Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  I imagine that, were I a deer, it would make very little difference to me.
But this isn't an issue of hunters killing the deer which would otherwise be killed by all the wild wolves and cougars we have running around. Wolves won't need to eat the prey if we don't introduce the wolves in the first place. Here's the situation:
We need to control the population of certain animals. We can either do this by introducing wolves and cougars or we can do it in a way which many people will find enjoyable i.e. through hunting. The answer seems fairly obvious to me.
Instinct driven? Don't assume, simply because I oppose forcing people to conform to some arbitrary standard of civility, that I am myself a hunter.
Right, so while we're all eagerly waiting for that to happen, what is the objection to letting these uncivilised brutes have their fun?
A place not containing enough wild places for Matt's liking doesn't qualify as overpopulated. Overpopulation is when the population exceeds the habitat's ability to provide resources. North America generally doesn't suffer from food, water or land shortages. |
No, if a deer wasn't killed by a human, it wouldn't then always be killed by a real predator. It may live out its life, it may get eaten by a wolf, who knows. Either way it would have liven a longer life and if it was eaten, the meat helped another creature survive.
The answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Let nature come back, and restore itself, and not let some people go kill some animals when the product of that animal is NOT neededm and it could be consumed me soemthing that needed it OR it could live out its life.
The objection is they are ruining lives.
We do have an overpopulation. We have no natural predators. We are ruining the earth, that is what I consider overpopulation.
Quote:
Quote by: tivodan1116 Ah, I see, then you believe in the literal truth of the Bible.
Then you agree with Genesis 1 wherein God gives dominion over all living things to humans and says they are food.
You cannot have it both ways. You either believe in evolution, and my point above regarding that is correct, or you are a creationist, in which case the story of creation includes the animals being made "for us", in which your argument is still wrong. So either I'm right, or you're wrong.
pwned. /thread. |
I hope you are smart enough to realize not all Christians believe or agree with what the Bible says. I don't agree with what it says about animals, and men did write the Bible...not God.