Quote:
|
Quote by: Matt 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. |
Yes I can. People use words incorrectly all the time. The fact remains that nature is defined simply as the physical world and everything in it. Hence anything which exists is natural.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Matt 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. |
And what's better for the deer is to have a population which doesn't exceed their habitat's ability to cope with them.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Matt People hunting them is not better then introducing natural predators or neuturing the males. |
Again, neutering is not a practical solution to the problem and you still haven't provided any reason that a deer would prefer to be killed by a wolf than a hunter.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Matt Look at the other definition, basically says the same thing. |
The other definition refers to population exceeding carrying capacity,
symptoms of which can be environmental degredation etc. That's not the same as simply environmental degredation.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Matt 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 |
Your opening post suggested that all hunting was a bad thing. People are simply using an example to prove this wrong.