Hunting Debate

[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.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt 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?

Less deer = less chance of a deer wandering onto your property.

Quote by: Matt 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?

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?

Quote by: Matt 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.

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.

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

Could say the same for sharing. Just look at communism.

Quote by: Matt 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).

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.

Quote by: Matt 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’ve already addressed this. If hunting alone is not enough, natural predators can be introduced alongside the hunters.

Quote by: Matt 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?

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.

Quote by: Matt 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'

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.

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

Not if you consider the hunting to be leisure time.

Quote by: Matt 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).

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.

Quote by: Matt Wrong, they should put up a fence if they want almost total control, it is there choice.

Almost total control; not total.

Quote by: Matt 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.

Quote by: Matt You keep changing, so I can't tell your current point.

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.

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

For you maybe; not for the farmer who’s losing his livelihood, nor for the sheep who gets eaten.

[Matt]

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 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.

[Reflechir]

"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."

And who is going to pay for that hefty chunk of change?
Its not just sheep....cattle, foul, etc.

"Livelihood does not=lives. Ask him/her to get a new job then."

Right...That's ridiculous....

[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.

[Matt]

Quote by: Reflechir "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." And who is going to pay for that hefty chunk of change? Its not just sheep....cattle, foul, etc. "Livelihood does not=lives. Ask him/her to get a new job then." Right...That's ridiculous....

Do you know how to quote?

The farmers, if they want to keep their business going. Nature going back to its natural form and deer being happier is worth a few people loosing their 'livelihoods'.

How is that ridiculous? Do you believe a few jobs are worth millions of deer's lives?

What state do you live in?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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. 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. 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. 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). Well, unless you’re worried that the deer will declare war on us, I don’t see how that argument applies. Again, you made the claim. You prove your claims in a debate; you don’t ask other people to prove them wrong. How? 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. But if it’s leisure time, it’s not wasted time. Nutritional values of each foodstuff. Protein is generally why people eat meat, nutritionally speaking. It doesn’t solve the problem of them coming onto our land. Whether you call that overpopulation or not, it’s still a problem. Right, and if wasps make a nest in your house, buy a new house.

The Bacon Guy, if people want to try to force me to not kill a wasp nest, you know what I would do? I would be a smart house owner and make sure no wasps are building a nest in my house. Hunting kills millions of lives every year, just think about it. Unless hunters can prove that they have the more valid opinion, they they shouldn't argue if hunting gets banned. Hunting is un-needed.

How isn't it? You made a claim that hunters could keep the deer from being overpopulated and from rarely coming onto 'our' land. If you state something, shouldn't you prepared to have evidence or sources which agree with what you said? Unless debating has now turned into "What my opponet has said is 100% true, lets not question them" thing. You made a claim, you have to prove it. Simple.

The way society is going, in 50 years probably very few people would do it to get paid in the developed world.

And the deer wont come onto our property if we fence it off, and they wont need to come on it if we re-introduce natural predators.

They will remove the need for deer to go onto 'our' property, but that doesn't mean the deer wont. Since deer naturally roam everywhere foraging.

Only if they could.... Anyhow, they wont declare war on us, but by us not sharing will just cause more problems. See what has happened when we wont share with animals? Species go extinct, and animals are killed for no reason. Not a good outcome, is it?

You aren't a very good model to follow are you? Stop preaching about the ways someone should debate when you are doing it wrong. You sate claims, but you think I have no right to ask you to site your sources. The pot calling the kettle black, eh?

The hunters will get cranky, and they will complain the natural predators are taking 'their catch'. It happens here...people kill natural predators because for some stupid reason they think they will eat all the deer.

How so?

Did I say it was wasted time? I said it was way less time efficient then buying lentils.

People that don't know that you can get protein from other sources, yes.

How is it a problem? It is natural, and we should except it, or put up a fence. For example, yesterday I woke up and noticed some deer ate some of my most valued plants. What did I do, go shoot them? No. I accepted that they didn't know better and it wasn't their fault. The next night I put on protective containers, just in case they came again. They didn't, but in the afternoon I saw all three out my window. What did I do? Go chase them? No. I watched them and they never went to the garden.

You are getting unreasonable now.

Humans may want total control, but unless they kill every other species, they wont get it. Hunting is a bandage solution to the greater problem of what we created. Humans create so many problems, and we try to fix them, but we will soon learn we can't fix nature's problems (which we created) with people, nature will have to fix nature.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Matt Do you know how to quote? The farmers, if they want to keep their business going. Nature going back to its natural form and deer being happier is worth a few people loosing their 'livelihoods'. How is that ridiculous? Do you believe a few jobs are worth millions of deer's lives? What state do you live in? The Bacon Guy, if people want to try to force me to not kill a wasp nest, you know what I would do? I would be a smart house owner and make sure no wasps are building a nest in my house. Hunting kills millions of lives every year, just think about it. Unless hunters can prove that they have the more valid opinion, they they shouldn't argue if hunting gets banned. Hunting is un-needed. How isn't it? You made a claim that hunters could keep the deer from being overpopulated and from rarely coming onto 'our' land. If you state something, shouldn't you prepared to have evidence or sources which agree with what you said? Unless debating has now turned into "What my opponet has said is 100% true, lets not question them" thing. You made a claim, you have to prove it. Simple. The way society is going, in 50 years probably very few people would do it to get paid in the developed world. And the deer wont come onto our property if we fence it off, and they wont need to come on it if we re-introduce natural predators. They will remove the need for deer to go onto 'our' property, but that doesn't mean the deer wont. Since deer naturally roam everywhere foraging. Only if they could.... Anyhow, they wont declare war on us, but by us not sharing will just cause more problems. See what has happened when we wont share with animals? Species go extinct, and animals are killed for no reason. Not a good outcome, is it? You aren't a very good model to follow are you? Stop preaching about the ways someone should debate when you are doing it wrong. You sate claims, but you think I have no right to ask you to site your sources. The pot calling the kettle black, eh? The hunters will get cranky, and they will complain the natural predators are taking 'their catch'. It happens here...people kill natural predators because for some stupid reason they think they will eat all the deer. How so? Did I say it was wasted time? I said it was way less time efficient then buying lentils. People that don't know that you can get protein from other sources, yes. How is it a problem? It is natural, and we should except it, or put up a fence. For example, yesterday I woke up and noticed some deer ate some of my most valued plants. What did I do, go shoot them? No. I accepted that they didn't know better and it wasn't their fault. The next night I put on protective containers, just in case they came again. They didn't, but in the afternoon I saw all three out my window. What did I do? Go chase them? No. I watched them and they never went to the garden. You are getting unreasonable now. Humans may want total control, but unless they kill every other species, they wont get it. Hunting is a bandage solution to the greater problem of what we created. Humans create so many problems, and we try to fix them, but we will soon learn we can't fix nature's problems (which we created) with people, nature will have to fix nature.

Your wasp argument is pretty ridiculous. You really should rethink that one.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Do you know how to quote? The farmers, if they want to keep their business going. Nature going back to its natural form and deer being happier is worth a few people loosing their 'livelihoods'. How is that ridiculous? Do you believe a few jobs are worth millions of deer's lives? What state do you live in?

Natural is predators (that's humans, too) killing prey. You don't even know if deer can be happy, and you're going to impose your values on others for a theoretical emotion. Plus, you still haven't given a good reason why a deer would prefer being torn apart by wolves or having its throat ripped out by a cougar over being shot. I would say that overall, millions of people depend on the meat industry for livelihood, and, yes, I'm not willing to sacrafice the economy for deer that will die anyway and never feel the difference.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Natural is predators (that's humans, too) killing prey. You don't even know if deer can be happy, and you're going to impose your values on others for a theoretical emotion. Plus, you still haven't given a good reason why a deer would prefer being torn apart by wolves or having its throat ripped out by a cougar over being shot. I would say that overall, millions of people depend on the meat industry for livelihood, and, yes, I'm not willing to sacrafice the economy for deer that will die anyway and never feel the difference.

Will the deer have the cortical capacity to compose you a haiku on how it feels? No. However the structures and chemicals involved with emotive thought are much, much older and universal to mammals (and recognizable in all vertebrates) and so deer can almost certainly feel happy.

As I said before, I've argued with vegetarians and lost. I only eat meat now because I'm content with being evil. You do have one point; Matt's argument that hunters will kill more deer and so deer would rather have cougars is nonlogical because the number of deer hunters kill is regulated by hunting licenses. Whether the deer feels more pain when it is shot or eaten is hard to judge.

I imagine that if deer could communicate they would feel that this is somewhat of a Morton's fork but pick being shot on the grounds that its a faster death.

[Matt]

Quote by: Hurt Your wasp argument is pretty ridiculous. You really should rethink that one.

It was never my arguement...did you see who started the wasp arguement?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Natural is predators (that's humans, too) killing prey. You don't even know if deer can be happy, and you're going to impose your values on others for a theoretical emotion. Plus, you still haven't given a good reason why a deer would prefer being torn apart by wolves or having its throat ripped out by a cougar over being shot. I would say that overall, millions of people depend on the meat industry for livelihood, and, yes, I'm not willing to sacrafice the economy for deer that will die anyway and never feel the difference.

Not so, humans are not natural predators. They migrated (First Nations) over here, long after all the other animals were here, therefore they are not natural predators. They were 'introduced', so to speak.

Of course deer can be happy. They have a brain, nervous system, etc. just like we do. Do you actually think deer aren't happy when they are breeding or when they are munching on tulips?

How am I imposing? It isn't law that hunting is illegal, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not imposing anything on anyone.

I have so many times. Stop ignoring my posts. Deer would rather natural predators because they would kill less deer, but keep the populations from overpopulation. Where as hunting would try (and is trying) to get the deer down to levels in which they do not go onto 'our' land.

You seem to paint a very gruesome portrait of how natural predators kill prey. Are you trying to add emotion? Cougars kill deer very quickly, and wolves kill semi-quickly. You know how you say wolves rip up the deer? They may do so, but when a animal is in alot of distress, in this case a deer, it will probably lose some of the pain it would feel (just like humans do in cases of distress). Hunting is not just a bullet to the heart, even if you would like to think it is. Alot of people use hunting dogs, which is very cruel, and scares the deer alot, and the dogs sometimes will bite or even take down the deer (though the dogs can't kill a deer fast, like wolves could). Also, alot of the time people don't get the bullet in a place where it will kill the deer fast, and that can cause tremendous pain.

You don't have to, everyone is entitled to their own views or opinions. I would personally love to have the whole meat market die, and with more of me springing up everywhere, I wouldn't be shocked if it starts going downhill

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not so, humans are not natural predators. They migrated (First Nations) over here, long after all the other animals were here, therefore they are not natural predators. They were 'introduced', so to speak. Of course deer can be happy. They have a brain, nervous system, etc. just like we do. Do you actually think deer aren't happy when they are breeding or when they are munching on tulips? How am I imposing? It isn't law that hunting is illegal, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I have so many times. Stop ignoring my posts. Deer would rather natural predators because they would kill less deer, but keep the populations from overpopulation. Where as hunting would try (and is trying) to get the deer down to levels in which they do not go onto 'our' land. You seem to paint a very gruesome portrait of how natural predators kill prey. Are you trying to add emotion? Cougars kill deer very quickly, and wolves kill semi-quickly. You know how you say wolves rip up the deer? They may do so, but when a animal is in alot of distress, in this case a deer, it will probably lose some of the pain it would feel (just like humans do in cases of distress). Hunting is not just a bullet to the heart, even if you would like to think it is. Alot of people use hunting dogs, which is very cruel, and scares the deer alot, and the dogs sometimes will bite or even take down the deer (though the dogs can't kill a deer fast, like wolves could). Also, alot of the time people don't get the bullet in a place where it will kill the deer fast, and that can cause tremendous pain. You don't have to, everyone is entitled to their own views or opinions. I would personally love to have the whole meat market die, and with more of me springing up everywhere, I wouldn't be shocked if it starts going downhill

In that case, humans are unnatural everywhere besides ethiopia, or whereever the hell we originated from. Most animals in any part of the world once migrated to where they are now. I have no idea if deer are happy, never asked one. And if you're not suggesting anti-hunting laws, then you're leaving these animals to what you beleive to be immoral slaughter. Either killing deer is morrally abhorrent and should be stopped or it's natural and even desirable. Prove natural predators would kill less deer. Wolves are capable of overhunting deer populations, while humans are limited by hunting licenses.
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2372(199802)79%3A1%3C227%3ASKOWDB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T -
Hunting in general is trying to do nothing besides entertain and provide food, the state may see it as a way to keep deer at healthy levels, but nbody goes out and randomly slaughters deer to keep them off land, I generally like watching them anyway. You use emotion as well (deer jumping for joy at being eaten). Putting something in shock to the point where it self-anesthasizes is not humane, and the same affect is often acheived with a bullet in human cases. I see no reason to use hunting dogs anyway, why put two animals at risk when you have a perfectly good rifle. How do you know there are more vegetarians? And I doubt everyone will give up hunting.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt The Bacon Guy, if people want to try to force me to not kill a wasp nest, you know what I would do? I would be a smart house owner and make sure no wasps are building a nest in my house.

Impossible to guarantee.

Quote by: Matt Hunting kills millions of lives every year, just think about it. Unless hunters can prove that they have the more valid opinion, they they shouldn’t argue if hunting gets banned. Hunting is un-needed.

Not how the legal system works. You don’t throw someone in jail simply because they can’t prove that they weren’t doing anything wrong.

Quote by: Matt How isn’t it? You made a claim that hunters could keep the deer from being overpopulated and from rarely coming onto ‘our’ land. If you state something, shouldn’t you prepared to have evidence or sources which agree with what you said?

Hunters could do that. I never said they necessarily would without a little help or incentive, but they definitely could.

Quote by: Matt The way society is going, in 50 years probably very few people would do it to get paid in the developed world.

Pure speculation.

Quote by: Matt And the deer wont come onto our property if we fence it off, and they wont need to come on it if we re-introduce natural predators.

Your objection to hunters was that they would hunt deer to the point where they wouldn't need to come onto out land. If natural predators will hunt deer to the point that they won't need to come onto our property, they obviously will be killing as many or more deer than the hunters would.

Quote by: Matt They will remove the need for deer to go onto ‘our’ property, but that doesn’t mean the deer wont. Since deer naturally roam everywhere foraging.

Why would a deer wander into potential danger to find food if its own habitat is able to support it?

Quote by: Matt Only if they could.... Anyhow, they wont declare war on us, but by us not sharing will just cause more problems. See what has happened when we wont share with animals? Species go extinct, and animals are killed for no reason. Not a good outcome, is it?

Depends on your point of view.

Quote by: Matt The hunters will get cranky, and they will complain the natural predators are taking ‘their catch’. It happens here...people kill natural predators because for some stupid reason they think they will eat all the deer.

Make the predators a protected species then.

Quote by: Matt How so?

Because the line is purely based on emotion.

Quote by: Matt Did I say it was wasted time? I said it was way less time efficient then buying lentils.

The point is that incorporating food-acquisition into one’s leisure time absolutely is time efficient. Instead of spending one hour shopping and ten hours of leisure time, a hunter can spend ten hours of leisure time and still get his food.

Quote by: Matt People that don’t know that you can get protein from other sources, yes.

Or people that like meat, find hunting to be more cost and time efficient than buying lentils, etc.

Quote by: Matt How is it a problem?

How is it a problem to have deer wandering round human areas? Other than the issues mentioned, how about all the fatal road accidents than are caused by deer?

Quote by: Matt It is natural, and we should except it, or put up a fence. For example, yesterday I woke up and noticed some deer ate some of my most valued plants. What did I do, go shoot them? No. I accepted that they didn’t know better and it wasn’t their fault. The next night I put on protective containers, just in case they came again.

That’s lovely, but like I said, people shouldn’t be obligated to conform to your arbitrary standards of selflessness any more than you should be forced to conform to theirs.

Quote by: Matt You are getting unreasonable now.

That’s not an argument.

Quote by: Matt How is that ridiculous? Do you believe a few jobs are worth millions of deer's lives?

Do you think a room of your house is worth the lives of a few hundred wasps?

[Matt]

My responses may be a little smaller, I have company over (for a few days) and can't put as much time into this, though I am trying.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary In that case, humans are unnatural everywhere besides ethiopia, or whereever the hell we originated from. Most animals in any part of the world once migrated to where they are now. I have no idea if deer are happy, never asked one. And if you're not suggesting anti-hunting laws, then you're leaving these animals to what you beleive to be immoral slaughter. Either killing deer is morrally abhorrent and should be stopped or it's natural and even desirable. Prove natural predators would kill less deer. Wolves are capable of overhunting deer populations, while humans are limited by hunting licenses. links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2372(199802)79%3A1%3C227%3ASKOWDB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T - Hunting in general is trying to do nothing besides entertain and provide food, the state may see it as a way to keep deer at healthy levels, but nbody goes out and randomly slaughters deer to keep them off land, I generally like watching them anyway. You use emotion as well (deer jumping for joy at being eaten). Putting something in shock to the point where it self-anesthasizes is not humane, and the same affect is often acheived with a bullet in human cases. I see no reason to use hunting dogs anyway, why put two animals at risk when you have a perfectly good rifle. How do you know there are more vegetarians? And I doubt everyone will give up hunting.

People are pretty much unnatural everywhere (maybe not the middle east though...).

The un-needed killing of deer is bad, the needed is not.

Wow, one bit if evidence, in one case, in one part of a state. Why are you focussing on wolves, while cougars are the biggest predator of deer? Hunting licenses do not keep hunters from overhunting. What do you think happened to cougars, wolves, bears, etc., maybe they just vanished into thin air. Wrong, they were overhunted, and still are today, even though the populations of cougars and wolves are critical in most areas.

Wrong, I have heard many reports of people hutning animals just for fun, nothing else. What do you think those 20+ million squirrels and 20+ millions doves that are hunted for, for a supper, wrong. What about sport hunting, which still occurs often with deer? Those are undebately stupid practices that are un-needed.

Many people use hunting dogs, if you noticed. The fact is, natural predators, when you average it out (and with cougars being their top natural predator), probably kill deer equally as humanely as hunting or more humanely.

Why do you think Burger King now has a veggie burger? Why do you think there are more vegetarian restaurants? Why do you think animal rights movements, like PETA, are gaining momentum against factory farms? More vegetarians, simple.

Not everyone, but it is decling and there are no indications that it will stop.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Impossible to guarantee. Not how the legal system works. You don’t throw someone in jail simply because they can’t prove that they weren’t doing anything wrong. Hunters could do that. I never said they necessarily would without a little help or incentive, but they definitely could. Pure speculation. Your objection to hunters was that they would hunt deer to the point where they wouldn't need to come onto out land. If natural predators will hunt deer to the point that they won't need to come onto our property, they obviously will be killing as many or more deer than the hunters would. Why would a deer wander into potential danger to find food if its own habitat is able to support it? Depends on your point of view. Make the predators a protected species then. Because the line is purely based on emotion. The point is that incorporating food-acquisition into one’s leisure time absolutely is time efficient. Instead of spending one hour shopping and ten hours of leisure time, a hunter can spend ten hours of leisure time and still get his food. Or people that like meat, find hunting to be more cost and time efficient than buying lentils, etc. How is it a problem to have deer wandering round human areas? Other than the issues mentioned, how about all the fatal road accidents than are caused by deer? That’s lovely, but like I said, people shouldn’t be obligated to conform to your arbitrary standards of selflessness any more than you should be forced to conform to theirs. That’s not an argument. Do you think a room of your house is worth the lives of a few hundred wasps?

Correct, but most cases could be prevented, couldn't they, unless someone owns a mansion and can't go into every room often? There are also sprays which you can buy that just "put the wasps to sleep for a little" and then they could be safely transferred outside, with no dead wasps. Problem solved.

Yep, but people can push all they want for it to get banned, and if it does, tough for the hunters whose cases were not as valid.

Do you have any sources to back your claim up? Because I don't see how the current population of hunters could, and with the decline of hunting, I don't think a even smaller group of hunters has a chance.

It is not fact, that I will agree, but it is a well thought out eduacated guess on what people will do, given past behaviors.

Don't put words in my mouth please. I said hunting would try to keep the population at levels in which the deer would rarely come onto our property, and the wolves/cougars would keep them from needing to go onto our property, and from not starving.

And there is potential danger from wandering in the woods too. City or town deer actually are so used of people and cars they let you pet them. They can adapt well to other enviroments. And they are not just going to abandon their natural places since humans arrived, unelss they are forced to.

How does it depend on my opinion? It is a fact, and I can give cases to show you.

I don't think hunters would follow those laws, nor would they be implied. Cases with natural predators and hunters together don't end well, unless the hunters are actually eduacated.

It takes more time, which was my point. 30 minutes of shopping is more time efficient then 10 hours of hunting. That is just true.

Agreed, but it doesn't mean my opinion is not more sharing or less selfish then their's. Also, it doesn't mean my opinion is not better then their's.

Spray them with the calming spray, move 'em outside, problem solved.