sc94597 said:
KLAMarine said, in reference to off-the-gridders: "With no regard to how their activities might impact the environment? Not that it mattered then as much as it does now: the US today hosts hundreds of millions of people, many more than what I figure there was before the 1770s." I responded with "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then, and the available land is much greater. " To which he responded "With that in mind, you state "Proportionally the number of people with intentions to hunt and fish are smaller than they were then" and I must ask for raw numbers. 100% of 1790's US population is a little under four million, obviously. 1% of today's population is very close to 1790's 100% and 2% of today's exceeds 1790's total population." To which I responded "15.7 million Americans hunted in 2013, in a country that is 4.7 times larger (by area) than in 1790. Furthermore, the number who hunted more than once per year is likely much smaller than the number who would've in 1790, because hunting was for many -- required to survive back then.
Rather than go on the little side-tracked rant about fishing which was irrelevant to the greater discussion (the more relevant text being bolded above), I just ended it with that. " I think there's a pretty good inferential argument to be made, as follows: Current fishing and hunting is regularly subjected to quotas on account of the populations of game animals being depleted to dangerous levels when these quotas do not exist, which has happened in the past. These quotas were largely not in place in the 1790s and the game animals did not go extinct or become depleted to the same extent as far as I know. Thus the inference can be made that modern hunting has more environmental impact. If I am wrong in regard to the underlying facts, please let me know; if I am somehow right there but wrong in the conclusion, please tell me how that could be so. " Nevertheless, hunting and fishing quotas can be enforced without the federal government (or state governments) owning the lands. |
I concede that if people who would actually "leave the grid" to live in wilderness are really an "infinitesimal" percentage of the population (x<0.1%, thus x<300,000), then their impact on the environment is probably negligible.
It is true that current populations of deer are commonly quite high. However, it is also true that quotas were put in place due to populations of deer and other game falling dangerously low due to hunting, and that quotas allowed the numbers to become sustainable once again. This answers point 1. To answer point 3, I would add to the above that although it may be possible that circumstances have changed since the era in which those quotas were set in place so much that they are no longer necessary at all, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence that this is so. That is a different and greater task than arguing that the quota is too low or should be lifted in certain areas of land.
To answer point 2, certainly it is the case that expanding human settlements and other activity contribute (loss of habitat etc.), but that just means that there is a smaller (or otherwise more vulnerable) base of "wilderness" for modern people to have an impact on. This hardly bolsters the argument that hunters and fishers have less impact now compared to then.
I would have had less of a problem if you had not quoted the hunting numbers at all. But to quote the hunting numbers, and not the fishing numbers, just seemed pointless and stupid. People "living in the woods" also fish.
Lastly, are you really saying you are fine with the government exerting that control over privately held lands?
Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia. Thanks WordsofWisdom!