I'll Make Ya A Deal

The Dems are about to introduce a bill that would ban the killing of wolves from the air.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/29/dem-senators-take-on-pali_n_247390.html


If the NRA comes out in favor of this bill, or takes no stand on it, I'll quit my bad-mouthin'.

But if they oppose this bill, everybody here will shake hands and agree that the NRA is an evil, rotten, heartless organization.



Deal?

from our personal f-16s.

In this forum it's become more and more difficult to distinguish the serious(ly deranged) from the sarcastic.

As far as the wolves go, what do the various State wildlife agencies have to say about their populations? I would think this will require some input from farmers and wildlife experts before it goes anywhere. The problem is hunting is another emotionally charged issue that is used like a political football.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't hinge on hunting no matter how people try to link the two together.

using "automatic" weapons. A few years ago, using other means, buzzards were "culled" in some areas. Not much objection from "animal rights" groups about this; I mean, pigs and buzzards are like Bambi?

I think we will have regulated hunting of wolves in the lower 48 as these animals continue to expand in numbers and range.

BTW, shouldn't this be in another discussion group?

Why should the NRA care about wolf hunting either way?

Are you against all animals being killed with bullets?

As for your first question - They shouldn't care. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were to claim that the bill somehow infringes on the RKBA.

Second Question - Basically, I'm against all animals being killed, period. By any means. I have no quarrels with those who hunt for food. I have a huge problem with using a high-powered rifle and telescopic sight to chase down a terrified, helpless animal from a helicopter and then slaughtering it "just because". Anybody who could find pleasure in doing such a deed is seriously sick.

Tigers and wolves don't hate people. It just happens that killing people is how top predators get fed sometimes. When I giant snake slips into a villagers hut and steals and eats their toddler, it isn't personal.

I kill foxes and groundhogs with bullets from a high velocity rifle with a scope. It isn't personal. I am the top predator in my area and the rifle is the most efficient way, and most humane way, to kill animals I want to kill. If I don't kill groundhogs I will end up with a 7000lb tractor on top of me, I've seen it. If I don't some of the foxes they will decimate the local young animals. I had to move a fawn carcass the other day that was killed by a family of foxes.

I don't know for sure why they are killing wolves, but I think I heard it was because they are killing lots of the local non predators.

So, just for the sake of argument, if the wolves need to be thinned out, how do you think it should be done.

In the plane the shooter can get on the wolf trail and follow it to the source and kill the wolves cleanly. It is what wolves to to the animals they kill, except when wolves kill they do it much more slowly and painfully.

That's it. Balance of nature be damned

I have never seen a state legislate based on this type of reasoning, they usually legislate based on management for the health of the population of the effected animals. Do you have a link to any source other than disengaged outside sources who have taken this position?

animals do not balance things on purpose, they don't.
Just looking at wolves, they will increase their population more and more and more as long as they can. They will not get to a point where they "know" they should stop.They will kill more and more non wolves as their numbers increase. They will also kill all competing predators they can including coyotes and all types of big and small cats. They will continue to reproduce and kill until there are not enough animals for the wolves to eat. They will kill every animal they can from mice to elk. And then the wolves will start to starve. As the wolves weaken disease will set in and start killing the wolves slowly and painfully.
After disease has had a chance to knock back the wolf population, the game population will rebound and they will increase as much as they can.

If deer are not hunted they will expand their population as much as they can until they eat themselves out of their environment and they start to starve, then disease will slowly and painfully kill a bunch of them.


It is the same with all animals I have ever seen.

I kill some deer, some foxes, a few turkey, you get the idea. I am the only one trying to balance things in the woods. Humans are the only ones who can understand such things and try to balance things on purpose.

I try to kill about 4 deer per year on my 100 acres. I go after particular deer.
If coyotes move in they will kill everything they want to in order to raise more coyotes. They will start with those easiest to kill. The younger the better. Less chance of the coyote getting hurt killing newborns.And then they will work their way through the rest of the deer population. It is just what they do.
And I will kill coyotes as fast as I can. Which is not saying much. Hunting coyotes is a loosing battle.

Humans are the only ones who try to balance things.

And here is a video of what happens when coyotes trying to eat come into contact with wolves. You might no longer have a problem with shooting wolves from a plane after seeing this. I watched it the first time, and that was the last time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoszVLRP6U

How in the world did all those creatures get by before man finally arrived on the scene to show them the right way to do stuff?


You call it "balancing things". I call it "fucking with nature".


You call it "balancing things". I call it "arrogant slaughter".


If it's such a "loosing (sic) battle", how about calling a cease-fire. You'll like yourself a whole lot more.....

they are a great example of how nature balances itself and has for millions of years. In the 1950s to the late 1960s jack rabbit populations in the rural plains states exploded. People rarely eat jack rabbits as they really aren't very tasty. In the very early 1970s these populations died off in mass because of disease. I rarely see a jack to this day, very rarely. This has been the cyclical process of nature which works on very long cycles for millions of years. Sometimes these natural balance cycles drive populations of species into extinction. Other times a decades long or century long cycle is established. States have only been managing wildlife scientifically for around 75 years and it has proven very effective thus far.

But my sister hit 28 on the way to work one morning , they were hopping around like frogs up in Alpine Texas . All living things cahse these boom and bust cycles , even humans . We can lay our current boom at he feet of petroagriculture . For now .

You don't care if one animal eradicates another as long as humans are not involved.
You are ok with blood and suffering and pain, disease and famine as long as humans are not involved.
You would prefer these things to humans being involved.

Ok, agree to disagree.

The result would be that ecosystem going though a significant change, and would usually result in one or more life forms either being forced to relocate or dying out.

You can call it anything your rabid, willful ignorance demands. It doesn't make it a reality.

Wolves actually have a pretty good sense of what numbers the locally available prey will sustain. There are documented instances of alpha pairs not breeding when prey was too scarce to support increased numbers. That doesn't mean they'll sit around and willingly starve rather than going in search of other sources of food, but they can and do have ways of limiting the growth of their numbers.

As for what wolves do to coyotes, well yeah, it's nasty. But the flipside of that is that wolves are the primary natural check on coyotes. Coyotes are native to the Great Plains; prior to the 20th century, you wouldn't find them elsewhere on the continent. Now you find them from the Yukon to Panama, and the primary reason for that is that the eradication by humans of wolves in the wild during the late 19th and early 20th centuries allowed the coyotes to increase their range, where previously the wolves would have stopped them. That's why hunting coyotes is now a losing battle.

That video made me sad :(

I'm guessing that you don't invite the neighbors over for fox and groundhog BBQ. There may or may not be valid explanations for why you seek out and kill other species. But proclaiming "I am the top predator in my area" makes everything else you say highly suspect. And no, it's not true that "the rifle is the most efficient way, and most humane way, to kill animals I want to kill." It's your ONLY way! Leave it home and then try convincing Mr. Moose or Mr. Wolf that you're top dog in these here parts.

I'm trying not to read too much into your choice of words. ..."animals I want to kill"? Maybe that's not what you meant to say, but there's no denying that many, perhaps most hunters don't kill for food; or for ecological reasons - real or imaginary. They kill for the "sport" of it. They kill because it's fun! And they'll pay good money to have the head of that once-beautiful creature stuffed and mounted, because they're DAMN PROUD of what they did.

It's true what you say - Sharks and tigers and wolves don't hate people. But what about the reverse? Why are tigers and wolves hunted down and killed by man? I can only speculate that it's because man places so little value on human life, he sees the lives of other living creatures as having no value at all.

but there's no denying that many, perhaps most urban hunters don't kill for food; or for ecological reasons - real or imaginary. They kill for the "sport" of it. They kill because it's fun! And they'll pay good money to have the head of that once-beautiful creature stuffed and mounted, because they're DAMN PROUD of what they did.

The key word missing from your post is 'urban'. I have lived in rural hunting areas for over 40 years. I have never known a SINGLE hunter from my areas who didn't eat their edible kill, who hunted strictly for the thrill of the kill, who did not hunt for conservatory reasons those animals which are not eaten. I have seen this from urbanites who come out of the city in their new Hummers with their Weatherby rifles, and their Eddie Bauer outfits. Rural hunters are by far the largest group of environmentalists in this country. Without their help and resources the state of wildlife would be horrible.

The only animal products you'll find in my house are in the freezer. (Or frying pan)

No heads. No trophys. Might keep a pelt or two for warmth next time. Problem is, my dogs will probably try and eat them. My grandmother used to make really nice mittens out of beavers, but apparently they smell delicious to my dogs.

act as described are going to be urban hunters.

I'm going to tell you right there are ways to get rid of coyotes that I don't engage in, ways that are much more efficient and easy than shooting them. The fact that these cheap, efficient,easy ways of killing are just like torture is incidental.I'm not going to describe those ways to you. You don't want those images in your head.
When I said animals I want to kill I was being very precise, so there would be no suggestion I was being misleading. The goal is to kill those animals.
Yes I do eat groundhog.
I am top predator in this area. It is what I was born into.If I was someplace I might not be top predator. It is like saying I have brown hair.

And I am a primitive skills enthusiast. Yes I absolutely could leave the house with nothing and start killing animals.
Sometimes I butcher with stone knives now because it is easier than sharpening steel. Sometimes I use primitive traps because it is easier than going to the store for mouse traps. And sometimes I live trap and relocate, snap traps can't do that.

But make no mistake about it, the reason I use a rifle is because it is the most certain, predictable, and most likely to cause instant death. I have other ways to kill, the rifle is most humane.

http://www.coldsteel.com/boarspear.html

I know a dude that does it.

I prefer .308

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/csstoreonline_2062_1513034

The prongs on the boar spear are for the safety of the hunter, so it doesn't penetrate too far. I have the one with the long handle and no prongs.

And I also prefer something that is very certain and quick once you commit, like your .308.
I keep my hunting distance to 20 yds or less. So it's all the same to me.

I'll bet the guy you know uses dogs, doesn't he?

'Talks' to them as he approaches. No dogs at all.

That short spear might be a good idea just to carry when in the woods.

First one I have ever heard of who didn't have dogs holding them.

He should try whitetail.

I don't suppose your friend does any guide stuff? His kind of hunting is my kind of hunting. No pigs here though.

Thousands migrate every year right over my head in a natural bottleneck . This one swooped down and crunched the cat's skull , circled it twice and then flew away . On the run to Mexico . I figured he just didnt like fucking cats .

If you have any data to support your statement ("...there's no denying that many, perhaps most hunters don't kill for food..."), please present it.

Hunting is called a sport. I have no trouble with that. I have no problem with the "fun" that comes with it. "Killing," while not a pleasurable emotion while hunting, is nevertheless necessary if you are hunting. But even here, killing is not the great bugaboo that anti-hunters have made it into. We ALL kill; some directly (hunting), some by proxy (under cellophane), some by abstraction (agriculture). It is the latter method which gives solace to so many vegetarians; I mean, 3,000 square miles of river bottom habitat taken out (along with all the animals therein) for the sake of soy beans and other commodity crops is so... so "out there" that there is no pain or remorse to be felt. Frankly, it makes me sad that where I could once hunt quail (without a dog) in the scrubs and fields of North Florida is now pin-wheel agriculture and McMansions -- occupied by many a vegetarian.

"'sharks and tigers and wolves don't hate people.' But what about the reverse?"

Take note that the abundance of whitetail deer and the four main species of wild turkeys, as well as other animals, can be credited in large part to the efforts of us hunters. Even areas where hunting is NOT allowed, but the protection of species is enforced, is largely funded by hunters and fishers. The "reverse" is not people hating animals, or you wouldn't have the protections and support we now have.

is huge numbers, in some cases entire populations, dying off and requiring decades to recover, if they ever do. How about we let states manage their own wildlife resources and not legislate these issues based on feelings from our urban computer chairs?

Edit..

Was Arizona a wolf state in the past? If so why not lobby your state to reintroduce these animals into their native habitat? States with large wolf populations such as Alaska would likely be supportive if your state paid the cost of capture and release.

Arizona and New Mexico are home to the reintroduction program for Canis lupus baileyi, aka the Mexican gray wolf. That subspecies was a hair's breadth away from extinction thirty years ago, and frankly, they're not doing especially well today either.

Arizona is not, and to my knowledge never has been, part of the range of C. lupus occidentalis (aka the Rocky Mountain wolf, MacKenzie Valley wolf or Alaskan wolf), the subspecies currently found from Wyoming through western Canada to Alaska.

who is a professional hunter. The tools of his trade are quite often a bolt action rifle with a suppressor. Who do you think hires such a fellow? The bulk of his hunting is done inside incorporated city limits to cull the populations of animals who experience no hunting pressure at all.

He has to conceal his activities from the public more than the animals because folks would go insane if they knew the deer herd was being managed by culling. Take a look at a major metropolitan area's "pest control" budget some time. Without something thinning the herd it would expand until the population was not sustainable. I guess we could just let them die on the roadways and by starvation.

"Basically, I'm against all animals being killed, period. By any means."

I hope you are a Vegan. If so, my full respect for your personal choice.



"I have no quarrels with those who hunt for food. I have a huge problem with using a high-powered rifle and telescopic sight to chase down a terrified, helpless animal from a helicopter and then slaughtering it "just because". Anybody who could find pleasure in doing such a deed is seriously sick."

I agree. I hunt. I consume as much of the animal as possible, and utilize skin, bones, guts, etc. I try to, as an infamous meat-packing enterprise once put it, "use everything but the squeal". Anything else would be an affront to the spirit of the animal and my own personal karma. I never hunt for the "joy" of killing. That's just... bent.

about this issue?

I honestly don't know. Without further study I would not support nor oppose this bill. I do completely understand the need to cull some animal populations for the health of the population as a whole. I have seen first hand the effect of over population on coyotes and deer. Coyotes are currently over populated right here where I live. I have seen animals with no hair due to mange, so skinny they can hardly walk, and they come right up into my yard to eat my cats and chickens. The coyote populations have been on the increase since the 1980s when urban activist groups from non coyote states began railing on the harvest of coyotes by hunters who sold the hides to the fur trade. The market for the hides dropped and hunters quit hunting them. Now we have serious issues with the populations and disease which threatens the entire population. I am always leery of politicians and activists who legislate on wildlife issues based on feelings or lack of understanding of the potential negative impact of their legislation. Most states do a fantastic job of managing their wildlife without the feds involvement. In fact the only variation I can think of from this is migratory birds which cover hundreds of miles and cross many state boundaries.

That said, I am not an NRA member. I am a lover of wildlife and have seen the very positive effects of wildlife management at the state level, both in culling populations and protecting others.

I have seen this first hand regularly, most recently about a week ago less than a mile from my house. It is extremely sad (especially in the winter) and moves me to start carrying a rifle this fall as temps begin to drop to both end the misery of the badly effected animals and limit their contact with healthy populations.

They were overruled.

The aerial wolf hunt does not target weak or diseased animals. (That's what wolves do.)

Since you mention coyotes - I found this interesting, and would not be surprised if much applies to the aerial wolf hunt. (Yes, it isn't exactly an unbiased source, but it seems well documented.)

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?p=462&more=1

It addresses the overstated need for such culls, their ineffectiveness at protecting livestock (the issue with coyotes), the danger of leaving injured animals shot but not killed, the possibility of orphaned litters that then starve to death -- all things that give many people pause.

I really don't know enough about aerial culling to advocate for or against, I tend to trust wildlife scientists at the state level. I am in favor of humane treatment of animals. My idea of humane treatment and others I am sure vary greatly. So, yes the aerial culling may or may not be effective. I don't think any state wildlife manager would argue that culling through hunting in general is ineffective. It is absolutely essential for the long term sustained health of the various species, some more than others. The problems with coyote mange are, without dispute, exacerbated by overpopulation. The threat of massive numbers of coyotes being decimated due to overpopulation by mange and other communicable diseases like canine parvo, rabies, etc. are indisputable.

All that said, I really don't like to hunt and the older I get the more I don't like doing it. Hell, I even feel bad when I shoot a skunk or opossum which gets too close to my home or pets. I will however shoot any coyote that I see with mange. After seeing an animal like the one pictured above suffering in the snow, I feel bad for some time...it is truly sad, disturbing, and haunting.

I'm the one who trapped a squirrel and took it to the wildlife centre for mange treatment. ;) It wouldn't have survived the winter, and it was my favourite squirrel. He had a name, in fact. Rat Ear.

I'd read an article in the paper about squirrel pox and how 9 cases had been identified in my quite large city. Yup, something else that crossed the border. I decided either Rat Ear had the pox or I had Munchausen's by squirrel. It was the former. Despite the centre workers' skepticism, they determined he did have squirrel pox, plus mange.

Fortunately it was treatable, and 6 weeks later he was back scrounding for peanuts in my dining room, although not before staying away in a huff for a couple of days. But euthanasia, what shooting a coyote like that is, would have been better than winter. And better than infecting the rest of the backyard squirrel herd.

My current moral dilemma is the feral cat colony on the street. I'm pretty sure it was feline leukemia that got four of our cats in the last 7 years. Who infected whom? One of them may have come with it, but I don't know where he came from. We found one in late terminal stages in the driveway 8 or 9 years ago, had it euthanised after testing, but it was probably a stray rather than a feral. There's also FIV; it's rare, but at least one of mine had it. Both diseases typically take years to kill. There's probably no way to eliminate either from the colony; have them all euthanised, even if you could, and more would come along. No point in trapping and vaccinating if they already have it.

So anyhow, I make every effort not to be sentimental about such things, but it's still not at all easy to decide what's best, even with the best information. Populations do suffer over-population related problems, including disease and starvation. Some of the problems are caused by us, some aren't. When to intervene and when not, reasonable people of goodwill can probably disagree.

Aerial wolf hunting for sport, though, especially when one reason for it is to reduce wolf kills of other species so they can be hunted for sport ... hmm. Sport hunting is indeed an economic mainstay for some remote communities, including in Canada. It may be distasteful to me, but that doesn't entitle me to try to deprive them of their source of income, any more than it entitles the US or the European Community to do that to east coast seal hunters. But aeriel hunting of wolves just seems to be problematic in too many regards ...

Since a helicopter can stay on-station over the animal until a follow-up shot or actual landing and confirmation the animal is dead can be made. 'bush-hopper' aircraft with short takeoff and landing requirements are sometimes used for it, but frankly, it's doing it the hard way.

"•Killing predators to reduce economic losses caused by livestock predation has proven to be ineffective. Ostensibly to protect livestock, livestock producers have waged war on predators for centuries, with marked lack of success in solving conflicts. Wildlife Services is no exception."

Simply incorrect, ranchers and such have 'won' this war entirely too often and too well, requiring the re-introduction of the predator species from another geographic location, from where they haven't been completely annihilated. Much of the information in this source seems suspect to varying degrees.

I think it's unfair to call it an 'aerial wolf hunt', it's really extermination, not hunting.

I don't mind the killing of pests. If this is some sort of government operation in killing wolves from the air, then I wouldn't mind. I would not be in favor of this as some kind of "sport". I do not support sport killing, which I believe is simple blood lust.

Personally, I am against any hunting that is not for food. I don't like "big game" hunting like African Safaris, either. Oh, they say they give the meat to poor villagers when they are done, which may be true, but for the amount of money they spent to go shoot a zebra or whatever they could have just bought the villagers a lot more food.

And this is determined how and by whom, exactly?

Tell me, would you draw the line anywhere? What if those same powers-that-be decided Kittens=Pests and promoted kitten-drowning. Any problem with that? Better still, let's solve the puppy-overpopulation problem - Those useless little buggers. Puppy-Plinking anyone?
If it's so very easy for you to demote the noble wolf to "pest" status, surely you wouldn't balk at culling herds of puppy, would you?

Second there is a HUGE feral cat problem in many states in the nation and yes people shoot them too.

1. They're domesticated. After generations of breeding, humans have for all intents and purposes created new animals.

2. Most cats or dogs couldn't make it in the wild. They depend on humans for protection and care. If they are abandoned by people, only a few will survive their first encounters with wild animals. Those that do will become wild, and in the process they will introduce a new species to the ecosystem.

3. As a result of their dependency, domestic animal populations are already controlled by humans. If humans want more cats and dogs, they will breed them. If they don't, they will let them die off. There's no reason to cull the population, when it's already under control.

And to address your "puppy-plinking" question: A possible Yes. If we released domesticated dogs (Something tough, like a Doberman/pitbull mix) into the wild, and the wild animals couldn't handle the new species, the new species would begin to kill off wild animals, possibly causing major ecosystem change and perhaps even local extinctions.

a pack of feral dogs tearing up livestock? Yes, those wonderful puppies that people dump on the side of the road thinking some farmer will take them in sometimes survive to adulthood. It's no fun having to shoot a pack of feral dogs but that is exactly what is done most of the time. I'll spare you the details of how some folks who don't take the time to shoot them deal with the problem.

We have (or had, I haven't been keeping up) a horrible feral cat problem in our area, and it's having a great impact on our bird population. The state DNR was suggesting the allowance of "cat hunting" to help reduce the population. In the end, they ended up going with a different solution, but it was on the table for a while, and I think it may have even been authorized in a few areas.

And this is determined how and by whom, exactly?

I don't know, actually. The only pests I have ever had to deal with are mice, which I killed. I prefer to use the "snap traps" as they kill them dead. We have tried the "sticky traps" which work, but trap the poor bastards alive and they are terrified all night long being stuck to the trap and of course they really freak out when you go to collect the trap. I always take them out to the garage and squash them with an axe head as I can't bring myself to just dump them in the garbage to starve and thirst to death.

If I lived out in "the country" and had a farm where my livestock was being killed off by wolves or coyotes, then I would have no problem killing them to protect my property. I imagine I would try fences of some kind first, as they are every-present whereas I am not, but if they were costing my serious money I would resort to traps, or guns, or whatever to kill the threat.

Tell me, would you draw the line anywhere? What if those same powers-that-be decided Kittens=Pests and promoted kitten-drowning. Any problem with that? Better still, let's solve the puppy-overpopulation problem - Those useless little buggers. Puppy-Plinking anyone?
If it's so very easy for you to demote the noble wolf to "pest" status, surely you wouldn't balk at culling herds of puppy, would you?

In point of fact, the "powers-that-be" have already decided this. Every visit the local city shelter? Animal control collects up the stray dogs and cats, and they are all gassed within a few days unless an owner can be identified.

Ever seen PeTA animal shelters' huge kill rate?

Another point - While man is the only animal that kills for reasons other than survival, he is also the only animal that willfully controls his killing. When non-human predators become highly effective at killing prey, prey populations plummet until the predators die out to manageable numbers. Humans are ultimately effective at killing, and they limit themselves in order to preserve animal populations.

I have a strong objection to killing predators - certainly so from helicopters - but I don't have the right to express that objection by banning the practice. I thought that was the whole problem with conservatism.

K&U

:kick:

Nobody here has any control over what anybody does!


And..... Nobody here has any control over who shoots whom today!


And..... Nobody here has any control over anything!


How can we ever thank you?


now.....We can all just go home......




:silly:

The NRA represents the views of its members. If it didn't, it wouldn't attract the millions of members who pay its dues and fund its ability to lobby. It's not anyone's right to "control" what the NRA advocates, though one can certainly vote against its demands if one chooses. No one is advocating anarchy; we are arguing that there are possible reasons for population culling.

The NRA represents the views of its members. If it didn't, it wouldn't attract the millions of members who pay its dues and fund its ability to lobby.

Kinda like the millions upon millions of people in many countries on earth who still live subject to its dogmas, much to their great detriment, and keep giving it their money ...

Familiar with the art of persuasion, are you?

It isn't always synonymous with telling the truth.

successfully hunting wolves from planes using crossbows?

You want the thread banned on the ground that you can't put forth a rational argument?

You've limited yourself to the argument that killing is "wrong" in nature, nevermind the reality that if Mother Nature was a person, she'd be a clinical psychopath. Animals don't care about abstract morality, or ecological stability, they simply seek to survive and multiply. An entire species can go extinct because the temperature changed 2 degrees and a fungus died out. Thousands, if not millions of animals can die as a result of a tiny environmental change, or because one species has become abnormally dominant. Only humans have the potential to preserve natural order by artificially breeding or culling populations. We could certainly declare all interference to be immoral, but don't expect nature to remain stable. There have been innumerable ecosystems that have died out as the result of changes in the environment; We can expect our current ecosystems to also vanish without artificial involvement. That's what Nature does: An ecosystem arises that takes advantage of a very particular environment; When the environment changes, the ecosystem and most of the animals within it are doomed to death.

Edit: Think about how the human population has grown over time. Humans have gone from tree-dwelling apes to a species that covers much of the planet, and continues to expand. We didn't do so because we were "evil", we did so because we are genetically programmed to survive and reproduce. Perhaps if aliens had decided to run "Human Safaris", where little Zoobmax could plink humans from the family flying saucer, the human population would have remained in check and humans wouldn't have begun a population expansion which has drastically altered almost every ecosystem on the face of the planet.

You've yet to put together a remotely rational argument, and you are crying out for the thread to be closed now because of it.

Nobody here has any control over what the NRA does

So you don't care if there is balance. You just don't want humans invoved.

I am top predator in this area.

First off Wolves are not dogs or puppys!

unsuccessful strawman is unsuccessful

Would you be as upset if they were successfully hunting wolves from planes using crossbows?

I don't mind the killing of pests.

This your idea of "effectively discussing this issue"?

:crazy: :spray:

... tell me again - why am I here??

:rofl:

"Basically, I'm against all animals being killed, period. By any means. "

I don't really think this belief is beneficial or realistic to the survival of all species either. There have been many other important points made which are contrary to this belief. Do you just not want to participate, yet realize the benefits of culling over populated species for the good of the species and other species?

As I wrote in the subject line "It's A Little Off Topic". In retrospect I regret that I even legitimized those questions with a reply. It was the beginning of the end for any hope of serious discussion.

It sounds like you were wanting to 'out' you some NRA apologist gun nuts. Instead people here took you to task on your position on the actual issue you chose, proved that your position on the subject has semi sized holes in it, and now you're ready to pick up your ball and go home.

Many who traverse through here come in thinking they can show that the NRA's positions are really just the positions of the gun industry. The truth is that the core issues that the NRA supports are issues important to those of us who take the 2nd literally. I'm not currently a member, but the NRA isn't actually the big right wing, big business bully so many want to believe it is. Go on thinking there are a bunch of people around who are brain dead supporters of everything the NRA tells them to support instead of thinking, well meaning people whose beliefs differ from yours at the peril of your own position. If people on the gun control side of this issue spent time trying to forward their position as they do trying to prove an alternate position is wrong they may (I doubt it) actually make some headway.

"Nobody here has any control over what the NRA does"
Unless Wayne Lapierre is secretly posting here, I think it's fair to say that none of us controls the NRA. Those of use who agree with the NRA's agenda might donate to it (personally, I don't).

"So you don't care if there is balance. You just don't want humans invoved."
Basically, this sums up the likely result of implementing a policy based on your stated belief that killing animals is wrong under circumstances not involving hunting for food. You don't seem interested in the idea that human development could have changed the ecosystem, possibly necessitating artificial measures to conserve the existing state of nature.

"I am top predator in this area."
Humans are hyperpredators, mainly because they can build tools and form elaborate plans. The statement is true.

"First off Wolves are not dogs or puppys!"
Again, a true statement. Dogs are heavily domesticated wolves, and they are quite different in behavior and temperament.

"unsuccessful strawman is unsuccessful"
I offer my apologies if you do not understand certain elements of internet lingo.

"Would you be as upset if they were successfully hunting wolves from planes using crossbows?"
Silly.

"I don't mind the killing of pests."
I, for one, am quite happy with the killing of certain pests. If you believe that killing organic lifeforms is immoral, do you draw a line somewhere? To be truly consistent, you'd have to also oppose efforts to destroy Ebola or AIDS. When, exactly, does a biological lifeform become worthy of moral consideration?

That way you don't have to trust an NRA member.

The website is open to the public.

While you're there you can gather some cites for all the NRA positions we hear about all the time for the gun control "experts". Things like "guns for children", "Guns for everybody everywhere", "Guns for the insane", "Position against background checks" and all the other totally bogus claims that are spewed around here and never backed up.

Just stay away from the NRA-ILA section, you may actually find a lot of Democrats being supported.

That was exactly where I started my research before placing my bet on this one.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.nraila.org+nra+bill+wolves

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=site%3Awww.nraila.org+nra+wolves+aerial

http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=313

The HSUS also opposes aerial predator control, which is not a method even used by typical hunters at all—in fact, it is an essential management tool used by state wildlife agencies. Without aerial control of wolves in Alaska, for instance, moose and caribou populations would be decimated. Professional wildlife managers know this.

Mind, I hold no brief for the HSUS. But the wrong people are sometimes right.

the human population has already expanded past that what is sustainable for this planet. Almost 7 billion people... And still we think having babies is wonderful.
We are fishing out the oceans, destroying most other life forms, except for what we use for food and those we consider pests or weeds. We move into the territory of other animals, then decide that they are the ones over populated when the original inhabitance adapt and survive.
There was a balance of nature, survival of the fittest, that insured abundant, healthy life over a wide range of climates and ecological systems. Then we come along in our arrogant ignorance and decide we somehow know better than Nature and that we should have a better right of survival than the animals that we displaced by our overcrowding into their habitat.
When the oil runs out, our arrogance will be our downfall.

You can't just come along this late in the game and try to muddy the waters with your well-thought-out, eloquent rebuttal to everything the inmates here hold sacred! Remember, as the man said:

I am top predator in this area.



:fistbump:

Besides, I started to bring up the point in an earlier post (34). The human population has drastically expanded, and continues to do so. This expansion will, and in fact already has, caused drastic changes to the environment. This means that if we do not actively try to conserve nature in its current state, ecosystems will change in order to accomodate humans. Part of this change will likely involve extinctions, as animals less suited towards a human world die out, and animals more suited to the new world become dominant. Keeping nature in its current condition requires artifically breeding dying species and culling excessive populations of other species (Among many other tasks).

At least your gibberish was entertaining.
:crazy:

But your feeble attempt to rationalize arrogant human behavior -

"ecosystems will change in order to accomodate humans"??

is merely ..... :boring:

My point was that human population growth effects ecosystems. Ecosystems will not remain static when a population is booming, no matter what that population is. They will "accommodate" the population, though that may involve mass extinctions of other species. Or are you disputing this, and arguing that the human population boom will not radically alter ecosystems?

Also, I do not regard my subject heading as inappropriate, since you're busy twisting my words because you apparently can't process an argument.

There's no point to saying "At least your gibberish was entertaining." It was an argument, either you proved it wrong, or you didn't.

You can't just come along this late in the game and try to muddy the waters with your well-thought-out, eloquent rebuttal to everything the feeper lite here holds sacred!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :) Good post, man!

It's your arrogant assumption that an altered ecosystem "will accommodate the population, though that may involve mass extinctions of other species". Never occurred to you, apparently, that the system is more likely to dispose of the "booming population" itself - i.e. Us, Einstein.

The planet is neither sentient nor malevolent, and is incapable of "disposing" of humans in the manner of an angry god. Perhaps a lethal, incurable virus could arise through evolution, though I wouldn't bet on that happening too soon. Part of the reason that humans have spread so well is that we can "adapt" through technology (I imagine the threat of imminent death would have scientists working 24/7 to find a cure to a super virus). Even so, if the human population dies off, it'll likely be a while before it happens, and there will be major environmental changes in the meantime. Unless some massive super-Ebola strain arises and annihilates 90% of humans within a few years, we will have to consider whether we wish to conserve nature in its present state, or let it change.

My main point, that ecosystems will change drastically unless we take active measures to preserve them, has remained unchallenged by you. Your so-called "flaw" was no such thing; Of course I realize that humans can potentially go extinct. I just think they're too virulent a species for that to happen easily. A flaw would be if you could prove that ecosystems remain stable regardless of whether humans are encroaching upon said ecosystems.

All you seem to be doing is trying to cherry-pick certain words, claim that I'm some arrogant boob, and thereby avoid my central point. My argument is that a population cull might become necessary if the ecosystem was becoming distorted and we wished to preserve that ecosystem in something resembling its current state. Therefore, we should keep a population cull as an *unattractive* option;it should not be an excuse for yayhoos to blast animals for amusement.

Never. Not even when you dubbed me a "professional fool".

But there's no denying that your arguments are consistently arrogant.

On the one hand, you declare "The planet ....... is incapable of "disposing" of humans ...." But other, (lesser?) species have no such invulnerability in your world of make-believe. They're subject to "mass extinctions".

Must I remind you that we're the new guys on the block? We're the interlopers - the virus, if you will, who infected a perfectly healthy and balanced ecosystem and changed its entire paradigm by introducing such practices as killing for sport and profit. And then we had the audacity to claim that we possessed such superior intelligence and wisdom we could decide which other species needed "culling".

And now, you tell us we have the power to cure everything by doing more of the same! Talk about arrogance!

Your "central point" is so spurious it doesn't merit serious attention. So yes, I choose to "avoid" it.

re: Arrogance
"It's your arrogant assumption that an altered ecosystem "will accommodate the population, though that may involve mass extinctions of other species"."
Which was not a particularly arrogant assumption. If a species is growing in numbers, it must have some form of evolutionary advantage. Said species will continue to use its advantage to grow in numbers, wiping out other species in the process. The earth isn't a god which is actively observing and controlling ecosystems, and it's not going to say "Hey, that population is too big. Time to knock off a few of those buggers." The ecosystem will "accommodate" the growth of the species through the extinctions of others. Nothing says that this is process is pretty, or sustainable for that matter. Once too many species die off, the whole thing can go toppling over.

"On the one hand, you declare "The planet ....... is incapable of "disposing" of humans ...." But other, (lesser?) species have no such invulnerability in your world of make-believe. They're subject to "mass extinctions"."
The planet cannot "dispose" with anything, as it's not a sentient being. As for humans, of course they are vulnerable to extinction. The difference is that humans have global communications networks, science, etc. We might see a global problem coming and might try to counter it (Or perhaps other species do this too, though I confess that I missed the Gerbil Summit on Climate Change). So yes, humans have a slightly better chance against bacteria, viruses, or perhaps low-level changes in what food is available (transportation networks can allow humans to shunt resources around). In nature, sometimes a little advantage is enough. However, a massive eruption, severe climate change, or asteroid impact could all annihilate the human population rather easily.

"Must I remind you that we're the new guys on the block? We're the interlopers - the virus, if you will, who infected a perfectly healthy and balanced ecosystem and changed its entire paradigm by introducing such practices as killing for sport and profit."
New lifeforms have come and destroyed old ecosystems before. It's not like humans are the first animals to cause major changes. Massive population growth, massive die-offs, it's not like we invented the things out of the blue. As for "killing for sport and profit", how is this so much more terrible than an animal killing to control its territory? Humans are changing the earth due to their sheer numbers, and their ability to feed what would be otherwise unsustainable concentrations of population. Our massive usage of agriculture and fish resources is a problem on a far larger scale.

"And now, you tell us we have the power to cure everything by doing more of the same! Talk about arrogance!"
We have no power to cure anything. We never did, we almost certainly never will. We may be the most powerful and widespread species on Earth, though that's a fragile position and of rather infinitesimal value when one considers the size of the universe. We can choose to involve ourselves in nature to try to counter changes in ecosystems (Many caused by previous human misbehavior), or we can choose to let nature set its course without human interference. We won't be able to achieve perfection, or a "cure", but we can try to do our best (Our primary problem is repopulating endangered species; culling is at best a secondary issue).

"Your "central point" is so spurious it doesn't merit serious attention. So yes, I choose to "avoid" it."
Err, and a policy of total human noninterference with nature is never going to fly in human politics. What happens when a new species of animal that eats our crops evolves? Or perhaps a new species of fish/whale that starts consuming more of the global fish supply, thereby endangering any population that relies on the seas for food? People will kill those new species, and I doubt that there will be any serious political opposition to such measures. Or what if we just let the wolf population go unchecked? Many people will be very happy with this, unless the wolf population starts to boom (A small temperature spike might boost the herbivore population, causing a growth in carnivores). Then, when wolves start moving outwards, expanding their territory as many species do, they will start encroaching on cities and towns and the killing will start again.

...else for a "eloquent response" (and while the response may have been eloquent, it was also not pertinent to the topic at hand) yet you yourself are completely unable to do the same. You instead resort to belittling both the other person and their argument, while offering little in the way of rationality or evidence in your own posts.

These are not the actions of a rational, reasonable person, but rather that of a zealot (or your typical freeper, who usually is a zealot).

When you said "feeper" in a recent post, I thought it was yet another cute way to pretend you weren't saying what you are.



Mind you, I'm still working on spelling "correctly" correctly ...

There's nothing in the e-mails I get, nothing on their website under "Federal legislation" http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/ or "Hunting" http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/

Provisionally, I'd say the ILA doesn't consider this a matter deserving of its attention. This is a matter I'd be willing to resign my membership for, mind you.

I believe it took me two seconds at Google.

http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingArticles.aspx?ID=313

It makes a difference.

Not to the wolf. Or to its pups.

when the predator population exceeds its food supply that's usually what happens.

When discussing natural selection vs. artificial selection sentimentality doesn't really favor either side.

You KNOW absolutely and perfectly well that there has been no suggestion that the wolf "cull" under discussion here is in any way related to the sustainability of the wolf population.

The "cull" is to maintain levels of wildlife species that people want to hunt, i.e. to reduce competition from wolves.

Genuine culls do not take place during the period when the young of a species are dependent on parental care, for another thing. That is not the case for this wolf "cull".

What is the point of this kind of nonsense?

one has to give, which one gets to vote?

I know you despise guns, and presumably hunting as well, but it is a major industry, especially in certain states, and you couldn't ban it without severely affecting their economy.

So the only realistic option is to cull the wolves.

Amazingly, JonQ, the voters of Alaska - who have VOTED AGAINST the aerial wolf hunt and BEEN IGNORED.

Happy?


I know you despise guns, and presumably hunting as well, but it is a major industry, especially in certain states, and you couldn't ban it without severely affecting their economy.

I keep telling you. I have known for some time now that you have no regard for the truth. You just don't have to keep demonstrating it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=246027

Just the most recent demonstration of your disregard for the truth.

I'll come back in the morning and look for your new claim that I am a liar. Mornings need chuckles.

aerial hunting is not the same as culling. Which has been illegal for decades.

And as I recall I asked for you beliefs on the subject of guns at one point, so you could clearly state them and a you refused. So now you are pro-gun? I find that transformation remarkable.

Besides, this is within the US, what claim do you have to discuss it? I think Canada should do as it pleases, but they have no infulence over US domestic policy. I believe you said the same thing when canada was being hammered for some gun policy or another.

I believe you said the same thing when canada was being hammered for some gun policy or another.

You know it, I know it, we all know it.


aerial hunting is not the same as culling. Which has been illegal for decades.

Too bad you know absolutely fuck all else. You might have something truthful to say occasionally.

Oh, well, I guess not.

"Congress passed the Federal Airborne Hunting Act of 1972<69>, which made it illegal for hunters to shoot animals from a plane or helicopter. The federal legislation does have a for predator control, permitting state employees or licensed individuals to shoot from an aircraft for the sake of protecting "land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops."<70> "

You're posting here so I can assume you have internet access (go ahead and state they you said no such thing), so these facts should be at your fingertips.

There is no excuse for this level of ignorance.

There is no excuse for YOUR level of DISINGENUOUSNESS. I simply refuse to believe it's ignorance.

Whenever you shine light on a closed mind you should be prepared for outrage (and profanity). I guess