Hunting is bad

[Death Metal]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt, then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[Infinitus]

It is wrong, indeed. Yet, the intentions are also a large factor.

 

If they are hunting for food, then it really isn't bad, IMO.

 

If for fun, than that is just plain wrong. If you are going to kill an animal, at the very least you should do something with it that is usefull, such as eating it, using it's bones for tools, etc.

Of course, another thing that matters is the intentions of the things you gain from the animal killed. If you are making a fur coat because you are cold and can not afford a coat, than that is fine. If they make a fur coat for their own lust for money, than that is not.

 

Intentions are really what matters, as well as the cirumstances. Like say, a bull is charging at you, and you have no room to dodge, and you have just enough time to shoot the bull in the head with the pistol that is in your hand so it won't impale you with it's horns, then shoot it.

[Cyber Altair]

Again...

 

 

People seem to miss the fact they're posting in a troll thread.

[Infinitus]

Again...

 

 

People seem to miss the fact they're posting in a troll thread.

 

When the first post repeatedly said simple things like "Hunting is bad" like 3 times, but it began to seem a little more serious. I fell in the trap, I suppose. If it is true.

[Enrise]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

[Womi]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

[Enrise]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

[Womi]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

[Enrise]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

 

My pets are Satan's pets <_<

[Womi]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

 

My pets are Satan's pets <_<

 

So you're Satan? Does your mom love you?

[Enrise]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

 

My pets are Satan's pets <_<

 

So you're Satan? Does your mom love you?

 

I don't know. I know she doesn't hate me. That's it.

She might fear me, but....

[Womi]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

 

My pets are Satan's pets <_<

 

So you're Satan? Does your mom love you?

 

I don't know. I know she doesn't hate me. That's it.

She might fear me, but....

 

but she doesn't need to?

 

Okay, soooooo....what's your opinion of killing seals and whales illegally?

[Enrise]

I hope i'm not interupting the fun.

 

*looks up*

 

Oh well.

 

Grow some balls and learn to fire your gun at innocent animals. If you don't want to be a man and hunt' date=' then stay in the goddamn kitchen.

[/quote']

 

=o

Dude, I fuckin' love ya.

 

Lemme spread the fire.

 

Do you now say something with "Satan", "Necrophilist" or "Devil"?

 

Just give a "All hail Satan", cause it's short and to the point.

Unless you wanna give some kind of speech, glorifying Satan, then, yeah.

 

Would you hunt your pets if Satan told you to?

 

My pets are Satan's pets <_<

 

So you're Satan? Does your mom love you?

 

I don't know. I know she doesn't hate me. That's it.

She might fear me, but....

 

but she doesn't need to?

 

Okay, soooooo....what's your opinion of killing seals and whales illegally?

 

Illegal. That's it. Doing Illegal things is a crime. Commit a crime, you get punished. Simple.

[Womi]

Don't you feel sorry for the animals?

[Cyber Altair]

You guys have no idea how depressing it is for me to see this still open >.>

[Kitty]

Don't you feel sorry for the animals?

 

They have feeling so you know, How would you feel if the animals had guns and were hunting you?

Exactly you wouldn't liek it would you?

[Amethyst Phoenix]

It is wrong' date=' indeed. Yet, the intentions are also a large factor.

 

If they are hunting for food, then it really isn't bad, IMO.

 

If for fun, than that is just plain wrong. If you are going to kill an animal, at the very least you should do something with it that is usefull, such as eating it, using it's bones for tools, etc.

Of course, another thing that matters is the intentions of the things you gain from the animal killed. If you are making a fur coat because you are cold and can not afford a coat, than that is fine. If they make a fur coat for their own lust for money, than that is not.

 

Intentions are really what matters, as well as the cirumstances. Like say, a bull is charging at you, and you have no room to dodge, and you have just enough time to shoot the bull in the head with the pistol that is in your hand so it won't impale you with it's horns, then shoot it.

[/quote']

 

The entire system has good intentions. I believe I have stated numerous times that just killing them serves the wildlife management system. The entire system is based around keeping the deer population at a healthy quantity, while still leaving plenty of elbow room for predators and idiots, so that nobody that isn't out there with a hijacked military jet can do any real damage to the ecosystem.

 

The people that do it for good reasons, well there's a knight serving a noble cause.

 

The people doing it for immoral reasons, well there's a villain caught in a Xanatos Gambit. Either they don't kill them at all and the rest of the knights pick up the slack, or they get manipulated into furthering our cause.

 

 

 

Oh, and almost every instance of hunting someone gets the meat. Unless the deer falls off the cliffs of doom, into the river of despair, to be floated down to the ravine of oblivion, they're going to go get their kill.

 

If the person hunting wants to hunt for sport, donate the meat to charity or give it to their friends. The only real selfish use I can see is taxidermy, but that only really uses the bones and some of the fur (full body mounts are ridiculously expensive. Hardly anyone pays for those anymore that's not Cabelas). Plus, we've sort of graduated from bone tools with this really neat thing called metal.

 

 

Even safari hunting feeds someone. You know the trackers essentially rely on the hunters as their sole source of food, because their pay is rather low due to having free housing and food. And this is based around trophy hunting. I know I ate some of everything I shot as well.

 

 

You guys have no idea how depressing it is for me to see this still open >.>

 

You have no idea how hilarious it is to me that a troll thread got derailed into an actual topic.

[Womi]

You guys have no idea how depressing it is for me to see this still open >.>

You have no idea how hilarious it is to me that a troll thread got derailed into an actual topic.

That's the first time I don't see it happen the other way around.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Responses in bold.

 

sorry' date=' no font effects on my end, just more splicing

 

 

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.

[/quote']

Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.

Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

Oh god that's pathetic. My dear boy, have you ever heard of a creature of myth that does that exact job known as the "wolf"? No? Well, the fact that hunters are wiping them out too might be a reason why. >_>

 

Wolves are making a comeback, as stated before. If you'd like to make some snide remark about "So we brought them back to kill them again? That's a good idea...", the season will kill a maximum of around 7%, and it's projected we can kill 30% and make no real impact on them. These stats are for Montana, to clarify. I believe I've already stated that ecosystems are set up for and/or adapt to how many predators there are. Wolves alone don't properly regulate every single environment they happen to waltz into. Also there's the fact the population was low until recently...

I'm saying wolf as a general term for Apex Predators, and of course wolves don't instantly heal the environment they're placed in. I'm saying that said environments have been doing fine. The problem was in itself in relation to hunters killing off wolves in the first place. Also, nature fixes itself out in the way that more prey = more chances for wolves to feed.

 

Oh, and the fact that we had the wisdom to let wolves re-surge (as we have done for many species with low populations) shatters your "mindless killing, killing, and more killing" false stereotype you seem to base your argument around.

Killing something for the sheer sport of it is mindless killing. You're trying to label the entirety of hunting as a clever means of population control when events nowadays and the extinction of countless animals on account of humans proves otherwise.

 

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

Which is why the increase in human life can correspond with dozens of species going extinct, amirite? Whether we try to conserve or not, we're scraping Earth's resources dry at out current population. Hunting is an unneeded factor that animals in nature fill.

 

rite? = no. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying the increase in human life will equal more killing via hunting? False: Hunting is not based on human population, rather on animal population. Food and sport are secondary and tertiary functions of a system which is primarily designed to keep the deer population at a healthy medium. It is adjusted as needed based solely on the deer.

Once again you're labeling the only purpose of hunting as population control. Hunting for the most part works in ratios, and our population has grown to a point that the ratio has been terribly offset.

 

Animals in nature don't fill it completely all of the time. Humans are the best option, because we can make rational decisions and adjust our killing rate etc to fit the situation. Thus, we are the only species that can effectively co-exist prey-wise with any predator, because we can adjust our hunting quotas to nicely complement theirs, or pick up any slack. Furthermore, out of all the ways man impacts the environment in a resource taking way, hunting is of the least effect.

If nature wouldn't be able to "fill the quota" by itself than the said ecosystem wouldn't exist. How do you think they got by in times before humans were so technologically advanced and overpopulated?

 

I don't think you grasp that we're killing the amount that needs to be killed, not killing more after nature has run it's course. Humans are a part of nature.

If that were the case animals wouldn't be endangered on account of hunting. Once more, hunting isn't simply because people are trying to maintain populations, it originated out of fear, the need for food and the thrill of killing. And the fact that humans are a part of nature doesn't mean they should go into every single ecosystem there is.

 

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

I'm sure most hunters are unaware of that, they're killing just kill. Let's ignore the psychological issues people like that have and focus on the fact that if that were so it would explain why so many of them pick off a few extra deers or so when no one can regulate them. And Fun Fact: Humans have caused the most devastation towards the Earth than any other creature! Your ability to change the environment doesn't mean it's always in a good way.

 

They're killing for sport and to feed their families. Many of those with lower incomes can supplement their food stores. Killing for sport has always been a healthy activity, beneficial for humans and game animals, as well as being a wholesome past-time. Anyone who hunts does not have some mental problem.

Of course hunters who kill for food supply and substance aren't at fault. However, it isn't exactly a healthy sport for "game" animals when they end up dead. Hunting for those kind of people who enjoy the achievement of killing animals doesn't seem right to me, no matter how accepted it has become in society.

 

If they do pick off a few extra, it doesn't matter. I believe I explained the "buffer" in one of my responses to Polaris, in which the limit is actually very far from the acutally maximum limit we can safely kill. Any extra deaths fail to impact them in a significant way.

This implies that there is always a slightly extra amount of animals in an area. That would mean that the area would've died off long ago due to overpopulation, or that the main predators were hunted off. It seems to me that hunting is the solution to hunting here…

 

Also, your fun fact is an inconsequential argument. Humans are the only animal that can cause damage to the environment. I was thinking of suggesting animals that are introduced to foreign environments, but then I realized you would completely ignore that and say humans are responsible for introducing them. It's akin to saying bats fly more than any other mammal: they're the only ones that can, so a distinction such as "most" is meaningless.

You were operating under the impression that the ability to alter the world means you should. In many cases it is unneeded.

 

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

I never denied that, you seem to be missing my entire point here. You know how you said deer would grow too large and eat all of the grass if humans weren't there to put a stop to it? Apply that to humans growing to large and taking out deer. Because that's what has happened to various creatures already.

 

Last creature to be killed off by humans was the messenger pigeon. We've certainly refined our methods since then. We don't solely target deer. We kill exponentially more cows chickens, fish.....screw it, you can go actually read my debate with Polaris and consider my arguments there instead of wasting time with points I've already countered causing me to regurgitate every argument I made in response to him.

 

Also, we don't increase how many deer killed as our population increases.

But cows and chickens are actually being killed for purposes. And no, I don't feel like it. >_>

 

And once more, ratios.

 

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

 

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

I was kind of expanding out to other deer-like creatures being hunted into low numbers there that do depend on pack leaders. This may be true for deers too and your ignorance on the subject may only prove how much of an impact one deer's death can have, but I'll take your word for it. And talking about a hunter tactic that involves killing off the next generation of deer doesn't exactly help your argument.

 

It was a valid example to further my point. Very few hunters are going for veal, considering they'd rather have more meat from a full grown deer anyway. Also, the "buffer" in place once again saves the day from any larger impact killing of fawns might cause.

This is starting to be a lot of repeating of points since our various arguments start coming around towards the same issue. Yes, adjusting this buffer seems like it would work. But principles at question here are hunters that work against the system and the fact that this is a needless activity. If there is a mass fluctuation of a creature humans should attempt to stop it. If they're fine as is they shouldn't hunt them unless it's for a good purpose.

 

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

I thought we weren't using Bambi as part of our arguments.

 

What does bambi have to do with wolves and pack mentality again?

Baby deers dying on account of their parents getting killed off.

 

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

If you truly think wildlife randomly has a deer population sky rocket so much, how is it that the forest ecosystem has been surviving for so long in areas that completely lacked human?

 

The predators most likely adapted to the situation to make room for humans when humans arrived, thus re-balancing the ecosystem. Also, due to lack of human presence, how can you prove it wasn't in the process of sky-rocketing and we showed up in time to save it?

Predators don't adapt like you're saying hunters do. They simply try and kill as much as they can and it all works out. And the fact that humans haven't been in areas for thousands of years without them getting effed over is proof enough.

 

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

 

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

I might have misread you there so I'll check before countering? Did you just say using the dead animal as a food source rather than simply killing it is less humane?

 

No, I was referring to method of death. Both farm raised and game animals are both used as food. The only animal I really referred to is pigs, which usually have their throats cut, which is a much more painful way to die than a bullet. I suppose any sort of poultry (such as chickens) that killed via decapitation would also qualify, considering the possibility of that whole "vital functions part of brain stem surviving and chicken living headless for a little bit" thing happening. That has got to be utter hell to endure.

I don't exactly agree with some farm methods either. I've removed some moot points in this argument (Bambi, Bloodrun, I mentioned this in another topic, etc.) for the sake of space, you okay with me removing this one since there isn't really and argument here?

 

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

 

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

 

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

You could have asked for clarification before trying to relate every single thing somebody said in direct relation to deer. I didn't actually expect someone to try making an argument about anything in this thread.

 

And Brushfire said I was the one who was supposedly surprised......

Read the last topic here.

 

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Sounds like the only problems being cause here are from hunting in the first place.

 

We made mistakes, learned from them, and fixed them. That's how we learn: trial and error.

Another repeat here that if hunting is only useful out of livestock in trying to negate the effects of hunting, we should simply rebalance the ecosystem by introducing predators into them and leaving it at that. This has been done at a National Park on the brink of destruction due to hunting and it has been fine since.

 

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

 

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

But the deeper meaning is oftentimes the only thing that's supposed to matter when there is one. The plain to see one is there for no means other than to serve as a mask of sorts.

 

I know that >_>

 

To be honest I didn't catch it as a joke the first time though, assuming you were one of the people that write horribly on the internet.

 

Once again, point has been resolved in my debate with Polaris.

 

Moot point again?

 

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

 

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

Wildlife management is a cute little title to give to destroying ecosystems. Stop saying I'm the ignorant one when the time before humans and before humans were everywhere is proof enough that the only thing screwing over nature is us.

 

Wildlife management preserves ecosystems. You seem to have some odd hatred for humans and want to blame them for anything bad in the world. You may as well have saved some time and written "NO U" instead of the statement above. Also, I'd love to see the magical scrying orb you used to see how things were before the dawn of humanity.

If nature was inherently flawed to over populate it wouldn't exist. >_>

 

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey.

You act like this is ridiculous when hunting is an advocate of this very theory. Many fish have died off on account of fishing in places with very predominant predators.

 

We're not arguing fishing. Since I don't have as much knowledge of fish, I'd prefer not to get into it and make an ignorant fool out of myself like you're doing now.

Fishing issues can be applied the same way they are to these ones. Humans goign into places they shouldn't be and messing things up. And don't rewrite the definition of hunting and call people fools and idiots for having differing opinions. If you really want to discuss this as a serious topic, let's stray from insulting people during it. I know I'm guilty of this too(though in response), I just think it should end here.

We don't advocate humans being the only regulators. We work alongside other predators, and adjust our methods to work in tandem with them.

Again it is us solving the problems we made in the first place.

 

Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

I'll have you know that I agree to diminishing species that grow too large, but hunters merely spring at the chance to kill whatever is in abundance and can still get off with killing far less abundant creatures. And humans should look at themselves and realize that we've grown far too large.

 

HUNTING IS NOT BASED ON HUMAN POPULATION IT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONSERVATION. Got it memorized?

Everything is planned out in advance, we have a buffer in place, and the idea is if every single tag is filled the population will be fine.

Stop referring to it as it's random devastation being unleashed in extreme amounts. You know little to nothing of how it truly works and have proved numerous times that your mind is saturated with fallacies and misconceptions.

This has occurred so many times over the debate that I'm sick of repeating myself and am just gonna ask. What definition of "hunting" and "hunters" are we talking about here?

 

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

 

 

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He seemed to be doing it for fun, and he had fun doing so. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when Hunter probably won't respond with anything too harsh.

 

Trolling = violation of the rules. If Hunter felt like it he could easily hit him with a warning, which is generally something to avoid.

OMG is a rebel of sorts. Or something.

long post #1

long post #2

 

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.

[/quote']

 

You're looking at the principle of the matter rather than the actual points presented to determine who "Won", as well as assuming I'm caught offguard in the least.

 

I don't think no one will respond, in fact I've had counterarguments presented several times and responded them, here on YCM.

 

If you have some personal vendetta against me for my long posts when I argue, I suggest you leave that at home before you cast judgment.

 

If not, and you were merely pointing out "If Amethyst has no response, Atlas wins." then allow me to be the first to say "No s***, Sherlock". However, that is clearly not the case, which should be painfully obvious by now, due to the presence of the very post you're currently reading.

Honestly. People just noticing large posts and assuming victory on account of that are annoying.

 

This comment is directed at me, correct?

 

Where the hell is this idea that I think I auto win by making a large post coming from?

 

My policy is quantity < quality, and if you can produce a large quantity of quality all the better.

 

No silly I was agreeing with you. ^_^

[Amethyst Phoenix]

[spoiler=Old arguments condensed into a spoiler]

Responses in bold.

 

sorry' date=' no font effects on my end, just more splicing

 

 

Hunting provides food for people' date=' and regulates the population. For example, if deer were not hunted their population would explode. With the large amounts of deer, all the grass etc that deer eat would quickly be eaten up, due to the fierce competition over a suddenly strained food supply. Now the deer get to die a slow painful death from starvation, and more will perish than if we had simply gone out and killed some.

[/quote']

Wrong, without hunting the population of deer would stay where it was.

Congratulations, you failed basic math! If deer are breeding, then that = more deer. If hunters are killing that equals less deer. With me so far? So, and this is where things get really god damn complex, if you subtract deer in response to the addition of deer, it equalizes out. Thus, your statement couldn't be more wrong: the deer population would change if we didn't hunt them.

Oh god that's pathetic. My dear boy, have you ever heard of a creature of myth that does that exact job known as the "wolf"? No? Well, the fact that hunters are wiping them out too might be a reason why. >_>

 

Wolves are making a comeback, as stated before. If you'd like to make some snide remark about "So we brought them back to kill them again? That's a good idea...", the season will kill a maximum of around 7%, and it's projected we can kill 30% and make no real impact on them. These stats are for Montana, to clarify. I believe I've already stated that ecosystems are set up for and/or adapt to how many predators there are. Wolves alone don't properly regulate every single environment they happen to waltz into. Also there's the fact the population was low until recently...

I'm saying wolf as a general term for Apex Predators, and of course wolves don't instantly heal the environment they're placed in. I'm saying that said environments have been doing fine. The problem was in itself in relation to hunters killing off wolves in the first place. Also, nature fixes itself out in the way that more prey = more chances for wolves to feed.

 

Oh, and the fact that we had the wisdom to let wolves re-surge (as we have done for many species with low populations) shatters your "mindless killing, killing, and more killing" false stereotype you seem to base your argument around.

Killing something for the sheer sport of it is mindless killing. You're trying to label the entirety of hunting as a clever means of population control when events nowadays and the extinction of countless animals on account of humans proves otherwise.

 

Humans are the ones that overpopulated, and we're wiping out all the other species because there's way too much of us to feed.

We're not wiping them out. There's an entire system of how many of each species we can kill, and even then we don't completely meet that, because not everyone that buys tags fills them all. There's also the fact that the harvesting of animals is spread out over a vast variety of different species. Hence, we regulate all of them instead of annihilating a few.

Which is why the increase in human life can correspond with dozens of species going extinct, amirite? Whether we try to conserve or not, we're scraping Earth's resources dry at out current population. Hunting is an unneeded factor that animals in nature fill.

 

rite? = no. If I'm understanding you right, you're saying the increase in human life will equal more killing via hunting? False: Hunting is not based on human population, rather on animal population. Food and sport are secondary and tertiary functions of a system which is primarily designed to keep the deer population at a healthy medium. It is adjusted as needed based solely on the deer.

Once again you're labeling the only purpose of hunting as population control. Hunting for the most part works in ratios, and our population has grown to a point that the ratio has been terribly offset.

 

Animals in nature don't fill it completely all of the time. Humans are the best option, because we can make rational decisions and adjust our killing rate etc to fit the situation. Thus, we are the only species that can effectively co-exist prey-wise with any predator, because we can adjust our hunting quotas to nicely complement theirs, or pick up any slack. Furthermore, out of all the ways man impacts the environment in a resource taking way, hunting is of the least effect.

If nature wouldn't be able to "fill the quota" by itself than the said ecosystem wouldn't exist. How do you think they got by in times before humans were so technologically advanced and overpopulated?

 

I don't think you grasp that we're killing the amount that needs to be killed, not killing more after nature has run it's course. Humans are a part of nature.

If that were the case animals wouldn't be endangered on account of hunting. Once more, hunting isn't simply because people are trying to maintain populations, it originated out of fear, the need for food and the thrill of killing. And the fact that humans are a part of nature doesn't mean they should go into every single ecosystem there is.

 

The deer hunters kill 90% of the time for game, not to play God with population control.

Their intent doesn't matter, it's the same effect. I highly doubt the majority of hunters are aware of the system. And we're playing God about as much as wolves and other predators are, they serve the same purpose. Also, fun fact: the 2 species most likely to survive a nuclear holocaust are cockroaches and humans. Why? Cockroaches can adapt to any environment and humans can adapt any environment to their needs. By design of nature, that is our method for living. Those that demonize us for this are going against the very nature they seek to uphold.

I'm sure most hunters are unaware of that, they're killing just kill. Let's ignore the psychological issues people like that have and focus on the fact that if that were so it would explain why so many of them pick off a few extra deers or so when no one can regulate them. And Fun Fact: Humans have caused the most devastation towards the Earth than any other creature! Your ability to change the environment doesn't mean it's always in a good way.

 

They're killing for sport and to feed their families. Many of those with lower incomes can supplement their food stores. Killing for sport has always been a healthy activity, beneficial for humans and game animals, as well as being a wholesome past-time. Anyone who hunts does not have some mental problem.

Of course hunters who kill for food supply and substance aren't at fault. However, it isn't exactly a healthy sport for "game" animals when they end up dead. Hunting for those kind of people who enjoy the achievement of killing animals doesn't seem right to me, no matter how accepted it has become in society.

 

If they do pick off a few extra, it doesn't matter. I believe I explained the "buffer" in one of my responses to Polaris, in which the limit is actually very far from the acutally maximum limit we can safely kill. Any extra deaths fail to impact them in a significant way.

This implies that there is always a slightly extra amount of animals in an area. That would mean that the area would've died off long ago due to overpopulation, or that the main predators were hunted off. It seems to me that hunting is the solution to hunting here…

 

Also, your fun fact is an inconsequential argument. Humans are the only animal that can cause damage to the environment. I was thinking of suggesting animals that are introduced to foreign environments, but then I realized you would completely ignore that and say humans are responsible for introducing them. It's akin to saying bats fly more than any other mammal: they're the only ones that can, so a distinction such as "most" is meaningless.

You were operating under the impression that the ability to alter the world means you should. In many cases it is unneeded.

 

People talking about that crap should realize that we ourselves should be limiting ourselves to 2 children per couple so that we can slowly decrease population wise. Otherwise we'll be the ones you talked about going through a slow death via starvation.

No real response to this contention. You actually conceded here that a large boom in population causes more death than regulation, bolstering my point that it can happen to animals as well.

I never denied that, you seem to be missing my entire point here. You know how you said deer would grow too large and eat all of the grass if humans weren't there to put a stop to it? Apply that to humans growing to large and taking out deer. Because that's what has happened to various creatures already.

 

Last creature to be killed off by humans was the messenger pigeon. We've certainly refined our methods since then. We don't solely target deer. We kill exponentially more cows chickens, fish.....screw it, you can go actually read my debate with Polaris and consider my arguments there instead of wasting time with points I've already countered causing me to regurgitate every argument I made in response to him.

 

Also, we don't increase how many deer killed as our population increases.

But cows and chickens are actually being killed for purposes. And no, I don't feel like it. >_>

 

And once more, ratios.

 

In addition, hunting is not mindless killing: everything is perfectly planned out by the fish and wildlife services so that we only kill enough deer to keep them under control. You know there's this fancy thing called a limit? You should learn what it means, it's a blasty blast.

It shouldn't be done in the first place, and as I said it isn't needed. National Parks do just fine without hunters. And when a hunter kills the head of a pack, all of the deer will die. Go figure.

 

Deer are not rendered useless when a "leader" of their group is killed. The only thing close the effect you proposed is killing a mother deer renders a fawn with her completely stunned and an easy target for all predators. This is why (if you're trying to harvest veal) you shoot the mother first: the fawn will just sit there confused. If you were to shoot the fawn first, the mother abandons it because it knows it will only endanger itself by attempting to help.

I was kind of expanding out to other deer-like creatures being hunted into low numbers there that do depend on pack leaders. This may be true for deers too and your ignorance on the subject may only prove how much of an impact one deer's death can have, but I'll take your word for it. And talking about a hunter tactic that involves killing off the next generation of deer doesn't exactly help your argument.

 

It was a valid example to further my point. Very few hunters are going for veal, considering they'd rather have more meat from a full grown deer anyway. Also, the "buffer" in place once again saves the day from any larger impact killing of fawns might cause.

This is starting to be a lot of repeating of points since our various arguments start coming around towards the same issue. Yes, adjusting this buffer seems like it would work. But principles at question here are hunters that work against the system and the fact that this is a needless activity. If there is a mass fluctuation of a creature humans should attempt to stop it. If they're fine as is they shouldn't hunt them unless it's for a good purpose.

 

Wolves have strong pack mentalities, deer do not. They are perfectly capable of operating by themselves, as well as in a group of other deer.

I thought we weren't using Bambi as part of our arguments.

 

What does bambi have to do with wolves and pack mentality again?

Baby deers dying on account of their parents getting killed off.

 

As for the topic of national parks, those are the exception. They are carefully managed, and the populations manipulated so that everything is balanced without hunters. Instead of killing the deer for example, they merely transport them to another park if the population grows to high. National Parks do not prove your argument whatsoever, as they are not unmanaged wilderness. They are managed to have the same base effect as hunting. However, do to meticulous micro management, population control is necessary much less frequently. Thus it is an affordable venture to relocate deer to other national parks, or (if there is no room in another) release them into the wild (huntable lands).

If you truly think wildlife randomly has a deer population sky rocket so much, how is it that the forest ecosystem has been surviving for so long in areas that completely lacked human?

 

The predators most likely adapted to the situation to make room for humans when humans arrived, thus re-balancing the ecosystem. Also, due to lack of human presence, how can you prove it wasn't in the process of sky-rocketing and we showed up in time to save it?

Predators don't adapt like you're saying hunters do. They simply try and kill as much as they can and it all works out. And the fact that humans haven't been in areas for thousands of years without them getting effed over is proof enough.

 

There's also the fact that a bullet is relatively painless to them. It's not like we're clubbing them to death or slitting their throats like the pigs you buy from the grocery store.

I went out and shot some people today. I didn't stab them though so it's all good.

 

Taking my point out of perspective. One of the main arguments against hunting is that it's inhumane and a painful death for the hunted. This point is meant to illustrate that it is quite the opposite, and to point out that the grocery store meat always thrown as an alternative to hunting comes from much less humane sources.

I might have misread you there so I'll check before countering? Did you just say using the dead animal as a food source rather than simply killing it is less humane?

 

No, I was referring to method of death. Both farm raised and game animals are both used as food. The only animal I really referred to is pigs, which usually have their throats cut, which is a much more painful way to die than a bullet. I suppose any sort of poultry (such as chickens) that killed via decapitation would also qualify, considering the possibility of that whole "vital functions part of brain stem surviving and chicken living headless for a little bit" thing happening. That has got to be utter hell to endure.

I don't exactly agree with some farm methods either. I've removed some moot points in this argument (Bambi, Bloodrun, I mentioned this in another topic, etc.) for the sake of space, you okay with me removing this one since there isn't really and argument here?

 

Also, about those rangers. It's illegal to interfere with hunters hunting, so technically they were stupidly breaking the law they're supposed to be upholding, and died to a stupid mistake resulting in an accident. How the hell they became rangers when they're idiotic enough to run in front a gun aimed at a creature it's perfectly legal to kill is beyond me.

LOL

 

They were telling hunters to stop killing off endangered species(or population control, as you wish to call it). And the hunters going to their houses and shooting them isn't exactly them jumping in front of a bullet. Shut up.

 

I in no way advocate the killing of endangered species. I suggest you word your posts better. Here's yours: "kitty blindly supports hunting out of fear for the hunters and their guns they are not afraid to use when necessary. ignorant hunters have even killed some rangers trying to get them to stop killing innocent animals at times." This is vague as f***, and no where does it mention endangered, nor does it specify the circumstances. The most common scenario I could think of, would be rangers trying to stand between them and the deer they were hunting as some form of protest. Any misunderstandings are the direct result of your poorly written post.

You could have asked for clarification before trying to relate every single thing somebody said in direct relation to deer. I didn't actually expect someone to try making an argument about anything in this thread.

 

And Brushfire said I was the one who was supposedly surprised......

Read the last topic here.

 

Endangered Species are the result of over-hunting in areas where it is not properly managed. I do not claim our system is flawless, as it is obviously not do to these oversights. However, we quickly catch these before they have gone extinct (last species this happened to was the messenger pigeon) and work to revitalize them. For example, the wolves in Montana were endangered, and we were not allowed to hunt them for years. Now, they've made a huge come back, and we will soon be allowed to hunt them again. I believe the percentage of the population we are allowed to kill is around 7%. Studies show that we could kill up to 30% of the wolf population and not cause any significant impact on them.

Sounds like the only problems being cause here are from hunting in the first place.

 

We made mistakes, learned from them, and fixed them. That's how we learn: trial and error.

Another repeat here that if hunting is only useful out of livestock in trying to negate the effects of hunting, we should simply rebalance the ecosystem by introducing predators into them and leaving it at that. This has been done at a National Park on the brink of destruction due to hunting and it has been fine since.

 

Also, Kitty said she doesn't hunt because she's afraid of guns, not because hunters are using scare tactics or winning her support via fear. Don't twist her words around like some idiotic reporter.

You obviously missed what that part of my sentence really meant. Responding is pointless.

 

No matter the deeper meaning, you did take her statements entirely out of context. TO continue to deny this is pointless.

But the deeper meaning is oftentimes the only thing that's supposed to matter when there is one. The plain to see one is there for no means other than to serve as a mask of sorts.

 

I know that >_>

 

To be honest I didn't catch it as a joke the first time though, assuming you were one of the people that write horribly on the internet.

 

Once again, point has been resolved in my debate with Polaris.

 

Moot point again?

 

tl;dr version: You're all uninformed idiots who are whining about things you don't understand in the least, under the banner of morals you're not even upholding via said whining.

tl;dr version: You're an elitist idiot who thinks hunters are some sort of Keystone predator in environments that did just fine without them and should consider learning about topics before making a giant rant of stupidity about it.

 

You have consistently demonstrated your lack of knowledge in multiple fields. You have no grounds or right to suggest I need to learn more when you fail to grasp the basest of concepts regarding wildlife management. I never suggested they were better than other people.

Wildlife management is a cute little title to give to destroying ecosystems. Stop saying I'm the ignorant one when the time before humans and before humans were everywhere is proof enough that the only thing screwing over nature is us.

 

Wildlife management preserves ecosystems. You seem to have some odd hatred for humans and want to blame them for anything bad in the world. You may as well have saved some time and written "NO U" instead of the statement above. Also, I'd love to see the magical scrying orb you used to see how things were before the dawn of humanity.

If nature was inherently flawed to over populate it wouldn't exist. >_>

 

If you'd like to bring up the fact that I suggested wolves alone could not regulate deer effectively on their own, you would once again showcase your ignorance. One predator can't effectively control it by themselves, because if they could then the presence of any other predators would cause the eventual extinction of the prey.

You act like this is ridiculous when hunting is an advocate of this very theory. Many fish have died off on account of fishing in places with very predominant predators.

 

We're not arguing fishing. Since I don't have as much knowledge of fish, I'd prefer not to get into it and make an ignorant fool out of myself like you're doing now.

Fishing issues can be applied the same way they are to these ones. Humans goign into places they shouldn't be and messing things up. And don't rewrite the definition of hunting and call people fools and idiots for having differing opinions. If you really want to discuss this as a serious topic, let's stray from insulting people during it. I know I'm guilty of this too(though in response), I just think it should end here.

We don't advocate humans being the only regulators. We work alongside other predators, and adjust our methods to work in tandem with them.

Again it is us solving the problems we made in the first place.

 

Thus, humans, wolves, and hawks are but a few pieces of the puzzle of predators that work together to regulate the lower rungs of the food chain. Humans are unique in that we can adjust how many we kill, and thus compensate for other predators by increasing or decreasing our efforts as the situation calls for it. So in way, humans are definitely a superior regulating force. Not an exceedingly more important and absolutely necessary one, but superb regardless.

I'll have you know that I agree to diminishing species that grow too large, but hunters merely spring at the chance to kill whatever is in abundance and can still get off with killing far less abundant creatures. And humans should look at themselves and realize that we've grown far too large.

 

HUNTING IS NOT BASED ON HUMAN POPULATION IT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONSERVATION. Got it memorized?

Everything is planned out in advance, we have a buffer in place, and the idea is if every single tag is filled the population will be fine.

Stop referring to it as it's random devastation being unleashed in extreme amounts. You know little to nothing of how it truly works and have proved numerous times that your mind is saturated with fallacies and misconceptions.

This has occurred so many times over the debate that I'm sick of repeating myself and am just gonna ask. What definition of "hunting" and "hunters" are we talking about here?

 

On the somewhat likely chance this really is some fail attempt at subtly insulting Prince Hunter, I advise you to get a life and stop poking the metaphorical bear >_>

This jab at Hunter wasn't exactly fail and one could easily assume OMG is far better off socially than Hunter. Just super saiyan.

 

 

Fail was in regards to the attempt to be subtle. I stated no opinion, nor do I have one, on which of the two is a better person in any aspect. I merely stated that it's not wise to fruitlessly piss off someone in power, because the only thing he'd gain from it is a negative repercussion. When I stated to "Get a life" I was implying there are numerous better things he could be doing with his time than engage in futile and pointless attempts

He seemed to be doing it for fun, and he had fun doing so. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when Hunter probably won't respond with anything too harsh.

 

Trolling = violation of the rules. If Hunter felt like it he could easily hit him with a warning, which is generally something to avoid.

OMG is a rebel of sorts. Or something.

long post #1

long post #2

 

Atlas won. Know why? Well' date=' it's mainly because you seem to think that if you make a long debate-able post that contains many arguments, because this is YCM no-one will try and debate against you. Surprised? You shouldn't be, and you better have a successful counter-argument or I'll be left to leave that you fail at debate.

[/quote']

 

You're looking at the principle of the matter rather than the actual points presented to determine who "Won", as well as assuming I'm caught offguard in the least.

 

I don't think no one will respond, in fact I've had counterarguments presented several times and responded them, here on YCM.

 

If you have some personal vendetta against me for my long posts when I argue, I suggest you leave that at home before you cast judgment.

 

If not, and you were merely pointing out "If Amethyst has no response, Atlas wins." then allow me to be the first to say "No s***, Sherlock". However, that is clearly not the case, which should be painfully obvious by now, due to the presence of the very post you're currently reading.

Honestly. People just noticing large posts and assuming victory on account of that are annoying.

 

This comment is directed at me, correct?

 

Where the hell is this idea that I think I auto win by making a large post coming from?

 

My policy is quantity < quality, and if you can produce a large quantity of quality all the better.

 

No silly I was agreeing with you. ^_^

 

 

 

Killing something for the sheer sport of it is mindless killing. You're trying to label the entirety of hunting as a clever means of population control when events nowadays and the extinction of countless animals on account of humans proves otherwise.

 

It is just that: a clever and efficient system for the betterment of nature, beneficial to both parties. Humans are wardens of the earth. It is our duty to keep the balance. Extinction point is moot due to improvements to our conservation methods. It's not for the sheer sport. There's meat etc, and the fact that if anyone is doing it out of sheer sport, they contribute to a good cause, albeit unknowingly. You're not entirely wrong about humans screwing nature up: people like you who try to interfere and tear down a well thought out system, throwing nature into a state of entropy. Having the gall to call yourselves environmentalists is a sick joke.

 

Again it is us solving the problems we made in the first place.

 

Ah, so if we fix the problems we cause we're still bad? Would you prefer we just stop caring and let you proceed to destroy our world? Protecting nature is truly becoming a thankless job. We learn through trial and error, and fix any wrongs we might unintentionally cause.

 

Once again you're labeling the only purpose of hunting as population control. Hunting for the most part works in ratios, and our population has grown to a point that the ratio has been terribly offset.

 

This is just a flat out fallacy.

 

And don't rewrite the definition of hunting and call people fools and idiots for having differing opinions. If you really want to discuss this as a serious topic, let's stray from insulting people during it. I know I'm guilty of this too(though in response), I just think it should end here.

 

I'm not rewriting the definition. Hunting has been this way for a long time. You're the ones twisting it. That or you're too blind to see it.

 

If nature was inherently flawed to over populate it wouldn't exist. >_>

 

Once again, you disregard that humans are a part of nature. We've part of nature. It isn't flawed to overpopulate, unless you take us out of the equation. As for before humans, you cannot provide accurate reports on the ecology and food chain to back up your claims, not to mention nature adapted to humans, just like it adapted to amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other mammals before us.

 

Another repeat here that if hunting is only useful out of livestock in trying to negate the effects of hunting, we should simply rebalance the ecosystem by introducing predators into them and leaving it at that. This has been done at a National Park on the brink of destruction due to hunting and it has been fine since.

 

And which national park was this? Also, we can't just juggle predators back and forth globally.

 

I don't exactly agree with some farm methods either. I've removed some moot points in this argument (Bambi, Bloodrun, I mentioned this in another topic, etc.) for the sake of space, you okay with me removing this one since there isn't really and argument here?

 

If farms are less humane, why do you support them over hunting? As I read your arguments, I'm coming to the conclusion that you would agree with hunting, but you refuse to because you hate the fact that it serves the purpose of being a sport in addition to its other more important purposes, most likely due to what you perceive as human arrogance or some such. Essentially, you hate a perfectly good system because of the fact that people can kill for sport and benefit nature at the same time. The fact that you'd have this done away with simply because you don't find it pretty and refined showcases your own arrogance, in that you can't have anything conflict with your little perfect happy fantasy land.

 

Also, I refuse to cut this entire section from my argument. While we're apparently in agreement on the farms/grocery store points, it would also take out one of the arguments for hunting: that is a humane death. I refuse to concede a point because I failed to closely read what you wished to eliminate.

 

Predators don't adapt like you're saying hunters do. They simply try and kill as much as they can and it all works out. And the fact that humans haven't been in areas for thousands of years without them getting effed over is proof enough.

 

You cannot prove that those areas were not "effed over" several times before, or on the brink of being effed over before humans arrived.

 

And let's assume they were fine. In that case, it's entirely plausible that humans adapted the ecosystem (or it adapted to them) so that it could continue on a healthy course with the addition of humans. You appear to be somewhat xenophobic.

 

Based on all the points you've presented before this, by your logic, we should eliminate wolves and other similar predators in favor of humans, because we can kill the right amount and they kill as many as they possibly can. To put it quite simply, your logic fails.

 

This is starting to be a lot of repeating of points since our various arguments start coming around towards the same issue. Yes, adjusting this buffer seems like it would work. But principles at question here are hunters that work against the system and the fact that this is a needless activity. If there is a mass fluctuation of a creature humans should attempt to stop it. If they're fine as is they shouldn't hunt them unless it's for a good purpose.

 

They are fine as is: with us hunting them. Also, I highly doubt you understand the buffer argument, because you refuse to read my conversations with Polaris.

 

This implies that there is always a slightly extra amount of animals in an area. That would mean that the area would've died off long ago due to overpopulation, or that the main predators were hunted off. It seems to me that hunting is the solution to hunting here…

 

There is not an extra. There aren't exact numbers for fine, too many, and too few. We kill enough to stay below the too many zone, while still remaining a healthy distance from the too few spectrum.

 

Of course hunters who kill for food supply and substance aren't at fault. However, it isn't exactly a healthy sport for "game" animals when they end up dead. Hunting for those kind of people who enjoy the achievement of killing animals doesn't seem right to me, no matter how accepted it has become in society.

 

You're looking at the small picture. We can either kill some game animals (that is the official term for animals harvested exclusively via hunting), or we can not do anything and let them all die out. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of deer, and people too.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

 

 

 

In conclusion, your argument is flawed in several ways:

 

A) Your ignorance of the facts is too great. You have demonstrated you don't know the topic, and are plagued by common misconceptions.

 

B) You refuse to read my arguments with Polaris (out of sheer laziness) and thus you bring up points already disproved, and don't understand my arguments, causing you to guess what I mean. In other words, insufficient knowledge of the debate. Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to read the entire discussion and childishly whine that you don't feel like it when this is brought up.

 

C) You're blinded by hatred for hunting, simply because it has sport components that involve death. The best and healthiest solution isn't always the lollipops and rainbows one.

 

D) All of your ideas would cause the environment to grow unstable and collapse. If there's any threat to nature, it's people that think like you do. You tread a path that leads to downfall of nature under the banner of "helping" it.

 

 

 

I have adequately disproved your arguments several times over. If you wish to engage in the monotony of arguing the same points over and over, I really wish you would find someone else to disprove your flawed logic ad infinitum. It's starting to get boring.

 

If you'd like to throw the same argument out again and be promptly disproven once more, be my guest.

[Huntar!]

Hunters are awesome. The slaughter of animals for your own entertainment is great. Especially whilst hunting cats.

[Cyber Altair]

I swear on the grave of Frunk that anyone that continues this argument will regret it. If tis' not a troll post don't post it.

 

Don't you feel sorry for the animals?

 

They have feeling so you know' date=' How would you feel if the animals had guns and were hunting you?

Exactly you wouldn't liek it would you?

[/quote']

 

Didn't you leave ffs?

[Womi]

Hey, CAlt. Aren't you happy we actually gave this troll thread a topic? .o.

[OMGAKITTY]

 

Trolling = violation of the rules. If Hunter felt like it he could easily hit him with a warning' date=' which is generally something to avoid. [/b']

 

I am well within the rules with this thread. Who said I was trolling? Perhaps I truly feel hunters are bad people. And mods hardly need a valid reason to slap someone with a warn or a ban. After all, "Dark is Dark. Too much Dark = ban, amirite?"

 

 

Don't you feel sorry for the animals?

 

They have feeling so you know' date=' How would you feel if the animals had guns and were hunting you?

Exactly you wouldn't liek it would you?

[/quote']

 

I thought everyone agreed not to use Disney as a valid argument.

[Amaterasu]

Hunters are awesome. The slaughter of animals for your own entertainment is great. Especially whilst hunting cats.

 

That and the fact that I get to put some new decorations on my wall. I always need animal heads to keep me company. Besides how else am I to use my gun? Self protection or something stupid like that?