51–60 of 146 posts
So this is why we have been noticing exponentially more "coyotes" roaming around the suburbs of the GTA recently? My girlfriend was walking our dog last week and saw 3 of them within an hour. The next morning she saw 2. The other day I was walking the dog and some kid stopped me to warn me about a "wolf" that was growling at him around the corner. This is all within steps of our small "downtown" and I just kept think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park. Exactly. I'm all for conservation, so long as it doesn't lead to humans becoming part of the food chain again.
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is currently neither feasible nor a high priority. The world has plenty of other problems that need addressed first.
Still, I'd rather these predators not exist. The harm they inflict on other creatures far outweighs the warm fuzzies we get from seeing them on nature shows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...
What I'm asking is are we asserting that humanity has claimed the _entire_ globe as its habitat? Where do all the other species go that because of their nature run into trouble with us? Why not share a habitat with the creatures we can and make large wildlife reserves for the creatures we can't. Is this too idealistic? And if our paths do cross they need to be protected from us, not the other way around, because they don't know any better and we do.
So this is why we have been noticing exponentially more "coyotes" roaming around the suburbs of the GTA recently? My girlfriend was walking our dog last week and saw 3 of them within an hour. The next morning she saw 2. The other day I was walking the dog and some kid stopped me to warn me about a "wolf" that was growling at him around the corner. This is all within steps of our small "downtown" and I just kept think…
In Grand theft auto? Huh??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...
One outcome of this interbreeding is that these animals have lost their fear of people, but they retain their predatory instincts, making them quite dangerous. There are coyotes in the northern part of Nova Scotia that have attacked lone hikers. A woman was killed, in fact a few years ago, and there have been numerous scary encounters in which the animal creeps closer and closer to a wary human, much like a predator…
It's not like Dingos in Australia are extremely dangerous for instance. Sure they still are to an extent, like most animals living in the wild, but it's not better or worse in terms of behavior than any other wild animal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...
If an automobile driver were the cause of death instead, would you demand the removal of all automobile drivers? Or all automobiles?
If your child were to drown, would you demand the removal of all swimming pools?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.
Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild? From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is c…
I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild? From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is c…
Interesting. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like trying to impose a vegan lifestyle (for the record: I'm vegetarian and mostly vegan now) to the animal kingdom. I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.
One day –hopefully– humanity will have its shit together. Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals. What do we do about that? I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure "let it continue" isn't it.
To bring the discussion back to the present: I think most people don't consider the morality of letting predators exist. If it was a disease or parasite that killed 10 people a year, we'd all agree on eradication. If it was a human being who killed 10 people a year, we'd all want to lock that person away until they died of old age. Nobody would make arguments like, "Your child is 1,000x more likely to be killed by a car than by a serial killer." But give the creature some fur and claws and have it roar or howl majestically... suddenly all manner of rationalizations are brought out in support.