# Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth



## DarkLion (Aug 16, 2013)

> Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
> 
> From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
> 
> ...



Hunting and the Environment - Are Hunters Environmentalists

I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means. More human dominance over the natural world to its detriment. I cannot wait to hear the apologists come along and dispute this; should be fun!


----------



## Circe (Aug 16, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> > If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.



Fawns are baby deer. They don't have embryoes because they are not mature. The writer of this piece is a complete ignoramus, wouldn't you agree?





> In addition to artificially increasing wild populations of deer, state wildlife management agencies also breed animals specifically to be hunted. Predators do not breed pheasant and quail so they can be hunted.



I bet other predators would if they knew how. Predators love to hunt and kill. I speak who know, living on a farm with entirely too many predators running around killing everything _en masse_ that isn't securely fenced against them.




> Hunters often say that a population of animals is "overabundant," which is not a scientific term, but misleads the public into thinking that the animals are overpopulated. Overpopulation is a scientific concept, and exists when a species exceeds its biological carrying capacity. This deceptive terminology gains public sympathy for hunting and creates an illusion that hunting is desirable or even necessary.



Maybe they don't say "overpopulated" because what they mean is what they said: overabundant. The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance. From a human perspective, that is an "overabundance" of bears. The writer of this piece is perhaps not a native English speaker, and is certainly not well educated.




> I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.



Do you mean "serve their ends"? You seem to have means and ends confused here. I wonder if you wrote the quoted piece: your comments seem to have the same problem with using the English language as the quoted piece does.




> More human dominance over the natural world to its detriment. I cannot wait to hear the apologists come along and dispute this; should be fun!



Why exactly do you think it would be fun? You sound very angry; you aren't having fun now.


----------



## editec (Aug 16, 2013)

> The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.



Mostly its not an increase in the number of bears so much as it is the increase in housing developments in the mountains where formerly no housing existed.

The Poconos was torn to pieces by the LAND SHARKS starting the 70s.


----------



## Circe (Aug 16, 2013)

editec said:


> > The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, my reading says there are SUBSTANTIALLY more bears, hundreds more. We see them follow the streams down from PA every summer now in my county in Maryland, though it's heavily populated. The last one ate a dog. It was chained to a doghouse. They called out the SWAT team.

Of course you are right that there is gross overpopulation and overbuilding resulting from that. The planet is crowding up with people at a terrifying rate.

It's just that the people are urbanizing to such an extent that family farms are abandoned and so very few are hunting the deer and predators and wild geese and all the other animals that used to be kept down properly. Sort of the worst of all possible worlds for those of us left in the country.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 16, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> > Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
> >
> > From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
> >
> ...




 Where do you live?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 16, 2013)

In the state of Washington the fish and game department takes the money from our license fees and uses it to lure and herd wild animals into state and federal parks two weeks before hunting season opens. That way they cannot be hunted. How is it that my money makes the department my slave?

You have obviously never hunted.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2013)

An About.com blog entry in the Animal Rights section is not what I would call a first rate source.

As pointed out in previous posts,  the author is uninformed.

To add to that,  no conservation department relies on funding from deer tags and licenses.

Missouri passed a statewide 1/8 cent sales tax in 1976 dedicated to funding our conservation department.

They are also funded by two federal programs funded by excise tax on sporting goods:

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (also known as  the Pittman-Robertson Act) is funded by excise taxes on sporting arms  and ammunition, pistols, and certain archery equipment. The Federal Aid  in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1951 (aka the Dingell-Johnson Act) is  funded by excise taxes on fishing equipment. The Sport Fish Restoration  Fund is augmented by the Wallop-Breaux Act of 1984, from excise taxes on  motor-boat fuels.


Since these two programs&#8217; inception, Missouri has received  approximately $370 million for fish- and wildlife-related activities. * The funds were established at the urging of hunters and anglers.*


News & Events, Missouri Conservationist: Jun 2013 | Missouri Department of Conservation

​


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2013)

Also,  Missouri Department of Conservation shows no compunction whatsoever when it comes to completely closing all hunting of species that it deems necessary to replenish due to lower than expected populations.

At this time,  there is no quail,  ruffled grouse,  or pheasant hunting in Missouri except for,  in the case of quail,  a youth season.

These species are not declining due to over-hunting,  but instead they are succumbing to the resurgence of the coyote population and the dramatic increase in feral house cats.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2013)

About the author:

Doris Lin is an animal rights attorney, the Director of Legal Affairs  for the Animal Protection League of New Jersey and a member of the  steering committee of the League of Humane Voters of New Jersey.
*Experience:*

Doris  has worked for a variety of animal groups, including the Animal  Protection PAC, Animal Protection League of NJ (f.k.a. NJ Animal Rights  Alliance), The Bear Education And Resource Group, The Humane Society of  the US, and the Animal Welfare Institute. She has also founded two  student animal rights groups, and served on the Board of the Boston  Vegetarian Society. 

 As an attorney, she represented NJARA and the BEAR Group in a lawsuit  against the state of NJ, successfully invalidating the state's bear hunt  plan in 2007. She is also a former chair of the NJ State Bar  Association's Animal Law Committee, and is the author of "Bear Hunt  Controversy Shines the Spotlight on New Jersey's Wildlife Law,"  published in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine.

 She has also worked for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 Doris has been an animal rights activist for over 25 years, vegetarian  for nearly as long, and vegan for over 20 years. She shares a home with  three humans, two rabbits and four guinea pigs, and is a life member of  the House Rabbit Society.

http://animalrights.about.com/bio/Doris-Lin-42302.htm​Totally unbiased...

/thread


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 17, 2013)

The fundamental concept behind a CDZ is that someone would put forth a proposition and then substantiate it with facts and/or logic.  What, exactly, is the proposition in the OP?  That "hunters do not 'love' nature?"  Is this is worthy of debate?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 17, 2013)

> Is this is worthy of debate?



Probably not. 

As I said in a different thread, first we wiped out all or most of our natural predators so that a very few people could use various animals for target practice. 

Each time that approach failed, as it inevitably will, we either introduced yet another non-indigenous species to "control" the ones we don't like or we increased the hunting "season". Each time THAT approach failed, we did it again. And, again. 

And, even though we know our "management" methods will fail, we will do it again and again.

The result is that we have opportunistic species over-running and pushing out the indigenous species while hunters continue to demand more animals to shoot at. 

Even though white tail deer "management" has been a total disaster, they are often cited as the poster child of wildlife management. In fact, the white tail constitutes only about 5% of the animals "hunted". By far and away, most are birds such as doves and quail and they have proved to be just as disastrous as white tail deer. 

The good news is that less than 7% of US hunts and that number gets less and less every year. But still, that minority does enormous damage to our environment. 

In answer to the OP's question - Do hunters love nature?

Probably not. Most hunters get their guns out once a year, clean them, buy some ammo and beer and go out in the woods to be able to say "fuck" and spit and pretend to be big hunt 'n' grunt he-mans. 

They "love" what they want to be able to kill. Hence, "duck stamps" and the like. 

 Non-game animals are on their own.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 17, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> > Is this is worthy of debate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am unable to find any truth at all in your post. You sound like one of those "nature lovers" who would faint if their feet ever ventured beyond concrete and asphalt and get all your facts from the cartoon channel. _Bambi _ wasn't a real deer. Get over it.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 17, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > > Is this is worthy of debate?
> ...




It's difficult for me to respond *XXXXX* in the CDZ because...how can I put this in CDZ admissible parlance...his replies stem from an incredible ignorance of every subject.

I could not find any statement of fact in his post either.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 17, 2013)

What's the premise? States will authorize clear cutting in order to make money on hunting licenses? Has anyone ever heard of a more preposterous theory? If the radical left is so concerned about wildlife they should consider the impact of windmill technology on migratory birds including eagles.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

Circe said:


> Fawns are baby deer. They don't have embryoes because they are not mature. The writer of this piece is a complete ignoramus, wouldn't you agree?



Who knows? I myself have heard of female lions absorbing embryos when they cannot find adequate hunting. Malnourishment seems to cause it, though I have never read a scientific text on it so I don't even know if it really happens. 





Circe said:


> I bet other predators would if they knew how.



Irrelevant. 



Circe said:


> I speak who know, living on a farm with entirely too many predators running around killing everything _en masse_ that isn't securely fenced against them.



A) "Too many predators" is your opinion. 

B) You shouldn't nitpick my word usage, *XXXXXXX*





Circe said:


> Maybe they don't say "overpopulated" because what they mean is what they said: overabundant. The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance. From a human perspective, that is an "overabundance" of bears. The writer of this piece is perhaps not a native English speaker, and is certainly not well educated.



What is the difference between "overabundance" and "overpopulation"?




Circe said:


> Why exactly do you think it would be fun? You sound very angry; you aren't having fun now.



We could do without *XXXXXXX*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 18, 2013)

Circe said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > > If the deer in a certain area become overpopulated and food is scarce, the lack of food will cause weaker individuals to starve to death and the fawns will absorb more embryos and have fewer offspring.
> ...



*Fawns are baby deer. They don't have embryoes because they are not mature. *

exactly a fawn would be "baby" deer 

a yearling would be about the right age 

*XXXXXXX*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 18, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.



Farmers manipulate nature to serve their needs. 


Since you don't hunt, I presume 100% of your food comes from farming. 

Unless you go around gathering berries and nuts in the woods all day long. In which case you should be ashamed at taking the deers' food.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

Circe said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > The increase in bears in Pennsylvania and New Jersey has become a serious wildlife management problem, for instance.
> ...



Wildlife does not need to be "managed" by humans.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> In the state of Washington the fish and game department takes the money from our license fees and uses it to lure and herd wild animals into state and federal parks two weeks before hunting season opens. That way they cannot be hunted. How is it that my money makes the department my slave?



Government has been killing predators for a long time. This is why there seem to be so many deer, aside from mankind encroaching on their habitat, their natural enemies have been all but wiped out in many places. 

All in the name of protecting livestock and hunting interests. 



PaulS1950 said:


> You have obviously never hunted.



Thank god no, and if I had I certainly wouldn't admit it. I'd be too ashamed.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Totally unbiased...
> 
> /thread



"Unbiased" was never the goal.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> I am unable to find any truth at all in your post. You sound like one of those "nature lovers" who would faint if their feet ever ventured beyond concrete and asphalt and get all your facts from the cartoon channel. _Bambi _ wasn't a real deer. Get over it.



Yet I don't see you attempting to disprove a bit of it. *XXXXX*. What exactly was untrue about his post? 

By the way, real animals are far more enthralling than cartoons.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 18, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > I have been saying for years that hunters do not "love" nature, they love a false nature manipulated to serve their means.
> ...



Is that an affirmation of my statement?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2013)

If humans truly love nature, how do they act towards it ?


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2013)

Mankind has been manipulating "nature" to increase his HUNT since before civilization.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2013)

editec said:


> Mankind has been manipulating "nature" to increase his HUNT since before civilization.



so does that mean he hates nature ?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 18, 2013)

> States will authorize clear cutting in order to make money on hunting licenses?



Yes, but actually more money is made on taxes on ammo for non-hunting uses.



> I myself have heard of female lions absorbing embryos when they cannot find adequate hunting. Malnourishment seems to cause it, though I have never read a scientific text on it so I don't even know if it really happens.



There was a years-long study done on an island off Canada that showed that during years when there was little browse for the ungulates, they didn't reproduce at the same high rate as when there was plenty of food. The amazing things was that the wolves also had fewer young. 

The winter starvation of deer defense of hunting completely ignores that "management" causes overpopulation. Not to mention that deer make up only about 5% of the animals hunted.



> so does that mean he hates nature ?



Humans should be a part of nature but most of us live in cities now and the closest we get to animals are those on our plates or those we work to exterminate. 

Most people are afraid of the natural world because they are ignorant of it.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 18, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> > States will authorize clear cutting in order to make money on hunting licenses?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 'natural' world is dirty and full of bugs.  I prefer the 'unnatural' human world. 

Of course, that means I'm no hunter, either.


----------



## daveman (Aug 18, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I am unable to find any truth at all in your post. You sound like one of those "nature lovers" who would faint if their feet ever ventured beyond concrete and asphalt and get all your facts from the cartoon channel. _Bambi _ wasn't a real deer. Get over it.
> ...


Indeed they are.  I see many, many deer every week in the course of my job.  

The problem is there are too damn many of them, even with hunting.  

Kentucky State Police: Deer / Automobile Collisions

"The Insurance Information Institute estimates that there are more than 1.6 million deer-vehicle collisions each year, resulting in 150 occupant deaths, tens of thousands of injuries and over $3.6 billion in vehicle damage. An additional billion dollars is spent on medical payments for injuries to people in the car and out-of-pocket expenses paid by vehicle owners, bringing the total cost to approximately $4.6 billion. The average claim for deer-vehicle collisions is $3,000, with costs varying depending on the type of vehicle and severity of the damage." (quoted from (III - Warning to Motorists: Fall Is Peak Season for Deer-Vehicle Collisions)​
What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 18, 2013)

From one of the bluest of blue states...Maryland:

*Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool*

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for the         conservation and management of the state's native white-tailed deer         population. The department's primary deer conservation goals are to         ensure the well being of the species and its habitat while maintaining         populations at levels compatible with human activity, land use and         natural communities.​ 

*Hunting remains the primary method for maintaining deer populations at         appropriate levels, both in Maryland and throughout North America,         despite vocal and visible protests of animal rights organizations. 
*​Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool - Wildlife and Heritage Service - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
​


----------



## Missourian (Aug 18, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > You have obviously never hunted.
> ...




Are you a strict vegan? 

I mean strict...no fish,  nothing that contains or uses animal byproducts.

If not,  you hunt by proxy.

You should be ashamed to hunt by proxy then proclaim that you would be ashamed to admit it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 18, 2013)

Missourian said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



I wouldn't consider the slaughter of domestic  animals to be "hunting". Hunting is a far more fair and natural way to obtain meat for food than farming. The animal gets to live in its natural habitat until it is harvested. Ever seen a big corporate cattle ranch?


----------



## Intense (Aug 18, 2013)

> Cars and deer can be a lethal combination. An increase in urban sprawl and more roads being built through wildlife habitats have displaced deer from their natural habitat, leading to a rise in deer-vehicle collisions, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I)
> 
> Deer migration and mating season generally runs from October through December, and causes a dramatic increase in the movement of the deer population. As a result, more deer-vehicle collisions occur in this period than at any other time of year, so drivers need to be especially vigilant.
> 
> ...



There is a balance.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 18, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> > Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
> >
> > From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
> >
> ...



The writer of this piece *XXXXXXX* doesn't support his claims.


----------



## Intense (Aug 18, 2013)

*Just a reminder. The CDZ is under Zone 1 Posting Rules. No Name Calling other Posters or putting them down. No insulting them. No Neg Reps. The focus is Civil Discourse regardless of the topic.*


----------



## Missourian (Aug 18, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...




Excellent point.

Perhaps killing by proxy would be more appropriate.


----------



## daveman (Aug 18, 2013)

Intense said:


> > Cars and deer can be a lethal combination. An increase in urban sprawl and more roads being built through wildlife habitats have displaced deer from their natural habitat, leading to a rise in deer-vehicle collisions, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I)
> >
> > Deer migration and mating season generally runs from October through December, and causes a dramatic increase in the movement of the deer population. As a result, more deer-vehicle collisions occur in this period than at any other time of year, so drivers need to be especially vigilant.
> >
> ...


My insurance company, USAA, doesn't even require a police report.  Just call an agent and tell him a *%#$@!! deer ran out in front of you.  

I hit two in 2011.  Did a total of $7,000 in damages to my Town & Country.  One more and they'll total it.  Hell, if a headlight burns out, they'll total it.  

Praise God that no one was hurt in the collisions.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 18, 2013)

The huge drought last year lowered the wild & domestic animal populations. They should bounce back in time. A future stress may come from more efficient harvesting equipment. A few years ago we completely modified our Case/IH combine & switched to a Mac-Don flex draper header that we also modified. This machine really picks the fields clean. I have noticed a decrease in wildlife on our farm because of it. They now prefer the neighboring farms. Now 2 other farmers in our county have followed our lead. Wildlife may soon be stressed for food if this becomes a trend. There is currently no other harvester on the market that picks a corn field as clean as mine. But is is only a matter of time before they start producing them.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 18, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> > Hunting and Habitat Manipulation
> >
> > From hearing hunters talk about the overpopulations of deer, bears and other "game" animals, one would think they are practically tripping over these megafauna in the American wilderness. However, this is not the case, and both public and private lands are managed in a variety of ways to increase hunting opportunities, regardless of what is natural or necessary.
> >
> ...



There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 18, 2013)

KissMy said:


> The huge drought last year lowered the wild & domestic animal populations. They should bounce back in time. A future stress may come from more efficient harvesting equipment. A few years ago we completely modified our Case/IH combine & switched to a Mac-Don flex draper header that we also modified. This machine really picks the fields clean. I have noticed a decrease in wildlife on our farm because of it. They now prefer the neighboring farms. Now 2 other farmers in our county have followed our lead. Wildlife may soon be stressed for food if this becomes a trend. There is currently no other harvester on the market that picks a corn field as clean as mine. But is is only a matter of time before they start producing them.



Not here.  All it did was bring them out of the woods to eat the plants in the lawn.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?



Both and neither. I do not place humans above or below animals. You're asking the wrong question though. You should be asking why predators have been culled to drastically that prey animal populations have ballooned to such high numbers.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Missourian said:


> From one of the bluest of blue states...Maryland:
> 
> *Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool*
> 
> ...



If we had not eradicated the natural predators, there would be no need for this


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Are you a strict vegan?
> 
> I mean strict...no fish,  nothing that contains or uses animal byproducts.
> 
> ...



Don't try to pretend hunters do it for food. It's about the joy of the hunt. The food is icing on the cake. When the supermarkets close down and there's no other way to obtain food, then maybe you'd have an argument that hunters do it out of necessity to feed themselves. Until then, it's disingenuous to say so.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.



I refer you to post #42. 

As for the population size, well that merely confirms that managed ecosystems don't work. You're constantly trying to make up for the unintended consequences of A by introducing B, and then you'll have to introduce C to manage the unintended consequences of B and so on. The problems you are referring to are direct results from our determination to kill off wild predators. 

You know what? Ecosystems work _perfectly_ when they are left alone.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.
> ...



And such is a complete impossibility.  Our very existence means that the ecosystem is NOT left alone.  The effect of houses and populations are stark.

I really question the point of the OP though.  The original supposition: hunters do not love the wild, is utterly irrelevant.  I dont care what hunters think of the wild.  I am sure that there are many that do and many that dont care past the kill they get but in the end it is utterly meaningless what the hunters think.  They are allowed to hunt because that is what freedom looks like.  The state regulates the action to limit it impact and beyond that, there really is nothing else for them to do.  What are you trying to get at?  Do you want all hunting stopped?  What is it that you are trying to say here other than you dont like hunting?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a strict vegan?
> ...



Untrue. Food is one of several important reasons to hunt. Hunters for the Hungry is a nationwide organization through which hunters donate venison to help feed needy people. This is just from my state of Tennessee:

Another Record Year for Hunters for the Hungry PDF	 Print	 E-mail	 

70 Tons of Venison Will Provide Half Million Meals
Tennessee Wildlife Federation Program Will Provide a Half a Million Meals in 2013

Food banks and soup kitchens across the state continue to cite increasing need and decreasing donations. The lean, healthy, safe protein provided by the states Hunters for the Hungry program is often the only meat available. Thankfully, officials from the Tennessee Wildlife Federation (TWF) say that hunters continue to be willing to help address hunger, in spite of the recession.

In the midst of the economic downturn, its incredibly rewarding to be able to say weve grown this program each of the last five years, said Matt Simcox, TWFs Hunters for the Hungry coordinator. Programs in other states have not been as successful, and it goes back to that Volunteer spiritTennesseans are willing to help their neighbors.

The program posted growth of 8.3 percent over the 2012 numbers, collecting a total of 136,162 pounds of donated venison. Over the life of the program, hunters have donated nearly a million pounds of lean, healthy meatmore than 3.7 million meals!

Wonder how many people PETA feeds.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.
> ...



Humans are a part of the ecosystem, and if a Lion's den was invaded by a lesser strength species, the Lion would run it off or kill it. 

Us doing the same is perfectly natural, and we are not introducing any new letters to the equation - we are inside of the original equation. Just because we are smarter does not mean "don't use your brain and technology to become a better predator."

Any animal would, if given the choice. 

Now - is it for sport? Somewhat, for sure. Undeniable. But it must be natural for humans to consider hunting sport so again, the ecosystem is functioning naturally. 



And to hunters in the south - I hear you're slacking on the wild hog populations. You better get that under control. Heard it's up to 2 million in Texas.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?
> ...



Possibly because larger predators prey on humans too.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?
> ...



Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.
> ...



A lot of people here simply don't have the money to buy super market beef.  Meat is meat.  Those freezers full of venison help sustain many families here.  You know nothing about this area. Many here would have starved during the Great Depression had it not been for the abundance of wildlife.  It is really disheartening when someone like you cares nothing for poor people and would deprive them of their best source of protein.  Well, daveman and I have set straight another one who thought he should be running this state..


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > > Cars and deer can be a lethal combination. An increase in urban sprawl and more roads being built through wildlife habitats have displaced deer from their natural habitat, leading to a rise in deer-vehicle collisions, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I)
> ...



Dave, don't you just love how they tell us all about where we live!  

Where I live I never drive over 40 MPH because of the deer.   I recall one day when I was working there were so many out one morning that I was 45 minutes late.  No idea why there were so many more out that day than any other.  

Also, what the don't know about is the heavy fogs we have here.  The rivers and river bottoms create many a foggy morning.  The deer do not move in the fog.  If they are standing in the road, they can't see because of the fog and they are just there.  So, they can't see you, you can't see them, and bye bye deer, car, and maybe even you and your passengers.

As to predators, we still have bobcats where I live.  I can hear them roar at night.  Foxes out here keep the rabbit population down to nil.  I've seen one rabbit since moving here in 2007.  In TN, I couldn't even plant flowers because they rabbits would eat them.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Hunting  at least in its modern form  is FAR more expensive than supermarket beef so I find that claim rather dubious.  Purchasing the license, tags, weapons, ammo and having the meat butchered is not cheap.

I guess you could save on the butcher and do the meat yourself but you are still likely to run up a higher tab than supermarket meet which can be had for very little.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



No it isn't.  Not here.  All it takes is 1 bullet to drop a deer.  People already own the gear and don't have to buy from year to year.  Same with freezers. Butcher processing is about $50.  Licensing is nominal:



> For purchase over-the-counter or online for 2013 season:
> &#8226;Resident Any-Season White-tailed Deer permit (white-tailed deer buck, doe or fawn) &#8211; $32.50 for general residents; $17.50 for landowner/tenants; $17.50 for youth 15 and younger. Resident Any-season White-tailed Deer permits are valid statewide in any season, provided legal equipment is used for that season. Available July 30 - Dec. 30
> &#8226;Resident Archery Either-species/Either-sex Deer permit (white-tailed or mule deer buck, doe or fawn) &#8211; $32.50 for general residents; $17.50 for landowner/tenants; $17.50 for youth 15 and younger. Resident Archery Either-species/Either-sex Deer permits are valid statewide with archery equipment only during archery season. Available July 30 - Dec. 30
> &#8226;Resident Muzzleloader Either-species/Either-sex Deer permit (white-tailed or mule deer buck, doe or fawn) &#8211; $32.50 for general residents; $17.50 for landowner/tenants; $17.50 for youth 15 and younger. Resident Muzzleloader Either-species/Either-sex Deer permits are valid either in the east unit (3, 4, 5, 7, 16) or the west unit (1, 2, 17, 18) during the early muzzleloader season and the regular firearm season using muzzleloading equipment only. Available July 30 - Dec. 30
> &#8226;Hunt-Own-Land Deer Permit &#8212; $17.50 resident landowner, $17.50 all tenants. Available to individuals who qualify as residents landowners, including family members living with the landowner or tenant. Permit valid for any white-tailed or mule deer only on land owned or operated by landowner or tenant during muzzleloader-only, archery, and firearm seasons using equipment legal for that season. Available July 30 - Dec. 30



Deer / Applications and Fees / Hunting / KDWPT - KDWPT

I pay $15.00 for one beef roast at the grocery.   For the cost of 4 or 5 grocery meals, many people here feed their families for months.

Some people do process their own.  But I know what a pain in the butt it is because when I was a girl my mother and brother processed one in our kitchen.  That was a long day, but we had good meat for a long time.    

You really don't know anything about this state or the people in it.  People here don't like to take 'charity.'  For every one person who is on food stamps there are 10 more who hunt wild game, grow their own vegetables and can them.  My late husband wasn't a hunter, but we did the garden thing and I rarely had to buy anything in the way of vegetables that went on our table.  It is a lot of hard work, but people here don't mind working hard.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 19, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Predators in nature take the old and infirm. Many human predators want something to brag about and take the youngest, biggest, etc.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



That is absolutely incorrect.  There are laws which mandate how young a game animal can be.  Besides, it would be patently stupid to kill a faun.  Not enough meat.   And besides, what about all those huuuuuuungry chiiiiiildren you are always so worried about?  I guess they can eat cake.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Then we have the wonderful ferel hogs

Open season. No license fees.
All the pork you can carry


And I still stand behind my statement that the author of the article linked in the OP fails to support any of his/her claims


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?
> ...



Dunno about where you are, but preditors around here are ballooning.  Coyotes are everywhere.  When I was a kid, I saw _one_.  Total.  Now I see roadkill coyotes on the road several times a week.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a strict vegan?
> ...


Don't try to pretend you know what's going on in someone else's head.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Wonder how many people PETA feeds.


They don't have time.  They're too busy killing pets and throwing them in the dumpster.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

hortysir said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



I think we have a few as well.  I just have not been privileged to see one.  Not sure I would like wild hog.  I can always tell when I have bought ham from an old boar and I think it is too strong.  And, I am most disappointed that we have people who would deprive our KY children of delicious nutritious game.  IMO, it is immoral to euthanize wild game which is abundant and which can be processed and eaten.  You should see the herds of wild turkeys we have here.  If I ever have my camera with me I'll try to get a pic for you.


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 19, 2013)

whitehall said:


> What's the premise? States will authorize clear cutting in order to make money on hunting licenses? Has anyone ever heard of a more preposterous theory? If the radical left is so concerned about wildlife they should consider the impact of windmill technology on migratory birds including eagles.



Well stated, but then again your writing in response to some PETA fool that hasn't a clue about what they are typing. Excluding fisheries, game populations exceeding food supply crash. As for migratory bird populations, if food availability will sustain a population of 100 and you have 120, all will die. Logged and burned over area's do expand forage area's, this fact has been validated across the country with increased Deer, Elk, and Bear population growth. At the same time predator populations increase in accordance to increases in game populations. What has been noted is that with this increase in game abundance predator populations that are not controlled continue to expand their territory and key on domestic food sources to address their needs.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Nope, don&#8217;t know anything about people in that state &#8211; never claimed that I did.

I do KNOW, however, that the liberals over here have made hunting EXPENSIVE.  Deer meat costs more than going to the store and buying it.  That does not stop the hunters though &#8211; the hunters here hunt because that is what they like to do (most of them at least).  The cost is rather irrelevant.


BTW, I said that I found your claim dubious, not wrong.  All I can go off is my experience until you had provided me with more than a blanket stament.  Don&#8217;t take what I state farther than I meant it


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



You are seriously mistaken if you think deer meat is more expensive than beef.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



  Yeah you're right...they can starve to death with no help at all.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



we process our own deer 

pretty much on the cheap that way


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...




Correct.  The cost of bagging, processing, and freezing one whole deer is about what 4 or 5 beef roasts would cost. And all those little children liberals fret over have meat for a good long time.  And smoked venison is just to die for.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > What's more valuable to you:  150 humans killed and tens of thousand injured, or some deer?
> ...



  You dont place humans above animals? So if I lined up a deer and your mother you wouldnt care which one I shot? Thats interesting.....strange but interesting.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > There ARE too many deer where I live.  It isn't safe to drive.  And here it was put to a referendum how to manage this over population.  The choice was either euthanasia or hunting.  I voted for hunting because a lot of people here need the food.  Meat doesn't grow on the super market shelf in a plastic container.  There is no difference in breeding tame animals or wild ones for food.  People still have to eat and forcing a family to buy expensive beef and other meat when they can have venison, rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, etc. etc. for free is ludicrous.
> ...



   So when do we start offing humans,and will you be first?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



  No way is it cheaper to buy meat at the store. Now if your one of those guys who pays ten grand for trophy hunt yeah.
 The only expense for a lot of hunters is the licence and shells. When I hunted my own place I could kill five deer a year plus all the exotics I wanted.
   For about fifty bucks.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 19, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Come to WA.  You have to buy tags for the deer, the license and several other things before you can hunt  not to mention the convoluted ass rules that you need to follow.  

If you know someone that has land that you are able to hunt on that helps a lot but trust me, its not that simple here.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I have the same opportunity. I can hunt my land without needing a license, I process all my kills, I have a walk-in freezer, my out of pocket cost is pretty much limited to ammo and butcher paper.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



  If you're in Texas you still need a license to hunt on your own property. Legally anyway...
Unless of course you're referring to hog and coyote and the like.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


Some people view human beings as an aberration that should be eliminated.  

Strangely enough, these people never volunteer to off themselves.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Man, the fog was nasty this morning.  

Since I spend a lot of time in rural areas where hunting generally isn't allowed (Federal property), I see lots of predators and lots of prey.  

City folk just don't get it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



We processed and slow BBQ'd this boar and it ranked right with any meat I've ever eaten.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjLN4aMwxpo]tennessee hog hunting - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...


Not everyone has bought a tag for the deer they've killed.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


You can make anything edible, I reckon.  A guy I work with is involved in a big wild game feast every year.  One year a fellow gave him a dead possum and told him to cook it.  He slow cooked it in a crockpot, deboned it, and put barbecue sauce on it.  Said it was pretty good.  Pulled possum sammiches!


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Yuk.  My mother cooked a possum once for my brother.  I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Not sure where some of these folks get their ideas about things.  One thread it will be 'oh the poor hungry children.'  Next thread it will be 'never mind the poor hungry children.'


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



  WA. deer hunting license is 95 bucks and change. So the cost is a little more then in Texas,but still not to bad.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a strict vegan?
> ...




Of course hunters hunt for food.

I hunt to put meat on the table,  just like my father and his father before him.

When the supermarkets close down,  you better already have the skills,  because the learning curve will be steep.

And I notice you avoided the issue of killing by proxy.  Hypocrite,  know thyself.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Yeah, I'm not interested.  I've seen too many exploded on the road.

Possum.  The _other_ gray meat.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have seen several armadillos since moving home.  They were not at this latitude when I moved away. But they sure are now.  Possum on the half shell.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



venison certainly can be expensive 

you forgot the cost of time verses working --LOL

 we process our own deer and the cost per pound rises and lowers with the size 

of the deer 

you can reclaim some of the cost by selling the antlers hide and sinew teeth and bones


as for beef and pork  we  have a local ma and pa butcher process a pig and a cow as needed 

we buy very little meat from the grocery store


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Didn't think of the cost of hunting vs working because most folk here don't take off without pay to hunt.  They plan their vacations around hunting season.  I know a guy who uses the hides and sinew to make moccasins.  He claims they never wear out.  

The husband of a friend of mine who has a little yorkie dog bagged a dear last year.  He put the antlers in a big pot to boil the skin off them, and their little dog went NUTS!  He didn't settle down for a week or more after that.  I guess he thought he was next or something.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



You are only referring to large game.

Squirrels,  rabbits,  frogs,  turtles, dove,  pigeon and snipe can be taken with a small game permit ($10) and a Migratory Bird Hunting Permit ($6).

A small game & fishing license for residents here is $19.

So for $25,  you are set for the year.

As for firearms...up until recently I did 90% of my hunting with $200 worth of long guns...a .22LR and a 12 gauge.

Last year I added a .17HMR single shot that was on clearance from Wal-mart.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



  Armadillos carry leperacy...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/health/28leprosy.html?_r=0.


----------



## daveman (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


Yup, me too.  Buzzards won't hardly touch 'em...can't get into 'em.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 19, 2013)

G.T. said:


> And to hunters in the south - I hear you're slacking on the wild hog populations. You better get that under control. Heard it's up to 2 million in Texas.




Missouri DNR has requested hunters NOT pursue feral hogs...

*Why Is Hunting For Feral Hogs Discouraged?*

 Although it seems a contradiction, hunters who target feral hogs  interfere with efforts to eradicate them. For example, weeks may be  spent conditioning a group of hogs to come to a specific location so  they can be eliminated in a single control action. If, during that time,  a hunter kills one or maybe two of the hogs, the rest of the group  moves to a new area, which means that the lengthy and expensive  eradication process must begin again at a new location. Because the goal  is to eliminate feral hogs, the Conservation Department seeks to  discourage the hog hunting culture. If you want to hunt specifically for  feral hogs, you should do so in another state, not in Missouri.

​They only advise shooting hogs when they are happened upon accidentally...

Although the Conservation Department discourages anyone from hunting  specifically for feral hogs, hunters afield for other game are  encouraged to shoot feral hogs on sight when they are encountered. In  this way hunters can help eradicate this dangerous and destructive pest.


Feral Hog Control | Missouri Department of Conservation
​.
.
.
.
I am abiding by their request...if I see one,  I'll take it...but I'm not going out to actively hunt them.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



I've been hunting and fishing my property for 20 years and I've never had a license and I've never seen a game warden on my land. I can legally kill deer if I do so to protect crops but I couldn't keep the meat, I would have to donate it. And also I can't be in the act of hunting when I take one down.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2013)

Missourian said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > And to hunters in the south - I hear you're slacking on the wild hog populations. You better get that under control. Heard it's up to 2 million in Texas.
> ...



I have a pack of hogs on my property than I've been feeding for a few years. I can go out there with a sack of corn, throw some on the ground and then take my time picking the one I want to kill. I take my shot, pig drops other pigs scatter, but they're back eating within minutes while I field dress the downed pig and leave the internals for the hogs to clean up. 

These pigs are so used to gun shots they don't scatter far.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> And such is a complete impossibility.  Our very existence means that the ecosystem is NOT left alone.  The effect of houses and populations are stark.
> 
> I really question the point of the OP though.  The original supposition: hunters do not love the wild, is utterly irrelevant.  I dont care what hunters think of the wild.  I am sure that there are many that do and many that dont care past the kill they get but in the end it is utterly meaningless what the hunters think.  They are allowed to hunt because that is what freedom looks like.  The state regulates the action to limit it impact and beyond that, there really is nothing else for them to do.  What are you trying to get at?  Do you want all hunting stopped?  What is it that you are trying to say here other than you dont like hunting?



I am not as "anti-hunting" as I seem. While it's something I personally would never do, it doesn't really bother me that much either. I'm not one of those PETA nuts who weeps over the fuzzy little bunnies put down by the big bad hunters. 

Rather, what I take exception to is the manipulation of ecosystems for hunters' benefit. If the wilds were simply left alone, with predators allowed to return to prominence; and hunters accepted the risk of entering predators' domain without killing predators who kill humans, I'd be perfectly fine with it and this OP would never have been written. 

Really, that kind of hunting would intrigue me. The challenge of finding game, competing with predators to get a kill, the risks of becoming prey yourself; now that sounds interesting and I might even be interested in taking part in that.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.



It is unnatural because when humans hunt predators, they are hunting them to either reduce their population or eradicate them entirely. Humans are the only animals that do that. Other predators simply hunt for enough food to feed themselves, or in the case of foxes they hunt when game presents itself and then cache it for later. But either way, when predators kill it's a very small scope of life lost. When humans do it, it's much larger.

Moreover, humans are not "better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful" because their activity always leads to unintended consequences, which I'll delve into in subsequent posts. Read on....


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> A lot of people here simply don't have the money to buy super market beef.  Meat is meat.  Those freezers full of venison help sustain many families here.  You know nothing about this area.* Many here would have starved during the Great Depression had it not been for the abundance of wildlife. * It is really disheartening when someone like you cares nothing for poor people and would deprive them of their best source of protein.  Well, daveman and I have set straight another one who thought he should be running this state..



The great depression is over.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.
> ...



*It is unnatural because when humans hunt predators, they are hunting them to either reduce their population or eradicate them entirely. Humans are the only animals that do that.*

lots of critters eat themselves out of house and home 

go try again


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

daveman said:


> Dunno about where you are, but preditors around here are ballooning.  Coyotes are everywhere.  When I was a kid, I saw _one_.  Total.  Now I see roadkill coyotes on the road several times a week.



Do you know why that is? It's because wolves have been systematically destroyed across America. Wolves have always kept coyote populations in check, without them coyotes balloon, to the point to where coyotes are spreading into places they have never been. Same with coyotes and foxes, in areas where coyotes have been culled, fox populations grow. 

There's a balance to nature, and mankind is always upsetting that balance.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You dont place humans above animals? So if I lined up a deer and your mother you wouldnt care which one I shot? Thats interesting.....strange but interesting.



Nice try, but no. I'd hold my mother higher than a deer or a strange human. I hold all my loved ones higher than animals or other humans. But strange humans and strange animals, they would be equal in my eyes. I'd also hold the animals I love as higher than strange humans. 

What's your point?


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.
> ...



What is or isn't natural is a fairly ambiguous concept.....unless, of course, you simply define natural as 'not human'.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Yuk.  My mother cooked a possum once for my brother.  I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.



Disgusting. But it couldn't be any worse than squirrel, my dad used to hunt and eat them. I tried it once, and it was nothing but gristle and very stringy. No thanks.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Of course hunters hunt for food.



Oh sure, there's no enjoyment in it at all, huh? 



Missourian said:


> And I notice you avoided the issue of killing by proxy.  Hypocrite,  know thyself.



A) I'm a vegetarian.

B) The animals in slaughterhouses were bred to be food. Some of the domesticated livestock we have couldn't even survive without man. While I have no desire to eat meat, I can accept store bought meat because the animals killed in the process were specifically there for that purpose. 

I could accept traditional hunting as well, if environments were not manipulated to their detriment to support it. This isn't about killing animals; it's about destroying natural ecosystems for the perceived benefit of mankind.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.
> ...



It is unnatural because when humans hunt predators, they are hunting them to either reduce their population or eradicate them entirely. Humans are the only animals that do that. Other predators simply hunt for enough food to feed themselves, or in the case of foxes they hunt when game presents itself and then cache it for later. But either way, when predators kill it's a very small scope of life lost. When humans do it, it's much larger

That tale has a nice sound to it but is simply untrue. Nature simply sees no difference between predators that are human and those of another species as long as they get the job done. Animals will kill for all sorts of reasons other than hunger. Feel free to ask Mama Bear if that's true.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Of course hunters hunt for food.
> ...



If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



or take up the animals space 

by planting people food


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> *It is unnatural because when humans hunt predators, they are hunting them to either reduce their population or eradicate them entirely. Humans are the only animals that do that.*
> 
> lots of critters eat themselves out of house and home
> 
> go try again



Name one


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



Anyone who has ever raised a garden knows it is ALL animal food!


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Some predators may prey on humans. People tend to object to that. Others may prey on livestock and pets. Human predation is no less natural than wolf or bear and humans are as much a part of the ecosystem as any other animal and better able to discriminate between helpful and harmful.
> ...



Unfortunately you are a little confused about predator vs predator relationships. Brown Bears kill Black Bears, Wolves kill coyotes, foxes, cougars kill coyotes, foxes, bears, anything. Lions kill leopards, hyenahs.... Predators kill predators to keep the competition down. To state predators do not kill their competition is simply wrong and uninformed.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?



Well, for one thing, I'm not going out into their land and taking their food. Farmland is for human food.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?
> ...



farmland was animal land at one time


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> or take up the animals space
> 
> by planting people food



Hopefully that can be alleviated by vertical farming one day. Unfortunately, humans will likely decide that land saved by vertical farming should be covered by human development as well. Our species is not yet mature enough to know that not all available space should be used for humans.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?
> ...



Not originally.  Here in western KY there were herds of bison that lived on the land that is now farm land.  It was open prairie.  I do believe you have painted yourself into a corner there.   All farm land in the US is land where animals once lived and fed.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Staidhup said:


> Unfortunately you are a little confused about predator vs predator relationships. Brown Bears kill Black Bears, Wolves kill coyotes, foxes, cougars kill coyotes, foxes, bears, anything. Lions kill leopards, hyenahs.... Predators kill predators to keep the competition down. To state predators do not kill their competition is simply wrong and uninformed.



Evidently you missed my post where I explained that the decline of wolf numbers has lead to the increase in coyote populations. Predators keep each other in check. Another reason why managed ecosystems are a bad idea and lead to many consequences.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Not originally.  Here in western KY there were herds of bison that lived on the land that is now farm land.  It was open prairie.  I do believe you have painted yourself into a corner there.   All farm land in the US is land where animals once lived and fed.



"Painted myself into a corner"? Jesus fucking Christ, why does everyone on this site approach threads like they are some sort of competition? Doesn't anyone on here discuss things for the sake of discussing them?

And as for your point, see my post on vertical farming.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



out here 

one of the places that we know where Lewis and Clark stood 

is a unusual hill today it is called spirit mound 

in their diaries they write  about going to the hill 

that day from that hill they counted over  800 buffalo and elk

On the Lewis and Clark Trail


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 19, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Of course hunters hunt for food.
> ...



If you understood more about ecosystems you would understand that deer and cattle are at exactly the same place in the food chain and that man may play much the same role as the wolf in an ecosystem. Man's major detrimental impact on ecosystems is about land use that excludes critters. Very few wild animals can make their home in a shopping ctr. or it's parking lot. Hunters aren't to blame for that.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 19, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> If you understood more about ecosystems you would understand that deer and cattle are at exactly the same place in the food chain and that man may play much the same role as the wolf in an ecosystem. Man's major detrimental impact on ecosystems is about land use that excludes critters. Very few wild animals can make their home in a shopping ctr. or it's parking lot. Hunters aren't to blame for that.



Ugh, there's so much wrong with the first part of your post I'm not even going to try to dissect it, because I don't know where to begin. I'll focus on the latter half and agree with you that the worst impact people have on ecosystems is indeed land use, development etc.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > If you understood more about ecosystems you would understand that deer and cattle are at exactly the same place in the food chain and that man may play much the same role as the wolf in an ecosystem. Man's major detrimental impact on ecosystems is about land use that excludes critters. Very few wild animals can make their home in a shopping ctr. or it's parking lot. Hunters aren't to blame for that.
> ...



What specifically was wrong with the "first part" of what he stated?


For a person whining about folks not debating, you sure missed a good chance.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Aug 20, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Yuk.  My mother cooked a possum once for my brother.  I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.
> ...



  You probably tried fox squirrel. Gray squirrels are much tastier.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 20, 2013)

In my state the majority of hunters don't get their deer, elk or whatever. People aren't very good hunters most of the time. An animal can hear, smell and see you long before you see them. Thousands of generations have survived because those that don't survive are eaten by predators. No wild animal dies of "old age". They stay alive by avoiding death. Their whole nature is tuned to being faster and more aware of their surroundings than the next one. Wolves single out a single animal - usually a weak animal and then run it to exhaustion. That may take hours or even days. Once a hunter is capable of finding an animal it is dead within minutes - if not immediately. Hunting is not in-humane or wasteful. I have let more deer walk away than I have killed. It is a "spiritual" event for me. The animal I kill has to "let me know" that it is ready to be food for my table. I thank the spirit of the animal for providing me and my family with life. I do this after the kill, as I am cooking it, and when we say grace before the meal. I do this for all the food we eat but it is more important to me when I see the animal is giving its life for me.

The thrill in hunting is not the killing, not even the hunt itself but rather the connection to nature that I have when I am outdoors in the wild.

BTW: there have only been two animals on the north American continent that regularly hunt man for food. The first is the polar bear and the second was the California Grizzly Bear. The Grizzly was taught to hunt people after the San Fransisco earthquake. They had no place to bury all the dead so they deposited the bodies in the mountains. The bear found out that humans were quick and easy meals.

There are more people killed by deer in the lower 48 than by any other species.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> In my state the majority of hunters don't get their deer, elk or whatever. People aren't very good hunters most of the time. An animal can hear, smell and see you long before you see them. Thousands of generations have survived because those that don't survive are eaten by predators. No wild animal dies of "old age". They stay alive by avoiding death. Their whole nature is tuned to being faster and more aware of their surroundings than the next one. Wolves single out a single animal - usually a weak animal and then run it to exhaustion. That may take hours or even days. Once a hunter is capable of finding an animal it is dead within minutes - if not immediately. Hunting is not in-humane or wasteful. I have let more deer walk away than I have killed. It is a "spiritual" event for me. The animal I kill has to "let me know" that it is ready to be food for my table. I thank the spirit of the animal for providing me and my family with life. I do this after the kill, as I am cooking it, and when we say grace before the meal. I do this for all the food we eat but it is more important to me when I see the animal is giving its life for me.
> 
> The thrill in hunting is not the killing, not even the hunt itself but rather the connection to nature that I have when I am outdoors in the wild.
> 
> ...



Yes they do die of old age, just not in the human context. When they get old they lose many of the abilities they need to survive, speed being a major one.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 20, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Yes they do die of old age, just not in the human context. When they get old they lose many of the abilities they need to survive, speed being a major one.



They die a violent death at the teeth, claw, and beaks of predators and scavengers. They don't lie down in a field of clover and calmly pass on. They get old and are killed by other animals. Their lives are an every day challenge to stay alive or be eaten. They all eventually lose that challenge - that is what they live for. They are food for others just as they feed on other things.

WE are all alike. We all kill to survive. I for one would rather be closely connected to where my food comes from than go to the market and buy meat that has been raised on hormones and antibiotics and fed chemicals and supplements with their food. I have been harvesting strawberries, squash and tomatoes from my garden for weeks now and the cantelope are getting big and ripe. They will soon be harvested too. Being connected to your food gives you a greater respect for it - you should try it.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> What specifically was wrong with the "first part" of what he stated?
> 
> 
> For a person whining about folks not debating, you sure missed a good chance.



A) It says deer and cattle are in the same place in "an" ecosystem. Cattle are not part of the same ecosystems that are being disrupted for hunting and livestock. In fact, one could make the argument that the presence of cattle is harming the ecosystem of the deer.

B) Even if cattle _were_ a part of the ecosystem man most certainly does not play the same role as wolves. 

There is more, but I really don't feel like picking it apart further.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 22, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they do die of old age, just not in the human context. When they get old they lose many of the abilities they need to survive, speed being a major one.
> ...



Yes and that's how wild animals die of old age. Thanks for supporting my statement.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 22, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > What specifically was wrong with the "first part" of what he stated?
> ...



One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.

I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all.  As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.

What hurts my wallet or the feral hogs, dogs and coyotes.

By the way cattle IS livestock.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 22, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.
> 
> I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all.  As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.
> 
> ...



Ahh, so there you go. The presence of cattle can hurt the ecosystem, of which the deer is only a part. If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check. 

And don't give me that crap that coyotes have ranged far beyond their natural realms. If man hadn't culled wolves and mountain lions into oblivion coyotes would never have ranged as far as they have. All coyotes are doing is taking the place of natural predators that were once there.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 22, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.
> ...



And man-also a natural predator- taking the place of wolves and cougars is every bit as "natural" as it is for coyotes, etc.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 22, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> And man-also a natural predator- taking the place of wolves and cougars is every bit as "natural" as it is for coyotes, etc.




*Sigh*

As I have been saying, all along, there is nothing "natural" about the way mankind is treating the ecosystem. Other predators do not have the means to eliminate *all other predators* from their proximity. Mankind does. And the consequences of this are unstable stream beds, depleted numbers of trees and other plant life, and as has been stated by others, excessive populations of prey animals. It's a cascading effect; absence of apex predators means trees don't grow as tall or as plentiful, which means less habitat for song birds. In areas with beavers there aren't enough strong trees to make ponds, which means fewer fish, reptiles, amphibians. 

And the benefits apex predators, such as wolves, bring to an ecosystem don't just come from the predators actually killing the animals. Just the presence of wolves in an ecosystem causes prey animals, as well as other predators, to change their behavior. 

For this fact alone, mankind will never "replace" apex predators within an ecosystem. Nor can coyotes, for that matter.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.
> ...



Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.

I don't kill coyotes to protect them, I kill coyotes to protect my livestock.

Next time you sit down to a good T-bone, you can thank me.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.



Because you cannot, for reasons I outlined in a post above. There is more to what apex predators accomplish within an ecosystem than just simply culling a number of deer each year. 

Read the post above yours. It answers in greater depth than I care to repeat. 



Lonestar_logic said:


> I don't kill coyotes to protect them, I kill coyotes to protect my livestock.



Again confused when it comes to my using the term livestock. Why?

Like a few posts ago I said that ecosystems is disrupted by hunting and the keeping of livestock, and you felt the need to tell me that cattle ARE livestock, when I was clearly referring to cattle as such. 

And now here. When I say you kill coyotes to protect your livestock, you think I'm talking about the deer. 

Serious question: is my grammar off?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 23, 2013)

_"As I have been saying, all along, there is nothing "natural" about the way mankind is treating the ecosystem. Other predators do not have the means to eliminate *all other predators* from their proximity. Mankind does."_

A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment. 

Like it or not Man* is *the apex predator, to the extent there is such a thing, and most of us are quite happy about that. I don't want to go hungry because wolves ate too much beef and pork even if they kept my family's needs down by also eating some of my children. And if tame animals are easy meals the deer other grazers may overpopulate and strip the fields of grain and vegetables leaving vegans to go hungry. 

Man is the only predator willing and able to study conditions and make his predation a positive rather than a negative factor. And that is why we have indeed replaced the wolf long since


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.
> ...



Oh but I can take the place of natural predators and I do.


About the cattle/livestock issue:

You stated,  "*Cattle* are *not* part of the same ecosystems that are being disrupted for hunting and* livestock*.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You're saying cattle are not part of the same ecosystem that's being disrupted for livestock. 

Then you stated, "If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check."

My response is this: 

I kill coyotes to protect my livestock, I keep "prey" animals in check by hunting the deer, rabbits, quail, dove, ducks and geese and taking my cattle to market.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 23, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment.



Exactly! Man cannot hope to have the same predatory impact as wolves or mountain lions. Which leads into.... 



9thIDdoc said:


> Like it or not Man* is *the apex predator, to the extent there is such a thing, and most of us are quite happy about that. I don't want to go hungry because wolves ate too much beef and pork even if they kept my family's needs down by also eating some of my children. And if tame animals are easy meals the deer other grazers may overpopulate and strip the fields of grain and vegetables leaving vegans to go hungry.



...the problems we are facing. You don't like competing with wolves for food, so you kill them off. As a result people die from hitting deer on the highway, because there are too many of them now that wolves are gone. And coyotes have run amok without them. How's that working out for you?



9thIDdoc said:


> Man is the only predator willing and able to study conditions and make his predation a positive rather than a negative factor. And that is why we have indeed replaced the wolf long since



It's the exact opposite. Wolf and mountain lion predation was the positive, man has brought nothing but disruption and unintended consequences. Name one single positive aspect of man's predation over a natural predator's negative. Remember: just naming something positive won't back up such an outrageous claim, you must also offset it with a negative aspect of natural predation.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment.
> ...



The over population of deer isn't because we're killing off wolves it's because  of the increasing population of man, i.e. roads, housing communities, industries etc....

The solution is to increase hunting in those areas. Trust me, men would much rather kill a deer than a wolf.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Oh but I can take the place of natural predators and I do.



No, you cannot. For reasons I outlined above. Bagging a couple of deer a year doesn't come close to taking the place of natural predators. 




Lonestar_logic said:


> This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You're saying cattle are not part of the same ecosystem that's being disrupted for livestock.



They are not. The deer and other native animals live within the natural ecosystem that was there long before you existed. 

Your cattle are a part of the agro-ecosystem that you provide for them. Outside your property lines is the real ecosystem, and you are not a part of that, nor is your cattle, no matter how badly you wish it to be true.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 23, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The over population of deer isn't because we're killing off wolves it's because  of the increasing population of man, i.e. roads, housing communities, industries etc....



You're talking urban sprawl, which brings people into closer contact with wild animals. That is completely different from an excessive number of some animal populations due to predator annihilation. 



Lonestar_logic said:


> The solution is to increase hunting in those areas. Trust me, men would much rather kill a deer than a wolf.



Or maybe....just maybe....it's time to ask our fellow man to either control his population better or stay in the cities.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 23, 2013)

_From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Ecosphere has several different meanings:
In ecology the term ecosphere can refer to the Earth's spheres, a planetary ecosystem consisting of the atmosphere, the geosphere (lithosphere), the hydrosphere, and the biosphere._

Note that ALL animals and plants are part of the biosphere which in turn is part of the ecosphere. 

_"Exactly! Man cannot hope to have the same predatory impact as wolves or mountain lions. Which leads into.... _

Over most of the country wolves and mt. lions have exactly zero (0) predatory impact. They are no longer here. Does the above have a point?

_As a result people die from hitting deer on the highway, because there are too many of them now that wolves are gone. And coyotes have run amok without them. How's that working out for you?_

The truth is that there are very few places where deer are overpopulated and essentially none at all where overpopulation is the result of a lack of wolves or mt. lions. In my part of the country they (wolves, etc) were about gone before there were any cars or highways to speak of and so were the deer and turkey. It was human hunters who footed the bill for the restoration of the herds/flocks. Not wolves; not tree-huggers. If human hunters could exterminate coyotes they would have been extinct long ago. And good riddance. 

_"Wolf and mountain lion predation was the positive, man has brought nothing but disruption and unintended consequences. Name one single positive aspect of man's predation over a natural predator's negative. Remember: just naming something positive won't back up such an outrageous claim, you must also offset it with a negative aspect of natural predation."_

That sword cuts both ways and I'm interested in hearing how wolf predation is a positive and human predation a negative in your view. Why is it that you think I must provide support for my opinions but you offer no such thing for your own outrageous statements? 

Hunters provide the vast majority of the money that is spent to benefit ALL wildlife through license, permit and tag fees along with PR taxes and the contributions from various hunter oriented organizations. Wolves don't buy licenses and are just as happy to kill a cow or an endangered species as a deer. Men pay for the studies that determine the location, age, sex, optimum number and species to cull in order to maintain a healthy herd. Wolves don't. 

_"They are not. The deer and other native animals live within the natural ecosystem that was there long before you existed." _

As do men and cattle (see definition above)

_"Your cattle are a part of the agro-ecosystem that you provide for them. Outside your property lines is the real ecosystem, and you are not a part of that, nor is your cattle, no matter how badly you wish it to be true"_

Now *that* is a fine example of an outrageously untrue statement!


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dunno about where you are, but preditors around here are ballooning.  Coyotes are everywhere.  When I was a kid, I saw _one_.  Total.  Now I see roadkill coyotes on the road several times a week.
> ...


Not when we take the place of the top-tier predators.  

And while the coyote population around here has exploded, so has the fox population.  Again, as a kid, I saw maybe one or two.  Now they're everywhere.

As of March 19th of this year, it's legal to hunt coyotes year-round and at all hours in KY.  

That's a good thing.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Yuk.  My mother cooked a possum once for my brother.  I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.
> ...



I fondly remember my grandmother's squirrel.  Very tasty!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



squirrel is good eats


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Of course hunters hunt for food.
> ...


Then you oppose ethanol mandates.  

Ethanol responsible for this year's expected record dead zone, researcher says | NOLA.com


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?
> ...



Farmland USED to be animal land.

What's the statute of limitations?  When does the land no longer belong to Gaea, but to the farmer?


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


Have you seen the bison and elk at LBL?  Way cool!  I drive down The Trace a couple times a week, past the bison range.  Man, those suckers are big!


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Not originally.  Here in western KY there were herds of bison that lived on the land that is now farm land.  It was open prairie.  I do believe you have painted yourself into a corner there.   All farm land in the US is land where animals once lived and fed.
> ...


Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



complete fantasy 

stuff for the gullible


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The over population of deer isn't because we're killing off wolves it's because  of the increasing population of man, i.e. roads, housing communities, industries etc....
> ...


You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...


It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be.  As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



true 

but anyone out here in the farm belt and sees just how much grain we produce 

knows it is nothing more then fantasy


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Maybe with current technology.  If we're lucky, at some point some new technology will allow something like it to be feasible.

Of course, that may just be the sci-fi nerd in me talking.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 23, 2013)

daveman said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



That really points out the crux of the issue though.  It is nothing more than man hating.  I never really understood the motivation to hate ones own race.  The entire concept makes no sense whatsoever.  There is nothing special about nature nor is man separate from it.  We are all part of nature.  Nor is death and extinction outside of normal events that do not include man.  There were more extinct species before man ever walked the earth than there are live ones today.  Nature in itself is brutal as all hell.  The real arguments for keeping nature in good health are that we require the ecosystem to survive.  We need to care for the world so that we dont cause our own extinction.  Dark is talking about this on another level though as though a natural forest is any less beautiful without human existence than it is with the local souvenir shop and hiking trail.  

There is really nothing to say to that because it is all predicated on some form of nature worship that has no real connection with logic.   The assumption that was made in the OP has become a lot clearer to me than when this thread started.  It is not a statement that hunters dont love nature.  It is a statement that hunters do not love a nature that is totally devoid of human existence.  I would say that is likely true but then I think that most people would not be overly fond of a reality that would require them to ceace to exist.

The most telling trait of these people is that they are more than willing to keep going on.  Phrases like population control seem to never include themselves.  It reminds me of this group  completely comprised of hypocritical nutcases:







VHEMT​They talk a LOT but what they really want is for everyone to die off but not until they are finished living themselves.  There is no more fitting term than insane.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


...promoted by people who have never even been to a farm.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



I'm a huge SF fan, too, and it's an intriguing idea...would be more applicable on space colonies and generation ships than the Earth's surface, however.


----------



## daveman (Aug 23, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...


Indeed.

They fail to see the contradiction in their views.  Man evolved from lesser beings -- yet Man is not a part of nature.

Of course, this whole thing is based solely on emotion, not facts and logic, so there you go.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 24, 2013)

daveman said:


> Then you oppose ethanol mandates.
> 
> Ethanol responsible for this year's expected record dead zone, researcher says | NOLA.com



I was never in favor of ethanol mandates. For one thing, they are geared around corn ethanol, which burns almost as dirty as fossil fuels anyway and takes away from our food supply. If it were built around sugar ethanol, which burns far cleaner and has less impact on the environment to process, I might feel a bit differently. 

The RFS mandate was bullshit from the start, and I never supported it.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 24, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> complete fantasy
> 
> stuff for the gullible



They once said that about every scientific leap we have made in the last 100 years. Who knows?

I do know one thing, the earth's human population continues to grow with no end in sight, and with more people comes more need to feed them. More food means more farmland. But more people means less land to farm. Something will have to give one day


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 24, 2013)

daveman said:


> You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.



Indeed, humanity is still too immature to make such decisions.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 24, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> That really points out the crux of the issue though.  It is nothing more than man hating.  I never really understood the motivation to hate one&#8217;s own race.



Saying that humanity needs to reproduce more responsibly doesn't mean one hates mankind. In fact, I cannot think of a more "pro-humanity" argument to make. 



FA_Q2 said:


> The real arguments for keeping nature in good health are that we require the ecosystem to survive.  We need to care for the world so that we don&#8217;t cause our own extinction.  Dark is talking about this on another level though as though a natural forest is any less beautiful without human existence than it is with the local souvenir shop and hiking trail.



No, you're seeing what you want to see. Nowhere have I once said anything remotely close to what you describe. My argument, from the beginning has been in favor of keeping ecosystems in the best health they can be, for we cannot survive without them. 

We keep them in health by limiting our impact as much as possible and returning natural predators to them. We cannot take the place of wolves and cougars in an ecosystem, because what they bring is more than bagging a certain number of quotas each year. There are intangibles to wild predation that mankind cannot hope to replicate. 

If people would pay closer attention to what I'm actually saying, as opposed to building strawmen around what they want to argue against, my posts would make much more sense to them.  



FA_Q2 said:


> It is not a statement that hunters don&#8217;t love nature.  It is a statement that hunters do not love a nature that is totally devoid of human existence.  I would say that is likely true but then I think that most people would not be overly fond of a reality that would require them to ceace to exist.



That is close. But still wrong. I cannot remember what page it's on, somewhere near the beginning, but I made a post clearly stating that hunters do not love nature, they love a "managed" nature that caters to what they want: to shoot animals. Which is why the most vocal opponents to returning wolves and other predators to the wilds tend to be hunting activists. 

If hunters loved nature, they want to go out there and compete against the apex predators with the added risk of becoming the hunted themselves. Bagging a buck would actually a hell of an accomplishment then! Even I might be tempted to take part in such an activity. But as it is hunters want a nature that poses as little threat to them and as little competition as they can get. That is not loving nature, that is loving hunting. Two separate things. 



FA_Q2 said:


> The most telling trait of these people is that they are more than willing to keep going on.  Phrases like &#8216;population&#8217; control seem to never include themselves.



That is because "population control" is not synonymous with killing, eugenics or all of the other Adolf Hitler references people like to come up with when the hear it. It's no secret that the more educated and prosperous a society is, the lower its birthrate usually is. So really the best way to "control population" is to lift as much of the world as we can out of poverty and educate them. And if that education also entails information about reproducing more responsibly, so be it.

Unless you think people on welfare having 6+ kids is a good thing, I do not see how one can actually be opposed to advocating more responsible reproduction.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 24, 2013)

> If hunters loved nature, they want to go out there and compete against the apex predators with the added risk of becoming the hunted themselves.



You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ?  Quite a stretch.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 24, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ?  Quite a stretch.



Nature is dangerous.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 24, 2013)

_"We keep them in health by limiting our impact as much as possible and returning natural predators to them. We cannot take the place of wolves and cougars in an ecosystem, because what they bring is more than bagging a certain number of quotas each year. There are intangibles to wild predation that mankind cannot hope to replicate". _

As you yourself said earlier, just saying so doesn't make it so. Are you going to provide evidence or support for your outrageous ideas or is talking fantasy all you're able to do? What happened to wanting to debate ideas?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 24, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ?  Quite a stretch.
> ...



It always ends in death


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> As you yourself said earlier, just saying so doesn't make it so. Are you going to provide evidence or support for your outrageous ideas or is talking fantasy all you're able to do? What happened to wanting to debate ideas?



I gave what I get. Thus far, all anyone has had to say is "I can replace natural predators because I say so". As I have been saying all along, predators contribute more than just numbers on a chalkboard. See here:



> Predation can have far-reaching effects on biological communities. A starfish is the top predator upon a community of invertebrates inhabiting tidally inundated rock faces in the Pacific Northwest. The rest of the community included mollusks, barnacles and other invertebrates, for a total of 12 species (not counting microscopic taxa). The investigator removed the starfish by hand, which of course reduced the number of species to 11.
> 
> Soon, an acorn barnacle and a mussel began to occupy virtually all available space, out competing other species. Species diversity dropped from more than 12 species to essentially 2. The starfish was a keystone predator, keeping the strongest competitors in check. Although it was a predator, it helped to maintain a greater number of species in the community. Its beneficial impact on species that were weak competitors is an example of an indirect effect.
> 
> When non-native species (exotics) invade an area, they often create "domino" effects, causing many other species to increase or decrease. The rainbow trout, beautiful, tasty, and beloved by anglers, has been purposefully spread to virtually all parts of the world where it can survive. In New Zealand, it has out-competed the native fishes, which now are found only above waterfalls that act as barriers to trout dispersal. Because it is a more effective predator than the native fish species, the invertebrates that are prey to the trout are reduced in abundance wherever trout occur. Algae, which are grazed by the invertebrates, increase because of reduced grazing pressure. This is an example of a trophic cascade.



Predator-Prey Relationships

See in the first part how the removal of what the article calls the "keystone predator" had an impact on biodiversity and most notably, the lesser predators. We are experiencing *the exact same thing* in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused their populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range. It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes, and thus fewer breeding opportunities. The effects of removing them are obvious. 

The second half is a great example of humans fucking up an ecosystem for their own enjoyment.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

More:



> When the construction of a hydroelectric dam on Venezuela's Caroni River was finally completed in 1986, it flooded an area twice the size of Rhode Island, creating one of South America's largest human-made lakes: Lake Guri.
> 
> In the predator's absence, their prey&#8212;howler monkeys, iguanas, leaf-cutting ants&#8212;began multiplying. Soon these plant-eaters had devoured most of the once pristine forest.
> 
> ...



Without Top Predators, Ecosystems Turn Topsy-Turvy


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

More



> Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth," a review paper that will be published on July 15, 2011, in the journal Science, concludes that the decline of large predators and herbivores in all regions of the world is causing substantial changes to Earth's terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. The paper claims that the loss of apex consumers from ecosystems "may be humankind's most pervasive influence on nature."



Loss of top animal predators has massive ecological effects

More:



> Humans often play a role in initiating boom and bust cycles by wiping out the top predator. For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearing forest critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food.
> 
> Or, more recently, researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While jellyfish have few predators, removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on.
> 
> ...



Top Predators Key to Ecosystem Survival, Study Shows | LiveScience


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

Still more:



> The predator-prey relationship is simple, right? If a predator is around, that is bad for the prey, and if the predator is removed, that is good for the prey.
> 
> Ecological theory, however, suggests that isn&#8217;t always the case, particularly if there is more than one predator species around and they share the same prey. In that case, elimination of the top predator may allow the midlevel predator to thrive, and a result may actually be worse for the prey.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11obprey.html?_r=0


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 25, 2013)

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
> The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.



Nature is quite incapable of feeding 6 billion people though.  Without farming and herding we would be limited to the millions rather than billions.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 25, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
> ...



And that would be bad, WHY?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



Because try and stop people from being people and you are going to fail, period.  The idea that we should stop progress in farming or anything else that allows expansion of population is asinine in the extreme.  

Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 25, 2013)

Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.


----------



## daveman (Aug 25, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.



This planet can sustain billions of people -- if local government officials didn't interfere.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.



Of course. But we cannot replicate apex predators, for reasons I have outlined now several times.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?



Pollution, environmental degradation, overcrowded cities and urban areas, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, war, famine, disease.....

Why is it GOOD that there are 6 billion people?


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

daveman said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.
> ...



Yet more "it's this way because I say so" shtick. 

I have now proven my points in this thread to the point of redundancy, it would be nice if others could begin to do so as well. Though, I would happily settle for discussion and/or acknowledgement of the proof that I have provided


----------



## Missourian (Aug 25, 2013)

Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.

That's all the proof anyone needs.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 25, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
> ...



You have NOT done so and you continue to ignore the fact Man has in fact replaced "apex predators" over much of the US and that many species have thrived because of it. Your imagination does not trump reality.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> You have NOT done so and you continue to ignore the fact Man has in fact replaced "apex predators" over much of the US and that many species have thrived because of it. Your imagination does not trump reality.



So I post 5 links backing up my argument, yet you still refuse to see. And you were wondering why I was not in a rush to provide evidence. Nope, it doesn't work this way. Either provide evidence of your own, or discuss and debate mine, or this conversation is over. 

I refuse to debate with people who demand evidence and then refuse to acknowledge it when it's provided.

And to those of you so concerned with "winning" debates, when evidence is provided and it's ignored with continuous "it's this way because I say so" posts, that's generally considered a concession


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?
> ...



Because I like people.  You dont seem to though you decry that population control is not your cover.

The premise is actually completely nuts.  You want to control people and Paul seems to think that there is a problem with progressing technology to feed people.  Lunacy.

Let me let you in on a secret, war famine disease all exist at all population levels.  The worst of ALL those was experienced during MUCH lower populations.  The black plague hit when there were far fewer people and the wars that used to be fought in the dark ages seen large percentages of the entire population die off.  The difference, of course, is that we have PROGRESSED technologically which, coincidentally, also requires population growth.

We will extend outward from this tiny little planet eventually and bring life to completely dead planets.  What you dont realize is that humanity in all its glory IS beautiful.  Extremely so and I would not trade humanity in its current state for some more clumps of trees and lions. 

You would and that really makes me think that you are insane.  No natural species limits its own population so that others can take their place, the very thought is unnatural in of itself.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.
> 
> That's all the proof anyone needs.



So in other words, you have nothing for rebuttal. I knew I was right all along, but it's always nice to see it confirmed.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 25, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.
> ...




The rebuttal is "open your eyes".

Look around...it's a done deal.

The wolves are gone in large numbers,  the bears are gone in large numbers,  the big cats are gone in large numbers,  and nature remains as "in balance" as it was before,  with a little help from hunting...which man has been doing since the dawn of mankind.

You are the only one who doesn't see it.

Things change,  heatwave,  droughts,  wildfires and Ice Ages...and nature adapts.

I'm pretty sure you are the only one in this thread that has defended your view.

Have you ever considered for a second that you might be wrong?

That hunting is part of the natural order of things?


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Because I like people.



Compelling argument, that. 



FA_Q2 said:


> You want to control people



Actually, I'd prefer they control themselves. I barely have the energy to control what I can in my own life, let alone the lives of others. Is asking for education and the elimination of as much poverty as possible really that bad?



FA_Q2 said:


> Let me let you in on a secret, war famine disease all exist at all population levels.



Actually, one could argue that increased population size has exacerbated these issues.  



FA_Q2 said:


> The difference, of course, is that we have PROGRESSED technologically which, coincidentally, also requires population growth.



Same here too. Increased technology means increased risk. During the days of the black plague it was very unlikely an epidemic could make it off a continent and threat the entire species, and weapons that could destroy the world completely were not even conceived of. Both are real dangers now. Thanks to technology. 



FA_Q2 said:


> We will extend outward from this tiny little planet eventually and bring life to completely dead planets.  What you don&#8217;t realize is that humanity in all its glory IS beautiful.  Extremely so and I would not trade humanity in its current state for some more clumps of trees and lions.
> 
> You would and that really makes me think that you are insane.  No natural species limits its own population so that others can take their place, the very thought is unnatural in of itself.



No, that is insanity, to willfully destroy the only known planet in which we can survive for science-fiction pipe dreams. It's funny, vertical farming was decried as fantasy and yet terraforming entire planets is being used to debunk the very real problems we are facing and will continue to face.

Finding ways to conserve land for farming to feed more people: bad, evil, and the stuff of science fiction

Allowing earth and its inhabitants to be slowly consumed and destroyed: oh, that's fine because we'll just terraform an entirely dead planet when we need to

Interesting dichotomy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 25, 2013)

_"See in the first part how the removal of what the article calls the "keystone predator" had an impact on biodiversity and most notably, the lesser predators. We are experiencing the exact same thing in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused their populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range. It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes, and thus fewer breeding opportunities. The effects of removing them are obvious." _

Seems to me that you are the only one with difficulty understanding predator/prey relationships.

_ The second half is a great example of humans fucking up an ecosystem for their own enjoyment_.

Making judgments about the effects of changes in the biosphere is entirely a subjective matter. Eating venison that might otherwise have fed a possibly dangerous wolf seems like a great thing instead of a fuckup to me. And my opinion is as valid as yours.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

Missourian said:


> The rebuttal is "open your eyes".
> 
> Look around...it's a done deal.



Yet links and facts are strangely absent from your post. If it's such a done deal, surely evidence via scientific study should be easy to come by. Mine were. 



Missourian said:


> The wolves are gone in large numbers,  the bears are gone in large numbers,  the big cats are gone in large numbers,  and nature remains as "in balance" as it was before,  with a little help from hunting...which man has been doing since the dawn of mankind.



Exploding populations of foxes, coyotes and deer seem to suggest otherwise. 




Missourian said:


> I'm pretty sure you are the only one in this thread that has defended your view.



I am also the only one who has provided scientific basis to defend my view as well. Until someone can post some scientific data of their own, your argumentum ad populum does little to convince me. 



Missourian said:


> Have you ever considered for a second that you might be wrong?



If someone could make a compelling scientific argument I might. Have you considered, for just a fleeting moment, that I might be right?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 25, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > You have NOT done so and you continue to ignore the fact Man has in fact replaced "apex predators" over much of the US and that many species have thrived because of it. Your imagination does not trump reality.
> ...



That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Seems to me that you are the only one with difficulty understanding predator/prey relationships.



I suppose the scientists who conducted the studies in my links don't understand predator/prey relationships, either?



9thIDdoc said:


> Making judgments about the effects of changes in the biosphere is entirely a subjective matter. Eating venison that might otherwise have fed a possibly dangerous wolf seems like a great thing instead of a fuckup to me. And my opinion is as valid as yours.



And yet, my opinion is based in scientific fact and yours is based on emotion. My opinion is based on more than just the venison, the deer, and the wolf. Yours in extremely short sighted. 

Have you also never considered for a moment that I, and my scientific studies, may be right?


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 25, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.



In what way do they not?!

I was familiar with two of these studies long before I posted them here, and my opinions are influenced by them. Tell me, in depth, how they run contrary to what I have said


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I like people.
> ...



_Looks again. _
Nope, didnt say any of that bullshit that you just tried to toss on me.  Also said that we need to keep this planet functioning well also.  Nothing about destroying it at all.

You are the one that seems to think that we cannot do so at current and future populations.  I think that we not only can but we will thrive.  Anyone that thinks we will never expand to the stars is also ignorant of technological advance.   Hundred years ago, the sky was unreachable and the moon was a pipe dream.  Today, easy as pie.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 25, 2013)

And I don&#8217;t think we are going to expand as a function of a dead planet.  We are going to because that is what people (and all living things) do.  They expand until they can no longer do so and when they hit that barrier, they try and evolve to expand more.


----------



## Montrovant (Aug 25, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Hey, I'm a big sci-fi fan and wish I could live long enough to see terraforming done.  That said, the moon is not 'easy as pie'.  When did we last go to the moon?

It's also entirely possible that we will never expand 'to the stars'.  To other planets in our solar system, sure.  But unless we find a way to greatly exceed or circumvent the speed of light and the theoretical issues with matter traveling at that speed, we will not expand very far. 

I do think we can continue at the current population for quite some time, but I don't know how far we can expand the population before it becomes a real problem.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 26, 2013)

At least you admit the world has a maximum capacity limit. That is progress. How much more would say it will take before it's reached? 9 billion? 10 billion?

Those numbers are not that far off


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 26, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > As you yourself said earlier, just saying so doesn't make it so. Are you going to provide evidence or support for your outrageous ideas or is talking fantasy all you're able to do? What happened to wanting to debate ideas?
> ...



That's a contradiction. 

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

Another contradiction.

Larger range size means less territory?

It's sad that you actually believe that nonsense.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 26, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



*
The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.*

every ranchers dream 

--LOL


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 26, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



I think that looks at the issue backwards.  Everyone 20 years ago was stating that we would have grown to a point that was untenable already but that does not occur.  I believe that you can present a damn good case that population grows until it can no longer support itself and then stops.  Natural scarcity of resources essentially stops population growth when you hit that barrier.

It is not a matter if whether or not we can sustain more; we will cease to expand when we cant.

We no longer go to the moon because there is no point.  It is fairly easy but rather expensive.  You do realize that NASA at its LARGEST budget was at 33 billion dollars (adjusted to 2007 constant).  That is a mere 4% of what we spend on military.  It is not that difficult today and it looks as though commercial interests are taking over.  50 years from now, it will likely be heavily commercialized (space flight) and will likely be a rather normal thing.

A LOT happens in 50 years.  Hell, 30 years ago computers were mere fantasy and NO ONE would have suspected the massive impact that they would have had.  When you really look at what we can do today versus what we were capable in the 70s and 80s there is a hell of a difference.  Particularly on the cutting edge.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 26, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> At least you admit the world has a maximum capacity limit. That is progress. How much more would say it will take before it's reached? 9 billion? 10 billion?
> 
> Those numbers are not that far off



There is always a maximum capacity.  I dont think that anyone has ever disputed that.

There is also the simple fact that maximum is NOT static.  It changes with technological advance.  That is how things work.  We hit a limit, stop expanding, make a discovery (like crop rotation or other land use/farming discoveries) and then we begin to expand again as resources become available.  That is the natural order of things.
You base that those numbers are not that far off on what?  

There is lots of undeveloped space available.  If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious.  We also have a shit ton of capacity to produce food.  We are nowhere near our limit.  What is limiting the Human population right now is actually NOT a scarcity of resource or space but rather a logistical nightmare.  The US could feed the world but there simply is no way for us to get the food there.  With fractured governments and no real unity, it becomes very difficult to deal with logistical problems on a scale that large.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Aug 26, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.
> ...



You tell me. Where is any support for your arguments that:

Man is not part of the ecosystem?
Man is not a natural predator?
Farmland is not part of the same ecosystem as other land?
Any change in the ecosystem initiated by man is bad and to be avoided?
Any change initiated by "natural predators" is good and to be fostered?
Man cannot replace top predators?

Your claim of science is pretty pathetic compared to the ongoing studies made by professional biologists and other professionals-paid for almost entirely by hunters and fishermen-into the health and well being of wildlife along with providing programs to help maintain, inhibit, or expand them as needed. Every state has it's own programs and  agencies with that same mission. That is the benefit man brings to the table as the apex predator. What benefit does a wolf offer?

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Wildlife Habitat & Conservation


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 26, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> That's a contradiction.
> 
> The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.
> 
> ...



Again, you seem to have difficulty understanding my sentences. When I place a period (.) at the end of the sentence, my thought does not end there. 

_We are experiencing the exact same thing in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused *their* populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range. _

The word "their" is in reference to foxes and coyotes, mentioned in the previous sentence. I can perhaps understand this error, but your next one really perplexes me:

_It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes,_

Is it not obvious that I am referencing to wolves' larger territories, and that their impact on coyotes was that, as a result of the *wolf's* larger territory than the *coyote's* that the coyote had fewer breeding opportunities?

Serious, honest question that is not meant to insult: why do you have such difficulty understanding my posts?


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 26, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> *
> The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.*
> 
> every ranchers dream
> ...



The removal of animal causes another animal's population to explode. Who doesn't understand what about predator/prey relationships?


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 26, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> There is lots of undeveloped space available.  If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious.  .



That's just it; how much land do you want to be developed? All of it? Not every inch on undeveloped land should one day go to human use. We are not the only inhabitants on this planet. I also believe it does the human psyche good to see greenery and undeveloped nature, if only from afar


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 26, 2013)

9thIDdoc said:


> Man is not a natural predator?



I never said that, I said mankind cannot replace apex predators, even you wish to classify mankind as an apex predator himself. My links clearly show the consequences of predator removal.



9thIDdoc said:


> Any change in the ecosystem initiated by man is bad and to be avoided?



Never really said that either, I'm simply outlining negative impacts of man's ecosystem "management". Most "positive" changes man makes are to offset the negative consequences of his prior actions. Name one positive contribution mankind has made to an ecosystem that has not been made to offset his own previous negative impact. 



9thIDdoc said:


> Any change initiated by "natural predators" is good and to be fostered?



Predators don't change anything. Their removal certainly does, and the links prove that such change is bad. 



9thIDdoc said:


> Your claim of science is pretty pathetic compared to the ongoing studies made by professional biologists and other professionals-paid for almost entirely by hunters and fishermen-into the health and well being of wildlife along with providing programs to help maintain, inhibit, or expand them as needed.



Oh I'm sure there are studies that show exactly what you want to see and hear, and I have no doubt that they are indeed paid for entirely by hunting and fishing groups/lobbyists/enthusiasts. You might want to think about that a bit. 



9thIDdoc said:


> What benefit does a wolf offer?



Did you read the links?



9thIDdoc said:


> Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Wildlife Habitat & Conservation



Ugh


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 27, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > There is lots of undeveloped space available.  If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious.  .
> ...



As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 27, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.



That's kind of a cop out. Let's say we could develop all but the worst of rocky, desert and mountain terrain and be able to sustain our survival. "Wildlife" as we know it would cease to exist, leaving only very small zoo-like preserves as windows into what the earth used to be. Would you support a world like that?

I'm just trying to see how far you'd go. How much does the wild, untamed and undeveloped world mean to you?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 27, 2013)

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground

Wildlife officials on Monday were investigating a reported wolf attack on a 16-year-old boy camping last weekend in northern Minnesota

The attack reportedly occurred early Saturday in a campground along the shore of Lake Winnibigoshish in the Chippewa National Forest.

The teen, who was sleeping at the time, suffered nonlife-threatening cuts to his head and puncture wounds to his face.

If confirmed, it would be the first documented wolf attack of such severity in Minnesota and likely in the continental U.S

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground - TwinCities.com


----------



## DarkLion (Aug 27, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground
> 
> Wildlife officials on Monday were investigating a reported wolf attack on a 16-year-old boy camping last weekend in northern Minnesota
> 
> ...



A) The injuries were not life threatening

B) It's the first attack of its kind ever recorded, and that includes when wolves were widespread and before humans had fortified cities

C) The teen was in the wolf's domain, not the other way around. 

D) If you're trying to use this story to justify killing wolves, keep in mind that an entire species is more important than one human

E) Still avoiding commenting on the links, eh? I guess the cries for evidence were made on the assumption I had nothing to back myself up with. Little was it considered that I actually know what I'm talking about


----------



## PaulS1950 (Aug 31, 2013)

An apex predator is by definition at the top of the food chain. Man, when being a predator, is an apex predator. We have hunted, killed and eaten every animal on earth. All apex predators when young and inexperienced suffer attacks from other predators. Even though man is ill suited for hunting he has developed technology that keeps him at the top in most situations. By "ill suited" I mean that our natural senses are not as highly refined - the common dog has 1000 times the ability to distinguish the different smells, our vision is marginal even in bright light and poor in low light conditions, Our hearing is far below that of other predators and lower still in comparison to the prey we hunt, yet we are as successful as any other predator on the ground. We are omnivorous like the wolf and bear which allows us to eat most anything to survive. We are THE apex predator on land in the world.


----------



## DarkLion (Sep 1, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> An apex predator is by definition at the top of the food chain. Man, when being a predator, is an apex predator. We have hunted, killed and eaten every animal on earth. All apex predators when young and inexperienced suffer attacks from other predators. Even though man is ill suited for hunting he has developed technology that keeps him at the top in most situations. By "ill suited" I mean that our natural senses are not as highly refined - the common dog has 1000 times the ability to distinguish the different smells, our vision is marginal even in bright light and poor in low light conditions, Our hearing is far below that of other predators and lower still in comparison to the prey we hunt, yet we are as successful as any other predator on the ground. We are omnivorous like the wolf and bear which allows us to eat most anything to survive. We are THE apex predator on land in the world.



Whether or not mankind is an apex predator was never an issue here. 


We cannot take the place of the natural apex predators within an ecosystem. You are not looking at the larger picture, which goes far beyond just killing prey animals. When wolves are around, yes they kill prey animals. But they also keep the largest territories, allowing fewer breeding opportunities for foxes and coyotes, species whose populations have soared in the absence of wolves. Man cannot replace that intangible. Nor can he create the "climate of fear" that the mere presence of wolves creates among an entire ecosystem. 

 As I just mentioned, foxes and coyotes live within a much more diminished capacity in both territory and breeding opportunities. Prey animals alter their migration routes and grazing habits when wolves are around; this allows trees to grow taller and stronger, making for more stable stream beds and stronger trees benefit beavers. And more beavers building dams means more, ponds, which means breeding ground for fish and amphibians. Wolves also mean carrion, which benefits crows and ravens. 

There is more to it than just killing animals. Read the links I provided; especially the first one which talks about "keystone predators" and what purpose they serve within an ecosystem. There is a cascading effect that goes so far beyond killing animals.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 1, 2013)

Sorry,  I couldn't help myself.

I was looking at how-to pages and designs for the stock of my 12 gauge,  ran across this bastardization of Oppenheimer/Bhagavad Gita.

Had to share it...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 2, 2013)

Missourian said:


> Sorry,  I couldn't help myself.
> 
> I was looking at how-to pages and designs for the stock of my 12 gauge,  ran across this bastardization of Oppenheimer/Bhagavad Gita.
> 
> Had to share it...



--LOL

you might want to send that picture to [MENTION=43245]Pop23[/MENTION] over on the 

"squirrels are eating my car-help" thread


----------



## daveman (Sep 5, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.
> 
> So my message to them is simple: change the way you view wildlife. Support the reintroduction of wolves and other predators, because they have a place and you have no right to deny it to them. They benefit the ecosystem more than you do, and their purpose is more important than a couple of human lives or a bit of inconvenience to a few humans.
> 
> Get over yourselves, and remember you are not the only inhabitants of the earth and animals have every bit as much claim to it as you do.


Perhaps you should kill yourself in expiation of your sins as a human against Mother Gaea.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 5, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.
> 
> So my message to them is simple: change the way you view wildlife. Support the reintroduction of wolves and other predators, because they have a place and you have no right to deny it to them. They benefit the ecosystem more than you do, and their purpose is more important than a couple of human lives or a bit of inconvenience to a few humans.
> 
> Get over yourselves, and remember you are not the only inhabitants of the earth and animals have every bit as much claim to it as you do.



No one really needs to back things up with what is entirely a judgement call.

Who says whether wildlife has claim to anything?  Who says whether people have a right to deny wildlife any particular place?  Who says whether the purpose of certain animals is more important than any human lives?

You can link anything you want.  Those are completely subjective opinions.

Also, I find it a bit ironic that you'd decry human intervention in the ecosystem and want to correct it with human intervention in the ecosystem.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 6, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> So before I am banned, I just wanted to say that I was right all along and had sources to back it up. Those with contrary opinions had nothing. They thought they were right, yet had nothing to back their bullshit up with.




So far,  you've only been prove correct in one assertion...


----------



## Missourian (Sep 7, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Huh!
> ...



From the thread:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7575307-post43.html


I'm not sure there is anything left to say after that.

/thread


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 13, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a strict vegan?
> ...



Who cares what motivates the hunter?  If the hunter is consuming as much of the animal as possible, the kill isn't going to waste, regardless of how the hunter felt when he pulled the trigger.  Good lord, when did motives start mattering more than the real life consequences of one's actions?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 13, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.
> ...



If human overpopulation gets to the point where all that development is necessary, I would absolutely support it.  High density farming and all.  No more deer for hunting because, at some point, deer habitat simply isn't as efficient a use of potential agriculture and housing space as we're capable of facilitating.  If the survival of the human species eventually required the mass destruction of all wild habitat on the planet, so be it.

I'm all about survival.  I am willing to kill any creature that I am capable of killing if that's what's necessary to achieve that survival.  I wouldn't demand that any other human view the world any differently.


----------

