[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I guess then those people who share their homes are even less selfish then I.

But presumably you wouldn’t be happy with a law saying you have to follow their selfless way of life. That’s how hunters feel about you wanting to make their sport illegal.

Quote by: Matt 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.

1) The burden of proof isn’t on me. 2) If there aren’t enough recreational hunters, the government can very well pay people to hunt. 3) I have no objection to introducing wolves and cougars alongside hunters.

Quote by: Matt 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)?

Quote by: Matt 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?

Never said that we should get the chance of a deer coming onto our property down to zero, but if we get it to a level at which deer don’t need to come onto our property, the chances are a lot slimmer.

Obviously it won’t prevent it in 100% of cases, just as laws against murder won’t prevent 100% of murders. That doesn’t make them worthless.

Quote by: Matt 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.

But wolves won't keep the deer population at a level which removes the need for them to go onto our land and therefore aren't a sustainable way of dealing with the problem of there being too many deer. Aside from that, there are other ways of ensuring the sustainability of hunting (see above).

Quote by: Matt 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.

Well, unless you’re worried that the deer will declare war on us, I don’t see how that argument applies.

Quote by: Matt 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.

Again, you made the claim. You prove your claims in a debate; you don’t ask other people to prove them wrong.

Quote by: Matt 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.

How?

Quote by: Matt So you believe it was/is as fair to fight Native Americans as deer?

Nope. I’m just saying that, again, the line you draw between acceptable unfair acquisition of property and unacceptable unfair acquisition of property is arbitrary.

Quote by: Matt Time is time, if it is a leisure activity or not.

But if it’s leisure time, it’s not wasted time.

Quote by: Matt BTW, where did you get the 18 kg. of lentils and 15kg. of vension=the same amount of protein?

Nutritional values of each foodstuff.

Quote by: Matt Also, why is it just about protein?

Protein is generally why people eat meat, nutritionally speaking.

Quote by: Matt 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.

It doesn’t solve the problem of them coming onto our land. Whether you call that overpopulation or not, it’s still a problem.

Quote by: Matt Livelihood does not=lives. Ask him/her to get a new job then.

Right, and if wasps make a nest in your house, buy a new house.