Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  But I don't consider rats and cats to be unnatural predators in Hawaii, so the argument doesn't apply. Like I said, anything which exists is by definition natural.
Which isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of controlling deer population.
This argument has already been addressed. The "natural predator" will only need the prey's flesh to survive if we humans go to the trouble of introducing said predator to the ecosystem. There's no reason that we should.
No, it's a definition of overpopulation and it's not the one to which my argument refers.
I doubt it would be practical or cost-effective to neuter an entire population of deer. |
How are they natural predators? Explain. They were introduced there, and if you talk to people who study animals, I'm sure they will call them unnatural predators. And you can't argue with National Geographic and other shows like those who call them unnatural.
I find it very hard to debate with you, because I personally cannot understand how you just care that deer are not overpoulated, but not for the deer themselves.
Its not just about overpopulation, its about the deer themselves, and it should be whats better for the deer. People hunting them is not better then introducing natural predators or neuturing the males.
Look at the other definition, basically says the same thing.
Also, so far this debate has been a very 'one animal' debate, so to speak. I find it interesting how people are just focussing on deer (probably because they can use the overpopulation thing as a point), but no one has mentioned the hunting of moose, elk, bear, cougars, wolves, ect. I wonder why...its because there are pretty much no knowledgeable reasons on why to hunt them.