal. Yes, we have a greater ability for planning and reasoning , which is why we have an incredibly unfair advantage over others in hunting, but we are no better than other animals. There is no reason to kill other animals. If they interfere with human civilization because their population grows, so be it. Humans are not special, hunters should not be the ones to decide the population of other animals. Leave that to the environment.
Population even themselves out. Let nature fix itself like it has before we tried to destroy everything for personal gain. Disease, predation, and competition are natural ways the populations are sustained it been like this since the first microbiotic life started 4 billion years ago. Killing wolves and deer in the same location makes no sense at all.
One of the reasons we have some of these animal problems is because of hunting. If people keep taking out predators, then the prey will be come abundant. Of course, nature takes care of that, too. Disease, hunger, and other methods will keep populations under control no matter what. Humans like to think that we have to step in to control everything. That is just simply not true. Trust nature, she knows what she is doing much more than we do.
There are people who say that hunting helps to keep the balance in nature. However, for thousands of years, nature has been keeping balance without people regulating it. Now people activities have seriously disturbed that balance, that is true, and, indeed, it may be that our help is needed, that it is too much for nature alone to deal with the consequences of our activities. Still, I say, we could work for creating new solutions. We have a brilliant intellect that is capable of obtaining far more knowledge than was possible for those our ancestors who saw hunting as the only solution. There was also a time when people could only walk or ride a horse, I bet those people would have doubted the possibility of flying. Yet, there were people who believed in finding new ways, and they succeeded. This is the same case - we should learn to help nature without hurting it. It could become the major discovery of the 21st century, and a great achievement of the mankind as such - to finally become useful and good in the context of our mother Nature.