[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt The weakest deer would be killed, since those are the ones that predators go after. Humans though go after the biggest, healthiest bucks in most cases.

Then it's an even more efficient way of keeping the numbers down. Besides, the deer which the hunter chooses to shoot depends entirely on the hunter.

Quote by: Matt Wolves aren't as greedy as humans, they would only kill what they need to survive with. I'm sure if you let a pack of wolves kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, and let hunters be allowed to kill as many deer as they wanted over a month, the wolves would have killed much fewer deer.

And when the problem being addressed is one of overpopulation, fewer deer being killed is not necessarily a good thing.

Quote by: Matt We caused the problem, and if we try to fix it, I'm pretty sure it wont work, it's basically trying to fix a human caused problem with humans

Obviously it is working, since we're not overrun by the animals which have so far been subject to organised culls.

The Sea Otter went extinct in parts North America (Pacific coast) and it caused an overpopulation of sea urchines and other crustaceans which, at their hightened population, ate alot more of the kelp then they would normally. With out alot of the kelp, the baby fish didn't have many places to hide and their populations went down. Fisheries were getting mad. People re-introduced the Sea Otter in the parts in where they went extinct and now the Sea Otter is thriving and the population of the sea urchines and other crustaceans are in check, and the ecosystem is running smoothly again.

I never denied that reintroduction of a predator is a viable way of dealing with population problems. My argument is that hunting is also a viable way of doing so and, as such, there is no reason to ban it.

Quote by: Matt Could you then explain how deer have an overpopulation, but we don't?

The deer aren't currently overpopulated. They will become overpopulated if humans don't continue to intervene in some way.