|
Just came home from hunting.... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiantly, we need to raise the limits for deer hunting they should be able to kill more a year. Way
too many deer in Illinois |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Unfortunately in a number of places here in America there are very few natural predators left so
that animals like deer have no other natural predators. In recent years people are less and less
interested hunting. Some of the side effects being record deer populations which involves many car
accidents, crop loss and eventually disease and famine within the deer population. Many states have
been increasing the length of the season and the upper limits in an attempt to reduce populations
but to limited effect. It should also be remembered that, in America anyway, hunters have
represented the largest contributors to wildlife conservation for 150 years by quite a large margin. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Although I don't approve of hunting for sport, I agree that it does help population control, but
only if hunters abide by the law and hunt during a specific hunting season. Remember that there is a
difference between hunting and poaching. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes ! Mainly because there are laws to control the animal population in order to avoid complete
extinction of certain species.
Excess population causes a loss of natural equilibrum and hunting helps correct that . |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's true but then again i could argue that humans need to be killed so that they don't
overpopulate, a bit late for that, and die of disease themselves. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe statement is part true and part not. That is because it depends of which animal we hunt.
Of course, endangered animals like and panda and the bald eagle are not good to hunt. That will hurt
the environment. Animals like cows on the other hand are an important resource for humans. So I
believe for the most part, that I am for this resolution if we do not hurt the endangered animals. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with it because hunting keeps the animal population tight where it should be! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hunting is good for some cases. There are some animals in the world that are breeding in a fast rate
and if we see then we can find out that already there has been more than the required population of
that particular species in the world. In such cases we can say that hunting is a good thing because
it helps in controlling the animal population. There should be everything in proper balance in our
ecosystem and when any animal population grows beyond control then many problem arises. In order to
solve these problems government does take few steps but ultimately doesn’t help. Whereas hunting
is a procedure by which a person can get a hold in the population of animals. Thus we can say that
even if the government starts hunting down animals then also it will be good because that will help
in reducing the animal population. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with hunting as long as you don't OVER HUNT OR POACH. I hunt and fish but
I don't go out and try and kill everything I see. I don't shoot babies, I don't see any need to hunt
something you cant eat just to hang it on your wall. The reason the animal population is in such
need is over hunting and killing for a wall hanging. Use it to feed families and leave the animals
you don't eat alone |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Uh Yeah! That's one limiting factor of animals
When most animals have babies a few of them will not survive which is part of Darwin's theory of
natural selection. When wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the deer and elk over
populated and created a problem for both people there and other wildlife. So it is good |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hunting does control the population |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with it as long as the life is still around hundreds of years from now. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes! It depends on the animal and if only it's really you over populated. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes you're right but we cant shoot to much or endangered species will happen again |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It depends on what you are hunting. It helps if you hunt only animals that are overpopulated and
that are a threat to its surrounding ecosystem and other animals living alongside them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hunting rocks I love wild game for din din |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm for it because how else are we going to keep the animals from coming off the mountain and
ruining yards, gardens, and scaring the neighborhood animals like dogs. I mean think of all the
mountain lions that come into town and kill our pets. Think about it! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If we didn't hunt, the planet would be over populated with animals. God said men could hunt in the
Bible so this issue can be controlled. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes without hunting animals would overpoplulation the earth |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Currently, there are approximately eight does for every buck in the wild. Laws restrict the number
of does that hunters may kill. Deer do not have monogamous mating relationships, and bucks will
often mate with more than one female. As a result, the ratio of does to bucks sets the stage for a
population explosion.
Allowing hunters to kill more does, however, does not resolve population problems. In the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, the open hunting of does left fawns without mothers, and removed too
many females from the breeding population. Sport hunting decimated deer populations in many states.
As a result, states passed laws restricting the hunting of does. These policies have contributed to
the overpopulation of deer.
Hunting does remove some animals from the population, but it does not keep deer populations at a
continually reduced level. Immediately after a hunt, the remaining animals flourish because less
competition for food exists, allowing the remaining animals to live healthier lives, and resulting
in a higher reproductive rate.
Left alone by humans, the ratio of does to bucks would be approximately equal. Sport hunting is not
only an ineffective wildlife management tool, but a cruel and unnecessary practice. Sport hunting
should be banned, allowing deer populations to regulate themselves naturally.
Banning sport hunting, however, is only one of the measures needed to control deer population. We
also need to change the land management policies that create large deer populations, and to limit
deer access to vegetation in human habitations. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The human population is getting big as well but we don't have other people hunting us down do we...
And the life cycle has a way of sorting its self out and hunting down other animals will ruin the
chain and we will have a bigger mess in our hands so just leave the animals alone. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's not really needed, and is just an excuse for idiots to practise barbarism. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I totally disagree with this.
First of all, commercial and sport hunting is totally wrong. It's killing for fun, and it should be
illegal.
If you hunt for food, however, I see no problem. Or, if you go on a hunting trip and use your kill
for food, I think this is fine as well.
It does nothing to control the animal population. The animal population does a fair job of
controlling itself.
Hunting does not regulate the animal population, it destroys it. Think of all the animals that are
extinct. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm not against hunting for food since that would be hypocritical. However Natural Selection
'controls' all of the population of life on Earth. Perhaps our overpopulation will control itself
with Global Warming and the issues it causes but it is also likely to wipe out many species of other
living species as well. One possibility is that over much time we may 'over control' our own
population until our numbers are made insignificant and by which time a new more intelligent species
dominates the Earth, who hunt us into extinction. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We live in a day and age in which multiple species go extinct every year and the environment is
threatened. Every living creature is part of the web of biodiversity and part of the key to a
successfully functioning ecological system.
Animals should be removed only if necessary: For sustenance, or if they represent a legitimate
threat (to life, not to bank accounts).
Nature knows how to handle wild animal populations far better than we do, so I can't even support
hunting one animal to protect another (with the possible exception of removing, say, wolverines set
loose in the Galapagos). Every time we try one of these stupid plans there are ripple consequences
years into the future, further destabilizing the ecological system as a whole.
Why on Earth would you want to keep the animal population down?? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's so ridiculous, how can you be so teasing....
By your logic, war is good for the human population Control?? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The animals are finding it hard enough to survive in their habitat already with all the
deforestation and everything, do you really think they would come and eat you from your home? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dude u already have made this debate except on a different user name |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Killing animals isn't controlling their numbers it is only one side of the equation. Hunting is
animal depletion not stabilization. Animals going onto your property could still do so even if
there were only one of that animal. Protecting your environment is not the same as hunting.
Hunting is a fun ego-trip, not responsible. Carnivores and omnivores see it differently. I being
an omnivore view it as essential and natural. But just because animals will kill animals doesn't
mean that natural extro-special murder has anything to do with a conscious effort to control
population. |
| |
|
| |
| | |
29 Feb 2008 17:54
