[RunawayJim]

So what you're saying is that as long as it doesn't interfere with the human need to consume and take up space, you don't care? That's what I'm getting from this, especially from that bison comment. Because the plains states have a lot of cattle ranches and fences, bison are expected to die off. Now take the Yellowstone moose example. Were there more moose because the wolves had been dying off or was that how it always was? I'm guessing, that the abundance of moose in the park was due to the fact that wolves had died off. That assumes that the moose population was smaller when the wolves were thriving.

Why are deer such a problem in many parts of the country (think Southern New England)? They don't have any natural predators anymore and the hippie dippy types are anti-hunting.

That said, I am a bit of a liberal hippie, though more of a realistic one than you might expect (see above statement). I consider myself more of a conservationist than anything else. Having entire species die off because we're encroaching on their habitat is never a good thing.

With regards to that dog picture, there's a good rule of thumb from that... don't leave your domesticated animal outside in nature without supervision (I read a great article on why it's important to keep your dog leashed while hiking, and it's for the dog's safety). There is no longer a natural habitat for domestic dogs and cats. They don't know how to protect themselves from their natural predators.

Now at the same time, I'm also not entirely convinced that re-introduction is a good thing. Anywhere there have been introduced or re-introduced species, things haven't necessarily gone as planned or hoped. Of course, homo sapiens is the biggest, most problematic introduced species in many of these areas, including Yellowstone.

[arctichomesteader]

Wolf populations need to be controlled just as others species. Contrary to what the "defender of wildlife" and PETA types think, humans are part of nature and have long served as a check on predators' populations (the natives of Alaska once practiced "denning" to control wolves, as one example). Wolves will wipe out entire herds of prey species in areas lacking wolf hunting or trapping pressure.

You can't introduce wolves to a place like VT and not allow carefully controlled hunting/trapping, or they'll destroy the prey species (which have already been in a long decline as logging has died out here, leading to poor quality habitat). I don't think VT could support more than one or two small packs of wolves, and they'd need to be kept in check.

The animal rights groups are doing no one any favors, not people, not animals.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Wolf populations need to be controlled just as others species. Contrary to what the "defender of wildlife" and PETA types think, humans are part of nature and have long served as a check on predators' populations (the natives of Alaska once practiced "denning" to control wolves, as one example). Wolves will wipe out entire herds of prey species in areas lacking wolf hunting or trapping pressure.

You speak as though there is a "type" of animal rights activist, as though there is broad agreement among each other and between groups like PETA and Defenders of Wildlife. This is not the case.

You speak as though AR folks are unaware that humans are part of nature (or were, until some humans decided that all of nature should be co-opted as nothing more than a supply chain for human wants). You think the AR movement is unaware that humans serve as a check on predator populations. In fact, we know for a fact that human predation is wiping out many top-of-the-food-chain predators to the detriment of all.

You speak as though AR folk are of a similar pattern, when they are not. In fact, millions of us are from diverse backgrounds and beliefs, including those who were once hunters, ranchers, animal farmers, vivisectionists, and trainers of animals in entertainment -- in addition to the millions of regular folks who once consumed animals and their secretions but chose a more humane lifestyle.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

The animal rights groups are doing no one any favors, not people, not animals.

I don't know about trying to do anyone "favors." Doing my part to reduce violence and killing whenever possible seems to me a good way to live, no matter what you think of it. Going vegan was my first and biggest step; the many nonhuman animals (including my own cats) must eat flesh to live, but I needn't consume flesh or animal secretions for any purpose to be radiantly healthy and joyful. I see the AR movement refining strategies over time and responding to an ever-changing world. Sadly, as always, there remains disagreement over the strategies will best move us toward a common goal of a more humane world for all.

Your stating your viewpoint as if it was fact does no one any favors, not people, not animals.

[PAblackbear]

The Moose would suffer the most from Wolves and the population is already down in the NEK from what it was five years ago. VT F&G has been giving out too many Moose licenses.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Sherylcatmom

You speak as though there is a "type" of animal rights activist, as though there is broad agreement among each other and between groups like PETA and Defenders of Wildlife. This is not the case.

You speak as though AR folks are unaware that humans are part of nature (or were, until some humans decided that all of nature should be co-opted as nothing more than a supply chain for human wants). You think the AR movement is unaware that humans serve as a check on predator populations. In fact, we know for a fact that human predation is wiping out many top-of-the-food-chain predators to the detriment of all.

You speak as though AR folk are of a similar pattern, when they are not. In fact, millions of us are from diverse backgrounds and beliefs, including those who were once hunters, ranchers, animal farmers, vivisectionists, and trainers of animals in entertainment -- in addition to the millions of regular folks who once consumed animals and their secretions but chose a more humane lifestyle.



I don't know about trying to do anyone "favors." Doing my part to reduce violence and killing whenever possible seems to me a good way to live, no matter what you think of it. Going vegan was my first and biggest step; the many nonhuman animals (including my own cats) must eat flesh to live, but I needn't consume flesh or animal secretions for any purpose to be radiantly healthy and joyful. I see the AR movement refining strategies over time and responding to an ever-changing world. Sadly, as always, there remains disagreement over the strategies will best move us toward a common goal of a more humane world for all.

Your stating your viewpoint as if it was fact does no one any favors, not people, not animals.

I think it's readily understood in context of this thread what I'm referring to (the Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, HSUS, center for biological diversity, sorts, who repeatedly sue to prevent hunting and trapping of wolves and other animals).

Regulated hunting has not harmed any animal population.

There are entire caribou herds in Alaska that have been decimated by wolf overpopulation. Moose as well. Same is true in some areas in the lower 48, such as in MT and ID.

Conservation and wildlife management are based on science and aim to ensure healthy animal populations and a reasonable balance. The animal rights movement is based on emotions and assigning the notion of "rights" (a concept created by humans) to animals. The bambi syndrome is not based on fact, just emotions.

Former hunters, etc., in the animal rights movement are in the tiny minority. Studies have born it out that the animal rights movement is dominated by people who grew up in dense, urban areas.

You may feel fine without meat but that doesn't mean others will be. Optimal diet is complex and based on many factors, including genetics.

[Sherylcatmom]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Former hunters, etc., in the animal rights movement are in the tiny minority. Studies have born it out that the animal rights movement is dominated by people who grew up in dense, urban areas.

Dominated but not over a tiny minority. At any rate, wherever we come from our viewpoints are as valid as yours.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

You may feel fine without meat but that doesn't mean others will be. Optimal diet is complex and based on many factors, including genetics.

Verily so. I am married to a person who would love to be vegan and discovered that he is one whose body cannot live without animal protein; he has a serious autoimmune disease and cannot experiment past the awareness that it wasn't working for him. We have made peace with this.

I am not one who would legislate veganism, if anyone could legislate anything like that. I would, however, insist on complete transparency in food systems. Anyone who wanted to eat at the expense of another's life would have to know exactly whom they were eating and how s/he got to their plate. At least you who hunt eat animals who were allowed to live as animals before they were killed.

[PAblackbear]

[quote=Sherylcatmom;15195947]
Dominated but not over a tiny minority. At any rate, wherever we come from our viewpoints are as valid as yours.




Verily so. I am married to a person who would love to be vegan and discovered that he is one whose body cannot live without animal protein; he has a serious autoimmune disease and cannot experiment past the awareness that it wasn't working for him. We have made peace with this.

I am not one who would legislate veganism, if anyone could legislate anything like that. I would, however, insist on complete transparency in food systems. Anyone who wanted to eat at the expense of another's life would have to know exactly whom they were eating and how s/he got to their plate. At least you who hunt eat animals who were allowed to live as animals before they were killed.[/quote]



Lot of wisdom in that statement. So many of these farm raised animals never had a life.