251–255 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. Using facts to explain things flies in the face of God. Those farmers are obviously going to eat all that corn themselves.
This is not how you win a discussion. Next time, try valid arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.
Farmers receive huge services from wolves, maybe they should pay for them also. Wolves remove wild grazers increasing the amount of pasture available for cattle. Wolves clean scabies in deer, lyme disease, and bovine tuberculosis in wild boars that would otherwise end in the cattle or the farmer. Wolves reduce the coyotes population. Reduce the car accidents against deer crossing the road. Wolves protect trees and al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why your first reaction to the recovery of this species (that your own hunter breed almost completely erased), is to think about them as moving targets? Can't you find something more productive to do than to shoot innocent animals?
Human hunters are, as of right now, an integral component of keeping wild animals from overpopulating. If you pull the human hunters, the herd sizes will explode (since we've driven away/contained their natural predators), and many of them will starve to death. Whatever your thoughts on hunting, it's part of the predatory/prey cycle throughout the world. It's also a not-so-distant tradition from our history that goes…
What if instead of killing them, to patch a flawed system, we work on rebuilding their habitats?
Also there are many ways of controlling the numbers of a species, killing them is just the easy one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why your first reaction to the recovery of this species (that your own hunter breed almost completely erased), is to think about them as moving targets? Can't you find something more productive to do than to shoot innocent animals?
Eh, a hunter spends hours or days to kill one animal reasonably quickly. A farm slaughters thousands of animals after raising them in absolutely cruel conditions. If I had the goal to make animals suffer fewer creature-hours of pain then faced with the choice to either ban hunting or ban livestock, I'd go with livestock. However if you're vegetarian, vegan, or raise your own livestock then I salute you as having a co…
But if I had to choose between hunters of industrial farming, I choose hunters, of course. It is just I think we can try to fix both problems.
And yes, I am vegan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why your first reaction to the recovery of this species (that your own hunter breed almost completely erased), is to think about them as moving targets? Can't you find something more productive to do than to shoot innocent animals?
They were not erased by the modern hunter, but by farmers who didn't want them eating their sheep and, in many cases, by professional wolf-killers hired by states . The renowned conservation writer Aldo Leopold's earliest work was killing bears, wolves, and mountain lions for the forest service. Unfortunately it wasn't until we'd nearly erased wolves and grizzlies (cougars have always been too wily to be wiped out) t…
It does not sound like conservation to me...
It is worth noting that a predator like the wolf needs a huge hunting area to thrive. Otherwise they starve. If you manage the habitat there is no need to kill them in cold blood.