T-rex: Hunter or Scavenger?

So, let's try to put this debate to rest shall we? Is Tyrannosaurus a hunter or scavenger? [img]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/036/0/e/tyrannosaurus_vs_triceratops_by_dustdevil-d4oqjc8.jpg[/img] [img]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/135/b/4/eating_t_rex_by_sharkeytrike-d4zuc1q.jpg[/img] Personally, I think T-rex hunted about 60-70 percent of the time and scavenged the rest of the time. For a minute, let's totally disregard anatomy. Forget how fast T-rex was, how smart, etc. 65 million years ago, there were only 3 carnivorous dinosaurs in North America that had any real impact on the herbivores: Dromaeosaurus, Nanotyrannus, and Tyrannosaurus. The problem with the scavenger theory is not just anatomy, but the balance of nature. Raptors and NanoT were too small and common enough to have any real impact on the really big, deadly herbivores like Triceratops, Ankylosaurus, and Alamosaurus. With these carnivores too small and rare, the herbivore numbers would skyrocket. They would decimate the vegetation. They would slowly die off because of overpopulation. Nature is balanced. It does not do that. The only carnivore that was common enough and big enough to keep those herbivores in check was Tyrannosaurus rex and it could not do that by eating their dead bodies. You can get into speed, arm usage, intelligence, etc all you want. But use your common sense. Is nature unbalanced? No. The only time it is is when humans get involved and there weren't any humans around 65 million years ago. Tyrannosaurus was the only carnivorous animal that was big enough, strong enough, and numerous enough to keep the herbivore's populations in check and T-rex did this by hunting. [img]http://nhhsecology.pbworks.com/f/1236951609/trex.jpg[/img]