Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  But they’re not trends in group behaviours; they’re trends in individual behaviours within a group. In other words, he’s looking at how one particular individual in a group will act based on his particular past actions, rather than looking at how society as a whole will progress based on its past actions.
Then feel free to introduce wolves to work alongside the hunters.
Still no proof.
That falsely assumes that there was intent behind the development of wolves.
Hunters aren’t necessarily going to be destructive to the wilderness either.
No. ONE wolf will kill less deer than ONE hunter. A group of wolves sufficient to keep the population of deer under control will kill MORE than a group of hunters sufficient to keep the population of deer under control.
Which is why they will have to kill more deer in order to control the population.
You can’t prove that since, as we’ve already seen, you don’t have access to a deer’s mind.
Of course I am. I’m using an example to dispute the argument that all hunting is wrong or unnecessary.
Yes, because them straying onto human land is an indication that their own habitat is not sufficient for them. Hence, they are overpopulated. |
I disagree, I've watched Dr. Phil many times. He does look at society trends, like, for example, the divorce rate is going up every year. That is a society trend.
The hunters will go kill the wolves, so I can't go just introduce them myelf. Laws have to be put in place so no wolves or cougars can be hunted.
I love how you are quoting half my sentences, and leaving the other half out. What, you cut the other half out because when the two parts of the sentence are together they make sense?
I gave you proof, you seem to look over common sense trends and seem to think people caring about animals will just dissapear....
There was intent behind wolves, and cougars. God made them partly to keep the prey animals in healthy numbers, like deer. Humans were not meant to do that.
No, but they are alot of the times.
Have you even read a word I have said? Wolves and cougars would kill less deer in a years period then hunters would, and they (cougars and wolves) would slowly get the population down to levels where no deer are starving. Humans however would want to get the population down so there are no deer in the parks, on their lawns, ect., and probably push the deer to levels lower then what it was before white man. So humans would kill more deer then natural predators.
The reason deer are overpopulated is because humans have killed most of their natural predators off. The reason deer have more dense populations is because we have started to cram the populations into smaller places with are developement, and the smaller regions cannot support all those deer, therefore some are starving. We caused the entire problem.
Again, I never said all. I don't view hunting in Africa bad if people need the food, for example.
No, that doesn't mean that. They would normally roam in almost every place where we live (they were here first), and when they start wondering where we live for food (eg. lawns), it shows you we have taken over and are encrouching on their turf.
How is hunting necessary when natural predators can be re-introduced? In no way have you proven it's necessary.