Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  I'm afraid your confidence alone is not enough to convince me.
Although, now that I think about it, why would a decrease in the number of hunters be a reason to ban it? If the decrease is such that culling is not enough to keep down the deer population, then we can, as you say, introduce the predators. But why should this mean that hunters can't still have their share of the prey? As with any species introduction, the introduction of wolves and cougars would have to be strictly monitored and controlled. So why not control it in such a way that there is a balance between the predators and the hunters? That way everyone is happy.
The idea that the trend will continue is not proved logic; it's an anecdotal generalisation from your personal observations.
Famine and disease are not prevalent in North America, environmental damage is not significant (by this I mean it isn't yet life threatening), and the the depletion of oil and other resources is not life threatening to us while other potential energy sources exist. Yes, some things we are experiencing can be caused by overpopulation, but as long as the human population continues to thrive, the carrying capacity has not been exceeded and we are not overpopulated.
You can make hunting sound as pathetic and distasteful as you like, but ultimately you still don't have the right to prevent people from doing so unless you can prove that, from the point of view of the hunted animal, death from a hunter is significantly worse than death from a "natural" predator.
I don't know a great deal about it, so I haven't formed an opinion on it. |
They don't need their 'fair' share, they aren't natural predators. When you say 'control', what do you exactley mean? I agree, introducing natural predators to some extent and limiting hunting to some extent would be a good compromise for both sides, and I would be happy if that happened. Though I doubt most hunters would, though I don't know, I would like to hear their responses.
No, it is not 100% proved logic, but it is right alot of the time. Dr. Phil agrees with me lol
Yes, it is life threatening for many species of animals, who are on the verge of extinction in North America. Many species in North America have already went extinct.
No, their aren't any great famines or diseases in North America, but AIDS is bad in some parts of the USA. Also, in Africa and Asia there are huge diseases and famines, which shows you there are overpopulations there.
I don't have a right to stop people from doing it, but I can air my opinion loud and clear.