Conservation.

[Mike111 0]

BIG RANT.

Ok, to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else. How would bloody feel if you were put on a wall by a superior species cos they liked the colour of our skin or hair? Bet youd smile then!

Can't we just hunt things like fish which are not endangered. Im nto against fishing or anything or bird hunting providing they are not endangered.

Christ these people are destroynig our planet. And then they would say in all patheticniess "i didn;t realise it was doing any harm". Get a fucknig brain.

Im nto a mad environmentalist but someone who is keen to protect the important aspects of nature.

Rant over.

Logical argument outside of anger - all the work done around the world by charities usch as green peace and other organisations is wasted by selfish individuals pursueing their own desires or pleasure. What gives people this right to do that? Say fur hunting or shark hunting (hint hint), all the time and research by scientists and conservationists into prolonging their survival and understanding their nature is shitted on.

Thankyou to all those that do that, what an example.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How would bloody feel if you were put on a wall by a superior species cos they liked the colour of our skin or hair? Bet youd smile then!

1 - I wouldn't like it. No sir, no sirree Bob.

2 - I'd probably smile, as the taxidermist would arrange my face that way for the plaque, thinking it looks like a vicious growl or baring of teeth. Alien taxidermists aren't very smart.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Royd 0]

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How would bloody feel if you were put on a wall by a superior species cos they liked the colour of our skin or hair? Bet youd smile then!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

1 - I wouldn't like it. No sir, no sirree Bob.

2 - I'd probably smile, as the taxidermist would arrange my face that way for the plaque, thinking it looks like a vicious growl or baring of teeth. Alien taxidermists aren't very smart.

The problem that I have is being taxidermied and then being stuck in a box with a lid on it.

[billvon 3,120]

>hat gives people this right to do that? Say fur hunting or shark hunting (hint hint) . . .

Same thing that gives a fox a right to hunt a rabbit I suppose. That rabbit is going to die anyway.

We are omnivores, which means we are designed to eat both meat and vegetation. (Primarily vegetation, but we're not pure herbivores.) Before we became intelligent, we hunted as best we could like every other predator. Now that we have better brains, I don't think we have an obligation to never hunt or eat meat - but we DO have an obligation to do it intelligently. That means eating cod, but not wiping out cod fisheries. That means eating buffalo, but not driving them to extinction. It means using our brains to go from being stupid predators to smart predators. We all benefit as a result.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

...
We are omnivores, which means we are designed to eat both meat and vegetation. (Primarily vegetation, but we're not pure herbivores.) Before we became intelligent, we hunted as best we could like every other predator. Now that we have better brains, I don't think we have an obligation to never hunt or eat meat - but we DO have an obligation to do it intelligently. That means eating cod, but not wiping out cod fisheries. That means eating buffalo, but not driving them to extinction. It means using our brains to go from being stupid predators to smart predators. We all benefit as a result.

Nonsense! That notion flies directly in the face of our values of freedom and free market omnivorism!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

BIG RANT.

Ok, to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else. How would bloody feel if you were put on a wall by a superior species cos they liked the colour of our skin or hair? Bet youd smile then!

Can't we just hunt things like fish which are not endangered. Im nto against fishing or anything or bird hunting providing they are not endangered.

Christ these people are destroynig our planet. And then they would say in all patheticniess "i didn;t realise it was doing any harm". Get a fucknig brain.

Im nto a mad environmentalist but someone who is keen to protect the important aspects of nature.

Rant over.

Logical argument outside of anger - all the work done around the world by charities usch as green peace and other organisations is wasted by selfish individuals pursueing their own desires or pleasure. What gives people this right to do that? Say fur hunting or shark hunting (hint hint), all the time and research by scientists and conservationists into prolonging their survival and understanding their nature is shitted on.

Thankyou to all those that do that, what an example.

While not trying to dismiss or discount your rant, this is a very narrow vision of what most hunters do.

Next, then "endagered speicies act" is a miss-used piece of shit legislation. While good in its intentions it is now used to control usage of privatly owned property to suit the views of nutty conservationists.

Now, where is my shot gun.........


I don't mind you having your view point. What I do mind are those trying to push their own eco morality on the rest of us thorugh law and the courts.

Eat beef, save some hay.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Ok, to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else.

So if you're swimming in the ocean and a giant shark is about to eat you, or if you're hiking in India and a giant tiger is about to pounce on you, then you don't want us to shoot the animal and save your life?

[billvon 3,120]

>Next, then "endagered speicies act" is a miss-used piece of shit legislation.

It's prevented the extinction of several species, so it's done a very good job in that respect. People (including hunters) generally take a fairly narrow view; look at all the "there's plenty o fish when I go out fishing, so we don't need no stinkin restrictions!" comments. So you need some entity with a wider view to administer things.

The ESA:

-prevents federal agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions which may "jeopardize the continued existence of" endangered or threatened species.

-forbids any government agency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or killing) endangered animals without a permit.

-requires that "critical habitat" be designated for endangered species, including areas necessary to recover the species.

All those are necessary to prevent the extinction of certain species, like the bald eagle, whooping crane, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, gray whale, and grizzly bear. All those species have been saved (increased in number instead of heading towards extinction) by the ESA.

>While good in its intentions it is now used to control usage of privatly
>owned property to suit the views of nutty conservationists.

No, it doesn't. A bit of reading might help prevent false statements like that.

>What I do mind are those trying to push their own eco morality on
>the rest of us thorugh law and the courts.

I agree. If you want to hunt, buy your own property and hunt to your heart's content (any animal that's not endangered, that is.) You have every right to hunt, but you do not have the right to cause an entire species to go extinct.

[billvon 3,120]

>So if you're swimming in the ocean and a giant shark is about to eat you,
>or if you're hiking in India and a giant tiger is about to pounce on you,
>then you don't want us to shoot the animal and save your life?

There is a difference between self defense and hunting for fur.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Next, then "endagered speicies act" is a miss-used piece of shit legislation.

It's prevented the extinction of several species, so it's done a very good job in that respect. People (including hunters) generally take a fairly narrow view; look at all the "there's plenty o fish when I go out fishing, so we don't need no stinkin restrictions!" comments. So you need some entity with a wider view to administer things.Notice that I did speak of its intent and you are right, it did save many animals . You have no idea of how narrow or wide my views are on this supject. I responded to this post in the context I saw it in. (which can be a mistaken view)

The ESA:

-prevents federal agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions which may "jeopardize the continued existence of" endangered or threatened species.It also deprived and family of income use of land when it declared he had to stop farming the land because he had driven over a kangaroo mouse. The family lost the land and thier life savings because of this. 10 years later a CA university went back to the land to see how the rodent was doing. There were none on this now un farmed land. Further investigation found the rat perfered cultivated land and left when the farmer was driven from his land. Well done don't you think?

-forbids any government agency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or killing) endangered animals without a permit. [Which also created the harrassment of the land owner listed above, but in general, if used responcibly I have no problem with this

-requires that "critical habitat" be designated for endangered species, including areas necessary to recover the species.And who is declared the arbitor of what is "critical habitat"? That brings us to the story of the DNR officer that took Lynx hairs from an animal in a zoo and put it on a collection patch in the middle of a forest HE thought should not have any trees harvested. He was finally charged when it was discoved there were no Lynx in this area

All those are necessary to prevent the extinction of certain species, like the bald eagle, whooping crane, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, gray whale, and grizzly bear. All those species have been saved (increased in number instead of heading towards extinction) by the ESA. And like the spotted owl?? The one that only lives in "old growth" forestes? That same owl that has now been taken off the list because further research showed the owl to like "new growth" trees???

>While good in its intentions it is now used to control usage of privatly
>owned property to suit the views of nutty conservationists.

No, it doesn't. A bit of reading might help prevent false statements like that.Bullshit, read above

>What I do mind are those trying to push their own eco morality on
>the rest of us thorugh law and the courts.

I agree. If you want to hunt, buy your own property and hunt to your heart's content (any animal that's not endangered, that is.) You have every right to hunt, but you do not have the right to cause an entire species to go extinct.

Ya, by your own land, the puplic lands are the property of nutty leftists that push thier eco morality on the rest of us.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

Ok, to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else.

So if you're swimming in the ocean and a giant shark is about to eat you, or if you're hiking in India and a giant tiger is about to pounce on you, then you don't want us to shoot the animal and save your life?

Oh I get it! All those poachers in the Serengeti or the asian jungle are really just protecting white tourists. The fact that they can get rich by selling the carcasses is just a by-product of their selflessness.

All hail the heroic poachers!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else.

Better yet, why don't we find a way to farm them?

p.s. - you're generally preaching to the choir on this. Other countries, yes, they seem to have a bigger desire for these things.

Quote

Can't we just hunt things like fish which are not endangered.

Most people are doing just that.

Quote

all the work done around the world by charities usch as green peace and other organisations is wasted by selfish individuals pursueing their own desires or pleasure.

I disagree. They've gotten you thinking about it and others thinking about it. I applaud that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>You have no idea of how narrow or wide my views are on this supject.

I'm not saying you have a narrow view. I am saying that hunters often do; they know what's happening in their neck o' the woods but not what's happening 2000 miles away. That's pretty true for many kinds of people, not just hunters.

>It also deprived and family of income use of land when it declared he
>had to stop farming the land because he had driven over a kangaroo mouse.

That would be a lie faulty intelligence. (Not blaming you; you probably were a victim of a conservative "hate everything liberal" blog.) Mr. Ming-Lin's foreman was intentionally killing mice. He received two warnings, and was offered an exemption to allow him to keep farming. He ignored them all.

They finally fined him $5000. He paid it and got the exemption, and all charges were dropped. Problem solved.

>That brings us to the story of the DNR officer that took Lynx hairs from
>an animal in a zoo and put it on a collection patch in the middle of a
>forest HE thought should not have any trees harvested. He was finally
>charged when it was discoved there were no Lynx in this area

Another lie. No one planted hairs in a forest (per a GAO investigation prompted by right winger claims.) No one was charged. The issue arose because someone in a lab mixed up actual sample hairs with reference hairs. To put in in layman's terms, they mixed up hairs from the forest with "these are what lynx hairs look like" examples. They admonished the biologists for sloppy lab work. Some right-winger heard about it, made up some shit, and posted it somewhere to try to discredit the ESA.

You really should research this stuff before posting it.

>And like the spotted owl?? The one that only lives in "old growth"
>forestes? That same owl that has now been taken off the list
>because further research showed the owl to like "new growth" trees???

Right. The owl was able to adapt to the new forests so it was taken off the list. That's how it should work. You protect animals from extinction; if they can make it with less hunting/changed habitat and their numbers start increasing again, you take em off. Better to err on the side of not driving animals to extinction.

>Ya, by your own land, the puplic lands are the property of nutty
>leftists that push thier eco morality on the rest of us.

Could you re-phrase that? That syntax was impenetrable.

[Mike111 0]

I totally agree with you on all of those points.

Mike

[Mike111 0]

I disagree, im not pushing anything on anyone, just reinstating a responsibility ALL HUMANS have - that is guard our reserves wisely.

If we don;t do it, who the hell will?

There are plenty of other eco friendly lucrative business which exploit wildlfie in a good way - whale watching, swimming in cages with sharks etc etc.

Both raise interest yet protect the species and earn wages.

[Mike111 0]

Quote

Quote

to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else.

Better yet, why don't we find a way to farm them?

p.s. - you're generally preaching to the choir on this. Other countries, yes, they seem to have a bigger desire for these things.

Quote

Can't we just hunt things like fish which are not endangered.

Most people are doing just that.

Quote

all the work done around the world by charities usch as green peace and other organisations is wasted by selfish individuals pursueing their own desires or pleasure.

I disagree. They've gotten you thinking about it and others thinking about it. I applaud that.

Fair point about raised awareness, but wouldn't you agree this aint enough in some cases?

[Mike111 0]

Please re - read - in this case of course it would be justified.

Self defence is different to hunting ENDANGERED species.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Could you re-phrase that? That syntax was impenetrable.

So you admit you're just making a syntactical argument! That's worse than a semantic one.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>So if you're swimming in the ocean and a giant shark is about to
>eat you, or if you're hiking in India and a giant tiger is about to
>pounce on you, then you don't want us to shoot the animal and
>save your life?

There is a difference between self defense and hunting for fur.

Sharks have fur?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Please re - read - in this case of course it would be justified.
Self defence is different to hunting ENDANGERED species.

So when your life is endangered, then your life is more important than the endangered animal's life. Okay, now I know what your priorities are.

If a baby fur seal was gnawing off your foot, would you club it to death?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Please re - read - in this case of course it would be justified.
Self defence is different to hunting ENDANGERED species.

So when your life is endangered, then your life is more important than the endangered animal's life. Okay, now I know what your priorities are.

You are a supporter of CCW laws. You have made it clear that you would have no hesitation in killing a HUMAN who was endangering your life.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, to those in the world who hunt endangered species like sharks, or want lovely real fur coats from leopards or tigers etc etc, then fucking hunt something else. How would bloody feel if you were put on a wall by a superior species cos they liked the colour of our skin or hair? Bet youd smile then!

The impact of sport fishers on the shark population is probably about zero. The only species that might be threatened would be the great whites due to their low numbers as top shark. I believe all of the key regions now protect the great white. In many cases these sport fisherman are catch and release.

No, the threat to shark populations comes from the strange habit of the Chinese to pay obscene prices for the fins, making it cost effective to line fish for thousands of sharks, cut off the fins, and throw the rest (99%) of the carcass back into the water.

[spiccoli 0]

Quote

Can't we just hunt things like fish

no, but we could probably fish for things like fish.

we need to talk about your flare..

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You have no idea of how narrow or wide my views are on this supject.

I'm not saying you have a narrow view. I am saying that hunters often do; they know what's happening in their neck o' the woods but not what's happening 2000 miles away. That's pretty true for many kinds of people, not just hunters.

>It also deprived and family of income use of land when it declared he
>had to stop farming the land because he had driven over a kangaroo mouse.

That would be a lie faulty intelligence. (Not blaming you; you probably were a victim of a conservative "hate everything liberal" blog.) Mr. Ming-Lin's foreman was intentionally killing mice. He received two warnings, and was offered an exemption to allow him to keep farming. He ignored them all.You have a story I did not hear of. The incident I reference was on a news show 10 years after the farmer was shut down. It was (going to be) a vineyard.

They finally fined him $5000. He paid it and got the exemption, and all charges were dropped. Problem solved.

>That brings us to the story of the DNR officer that took Lynx hairs from
>an animal in a zoo and put it on a collection patch in the middle of a
>forest HE thought should not have any trees harvested. He was finally
>charged when it was discoved there were no Lynx in this area

Another lie. No one planted hairs in a forest (per a GAO investigation prompted by right winger claims.) No one was charged. The issue arose because someone in a lab mixed up actual sample hairs with reference hairs. To put in in layman's terms, they mixed up hairs from the forest with "these are what lynx hairs look like" examples. They admonished the biologists for sloppy lab work. Some right-winger heard about it, made up some shit, and posted it somewhere to try to discredit the ESA.

You really should research this stuff before posting it.

>And like the spotted owl?? The one that only lives in "old growth"
>forestes? That same owl that has now been taken off the list
>because further research showed the owl to like "new growth" trees???

Right. The owl was able to adapt to the new forests so it was taken off the list. That's how it should work. You protect animals from extinction; if they can make it with less hunting/changed habitat and their numbers start increasing again, you take em off. Better to err on the side of not driving animals to extinction.

>Ya, buy your own land and hunt, the puplic lands are the property of nutty (so you can't hunt on it )leftists that push thier eco morality on the rest of us.

Could you re-phrase that? That syntax was impenetrable.

Try this one

http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/mo08_emerson/end_of_endangered_people.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>You have a story I did not hear of.

Same story. It has just been so distorted by anti-environmental conservative bloggers that you didn't recognize it.

>http://www.house.gov/...dangered_people.html

Same original story, although the author also notes:

"While this exact situation didn't happen here in Missouri"

So not only is the original story is a lie, the author admits there is no similar story he can quote.

Again, reading your sources before posting them might result in a more credible argument.