this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)

vegan

7014 readers
73 users here now

:vegan-liberation:

Welcome to /c/vegan and congratulations on your first steps toward overcoming liberalism and ascending to true leftist moral superiority.

Rules

Resources

Animal liberation and direct action

Read theory, libs

Vegan 101 & FAQs

If you have any great resources or theory you think belong in this sidebar, please message one of the comm's mods

Take B12. :vegan-edge:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How does veganism propose we handle invasive species? Murder is the least ideal option but I know that in many cases this is considered best practice. Is it okay to eat an invasive species if they "have to" be killed anyway or is it preferable to leave their nutrients in the ecosystem they have invaded? These invasive species are usually our fault and would do far more harm to animals as a whole if left alone but does that give us the right to murder them?

I also have another question about hunting. I grew up in the American south where hunting deer is very common. I was always told that the hunt was necessary because if we did not reduce their population it would grow until it became unsustainable. At which point they would starve and do significant harm to the native ecosystem. How true is all this?

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Speaker@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is it okay to eat settler-colonists moving into your space? Flesh is not food. Eradicating a consequence of animal exploitation does not give one ground to exploit animals anyway, as a treat. Sterilization programs are effective when possible so you don't end up poisoning scavengers.

The entire question is a bit ill-posed, anyway, since most invasive species are not hunted for food (and, indeed, most of them aren't animals). The problem with invasive species is not that they exist, it's that they have no ecological limit on their proliferation and thus outcompete local species. You solve this with proactive population control, the same way you spay/neuter domesticated animals.

The incentives of hunting for "population control" are all wrong. These programs seek to control the population in order to perpetuate the practice of hunting and the "profit" of those hunts. Deer overpopulation means ecological impact and resource contention, which means starved and sickly trophies. Reintroducing the natural predators that were eradicated by humans restores the ecological limit on the population and repairs the broken nutrient cycle humans created, no murder program required. This is simply scientific fact.

Hwites do not understand what it means to relate to the land as stewards rather than as masters, and cannot imagine (or are incentivized not to imagine) a solution other than "what if we just kept murdering but only hurt the bad guys this time". Dexter-ass "traditions".

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Thanks, this was helpful

[–] Robert_Kennedy_Jr@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

From my understanding invasive species are generally culled with poisoned food so eating them is generally out of the question. Its also probably not effective or ideal to send a bunch of people traipsing through the wood shooting them or setting traps that will likely affect other species.

I don't have a great answer to the first part but as far as deer hunting to control the population goes, humans have wiped out virtually all of their natural predators to protect live stock. So in an ideal world where we weren't subjecting huge numbers of animals to industrial agriculture those predator species would be reintroduced to the environment.

[–] BeanisBrain@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

humans have wiped out virtually all of their natural predators to protect live stock. So in an ideal world where we weren't subjecting huge numbers of animals to industrial agriculture those predator species would be reintroduced to the environment.

I pointed this out to a guy who supported deer hunting and his response was "but those predators would be a threat to my dogs." I pointed out that if keeping a pet safe in a certain place requires annihilating the surrounding ecosystem, then maybe that pet shouldn't be kept there. He went on to accuse me of not caring about poor rural people ("so they should just have to be lonely?") and I was just like, get a cat or a gerbil or a cricket or literally anything else that can stay indoors and doesn't require a Rimworld-esque wildlife killing spree to keep safe.

[–] SnakeEyes@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

I mean if this something you are dealing with like groundhogs or squirrels, catch, relocate, and release is usually the method, insects you just plant native plan that they dislike, attract birds that predate on them, or as a last resort use mites