this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
699 points (98.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
7494 readers
447 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, I don't hunt or care to start hunting and if recreational hunting is more detrimental to sustained ecosystems than other tactics then it should be replaced, I'm more concerned with using good, reliable information to form conclusions
The first and third link doesn't appear to link to any citations or data to support it's claims, so I think it's fair to treat it as an option piece but I think we should have better standards when making decisions that can affect our stewardship of the world around us
The second is quite long but from what I can gather it is the best of the 4 in that it is based on a survey of peer reviewed research and makes a good thorough case against a subset of recreational hunting, specifically trophy hunting, as unethical.
The last link says overabundance is not a scientific term used in the scientific literature, but I can clearly see it is in many widely cited research papers (two usages, one in linguistics and one in biology)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=overabundant
And in the additional resources section there's a few broken links and the closest I can find to a peer review article is a letter to the editor of a journal, not identified as a peer reviewed article and without public access to the methodology if it contains one
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380005003339
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Letter_to_the_Editor_considered_as_research_article_publication_Does_it_carry_any_value_in_terms_of_research_score