New Mountain Lion page
John McCarthy
mountain lions hunt hikers. Hikers should stay home and watch TV as
God intended them to do. Disney will show them mountain lions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
David L Evens
rec.animals.wildlife, rec.food.veg, alt.save-the-earth,
talk.religion.new-age, alt.org.sierra-club, alt.org.earth-first,
rec.backcountry
(Look at that, even terrorists can get their own newsgroup!)
Craig Mohn (mo...@are.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
: >ALAN ARONSON (am...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
: >: hunting of mountain lions. Present law (voted upon by the people)
: >: already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
: >: new mountain lion web page:
: >What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
: >lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
: >with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
: >with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
: >take place.
: Actually, this is not true. Prop 197 will get $500,000 from the
: state's Prop 117 wildllife habitat fund for each off the first 3
: years,and another $500,000 from the state's general fund to manage the
: hunt. I don't think the fees will cover that.
Obviously the managment funds were either truely insufficient or being
misspent by leftist administrators bent on empire building rather than
doing their jobs.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maqui working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YourNameHere
This subject doesn't belong in a pet cats newsgroup. I could really get going on
this issue because I am strongly opposed to the trophy hunting. See what I mean?
Ronnie Findley
David L Evens
: California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
: hunting of mountain lions. Present law (voted upon by the people)
: already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
: new mountain lion web page:
What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
take place.
--
Debbie Wells
L Evens) wrote:
>
>
> What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
> lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
> with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
> with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
> take place.
>
There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
--
Debbie Wells
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
deb...@skio.peachnet.edu
Do not conform to the world, but be transformed.
Dan Anderson
>California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
>hunting of mountain lions. Present law (voted upon by the people)
>already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
>new mountain lion web page:
TYPO here! The correct URL (address) is:
http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/ca/mountain-lion/
(i.e., chapters is plural)
Dan Anderson, d...@bluebird.com, +1-619-438-2220 x354 (FAX +1-619-438-4560)
Bluebird Systems, 5900 La Place Court, Carlsbad, CA 92008-8806, USA
Craig Mohn
>ALAN ARONSON (am...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
>: hunting of mountain lions. Present law (voted upon by the people)
>: already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
>: new mountain lion web page:
>What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
>lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
>with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
>with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
>take place.
Actually, this is not true. Prop 197 will get $500,000 from the
state's Prop 117 wildllife habitat fund for each off the first 3
years,and another $500,000 from the state's general fund to manage the
hunt. I don't think the fees will cover that.
_______________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mo...@are.berkeley.edu
lisa korbas
gun clubs, tourism association members and legislators interested in a new
hobby would be angry that you overlooked them in this profit junket.
In note <JMC.96Ja...@Steam.stanford.edu>, j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John
---
Lisa of the two-room cabin
Phil Pierce
rockdog
>
>All this fuss about people hunting mountain lions is because the
>mountain lions hunt hikers. Hikers should stay home and watch TV as
>God intended them to do. Disney will show them mountain lions.
Is this supposed to be humor or an incredibly misinformed Stanford
student?
I thunk dey learned yu real good they're, guess not.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
And he who does the arithmetic is doomed to be forever misinformed?
-rd
Cris Waller
Evens) writes:
>
>What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
>lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars,
but
>with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept.,
and
>with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the
hunts
>take place.
The whole point is that mountain lion populations don't need control.
Even the California Department of Fish and Game admits that lion
hunting "is not expected to effect population numbers statewide."
Hunting will do nothing to solve any current lion/human problems that
may exist-and it may contribute to them. Hunted populations have a lot
more young transient lions-the class of cat most apt to get in trouble
with people. They have more wounded lions and orphaned cubs-more
potential troublemakers. Hunters exibit a bias-they select out large
male lions. This leads to populations with many more females than
males-and thus you could have even more young lions.
This is a sport hunt, plain and simple. There is just no scientific
justification for it as a control measure.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Don Baccus
John McCarthy <j...@cs.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>I'm afraid Debbie Wells made up a statement to conform to her beliefs.
>Mountain lions killed two people in California in the last two years,
>both women hikers I believe.
One woman was killed walking in a semi-urban area in California. I could
be wrong, but my impression was that it was in area in which hunting would
probably be disallowed regardless of laws on hunting cougar. For instance,
the town I grew up in had plenty of deer as we had plenty of habitat for
them, but hunting was not allowed due to concerns about safety. It is
common for hunting to be disallowed in towns.
A second incident involved a rabid animal. I believe rabid cougar
to be rare, and I think we should be cautious about any assumption
about the similarity of the behavior of rabid individuals to healthy
ones. No one was killed in this incident.
I was unaware that a second person was killed in another incident.
While Debbie's statement was false in an absolute sense, a similar
statement is very true:
Cougers VERY RARELY bother anyone.
We've had more folks killed by domestic dogs than California's had by
cougars in the past two years. We have something like 1/15th the
population of California. Yet killing a dog or cat (unless one's
a farmer) can be a felony under certain circumstances in my state.
--
- Don Baccus -
Todd Ourston
> California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
> hunting of mountain lions.
The following letter appeared in last Saturday's edition of the Marin
Independent Journal.
January 17, 1996
Readers' Forum
Marin Independent Journal
Fax Transmittal: 883-6924
Dear Editor:
I found John Roush Jr.'s emotional plea to allow trophy hunters to
kill mountain lions (Marin Voice, Jan. 15) out of concern for public
safety as misleading as it was cynical.
To begin with, California law already allows the killing of any
mountain lions that pose a threat to humans or damage pets, livestock,
or private property. Also, contrary to Roush's suggestion, there is
no need to restore management authority over mountain lions to the
Department of Fish and Game because the DFG already has that
authority--and the responsibilities that go with it.
Despite Roush's attempts to instil fear with innuendos about mountain
lions that kill deer or wander near towns and trails, the fact remains
that about three times as many people are killed by bees in North
America each year (40) as have been killed by mountain lions in the
past 100 years (13). Clearly, if we have been able to withstand the
small risk posed by fatal bee attacks, we can also live with the much,
much smaller risk presented by mountain lions.
As with bees, the reasonable way to cope with mountain lions is not to
encourage people to slaughter valuable wildlife but to teach them to
avoid or minimize the risks of living with it. Proposition 197, which
will appear on our March ballots, would do nothing of the sort.
Instead, it would needlessly legalize the trapping, poisoning, and
trophy hunting of mountain lions throughout our state, which would
increase risks to people as well as animals.
During more than three decades of exploring California's trails, roads
and sidewalks, only twice have I had the privilege of catching
glimpses of wild mountain lions. Even with the protections of
mountain lions that voters put in place just a few years ago, most
Californians will never share in the wonder of seeing one of those
magnificent creatures in the wild. We shouldn't repeat the mistake of
past generations who allowed the Grizzly bear that graces our flag to
be hunted into extinction. We should continue to protect our
remaining mountain lions by voting "NO" on proposition 197.
Sincerely yours,
Todd Ourston
David L Evens
talk.religion.new-age, alt.org.sierra-club, alt.org.earth-first,
rec.backcountry, rec.pets, ca.politics, rec.pets.cats
Debbie Wells (deb...@skio.peachnet.edu) wrote:
: In article <4e0682$c...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
: L Evens) wrote:
: > What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
: > lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
: > with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
: > with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
: > take place.
: There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
: lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
You have obviously not been following this thread, and are unfamiliar
with cougars. The are currently overpopulated in wilderness areas and
are moving into more settled areas and are attacking people and pets.
John Reece
to...@linex.com (Todd Ourston) wrote:
>In California, the public does not need to lobby their elected officials
>to put a propoosition such as the one in question on the ballot. If the
>public wants a matter on the ballot, they can collect signatures and
>qualify an initiative for an upcoming election whether the politicians
>like it or not. It is common practice.
No, it isn't. In practice it takes a lot of money and organization. Or
an extremely galvanizing incident like the kidnapping, rape and murder
of Polly Klass and the subsequent three-strikes-you're-out initiative.
That's a significant example. Whether or not this initiative passes
it's only a matter of time before a member of the swelling
mountain lion population nails some little girl in her backyard....
John Reece
Usually not an Intel spokesman
John Reece
deb...@skio.peachnet.edu (Debbie Wells) wrote:
>There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
>lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
Well, actually, they bother Bambi quite a bit. Thumper too.
Pete Dumbleton
: In article <4e0682$c...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
: L Evens) wrote:
: > What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
: > lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
: > with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
: > with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
: > take place.
: >
: There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
: lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
: Debbie Wells
: Do not conform to the world, but be transformed.
Are we talking about the same non-conforming kind of large cat which
transformed a living jogger in California into dead meat?
Pete Dumbleton sf...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Cris Waller
Evens) writes:
>You have obviously not been following this thread, and are unfamiliar
>with cougars. The are currently overpopulated in wilderness areas and
>are moving into more settled areas and are attacking people and pets.
I'm curious as to where you got your familiarity with cougars. Do you
have any scientific studies you can cite to back up your assertion that
mountain lions are "overpopulated"?
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Mike Kaufman
rockdog (roc...@indra.com) wrote:
: In article <JMC.96Ja...@Steam.stanford.edu>, j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) says:
: >
: >All this fuss about people hunting mountain lions is because the
: >mountain lions hunt hikers. Hikers should stay home and watch TV as
: >God intended them to do. Disney will show them mountain lions.
: Is this supposed to be humor or an incredibly misinformed Stanford
: student?
I think it is supposed to be truth. If a mountain lion hops your back
fence during Friends, then I would say 'Shoot to kill!'. On the same
hand, if a hiker stumbles across a mountain lion's den, it is not the
least bit out of the ordinary for the hiker to quickly become lunch
meat. Why do humans assume that we have the right to go wherever we
please, when it pleases us, regardless of who/what may be in the way?
Mike
Steve Cumming
>mountain lions hunt hikers. Hikers should stay home and watch TV as
>God intended them to do. Disney will show them mountain lions.
Actually, hikers should accept that hiking in mountain lion habitat
entails \epsilon risk of being injured or eaten by a mountain lion,
just as it does of falling off a cliff or being stung to death by
angry hornets. If you can't accept that risk, stay out of the back
country.
We have a similar problem in Canada. Every so often some luckless
devil gets mauled or killed by a grizzly bear. The bear is then shot
with much sanctimonious clucking all around. The predicable result is
the gradual extirpation of bears from much of the habitat specificaly
set aside for their protection.
And no, I would prefer not being devoured by a large carnivore in
the course of my field work or recreastion. It is a risk, though,
which I accept. I would not want my devourer summarily executed.
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>
--
Steve Cumming "I could save the world
ste...@geog.ubc.ca if I could only get the parts."
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
PROCYON L
In article <4e1tg3$t...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Cris Waller <cr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is a sport hunt, plain and simple. There is just no scientific
>justification for it as a control measure.
In article: <4e3vdp$10...@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>
powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim Powlesland) responded to the above:
>>Nonsense. You give credit to hunters for far more political power
>>than they have. The real reason the a season is being opened
>>again is because of other lobbying. The public for example.
Cris Waller is correct on the sport hunt and Jim Powlesland does not have
the correct information about the public being involved in the current
California ballot initiative......or perhaps he is confused. Lobbyists
for the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, and the
Safari Club rammed this bill through the legislature. It was Proposition
117 in 1990 where the public sent a clear message to elected and appointed
officials - ban the cruel and dangerous sport.
John McCarthy
Signatures can be gathered or the legislature can be persuaded to put
the proposition on the ballot. In recent years petitions have put
more propositions on the ballot, but sometimes the legislature finds
it in its interest to pass the buck to the public in a certain matter.
--
Todd Ourston
> Nonsense. You give credit to hunters for far more political power
> than they have. The real reason the a season is being opened
> again is because of other lobbying. The public for example.
Jim,
In California, the public does not need to lobby their elected officials
to put a propoosition such as the one in question on the ballot. If the
public wants a matter on the ballot, they can collect signatures and
qualify an initiative for an upcoming election whether the politicians
like it or not. It is common practice. However, not a single signature
was collected to put this proposition on the ballot. Instead, the Senate
placed it on the ballot.
Now, why do you suppose that is? Do you really think the public decided
to lobby the Senate to do something they could do themselves?
Also, what is the basis of your comments, which I quoted above? Are they
really giving this issue a lot of coverage up in Calgary, Alberta?
Todd Ourston
YourNameHere
>
>In article: <4e3vdp$10...@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>
>powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim Powlesland) responded to the above:
>
>>>than they have. The real reason the a season is being opened
>>>again is because of other lobbying. The public for example.
>
>the correct information about the public being involved in the current
>California ballot initiative.
Jim Powlesland surfs all the wildlife pages to give us his personal justification/
comments as to why hunting is necessary to keep our ecology in balance; he talks
about all the "good" these righteous hunters do, ad nauseum. Without exception,
every one of his posts rips into what he calls "AR-wackos" and into anyone who even
dares make an anti-hunting statement. Lastly, JP lives in Canada, for crissakes; he
doesn't know a damned thing about California and its mountain lion situation!
Ronnie
Rick A. Hopkins
writes:
We must keep in mind that the term "overpopulate" is not an ecological
term but one of a value judgement. Frequently (but not always) what
someone means (or at least should mean) is that animals are at or over
their carrying capacity (K). K in a quick and general way is defined
as that point where the growth rate of a population is zero. K is
really a theortical concept. We have not been very successful in
measuring K in many species and certainly not in large carnivores.
What most people mean by overpopulate is that there is a change (either
real or perceived) in interactions between the animal in question and
humans. With predators this translates into potential effects on prey
populations, changes in prey populations, interactions or attacks on
humans, etc.
A useful example is to think about a sheep rancher. A population of
coyotes (lets say 1/2 of K) may cause sufficient damage to the ranchers
herd for him/her to conclude that coyotes are overpopulated. In a
National Park however, coyote population above K does not necessarily
present a problem Look at the wolf/moose system on Isle Royle. The NP
has decided that this is a great natural lab and will do nothing to
alter this interaction. Wolves periodically on the island exceed K
(but will also maintain stable numbers for several years less than K)
and cause a severe moose decline and hence a severe wolf decline. I
hope these examples have been useful in understanding that
"overpopulate" should not be used in ecological debates. It is quite
exceptable to debate whether or not the level of damage that a species
causes (deer damage to orchards, predator damage to livestock, etc.)
has exceeded some predetermined comfort level, but keep in mind this is
based on our value system and not that of biology.
Rick
Kirk Mueller
> On 22 Jan 1996 06:54:20 GMT, ALAN ARONSON (am...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> > California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
> > hunting of mountain lions.
> Big Snip
> During more than three decades of exploring California's trails, roads
> and sidewalks, only twice have I had the privilege of catching
> glimpses of wild mountain lions. Even with the protections of
> mountain lions that voters put in place just a few years ago, most
> Californians will never share in the wonder of seeing one of those
> magnificent creatures in the wild. We shouldn't repeat the mistake of
> past generations who allowed the Grizzly bear that graces our flag to
> be hunted into extinction. We should continue to protect our
> remaining mountain lions by voting "NO" on proposition 197.
> snip
I'd like to offer my two cents in support of hunting mountain lions.
The California Grizzly Bear was exterminated because of unregulated
hunting that existed at the turn of the last century. There was no Fish
and Game Department then. Anyone could kill as many animals as they
wanted. Ranchers used to kill many of them as they attacked their
cattle. All hunting is now regulated. That means California Fish and
Game (F&G) officials watch the populations and make sure they never reach
dangerously low levels. It's impossible for the California Grizzly's
demise to be repeated with mountain lions due to overhunting. Now if too
many people build houses and take their habitat away that's another story
and not the hunter's fault.
Regulated hunting actually offers support for the hunted animal. A few
animals suffer for the betterment of the many animals. Funds from hunting
are used by F&G to learn more about the animal and it's habitat needs.
F&G can then intelligently allocate habitat improvements. Usually this
means water catchments as water is usually the limiting factor in our dry
state. This means the remaining habitat (e.g. that people haven't built
houses on) can support more animals. This helps prevent extinctions.
How many non-hunters spend $50 dollars every year on animal protection
efforts? The average hunter spends at least that much through hunting
tags and taxes on hunting equipment.
--
Kirk Mueller
kdmu...@ccgate.hac.com (310)334-2586
Hughes Aircraft Co., Radar and Communications Sector
El Segundo, CA USA
--- All comments are strictly my own. ---
Rick A. Hopkins
>
>No, it isn't. In practice it takes a lot of money and organization.
Or
>an extremely galvanizing incident like the kidnapping, rape and murder
>of Polly Klass and the subsequent three-strikes-you're-out initiative.
>
>That's a significant example. Whether or not this initiative passes
>it's only a matter of time before a member of the swelling
>mountain lion population nails some little girl in her backyard....
>
>
>
>
>Usually not an Intel spokesman
>
dramatically in California is a complexed one.
Statewide estimates for the cougar “population” in California have
varied from 575 to 6,000 cats. All of these estimates suffer from
numerous explicit and implicit assumptions about the relative density
and distribution of cougars in the state. Two state lion hunters in
the 1920’s estimated the population at 575 and 600 cats. Both of these
estimates were based on wild and easily disapproved assumptions. Jay
Bruce, state lion hunter, for instance assumed that the cat density
could not exceed 1 cougar/ township and that a relatively small portion
of the state supported cougars. If this were true, then the take from
the bounty was about 45% of the total population which would have
quickly caused the cougar population to have gone extinct. CDFG
attempted to estimate the cougar population in the 1970’s. In an
attempt to get a handle on the statewide population, CDFG gen
erated a conservative estimate of about 2,400 cats in 1976. We now
know that this estimate greatly underestimated the density of cats in
several areas of the state. For example, they assumed that the
innercoast range (Mt. Hamilton Range) would only support about 3-4
cats/100 square miles. My own research a couple of years later
detected about 10 adult cougars/100 square miles. The population has
been variously estimated at between 4,100 to 6,000 cats since the 1976
estimate. Some of these estimates have incorporated the density
estimates from other research projects as well as my own in an attempt
to improve their validity and general utility. Nonetheless, these
estimates are simply best guesses.
Unfortunately, some individuals (not including CDFG) have attempted to
make the argument that these estimates demonstrate an increasing cougar
population between the 1920’s and today. This is one of the worst
misuses of historical information in wildlife biology that I have ever
witnessed. These varying estimates represent (at best) our changing
understanding of cougar population densities and not changes in the
cougar population.
Some have suggested the increase in depredations since 1972 is
sufficient to prove an increase. The use of these type of indices is
touchy at best. A close look at the county by county records and you
realise that only about 10 counties in California have shown a
significant increase in depredations over the last 10 years.
It is also important to keep in mind that no western state, including
California, supports one cougar population. There are several
populations in the state that react to changes in their environment
independent of one another. It is unrealistic to assume that a
statewide population of any species, let alone the cougar, is
responding in a similar fashion at the same time. For example, the
intense development pressure that the population of cougars is
experiencing in Orange County is in no way relevant to what is
happening in Humboldt County.
Animal populations generally fluctuate over time (this is quite
natural). At any given moment, it is more realistic to expect that some
populations of cougars in California are stable, some are increasing
and some may be declining. My own research in the Mt. Hamilton Range
documented a population that was relatively stable for a 10 year period
(1978-1989). Dr. Paul Beier documented the substantial loss of cougar
habitat in Orange County due to development during his six-year study.
Therefore, it is not only unrealistic to argue that the statewide
cougar “population” has increased unabated since 1972 (or 1980 or 1990
or etc.), but that this “assumption” is demonstrably false. This is
not to say (see above discussion)that the cougar has not increased in
some portions of the state. Keep in mind that the human population in
California (this is well documented) has increased from 20 million in
1970 to close to 35 million in 1996. An increase of nearly 70%.
Hope this info is helpful John
Rick A. Hopkins
Wildlife Ecologist
lisa korbas
In note <JMC.96Ja...@Steam.stanford.edu>, j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) writes:
>In article <debbie-2201...@gn-205-161-162-41.gulfnet.com>
>deb...@skio.peachnet.edu (Debbie Wells) writes:
> In article <4e0682$c...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
> L Evens) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
> > lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
> > with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
> > with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the
>hunts > take place.
> >
>
> There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
> lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
>
> --
> Debbie Wells
> Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
> deb...@skio.peachnet.edu
> Do not conform to the world, but be transformed.
>
>I'm afraid Debbie Wells made up a statement to conform to her beliefs.
>
>Mountain lions killed two people in California in the last two years,
>both women hikers I believe.
>
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>
Actually, John, the women who were killed were *joggers*.
Tom Greene
: "Hunting is often justified by claims of necessity, of wildlife
: population management, of tradition, and of other things, and all
: the claims can be valid. The simple truth is that hunting needs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: no justification. The United States of America, while no longer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: a true republic, is a pluralistic democracy in which the rights
: of minorities are strictly guarded. The activities of hunters do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: not harm non-hunters, and thus hunting is, and should be,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: accommodated by the non-hunting majority. Should the time come
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: when hunting is outlawed merely because it is disliked by the
: majority, whoever indulges in the next-most unpopular activities
: had best beware.
These statements are not only completely untrue, but show
incredible arrogance. I hope you don't think there are no
hunting "accidents" involving non-hunters. Believe it or
not, hunting is a dangerous activity to both particpants
and non-participants. If it can't be justified, then it
shouldn't be done.
But have no fear. By killing off most of the large predators,
hunters have made themselves necessary to control the population
of the animals these predators used to feed on. Hunting also
has considerable recreational value to its participants and
sometimes it puts food on the table. I believe these are
valid justifications for hunting, but it is important to
remember that hunting is a priviledge and not a right.
: In recent years, a vocal group of "animal rightists" have
: claimed that animals, too, have rights and thus should not be
: hunted. Buffalo chips! Humans most certainly have ethical
: responsibilities toward animals; among them is the ethical
: responsibility for a clean kill when hunting. With all rights
: come responsibilities, to one's self if to no one else.
: Americans have the right to free expression with the concomitant
: responsibility not to perjure themselves. Americans have the
: right to bear arms with the attendant responsibility to use them
: wisely. Americans have the right to assemble and the
: simultaneous responsibility to keep their assembly peaceful. The
: inseparable joining of rights and responsibilities is obvious in
: all cases. Animals do not have any understanding of
: responsibilities, therefore they cannot have rights. The fact
: that "animal rightists" exist and their arguments even
: occasionally heeded is a reflection of the current lack of
: realization in the United States and western Europe that rights
: carry with them certain responsibilities."
But what about rights like humane treatment and protection from
extinction. These rights don't really carry any responsibilities
for those protected by them. I history has shown that we
can't depend on everyone having high enough ethical standards
to protect animals from abuse or overhunting. Maybe its time
we gave animals some rights.
-Tom
Cris Waller
Powlesland) writes:
>However, you are wrong on calling cougar hunting "cruel and
>dangerous".
>
>As for the supposed cruelty:
>
>"The most common criticisms of sport hunting are that it is cruel
>and inhumane...
[big snip about how humane hunters are and what precautions they take
to avoid being cruel...]
Are you seriously saying that pursuing a cougar with dogs until it
takes refuge from a tree, treeing it until the hunter arrives, then
shooting it from the tree does not cause stress to the cougar? How
about the orphaned cubs that slowly starve?
And what of the public wish not to see cougar treated this way? My
*biggest* complaint about Proposition 197 is its sneakiness. Not once
is hunting or hunters mentioned-nor do backers of the measure discuss
hunting. The public has already shown with the passage of Proposition
117 and the results of several opinion polls that they consider this
type of hunting abhorrent. Unlike Prop. 197, Prop. 117 *was* put on the
ballot entirely by the public. Since the hunting lobby realizes that it
can't get the public to vote for a trophy hunt, it disguises its true
purpose by blathering about "management", "control" and "public
safety".
If they want a trophy hunt, they should at least be honest about it.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Nasir Hamdani
Powlesland) writes:
>Personally, I don't hunt cougars and the vast majority of hunters
>don't either. Many feel that shooting a cat out of tree is not
>that sporting. The tracking part with the dogs sounds exciting
>though.
>
It's nice to hear a hunter say that shooting something out of a tree
would not be sporting. I can't say I am against hunting but using dogs
and no other skill seems wrong.
The cougars who escape from the dogs do not teach their young fear of
people, they teach them to fear dogs and since dogs are not allowed in
state parks...
- Jas
@@
Thanks!
In article <82258414...@manatee.envirolink.org>, lko...@envirolink.org says...
hay...@valley.net
>
>I found John Roush Jr.'s emotional plea to allow trophy hunters to
>kill mountain lions (Marin Voice, Jan. 15) out of concern for public
>safety as misleading as it was cynical.
>To begin with, California law already allows the killing of any
>mountain lions that pose a threat to humans or damage pets, livestock,
>or private property. Also, contrary to Roush's suggestion, there is
>no need to restore management authority over mountain lions to the
>Department of Fish and Game because the DFG already has that
>authority--and the responsibilities that go with it.
>Despite Roush's attempts to instil fear with innuendos about mountain
>lions that kill deer or wander near towns and trails, the fact remains
>that about three times as many people are killed by bees in North
>America each year (40) as have been killed by mountain lions in the
>past 100 years (13). Clearly, if we have been able to withstand the
>small risk posed by fatal bee attacks, we can also live with the much,
>much smaller risk presented by mountain lions.
Remainder snipped...
Is this same Jon Roush that provides the vision and leadership of the
Wilderness Society? The same man who clearcut old growth on his own
ranch, involved those "stewards of the environment", Plum Creek, in
the sale, and then did his best Pontius Pilate imitation when called
on this decision? The same man who boldly sits on the fence of almost
every major environmental issue his organization faces, and then has
the balls to complain about piles?
If it is, do not worry too much about it. Word has it from DC folks
that old Jon is in trouble with his Board and members, and will go the
way of most ineffectual leaders via the golden parachute in the coming
months.
Hey, Dave Foreman, interested in going back to hell hole of DC and
providing some badly needed advocacy for your old group? Give me a
holler if you do..
Hayduke
Cris Waller
>>I'm curious as to where you got your familiarity with cougars. Do you
>>have any scientific studies you can cite to back up your assertion
that
>>mountain lions are "overpopulated"?
And Jim Powlesland replied:
>They are in my part of the world. Cougars are now prowling small
>towns and acreages in the foothills west of Calgary.
Notwithstanding Rick Hopkins excellent point on the unscientific term
"overpopulation"-are cougars hunted in Alberta?
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Wheeler
SC> From: ste...@geog.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming)
SC> Actually, hikers should accept that hiking in mountain lion habitat
SC> entails \epsilon risk of being injured or eaten by a mountain lion,
SC> just as it does of falling off a cliff or being stung to death by
SC> angry hornets. If you can't accept that risk, stay out of the back
SC> country.
SC> We have a similar problem in Canada. Every so often some luckless
SC> devil gets mauled or killed by a grizzly bear. The bear is then shot
SC> with much sanctimonious clucking all around. The predicable result is
SC> the gradual extirpation of bears from much of the habitat specificaly
SC> set aside for their protection.
I hike in cougar and bear country in California.
I've taken to carrying pepper spray.
Anybody know if it will work on cougars?
... Come the Rapture - can I have your car?
Steppin'
deb...@skio.peachnet.edu (Debbie Wells) wrote:
> In article <4e0682$c...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David
> L Evens) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What you've missed is the fact that a trophy hunt would allow mountain
> > lions to be controled, not only without expenditure of tax dollars, but
> > with additional fees from the hunter(s) to the Fish and Game Dept., and
> > with additional revenue for the economies of the areas in which the hunts
> > take place.
> >
>
> There are enough animals to hunt without killing an animal like a mountain
> lion. They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.
>
> --
> Debbie Wells
> Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
> deb...@skio.peachnet.edu
> Do not conform to the world, but be transformed.
>They are non-evasive animals who don't bother anyone.<
Are you sure about that? Relatively recently I heard about a lady jogger
getting pounced on by one as she ran through a California park. If true I
am sure this led to quite an uproar in support of such a hunt. Trophy
hunting is wrong and I wonder how it gets people off. None the less the
question is really about how the mtn. lion population is doing, what will
the effects be on the pop. and most importantly for me where you are doing
it. I dont know the restrictions regarding hunting in wilderness areas,
but if there are not any than there certainly should be. Zero hunting for
sport, Zero fishing for sport, Zero industrial tourism. Leave the damn
land for sheer existence of wild areas. God forbid there be a couple
places where an ecosystem can be left to study, hike or contemplate or
whatever it is you do there.
br...@ix.netcom.com
>Actually, John, the women who were killed were *joggers*.
>---
>Lisa of the two-room cabin
Actually, the one who was killed in Cool CA was a jogger, and the one
who was killed in Cuyamaca CA was a bird watcher, who, from the
physical evidence, began to run when she saw the cat.....
Todd Ourston
> Todd,
> You are trying to make it sound like cougars were going the way of the grizzly
> bear before the ban on hunting them was voted in. That was not the case and
> you know it. I can respect your belief that cougars should not be hunted, but
> please , try to keep things above board.
The way the G.B. went was that it was hunted and killed without laws to
prevent that. The point of the proposed law in question is that it will
eliminate a law against hunting and killing mountain lions based on the
argument that reducing the mountain lion population is necessary to
prevent them from attacking pets, livestock, and humans. The only way to
really do that is to kill them all if we are going to continue to
encroach upon their remaining range--which is pretty likely given recent
policy and opulation trends. I see nothing in my position that is not
above the board unless we start with the understanding that the forces
behind the proposed law are lying through their teeth about effectively
eliminating the risk of mountain lion attacks by killing them--as the
article in the paper to which I replied actually did.
Yours from above the board,
Todd Ourston
Todd Ourston
> No, it isn't. In practice it takes a lot of money and organization. Or
> an extremely galvanizing incident like the kidnapping, rape and murder
> of Polly Klass and the subsequent three-strikes-you're-out initiative.
> That's a significant example. Whether or not this initiative passes
> it's only a matter of time before a member of the swelling
> mountain lion population nails some little girl in her backyard....
Interesting parallel you have drawn there, John. Do you propose that we
have the Senate place another measure on the ballot to allow the hunting
of men found just about anywhere in the state so as to reduce the risk of
another attack on some little girl in her bedroom (or backyard) becausse
there isn't an organized and well-funded citizens group out gathering
signatures for such a measure?
Todd Ourston
Polly Klaas search party volunteer
Todd Ourston
> As for the supposed cruelty:
> "The most common criticisms of sport hunting are that it is cruel
> and inhumane...
> ...these charges are easily countered. The genuine sport hunter
> due to his earnest respect for his prey is usually highly
> sensitive to the animal's pain and suffering and makes every
> effort to minimize both. Proper weaponry and hunter training can
> minimize trauma to the animal.
<SNIP!>
Jim,
If I used dogs to track you until you were exhausted, found you where you
were hiding, and killed you (with the proper equipment and while
exhibiting great sensitivity, of course) would you regard my actions as
cruel or just an unusual way of being friendly? <G>
(Note that only some of the opposition to the proposed law is based on
considerations of cruelty to individual mountain lions, btw.)
> And as for the non-hunting public, the chances of being of shot
> by a hunter is extremely rare. In fact, a non-hunter is 20 times
> more likely to die from stinging insects than wounding by a
> hunter.
And as I pointed out, a North American is about 300 times more likely to
die of bee stings than a mountain lion attack. Or, to put it another way,
hunters have presented about 15 times more of a lethal threat to others
than have the mountain lions some hunters are claiming we should kill out
of safety concerns.
Todd Ourston
Kirk Mueller
You guys (and most everybody else on this thread) are missing the
point. Sport hunting does not significantly affect animal population
levels. Our state's Fish and Game (F&G) Dept. makes sure to issue only
the number of tags that the population can support without big population
swings. The point is to transfer money from some bloodthirsty hunters
(myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G. F&G will
then use the money to study the cougar and it's needs. F&G can then make
plans and implement any necessary changes to the cougar's habitat so the
cougar's habitat can be protected. We are in an economic society. If no
one finds value in the cougar, it will loose it's habitat (e.g. land).
Hunters find value in the animal and give money to F&G to protect it. If
you disagre with hunting then contribute to your state's F&G department.
Most state's tax forms have a box to check where you can send some cash to
F&G. Most hunters spend between $50 and $200 each year in tags and
special taxes on hunting equipment to support wildlife. I suggest you do
the same.
Yes, a few animals suffer for the betterment of the majority. Most of
you that have never hunted don't really understand how tough it is. The
lard butt hunter is a myth, or at least a very small part of the hunting
population. Most "wild" animals seen in our National Parks aren't really
wild. They've become habituated to humans by being fed human food. They
seek out people. A truly wild animal is a serious challenge to get close
to. All their senses are considerably better than ours. A rifle bullet
may reach out to 200 yards in the blink of an eye, but the animals usually
hear, smell or see me coming from twice that range and vacate the premises
before I can get a shot. Trust me on this one, their senses are better
than most people can believe. Our only advantages are technology and
brains. Usually the animal's better senses win. Have you ever checked
the success rates for hunters (available from F&G)? It usually falls in
the 20% range. That's one kill every five tries. A hunter has to learn
patience and develop a love for the outdoors. It's a long time between
successful hunts.
Brad Orahood
: This is all very interesting, but could you please remove it from rec.pets.cats?
:
Actually, this is very relevent to rec.pets.cats, given that this is
the first step in a plan to promote urban hunting. First, bring
a large predatory animal to the forefront, such as the Mountain
Lion, then when hunting these becomes accepted, unload the
rest of the legislation on the unsuspecting public.
Currently under consideration is SB-54-23-34 (Hike), the Urban
Hunters Provisional Act, which would allow hunters to enter
urban areas and hunt, of all things, domestic cats. Since the
ever growing population of stray cats is becoming a problem in
both rural and city settings, the governemnt, with the help of
the NRA, has set up this plan to help control the massive tabby
population.
Of course, there would be a well defined season, so that legitimately
owned pets could be kept indoors, and while there would be no
restrictions on tabbys (except for the 4/season limit), special
breeds would be protected, although special "tags" may be
aquired for some thinning in restricted areas.
So call your senator today! Be sure to give him your name
and address, so the authorities can come and get you when
you complain about this bill. After all, everything I've
written here was fiction. :)
Cris Waller
Powlesland) writes:
>The claim a moral high ground but, the truth is, they do not have
>it. What they do have is a "movement" based on half-truths and
>nonsense and mixed with generous helpings of sanctimony and
>emotion.
I would say, on the lion-hunting issue, that the majority of
half-truths and emotion have been on the hunter's side. Compare the
emotional hysteria about "snacking on children" and the half (or zero)
truths about mountain lion population dynamics with the reasonable
posts of Rick Hopkins, a veteran cougar researcher, for example.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Dan Anderson
>am...@ix.netcom.com(ALAN ARONSON) wrote:
>>California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
>>already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
>>new mountain lion web page:
>> . . .
>http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/ca/mountain-lion/
> (corrected)
If you want to help DEFEAT the "trophy-hunting" measure
(NO on 197), send e-mail to <geoffre...@ebbs.cts.com>
Thanks.
Dan Anderson, d...@bluebird.com, +1-619-438-2220 x354 (FAX +1-619-438-4560)
Bluebird Systems, 5900 La Place Court, Carlsbad, CA 92008-8806, USA
hans
>...
>A rifle bullet
>may reach out to 200 yards in the blink of an eye, but the animals usually
>hear, smell or see me coming from twice that range and vacate the premises
>before I can get a shot. Trust me on this one, their senses are better
>than most people can believe. Our only advantages are technology and
>brains. Usually the animal's better senses win. Have you ever checked
>the success rates for hunters (available from F&G)? It usually falls in
>the 20% range. That's one kill every five tries. A hunter has to learn
>patience and develop a love for the outdoors. It's a long time between
>successful hunts.
Last time someone said "trust me"...
Seems if trophy hunters were really good sports they would indeed do
the above scenario: on foot with "just" a rifle, maybe some brains,
possibly some compassion...this would give the animal a better chance.
Were only all hunters as you claim to be.
However, over here in the real world, safari club style, packs of
dogs with transmitters in their collars [with a direction switch
so the the "hunter" can tell when they are looking up at their treed
and exhausted cougar] are tracked via telemetry, and followed in a 4WD
vehicle. Hardly sportsman like. More like shooting fish in a barrel.
The maximum time between "successful" hunts is days.
Seems the promoters guarantee a "kill" for their $2.5k+ fee, and
certainly are _not_ in the biz to lose money.
The real issue behind prop 197 is _not_ public safety,
it is _not_ about "managing" cougar populations,
it is simply greed: the desire of special interest groups
to trophy hunt cougars in California, period.
There are plenty of other states to do that, and if a bit of travel
seems too much trouble to shoot at something at the top of the food chain,
there is always paintball.
cheerio...
~~~hans
Craig Mohn
> You guys (and most everybody else on this thread) are missing the
>point. Sport hunting does not significantly affect animal population
>levels. Our state's Fish and Game (F&G) Dept. makes sure to issue only
>the number of tags that the population can support without big population
>swings. The point is to transfer money from some bloodthirsty hunters
>(myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G.
This is in fact false. The proposed hunt would divert $500,000
annually from the funds currently designated for wildlife habitat and
another $500,000 from the general fund. In this case there is a
transfer of EVERYONE'S money to F&G.
I personally am opposed to my being taxed to support Mr. Mueller's
hobby, and if this questionable proposal goes through, license fees
ought to be high enough to pay all the costs. Simply put, if there is
no level of license cost X such that X times the demand for licenses
at cost X equals $1,000,000 plus the revenue envisioned in the current
proposal, (and the take of cougars at this level of licensing falls
within sound game management practices) then the proposed large cat
season in California is really just another case of welfare for the
rich and middle class.
I suspect that an unbiased economic analysis would show that this hunt
is not even economically feasible. If it were, then the backers
wouldn't include such a large requirement for a money transfer in
their proposal, because it just gives critics one more angle of
attack.
_______________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mo...@are.berkeley.edu
Cris Waller
kdmu...@ccgate.hac.com (Kirk Mueller) writes:
> You guys (and most everybody else on this thread) are missing the
>point. Sport hunting does not significantly affect animal population
>levels.
I don't think I'm missing your point. I concur. The point is that the
pro-197 forces are pretending that hunting will reduce the risk of
attacks on people, livestock, pets, etc. by reducing the lion
population. A lot of the "thin em out" arguments are coming from the
hunters.
> The point is to transfer money from some bloodthirsty hunters
>(myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G. F&G
will
>then use the money to study the cougar and it's needs. F&G can then
make
>plans and implement any necessary changes to the cougar's habitat so
the
>cougar's habitat can be protected.
The money DFG will get from cougar tags is minimal. They have said they
will probably sell around 100 (the hunt proposals in the 80's were for
190 tags). So 197 will pull up to a half-million dollars dollars yearly
from the Habitat Conservation Fund, money that otherwise could be used
to protect wildlife habitat, to fund studies to support a hunt.
We are in an economic society. If no
>one finds value in the cougar, it will loose it's habitat (e.g. land).
There is such a thing as esthetic (rather than consumptive) value. Not
only is this easier on cougars, it's easier on people. more people can
enjoy a live lion than a dead one. Look at songbirds-biologically we
*could* hunt them without harming the population, but we don't-we see
that the esthetic value trumps the consumptive. Millions of
Californians have shown that they *do* value cougars-alive and free,
not dead on the wall.
> Most hunters spend between $50 and $200 each year in tags and
>special taxes on hunting equipment to support wildlife. I suggest you
do
>the same.
Don't forget that (at least under California law) money from hunting
license fees can only be used for game animal programs. Hunting license
fees do nothing to help the vast majority of non-game species.
> Yes, a few animals suffer for the betterment of the majority. Most
of
>you that have never hunted don't really understand how tough it is.
[big snip on how outclassed hunters are by the animals they hunt)
Yeah, but the deer, lion, bear, squirrel, duck, etc. neither chooses to
play this little game, nor stands to win anything from it. You can have
just as much of a thrill and display your wilderness skills just as
well by tracking without killing. This isn't much of an argument for
why animals should die for your fun.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Dee Okolotowicz
>rockdog (roc...@indra.com) wrote:
>: In article <JMC.96Ja...@Steam.stanford.edu>, j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) says:
>: >
>: >All this fuss about people hunting mountain lions is because the
>: >mountain lions hunt hikers. Hikers should stay home and watch TV as
>: >God intended them to do. Disney will show them mountain lions.
>: Is this supposed to be humor or an incredibly misinformed Stanford
>: student?
>I think it is supposed to be truth. If a mountain lion hops your back
>fence during Friends, then I would say 'Shoot to kill!'. On the same
>hand, if a hiker stumbles across a mountain lion's den, it is not the
>least bit out of the ordinary for the hiker to quickly become lunch
>meat. Why do humans assume that we have the right to go wherever we
>please, when it pleases us, regardless of who/what may be in the way?
>Mike
Bravo Mike! All I can say is Bravo, and that it's encouraging to see that there
are some people in this world who feel responsible and accountable for their
actions.
I often ask myself why people think they have free right to everything in the
world, whether it be it persons, places or things. Each living creature has the
(pardon my expression) "God given right" to live its life.
I wish just once and a while that people would just stop and consider why we are
having more confrontations with wildlife. The biggest threat to wildlife and
conservation is human encroachment... WE are moving into areas where these
species have lived and kept the balance of nature and fraglie ecosystems alive.
THEY are not moving into ours. We do not have "the right" to every inch of
land, water and other resources on the planet, no matter what some people tend
to believe. Remember, whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the
earth.... Conservation can't wait.
Dee
---
Email: djok...@webcom.com
WWW: http://www.webcom.com/djokolot/
ron babcock
Considering how many inocent people have been killed in your area by
paroled animals --- you might be on to something here. Let's see open the
prison gates and give'm an hours head start into the woods -- just to
make it sporting.... How many hounds per hunter should be allowed?
Todd read your posts and look up the definition of anthropomorphic.
Mountain lions are NOT humans -- regardless of how much Disney you watch!
Ron
Ron Guidry
|>
|> Don't forget that (at least under California law) money from hunting
|> license fees can only be used for game animal programs. Hunting license
|> fees do nothing to help the vast majority of non-game species.
If this is true, then I can assure you that, CA is in the miniority on this
issue. Most states use hunting revenue for non-game species.
|>
|> > Yes, a few animals suffer for the betterment of the majority. Most
|> of
|> >you that have never hunted don't really understand how tough it is.
|> [big snip on how outclassed hunters are by the animals they hunt)
|>
|> Yeah, but the deer, lion, bear, squirrel, duck, etc. neither chooses to
|> play this little game, nor stands to win anything from it. You can have
|> just as much of a thrill and display your wilderness skills just as
|> well by tracking without killing. This isn't much of an argument for
|> why animals should die for your fun.
It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
|>
|> Cris Waller
|> Cr...@ix.netcom.com
--
________________________________________________________________
Ron Guidry rgu...@relay.nswc.navy.mil
NSWCDD Dahlgren, VA My views and opinions are my own!
We don't understand the software or the hardware but we can *SEE*
the blinking lights!
Tom Greene
: It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
: that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
: play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
: supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
: hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
kind.
So next time you go hunting, track the animal down, get it lined up in your gun
sights, but don't pull the trigger. The recreational value is equal to killing it
and you don't have to be cruel to animals.
And next time you go to the grocery, just roll your cart right on past the meat
section. After a while, your health will improve, the environment will likely improve
(no more environementally destructive ranching), and you can have a big smile on
your face because you didn't have to kill any animals.
-Tom
Todd Ourston
> anti-hunting statement". You are a prime example. What I do do is
> defend hunting from the numerous falsehoods and misconceptions
> that constantly crop up in these wildlife-related newsgroups.
> As for the California thing, I agree with you. I already stated
> here that I don't know much about the background of the
> Calfornia situation. However, I do know about cougar hunting.
<chuckle>
After firmly proclaiming that the ballot proposition in question was not
the result of pro-hunting lobbies, but rather a reflection of lobbying by
the California public at large (both a falsehood and misconception), Mr.
Powlesland has admitted that he didn't know what he was talking about and
hadn't the facts to support his claim. Spreading falsehoods and
misconceptions about hunting related measures about which one is quite
ignorant seems an unusual means of defending hunting from falsehoods and
misconceptions. <G>
Todd Ourston
Todd Ourston
> You guys (and most everybody else on this thread) are missing the
> point. Sport hunting does not significantly affect animal population
> levels.
I'm not missing that point at all, I am mocking the nonsensical
justification for this measure as a means of eliminating the very small
number of mountain lion attacks on humans. It would be necessary to
eliminate the mountain lion population in the wild to assure that end.
As it is, the risk is so small that very little reduction is possible.
Wiping out the mountain lions is too great a price for such an
insignificant gain, and failing to wipe out the mountain lion population
wouldn't leave us free from mountain lion attacks.
> Our state's Fish and Game (F&G) Dept. makes sure to issue only
> the number of tags that the population can support without big population
> swings.
Just how well is the DFG able to predict the impact of issuing a given
number of permits on the future state of mountain lion populations? For
that matter, how accurately can the DFG estimate the present mountain lion
population, let alone predict what it will be in the future?
> The point is to transfer money from some bloodthirsty hunters
> (myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G.
BINGO!
And the missing point is that tax payers are already paying the DFG to
take action to minimize the risks presented by mountain lions to humans
and human interests. However, it appears that the DFG isn't being too
ambitious about responding until after the fact. Could it be that the
DFG would like to augment its budget with money from blood thirsty
hunters, thus it is allowing the stage to be set for reversing the ban on
sport hunting of mountain lions?
> F&G will
> then use the money to study the cougar and it's needs.
I see. And what is preventing the DFG from using the money it already
has to do just that?
> F&G can then make
> plans and implement any necessary changes to the cougar's habitat so the
> cougar's habitat can be protected.
Again, what's keeping them from doing that now?
> We are in an economic society. If no
> one finds value in the cougar, it will loose it's habitat (e.g. land).
But of course, a majority of voters have already expressed the great
value they place on mountain lions by voting to protect them. And as an
economic society, we are bound to respect the wishes of owners who don't
wish to sell until we are able to provide an offer that is enticing
enough to change their minds.
> Hunters find value in the animal and give money to F&G to protect it.
Citizens find value in the animal and have given millions to protect it.
> If
> you disagre with hunting then contribute to your state's F&G department.
Whether you are a hunter or not, you are contributing to the DFG and all
the other state government offices when you pay state income and sales
taxes. As a matter of fact, we are collectively paying quite a bit more
than the DFG can even dream of taking in through the sale mountain lion
hunting tags.
> Most state's tax forms have a box to check where you can send some cash to
> F&G. Most hunters spend between $50 and $200 each year in tags and
> special taxes on hunting equipment to support wildlife. I suggest you do
> the same.
That's interesting. Hunters pay to "use" (i.e., destroy) a resource, so
the citizen-owners of that resource should pay a like amount not to "use"
it. Tell me, if we jointly owned a vacation home and you took up
residence there (i.e., you "used" it), would you figure we should both be
paying rent on the place in addition to covering our share of the
mortgage?
> Yes, a few animals suffer for the betterment of the majority.
> you that have never hunted don't really understand how tough it is. The
> lard butt hunter is a myth, or at least a very small part of the hunting
> population.
HUH? Hunting mountain lions is hard work, therefore hunting mountain
lions is best for the majority of mountain lions? I think there are a
couple of holes in this train of thought.
> Most "wild" animals seen in our National Parks aren't really
> wild. They've become habituated to humans by being fed human food. They
> seek out people.
That's probably true. OTOH, most of the animals in National Parks are
not seen by park visitors because they are wild and avoid humans--just
like most mountain lions.
> A truly wild animal is a serious challenge to get close
> to.
That's true of some wild animals, not others. I've never found it too
hard to get next to most of the fish or shellfish that I used to hunt
with a spear, before the DFG allowed their populations to be so seriously
depleted that I just can't accept being a part of that problem.
> All their senses are considerably better than ours.
I'll match my eye sight with a mole's any day! <G>
> A rifle bullet
> may reach out to 200 yards in the blink of an eye, but the animals usually
> hear, smell or see me coming from twice that range and vacate the premises
> before I can get a shot.
It's not to hard to hear the buzz of a bullet as it whizzes near one's
head, though. I've heard that sound quite clearly more than once, even
though the persons doing the shooting were too far away to know that I
was in the area they were aiming at. Somehow, I am not finding myself
wildly enthusiastic about new programs that are expected to encourage
more people to head out and start shooting at far away targets where
others (and especially I) may be present.
> the 20% range. That's one kill every five tries. A hunter has to learn
> patience and develop a love for the outdoors. It's a long time between
> successful hunts.
Well, I suppose we should keep the ban on hunting mountain lions for a
long, long time, then. That will help hunters to learn to be patient
while doing nothing to prevent them from learning to enjoy the outdoors.
<G>
Todd Ourston
Todd Ourston
> Todd read your posts and look up the definition of anthropomorphic.
Perhaps you would do well to read the posts to which I am replying before
judging them. I am not the one who drew a parallel between the human
killer of Polly Klaas and an unknown mountain lion that may one day kill a
little girl in her backyard, nor am I the one who brought up the idea of
cruelty being a central issue in this debate. These emotional and
(somewhat) anthropomorphic notions have originated with hunters who have
entered this discussion. Pardon me for hoisting them by their own
petards.
> Mountain lions are NOT humans -- regardless of how much Disney you watch!
Now, if you can just point any suggestion that I believe mountain lions
are human, or are bound by human rights and responsibilities, perhaps
you'll have a point.
Todd Ourston
Tom Greene
: In article <4e8lcl$r...@nonews.col.hp.com>, Tom Greene <to...@col.hp.com> wrote:
: >incredible arrogance. I hope you don't think there are no
: >hunting "accidents" involving non-hunters. Believe it or
: >not, hunting is a dangerous activity to both particpants
: >and non-participants. If it can't be justified, then it
: >shouldn't be done.
: You are completely wrong. Hunting is one of THE safest outdoor
: recreational activities both for the participates and especially
: for the non-hunting public.
You need to read my post a little bit closer. I didn't compare it
to any other activity. I simply said that hunting was a dangerous
activity. I don't know how it rates compared to other outdoor
activities, but I'm skeptical about it being one of THE safest.
You're welcome to post statistics though.
: >But what about rights like humane treatment and protection from
: >extinction. These rights don't really carry any responsibilities
: >for those protected by them. I history has shown that we
: >can't depend on everyone having high enough ethical standards
: >to protect animals from abuse or overhunting. Maybe its time
: >we gave animals some rights.
: Hunting, if done legally, is humane. In fact hunters pride
: themselves on making a quick, clean kill and feel very badly if
: it is a poor shot and the animal suffers. Under our current
This is more of a moral issue. I consider killing animals inhumane
whether its done quickly or not.
: wildlife management system (which has only been around for 4 or 5
: decades), no species that is hunted is under any threat of
: extinction. Illegal poaching however undermines this system and
: it is the hunters that pay for it through reduced bag limits
: and/or closed seasons.
: Animals do not have rights.
But why can't they have rights? Just saying they don't have rights
doesn't answer the question of whether they should have rights. Even
profoundly mentally retared people and comatose people have the right
to live. We should at least grant that right to higher animals.
If we restore some balance in nature, then animal populations will
take care of themselves. The overwhelming majority of people don't
need the meat they get from hunting to feed themselves. The same
recreational value of hunting can be achieved without pulling the
trigger. Take your tag money and your gun money and donate it to
predator restoration or wilderness protection. Do something positive
for a change.
-Tom
Ron Babcock
>Seems if trophy hunters were really good sports they would indeed do
>the above scenario: on foot with "just" a rifle, maybe some brains,
>possibly some compassion...this would give the animal a better chance.
>
>Were only all hunters as you claim to be.
>
>However, over here in the real world, safari club style, packs of
>dogs with transmitters in their collars [with a direction switch
>so the the "hunter" can tell when they are looking up at their treed
>and exhausted cougar] are tracked via telemetry, and followed in a 4WD
>vehicle. Hardly sportsman like. More like shooting fish in a barrel.
>The maximum time between "successful" hunts is days.
>Seems the promoters guarantee a "kill" for their $2.5k+ fee, and
>certainly are _not_ in the biz to lose money.
You cite unethical hunting practices-- whcih I'm sure there are -- the
real reason for the radio collars is to find any lost (valuable) hounds.
Driving to the treed lion??? Fat chance -- like winning the lottery!
Most often they are miles from the nearest road!!
Most of the lion hunters are not professional guides but average Joe Doe
hunters, who often do not kill the bear or lion they tree -- many believe
the "thrill is in the chase" concept -- much like fish and release.
These are the same "hunters" DFG calls to come out and track a cougar the
attacked a human or killed live stock.
It seems the anti-hunters could care less haw many cougars are killed because
of problems with humans -- just so no "EVIL HUNTER" gets a chance to track
-tree and KILL one.
Perhaps we should have "anti-tags" were all the anti-hunters have to pay for
"problem lion" tracking -killing or relocation.. HOW ABOUT IT???
Regards Ron
>The real issue behind prop 197 is _not_ public safety,
>it is _not_ about "managing" cougar populations,
>it is simply greed: the desire of special interest groups
>to trophy hunt cougars in California, period.
So how much are you willing to pay for cougar management?????
>
>There are plenty of other states to do that, and if a bit of travel
>seems too much trouble to shoot at something at the top of the food chain,
>there is always paintball.
Well then Hans why didn't all you anti-hunter allow the hunters to bring
the "trophys" back into the state... Prop 117 prohibited it!!!!!
Did you go too far?????????????
>
>cheerio...
>
>~~~hans
Cris Waller
Powlesland) writes:
>
>In article <DLt4...@linex1.linex.com>, Todd Ourston <to...@linex.com>
wrote:
>
>>If I used dogs to track you until you were exhausted, found you where
you
>>were hiding, and killed you (with the proper equipment and while
>>exhibiting great sensitivity, of course) would you regard my actions
as
>>cruel or just an unusual way of being friendly? <G>
>
>nonsensical. Nature is often not very pleasant and the death that
>an animal experiences at the hands of hunter is often far less
>violent and unpleasant than death by caused by a predator,
>another member of its own species, weather, starvation or
>disease. If you find this distasteful, then so be it.
>
First it was "Hunting is not cruel" Now, when challenged on that point,
it's "Sure hunting is cruel, but nature is worse."
Of course animals aren't humans. But, animals and humans are alike in
many respects. Most reasonable people would agree that animals
experience pain and terror, and find these to be very unpleasant (to
say the least).
The "Nature is cruel" argument just won't wash. Ever hear of "Two
wrongs don't make a right?" Nature is incapable of acting ethically,
while humans can make the choice to do so-and should. Besides, this
type of argument can lead to the patently ridiculous conclusion that,
if nature is so bad, we should just round up all those poor suffering
wild animals, before Bad Mother Nature can get to 'em, and euthanize
them now.
I think if someone in your neighborhood were siccing their dogs on the
neighborhood cats, chasing them up trees, and shooting them just for
the hell of it-but offering the sanctimonious defense, when caught,
that it was "all for their own good" (after all they might get run over
by a car or whatever)-would be laughed out of court and jailed for
animal cruelty. I fail to see any significant difference between the
cat-torturer and the lion hunter. Both offer empty rationalizations for
an indefensible practice.
Getting just a wee bit hot under the collar-
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Ron Babcock
>
>d...@bluebird.com (Dan Anderson) wrote:
>>am...@ix.netcom.com(ALAN ARONSON) wrote:
>>>California will have a measure on the March ballot to allow the trophy
>>>hunting of mountain lions. Present law (voted upon by the people)
>>>already allows all necessary control measures. Read about it at the
>>>new mountain lion web page:
>
"THEN" THE EVIL HUNTERS CAN TRACK IT DOWN!!
Cris Waller
How do you think cougars should be managed in CA (what would you cahnge
about how they are managed now? Anything besides allowing sport
hunting?)? And how do you think your management ideas will help human
safety?
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Ron Babcock
>
>J
>This is more of a moral issue. I consider killing animals inhumane
>whether its done quickly or not.
So I guess you are a vegitarian -- right????
Remember that New York steak was once a steer roaming the green hills!
>: Animals do not have rights.
>
>But why can't they have rights? Just saying they don't have rights
>doesn't answer the question of whether they should have rights. Even
>profoundly mentally retared people and comatose people have the right
>to live. We should at least grant that right to higher animals.
Oh - now according to most animal rights people you're being a speciests!
Why should just higher animals have rights -- what about the poor lowly
animals -- who's going to look out for them????
>If we restore some balance in nature, then animal populations will
>take care of themselves. The overwhelming majority of people don't
>need the meat they get from hunting to feed themselves.
But Tom -- after all that hard work throwing a carrot on the bar B-Q
just doesn't seem the same!!!!
>The same
>recreational value of hunting can be achieved without pulling the
>trigger.
I'll have to admit it would be cheaper and a lot less work!!!!!!!
>Take your tag money and your gun money and donate it to
>predator restoration or wilderness protection. Do something positive
>for a change.
> -Tom
Regards Ron
Ron Babcock
>The money DFG will get from cougar tags is minimal. They have said they
>will probably sell around 100 (the hunt proposals in the 80's were for
>190 tags). So 197 will pull up to a half-million dollars dollars yearly
>from the Habitat Conservation Fund, money that otherwise could be used
>to protect wildlife habitat, to fund studies to support a hunt.
Isn't is the hunting fees that make up the HCF?
> We are in an economic society. If no
>>one finds value in the cougar, it will loose it's habitat (e.g. land).
>
>There is such a thing as esthetic (rather than consumptive) value. Not
>only is this easier on cougars, it's easier on people. more people can
>enjoy a live lion than a dead one. Look at songbirds-biologically we
>*could* hunt them without harming the population, but we don't-we see
>that the esthetic value trumps the consumptive. Millions of
>Californians have shown that they *do* value cougars-alive and free,
>not dead on the wall.
> > Most hunters spend between $50 and $200 each year in tags and
>>special taxes on hunting equipment to support wildlife. I suggest you
>do the same.
>
>Don't forget that (at least under California law) money from hunting
>license fees can only be used for game animal programs. Hunting license
>fees do nothing to help the vast majority of non-game species.
So since when didn't the politicians figure out how to rip off some fund
that has a designated purpose -- and use it for something else??
Now who believes that when a wildlife refuge paid for by hunters -- all the
non-huntable animals are exterminated?? Just the huntable ones exist??
>> Yes, a few animals suffer for the betterment of the majority. Most
>of
>>you that have never hunted don't really understand how tough it is.
>[big snip on how outclassed hunters are by the animals they hunt)
>Yeah, but the deer, lion, bear, squirrel, duck, etc. neither chooses to
>play this little game, nor stands to win anything from it.
Sure they do -- every day of their lives they are hunted (by cougars too) and
thus "play the game."
>You can have
>just as much of a thrill and display your wilderness skills just as
>well by tracking without killing. .
>Cris Waller
I know many bear and lion hunters that do exactly that. Tree the prey and
let it live!!!!!!!!! In fact this is one of the few "hunting type" activites
where this happens!!!!
It don't happen in deer and duck hunting!!!!
regards Ron Babcock
Cris Waller
Babcock) writes:
>
> Prop. 117 devirted $30 MILLION per year for 20 years for mountain
lions--
>whose money was that??????????? Maybe I don't want to pay millions of
$$
>a year to make more mountain lion habitat.
Proposition 117 set up the Habitat Conservation Fund. Funding for this
comes from several sources, none related to state income tax, most from
Prop. 99 funds that must be used for environmental causes.
Please get your facts straight about the HCF. First of all, 20 million
of the 30 million yearly goes to purchase/upgrade/maintain habitat for
endangered species, public parks and the like. The other 10 million
yearly is for purchase/maintenance of habitat for deer and mountain
lions, not specifically lions.
I though hunters were supposed to favor conservation of wildlife
habitat?
Plus, the measure is for 30 years, not 20. It sunsets in 2020.
Also, 197 appropriates almost 3 million dollars of the HCF fund, and
another 6 million dollars of unspecified state funds (presumably drawn
from tax sources) for "implementation of the mountain lion plan"-i.e.
the sport hunt. Talk about unfair! 9 million dollars between now and
2020 to subsidize lion hunters! Money that could go for protecting
wildlife habitat!
>And WHAT PROPOSED HUNT??? There is no proposed hunt in Prop 197!!!!
Sure, the words "sport hunt" are never mentioned in 197 because the
NRA, Safari Club, Gun Owners of CA and Senator Leslie all know it would
spell the death of their proposition! The intent of 197 is clear. It
makes the lion a game mammal, and thus a huntable animal. The DFG
believes and has stated on numerous occasions that it believes that
under section 1801 of the CA Fish and Game Code all game mammals must
be hunted. In hearings before the Senat Committee on Natural Resources,
there was no secret made of the fact that this bill will allow cougar
hunting. In the Nov. issue of the Safari Club newsletter, the Safari
Club trumpets that if 197 passes, "sport hunting can resume". And let's
be real. What else is this bill possibly for if not to legalize sport
hunting? The DFG already manages mountain lions-it just can't allow
sport hunting or snaring of them.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
MHauan
> > (myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G.
>
> BINGO!
>
> And the missing point is that tax payers are already paying the DFG to
> take action to minimize the risks presented by mountain lions to humans
> and human interests. However, it appears that the DFG isn't being too
> ambitious about responding until after the fact. Could it be that the
> DFG would like to augment its budget with money from blood thirsty
> hunters, thus it is allowing the stage to be set for reversing the ban
>on sport hunting of mountain lions?
The general fund taxpayer pays very little to support the day to day
operations of the DFG in California. For the 1994-95 fiscal year the
following were the sources of revenue for the Department $157 million
budget.
Hunting, fishing, commercial licenses 47%
Federal tax on hunting, fishing equipment 18%
Contracted services from other agencies(enviromental review,
timber harvest review) 13%
Oil transfer fund (Oil Spill prevention cleanup)10%
Personalized License plates (used for nongame) 6%
Tobacco Tax (used for nongame) 4%
General fund (most comes as payment for the "free licenses" the
department issues to the handicapped, poor, seniors, and
Native Americans 2%
>
> > F&G will then use the money to study the cougar and it's needs.
>
> I see. And what is preventing the DFG from using the money it already
> has to do just that?
It does. The money comes from current revenues which is diverted from
other uses. Generally the Department is required by the Legisature to
spend money on the wildlife for which it is collected. Deer tag money
must be spend on deer, commercial fee on commercial fishing, etc.
> > F&G can then make plans and implement any necessary changes to the >
>cougar's habitat so the cougar's habitat can be protected.
>
> Again, what's keeping them from doing that now.
Money!
First the Department controls very little land in California It can
recommend management or land use through enviromental review, but can not
mandate useage. The lead agencies(cities, counties, federal) can accept
or reject the recommendations.
Second, department lacks the funds to manage habitat of the land it has
control over. Many of these lands were purchased with money obtained
from hunters, and are managed with hunting as one use. Many other lands
are purchased with bond or special fund money (such as the money from the
mountain lion initiative). But there is no operating money for patrol,
posting, habitat modification.
> > We are in an economic society. If no one finds value in the cougar,
> >it will loose it's habitat (e.g. land).
> > Hunters find value in the animal and give money to F&G to protect it.
>
> Citizens find value in the animal and have given millions to protect
>it.
>
> > If you disagre with hunting then contribute to your state's F&G
> >department.
>
> Whether you are a hunter or not, you are contributing to the DFG and
>all the other state government offices when you pay state income and
>sales taxes. As a matter of fact, we are collectively paying quite a
>bit more than the DFG can even dream of taking in through the sale
>mountain lion hunting tags.
But, little of the money comes to the Department for wildlife management
or protection. Prior to the Prop 17, the Mountain Lion Initiative, the
Department proposed issuing 80 tags for the hunting of lions. At the
price of $100 to $150 per tag, the program would not have broke even. The
expense of the enviromental impact statement to allow the hunting would
have cost more than the $8000 to $10000 dollars the Department would have
received.
> > Most state's tax forms have a box to check where you can send some >
>cash to F&G. Most hunters spend between $50 and $200 each year in >
>tags and special taxes on hunting equipment to support wildlife. I >
>suggest you do the same.
>
> That's interesting. Hunters pay to "use" (i.e., destroy) a resource,
>so the citizen-owners of that resource should pay a like amount not to
>"use" it. >
> Todd Ourston
The entering of a wildlife refuge to view birds is a "use" of the
resource. A few years ago, a Wildlife area pass, was required for
those who did not have a hunting or fishing license to use several of the
wildlife areas. Along with the fee, service was provided by
naturalists leading walks, building trails, and signing of the areas.
This was an attempt by the Legislature to have the nonconsumtive users
support the operation of the areas which are not used for hunting 10
months out of the year. The nonconsumtive users essentially refused to
pay and the program was dropped.
Tom Greene
: Don;t you have anything better to worry about than someone elses eating
: habits?
Yes, I have many more important things to worry about. But I think I can
take a few minutes to address this issue. It does involve people's health
and cruelty to animals. These are important believe it or not.
: It never ceases to amaze me that so many people have taken it
: upon themselve to direct mankind in their vision of what's right.
Lenny, I am not directing you or anyone else. You're entitled to your
beliefs as I'm entitled to mine. I'm not in favor of passing laws to
restrict what people eat. The effort has to be voluntary. Do you really
believe meat (especially red meat) is not bad for you? Do you really
believe that killing animals is not cruel? It only takes a tiny amount
of will power to give these things up. Apparently you don't have enough.
-Tom
Tom Greene
: In article <4ejdfg$q...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) writes:
: |> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
: |>
: |> : It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
: |> : that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
: |> : play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
: |> : supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
: |> : hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
: |>
: |> Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
: |> justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
: |> face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
: |> are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
: |> non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
: |> they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
: |> kind.
: Well Tom, the VAST MAJORITY of people in the US eat meat and find nothing wrong
: with it. It is a personal choice just like beging a vegan. The American society
: sees nothing wrong with eating fried chicken, a hamburger, hot dog, etc.
So if the majority of the people think it is right then it must be right. Wow, morality
is now determined by a vote of the people. Interesting concept. Being a vegan is
a personal choice. Being a meat eater is a choice that involves the lives of many
animals.
: And I
: see nothing inherently "more" cruel in hunting than the meat industries. In fact
: I consider hunting to be *much* more humane.
I agree. Both are cruel practices. Hunting is a less cruel practice than what is
done to many livestock animals. They are both still cruel, so why do them?
: |> So next time you go hunting, track the animal down, get it lined up in your gun
: |> sights, but don't pull the trigger. The recreational value is equal to killing it
: |> and you don't have to be cruel to animals.
: This is a *huge* strawman. I (just like millions of others) am going to eat meat.
: Given this FACT, what's so wrong with hunting.
Nothing when you argue from that point of view. Doesn't change the FACT that it is
cruel and unnecessary.
: |> And next time you go to the grocery, just roll your cart right on past the meat
: |> section. After a while, your health will improve, the environment will likely improve
: |> (no more environementally destructive ranching), and you can have a big smile on
: |> your face because you didn't have to kill any animals.
: |> -Tom
: Not likely. I've recently read that meat (even red meat) in moderation is quite
: healthy.
Sure, the beef industry will tell you anything. The tobacco industry will also
tell you that smoking is not bad for you.
: Can you be so naive to think that the vast majority of farming is healthy for
: the environment? Hunting doesn't require clearing millions of acres of forests,
: woods and wetlands. Hunting doesn't require pouring millions of tons of fertilizers
: on the ground. Hunting doesn't cause topsoil erosion and poor water quality.
Your argument was better when you just admitted hunting was cruel and you we're
going to do it anyway. Farming can be done without fertilizer or pesticides. Non-
livestock farming produces more food per acre than any other method, so therefore
requires the least destruction of land. Imagine if everyone had to hunt and gather
their food. It wouldn't take long for 250 million people to kill every animal and
ravage the land bare. Because of farming, hunting has become more of a recreation
than a food source. That is why we are able to keep it controlled and its impact
is limited on the environment. It doesn't change the fact that it is cruel.
: I'm not against farming or ranching for that matter. But don't delude yourself
: into thinking we can turn the US in a vegan nation and benefit the environment.
You've said nothing to back this assertion up. The farm land is already in place.
With more environmentally friendly methods, we can increase yields and reduce its
impact of the environment. Eliminating ranching would allow for the return of predators
and free large amounts of land. The return of predators would reduce the need for
hunting and hopefully eliminate it in the future. Now all we have to do is stop
urban sprawl. But that's a tough nut to crack.
-Tom
Tom Greene
: >face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
: >are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
: What nonsense! We are omnivores and have been eating wild game
: meat for 2 million years of human evolution. In fact, if we had
: not become hunters and meat-eaters, we would not be here today.
: The health problems associated with meat eating are caused by
: eating too much of the stuff produced by modern agriculture, not
: wild game meat per se. How you can possibly consider a 100% plant
: diet that requires artificial dietary supplements "natural" for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: an omnivorous hunting and gathering species is beyond me.
Hmmmmm. My diet doesn't require any "artificial dietary supplements."
I think you mistakenly believe that evolution made us meat-eaters and
this is not true. Look at your evolutionary brothers. Monkeys that
are closely related to humans very seldomly eat meat. In fact, your
body doesn't digest meat well and has to do a great deal of work to
convert animal protein into something usable. I think meat-eating came
about because we developed such technologies as fire and weapons that
made it possible to capture and eat animals. Think of chasing down a
deer with your bare hands, killing it, tearing through its skin, and
eating the meat raw. Doesn't sound to appealing even if it could be
done with your dull teeth and fragile finger nails. No, evolution
didn't intend for us to be meat-eaters. I think that's plain to see.
We likely developed into hunters as humans moved to less hospitable
climates and animals provided the only source of food during the
winter. But now, through the miracle of agriculture, we can produce
enough non-meat food to feed everybody. Try it for a while. You
won't even miss meat after a few months.
-Tom
D. Braun
In his reply to Jim Powlesland, Tom Greene makes a series of statements
which reflect his ignorance of evolution, e.g., "...evolution didn't
intend..." Evolution does not intend anything; evolution as process
simply describes the phylogenetic change of organisms over time, as can
be observed in the fossil record; evolution as theory describes how this
change came about (and how change continues): by natural selection acting
on the variation inherent in populations of species. The idea that
evolution is directional, leading to more perfect (vegan?) species is
rediculous. Evolution does not "intend" anything, anymore than
gravitational theorey intends that I weigh 195 pounds on earth and less
than that on the moon.
Tom's argument for the advent of meat eating by ancestors of modern
humans contains some strange logic. So, they invented weapons and then
realized that they could use them to hunt with? Why did they invent
them, to kill each other, afterwhich they realized they could kill
animals and eat themn as well? The factual evidence is as follows:
first, ancestors of modern humans were omnivores for some millions of
years, as reflected by the kinds of teeth and jaws of fossils; second,
long bones of animals have been found with marks caused by cracking with
sharpened stones (as distinct from gnawing scavengers), from the same
time period as these hominid fossils; this shows that our ancestors
scavenged marrow. This evidence was found in Africa's rift valley, from
periods long before humans moved to "less hospitable climates" in Eurasia.
Finally, more elaborate methods for gathering vegetable and animal foods
developed, as reflected in artifacts found in later periods.
I do in fact agree with Tom's point that eating less meat is gentler on
the environment, I also agree with Jim that eating game meat, with its
lower fat content, probably does not impair human health. If Tom based
his arguments on fact instead of "common wisdom" in the areas of human
evolution and nutrition, he might win some converts on his point that
eating less meat (industry raised, that is) reduces environmental
impact. However, hitching that argument to his unsupported ones simply
sinks it as well in the minds of anyone reading these messages, which
ostensibly are about Mountain Lion hunting, I believe.
Regards to all, Dave Braun
Roberta Hatch
to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) wrote to Jim Powlesland:
>I think you mistakenly believe that evolution made us meat-eaters and
>this is not true. Look at your evolutionary brothers. Monkeys that
>are closely related to humans very seldomly eat meat.
Chimps are the most closely related to humans, and they
do eat meat. By the way, chimps aren't monkeys.
>.... I think meat-eating came about because we developed such
>technologies as fire and weapons that made it possible to capture
>and eat animals.
Have you ever considered that humans started eating meat
that was killed by other animals?
[ Drivel deleted ]
>No, evolution didn't intend for us to be meat-eaters. I think that's
>plain to see.
I think it's plain to see that you're an idiot. You make
stuff up that isn't supported and then claim it's true.
>We likely developed into hunters as humans moved to less hospitable
>climates and animals provided the only source of food during the
>winter.
What is your source for this enlighting news? How does
this explain the meat eaters in Africa, where there the climate
wasn't "less hospitable"?
>But now, through the miracle of agriculture, we can produce
>enough non-meat food to feed everybody.
Now though the modern miracle of the 'net you've been able
the show the entire world that you're a moron. How does it feel?
>Try it for a while. You won't even miss meat after a few months.
Try a field trip to your local library and reading a bit
about the subject matter you've been posting about. Then report
back after you've learned how to operate your newsreader, moron.
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, Ca. (This space for rent)
Ron Guidry
|> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
|>
|> : It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
|> : that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
|> : play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
|> : supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
|> : hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
|>
|> Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
|> justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
|> are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
|> they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
|> kind.
Well Tom, the VAST MAJORITY of people in the US eat meat and find nothing wrong
with it. It is a personal choice just like beging a vegan. The American society
sees nothing wrong with eating fried chicken, a hamburger, hot dog, etc. And I
see nothing inherently "more" cruel in hunting than the meat industries. In fact
I consider hunting to be *much* more humane.
|>
|> So next time you go hunting, track the animal down, get it lined up in your gun
|> sights, but don't pull the trigger. The recreational value is equal to killing it
|> and you don't have to be cruel to animals.
This is a *huge* strawman. I (just like millions of others) am going to eat meat.
Given this FACT, what's so wrong with hunting.
|>
|> And next time you go to the grocery, just roll your cart right on past the meat
|> section. After a while, your health will improve, the environment will likely improve
|> (no more environementally destructive ranching), and you can have a big smile on
|> your face because you didn't have to kill any animals.
|> -Tom
Not likely. I've recently read that meat (even red meat) in moderation is quite
healthy.
Can you be so naive to think that the vast majority of farming is healthy for
the environment? Hunting doesn't require clearing millions of acres of forests,
woods and wetlands. Hunting doesn't require pouring millions of tons of fertilizers
on the ground. Hunting doesn't cause topsoil erosion and poor water quality.
I'm not against farming or ranching for that matter. But don't delude yourself
into thinking we can turn the US in a vegan nation and benefit the environment.
--
David L Evens
alt.org.sierra-club, alt.org.earth-first, rec.backcountry
Todd Ourston (to...@linex.com) wrote:
: On 29 Jan 1996 13:06:39 -0700, Jim Powlesland (powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: > In article <DLt4...@linex1.linex.com>, Todd Ourston <to...@linex.com> wrote:
: > >If I used dogs to track you until you were exhausted, found you where you
: > >were hiding, and killed you (with the proper equipment and while
: > >exhibiting great sensitivity, of course) would you regard my actions as
: > >cruel or just an unusual way of being friendly? <G>
: > Animals are not human beings. The question therefore is
: > nonsensical.
: Nice try. You are a human being (I suppose). I asked the question about
: you, not animals.
You did so by pretending that non-humans are identicle to humans.
: If you are able to answer the question, please explain
: your reasoning. Then we can have fun discussing its abstraction to
: similar cases involving animals.
Why should we consider an invalid abstraction?
: Please recall that it was you, not I that went to great lengths to explain
: that hunting mountain lions wasn't cruel because of the speed of the
: killing and the tools being used to accomplish it. Do you now wish to
: contend that you were missing your most recent point, which seems to be
: that you believe it is not possible to be cruel to any animals simply
: because they are not human? Judging by the quotes above and below, you
: seem unclear about your position. I know I am. Please explain.
You are merely stupid.
: > Nature is often not very pleasant
: What are you talking about? Specifically, what do you mean by "nature"?
Obviously you believed Disney.
: > and the death that
: > an animal experiences at the hands of hunter is often far less
: > violent and unpleasant than death by caused by a predator,
: Which predators tend to end the lives of mountain lions more violently
: than human hunters?
Each other, for a start.
: Also, why should we care. Isn't it nonsensical to
: compare the "unpleasantness" of wildlife killed by other wildlife to the
: unpleasantness of wildlife killed by human hunters? If not, why not?
As you have decided that humans and non-humans are indistinguishable,
your religion requires this examination.
: > another member of its own species, weather, starvation or
: > disease. If you find this distasteful, then so be it.
: I just find it confusing. How does assigning your subjective values
: regarding the degree of unpleasantness experienced by unknown mountain
: lions that may or may not become party to the hypothetical events you have
: described get us any closer to a sound rationale for or against the
: proposed ballot initiative (dealing with a policy binding on humans, not
: animals)? We are still discussing that, aren't we?
You stopped discussing that when you started pretending that the mountain
lions are human.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maqui working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Guidry
|> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
|> : In article <4ejdfg$q...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) writes:
|> : |> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
|> : |>
|> : |> : It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
|> : |> : that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
|> : |> : play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
|> : |> : supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
|> : |> : hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
|> : |>
|> : |> Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
|> : |> justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
|> : |> face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
|> : |> are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
|> : |> non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
|> : |> they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
|> : |> kind.
|>
|> : Well Tom, the VAST MAJORITY of people in the US eat meat and find nothing wrong
|> : with it. It is a personal choice just like beging a vegan. The American society
|> : sees nothing wrong with eating fried chicken, a hamburger, hot dog, etc.
|>
|> So if the majority of the people think it is right then it must be right. Wow, morality
|> is now determined by a vote of the people. Interesting concept. Being a vegan is
|> a personal choice. Being a meat eater is a choice that involves the lives of many
|> animals.
You are correct. In America, in most all cases, the majority rules. Society determines
(mostly through the majority) what is moral, what is right, etc. And a three-year study
by sponsored by the USF&WS showed that 75% of Americans approve of regulated hunting
as an "acceptable and legal wildlife-related activity." (Quotes imply wording in
questionaire).
And before you start agruing about universal truths/morality, let me say that there
are many societies that have existed that would argue VERY hard against universal
truths and morality.
|>
|> : And I
|> : see nothing inherently "more" cruel in hunting than the meat industries. In fact
|> : I consider hunting to be *much* more humane.
|>
|> I agree. Both are cruel practices. Hunting is a less cruel practice than what is
|> done to many livestock animals. They are both still cruel, so why do them?
I also consider hunting to be less cruel than farming in many instances. So why continue
farming? So we can eat of course!
Cruelity is purely subjective. Wouldn't you say the destruction of millions of acres of
wild habitat cruel? Wouldn't you say the poisioning of the environment cruel? Wouldn't
you say the destruction of countless nests, nesting birds, rabbits, etc. in combines
cruel?
|>
|> : |> So next time you go hunting, track the animal down, get it lined up in your gun
|> : |> sights, but don't pull the trigger. The recreational value is equal to killing it
|> : |> and you don't have to be cruel to animals.
|>
|> : This is a *huge* strawman. I (just like millions of others) am going to eat meat.
|> : Given this FACT, what's so wrong with hunting.
|>
|> Nothing when you argue from that point of view. Doesn't change the FACT that it is
|> cruel and unnecessary.
You claim hunting is cruel and unnecessary, I do not agree.
|>
|> : |> And next time you go to the grocery, just roll your cart right on past the meat
|> : |> section. After a while, your health will improve, the environment will likely improve
|> : |> (no more environementally destructive ranching), and you can have a big smile on
|> : |> your face because you didn't have to kill any animals.
|> : |> -Tom
|>
|> : Not likely. I've recently read that meat (even red meat) in moderation is quite
|> : healthy.
|>
|> Sure, the beef industry will tell you anything. The tobacco industry will also
|> tell you that smoking is not bad for you.
This was a medical report I read and later saw a report on TV (not that I believe
everything I see or read) but humans have been eating meat for many *many* MANY years
and it hasn't caused the destruction of the race yet.
|>
|> : Can you be so naive to think that the vast majority of farming is healthy for
|> : the environment? Hunting doesn't require clearing millions of acres of forests,
|> : woods and wetlands. Hunting doesn't require pouring millions of tons of fertilizers
|> : on the ground. Hunting doesn't cause topsoil erosion and poor water quality.
|>
|> Your argument was better when you just admitted hunting was cruel and you we're
|> going to do it anyway. Farming can be done without fertilizer or pesticides. Non-
It can but it isn't. The fact is, the vegees you buy in the supermarket were most
likely grown on massives farms that use every modern farming practice including
fertilizers and pesticides.
|> livestock farming produces more food per acre than any other method, so therefore
|> requires the least destruction of land. Imagine if everyone had to hunt and gather
|> their food. It wouldn't take long for 250 million people to kill every animal and
|> ravage the land bare. Because of farming, hunting has become more of a recreation
|> than a food source. That is why we are able to keep it controlled and its impact
|> is limited on the environment. It doesn't change the fact that it is cruel.
And your above paragraph doesn't change the fact that farming is also cruel.
Imagine if everyone turned vegan. Imagine how many MORE acres it would take to meet the
increased demand. I'm not advocating that everyone turn hunter although most white-
tailed deer herds could easily handle an increased harvest. But YOU are advocating
stopping hunting.
|>
|> : I'm not against farming or ranching for that matter. But don't delude yourself
|> : into thinking we can turn the US in a vegan nation and benefit the environment.
|>
|> You've said nothing to back this assertion up. The farm land is already in place.
Do you honestly believe that if the nation turned vegan tomorrow we wouldn't need more
farmland to handle it? And how about this assertion. I claim that hunting as it is
practiced now is much more environmentally friendly source of food than farming. I've
stated several reasons above. Can you give reasons why this is not true?
|> With more environmentally friendly methods, we can increase yields and reduce its
|> impact of the environment. Eliminating ranching would allow for the return of predators
Todate, these methods (which BTW, I holeheartedly support) are not economically
feasible for the most part. That is, the farmers don't make as much money with these
methods as the old methods, especially in the short term. If it were different, all
farmers would use these methods.
In California, 90% of their wetlands have been drained. That story is repeated all
across America. Do you thinks hunters are responsible for that? Canada is suffering
the same fate. More farmland, more houses, more shopping centers, less wild habitat.
|> and free large amounts of land. The return of predators would reduce the need for
Once again I say, this is a very naive statement. Wolves and cougars in suburban USA.
Realistically, I can't see this happening.
|> hunting and hopefully eliminate it in the future. Now all we have to do is stop
|> urban sprawl. But that's a tough nut to crack.
Well Tom, here we agree. How do we get a handle on the human population :(
|> -Tom
Ron Babcock
>
>kdmu...@ccgate.hac.com (Kirk Mueller) wrote:
>
>> You guys (and most everybody else on this thread) are missing the
>>point. Sport hunting does not significantly affect animal population
>>the number of tags that the population can support without big population
>>(myself included, we can discuss how evil this is later) to F&G.
>
>annually from the funds currently designated for wildlife habitat and
>another $500,000 from the general fund. In this case there is a
>transfer of EVERYONE'S money to F&G.
>
If this is true -- it's because everyone who uses the parks and other gov land
pay no or little fees to do so.. AND if cougar protection is for everyone
shouldn't we all pay????
Prop. 117 devirted $30 MILLION per year for 20 years for mountain lions--
whose money was that??????????? Maybe I don't want to pay millions of $$
a year to make more mountain lion habitat.
And WHAT PROPOSED HUNT??? There is no proposed hunt in Prop 197!!!!
>I personally am opposed to my being taxed to support Mr. Mueller's
>hobby, and if this questionable proposal goes through, license fees
>ought to be high enough to pay all the costs. Simply put, if there is
>no level of license cost X such that X times the demand for licenses
>at cost X equals $1,000,000 plus the revenue envisioned in the current
>proposal, (and the take of cougars at this level of licensing falls
>within sound game management practices) then the proposed large cat
>season in California is really just another case of welfare for the
>rich and middle class.
Like I said - Prop. 197 DOES NOT propose a "large cat season." None of "your
tax dollars are going to pay for any other "HUNTS" so what makes you think
if there ever was a "large cat season" you would have to pay for it???
And did 117 alocate 1 cent to DFG for managing problem lions!!!!
So where does that money come from???????????
HUNTERS LICENSE FEES???????????????????
Is the Mountain Lion Foundation willing to pay ALL the costs for the next
?? years to manage proplem lions??????????
>
>I suspect that an unbiased economic analysis would show that this hunt
>is not even economically feasible. If it were, then the backers
>wouldn't include such a large requirement for a money transfer in
>their proposal, because it just gives critics one more angle of
>attack.
>>_______________________________________________________________
>Craig Mohn
>mo...@are.berkeley.edu
[talk about having balls!!!@ this guy is screaming about his f$%^#@ing
TAX DOLLARS and look who's paying for his internet connection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Well Mr. Berkeley education---------
sportsmen are paying the majority of wildlife management fees in this state
every other state!!!
It's high time you non contributers started paying!!!
Regards Ron Babcock
NICOLA
> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
>
> : It always amazes me when people put a different set of values on animals
> : that are so similar. The cow, pig, chicken and turkey didn't chose to
> : play this little slaughter-house game either. The meat department at the
> : supermarket is okay but hunting is not. Killing IS a small part of
> : hunting, but without it I wouldn't be able to enjoy venison steaks.
>
> Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
> justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
> face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
> are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
> non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
> they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
> kind.
>
> sights, but don't pull the trigger. The recreational value is equal to killing it
> and you don't have to be cruel to animals.
>
Todd Ourston
> In article <DLt4...@linex1.linex.com>, Todd Ourston <to...@linex.com> wrote:
> >If I used dogs to track you until you were exhausted, found you where you
> >were hiding, and killed you (with the proper equipment and while
> >exhibiting great sensitivity, of course) would you regard my actions as
> >cruel or just an unusual way of being friendly? <G>
> Animals are not human beings. The question therefore is
> nonsensical.
Nice try. You are a human being (I suppose). I asked the question about
you, not animals. If you are able to answer the question, please explain
your reasoning. Then we can have fun discussing its abstraction to
similar cases involving animals.
Please recall that it was you, not I that went to great lengths to explain
that hunting mountain lions wasn't cruel because of the speed of the
killing and the tools being used to accomplish it. Do you now wish to
contend that you were missing your most recent point, which seems to be
that you believe it is not possible to be cruel to any animals simply
because they are not human? Judging by the quotes above and below, you
seem unclear about your position. I know I am. Please explain.
> Nature is often not very pleasant
What are you talking about? Specifically, what do you mean by "nature"?
> and the death that
> an animal experiences at the hands of hunter is often far less
> violent and unpleasant than death by caused by a predator,
Which predators tend to end the lives of mountain lions more violently
than human hunters? Also, why should we care. Isn't it nonsensical to
compare the "unpleasantness" of wildlife killed by other wildlife to the
unpleasantness of wildlife killed by human hunters? If not, why not?
> another member of its own species, weather, starvation or
> disease. If you find this distasteful, then so be it.
I just find it confusing. How does assigning your subjective values
regarding the degree of unpleasantness experienced by unknown mountain
lions that may or may not become party to the hypothetical events you have
described get us any closer to a sound rationale for or against the
proposed ballot initiative (dealing with a policy binding on humans, not
animals)? We are still discussing that, aren't we?
Todd Ourston
Craig Mohn
>In article <3109d6a7.6178526@agate>, mo...@are.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn) says:
>>This is in fact false. The proposed hunt would divert $500,000
>>annually from the funds currently designated for wildlife habitat and
>>another $500,000 from the general fund. In this case there is a
>>transfer of EVERYONE'S money to F&G.
>If this is true -- it's because everyone who uses the parks and other gov land
>pay no or little fees to do so.. AND if cougar protection is for everyone
>shouldn't we all pay????
This is exactly my point. Parks are a public amenity which benefit
many people. We generally pay for them through taxes, because while
society recognizes the need for parks and wildland, all other methods
of funding tham are too cumbersome. Cougar hunting does not benefit
many people at all, and those who do benefit are unwilling to pay the
full cost. Thus it is not good policy to open a hunt at this time.
> Prop. 117 devirted $30 MILLION per year for 20 years for mountain lions--
>whose money was that??????????? Maybe I don't want to pay millions of $$
>a year to make more mountain lion habitat.
It was the money of the taxpayers who voted for it, although I'm not
sure your dollar amount is correct. Mountain lion habitat (also known
as wilderness) has many uses for many people. Hikers, mountain
bikers, and joggers. Thus the money allocated in Prop 117 cannot be
thought of as merely money to support mountain lions. You may not
care to support this particular (small) program, but there is no
program that all taxpayers support equally. Compromise is at the core
of government.
>>I personally am opposed to my being taxed to support Mr. Mueller's
>>hobby, and if this questionable proposal goes through, license fees
>>ought to be high enough to pay all the costs. Simply put, if there is
>>no level of license cost X such that X times the demand for licenses
>>at cost X equals $1,000,000 plus the revenue envisioned in the current
>>proposal, (and the take of cougars at this level of licensing falls
>>within sound game management practices) then the proposed large cat
>>season in California is really just another case of welfare for the
>>rich and middle class.
>Like I said - Prop. 197 DOES NOT propose a "large cat season." None of "your
>tax dollars are going to pay for any other "HUNTS" so what makes you think
>if there ever was a "large cat season" you would have to pay for it???
The proposition allocates a large sum of money to manage the hunting
of mountain lions. If you want to talk economics - specifically
providing a demand curve (number of licenses sold versus price) that
meets the conditions above - then this thread could have some content.
As it is, I have laid out a clear criterion for whether or not the
change in policy would be socially beneficial. I think that it is
pretty clear that it would not - there are not enough people willing
to pay enough for the change to cover the costs. Thus the proposed
policy is a money grab by a special interest group.
>And did 117 alocate 1 cent to DFG for managing problem lions!!!!
>So where does that money come from???????????
The same place money for managing any other problem animal (racoons,
skunks, deer) comes from. Taxpayers pay for the serious threats,
and less serious problems are ignored.
You talk about cougar protection as the prime purpose of this
proposition. I live within a mile of an area where mountain lions are
known to live, and yet my biggest nature problem is deer. I'm far
more likely to get hurt hitting a deer in my car or being attacked by
a buck I accidentally corner in my back yard (yes, I said attacked -
the urban deer in my neighborhood are quite unafraid of people) than I
am to be attacked by a mountain lion. My neighbors feel the same way
about deer, yet none of them are crying out for an urban deer season
(actually, I have made noises about a club-and-spear season, but
nobody takes me seriously about it). Joggers who feel threatened by
mountain lions are quite free to buy a Nordic Track and work out in
the safety of their living rooms. Cougars do not provide a major
threat at this time, and any claims that they do are rationalizations
for other goals.
(snip)
>>>_______________________________________________________________
>>Craig Mohn
>>mo...@are.berkeley.edu
>[talk about having balls!!!@ this guy is screaming about his f$%^#@ing
>TAX DOLLARS and look who's paying for his internet connection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Your internet traffic crosses publicly owned switches almost as often
as mine. All internet users are using government-provided facilities,
since packets get routed through whatever links are available. If
this bothers you, get off the net. By the way, the fact that I get
email at a University of California addresss doesn''t mean that the
message is posted from there .
>Well Mr. Berkeley education---------
>sportsmen are paying the majority of wildlife management fees in this state
>every other state!!!
I doubt it. You and I could argue endlessly about what ought to
count as wildlife management fees, and I would undoubtedly arrive at a
figure which shows hunters to be free-riding parasites by counting
every habitat-related expenditure from the public purse (much like you
tried to do above with mountain lions), and you would undoubtedly show
that hunters are supporting the entire outdoor recreation industry in
California by ignoring most costs. The truth is sport hunters pay a
lot, but they get quite a lot of benefit from publicly owned habitat
that we all pay for.
Regards, Craig
_______________________________________________________________
Craig Mohn
mo...@are.berkeley.edu
Kirk Mueller
> Jim Powlesland (powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> : In article <4ejdfg$q...@nonews.col.hp.com>, Tom Greene
<to...@col.hp.com> wrote:
>
> : >face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food.
Human beings
> :snip
> Hmmmmm. My diet doesn't require any "artificial dietary supplements."
>
> I think you mistakenly believe that evolution made us meat-eaters and
> this is not true. Look at your evolutionary brothers. Monkeys that
> are closely related to humans very seldomly eat meat. In fact, your
> body doesn't digest meat well and has to do a great deal of work to
> convert animal protein into something usable. I think meat-eating came
> about because we developed such technologies as fire and weapons that
> made it possible to capture and eat animals. Think of chasing down a
> deer with your bare hands, killing it, tearing through its skin, and
> eating the meat raw. Doesn't sound to appealing even if it could be
> done with your dull teeth and fragile finger nails. No, evolution
> didn't intend for us to be meat-eaters. I think that's plain to see.
> We likely developed into hunters as humans moved to less hospitable
> climates and animals provided the only source of food during the
> winter. But now, through the miracle of agriculture, we can produce
> enough non-meat food to feed everybody. Try it for a while. You
> won't even miss meat after a few months.
>
You're wrong. I suggest reading a few archaeological texts. I
recommend Scientific American. Man and our cousins have been eating meat
for at least thousands of years. You remember the cave paintings in
France? Lots of hunting pictures there. Lots of flint hunting tools
too. Older evidence is also available that I don't remember well enough
to quote right now.
I saw a film on the Discovery channel about a year ago showing
Chimpanzees stalking, killing and eating a smaller primate also.
I agree we don't need meat. I do like it however, and don't intend to stop.
--
Kirk Mueller
kdmu...@ccgate.hac.com (310)334-2586
Hughes Aircraft Co., Radar and Communications Sector
El Segundo, CA USA
--- All comments are strictly my own. ---
Cris Waller
Babcock) writes:
>Isn't is the hunting fees that make up the HCF? [the Habitat
Conservation Fund set up by Prop. 117]
Please see my previous post. You might want to get a copy of 117 and
read it before you make any more statements about where the funds come
from or how they are used.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Cris Waller
to refer to something other than mountain lions? Makes following the
lion discussion difficult.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Cris Waller
rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil (Ron Guidry) writes:
>You are correct. In America, in most all cases, the majority rules.
Society determines
>(mostly through the majority) what is moral, what is right, etc. And a
three-year study
>by sponsored by the USF&WS showed that 75% of Americans approve of
regulated hunting
>as an "acceptable and legal wildlife-related activity." (Quotes imply
wording in
>questionaire).
I'm assuming you are referring to Stephen Kellert's seminal study? I
don't have a copy in front of me right now-I'll dig it up when I go
offline-but I seem to recall that this was the approval figure for
"hunting for meat", not sport hunting. And 80% of the people surveyed
disapproved of trophy hunting.
if the majority rules, then the hunters should leave the lion alone.
DFG's own surveys, conducted by Chico State, show a 60% disapproval of
mountain lion hunting, even though the question was asked in the midst
of a generally pro-hunt survey. And voters certainly expressed their
disapproval with the passage of Prop. 117.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Cris Waller
rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil (Ron Guidry) writes:
>
>In article <4emi3s$f...@cloner3.netcom.com>, cr...@ix.netcom.com(Cris
Waller ) writes:
>|> DFG's own surveys, conducted by Chico State, show a 60% disapproval
of
>|> mountain lion hunting, even though the question was asked in the
midst
>|> of a generally pro-hunt survey. And voters certainly expressed
their
>|> disapproval with the passage of Prop. 117.
>
>Lets be honest here. Do you think that supporters of Prop. 117 showed
the
>general public the untarnished, clear, unbiased truth to pass this
bill?
The question was "Does the majority rule?" It wasn't "How informed is
the majority?" My point was that, if one is going to justify sport
hunting by saying "surveys show that the majority approves of it" then
one must also face the consequences when the surveys show that they
don't.
The Chico State study was conducted long before the passage of 117 and
thus was a reflection of people's real feelings on the issue. I think
that the average person *does* know enough about lion hunting to
register an opinion-most people I've talked to simply feel that hunting
with dogs is unsporting and that hunting an animal mainly to stuff it
is ridiculous. Lions *are* hunted with dogs, and *are* hunted primarily
as trophy animals and for the thrill of killing one, not for meat.
I would be
>interested in the study.[Stephen Kellert's study of attitudes of
Americans to wildlife]
>
>And please define "trophy hunting".
As far as I know, Kellert didn't define the terms in his study. I think
the average person's concept of "trophy hunter" is a person who kills
primarily for the hide, horns, etc. of the animal, not for meat.
I'm looking for my copy of the results of the study. I did find a short
piece-the actual disapproval rating for trophy hunting was 85% and the
disapproval rate for hunting primarily for sport was 60%.
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Greene
Agreed. The argument I presented is pretty lame. Playing devil's advocate
puts me at a disadvantage since I don't have time to research the other sides'
arguments thouroughly. I have actually seen this argument presented in
veggie literature.
: recommend Scientific American. Man and our cousins have been eating meat
: for at least thousands of years. You remember the cave paintings in
: France? Lots of hunting pictures there. Lots of flint hunting tools
: too. Older evidence is also available that I don't remember well enough
: to quote right now.
: I saw a film on the Discovery channel about a year ago showing
: Chimpanzees stalking, killing and eating a smaller primate also.
: I agree we don't need meat. I do like it however, and don't intend to stop.
The question of why still remains. Killing animals to satisfy your tastes
seems somewhat selfish to me.
-Tom
George Boggs
> [...] Try it for a while. You
> won't even miss meat after a few months.
>
Been there, done that. Speak for yourself. Religious views are always
universal, it's just that they rarely ever hold universally. ;-)
--
G. Boggs I'd rather be rich than stupid.
J. Handey
George Boggs
> [...] Do you really
> believe meat (especially red meat) is not bad for you?
Everything, in sufficient quantity, is bad for you. I eat meat, drink
wine, enjoy the occasional potato chip. Everybody dies. I will. You will.
Check out the relatively recent paper by Bruce Ames (inventor of the Ames
test, the standard for carcinogenity) in Science. Broccoli contains lots
of carcinogens. All veggies do.
> Do you really
> believe that killing animals is not cruel?
Yep.
> It only takes a tiny amount
> of will power to give these things up. Apparently you don't have enough.
>
Oh, I do. Been there, done that, got cold. If it works for you, all the best!
Kirk Mueller
Sti...@wpo.sosc.osshe.edu (-T.) wrote:
>Big snip
> Political hysteria comes with the territory.....I didn't think the
anti's were
> necessarily paragons of truth and virtue when the ban was being debated.
> One point being bandied about in the current discussion is whether
hunting the
> wilds will thin out the cougar populations in the suburban fringes. And of
> course one cannot hunt the fringe areas, too many people etc. So what happens
> if more appropriate cougar range is opened up through hunting? Do the "town
> cougars" stay in the fringe areas or do they move back? If the number of
> cougars are managed according to available habitat, do you end up with "town
> cougars" in the first place? I think it would be good to answer a few of
these
> questions, emotions and hyperbole not withstanding, before dismissing anyone
> as lying through their teeth.
>
I never subscribed to the argument that hunting would avoid man /
cougar clashes by thinning the cougar population. Fish and Game will
prevent any serious change in their population. Only putting a reign on
the human population explosion (e.g. house building in the cougar's
habitat) will do that. That means everybody out there reading this: Have
two kids at most in your lifetime and you can feel good about saving the
other species on this planet. The rest of you with big families, I don't
want to hear any bellyaching about my hobby. You're doing considerably
more damage to the planet than I do. A hunter killed animal will be
replaced with young the next spring. Loss of habitat through house
building, expanded trash dumps, etc. prevents any animals being born on
that land forever (or at least untill civilization shrinks which hasn't
happened yet).
I agree hunting on the fringes of civilization is less likely in any
case. However some of my bowhunting buddies are willing to take a cougar
on with just a bow. I suspect bowhunting nearer civilization is feasible
and safe.
Ron Guidry
|> Society determines
|> >(mostly through the majority) what is moral, what is right, etc. And a
|> three-year study
|> >by sponsored by the USF&WS showed that 75% of Americans approve of
|> regulated hunting
|> >as an "acceptable and legal wildlife-related activity." (Quotes imply
|> wording in
|> >questionaire).
|>
|> don't have a copy in front of me right now-I'll dig it up when I go
|> offline-but I seem to recall that this was the approval figure for
|> "hunting for meat", not sport hunting. And 80% of the people surveyed
|> disapproved of trophy hunting.
|> if the majority rules, then the hunters should leave the lion alone.
|> mountain lion hunting, even though the question was asked in the midst
|> of a generally pro-hunt survey. And voters certainly expressed their
|> disapproval with the passage of Prop. 117.
Lets be honest here. Do you think that supporters of Prop. 117 showed the
general public the untarnished, clear, unbiased truth to pass this bill?
I would think that there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides of this issue.
|>
|> Cris Waller
|> Cr...@ix.netcom.com
I'm not sure :( The article didn't alborate on its reference. I would be
interested in the study.
And please define "trophy hunting".
Hunters disaprove of killing an animal, taking its headgear and leaving
the carcus to rot in the field. BTW, by and large, this is not legal and
the person that does this is poaching. Many people mistakenly call this
trophy hunting.
Trophy hunting simple means passing on lesser (defined by the individual
hunter) animals until an animal comes along that meet the hunters self
imposed limitations. The hunter then utilizes all of the kill, that is he
does not waste the meat.
Most of the non-hunting people I know do not see a difference in the
"trophy" hunter described in the above paragraph and the hunter who
takes the first legal animal he/she sees.
Kirk Mueller
> Big snip
> The question of why still remains. Killing animals to satisfy your tastes
> seems somewhat selfish to me.
>
It is sufficient for me to know that my state's Fish and Game Dept.
makes sure any animals I take will not significantly deplete the
population as a whole and that my money will go toward improving their
habitat and that species overall chances on this planet.
I do enjoy hunting and killing is part of it. It is a considerable
challenge which I enjoy. The meat is much more savory knowing I harvested
it. As an aside, wild game tastes considerably different than beef or
chicken, a nice change from the same old stuff. Similarly a mountain
lion's hide has esthetic value to me knowing all the sweat I put into
getting it. I feel closer to nature than I do when backpacking. I know
most of you don't understand this. I suspect you'll have to try hunting
first. I feel most of you forget where the beef, chicken, etc. bought in
nicely wrapped packages in the grocery and leather shoes, wallets, etc.
came from. Is a farm animal any less deserving by your standards? To me,
it's not important as long as I do my best to make it a quick kill. I'm
not ready to be a vegetarian.
Carl J R Johansson
: In article <4eljum$e...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) writes:
: |> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
: |> : In article <4ejdfg$q...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) writes:
: |> : |> Ron Guidry (rgu...@pintail.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
: |> requires the least destruction of land. Imagine if everyone had to hunt and gather
: |> their food. It wouldn't take long for 250 million people to kill every animal and
: |> ravage the land bare. Because of farming, hunting has become more of a recreation
: |> than a food source. That is why we are able to keep it controlled and its impact
: |> is limited on the environment. It doesn't change the fact that it is cruel.
: And your above paragraph doesn't change the fact that farming is also cruel.
: Imagine if everyone turned vegan. Imagine how many MORE acres it would take to meet the
: increased demand. I'm not advocating that everyone turn hunter although most white-
: tailed deer herds could easily handle an increased harvest. But YOU are advocating
: stopping hunting.
The vastly larger share of the harvest in industrialized countries goes to the
meat industry, but the cattle yields only about one tenth of what it consumes.
This is because the livestock has to be fed for several years before it's
slaughtered. So removing the gridlock of meat eating practises would greatly
increase the food surplus in these countries.
Research has shown, however, that there are a few essential amino acids
in animal food that can't be found in most vegetables, they would have
to be gained through intake of beans (possibly a somewhat monotonous
diet).
Globally animal products account for only about 10% of the entire food
consumption.
cj
: |>
: |> : I'm not against farming or ranching for that matter. But don't delude yourself
David L Evens
rec.animals.wildlife, alt.org.sierra-club, alt.org.earth-first,
rec.backcountry
Tom Greene (to...@col.hp.com) wrote:
: Jim Powlesland (powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: : In article <4ejdfg$q...@nonews.col.hp.com>, Tom Greene <to...@col.hp.com> wrote:
: : >face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food. Human beings
: : >are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
: : What nonsense! We are omnivores and have been eating wild game
: : meat for 2 million years of human evolution. In fact, if we had
: : not become hunters and meat-eaters, we would not be here today.
: : The health problems associated with meat eating are caused by
: : eating too much of the stuff produced by modern agriculture, not
: : wild game meat per se. How you can possibly consider a 100% plant
: : diet that requires artificial dietary supplements "natural" for
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: : an omnivorous hunting and gathering species is beyond me.
: Hmmmmm. My diet doesn't require any "artificial dietary supplements."
Ah, so you are trying to getr pernicious anemia.
: I think you mistakenly believe that evolution made us meat-eaters and
: this is not true. Look at your evolutionary brothers.
Ooh, the error about evolution. Quite an old one.
: Monkeys that
: are closely related to humans very seldomly eat meat.
Which, of course, according to ARA theosophy, says nothing at all about
humans, because ARAs believe that knowledge about one species isn't
transferable to another.
: In fact, your
: body doesn't digest meat well and has to do a great deal of work to
: convert animal protein into something usable.
Actually, animal protein is easier to convert into human protein than
plant proteins are, as no amino acids need to be converted. Plant
proteins, on the other hand, are completely devoid of two amino acids
found in animal proteins, requiring energy expenditure to produce them.
: I think meat-eating came
: about because we developed such technologies as fire and weapons that
: made it possible to capture and eat animals.
No, humans ate meat long before we had fire or weapons beyond level 1 tools.
: Think of chasing down a
: deer with your bare hands, killing it, tearing through its skin, and
: eating the meat raw.
An anthropologist did the experiment in Africa, in the environment humans
evolved in. He was able to catch a small antelope without undue bother,
and then fashioned tools from immediately available materials (sticks and
pebbles), of the level of sophistication that proto-humans MUST have been
capable of, and proceeded to butcher the animal without trouble.
: Doesn't sound to appealing even if it could be
: done with your dull teeth and fragile finger nails.
Actualy, you CAN, it just takes longer than using the tools that
proto-humans devloped before even diverging seriously from the line that
leads to modern chimps.
: No, evolution
: didn't intend for us to be meat-eaters. I think that's plain to see.
Religioous nuts usually think that their errors are obviously true.
: We likely developed into hunters as humans moved to less hospitable
: climates and animals provided the only source of food during the
: winter.
Which doesn't explain the fact that the proto-humans that evolved in
Africa are assosciated with active hunting weapons.
: But now, through the miracle of agriculture, we can produce
: enough non-meat food to feed everybody. Try it for a while. You
: won't even miss meat after a few months.
And in a few years, you'll find yourself with pernivious anemia.
George Boggs
> [...]
>
> The question of why still remains. Killing animals to satisfy your tastes
> seems somewhat selfish to me.
>
So I should stop because it seems selfish to you?? Are you willing to
reciprocate on issues that I find selfish about your behavior?
Ron Babcock
>
>Mr. Babcock-
>
>How do you think cougars should be managed in CA (what would you cahnge
>about how they are managed now? Anything besides allowing sport
>hunting?)? And how do you think your management ideas will help human
>safety?
>
>Cris Waller
>Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Since the cougar population has greatly increased since the orginal moritorium
on hunting them in 1972, which by the way was done at the request of sportsman,
the cougar / human / domestic animal encounters have skyrocked. In 1990 when
the moritorium was to be lifted because the population was at the point of
endangering humans -- prop 117 was passed -- which protection has resulted
in 2 deaths in the last few years and one disputed death in the late 1980s.
At present the only way cougars are managed is when they attack people or
domestic animals they are killed -- this is after the fact.
There is no way I will convince those that post here that think it's the
human population that should be reduced -- though I would strongly support
controlling it through much stronger immigration policies - to reduce the
cougar population to the available more remote wilderness areas and instill
a fear in them that man is their predator is the way to manage them.
Just looking at the cougar attack[human death] records of the last X number
of years will show that prior to giving full protection -- cougar levels
posed a much less threat to humans than they do now.
So I will throw the ball back to you -- how would you increase public safety
without killing them? Just write off the few people a year that they kill
because people will die of something anyway?
Regards Ron Babcock
Tom Greene
: In article <4emti5$o...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) wrote:
: > Big snip
: > The question of why still remains. Killing animals to satisfy your tastes
: > seems somewhat selfish to me.
: >
: It is sufficient for me to know that my state's Fish and Game Dept.
: makes sure any animals I take will not significantly deplete the
: population as a whole and that my money will go toward improving their
: habitat and that species overall chances on this planet.
Do you have some statistics on how much actually goes to this purpose?
I seem to remember someone posting stats for CA that indicated only a small
percentage actually did go to improving habitats and helping out the animals.
Wouldn't it be better to just give all the money you spend on tags, licenses,
guns, and equipment directly to these causes?
: I do enjoy hunting and killing is part of it. It is a considerable
: challenge which I enjoy. The meat is much more savory knowing I harvested
: it. As an aside, wild game tastes considerably different than beef or
: chicken, a nice change from the same old stuff. Similarly a mountain
: lion's hide has esthetic value to me knowing all the sweat I put into
: getting it.
So you do it for your own selfish reasons for the most part.
: I feel closer to nature than I do when backpacking. I know
: most of you don't understand this. I suspect you'll have to try hunting
: first. I feel most of you forget where the beef, chicken, etc. bought in
: nicely wrapped packages in the grocery and leather shoes, wallets, etc.
: came from. Is a farm animal any less deserving by your standards? To me,
: it's not important as long as I do my best to make it a quick kill. I'm
: not ready to be a vegetarian.
A farm animal is no less deserving than a wild animal. Some of the things
that are done to farm animals are nothing short of torture (Veal production
particularly comes to mind here). But pointing the finger at crueler practices
doesn't change the fact that hunting is cruel. Many hunters try to portray
hunting as some noble practice, but in reality its just killing animals for
your own personal enjoyment. You certainly have the legal right to hunt, but
lets show it for what it really is.
-Tom
George Boggs
>[....]
>
> I just find it confusing.
I'm terribly sorry. Perhaps it's better that you remain confused, as you
find it difficult to view matters from another's persepctive.
> How does assigning your subjective values
> regarding the degree of unpleasantness experienced by unknown mountain
> lions that may or may not become party to the hypothetical events you have
> described get us any closer to a sound rationale for or against the
> proposed ballot initiative (dealing with a policy binding on humans, not
> animals)? We are still discussing that, aren't we?
>
Speaking of subjective values, how do you find it appropriate to assign
the subjective value of "cruelty" to hunting, Todd? After all, it is you
who wishes to limit another human's freedom. Consequently, it is incumbent
upon you to provide a cogent rationale why. Unless, of course, you are
willing to abide by my contention that it is cruel for Todd to post his
drivel to a worldwide forum and subject others to his nitwittedness.
Sam A. Kersh
Thomas, what have you been smoking???
Sam A. Kersh
sa...@i-link.net
**************************************************************
* When President Clinton invited (CPT) O'Grady to the White *
* House for lunch, they swapped war stories. O'Grady told *
* how he avoided the Serbian military and Clinton told how *
* he avoided the American military. *
* *
* Paul Kirschner, as quoted in Cooper's Corner, *
* Guns & Ammo Magazine. *
**************************************************************
Todd Ourston
> 1.) Were you or were you not suggesting that cougars were going the way
> of the grizzly before the ban was instituted?
The only thing I said about mountain lions prior to the most recent
hunting ban was that they had killed only 13 people in all of North
America in the past 100 years, as opposed to about 40 people per year who
are killed by bees. Quote me if I'm wrong.
> 2.) Are you or are you not suggesting in your response that the current
> proposal will result in unregulated cougar hunting and the eventual
demise of the species?
I didn't say anything of the kind. If I did, you would have quoted it,
right? But, if we accept the justification for the change of policy given
in the newspaper article to which I replied in my letter--that allowing
hunting as per prop. 197 would save us from the supposedly terrible threat
of mountain lion attacks--then we must assume that the hunting will wipe
out the mountain lion population. For as long as there are mountain
lions in the wild, there is a small risk of a mountain lion attacking a
human.
> >I see nothing in my position that is not above the board unless we start
> >with the understanding that the forces behind the proposed law are lying
> >through their teeth about effectively eliminating the risk of mountain lion
> >attacks by killing them--as the article in the paper to which I replied
> >actually did.
> Political hysteria comes with the territory.....I didn't think the anti's were
> necessarily paragons of truth and virtue when the ban was being debated.
Well, let's just come back to a few basic points I made in my letter, then.
(1) DFG already has the authority to kill or delegate the killing of any
mountain lion that threatens people or harms property, pets, or
livestock;
(2) There is very little actual risk of mountain lion attacks on people;
(3) The practical way to manage that small risk is to help people
recognize and either prepare for or avoid those instances when the
risk is great enough to worry about at all;
(4) It is a rare treat to see mountain lions in the wild;
(5) Maintaining the hunting ban on mountain lions is consistent with all
of the above points.
> One point being bandied about in the current discussion is whether hunting the
> wilds will thin out the cougar populations in the suburban fringes. And of
> course one cannot hunt the fringe areas, too many people etc.
Is that really what prop. 197 says: that it would be illegal to hunt
mountain lions in fringe areas because there are "too many people,
etc."?
> So what happens
> if more appropriate cougar range is opened up through hunting? Do the "town
> cougars" stay in the fringe areas or do they move back? If the number of
> cougars are managed according to available habitat, do you end up with "town
> cougars" in the first place? I think it would be good to answer a few of these
> questions, emotions and hyperbole not withstanding, before dismissing anyone
> as lying through their teeth.
I think it would make sense to have those and other basic questions
answered before promoting prop. 197 as a public safety issue. But, you
see, even if the so-called town cougars move to Manhattan, that still
won't change the fact that the greatest potential for human-cougar
contact is in undeveloped lands where most cougars live and people go to
recreate. And it is also true that the very, very small risk of being
attacked by a mountain lion will still exist in those areas unless the
mountain lion population is wiped out. So, I think we can fairly say
that anyone who argues that hunting mountain lions will eliminate that
risk is either contemplating hunting them to the point that extinction is
likely, or they are lying through their teeth--assuming they have some
idea of what the hell they are talking about in the first place.
Todd Ourston
Tom Greene
: In article <4emti5$o...@nonews.col.hp.com>, to...@col.hp.com (Tom Greene) wrote:
: > [...]
: >
: > The question of why still remains. Killing animals to satisfy your tastes
: > seems somewhat selfish to me.
: >
:
: So I should stop because it seems selfish to you??
No, but you should admit to your selfishness. Admitting you have a problem
is the fist step in fixing that problem George.
-Tom
Colin Sword
>
> Are you sure about that? Relatively recently I heard about a lady jogger
> getting pounced on by one as she ran through a California park....
Actually, the woman was jogging just below some property adjacent to Auburn
Trails, a development about 60 east of Sacramento. Now don't get the wrong
impression. This is NOT a subdivision. Far from it. This area is wild and
full of all kinds of wild animals including bears. This area is in the Gold
Country of California, midway into the Sierras, just a little north of the
Gold Rush town of Coloma.
The cat was doing what she normally does: hunting. Because man has moved into
the mountains the wildlife has become less fearless of the human sent and may
even feed from human garbage. We see that alot with coyotes in Urban areas.
I is imparative that the Humans understand that they are the intruders and
should behave accordingly. If you are not ready to protect yourself don't go
into the forest, especially during the normal hunting times of the wildlife.
Animals have a right to live (no, I am not PITA, thank God) in their natural
habitat. Some species need to be harvested, such as deer, so that the herds
remain healthy and strong. The Cougar, or Mountain Lion if you will, is not a
herd animal and therefore the only justification is that it is a threat to the
Human species. The Humans are supposed to be smart enough to stay out of
harms way. Sometimes I have to wonder!!
If you have children in a semi-wild area, protect them and never leave them
alone. Do not allow them to leave your compound or camping area. There are
far more aggresive animals out there than the lion.
--
The Bear
*************************************************************
Speech is the index of the mind.
-Seneca
*************************************************************
Tom Greene
: Tom Greene (to...@col.hp.com) wrote:
: : Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
: : justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
: : face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food.
: Gee, I like chicken, beef, pork....... I think I need to kill them before I
^^^^
: eat them, or would you rather I eat them alive?
You like them, but you don't need to eat them. Many people live on strict
veggie diets.
: : Human beings
: : are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
: : non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
: : they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
: : kind.
: You're an idiot. I'm ashamed to see you're a Coloradoan (probably a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: California transplant anyway).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course personal insults and foolish assumptions don't make you look too
intelligent, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
: I'm a meat eater, no doubt about it. If
: you're not, that's okay with me, but don't try to ram your idiotic beliefs
: down my throat.
I'm not trying to ram it down your throat. I'm only trying to provoke some
discussion on the issue. If it offends you to such a great extent, don't
read it.
-Tom
Laszlo Nobi
: I think you mistakenly believe that evolution made us meat-eaters and
: this is not true. Look at your evolutionary brothers. Monkeys that
: are closely related to humans very seldomly eat meat.
i saw a probram on Discovery that showed a monkey killing another monkey and
eating it. Not all monkeys are vegetarians.
: In fact, your
: body doesn't digest meat well and has to do a great deal of work to
: convert animal protein into something usable. I think meat-eating came
: about because we developed such technologies as fire and weapons that
: made it possible to capture and eat animals.
Yep, and we hunters still like to do it.....
: Think of chasing down a
: deer with your bare hands, killing it, tearing through its skin, and
: eating the meat raw. Doesn't sound to appealing even if it could be
: done with your dull teeth and fragile finger nails.
We don't need to do that...we have tools to help us do it.
: No, evolution
: didn't intend for us to be meat-eaters. I think that's plain to see.
You think......
: We likely developed into hunters as humans moved to less hospitable
: climates and animals provided the only source of food during the
: winter. But now, through the miracle of agriculture, we can produce
: enough non-meat food to feed everybody.
I doubt it. Besides, if you plow up all the country to produce vegetables,
you destroy wildlife habitat.
: Try it for a while. You
: won't even miss meat after a few months.
No thanks.
Laszlo
Member: Wildlife Legislation Fund of America
National Rifle Association
Colorado Bowhunters Association
Ft. Collins Archery Association
PETA-- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
: -Tom
Laszlo Nobi
: Just because other people engage in cruel practices, that is not a
: justification for you to engage in your own cruel practices. Its time we
: face up to the fact that we don't need to kill animals for food.
Gee, I like chicken, beef, pork....... I think I need to kill them before I
eat them, or would you rather I eat them alive?
: Human beings
: are not meat eaters and the country is certainly capable of producing enough
: non-meat food for us to all have more than we need. People eat meat because
: they like the taste and that's a lame justification for killing animals of any
: kind.
You're an idiot. I'm ashamed to see you're a Coloradoan (probably a
California transplant anyway). I'm a meat eater, no doubt about it. If
you're not, that's okay with me, but don't try to ram your idiotic beliefs
down my throat.
Laszlo
Laszlo Nobi
: : Hunting, if done legally, is humane. In fact hunters pride
: : themselves on making a quick, clean kill and feel very badly if
: : it is a poor shot and the animal suffers. Under our current
: This is more of a moral issue. I consider killing animals inhumane
: whether its done quickly or not.
You're entitled to your (stupid) opinion.
: : Animals do not have rights.
: But why can't they have rights? Just saying they don't have rights
: doesn't answer the question of whether they should have rights. Even
: profoundly mentally retared people and comatose people have the right
: to live. We should at least grant that right to higher animals.
Animals shouldn't have rights, because along with those rights are
responsibilities. Animals don't have responsibilities. If the cougar has
rights, what about the deer he kills and eats? Doesn't the deer have rights
too? Animal rights are nonsense.
: If we restore some balance in nature, then animal populations will
: take care of themselves. The overwhelming majority of people don't
: need the meat they get from hunting to feed themselves.
No, I don't need to hunt my meat, but I *like* to hunt and I like wild meat.
Which part don't you understand?
: The same
: recreational value of hunting can be achieved without pulling the
: trigger.
Perhaps, but it doesn't put meat on the table.....
: Take your tag money and your gun money and donate it to
: predator restoration or wilderness protection. Do something positive
: for a change.
I suspect that most hunters have done more for wildlife than you ever have....