[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt But killing them is un-needed and to do so is uncivilized. I don't know how long until people will realize killing other animals so they can have exactley what they want will actually harm them in the future. Look what happened to your country, all the natural predators have gone and you guys lost somethings you will never have again. I think most North Americans would be scared if we went the same way (since one of the ways North America is recognized is for its wildlife), but they don't change anything to stop us from going that way. The fact is, only some humans have realized that hunting deer is a bandage solution, and that natural predators should be re-introduced. Question to you, you say hunting would would work at keeping the deer from not being overpopulated, and not from going onto 'our' property. Do you have any proof of this?

Less deer = less chance of a deer wandering onto your property.

Quote by: Matt What makes it less valid? Because they are being very selfish and I am just being a tad selfish with my property. Last I heard, being selfish wasn't good. Or has it changed now?

So why is your line between acceptable selfishness and unacceptable selfishness any more valid than mine, or than that of someone who says you should be sharing your house as well as garden with animals?

Quote by: Matt Wrong, with natural predator re-introduction the populations should go to a level in which they don't need to graze on 'our' land to live.

Your argument that wolves would kill less deer than hunters relied on the fact that wolves would only hunt deer to the point where they were they were no longer overpopulated, provided we share our land with them, whereas hunters would hunt them to the point where they’re no longer in numbers which require them to come onto our land at all.

If you’re now saying that wolves would hunt deer to the point where they’re no longer in numbers which require them to come onto our land, my previous argument about wolves killing elderly or sick deer, and therefore more deer than hunters, still applies and therefore human hunting is more desirable for the deer.

Quote by: Matt No they are not, but in the past, not sharing doesn't end in a very good way, does it?

Could say the same for sharing. Just look at communism.

Quote by: Matt I already told you, the expert I talked to in that field said it will most likely continue to decline, and all those sites say 'declining' I believe (which would mean continueing to decline).

No it wouldn’t; it would mean they are currently declining. There’s no future tense.

And you telling me that “an expert said so” isn’t evidence.

Quote by: Matt To go with your side, for this time, say if hunting didn't decline or drop from now on. How do you expect the population of hunters to control all those deer in 50 years, when they cannot control them now?

I’ve already addressed this. If hunting alone is not enough, natural predators can be introduced alongside the hunters.

Quote by: Matt How is that another abritrary line? Do you then think deer are as intelligent as Native Americans? Because by saying that was an arbitrary line, that it would be more unfair to fight deer then Native Americans, you are saying they are on a equal playing field?

No, I am saying that your line between an acceptably unfair fight and an unacceptably unfair fight is arbitrary and no more valid than mine.

Quote by: Matt Yes, we have National and Provinchial Parks in Canada. We have a good number of them (more would always be better though), and only in a few odd places deer are overpopulated. In the USA, they don't have enough parks to my knowledge, and the deer don't have enough land, so they are being forced to go onto 'our's'

That’s one way to look at it. Or you could say that the deer population is too large for its land and therefore needs to be reduced.

Quote by: Matt Doesn't matter if the person finds slaughtering an innocent animal enjoyable or not. It would still be way less time efficient.

Not if you consider the hunting to be leisure time.

Quote by: Matt With all the factors in play (time, money, etc.), you could get alot of lentils in Canada (I don't know what the prices are in the UK).

Eighteen kilograms of lentils (equivalent in protein to 15kg of venison) costs around £40. A bullet costs around 41p. I know bugger all about cars, so I don’t know about the gas prices, but I think we can agree that it would be less than £39.59.

Quote by: Matt Wrong, they should put up a fence if they want almost total control, it is there choice.

Almost total control; not total.

Quote by: Matt Wrong. It started with overpopulation, look at the past pages please. You then changed it to "so they don't go on our property". And it is not the same thing, do you want be to show you the dictionary again? Stop pussyfooting around.

Quote by: Matt You keep changing, so I can't tell your current point.

Put it this way: when I say overpopulation, I mean deer population at a level which requires the deer to be coming onto our land to survive. We could quibble over whether that’s a correct definition, but ultimately it’s just semantics.

Quote by: Matt A few sheep gone, but nature restored to itself and no more deer starving would be good.

For you maybe; not for the farmer who’s losing his livelihood, nor for the sheep who gets eaten.