Quote:
Quote by: Reflechir  A few sheep gone.....then more and more....then other valuable livestock once they (these natural predators) get the "taste". Now you got the farmers in an uproar with rifles loaded. Next will be the neighbors' poodle and so on.
Just don't see it happening...not in the US at least. |
Then the farmers should build higher fences so the wolves or cougars can't get in, or fences with electrical shocks. Also, sheep farming is not needed.
Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy Less deer = less chance of a deer wandering onto your property.
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?
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.
Could say the same for sharing. Just look at communism.
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.
I’ve already addressed this. If hunting alone is not enough, natural predators can be introduced alongside the hunters.
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.
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.
Not if you consider the hunting to be leisure time.
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.
Almost total control; not total.
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.
For you maybe; not for the farmer who’s losing his livelihood, nor for the sheep who gets eaten. |
Correct. But you never stated 'less chance', you were saying that hunting would keep the populations from being overpopulated and that deer wouldn't come onto 'our' property. Do you have proof hunting could do that with the current population of hunters (which so far have not been able to)?
I guess then those people who share their homes are even less selfish then I.
That is correct. Unless somehow you can prove the current hunters could get the population of deer to a level so we don't have to share, you have no facts to back up your statement.
If we are talking about keeping deer from being overpopulated, then natural predators would be more favourable for the deer and would be more sustainable. If we are talking about getting the levels of deer to a population in which they do not go onto our property, I think that would require us to kill almost every single deer, which would be impossible. You have no proof hunters could get the population down to levels in which they do not go onto our property, do you?
Also, re-introducing natural predators is more sustainable. Reason being is it is a fact cougars and wovles will hunt in 50 years to the same extent, it is not a fact humans will though. Therefore that makes re-introducing natural predators more sustainable.
You could. But problems caused by not sharing are much higher then from sharing. Look at the history of humankind. In most cases, war starts by not sharing.
How isn't it evidence? Like I said, I can't gurantee hunting will crash in 50 years, but the way society is going, it should. Look at it this way...hunting has declined over the past 30 years...vegetarianism has went up in the past 30 years...and more people live in cities. If you have proof these trends will not continue (since it is a fact these trends have happened in the last 30 years), please show it.
With this situation, grey is not an option. It is either black (re-introduce the natural predators) or white (hunting continues). Re-introducing natural predators alongside hunters is bound for disaster.
So you believe it was/is as fair to fight Native Americans as deer? Then you put them on a equal playing field, which is odd since one is a human and one is an animal...
Deer's land is every where...we cannot conquer land from animals (only from humans). Do you ever here someone say "I conquered the rabbits in my garden"?
Time is time, if it is a leisure activity or not.
And did I just say money? No, I did not, I said money and time. It may be cheaper, but definitly not as time efficient. BTW, where did you get the 18 kg. of lentils and 15kg. of vension=the same amount of protein? Also, why is it just about protein?
It may be semantics, but it is a key part of this debate. The only sign that deer our overpopulated is that in some places they are starving, and if that gets eliminated by the re-introduction of natural predators, that then solves the problem.
Livelihood does not=lives. Ask him/her to get a new job then.