Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-22-2009, 06:25 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,034 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

I shot a fox 15 feet from my door step last month. a pretty 24 lbs male. I am having it made into a coat for my newborn grand daughter. i shot the fox because he was trying to eat my pet, but I hate to kill and waste anything. No I did not eat the fox and my wife would not let me feed it to the dog. there is no predator for the bears except man and they compete for the seal food source of the natives of the artic. If they can get 35000 for guiding a hunt to regulate their compitition and get the meat also it is a win win. a polar bear can weigh 1600 lbs and have 4 to 6 inch claws. that means for a fair fight it would be 8 big men with clam hoes beating it to death. maybe that would be more humane. ps it was a lucky shot on the fox eye down the spine instant death no holes in fur and no blood on pelt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2009, 06:34 PM
 
960 posts, read 1,156,624 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
It has nothing to do with beliefs at all. It's science. You are using emotions instead.
Obviously, scientists disagree on this subject. Politics, business, and science are heavily intertwined these days. In many cases people are forced to believe the scientists who make the most logical sense to them.

Quote:
500 out of 25,000 is not a lot, and the scientists have determined it will not harm the population.
Other scientists disagree.

Quote:
And considering they have been hunted for thousands of years...I don't see them being hunted to extinction especially with them being so heavily protected now.
Are there more Inuit now than 500 years ago? Are there less polar bears now than 500 years ago, if only due to hunters other than the Inuit? The Inuit now have snowmobiles and guns. Obviously their balance of power vis a vis the polar bear has changed radically compared to just 100 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 06:38 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,382,711 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Obviously, scientists disagree on this subject. Politics, business, and science are heavily intertwined these days. In many cases people are forced to believe the scientists who make the most logical sense to them.


Other scientists disagree.


Are there more Inuit now than 500 years ago? Are there less polar bears now than 500 years ago, if only due to hunters other than the Inuit? The Inuit now have snowmobiles and guns. Obviously their balance of power vis a vis the polar bear has changed radically compared to just 100 years ago.
Which scientists say the Inuit hunting will lead to extinction? Cite your sources...

The number allowed to be taken is strictly limited based on scientific study of the population...nothing is based on how many Inuit there are. Guns have been in the Arctic since the 18th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,149,134 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Which scientists say the Inuit hunting will lead to extinction? Cite your sources...
I'd also like to see the answer to my question (which he/she is avoiding) on how many Cubs are born each year
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 07:05 PM
 
960 posts, read 1,156,624 times
Reputation: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
You're proposing atrocities (considered crimes against humanity under international laws) to stop hunting which has gone on for thousands of years without a problem, with the top scientists working carefully to ensure the hunting remains sustainable? Good lord...
Laws are subject to change. Safe to say that in the minds of millions of people, it's not an atrocity to relocate the Inuit if necessary to save the polar bear species. Or to imprison them, if they violate a law deemed necessary to save the polar bear. They need not have bad lives, just different lives. I don't agree with the scientists that think it's sustainable to kill 500 bears annually (out of just 25,000 in the world); they're obviously wrong (not top scientists), and other scientists seem to agree with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 07:18 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,382,711 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I'd also like to see the answer to my question (which he/she is avoiding) on how many Cubs are born each year
We aren't going to get our answers, I suspect...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 07:23 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,382,711 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heiwos View Post
Laws are subject to change. Safe to say that in the minds of millions of people, it's not an atrocity to relocate the Inuit if necessary to save the polar bear species. Or to imprison them, if they violate a law deemed necessary to save the polar bear. They need not have bad lives, just different lives. I don't agree with the scientists that think it's sustainable to kill 500 bears annually (out of just 25,000 in the world); they're obviously wrong (not top scientists), and other scientists seem to agree with that.
You've proposed some very sick things, based entirely on your emotions. Earlier you suggested hunting the Inuit. Forced relocations, throwing them in prison? For something they've done for thousands of years? Based purely on your emotions? You say you don't feel 500 polar bears can be taken sustainably...you have provided no evidence for that assertion. In fact, you said out of 25,000, none should be taken. That is absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:06 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,795,112 times
Reputation: 1548
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Even you could that that, I imagine. The problem is that you would have to do it in Canada, not Alaska. It's illegal to hunt polar bears in Alaska, even for Palin.

But lest see if you can comprehend the following:

1. By mortally (or not) injuring a bear with a spear, a knife, arrow, and such would cause a long and painful death to the animal. For example, a wound could infest, or could cause internal bleeding and take days if not weeks to kill it. By using a powerful weapon such as a high-power rifle of the correct caliber, the bear is killed almost instantly. This is a very efficient way to kill a bear, and the Canadian Fish & Game has set rules on the proper gun used for such hunts. Knives, spears, a stick, or kung-fu chops are illegal.

2. What matters to you more: what is used to kill, or the act of killing? I assume that what bothers you is "the killing," not what is used to kill. After all, if one is to kill, at least the most efficient method to end the suffering should be used. A high-power rifle that meets the Canadian hunting laws specifications is just an efficient tool for the task, and has the potential for avoiding pain to the animal.
You are missing my point. I am entirely against killing polar bears, but if these so called 'manly' pu**ies think they are reaffirming their 'manhood' by using high-powered rifles to slaughter, they can at least put themselves on some sort of competitive footing with the bear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,149,134 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT View Post
You are missing my point. I am entirely against killing polar bears, but if these so called 'manly' pu**ies think they are reaffirming their 'manhood' by using high-powered rifles to slaughter, they can at least put themselves on some sort of competitive footing with the bear.
Have you expressed your outrage to the Canadian Government???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 08:20 PM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,795,112 times
Reputation: 1548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Have you expressed your outrage to the Canadian Government???
No, just to the wimpo punks that like to gun down animals.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top