We will pledge $1,000,000,000 to Wildlife each year!
William Evans
This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under different
cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
Animal Rights, and one enviromental ( that helps keep wildlife land reserved
for the wild.)
You may ask why I am doing this pledge? Frankly, because I am very angry at
the stupidity of humankind in reference to how we treat wildlife. We have
sent thousands of species into extinction. When will it stop?
I went to a search engine. Read some various articles about wildlife
endangerment, organizations, and so on. Then I just happened to search on
animal abuse. Thinking I would find charity organizations. I found that
and even more than I wanted. There were a couple of sites dedicated to the
prosecution of offenders of whom cruelly abused or destroyed animals for
entertainment. Folks, these stories are too horrific to be shared here.
Abuse of all types of animals from dogs to horses to chimpanzees!
To say the least, it got me fired up. I can't imagine the suffering that
these animals had to endure. If that was done to a human, the offender
would have been locked up for life. But prosecutors in various states
sometimes refuse to prosecute! And the Clinton Administration is relaxing
the dolphin safe standards. You can read all about this on the link to
marine life. And the World Trade Organization is pushing to open up Whaling
to an even higher degree. Why? Because some whale species are back to
normal. Nevermind that most are still endangered. And the Japanese are
killing sharks by the thousands. For Shark Fin Soup! Not only predatory
(although necessary) but gentle sharks such as hammerheads too. They cut
off all the fins (Dorsal, tail, flukes) and throw them back in the water
still alive only to drown. They take nothing but the fins!
How you can help:
1. Get educated on these practices and write to your legislators. Tell
them how you feel. You will find some links will allow you to generate
letters in your name and they will send them for you. You may not think it
will make a difference, but it will. Everyone's participation will help.
2. Visit our website and become a patron of ours which allows for a
contribution to wildlife charity organizations. Visit the featured Widlife
and Marine Life links too.
To be honest, we had originally just thought to dontate to these charities
on behalf of our company. About $500 here and there. But after our
research, we saw the light. We have now changed our business practices. We
intend to do much more than that and we will be very active in wildlife
conservation.
We have now created a website to go live on July 5th, 1999. This Tuesday
coming up. On it you will find links to various wildlife sites. We have a
unique business site because we offer cellular phone products. Is that
unique? Nope. What is unique is our open display of our support to
wildlife organizations. Our site has been set up to allow anyone to
purchase nearly any cellular product they need. We will be adding more
products every week until we have everything listed.
And yes, we will be offering only top quality products at very good prices.
We have to look out for not only the interest of our customers but that of
our wildlife as well.
With that, we will be offering contributions to charity organizations due to
your purchases and patronage. And if you are a die hard advocate of
wildlife as we are, you can also become an affiliate of our cellular phone
products program. The more purchases made the faster we can reach our 1
million dollar pledge. And please tell everyone you know about our site.
Even if they do not wish to make a purchase or become an affilliate, they
can go to these sites and make individual pledges themselves. Or write a
letter to their legistative representative. Remember, you can make a
difference.
Best Regards,
William Evans
--
EarthVision Communications Inc.
EarthVision Cellular Phone Products Division
"Taking Cellular to Mach II Speed"
www.earthvisioncellular.com
DW
right.
William Evans wrote:
>
> That is right. We intend to pledge 1 million dollars to wildlife each year.
> This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under different
> cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
snip
William Evans
> Is that one billion, a million or just a troll.........get your zeros
> right.
>
year.
> > This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under
different
> > cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
> snip
OOPS! I told my Dalmatian to use the spell check. As noted above. It
states 1 Million Dollars. What is the point in your question? You posted a
reply simply on a typo? We can all see it was absolutely necessary for you
to post your message. Chances are that you have made typo errors too, yes?
Then again, maybe not. I can't believe I am even taking the time to respond
to this but I will for your sake and hopefully for that of our wildlife.
Is it possible that you can find something a little more constructive to do
with your time other than worrying about typos? How about writing a letter
to your senator or congressperson about animal rights. (Watch for typos of
course). That may be more useful.
It is seriously doubtful that the sky will come crashing down due to a typo.
But just in case, we will fix it in our reply.
How about that letter? Feel free to post the letter here in the newsgroup
so that we can all feel better knowing that you really care about our
wildlife and intend to do something about it.
If you don't mind. I have to get back to my research on wildlife
conservation and what can be done to help. I do hope that you will take the
time to educate yourself on these issues too. And I will be looking forward
to seeing the letter you sent on behalf of our wildlife. Have a good 4th of
July celebration!
For all others who want to make a real difference too, please visit our
website which will open for business on the 5th of July at
www.earthvisioncellular.com
On a even more positive note. At least we know that the typo got enough
attention to be read. Please forgive our monstrous error of a typo. We are
just faulty humans (& a canine) too.
Thank you for your thyme. (OOPS! Another typo!)
Best Regards,
William Evans
EarthVision Communications Inc.
Susan Rankin
: Is that one billion, a million or just a troll.........get your zeros
: right.
I think it depends on whether you are in the US or Europe.
Susan R.
Rich
<wre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
If you're for real, ...very cool!!!!
Rich
****************************************************************************
"One breath of a great whale contains more than the sum of human knowledge."
Penelope Smith
****************************************************************************
William Evans
Rich,
You can count on it. We will do all in our power to reach this goal as
quickly as possible. The sooner the better. We are now well aware of the
fact that the wildlife and domestic animals desperately need our assistance.
We can only hope that our patrons and our affiliates will be as agressive in
pursuing this goal as we will be doing. As soon as resources permit, we
intend to be very active in the pursuit of wildlife conservation in a
variety of forms.
--
EarthVision Communications Inc.
"Taking Cellular to Mach II Speed"
www.earthvisioncellular.com
Rich <seao...@orland.net> wrote in message
news:377ee8a6...@news.cwo.com...
mIsS d e A d a N g E l ===UU====>~~~~~~~~~~
William Evans <wre...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7lm1eu$p...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com...
| That is right. We intend to pledge 1 million dollars to wildlife each
year.
| This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under
different
| cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
reserved
| for the wild.)
|
| You may ask why I am doing this pledge? Frankly, because I am very angry
at
| the stupidity of humankind in reference to how we treat wildlife. We have
| sent thousands of species into extinction. When will it stop?
|
i wish it would stop!
but those who hurt animals will have to face good one day
| I went to a search engine. Read some various articles about wildlife
| endangerment, organizations, and so on. Then I just happened to search on
| animal abuse. Thinking I would find charity organizations. I found that
| and even more than I wanted. There were a couple of sites dedicated to
the
| prosecution of offenders of whom cruelly abused or destroyed animals for
| entertainment. Folks, these stories are too horrific to be shared here.
| Abuse of all types of animals from dogs to horses to chimpanzees!
|
| To say the least, it got me fired up. I can't imagine the suffering that
| these animals had to endure. If that was done to a human, the offender
| would have been locked up for life.
yup! and they should lock the fuckers up who hurt animals also!
But prosecutors in various states
| sometimes refuse to prosecute! And the Clinton Administration is relaxing
| the dolphin safe standards. You can read all about this on the link to
| marine life. And the World Trade Organization is pushing to open up
Whaling
| to an even higher degree. Why? Because some whale species are back to
| normal.
who cares if they are back to normal. they shoudlnt do that. it is just like
saying ahh humans are back to a normal level now we can startt killing them
again.
Nevermind that most are still endangered. And the Japanese are
| killing sharks by the thousands. For Shark Fin Soup!
thats sad!
Not only predatory
| (although necessary) but gentle sharks such as hammerheads too. They cut
| off all the fins (Dorsal, tail, flukes) and throw them back in the water
| still alive only to drown. They take nothing but the fins!
|
sick people out there unfortunalty
mIsS d e A d a N g E l ===UU====>~~~~~~~~~~
Leslie
cynic or anything, but popping up from out of the blue with a big pep
talk, waving promises of big money and pulling up a bandwagon to jump
o... I realize this may seem like condoning the kicking of puppies and
the extermination of mimes, but I wonder what this is REALLY all about.
Leslie Strom
http://www.GetLostMagazine.com
A Journal of Natural and Unnatural Events
William Evans
Next time, we will do a drum roll so it doesn't appear out of the blue. It
is as is stated. Why does there have to be something "REALLY" about it? It
is simply a matter of reviewing the website before jumping to conclusions.
A corporation decides to put it's weight behind wildlife conservation and it
is assumed to be spam? I think you will find a number of wildlife
organizations supporting our efforts to reach this goal.
--
EarthVision Communications Inc.
"Taking Cellular to Mach II Speed"
www.earthvisioncellular.com
Leslie <lstrom...@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:7lpd43$dqi$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
Starbuck
year.
This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under different
cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
Animal Rights, and one enviromental ( that helps keep wildlife land reserved
for the wild.)<<<
If you are seriously concerned about stopping extinction the money would be
better and more efficiently used to purchase sport hunting and fishing
licenses. Then the funds would go to wildlife research, conservation
measures, population studies, land purchases, and other actual factors that
contribute to wildlife population enhancement... instead of merely lining
the pockets of a few private individuals.
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
Rich
Brilliant idea! Give more money to government agencies and
buerocrats.. I suspect his taxes already support enough grand
government programs. The private environmental groups are far more
efficient, since they have accountability to their contributers.
Starbuck
conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
worth supporting.<<<
It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
from extinction, and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
Like it or not.
Graeme Butler
conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
worth supporting.
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7ltdsa$3ai$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> If you are seriously concerned about stopping extinction the money would
be
> better and more efficiently used to purchase sport hunting and fishing
> licenses. Then the funds would go to wildlife research, conservation
> measures, population studies, land purchases, and other actual factors
that
> contribute to wildlife population enhancement... instead of merely lining
> the pockets of a few private individuals.
>
>
Rich
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>Managing wildlife simply to allow people to kill them for sport is not
>conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
>worth supporting.<<<
>
>It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
>from extinction,
Bullsh*t.
> and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
>single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
If all the bucks the killers...er..hunters paid to the gov for hunting
licences went directly to private conservation groups instead you
would see a lot more done that what the government does with it. I'll
wager the Nature Conservancy alone could manage the habitat better
than it is being done now. 'course, then the big brave hunters
couldn't get all bloody, could they?
Rich
Vern Christopher
>
> >>>That is right. We intend to pledge 1 million dollars to wildlife each
> year.
> This distrubution will go to five different charities. All under different
> cataegories as follows: Marine Life, Wildlife, Domestic Animal Abuse,
> Animal Rights, and one enviromental ( that helps keep wildlife land reserved
> for the wild.)<<<
>
> better and more efficiently used to purchase sport hunting and fishing
> licenses. Then the funds would go to wildlife research, conservation
> measures, population studies, land purchases, and other actual factors that
> contribute to wildlife population enhancement... instead of merely lining
> the pockets of a few private individuals.
>
> --
> To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
Clearlake Wildlife Rescue
P.O. Box 28
Clearlake Park, CA 95424
I support this organization monetarily and physically! The person who
runs it is Michelle Reid. She specializes in orphaned fawns, but she
also takes in many other animals. I recommend you send her some money.
Even a little bit helps!
Vern Christopher
--
Tired of pulling your hair out? Get the FREE report on the steps
and their order on home building! If you are thinking of building--
or you know someone who is, You will want this free report.
<A HREF="http://www.eagleproducts.net/buildrpt.html"</A>
Don Baccus
>If all the bucks the killers...er..hunters paid to the gov for hunting
>licences went directly to private conservation groups instead you
>would see a lot more done that what the government does with it. I'll
>wager the Nature Conservancy alone could manage the habitat better
>than it is being done now.
I'll wager TNC wouldn't agree with you...
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Mary J!
Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of becoming extinct
if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves and
other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited by
humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs. Since they
ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
because of safety/convenience of the humans.
If the natural way of things were left alone, the animals would keep
themselves in check. The wolves, large cats, bears etc., would hunt and kill
the 'extra' deer, rabbits, etc.
Don't glorify hunting by making it seem as though we *need* it, because we
don't. We NEED to leave nature alone and stop claiming every single inch of
land we can get out greedy, grubby little hands on.
We are not God. Believe it or not, the world would still revolve without us.
mary
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>Managing wildlife simply to allow people to kill them for sport is not
> conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
> worth supporting.<<<
>
> It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
> from extinction, and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
> single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
> Like it or not.
Starbuck
to
their own ends. No animals have been saved from extinction by sports
hunters. <<<
The following have greatly benefited by habitat protection that was financed
by taxes on sporting arms and ammunition.
Branta canadensis
Chen coerulescens
Anas playtyrhynchos playtryhynchos
Anas acuta tzitzihoa
Anas caroliniana
Anas discors
Aix sponsa (one of the most notable examples of a species saved from
extinction by hunters)
The range of Meleagris gallowpavo has been drastically expanded by state
game commisions (stocked for hunters with funds direct from sporting license
sales) (protected from extinction by hunters)
In addition the following species have been protected by sport hunters who
pushed for prohibition of market hunting, institution of regular seasons to
protect nesting infants, bag limits to ensure a renewable supply, and who
finance the law enforcement to protect them.
Ursus spp (protected from extinction in it's surviving and dimenished range)
Procyon lotor
Vulpes fulva
Urocyon cinereoar genteus
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Castor canadensis (protected from extinction in it's surviving and
dimenished range)
and many others.
Apparently your perspective the animals are somehow superior to humans as
replaced any frank appraisal of reality you might have had. Your emotional
response has replaced logic and any semplance of an objective and truthful
appraisal of the actual situation.
Starbuck
extinct
if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves and
other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited by
humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs. Since
they
ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
because of safety/convenience of the humans.<<<
That is blatantly false.
The primary cause of extinction of native animal populations is NOT HUNTING.
No animals that are threatened with extinction are legally hunted in the
United States of America. The primary cause of extinction is habitat
destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction from
the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the roads you
ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for the
problems that YOU personally are causing.
In point of fact, large predators need an unobstructed range of hundreds of
miles in order to breed, feed, and rest. It is the highways cutting across
the countryside and the grocery store where you shop that has so upset the
balance of nature that neccesitates human hunters to replace the large
predators that you drove out of existance when your were born.
Graeme Butler
their own ends. No animals have been saved from extinction by sports
fraternity but in the process most indigenous fish and other fauna and flora
disappear in favour of willows and other shelter planted to create a duck
habitat.news:7lts1l$53d$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>Managing wildlife simply to allow people to kill them for sport is not
> conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
> worth supporting.<<<
>
> It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
> from extinction, and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
> single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
> Like it or not.
>
>
noe...@noemail.com
wrote:
>It's also the # one killer of wildlife. Like it or not.
No, degredation of (and lack of) habitat by human intervention in
general (not including hunting) is the #1 killer of wildlife... like
it or not.
For instance, how many birds died for _your_ bowl of Wheaties?
>Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of becoming extinct
>if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
>If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves and
>other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited by
>humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs. Since they
>ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
>because of safety/convenience of the humans.
Such is life... as mentioned above, how many animals died to provide
your meals? Have you even stopped to consider that processes used in
growing rice cause ~15 animal deaths per usable pound produced?
Which causes more deaths, a pound of rice or a steak from a whitetail
deer? Which causes more change to the environment as far as
loss/change of habitat that is usable by wildlife?
>If the natural way of things were left alone, the animals would keep
>themselves in check. The wolves, large cats, bears etc., would hunt and kill
>the 'extra' deer, rabbits, etc.
If the "natural" way of things were left alone, the animals would
suffer wider swings of population, making them easier targets for
extinction because of the fractured, shrinking habitat left available
to them.
>Don't glorify hunting by making it seem as though we *need* it, because we
>don't. We NEED to leave nature alone and stop claiming every single inch of
>land we can get out greedy, grubby little hands on.
>We are not God. Believe it or not, the world would still revolve without us.
>mary
>
>Starbuck wrote:
>
Mary J!
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of becoming
> extinct
> if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
> If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves and
> other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited by
> humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs. Since
> they
> ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
> because of safety/convenience of the humans.<<<
>
> That is blatantly false.
Let's see....Hunters , legal or not, kill the animals. As many as they
can....for $$.
If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into populated
areas to find food.
The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,' would
they?
What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?
>
>
> The primary cause of extinction of native animal populations is NOT HUNTING.
> No animals that are threatened with extinction are legally hunted in the
> United States of America.
Legally, maybe not. Hunted, definitely YES. I did not specify weather it was
legal or not. I wrote "fiercely hunted."
> The primary cause of extinction is habitat
> destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction from
> the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the roads you
> ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for the
> problems that YOU personally are causing.
I believe I stated the same thing above. (the part you cut out, I guess) HUMANS
are the problem, Not the animals. Remember the 'grubby, greedy hands'
statement?Maybe if you had quoted the entire post, in stead of only a select
portion of it, you would not have written that reply.
Hunters move into the territories that are populated by wildlife, for the main
purpose of hunting. They begin to have families and then complain that the
animals are too close. There are so-called nature nuts who do the same thing.
All is well until their precious little world is 'bumped' by a wild animal. Then
the animals have to be removed for safety's sake.
YOU are the problem as well. We all are in that case. What burns me up is when
the few large areas of land are leveled and new homes, cities, towns are built,
regardless of the animals that live there. It also chaps my butt to read/hear of
hunters complain when one of their precious animals are killed while trying to
kill another animal.
The ONLY reason I would agree with hunting, is for food. ONLY. There is no sport
to shooting an unaware animal at 100 yards and claiming victory when the poor
animal is hit. What an unfair advantage. Compare it to the unknowing people who
were shot from the bell tower in Texas. They had no idea what was about to
happen and no way to protect themselves. Massacre. No challenge.....which is
what a sport is supposed to be.....for BOTH sides/teams.
>
>
> In point of fact, large predators need an unobstructed range of hundreds of
> miles in order to breed, feed, and rest. It is the highways cutting across
> the countryside and the grocery store where you shop that has so upset the
> balance of nature that neccesitates human hunters to replace the large
> predators that you drove out of existance when your were born.
Oh, please. Do you really think I am unaware of that fact?? My point was that
people are the problem and hunting is not necessary. I still think it is an
unfair act and you have not made any point to change that opinion. YOU were also
born. You also use those highways.I stated the same points in my reply to
you.....the stuff that you so conveniently decided not to include in this reply
to me.
Human hunters are not NECESSARY. You may want people to think so, you may even
try to talk people into believing that load. I know differently. Like I stated
before, the world would still revolve with out us. Hunters are not the saviors
of the wild. They are part of the destruction of it.
mary
Mary J!
noe...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 18:10:29 -0400, "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's also the # one killer of wildlife. Like it or not.
>
> No, degredation of (and lack of) habitat by human intervention in
> general (not including hunting) is the #1 killer of wildlife... like
> it or not.
OK, so hunting is #2. It does NOT help, no matter what hunters want us to believe.
> For instance, how many birds died for _your_ bowl of Wheaties?
Large industry is a lot harder to tackle that the small hunter who 'claims' he is
helping nature. At least the factories are not trying to feed us a load of crap.
Different subject all together.
>
>
> >Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of becoming extinct
> >if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
> >If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves and
> >other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited by
> >humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs. Since they
> >ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
> >because of safety/convenience of the humans.
>
> Such is life... as mentioned above, how many animals died to provide
> your meals?
Big difference in actually eating the animal, and having it stuffed or cutting off
the head and putting it on your wall.
> Have you even stopped to consider that processes used in
> growing rice cause ~15 animal deaths per usable pound produced?
See above statement.I do not agree that it is OK to have 15 animal deaths for a
pound of rice, but hunters are not growing rice. They are shooting animals for
'sport' and claiming that they are doing it for the betterment of nature.
Let's stay on the subject.
> Which causes more deaths, a pound of rice or a steak from a whitetail
> deer?
How many of the Elephants, Lions, Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Fox, Rhinos, Racoons,
Minks, Alligators, etc. are eaten? We are not talking about one deer meant to feed
a family. We are talking about senseless killing of animals for the sake of killing
them.
> Which causes more change to the environment as far as
> loss/change of habitat that is usable by wildlife?
I believe you comparing apples and oranges. Hunters DO NOT SAVE the animals and are
NOT needed. Period.
>
>
> >If the natural way of things were left alone, the animals would keep
> >themselves in check. The wolves, large cats, bears etc., would hunt and kill
> >the 'extra' deer, rabbits, etc.
>
> If the "natural" way of things were left alone, the animals would
> suffer wider swings of population, making them easier targets for
> extinction because of the fractured, shrinking habitat left available
> to them.
That is nature. Who are we to determine what species are to become extinct? We are
NOT NEEDED to intervene here. Nature will take care of itself.What we need to do,
is leave it alone. We need to stop pretending that the world would fall apart if we
don't take charge of EVERYTHING. We, as humans, should not be so greedy in the land
that we claim.
Hunting is not necessary, unless for food. Every animal we needlessly kill, is one
meal lost to a predator. We keep changing the natural way of things on a daily
basis. If the concern is so high, why not start at the bottom (single hunters) and
work our way up (major factories)?
I will never believe that hunting is a necessary part of nature. In nature, nothing
is wasted. In hunting, most is wasted most of the time.
mary
>
>
> >Don't glorify hunting by making it seem as though we *need* it, because we
> >don't. We NEED to leave nature alone and stop claiming every single inch of
> >land we can get out greedy, grubby little hands on.
> >We are not God. Believe it or not, the world would still revolve without us.
> >mary
> >
> >Starbuck wrote:
> >
> >> >>>Managing wildlife simply to allow people to kill them for sport is not
> >> conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
> >> worth supporting.<<<
> >>
> >> It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
> >> from extinction, and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
> >> single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
> >> Like it or not.
> >>
Rich
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>No, sports hunters manage ecologies in exactly the same way farmers do,
>to
>their own ends. No animals have been saved from extinction by sports
>hunters. <<<
>
>The following have greatly benefited by habitat protection that was financed
>by taxes on sporting arms and ammunition.
Ah, so the action of hunting did nothing, it was the money! Which
could just as easily be raised by other taxes, if the governmnet were
still to handle it!
-----------snip--------------------------------
>In addition the following species have been protected by sport hunters who
>pushed for prohibition of market hunting, institution of regular seasons to
>protect nesting infants, bag limits to ensure a renewable supply, and who
>finance the law enforcement to protect them.
>
>Ursus spp (protected from extinction in it's surviving and dimenished range)
>Procyon lotor
>Vulpes fulva
>Urocyon cinereoar genteus
>Sciurus carolinensis
>Sciurus niger
>Castor canadensis (protected from extinction in it's surviving and
>dimenished range)
>
>and many others.
I wonder how that list compares to the endangered species list, which
was promoted by environmentalists, etc? Rather tiny I would think. I
wonder how it compared to actions by other environmental groups and
animal protection groups.
Hunters have promoted protections, but it is entirely self serving for
their hunting benefit. I wonder how many would care about all this if
hunting were banned? A few here and there perhaps, I think the rest
would be too busy packing their bags for a nice safari or some other
way to get out their blood lust.
Rich
>In article <3782c5e4...@news.cwo.com>, Rich <seao...@orland.net> wrote:
>
>>If all the bucks the killers...er..hunters paid to the gov for hunting
>>licences went directly to private conservation groups instead you
>>would see a lot more done that what the government does with it. I'll
>>wager the Nature Conservancy alone could manage the habitat better
>>than it is being done now.
>
>I'll wager TNC wouldn't agree with you...
With all that tax revenue? Even so, a consortium of private groups
would still be more efficient and accountable.
Of course this is all fantasy.....my point was and is that this pledge
of $1,000,000,000 is far better spent by private conservation groups
than by Washington bureucrats.
Rich
wrote:
>
>
>Starbuck wrote:
>
>> The primary cause of extinction is habitat
>> destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction from
>> the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the roads you
>> ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for the
>> problems that YOU personally are causing.
And YOU. And since you hunt, I guess you do double damage.
>
>I believe I stated the same thing above. (the part you cut out, I guess) HUMANS
>are the problem, Not the animals. Remember the 'grubby, greedy hands'
>statement?Maybe if you had quoted the entire post, in stead of only a select
>portion of it, you would not have written that reply.
>Hunters move into the territories that are populated by wildlife, for the main
>purpose of hunting. They begin to have families and then complain that the
>animals are too close. There are so-called nature nuts who do the same thing.
>All is well until their precious little world is 'bumped' by a wild animal. Then
>the animals have to be removed for safety's sake.
>YOU are the problem as well. We all are in that case. What burns me up is when
>the few large areas of land are leveled and new homes, cities, towns are built,
>regardless of the animals that live there. It also chaps my butt to read/hear of
>hunters complain when one of their precious animals are killed while trying to
>kill another animal.
Excellent points.
>The ONLY reason I would agree with hunting, is for food. ONLY. There is no sport
>to shooting an unaware animal at 100 yards and claiming victory when the poor
>animal is hit. What an unfair advantage. Compare it to the unknowing people who
>were shot from the bell tower in Texas. They had no idea what was about to
>happen and no way to protect themselves. Massacre. No challenge.....which is
>what a sport is supposed to be.....for BOTH sides/teams.
Ever look in a hunting catalog? Its full of deer attractants
(including food) to bring the deer right to you (as well as deer urine
you can apply to yourself...yummm). The brave hunter can sit drinking
a brewsky and wait.
I suppose some hunters validly hunt to provide subsistance for their
families. I think these are rare. Too bad hunters don't have
something like "catch and release" that fishers have. Shoot the poor
deer with a sponge rubber nerf ball or something and then go home.
>> In point of fact, large predators need an unobstructed range of hundreds of
>> miles in order to breed, feed, and rest. It is the highways cutting across
>> the countryside and the grocery store where you shop that has so upset the
>> balance of nature that neccesitates human hunters to replace the large
>> predators that you drove out of existance when your were born.
>
>Oh, please. Do you really think I am unaware of that fact?? My point was that
>people are the problem and hunting is not necessary. I still think it is an
>unfair act and you have not made any point to change that opinion. YOU were also
>born. You also use those highways.I stated the same points in my reply to
>you.....the stuff that you so conveniently decided not to include in this reply
>to me.
>Human hunters are not NECESSARY. You may want people to think so, you may even
>try to talk people into believing that load. I know differently. Like I stated
>before, the world would still revolve with out us. Hunters are not the saviors
>of the wild. They are part of the destruction of it.
Exactly. Except for their tax dollars, the idea that hunting is
"good" for wildlife is like saying that water pollution is "good" for
reducing fish populations.
Maybe the brave hunters should just go one on one with their
prey...just teeth and nails. Now that would put them back into nature
again!
Rich
Starbuck
for a
pound of rice, but hunters are not growing rice. They are shooting animals
for
'sport' and claiming that they are doing it for the betterment of nature.
Let's stay on the subject.<<<
A "sport" is simply a regulated and controlled recreational activity.
The predecessor of "sport" hunting was "market" hunting... commercial
hunting without rules, regulations, bag limits, seasons, and so forth. This
type of hunting (formerly to feed restaurants in the northeast, feathers for
ladies hats, and so forth) is largely a thing of the past.
Do you object to "sport" hunting because you are a proponent of market or
commercial harvesting of animals?
Starbuck
can....for $$.
If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into
populated
areas to find food.
The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,'
would
they?
What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?<<<
1. Hunting is seldom profitable for hunters. The profit goes to
manufacturers of sporting goods, retailers like Kmart and Walmart (and their
spokesmen such as anti-hunting activists like Rosie O'Donnell), guide
services, magazine publishers, etc. It's a significant part of the economy
in many regions...but hunters aren't generally killing animals for profit.
2. Large predators (bears, mountain lions, wolves) have been displaced by
humans, creating an imbalance in the natural balance. Prey animals such as
deer, rabbits, even moose, and so forth reproduce at an uncontrolled rate of
population growth to the point where the plants and food is not adequate to
support the population through the winter. The entire population becomes
malnurished and (individuals) unhealthy and eventually die not only from
starvation but also many other diseases carried in the overcrowded
population. The entire population then crashes. It doesn't just drop back
to sustainable level...but rather drops to as low as 4% or the sustainable
capacity. As a result populations of other species are also affected,
eventually resulting in profound population fluctuations, and sometimes
extinction. There is ample research to document this phenomena.
It is this problem that sport hunting was instituted to order to control.
Without the native predator populations (and much of the country to too
urbanized to support large predator populations) it is often necessary for
man to control the wildlife overpopulation problem.
Hunting that is regulated by season and bag limits is controlled by
scientific and statistical sampling techniques to assure a staple and
sustainable level of populations. No species that is classified by the
Federal and State governments as "endangered" or "threatened" is legally
hunted in the United States today.
Animals are not "moving into" population areas to find food. Those areas
were NOT urbanized until we bulldozed down the trees, drained the land,
built the roads and houses, and everything else we did. The effect was to
drive the existing wildlife out.
Here in Florida it is fairly common to come across bears, rattlesnakes,
deer, and other wildlife leaving newly developed areas to seek a
non-humanized environment elsewhere. They aren't looking for food. They
are looking for a place to "rest and nest". They need to be left alone, not
fed.
Starbuck
licences went directly to private conservation groups instead you
would see a lot more done that what the government does with it. I'll
wager the Nature Conservancy alone could manage the habitat better
couldn't get all bloody, could they?<<
The primary use of hunting license fees is to pay and equip law enforcement
personnel to arrest people who kill animals illegally. If one is to ban
hunting, or divert the financial support for law enforcement then who would
arrest poachers?
Naturally, only the government has police powers. Private organizations,
even fine ones like TNC still have to call the game warden when they find
someone hunting illegally on their property.
Starbuck
Racoons, Minks, Alligators, etc. are eaten? We are not talking about one
deer meant to feed a family. We are talking about senseless killing of
animals for the sake of killing them.<<<
I've eaten elephant, bear, racoons and alligator. I can assure you that
they are all delicious (except the alligator), and this I (like most
hunters) use the meat and usable hide of any animal that I take. In fact,
to kill a game animal and NOT use the meat is illegal in every state in the
union.
>>>That is nature. Who are we to determine what species are to become
extinct? We are NOT NEEDED to intervene here. Nature will take care of
itself.What we need to do, is leave it alone. We need to stop pretending
that the world would fall apart if we don't take charge of EVERYTHING. We,
as humans, should not be so greedy in the land that we claim.<<<
We need to act to prevent extinction because we DO take charge of the world.
That is unavoidable. The only remaining question is whether we act
responsibly toward the world or not.
Anyone who lives in a house, rides in a car, types on a computer, shops at
the mall, and works or goes to school -- and still pretends that they are
leaving the world alone is a flagrant hypocrit whose words aren't even worth
listening to. Get a gripe on the effects of your own existance before you
attempt to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Peggy
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3784C16C...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> Starbuck wrote:
>
> > >>>Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of
becoming
> > extinct
> > if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
> > If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves
and
> > other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited
by
> > humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs.
Since
> > they
> > ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
> > because of safety/convenience of the humans.<<<
> >
> > That is blatantly false.
>
> Let's see....Hunters , legal or not, kill the animals. As many as they
> can....for $$.
> If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
> overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
> healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
> If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into
populated
> areas to find food.
> The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,'
would
> they?
> What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?
>
> >
> >
> > The primary cause of extinction of native animal populations is NOT
HUNTING.
> > No animals that are threatened with extinction are legally hunted in the
> > United States of America.
>
> Legally, maybe not. Hunted, definitely YES. I did not specify weather it
was
> legal or not. I wrote "fiercely hunted."
>
> > The primary cause of extinction is habitat
> > destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction
from
> > the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the roads
you
> > ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for
the
> > problems that YOU personally are causing.
>
> I believe I stated the same thing above. (the part you cut out, I guess)
HUMANS
> are the problem, Not the animals. Remember the 'grubby, greedy hands'
> statement?Maybe if you had quoted the entire post, in stead of only a
select
> portion of it, you would not have written that reply.
> Hunters move into the territories that are populated by wildlife, for the
main
> purpose of hunting. They begin to have families and then complain that the
> animals are too close. There are so-called nature nuts who do the same
thing.
> All is well until their precious little world is 'bumped' by a wild
animal. Then
> the animals have to be removed for safety's sake.
> YOU are the problem as well. We all are in that case. What burns me up is
when
> the few large areas of land are leveled and new homes, cities, towns are
built,
> regardless of the animals that live there. It also chaps my butt to
read/hear of
> hunters complain when one of their precious animals are killed while
trying to
> kill another animal.
> The ONLY reason I would agree with hunting, is for food. ONLY. There is no
sport
> to shooting an unaware animal at 100 yards and claiming victory when the
poor
> animal is hit. What an unfair advantage. Compare it to the unknowing
people who
> were shot from the bell tower in Texas. They had no idea what was about to
> happen and no way to protect themselves. Massacre. No challenge.....which
is
> what a sport is supposed to be.....for BOTH sides/teams.
>
>
> >
> >
> mary
Peggy
fly?? Perhaps with the right marketing........
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Rich <seao...@orland.net> wrote in message
news:3784d242...@news.cwo.com...
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 11:19:09 -0400, "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Starbuck wrote:
>
> >
> >> The primary cause of extinction is habitat
> >> destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction
from
> >> the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the
roads you
> >> ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for
the
> >> problems that YOU personally are causing.
> And YOU. And since you hunt, I guess you do double damage.
>
> >
> >I believe I stated the same thing above. (the part you cut out, I guess)
HUMANS
> >are the problem, Not the animals. Remember the 'grubby, greedy hands'
> >statement?Maybe if you had quoted the entire post, in stead of only a
select
> >portion of it, you would not have written that reply.
> >Hunters move into the territories that are populated by wildlife, for the
main
> >purpose of hunting. They begin to have families and then complain that
the
> >animals are too close. There are so-called nature nuts who do the same
thing.
> >All is well until their precious little world is 'bumped' by a wild
animal. Then
> >the animals have to be removed for safety's sake.
> >YOU are the problem as well. We all are in that case. What burns me up is
when
> >the few large areas of land are leveled and new homes, cities, towns are
built,
> >regardless of the animals that live there. It also chaps my butt to
read/hear of
> >hunters complain when one of their precious animals are killed while
trying to
> >kill another animal.
> Excellent points.
> >The ONLY reason I would agree with hunting, is for food. ONLY. There is
no sport
> >to shooting an unaware animal at 100 yards and claiming victory when the
poor
> >animal is hit. What an unfair advantage. Compare it to the unknowing
people who
> >were shot from the bell tower in Texas. They had no idea what was about
to
> >happen and no way to protect themselves. Massacre. No challenge.....which
is
> >what a sport is supposed to be.....for BOTH sides/teams.
> Ever look in a hunting catalog? Its full of deer attractants
> (including food) to bring the deer right to you (as well as deer urine
> you can apply to yourself...yummm). The brave hunter can sit drinking
> a brewsky and wait.
> I suppose some hunters validly hunt to provide subsistance for their
> families. I think these are rare. Too bad hunters don't have
> something like "catch and release" that fishers have. Shoot the poor
> deer with a sponge rubber nerf ball or something and then go home.
>
>
DW
dw
Peggy
We could put logos on the paint balls and get them to some how transfer to
the animals to be washed off in the next rain. Until then - a direct hit
i.e. your logo appears on the animal means you take responsibility for it -
providing appropriate habitat, keeping it safe from other 'hunters' etc.
Wait a minute - am I on drugs?????<G>
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
DW <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:37851C...@pacbell.net...
DW
speed to mark rabbits in Chile for a habitat study of Guanacos.
dw
Mary J!
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>Let's see....Hunters , legal or not, kill the animals. As many as they
> can....for $$.
> If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
> overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
> healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
> If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into
> populated
> areas to find food.
> The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,'
> would
> they?
> What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?<<<
>
> 1. Hunting is seldom profitable for hunters.
That is totally hilarious! Why would a hunter pay $20,000 for a DOG if they were
not in it for the $$?I think it's close to $600 for an Alligator hide now. I'm
sure that there are quite a few HUGE amounts of money that are transferred with
Lions, Bears, Rhino horns, Elephant tusks, etc. Anyone here know the going rates
for these treasures? Chime in any time.
> The profit goes to
> manufacturers of sporting goods, retailers like Kmart and Walmart (and their
> spokesmen such as anti-hunting activists like Rosie O'Donnell), guide
> services, magazine publishers, etc. It's a significant part of the economy
> in many regions...but hunters aren't generally killing animals for profit.
You are not living in the same world I am. There is a ton of money in hunting
for profit. Maybe you don't do it, but it certainly does exist and is quite
widespread.
> 2. Large predators (bears, mountain lions, wolves) have been displaced by
> humans, creating an imbalance in the natural balance. Prey animals such as
> deer, rabbits, even moose, and so forth reproduce at an uncontrolled rate of
> population growth to the point where the plants and food is not adequate to
> support the population through the winter. The entire population becomes
> malnurished and (individuals) unhealthy and eventually die not only from
> starvation but also many other diseases carried in the overcrowded
> population. The entire population then crashes. It doesn't just drop back
> to sustainable level...but rather drops to as low as 4% or the sustainable
> capacity. As a result populations of other species are also affected,
> eventually resulting in profound population fluctuations, and sometimes
> extinction. There is ample research to document this phenomena.
And what do you think we should do about it? Kill the animals that are going to
die any way, right? I don't agree. In nature, the strong survive. That is how it
is supposed to be. When the hunters go out and kill, they kill the healthy
animals that may have survived the winter. They don't want the weak little
animals. After all, how good would a scrawny little buck look on the wall? NO!
You have to have the oldest and the strongest to be happy with the kill. The
ones with all the points, right? I'm not buying it.
>
>
> It is this problem that sport hunting was instituted to order to control.
> Without the native predator populations (and much of the country to too
> urbanized to support large predator populations) it is often necessary for
> man to control the wildlife overpopulation problem.
No it isn't. They will take care of themselves. The weak will die and the strong
will live. Simply nature.
>
>
> Hunting that is regulated by season and bag limits is controlled by
> scientific and statistical sampling techniques to assure a staple and
> sustainable level of populations. No species that is classified by the
> Federal and State governments as "endangered" or "threatened" is legally
> hunted in the United States today.
Regulated? HA! I know you may mean well, but give me a break! How many hunters
actually play by the rules? You focus on the legal side. Poachers kill off
season and in illegal ways EVERY DAY. $$ talks.We still do NOT NEED hunters.
>
>
> Animals are not "moving into" population areas to find food. Those areas
> were NOT urbanized until we bulldozed down the trees, drained the land,
> built the roads and houses, and everything else we did. The effect was to
> drive the existing wildlife out.
Yes they do move in for food. Watch the news. More and more animals are found
wandering the streets of cities and going through trash cans in rural
neighborhoods every day.
>
>
> Here in Florida it is fairly common to come across bears, rattlesnakes,
> deer, and other wildlife leaving newly developed areas to seek a
> non-humanized environment elsewhere. They aren't looking for food. They
> are looking for a place to "rest and nest". They need to be left alone, not
> fed.
My husband was raised in Fl and USED to hunt. He is going into the Game Warden
program next spring. He knows all the ins and outs of what the hunters do and
why. You are not speaking for all hunters. You have the intentions of a very
minute number of hunters. It's all about money and the trophy, that's all. Not
food.The animals may be looking for a place to rest, but they will, at some
point, return to look for food when they can't find it in the wild. Where else
do they have to go? You know how Fl is shaped. They only have one direction to
follow until they run into ocean.
People are the problem. If we aren't eating up all the land they have to live
on, we're killing them for fun, or for "their own good." The point is that they
are disappearing and they don't need any help from the *helpful hunters.*
Mary J!
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>See above statement.I do not agree that it is OK to have 15 animal deaths
> for a
> pound of rice, but hunters are not growing rice. They are shooting animals
> for
> 'sport' and claiming that they are doing it for the betterment of nature.
> Let's stay on the subject.<<<
>
> A "sport" is simply a regulated and controlled recreational activity.
A sport is an activity that is supposed to include some amount of challenge.
there is no 'sport' to hunting.
>
>
> The predecessor of "sport" hunting was "market" hunting... commercial
> hunting without rules, regulations, bag limits, seasons, and so forth. This
> type of hunting (formerly to feed restaurants in the northeast, feathers for
> ladies hats, and so forth) is largely a thing of the past.
Market is a better choice, even for today's hunters.There are no 'rules' to this
game. They have posted some, and ask that the hunters obey them, but they are
not regulated and are not followed. They are a joke.
There are feathered hats, toys, and hair pins. There are still mink coats, fox
wraps and alligator shoes and purses. There are still chinchilla jackets and
rabbit's foot key chains. Where did all these big changes occur that you spoke
of above?
>
>
> Do you object to "sport" hunting because you are a proponent of market or
> commercial harvesting of animals?
I don't support any needless killing of any animal. Food only. Period. If the
*entire* animal isn't used for food and the skin clothing, it's a waste of life.
Note: ENTIRE ANIMAL IS USED. That excludes most of the hunted animals, now
doesn't it?mary
Mary J!
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>How many of the Elephants, Lions, Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Fox, Rhinos,
> Racoons, Minks, Alligators, etc. are eaten? We are not talking about one
> deer meant to feed a family. We are talking about senseless killing of
> animals for the sake of killing them.<<<
>
> I've eaten elephant, bear, racoons and alligator.
Did you eat the WHOLE elephant? Bear? How much was wasted?
> I can assure you that
> they are all delicious (except the alligator), and this I (like most
> hunters) use the meat and usable hide of any animal that I take. In fact,
> to kill a game animal and NOT use the meat is illegal in every state in the
> union.
It may be illegal, but it is happening every day.You do not do what MOST hunters
do. MOST hunters take the head and leave the rest to rot. Or they take it and
feed it to their dogs. Wasted life.
My original point was that we do not NEED hunters.
>
>
> >>>That is nature. Who are we to determine what species are to become
> extinct? We are NOT NEEDED to intervene here. Nature will take care of
> itself.What we need to do, is leave it alone. We need to stop pretending
> that the world would fall apart if we don't take charge of EVERYTHING. We,
> as humans, should not be so greedy in the land that we claim.<<<
>
> We need to act to prevent extinction because we DO take charge of the world.
> That is unavoidable. The only remaining question is whether we act
> responsibly toward the world or not.
It IS avoidable.Taking charge of deciding what lives and what dies is very
irresponsible.
>
>
> Anyone who lives in a house, rides in a car, types on a computer, shops at
> the mall, and works or goes to school -- and still pretends that they are
> leaving the world alone is a flagrant hypocrit whose words aren't even worth
> listening to.
I never said I was not guilty. I am still working on a way to change things in
my little part of the world. It will take EVERYONE to do the same before a
significant difference is made.I will not kill an animal for the fun of it,
though. As a matter of fact, I have been known to stop traffic to help an animal
make it to the other side of the road. It's a small difference, but it made a
difference to that one animal. I have made my kids late for school, saving 6
ducklings from a sewer. They survived. That was not nature, that was man's
interference with nature.
How about you? Would you have done that?
The biggest difference between you and I, is that you seem to have given up,
while I am still fighting. If you can't beat'em, join'em, right? Not me.
> Get a gripe on the effects of your own existance before you
> attempt to tell other people what to do with their lives.
I did not tell you how to live your life. I just don't agree with the way you
choose to see things.If my existence is making a negative impact on nature, the
obvious choice is to try to make a positive impact on nature when I can. That
means HELPING the animals, not KILLING them.
Mary J!
mary
Graeme Butler wrote:
> Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7m2q0d$pfc$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >>>How many of the Elephants, Lions, Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Fox, Rhinos,
> > Racoons, Minks, Alligators, etc. are eaten? We are not talking about one
> > deer meant to feed a family. We are talking about senseless killing of
> > animals for the sake of killing them.<<<
> >
> > I've eaten elephant, bear, racoons and alligator. I can assure you that
> > they are all delicious (except the alligator), and this I (like most
> > hunters) use the meat and usable hide of any animal that I take. In fact,
> > to kill a game animal and NOT use the meat is illegal in every state in
> the
> > union.
> >
> > >>>That is nature. Who are we to determine what species are to become
> > extinct? We are NOT NEEDED to intervene here. Nature will take care of
> > itself.What we need to do, is leave it alone. We need to stop pretending
> > that the world would fall apart if we don't take charge of EVERYTHING. We,
> > as humans, should not be so greedy in the land that we claim.<<<
> >
> > We need to act to prevent extinction because we DO take charge of the
> world.
> > That is unavoidable. The only remaining question is whether we act
> > responsibly toward the world or not.
> >
> > Anyone who lives in a house, rides in a car, types on a computer, shops at
> > the mall, and works or goes to school -- and still pretends that they are
> > leaving the world alone is a flagrant hypocrit whose words aren't even
> worth
> > listening to. Get a gripe on the effects of your own existance before you
> > attempt to tell other people what to do with their lives.
>
> Settle down Starbuck, as I read it you were telling whoever would read, that
> hunters are necessary and stop extinctions. Peo-ple here disagree with you,
> that is not telling other people what to do with their lives. Saying this,
> and of course, the ludicrous, I will hunt and eat elephants and those who
> don't hunt and eat elephants are as guilty of harming the worlsd as I is an
> admission that you harm the world consciously while others simply harm the
> worldf unconsciously.
>
> Most hunters are died in the wool believers in what they do but at the end
> of the day it could be their brains are addled by the magazines and adverts
> supporting a useless industry.
>
> I think it is hard to change the hunter mind since hunting seems only to
> appeal these days to ego centric thickos who will do whatever they want
> regardless of the danger, offense, degradation and abhorrence they inflict
> on other people and the ecology in general.
Mary J!
trying, though. :)
mary
Peggy wrote:
> You have my vote Mary - good reply
>
> ---Peg
>
> You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> Cleaver
> Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3784C16C...@earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Starbuck wrote:
> >
> > > >>>Would the animals you are referring to have been in danger of
> becoming
> > > extinct
> > > if they had not been hunted so fiercely by humans?
> > > If all was left alone, we wouldn't have the NEED for hunting. The wolves
> and
> > > other large animals wouldn't have to move into areas that are inhabited
> by
> > > humans, because they would have enough food to support their packs.
> Since
> > > they
> > > ARE having to travel to farms/homes to find food, THEY are being killed
> > > because of safety/convenience of the humans.<<<
> > >
> > > That is blatantly false.
> >
> > Let's see....Hunters , legal or not, kill the animals. As many as they
> > can....for $$.
> > If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
> > overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
> > healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
> > If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into
> populated
> > areas to find food.
> > The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,'
> would
> > they?
> > What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The primary cause of extinction of native animal populations is NOT
> HUNTING.
> > > No animals that are threatened with extinction are legally hunted in the
> > > United States of America.
> >
> > Legally, maybe not. Hunted, definitely YES. I did not specify weather it
> was
> > legal or not. I wrote "fiercely hunted."
> >
> > > The primary cause of extinction is habitat
> > > destruction from urban development. YOU are the cause of extinction
> from
> > > the house you live in, the school or workplace that you go to, the roads
> you
> > > ride on the and malls that you shop in. don't try to blame hunters for
> the
> > > problems that YOU personally are causing.
> >
> > I believe I stated the same thing above. (the part you cut out, I guess)
> HUMANS
> > are the problem, Not the animals. Remember the 'grubby, greedy hands'
> > statement?Maybe if you had quoted the entire post, in stead of only a
> select
> > portion of it, you would not have written that reply.
> > Hunters move into the territories that are populated by wildlife, for the
> main
> > purpose of hunting. They begin to have families and then complain that the
> > animals are too close. There are so-called nature nuts who do the same
> thing.
> > All is well until their precious little world is 'bumped' by a wild
> animal. Then
> > the animals have to be removed for safety's sake.
> > YOU are the problem as well. We all are in that case. What burns me up is
> when
> > the few large areas of land are leveled and new homes, cities, towns are
> built,
> > regardless of the animals that live there. It also chaps my butt to
> read/hear of
> > hunters complain when one of their precious animals are killed while
> trying to
> > kill another animal.
> > The ONLY reason I would agree with hunting, is for food. ONLY. There is no
> sport
> > to shooting an unaware animal at 100 yards and claiming victory when the
> poor
> > animal is hit. What an unfair advantage. Compare it to the unknowing
> people who
> > were shot from the bell tower in Texas. They had no idea what was about to
> > happen and no way to protect themselves. Massacre. No challenge.....which
> is
> > what a sport is supposed to be.....for BOTH sides/teams.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > mary
Mary J!
the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds that
attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab them. They
are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that is. Who
gets the most or the biggest, etc.
Then if they are hurt by the animal that is fighting to survive, a whole bunch
of them go out and kill every animal that even ''remotely'' resembles the
'horrible man killer.' The animals don't stand a chance.
mary
Peggy wrote:
> Rich - I really like the nerf ball hunting idea. Think we could get it to
> fly?? Perhaps with the right marketing........
>
> ---Peg
>
> You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> Cleaver
Mary J!
mary
DW wrote:
> We used arrows with foam feathers that had a limited range and slower
> speed to mark rabbits in Chile for a habitat study of Guanacos.
>
> dw
>
> Peggy wrote:
> >
> > That might work - like the paint ball games - only with bows, I like it!!!
> > We could put logos on the paint balls and get them to some how transfer to
> > the animals to be washed off in the next rain. Until then - a direct hit
> > i.e. your logo appears on the animal means you take responsibility for it -
> > providing appropriate habitat, keeping it safe from other 'hunters' etc.
> > Wait a minute - am I on drugs?????<G>
> >
> > ---Peg
> >
> > You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> > Cleaver
> > DW <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:37851C...@pacbell.net...
> > > How about bow hunting with an ink stamp with your logo on it.
> > >
> > > dw
> > >
> > >
Mary J!
mary
Mary J!
have to CARE for the animal insted of kill it!
mary
Peggy wrote:
> That might work - like the paint ball games - only with bows, I like it!!!
> We could put logos on the paint balls and get them to some how transfer to
> the animals to be washed off in the next rain. Until then - a direct hit
> i.e. your logo appears on the animal means you take responsibility for it -
> providing appropriate habitat, keeping it safe from other 'hunters' etc.
> Wait a minute - am I on drugs?????<G>
>
> ---Peg
>
> You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> Cleaver
> DW <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:37851C...@pacbell.net...
Peggy
against hunting unless the whole animal is used. My thought is since the
hunters want to hunt and find somekind of enjoyment out of hurting and
killing innocent animals and governments refuse to stop the murder - why not
let them hunt - but use something other than bullets that won't kill the
animals. The animals would be saved (maybe frightened - but alive) and the
'big bad hunters' could still get their rocks off. Something like the
fishing program of capture and release. Believe me - I back what you have
said on this thread and others 100%.
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37854A99...@earthlink.net...
> It's really a joke these days, isn't it? I mean they have all the camy
clothes,
> the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds
that
> attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab
them. They
> are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that
is. Who
> gets the most or the biggest, etc.
> Then if they are hurt by the animal that is fighting to survive, a whole
bunch
> of them go out and kill every animal that even ''remotely'' resembles the
> 'horrible man killer.' The animals don't stand a chance.
> mary
>
> Peggy wrote:
>
> > Rich - I really like the nerf ball hunting idea. Think we could get it
to
> > fly?? Perhaps with the right marketing........
> >
> > ---Peg
> >
> > You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> > Cleaver
Peggy
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37854B38...@earthlink.net...
> LOL! I thing that would be the end of hunting! Imagine! They would
actually
> have to CARE for the animal insted of kill it!
> mary
>
> Peggy wrote:
>
> > That might work - like the paint ball games - only with bows, I like
it!!!
> > We could put logos on the paint balls and get them to some how transfer
to
> > the animals to be washed off in the next rain. Until then - a direct
hit
> > i.e. your logo appears on the animal means you take responsibility for
it -
> > providing appropriate habitat, keeping it safe from other 'hunters' etc.
> > Wait a minute - am I on drugs?????<G>
> >
> > ---Peg
> >
> > You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> > Cleaver
> > DW <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:37851C...@pacbell.net...
> > > How about bow hunting with an ink stamp with your logo on it.
> > >
> > > dw
> > >
> > >
Mary J!
I know we are on the same page. :)
No harm taken and no harm meant.
mary
Peggy wrote:
> No Mary I don't mean it as a joke in the way you are taking it. I too am
> against hunting unless the whole animal is used. My thought is since the
> hunters want to hunt and find somekind of enjoyment out of hurting and
> killing innocent animals and governments refuse to stop the murder - why not
> let them hunt - but use something other than bullets that won't kill the
> animals. The animals would be saved (maybe frightened - but alive) and the
> 'big bad hunters' could still get their rocks off. Something like the
> fishing program of capture and release. Believe me - I back what you have
> said on this thread and others 100%.
>
> ---Peg
>
> You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> Cleaver
>
> Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:37854A99...@earthlink.net...
> > It's really a joke these days, isn't it? I mean they have all the camy
> clothes,
> > the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds
> that
> > attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab
> them. They
> > are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that
> is. Who
> > gets the most or the biggest, etc.
> > Then if they are hurt by the animal that is fighting to survive, a whole
> bunch
> > of them go out and kill every animal that even ''remotely'' resembles the
> > 'horrible man killer.' The animals don't stand a chance.
> > mary
> >
> > Peggy wrote:
> >
> > > Rich - I really like the nerf ball hunting idea. Think we could get it
> to
> > > fly?? Perhaps with the right marketing........
> > >
> > > ---Peg
> > >
> > > You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
> > > Cleaver
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
>
> I wonder how that list compares to the endangered species list, which
> was promoted by environmentalists, etc? Rather tiny I would think. I
> wonder how it compared to actions by other environmental groups and
> animal protection groups.
> Hunters have promoted protections, but it is entirely self serving for
> their hunting benefit. I wonder how many would care about all this if
> hunting were banned? A few here and there perhaps, I think the rest
> would be too busy packing their bags for a nice safari or some other
> way to get out their blood lust.
you wont have to worry about that because all hunting wont be banned,
because even non-hunting (and not even really pro-hunting)
conservationists such as myself will vote against it just to make sure
the narrow agendas of pathetic losers like you dont become law.
Wayne
Graeme Butler
noe...@noemail.com
wrote:
>
>
>Starbuck wrote:
>
>> >>>Let's see....Hunters , legal or not, kill the animals. As many as they
>> can....for $$.
>> If the animals were NOT killed, they would eat more of the sick and
>> overpopulated animals....thus ending the 'need' for hunters to maintain a
>> healthy population of animals. (Yeah, right)
>> If they had plenty of food where they were, they would not move into
>> populated
>> areas to find food.
>> The animals would not, then, be killed for being a dangerous 'nuisance,'
>> would
>> they?
>> What, exactly, is "blatantly false" about my statement?<<<
>>
>> 1. Hunting is seldom profitable for hunters.
>
>That is totally hilarious! Why would a hunter pay $20,000 for a DOG if they were
>not in it for the $$?I think it's close to $600 for an Alligator hide now. I'm
>sure that there are quite a few HUGE amounts of money that are transferred with
>Lions, Bears, Rhino horns, Elephant tusks, etc. Anyone here know the going rates
>for these treasures? Chime in any time.
You're confusing hunting with poaching. With very few exceptions, it
is illegal to hunt the animals mentioned above.
[...]
>> It is this problem that sport hunting was instituted to order to control.
>> Without the native predator populations (and much of the country to too
>> urbanized to support large predator populations) it is often necessary for
>> man to control the wildlife overpopulation problem.
>
>No it isn't. They will take care of themselves. The weak will die and the strong
>will live. Simply nature.
An article at this site might serve to help you understand the point
suggested. Whether you choose to read it (or understand it) is
completely up to you.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pred1.html
>
>>
>>
>> Hunting that is regulated by season and bag limits is controlled by
>> scientific and statistical sampling techniques to assure a staple and
>> sustainable level of populations. No species that is classified by the
>> Federal and State governments as "endangered" or "threatened" is legally
>> hunted in the United States today.
>
>Regulated? HA! I know you may mean well, but give me a break! How many hunters
>actually play by the rules? You focus on the legal side. Poachers kill off
>season and in illegal ways EVERY DAY. $$ talks.We still do NOT NEED hunters.
No, we don't NEED _poachers_. There is a difference between ethical
hunters and poachers that you don't seem to be seeing here.
Perhaps I'm confusing you with another on this thread, but are you the
person who supported the idea of harrassing wildlife with paintballs?
>
>>
>>
>> Animals are not "moving into" population areas to find food. Those areas
>> were NOT urbanized until we bulldozed down the trees, drained the land,
>> built the roads and houses, and everything else we did. The effect was to
>> drive the existing wildlife out.
>
>Yes they do move in for food. Watch the news. More and more animals are found
>wandering the streets of cities and going through trash cans in rural
>neighborhoods every day.
Do understand the concept of carrying-capacity. A habitat can only
support a certain number of animals, depending on the amount of food,
water, shelter available. Once that number is reached, the habitat
degrades to the point that _all_ the animals in that habitat suffer.
When habitat is removed by the building of housing developements,
strip malls and factories, it removes any chance of expansion of
animals into that area.
>
>>
>>
>> Here in Florida it is fairly common to come across bears, rattlesnakes,
>> deer, and other wildlife leaving newly developed areas to seek a
>> non-humanized environment elsewhere. They aren't looking for food. They
>> are looking for a place to "rest and nest". They need to be left alone, not
>> fed.
>
>My husband was raised in Fl and USED to hunt. He is going into the Game Warden
>program next spring. He knows all the ins and outs of what the hunters do and
>why.
My husband (and I) are very involved in Hunter Informational Services
(formerly known as hunter education), Wildlife Rehabilitation and
Restoration, and actively promoted Species Survival Programs (both
with sweat and financially).
While your husband may know all the "ins and outs of what hunters do
and why", it is obvious that he hasn't shared this information with
you.
> You are not speaking for all hunters. You have the intentions of a very
>minute number of hunters. It's all about money and the trophy, that's all. Not
>food.
Your opinion, and not supported by data that is available by ANY Dept
of Wildlife Resources (or Fish & Game). Trophy hunters are the
minority by far... the majority of hunters take the first _legal_
animal that presents itself.
[...]
noe...@noemail.com
wrote:
>
>
>noe...@noemail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 18:10:29 -0400, "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's also the # one killer of wildlife. Like it or not.
>>
>> No, degredation of (and lack of) habitat by human intervention in
>> general (not including hunting) is the #1 killer of wildlife... like
>> it or not.
>
>OK, so hunting is #2. It does NOT help, no matter what hunters want us to believe.
It is obvious your _opinion_ is fixed.
>
>> For instance, how many birds died for _your_ bowl of Wheaties?
>
>Large industry is a lot harder to tackle that the small hunter who 'claims' he is
>helping nature. At least the factories are not trying to feed us a load of crap.
>Different subject all together.
I thought the subject was what's in the best interests of wildlife and
what has the greatest effects on wildlife. You claimed that hunting
is the "#1 killer", I just deflated your obviously incorrect
conclusion.
[...]
>> Such is life... as mentioned above, how many animals died to provide
>> your meals?
>
>Big difference in actually eating the animal, and having it stuffed or cutting off
>the head and putting it on your wall.
In my state, it is required by law to salvage the meat from an animal
hunted. It isn't in yours?
Nearly all of the meat that is served in my household comes from
hunting/fishing, there are no "dead heads" on my walls.
(btw, the correct term is _mounted_, not "stuffed"... you stuff a bell
pepper, a "trophy" is mounted)
>
>> Have you even stopped to consider that processes used in
>> growing rice cause ~15 animal deaths per usable pound produced?
>
>See above statement.I do not agree that it is OK to have 15 animal deaths for a
>pound of rice, but hunters are not growing rice. They are shooting animals for
>'sport' and claiming that they are doing it for the betterment of nature.
You have failed to show that hunters are shooting for "sport", just as
you have failed to show that it has not been shown to be for the
betterment of the _species_ (not individuals) hunted.
>Let's stay on the subject.
>
>> Which causes more deaths, a pound of rice or a steak from a whitetail
>> deer?
>
>How many of the Elephants, Lions, Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Fox, Rhinos, Racoons,
>Minks, Alligators, etc. are eaten? We are not talking about one deer meant to feed
>a family. We are talking about senseless killing of animals for the sake of killing
>them.
You may be talking about poaching, I'm talking about hunting.
>
>> Which causes more change to the environment as far as
>> loss/change of habitat that is usable by wildlife?
>
>I believe you comparing apples and oranges. Hunters DO NOT SAVE the animals and are
>NOT needed. Period.
Your opinion, unsupported by fact.
>> If the "natural" way of things were left alone, the animals would
>> suffer wider swings of population, making them easier targets for
>> extinction because of the fractured, shrinking habitat left available
>> to them.
>
>That is nature. Who are we to determine what species are to become extinct?
While you may not care whether your great-grandchildren, or those who
we leave this planet to after you die have left of wildlife, SOME of
us do. I beleive it is our responsibility to attempt to _improve_
what we leave for following generations, not to just let it go to hell
in a handbasket by ignoring the needs of the rest of the population of
this planet.
>Hunting is not necessary, unless for food. Every animal we needlessly kill, is one
>meal lost to a predator.
So now _you're_ back to (as you've claimed) apples and oranges.
One elk can provide 1/3 of the calories needed for a family of 3 for a
year. One elk, one death. In comparison, how many pounds of rice
would it take to provide the same amount of calories (1/3) for a
family of 3? How many animals die to provide that rice and how much
habitat is removed that could be available to other wildlife?
You seem to be fixated by your unsupported opinion of hunting (which
you obviously have confused with poaching) instead of looking at the
overall picture.
> We keep changing the natural way of things on a daily
>basis.
"Nature" itself is not static. Your point?
Certainly in many cases, I beleive that "nature" should be left alone.
Wildfires caused by "nature" is one of those instances, and in my
state, wildfires are primarily left alone because they do provide
better habitat (long term) for many species native to my state.
I doubt the same is the case where you live?
> If the concern is so high, why not start at the bottom (single hunters) and
>work our way up (major factories)?
Why not start with what's causing the greatest amount of damage?
>I will never believe that hunting is a necessary part of nature. In nature, nothing
>is wasted. In hunting, most is wasted most of the time.
Even *IF* an animal were shot and left to lay, it would only be
"wasted" in your opinion. Life feeds on life and in "nature", death
is not waste. Even the deer that is killed by an automobile is eaten
by something and what is left enriches the ground on which it died.
Predation, whether by human, non-human, or even bacteria, is
essential to all wildlife species.
>mary
>
>>
>>
>> >Don't glorify hunting by making it seem as though we *need* it, because we
>> >don't. We NEED to leave nature alone and stop claiming every single inch of
>> >land we can get out greedy, grubby little hands on.
>> >We are not God. Believe it or not, the world would still revolve without us.
>> >mary
>> >
>> >Starbuck wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>>Managing wildlife simply to allow people to kill them for sport is not
>> >> conservation or environmental sound in my opinion. Sport killers are not
>> >> worth supporting.<<<
>> >>
>> >> It is sports hunting that is directly responsible for saving more species
>> >> from extinction, and is the number one source for habitat restoration (the
>> >> single most critical element in wildlife protection) in the United States.
>> >> Like it or not.
noe...@noemail.com
wrote:
[...]
>I don't support any needless killing of any animal. Food only. Period. If the
>*entire* animal isn't used for food and the skin clothing, it's a waste of life.
>Note: ENTIRE ANIMAL IS USED. That excludes most of the hunted animals, now
>doesn't it?mary
No, it excludes none.
In farmed raised mink, rabbit, chinchilla, etc, that are raised by
fur-farmers, the entire animal is utilized, including the meat for
food. Does this mean you have no problem with fur-farming?
Graeme Butler
and some scientists speculate that the animal is so weakened by its ordeal
that it dies in a short time or becomes vulnerable to other predators.
Rather than encouraging people to hunt animals even if it is just to put
your graffiti on its bum via a well placed arrow, people should maybe be
encouraged to be with animals in peace, without any domination of any kind.
As an old hunter I can assure everyone reading this that my experience with
animals and my knowledge of their habitat, habits, nature and lifestyle is
extraordinarily more than I ever achieved killing them.
> > > > On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 11:19:09 -0400, "Mary J!"
<Mjon...@earthlink.net>
Peggy
Interesting way to life isn't it - in peace and harmony - Admitting when you
are wrong and even apologizing when you are misinterpreted
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Wayne <wste...@mr.net> wrote in message news:37857D...@mr.net...
> OK, enough. I'm getting all weepy. Take this out of alt.wolves please.
>
> Wayne
>
> Mary J! wrote:
> >
> > I think you think I misunderstood you.
> > I know we are on the same page. :)
> > No harm taken and no harm meant.
> > mary
> >
> > Peggy wrote:
> >
> > > No Mary I don't mean it as a joke in the way you are taking it. I too
am
> > > against hunting unless the whole animal is used. My thought is since
Jon S.
wrote:
>A sport is an activity that is supposed to include some amount of challenge.
>there is no 'sport' to hunting.
As a vegetarian who hunted in the past, I can say there's lots of
challenge and lots of sport to hunting. If there wasn't any
challenge, people would just buy game bird and small animal meat.
There's also the aspect of getting out into nature. In fact, I
learned conservation and an appreciation of animals through hunting
and fishing. I credit much of my turn to vegetarianism on the day
that I wounded a duck, and to "finish it off", I was supposed to grab
it by the head, whirl it around, and break its neck. I couldn't do
it, and instead tortured the poor thing. This has stayed with me all
my life.
I realized then that the way to get around the "guilt" of killing
innocent animals was the fact that pulling a trigger and instantly
having the animal drop allows you with a separation between yourself
and the death. (I assume this is why so many people are murdered with
guns instead of hands, ropes, or knives.) But, I held a wounded bird
in my hands and knew the pain it was going through.
>Market is a better choice, even for today's hunters.There are no 'rules' to this
>game. They have posted some, and ask that the hunters obey them, but they are
>not regulated and are not followed. They are a joke.
Okay, whatever. Everyone I know that hunts follows the rules to a T.
They follow gun safety, don't trespass, get their licenses, don't hunt
out of season, etc. etc. A beer before going out is probably the
worst, but it's nothing compared to the copious beers afterwards.
>I don't support any needless killing of any animal. Food only. Period. If the
>*entire* animal isn't used for food and the skin clothing, it's a waste of life.
>Note: ENTIRE ANIMAL IS USED. That excludes most of the hunted animals, now
>doesn't it?mary
I don't know anyone who hunts solely for trophys. Even the deer
hunters I know who mount the heads and racks use the entire deer meat
for venison. A few of the guys with farms and equipment even butcher
themselves still.
Sure, they don't tan the hides for jackets and or whittle the bones
into spear points and needles and fish hooks, but they use the entire
edible part of the animal.
It is my opinion that most hunters know and respect the land more than
most people who've never hunted, eat beef all day, and then cry about
bambi being hunted down. To me, that mindset is illogical. Even
though I don't agree with conservation as a means to keep a stable
hunting stock alive, I don't see where this is a greater evil than
buying a steak at the store. To me, it's all the same evil.
Jon
Tony Gambrini
will happen when a superior race comes along and kills humans because
there are too many of us? Living beings deserve to live.
Tony
Starbuck
clothes,
the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds that
attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab them.
They
are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that is.
<<<
Oh yeah, sure.
Just try it sometime.
Starbuck
appeal these days to ego centric thickos who will do whatever they want
regardless of the danger, offense, degradation and abhorrence they inflict
on other people and the ecology in general.<<<<
Actually hunting is an ancient and honorable practice (as humbling as it
sometimes is). It is one way for a man to show that he cares for himself
and his family... by providing nutrition for them. It also demostrates that
he cares for other humans by hunting with them as a team. It is a
reasonably safe pastime.. certainly safer than driving on the typical
freeway. It in no way degrades the ecology or environment. It is is
recognized by scientists (nearly unanimously) as one valuable tool for
responsible wildlife management.
Other than those points, the remainder of your remark has some degree of
substance.
Rich
>you wont have to worry about that because all hunting wont be banned,
>because even non-hunting (and not even really pro-hunting)
>conservationists such as myself will vote against it just to make sure
>the narrow agendas of pathetic losers like you dont become law.
>
>Wayne
But Wayne, you can't be a *true* conservationist and not hunt! After
all, according to the hunters, if they didn't slaughter the animals
and spend all their money on taxes for licenses, ammo, etc...there
wouldn't *be* any animals left alive!!
Rich
****************************************************************************
"One breath of a great whale contains more than the sum of human knowledge."
Penelope Smith
****************************************************************************
Rich
wrote:
>LOL! I thing that would be the end of hunting! Imagine! They would actually
>have to CARE for the animal insted of kill it!
What a concept! I love it!!
Rich
wrote:
>It's really a joke these days, isn't it? I mean they have all the camy clothes,
>the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds that
>attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab them. They
>are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that is. Who
>gets the most or the biggest, etc.
>Then if they are hurt by the animal that is fighting to survive, a whole bunch
>of them go out and kill every animal that even ''remotely'' resembles the
>'horrible man killer.' The animals don't stand a chance.
---sarcasm mode on----
But lets not forget in all this, that the brave sport of hunting is
something we can teach our children! The honor, the
gory...er...glory, the *true grit*, the bravery! I want my kids to
emulate the brave hunter...30-06 in one hand, machete in the other, 2
beers mounted on the hat. That is what will larn 'em right for the
21st century! A moose head above every fireplace, elephant ivory
toothpicks, whalebone ash trays. That's the life!
-----sarcasm mode off----
Rich
<tauranga...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Catch and release is a disaster, not a lot of the fish are ever seen again
>and some scientists speculate that the animal is so weakened by its ordeal
>that it dies in a short time or becomes vulnerable to other predators.
>Rather than encouraging people to hunt animals even if it is just to put
>your graffiti on its bum via a well placed arrow, people should maybe be
>encouraged to be with animals in peace, without any domination of any kind.
Well, I think that would be the most desireable outcome of all.
>
>As an old hunter I can assure everyone reading this that my experience with
>animals and my knowledge of their habitat, habits, nature and lifestyle is
>extraordinarily more than I ever achieved killing them.
If I just have to *shoot* something I use a camera and a long lens,
otherewise I just let the creatures in peace. You can learn every
skill and bit of information without the gun as with one.
Starbuck
That is totally hilarious! Why would a hunter pay $20,000 for a DOG if they
were
not in it for the $$?I think it's close to $600 for an Alligator hide now.
I'm
sure that there are quite a few HUGE amounts of money that are transferred
with
Lions, Bears, Rhino horns, Elephant tusks, etc. Anyone here know the going
rates
for these treasures? Chime in any time.<<
I'm not aware of many persons who hunt alligators with dogs. How much of a
market do you think there is for pheasants and racoons? Certainly no one
(other than a few illegal african villagers who are trying to keep from
starving to death) are hunting elephants for their tusks, or rhinos for
their horns. If you were to have even a modicum of knowledge about hunting
you would know that the ivory trade is illegal and that rhinos are a
protected species. How many alligators does it take to pay for one airboat?
I don't for a minute defend illegal poaching. All poachers should be
arrested, tried, convicted, and sentanced. (or else shot on sight) There
is a major distinction between legal sport hunting and illegal poaching.
Saying that hunting should be banned is the logical equivalent saying that
all autos should be banned on the grounds that some persons exceed the speed
limit.
Starbuck
We don't need self-righteous urbanized yuppies who don't have a clue, and
whose only experience with hunting is watching Elmer Fudd cartoons butting
their ignorant opinions into other peoples private activities....but we have
them anyway.
Starbuck
challenge.
there is no 'sport' to hunting.<<<
It's really difficult to respect your opinions when they are so far removed
from actual reality.
My nephew shot a rather impressive bull elk last year. It involved a two
day drive to the end of public roads, another day over logging roads and
cross country, then a two day hike into wilderness carrying all the hunting
and camping gear for two weeks. The actual hunting involved overnight
excursions into remote wilderness away from the base camp. This was in the
area of "Ape Canyon" where Bigfoot is rumored to roam.. almost inpenatrable
thickets even on foot.
After a successful shot the challenge was to pack 1200 pounds of meat out on
his back.
That isn't a challege? I'd sure like to be around to laugh you when you try
it.
Mary J!
stated that we do not NEED hunting. I stand firm on my opinion as you have yet
to convince me otherwise. If you feel the need to resort to name calling, you
have lost the point.
My husband used to hunt and my father did some killing of his own. I am not so
far removed as you may think. I have seen it and I don't like it.
I am not forcing, aka: 'butting' my opinions in your life. We are having a
discussion via the internet and I doubt that what I think makes any difference
to you in any way shape or form.
If you would like to continue this discussion, I will be happy to join you.
Otherwise, you can keep your 7th grade insults and carry on with your killing.
mary
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>My original point was that we do not NEED hunters.<<<
>
> We don't need self-righteous urbanized yuppies who don't have a clue, and
> whose only experience with hunting is watching Elmer Fudd cartoons butting
> their ignorant opinions into other peoples private activities....but we have
> them anyway.
>
Jonis
<snip>
>If I just have to *shoot* something I use a camera and a long lens,
>otherewise I just let the creatures in peace. You can learn every
>skill and bit of information without the gun as with one.
So continue to do so, and be proud of what you do.But don't expect the
rest of the world to adjust to your beliefs...
>Rich
Jonis
>wrote:
<snip>
>I don't support any needless killing of any animal. Food only. Period. If the
>*entire* animal isn't used for food and the skin clothing, it's a waste of life.
>Note: ENTIRE ANIMAL IS USED. That excludes most of the hunted animals, now
>doesn't it?
Mary,
How can you even concider calling a dead animal a waste ? What is
nature all about ? Without death in nature, there would be no life.
In most parts of the western world, there are no real predators today.
At least none that can regulate the populations of larger mammals.
Sure, we could just reintroduce the predators that once were there -
in my area that would be wolves and bears - but would these predators
be possible to live with ? We would at least have to change our lives
completely. It's not a solution, at least not for areas other than the
real wilderness areas...
The human hunter isn't much different from a wild predator. No more
different than the differences between the wild predator species,
anyways. You claimb that there's no difficulty for a human hunter to
kill an animal - well, I sure know that the lynx has a much, much
higher success rate than myself. The lynx has as much as a 60 %
success rate on it's attacks. Me ? Wouldn't be surprised if it was
less than one percent...
>mary
Mary J!
tiresome for you to get to the place where you kill. I was thinking more along
the lines of the animals challenge. What is it? They are standing there, eating
or just enjoying the fresh air. Suddenly a bullet hits. They are in terrible
pain and they fall to the ground. They die. Did they even know they were playing
your game? No. Where is the challenge?
Your trek up the hills and having to load the dead animal back to the truck is
not what I had in mind.
I am not far removed from reality. I think you are just getting angry at me for
not letting up and agreeing with you. My opinion differs GREATLY from yours.
That doesn't mean I am 'ignorant' or 'idiotic.' I just don't agree. If you would
like to end this discussion...don't reply. As for my mental status and
intelligence, I am just fine, thank you.
BTW, I have no desire to kill any animal, and doubt seriously if I would ever
have the need to pack a 1200 pound animal any where.
mary
Starbuck wrote:
Mary J!
mary
Tony Gambrini wrote:
> I agree with hunting. Let's put some horns on you and hunt you. What
> will happen when a superior race comes along and kills humans because
> there are too many of us? Living beings deserve to live.
>
> Tony
>
> Jon S. wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:38:23 -0400, "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > >A sport is an activity that is supposed to include some amount of challenge.
> > >there is no 'sport' to hunting.
> >
> > As a vegetarian who hunted in the past, I can say there's lots of
> > challenge and lots of sport to hunting. If there wasn't any
> > challenge, people would just buy game bird and small animal meat.
> > There's also the aspect of getting out into nature. In fact, I
> > learned conservation and an appreciation of animals through hunting
> > and fishing. I credit much of my turn to vegetarianism on the day
> > that I wounded a duck, and to "finish it off", I was supposed to grab
> > it by the head, whirl it around, and break its neck. I couldn't do
> > it, and instead tortured the poor thing. This has stayed with me all
> > my life.
> >
> > I realized then that the way to get around the "guilt" of killing
> > innocent animals was the fact that pulling a trigger and instantly
> > having the animal drop allows you with a separation between yourself
> > and the death. (I assume this is why so many people are murdered with
> > guns instead of hands, ropes, or knives.) But, I held a wounded bird
> > in my hands and knew the pain it was going through.
> >
> > >Market is a better choice, even for today's hunters.There are no 'rules' to this
> > >game. They have posted some, and ask that the hunters obey them, but they are
> > >not regulated and are not followed. They are a joke.
> >
> > Okay, whatever. Everyone I know that hunts follows the rules to a T.
> > They follow gun safety, don't trespass, get their licenses, don't hunt
> > out of season, etc. etc. A beer before going out is probably the
> > worst, but it's nothing compared to the copious beers afterwards.
> >
> > >I don't support any needless killing of any animal. Food only. Period. If the
> > >*entire* animal isn't used for food and the skin clothing, it's a waste of life.
> > >Note: ENTIRE ANIMAL IS USED. That excludes most of the hunted animals, now
Mary J!
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>> 1. Hunting is seldom profitable for hunters.
>
> That is totally hilarious! Why would a hunter pay $20,000 for a DOG if they
> were
> not in it for the $$?I think it's close to $600 for an Alligator hide now.
> I'm
> sure that there are quite a few HUGE amounts of money that are transferred
> with
> Lions, Bears, Rhino horns, Elephant tusks, etc. Anyone here know the going
> rates
> for these treasures? Chime in any time.<<
>
> I'm not aware of many persons who hunt alligators with dogs.
Come on! I would HOPE that you knew I was talking about hunting dogs in
general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000. Why
pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?
> How much of a
> market do you think there is for pheasants and racoons?
Raccoon hats, claws, tails etc. Pheasants are mostly eaten. I stated that I
don't have a problem with hunting if it is for food.
> Certainly no one
> (other than a few illegal african villagers who are trying to keep from
> starving to death) are hunting elephants for their tusks, or rhinos for
> their horns.
There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in as
much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and sell
the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
ever dream.
> If you were to have even a modicum of knowledge about hunting
> you would know that the ivory trade is illegal and that rhinos are a
> protected species.
Again, illegal, yes. Still they are hunted and killed as we speak.You may play
by the rules, Starbuck, but you have to take off your blinders and realize that
WAY too many animals are killed needlessly and illegally. YOU are the minority,
if you are as honest as you claim to be.
Still, hunting is not NEEDED.
> How many alligators does it take to pay for one airboat?
I have no idea what an air boat costs. Got me there.
>
>
> I don't for a minute defend illegal poaching. All poachers should be
> arrested, tried, convicted, and sentanced. (or else shot on sight) There
> is a major distinction between legal sport hunting and illegal poaching.
> Saying that hunting should be banned is the logical equivalent saying that
> all autos should be banned on the grounds that some persons exceed the speed
> limit.
I did not state that hunting should be banned. I stated that I agree with it if
it is for FOOD and that ALL of the animal is used. I stated that we do not NEED
hunting. I also question the use of the word 'sport' in hunting. It's not a
sport. You have all the equipment and accessories to bring the animal right to
you and then you shoot the un aware animal. THAT is not a sport to me.mary
Mary J!
I'd rather be watching them.
mary
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>It's really a joke these days, isn't it? I mean they have all the camy
> clothes,
> the guns, the scents to attract the animals, the devices to make sounds that
> attract them, the lights to blind them. Why not just walk up and grab them.
> They
> are easy pickings. No challenge at all, except between the hunters, that is.
> <<<
>
> Oh yeah, sure.
>
> Just try it sometime.
>
Rich
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I don't for a minute defend illegal poaching. All poachers should be
>arrested, tried, convicted, and sentanced. (or else shot on sight) There
>is a major distinction between legal sport hunting and illegal poaching.
>Saying that hunting should be banned is the logical equivalent saying that
>all autos should be banned on the grounds that some persons exceed the speed
>limit.
Not quite, since driving an auto is a required and needed function in
most countries, unless one is close enough in to use a bike or walk to
shop and work. The killing of animals by hunters is not a needed
function in most cases. A better analogy would be hunting and race
car driving..as race car driving provides entertainment and little
else except air pollution.
Rich
Starbuck
general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000.
Why
pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?<<<
I presume that a dog of that price would not be used for getting dinner, so
much as for impregnating bitches.
>>>There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in
as
much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and
sell
the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
ever dream.<<<
I deplore any poaching of any kind, particularly for endangered species such
as rhinos. However, I doubt very much if the african hunter who killed the
rhino is the same one who sells it in Bangkok at that price. It's the
middle man who makes the money... but all of them who should be locked up.
>>>Again, illegal, yes. Still they are hunted and killed as we speak.You may
play
by the rules, Starbuck, but you have to take off your blinders and realize
that
WAY too many animals are killed needlessly and illegally. YOU are the
minority,
if you are as honest as you claim to be. Still, hunting is not NEEDED.<<<
What makes you think that I am in the minority? I estimate that the number
of poachers (not hunters) who intentionally kill endangered species for
profit amounts to less than 0.01% of all the sportsman who legally purchase
a license and hunt legal prey.
I was born and raised in the United States of America. One principle that
we have in this country is the concept of liberty. In other words a person
has the moral right to at according to his own best interests up to the
point of harming his neighbor by his actions. That means that a person has
the right to participate in his chosen action whether someone else happens
to see a compelling purpose for it.
By the way, the actual need for hunters to control wildlife overpopulation
(in many cases) is well documented in the scientific literature.
Starbuck
it if
it is for FOOD and that ALL of the animal is used. I stated that we do not
NEED
hunting. I also question the use of the word 'sport' in hunting. It's not a
sport. You have all the equipment and accessories to bring the animal right
to
you and then you shoot the un aware animal. THAT is not a sport to me.<<<
I confess that I've returned empty handed from hunting more times than I
like to admit. It isn't all that easy.
But the point is that "sport" as generally used in the context of "sport
hunting" has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness for both sides, or the
ease or complexity of the chase, and everything to do with the concept of
playing by established rules such as seasons and bag limits, compared to
unlimited "market hunting" which preceeded it in the past century, and is
generally no longer a current practice (fortunately) or "poaching" which is
taking wildlife contrary to law.
Doug Norris
>Come on! I would HOPE that you knew I was talking about hunting dogs in
>general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000. Why
>pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?
People pay quite a bit of money for hobbies.
>There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
>Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in as
>much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and sell
>the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
>ever dream.
$10,000 is "much better than you and I will ever dream"? You, perhaps.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Todd Norris (norr...@euclid.colorado.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
Hockey Goaltender Home Page:http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~norrisdt/goalie.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself.
Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words---"mank" and "ind".
What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind."
- Deep Thought, Jack Handey
Starbuck
Cubs don't have a chance?
Starbuck
you.
Otherwise, you can keep your 7th grade insults and carry on with your
killing.
mary<<<
Sorry to annoy you. It was more one or more of the other posters to this
threadwho I had in mind, who maintains that any use of animals (even for
food) is wrong.
Starbuck
and
tiresome for you to get to the place where you kill. I was thinking more
along
the lines of the animals challenge. What is it? They are standing there,
eating
or just enjoying the fresh air. Suddenly a bullet hits. They are in terrible
pain and they fall to the ground. They die. Did they even know they were
playing
your game? No. Where is the challenge?<<<<
Any hunter will tell you that the opening day of deer season the many deer
which had been observed openly wandering around the woods the week before
are no longer to be seen. Suddenly the ducks are flying 30 yards higher,
and the pheasants stay on the ground and run rather than take flight. I
believe that they do, indeed know that they are being hunted and take
additional precautions.. but there's really no documentation on that, that I
am aware of.
Again, the meaning of "sport" is following the rules, not necessarily that
there are two teams of players.
Peggy
much less anything
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7m5g7s$rss$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>Come on! I would HOPE that you knew I was talking about hunting dogs
in
> general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000.
> Why
> pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?<<<
>
> I presume that a dog of that price would not be used for getting dinner,
so
> much as for impregnating bitches.
>
> >>>There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's
on
> Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring
in
> as
> much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and
> sell
> the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I
will
> ever dream.<<<
>
Peggy
that - interesting concept since I don't like baseball anymore than I like
hunting
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7m5h0p$spk$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Is baseball still a "sport" when the Braves play the Cubs? Even when the
> Cubs don't have a chance?
>
Jonis
wrote:
>> I'm not aware of many persons who hunt alligators with dogs.
>
>Come on! I would HOPE that you knew I was talking about hunting dogs in
>general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000. Why
>pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?
And ? How much do people pay for a Porche these days ? I drive a Volvo
and do get around - but it's not exactly the same, is it... ?
>> How much of a
>> market do you think there is for pheasants and racoons?
>
>Raccoon hats, claws, tails etc. Pheasants are mostly eaten. I stated that I
>don't have a problem with hunting if it is for food.
Remember that we throw away the feathers, bones, head and legs. We're
really wasting a lot, aren't we...
>> Certainly no one
>> (other than a few illegal african villagers who are trying to keep from
>> starving to death) are hunting elephants for their tusks, or rhinos for
>> their horns.
>
>There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
>Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in as
>much as $10,000.
To the poacher or the person that sells it along to Asia (or whereever
?) I certainly doubt that the poachers get that much for it...
> I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and sell
>the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
>ever dream.
If hunting was legalized and regulated, the poachers would be driven
off by the locals, as they would understand that
1 - trophy hunters would give them meat and an income for years to
come
2 - regulated hunting keeps the populations down to a level where they
don't destroy the locals crops.
>> If you were to have even a modicum of knowledge about hunting
>> you would know that the ivory trade is illegal and that rhinos are a
>> protected species.
>
>Again, illegal, yes. Still they are hunted and killed as we speak.
By who ? Poachers ? I haven't seen anyone in here defending poaching
yet...
>You may play by the rules, Starbuck, but you have to take off your blinders and realize that
>WAY too many animals are killed needlessly and illegally. YOU are the minority,
>if you are as honest as you claim to be.
>Still, hunting is not NEEDED.
In your opinion. However, scientists and wildlife biologists don't
agree with you. And I'd rather listen to them - educated people - than
you (don't know who you are, but you don't seem to know a lot about
wildlife management etc)
<snip>
>> I don't for a minute defend illegal poaching. All poachers should be
>> arrested, tried, convicted, and sentanced. (or else shot on sight) There
>> is a major distinction between legal sport hunting and illegal poaching.
>> Saying that hunting should be banned is the logical equivalent saying that
>> all autos should be banned on the grounds that some persons exceed the speed
>> limit.
>
>I did not state that hunting should be banned. I stated that I agree with it if
>it is for FOOD and that ALL of the animal is used. I stated that we do not NEED
>hunting.
And there you are wrong. Look at Long Island, and you see what will
happen when a deer population stays unregulated.
> I also question the use of the word 'sport' in hunting. It's not a
>sport. You have all the equipment and accessories to bring the animal right to
>you and then you shoot the un aware animal. THAT is not a sport to me.
You should try it sometime. Two years ago I spent over 100 hours
hunting roe deer. Didn't get any. Last year I spent more than that,
and got one.
Compare that to _any_ wild predator - and you see who wins.
The human hunter increases his successrate by using some (or a lot of)
equipment that other wild predators don't have. Yet the human hunter
can never become as successful or efficient a hunter as the wild
predator...
>mary
Rich
Oh, I'm sure the hunters will continue to hunt. My point was that the
hunters contention that they are somehow the major benifit to wildlife
is laughable.
Rich
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>If you would like to continue this discussion, I will be happy to join
>you.
>Otherwise, you can keep your 7th grade insults and carry on with your
>killing.
>mary<<<
>
>Sorry to annoy you. It was more one or more of the other posters to this
>threadwho I had in mind, who maintains that any use of animals (even for
>food) is wrong.
Quite a stretch, the *urbanized yuppie*, since you don't know
anything about most of us here. I have lived in rural and mountainous
areas most of my adult life and daresay I could stalk a buck as well
as you.
Mary J!
Doug Norris wrote:
> "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Come on! I would HOPE that you knew I was talking about hunting dogs in
> >general. How about an answer? Blue Tick hounds have been sold for $15,000. Why
> >pay so much for a dog that is only going out to get dinner?
>
> People pay quite a bit of money for hobbies.
We are getting somewhere now. Hunting = hobby. Killing for fun. Something to 'do'
in your spare time.
>
>
> >There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
> >Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in as
> >much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and sell
> >the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
> >ever dream.
>
> $10,000 is "much better than you and I will ever dream"? You, perhaps.
If you compare, $10,000 in Africa is TON of money. Living large. Our average
income (U.S.) is somewhere in the $30g to $40g range. I believe it's in the $100.00
area there. Could be lower. So you see, one horn could equal up to 10 year's salary
there. I don't have the exact figures, but I am in the ball park.mary
DW
is 26,300.
South Africa per cap is around $400 US.
dw
fe...@mscd.edu
Wayne <wste...@mr.net> wrote:
> OK, enough. I'm getting all weepy. Take this out of alt.wolves please.
>
> Wayne
>
Well I don't know Wayne but I am looking at Dale's spam or flame or
whatever as a very positive post after all of this!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Peggy
exotic animal parts.
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
DW <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:378679...@pacbell.net...
Doug Norris
>Doug Norris wrote:
>> "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> >There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself. It's on
>> >Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can bring in as
>> >much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino and sell
>> >the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you and I will
>> >ever dream.
>>
>> $10,000 is "much better than you and I will ever dream"? You, perhaps.
>If you compare, $10,000 in Africa is TON of money. Living large. Our average
>income (U.S.) is somewhere in the $30g to $40g range. I believe it's in the $100.00
>area there. Could be lower. So you see, one horn could equal up to 10 year's salary
>there. I don't have the exact figures, but I am in the ball park.mary
You said "You and I", did you not? You didn't say "Most Africans".
If you're having trouble here, I'll show you the part where you said
"you and I".
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary J!
better than I live. I would hope that if you are making that amount, you would have more
to do with your time than to sit on a computer and argue with someone about this
subject. Shouldn't you be out buying a hotel or something?
mary
Doug Norris
>So, you are making over $400,000 per year by the scenario I created?
You said the following:
"One Rhino horn can bring in as much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter
who manages to kill a Rhino and sell the horn is going to starve. They are
living much better than you and I will ever dream."
Check the post, it's there. Now where in the hell do you come up with
$400,000? You said $10,000 - if you're not going to admit that that's what
you said, then there's no point arguing with you.
And I make well over $10,000 per year, thank you very much.
Sherri O'Neil
some way to join in on a meaningful conversation. By meaningful, I mean one
in which there is somethng more than the same opinions repeated until the
level of sarcasm and anger escalates. Any opinion which seems to suggest
that perhaps something else could be discussed appears to be flamed BIG
TIME. Now, I might be wrong. I have been wrong before. I would just like
to know if these threads just keep going for all eternity, or do people
actually have discussions at some point ?? Is this a discussion group, or
an argumentive sarcastic hurt everybody's feeling groups. I just want to
know. It's ok, I'm braced for the flame stuff. My question is serious.
Doug Norris <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
Jonis
>>rest of the world to adjust to your beliefs...
>
>Oh, I'm sure the hunters will continue to hunt. My point was that the
>hunters contention that they are somehow the major benifit to wildlife
>is laughable.
Not if you look at the amount of money hunters contribute that benefit
wildlife directly.
And not of you look at the hunters organizations that are very active
in conservation etc.
And not of you look at the effects on populations and ecosystems in
areas where hunting has stopped.
>Rich
NADAdog
Sherri O'Neil wrote in message <7m6r3g$7...@journal.concentric.net>...
NADAdog
I'm sure they are NOT interested, sorry.
Jonis wrote in message <37870b8...@news1.online.no>...
Peggy
<evil grin>
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Mary J! <Mjon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3786BEE8...@earthlink.net...
> So, you are making over $400,000 per year by the scenario I created? Yes,
that is MUCH
> better than I live. I would hope that if you are making that amount, you
would have more
> to do with your time than to sit on a computer and argue with someone
about this
> subject. Shouldn't you be out buying a hotel or something?
> mary
>
> Doug Norris wrote:
>
> > "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> > >Doug Norris wrote:
> >
> > >> "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > >>
> > >> >There are plenty. I do not travel to Africa to see it for myself.
It's on
> > >> >Discovery and most of the News programs on T.V. One Rhino horn can
bring in as
> > >> >much as $10,000. I doubt that any hunter who manages to kill a Rhino
and sell
> > >> >the horn is going to starve. They are living much better than you
and I will
> > >> >ever dream.
> > >>
> > >> $10,000 is "much better than you and I will ever dream"? You,
perhaps.
> >
> > >If you compare, $10,000 in Africa is TON of money. Living large. Our
average
> > >income (U.S.) is somewhere in the $30g to $40g range. I believe it's in
the $100.00
> > >area there. Could be lower. So you see, one horn could equal up to 10
year's salary
> > >there. I don't have the exact figures, but I am in the ball park.mary
> >
> > You said "You and I", did you not? You didn't say "Most Africans".
> >
> > If you're having trouble here, I'll show you the part where you said
> > "you and I".
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy
along worth s**t. Be patient and maybe one day we will come around. BTW
welcome and feel free to join in anytime
---Peg
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. -- Eldridge
Cleaver
Sherri O'Neil <she...@megabytes.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:7m6r3g$7...@journal.concentric.net...
> Hi. I'm fairly new here, and keep looking for something to comment on, or
> some way to join in on a meaningful conversation. By meaningful, I mean
one
> in which there is somethng more than the same opinions repeated until the
> level of sarcasm and anger escalates. Any opinion which seems to suggest
> that perhaps something else could be discussed appears to be flamed BIG
> TIME. Now, I might be wrong. I have been wrong before. I would just
like
> to know if these threads just keep going for all eternity, or do people
> actually have discussions at some point ?? Is this a discussion group, or
> an argumentive sarcastic hurt everybody's feeling groups. I just want to
> know. It's ok, I'm braced for the flame stuff. My question is serious.
>
> Doug Norris <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
> > "Mary J!" <Mjon...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> > And I make well over $10,000 per year, thank you very much.
> >
Sherri O'Neil
what to talk about next. Perhaps I should have kept quiet, hmmmmmmm?
Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of caring for injured wildlife
who cannot be re-released into the wild. Baby wild ones raised as pets by
those who love them and can't stand to see them put down just because they
are damaged. Hmmm. perhaps I am onto something. Since often the damage is
caused by their interaction with our power lines, moving vehicles, etc., do
we actually have the right/responsibility to keep them with us? What of the
ones who are raised from babyhood, and learn to interact with 'their'
humans? Also, what of the ones who are injured as adults, sent to rehab,
and heal only enough to function in captivity? Is this what you meant??
NADAdog <nad...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7m7jnp$bkd$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...