posted on August 20, 2002 12:42:17 PM new
We used to find round metal traps on my parent's land. My Dad would nab them whenever he found them.
Maybe that is why I hate hunting animals so much. That and remembering seeing all
the macho types getting ready for deer hunting season each fall. Falling all over themselves to get the killing equipment right and the beer for guzzling ready.
Maybe some of you are getting ready now. I wish I could remember some of the jokes that people made as the mightly hunters went off to find their prey.
I was very proud of my Father when I finally heard him say he no longer went hunting to "bag a bird" or kill a deer in the late sixties. He still went, but sat and watched the animals in the woods.
My home town still publishes pictures of dead deer hanging over the hood of a car or dangling gutted from a tree limb. The happy hunter is pictured next to his pray! As though the deer, elk or other wild animal had a chance! Man have turkey calls, deer blinds and netting and anything manufacturers can dream up to outwit the wild critters.
Last year, the home town newspaper pictured a small boy on the front page. He had killed his first deer! I hope he doesn't live to regret it because that picture of him with his elbows on that beautiful deer will be around for a LONG time!
Never have been attacked, unless you included being bitten, gored and rammed, nor has anyone I know. But I have raised "domestic" farm animals and hunted and trapped in youth. I know what animals are capable of.
Is it possible those animals that gored, bit or rammed you were trying to save their own lives?
What makes a man's life more valuable than the bull, rabbit, chicken, deer or goats he kills to eat or have a pictorial moment with? Are they not supposed to fight as MAN tries to kill, brand them or poke rings through noses? Should they go quietly as MAN shuts them in tiny cages so they can't move or stalks them on their own land until dead?
Were some of them small animals in traps, fighting violently to get freed? Or maybe they had already chewed most of their leg off to get away and put up a fight when you arrived? Maybe that chicken bit you as you tried to ring its neck?
posted on August 20, 2002 03:14:23 PM new
"I know what animals are capable of"
as if what animals are capable of is somehow more heinous than what people are capable of....while we're killing all the scary animals, why don't we rid this planet of all the potentially dangerous people too....I spent a lot of time around humans as a child, and let me tell you, I know what they are capable of!! ....then we can go after the idiots who leave small children unattended in this day and age, even if it is on a porch...see to it that they don't cause the deaths of any more kids....,
dog vs. wild animal attacks may be an unfair comparison, but judging from the numbers, I'd say dog attacks were actually worth worrying about...if you don't think they are, then maybe you won't mind your 3 year old playing with the neighbor guy's 5 pit bulls....
the wildlife is here, always has been, and I for one am glad they are...as I write this, two Black Hawks are soaring in the air over the chicken coop....the chickens are all safely under the trees....chickens are not stupid, they KNOW they are potential dinner...ever seen the talons on a full grown black hawk? big enough and sharp enough to rip your face off with one swipe...on second thought, guess maybe I better go get the shotgun and make this world just a little bit safer....
posted on August 20, 2002 03:45:24 PM new
>Populations will level off and begin decreasing as education and better and cheaper contraceptives become available.
Not at all, REAMOND! With politicians being against birth control, the Pope being against birth control, it won't be more than another hundred years before every square foot of the USA is homesteaded, industrialized, and paved over by "progress." As food continues to keep pace with demand, humans will continue to multiply unchecked. Those countries that do not have unchecked populations will be swallowed up by their neighbors, like Mexico and the USA, India and Pakistan, China and the World. Humans will continue to expand until there is nothing left but living and working space, a few scattered parks, and not a whole lot of anything else.
And where will the Wild Animals go? They can't live among us, so we'll kill most of them and put the rest into zoos.
posted on August 20, 2002 06:20:25 PM new
For those of you who think animals are equivilent to humans, there can be no debate because it makes no difference if animals kill humans or humans kill animals.
Bor- The population will level off and decline as the 3rd world modernizes. It is a historical fact as the population produces excess food and becomes better educated, the reasons for having large families disappear and the population begins drop into negative growth. It has been happening in the US, Japan and Europe for nearly 3 decades now. Several European countries actually now have negative growth ( Italy is in negative population growth, home to the anti-birth control Vatican), and without immigration the US would have negative population growth (i.e, more dying than being born).
posted on August 20, 2002 07:46:19 PM new
In good conscious I could not bring a child into this mess. That somebody else did, irresponsibly, gave me the opportunity to be a mother. Only because of this I am a Mommy. I could never happily create a child and bring him/her into this physically and politically polluted world. But that's me.
posted on August 21, 2002 12:05:00 AM new
REAMOND - don't get me wrong - I fully understand what you are saying. If organized religion did not exist, cultures that won't allow a woman to take contraception, and the ignorance of people in modern industrialize nations your analysis would be correct. But there are political, cultural and religious forces in the world with astounding influence even upon the educated that threaten draconian measures if the female refuses to keep producing children. You would have to destroy every organized religion that forbids contraception, demolish every backward government on the planet that makes it illegal for women to say NO! to child birthing, you would have to vaporize established cultures based in antiquity long, long before education would have even the slightest of effects. Look at us! The East Coast of the USA is really one giant city that stretches from Boston to Miami anymore. And within another hundred years, it will be the same for the west coast and most areas in-between. Where will the wildlife be allowed to roam, when there is no wilderness left? It'll be either the dinner pot or the zoo!
posted on August 21, 2002 04:51:57 AM new
"For those of you who think animals are equivilent (sic) to humans, there can be no debate because it makes no difference if animals kill humans or humans kill animals. "
translation:
"I don't want to discuss this with you unless you agree with me"
posted on August 22, 2002 04:57:05 PM new
And what about these pesky trees, huh? Bush wants to let the loggers in. I reckon the fires did the job already. Are the trees also encroaching on people. But then, if we get rid of the big trees, there won't be that many places for the wild critters to hide.
posted on August 22, 2002 05:18:33 PM new
I heard that nycyn. What a dork he is. The problem with forest fires is that they're not allowed & should be under controlled conditions. This prevents these huge, disasterous fires.
Makes me wonder what interests he has with the lumber industry.
posted on August 22, 2002 06:58:40 PM new
>Makes me wonder what interests he has with the lumber industry.
Lordy! Thank your lucky stars that you don't live in Oregon, or you'd be well aware of what the problem is.
In a nut shell: There are few large trees left in forests in Oregon, except in the national wildlife forests. Thinner trees means boards not as wide and a loss of revenue. Many a wood mill has shut down permanently since I came here in the late '70's.
So, a forest fire happens. The smaller tress get burned up, but the Old Growth, the ones worth mucho buckaroos don't get burned up. Great for the forest -- right? And instead of letting all of the precious lumber, much of it still recoverable even though fire damaged on the outside of the dead trees, the US Forest Service sells the trees to fill up their coffers. Terrific so far, huh? And if you let the trees decay naturally, they increase the fire hazard, so you'd likely want to remove them to lower the fire hazard in the future. Everyone wins, eh?
The problem is that the logging companies have never let live Old Growth trees that are healthy just stay where they are. Oh, no! For the "privilege" of removing all of those burnt-out and dead trees, many board-foot of live, healthy, Old Growth tree goes too! It's a common practice and deception here, and if you lived here, it'd be clear as day to you. And just because an area NEAR the burnt out areas is off limits, don't think for a moment that logging companies give a damn and they take whatever they can get away with. The US Forest Service here and the BLM - Bureau of Land Management, it's all nod-nod, wink-wink, say-no-more to the logging interests. The biggest argument that these logging companies make is that when they clear-cut a hillside, it's not the trees that were holding in all that dirt that all erodes and washes away and leaves bare rock behind. Can you believe it? The Building Industry here won't even consider alternative materials in place of real wood. I don't mean stone, I mean treated fiberboard panels made from hemp fibers and other super-strong, painfully cheap materials. The ignorant tree wacker supporters all go around with these bumper stickers on their car that reads "If it wasn't for Trees, how would you wipe your ass?" Sorry, but that's word-for-word and you see it everywhere here. And when you say: "How about Hemp? It's not marijuana and can't get you high, but it grows fast and hardy, just like it's cousin marijuana does. You can make exceedingly thin papers, super-strong plys, wiring paper . . . heck, even CLOTHING from it. Why not get the government to distinguish Hemp from Marijuana and stop hacking down all of those trees?" About that time, they take a swing at you, as in, "You try'n ta put me outta' job @#$%?" Yah - real fun.
Rule Number 1: The stated purpose of the BLM to preserve and to protect the forests. In reality, their job is to hawk them to the highest bidder and block all efforts to stop or stall environmentalists.
Rule Number 2: When it comes to Old Growth Forests, NEVER trust logging companies to go in there to recover the wood! They steal every large tree that they can get their hands on within the time limit allotted to them to do the job.
posted on August 23, 2002 03:50:35 AM new
NPR is reporting this morning that a crowd of 500 protested outside the building where Bush meet last night in Oregon and another 150 protested in another spot.
========================
Borillar, the commercials say the timber industry is helping the wildlife in the cut areas, they are planting in a responsible way
and are LOOKING after OUR welfare. They are our friends!
I wonder how the forests ever got along without man's help? When we fool with Mother Nature she comes back and bites us in the butt every time.
There have been many tree forests planted with genetically altered trees. They were planted with little regard to whether they will weaken the forest already in those states or will create monster trees that take over other species. There are multiple worries about those trees, but they get little press.
posted on August 23, 2002 09:30:30 AM new
Without man's help forests used to burn.
The new "conspiracy" wasn't thought up by Bush, it comes from the naturalist community. For the last 150 yrs man has intervened in the natural evolution of forests. Small fires which removed lower growth and small trees have been stopped thus providing the fuel for the massive fires.
