Nah.
I say there be a holiday in which the following occurs: from midnight to midnight it's open season on other humans. This could help take the edge off the overpopulated human race. It'd be an official national holiday in which everybody had work off, so there'd be no reason not to participate. Imagine the possibilities for a moment.

I'd say that it should be allowed, but they have to do it with swords.

No, I'd be afraid of being hit by an arrow.

I'll just say this: the rules should remain the way they are in Council Bluffs. First off, there is no such thing as a "deer overpopulation problem." Deer can reproduce as much as they want. Humans shouldn't complain, because none of this land is really ours, anyway. No one in that town will probably complain of a "human overpopulation problem." The whole idea is ludicrous and people should just live with it. We share this earth with the rest of nature; it's not for humans exclusively.

However, I think hunting should be allowed over there. Though this is not just the land of the humans, nature is set up to be a "survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest doesn't include guns I'm sure - or a bow and arrow, whatever the case may be. That is talking about natural things weeding out populations, not man-made.

only if we can hunt humans too, since we have the worst overpopulation problen of them all, with the inclusion of causing the most damage to our ecosystem.

On 2/9/2006 9:51:17 AM orangeguy13 wrote: First off, there is no such thing as a "deer overpopulation problem."

If you lived where I live, you'd change your tune. They're EVERYWHERE. Deer hunting occurs very close to my home. It is dangerous to have it so close to a residential area, but I prefer that the deer know they will be hunted here. That means I won't have to hit so many of them when I'm driving at night.

Yes, it is true that the deer overpopulation problem was caused by humans, who are indeed overpopulating the earth. However, this does not mean that we can realistically allow the deer to reproduce rampantly. The only way to allow deer and humans to peacefully coexist in areas that are overpopulated is though hunting. While it may seem barbaric to some, hunting is actually a more humane alternative than allowing the deer to consume the limited natural reasources of the area until nothing remains for them.

Bow and arrors are brutal. I don't think they should be allowed anywhere.

On 2/9/2006 11:02:44 AM KikiPeepers wrote: Survival of the fittest doesn't include guns I'm sure - or a bow and arrow, whatever the case may be. That is talking about natural things weeding out populations, not man-made.

Right, because the use of tools was not a subject of natural selection...

If there was a problem with overpopulation of deer and they came into towns, there would be better solutions than people running around with bows and arrows. People could use their dogs to run them off.

Given our VP's recient hunting accident - Do we REALLY want a bunch of people who may or may not be skilled with the bow running around shooting deer - and probably people?

On 3/8/2006 2:40:03 AM LaVita_Bella wrote: If there was a problem with overpopulation of deer and they came into towns, there would be better solutions than people running around with bows and arrows. People could use their dogs to run them off.

They could, but that wouldn't solve the problem of overpopulation.

That sounds too dangerous for me. I'm picturing a hunter running down the sidewalk with his gun, shooting at a deer that just jumped into somebody's back yard. I'm sure it wouldn't *actually* happen that way, but that's the image that ran through my head.

The deer overpopulation problem is real and it is not caused so much by human overpopulation, but by human eradication of deer's natural predators. Deer populations in such areas should be thinned, but bow hunting is not very humane (it basically relys on the deer bleeding to death). Rifles and slugs can be much more accurate and effective and should be employed by liscenced hunters. And for all you animal rights activists - think about the alternative. Currently deer are starving to death, which is very, very painful. I know I'd rather be shot than go out like that.

All hunting should be banned if it's just for recreation.

in city limits? you mean like in the middle of the city? poor little kids have to watch an animal die!

As long as they don't shoot anyone in the face.

Yes. But only archery. Most likely you wouldnt get hit with an arrow since archery is more close range. Rifle on the other hand can be shot from farther back and still damage the deer. Plus i wouldnt have to travel so far during hunting season if they allowed it in city limits.

No.

mmmmmmm yes .... venison is even more delicious than duck ... my mouth waters every time i walk through the nature reserve

On 2/9/2006 11:02:44 AM KikiPeepers wrote: Survival of the fittest doesn't include guns I'm sure - or a bow and arrow, whatever the case may be.

How so? Are you one of those "We are not more evolved then lions because we can't kill one with out bare-hands!" kind of people, kiki?