[Matt]

Quote by: another day No they are very simple things... not always effective, but rather ingenious... for example, one very rudimentary trap is to take a heavy flat stone, and prop up one end very precariously with a stick. Then you place some bait underneath... rotten, inedible fish or worms or something or maybe a piece of meat from a previous kill. The animal goes to eat it and nudges the stick and the stone falls and kills it, or actual probably just traps it and injures it. Not humane but such is the harsh nature of...nature. You need to set up alot to catch anything but it can work... Another is to set up snares on the branch of a tree (you can use various materials from nature like roots, but often in survival situations people aren't naked and they have things to work with like your shoelaces or clothings or backpack strings)... squirrels run through them and it tightens as they pass and captures them. anyways there's tons of stuff like this. they don't take long to set up but it takes alot of patience to catch anything.

Interesting. Though neither of them would kill things will actually have alot of meat on them...would they? Both seem that they could work, but the probablity of it working and the time waiting to see if it would work I don't think would be worth it if you are starving.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy On an individual level; not a group level. A share is simply a proportion. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t give hunters a proportion of the kills. If you state your opinion in a debate, the idea is that you prove it to be a valid opinion. I’m not trying to prove that hunting is sustainable; I’m simply asking you for proof that it’s not. If you can’t prove that it’s unsustainable, then hunting should be legal by default. Not according to your argument that a deer’s survival instinct is paramount. Population control and what’s best for the deer are one and the same. Not if they are introduced in numbers sufficient to control the deer population. Remember, these measures are to combat the overpopulation problem. So it’s not a case of ten wolves vs. ten hunters; it’s a case of a number of wolves sufficient to control the population vs. a number of hunters sufficient to control the population. The number of deer killed would be the same (or actually higher). In which case the wolves are killing as many or more deer as the hunters are. That’s pretty basic logic. The deer population won’t be controlled by wolves to the same extent as it is with hunters unless the wolves kill as many deer as the hunters. It’s not to do with intelligence; it’s to do with which of the methods of population control will cause less suffering to the deer. I was referring back to Tivo’s posts, some of which you dismissed with the argument “the bible was written by men”. Apparently only the parts that you agree with are the will of God. Still, that's the same with all Christians and I don't want to get off-topic here.

Wrong, he studies group behaviors too, like, for example, men that cheat once have a much higher chance of doing it again then men that never cheated. Or that if you go on diets, loose alot of weight, there is a very good chance you'll gain it back. Those are group trends.

Ok, it is unstustainable because (this is looking at it from a humans prespective....just to be clear): A) Deer hunting in places where the populations have been very high have only been semi-successful, some have not been successful at all B) Hunting is slowly going the way of the dodo bird, so in 50 years or so there wont be enough hunters to even attempt keeping the populations down.

Natural predators are better because: A) They were meant to keep deer populations in check and create a nice healthy balance and will do so if introduced back B) They are not being destructive towards wilderness C) (this is from the deer's prespective) They will kill less deer D) They go after the weaker or sick deer which will keep the population healthy, not sick or diseased.

When they are on their deathbed it wouldn't be the same 'will to live'.

Yes, they are, but in most areas the population of deer isn't overpopulated. When we are talking about hunting deer, I am not only talking about the places they are overpopulated, but also the places they are not overpopulated. If I just stuck to the latter one, my opinion would be easier to prove, though I'm not, because if we are talking about deer, it should be conclusive. Though you are only focussing on the few places they are really overpopulated.

No, actually not. When people are trying to keep populations down of certain animals, most times they do big culls all at once and kill many more deer then a wolf pack would probably in a years period. The wolves and cougars (over a couple year period) would get the deer populations back down to better levels, and the deer would not be starving in the places where they are overpopulated. They wouldn't try to get the deer populations down to what 'humans think is good' (which usually means if someone sees two deer on their lawn...its too many), they would get them down to a level which would be healthy for the wolves and cougars and the deer. They would kill less deer.

Also, while lying in bed last night I was thinking about something. Are deer really overpopulated...or are they overpopulated because they interfere with us by eating our gardens and walking on the highway? The reason alot of them are starving is because we have taken away alot of their habitat, and with that their food sources. We have given them much less area to forage for food, and that is one of the reasons they are starving in some areas. I agree their populations seem high in some areas, but is it overpopulation?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Extremely feasible. You just dig a pit with spikes at the bottom and loosely cover it up, you have a trap. I would imagine that any class for traping would also include how to make traps.

How are you going to find spikes in the wild?