Peta's website: petsmartcruelty.com I know its truthful but

[frashy]

Human beings have hunted many species of non human animals to the point of extinction or near extinction. The fact that they haven't yet done so with wild deer is irrelevant and doesn't make hunting of deer morally right.

What's irrelivant about it? It relates to deers completely. It's about how their predators died out, alowing deer to spread away from areas where their predators are less hunted out (further up north). What was done in the past is effected by what goes on today.

Just 30 years ago, deer were not as abundent as they are today. Why? Because of the law against hunting them, as I already previously stated. I don't know where you are coming up with "humans didn't drive deer to ectinction yet". I also don't know where you get the evil assumption that extinction, or near extinction, is what humans intend or for some sick reason want. Hunters enjoy what they do. Why would they completely take away the animal the is the whole purpose in what they do anyways? That does not make any sence. Speaking open mindedly, from both sides.

And perhaps human beings have "grown and developed" enough. After all, wild animals, as you put it, were here before us. Perhaps they deserve a little consideration for the space that was theirs. Perhaps human beings could be a little less selfish and not invade every inch of space on this earth and leave a little of the natural order of things left in place.

Okay, so for now one lets spay and neuter one and another, so we most importantly do not grow. Because as long as we keep reproducing, we WILL grow. So YOU decide we have developed as humans enough..yeah. Okay. Lets stop here. No more buildings should be allowed to be built. No more using up more space. For now on, people who come into this world, have to crowd together, use the buildings we have now, loose privacy..See how reality just isn't the way you want it to be? We DO and WILL run out of room, if you expect to stay with what we have now. Were do you suggest people of the future generation live? What about all the people who have not been born into this world yet? Who are you to say okay people no more reproducing, because 'deer and other animals need their space too'?
I'm not saying im against sharing, but yikes, you can't give deer and other animals too much when it starts to effect all the humans and future humans in America's well being. Yeah, It get's that extreme when you go to the extreme of saying humans should stop already, because we've done "enough".

There is PLENTY of space out there. SPACE is not the problem. OVERPOPULATION is the problem.

It's not about "loving wild animals before yourself." Which, by the way, is a selfish a viewpoint as I've ever heard.

Erm, okie, as I stated already, I said that does not mean to then instead love humans and hate animals. Why people automaticaly assume the 180 is beyond me. Not how I personaly process. Love BOTH. Don't forget about YOURSELF! To sacrafice the well being of the future generations, over a wild animals best interest, is not only selfless to yourself, but selfish without care for the best interst in the future generations. It's amazing to tackle both at once.

"Besides, hunting isn't as benign as you seem to think. Perhaps death by wolf or even starvation would be preferable. I don't know. I've never been shot. But not every hunter kills with one shot, you know. It's estimated that about 50% of animals shot are wounded but not killed. So those animals then have to suffer being shot again, or bleed to death, or being weakened enough to be attacked by another animal, or being so weak as to be unable to survive and starving to death/dying of dehydration. Not too pleasant, by my estimation."

I would rather be shot a couple times than be mulled to death by a wolf. A bullet peicing is intence, but not as intense as SEVERAL teeth pericing into you, and ripping and taring your skin apart. I would also rather suffer from a bullet a few hours than go several days without food and die that way. Being shot is not as a grousom way of death. It's one of the fastest ways of dieing. Hmm..one of the most interesting convo's I yet had.


When you are willing to sacrafice the well being of oh so terrible stupid humans who do nothing but grow and flourish, just so deer and other wild animals can grow and flourish, not with but over you instead, it takes alot of shame in your own species to feel that way.

[crazywiggy]

I can agree with many different points on here.

I can accept that in certain cases hunting as a means of population control may be necessary. (Though in most cases it is not - England has tried to say for years that foxhunting (with hounds) was necessary, which it clearly isn't).

However, there is one major point where I have to agree with Susan:

And perhaps human beings have "grown and developed" enough. After all, wild animals, as you put it, were here before us. Perhaps they deserve a little consideration for the space that was theirs. Perhaps human beings could be a little less selfish and not invade every inch of space on this earth and leave a little of the natural order of things left in place.

I personally am NOT suggesting we start neutering people, or euthanising them. It is not about hating the human race, or putting animals first or whatever.

For me, it is about balance. About being realistic and sensible.

Humans are already destroying the world - causing the extinction of thousands of species, even entire habitats, pollution, damage to the ozone layer, climate change etc....

Human beings can live in harmony with the rest of the planet, but only if we are sensible. Overpopulation is a problem, and it affects US as much as other species.
Do we need to neuter everybody? No. If people were just sensible (keep coming back to this word eh?) it wouldn't be an issue.
Lets look at some of the causes of human overpopulation....

People who practice unsafe sex - and get pregnant as a result.
People having more children than it takes to continue the population. (In theory, every couple should have 2 children, in order to keep the population stable)
People having kids in order to get benefits (all too common in the UK)
People having kids they can't afford (a case recently publicised over here was a couple with about 10 kids, who live completely on benefits. They knew they had no money yet deliberately continued to have kids they expect us working taxpayers to support).

I personally have quite strong (an in some cases controversial) opinions on this issue. But all the same, what is wrong with trying to maintain a stable population - even reduce it slightly - when the entire planet is at stake?

[Susan9608]

Frashy - I can't even follow your illogical train of thought.

You can't know that you'd rather die from a bullet wound than a wolf's teeth because you've never experienced either. My point remains that death from a hunter's bullet is not the sanitized, instantaneous death so many people believe. Hunters miss. Animals often have to be shot again. Or they escape, only to bleed to death later, or be so injured as to be unable to feed themselves that they die of starvation/dehydration.

At the very least, though, non human animals should have the right to live and die without human interference.

Who are you to say okay people no more reproducing, because 'deer and other animals need their space too'?

Human beings have the ability to use logic and reason ... of course, many choose not to, but the underlying ability is there. Logic should show humans that no matter how many animals we force out of their natural habitats, there simply are not enough natural resources to sustain our population if we continue on the way we are going.

So if that means curtailing our own reproduction, then hell yes, I'm all for that. Of course, neutering people seems a little extreme, because again ... people can use logic and reason, and can take other measures to control their own fertility.

There is PLENTY of space out there. SPACE is not the problem.

Space actually *is* a problem, because there is a *finite* amount of space available for all the world to use. There is especially a limited amount of usable, or livable, space available for all the living beings of the planet ... and I, for one, don't think that simply being human triumphs the needs of all other living beings and allows me to take that space. It's about balance. Right now human beings are severely out of balance with just about everything else in the environment.

To sacrafice the well being of the future generations, over a wild animals best interest, is not only selfless to yourself, but selfish without care for the best interst in the future generations

I can't really follow this sentence ... but I will say that it is for future generations, both human and non human, that there has to be balance, or there will be nothing let for anyone. Humans can't take all or eventually they'll have taken everything.

[salana]

No matter how much people kill deer, wolves are much better at managing the deer population. Humans are not actually proficient at being apex predators--we get distracted and kill other animals. And some times we kill too many deer and some times not enough.

So, I say get the wolves to do it.

[frashy]

crazzy wiggly - I understand what you are saying. You say it with a realistic stand point. I agree totaly, just because I say im for deer hunting doesn't mean I want deers to die out, or like that they have to die, but you have to draw a line where you think about your own species. However, I do not disagree to reserving land, by rebuliding over already built land thats abonded. We need to use what we have better I do agree but there will come a time in years from now where we will use more land. It won't be over night but there will be a time.

People who practice unsafe sex - and get pregnant as a result.
People having more children than it takes to continue the population. (In theory, every couple should have 2 children, in order to keep the population stable)
People having kids in order to get benefits (all too common in the UK)
People having kids they can't afford (a case recently publicised over here was a couple with about 10 kids, who live completely on benefits. They knew they had no money yet deliberately continued to have kids they expect us working taxpayers to support).

TOTALY agree with you there. That is how I believe things should be done.

No matter how much people kill deer, wolves are much better at managing the deer population.

But there is a problem when there arn't any wolves here, so as far as comparing who accomplishes the job better, without a doubt would be humans - because there are no wolves here. You can argue about why they havn't been for hundreds of years now, but that would be irrelivant. You can't get angered by the past. You have to deal with life as it is now. yeah, it was wrong, but we learn from it. Anger will accomplish nothing, but move you further behind.

So, I say get the wolves to do it.

Well if you feel so stongly, instead of writing online, DO something about it. Because they arn't coming here on their own. Acutally, if there were wolves here that would be completely awesome. Wolves are beautiful animals. But you have to understand I personaly didnt cause this. So you can't personally attack and accuse me. I'm not sure if that's what you were doing, or if you assciated "you" as in the general public, not personaly me. I most certainly do not have deer heads hanging on my walls. I don't hunt, but I know people who do and they aren't evil animal haters. They are just not extreme when it comes to animals.


And susan, I personaly do not understand your train of thought. I think it's important, as crazywiggly stated, to sensibley control human population. I never said go all out and reproduce like crazy nuts because if otherwise human race will die out. Crazy pointed out many things, that are well more sensible, and can accomplish population control in a positive realistic way. Since i'm confused on what you actually think, I dont know if that's what you ment and agree with as well, or if you are seriously considering being more extreme than that. It would be hypocritical to diss allow other peoples chances at life, beyond ways Crazy stated, when hmm..you were given a life, and who are you to say other people can't have any because your beliefe in some deer and other wild animals? Once again, hope you read this, it's important to understand JUST because I say that doesn't automaticaly mean the oppsite extreme of what you believe and that everyone should reproduce like crazy.People should be responsible with reproduction, but to the degree of not allowing people to have kids period is crazy. Who would be allowed to reproduce? Why should they be able to reproduce and not someone else? It's a huge impossible issue. I'll be damned if some average person had such say in whether I was allowed to have children or not. That would be taking away my right as a human, which is most interly unAmerican, and completely communist. The only way to solve it is being more responsibe with reproduction, like the way crazy wiggly stated, sensibley.

[Susan9608]

Human population control, while germane to this topic, is not the issue at hand.

And communism doesn't have anything to do with population control - it's a socioeconomic structure for a classless society.

Without human interference, the checks and balances of nature would regulate the prey/predator population for itself. Period. It's only because of our intereference that there is this supposed "need" for hunters to come in and "save the day" and also take home their trophies to hang above their mantles.

The best thing human beings could do would be to stop interfering and allow nature to sort itself out.

[salana]

The reason wolves aren't there is that humans killed them. The answer is to reintroduce them. It's very simple. By "get wolves to do the job", I of course mean "reintroduce wolves to the ecosystem". Did you understand that? I thought it would be obvious.

Incidentally, in middle-class societies with a lot of technology, and family planning education and services, the birthrate has fallen somewhat below replacement levels. This of course has many White Power nutjobs absolutely infuriated. I personally think everyone deserves access to education and whatever birth control they need.

[frashy]

Kk while you bring your Tundra wolves into the prarie I will bring some Giraffes from the Savannah. Kk?

You are just ignorant, that's all. I've said enough. Your lack of factual information & your extreme beliefs have most certainly become nothing but entertainment.

If anyone from WI saw what you had to say, it would be a huge laugh in your face. Believe me, there are others not even from WI telling me you guys just don't seem understand reality. People I didn't even ask.

[salana]

Just because you're from WI doesn't mean you know anything about wolves.

http://depts.washington.edu/natmap/f..._wolf_712.html

Let's try reading for content.

Gray wolves are one of the most wide ranging land animals. They occupy a wide variety of habitats, from arctic tundra to forest, prairie, and arid landscapes.

P.S. I'll take a bet on that "anyone from WI" comment. Let me just find my brother's phone number and I'll ask my sister-in-law (FROM WISCONSIN, because I know you need to have these things spelled out) if wolves can live in Wisconsin. Not that I expect that she has a great deal of factual knowledge, much like you, but you made a preposterous claim and I'll disprove it just like I disproved your other.

Have a nice day.

[Susan9608]

Also WI is not the sole center of the universe. (though, of course, it might seem like it to you.) Hunting seems to be a national activity, and the idea that human beings need to "control" the deer (or fox or pigeon or whatever) population seems to be widely accepted.

Even here in TX people feel the need to hunt deer for population control, when, in fact, coyotes would do a wonderful job of it, if we'd just let them at it. Of course, we kill the coyotes because they invade "our" neighborhoods and interfere with our highways and such ... so then we have too many deer.

Such a vicious circle.

And the one common denominator is ... can you guess? That's right! Human being interference!

[salana]

Hey, if you need coyote population control, wolves do that too.

[salana]

Wolves were once common throughout all of North America but were killed in most areas of the United States by the mid 1930s. Today their range has been reduced to Canada and the following portions of the United States: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Mexican wolves are found in New Mexico and Arizona.

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_an...wolf,_gray.php

Oh snap!