[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Prove it? Millions of people world wide enjoy shooting animals birds etc, for sport or food, thats proof enough. I win.

Wow, great reason *roles eyes*. If you expect to win this debate, that is not good enough.

Millions of people also think the law that kills woman if they are not faithful to their husband, is good. Does that mean it is right? No.

Quote by: sdbest You believe that killing for fun is a good thing? Millions of people world wide doing something isn't necessarily a justification for anything. Millions of people believe Vishnu created the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean Vishnu is real or created the world. Ask a Christian. In my view, killing for enjoyment is a mental illness. Only someone with a psychological disorder could take pleasure in killing.

I agree.

Quote by: Anmon I take any pleasure in killing something thats a pest, or if its for food, I don't hunt for sport, or because I get great pleasure simply from killing.

How do you take pleasure in it? I'm just curious.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Source? If you believe that wolves are a superior predator to humans based on the belief that God created wolves to hunt deer, then that aspect of your argument is based entirely on religion. Of course we can’t, which is why we have to keep the population low enough that this is not an issue. A species is overpopulated when it exceeds its habitat’s ability to cope. If the deer are leaving their own habitat to find food on ours, then their needs are obviously not met by their own habitat. It doesn’t matter if they are aware that they’re damaging our property. An intrusion of cockroaches infesting my house isn’t aware that it’s doing so, but that doesn’t change my right to call in pest control. Of course there are other ways of keeping the population under control. The point is that hunting is a perfectly valid and in many ways superior method of doing so. We don’t make something illegal simply because it’s not deemed to be unconditionally necessary. And don’t say that you haven’t been arguing for a ban on hunting because your posts would suggest otherwise. What definition?

I don't have a source to link to, but if you watch Dr. Phil enough you should hear that.

Yes, but my entire arguement against hunting is much more diverse.

We don't have to keep the population down to levels were they become rare in the suburbs or the park. That is being selfish.

No, not true. A deer's habitat is technically everywhere. Since they were here first and they roamed everywhere. By them going onto our lawns and grazing, that means they are roaming their natural turf. The deer's habitat is everywhere. Aslong as no deer are starving, the habitat is coping with the deer populations and they are not overpopulated.

Would you kill a two year old kid since it didn't know any better to dig in your garden? No, you wouldn't. Don't punish thing unless they know they are doing bad or if you told them before. If you don't want deer on your lawn, get a dog.

You said hunting is necessary to keep the deer populations down. Why are you back tracking now? I can show where you said that if you want.

If you remember my first post, I stated hunting is not needed. It is not needed, and it has been proven in this debate.

Quote by: Anmon tough, its a pest, and if you release them they will just come back with more mice from having sex with another mouse. Yeah pellets aren't the go, of course you could just explain to your nephew not to touch them and why. But I am against all poisons, so I'm with you there. The mouse, just twist its neck around, dead in a split second, wont even know it. Not me, killing for sport is one thing I really hate.

I use live traps (for packrats, mice, ect.) and once caught I re-locate them to a more natural place.