Hunting Debate

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt BTW, Anmon, where did you get the 99% figure?

most of the world eats meat, even ifs just fish or crabs, 1 % vegetarians is still about 65 million people

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon most of the world eats meat, even ifs just fish or crabs, 1 % vegetarians is still about 65 million people

Please give me a source to back up your claims.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Anmon most of the world eats meat, even ifs just fish or crabs, 1 % vegetarians is still about 65 million people

I highly doubt that's true. Developing countries?

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd say people who don't eat meat because it's too expensive / tough to find in their area but who would tear apart any food animal they go their hands on is quite different from making a moral decision not to eat meat.

[Hurt]

It's still not a true fact, that's all I'm establishing.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Hurt It's still not a true fact, that's all I'm establishing.

You're probably right. While many people are vegetarian because they're poor, many other people are merely Hindu and forbidden by their religion to eat meat regardless. I would bet my eyeteeth that more than 1% of the world's population is vegetarian.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Please give me a source to back up your claims.

I dont know tbh but 1% would be close to the mark, most humans love eating meat.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Thanatos You're probably right. While many people are vegetarian because they're poor, many other people are merely Hindu and forbidden by their religion to eat meat regardless. I would bet my eyeteeth that more than 1% of the world's population is vegetarian.

hari krishnas are vegetarian, I dont think hindus are.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'd say people who don't eat meat because it's too expensive / tough to find in their area but who would tear apart any food animal they go their hands on is quite different from making a moral decision not to eat meat.

exactly, their vegetarian most of the time because of necessity, not by choice, so that rules them out of being vegetarians, because if you cooked some meat near them they would be straight over asking for some.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Anmon exactly, their vegetarian most of the time because of necessity, not by choice, so that rules them out of being vegetarians, because if you cooked some meat near them they would be straight over asking for some.

fact remains they're only eating vegetables.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Ok, so you have a double standard? You say where humans live is theres, but not where deer live.

No, I said that if we kill enough deer that they are not coming onto our property, then our property is not the deer’s habitat.

Quote by: Matt You like the word arbitrary, don't you? How is it another arbitrary line? Unless we want to get silly here, we know deer are more intelligent then wasps.

I didn’t say the difference was not there; I said the point at which you decide that an animal may not use your property is arbitrarily determined and as such is no more valid than another person’s decision to share none of his property with animals.

Quote by: Matt Meaning of property: "Individual right to hold property; ownership by personal title; property." That does no apply to public parks, for example, since it is not individual. So deer should be allowed to eat all the plants they want in it, since it is no-one single person's land.

I was under the impression we were talking about gardens here.

Besides that, public property can still exist.

Quote by: Matt That is one of the reasons they have walls, it may not be the only reason though. Aren't the reasons to have walls are to keep people and animals out, to give shelter, etc.?

I doubt that keeping animals out would be top of the list of reasons to give your house walls.

Quote by: Matt You did deny it, by saying "you have no proof it will continue to decline". I don't think it will completely die off either, but how can a fraction of the hunters we have nowadays

You’re assuming that it will continue to decline at least until the number of hunters is a fraction of its current self. I see no proof of this.

Quote by: Matt Again, humans are different then animals. Humans have always conquered each other, I view most of it as fair. When people try to conquer animals, I view it unfair.

Why is it any fairer for people to take deer’s land than Native Americans’ land? You really think the Native Americans vs. the Europeans was a fair fight?

Quote by: Matt Now they have their own lands and are getting compensation.

The deer have their own lands also; just not all that they used to. Same goes for Native Americans.

Quote by: Matt Not a time, effort,

Depends if you enjoy hunting. If people enjoy it, it’s obviously not wasted time; it’s leisure time.

Quote by: Matt or cost effective, thing, is it?

Like you said, a gun and permit are one-off costs. A bullet and gasoline sufficient to get you to the countryside is comparatively cheap.

Quote by: Matt If people want total control of their property (which they wont get with out a fence), then they should put a fence up.

But as soon as they are forced to put a fence up, they are no longer in control of their property.

Quote by: Matt Again, to keep the populations from being overpopulated, hunting does not need to happen

Nope, but hunting is the best way, as far as we are concerned and as far as the deer are concerned, for us to keep deer populations under control and to maintain control over our property.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Hurt fact remains they're only eating vegetables.

fact remains they have no choice, so their not really vegetarians.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy No, I said that if we kill enough deer that they are not coming onto our property, then our property is not the deer’s habitat. I didn’t say the difference was not there; I said the point at which you decide that an animal may not use your property is arbitrarily determined and as such is no more valid than another person’s decision to share none of his property with animals. I was under the impression we were talking about gardens here. Besides that, public property can still exist. I doubt that keeping animals out would be top of the list of reasons to give your house walls. You’re assuming that it will continue to decline at least until the number of hunters is a fraction of its current self. I see no proof of this. Why is it any fairer for people to take deer’s land than Native Americans’ land? You really think the Native Americans vs. the Europeans was a fair fight? The deer have their own lands also; just not all that they used to. Same goes for Native Americans. Depends if you enjoy hunting. If people enjoy it, it’s obviously not wasted time; it’s leisure time. Like you said, a gun and permit are one-off costs. A bullet and gasoline sufficient to get you to the countryside is comparatively cheap. But as soon as they are forced to put a fence up, they are no longer in control of their property. Nope, but hunting is the best way, as far as we are concerned and as far as the deer are concerned, for us to keep deer populations under control and to maintain control over our property.

Wrong, you said it is our property because we live in it. Then that means it is the deer's place if they live in it.

So you now think we should have total control? It goes from "keeping the population from overpopulation"...and now it goes to "not coming onto our property". Please explain what one you would like to stick to, because you are switching back and forth between the two to fit your arguement best.

Don't parents like to teach there kids sharing is a good thing? Though why don't those people that teach it share with deer....it makes no sense what so ever.

It is more valid because I would be sharing my property (sharing is a good thing last I heard....), just not the inside of my house. People that will share neither, and kill in some instances, have a less valid view.

Yes, gardens and lawns are our property, but why not share a little, and if you don't want to, put up a fence, so the deer doesn't have to get harmed. Humans don't like to share, it is a fact. We should start changing that fact, or we are going to have a lot more problems. Examples of problems because of not sharing: overpopulation of deer in some areas since we killed the predators because we didn't want to share with them, the Israel Palestine conflict, the Zimbabwe election issue, and the world wars, just to name a few. Not sharing gets us into trouble.

Did I ever state it was one of the top reasons to have a house? No.

Do you need so much proof it can fill 10 pages? Come on, all the links I showed you said hunting is on a decline (they never said it would most likely rebound either), even a meat-hunting site said that. Stop ignoring the facts. I'm not a chrystal ball reader, and I wont be able to tell you what happens in 50 years exactley. Though with the way society is going and the way hunting is going, an eduacated guess is there will be a fraction of the hunters at that time that there are today. If you have proof that that is wrong, please show it.

Nope, it wasn't a fair fight. Though putting deer vs. humans is even a less fair fight. Like I stated, the Native Americans are getting compensation now, and hopefully we'll start seeing the light soon with the deer and they will have the refuges to live in and people will see the only way to solve overpopulation, is doing it the natural way.

How do the deer have their owns lands that are sufficient for them? Sure, there is a nice forest behind your house, a few deer live in there, but if a developer bought that land and decided to build on it, the deer would be out. That wouldn't happen to the Natives on their reserves, would it? Native Americans can intergrate into our society, deer can't.

No, but my point was buying lentils is more time efficient and more cost effective then hunting. If you have a study to proove that wrong, please show it.

How aren't they in control of their property? If they expect no animals to go on their 'property', then they might as well live in a plastic bubble.

Again...you are going back and forth between overpopulation and keeping them from our property. We started with overpopulation, so lets continue with it. Re-introducing natural predators would keep the deer from being overpopulated, and they would kill less deer if humans tried to keep the population in 'check'.

Quote by: Anmon fact remains they have no choice, so their not really vegetarians.

I was about to get you the meaning of vegetarian (which is someone who eats no meat), but it doesn't look like I will have to now.

[Reflechir]

"Re-introducing natural predators would keep the deer from being overpopulated, and they would kill less deer if humans tried to keep the population in 'check"

Like what do you have in mine as in "natural predators" for deer?????
Bear?...Montain Lion??? Not likely to out-run a deer my friend.

Sure....people would love that when they start "feeding" on their pets.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Anmon fact remains they have no choice, so their not really vegetarians.

define vegetarian then..that's not part of the definition for vegetarian. disregarding that, you were pulling a fact out of nowhere, so that really doesn't help you anyways.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Reflechir "Re-introducing natural predators would keep the deer from being overpopulated, and they would kill less deer if humans tried to keep the population in 'check" Like what do you have in mine as in "natural predators" for deer????? Bear?...Montain Lion??? Not likely to out-run a deer my friend. Sure....people would love that when they start "feeding" on their pets.

If they can't out-run a deer.. they're not really natural predators, are they?

[Matt]

Quote by: Reflechir "Re-introducing natural predators would keep the deer from being overpopulated, and they would kill less deer if humans tried to keep the population in 'check" Like what do you have in mine as in "natural predators" for deer????? Bear?...Montain Lion??? Not likely to out-run a deer my friend. Sure....people would love that when they start "feeding" on their pets.

Do you even know anything about mountain lions, wolves, or bears?

What do you think hunted them before humans? Cougars, wolves, and sometimes bears. It is not all about speed. Cougars use there stealth, wolves use their 'pack attack' method, and bears will kill young.

Cougars are the top natural predator for deer, and they are very efficient at it.

Quote by: Hurt define vegetarian then..that's not part of the definition for vegetarian. disregarding that, you were pulling a fact out of nowhere, so that really doesn't help you anyways.

He wont be able to define it, he is banned....

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Reflechir "Re-introducing natural predators would keep the deer from being overpopulated, and they would kill less deer if humans tried to keep the population in 'check" Like what do you have in mine as in "natural predators" for deer????? Bear?...Montain Lion??? Not likely to out-run a deer my friend. Sure....people would love that when they start "feeding" on their pets.

Both Bear and mountain lion can and do successfully stalk Deer. Hell, that's what a mountain lion is designed to kill, it's bite is perfectly designed to sheer through a deer's neck (which is a reason why many attacks on humans are unsuccessful) The point about the pets is a good point though, the reason these animals were chased away in the first place is because we're afraid of them.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Wrong, you said it is our property because we live in it. Then that means it is the deer's place if they live in it.

And if we kill enough of them, they won’t live in it.

Quote by: Matt So you now think we should have total control? It goes from "keeping the population from overpopulation"...and now it goes to "not coming onto our property".

It’s always been about keeping them off our property. Controlling overpopulation and keeping deer off our property is the same thing as far as I’m concerned.

Quote by: Matt It is more valid because I would be sharing my property (sharing is a good thing last I heard....), just not the inside of my house. People that will share neither, and kill in some instances, have a less valid view.

What makes it less valid?

Quote by: Matt Yes, gardens and lawns are our property, but why not share a little, and if you don't want to, put up a fence, so the deer doesn't have to get harmed.

But if everyone puts up a fence, the deer won’t be able to get into our gardens for food and will die.

Quote by: Matt Humans don't like to share, it is a fact. We should start changing that fact, or we are going to have a lot more problems. Examples of problems because of not sharing: overpopulation of deer in some areas since we killed the predators because we didn't want to share with them, the Israel Palestine conflict, the Zimbabwe election issue, and the world wars, just to name a few. Not sharing gets us into trouble.

It doesn’t matter whether you think sharing is good; people aren’t, by definition, obligated to share any of their property.

Quote by: Matt Do you need so much proof it can fill 10 pages? Come on, all the links I showed you said hunting is on a decline (they never said it would most likely rebound either), even a meat-hunting site said that. Stop ignoring the facts.

Never ignored any of those facts. I never denied that hunting is on the decline; I asked you to prove that it will continue to decline. Stop posting these ridiculous strawmen.

Quote by: Matt I'm not a chrystal ball reader, and I wont be able to tell you what happens in 50 years exactley. Though with the way society is going and the way hunting is going, an eduacated guess is there will be a fraction of the hunters at that time that there are today. If you have proof that that is wrong, please show it.

Not how debate works. You don’t make a claim and say “prove me wrong”; you make a claim and prove it right.

Quote by: Matt Nope, it wasn't a fair fight. Though putting deer vs. humans is even a less fair fight.

Another arbitrary line?

Quote by: Matt How do the deer have their owns lands that are sufficient for them? Sure, there is a nice forest behind your house, a few deer live in there, but if a developer bought that land and decided to build on it, the deer would be out. That wouldn't happen to the Natives on their reserves, would it? Native Americans can intergrate into our society, deer can't.

Don’t know how it works in North America, but here we have greenbelt land, nature reserves, places of special scientific interests etc. which people can’t simply buy and build on. You don’t have anything like that over there?

Quote by: Matt No, but my point was buying lentils is more time efficient

Not if the person in question finds hunting enjoyable.

Quote by: Matt and more cost effective then hunting.

Lentils sufficient to provide the same level of protein as fifteen kilograms of meat costs less than a bullet and some gasoline?

Quote by: Matt How aren't they in control of their property?

Because they are forced to put up a fence on their property to keep deer out. Forced = not in control.

Quote by: Matt Again...you are going back and forth between overpopulation and keeping them from our property. We started with overpopulation, so lets continue with it.

Or how about we stick with our current point regarding keeping deer from our property (which is really the same thing, but that’s just semantics)?

Quote by: reflechir Sure....people would love that when they start "feeding" on their pets.

Dunno about pets, but wolves would definitely be a problem to sheep farmers.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy And if we kill enough of them, they won’t live in it. It’s always been about keeping them off our property. Controlling overpopulation and keeping deer off our property is the same thing as far as I’m concerned. What makes it less valid? But if everyone puts up a fence, the deer won’t be able to get into our gardens for food and will die. It doesn’t matter whether you think sharing is good; people aren’t, by definition, obligated to share any of their property. Never ignored any of those facts. I never denied that hunting is on the decline; I asked you to prove that it will continue to decline. Stop posting these ridiculous strawmen. Not how debate works. You don’t make a claim and say “prove me wrong”; you make a claim and prove it right. Another arbitrary line? Don’t know how it works in North America, but here we have greenbelt land, nature reserves, places of special scientific interests etc. which people can’t simply buy and build on. You don’t have anything like that over there? Not if the person in question finds hunting enjoyable. Lentils sufficient to provide the same level of protein as fifteen kilograms of meat costs less than a bullet and some gasoline? Because they are forced to put up a fence on their property to keep deer out. Forced = not in control. Or how about we stick with our current point regarding keeping deer from our property (which is really the same thing, but that’s just semantics)? Dunno about pets, but wolves would definitely be a problem to sheep farmers.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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). 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 did prove it right to the most of my abilities, I would love to see what happens in the future and whatch man kind destroy itself, but I can't.

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?

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' (and no, I don't believe where we live is our's...but anyhow...). They would much rather live in parks, but there is not enough.

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

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).

Wrong, they should put up a fence if they want almost total control, it is there choice. No one has 100% control of their property, it doesn't work that way here.

You keep changing, so I can't tell your current point. Don't you agree we should debate about what we started with, unless it is somehow getting too difficult?

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