Splinter: Hunting, people, and populations

Enmos

Enmos

Valued Senior Member
TW Scott said:
Actually Deer, Elk and several other animals are horrible at overpopulation. they can far outstrip an areas ability to produce food in just a year. Outlawing hunting would cause more damage to forest and wildlife than even the worst forestfires on record.
Click to expand...

How come we are in this stupid situation ?

We need to reintroduce their natural predators.

Mod Note: This topic is a splinter thread; these posts, in their original context, may also be found in "Accident: Convinced she was a bear"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enmos said:
How come we are in this stupid situation ?

We need to reintroduce their natural predators.
Click to expand...

that would be us. We have been their predators for thousands upon thousands of years.

Why don't you get angry when a wolf kills a bunny or mouse? Its just doing what comes naturally right? Well, take away your grocery store where someone is killing/packaging a defenseless animal for you, and you would do what comes naturally as well. You would kill your own food.
 
ashura said:
Like Orleander said, we are their natural predators. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is that humans will keep pushing back the borders, and will kill any animals that dare to cross them.

Humans have upset the balance in many places, we either correct it or pull back.
Balance will restore itself in time, or we can help it along a bit.
 
Enmos said:
The problem is that humans will keep pushing the borders back, and will kill any animals that dare to cross them.

Humans have upset the balance in many places, we either correct it or pull back.
Balance will restore itself in time, or we can help it along a bit.
Click to expand...

My problem with this sort of reasoning is that it views humans above nature. We're not. We're a part of nature, and we're simply doing what comes naturally to us. That people choose to dedicate themselves to conservation and not consuming more than we need to is admirable, and a testament to our intelligence. But it certainly isn't about your so called "balance". Even your goal of achieving whatever you think balance is, is you imposing your desire upon nature.
 
ashura said:
My problem with this sort of reasoning is that it views humans above nature. We're not. We're a part of nature, and we're simply doing what comes naturally to us. That people choose to dedicate themselves to conservation and not consuming more than we need to is admirable, and a testament to our intelligence. But it certainly isn't about your so called "balance". Even your goal of achieving whatever you think balance is, is you imposing your desire upon nature.
Click to expand...

And my problem with this sort of reasoning is that it's sticking your head in the sand.

Humans are not above nature but they have unique abilities, and we should those abilities to ensure that our environment will not turn into wasteland.
If you won't to it for nature, do it for humankind.
Destroy nature and you will destroy yourself.

How am I imposing my desire on nature by leaving it alone (pull back) ?
How am I imposing my desire on nature by REintroducing animals they WE killed off (help it along a bit) ?
 
How am I imposing my desire on nature by leaving it alone (pull back)?
How am I imposing my desire on nature by REintroducing animals they WE killed off (help it along a bit) ?
Click to expand...

So what if we killed them off? What's your point? Because we have the power to handicap humans and benefit animals, we should? Where is your moral authority on this coming from?
Enmos said:
Humans are not above nature but they have unique abilities, and we should those abilities to ensure that our environment will not turn into wasteland.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about your problem with hunting wabbits, I didn't realize that would turn our environment into a wasteland. :shrug:
 
ashura said:
So what if we killed them off? What's your point? Because we have the power to handicap humans and benefit animals, we should? Where is your moral authority on this coming from?
I thought we were talking about your problem with hunting wabbits, I didn't realize that would turn our environment into a wasteland. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So why do you think these bears come visit us ?
No wait, lets shift this to a more obvious example, Polar bears.
 
No idea, it's been awhile since the last polar bear knocked on my door.
 
I'm denying your equating rabbit hunting to turning the environment into a wasteland.
 
ashura said:
I'm denying your equating rabbit hunting to turning the environment into a wasteland.
Click to expand...

We were talking about deer when I said that.
There is an overpopulation of deer in some areas because we wiped out the predators.

And besides, you say humans are not above nature. And I agree..
Now go see how many other people agree with it.

And could you please answer post 101 ?
 
Fine: I'm denying your equating rabbit deer hunting to turning the environment into a wasteland.

Enmos said:
We were talking about deer when I said that.
There is an overpopulation of deer in some areas because we wiped out the predators.
Click to expand...

And we replaced them, just like other predators have replaced weaker predators in other situations. This is natural.
 
Enmos said:
And could you please answer post 101 ?
Click to expand...

Enmos said:
Are you denying the destruction of the natural environment by man ?
Click to expand...

Of course not, what I'm denying is this fantasy that it's possible for the environment to remain pure and pristine and perfect for all living beings, including humans. The Earth is and has always been a finite resource for it's inhabitants. Species kill each other and exploit the environment to ensure their survival all the time, humans just happen to be the most successful at it.
 
When animals are allowed to do whatever they do, there is a cycle of feast and famine. Lots of deer = lots of wolves. More wolves = fewer deer. Fewer deer = starving wolves. Starving dead wolves = more deer. More deer = stripped habitat = starving deer. Its feast or famine.
I take it Enmos prefers that animals starve rather than people eat them.
 
ashura said:
Of course not, what I'm denying is this fantasy that it's possible for the environment to remain pure and pristine and perfect for all living beings, including humans. The Earth is and has always been a finite resource for it's inhabitants. Species kill each other and exploit the environment to ensure their survival all the time, humans just happen to be the most successful at it.
Click to expand...

Too successful you mean. At times predators have exhausted their food sources and got extinct as a result. We're on that path.
 
Orleander said:
When animals are allowed to do whatever they do, there is a cycle of feast and famine. Lots of deer = lots of wolves. More wolves = fewer deer. Fewer deer = starving wolves. Starving dead wolves = more deer. More deer = stripped habitat = starving deer. Its feast or famine.
I take it Enmos prefers that animals starve rather than people eat them.
Click to expand...

That is the natural way :bugeye:

And the fact that you use the word "allowed" only proves my earlier point.
 
Enmos said:
That is the natural way :bugeye:

And the fact that you use the word "allowed" only proves my earlier point.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Proves? LOL <patting Enmos on head> Yes, ok, whatever you say.

Humans are at the top of the food chain for a reason. For a long time we weren't. Humans are just animals that kicked and clawed our way to the top. If it wasn't us, it would be another animal.
What animal do you want at the top?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top