tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post5064098511974286300..comments2024-01-22T17:04:11.505-05:00Comments on GROUSERS: formerly Five Smart Guys Who Hunt and Their Generally Smarter Companions: Quality Deer Management: A Risk-Averse ViewJim Tantillohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post-63865217360489616662010-02-20T13:16:11.758-05:002010-02-20T13:16:11.758-05:00I can think of no stronger evidence of the primary...I can think of no stronger evidence of the primary role of puritanism in the animal rights movement than their unquestioned support of deer immunocantraception.<br /><br />-JoshuaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19938128.post-10023560595396004192010-02-19T16:43:52.265-05:002010-02-19T16:43:52.265-05:00lest any of you think this is a silly or facetious...lest any of you think this is a silly or facetious point I'm making in this post--one of the arguments made by pro-deer contraception advocates in interviews Bruce Lauber and I did several years was that immunocontraception drugs helped keep the body mass of deer (particularly male deer) low. They reasoned that this was an ethical plus given their desire in places like Princeton and Hilton Head SC (where I did interviews) to minimize the effects of deer-car collisions. <br /><br />When we asked them questions about the aesthetic loss of seeing scrawny, "emasculated" deer (although we didn't use THOSE terms obviously) (as always I paraphrase promiscuously and for dramatic effect), the interviewees appeared to be completely unmoved by the aesthetics of deer. The idea of "quality deer" was something they might see as a problem, not as a positive.<br /><br />More things to think about . . . .Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.com