Kill Animals To Save Them!!!

[The Schnoo]

This is almost as good as the cut down some trees to stop forest fires.

Dunno how many of you saw this, but..... well.. as fat tony said, it's funny because it's true.

Hunting animals on the brink of extinction is fun. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10660-2003Oct10&notFound=true)


-The Schnoo

[tobedawg]

I bet 70's cock-rocker Ted Nuggent is really lobbying for this one!!!

Sick bastards!

[The Schnoo]

Originally posted by tobedawg
I bet 70's cock-rocker Ted Nuggent is really lobbying for this one!!!

Sick bastards!

It just amazes me that someone doesn't slap dubya and say "Bad bush, no more drafting nonsensical legislation".

-The Schnoo

[BigSugar]

Glad to see you have a nice handle on the legislative process....'cause i'm sure Bush is just spending day and night in his room drafting peices of legislation.

personally, i enjoy a nice sabre tooth tiger steak with my homing pigeon salad....occasionally. :)

[The Schnoo]

Originally posted by BigSugar
Glad to see you have a nice handle on the legislative process....'cause i'm sure Bush is just spending day and night in his room drafting peices of legislation.

personally, i enjoy a nice sabre tooth tiger steak with my homing pigeon salad....occasionally. :)


blah blah blah, you know what i meant. You and your always trying to stir up trouble.

I'm just saying, it could only come from this administration... Since it was his bright idea to try drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve and all.

ugh, i'm tired, i dunno what i mean.

-The Schnoo

[Duemellon]

y'kno, the logic is there:

make a demand to kill them and we'll develop the science and facilities to keep them alive.

uh... but that's where the logic ends:

Can't wait until lil' Tommy goes to see the Bengal Tiger who was raised in a cage for veal.

Or see the dramatically skinny and undersized elephants that were left to reproduce b/c the hunters wanted the big 'uns. Nothing but stubby-tusks pacaderms left.

Yeah, industry would do wonders.

I wonder how these endangered species will look in a few decades after dedicated and careful breeding.

[yvette7ica]

After the last couple days I've had and now reading this I've come to the conclusion that a meteor or asteroid are in order. I say it's time to give another species a chance and see how long it takes for them to muck everything up. Clean slate. Cockroaches and mesquitos have more redeeming qualities at this point. At least they serve a purpose other than to annihilate everything they come into contact with.

[Duemellon]

Cockroaches and mesquitos have more redeeming qualities at this point if you mean the current administration, I agree.

If you mean me and my friends, nah, u'v gone "Ted Kazcinsky" on us.

[yvette7ica]

It's nothing personal towards anyone. Nah...not going "Ted Kazcinsky". Just frustrated that's all. Actually, I think the human race has as many redeeming qualities as bad ones. I just get pissed off by the superiority felt by people towards animals who have just as much of a right to be here as we do. Animals don't kill other animals to hang them on their walls or make jewelry. They kill them for food which I don't have a problem with people doing. I get sick and tired of people building houses where wildlife live and then bitch and complain because the resident animals are eating their flowers and messing up their landscaping. The article just pissed me off. It just fuels greedy consumtion. Possibly through technology we can clone these animals, but it just not the same. It's selfish and it's man's attempt to be God. Honestly, if I were God (which I'm not) I would be pretty pissed off. As a fellow human being I am.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Last night I was driving through a suburb (ugh) of Dayton when the car in front of me hit a deer. It got up eventually, but it didn't look so good. Luckily, the driver was able to turn the corner and pull into his brand new 1 acre estate and forget that nature still exists.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Last night I was driving through a suburb (ugh) of Dayton when the car in front of me hit a deer. It got up eventually, but it didn't look so good. Luckily, the driver was able to turn the corner and pull into his brand new 1 acre estate and forget that nature still exists. Huh? Which part of the situation did you have a problem with? That they live in a house in the suburbs? Or that a deer got hit? Is it because the white-tailed deer may someday become a rare African animal and George Bush will let people kill 'em? Sorry, I'm just having trouble tying all of this together.

[watusi]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd
Last night I was driving through a suburb (ugh) of Dayton when the car in front of me hit a deer. It got up eventually, but it didn't look so good. Luckily, the driver was able to turn the corner and pull into his brand new 1 acre estate and forget that nature still exists.
and what would you have done had you hit it?
stopped and offered to nurture and care for the poor bambi?
i'm sure the deer would have been quite grateful and remembered you to the rest of its herd and told them that humans are,in fact,good and then we wouldn't have to worry about random acts of Chrysler against the deer. i mean, it Was their land first,right?

maybe the guy,instead of letting it suffer, should have backed up and finished the job right.


ok,sarcasm mode "off"

i'm not by any means anti-nature,but this example of your liberalness is quite astounding.
you are faulting someone for not assisting what would be a freightened and injured WILD animal.
did you ever see the damage that can be inflicted on sheet metal,let alone what can happen to the driver when it comes into contact with a 200 pound deer?
the deer population is out of control.now whether that is due to expanded urbanization or just being prolific breeders(i suspect it is a combination of both), its strange that you have so much sympathy for the deer but not as much for another human being.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by watusi

i'm not by any means anti-nature,but this example of your liberalness is quite astounding.

I really think the comment was a general (perhaps too general) comment about the blinders that the suburbian population can afford to sport each day....nothing more.

though leave it to someone from the right to jump all over a seemingly far-left comment.

and you talk about the deer population being out of control. :rolleyes: :p :)

[watusi]

Originally posted by Sovrana


I really think the comment was a general (perhaps too general) comment about the blinders that the suburbian population can afford to sport each day....nothing more.

though leave it to someone from the right to jump all over a seemingly far-left comment.

and you talk about the deer population being out of control. :rolleyes: :p :)


okay,perhaps it was what you claim. but it seems that there is some anger or jealousy directed towards someone because of where they live. with comments like "suburbs(ugh)" and "1 acre estate"
i hardly think owning(well,we don't even know that,do we?) 1 acre could be called an "estate" across the board.
my parents had an acre in beavercreek. a suburb,yes. an estate? not even close.


and for all we know, it could have been some poor immigrant gardener that works for them who struck the deer.
;)

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by watusi

and for all we know, it could have been some poor immigrant gardener that works for them who struck the deer.
;)

LOL!! nice touch! :eek:

[Duemellon]

It got up eventually, but it didn't look so good. Sympathy for the deer. I agree. Why? B/c I'm some animal-loving nutcase druid? NO! but because I understand we really need to find a better balance WITHIN nature, not outside of it, nor dominator, and definitely not without it.

Deer were here long before we were, they aren't crossing our roads, our roads are crossing their meadows. Of course if we took the time to give the deer population street-crossing training and explained to them how to look both ways I'd have a lot less sympathy. That's what we need to do.Luckily, the driver was able to turn the corner and pull into his brand new 1 acre estate and forget that nature still exists.The allusion here is that the driver "sucked up" that much land to be close to nature. Therein lies the irony. They surround themselves with the isolation of nature, but beat back the grass, introduce non-native plants for their garden, chop down trees that were older than their family's name, and claim they appreciate nature for "the way it is." That's irony.

Nothing like building a condo development and naming the streets after the trees and wildlife that USED to live there.

I guess that's why I love Ohio's name, we kicked the natives out and named it in their honor. Man, I'm still laughing.i'm not by any means anti-nature,but this example of your liberalness is quite astounding. could you PLEASE take a look back and see when conservation became a bipartisan effort? And then ask yourself: Why is it a bipartisan issue? Of all the things to be included as a liberal vs. conservative idea this is a casualty of the lines drawn. However, if you feel natural preservation is only for liberals and anyone who is for preservation is against conservatives, go ahead, can't stop ya.you are faulting someone for not assisting what would be a freightened and injured WILD animal. should've assisted it by putting a bullet in it's brain. But it could move on it's own and, well, without the ability to sedate it, check it's ailments, and determine if it can heal on it's own in the wild, the rational thing to do would be to let it wander off the road and try to survive. Stupid deer.its strange that you have so much sympathy for the deer but not as much for another human being. because it's proven a fact, or actually part of the qualifying assumptions, that humans know better.

[RichmondVA]

It's kinda funny, but without hunters deer would be much worse off and there'd be a lot less nature out there in general. They are in many ways an environmentalist's best ally. The belief that animals and nature have a place in the system below humans is much better than the belief that they have no place at all.

I think drilling in the ANWR and hunting endangered species is pretty stupid. But I'm not getting anything out of it, so it's easy for me to say. If I'm Inupiaq I think I'd pretty much feel the way they do. Pragmatically, the old way of living is done for. I say, fire (or drill) away while I can get the cash, because 20 years from now it'll all be gone anyway and I get nothing.

Good thing the Gwichin refuse to sell out. Then again, they're Caribou hunters.

And around it goes. . .

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I wonder how these endangered species will look in a few decades after dedicated and careful breeding.

Probably the same we do...

[postfeminist]

deer aren't endangered; that's why we shoot 'em.

damn.

y'all can't ever stay on topic.

i hate gwb.

:D

[yvette7ica]

Just a question...

Why is it okay for us to populate as much as we want, but not deer? Are we afraid that deer may someday take over the planet? I can see it now with the Bambi Militia storming into New York City to take over Wall Street. We'd really be screwed if they form an alliance with the rabbits and rats to take over the world. I'm going to go to the store and stock up on bottled water and batteries.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by yvette7ica
Why is it okay for us to populate as much as we want, but not deer? 'Cause we have guns and they don't. :D

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by yvette7ica
Just a question...

Why is it okay for us to populate as much as we want, but not deer? Are we afraid that deer may someday take over the planet? I can see it now with the Bambi Militia storming into New York City to take over Wall Street. We'd really be screwed if they form an alliance with the rabbits and rats to take over the world. I'm going to go to the store and stock up on bottled water and batteries.

They couldn't sustain themselves if they overpopulated. They would run out of space and food and they would all suffer and die. I think it has something to do with their lack of an opposable thumb.

[RichmondVA]

It's not like humans don't overpopulate. There's no shortage of people dying of starvation.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
It's not like humans don't overpopulate. There's no shortage of people dying of starvation.

Starvation has pretty much been determined to be driven by political factors more than anything else.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Starvation has pretty much been determined to be driven by political factors more than anything else.

Well...that's a relief. At least the deer don't have to worry about strarving because someone higher up decides it.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by yvette7ica
Well...that's a relief. At least the deer don't have to worry about strarving because someone higher up decides it.

Humans have the ability to alleviate their own starvation. Deer do not. Although, in theory, if everything was just left alone there would be an increase in predators that would keep the deer population in check. Or maybe it's just that humans are that predator now.

Sorry if the deer's lower position on the food chain upsets you.

[yvette7ica]

I understand the position of deer on the food chain. I've eaten deer. It's pretty good in skyline chili mix. I also have come to accept the fact that humans are on the top of that food chain (sometimes). But the initial post about killing animals for trophy, fur, or jewelry has nothing to do with the food chain. I guess I view killing an animal as a matter of survival differently than a matter of fashion or prestige.

[The Schnoo]

the point is, hunting endangered species for sport so that local and national gov'ts can have money and then use some of that money to fund the reserves and people who keep the endangered animals safe and also breed them so they aren't endangered anymore, is a stupid fucking thing to do.

It's like this, hunt the animals to near extinction (in some cases you know people will go overboard and hunt them to extinction) to pay for them to keep from going extinct?

does that make sense to you?

that's like the US saying "hey, we need some cash, so anyone that wants to can pay (X amount of dollars) to shoot and kill a bald eagle, the reason we're doing this is to pay for the 'Keep the bald eagle off the endangered species list" reaserch and development facility. S-T-U-P-I-D.

I have nothing against hunting or the food chain or anything, i'm not vegan or some kind of PETA thumper, I have something against stupidity.

-The Schnoo

[Duemellon]

Why is it okay for us to populate as much as we want, but not deer? because we're more valuable than deer, or rats, or ants, or lichen.

Typically we have more sympathy for humans. A car hits a deer and the impact kills the deer and the person most ppl react with a feeling of loss for the family, and then the deer.

So, we will do our best to keep most of the populations of humans alive once they're born. I'm sure as deer are developing their opposable antlers (why would they develop a thumb? they walk on that thing!) they'll begin to take care of their own in a more social setting.

[tobedawg]

The human race will end up destroying itself on it's own greed anyhow.. For the right price, you can drill for oil, cut down sacred thousand year old trees, AND kill endangered species..

If George W Bush is such a "great Christian man" why is he allowing his NRA buddies and corporate friends to play God?

[RichmondVA]

The thing is. . . it DOES make sense. I know it sounds stupid, but it makes perfect sense.

I'm absolutely convinced the protecting animals by species is a dead end. So you can't kill a bald eagle. Big deal. That's not stopping people from destroying the habit, killing the fish that they feed on, flying through their airspace and just generally doing things that make their survival difficult.

The only way to ensure species survival is habitat. Instead of dealing with species one by one you just preserve the whole wood. It helps endangered species, non-endangered species, and species no one cares enough about to protect but may someday be useful. But protecting habitat in that way costs money, more than most third world countries or localities can afford. Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalist economy. Until the proper value is attached to resources, they will always be overconsumed.

Pay me $10 a trout instead of one, and I don't have to catch as many trout. You want to protect salmon, release tons of taggged salmon and tell the fisherman they can catch as many tagged ones that they want, but hands off the wild ones. You put a $1,000,000 tag to hunt deer, all of a sudden I've got an incentive to protect deer AND the capital with which to do it.

I'll be the first to admit that our fisheries management and natural resources management are pretty terrible. But that's more because of lack of public interest. If people aren't interested in the environment, no method is going to work.

The problem with Bush is that I don't really believe he cares about the animals, and some of the people that are getting the $$ aren't exactly the most reliable stewards in the world. But moving from a list of protected only certain endangered species to a system of resource management and sustainable development (whether it be eco-tourism or controlled hunting) is the only solution that can possibly work.

[DudeMan]

Parallel is bison/buffalo. They were almost extinct when they were a 'free' resource. (see 'Tragedy of the Commons' in your old Public Sector Economcs textbook) Then it became more economically viable to raise them on ranches for meat and/or leather. Now there are a lot of 'em. Ted Turner played a part in this. So, applying some market forces worked in this case. Same with the ivory trade in Africa. When it was illegal to kill elephants, there was a lot of poaching going on that threatened survival as a species. They then moved to a sensible approach of limited game hunting and ivory harvesting, and lo and behold, there are now a lot more elephants than there were.

May not work with every species since you don't usually go fishing for snail darters or eat dodo birds. But, for a lot of animals, this makes sense. I don't know the particulars of this proposal, so I can't comment on whether it's net positive or net negative. But, the general concept is sound and has been proven to work.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Same with the ivory trade in Africa. When it was illegal to kill elephants, there was a lot of poaching going on that threatened survival as a species. They then moved to a sensible approach of limited game hunting and ivory harvesting, and lo and behold, there are now a lot more elephants than there were.


Poaching of elephants was actually much much higher when hunting was allowed. The ban on ivory curbed poaching, as it reduced demand (and hence, price) and poachers couldn't meld in with the legal ivory trade, as there was no ivory trade.

I think this conservation idea makes great sense in theory, but, like RichmondVA, I have doubts about those countries who will be relied upon to police this stuff. I would be in favor of a worldwide application of the Kenyan solution to poaching -- shoot the poachers.

[Duemellon]

In actuality, those "3rd world countries" consider the preservation income as a major boost. They don't really apply all that much effort into protecting the reserves.

The idea of marketing the animals to save them is a twisted one b/c they will become domesticated &/r genetically selected leaving us with unnatural selection. That simple.

We have done this with pigs, dogs, cows, chicken, turkeys, etc. Look at the result? Most domesticated animals are dumber than deer and are more sedated than a centigenerian.

There is a spot between where we cohabitate with wildlife and revere it as a valuable resource, not just for entertainment, but for life. Y'see, that's where ppl start to get the idea that fauna can just be pushed around b/c we don't see the value.

Really? How bad does it knock our ecosystem off if the elephants die off? What about the ring-tailed-mushroom-headed-ass-cobra? I mean c'mon. We have survived many special exterminations and it's hard for us to make the conenction btween those animals that are part of our food chain and those that aren't.

We need rats, roaches, and flies, more than we need the majestic lion, because they clean up our cities, whereas lions just kill animals we don't eat, aren't part of our eco-system, etc.

We need to change that attitude.

[RichmondVA]

That's why I think the Endangered Species Act is the wrong approach. I don't have a problem with the list per se, but to rely on that to protect biodiversity is never going to work. People will get behind saving the bald eagle, but no one cares about the suckerfish. They're ugly, and they don't do anything particularly cool. Most people can't see what use they serve, especially when farmers are losing their farms over it.

Now you take the Upper Klamath and stock it with lake trout or sturgeon or something (real marine biologist needed!). Turn it into a park. Suddenly you've got a fishing hole. Fisherman will join in the fight to preserve that area. And beautiful lakes and streams are the type of nature Joe Six Pack can get behind-- not some butt-ugly fish. And the farmers, instead of being stuck with worthless land, can open up bed and breakfasts or hotels or bait shops. And now you've preserved not only the suckerfish but other species, so you've got a healthy, biologically diverse environment. The suckerfish is saved, but not because anyone cares about the suckerfish.

You've got to leverage the resources that are of high immediate economic value to save those that don't have as much direct value. If we end up with some domesticated lions, or even no lions at all but we get enough cash to preserve the African grasslands-- that's better than preserving the lions and no grasslands. It's the ecosystem and habitat that we need to preserve. If we have to give up an endangered species or two to save 1000 currently non-endangered species, it's worth it.

I am also highly skeptical that the countries we are dealing with will use the money to preserve their biodiversity, or even raise the standard of living. They'll take the cash and run and Bush doesn't care. But what we need to do is not scrap the approach but rather get some biologists, environmentalists, and natural resource economists together and do it right.

I think you are off-track on the whole "domesticated animals" thing. Releasing "domesticated" animals into the wild is a widespread practice. There are probably tens of thousands of lakes that are artificially stocked. They've done it with the Bald Eagle. They're trying it with the California Condor, and it looks like it might be working. It doesn't work with all species and it takes a lot of research and money. It's far from the optimal solution, but it's that or no Bald Eagles or California Condors at all.

[72valiant]

this thread just makes me sad. the way people, especially the US, fucks everything up.:( that is why i want to move. give up and go someplace where blacktopping the world ain't a way of life. building new subdivisions and office parks while the ones down the street are for sale or building a new stripmall 10 minutes from the one built a year ago that has the same shit. it will only get worse. we are too far gone to change. now that i am thoroughly depressed...

[72valiant]

Originally posted by rightstarter
don't leave, make it better.

if you and me and other citizens who want positive change leave, we'll leave it all to these same people who could give a fuck about hoarding money, running everything into the ground, and starting wars.

You gotta stick around and help America live up to it's promise

ok, but can i have a vacation house in, say, new zealand?

[butter_of_69]

"There he is...
your Komodo Dragon..."

+10 points for getting that one

[RichmondVA]

Yeah cheer up. righstarter's right.

I used to work at a large Federal regulatory agency and then one day I had a revelation, which was this: there is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism. You can make all the rules in the world to prevent businesses from hurting the environment and you will not win. Those rules might be good ones or necessary ones, but you won't win. Because you've got the wrong target.

It's not businesses, it's people. People don't care about nature so the companies and politicians don't care. At first that was a depressing thought.

Then I realized, selling people on nature is not hard. Everyone likes to get out to the woods. You look on any dating site and 95% of people are like "I love nature hikes and outdoor activities." So either people like nature, or they think it's cool to like nature-- which amounts to the same thing. Most people enjoy either hunting, fishing, or hiking. I personally find it difficult to believe someone can stand out in the woods or by a stream and NOT be moved.

Poor people are smelly, ugly, and sometimes not-so-friendly. It's tough to get people to spend time with, and therefore understand poverty issues. But the environment is beautiful-- it sells itself. The product is there, all that is needed is product awareness.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
there is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism.

OK. Big Sugar has clearly stolen RichmondVA's password......

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
there is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism.

I actually agree. If more people were interested in giving their money to nature based organizations, preservation, etc. you could capitalize on it. You make money where people spend their money. A lot of people don't want to spend money when they aren't getting something material in return. Several parks and nature reserves I know charge to enter their parks to help pay for trail clearing, maintenance and employees. I have no problem with that. I know my money is going to a good cause and they need to keep financially afloat to keep a shopping mall from buying them out.

[butter_of_69]

There is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism... it's all about people?

In so much that people are the root of all beliefs and ideas.

American capitalism as an idea is more anti-environmental than, oh say, German capitalism. Capitalism promotes wealth above all else. Sure, it's the people that promote the idea, but...

I don't know, I guess I just don't get your point. I don't see how getting people to understand the beauty of the environment is going to make a lick of difference until the underlying idea that "wealth and profit are what it's all about" is changed.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by butter_of_69
There is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism... it's all about people?

In so much that people are the root of all beliefs and ideas.

American capitalism as an idea is more anti-environmental than, oh say, German capitalism. Capitalism promotes wealth above all else. Sure, it's the people that promote the idea, but...

I don't know, I guess I just don't get your point. I don't see how getting people to understand the beauty of the environment is going to make a lick of difference until the underlying idea that "wealth and profit are what it's all about" is changed.

Capitalism is about people making the choice of where capital goes. If people place a higher value on a pristine environment than low-cost energy and spacious suburbs with expressways, then they will expend their capital that way. In that sense, it is about people and there is nothing anti-environmental about capitalism.

Moreover, there often is a profit motive to conservation. Groups like the Nature Conservancy get the well-heeled to pony up lots of cash in order to establish sanctuaries and preserves. It's not completely altruistic, as the donors are often allowed to build a vacation home on some part of the preserve or sanctuary. While many may find this practice elitist, the preserves and sanctuaries, which contribute to bio-diversity by protecting habitats, wouldn't have existed without the donors' capital.

Likewise, nations such as Costa Rica and Gabon have learned that there is major money in eco-tourism, and have protected substantial portions of their countries to serve that market.

It's like paying more for organic food because you support the practice of pesticide free farming. Or not shopping at Wal Mart even though their prices are cheaper because you don't support their business and labor practices.

Every time you spend money in a capitalist economy you are making a value judgment and, in essence, voting. In that sense, I agree that is about people and not about businesses.

[RichmondVA]

There's a notion that somehow if we weren't capitalists, we'd somehow start appreciating things that we currently do not-- art, nature, etc. I suppose it's possible that the switch away from capitalism would be such a headcleanser that we'd suddenly rethinking and reevaluating everything, but I doubt it.

We could go to a communist type society where land is doled out according to needs and people will still be like "I need cash or oil or whatever more than I need pristine land."

No matter what economy you choose, it's still about distribution of resources. If biodiversity and pretty nature are not considered resources, they won't be protected. If those things are considered resources, then they can be protected in a capitalist regime. Like any other resource in a free market economy, there might be equity issues of the elite hogging all the good nature. But at least you'll HAVE good nature.