Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  You can't guarantee that none of the wasps would be killed.
That was the point.
You’re totally ignoring the point. If you introduce wolves and cougars, assuming you are correct, the deer population will drop to a level at which they are not starving. If we also have hunting, the hunters will pick off the extra deer and also make them less likely to come onto our land. The even if hunting dies out, we still have the natural predators. It will either kill as many or more deer than natural predators alone.
No, I don’t. I didn’t say those were the only two possibilities.
You just said that deer only come onto our land because they have to. Again, make up your mind.
Right, because if I jump in front of a bus, it’s the driver’s fault for hitting me.
Highways aren’t the only roads. If the deer are coming into people’s gardens and parks, they are obviously wandering into towns and cities.
The law wouldn’t have to allow for this kind of defence and secondly can you prove that people would do this?
You’re just being wilfully blind now. Address what I wrote and stop being so ridiculous. |
No, I couldn't. Though by hunting it would gurantee (not just a maybe) a higher intelligence life form would die. Therefore removal of wasp nest is more humane then hunting because A) With the wasps, it is a maybe some would die, but with deer if they were hunted they would die B) Deer are higher intelligence life forms then wasps (lets not get stupid and argue that one).
Good to hear I'm on track. The fact is, so far, anti-hunters (PETA and the likes) have got their message out better then pro-hunters, since hunting has dropped.
What you just said doesn't make sense. You are making things too complex, or you are just trying to confuse people. Hunters will kill more deer if their method is successful (which would be to keep deer from overpopulation, and make sure they don't come onto our property most times) and natural predators would keep the populations at levels in which they are not starving, but that doesn't mean they will not come onto 'our' land. How is this a faulty assumption? If hunters try to keep the populations at levels where they do not go on our property much and they are not overpopulated (which is what you are suggesting they do), and natural predators keep the populations from overpopulations, who do you think will kill more deer? The hunters. Simple.
Ok then, there are three ways hunting will go, go up, level off, or go down. To be fair, lets go with the middle average chance, which is 'level off'. Therefore, if it doesn't gain or rise, how do you expect hunters to keep the population of deer in check (other then your two suggestions that you have with no evidence if they will work or not)? They sure can't do it now.
They come onto 'our' land now because they have to, but if natural predators were re-introduced they wouldn't need to, but that doesn't mean they wont. Make sense?
We were the ones who took natural predators away, therefore the deer populations rose tremendously, and that is why there are so many more deer collisions. Therefore, it is our fault.
Yep, but here at least, almost all deer collisions happen on un-fenced highways. Have never seen one in my city.
You try telling the law makers that. They will let people get away with stuff. Proof? Ok, there was this guy who killed a rare white bear, after he killed it and everyone was getting mad, he claimed he thought it was a coyote. Strange, since everyone else in his hunting group was hunting bears.
How am I being the willfully blind one? 30 minutes is shorter then 4 hours, unless there is a new clock system out.
I hope everyone here can see The Bacon Guy is ignoring my point (the bolded part of my last post) every single time I have pointed it out. I never knew ignoring a point was a new stragedy.