Some BIG Animals.....

Not an animal, but I have read that the largest living entity in the world is a subterranean fungus that's 4 or 6 inches under the ground in some forest and that it is several acres in size making its mass much greater than the largest tree.

I would think the largest tree weighs more than the largest whale, correct?

 

I understand BUT this was not the case.

This man just happened upon this bear and thought, yep I'll shoot it ... you know just for fun. That is different than going out to cull the population (and BTW who says that we should cull OTHER animals simply so the human animals can keep increasing THEIR habitat. We could learn to live with the land instead of fncking it like we currently do ... but that is another discussion).

I also just do not get why hunters want to kill an animal ... sorry like I said before, Hitler just wanted to kill animals too.

I don't even like to kill mechanical objects, let alone something with a pulse.

Pete

 

That is incorrect. He had obtained a bear tag. This means he had paid a substantial fee in order to be allowed to shoot the bear. He brought along a rifle of sufficient size and power to bring down a large bear.

It is true that they were not specifically just bear hunting. But as I said getting a shot at a bear like this is something experienced hunters can go decades looking for. So it can often be more a matter of being prepared for such an encounter while doing other hunting.

No, it is not. The Fish and Game people do not recruit hunters to go "cull the herd" unless there has been an unexpected population explosion. Game populations are managed on an ongoing basis by regulated hunting. The hunters, while doing what they love to do, are in fact managing the animal population in such a manner to ensure the overall population thrives.

Humans have been the deer and bear and many other animals biggest natural predator for thousands of years. Killing these animals IS living with the land. If humans are not killing these animals, nature becomes out of balance and the problems I have discussed become reality. Hundreds of years ago, hunting put food on the table for most people. Today we have grocery stores and most do not need to hunt. But just because man does not need to hunt deer for food does not mean the deer suddenly understand not to breed any more. Those who hunt for sport are keeping nature in balance.

Nobody wants to live on Kodiak island or the islands of Prince William sound. They could not do so if they did desire because it is national park land. The hunting not only pays for this, it keeps the animal populations in control and provides valuable feedback to the rangers on how the habitat is doing.

The hunters ARE the environmentalists! They are ones using it, preserving it, paying for it and they are the ones who truely care the most about it. They are LIVING it. All the arm chair quarterbacks at their computer screens who have never been in the wilderness, never hunted, never learned about how all this works yet see a photo of a dead bear and declare it somehow wrong.... you are the ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISTS. You support concepts that if put into reality would be a disaster for the wild animal populations simply because such concepts make YOU feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Now you really lost me. Killing a bear makes you Hitler?

Like I said.... all the liberal touchy-feely "I pity the poor helpless animals who are being brutally murdered by the evil and disgusting hunters" have no idea what hunting is all about or how the actual wild animal habitats function.

Ask a game warden or park ranger sometime.


Terry

 

If we don't start killing more bears up north, they're going to start attacking our nuclear submarines.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ha, ha...good one Arlie!!

 

LOL, Arlie!

Terry, as a non-hunter I actually agree with you except for the point of nature going out of balance if we don't kill animals. It only really goes out of balance in relation to our human perspective of balance. Many species thrived in North America, as well as other parts of the world, before humans were introduced. We are a bit of a "wild card" in the food chain, since our intelligence (and appetite!) allows us to hunt outside of our physical place in the chain. Without a presence of human influence, natural selection dictates that animals will obviously die off to a level at which they can sustain themselves. I don't disagree that levels of some animals need to be controlled, but it's for the convenience of humans to do so, not a preservation of natural balance. Any balance that needs maintaining does so because WE fncked it up to begin with.

 

FOOKIN 'A!!!! NOW THAT IS INSANE! YIKES!

BTW - non hunter here ... I'm too much of a *****. I feel it's a shame he killed the bear because of its exceptional size and age, but I also agree with population control ...

 

Well said Gilles27.

Terry,

Have you ever watched the film called 'I Robocop' (I think that is the name). The story (assuming you haven't seen it) is about a computer taking over the control of the human race, because naturally it decides that it knows what is best and how to ensure our survival better than we do.

This is exactly what we are doing to these animals. What gives us the right to play God and fnck with nature? ... would we like somebody doing this to us?.

In the end WHY can't we just live and let live instead of taking over everything? We treate all animals like they are our property ... WTF?

Why (and this is my personal piss-off) do fncken docters keep inventing different ways for parents that cannot have children to have fncken children. We already have enough bloody people ... and nature has decided (how ever cruel that might be for the parents-to be) that those people cannot have children. Oh but no, we human beings are so fncken superior that we must not let that happen. Even comparing humans in different areas, we have people starving and yet in the well to do areas we have idiot doctors inventing as many different ways to have another child ... and yet the easier route (and more sensible option) of improving the life of children in the not so lucky countries is not taken ??? Crazy.

How can you not understand that a bear and a human are BOTH just animals?. Do you think so lowly of animals that killing an animal (non-human one ... maybe?) means nothing to you?

We are all animals, we just have been able to use tools better and think ... but that does not give us the right to control all others and cull as we please. Hitler decided that he should cull Jews ... Jews are humanbeings, and thus animals ... just like the bear(s).

Again I just cannot understand the fun in killing anything ... except brakes and tyres
Pete

 

Uhhhhh before humans were introduced? Are you referring to pre-historic times as an ideal model of how animal habitats should be?

I agree that in far past history before humans existed animals got along without human predators. But of course they had other predators. You are not desiring to see a return of substantial numbers of T-Rex and Velocaraptors and such are you?

Is how the world was hundreds of thousands of years ago really all that relevant?



[/QUOTE] Without a presence of human influence, natural selection dictates that animals will obviously die off to a level at which they can sustain themselves. I don't disagree that levels of some animals need to be controlled, but it's for the convenience of humans to do so, not a preservation of natural balance. Any balance that needs maintaining does so because WE fncked it up to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Yes, nature would find its own balance in managing populations if humans did not exist. Not only would populations grow sick and die off when their numbers exceeded what the ecosystem could support, but natural predators would arise as well.

I am not sure of your whole point though.

It seems that you are saying that hunting is bad and killing animals is bad and we should not do it, yet you understand that if we do not more animals will die far worse deaths. So you support nature arriving at a balance through animal populations growing abnormally large and then dying off from malnutrition and resulting disease and the process repeating all because you dont like hunting?

I find that highly ironic.



Terry

 

Uhhhh it seems you consider animals and humans as the same and equal in rights. Except of course that animals dont think, dont care what rights are and many of them if you piss them off will kill you without any moral qualms at all.

Besides, your wrong about nature anyhow. Nature dictates survival of the fittest and establishes a food chain. We as humans are on top because of our superior intellect, dexterity and skill. Thus, as residents of the top of the food chain it is indeed normal that we do whatever we wish with those below us.

Ever seen a cat kill a mouse just for the heck of it and then play with the carcass? Ever seen a male Lion kill and eat its own young? Ever see a Gorilla kill another gorilla to become the Alpha male and get all the poontang? Ever seen a group of dogs kill a new dog introduced to the group just because they do not like it?

In nature, it is perfectly normal for animals to kill each other for any number of reasons including just for the thrill of it.

Well, because they want kids. Its natural to want to propogate. We want to love and nurture our young. That is natures way as well. I do see your point however. The same basic point gets my goat as well, but on the other end of the spectrum. I dont have an issue with folks wanting and having kids, but I think its nuts how we will do everything possible to extend and old person life no matter how poor the quality of life they will have or how much it will cost.

Putting someone who is brain dead on life support for 20 years just so they will be "alive".... stupid in my book.

Because we are NOT both "just animals". WE are a superior animal. We are blessed with intellect, skill and dexterity that makes us dominant. AS such, as per the laws of nature we can do whatever we wish regarding other animals. There is no moral obligation to treat animals as equal.

You seem to think that just because we are both animals we have equal rights. Thats just absurd. THEY ARE DUMB ANIMALS! They do not have rights.

Yes... killing an animal means nothing to me. That does not mean I do it, because killing animals is not something I actually find enjoyable. I tend to feel sorry for the little SOBs (except squirrels... I hate those freaking rats with fuzzy tails and I grew up taking great pleasure in blowing them away. My mother paid me a dollar per pest, they ate her tomatoes you see). But I have friends who hunt and love it and my brother does so and I do not give it a second thought. Its no big deal, they enjoy it.

Are you a Vegan? I assume so, because otherwise you are an incredible hypocrite. You say animals have rights and we should not kill them and we are interfering with nature.... please do not tell me that you own leather shoes or that you eat meat.

Do you use pesticides in your home? Ever stepped on an ant? Do you cry when that happens? I honestly hope you are not such a hypocrite that you massacre insects by the millions yet you feel animals have equal rights to humans. A roach after all is just making its way in the world as well and what right do YOU have to just kill it arbitrarily because you happen to think its "gross"?


Terry

 

Terry,

What makes an animal such as a bear different to a human animal?

The answer is the thumb and our brain thus we are able to grab things and make tools and develop our thinking over time.

Thus what is the difference between a say mentally disabled person and a bear?

Unfortunately the mentally disabled person is a DUMB ANIMAL too ... thus instead of going out in to an animals habitat (not yours remember ... you had to purposely go looking for these animals to cull) you could just go to a mental institution ...

Please also explain why an animal that was also born into this world has no rights where you have all the rights. Your were simply born (in a remarkedly similar process ... again we humans are just animals) into this world too.

The only difference is you know how to use a gun. This gun is all that you say makes you superior ... what happens if I train a bear to shoot?. Will it now have your respect as a breathing, eating, sh!tting, emotional animal ... just like a human?

I never said I do not support killing an animal for a justifiable reason. Culling because their population growth will interfer with OUR needs and wants is not a justifiable reason in my book.

Again I do not set out to kill an animal or an insect. If a roach invades MY house I will kill it ... but I do not go out in the back lawn and hunt them down. There is a difference.

The bear killer could have simply taken a photo and told the story ...
Pete

 

TSpringer is spot-on.

Hunting, which is regulated, is effective Wildlife Management. Think of these critters as "wild consumers." If "wild consumer" population is low, no hunt. If "wild consumer" population has swelled, since the critters can't manage themselves, tags are issued. This is part and parcel of the Big Picture of Wildlife Management.

This also means if someone is caught poaching, they are dealt with in a manner which underscores the importance of allowing populations to grow when nature wipes itself out, without man having a hand or say-so in the matter which reduced population or forage. It's not about kill-kill-kill, it's about live-live-live. That is the view, long and short.

Everybody wins, including the surviving animals of the same breed as that which was culled from the herd. This ensures their well-being, whether they later die by many "natural" means or "artificial" means as not mindless, but, thought-out, wholesome hunting.

 

Why even differentiate between species if I'm bigger, stronger, faster, or smarter then someone I walk past on the street, why don't I kill them and take their shoes to put on my wall, afterall, the human population is already beyond what the planet can sustain.

now, this is of course just an example, and not at all how I think.

 

I do understand this point but it also applies to us humans ... but we do not do it, do we!

We would reduce green house gases, crowding, food needs, etc. if we just culled a few humans every year ... heck our taxes would be reduced also.

Thus I propose that we start next week ... any volunteers?, how about you Terry or you Wax.

All these things are great when it is somebody else or some other animal ... again watch 'I Robot' or 'I Robocop', I expected a cr@p film but it touches on this point very well.

We have no right (IMO) to treat animals as and how WE please.

I do understand the survival of the fittest and believe in it ... ofcourse it makes perfect sense ... but culling is interferring and picking and choosing who lives. That bear was big and strong, the law of nature and survival of the fittest SHOULD have determined that it lived, and bred, etc.

Instead some small penised looser with a gun and no brains killed it.
Pete

 

Exactly!

Hunt or be hunted ... is how some think, and very old fashioned and also very old school English. Others have continued to develop their brain (the major differentiation from mere animals) ...

I would love to see hunters be brave and instead hunt other hunters. Whoever survives is the winner, and quite rightly is the strongest and most worthy hunter ... oops I think we already do that it is called war.

Pete
ps: I have work to do now, as interesting as this discussion has been.

Personally I think the difference between a hunter and say someone like me, is simply that some like to inflict pain on others ... like bullies at school or something. I believe I am more secure within myself ... and I definitely do not think I am superior, just different.

 

didn't they make a crappy movie like that in 80's with Arnold in it.

 

Dude, you must be kidding about balance of nature. Nature will balance itself out. Where are you from anyway?

 

The human is a HUMAN BEING! Not just an animal. Human beings have legal rights under the law.... animals do not.

I really do find this amazing. You seem to honestly think that animals have the same rights as humans.

Humans think. We reason. We utilize deductive logic and higher intellect. I doubt you could train a bear to shoot a rifle, clearly not with any accuracy. But more to the point... you never train the bear to BUILD the rifle.

Wow. So, it is ok to kill an animal for a justifiable reason. Such as for food or clothing? Who gets to decide what is justified and what is not? You?

What should be done to those who kill an animal for reason that according to you are not "justifiable"? Jail? A fine? Kill the person too. Should the death penalty apply for those who kill an animal since they have the same rights as humans in your book?

This hunter skinned the bear. He had the fur made into a rug and the skull mounted for decoration. So, he now has both of these things. Are you going to tell me its just fine for cows to be butchered so you can have a steak and leather interior in your Ferrari but this hunter cannot shoot a bear because you say using the hide for a rug is not justifiable?

Do you honestly support ending all US wildlife conservation programs? Just make hunting illegal across the board, and let all the animal populations fend for themselves?

You want animals to have the same rights and you are against killing them..... but you are against wildlife managment that if ended would bring about death and suffering for millions of animals.

Nobody is going to start killing humans to manage the overall population in some way...... BECAUSE they are humans. Humans have rights and protections under the law. These same rights do not extend to animals and that is fact whether you like it or not. You can join PETA and become a radical and try and change this law.... but you will not have much luck.

You say you do not set out to kill an animal or insect.... but if a roach is in your home you kill it. Well, that does not sound like an accidental killing. Sounds to me like you dont like the roach so your murder it. Why? Because the roach is not convenient to your lifestyle? What did he ever do to you? Same with rats. Do you allow rats in your home?

I bet if you got rats living in your home you would kill them and you would not even eat them or use the skin or anything. You would kill them for no other reason than they are in your basement and you dont like it. What gives you that right? They are just animals.... JUST like us. According to you they have the same rights as us. Yet I am pretty sure you would kill them simply for your convenience.

Does the rat not have the same "rights" as the big bear? After all, you say we are all just animals and we all have the same rights.

Your position is untenable.



Terry

 

I am from Georgia.

Nature would balance itself out, you are correct. The animal populations, now that natural predators are removed (assuming you make hunting illegal) would swell to levels the ecosystem could not support. Then they would get malnutrition, get sick and many would die. The overall population would stay at a level right at this point. The population would suffer.

This is not speculation. It has happened over and over again. Liberal tree huggers with no clue have in many cases gotten hunting banned in areas. When this happens, the animal population suffers.

In the Jeckyl Island case here in GA, the deer population became so large the ecosystem could not support them all. The deer were all starving thin, in dangerously poor health and dying. The overall population suffered with far more dying than were ever killed by hunters.

Now, most of us out here realise that hunting is natural, wildlife managment efforts are smart and work and the entire system works pretty well.

I am amazed that the liberal tree huggers who would claim to be environmentalists are the ones who support policy that would be a disaster for the very animals they claim to love.


Terry

 

Uhhhhhh I am a tad confused at this point.

I cannot tell if you are trying to say that all hunting should be banned because we do not have the right to kill animals and Wildlife Managment efforts are evil.....

Or are you saying we need to implement public policy that takes active measures to reduce the human population to some level by allowing the hunting and killing of humans.

Keep in mind.... the hunters are the ones with the guns and knowledge of how to use them. So if we implement your policy of "culling humans", the hunters are the ones who will be getting the license, buying tags and going human hunting. I would imagine a liberal tree hugger would make a nice trophy in the den!

Yes we do and you are a hypocrit if you say otherwise. As I pointed out before.... you eat animals, you use leather products. You say we have no right to treat animals as we please, yet you do just that. With you, as long as someone else does the messy work of killing, its not the same. Well that is wrong. IF an animal dies to provide you with shoes.... you are no different from this hunter.

IF you wear leather shoes.... a cow died for that. How is that any different from this bear hunter getting a bear skin rug?

As I said before, if you had rats in your house you would kill them. For no other reason than they being an inconvenience to you. You would not even eat them or attempt to use the fur... you would just murder them simply because you dont like them.


Terry

 

Makes since now, Terry as per my first post. I have no problem with hunting. What I do have is a problem with people just for fun. I have plenty of friends who hunt with rifles but only kill what they eat. POINT, EAT what they KILL. I do have a problem with people killing animals for fun. The people that do kill just for fun have a deeper issue here of just "helping" the ecosystem. If you think that they are just "helping" the ecosystem then either you are very young in age or naive or both.

People that need to kill animals have deeper issues. To have that "blood" lust.

How old are you and what do you do for a living?

 

I am 37 and I own a mortgage company.

As I said, I do not hunt. I used to growing up but I honestly just do not enjoy it all that much. I would rather go boating or race cars.

My little brother is a big hunter. He bow hunts deer and boar and he hunts turkey. He does eat what he kills. I also have a racing buddy who goes on big time game hunts. He has hunted elk, boar, bear and most recently Rams in the Canadian rockies. His stories of how difficult it was to track and finally get a shot on a big ram are pretty exciting.

Whether or not you eat it to me really isnt a big deal. In the case of this thread, they did not eat the bear but they did use the hide to make what has to be a fantastic rug. Get a meal.... get a rug.... whatever the animal is being used.

I would agree that just killing the animal and not using the carcass at all would be pretty wasteful. I really do not think many hunters do this. Remember, hunters ARE environmentalists. They love the animals and cherish the time they spend in the wild. Most deeply respect the animals they hunt. That may be hard to understand if you have never hunted.

While its not my cup of tea, I certainly do not presume to pass any judgement on those who do enjoy it.



Terry

 

Read God, Guns and Rock 'n' Roll by Ted Nugent.

Then you'll understand. If you can't be arsed to read it, though you should, then at least check out Ducks Unlimited (who put on fantastic parties, btw), where you'll see helpful info like this:

There are several online resources that show hunting seasons and regulations across the United States. Contact your state agency at the Recreational Opportunities on Federal Lands web site at http://www.recreation.gov; your local Fish and Wildlife Service at http://offices.fws.gov/; or access hunting information through the http://www.huntinginfo.org web site.

 

Not passing judgement on your brother or friends. Unfortunately, we have many circumstances that the "hunters" didn't really care about nature. i.e. The passenger pigeon, the Great Awk. I haven't seen things around anymore, why? They are extinct. I'm sure your brother and friends are environmentalist. I'm sure that they are law bidding citizens unfortunately we have a thing called Poachers. Not many Tigers left in India as used to be. People want their skins and paws. I believe that Texas has more tigers than most countries. Why because some stupid people think that they would be great pets.

I have no problem with hunting. I think that it is a skill what I have a problem with are people who poach for profit or kill just for the fun. If a person needs the fun or "high" of hunting. Try a sport like boxing or Martial Arts and get it that way.