U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Merry Christmas!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-20-2011, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Tejas
1,816 posts, read 1,798,491 times
Reputation: 1629

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCGranny View Post
TYVM, ManWNN!

It always cracks me up when folks pity the 'poor wld animals' but when parents in rural ID are escorting their chldren to bus stops with shotguns because of predatory wolves and even mountain lions in the area, it barely gets a mention - except for criticizing the parents for being fearful of nature.

Would the same thing happen in a city? Nah, they'll wait until some animal rolls a kindergartener at a bus stop - then criticize the authorities for not capturing the critter in a humane manner, and the parents for letting the kid stand at his bus stop instead of driving him safely to school.
Please. Nobody makes you live in the area where the wolves live. Who says you have the right to be there and shoot the wolves? I have no sympathy for you or your child if something happens to it on the way to school as a result of encounters with wild animals - this is what you subscribed to by moving into their habitat.

I am so sick of these rural ranchers and idiots shooting everything in the name of protecting their property like cattle or whining about the risk to their families. If you can't live with Mother Nature and understand the risks, move back to the city. What are the wolves or bears supposed to do? People encroach on their habitats daily, there is not a day gone by that some idiot buys/sells a secluded property that soon starts a whole slew of other secluded properties and soon the wolf is a "nuisance" for merely existing. Then people dedicate national parks to preserving the species and stupid people are still upset (Yellowstone is a prime example).

You know why I pity the "poor wild animals"? Because nobody speaks for them and nobody seems to understand that when wild animals disappear so will Man (biblical or not). Unfortunately this whole culture is based on aggression and domination and it is a direct result of the garbage fed in the Bible of how the beast is supposed to serve the man. I guess nobody read the parts of the Bible where it says that man is supposed to care for the beasts too. That craps stops the moment money changes hands for some nice remote piece of land to be developed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2011, 08:56 AM
 
4,572 posts, read 4,211,803 times
Reputation: 5188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend View Post
Please. Nobody makes you live in the area where the wolves live. Who says you have the right to be there and shoot the wolves? I have no sympathy for you or your child if something happens to it on the way to school as a result of encounters with wild animals - this is what you subscribed to by moving into their habitat.

I am so sick of these rural ranchers and idiots shooting everything in the name of protecting their property like cattle or whining about the risk to their families. If you can't live with Mother Nature and understand the risks, move back to the city. What are the wolves or bears supposed to do? People encroach on their habitats daily, there is not a day gone by that some idiot buys/sells a secluded property that soon starts a whole slew of other secluded properties and soon the wolf is a "nuisance" for merely existing. Then people dedicate national parks to preserving the species and stupid people are still upset (Yellowstone is a prime example).

You know why I pity the "poor wild animals"? Because nobody speaks for them and nobody seems to understand that when wild animals disappear so will Man (biblical or not). Unfortunately this whole culture is based on aggression and domination and it is a direct result of the garbage fed in the Bible of how the beast is supposed to serve the man. I guess nobody read the parts of the Bible where it says that man is supposed to care for the beasts too. That craps stops the moment money changes hands for some nice remote piece of land to be developed.

Do you eat Beef?
If so... ****!

(If not... what good are you?)

-I kid, I kid...


As to what 'gives you the right' to shoot the wolf...
Your GUN!


Samey same as gives the wolf the right to hunt down and kill his prey.
(The tooth and fang)
(Pretty sure that's a jack london line)


The fact you have no sympathy for a child torn to bits by a predator is disturbing and shows something, but let me enlighten you:

You know your city... your nice safe (LAUGHS) little city?
It used to be where the Wolves and other creatures roamed... till man took over.

One day the city's will fall down and the animals will inhabit it again.
The Earth Abides.

You must live with the earth, but sometimes that includes putting your back to the fire and thrusting with your spear. (OR your 30-30)


Oh, and the reason ranchers were upset about reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National park was because the wolves don't bother with borders and were leaving the park to eat the cows that millions of city dwellers rely on for their steaks and hamburgers.

Yoru post reminds me of that editorial where the person criticizes hunters and encourages everyone to buy their meat at the store... where no animals were hurt!


You should not be able to have an opinion until you have atleast killed and eaten something.

I've also been hunted (By man, but hey, that counts)

The interesting thing, is that (Like T. Roosevelt) IS that the HUNTERS are usually the biggest (Meaning those who actually DO) conservationists.
Because THEY are closer to nature that some (Fill in the blank) who drives a Prius, eats tofu, and has never been off a side walk in his life!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Where the mountains touch the sky
2,845 posts, read 2,338,886 times
Reputation: 3600
Great post Manwithnoname!!

I have to live around the "poor wolves" that were stuffed down our throat when an invasive non-native species of wolf was introduced into MY habitat. My family has been here long before there was a state.
There was a population of Rocky Mountain Timber wolves already here, (small population, yes, but they were the natives), when "money changed hands and Judge Malloy ruled that we could be subjigated to introduction of this distructive pestilance with no recourse.

The canadian greys have killed the remaining Timber wolves, decimated elk herds, slaughtered livestock unhindered while we have had our hands tied legally.
Originally the population was to have been declaired "recovered", (interesting term for an introduced species), when the populations reached 300 or 10 breeding pairs.

Right now in the region there are over 2000, and the eco-freaks just went back to court to stop a law passed by congress and signed by the president removing them from the protected list.

We can hunt them again, legally, and according to a local paper, as of Sunday, over 12,100 licenses have been sold for a quota of 220 wolves.
Does this sound like they are welcomed by the locals?

We live with Grizzly, black bears, cougar and other large preditors, and have for over 150 years. With the exception of Grizzly, (the hunting season for them ended in the 1070's), they are managed by hunting and predidation laws, and we can live with them.

Wolves are like a gang of thugs well connected at city hall who can destroy, kill and maim, with no reprecussions or recourse for the victims.

Wolves are thrill killers, and there are several instances of them killing 50 or 100 sheep in a single night.
On Monday, 9/26/2011, a woman in Idaho was attacked by one of these "cute cuddly fuzzy little creatures". This is the west and she was armed. The wolf was killed fortunately.
This is not the first, and won't be the last, but at least now we can protect ourselves against them.

This was not a native population that humans moved in on, this was an introduced invasive population, so THEY moved into OUR areas, not the other way around. The native populations were killed by the invaders.

Montana is a huge place with vast amounts of wilderness, but wolves don't stay there, cattle and sheep are easier to kill, and they do get killed regularly.

When canadian greys or Mackenzie strain wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, the northern elk herd numbered roughly 30-38,000 animals. Today the herd is between 4 and 6,000.

I have absolutely no idea what compaining about how Montana, Idaho and Wyoming handles pest problems has any bearing on the OP, except to prehaps illistrate that those who have a "theoretical" experience about how something is done rarely have any idea of what happens in practical application.
I refuse to loose my ancestrial home because some knothead eco-freak decided that a dangerous destructive animal had to be forcibly introduced into my backyard. I have the right to live where I choose, how I choose, and the idiots in the government and eco-freak lobbies will not dictate to me that I must move my home so some pest can roam free. You city people don't have to worry about protecting your property from human "wolves" that threaten your livelyhood, you hire mercinaries, (cops) to do that work for you while you sit back and complain about how they persecute the poor criminal, but keep your hands clean because you had no part in what the cops do in your name. What a load of bull fertilizer. No different from my people protecting themselves and their property from destruction, except we do it ourselves.

Some of those released animals from the news story were Grizzly and Black bears, cougars, as well as wolves, baboons, and other dangerous animals. Jack Hanna, a biologist was consulted, and concured that the animals were a clear and present danger to people living in the area. The safety of the residents is a primary concern, maybe not to all the posters on this board, but to the people tasked with keeping people alive.
The released animals were not wild animals returned to natural habitat, and as they were raised by humans, had no fear of humans. A clear set of circumstances that could have led to tragidy.

We live with dangerous animals here, part of our way of life. Several people every year are killed by Grizzlys in our forests and parks, or by other animals. We know it and accept it, and take precautions because it is our way of life.
Those folks in the story have no such experience or training, they were simply mobile meals to the critters once they got hungry. The authorities did the only thing they could, they removed the danger.

As we say out west, Wolves, Smoke a pack a day.
Triple S season never closes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Tejas
1,816 posts, read 1,798,491 times
Reputation: 1629
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
I have to live around the "poor wolves" that were stuffed down our throat when an invasive non-native species of wolf was introduced into MY habitat. My family has been here long before there was a state.
There was a population of Rocky Mountain Timber wolves already here, (small population, yes, but they were the natives), when "money changed hands and Judge Malloy ruled that we could be subjigated to introduction of this distructive pestilance with no recourse.

The canadian greys have killed the remaining Timber wolves, decimated elk herds, slaughtered livestock unhindered while we have had our hands tied legally.
Originally the population was to have been declaired "recovered", (interesting term for an introduced species), when the populations reached 300 or 10 breeding pairs.

Right now in the region there are over 2000, and the eco-freaks just went back to court to stop a law passed by congress and signed by the president removing them from the protected list.

We can hunt them again, legally, and according to a local paper, as of Sunday, over 12,100 licenses have been sold for a quota of 220 wolves.
Does this sound like they are welcomed by the locals?

We live with Grizzly, black bears, cougar and other large preditors, and have for over 150 years. With the exception of Grizzly, (the hunting season for them ended in the 1070's), they are managed by hunting and predidation laws, and we can live with them.

Wolves are like a gang of thugs well connected at city hall who can destroy, kill and maim, with no reprecussions or recourse for the victims.

Wolves are thrill killers, and there are several instances of them killing 50 or 100 sheep in a single night.
On Monday, 9/26/2011, a woman in Idaho was attacked by one of these "cute cuddly fuzzy little creatures". This is the west and she was armed. The wolf was killed fortunately.
This is not the first, and won't be the last, but at least now we can protect ourselves against them.

This was not a native population that humans moved in on, this was an introduced invasive population, so THEY moved into OUR areas, not the other way around. The native populations were killed by the invaders.

Montana is a huge place with vast amounts of wilderness, but wolves don't stay there, cattle and sheep are easier to kill, and they do get killed regularly.

When canadian greys or Mackenzie strain wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, the northern elk herd numbered roughly 30-38,000 animals. Today the herd is between 4 and 6,000.

I have absolutely no idea what compaining about how Montana, Idaho and Wyoming handles pest problems has any bearing on the OP, except to prehaps illistrate that those who have a "theoretical" experience about how something is done rarely have any idea of what happens in practical application.
I refuse to loose my ancestrial home because some knothead eco-freak decided that a dangerous destructive animal had to be forcibly introduced into my backyard. I have the right to live where I choose, how I choose, and the idiots in the government and eco-freak lobbies will not dictate to me that I must move my home so some pest can roam free.

Some of those released animals from the news story were Grizzly and Black bears, cougars, as well as wolves, baboons, and other dangerous animals. Jack Hanna, a biologist was consulted, and concured that the animals were a clear and present danger to people living in the area. The safety of the residents is a primary concern, maybe not to all the posters on this board, but to the people tasked with keeping people alive.
The released animals were not wild animals returned to natural habitat, and as they were raised by humans, had no fear of humans. A clear set of circumstances that could have led to tragidy.

We live with dangerous animals here, part of our way of life. Several people every year are killed by Grizzlys in our forests and parks, or by other animals. We know it and accept it, and take precautions because it is our way of life.
Those folks in the story have no such experience or training, they were simply mobile meals to the critters once they got hungry. The authorities did the only thing they could, they removed the danger.

As we say out west, Wolves, Smoke a pack a day.
Triple S season never closes.
Nobody said that wolves are "cuddly" or "fuzzy" or that such words and feelings are a motivation for protecting them. Get off your high horse and don't be offensive and demeaning by treating me like I am an idiot. Wolves and other species need to be protected because without them Man would not exist. Everywhere where we have gotten rid of these predators (and others) the habitat is turning into ruin, we have assumed the God stance that we will regulate nature and tell it how to flow. Elk herds have been decimated? Good, that takes away your reason to go and kill one, the wolves did the job for you. Where they have been removed elk and deer have wreaked havoc on the habitat, it is a scientific fact. As for the ranchers, study after study shows that they don't loose that many calves to the wolves, there were many attempts to even pay them for every loss if they could prove it was a wolf that did it and often times nobody showed up to collect. So, please, talk facts.

Why was the population of timber wolves so small in your area? Could it be that someone hunted them almost to extinction?

OD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Tejas
1,816 posts, read 1,798,491 times
Reputation: 1629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Do you eat Beef?
If so... ****!

(If not... what good are you?)

-I kid, I kid...


As to what 'gives you the right' to shoot the wolf...
Your GUN!


Samey same as gives the wolf the right to hunt down and kill his prey.
(The tooth and fang)
(Pretty sure that's a jack london line)


The fact you have no sympathy for a child torn to bits by a predator is disturbing and shows something, but let me enlighten you:

You know your city... your nice safe (LAUGHS) little city?
It used to be where the Wolves and other creatures roamed... till man took over.

One day the city's will fall down and the animals will inhabit it again.
The Earth Abides.

You must live with the earth, but sometimes that includes putting your back to the fire and thrusting with your spear. (OR your 30-30)


Oh, and the reason ranchers were upset about reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National park was because the wolves don't bother with borders and were leaving the park to eat the cows that millions of city dwellers rely on for their steaks and hamburgers.

Yoru post reminds me of that editorial where the person criticizes hunters and encourages everyone to buy their meat at the store... where no animals were hurt!


You should not be able to have an opinion until you have atleast killed and eaten something.

I've also been hunted (By man, but hey, that counts)

The interesting thing, is that (Like T. Roosevelt) IS that the HUNTERS are usually the biggest (Meaning those who actually DO) conservationists.
Because THEY are closer to nature that some (Fill in the blank) who drives a Prius, eats tofu, and has never been off a side walk in his life!
I have the same sympathy for anything living being torn to pieces - I don't know why human offspring would take precedence, is it because the Bible said so?

Hunters are not the greatest conservationists. Hunting is a huge industry worth billions of dollars and it includes the states taking a cut in it by way of charging licenses to "manage" the wildlife "harvest". The whole thing is really perverse if you ask me but I didn't structure it that way.

For every hungry hunter who bags an elk or a deer to feed his family (which is perfectly OK in my books), there are ten more who can comfortably buy meet at the grocery store but they still choose to demean the animal by hunting it for sport and fun. What does that say about them? Someone willing to shed blood of another living being just to make themselves feel good.

There were quite a few studies done on the reintroduction of the wolf into Yellowstone - they all concluded that the habitat improved immensely since the reintroduction - elk and deer are around but in much smaller numbers, they decimate much less vegetation, river banks have recovered, species not seen in a while are back due to this....

You know what I think? I think a lot of blood-thirsty sport killers (conservationist hunters as you call them) are pissed off that a) the elk and deer herds are down and b) that they can't hunt the wolf for sport. Since they know they can't say that publicly, they invoke the "wolves are dangerous thugs" stories or the "wolf ate my calf" story....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Tejas
1,816 posts, read 1,798,491 times
Reputation: 1629
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Great post Manwithnoname!!

I have absolutely no idea what compaining about how Montana, Idaho and Wyoming handles pest problems has any bearing on the OP, except to prehaps illistrate that those who have a "theoretical" experience about how something is done rarely have any idea of what happens in practical application.
I refuse to loose my ancestrial home because some knothead eco-freak decided that a dangerous destructive animal had to be forcibly introduced into my backyard. I have the right to live where I choose, how I choose, and the idiots in the government and eco-freak lobbies will not dictate to me that I must move my home so some pest can roam free. You city people don't have to worry about protecting your property from human "wolves" that threaten your livelyhood, you hire mercinaries, (cops) to do that work for you while you sit back and complain about how they persecute the poor criminal, but keep your hands clean because you had no part in what the cops do in your name. What a load of bull fertilizer. No different from my people protecting themselves and their property from destruction, except we do it ourselves.
Can you be any more stereo-typical?

Anyways, at some point animals need to be protected. You may like this or you may not but they will be protected. For centuries we have been playing this "I have a right to move in where I want" card. It helped decimate the native people, most animals, destroy wast amounts of land. Now at some point you need to ask yourself what gives you the right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Wu Dang Mountain
12,890 posts, read 12,956,774 times
Reputation: 8419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Some of those released animals from the news story were Grizzly and Black bears, cougars, as well as wolves, baboons, and other dangerous animals. Jack Hanna, a biologist was consulted, and concured that the animals were a clear and present danger to people living in the area. The safety of the residents is a primary concern, maybe not to all the posters on this board, but to the people tasked with keeping people alive. The released animals were not wild animals returned to natural habitat, and as they were raised by humans, had no fear of humans. A clear set of circumstances that could have led to tragidy.
Jack Hanna is connected somehow with this "animal refuge" - in the original article I read it said he was either an honorary board member or founder or something.

Now he's talking about the danger to the people living in the area.

Do you see the problem here? Yeah, I watched his TV show growing up and was thrilled by his exploits - but if he's such a big expert, then WHY would he be associated with an improperly-run "refuge" smack-dab in the middle of a residential area?

As I've already alluded to - it's people causing the problems with their treatment of animals, causing other people to kill those animals for the safety of yet more people.

See the common denominator in this story?

OK, before I'm accused of being off-topic again, I'm out of here - time to eat a nice big juicy burger!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:20 AM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,224 posts, read 2,524,121 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
... unlike the 50% in this fine nation who pay absolutely nothing (and probably make more than I do collecting welfare) and get back huge sums of money every year so We the People can buy them a new DumbPhone and cigarettes for the year.

Two words: FAIR TAX. Let the consumers pay for what they consume
Though I disagree with your details (the "50%" and the "make more than I do in welfare") I actually agree with you in the main -- particularly IF we add the very rich, like Warren Buffett, to the picture. They pay very little income tax on their income.

To modify your description: FAIR TAX -- let ALL the people pay a fair and consistent percentage of what they earn.

I mention Warren Buffett because he has publicly said, not once but several times, including before Congress, that the United States should dramatically increase the income taxes for the very rich (like him), and reduce the tax burden for the likes of you and me.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," [wrote Warren Buffet] in a New York Times opinion piece on Monday.

Then, a bit further down, we find "Last year my [Warren Buffett's] federal tax bill ... was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent."

Buffett on taxes: What he's talking about - Aug. 15, 2011

We now return you to the regularly-scheduled thread.

-- Nighteyes

Last edited by Nighteyes; 10-20-2011 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Where the mountains touch the sky
2,845 posts, read 2,338,886 times
Reputation: 3600
After reading the responses from ogend and SifuPhil, I actually think this topic does follow the original post.

People have a romantic idea about a place, or an animal, or a way of life without practical experience. They fall in love with the perception of something, not the reality.

Anthraphmorphism of animals, (giving them human characteristics) is a rampant problem with people who come to my state. They have no grasp of what life is like here, or the way the people here interact with the indiginous, (and introduced) wildlife, how the animals are such a part of our lives.

The perception seems to be that folks who live on the land are bloodthirsty maniacs wantonly slaughtering everything that doesn't fit into the "human" plan, that any animal that doesn't bring in cash is worthless and must be killed at any cost, that we should all just "get along" because we are all reasonable creatures and should live in harmony.

Sorry, that was a Disney cartoon, not real life.

The original wolves here were killed off. Statement of fact. They killed livestock and destroyed livelyhoods, so they were treated like vermin. There were still wolves here, living in remote places, and left alone.
Grizzly populations are exploding and the bears are moving from wilderness areas into populated areas causing conflict. Way it is.
Cougars, deer, elk, all live quite well on private land because the landowners accept them and allow it, and as long as the wildlife doesn't destroy the landowners crops or livestock, we enjoy them and promote them.

My father is a life long hunter and rancher. He has property that is used by Mule Deer, Antelope, Whitetail deer, moose, elk, black bear, mountain lions, grizzly and a myriad of small game and non game species.
We activly hunt the animals, they provide our winter meat, but much more than that, they are part of our way of life here. He could fence them out, they do eat his pasture, or have damage hunts to remove them, but he doesn't.

There is a small bunch of Pronghorn Antelope that live on my father's home place. Usually less than a dozen, but they have their fawns in sight of the house. The rut means bucks chasing each other through his yard. They shelter behind his buildings in storms, drink from his watertroughs and lick salt put out for the horses and cows.
He loves to watch them, has names for some, and on his land they are protected. He has no problem with me traveling 100 miles to hunt antelope and he enjoys eating the meat, but like most other agricultural people, the animals are who he interacts with all day everyday, kind of like co-workers in an office. Not a lot of people around, so watching "his" herd provides entertainment and friendship, sort of, and he does not want them hurt. He understands if the cross the fence, they can be harvested, and that is the way it is. They are a legal species to hunt in Montana.

City folk cannot understand the complex relationship with our wildlife we have here. We treasure them, hunt them, protect them, live with them, fight them, and cuss them sometimes when they destroy a fence or break into a haystack, but it is the way it is. We know them, we live with them, we don't think they are something they are not, human. We have lived with the wildlife just fine for over 150 years. It is because of hunters and ranchers that we have game laws, (Pittman Roberson), and buffalo as some ranchers caught and kept small herds of them to seed new herds.

It wasn't licensed hunters that destroyed many animal populations, but market hunters getting meat to sell, feathers for ladies hats, buffalo were killed off to remove the food source for the indians, not because of overhunting from private citizens.
Hunters pay for Biologists and wardens to protect animals and pay for research through hunting licenses and fees.
Hunters work with DNRs and Fish and Game to set limits on harvests, new laws to protect the animals, and buy game refuges and pay landowners for hunter access to keep the herds healthy.

When a purely destructive force like canadian wolves are introduced, they are not only a threat to our people and livestock, but to other wildlife.

Montana is almost 1/3 public land. Much of that is unihabitable mountains, but the area is larger than many of the midwestern states. This is a huge state, we have less than a million people, there is room for both human and animal.

Our situation could be explained in a manner where the government comes to you in town, declares there is not enough habitat for the rats who should be in an urban environment, and must introduce more rats into the area to "Balance the Ecosystem". So they will take your home to provide habitat for the rats.
That is how we see the wolves.

We work hard in this state to provide habitat and management of our wildlife so that it can flourish and we live pretty much in harmony with it. Yes, there are conflicts, but we handle them and move on.
When we cannot manage an introduced species, they overrun the native populations and destroy our game herds.
Our situation is not unlike the snakeheads or flying carp or the pythons in Florida or even kudzu for that matter, that have been introduced and destroyed what was there before.

Actions have consiquenses. If you want to have a commune, fine, but be aware people won't always get along. If you want to have wild places with wild animals to visit or live, remember that the folks who have invested years in keeping what we have, won't appreciate someone from another state with no skin in the game telling us how we must live.

Simple as that. Think before you destroy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
6,758 posts, read 5,699,686 times
Reputation: 6451
All I can say is that if a wild animal attacks me while I am in the wilderness, it's dead--357 between its eyes. If it's off doing its thing and not attempting to kill me, it lives.



Here is the equivalent of the flawed logic I've read on this thread:

So you got your throat slit as you walked out of the grocery store on the other side of town? Too bad. That's your fault. What makes you think you have a right to go into that neighborhood and not be subject to the "law of the jungle" in that area? If you don't want your throat slit, stay on your own side of the city and don't go into that "wild" environment.



Sorry friends, I will do what I need to defend myself from any assailant, be it man or beast. Sounds like we have some of the types from the University of Utah area who think it's perfectly fine to let mountain lions roam the neighborhoods in the city and kill pets and kids. Brilliant. Tell you what, as long as that mountain lion fears humans and avoids humans and stays up where it belongs, I'm totally cool with it. But as soon as it starts looking at humans as dinner, it's a rug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Self-Sufficiency and Preparedness
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top