Hunting Debate

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt Why would they need to kill for food if they are from Australia, Canada, UK, ect?

You never know what could happen in the future, besides this great society of ours you seem to think will last forever is on the rapid slide, not to mention food sources growing scarcer, your kind is basically helpless without an open supermarket.
Whereas my kind and the kids I help will be able to survive better, not squeamish about killing stuff and eating it, when your kind will be starving.

Wow, lets go put a 9 yo out with a rifle and say "Go shoot the black bears"...great idea.

Why not.

Also, in Canada, you can only hunt in certain seasons and only in certain places.

Makes sense, you have to regulate hunting or all the animals will die.

How would it help? All that would happen is they would get de-sensitized to killing, which is bad.

Not necessarily, starving would be bad, you probably don't know what thats like, I do. I was in the bush for nearly three days and I didn't have anything to eat, and no gun to shoot anything with.

When they blow up a person in a video game, its not hurting anyone, though IMO games like those should be restricted to 18+.

Its de sensitising them but, and even in a worse way than my real life hunting does, they get kicks out of killing imaginary people, and so they start to view people in real life with less compassion.

Killing a rabbit is snuffing out a real life.

No its just snuffing out a rabbit.

pest, vermin, food.

[DragonPaw]

Please post your opinion and thoughts...

My opinion on hunting is that hunting is only acceptable when the entire animal is used. That is, every part of the animal is put to use: bones, skin, eyes, brain, tongue, fur, hooves, horns, stomach, muscles, heart, etc. etc. - every part of the animal.

Hunting where the animal's head is chopped off and mounted on a wall and/or just the "good" meat is cut out and eaten with the rest of the animal being thrown out to rot in my opinion is not acceptable - a waste of an animal's life.

Hunting should be regulated - also in the way that hunters cannot over-hunt the healthy stags leaving only sickly, old stags to reproduce.

[another day]

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.

Jesus... are you really saying that taking a course to learn how to trap and kill animals for food would not help you survive out in the wild? This is pure madness...

[Anmon]

Quote by: another day Jesus... are you really saying that taking a course to learn how to trap and kill animals for food would not help you survive out in the wild? This is pure madness...

Such is left wing logic.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: DragonPaw My opinion on hunting is that hunting is only acceptable when the entire animal is used. That is, every part of the animal is put to use: bones, skin, eyes, brain, tongue, fur, hooves, horns, stomach, muscles, heart, etc. etc. - every part of the animal. Hunting where the animal's head is chopped off and mounted on a wall and/or just the "good" meat is cut out and eaten with the rest of the animal being thrown out to rot in my opinion is not acceptable - a waste of an animal's life. Hunting should be regulated - also in the way that hunters cannot over-hunt the healthy stags leaving only sickly, old stags to reproduce.

My first hunting trip (age 10) is an experience I will never forget, we got up real early and went out into the woods, but after a few hours had no luck spotting any game. I really wanted to prove I was a good hunter as my big brother was skilled hunter. I saw this blackbird way up in a tree and so I wanted to show what a good shot I was so I took aim and shot it, somewhat to my surprise it fell to the ground. We ran over and there it was on the ground, I only injured it by shooting off one wing, it lay there with it's big eye looking right at me as if to say "why did you do that"? I felt real guilty because I had to finish the kill. So my brother took the tiny black bird home with us and showed me how to remove the feathers and so forth. Then he had my mom cook it and there it was, the poor little bird on my dinner plate for supper. About two bites worth of meat at most. And he made me eat it. Then I dug a hole for the unused parts so that it would nurish the grass. It seemed like an eternity trying to eat those few bits of meat while I recalled that look of fear that the bird had as it lay there on the forest floor. Sad.

After that I had a great respect for life, and that killing for fun is not so fun. I never really liked hunting after that.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Are you actually serious? The only way to predict future behavior is from past behavior.

There is no way to predict the future.

Quote by: Matt Since this trend is continueing, and has for probably 50 years or so, there is no reason why it wont continue to. Can you give me a reason why it wont?

Can you give me a reason why it won’t level off, as most trends do?

Quote by: Matt No, its pro-active and much better for the enviroment if we re-introduce them now, and then when people mostly stop hunting, the predators will be established in good numbers and they can keep the populations down.

Go for it then. Just be sure to leave enough prey for the hunters.

Quote by: Matt Oh please oh please help me. You say from the deer's perspective...so I tell you what a deer would like more...then you turn it into 'human reasoning'. I guess you do not want any answer, do you? More deer wouldn't have to be killed, and from the deer's prespective (thats what you wanted, right...or is it human...deer....human...deer....) they would rather a predator/unnatural predator go after the weaker and spare the younger ones with more life to live.

I doubt that any given deer cares which of its fellow deer are killed. It will care if it is killed, and it is more likely to be killed if we rely on natural predators because natural predation will require more kills in order to keep the population down.

Quote by: Matt Hunters would kill more deer then natural predators, since hunters take more then they need, natural predators do not, so from the deer's perspective they would rather a natural predator.

This isn’t about one hunter vs. one wolf; it’s about hunters vs. wolves. There wouldn’t be the same number of each.

In order to keep the population of deer under control, there could be ten hunters who each kill ten young, healthy deer or there could be fifty wolves who each kill five old, sick deer. Same effect as far as population is concerned, but more deer are killed by the latter method.

Quote by: Matt Actually, hunters can cause quite extensive damage to the deer's habitat and nature in general. They alot of the times go out on ATVs which are loud and scare wildlife, they also ruin vegetation they go over in most cases, which the deer would graze on. Plus, alot of hunters go out in trucks onto wilderness back country roads, which again disturbs wildlife.

Driving trucks is not an essential part of hunting. And it seems like you’re grasping at straws with the “motor vehicles scare animals” argument. Should we then ban all countryside recreation?

Quote by: Matt Both deer and humans can feel pain....both of us have the same general nervous system.

This isn’t solely about physical pain though; it’s about what would cause less suffering, both mental and physical, to the deer.

Quote by: Matt That says something, and we know we would not to be killed, we should at least put that onto a deer.

Why?

Quote by: Matt You never debunked it, you may have thought you did. Its your wishful thinking to think that everyone is having 'wishful thinking' or is lying.

It’s very possible that the story was the result of wishful thinking or lying and as such it is not proof. The fact that you happen to believe in one of the many possible explanations doesn’t lend it any credence.

Quote by: Matt Do you want me to mail the book to Britain? Seriously. *places sarcasm here*

Not necessary. The best you’ve been able to quote from it can be debunked with ease.

Quote by: Matt I talked to another biologist, she said you are wrong.

I talked to seven biologists. They all said you’re wrong.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Technosoul My first hunting trip (age 10) is an experience I will never forget, we got up real early and went out into the woods, but after a few hours had no luck spotting any game. I really wanted to prove I was a good hunter as my big brother was skilled hunter. I saw this blackbird way up in a tree and so I wanted to show what a good shot I was so I took aim and shot it, somewhat to my surprise it fell to the ground. We ran over and there it was on the ground, I only injured it by shooting off one wing, it lay there with it's big eye looking right at me as if to say "why did you do that"? I felt real guilty because I had to finish the kill. So my brother took the tiny black bird home with us and showed me how to remove the feathers and so forth. Then he had my mom cook it and there it was, the poor little bird on my dinner plate for supper. About two bites worth of meat at most. And he made me eat it. Then I dug a hole for the unused parts so that it would nurish the grass. It seemed like an eternity trying to eat those few bits of meat while I recalled that look of fear that the bird had as it lay there on the forest floor. Sad. After that I had a great respect for life, and that killing for fun is not so fun. I never really liked hunting after that.

Harden up man its just a bird.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon You never know what could happen in the future, besides this great society of ours you seem to think will last forever is on the rapid slide, not to mention food sources growing scarcer, your kind is basically helpless without an open supermarket. Whereas my kind and the kids I help will be able to survive better, not squeamish about killing stuff and eating it, when your kind will be starving. Why not. Makes sense, you have to regulate hunting or all the animals will die. Not necessarily, starving would be bad, you probably don't know what thats like, I do. I was in the bush for nearly three days and I didn't have anything to eat, and no gun to shoot anything with. Its de sensitising them but, and even in a worse way than my real life hunting does, they get kicks out of killing imaginary people, and so they start to view people in real life with less compassion. No its just snuffing out a rabbit. pest, vermin, food.

You don't have to learn how to kill animals to survive out in the wild...do you understand that?

Why not? The kid could easily hit a human, and to put a kid through that is something I would never even put on my worst enemy.

Ahh, thank-you for saying that point, true, much more animals would die because humans take more then they need (see Bacon Guy....this comes from a true hunter). So it proves my point...humans would take more then they need...and be greedy about it. Thoguh if we introduced wolf packs, there would still be alot of animals, since they only take what they need. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, you can eat other things that animals while in the bush.

How is that worse? One you are killing imaginary things, and one you are snuffing out lives.

I don't know if you comprehend life other then human life very well.

Rabbit=life.

Quote by: DragonPaw My opinion on hunting is that hunting is only acceptable when the entire animal is used. That is, every part of the animal is put to use: bones, skin, eyes, brain, tongue, fur, hooves, horns, stomach, muscles, heart, etc. etc. - every part of the animal. Hunting where the animal's head is chopped off and mounted on a wall and/or just the "good" meat is cut out and eaten with the rest of the animal being thrown out to rot in my opinion is not acceptable - a waste of an animal's life. Hunting should be regulated - also in the way that hunters cannot over-hunt the healthy stags leaving only sickly, old stags to reproduce.

Good point, I mostly agree with that, and it would be a good compromise between hunters and anti-hunters.

Quote by: another day Jesus... are you really saying that taking a course to learn how to trap and kill animals for food would not help you survive out in the wild? This is pure madness...

You don't need to hunt to survive in the wild.

Quote by: Technosoul My first hunting trip (age 10) is an experience I will never forget, we got up real early and went out into the woods, but after a few hours had no luck spotting any game. I really wanted to prove I was a good hunter as my big brother was skilled hunter. I saw this blackbird way up in a tree and so I wanted to show what a good shot I was so I took aim and shot it, somewhat to my surprise it fell to the ground. We ran over and there it was on the ground, I only injured it by shooting off one wing, it lay there with it's big eye looking right at me as if to say "why did you do that"? I felt real guilty because I had to finish the kill. So my brother took the tiny black bird home with us and showed me how to remove the feathers and so forth. Then he had my mom cook it and there it was, the poor little bird on my dinner plate for supper. About two bites worth of meat at most. And he made me eat it. Then I dug a hole for the unused parts so that it would nurish the grass. It seemed like an eternity trying to eat those few bits of meat while I recalled that look of fear that the bird had as it lay there on the forest floor. Sad. After that I had a great respect for life, and that killing for fun is not so fun. I never really liked hunting after that.

I would feel the same way. I feel sick even when I step on a butterfly.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy There is no way to predict the future. Can you give me a reason why it won’t level off, as most trends do? Go for it then. Just be sure to leave enough prey for the hunters. I doubt that any given deer cares which of its fellow deer are killed. It will care if it is killed, and it is more likely to be killed if we rely on natural predators because natural predation will require more kills in order to keep the population down. This isn’t about one hunter vs. one wolf; it’s about hunters vs. wolves. There wouldn’t be the same number of each. In order to keep the population of deer under control, there could be ten hunters who each kill ten young, healthy deer or there could be fifty wolves who each kill five old, sick deer. Same effect as far as population is concerned, but more deer are killed by the latter method. Driving trucks is not an essential part of hunting. And it seems like you’re grasping at straws with the “motor vehicles scare animals” argument. Should we then ban all countryside recreation? This isn’t solely about physical pain though; it’s about what would cause less suffering, both mental and physical, to the deer. Why? It’s very possible that the story was the result of wishful thinking or lying and as such it is not proof. The fact that you happen to believe in one of the many possible explanations doesn’t lend it any credence. Not necessary. The best you’ve been able to quote from it can be debunked with ease. I talked to seven biologists. They all said you’re wrong.

Yes that is a quite reliable way, though of course you wont realize that, since it wouldn't side with your side of the debate. Past behavior is the only way to predict future behavior, ask Dr. Phil.

I asked you the question first, so please answer it, then I'll answer yours.

I can't go for it, Government does. My point was that re-introducing natural predators is better for the deer and is better for the ecosystem then hunting is. No one has proved me wrong yet.

Yes, they will care. Since the natural predator won't go after them (the younger healthier ones), and will go after the older sicker ones, which have already pretty much lived their life out. And you are actually wrong, mother deer would care if they lost their fawn, and a fawn would care if they lost their mother.

50 wolves would not kill 250 deer...unless you are talking about a very long time period.

For example, in one week, in a said area, there are 7 hunters who have no restrictions on how many deer they can kill. Lets say they are not greedy, and each take one deer, which would equal 7 deer in total. Then you put a pack of 7 wolves in and they don't have any restrictions on how many deer they can kill. They would probably as a pack kill two deer, enough to keep their bellies full, not more then they need.

That shows you hunters would take more then deer.

I'm saying they go into very remote places, not just countryside. And using ATVs or trucks in remote places is bad for the wildlife, thats why it has been banned where I live in alot of places.

Yes and if we can gauge their physical feelings, then we should use that. But we can also do mental too, since they have brains just like us. We know our brains would say to us "I don't want to die!" so why not think that about the deer's brain too?

Read this "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." Isiah 11:6-11:7.

The above quote is referring to animals up in heaven, therefore they are having an afterlife. Since you are athiest, this wont work, but Anmon...since you are Christian...what do you think about the quote?

No, you used your wishful thinking to think it was a fabrication or a lye.

I talked to 4 more biologists, they said you are wrong.

Quote by: Anmon Harden up man its just a bird.

See Techno...this is what I have to deal with....

[Anmon]

=Matt;497474]You don't have to learn how to kill animals to survive out in the wild...do you understand that?

Well it helps if their dead before you cook them.

Why not? The kid could easily hit a human, and to put a kid through that is something I would never even put on my worst enemy.

Thats why its important to train them with gun safety as well, never walk around with a loaded rifle, all ways have it un cocked as well for quick loading and so you know the kid hasn't got it loaded, when the quarry appears, then load, never run a with a loaded gun when pursuing the quarry is it gets away from the first shot, never climb over anything with a loaded gun, also important to circle and put your target with a hill if you can behind it to take the bullet if you miss, and most of all never shoot when there is a person in front of you, even if there 50 metres away and twenty metres to the left or right of the target.
I have taken out my nephews hunting and with my cousins and their nephews and they all enjoyed themselves immensely.

Ahh, thank-you for saying that point, true, much more animals would die because humans take more then they need (see Bacon Guy....this comes from a true hunter). So it proves my point...humans would take more then they need...and be greedy about it. Thoguh if we introduced wolf packs, there would still be alot of animals, since they only take what they need. Thanks for proving my point.

We can live in harmony with the wolves they can take their kills, and we can take ours, there is enough deer meat to to go around, as long as the wolves keep out of human habitats of course.
When it comes to deer, I believe you should eat what you kill.
And they are delicious.

Again, you can eat other things that animals while in the bush.

I'm aware of that, berrys, yams, fruit , veges, but meat is important too.

How is that worse? One you are killing imaginary things, and one you are snuffing out lives.

I was talking about being insensitive to killing, the kids playing violent video games are being brainwashed by them onto devalueing human life.
Whereas I, provided that person deserved respect, have respect for human life.

I don't know if you comprehend life other then human life very well.

I do, I just don't place it on par with human life like you do.

Rabbit=life.

Rabbit= food.

[another day]

You don't need to hunt to survive in the wild.

Wrong...depending on where you are there is not likely to be a lot of edible vegetation. What little there is requires endless hours of foraging and eating everyday. You literally have to find and eat the plants non stop all day. This is what many monkeys do to survive. However, with the human's need for shelter, fire, etc there is much more to do then eat. Ask any survival expert and they will tell you that while water is most important, eventually you need meat. It gives the most food all at once.

Sorry but banana trees and orange groves don't grow wild in most wildernesses.

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon Well it helps if their dead before you cook them. Thats why its important to train them with gun safety as well, never walk around with a loaded rifle, all ways have it un cocked as well for quick loading and so you know the kid hasn't got it loaded, when the quarry appears, then load, never run a with a loaded gun when pursuing the quarry is it gets away from the first shot, never climb over anything with a loaded gun, also important to circle and put your target with a hill if you can behind it to take the bullet if you miss, and most of all never shoot when there is a person in front of you, even if there 50 metres away and twenty metres to the left or right of the target. I have taken out my nephews hunting and with my cousins and their nephews and they all enjoyed themselves immensely. We can live in harmony with the wolves they can take their kills, and we can take ours, there is enough deer meat to to go around, as long as the wolves keep out of human habitats of course. When it comes to deer, I believe you should eat what you kill. And they are delicious. I'm aware of that, berrys, yams, fruit , veges, but meat is important too. I was talking about being insensitive to killing, the kids playing violent video games are being brainwashed by them onto devalueing human life. Whereas I, provided that person deserved respect, have respect for human life. I do, I just don't place it on par with human life like you do. Rabbit= food.

Nice try, I was referring to that you don't need to hunt out in the wild to live. I agree, the world may go down hill in the next 25 years, but you, since you are Christian, I would suppose have faith in God to rescue you.

Maybe someday in the future some people in the UK, Canada, and Australia will have to hunt to survive (I'm following your logic...)...but to me all the lives that would be lost by hunting are not worth the few it may save. Also, since the world most likely wont collapse this generation, there is no need to learn how to hunt, and basically, there is no reason to hunt at all.

Your nephews probably like it because they were taught to like it and of course they are gonna try to be just like their uncles. I wasn't taught either way, I formed my own eduacated opinion.

Yes, but its fictional. Killing a human in a video game is not as bad as killing a rabbit in real life. They will get de-sensitized to killing both ways, but especially the latter.

From what I'm reading, no, you do not. Did I ever say animals are equal to humans? No. I said that people should not hunt them, since it is un-needed killing of an innocent life.

See, you just view rabbits as food, not as a life.

I like how people are now resorting to hypothetical reasons (eg. the earth will end soon and it will be needed to survive) to try to prove hunting is ok. Got desperate, haven't we?

Quote by: another day Wrong...depending on where you are there is not likely to be a lot of edible vegetation. What little there is requires endless hours of foraging and eating everyday. You literally have to find and eat the plants non stop all day. This is what many monkeys do to survive. However, with the human's need for shelter, fire, etc there is much more to do then eat. Ask any survival expert and they will tell you that while water is most important, eventually you need meat. It gives the most food all at once. Sorry but banana trees and orange groves don't grow wild in most wildernesses.

And is everyone going to become a tarzan and get lost in the jungle? No. Anmon is making a hypothetical guess that we will need to hunt in the future to live, which there is no proof of.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Anmon Harden up man its just a bird.

I know. That is what people must do who live a life based on hunting.

That is why the VP goes duck hunting all the time.

Once people learn to become insensitive about killing animals then they can when it comes to the torture of POWs and the killing of other people as well, be "harden up" as you say. Hunting and war are so linked in that manner.

And when it comes to progress and drilling for oil they can become insensitive about wild animals and forested areas. Like Reagan used to say "if you have seen one tree you have seen them all" and so saving the redwood trees was not important in his book of ill-logic.

And likewise they can be insensitive about the injury and murder of hundreds of children in Iraq because "it's only a bird" - kind of philosopy in the hardening of the heart.

Of course when you harden your heart like the VP did you might have to buy one of those fake ones to keep going.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I beleive that was hamburgers, not hunting, in fact a little walking around doing some real hunting would've probably done him some good.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Yes that is a quite reliable way, though of course you wont realize that, since it wouldn't side with your side of the debate. Past behavior is the only way to predict future behavior, ask Dr. Phil.

He’s a psychiatrist; not a sociologist.

Quote by: Matt I asked you the question first, so please answer it, then I'll answer yours.

I see no reason that it won’t continue. But then I see no reason that it will continue.

Quote by: Matt I can't go for it, Government does. My point was that re-introducing natural predators is better for the deer and is better for the ecosystem then hunting is.

Even if you can prove that it’s more sustainable to reintroduce the natural predators, this can still be done while leaving the hunters their share of the prey. It needn’t be an “either-or” situation.

Quote by: Matt No one has proved me wrong yet.

You haven’t proved yourself right either. And since it’s you who is proposing that something be made illegal, the burden of proof is on you.

Quote by: Matt Yes, they will care. Since the natural predator won't go after them (the younger healthier ones), and will go after the older sicker ones, which have already pretty much lived their life out.

How does that matter to any given deer? The deer won’t want to be killed, regardless of its physical state.

Quote by: Matt And you are actually wrong, mother deer would care if they lost their fawn, and a fawn would care if they lost their mother.

Alright then, the deer itself and its immediate providers. The argument still applies, because with less deer being killed, there is less chance that any given deer or any given deer’s providers will be killed.

Quote by: Matt 50 wolves would not kill 250 deer...unless you are talking about a very long time period.

It was an example. Address the point and don’t nitpick.

Quote by: Matt For example, in one week, in a said area, there are 7 hunters who have no restrictions on how many deer they can kill. Lets say they are not greedy, and each take one deer, which would equal 7 deer in total. Then you put a pack of 7 wolves in and they don't have any restrictions on how many deer they can kill. They would probably as a pack kill two deer, enough to keep their bellies full, not more then they need.

In which case the overpopulation problem is not solved.

Quote by: Matt That shows you hunters would take more then deer.

I never denied that. If wolves kill less deer than hunters, then we will simply end up having to introduce more wolves to the ecosystem in order to keep the deer under control. So it amounts to the same number (actually more as per my above argument) deer being killed.

Quote by: Matt I'm saying they go into very remote places, not just countryside. And using ATVs or trucks in remote places is bad for the wildlife, thats why it has been banned where I live in alot of places.

In which case there is no reason to ban the hunting itself.

Quote by: Matt Yes and if we can gauge their physical feelings, then we should use that. But we can also do mental too, since they have brains just like us.

They don’t have brains just like ours.

Quote by: Matt Read this "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox." Isiah 11:6-11:7. The above quote is referring to animals up in heaven, therefore they are having an afterlife. Since you are athiest, this wont work,

Correct.

Though it is interesting that you are again cherry picking the Bible quotes which support your ideology, while dismissing those that don’t.

Quote by: Matt No, you used your wishful thinking to think it was a fabrication or a lye.

All of the alternative explanations I offered are possible. There is no reason to believe that your explanation is either correct or even possible. Hence, it is not proof.

Quote by: Matt I talked to 4 more biologists, they said you are wrong.

I talked to over fifty percent of the biologists in the world. They all said you’re wrong.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy He’s a psychiatrist; not a sociologist. I see no reason that it won’t continue. But then I see no reason that it will continue. Even if you can prove that it’s more sustainable to reintroduce the natural predators, this can still be done while leaving the hunters their share of the prey. It needn’t be an “either-or” situation. You haven’t proved yourself right either. And since it’s you who is proposing that something be made illegal, the burden of proof is on you. How does that matter to any given deer? The deer won’t want to be killed, regardless of its physical state. Alright then, the deer itself and its immediate providers. The argument still applies, because with less deer being killed, there is less chance that any given deer or any given deer’s providers will be killed. It was an example. Address the point and don’t nitpick. In which case the overpopulation problem is not solved. I never denied that. If wolves kill less deer than hunters, then we will simply end up having to introduce more wolves to the ecosystem in order to keep the deer under control. So it amounts to the same number (actually more as per my above argument) deer being killed. In which case there is no reason to ban the hunting itself. They don’t have brains just like ours. Correct. Though it is interesting that you are again cherry picking the Bible quotes which support your ideology, while dismissing those that don’t. All of the alternative explanations I offered are possible. There is no reason to believe that your explanation is either correct or even possible. Hence, it is not proof. I talked to over fifty percent of the biologists in the world. They all said you’re wrong.

Yes he is, but he studies human behavior, including human trends, and he states that the best predicter for future behavior is past behavior. There is no 100% full proof way of guessing what will happen in the future, but that is the best guess, and a eduacated one.

They don't have a 'share', they aren't natural predators.

Actually, no. I stated my opinion, you countered it and are trying to proove me wrong. So you are actually the one who has to prove things more so then I.

It will matter to the deer, since the younger ones who have more life to live will be spared, and the sick or old ones will get killed (the old or sicks ones may also want something to end their sufferring).

No, if hunting is the main source of predation for deer, more deer will be killed they if natural predation occurred.

Stop intertangling what the deer want and overpopulation, you are doing that. To the deer, they would rather natural predators because they kill less, simple.

No, after adding the amount of wolves and cougars that originally lived (before white man) in a said area (say a place where the deer are ovepropulated) the population of deer would (in a couple years) go back down to the more original levels, and the ecosystem will run better (meaning no more overpopulation)...so no hunting would occur, and man wont keep trying to do a bandage solution.

No they don't, but they are not as dumb as a piece of straw, which some people seem to be inferring here by saying a deer would rather be killed then neutered.

That was related to animals having an afterlife, and no one has brought up a quote from the bible saying they don't have an afterlife. How am I cherry picking?









I talked to 99.9% of biologists in the world...they all said you are wrong...beat that

[Anmon]

Quote by: Technosoul I know. That is what people must do who live a life based on hunting. That is why the VP goes duck hunting all the time. Once people learn to become insensitive about killing animals then they can when it comes to the torture of POWs and the killing of other people as well, be "harden up" as you say. Hunting and war are so linked in that manner. And when it comes to progress and drilling for oil they can become insensitive about wild animals and forested areas. Like Reagan used to say "if you have seen one tree you have seen them all" and so saving the redwood trees was not important in his book of ill-logic. And likewise they can be insensitive about the injury and murder of hundreds of children in Iraq because "it's only a bird" - kind of philosopy in the hardening of the heart. Of course when you harden your heart like the VP did you might have to buy one of those fake ones to keep going.

Techno that.. that moved me.
But seriously people are not just all hard and all soft, some hard hunting bastards who blow an animals brains out, will go to pieces over a little baby and be soft as a teddy bear with them, while others who love soft fluffy animals won't bat an eyelash over aborted babies.

[Anmon]

Matt what exactly is that in your avatar?