Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since it's plain and obvious that we do not know how to co-exist with animals (not talking about pets and chickens here) because we have refused to learn how to from Native Americans (and other "primitive" peoples) and refused to give up our relentless drive to "civilize" virgin lands.
Instinctively I want to live. That's self-preservation. But on a MASS SCALE, ultimately, with homo sapiens being on the top of the food chain and our intelligence and ability to harness nature to do our bidding, we will win. That's a given. We have been practicing excellent SPECISM and are skilled at the annihilation of other species in order to create survival, convenience, and material comfort for our own.
But does it mean it's a good thing? Is this what we want? There's no turning back. We can't give up on our cars, buildings, highways and the ability to produce tons of garbage. We will always be birthing more humans -- guaranteed. So, I present you the picture, please answer as rationally as possible.
"Whose life is more worth preserving on a massive, global scale? Wildlife or homo sapiens?"
Whichever allows me to gun animals down from a helicopter is the one I vote for. I am a very weak, insecure human and need the validation of conquest to compensate.
My selfish survival instincts tell me to say, "My life". But my advanced brain that has developed what we call "compassion" makes me hope there's a way for us all to survive. On the other hand, all species will go extinct eventually, whether gradually one by one or all at once in some world-wide catastrophe. Let's just hope we aren't the reason for that catastrophe.
And we can allow wildlife to live if we allow them to by not hunting them etc. Our meat and food do not come from "wildlife" and so hunting them isn't really neccesary accept to possibly control their population levels, which is why we have a lot of hunting regulations and rules as to how many you can hunt adn how many licenses are granted.
And we can allow wildlife to live if we allow them to by not hunting them etc. Our meat and food do not come from "wildlife" and so hunting them isn't really neccesary accept to possibly control their population levels, which is why we have a lot of hunting regulations and rules as to how many you can hunt adn how many licenses are granted.
But one is not more important than the other.
It's really not an issue of not hunting them. Hunting is actually a major component of healthy management of natural resources and funds from hunting licenses and hunting lands has done an extraordinary amount to protect wildlife populations.
In fact, we need to support more hunting to protect wildlife. It's all these suburbanites living their cul-de-sac dream who are consuming prime wildlife / hunting land that are the bulk of the problem.
But - I agree that it's all about balance. I understand why we've ignorantly destroyed half the species on planet earth in the past 100 years, but we're to a level of awareness now that that's no longer acceptable.
My selfish survival instincts tell me to say, "My life". But my advanced brain that has developed what we call "compassion" makes me hope there's a way for us all to survive. On the other hand, all species will go extinct eventually, whether gradually one by one or all at once in some world-wide catastrophe. Let's just hope we aren't the reason for that catastrophe.
Come to Kansas sometime and see how long it takes to get tired of the deer. It is unbelievable how much we have to pay for auto insurance because of deer-auto collisions. Too many deaths of humans because of deer, also. People in the less populated parts of our county have counted herds of 200 and higher in one place. I know a highway where a monster herd stings along a river bed not more than 100 yards from the roadway. Do people drive very carefully there during the rut? Very carefully. When a buck has the scent of doe his brains go to his male organs. I can't think of one thing other than hunting them, which I don't do that they contribute to humans.
Come to Kansas sometime and see how long it takes to get tired of the deer. It is unbelievable how much we have to pay for auto insurance because of deer-auto collisions. Too many deaths of humans because of deer, also. People in the less populated parts of our county have counted herds of 200 and higher in one place. I know a highway where a monster herd stings along a river bed not more than 100 yards from the roadway. Do people drive very carefully there during the rut? Very carefully. When a buck has the scent of doe his brains go to his male organs. I can't think of one thing other than hunting them, which I don't do that they contribute to humans.
This is why I support responsible hunting. I'd much rather see deer shot and used for food than hit by cars. It's a very ugly sight when they aren't killed instantly.
I hate to see anything die, but death is a part of nature. Deer overpopulate some areas because their natural predators have been mostly driven away, and then we build neighborhoods, malls, etc. where woods and fields once were, further limiting their space. Next thing you know, you have deer everywhere, being killed unnecessarily by cars (and occasionally even the occupants of the car are injured or killed, as you say).
I bicycle to work every single day, and my commute takes me through an area in the middle of town that is (somehow) still just fields and woods, and is directly beside a very major road. It's a small area, but I've seen as many as twenty deer there at once. Not only are they hit fairly often (I've even seen a fawn hit ), but they are also no longer as cautious toward humans as they would be in a more natural setting. Sometimes I can ride within 20 feet of them and they don't even run. When I was young and my town had 30,000 people, I would be lucky to see a deer twice a year. Now my town has 102,000 people and I see several of them almost every day. Once they're entirely trapped within the city, I imagine the last small group of them will eventually be killed by cars.
It's really not an issue of not hunting them. Hunting is actually a major component of healthy management of natural resources and funds from hunting licenses and hunting lands has done an extraordinary amount to protect wildlife populations.
Quite so. The wildlife and sport fishing programs have been a huge benefit for all of wildlife, hunters, fishermen, and just plain outdoors enthusiasts. Tip of the hat to the federal government for another smashing success...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
