Hunting Debate

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon not really, with our current nannystate school system, you would have teachers presenting it as a bad thing, going over the top as usual to influence the kids. You cant kill a dead rabbit matt, its already dead. And this kid here sounds like a complete wuss, 'be quiet kid and and grow a set.' Yes everything seems to traumatize these kids easily in your view? I think you must have weak minded easily frightened kids in mind then. wusses You may have to one day but, this world is falling to bits, and if we are reduced to depending on survival skills again, the children taught to hunt will logically have a better chance of survival than the ones who dont know how. Try seeing how squeamish you feel about dead animals when theres nothing else much to eat. See above point. No it was to help keep the rabbit population down, and to improve our aim. they all died for a reason, not just slaughtered for the hell of it. Why bother to neuter and put them in cages, just kill them. There just rabbits, their a food source thats meant to be eaten, and if theres too many of them, then blow them away.

Umm, yeah....I know, if something is dead its dead, and you can't kill it twice. Did you read me sentence correctly? "Mommy, I saw a dead rabbit someone killed today!" The kid is referring to a dead rabbit that that day was killed. Get it?

I'm sure if you said that to a girl, you'd get some mighty interesting answers. Seriously, its not being wuss, its being compassionate which we can use our high intellect to do.

Did I say anything else that traumatizes kids in my posts? I just said this. So please don't make assumptions

Maybe Aussie kids are different then Canadian kids. If you came here to my city and did a 'how to hunt a rabbit' demostration you'd probably get one or two kids.

Again, you are making a guess. There is no proof kids will need to know how to hunt in their lifetime at all, unless they live in some extremely poor nation like Mozambique. Also, why would they need to hunt even if that situation occurred? If anything kids should be taught to forage for roots and other edible pplant matter and herbs.

So your view is your 'aiming practice' is worth lives? Not good enough reason.

Why kill them? They never did any harm to us. We caused the problem by letting rabbits go in the wild, and we should fix it in a humane way.

You talk about them like they are nothing more then a weed, "blow them away". Karma....oh karma...

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You don't. That and every one of the other twenty or so definitions of natural. But this is just semantics. Again, how is a "natural" predator preferrable, from a deer's point of view, to an "unnatural" predator? Like I said, in an area in which deer population is maintained at an optimum level, I don't think people should hunt. That's not things which deer have done for us; it's things which we have used deer for. Straw man. My argument isn't that we should kill them because they haven't done anything for us; it's the we shouldn't go to the trouble of neutering them when they haven't done anything to warrant giving them considerable amount of money this would cost us. Besides, it's "natural" for population to be kept in check by predation; not be neutering. I didn't say it was; I said it was one of the greatest instincts. Their species wouldn't last long if it wasn't. Humans =/= deer. The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the one suggesting that we ban hunting and replace it with neutering. I'm asking for proof that neutering causes less suffering for a deer than death. It has nothing to do with an emotional attachment to one's balls. A deer would be unhappy about losing its balls. A deer couldn't be unhappy about being dead, since it's dead and therefore can't feel anything. Hence, the latter option is better for the deer. You're not a deer and neither am I. That's purely anecdotal. And like I said, killing the young and healthy deer is a more efficient way of keeping the population down than killing old and unhealthy deer. Killing a young buck would eliminate the buck himself and also any potential offspring he may have had, whereas killing and old or sick deer will only eliminate that particular deer itself. So if you want to be killing as few deer as possible, hunting is clearly the way to go. I would love some evidence.

I don't understand why you keep asking me the same questions, when I already have answered them numerous times. Do you actually think you de-bunked each one and want more answers?

I answered your first question, see previous posts.

No...the deer have helped us live. Maybe if it wasn't for the deer, you would never have been born because your great great great great grandfather was starving and almost dead until he killed a dear walking right by him with a rifle.

Why not go and neuter them? I think you'd rather your tax dollars going to that re-decorating the office of a member of parliament, but I don't know you, so I can't say really.

We already screwed up 'naturalness' many years ago, and we have to start fixing it with some uniques measures, like neutering.

Ok...lets use some common sense proof (I'll go in the character of the deer...):

Option A-Get Killed: Its such a nice fall day outside, I can't wait till soandso is ready to breed. I hear something, who is there? Ahhh....dogs are after me...run...come on...you can.....run...Don't bite me there! Ouch....that hurts! *Bang!* What was that? Ahh, something is in me...I'm bleeding. I can hardly breath...all these dogs are around barking me...ahh...now I can't breath...only if I could live longer and breed....

Option B-Get Neutered: Its such a nice fall day outside, I can't wait till soandso is ready to breed. I hear something, who is there? Wawww..I feel dizzy...whats that thing sticking into to me...my eyes are closing...I can't stop 'em...I feel tired...*Neutering takes place*...what...where am I...what happened...I feel druzzy. Might aswell get up, looks like I am where I was last. Weird...I don't feel the same...I feel something missing. Anyhow, I'm still alive.

I can do part two if you wish to read more.

And again, its not all about population control...

If you want evidence...here you go: Animals and the Afterlife, by Kim Sheridan. I'm sure you can get it at your local library.

[Anmon]

=Matt;496195]Umm, yeah....I know, if something is dead its dead, and you can't kill it twice. Did you read me sentence correctly? "Mommy, I saw a dead rabbit someone killed today!" The kid is referring to a dead rabbit that that day was killed. Get it?

The kid should have been corrected then, the proper way to say it would be, ' Mum, I saw some one kill a rabbit today' or 'I saw a dead rabbit, someone killed it,' not 'I saw a dead rabbit someone killed.'

I'm sure if you said that to a girl, you'd get some mighty interesting answers.

Depends on the girl I guess, and if girls are hot for you they don't really care about what you kill.

Seriously, its not being wuss, its being compassionate which we can use our high intellect to do.

Practicality's are much more important than intellectual idealism.

Did I say anything else that traumatizes kids in my posts? I just said this. So please don't make assumptions

Well lets be honest here, if your going to train kids to be overly sensitive, then they will be easily traumatised because thats the way they have been guided to be.

Maybe Aussie kids are different then Canadian kids. If you came here to my city and did a 'how to hunt a rabbit' demostration you'd probably get one or two kids.

You would probably get a lot, kids are always up for new experiences, and rabbit hunting is a lot more fun than rabbit tending, which is dull as hell.

Again, you are making a guess. There is no proof kids will need to know how to hunt in their lifetime at all, unless they live in some extremely poor nation like Mozambique.

Its still wise to prepare just in case, and if it doesn't happen then you have lost nothing, but if it does, then you have lost everything.

Also, why would they need to hunt even if that situation occurred? If anything kids should be taught to forage for roots and other edible pplant matter and herbs.

Agreed, but do you know what goes well with a large pot of roots and carrots? A nice juicy rabbit.

So your view is your 'aiming practice' is worth lives? Not good enough reason.

Lol their just rabbits Matt, you say 'lives' like their humans or something.

Why kill them? They never did any harm to us.

Cause they taste good, and their a pest if their numbers get too large.

We caused the problem by letting rabbits go in the wild, and we should fix it in a humane way.

Agreed, but a humane way would not be quick enough, they not kidding when they say 'breed like rabbits'.

You talk about them like they are nothing more then a weed, "blow them away". Karma....oh karma...

They are vermin, just blow them away and stop being so soft.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon The kid should have been corrected then, the proper way to say it would be, ' Mum, I saw some one kill a rabbit today' or 'I saw a dead rabbit, someone killed it,' not 'I saw a dead rabbit someone killed.' Depends on the girl I guess, and if girls are hot for you they don't really care about what you kill. Practicality's are much more important than intellectual idealism. Well lets be honest here, if your going to train kids to be overly sensitive, then they will be easily traumatised because thats the way they have been guided to be. You would probably get a lot, kids are always up for new experiences, and rabbit hunting is a lot more fun than rabbit tending, which is dull as hell. Its still wise to prepare just in case, and if it doesn't happen then you have lost nothing, but if it does, then you have lost everything. Agreed, but do you know what goes well with a large pot of roots and carrots? A nice juicy rabbit. Lol their just rabbits Matt, you say 'lives' like their humans or something. Cause they taste good, and their a pest if their numbers get too large. Agreed, but a humane way would not be quick enough, they not kidding when they say 'breed like rabbits'. They are vermin, just blow them away and stop being so soft.

Lets start a debate about English then! Sheesh, when people become that nit picky (over nothing, maybe you Aussies say it different) it shows you they feel they are loosing. *Mom....btw *waits to here "We spell it differently in Australia"*

We are talking about school kids...like 8-12. I'm sure they will just go crazy over the bloody bunny killing guy!

Its not practical, its un-needed.

I think its good if kids get traumatized by seeing a dead bloody rabbit that was shot earlier in the day (happy with that sentence?). The world needs a compassionate next generation. If kids think its ok to kill and they get de-sensitized to killing, we will have some great wars and some un-compassionate people like before, won't we?

No, you would not get many kids, here in Canada at least, except Newfoundlanders... Most would be too busy with electronics or schoolwork, and most would think its cruel to kill them. And please don't come back with "Its better for kids to be outside hutning rabbits then watching TV", since watching TV is not ending lives.

Yes, if it doens't happen (which it msot likely wont), you do loose something. All those innocent rabbits being killed for no good reason.

They may just be rabbits, but they are lives and they are living creatures who can feel pain and can think.

Yes it would be, if people would spend the time to neuter the males and make a nice enclosure for all the rabbits.

Its not being soft, its being civilized and compassionate.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Lets start a debate about English then! Sheesh, when people become that nit picky (over nothing, maybe you Aussies say it different) it shows you they feel they are loosing. *Mom....btw *waits to here "We spell it differently in Australia"*

Not losing, just pointing out the bad grammar used.

We are talking about school kids...like 8-12. I'm sure they will just go crazy over the bloody bunny killing guy!

The Bunny hunter?

Its not practical, its un-needed.

It is needed, they are a pest over here.

I think its good if kids get traumatized by seeing a dead bloody rabbit that was shot earlier in the day (happy with that sentence?).

Much better, the structure made a lot more sense.

The world needs a compassionate next generation. If kids think its ok to kill and they get de-sensitized to killing, we will have some great wars and some un-compassionate people like before, won't we?

No the world needs balanced individuals who use commonsense, not psychos who kill needlessly, and not the other extreme, sissified nancy boys.
Our own western society is staring to resemble itself a Morlocks and Eloi sort of situation straight out of HG Wells, on one hand you have lots of violent screwed up individuals, and on the other lots of weak effeminate kids who cant defend themselves, both are wrong, what you need is a well balance person, who is not violent for the sake of being violent, but not defenseless either.

No, you would not get many kids, here in Canada at least, except Newfoundlanders... Most would be too busy with electronics or schoolwork, and most would think its cruel to kill them. And please don't come back with "Its better for kids to be outside hutning rabbits then watching TV", since watching TV is not ending lives.

Well it is in a way, if you watch too much of it, kids should be outdoors as much as possible, all the time playing in the sun and having adventures, not hiding away in houses in front of screens all the time.

Yes, if it doens't happen (which it msot likely wont), you do loose something. All those innocent rabbits being killed for no good reason.

We have gone over this, the rabbits are being killed for good reasons, reasons I have stated twice already.

They may just be rabbits, but they are lives and they are living creatures who can feel pain and can think.

They are food, and pest, you place far too much importance on their existance.

Yes it would be, if people would spend the time to neuter the males and make a nice enclosure for all the rabbits.

lol that would be a pretty big enclosure.

Its not being soft, its being civilized and compassionate.

Its soft when it gets in the way of common sense.
I am going shooting in a few months time with my cousins, and I shall dedicate my first rabbit kill to you Matt.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt I answered your first question, see previous posts.

Your answer was that wolves go for older, less fit deer. You still haven’t told me why this is a good thing as far as overpopulation is concerned. Many more deer will have to be killed to keep the population down if we have wolves rather than hunters.

Quote by: Matt No...the deer have helped us live. Maybe if it wasn't for the deer, you would never have been born because your great great great great grandfather was starving and almost dead until he killed a dear walking right by him with a rifle.

Right, but the deer themselves never chose to help us.

Quote by: Matt Why not go and neuter them? I think you'd rather your tax dollars going to that re-decorating the office of a member of parliament,

Actually I’d rather just keep them myself.

Why not neuter them? Because it’s expensive and impractical, whereas killing them achieves the same end in a more efficient way. Other animal populations are kept in check by predation; it's the way nature works. So why should deer be treated any differently?

Quote by: Matt We already screwed up 'naturalness' many years ago, and we have to start fixing it with some uniques measures, like neutering.

Or predation. If natural is so great, why should we control the population by an unnatural means (neutering) when we can control it by natural means (killing)?

Quote by: Matt Option A-Get Killed: Its such a nice fall day outside, I can't wait till soandso is ready to breed. I hear something, who is there? Ahhh....dogs are after me...run...come on...you can.....run...Don't bite me there! Ouch....that hurts! *Bang!* What was that? Ahh, something is in me...I'm bleeding. I can hardly breath...all these dogs are around barking me...ahh...now I can't breath...only if I could live longer and breed.... Option B-Get Neutered: Its such a nice fall day outside, I can't wait till soandso is ready to breed. I hear something, who is there? Wawww..I feel dizzy...whats that thing sticking into to me...my eyes are closing...I can't stop 'em...I feel tired...*Neutering takes place*...what...where am I...what happened...I feel druzzy. Might aswell get up, looks like I am where I was last. Weird...I don't feel the same...I feel something missing. Anyhow, I'm still alive.

So…how does that prove that deer know what happened to them after they’re dead?

And how do you know a deer would feel this?

Quote by: Matt If you want evidence...here you go: Animals and the Afterlife, by Kim Sheridan. I'm sure you can get it at your local library.

I'm not going to go hunting round my library trying to prove your argument for you. That's up to you to do.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Not losing, just pointing out the bad grammar used. The Bunny hunter? It is needed, they are a pest over here. Much better, the structure made a lot more sense. No the world needs balanced individuals who use commonsense, not psychos who kill needlessly, and not the other extreme, sissified nancy boys. Our own western society is staring to resemble itself a Morlocks and Eloi sort of situation straight out of HG Wells, on one hand you have lots of violent screwed up individuals, and on the other lots of weak effeminate kids who cant defend themselves, both are wrong, what you need is a well balance person, who is not violent for the sake of being violent, but not defenseless either. Well it is in a way, if you watch too much of it, kids should be outdoors as much as possible, all the time playing in the sun and having adventures, not hiding away in houses in front of screens all the time. We have gone over this, the rabbits are being killed for good reasons, reasons I have stated twice already. They are food, and pest, you place far too much importance on their existance. lol that would be a pretty big enclosure. Its soft when it gets in the way of common sense. I am going shooting in a few months time with my cousins, and I shall dedicate my first rabbit kill to you Matt.

Well, thank-you english teacher *places sarcasm right here*

Yes, the bunny hunter.

So you are saying that kids need to learn how to defend themselves from bunnies?!

Agreed, they shouldn't be watching a screen all the time, they should be getting out and exploring and having fun, and killing rabbits doesn't have to be a part of that.

No, you haven't stated any 'good reasons'. The population control...I can slightly get, but it can be done in other more humane ways. Can you tell me what damage the rabbits are doing in Australia?

You place far too little importance on their life. You seem to believe humans are wayyyyyyyyy above anything else on earth, and we don't have to treat them well. If everyone had that attitude towards animals, it would be a very sad place.

Common sense? Explain how common sense is to kill something that people don't need to kill.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Your answer was that wolves go for older, less fit deer. You still haven’t told me why this is a good thing as far as overpopulation is concerned. Many more deer will have to be killed to keep the population down if we have wolves rather than hunters. Right, but the deer themselves never chose to help us. Actually I’d rather just keep them myself. Why not neuter them? Because it’s expensive and impractical, whereas killing them achieves the same end in a more efficient way. Other animal populations are kept in check by predation; it's the way nature works. So why should deer be treated any differently? Or predation. If natural is so great, why should we control the population by an unnatural means (neutering) when we can control it by natural means (killing)? So…how does that prove that deer know what happened to them after they’re dead? And how do you know a deer would feel this? I'm not going to go hunting round my library trying to prove your argument for you. That's up to you to do.

And again, its not all about population control, which is what you are entirely focussing on, its also about the deer themselves.

I know, all of us would rather keep the money to ourselves, but we can't.

Other populations are mostly controlled by natural predation, deer on the other hand are a different story, so they require a different method. Impratical in your mind, not the deers. They would rather live.

How is killing by humans in North America natural? It isn't. Neither is neutering, but with neutering it saves lives.

That wasn't meant to prove that deer know what happens after they die, it was meant to show people, if we use common sense, what the deer would be thinking or feeling in those situations. Of course, it wouldn't be 100% accurate by any means, but unless someone can get into a deers mind, I think thats a pretty good guess.

You don't have to go looking for the book, though then you have no evidence to prove that there is no afterlife for animals. I do...in that book. And I don't have time to order the book, then copy each story in it word by word.

[Technosoul]

opps, I thought this was about hunting for a good debate, hard to find a good debate nowadays.

Anyway I guess this is about something else.

Anyway, why go tramping around in the woods where bugs hunt people when you can stay in the comfort of your living room to go hunting.

Virtual hunting: Online animal hunting may soon be reality

How about that?

[Gods_Mercenary]

You have to prove that deer and other animals would rather be neutered than killed. You are attempting to deny what has been considered a basic right since man picked up a spear and thrust it into a caribou's chest. To do this you need to provide a damn good reason why we should spend tax dollars on an expensive neutering program for all potentially pest animals when an option that actually fills state coffers and provides recreation is open and has been for thousands of years, not just a feeling or a guess.

[Anmon]

[=Matt;496343] Yes, the bunny hunter.

And fox hunter I have killed them too.

So you are saying that kids need to learn how to defend themselves from bunnies?!

No just kill them for meat.

Agreed, they shouldn't be watching a screen all the time, they should be getting out and exploring and having fun, and killing rabbits doesn't have to be a part of that.

Why not, its just like anything else.

No, you haven't stated any 'good reasons'. The population control...I can slightly get, but it can be done in other more humane ways. Can you tell me what damage the rabbits are doing in Australia?

There eating the natural wild lifes food supply, and taking over their habitats.

You place far too little importance on their life. You seem to believe humans are wayyyyyyyyy above anything else on earth, and we don't have to treat them well. If everyone had that attitude towards animals, it would be a very sad place.

Well we are above them, and I am all for animal conservation, I am actually a member of WSPCA.
But some animals are a pest, are causing destructive patterns that effect the natural wildlife, and farmers crops and livestock, so they need to be shot.

Common sense? Explain how common sense is to kill something that people don't need to kill.

See above answer.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt And again, its not all about population control, which is what you are entirely focussing on, its also about the deer themselves.

And what's best for the deer themselves is for them to have a population which doesn't exceed their habitat's ability to cope.

Other populations are mostly controlled by natural predation, deer on the other hand are a different story, so they require a different method.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do deer deserve this supposedly more humane treatment whereas other animals don't?

Quote by: Matt Impratical in your mind, not the deers. They would rather live.

Whether the deer want to live has no bearing on the practicality of neutering them.

Quote by: Matt How is killing by humans in North America natural?

Not specifically the killing by humans. Death is the natural manner of population control for all animals; not neutering.

If humans hadn't interfered, deer population would be kept in check by the killing of deer. Now that we have interfered, deer population is still kept in check by the killing of deer. What's is one ok but the other isn't?

Quote by: Matt That wasn't meant to prove that deer know what happens after they die, it was meant to show people, if we use common sense, what the deer would be thinking or feeling in those situations. Of course, it wouldn't be 100% accurate by any means, but unless someone can get into a deers mind, I think thats a pretty good guess.

What makes you think it's a good guess, other than that it supports your side of the debate?

Quote by: Matt You don't have to go looking for the book, though then you have no evidence to prove that there is no afterlife for animals. I do...in that book.

It's worthless if you can't provide any direct evidence in this debate. Come back when you're willing to make the effort to prove your argument.

[Matt]

Quote by: Technosoul opps, I thought this was about hunting for a good debate, hard to find a good debate nowadays. Anyway I guess this is about something else. Anyway, why go tramping around in the woods where bugs hunt people when you can stay in the comfort of your living room to go hunting. Virtual hunting: Online animal hunting may soon be reality How about that?

That is sickening and it shows you how lazy people are It also shows you the true spirit of some hunters. Thanks for posting it though, never knew about that.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You have to prove that deer and other animals would rather be neutered than killed. You are attempting to deny what has been considered a basic right since man picked up a spear and thrust it into a caribou's chest. To do this you need to provide a damn good reason why we should spend tax dollars on an expensive neutering program for all potentially pest animals when an option that actually fills state coffers and provides recreation is open and has been for thousands of years, not just a feeling or a guess.

You also said that it would be better for the deer to die then to live with out balls. You must give some evidence aswell.

Why would deer escape predators if they didn't want to live? Neutered animals still run from predators and would try to get away from hunters, that shows you they still have a desire to live.

Quote by: Anmon And fox hunter I have killed them too. No just kill them for meat. Why not, its just like anything else. There eating the natural wild lifes food supply, and taking over their habitats. Well we are above them, and I am all for animal conservation, I am actually a member of WSPCA. But some animals are a pest, are causing destructive patterns that effect the natural wildlife, and farmers crops and livestock, so they need to be shot. See above answer.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about someone who would run a 'bunny hunting course' which hardly any kids would sign up for here.

The meat isn't needed.

How is it like anything else? If you go outside exploring and playing, you aren't snuffing out lives. If you go rabbit hunting, you are. Its not like everything else.

That was a problem caused by humans, not rabbits. The rabbits should not have to pay for our mistakes.

If they effect the natural wildlife, then I think they should be caught and transferred to places who will take care of them, with tax dollars. If they weren't effecting other wildlife, then I would just let them be.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy And what's best for the deer themselves is for them to have a population which doesn't exceed their habitat's ability to cope. That doesn't answer the question. Why do deer deserve this supposedly more humane treatment whereas other animals don't? Whether the deer want to live has no bearing on the practicality of neutering them. Not specifically the killing by humans. Death is the natural manner of population control for all animals; not neutering. If humans hadn't interfered, deer population would be kept in check by the killing of deer. Now that we have interfered, deer population is still kept in check by the killing of deer. What's is one ok but the other isn't? What makes you think it's a good guess, other than that it supports your side of the debate? It's worthless if you can't provide any direct evidence in this debate. Come back when you're willing to make the effort to prove your argument.

Agreed, but in alot of places where deer hunting is occurring the populations are NOT overpopulated.

Because deer were effected the most by humans killing off the cougars and wolves, and that is why the populations in some places are very high. We made the mistake, and the deer shouldn't pay for it by being killed.

Because other mammals here in North America are not that overpopulated, and haven't been as damaged by humans. Deer are the only ones whose populations have went very high in some places, and since it was a problem we created, we should neuter them and not kill them.

Not death by humans in North America. One is natural and needed, and one is unnatural and NOT needed.

I'm using the only logic we can use. I know most people would rather get their reproductive organs removed then die, and since that is the only creature we can get into the brain of (in most poeple's opinions...not mine though), I'm applying it to deer. Like I said its a guess, but its a guess that deer would rather live then being die, which is logical.

Ok, so now please explain why thousands of people around the world have experienced communication with their pets directly or through a animal communicator after the pet is dead? If you want, I'll give you a real story:

A lady in Germany had a orange cat that she loved alot. It died at a young age, and she was very distraught about her loss. She contacted an animal communicator and the person told her the cat was planning to come back to her soon. She asked how she would find him, the person said her cat will find her. While on a vacation to Italy, she was staying at a B&B (I think). She was looking around it and decided to head to the barn that was on the property. There, a mother cat just gave birth to a litter of kittens. One of the kittens was orange, and it walked right up to her, and it acted as if it new her forever. She took it home, realizing it probably is her cat who just came back from the afterlife. She talked to a animal communicator again, and the person confirmed her thoughts, her cat came back. Again, at the same date the cat died before, it died again. Since then, the cat has come back another two times, and it dies on the same date each time.


Now please don't go saying "this person was just trying to make money". From submitting her story to the book I read, she made no money.

[Anmon]

Matt;496462] I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about someone who would run a 'bunny hunting course' which hardly any kids would sign up for here.

Its not a bunny hunting course, you don't get a certificate at the end of it showing you had passed all the grades and assignments.
You simply get shown how to kill rabbits, possibly cut their throats, gut, skin and blood them, and of course how to cook them over an open fire, other survival skills would be shown as well, like how to make a fire with no matches or lighter etc that kind of stuff.
I suppose a certificate could be given out at the end of it.

The meat isn't needed.

Says who? What about all the people struggling to pay their bills, a bit of free meat on the table each week, could save the average family over a thousand each year.

How is it like anything else? If you go outside exploring and playing, you aren't snuffing out lives. If you go rabbit hunting, you are. Its not like everything else.

Its a new learning experience for kids, like everything else is for them, thats why.

That was a problem caused by humans, not rabbits. The rabbits should not have to pay for our mistakes.

Yeah well tough they have too.

If they effect the natural wildlife, then I think they should be caught and transferred to places who will take care of them, with tax dollars. If they weren't effecting other wildlife, then I would just let them be.

Just shoot the buggers.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Agreed, but in alot of places where deer hunting is occurring the populations are NOT overpopulated.

Well, like I said, in places where deer population is not and will not become excessive, people shouldn’t be hunting.

Quote by: Matt Because deer were effected the most by humans killing off the cougars and wolves, and that is why the populations in some places are very high. We made the mistake, and the deer shouldn't pay for it by being killed.

We’ve not created a problem though; we’ve simply changed (I would argue improved) the manner in which deer are kept under control. We’ve really done the deer no disservice.

Quote by: Matt Because other mammals here in North America are not that overpopulated, and haven't been as damaged by humans. Deer are the only ones whose populations have went very high in some places, and since it was a problem we created, we should neuter them and not kill them.

We’ve simply removed one method of killing the deer (wolves) and replaced it with a more efficient method of killing the deer (hunting). Why is this a bad thing?

Quote by: Matt Not death by humans in North America. One is natural and needed, and one is unnatural and NOT needed.

But they’re both exactly the same thing as far as a deer is concerned. In fact, hunting is superior since less deer need to be killed in order for the population to be controlled.

Quote by: Matt I'm using the only logic we can use. I know most people would rather get their reproductive organs removed then die, and since that is the only creature we can get into the brain of (in most poeple's opinions...not mine though), I'm applying it to deer.

And that’s where the logic fails. A deer is not a human and therefore applying human emotions and values to it will never be valid.

Quote by: Matt Ok, so now please explain why thousands of people around the world have experienced communication with their pets directly or through a animal communicator after the pet is dead?

Thousands of people claim to have experienced it. There’s such a thing as the power of suggestion, coincidence, wishful thinking and downright lying.

Quote by: Matt A lady in Germany had a orange cat that she loved alot. It died at a young age, and she was very distraught about her loss. She contacted an animal communicator and the person told her the cat was planning to come back to her soon. She asked how she would find him, the person said her cat will find her. While on a vacation to Italy, she was staying at a B&B (I think). She was looking around it and decided to head to the barn that was on the property. There, a mother cat just gave birth to a litter of kittens. One of the kittens was orange, and it walked right up to her, and it acted as if it new her forever.

So she had a ginger cat which died and then she met another ginger cat. Amazing.

Quote by: Matt She took it home, realizing it probably is her cat who just came back from the afterlife. She talked to a animal communicator again, and the person confirmed her thoughts, her cat came back.

The animal communicator who makes a living off telling people their dead pets are talking to him.

Quote by: Matt Again, at the same date the cat died before, it died again. Since then, the cat has come back another two times

So basically we have a woman who has owned four ginger cats in her life. Truly astounding.

Quote by: Matt and it dies on the same date each time.

Possibly a coincidence though more likely a fabrication.

Quote by: Matt Now please don't go saying "this person was just trying to make money".

That’s not the only reason someone will lie. Some aspects of the story may have been true and these may have convinced her that her animal’s soul is floating around. Then, since she’s utterly convinced that her story is true, she makes up some new aspects of it in order to make it more believable to others.

Quote by: Matt From submitting her story to the book I read, she made no money.

According to the author of the book, yes. That’s assuming this lady existed in the first place and wasn’t simply a fabrication of the author. You really shouldn’t be so trusting of people who are trying to take your money.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Its not a bunny hunting course, you don't get a certificate at the end of it showing you had passed all the grades and assignments. You simply get shown how to kill rabbits, possibly cut their throats, gut, skin and blood them, and of course how to cook them over an open fire, other survival skills would be shown as well, like how to make a fire with no matches or lighter etc that kind of stuff. I suppose a certificate could be given out at the end of it. Says who? What about all the people struggling to pay their bills, a bit of free meat on the table each week, could save the average family over a thousand each year. Its a new learning experience for kids, like everything else is for them, thats why. Yeah well tough they have too. Just shoot the buggers.

Did I ever say hand out certificates? No. It's not a survival skill, survival skills are something that you can easily use out in the wild. For example, if kids took 'a bunny hunting course', it would not help them survive out in the wild. In Canada there are not that many natural rabbits (they are extremely difficult to find), and the kid couldn't use her/his bunny hunting skills in the wild. Its useless.

They still don't need it, no one actually needs it to be honest. There is almost no way a family, if they live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, ect., needs to hunt to live. Very, very few do. Only if they live in very remote places.

Its not a new learning experience, all it will do is de-sensitize then to killing, which may cause alot of problems in the future.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Well, like I said, in places where deer population is not and will not become excessive, people shouldn’t be hunting. We’ve not created a problem though; we’ve simply changed (I would argue improved) the manner in which deer are kept under control. We’ve really done the deer no disservice. We’ve simply removed one method of killing the deer (wolves) and replaced it with a more efficient method of killing the deer (hunting). Why is this a bad thing? But they’re both exactly the same thing as far as a deer is concerned. In fact, hunting is superior since less deer need to be killed in order for the population to be controlled. And that’s where the logic fails. A deer is not a human and therefore applying human emotions and values to it will never be valid. Thousands of people claim to have experienced it. There’s such a thing as the power of suggestion, coincidence, wishful thinking and downright lying. So she had a ginger cat which died and then she met another ginger cat. Amazing. The animal communicator who makes a living off telling people their dead pets are talking to him. So basically we have a woman who has owned four ginger cats in her life. Truly astounding. Possibly a coincidence though more likely a fabrication. That’s not the only reason someone will lie. Some aspects of the story may have been true and these may have convinced her that her animal’s soul is floating around. Then, since she’s utterly convinced that her story is true, she makes up some new aspects of it in order to make it more believable to others. According to the author of the book, yes. That’s assuming this lady existed in the first place and wasn’t simply a fabrication of the author. You really shouldn’t be so trusting of people who are trying to take your money.

Have you ever been to North America? We have ruined alot of the deer's natural habitats, and they have been forced out of them. We have ruined alot of the ecosystem they were once in, which is causing problems (eg. overpopulation). By trying to bandage up the ecosystem by hunting the excess deer will not be sustainable in the long run.

The so called more efficient way is a bandage solution, and wont work in the long run. Also, cougars are the biggest predator of deer, not wolves. Also its not natural.

Then you make a better one. Neither of us can go into a deers mind, so to judge what a deer would think we best put our feelings on it and not make some ridiculous statement that deer would rather die.

I think we are going around the rose bush here.

No, if you believe all those stories are false, then you are doing some wishful thinking of your own.

Not a fabrication, nor a coincidence. Of course you wont believe anything to do with an afterlife, it goes against your beliefs (I'm assumining you are an atheist, sorry if I'm wrong).

I knew if I posted the story you would try to dissect every bit of it. Thats why I didn't want to in the first place. I wanted you to read the book, where there are a hundred or so stories about ordinary people having communication with their pet after they are dead.

Theres alot of proof in that book.

Also, NDEs. When people have them, they not only see their relatives but also their pets. Now please don't go saying its a fabrication of the mind, since I doubt all these people that are having then are lying or 'wishful' thinking.

I'm not a gullable person at all, I just have an open mind.

Take my money?