So the people in these historical places either imported all meat, traveled great distances to hunt, or else did not eat meat.
It does make one wonder why they lived there, aside from the ‘bondage to the land’ aspect.
The initial argument was that there was much more wildlife in 1403 in the game area.
I did never argue that there was none, I only pointed out that it is unlikely for there to be more in 1403. Currently:
- there is wild boar overpopulation to the extent that the government is paying 80% of price of night vision rifle scopes to hunters
- there are crops that were not available in 1403 Europe which provide much higher nutrition than those available back then
- much higher proportion of population used to hunt than today - and today game is offered in almost every restaurant in the area
- in 1403 hunting traps were common, unlike today
Hey buddy. Just read the words I type. Don’t bring your own baggage into it and act like I said things I didn’t, OK?
- Your first point. Great. Don’t care about what your government pays out. It has nothing to do with what I said.
- Your second point doesn’t address my post in the slightest. How you get food in 2018 is irrelevant to my post
- Your third point, again, has nothing to do with what I said. I really don’t give a dead rat anus about restaurants in your area.
- Your last point requires there to be ANIMALS to TRAP in 1403.
Just read what I type. Leave your own interpretations out of it.
OK, let’s see your interpretation of what I wrote:
Well, given that you seem a kind of slow, let me go into greater detail of what those points mean:
- There is currently wild boar overpopulation in the game area. The fact that government even pays for night vision to hunters is testament to the fact that the issue is really pressing, mainly due to damages to agriculture, car accidents with animals and recently also boars attacking people.
- the second point is not about how people get food, it is question of what is available to wildlife to feed on. Currently, both the extent of fields as well as nutrition provided by the crops allow for much higher number of animals to live on the same area compared to 1403. Moreover, in 1403 people were more protective of their crops (which remains today only as regards wineyards).
- the point is not about restaurants, but about relative number of hunters
- yes, but the combination of lower nutrition and higher hunting logically led to lower number of animals to be hunted in the vicinity of towns and villages
1 Like
I often see more wildlife in urban areas than when i actually go hiking (maybe this is different for Europe though although i highly doubt it). Most animals have far stronger senses than humans, and can easily avoid you. So you really shouldn’t see tons of large animals when you’re out in nature.
Things like birds, and squirrels should be pretty abundant though.
1 Like