Hunting Debate

[Anmon]

=Matt;497661]Its a cat's face

.

Thanks I thought it was a monster or demon.

[Matt]

Quote by: another day Well, I'm not anmon, and the reason i said hunting and trapping classes is because trapping doesn't involve a gun obviously, it involves traps. I agree there is little merit to gun training except to defend against humans. If you are lost in the woods you won't have a gun, and this is the situation when you most need hunting.

With trapping, I have a question, to build a trap out in the woods, how feasable is it? I'm just wondering how people can build traps with out 'man made' materials. I'm sure it would take alot of time.

[another day]

Either way, i think we're gonna have to hunt it down and kill it. You know the cat/demon population is running wild and spaying your pet is not working!

[Matt]

Quote by: Anmon . Thanks I thought it was a monster or demon.

How so? Cat's eyes are pretty recognisable.

[Matt]

Quote by: another day Either way, i think we're gonna have to hunt it down and kill it. You know the cat/demon population is running wild and spaying your pet is not working!

lol

[another day]

Quote by: Matt With trapping, I have a question, to build a trap out in the woods, how feasable is it? I'm just wondering how people can build traps with out 'man made' materials. I'm sure it would take alot of time.

No they are very simple things... not always effective, but rather ingenious...

for example, one very rudimentary trap is to take a heavy flat stone, and prop up one end very precariously with a stick. Then you place some bait underneath... rotten, inedible fish or worms or something or maybe a piece of meat from a previous kill. The animal goes to eat it and nudges the stick and the stone falls and kills it, or actual probably just traps it and injures it. Not humane but such is the harsh nature of...nature. You need to set up alot to catch anything but it can work...

Another is to set up snares on the branch of a tree (you can use various materials from nature like roots, but often in survival situations people aren't naked and they have things to work with like your shoelaces or clothings or backpack strings)... squirrels run through them and it tightens as they pass and captures them.

anyways there's tons of stuff like this. they don't take long to set up but it takes alot of patience to catch anything.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Matt How so? Cat's eyes are pretty recognisable.

Just the darkness of it I guess.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Yes he is, but he studies human behavior,

On an individual level; not a group level.

Quote by: Matt They don't have a 'share', they aren't natural predators.

A share is simply a proportion. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t give hunters a proportion of the kills.

Quote by: Matt 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.

If you state your opinion in a debate, the idea is that you prove it to be a valid opinion. I’m not trying to prove that hunting is sustainable; I’m simply asking you for proof that it’s not. If you can’t prove that it’s unsustainable, then hunting should be legal by default.

Quote by: Matt 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).

Not according to your argument that a deer’s survival instinct is paramount.

Quote by: Matt Stop intertangling what the deer want and overpopulation, you are doing that.

Population control and what’s best for the deer are one and the same.

Quote by: Matt To the deer, they would rather natural predators because they kill less, simple.

Not if they are introduced in numbers sufficient to control the deer population. Remember, these measures are to combat the overpopulation problem. So it’s not a case of ten wolves vs. ten hunters; it’s a case of a number of wolves sufficient to control the population vs. a number of hunters sufficient to control the population. The number of deer killed would be the same (or actually higher).

Quote by: Matt 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,

In which case the wolves are killing as many or more deer as the hunters are. That’s pretty basic logic. The deer population won’t be controlled by wolves to the same extent as it is with hunters unless the wolves kill as many deer as the hunters.

Quote by: Matt No they don't, but they are not as dumb as a piece of straw,

It’s not to do with intelligence; it’s to do with which of the methods of population control will cause less suffering to the deer.

Quote by: Matt 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 was referring back to Tivo’s posts, some of which you dismissed with the argument “the bible was written by men”. Apparently only the parts that you agree with are the will of God. Still, that's the same with all Christians and I don't want to get off-topic here.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Matt With trapping, I have a question, to build a trap out in the woods, how feasable is it? I'm just wondering how people can build traps with out 'man made' materials. I'm sure it would take alot of time.

Extremely feasible. You just dig a pit with spikes at the bottom and loosely cover it up, you have a trap. I would imagine that any class for traping would also include how to make traps.

[Anmon]

GM- Extremely feasible. You just dig a pit with spikes at the bottom and loosely cover it up, you have a trap. I would imagine that any class for traping would also include how to make traps.

A tad too cruel for my liking, I would prefer to teach children how to trap animals with bait and a net that drops or rises and quickly closes over the animal hunted.
Then you just spear it hard through the ribs into its heart, with a strong sharpened stick a few times to kill it quickly.
Hey you gotta eat right?

[Matt]

Quote by: another day No they are very simple things... not always effective, but rather ingenious... for example, one very rudimentary trap is to take a heavy flat stone, and prop up one end very precariously with a stick. Then you place some bait underneath... rotten, inedible fish or worms or something or maybe a piece of meat from a previous kill. The animal goes to eat it and nudges the stick and the stone falls and kills it, or actual probably just traps it and injures it. Not humane but such is the harsh nature of...nature. You need to set up alot to catch anything but it can work... Another is to set up snares on the branch of a tree (you can use various materials from nature like roots, but often in survival situations people aren't naked and they have things to work with like your shoelaces or clothings or backpack strings)... squirrels run through them and it tightens as they pass and captures them. anyways there's tons of stuff like this. they don't take long to set up but it takes alot of patience to catch anything.

Interesting. Though neither of them would kill things will actually have alot of meat on them...would they? Both seem that they could work, but the probablity of it working and the time waiting to see if it would work I don't think would be worth it if you are starving.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy On an individual level; not a group level. A share is simply a proportion. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t give hunters a proportion of the kills. If you state your opinion in a debate, the idea is that you prove it to be a valid opinion. I’m not trying to prove that hunting is sustainable; I’m simply asking you for proof that it’s not. If you can’t prove that it’s unsustainable, then hunting should be legal by default. Not according to your argument that a deer’s survival instinct is paramount. Population control and what’s best for the deer are one and the same. Not if they are introduced in numbers sufficient to control the deer population. Remember, these measures are to combat the overpopulation problem. So it’s not a case of ten wolves vs. ten hunters; it’s a case of a number of wolves sufficient to control the population vs. a number of hunters sufficient to control the population. The number of deer killed would be the same (or actually higher). In which case the wolves are killing as many or more deer as the hunters are. That’s pretty basic logic. The deer population won’t be controlled by wolves to the same extent as it is with hunters unless the wolves kill as many deer as the hunters. It’s not to do with intelligence; it’s to do with which of the methods of population control will cause less suffering to the deer. I was referring back to Tivo’s posts, some of which you dismissed with the argument “the bible was written by men”. Apparently only the parts that you agree with are the will of God. Still, that's the same with all Christians and I don't want to get off-topic here.

Wrong, he studies group behaviors too, like, for example, men that cheat once have a much higher chance of doing it again then men that never cheated. Or that if you go on diets, loose alot of weight, there is a very good chance you'll gain it back. Those are group trends.

Ok, it is unstustainable because (this is looking at it from a humans prespective....just to be clear): A) Deer hunting in places where the populations have been very high have only been semi-successful, some have not been successful at all B) Hunting is slowly going the way of the dodo bird, so in 50 years or so there wont be enough hunters to even attempt keeping the populations down.

Natural predators are better because: A) They were meant to keep deer populations in check and create a nice healthy balance and will do so if introduced back B) They are not being destructive towards wilderness C) (this is from the deer's prespective) They will kill less deer D) They go after the weaker or sick deer which will keep the population healthy, not sick or diseased.

When they are on their deathbed it wouldn't be the same 'will to live'.

Yes, they are, but in most areas the population of deer isn't overpopulated. When we are talking about hunting deer, I am not only talking about the places they are overpopulated, but also the places they are not overpopulated. If I just stuck to the latter one, my opinion would be easier to prove, though I'm not, because if we are talking about deer, it should be conclusive. Though you are only focussing on the few places they are really overpopulated.

No, actually not. When people are trying to keep populations down of certain animals, most times they do big culls all at once and kill many more deer then a wolf pack would probably in a years period. The wolves and cougars (over a couple year period) would get the deer populations back down to better levels, and the deer would not be starving in the places where they are overpopulated. They wouldn't try to get the deer populations down to what 'humans think is good' (which usually means if someone sees two deer on their lawn...its too many), they would get them down to a level which would be healthy for the wolves and cougars and the deer. They would kill less deer.

Also, while lying in bed last night I was thinking about something. Are deer really overpopulated...or are they overpopulated because they interfere with us by eating our gardens and walking on the highway? The reason alot of them are starving is because we have taken away alot of their habitat, and with that their food sources. We have given them much less area to forage for food, and that is one of the reasons they are starving in some areas. I agree their populations seem high in some areas, but is it overpopulation?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Extremely feasible. You just dig a pit with spikes at the bottom and loosely cover it up, you have a trap. I would imagine that any class for traping would also include how to make traps.

How are you going to find spikes in the wild?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Anmon A tad too cruel for my liking, I would prefer to teach children how to trap animals with bait and a net that drops or rises and quickly closes over the animal hunted. Then you just spear it hard through the ribs into its heart, with a strong sharpened stick a few times to kill it quickly. Hey you gotta eat right?

If I'm trapping for survival, I'm not going to worry about cruel.

[Gods_Mercenary]

How are you going to find spikes in the wild?

Unless you somehow become lost in the wild w/o a knife of some sort, which you should bring anywhere where there might be a survival situation, you take a stick, apply knife, and about ten seconds later you have a relatively sharp spike.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Unless you somehow become lost in the wild w/o a knife of some sort, which you should bring anywhere where there might be a survival situation, you take a stick, apply knife, and about ten seconds later you have a relatively sharp spike.

You have to understand hes a lefty, practicality and commonsense are completely foreign concepts to them.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If I'm trapping for survival, I'm not going to worry about cruel.

point taken, I just hope you check these traps daily so no animals or possibly people even, are down there for days, dying in agony.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd be hungry, so I'd imagine I'd be obsessive about it.

[another day]

Quote by: Matt Interesting. Though neither of them would kill things will actually have alot of meat on them...would they? Both seem that they could work, but the probablity of it working and the time waiting to see if it would work I don't think would be worth it if you are starving.

Worth it? Lol, what other choice do you have? Like I said, at this point you can't go to the supermarket and buy some macaroni and cheese if your traps aren't working... And yeah, when surviving your more likely to catch smaller animals because we don't really have the capabilities to bring down large prey on our own without good tools. One method is the pit thing that gods mercenary described, but in the past humans hunted in large groups and could easily hunt and kill a lion with simple spears thanks to our long distance running abilities, and advanced communication and organization tactics.

Ok, it is unstustainable because (this is looking at it from a humans prespective....just to be clear): A) Deer hunting in places where the populations have been very high have only been semi-successful, some have not been successful at all B) Hunting is slowly going the way of the dodo bird, so in 50 years or so there wont be enough hunters to even attempt keeping the populations down. Natural predators are better because: A) They were meant to keep deer populations in check and create a nice healthy balance and will do so if introduced back B) They are not being destructive towards wilderness C) (this is from the deer's prespective) They will kill less deer D) They go after the weaker or sick deer which will keep the population healthy, not sick or diseased.

Your first point sounds like it's in support of hunting. Look we can't just introduce more wolves and bears because the reality is that we are civilized and wolves and bears intrude on our civilization and end up being killed. Wolves kill livestock and get shot by farmers. Bears become habituated to humans and start roaming around towns posing a threat to people. The alternative is a human hunter population to control the deer population.

As for they were "meant" to keep the deer in check, how are they meant to but humans aren't? By the very virtue that humans have developed the means to hunt and kill deer means we are part of that natural process of controlling their population (though not our own). Your last point about them killing weak and sick deer is good though.

Also, while lying in bed last night I was thinking about something. Are deer really overpopulated...or are they overpopulated because they interfere with us by eating our gardens and walking on the highway? The reason alot of them are starving is because we have taken away alot of their habitat, and with that their food sources. We have given them much less area to forage for food, and that is one of the reasons they are starving in some areas. I agree their populations seem high in some areas, but is it overpopulation?

Of course this is right, but so what? This is reality. We are the dominate species on earth and while we have responsibilities towards the ecosystem, we also need to accept that our civilization will interfere with other species and it's just a fact of life. In the mean time we need to keep animal populations low enough that they don't significantly interfere with us. It may sound selfish to you but that's life. Would you suggest some people have their towns destroyed to that we can give more space for the deer?

How are you going to find spikes in the wild?

umm.. sticks?

The fact is, when hunting was outlawed in india there was actually a dramatic rise in the number of animals killed by people, and the lion/tiger/elephant populations plummeted. When you put something on the black market, whether it's drugs, sex, or animal parts/fur, you dramatically increase the price of those goods. These leads to all kinds of opportunistic poachers who are simply in it for the money.. they have no quotas for allowed kills because all their kills are illegal, but they do it anyway because the risk is worth the payoff. A regulated hunting industry is much more responsible and knowledgeable when hunting and they DO actually care about wildlife because it's one of their passions, unlike the poachers.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If I'm trapping for survival, I'm not going to worry about cruel.

well as long as your checking it daily.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Unless you somehow become lost in the wild w/o a knife of some sort, which you should bring anywhere where there might be a survival situation, you take a stick, apply knife, and about ten seconds later you have a relatively sharp spike.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but very few people (here at least, I live in rightest country btw) ever carry knives with them, especially the people who tend to get lost. So say if you make a sharp stick with a knife you got lost with, how will that puncture an animals that falls into the trap? For smaller animals I don't think there is a good chance they would directly land on the stick, nor would the force of gravity actually be enough to puncture the animal since it doesn't have much mass. Secondly, if you are trying to trap a larger animal (eg. deer) how can you dig out such a big space with only your hands or sticks?

Quote by: Anmon You have to understand hes a lefty, practicality and commonsense are completely foreign concepts to them.

At least we think outside the box and aren't stuck in the 19th century

Quote by: another day Worth it? Lol, what other choice do you have? Like I said, at this point you can't go to the supermarket and buy some macaroni and cheese if your traps aren't working... And yeah, when surviving your more likely to catch smaller animals because we don't really have the capabilities to bring down large prey on our own without good tools. One method is the pit thing that gods mercenary described, but in the past humans hunted in large groups and could easily hunt and kill a lion with simple spears thanks to our long distance running abilities, and advanced communication and organization tactics. Your first point sounds like it's in support of hunting. Look we can't just introduce more wolves and bears because the reality is that we are civilized and wolves and bears intrude on our civilization and end up being killed. Wolves kill livestock and get shot by farmers. Bears become habituated to humans and start roaming around towns posing a threat to people. The alternative is a human hunter population to control the deer population. As for they were "meant" to keep the deer in check, how are they meant to but humans aren't? By the very virtue that humans have developed the means to hunt and kill deer means we are part of that natural process of controlling their population (though not our own). Your last point about them killing weak and sick deer is good though. Of course this is right, but so what? This is reality. We are the dominate species on earth and while we have responsibilities towards the ecosystem, we also need to accept that our civilization will interfere with other species and it's just a fact of life. In the mean time we need to keep animal populations low enough that they don't significantly interfere with us. It may sound selfish to you but that's life. Would you suggest some people have their towns destroyed to that we can give more space for the deer? umm.. sticks? The fact is, when hunting was outlawed in india there was actually a dramatic rise in the number of animals killed by people, and the lion/tiger/elephant populations plummeted. When you put something on the black market, whether it's drugs, sex, or animal parts/fur, you dramatically increase the price of those goods. These leads to all kinds of opportunistic poachers who are simply in it for the money.. they have no quotas for allowed kills because all their kills are illegal, but they do it anyway because the risk is worth the payoff. A regulated hunting industry is much more responsible and knowledgeable when hunting and they DO actually care about wildlife because it's one of their passions, unlike the poachers.

The other choice you have is to look for other things you know you will be able to catch, like plant bulbs or berries. Waiting for a trap to work is not worth the time in most cases, nor the effort, considering you could actually be guranteed at getting something to eat by going for berries or roots.

And so far, human hunting hasn't controlled the populations well, and like I said, since in all probability hunting will start dying off, it is not sustainable.

Actually, some of us are not that civilized. Lets look at the meaning of civilized from the dictionary:

1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

Well, first of all, 'humane culture'...I don't think humans are yet to be humane. We murder people we don't like, we kill animals that don't need to be killed, we skin animals alive, many wars happen....killing many innocent people.

Secondly, alot of us are not polite. Thirdly, we are not that organized, nor are alot of us easy to control, like your example of India people still hunting even though it is against the law.

I like the "the civilized must fight ignorance."

So who are we to say that we are civlized?

There should be an immediate ban on hunting wolves, aswell as bear and cougars. And if you do kill them, you get put in jail for 10 years. Anyhow, going back to my first post in this thread, some humans do not like to share and want to have the 'top pred' status. They will only be pillars for the great end of society, ruining and trampling on life and the ecosystem, thinking they can run it and control it. They can't...and it will be proven soon.

Because humans were not meant to control deer populations (since humans were not natural to North America), they weren't here for a while, and when they were here they shared a small portion with the natural predators, and things worked smoothly. With white man's arrival, and his greed, North America has been plundered, by, for example, killing natural predators, and now the deer populations are too high. And for some very strange ignorant reason, people keep hunting wolves and cougars, which isn't helping the situation.

No, I would suggest the land that has yet to be pummelled or 'humanized' by machinary and humans to be declared as protected zones, where no one can build houses on or anyhow ruin the enviroment. Though trail systems could be in place so people could enjoy nature.

Humans are selfish and greedy, some more then others. It will eventually lead to the demsie of the earth unless people start taking action now, which will hurt us too, not just the animals.

The Indian Gov. would have much more trouble controlling it since they are not as organized to do so, then Canada would be, for example.

Actually, alot of hunters I have heard don't care about the animals they kill at all, they view them as a commodity.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but very few people (here at least, I live in rightest country btw) ever carry knives with them, especially the people who tend to get lost. So say if you make a sharp stick with a knife you got lost with, how will that puncture an animals that falls into the trap? For smaller animals I don't think there is a good chance they would directly land on the stick, nor would the force of gravity actually be enough to puncture the animal since it doesn't have much mass. Secondly, if you are trying to trap a larger animal (eg. deer) how can you dig out such a big space with only your hands or sticks?

I'm not talking a walk to your local park, but I'm hoping you can find your way home in your own environment. I'm talking a situation in which you are likely to get lost, hiking/camping trip, etc. in a place you're likely to get lost, you should always have some basic tools for survival. I'm not aiming for squirrels with a burmese tiger pit, I'd probably use a different form of trap or an adapted one. Time, If I'm lost and have the resources to build traps in the first place, would usually give me the ability to dig a pretty deep pit. (this trap, by the way, was just an example of how simple one can be, It's not the best, for reasons you and Anmon have stated)