Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Or kill enough deer so as to make them unlikely to come onto your land. Then not removing a wasp nest is morally superior to removing it. So why should we draw the line at your particular threshold of selfishness? Why not before or after? It is needed in order to reduce the likelihood of deer coming onto our land, which is what this entire point was about. My point was that your statistics about leisure hunting declining do not apply to professional hunting because the motives for each are different (hence the "different story" comment). That guess has nothing more to validate it than either of the other two options. "Fairness" has no bearing on the truth of something. That's your opinion. It's my opinion that it's ridiculous to say that people won't hunt for money in the future. Because that's an abstract point about morality; not a real-life point about practicality. Then I doubt wolves and cougars won't be wiped out by a disease. Unless they're wiped out by disease. That any given thing which has worked in the past has a high chance of working in the future. However you can best prove it. Of course they can be widespread enough. If every single person decides to hunt deer, the population of deer would have no chance of becoming overpopulated. That's a question of "will" and not of "can". We don't know if wolves and cougars will keep deer population under control in the future; only that they can.

And you haven't proven that could be done. Therefore, your guess that that could happen is flawed as well, you have no proof deer could go that low in population.

Because you can't prove there is any less selfish 'threshold' then mine, and since morally it is good to be the least selfish, mine is the moral better point. Clear as a chrystal.

You said that my method would include the banning of deer so it is easier to enforce the hunting of wolves, which is completely wrong. My method would ban deer hunting because it isn't needed, not because it is then easier to enforce wolf hunting. And for proof, here is the quote from you:

"Of course it would matter because you would be banning deer hunting on the premise that it would make protecting the wolves easier; not on the premise that deer hunters are actually necessarily doing anything wrong."

And referring the the quote above, stop making false statements about my method so it makes it look flawed, I don't appreciate it.

But them coming on our land is not needed to be controlled.

Wrong, the links I showed you previous would study all of hunting, not just leisure hunting. Do you have any proof professional hunting doesn't apply to the same thing as leisure hunting would?

No, but since we don't know if it will rise or drop, we have to assume it will stay at the same levels.

And it is ridiculous to make something up in which you have no proof on and expect the other person to think it is an ok guess.

Semantics yet again. Doesn't matter, if you change one thing into real life, and not the other, it does not make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Decide if you want all things in real life or none, you can't have both.

That doesn't equal the other, sorry. The past hasn't shown a massive disease is even possible for wolves and cougars, but the past has shown hunting is declining, doesn't mean it will continue to decline, but there is a good chance it will.

You have no proof that a disease will. Your arguement is almost completely based on hypotheticals, and you can't expect your opponet to accept them.

Not anything, but a good majority of things. I gave you proof, you seem to be blindly ignoring it. I can give you more example if you wish, but please actually read them.

I have already proved it, but you don't take my word, but you expect me to take yours. That is basically what the debate has turned into.

We don't know if hunters can either, and all your words only add up to something if you have some evidence to back up your claim other then your words.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Because you can't prove there is any less selfish 'threshold' then mine,

Not getting rid of the wasps nest is less selfish.

Quote by: Matt You said that my method would include the banning of deer so it is easier to enforce the hunting of wolves, which is completely wrong. My method would ban deer hunting because it isn't needed, not because it is then easier to enforce wolf hunting. And for proof, here is the quote from you: "Of course it would matter because you would be banning deer hunting on the premise that it would make protecting the wolves easier; not on the premise that deer hunters are actually necessarily doing anything wrong." And referring the the quote above, stop making false statements about my method so it makes it look flawed, I don't appreciate it.

We were discussing the practicality of wolves and hunters working alongside one another. Your only specific objection to this was that having people hunting deer would make the laws against hunting wolves harder to enforce.

Quote by: Matt But them coming on our land is not needed to be controlled.

It is if people want to maintain control over their property, which they have every right to do.

Quote by: Matt Wrong, the links I showed you previous would study all of hunting, not just leisure hunting.

Leisure hunting makes up the overwhelming majority of hunting, so it amounts to the same thing.

Quote by: Matt Do you have any proof professional hunting doesn't apply to the same thing as leisure hunting would?

All I said was that you can't apply your statistics to professional hunting.

Quote by: Matt No, but since we don't know if it will rise or drop, we have to assume it will stay at the same levels.

Why?

Quote by: Matt Semantics yet again. Doesn't matter, if you change one thing into real life, and not the other, it does not make sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Decide if you want all things in real life or none, you can't have both.

You’re ignoring the point. Ethics are an abstract concept. Time and money are real quantities.

Quote by: Matt That doesn't equal the other, sorry. The past hasn't shown a massive disease is even possible for wolves and cougars,

The past doesn’t have to show it. We know that disease can kill wolves and cougars, we know that disease can spread, therefore we know that a deadly disease can spread through the wolf and cougar population. We don’t know that it will, but there certainly isn’t any absolute barrier to it happening and it is hence a possibility.

Quote by: Matt but the past has shown hunting is declining, doesn't mean it will continue to decline, but there is a good chance it will.

You’ve yet to offer anything other than an unnamed episode of Dr Phil to support that claim.

Quote by: Matt And it is ridiculous to make something up in which you have no proof on and expect the other person to think it is an ok guess.

Quote by: Matt You have no proof that a disease will. Your arguement is almost completely based on hypotheticals, and you can't expect your opponet to accept them.

And your argument is based on the hypothetical idea that hunting will be unable to control the population of deer in the future. Both our arguments are hypothetical because both are regarding the future. The point is that, when we can’t prove something, we err on the side of freedom.

Quote by: Matt Not anything, but a good majority of things. I gave you proof, you seem to be blindly ignoring it.

Telling you that a few specific examples don’t prove a general rule is not ignoring your argument; it’s addressing and refuting it.

Quote by: Matt I have already proved it,

Your proof relied either on a totally unfounded assumption or on an anecdote from a woman who thought her dead cat's soul had returned to her.

Quote by: Matt And you haven't proven that could be done.

Quote by: Matt We don't know if hunters can either,

Conveniently skipped my second last point, I see. The proof that hunters can control deer population has been laid out numerous times.

• Overpopulation is an excess of animals (this is fact).
• The excess can be reduced by killing the animals in question (this is fact).
• Hunting is the killing of animals (this is fact).
• Hence, hunting can solve overpopulation, provided it is practiced widely enough (this is a logical inevitability from the previous three facts)

Specifically part of this is wrong?

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Not getting rid of the wasps nest is less selfish. We were discussing the practicality of wolves and hunters working alongside one another. Your only specific objection to this was that having people hunting deer would make the laws against hunting wolves harder to enforce. It is if people want to maintain control over their property, which they have every right to do. Leisure hunting makes up the overwhelming majority of hunting, so it amounts to the same thing. All I said was that you can't apply your statistics to professional hunting. Why? You’re ignoring the point. Ethics are an abstract concept. Time and money are real quantities. The past doesn’t have to show it. We know that disease can kill wolves and cougars, we know that disease can spread, therefore we know that a deadly disease can spread through the wolf and cougar population. We don’t know that it will, but there certainly isn’t any absolute barrier to it happening and it is hence a possibility. You’ve yet to offer anything other than an unnamed episode of Dr Phil to support that claim. And your argument is based on the hypothetical idea that hunting will be unable to control the population of deer in the future. Both our arguments are hypothetical because both are regarding the future. The point is that, when we can’t prove something, we err on the side of freedom. Telling you that a few specific examples don’t prove a general rule is not ignoring your argument; it’s addressing and refuting it. Your proof relied either on a totally unfounded assumption or on an anecdote from a woman who thought her dead cat's soul had returned to her. Conveniently skipped my second last point, I see. The proof that hunters can control deer population has been laid out numerous times. Overpopulation is an excess of animals (this is fact). The excess can be reduced by killing the animals in question (this is fact). Hunting is the killing of animals (this is fact). Hence, hunting can solve overpopulation, provided it is practiced widely enough (this is a logical inevitability from the previous three facts) Specifically part of this is wrong?

Correct, but you can't prove anyone does not remove them and leave there house, therefore mine is the most morally right opinion, since you have no proof people are even less selfish.

You are grasping at straws that don't exsist. What is my position? Part pro-hunting? No, I'm anti-hunting, and if I haven't made that clear in this thread, I'll say it again, I'm ANTI-HUNTING. My objections were to your method, and I stated it is hard to enforce a half baked rule and it would be much easier to do to all of hunting. I also stated hunters and wovles don't get along well. That was in reference to your method. In my method that would never have to come up, because my method would ban all of hunting.

Yep, and you know what happens when they kill the deer eating their plants? Another one or two move in. It is a endless cycle, and if people want to save their plants, then fences are the way to go. Short term solutions, like killing a deer that is eating my tulips, is no way to solve the problem, since another deer will move in after another.

You have no proof it is declining at a different rate, and as you said, since lesiure hunting makes up such a large majority of hunting, professional hunting doesn't really matter, does it?

Why can't I, it includes all of hunting, or I would assume it would say something.

We don't know what the future holds, and guessing things will rise or drop is hypothetical, and unless you have proof otherwise, I think it is a valid statement. Oh (now proof time), and while we are on the topic, here is a quote from the book A Primer on Animal Rights, and the section quoted was written by Michael Markarian, "Every year the number of sport hunters decreases. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 10 percent of Americans purchased hunting licences in 1975, seven percent in 1991, and only five percent in 1996. Leading researchers in hunting demographics indicate that if current social trends continue, sport hunting itself could be extinct by the year 2050."

Yep, they are. You don't seem to be realizing that in the wasp arguement, are you? Only in this one, how subjective. Again, you can't eat your cake and have it too.

Very slim, and very hypothetical. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that a disease can hit the wolf/cougar population and has caused alot of damage?

I think I supported my claim in the above text.

You haven't proved it can, so why should I have to prove it can't already? Doesn't make any sense.

So do you want more proof?

Mine may to some extent, but yours do more. Yours rely on humans, a very unpredictable creature, while mine rely on cougars/wolves, which are pretty perdictable.

#1 I agree to

#2 I would have agreed to this a few days ago, but not now as much, since I have been reading on this subject. When hunters kill animals, in the short term (weeks or months..depending the time of year) it does help, not in the long term though. When there are less animals, there is more food available. Therefore, deer can have more fawns (they will produce more if their habitat allows it), and in a year or two (maybe less) the populations will be back where it was. Again, hunters are thinking short term. This quote (from the Pensylvania Game News) shows you how successful hunting has been in the USA "Over the past decade (1988-97), Pensylvania hunters have harvested 3.9 million deer, more then any other decade....In term of deer harvest, these are the good old days! In addition to the harvest data and the population estimates, there is ample evidence deer populations in many areas of the state are higher then we should responsibly maintain them." Killing more deer then ever, doesn't seem to help, does it? It just breeds more and more deer.

# 3 Agreed.

# 4 This is where you and me seem to have a misunderstanding. Can means it could, and there is no proof hunting could do that (unless you could prove it could be widely practiced enough).

There, I addressed your points.

[Deadeye]

People hunt because they love to. The excitement of the chase. The final closing in for the shot. The cutting up and preservation of the meat and hide/head if one wants to mount it.

Where hunting is popular game is prevalent. Where there are deer there is lots of deer. Where you find buffalo you find lots of buffalo. If you go to Africa you will find many cape buffalo/rhino and elephant to hunt. I have seen thousands of shootable game in Africa. Same goes for America. I have seen many thousands of deer of all kinds, elk, bear, cayote, prairie dogs, and prong horn. When one hunts birds one finds the sky black with geese and duck. If you want to hunt quail you fill find scads of them. If you hunt turkey you will find ample numbers of birds to keep you occupied.

If one is a deer hunter one usually hunts until one finds a "good one". You can only shoot one. Same goes for buffalo. You find a good one and shoot it. Usually you are hunting on a buffalo ranch and you end up paying about $2,500 for the privilage of shooting one.

There are still lots of deer and elk in the wild. The game is counted and managed. A hunter reports what he shoots. The number of all game is watched and if it declines below a certain point the searson is shortened or even closed for a few years.

A great many game animals have come back because of intelligent game management. Turkey is a good example. When I was a kid in the 50's no one saw a wild turkey. Now they are thick. Same goes for Canadian geese. We used to see none and no one hunted them. Now they are a nusance.

There are probably more white tail deer in the US now than there was in the 18th Century. Buffalo are back. Elk are thick. Grizzley bears are eating people all over the Rocky Mountains. Cougar are coming back in large numbers where I live. Wolves have been re-introduced, and while it's not legal to shoot them, some farmers are killing them to protect sheep and cattle.

Hunting is fun. It's exciting and it's hard to be successful. Many folks hunt with bow and arrow. Some hunt with muzzle loaders. Some hunt with scoped rifles that can shoot hard a long way.

Where I live (Oregon) hunting is extremely popular. Shooting is to. Boys and girls have shooting teams in the schools. Skeet and trap shooting is very popular. Even guys wearing buck skin clothing shoot new made muzzle loaders. Folks dress up as cowboys and shoot cowboy style, often with two six shooters and old double barreled shot guns. Costumns are a must in these events.

I bought a rifle today. An old Model 71 Winchester. My wife about had a fit, the gun was expensive; but very neat.

[another day]

Quote by: Deadeye People hunt because they love to. The excitement of the chase. The final closing in for the shot. The cutting up and preservation of the meat and hide/head if one wants to mount it. Where hunting is popular game is prevalent. Where there are deer there is lots of deer. Where you find buffalo you find lots of buffalo. If you go to Africa you will find many cape buffalo/rhino and elephant to hunt. I have seen thousands of shootable game in Africa. Same goes for America. I have seen many thousands of deer of all kinds, elk, bear, cayote, prairie dogs, and prong horn. When one hunts birds one finds the sky black with geese and duck. If you want to hunt quail you fill find scads of them. If you hunt turkey you will find ample numbers of birds to keep you occupied. If one is a deer hunter one usually hunts until one finds a "good one". You can only shoot one. Same goes for buffalo. You find a good one and shoot it. Usually you are hunting on a buffalo ranch and you end up paying about $2,500 for the privilage of shooting one. Sort of like dick cheney hunting those birds that get let of their cages right before he shoots them with his bird shot shotgun. There are still lots of deer and elk in the wild. The game is counted and managed. A hunter reports what he shoots. The number of all game is watched and if it declines below a certain point the searson is shortened or even closed for a few years. A great many game animals have come back because of intelligent game management. Turkey is a good example. When I was a kid in the 50's no one saw a wild turkey. Now they are thick. Same goes for Canadian geese. We used to see none and no one hunted them. Now they are a nusance. There are probably more white tail deer in the US now than there was in the 18th Century. Buffalo are back. Elk are thick. Grizzley bears are eating people all over the Rocky Mountains. Cougar are coming back in large numbers where I live. Wolves have been re-introduced, and while it's not legal to shoot them, some farmers are killing them to protect sheep and cattle. Hunting is fun. It's exciting and it's hard to be successful. Many folks hunt with bow and arrow. Some hunt with muzzle loaders. Some hunt with scoped rifles that can shoot hard a long way. Where I live (Oregon) hunting is extremely popular. Shooting is to. Boys and girls have shooting teams in the schools. Skeet and trap shooting is very popular. Even guys wearing buck skin clothing shoot new made muzzle loaders. Folks dress up as cowboys and shoot cowboy style, often with two six shooters and old double barreled shot guns. Costumns are a must in these events. I bought a rifle today. An old Model 71 Winchester. My wife about had a fit, the gun was expensive; but very neat.

Lol, a little irrelevant, but where's the thrill of the chase in going to a buffalo ranch and paying 2 grand to shoot a huge, slow moving animal with a high powered rifle?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Correct, but you can't prove anyone does not remove them and leave there house, therefore mine is the most morally right opinion, since you have no proof people are even less selfish.

That makes absolutely no difference. A viewpoint isn’t validated or invalidated by people supporting it. If no one believed the Earth was round, it wouldn’t cease to be.

Quote by: Matt You are grasping at straws that don't exsist. What is my position? Part pro-hunting? No, I'm anti-hunting, and if I haven't made that clear in this thread, I'll say it again, I'm ANTI-HUNTING. My objections were to your method, and I stated it is hard to enforce a half baked rule and it would be much easier to do to all of hunting. I also stated hunters and wovles don't get along well. That was in reference to your method.

And we were discussing the practicality of my method; not yours.

Quote by: Matt Yep, and you know what happens when they kill the deer eating their plants? Another one or two move in.

Not if the deer population is kept at a level which renders this unlikely.

Quote by: Matt You have no proof it is declining at a different rate, and as you said, since lesiure hunting makes up such a large majority of hunting, professional hunting doesn't really matter, does it?

Of course it matters, because my method involves paying people to hunt.

Quote by: Matt We don't know what the future holds, and guessing things will rise or drop is hypothetical, and unless you have proof otherwise, I think it is a valid statement. Oh (now proof time), and while we are on the topic, here is a quote from the book A Primer on Animal Rights, and the section quoted was written by Michael Markarian, "Every year the number of sport hunters decreases. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 10 percent of Americans purchased hunting licences in 1975, seven percent in 1991, and only five percent in 1996. Leading researchers in hunting demographics indicate that if current social trends continue, sport hunting itself could be extinct by the year 2050."

What’s your point? No one denied that hunting is declining; the question is whether these trends will continue. There’s no more reason to believe they will than to believe they won’t or to believe they will remain the same.

Quote by: Matt Yep, they are. You don't seem to be realizing that in the wasp arguement, are you?

Because morality isn’t a real quantity; it’s an abstract concept.

Quote by: Matt Very slim, and very hypothetical. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that a disease can hit the wolf/cougar population and has caused alot of damage?

I just explained why it can. There’s no physical barrier to it, therefore it’s possible.

Quote by: Matt I think I supported my claim in the above text.

Other than repeating the assertion in several different ways, what actual substance have you provided of this claim that any given trend it likely to continue indefinitely?

Quote by: Matt So do you want more proof?

I want some real proof.

Quote by: Matt Mine may to some extent, but yours do more. Yours rely on humans, a very unpredictable creature, while mine rely on cougars/wolves, which are pretty perdictable.

Red herring. The point was related to neutering; not hunting or natural predation.

Quote by: Matt #2 I would have agreed to this a few days ago, but not now as much, since I have been reading on this subject. When hunters kill animals, in the short term (weeks or months..depending the time of year) it does help, not in the long term though. When there are less animals, there is more food available. Therefore, deer can have more fawns (they will produce more if their habitat allows it), and in a year or two (maybe less) the populations will be back where it was.

If that is the case, the same applies to wolves killing deer.

Quote by: Matt # 4 This is where you and me seem to have a misunderstanding. Can means it could, and there is no proof hunting could do that (unless you could prove it could be widely practiced enough).

Are you saying that, if every person decided to hunt, the practice still wouldn’t be wide enough to control deer population? If not, there’s no denying that hunting could solve the overpopulation problem.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That makes absolutely no difference. A viewpoint isn’t validated or invalidated by people supporting it. If no one believed the Earth was round, it wouldn’t cease to be. And we were discussing the practicality of my method; not yours. Not if the deer population is kept at a level which renders this unlikely. Of course it matters, because my method involves paying people to hunt. What’s your point? No one denied that hunting is declining; the question is whether these trends will continue. There’s no more reason to believe they will than to believe they won’t or to believe they will remain the same. Because morality isn’t a real quantity; it’s an abstract concept. I just explained why it can. There’s no physical barrier to it, therefore it’s possible. Other than repeating the assertion in several different ways, what actual substance have you provided of this claim that any given trend it likely to continue indefinitely? I want some real proof. Red herring. The point was related to neutering; not hunting or natural predation. If that is the case, the same applies to wolves killing deer. Are you saying that, if every person decided to hunt, the practice still wouldn’t be wide enough to control deer population? If not, there’s no denying that hunting could solve the overpopulation problem.

Wrong, it is relevant. Unless you can find a less selfish viewpoint, mine is the most least selfish one practiced by humans. We are not now making hypothetical option viewpoints, are we? You seem to like hypotheticals.

Trying to change the topic? You made a false claim about my method, admit it, and stop trying to change the topic. We are disucssing the praticality of your method, and that is when I stated that banning the hunting of wolves will be difficult with out banning other animals from being hunted, and that wolves don't get along well with hunters. Then you some how made a ridiculous conclusion that I was referring to my method.

You have no proof it could become unlikely, do you? Therefore, your point is completely worthless.

Yes, and professional and leisure hunters can both hunt, right? You have no proof it will decline differently, so yet again, your statement is worthless.

My main point was the last sentence, when they said it could become extinct by 2050. How do you think that hunting could be sustainable? Why risk it not being sustainable (which there is a good chance it will keep dropping), when you can introduce natural predators which we know wont quit hunting in 50 years?

Semantics yet again. Either choose we are talking in the money/time worth in both, or none. Otherwise, your arguement is thrown out the window because it is subjective.

Skirting around the question. You have no proof a disease can hit the cougar/wolf population and cause extensive damage, therefore your arguement is not worth anything. It is just like saying maybe humans will have three legs in 50 years.

Did you read the quote? They said it could very well become extinct in 2050, and that it is continueing to decline. Unless you have proof it wont decline, then I guess our best guess is it will continue to decline. Why risk the enviroment with huntners when we can introduce something we know will hunt in 50 years?

And real proof to you is links, correct? It has to be since my written word you don't consider proof.

How is that a red herring? Your point wasn't about neutering. Stop pulling things out of thin air.

Actaully, not really. Wolves hunt in every season and are better at keeping populations in check (as evidence from natural parks has shown). Then can keep the populations of game animals down because they are consistent, and they wont just stop hunting for six months. Also, wolves are just plainly better at keeping popualtions from overpopulation then humans are, and once we realize that, we may start going in the right direction.

Wrong, you have no proof everyone could hunt, and your basing your whole point on hypotheticals. Just because you can put together a hypothetical point that can work, doesn't mean the point can work when its gets put into real life.

You ignored one of my points, the point about killing more deer then ever caused more deer then ever (as written in a hunting magazine). Please address it.

[Matt]

Quote by: Deadeye People hunt because they love to. The excitement of the chase. The final closing in for the shot. The cutting up and preservation of the meat and hide/head if one wants to mount it. Where hunting is popular game is prevalent. Where there are deer there is lots of deer. Where you find buffalo you find lots of buffalo. If you go to Africa you will find many cape buffalo/rhino and elephant to hunt. I have seen thousands of shootable game in Africa. Same goes for America. I have seen many thousands of deer of all kinds, elk, bear, cayote, prairie dogs, and prong horn. When one hunts birds one finds the sky black with geese and duck. If you want to hunt quail you fill find scads of them. If you hunt turkey you will find ample numbers of birds to keep you occupied. If one is a deer hunter one usually hunts until one finds a "good one". You can only shoot one. Same goes for buffalo. You find a good one and shoot it. Usually you are hunting on a buffalo ranch and you end up paying about $2,500 for the privilage of shooting one. There are still lots of deer and elk in the wild. The game is counted and managed. A hunter reports what he shoots. The number of all game is watched and if it declines below a certain point the searson is shortened or even closed for a few years. A great many game animals have come back because of intelligent game management. Turkey is a good example. When I was a kid in the 50's no one saw a wild turkey. Now they are thick. Same goes for Canadian geese. We used to see none and no one hunted them. Now they are a nusance. There are probably more white tail deer in the US now than there was in the 18th Century. Buffalo are back. Elk are thick. Grizzley bears are eating people all over the Rocky Mountains. Cougar are coming back in large numbers where I live. Wolves have been re-introduced, and while it's not legal to shoot them, some farmers are killing them to protect sheep and cattle. Hunting is fun. It's exciting and it's hard to be successful. Many folks hunt with bow and arrow. Some hunt with muzzle loaders. Some hunt with scoped rifles that can shoot hard a long way. Where I live (Oregon) hunting is extremely popular. Shooting is to. Boys and girls have shooting teams in the schools. Skeet and trap shooting is very popular. Even guys wearing buck skin clothing shoot new made muzzle loaders. Folks dress up as cowboys and shoot cowboy style, often with two six shooters and old double barreled shot guns. Costumns are a must in these events. I bought a rifle today. An old Model 71 Winchester. My wife about had a fit, the gun was expensive; but very neat.

I can't believe people 'love' slaughtering innocent animals. It floors me.

Thanks for helping me prove my point with "Where hunting is popular game is prevalent." Exactley my point in my debate with The Bacon Guy, hunting game causes more game then ever.

Buffalo almost became extinct by hunting.

Elephant hunting is even worse then deer hunting, elephants are more intelligent and can feel more pain.

And another point proven, with "If one is a deer hunter one usually hunts until one finds a "good one"." See this The Bacon Guy? I told you hunters try to go for the best animals, which doesn't help the deer popualtion and causes more diseases by leaving the older or sick ones.

Good point another day, I agree. Where is the thrill of hunting when it is a canned hunt? It requires no skill and the animal is doomed. Canned hunts are awful, and they are just done to boost up someone's ego that can't hunt worth a... Also, canned hunts have caused many imported species to escape and live in the wild, which is hurting the natural wildlife.

You know why they had to come back in the first place? Because they were over hunted by humans.

How are they a nusance? If anything we are the nusance.

Any proof that they are eating people all over the Rockies? Maybe people should not always go onto their land so they can see the cute big cuddly bears.

Buffalo are barely back, they were almost wiped out by hunting.

And those farmers need to get another job, they shouldn't be killing innocent wolves.

So shooting a big buffalo in a pen is hard?

Bow and arrow can cause alot of suffering to the animal, and it usually doesn't kill. It is completely inhumane.

Hunting has caused extinction of many species, including the Passenger Pigeon.

And to add to your comments about hunting, its not needed

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Wrong, it is relevant. Unless you can find a less selfish viewpoint, mine is the most least selfish one practiced by humans. We are not now making hypothetical option viewpoints, are we? You seem to like hypotheticals.

Wikipedia - Argumentum ad Populaum

Quote by: Matt Trying to change the topic? You made a false claim about my method, admit it, and stop trying to change the topic. We are disucssing the praticality of your method, and that is when I stated that banning the hunting of wolves will be difficult with out banning other animals from being hunted, and that wolves don't get along well with hunters. Then you some how made a ridiculous conclusion that I was referring to my method.

We would introduce your method if there was a valid reason to ban hunting alongside wolves. And since your only valid reason was that it would make the law more difficult to enforce, which is not a just reason to ban something, the point does relate to your method.

Quote by: Matt You have no proof it could become unlikely, do you?

The more deer we kill, the less deer there are. The less deer there are, the less chance there is of one coming onto your land.

Quote by: Matt Yes, and professional and leisure hunters can both hunt, right? You have no proof it will decline differently,

Strawman yet again. I said that your statistics don't apply; not that they will necessarily decline differently. I don't pretend to be able to predict the future.

Quote by: Matt My main point was the last sentence, when they said it could become extinct by 2050. How do you think that hunting could be sustainable? Why risk it not being sustainable (which there is a good chance it will keep dropping), when you can introduce natural predators which we know wont quit hunting in 50 years?

They won't need to quit hunting if they're wiped out by a disease.

Quote by: Matt Semantics yet again.

Simply saying "semantics" isn't a rebuttal; it's a cop out.

Of course I'm using different points of reference for either argument because each argument is about a totally different thing.

Quote by: Matt Skirting around the question. You have no proof a disease can hit the cougar/wolf population and cause extensive damage,

Show me where wolves and cougars being devestated by disease violates the laws of the universe.

Quote by: Matt Did you read the quote? They said it could very well become extinct in 2050, and that it is continueing to decline. Unless you have proof it wont decline, then I guess our best guess is it will continue to decline.

No, that's what you'd like to believe. Dressing up the same glaring assumption to make it sound reasonable doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to back it up with.

Quote by: Matt And real proof to you is links, correct? It has to be since my written word you don't consider proof.

Links is one way of proving something. Solid logic is another.

Quote by: Matt How is that a red herring? Your point wasn't about neutering. Stop pulling things out of thin air.

The original quote was:

"You failed to prove that neutering is more desirable from a deer's point of view than hunting. "

Of course, it's possible we've crossed wires somewhere, since you refuse to use the quote feature properly.

Quote by: Matt Actaully, not really. Wolves hunt in every season and are better at keeping populations in check (as evidence from natural parks has shown). Then can keep the populations of game animals down because they are consistent, and they wont just stop hunting for six months. Also, wolves are just plainly better at keeping popualtions from overpopulation then humans are,

You haven't proved that either. The fact that they are working in some places doesn't prove that they would be better than a widely practiced hunting program.

Quote by: Matt Wrong, you have no proof everyone could hunt,

Anyone is capable of picking up a gun and shooting a deer.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Wikipedia - Argumentum ad Populaum We would introduce your method if there was a valid reason to ban hunting alongside wolves. And since your only valid reason was that it would make the law more difficult to enforce, which is not a just reason to ban something, the point does relate to your method. The more deer we kill, the less deer there are. The less deer there are, the less chance there is of one coming onto your land. Strawman yet again. I said that your statistics don't apply; not that they will necessarily decline differently. I don't pretend to be able to predict the future. They won't need to quit hunting if they're wiped out by a disease. Simply saying "semantics" isn't a rebuttal; it's a cop out. Of course I'm using different points of reference for either argument because each argument is about a totally different thing. Show me where wolves and cougars being devestated by disease violates the laws of the universe. No, that's what you'd like to believe. Dressing up the same glaring assumption to make it sound reasonable doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to back it up with. Links is one way of proving something. Solid logic is another. The original quote was: "You failed to prove that neutering is more desirable from a deer's point of view than hunting. " Of course, it's possible we've crossed wires somewhere, since you refuse to use the quote feature properly. You haven't proved that either. The fact that they are working in some places doesn't prove that they would be better than a widely practiced hunting program. Anyone is capable of picking up a gun and shooting a deer.

I'm not saying my opinion is right because most people follow it, I'm saying it is right because you have no proof not a single person follows yours, even yourself. I have already proven my point is more valid, but you seem to be ignoring the time/money thing very easily, while you don't in the 'getting food arguement'. You know a house is worth more then a few tulips in both the money and time category, and you accepted the fact that protecting something that doesn't mean that much to you is more selfish then protecting something that does mean alot to you. Therefore, protecting your house is less selfish then protecting your tulips. And wasps can cause physical damage to you, not deer though. So what aren't you getting? Also, why preach about this supposedly more moral opinion when you don't even follow it?

Why are you going back and forth now? It doesn't apply to my method, since my method bans all of hunting anyhow (because it is un-needed and cruel). I think that is clear enough. Just admit you made a false claim about my method, and then we can go onwards. If you can't admit one thing, that's sad.

You have no proof people will hunt enough now, or even any in the future to render your position possible. Therefore, it is worthless. Also, did you read my point about the hunting more deer then ever causes more deer then ever?

The study would include all of hunting, and since professional hunting is such a small group, it isn't worth much at all. And there is a good chance they have been declining just like leisure hunting has. You don't try to the predict the future? What about your whole arguement, it relys on you predicting the future, since you are predicting people will still hunt.

How did I know you would say that. The Bacon Guy, you have no proof a disease could hit the cougar/wolf populations and cause damage. Therefore, your arguement is worthless.

There was another section to that paragraph other then just 'semantics' which I see you edited out. Money and time still apply, they are universal is most cases, other then in love. Both our arguements don't apply to love, but you are accepting money and time in one, but not another.

I don't have to disprove one of your points until you prove it. Unless you want to change the debating rules.

So you are now ignoring what the book says? Maybe I will start blindly ignoring any evidence you show, and just say "doesn't matter". It is like you are denying climate change will continue to happen, even if the people who study it say it will likely continue. And in this arguement you are denying hunting will continue to decline, even if the experts say it is likely to keep declining.

Links is pretty much the only way with you, I can tell. Please specifically state what you want me to prove, just not "your whole arguement".

We must have crossed wires then, because I was responding to a different point. I will try to 'properly' quote posts the next time if it makes it that much eaiser for you to read.

But it does indicate they can work, and there is a good chance they will work since they are doing the same thing in the parks that need to be done in all of North America.

Oh, so it is that simple now? I remember a few posts back you were stating it was more then just that. Make up your mind.

You have now ignored my point about "hunting more deer then ever causes more deer then ever" twice. Please address it.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: another day Lol, a little irrelevant, but where's the thrill of the chase in going to a buffalo ranch and paying 2 grand to shoot a huge, slow moving animal with a high powered rifle?

Try it, you'll like it.

I admit that walking up to a grazing buffalo and shooting it isn't something that I'm wild about doing, but lots of folks like doing it. It also performs a culling of the herd, which must be done to manage the ranch.

[Matt]

Quote by: Deadeye Try it, you'll like it. I admit that walking up to a grazing buffalo and shooting it isn't something that I'm wild about doing, but lots of folks like doing it. It also performs a culling of the herd, which must be done to manage the ranch.

How do you know he would like it? I don't know that he wouldn't like it, but don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

Just because a very small population of people enjoy murdering other people doesn't make it right, does it? Same goes for this, just because a very small popualtion of people like killing innocent animals doesn't mean it is right or even sane.

Actaully, it doesn't need to be done. Ranches don't need to exsist, and most ranches also have seperate pens, so females can be seperated from males so they don't breed. Also, neutering is an easy option.

Also, please address my post above and not ignore it.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Matt How do you know he would like it? I don't know that he wouldn't like it, but don't make assumptions about people you don't know. Just because a very small population of people enjoy murdering other people doesn't make it right, does it? Same goes for this, just because a very small popualtion of people like killing innocent animals doesn't mean it is right or even sane. Actaully, it doesn't need to be done. Ranches don't need to exsist, and most ranches also have seperate pens, so females can be seperated from males so they don't breed. Also, neutering is an easy option. Also, please address my post above and not ignore it.

My God Matt, lighten up will you. Some people like to hunt, so let them. Some people don't, so let's allow them not to hunt.

If those who don't like hunting want to stop those who do then I have a problem with that. People who hunt do it because they love hunting, for a myriad of reasons. If you or anybody else doesn't want to blast a buffalo then stay home and eat a bundle of carrots or whatever.

Ranches by the way need to exist. That's where healthy cattle/buffalo are raised. We do sometimes fatten cattle in feed lots, but that's very expensive and to keep costs down to consumers we fatten a lot of cattle on ranches, where the grass is high and green.

I was on a cattle ranch two weeks ago. It was wonderful. The cattle biz, BTW: is a very iffy biz. It's hard to make a buck raising cattle. But we need them to stay healthy, we need McDonalds to stay in burgers, right?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I'm not saying my opinion is right because most people follow it, I'm saying it is right because you have no proof not a single person follows yours, even yourself.

The point of ad populum is that the number of people who support a viewpoint has no bearing on its validity.

Quote by: Matt I have already proven my point is more valid, but you seem to be ignoring the time/money thing very easily, while you don't in the 'getting food arguement'. You know a house i