Quote:
Quote by: The Bacon Guy  It’s subjective to say that one form of selfishness is reasonable and one is unreasonable.
How so what? You might want to use the quote feature properly so I know what point you’re responding to.
If hunters have no qualms about illegally killing a wolf, they will have no qualms about illegally killing a deer.
Can you prove that? It’s certainly not the case in anywhere I’ve been.
Your argument was that hunters would easily be able to get away with killing wolves by saying they thought it was a deer; not simply that hunters would kill wolves.
Food? Either way, it’s still more or as time efficient, which disproves your argument.
No past evidence has shown us that hunting will die out. Past evidence has shown populations devastated by disease.
Of course it matters. You can’t send someone to jail without evidence.
You do have evidence that your method will work? Evidence that wolves and cougars won’t be wiped out by disease? |
I agree, to a certain point, like for exmple, it is subjective to say a dog is better then a cat. But really, lets get out of the debate for one moment, what is more important to you, your house, or a few tulips? It is not subjective to say a house is worth more, it is common sense.
Wrong, you want to know why alot of hunters illegally kill wolves? It is because they are afraid of 'competition' and the wolves eating all the deer. Therefore, if they can't hunt, they wont be worried about competition. Also, if wolves are introduced, there needs to be many town hall meetings about them, where experts can come in and explain that a healthy wolf has never killed a human in North America (I think). Most of the hatred towards wolves stems by fear, therefore people want to shoot them. They aren't afraid the deer will go kill them, though.
I said a few things in that paragraph. Could you tell me what part you want me to prove?
Semantics....semantics...and more semantics. People either kill wolves A) Because they are hutners and they are afraid the deer will eat 'their' prey B) They are afraid of them C) Farmers don't like them eating their livestock. You can fix problem A by banning hunting, you can somewhat fix problem B with alot of talks, articles, etc., but problem C is hard to fix. Maybe the Gov. should give enough money so they can either build higher fences or eletrical fences.
Semantics again. Hunting=not needed and shopping for food=needed. Most places you can buy food, you can buy alot of other stuff too.
Past evidence has shown hunting is dropping, and if nothing changes, it will continue to drop most likely. No past evidence has shown a cougar or wolf disease devastation, so ther is no reason to think it will happen.
It has worked for thousands of years, that is my evidence
Hunting hasn't worked yet, and there is no reason it will somehow work in 10 years.
Ok, so I take it you have
no proof your method will work and you don't have any evidence re-introduced predators will work with hunters. That is basically your whole arguement, and you have
no proof behind it.
You are ignoring parts of my posts, and questions. It is getting annoying. You are also wanting me to find all this proof in other sources, but you wont find even a link when I ask for something.