Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Yay...page 25....

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Almost all of those are related to the tsunami "evidence" and have nothing to do with deer as well as providing no proof. My assertion was never that most hunters use blinds, but that some do, and that it is unlikely to scare a deer.

They said animals in alot of them, and deer are animals.

Sensing Fear or Danger - Succeed Through Using Your Senses: School for Champions

Yes, but if you can't prove a substantial number do, it is worthless. Since the few that use them are not making any real impact on deer being scared.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Meaning of incompatible: Not compatible; so differing as to be incapable of harmonious combination or coexistence; inconsistent in thought or being; irreconcilably disagreeing; as, persons of incompatible tempers; incompatible colors, desires, ambition. It is currently incapable of harmonious combination or coexistence,

How so?

Quote by: Matt Because it is 'out of this world context' and is too extreme of a choice, as people have shown by never doing it, including you.

Why is something which is out of this world too extreme to practice? Isn’t this just another arbitrary line?

Quote by: Matt Ok, then can I call you David?

Whatever works for you.

Quote by: Matt Arbitrary points? How is saying deer are more intelligent, deer can be stopped by fences, wasps can't be stopped by fences, and that wasps can cause more pain arbitrary? I already gave reasons in my last post, look at them again.

We’ve been through this many times, Matt. It’s not arbitrary to say that a deer is more important than a wasp, but it is arbitrary to make the black and white distinction that a deer is important and a wasp isn’t.

Quote by: Matt Any proof that some people may find the hunting method better then putting up blockers? Pictures won't cut it this time. And just because people don't have a fence or use repellents doesn't mean they think hunting is better. Also, how are they loosing control by putting up a fence? If anything they are gaining control.

If they are forced to put up a fence on their property in order to deter deer, they obviously do not have control over it. Force necessitates a lack of control. Property rights dictate that a person maintains control over how his property is used.

Quote by: Matt Same abilities as far as killing concerns? Proof please.

What proof do you need? Wolves hunt all year round and supposedly kill equal numbers of bucks and doe. Nothing stops humans from doing the same.

Quote by: Matt Prove that neutering isn't harmful or prove that fawns wouldn't realise they had balls?

Both.

Quote by: Matt That is arbitrary. Just because I deny human freedom doesn't make your method more superior. It may be enjoyable to 5% of Americans and Canadians, but that does not mean it isn't harmful. Just because murdering people is an enjoyable pastime for some people, it is still harmful.

Yes, but you have to prove that it’s harmful before you ban it.

Quote by: Matt But they are superior now, and have been forever. Therefore, they were naturally born to be better hunters. So I ask you this again, why not use wolves if you view them as superior hunters when you have to spend time training hunters to try to be equal to them?

What makes you think it would take a great deal of training? The only differences we’ve established is that wolves hunt all year and hunt a different demographic of prey. That doesn’t take training to imitate.

As to why we should have hunters instead of wolves, I’ve already answered that. It maximises human freedom and preserves a pastime which many people find enjoyable.

Quote by: Matt How have I not?

This debate wouldn’t be happening if you had.

Quote by: Matt Actually it has, because if it wasn't for the study, we'd right now be debating if deer run when they are scared... At least we have come to a conclusion that hunting and mating season are two logical explanations for the rise of car accidents in that time of year.

They’re both reasonable explanations. That doesn’t necessarily make them correct.

Quote by: Matt Caught red handed. See, you won’t even take logical well known facts unless I have a link to it.

I’ll accept the logic if the premises are established. If you don’t establish the premises, the logic is worthless.

Quote by: Matt Also, hunting causes more pain by leaving the sick which could spread harmful diseases around to other deer, which would cause them to suffer too.

But hunting the stronger deer would mean that less deer would have to be killed overall. Unless there’s proof that hunting contributes significantly enough to sickness that it outweighs the suffering prevented by killing less deer, this point is worthless.

Quote by: Matt Yes, but the chances of it turning out more harmful then helpful have been shown numerous times in the past,

Nope, the chances of some forms of hunting being harmful have been shown. This says nothing of hunting as a whole.

Quote by: Matt Just because they are both hypothetical doesn't make them equal. The merits of them shape their worth.

Yes, and the fact that mine is hypothetical does not make it inferior to your own, since yours is also hypothetical.

Quote by: Matt Hunting has never kept deer under control, so how can it be valid? Just because it is the status quo doesn't make it valid. Natural predators have kept deer populations under control is almost any places which they inhabit, that is why it seems to be more valid to use them.

We’ve been through this many times. The fact that natural predators have worked only proves that they can work; not that they will in the future. We know that hunting also has the possibility of working (from the logic laid out many times), so it’s as valid as natural predation in that respect.

Quote by: Matt Wired to hunt? Proof please.

No, It’s irrelevant to the point I was making.

Quote by: Matt No, but by changing the way some humans hunt, all you are doing is changing the shirt on the body of a killer Also, by changing hunters, you are putting restrictions on how people can hunt and what is the 'best' form of hunting.

Again, you don’t know that it will be necessary to have these restrictions.

Quote by: Matt Ok, then lets work out a reasonable number together. North America is 24,230,000 square kilometres. I think a more then fair guess is every 500square kilometres that a hunter is needed. Divide the number of square kilometres North America is by 500 and you get a grand total of almost 50,000. Say each hunter has to work 10 hours a week (including travel time), for $15 an hour. That means each one gets paid $150 a week, and when you times that by 50,000, you get $7,500,000 each week that the government would have to pay. Please now tell me if there is any false conclusions or premises, and lets move on from there.

False premises? How about the idea that deer are present in every square kilometer of America, the amount of time a hunter would have to work per week, and the number of hunters needed per square kilometre?

Quote by: Matt Yep, but like I have shown, fear is a strong emotion and people don't want to be put in jail for life.

You’ve yet to provide a quote from a study which proves this.

Quote by: Matt Banning something is easier then trying to fix something.

Prove it.

Quote by: Matt My method involves much less people, therefore will be cheaper.

You haven’t proved that this is the case. Also, your method still requires their cooperation, which is not guaranteed.

Most importantly, you don’t know the individual risk of any one of these possibilities, so you can’t make a valid appraisal of whose method is most realistic.

Quote by: Matt Millions of people have experienced it, especially mediums and the like. I am a sceptical person myself, but when I hear the same thing happening over and over again and it always is right, I tend to believe it. Why would all these people be talking to spirits if they didn't exist? Why even start it if spirits didn't exist?

People say they’ve experienced it. Various explanations exist: the power of suggestion, wishful thinking, simply lying to get fame, attention, money, followers of an agenda etc. The list goes on.

Quote by: Matt And how can they almost always be right and know so much about peoples' deceased family members with out any clues?

I don’t think there’s ever been a study proving that they can.

Quote by: Matt Is this the proof that spirits do exist? | The Global Intelligencer

An unexplained optical phenomenon proves that spirits and magic exist?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Totally ignoring the point. I said stop saying you don't have to defend one method because you have another. You have to defend both your methods. Your non-default method can not work, since you said you would pass no laws. Therefore, you now only have one method, your default one.

I said my default method would involve passing no laws. If this method fails, I have no problem with introducing a new method which does involve laws, because these laws would not have been introduced without evidence.

Quote by: Matt But can they do that?

Um, yes? Instead of shooting a buck, shoot a doe. It’s not rocket science.

Quote by: Matt Plus, by making them work more, you would have to pay them more.

But if the point here is that leisure hunters will be doing a significant amount of hunting, that means there is less for the professionals to do. They may have to change their demographic, but there would be less kills to be made overall and therefore less professional hunters needed.

Quote by: Matt Hunting has been tried for decades, hasn't worked. There is no more time to waste by introducing a 'new' hunting method again, which is basically like adding some more icing to a cake. Hunting hasn't worked, and unless you can prove there is a good chance it will, then natural predators should be put in.

But you haven’t proved that there’s a good chance that natural predation will work. You’re twisting things to make it sound as if natural predation has been established as being superior to hunting, but really you’ve been unable to prove it in this debate.

Quote by: Matt You can't restrict human freedoms by passing a law, you stated that. You have to prove that too, I am not the magic man that has to provide all the proof (even if I do mostly), you have to as well.

What part of that do I have to prove? It’s self evident that my method doesn’t rely on, or relies on to a much lesser extent, the restriction of human freedom.

Quote by: Matt The killing of animals by humans is not needed, therefore there is a reason to jail people for non-needed harmful activities.

The control of deer population is needed, and unless you can prove that hunting is more harmful a method than any others, we assume that it is not.

Quote by: Matt Droughts wouldn't seriously effect the whole population, since in alot of places droughts are not probable.

Still possible though, which is all I’m aiming to prove.

Quote by: Matt Neither are wolves that effected by droughts, they live in the desert even .Climate shifts are slow, and wolves can adapt to all different climates well.

Wolves can’t live without water, and they are not able to adapt as well or as quickly as humans.

Quote by: Matt Yes, but isn't getting a new computer easier then fixing an old one?

Wolves =/= a computer.

Quote by: Matt That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying if they have a greater chance of working in remote areas, and an equal chance of working in non-remote areas, my method has a greater chance of being successful.

No, it means precisely what it says: that it has a greater chance of succeeding in remote areas and an equal chance of succeeding in other areas. If it has an equal chance of succeeding in these non-remote areas, it’s perfectly valid to employ hunting in these areas, rather than natural predators.

Quote by: Matt If they have quit before you got to them, they wont be coming back most likely.

Why not? If we’ve already established that money would be an incentive for them to continue hunting, why would it matter whether they’re currently hunting or not?

Quote by: Matt No, news casts normally don't keep talking about something if there is not a reasonable chance it will happen.

Terrorism?

Quote by: Matt No, he wasn't, I never claimed he was. I only claimed he was a smart man. Why do a google search of that?

It’ll explain the fallacy you’re invoking.

Quote by: Matt What would you be changing about the legal system then?

Like I said, the ban on hunting in all seasons.

Quote by: Matt Similar biology? Proof please.

They’re mammals with the same general organs; heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, gastro-intestinal tract etc.

Quote by: Matt You have not proven that a disease can spread through great areas, because you have yet to prove your 'animal carries disease' point

Quote by: Matt But that doesn't matter if most diseases can spread through a carrier, it only matters that a wolf/cougar disease could. You have not provided a lick of evidence that a wolf or cougar disease can be spread by a carrier.

We know that wolf/cougar diseases can be spread by other species. Rabies is an obvious example, and I’m fairly sure canines were affected by bubonic plague, which was spread by humans and rats.

Quote by: Matt You believe I'm making it up? I can't quote it, it won't let me. Go look yourself.

It won’t let you read the relevant section, then type it into the reply box on Volconvo? I don’t know if you’re making it up, but even if you’re not, I still need to see the context.

Quote by: Matt But it would not wipe the population out, which is my point. A food shortage would most likely dent the human population too, since people would have less kids since they couldn't feed them and poor people would starve. You can't say "We have resources" because in a food shortage you wouldn't have those resources, and they would be used. It's like me saying "There are many deer in this food shortage, the wolves will live." That clearly is not a food shortage.

But if we do experience a food shortage, we have the ability to adapt and develop new methods of food production.

Quote by: Matt There is no evidence that the world will experience a fast climate change that could hurt intermediate climate residents like wolves or cougars.

I never said it would; I said it might.

Quote by: Matt No, we're debating which method is best, aren't we?

Yes, as a means of determining whether hunting should be illegal.

Quote by: Matt Neutering doesn't cause much suffering at all, it is a minor operation that last a few minutes when the deer is 'asleep'.

I’m not talking purely about physical pain though. The deer may suffer as a result of its inability to fulfil its natural function.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy How so?

Because it would be extremely opposed by people, since they don't want to loose their home. Mine would be opposed a little, but not the same extent as yours, since most people don't shoot deer because they eat gardens

Why is something which is out of this world too extreme to practice? Isn’t this just another arbitrary line?

You said we must keep this in a real world context, are you changing your mind? It is too extreme of a practice and is unrealistic looking at society now. It is not an arbitrary line.

We’ve been through this many times, Matt. It’s not arbitrary to say that a deer is more important than a wasp, but it is arbitrary to make the black and white distinction that a deer is important and a wasp isn’t.

Never said a wasp was not important at all, I'm saying that a house is more important (since it would effect people's lives greatly). I'm also saying a deer is more important because it is more intelligent. Therefore, it is more reasonable to protect deer compared to wasps. Plus wasps can cause considerable damage to our life mentally and physically.

If they are forced to put up a fence on their property in order to deter deer, they obviously do not have control over it. Force necessitates a lack of control. Property rights dictate that a person maintains control over how his property is used.

I don't think you get property lines do not apply to animals, therefore they should not be killed for crossing them. Unless you put them on an equal level as humans, then it would be illegal to kill them. People never have control over their property, it doesn't come with that guarantee. People have to work hard to gain control, that is simple. And by killing a deer (which is illegal in populated places a.k.a. where all the gardens are) they aren't gaining anymore control over their property.

What proof do you need? Wolves hunt all year round and supposedly kill equal numbers of bucks and doe. Nothing stops humans from doing the same.

I need proof that humans can copy wolves and be as effective as they are. Proof is not "Humans can kill like wolves can." Humans are completely different, and I need proof they can cop wolves and be as successful.

Both.

Neutering animals is not harmful:

Spay/Neuter

Spaying/Neutering

Since dogs have the same general nervous system as deer, and the same procedures would be performed, the "It is not painful" would apply to deer as well.

Fawns (like other babies) our not aware of their sexual organs at birth. They do not think about those things.

Yes, but you have to prove that it’s harmful before you ban it.

I have proved hunting as we know it is harmful, and I don't have to prove if an imaginary unrealistic version of hunting is harmful to get my method introduced. Just like you wouldn't have to prove that my magical spirit thing is not real if you got your method introduced.

What makes you think it would take a great deal of training? The only differences we’ve established is that wolves hunt all year and hunt a different demographic of prey. That doesn’t take training to imitate.

It would take law changing and recruitment and restrictions being put in place, plus payment. Therefore, it is more difficult then just introducing wolves, which you have seemed to deem as a superior predator.

As to why we should have hunters instead of wolves, I’ve already answered that. It maximises human freedom and preserves a pastime which many people find enjoyable.

Unless you can prove in this case that maximised freedom is good, your assumption is worthless. Actually, it would preserve hardly anything, since you would change hunting completely and you don't know if any hunters would still find it enjoyable.

This debate wouldn’t be happening if you had.

Actually, not true. Just because we are continuing to debate doesn't mean I haven't proved it is. I have seen numerous debates go on way after someone has proved the main point.

I’ll accept the logic if the premises are established. If you don’t establish the premises, the logic is worthless.

And the way you judge if the premises are there is out of whack.

But hunting the stronger deer would mean that less deer would have to be killed overall. Unless there’s proof that hunting contributes significantly enough to sickness that it outweighs the suffering prevented by killing less deer, this point is worthless.

Prove your first point please. By hunting the stronger deer doesn't mean there will be less fawns, it just means the genes will become lower graded and more sickness will occur. Hunting the 'prize' animals is no way to do ecological management, since it will hurt the animals greatly.

Nope, the chances of some forms of hunting being harmful have been shown. This says nothing of hunting as a whole.

All forms of current hunting you have brought up I have proved to be harmful. Hunting as a whole doesn't include your imaginary method, sorry

Yes, and the fact that mine is hypothetical does not make it inferior to your own, since yours is also hypothetical.

Correct, but I have shown by method is more realistic and sustainable. Therefore it is superior. I know you will bock at this line profusely, but it is true if you look at both of our methods with an objective eye.

We’ve been through this many times. The fact that natural predators have worked only proves that they can work; not that they will in the future. We know that hunting also has the possibility of working (from the logic laid out many times), so it’s as valid as natural predation in that respect.

Question, doesn't it make logical sense that in a remote area (where nothing has changed from when they were there 100 years ago) where they worked before, they will work again?

Again, you don’t know that it will be necessary to have these restrictions.

And you don't know that it won’t. You have to be on the safe side anyways, since if you don't place restrictions in because you don't want to be accused of passing a law by Matt your method could fall flat on its face.

False premises? How about the idea that deer are present in every square kilometer of America, the amount of time a hunter would have to work per week, and the number of hunters needed per square kilometre?

I forgot that, sorry. A fair guess is that half of North America has deer on it (since if you cut out the northerly parts and other places which our un-inhabitable, it is likely to equal that). Therefore 25,000 hunters would be need. What is wrong with that amount of time? 15 hours probably covers two hunts. What is wrong with the hunters needed per 500 square kilometres?

You’ve yet to provide a quote from a study which proves this.

I can't copy it with my computer for Heavens sake. Look it up yourself, you aren't incapable of doing such a simple task, are you?

Prove it.

Banning requires getting a law passed, and enforcing it. Fixing requires countless studies and work trying to make something better.

[Matt]

You haven’t proved that this is the case. Also, your method still requires their cooperation, which is not guaranteed. Most importantly, you don’t know the individual risk of any one of these possibilities, so you can’t make a valid appraisal of whose method is most realistic.

I have already proved that, since my method requires less people, therefore is cheaper and has less risks.

People say they’ve experienced it. Various explanations exist: the power of suggestion, wishful thinking, simply lying to get fame, attention, money, followers of an agenda etc. The list goes on. I don’t think there’s ever been a study proving that they can. An unexplained optical phenomenon proves that spirits and magic exist?

It is extreme wishful thinking to think millions of people are lying or are having wishful thinking themselves. Probably some are, but not all, unless you believe everyone is a liar these days.

And I don't think there has even been a study that imaginary hunting methods work

No, but there are many more links like that of the same thing basically. Not everyone is a liar David.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I said my default method would involve passing no laws. If this method fails, I have no problem with introducing a new method which does involve laws, because these laws would not have been introduced without evidence.

You said you would pass no laws, no 'ifs' in your statement. Therefore your non-default method cannot work, furthermore you better stop promoting it. Plus your default method does involve passing a law or two.

Um, yes? Instead of shooting a buck, shoot a doe. It’s not rocket science.

I mean will you have enough to balance out the potential of millions of other hunters? Also, ecological management is rocket science, you can't just fix things like that.

But if the point here is that leisure hunters will be doing a significant amount of hunting, that means there is less for the professionals to do. They may have to change their demographic, but there would be less kills to be made overall and therefore less professional hunters needed.

I'm saying in the next 10 years, not in the next 50 when in all likelihood hunters will be a rare breed. Also, by having to do that, you would be killing more deer then natural predators by trying to balance the number of does and bucks.

But you haven’t proved that there’s a good chance that natural predation will work. You’re twisting things to make it sound as if natural predation has been established as being superior to hunting, but really you’ve been unable to prove it in this debate.

Natural predators have been superior to hunting in all its current and past methods, therefore they are better hunters. That's all that matters when it gets down to it, if you look at the track record of wolves/cougars compared to humans, they are much more reliable.

What part of that do I have to prove? It’s self evident that my method doesn’t rely on, or relies on to a much lesser extent, the restriction of human freedom.

You have to prove, just like me, that your method is more reliable.

The control of deer population is needed, and unless you can prove that hunting is more harmful a method than any others, we assume that it is not.

Hunting is more harmful, when you weigh in all the programs of it which have taken place. You need to stop saying the word hunting, because I already have proved hunting is harmful. Start using the word imaginary hunting, since that is the only version I haven't proved to be harmful (I don't really need to either, this is not a dreamland debate).

Still possible though, which is all I’m aiming to prove.

And it is still possible all humans die. Most things are possible.

Wolves can’t live without water, and they are not able to adapt as well or as quickly as humans.

We can't live with out water (duh), and they don't need to adapt quickly since climate change occurs over years.

Wolves =/= a computer.

It was just an example. It is easier to ban something like hunting then trying to fix all of it.

No, it means precisely what it says: that it has a greater chance of succeeding in remote areas and an equal chance of succeeding in other areas. If it has an equal chance of succeeding in these non-remote areas, it’s perfectly valid to employ hunting in these areas, rather than natural predators.

Yay, finally I get a block buster. Ok, so now I have taken the remote areas (millions of acres), and now it will be a squabble over non-remote areas. One for nature! woot

Anyhow, that basically means we will continue to debate over the non-remote areas as what we are to do, and debate their merits. It is also valid to employ natural predators in non-remote areas too.

Why not? If we’ve already established that money would be an incentive for them to continue hunting, why would it matter whether they’re currently hunting or not?

I'm saying it is a good chance they won’t come back after they quit. After you quit something you aren't always going to come back. Therefore, you have to care about the dropping of the hunting population.

Terrorism?

Terrorism has a reasonable chance of happening. Not great, but reasonable.

It’ll explain the fallacy you’re invoking.

And what is that fallacy?

Like I said, the ban on hunting in all seasons.

So by changing the legal system, you would be passing new legislature.

They’re mammals with the same general organs; heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, spleen, gastro-intestinal tract etc.

Then many animals, like mice, you would be saying have similar biology compared to humans. Also, we have extreme mental differences from wolves.

We know that wolf/cougar diseases can be spread by other species. Rabies is an obvious example, and I’m fairly sure canines were affected by bubonic plague, which was spread by humans and rats.

Rabies isn't a disease that can wipe out great populations though, so it doesn't apply.

It won’t let you read the relevant section, then type it into the reply box on Volconvo? I don’t know if you’re making it up, but even if you’re not, I still need to see the context.

I can't copy and paste it, Google must not want you to copy the book. It is on page # 270. You can click a link and scroll, can't you?

But if we do experience a food shortage, we have the ability to adapt and develop new methods of food production.

If we have a food shortage, we won’t be able to develop new production of food since there is none.

I never said it would; I said it might.

And if there is no proof it might, it is worthless.

I’m not talking purely about physical pain though. The deer may suffer as a result of its inability to fulfil its natural function.

It may cause the deer to suffer by not allowing them to fulfil their natural function? Proof please.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Because it would be extremely opposed by people, since they don't want to loose their home. Mine would be opposed a little, but not the same extent as yours, since most people don't shoot deer because they eat gardens

But this is a debate. Whether people support or oppose your side of the argument has no bearing on its validity.

Quote by: Matt You said we must keep this in a real world context, are you changing your mind? It is too extreme of a practice and is unrealistic looking at society now. It is not an arbitrary line.

I’ve never said that we need to keep this aspect of debate to a real world context. This is morality; it’s supposed to be abstract. And whether it’s too extreme is simply your own subjective judgement. That means nothing in a debate.

Quote by: Matt Never said a wasp was not important at all, I'm saying that a house is more important (since it would effect people's lives greatly). I'm also saying a deer is more important because it is more intelligent. Therefore, it is more reasonable to protect deer compared to wasps.

More reasonable, perhaps. But your argument is that it’s unreasonable.

Quote by: Matt I don't think you get property lines do not apply to animals,

You mean you don’t want them to. Property lines don’t exist in order to control humans; they exist in order to preserve a person’s property rights; property rights being the right to control how an owned item is used. That applies to all animals, including humans.

Quote by: Matt I need proof that humans can copy wolves and be as effective as they are. Proof is not "Humans can kill like wolves can." Humans are completely different, and I need proof they can cop wolves and be as successful.

What sort of proof do you want? The only differences we’ve established between wolf and human hunting is that wolves hunt all year round and supposedly kill equal numbers of bucks and doe. Humans can easily do the same. If you can shoot a buck, you can shoot a doe and if you can shoot it in November, you can shoot it in July. What part of this do you disagree with?

Quote by: Matt Neutering animals is not harmful: Spay/Neuter Spaying/Neutering Since dogs have the same general nervous system as deer, and the same procedures would be performed, the "It is not painful" would apply to deer as well.

Harm isn’t purely a matter of pain.

Quote by: Matt Fawns (like other babies) our not aware of their sexual organs at birth. They do not think about those things.

I asked for proof; not a restatement of your claim.

Quote by: Matt It would take law changing and recruitment and restrictions being put in place, plus payment. Therefore, it is more difficult then just introducing wolves,

Your own method would involve recruitment and payment of people to introduce and monitor the wolves, and even more restrictions than my own.

Quote by: Matt which you have seemed to deem as a superior predator.

Nonsense again.

Quote by: Matt Unless you can prove in this case that maximised freedom is good, your assumption is worthless

It’s how the legal system works. Everything is legal by default and remains so until it is proven to be either an infringement of someone’s rights or overwhelmingly harmful.

Quote by: Matt Actually, it would preserve hardly anything, since you would change hunting completely and you don't know if any hunters would still find it enjoyable.

It still preserves the right to kill wild animals.

Quote by: Matt Actually, not true. Just because we are continuing to debate doesn't mean I haven't proved it is. I have seen numerous debates go on way after someone has proved the main point.

Right, but I wouldn’t be debating it if you had proved it. If you have a study which proves a causal link between hunting and deer-related road accidents, post a link. If not, your point remains unproven.

Quote by: Matt Prove your first point please.

Are you aware of how natural selection works?

Quote by: Matt Hunting is more harmful, when you weigh in all the programs of it which have taken place. You need to stop saying the word hunting, because I already have proved hunting is harmful. Start using the word imaginary hunting, since that is the only version I haven't proved to be harmful (I don't really need to either, this is not a dreamland debate).

Quote by: Matt All forms of current hunting you have brought up I have proved to be harmful. Hunting as a whole doesn't include your imaginary method, sorry

It’s not up to you to decide what hunting does and does not include. Hunting is the killing of wild animals by humans. Hence, any method which involves this is included in hunting as a whole.

Quote by: Matt I have proved hunting as we know it is harmful, and I don't have to prove if an imaginary unrealistic version of hunting is harmful to get my method introduced. Just like you wouldn't have to prove that my magical spirit thing is not real if you got your method introduced.

Difference is that we don’t know that magical spirits are physically possible.

Quote by: Matt Correct, but I have shown by method is more realistic and sustainable. Therefore it is superior. I know you will bock at this line profusely, but it is true if you look at both of our methods with an objective eye.

It’s only true if we look at it from your own personal and particular “common sense” viewpoint. This assumes many things which you have yet to prove definitely (That hunters refusing to hunt is more likely than disease striking wolves, that fear is stronger than greed, that banning something will always be easier than changing it etc.)

Quote by: Matt Question, doesn't it make logical sense that in a remote area (where nothing has changed from when they were there 100 years ago) where they worked before, they will work again?

Not necessarily, for the reasons I’ve already explained.

Quote by: Matt And you don't know that it won’t. You have to be on the safe side anyways, since if you don't place restrictions in because you don't want to be accused of passing a law by Matt your method could fall flat on its face.

Either method could fall flat on its face. And I don’t have to be on the safe side; I have to be on the side of innocent until proven guilty. No restrictions until we know they’re necessary.

Quote by: Matt I forgot that, sorry. A fair guess is that half of North America has deer on it (since if you cut out the northerly parts and other places which our un-inhabitable, it is likely to equal that).

Proof?

Quote by: Matt is wrong with that amount of time?

I don’t know. How about you offer some proof?

Quote by: Matt What is wrong with the hunters needed per 500 square kilometres?

The fact that you haven’t provided proof of this.

Quote by: Matt I can't copy it with my computer for Heavens sake. Look it up yourself, you aren't incapable of doing such a simple task, are you?

I am if you have thus far refused to tell me where in this huge article the relevant sentence is.

Also, that’s an article; not a study.

Quote by: Matt Banning requires getting a law passed, and enforcing it. Fixing requires countless studies and work trying to make something better.

Do you have proof that the work involved in the latter would exceed that of the former?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I have already proved that, since my method requires less people, therefore is cheaper and has less risks.

Whether it has fewer risks is irrelevant unless each individual risk is equal, which obviously they are not.

Quote by: Matt It is extreme wishful thinking to think millions of people are lying or are having wishful thinking themselves. Probably some are, but not all, unless you believe everyone is a liar these days.

Not everyone claims to have experienced the paranormal; in fact I would suspect that it’s a very small proportion of the population. And you yourself have just displayed the wishful thinking I’m talking about below: taking something you don’t understand and attributing it to the paranormal.

Quote by: Matt And I don't think there has even been a study that imaginary hunting methods work

Right, but there’s logic to that. There isn’t any logic to the idea that people can contact the dead.

Quote by: Matt No, but there are many more links like that of the same thing basically. Not everyone is a liar David.

I never said the phenomenon doesn’t exist; I’m just saying it’s an absurd and illogical leap to say that it’s the work of spirits.

Quote by: Matt You said you would pass no laws, no 'ifs' in your statement. Therefore your non-default method cannot work, furthermore you better stop promoting it.

I said that my default method involved passing no laws; not that I would be unconditionally unwilling to pass laws.

Quote by: Matt I mean will you have enough to balance out the potential of millions of other hunters? Also, ecological management is rocket science, you can't just fix things like that.

Why not?

Quote by: Matt I'm saying in the next 10 years, not in the next 50 when in all likelihood hunters will be a rare breed. Also, by having to do that, you would be killing more deer then natural predators by trying to balance the number of does and bucks.

How so?

Quote by: Matt Natural predators have been superior to hunting in all its current and past methods, therefore they are better hunters.

Doesn’t follow. I’ve explained why several times.

Quote by: Matt You have to prove, just like me, that your method is more reliable.

Unless you prove your method to be superior, mine is assumed to be equal or superior. The burden of proof is on the one wishing to restrict human freedom.

Quote by: Matt And it is still possible all humans die. Most things are possible.

Yes, so it’s possible that both our methods will fail. Now that that’s established, it’s a question of whose is most likely to succeed.

Quote by: Matt We can't live with out water (duh),

Yes, but we have ways of producing and rationing water that wolves don’t.

Quote by: Matt and they don't need to adapt quickly since climate change occurs over years.

And evolution to fit one’s environment takes thousands of years.

Quote by: Matt It was just an example. It is easier to ban something like hunting then trying to fix all of it.

An example of a computer doesn’t prove this.

Quote by: Matt Yay, finally I get a block buster. Ok, so now I have taken the remote areas (millions of acres),

Have you any proof that these remote areas in which wolves have a significantly greater chance of working constitute millions of acres?

Quote by: Matt Anyhow, that basically means we will continue to debate over the non-remote areas as what we are to do, and debate their merits. It is also valid to employ natural predators in non-remote areas too.

But you haven’t proved that it’s more valid than hunting. You don’t ban something unless you have proof that it’s no good.

Quote by: Matt I'm saying it is a good chance they won’t come back after they quit.

Proof? I don’t see any reason that a current hunter who would be encouraged to hunt by cash incentives would not feel the same encouragement when not currently hunting.

Quote by: Matt Terrorism has a reasonable chance of happening. Not great, but reasonable.

In that case, why aren’t lightning strikes given anything like the same level of news coverage? The only possible answer is that news does not operate simply on probability of something happening.

Quote by: Matt And what is that fallacy?

Appeal to Authority.

Quote by: Matt Plus your default method does involve passing a law or two.

Quote by: Matt So by changing the legal system, you would be passing new legislature.

Nope, we’ve been through this. I would simply be removing the ban on hunting in all seasons. That involves removing a law; not passing a new one.

Quote by: Matt Then many animals, like mice, you would be saying have similar biology compared to humans. Also, we have extreme mental differences from wolves.

A mental difference has no bearing on transmission of disease.

Quote by: Matt Rabies isn't a disease that can wipe out great populations though, so it doesn't apply.

All you asked for was an example of a disease which can spread by a carrier outwith the species. We know that there wolf and cougar diseases have the potential to spread through the population and we know that they have the potential to spread through a carrier outwith the species. Therefore it’s not inconceivable that a disease with both these traits will develop.

Quote by: Matt I can't copy and paste it, Google must not want you to copy the book. It is on page # 270. You can click a link and scroll, can't you?

You mean the bit where it quotes Machiavelli saying that fear is stronger than greed? That’s not proof, Matt; that’s just a guy saying something.

Quote by: Matt If we have a food shortage, we won’t be able to develop new production of food since there is none.

A food shortage means there is not enough food; not that there is none.

Quote by: Matt And if there is no proof it might, it is worthless.

There’s plenty of proof that it might. The world already has experienced rapid temperature change over the past 50 years. Look at any graph of climate change and you’ll see this.

Quote by: Matt It may cause the deer to suffer by not allowing them to fulfil their natural function? Proof please.

‘Taint my point to prove. You’re the one claiming that neutering is more humane.

[Barnicals]

To all of you who are anti-hunting, I pose these questions to you:
Where do you think man would be without hunting?
Where do you think you personally would be without a hunting history/ancestry?

Man being able to hunt and kill animals is probably one of the major reasons that we have evolved this far.
Hunting and its subsequent evolution has naturally led to an improvement in technology. So really, you sitting at you computer typing your arguments against it owe that ability (at least partly) to mans ability, and his fulfilling the ability to hunt. And hunting is almost certainly in your culture. What sort of culture and society might you live in if your forefathers/ people who settled your country didn't hunt?