Hunting Debate

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Did I say if I removed the nest a few would die?

You can't guarantee that none of the wasps would be killed.

Quote by: Matt Majorities or minorities supporting something doesn't make their cause right, it depends on the voices who are in them and how valid of an opinion is which they have.

That was the point.

Quote by: Matt Do you have any evidence hunters can control deer so they are not overpopulated and they don't go on 'our' property much? Yes or no, I'm sick and tired of you ignoring my question time and time again. Yes, they can always be introduced, but why don't we get the populations at a stable level so when hunting does die off the wolves actually can keep the population in check. A few more deer dead wont solve the issue in the future. That is short term thinking, not long term thinking which is needed in a case like this.

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.

Quote by: Matt So by saying they either level off or grow, you admit hunting will not rise again.

No, I don’t. I didn’t say those were the only two possibilities.

Quote by: Matt Not having to and doing so are two different things.

You just said that deer only come onto our land because they have to. Again, make up your mind.

Quote by: Matt And is that the deers fault? No, it is the humans fault.

Right, because if I jump in front of a bus, it’s the driver’s fault for hitting me.

Quote by: Matt They should be more careful while driving, and if people were smart, they would place high fences around the highways to keep deer and other wildlife from crossing.

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.

Quote by: Matt Hunting as a whole should be banned, then there are no people saying "Oh, I thought it was a deer, but it was a cougar, sorry" and smugly walking away.

The law wouldn’t have to allow for this kind of defence and secondly can you prove that people would do this?

Quote by: Matt Time is time. Took me 30 minutes to get my food, and the other way it took me 4 hours. 30 minutes is more time efficient.

You’re just being wilfully blind now. Address what I wrote and stop being so ridiculous.

[Matt]

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.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt 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

And not removing the wasps nest is more humane than removing it, so why should you be allowed to remove it?

Quote by: Matt 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.

Talk about a red herring. Ok, let’s spell it out.

Your argument was that my methods (hunting existing alongside natural predation) would not be sustainable in keeping the population of deer at a level which renders them unlikely to come onto our land. My argument is that, even if hunting does become unsustainable and the practice dies out altogether, we still have the natural predators keeping the populations down in the same way that they would have been had hunting been banned outright.

Using your method, the deer population will simply be kept at the point where the deer are not starving. Using my method, the deer population will A) be kept at the point where the deer are not starving (this is if hunting does die out), or B) be kept at the point where deer are not starving and also are less likely to come onto our land (this is if hunting does continue or increase). There is no way that my system could have a worse outcome than yours and every possibility that it will have a better one.

Quote by: Matt 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)

See above.

Quote by: Matt 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?

No because there’s no reason that a deer would come onto out land and into potential danger unless it absolutely needed to.

Quote by: Matt 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.

You’ve just said yourself that natural predators won’t stop deer from coming onto out land. Again, make up your mind.

Quote by: Matt 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.

So one freak case proves that law makers will let people get away with killing protected species?

Quote by: Matt How am I being the willfully blind one? 30 minutes is shorter then 4 hours, unless there is a new clock system out.

Read my second last post. Four hours is less time than four and a half hours.

Quote by: Matt 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.

Actually I have addressed this several times. One thing I have been ignoring so far is the hole in your argument regarding proofs. Have you any evidence that natural predation will be sustainable in the long-run and that cougars will not at some point in the future be wiped out by some disease? Furthermore, since you are proposing that hunting be made illegal, have you any evidence that my methods will not be sustainable? Or are you proposing we outlaw the practice of hunting without actually having any real evidence against it?

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy And not removing the wasps nest is more humane than removing it, so why should you be allowed to remove it? Talk about a red herring. Ok, let’s spell it out. Your argument was that my methods (hunting existing alongside natural predation) would not be sustainable in keeping the population of deer at a level which renders them unlikely to come onto our land. My argument is that, even if hunting does become unsustainable and the practice dies out altogether, we still have the natural predators keeping the populations down in the same way that they would have been had hunting been banned outright. Using your method, the deer population will simply be kept at the point where the deer are not starving. Using my method, the deer population will A) be kept at the point where the deer are not starving (this is if hunting does die out), or B) be kept at the point where deer are not starving and also are less likely to come onto our land (this is if hunting does continue or increase). There is no way that my system could have a worse outcome than yours and every possibility that it will have a better one. See above. No because there’s no reason that a deer would come onto out land and into potential danger unless it absolutely needed to. You’ve just said yourself that natural predators won’t stop deer from coming onto out land. Again, make up your mind. So one freak case proves that law makers will let people get away with killing protected species? Read my second last post. Four hours is less time than four and a half hours. Actually I have addressed this several times. One thing I have been ignoring so far is the hole in your argument regarding proofs. Have you any evidence that natural predation will be sustainable in the long-run and that cougars will not at some point in the future be wiped out by some disease? Furthermore, since you are proposing that hunting be made illegal, have you any evidence that my methods will not be sustainable? Or are you proposing we outlaw the practice of hunting without actually having any real evidence against it?

What is a home for? To live in, isn't it? If we humanely deal with animals who have entered our homes, then that is fine. We should not have to leave our home as you suggested so wasps can live in it. I think most people will agree that is ridiculous. But letting a deer or two eat a couple tulips, not that big of a deal. Also, wasps can't really build a nest in a house, they need an exit out. So unless it is a run-down house, they will die by making a nest where they can't get out of.

Never said unlikely, I said they will not need to, but that does not mean they wont. Don't twist my words. Not starving=not overpopulated. Do you have any proof that putting natural predators alongside hunters would work? No you don't. Therefore, your arguement is bogus, unless you can prove that natural predators can be re-introduced alongside hunters and that it will actually work. Your arguement is based on an 'if'.

How is them not going onto our land that much a better outcome? Is that just your opinion? It is certainly not mine.

Stop ignoring my points, it will get you no where. If deer go into the woods, they face danger. If deer go into a town, they face danger. To a 'city' deer being put into Yellowstone National Park would probably be very scary, and putting a 'country' deer into the middle of a city would be scary too. The city deer get so adapted to the city, and it is not more dangerous then the woods to them.

Correct, though they would reduce them coming onto 'our' land to some extent (moderation is the key), but not to same as hunting would try to.

That is one case of many. When something gets banned, there will be rebelion, but when something is half banned, people can get away with stuff that they could not have if it was all banned. If hunting was all banned, could that guy have gotten away with killing the bear? No. If part of hunting was banned, yes, because he could play 'dumb'.

And who says someone doesn't like shopping and meeting people in the store? To get food, buying lentils is more time efficient then going hunting. Stop the semantics...time is time.

Ok, I can easily answer your question. Of course natural predation will be sustainable if we don't keep interfering. What do you think kept the population of deer in check for thousands of years before man came? Cougars and wolves. I don't have evidence they wont be swept dead by a disease, but aslong wovles are there too, and the population of cougars is spread through-out North America, it shouldn't have that much impact. I doubt a disease could go all across the Americas and kill all the cougars. That is hypothetical talking even suggesting that, it hasn't happened in the past before I don't believe.

Now you are doing something to me you said to me a little bit ago "Thats not how you debate." Why should I have to disprove your method wont work, when you haven't got a shred of evidence it will?

Again, answer this question please, as a yes or no. Do you have any evidence hunting could keep the popualtion of deer from not being overpopulated, and from not going on 'our' land much, as you have suggested?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt What is a home for? To live in, isn't it? If we humanely deal with animals who have entered our homes, then that is fine. We should not have to leave our home as you suggested so wasps can live in it. I think most people will agree that is ridiculous. But letting a deer or two eat a couple tulips, not that big of a deal.

Totally subjective

Quote by: Matt Also, wasps can't really build a nest in a house, they need an exit out. So unless it is a run-down house, they will die by making a nest where they can't get out of.

Wasps nests in attics and sheds are fairly common.

Quote by: Matt Never said unlikely, I said they will not need to, but that does not mean they wont. Don't twist my words. Not starving=not overpopulated.

I think you must have misread something.

Quote by: Matt Do you have any proof that putting natural predators alongside hunters would work?

There’s absolutely no reason that it wouldn’t. That’s like me asking you to prove that all the wolves and cougars you introduce won’t suddenly decide to jump into the sea.

Quote by: Matt How is them not going onto our land that much a better outcome? Is that just your opinion? It is certainly not mine.

The point was referring to my argument, in which deer keeping off our land is a better outcome.

Quote by: Matt Stop ignoring my points, it will get you no where. If deer go into the woods, they face danger. If deer go into a town, they face danger. To a 'city' deer being put into Yellowstone National Park would probably be very scary, and putting a 'country' deer into the middle of a city would be scary too. The city deer get so adapted to the city, and it is not more dangerous then the woods to them.

I've been to several places with a large (though not overpopulated) deer population in the countryside and yet next to no deer coming into the city. Why? Not because their numbers are so sparse as to make it unlikely (they're everywhere in the coutryside), but because the countryside can support their needs.

I see no evidence that deer would choose to come onto our land unless necessary.

Quote by: Matt Correct, though they would reduce them coming onto 'our' land to some extent (moderation is the key), but not to same as hunting would try to.

Which means that additional hunting would result in less road accidents caused by deer.

Quote by: Matt That is one case of many.

Prove that it’s a statistically significant number of cases.

Quote by: Matt And who says someone doesn't like shopping and meeting people in the store?

So four and a half hours to four and a half hours, coupled with the fact that most people don’t enjoy shopping. Hunting is either as or more time efficient than shopping.

Quote by: Matt Ok, I can easily answer your question. Of course natural predation will be sustainable if we don't keep interfering. What do you think kept the population of deer in check for thousands of years before man came? Cougars and wolves. I don't have evidence they wont be swept dead by a disease, but aslong wovles are there too, and the population of cougars is spread through-out North America, it shouldn't have that much impact. I doubt a disease could go all across the Americas and kill all the cougars. That is hypothetical talking even suggesting that, it hasn't happened in the past before I don't believe.

Just as it’s hypothetical thinking to suggest that hunting will die out.

Quote by: Matt Now you are doing something to me you said to me a little bit ago "Thats not how you debate." Why should I have to disprove your method wont work, when you haven't got a shred of evidence it will?

Because you’re proposing that something be made illegal, whereas I am not. If you want to throw someone in jail, you need evidence against them.

Quote by: Matt Again, answer this question please, as a yes or no. Do you have any evidence hunting could keep the popualtion of deer from not being overpopulated, and from not going on 'our' land much, as you have suggested?

As I’ve already said, hunting could obviously do this. Hunting is the killing of deer, killing of deer lowers the population, therefore hunting could potentially prevent overpopulation. Whether it will be able to do so is a different matter, which is why there are ways of increasing hunting or other methods of population control which can be introduced alongside it.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Totally subjective Wasps nests in attics and sheds are fairly common. I think you must have misread something. There’s absolutely no reason that it wouldn’t. That’s like me asking you to prove that all the wolves and cougars you introduce won’t suddenly decide to jump into the sea. The point was referring to my argument, in which deer keeping off our land is a better outcome. I've been to several places with a large (though not overpopulated) deer population in the countryside and yet next to no deer coming into the city. Why? Not because their numbers are so sparse as to make it unlikely (they're everywhere in the coutryside), but because the countryside can support their needs. I see no evidence that deer would choose to come onto our land unless necessary. Which means that additional hunting would result in less road accidents caused by deer. Prove that it’s a statistically significant number of cases. So four and a half hours to four and a half hours, coupled with the fact that most people don’t enjoy shopping. Hunting is either as or more time efficient than shopping. Just as it’s hypothetical thinking to suggest that hunting will die out. Because you’re proposing that something be made illegal, whereas I am not. If you want to throw someone in jail, you need evidence against them. As I’ve already said, hunting could obviously do this. Hunting is the killing of deer, killing of deer lowers the population, therefore hunting could potentially prevent overpopulation. Whether it will be able to do so is a different matter, which is why there are ways of increasing hunting or other methods of population control which can be introduced alongside it.

Explain how that is totally subjective? Almost anyone will value their house more then a few tulips. I don't think you can argue that.

How so?

Now isn't that a funny thing to be saying. You have WHe have alot of, well, rednecks, and if natural predators get re-introduced, in all most likelyhood they will try to kill them. Also, the farmers will too. Now wolves in a nothern state are now allowed to be killed, with the pressure of all the farmers complaining (the wolves were just being introduced). To solve that problem, it should just be one firm law "No hunting". Or I'm sure the people complaining will get their way. Do you have any links that show or prove hunters+natural predators would work together after the natural predators have been re-introduced?

Yep, country land can support their needs better then a city. I have no doubt it is necessary for them now to (since their population needs to live in their whole habitat at this point) come into a city, but with the re-introduction of natural predators they wont need too, but some will prefer 'city life' and stay in the city most likely. I have been saying that this whole debate pretty much.

Yep, that is correct, more hunting would do that. But that is a short term solution, not a long term solution.

Ok, the proof is in the pudding:

Idaho Mountain Express: Stanley wolf killed illegally - June 27, 2007
Wolves are being both legally and illegally shot in Idaho. « Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News
"Auntie," member of the Ninemile Wolf Pack is illegally Killed.
Wisconsin DNR: Nine wolves shot and killed during deer hunt : La Crosse Tribune
Wolves - Defenders of Wildlife

I think that shows hunters/farmers don't get along well with wolves, do they?

Actually, alot of people love shopping for clothes, toys, books, etc., and only a small majority like hunting.

How is it? Pat evidence has showed us hunting is going downhill. No past evidence has showed us ocugars will get a disease and all die.

That doesn't matter. If you prove it, then I will try to disprove it. But I can't disprove something you said when you have no evidence to back it up. That is ridiculous.

See above to show you why hunters can't get along with wolves.

So you have no evidence your method will work (I do with mine)? Then your arguement is entirely based on a 'if' or your opinion. So you made your entire pro-hunting case on an if, which is "hunters can keep the deer from overpopulation and keep then from not going on our property much" which you have no evidence that can back that up? Wow.....just wow.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Explain how that is totally subjective? Almost anyone will value their house more then a few tulips. I don't think you can argue that.

It’s subjective to say that one form of selfishness is reasonable and one is unreasonable.

Quote by: Matt How so?

How so what? You might want to use the quote feature properly so I know what point you’re responding to.

Quote by: Matt Now isn't that a funny thing to be saying. You have WHe have alot of, well, rednecks, and if natural predators get re-introduced, in all most likelyhood they will try to kill them. Also, the farmers will too. Now wolves in a nothern state are now allowed to be killed, with the pressure of all the farmers complaining (the wolves were just being introduced). To solve that problem, it should just be one firm law "No hunting".

If hunters have no qualms about illegally killing a wolf, they will have no qualms about illegally killing a deer.

Quote by: Matt Yep, country land can support their needs better then a city. I have no doubt it is necessary for them now to (since their population needs to live in their whole habitat at this point) come into a city, but with the re-introduction of natural predators they wont need too, but some will prefer 'city life' and stay in the city most likely.

Can you prove that? It’s certainly not the case in anywhere I’ve been.

Quote by: Matt Ok, the proof is in the pudding: Idaho Mountain Express: Stanley wolf killed illegally - June 27, 2007 Wolves are being both legally and illegally shot in Idaho. « Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News "Auntie," member of the Ninemile Wolf Pack is illegally Killed. Wisconsin DNR: Nine wolves shot and killed during deer hunt : La Crosse Tribune Wolves - Defenders of Wildlife I think that shows hunters/farmers don't get along well with wolves, do they?

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.

Quote by: Matt Actually, alot of people love shopping for clothes, toys, books, etc.,

Food? Either way, it’s still more or as time efficient, which disproves your argument.

Quote by: Matt How is it? Pat evidence has showed us hunting is going downhill. No past evidence has showed us ocugars will get a disease and all die.

No past evidence has shown us that hunting will die out. Past evidence has shown populations devastated by disease.

Quote by: Matt That doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. You can’t send someone to jail without evidence.

Quote by: Matt So you have no evidence your method will work (I do with mine)?

You do have evidence that your method will work? Evidence that wolves and cougars won’t be wiped out by disease?

[Matt]

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.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt 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.

I’m not arguing about whether one thing is more important than the other; I’m arguing about your view of one form of selfishness as reasonable and one as unreasonable. That is a subjective claim.

Quote by: Matt 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.

But if they’re the sort of people who would illegally kill wolves in the first place, anti-hunting laws wouldn’t apply to them.

Quote by: Matt I said a few things in that paragraph. Could you tell me what part you want me to prove?

That it would be not uncommon for deer, even when they had no need to do so, to come onto our land.

Quote by: Matt problem C is hard to fix. Maybe the Gov. should give enough money so they can either build higher fences or eletrical fences.

I assume by “the Gov.”, you mean me, the taxpayer.

Quote by: Matt Semantics again. Hunting=not needed and shopping for food=needed. Most places you can buy food, you can buy alot of other stuff too.

Most people indulge in leisure activities, of which hunting is one. Four hours of hunting is the same as four hours of any other leisure activity, only you save the time (and the money) it would take to buy other protein sources from the shops.

Quote by: Matt 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.

Past evidence has not shown that hunting will continue to drop or that it will not rise if the correct measures are taken. Past evidence has also not shown that cougars and wolves will not be wiped out by some disease; only that they haven’t so far been.

Quote by: Matt It has worked for thousands of years, that is my evidence

That’s only proof that it can work; not that it will in the future. Hunting can work; we just don’t know if it will.

Quote by: Matt 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.

I have as much proof of my method as you do of yours. And remember I’m not the one who wants to start throwing people in jail, so it’s not me who is in most urgent need of evidence here.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I’m not arguing about whether one thing is more important than the other; I’m arguing about your view of one form of selfishness as reasonable and one as unreasonable. That is a subjective claim. But if they’re the sort of people who would illegally kill wolves in the first place, anti-hunting laws wouldn’t apply to them. That it would be not uncommon for deer, even when they had no need to do so, to come onto our land. I assume by “the Gov.”, you mean me, the taxpayer. Most people indulge in leisure activities, of which hunting is one. Four hours of hunting is the same as four hours of any other leisure activity, only you save the time (and the money) it would take to buy other protein sources from the shops. Past evidence has not shown that hunting will continue to drop or that it will not rise if the correct measures are taken. Past evidence has also not shown that cougars and wolves will not be wiped out by some disease; only that they haven’t so far been. That’s only proof that it can work; not that it will in the future. Hunting can work; we just don’t know if it will. I have as much proof of my method as you do of yours. And remember I’m not the one who wants to start throwing people in jail, so it’s not me who is in most urgent need of evidence here.

No, it is common sense. We can argue all day about whether a house or a few tulips is worth more, but when it comes down to it, we know what the truth would be to most people. What is more selfish? Killing deer because they are eating a few tulips, or moving a wasp nest out of a house because they could end up stinging you to death?

How would the laws not apply to them? If the Government starts getting some balls, I think this issue could be enforced well. Humans are greedy, and if something is gonna take something we want, we really don't want that thing around. But when we can't have want, then we really wont be jealous and want to go kill that thing, since if we do we go to jail. Humans can reason out if they do this they go to jail.

Why do you think I see deer in city parks grazing where I live? It is not because they are forced to (where I live there is no overpopulation of deer), but because some just prefer city or town life.

For either of our methods, we would be the taxpayers paying for the higher fences.

Most people indulge in shopping at a mall (there are food stores in malls too). The fact is, we started with the time effiencey of getting food, either by going to the store or going hunting. It is more time effective to get food at the food store, plain and simple.

How can you say hunting can work if it hasn't worked so far? Natural predation has worked for thousands of years (and in that time no diseases wiped out the wolf or cougar populations) and that is my proof that it will work.

You have no proof hunting can keep the population from overpopulation, nor do you have any proof it will greatly reduce the chance of them coming onto 'our' land. How can you argue about something you have no proof on?

How do you have as much proof? My method has worked in the past, yours hasn't, and with the way society is going, your method probably wont even stand a 1% chance of working in 100 years.

Actually, you would want to throw people in jail as well. You have said some natural predators should be re-introduced alongside hunters, and it should be illegal to kill them. So if they kill them, they would go into jail.

No, but I am supplying all the evidence here. You haven't hardly added a drop in the bucket. Your arguement is untenable, since it is all based on an 'if', that is why you cant find evidence to support your claims.

Again, you are ignoring alot of my points and pick the ones that 'suit you the most'.

Unless you start realizing you have to show some evidence other then your own words that your method will work, I don't think this debate will last much longer.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt No, it is common sense. We can argue all day about whether a house or a few tulips is worth more, but when it comes down to it, we know what the truth would be to most people.

Once again, it’s not to do with which is worth more, it’s to do with where you draw the line between acceptable selfishness and unacceptable selfishness. You can call it common sense, but it’s ultimately just your own subjective concept of common sense.

Quote by: Matt How would the laws not apply to them? If the Government starts getting some balls, I think this issue could be enforced well. Humans are greedy, and if something is gonna take something we want, we really don't want that thing around. But when we can't have want, then we really wont be jealous and want to go kill that thing, since if we do we go to jail. Humans can reason out if they do this they go to jail.

And the exact same reasoning would apply for the killing of natural predators.

Quote by: Matt Why do you think I see deer in city parks grazing where I live? It is not because they are forced to (where I live there is no overpopulation of deer), but because some just prefer city or town life.

Do you have any proof of this?

Quote by: Matt Actually, you would want to throw people in jail as well. You have said some natural predators should be re-introduced alongside hunters,

Quote by: Matt For either of our methods, we would be the taxpayers paying for the higher fences.

Depends if introducing natural predators would actually be necessary. My method leaves our options open.

Quote by: Matt Most people indulge in shopping at a mall (there are food stores in malls too). The fact is, we started with the time effiencey of getting food, either by going to the store or going hunting. It is more time effective to get food at the food store, plain and simple.

Only if you take it in isolation, which is foolish given that food acquisition is not the only thing we need time for.

Quote by: Matt How can you say hunting can work if it hasn't worked so far?

Hunting is killing of animals. Killing animals decreases their numbers. Hence hunting can, if widespread enough, control overpopulation. This is proof that it can work (though of course not that it will).

Quote by: Matt Natural predation has worked for thousands of years (and in that time no diseases wiped out the wolf or cougar populations) and that is my proof that it will work.

The fact that it has worked isn’t proof that it will continue to work; only that it can.

Quote by: Matt You have no proof hunting can keep the population from overpopulation, nor do you have any proof it will greatly reduce the chance of them coming onto 'our' land. How can you argue about something you have no proof on?

I would ask you the same question.

Quote by: Matt How do you have as much proof? My method has worked in the past, yours hasn't, and with the way society is going, your method probably wont even stand a 1% chance of working in 100 years.

A fabricated statistic doesn’t change the fact that you have no proof of the future effectiveness of your method.

Quote by: Matt No, but I am supplying all the evidence here. You haven't hardly added a drop in the bucket. Your arguement is untenable, since it is all based on an 'if', that is why you cant find evidence to support your claims.

Your argument is based every bit as much on an assumption: the assumption that wolves and cougars will not be wiped out by some disease. If you want to set the bar so high for proving an argument, I can do the same.

Quote by: Matt Again, you are ignoring alot of my points and pick the ones that 'suit you the most'.

I cut down the quotes so it's clear what I'm responding to, but I'm not aware of missing any actual arguments. Feel free to point them out if I do.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Once again, it’s not to do with which is worth more, it’s to do with where you draw the line between acceptable selfishness and unacceptable selfishness. You can call it common sense, but it’s ultimately just your own subjective concept of common sense. And the exact same reasoning would apply for the killing of natural predators. Do you have any proof of this? Depends if introducing natural predators would actually be necessary. My method leaves our options open. Only if you take it in isolation, which is foolish given that food acquisition is not the only thing we need time for. Hunting is killing of animals. Killing animals decreases their numbers. Hence hunting can, if widespread enough, control overpopulation. This is proof that it can work (though of course not that it will). The fact that it has worked isn’t proof that it will continue to work; only that it can. I would ask you the same question. A fabricated statistic doesn’t change the fact that you have no proof of the future effectiveness of your method. Your argument is based every bit as much on an assumption: the assumption that wolves and cougars will not be wiped out by some disease. If you want to set the bar so high for proving an argument, I can do the same. I cut down the quotes so it's clear what I'm responding to, but I'm not aware of missing any actual arguments. Feel free to point them out if I do.

Call it whatever you want, we all know the truth, a house is more important then a few tulips. I think even people on the pro-hunting side would agree with me there.

Yes, but if hunting is banned as a whole, no one can complain about "Oh, I never knew hunting wolves was bad, but not deer" or they can't complain about the natural predators eating 'their' deer. Since if hunting it not allowed, they no longer can hunt deer, so there is no selfishness involved.

Proof that they are not overpopulated or proof they are going into a city?

Your method does include the probable introduction of natural predators, since in all fact hunting probably wont rise, and society indicates that, even if you would like to state it is 'hypothetical'. And even if there is no drop in hunting, how do you expect hunters can control deer when they haven't so far (and please exclude your hypothetical reason that more people will hunt if they get paid)?

And we don't need the leisure activity of hunting, but we do need food from the grocery store. Therefore, getting food from the gorcery is more time efficient, since it gets the end goal done faster, and it doesn't include un-needed activities.

It can work, but it hasn't. And you have no proof that it will, since it never has. I have more proof my method will work, since it has worked in the past. That is the difference between our two methods, one has never worked, and one has worked before.

Fine, ask me the same question. But first, answer mine please, unless you can't. Stop tip-toeing around the question, just answer it.

It worked in the past, why wont it in the future? Natural predators are right now keeping deer populations from overpopulation in the parks, so why couldn't they else where? Hunting has never worked, I repeat, never, and there is not a shred of evidence it will. Though since natural predation has and is working, there is no real reason why it wont continue to.

Wrong, wolves and cougars have never been wiped out be a disease, there is no reason they would be now. But hunting has never worked, and there is no reason why it will suddenly work.

Ok, I'll point out anything in the future.

Just answer this one question (then I'll answer the question you want answered, since I asked mine first), so do you have any evidence (meaning links, not just your opinion) hunting can keep deer from overpopulation, and from not going onto our property much in North America?