Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I mean by the Mobil station all the way down to McD's. One solid strip now of stores, stores and more stores. Seriously? Manorville needs more stores? King Kullen, bagel shops, McD's, pizza and plenty more!!! Manorville does not need all these stores. Center Moriches, Riverhead, and many other towns very close by can handle all of Manorville. This is contributing to the already difficult traffic situation there. It's all in who you know. Fighting it for over 20 years did nothing.
There is 1 shopping center in the entire town. It would be nice not to have to drive all the way down to Center or out to Riverhead for anything useful. I am asking if there is any NEW businesses/stores going up over there - I am well aware of the king kullen shopping center.
Question 65:Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would otherwise get out of hand?
Hunters often assert that their practices benefit their victims. A variation on the theme is their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals do not die of starvation ("a clean bullet in the brain is preferable to a slow death by starvation"). Following are some facts and questions about hunting and "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening. Game animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve. But the hunters do not seek out and kill only these animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the strongest and most beautiful animals (for maximum meat or trophy potential). The hunters thus recruit the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending. The hunters restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy potential. If the hunters were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not perform their "service" for the skunk, or the field mouse? And why is hunting not limited to times when starvation occurs, if hunting has as a goal the prevention of starvation? (The reason that deer aren't hunted in early spring or late winter--when starvation occurs--is that the carcasses would contain less fat, and hence, be far less desirable to meat consumers. Also, hunting then would be unpopular to hunters due to the snow, mud, and insects.) So-called "game management" policies are actually programs designed to eliminate predators of the game species and to artificially provide additional habitat and resources for the game species. Why are these predator species eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically sound mechanism for controlling the population of game species? Why are such activities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increase the populations of game animals, if hunting has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation? The truth is that the management agencies actually try to attain a maximum sustainable yield, or harvest, of game animals. The wildlife managers and hunters preferentially kill male animals, a policy designed to keep populations high. If overpopulation were really a concern, they would preferentially kill females. Another common practice that belies the claim that wildlife management has as a goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation is the practice of game stocking. For example, in the state of New York the Department of Environmental Conservation obtains pheasants raised in captivity and then releases them in areas frequented by hunters. For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously injured and left to die a slow death. Given these statistics, it is clear that hunting fails even in its proclaimed goal--the reduction of suffering. The species targeted by hunters, both the game animals and their predators, have survived in balance for millions of years, yet now wildlife managers and hunters insist they need to be "managed". The legitimate task of wildlife management should be to preserve viable, natural wildlife populations and ecosystems. In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill hundreds of human beings every year. Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of human beings die from starvation each and every day. Should we assume that the reader will one day be one of them, and dispatch him straight away? Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this same consideration should be accorded to the deer. DG
Unless hunting is part of a controlled culling process, it is unlikely to be of benefit in any population maintenance. The number and distribution of animals slaughtered is unrelated to any perceived maldistribution of species, but is more closely related to the predilections of the hunters. Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure" or profit, has a history more closely associated with bringing animals close to, or into, extinction, rather than protecting from overpopulation. Examples include the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. With the advent of modern "wildlife management", we see a transition to systems designed to artificially increase the populations of certain species to sustain a yield or harvest for hunters. The need for population control of animals generally arises either from the introduction of species that have become pests or from indigenous animals that are competing for resources (such as the kangaroo, which competes with sheep and cattle). These imbalances usually have a human base. It is more appropriate to examine our resource uses and requirements, and to act more responsibly in our relationship with the environment, than to seek a "solution" to self-created problems through the morally dubious practice of hunting. JK
Please remember Ilona...Animals have no rights. Only humans have rights...and even some of them don't.
Animals are prey, can be eaten, can be shot...basically they are put here for our benefit to be used accordingly.
In the normal scheme of nature when humans die, humans get eaten by insects and animals. Everyone/everything ends up as someone/something else's dinner.
In the normal scheme of nature when humans die, humans get eaten by insects and animals. Everyone/everything ends up as someone/something else's dinner.
That's so true. If we stopped killing animals I would not have a nice thick steak. How do you think we get fur coats and leather handbags???
Please remember Ilona...Animals have no rights. Only humans have rights...and even some of them don't.
Animals are prey, can be eaten, can be shot...basically they are put here for our benefit to be used accordingly.
So you see a dog in the street you keep your foot on the gas?
like i said im not against hunting but what you said just made you look like the biggest hippocrate.
Question 65:Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would otherwise get out of hand?
Hunters often assert that their practices benefit their victims. A variation on the theme is their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals do not die of starvation ("a clean bullet in the brain is preferable to a slow death by starvation"). Following are some facts and questions about hunting and "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening. Game animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve. But the hunters do not seek out and kill only these animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the strongest and most beautiful animals (for maximum meat or trophy potential). The hunters thus recruit the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending. The hunters restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy potential. If the hunters were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not perform their "service" for the skunk, or the field mouse? And why is hunting not limited to times when starvation occurs, if hunting has as a goal the prevention of starvation? (The reason that deer aren't hunted in early spring or late winter--when starvation occurs--is that the carcasses would contain less fat, and hence, be far less desirable to meat consumers. Also, hunting then would be unpopular to hunters due to the snow, mud, and insects.) So-called "game management" policies are actually programs designed to eliminate predators of the game species and to artificially provide additional habitat and resources for the game species. Why are these predator species eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically sound mechanism for controlling the population of game species? Why are such activities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increase the populations of game animals, if hunting has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation? The truth is that the management agencies actually try to attain a maximum sustainable yield, or harvest, of game animals. The wildlife managers and hunters preferentially kill male animals, a policy designed to keep populations high. If overpopulation were really a concern, they would preferentially kill females. Another common practice that belies the claim that wildlife management has as a goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation is the practice of game stocking. For example, in the state of New York the Department of Environmental Conservation obtains pheasants raised in captivity and then releases them in areas frequented by hunters. For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously injured and left to die a slow death. Given these statistics, it is clear that hunting fails even in its proclaimed goal--the reduction of suffering. The species targeted by hunters, both the game animals and their predators, have survived in balance for millions of years, yet now wildlife managers and hunters insist they need to be "managed". The legitimate task of wildlife management should be to preserve viable, natural wildlife populations and ecosystems. In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill hundreds of human beings every year. Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of human beings die from starvation each and every day. Should we assume that the reader will one day be one of them, and dispatch him straight away? Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this same consideration should be accorded to the deer. DG
Unless hunting is part of a controlled culling process, it is unlikely to be of benefit in any population maintenance. The number and distribution of animals slaughtered is unrelated to any perceived maldistribution of species, but is more closely related to the predilections of the hunters. Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure" or profit, has a history more closely associated with bringing animals close to, or into, extinction, rather than protecting from overpopulation. Examples include the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. With the advent of modern "wildlife management", we see a transition to systems designed to artificially increase the populations of certain species to sustain a yield or harvest for hunters. The need for population control of animals generally arises either from the introduction of species that have become pests or from indigenous animals that are competing for resources (such as the kangaroo, which competes with sheep and cattle). These imbalances usually have a human base. It is more appropriate to examine our resource uses and requirements, and to act more responsibly in our relationship with the environment, than to seek a "solution" to self-created problems through the morally dubious practice of hunting. JK
Instead of posting propaganda, learn about the species and about hunting
1) Deer mate in the colder weather. A female will likely be pregnant over the winter. Males shed their antlers after mating season. Once that occurs, it is difficult to discern males from females.
With the NYS hunting license I can take a make, but not a female unless I have a doe tag. NYS DEC regulates doe tags -- some years only 1 tag might be issued to every 4th hunter. Taking a doe illegally results in significant fines.
2) The loss of natural predators (wolves and such) have allowed populations to grow unchecked. Your article cites mice -- which is laughable given most people set out traps, keep cats and ratters, hire exterminators and such to keep their population under control. Also, the mouse breeding cycle is far shorter and much more productive. Mice tend to have greater sources of food available to them as well.
3) A deer's home range is about 1 mile. They mate, raise their young, graze, and die there. They tend not to roam into other deer ranges. A herd grows and grows within this range putting far more pressure on the food supply. In some instances, trees damaged during winter feeding die.
4) licensing fees help fund wildlife management. What are you doing to help?
5) There is a great disconnect for city and suburban people as to where food comes from. There are plenty of people in rural areas throughout the US (and more specifically to us -- NYS and New England) for whom hunting is the way they provide meat for themselves.
So you see a dog in the street you keep your foot on the gas?
like i said im not against hunting but what you said just made you look like the biggest hippocrate.
I know you failed Reading Is FUNdamental but where did I say you can ABUSE animals?
Please remember Ilona...Animals have no rights. Only humans have rights...and even some of them don't.
Animals are prey, can be eaten, can be shot...basically they are put here for our benefit to be used accordingly.
B*S because in the end even 'humans' are animals. In fact many act more like "Animals" than animals do.
Sentient beings have EVERY SINGLE right to live their lives, just as we do. Animals are NOT put here for our benefit! Where do you get that notion? Oh yeah -- your book of fairy tales.
Takes me back once again to the fact that I DO NOT BELIEVE manKIND (I use that term losely) has Dominion over other creatures. I do NOT believe in YOUR Bible therefore any statement relating to that book has no relevance to me.
I've heard it all before. You've told me nothing new that I haven't heard before. Therefore, nothing for me to "remember".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
