question for anti-hunters

My question is simple. How do you think your position is logical? Now before you get all huffy and puffy let me explain my argument.

Lets say for a minute that you stop all hunting, what is going to happen? Several types of animals, including deer, will overpopulate almost immediatley. Withing 5 years it will be out of control. What are the concequences of overpopulation? Disease and famine, fighting over resources and territory, increased frequency of traffic deaths among animals and humans, not good. I am not speculating, this has been proven time and time again. You might ask, arent there natural ways to take care of overpopulation? Well thank you for asking, yes there is! We release the original predators that once hunted them into the area. That will sure be fun when you have wolves coming to your barbeque. So let me ask you, if the option is between dying of disease, famine, or getting EATEN ALIVE, how is that a more humane system? I know deep in my bones that i would much rather be ended with a gunshot.

What I am saying is populations need to be controlled. You can choose to do it naturally, where there is more danger for you and your family, and far more suffering for animals, or you can use hunting. Now i will agree with you that hunting is cruel to an extent, but think of the other ways that animal could die! Lets go through the list, freezing to death, starvation, disease, predation, parasites, drowning, death during labor and many more. All of those options seem far less appealing to me than a gunshot. Banning hunting will only cause more suffering to the animals you wish to protect.

If you want to debate on bow hunting, you are talking to the wrong guy. I am not defending that, i am defending the right for people to hunt.

So in the end, how is it logical? What is the benifit of banning hunting?

 

As I have a headache I wont give this much of my time, its a very, very old cliché and Im sure if you were to google you could find the average anti-hunters counter argument for the overpopulation thing within 5 minutes, but I will pass you a piece of wikipedia text

A doe generally has one or two fawns at a time (triplets, while not unknown, are uncommon). The gestation period is anywhere up to ten months for the European Roe Deer. Most fawns are born with their fur covered with white spots, though in many species they lose their spots once they get older. In the first twenty minutes of a fawn's life, the fawn begins to take its first steps. Its mother licks it clean until it is almost free of scent, so predators will not find it. Its mother leaves often, and the fawn does not like to be left behind. Sometimes its mother must gently push it down with her foot.[5] The fawn stays hidden in the grass for one week until it is strong enough to walk with its mother. The fawn and its mother stay together for about one year. A male usually never sees his mother again, but females sometimes come back with their own fawns and form small herds


Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "overpopulate" and "almost immediately"

 

Ok, so its cliche, you did absolutley nothing to defend your stance, congrats. And thank you for your completley pointless post from wiki. And by overpopulate i mean, more than the ecosystem can handle, and by almost imediatley, i mean you would start to see probelems within 24-36 months. There is an overpopulation EVERY YEAR. So you would start to see the effects in small amounts the first 6-12 months.

I asked a simple question and you came up with no answer, you didnt even counter, thankyou for your pointless post.

ONCE AGAIN, you claim that hunting is cruel, but the alternative solutions cause far more suffering, HOW IS THAT LOGICAL, or even compotent for that matter.

 

Myself, I am okay with people who hunt and use all the meat, hide, bones, everything from the animal. What I'm not okay with is hunting for sport alone. Where all you get from the animal is a spiffy trophy. I don't like when the animals are herded and people shoot 'em like fish in a barrel. I think that hunting should be highly regulated. It's seen as a game, people should be more aware of the fact that they are taking a life. And they should be respectful to the life that they are taking. Just my stance.

 

Tish, I took a similar stance here some months ago and it upset a lot of people. Seems this isn't quite the place for our way of thinking :|

... It seems there is only one person here who is getting all huffy and puffy jk

But in seriousness, I can't blame you for being passionate about it. I can tell you really want to debate someone, but surprisingly I suspect the majority of folks here take your side.

 

No, this time I am not looking for a debate. It took me a long time to come to terms with what I think is right. I was expecting opposition, but not hoping for it. I've only just come to this desition about how I feel. So I would be ill equiped to defend any onslaught of opposition. but thank you for your support.
peace

 

Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear. The second half of my post under the quotes was to Godisimaginary.

Sorry for the confusion there! I too, am not looking for a debate- as I have been burned out lately. I see a lot of myself in Godisimaginary. Not in his stance but his vigor and passion. Stroking an ego as it may be, I have not the energy for such an adversary.

 

I see. So far it doesn't look like it. Maybe if it was sent to PETA.lol

 

Ok,,, pause,,, who's overpopulating the earth,,, hmm lets seee,, people ,, oh yeah,, thats right people,, killing off everything,, taking over the earth and destroying everything in our paths,, Or do you find the answer different,, ??? Just saying, theres more people than the earth can handle,, all the other species should just roll over and make themselves small eh?

 

This is how I feel about hunting too. If you can't respect the soul of the animal that gave its life to you then don't bother to kill it.

 

I agree, but it is also true that leaving the animal there is not wasting it, it is reintroduced into the circle of life whether you take it or not, it would be better for the ecosystem if you did. But i fully agree with you on having respect for the life you are taking

 

So you are advocating Mass Genocide?

 

yeah, really, nothing is EVER wasted. if it's edible or usable, there's a clever little animal out there just waiting to jump on it.

 

I believe she is equating mass genocide with hunting deer due to overpopulation...

 

No, I'm just saying that it's a dumb notion to think that killing off animals at mass is ridiculous and not helpful at all. You can't say "overpopulation " to a species that barely has any habitat left. Maybe they wouldnt overpopulate if they had more space. I'm not saying mass genocide, but a little control over how much environment we're taking up and how fast we ourselves are populating would help all around.

 

Yeah, if the US went 1 year without killing deer...at all, you'd notice a sudden increase. One of the bordering counters here signed this law in their little town area to where they couldn't kill any deer or somethin like that, that year. Well into the next year deer populated the town and was eating all the plants and shit, they opened an immediate deer season and men mowed those fuckers down. xD

 

there's a pretty ridiculous thing going right now where you can't hunt elk around estes park, so they bring in a group of people to kill them and dispose of them. ugh. stupid.

 

like i said,,,maybe if they had a bigger habitat that shit wouldnt happen,, thats ridiculous

 

Learn to fucking type, dumbass.

 

Ah, but can you refute her claim? Also, why so angry?