EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:12 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
Hello CatLady??
Want to actually answer the questions that I asked??

Caroline,
All you are doing is repeating old rhetoric and propaganda. You are spending way to much time finding and watching things that are made to do not but get an emotional reaction out of you......and it seem to have worked.

I pose the same questions to you as I did to CatLady.

Are you trying to make "yourself" feel good or do you really care about the animals??
And can you deal with not feeling good, even feeling horrible, about something, if it ultimately is in benefit of the animals??
Are you capable of putting the animals welfare above your feelings??

Try to respond by providing "direct answers" and not more AR misinformation, which has been proven to be incorrect over and over again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:15 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
CatLady wrote:
The TV show itself is not that important, it was a very small example of the many things that may go towards influencing us in life which help shape what we believe or do or don't do in life. It was not intended for just for pro hunters to answer.

Thanks for your replies so far.


Just curious, when did I become pro-hunting??

Looks like you are so busy playing sides.....pro-hunting / anti hunting, which is interesting because this should be about the animals. Remember them??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:56 am
Posts: 53
Location: NL
Quote:
Hello CatLady??
Want to actually answer the questions that I asked??


Nope, have nothing really much to reply to on that first post, I think that you just like standing on a soap box IMHO. The only thing that I will mention about that post is total misinterpretation of mine, still not sure whether its deliberate or not.
Many things we experience and come across in life shapes what we think and gives us a choice to learn more, to see other folks views and to form a POV..


Quote:
Looks like you are so busy playing sides.....pro-hunting / anti hunting, which is interesting because this should be about the animals. Remember them??


How could I forget animals?, LOL
I do not remember giving you any particular label, but isn't a pro hunter someone who agrees with hunting, at least? I am not playing sides either.

I asked a question because I am curious to know about how these things come about in people. Maybe I am trying to understand people...before jumping on any bandwagons and preferring the proverbial sound of my own voice.



CL


Last edited by CatLady on Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
"Not one of you could careless about starving deer....."

Your crystal ball needs a cleaning, Caroline.
My father and I hunted for years: neither of us gave a dang about antlers. It was about the venison. My father was of the view does were the best eatting, so those were his goal. I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow. Sorry, Caroline: you keep whimpering about all this 'sport' hunting; I'll just keep on feeding my family and friends. If you refuse to see any difference, I guess you're stuck with yourself on that half-truth.

Classic distraction on the CWD, Caroline. Clearly, you've posted on this subject before and are used to being cornered by facts. Nothing like hysterical whimpering, supplemented by nightmarish visions based on fantasy-land disasters to hide the real picture. You ARE the classic ARA.....

'Legalized terrorist'

You must have spoke with Ante once upon a time, Caroline. He's spewed that noise-without-substance more then once. In fact, he started a thread based upon it. I'll see if I can bump it for those interested.

I'm curious of your world-view, actually.

A couple questions, if I may:

Which is the largest location ever to effectively use deer birth-control? Which state has implimented a state-wide use of these methods? How well did they work?

Who do you feel should pay for the implimenting of these deer birth-control methods? Should locals be able to decide for themselves what method they wish to use for deer-control?

Define what exactly you think 'sports' hunting is. Do you feel it's different then hunting strictly for food?

The Ante thread I mentioned has been bumped. For those actually interested in the numbers regarding hunting accidents, page 8 of that thread has some info.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:19 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
animallover wrote:
Hello CatLady??
Want to actually answer the questions that I asked??

Caroline,
All you are doing is repeating old rhetoric and propaganda. You are spending way to much time finding and watching things that are made to do not but get an emotional reaction out of you......and it seem to have worked.

I pose the same questions to you as I did to CatLady.

Are you trying to make "yourself" feel good or do you really care about the animals??
And can you deal with not feeling good, even feeling horrible, about something, if it ultimately is in benefit of the animals??
Are you capable of putting the animals welfare above your feelings??

Try to respond by providing "direct answers" and not more AR misinformation, which has been proven to be incorrect over and over again.


Instead of changing the subject why don't you try to answer my questions that not one wildlife serial killers could answer instead they do what you do by calling it 'propaganda" even though they know darn well the information I have was gathered from "deer management" websites. So whats with all the "production" of deer , the "fawn recruits", "fawn crops", "provided deer for millions of hunters" type comments I keep seeing if you are all "complaining" about Deer Vehicle Accidents and "starvation" and claim to be about "reduction" of deer?
Here is where I posted the question.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:55 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
"Not one of you could careless about starving deer....."

Your crystal ball needs a cleaning, Caroline.
My father and I hunted for years: neither of us gave a dang about antlers. It was about the venison. My father was of the view does were the best eatting, so those were his goal. I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow. Sorry, Caroline: you keep whimpering about all this 'sport' hunting; I'll just keep on feeding my family and friends. If you refuse to see any difference, I guess you're stuck with yourself on that half-truth.

Classic distraction on the CWD, Caroline. Clearly, you've posted on this subject before and are used to being cornered by facts. Nothing like hysterical whimpering, supplemented by nightmarish visions based on fantasy-land disasters to hide the real picture. You ARE the classic ARA.....

'Legalized terrorist'

You must have spoke with Ante once upon a time, Caroline. He's spewed that noise-without-substance more then once. In fact, he started a thread based upon it. I'll see if I can bump it for those interested.

I'm curious of your world-view, actually.

A couple questions, if I may:

Which is the largest location ever to effectively use deer birth-control? Which state has implimented a state-wide use of these methods? How well did they work?

Who do you feel should pay for the implimenting of these deer birth-control methods? Should locals be able to decide for themselves what method they wish to use for deer-control?

Define what exactly you think 'sports' hunting is. Do you feel it's different then hunting strictly for food?

The Ante thread I mentioned has been bumped. For those actually interested in the numbers regarding hunting accidents, page 8 of that thread has some info.


Again no answer to the questions I have posted. If hunting is killing humans from DVA's because of so many deer provided for hunters recreational purpose and also DVA's peaks during the killing season then hunting industry is liable of human fatalities because its intentional, the hunters know DVA's will happen with so many deer and hunters in the woods terrorizing the animals. So unless you can give me the answer as to why your people are "producing deer" when you are claiming it's about "reduction" it means you have no answer and you know darn well that hunting has nothing to do with "reduction" of deer or "caring' about human lives lost in Deer Vehicle Accidents its about having enough deer to keep the killers happy year after year and the state raking in their blood money. There are so many Animal Rights organization and those who love our wildlife that are ready to help with the cost of IC deer birth control but DNR continue to reject it. . Anthony DeNicola of White Buffaolo Deer Slaughter company says killing deer is like mowing lawn, it has to be done year after year so which is it that you want Iwanic, the IC for long term deer herd reduction and reduce Deer Vehicle Accidents or to continue to kill for hunters sick amusement of destroying life with no end in sight as innocent humans continue to die from high DVA's ?

Again I ask why are hunters "producing" deer if its about "reduction"??

One thing I like to add, this is not abut your "right" to eat meat its about the truth, its about abolishing sports hunting so you go right on ahead and chow down on that diseased carcass and if you have read what I have wrote before I said everyone of those who kill the deer should eat the deer and eat it all not dump it to some pantries because they fear eating it themselves. .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:17 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16150
Location: Florida
CarolineTC wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
"Not one of you could careless about starving deer....."

Your crystal ball needs a cleaning, Caroline.
My father and I hunted for years: neither of us gave a dang about antlers. It was about the venison. My father was of the view does were the best eatting, so those were his goal. I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow. Sorry, Caroline: you keep whimpering about all this 'sport' hunting; I'll just keep on feeding my family and friends. If you refuse to see any difference, I guess you're stuck with yourself on that half-truth.

Classic distraction on the CWD, Caroline. Clearly, you've posted on this subject before and are used to being cornered by facts. Nothing like hysterical whimpering, supplemented by nightmarish visions based on fantasy-land disasters to hide the real picture. You ARE the classic ARA.....

'Legalized terrorist'

You must have spoke with Ante once upon a time, Caroline. He's spewed that noise-without-substance more then once. In fact, he started a thread based upon it. I'll see if I can bump it for those interested.

I'm curious of your world-view, actually.

A couple questions, if I may:

Which is the largest location ever to effectively use deer birth-control? Which state has implimented a state-wide use of these methods? How well did they work?

Who do you feel should pay for the implimenting of these deer birth-control methods? Should locals be able to decide for themselves what method they wish to use for deer-control?

Define what exactly you think 'sports' hunting is. Do you feel it's different then hunting strictly for food?

The Ante thread I mentioned has been bumped. For those actually interested in the numbers regarding hunting accidents, page 8 of that thread has some info.


Again no answer to the questions I have posted. If hunting is killing humans from DVA's because of so many deer provided for hunters recreational purpose and also DVA's peaks during the killing season then hunting industry is liable of human fatalities because its intentional, the hunters know DVA's will happen with so many deer and hunters in the woods terrorizing the animals. So unless you can give me the answer as to why your people are "producing deer" when you are claiming it's about "reduction" it means you have no answer and you know darn well that hunting has nothing to do with "reduction" of deer or "caring' about human lives lost in Deer Vehicle Accidents its about having enough deer to keep the killers happy year after year and the state raking in their blood money. There are so many Animal Rights organization and those who love our wildlife that are ready to help with the cost of IC deer birth control but DNR continue to reject it. . Anthony DeNicola of White Buffaolo Deer Slaughter company says killing deer is like mowing lawn, it has to be done year after year so which is it that you want Iwanic, the IC for long term deer herd reduction and reduce Deer Vehicle Accidents or to continue to kill for hunters sick amusement of destroying life with no end in sight as innocent humans continue to die from high DVA's ?

Again I ask why are hunters "producing" deer if its about "reduction"??

One thing I like to add, this is not abut your "right" to eat meat its about the truth, its about abolishing sports hunting so you go right on ahead and chow down on that diseased carcass and if you have read what I have wrote before I said everyone of those who kill the deer should eat the deer and eat it all not dump it to some pantries because they fear eating it themselves. .


You really need to think about what you are saying...deer are not "provided"....deer reproduce all by themselves....hence over populating, again all by themselves. Hunters keep populations in check since many so natural predators are not able to do so effectively for obvious reasons. Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low.

And fact that you cannot even conduct yourself without name calling speaks volumes about you and what you have to say.

You and your existence is also responsible for animals deaths, direct and indirect, most of which is a lot more inhumane than the deaths caused by hunters. You should really take a look at the deer, fawns, that are chopped up in little bits, maimed, mangled, left to die after they have been run over by combines....along with all the other hundreds or thousnads of animals. BTW...those are inhumane deaths.

You should really get your facts straight and stop being soooo self righteous. Your argument is weak, tired and old....as is the attitude. Do you honestly think that anyone here hasn't heard all the AR rhetoric before...over and over and over. And it still doesn't hold water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:13 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
I'm at work presently, so i can't post the articles I wish but I'll see what I can do in the tommorow.

You certainly seem to be good at the 'over-the-top' approuch to discussion, Caroline.

At the very least, you've livened things up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:15 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1334
CatLady wrote:
Everyone has a right to an opinion and a right to express it. I am not going to change my basic views and nor are the people who have been regularly replying to my posts. I do not like hunting and never will - all this harranging will not alter it.
I do acknowledge that I cannot stop hunting happening and that some people appear to enjoy it (why is beyond me if I am to be honest, because having witnessed it from a spectator personal POV and taken part in it many years ago, it is distasteful to me) but everyone to their own.

I came on a bit strong in my earlier post here which has caused some sheer bloody-mindedness and relentless negativity and picking holes (actually in hindsight a good expression for whats been happening here) in almost every thing that I post, my integrity and honesty have been under fire and every post I make regardless of what it says they still keep on tending to harp back to the first one and have also suggesting that I am somebody else whom used to post here. On their part it has gone beyond expressing an opinion and has become something totally different. So...ho hum... ](*,)

One great thing, I caught the 2 forest cats at last thanks to extreme weather, (these are the 2 pushed my sleep times over the limit) it happened finally at the weekend during a very cold blizzard (siberian type conditions) which made it easier to do, one gave-up and came in on Friday and the other held out until 6AM Sunday. So if there is any more hunting nearby they will not be in the forest at that time. 8)

CL


How did you do it CL? They are feral, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:54 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:56 am
Posts: 53
Location: NL
Quote:
How did you do it CL? They are feral, right?


Hi AnimalFriendly

Yes, they were living wild. They began visiting my property at the end of last summer and had been clearly around longer than I had realised as I was leaving food out for the hedgehogs and my cats (who were going in later at night) and it was being completely all eaten by morning. Finally I spotted a half grown kitten on occasion who ran away when he spotted me and at other times I saw a 3 legged older cat. As it got colder they got more bold. Eventually the older cat began to stand nearer me when I was putting out some food and eventually I could touch her tail, she clearly has at one time been someone's cat or had human contact but now lived wild in the forest. The other was and still is more shy but he comes to stand next to me as long as I stay still. The weather helped me catch them, I could not leave water & food out as it froze within minutes and I was having to feed them as they arrived and stand and watch them eat. A blizzard started and the older cat went in the shed to eat when she saw a plate of food for herself sitting, and the kitten was almost falling over with cold 2 days later and walked into the shed and stayed a whole week sleeping and eating - he clearly had a touch of hypothermia and I managed to get him inside in time. He recovered now and is back out with the warmer weather. At least he knows where he can go in need.
The older cat (3 legger) is still in and reluctant to go out now and I am going to get her taken to be sterilized etc soon. I will arrange the kitten to be caught and sterilized in a few weeks.

So in short, I worked on them for a while gaining trust, lost a lot of sleep keeping strange hours but persevered and then the weather did the rest. You have to let them get used to you as part of the environment and wait for them to accept your presence and avoid being tempted to have any physical contact until after they approach you for some. Even now I have to be very careful also of my movement around them because they can be vicious also if afraid.

So, I add this some hours later... having shot an animal in the name of best for the animal and for the people et cetera ...the animal being healthy and so on and if not can recover.. and latterly having spent much time and patience gaining trust and helping that animal to continue with no threat to anyone - I can say, categorically, that, in my experience, it is infinitely more satisfying to 'help' as it is just the beginning of a beautiful interaction than to end something, quite possibly - unnecessarily, in a few seconds flat. Just my personal, experience that I did the best that I could manage and I know for a fact that the animal benefited also, which is why there has to be people who do care enough to actually put themselves out, a little bit at least, to preserve life, give time and patience where reasonably possible.

CL


Last edited by CatLady on Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:21 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
animallover wrote:
CarolineTC wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
"Not one of you could careless about starving deer....."

Your crystal ball needs a cleaning, Caroline.
My father and I hunted for years: neither of us gave a dang about antlers. It was about the venison. My father was of the view does were the best eatting, so those were his goal. I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow. Sorry, Caroline: you keep whimpering about all this 'sport' hunting; I'll just keep on feeding my family and friends. If you refuse to see any difference, I guess you're stuck with yourself on that half-truth.

Classic distraction on the CWD, Caroline. Clearly, you've posted on this subject before and are used to being cornered by facts. Nothing like hysterical whimpering, supplemented by nightmarish visions based on fantasy-land disasters to hide the real picture. You ARE the classic ARA.....

'Legalized terrorist'

You must have spoke with Ante once upon a time, Caroline. He's spewed that noise-without-substance more then once. In fact, he started a thread based upon it. I'll see if I can bump it for those interested.

I'm curious of your world-view, actually.

A couple questions, if I may:

Which is the largest location ever to effectively use deer birth-control? Which state has implimented a state-wide use of these methods? How well did they work?

Who do you feel should pay for the implimenting of these deer birth-control methods? Should locals be able to decide for themselves what method they wish to use for deer-control?

Define what exactly you think 'sports' hunting is. Do you feel it's different then hunting strictly for food?

The Ante thread I mentioned has been bumped. For those actually interested in the numbers regarding hunting accidents, page 8 of that thread has some info.


Again no answer to the questions I have posted. If hunting is killing humans from DVA's because of so many deer provided for hunters recreational purpose and also DVA's peaks during the killing season then hunting industry is liable of human fatalities because its intentional, the hunters know DVA's will happen with so many deer and hunters in the woods terrorizing the animals. So unless you can give me the answer as to why your people are "producing deer" when you are claiming it's about "reduction" it means you have no answer and you know darn well that hunting has nothing to do with "reduction" of deer or "caring' about human lives lost in Deer Vehicle Accidents its about having enough deer to keep the killers happy year after year and the state raking in their blood money. There are so many Animal Rights organization and those who love our wildlife that are ready to help with the cost of IC deer birth control but DNR continue to reject it. . Anthony DeNicola of White Buffaolo Deer Slaughter company says killing deer is like mowing lawn, it has to be done year after year so which is it that you want Iwanic, the IC for long term deer herd reduction and reduce Deer Vehicle Accidents or to continue to kill for hunters sick amusement of destroying life with no end in sight as innocent humans continue to die from high DVA's ?

Again I ask why are hunters "producing" deer if its about "reduction"??

One thing I like to add, this is not abut your "right" to eat meat its about the truth, its about abolishing sports hunting so you go right on ahead and chow down on that diseased carcass and if you have read what I have wrote before I said everyone of those who kill the deer should eat the deer and eat it all not dump it to some pantries because they fear eating it themselves. .


You really need to think about what you are saying...deer are not "provided"....deer reproduce all by themselves....hence over populating, again all by themselves. Hunters keep populations in check since many so natural predators are not able to do so effectively for obvious reasons. Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low.

And fact that you cannot even conduct yourself without name calling speaks volumes about you and what you have to say.

You and your existence is also responsible for animals deaths, direct and indirect, most of which is a lot more inhumane than the deaths caused by hunters. You should really take a look at the deer, fawns, that are chopped up in little bits, maimed, mangled, left to die after they have been run over by combines....along with all the other hundreds or thousnads of animals. BTW...those are inhumane deaths.

You should really get your facts straight and stop being soooo self righteous. Your argument is weak, tired and old....as is the attitude. Do you honestly think that anyone here hasn't heard all the AR rhetoric before...over and over and over. And it still doesn't hold water.




"You really need to think about what you are saying...deer are not "provided"....deer reproduce all by themselves....hence over populating, again all by themselves. Hunters keep populations in check since many so natural predators are not able to do so effectively for obvious reasons. Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low." Iwonci

It's hunting (killing) and lethal "culling" is whats causing deer to have more fawn births and to top is off use of food plots and supplement feeding. Here is a video I did kind of for the fun of it to show how pathetic sports hunting people are with their food plots to grow large antlered deer plus remember the does are eating them too.

To the music of "this land is your land this land is my land for growing more and more big boned antlered deer....." (lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUf6yekFpeI


these are other quotes I listed yesterday that Iwonic and other wildlife killers either completely ignore or does not give me legit or straight answer rather they like to dance around it with abusrdity.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120


Here is more of the "adding deer" quotes. TX also among the highest in DVA's.

"Historically in all states, including West Virginia, hunting regulation have been restrictive during the period of deer restoration with mainly short buck-only season to protect does and encourage deer population growth." " Fundamentals of Deer Management W. VA.

(wow, why would you want "deer restoration" and "encourage population growth"??). Is it any wonder W. Va is one of the highest in DVA's?




"Managing for proper nutrition in white-tailed deer is important for good body condition, good fawn production and recruitment, and maximum antler growth. Good nutrition can be accomplished by doing three things that involve proper habitat management, supplemental feeding, and the planting of food plots." Deer Managemetn TX

P.129 "With supplemental feeding, it becomes very easy to maitain artificialy high deer densities and still obtain adequate results in terms of antler and body growth." Producing Quality Whitetails Revised Edition
Al Brothers and Murphy E. Ray, Jr. Edited by Charly McTee


"Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low." Iwanic

But we all know that DNR will do their darndest to ensure there will be enough deer for wildlife serial killers to kill each year or the sports willdlife killers will start crying like babies because there was not enough deer to "harvest" that season and DNR will be making promises that next season we make sure there will be more deer because they don't to lose their customers who may go other states to kill deer.

Deer's natural predators are killed to keep the deer population high

"Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX


What is this "in check"? that hunters love to use. Like "in check" to make sure there are abundance of deer for the sports wildlfife killers to kill for each season?

Does if there is not enough nutrients (but eating) will not give birth to twins and triplets and some will not birth at all. Its how nature keep natural balance where what hunting does is to create more deer to compensate for loss and sometimes over compensating.

IC deer birth control is the only honest way for long term deer herd reduction with no strings attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw

"It works and it works well"
"60% deer herd reduction"
"safe"

Plus IC is not "1,000 dollar a deer" like the hunting community likes to claim and in the long term will save many many innocent lives (human and non-human animals).

"And fact that you cannot even conduct yourself without name calling speaks volumes about you and what you have to say. " Iwonic

What do you mean by "name calling"? Because I call hunters "wildlife serial killers"? But that is what they are , they don't "hunt" they KILL. I like to "hunt" shed antlers but would never kill a living creatures and what you do is serial killing (killing more then one animals). Hunters KILL, but they hate that word that is why they say "harvest", "taken" or "hunting" when what they do is KILL . Even in the book called "Killing For Sports" how the Authur desribes serial killers sounds like he is describing sports hunters.

"A third type of serial killers is the Lust Killer. The lust killer is often driven to kill due to a sexual motivation. A fourth subgroup of serial killers is known as a Thrill Killer. A thrill killer takes lives because they enjoy the experience of killing. A fifth sort of serial killer is the Power Seeker Killer, a person who enjoys having total control over the fate of their victims." Killing For Sports - Inside the Minds of Serial Killers - Pat Brown


"You and your existence is also responsible for animals deaths, direct and indirect, most of which is a lot more inhumane than the deaths caused by hunters. You should really take a look at the deer, fawns, that are chopped up in little bits, maimed, mangled, left to die after they have been run over by combines....along with all the other hundreds or thousnads of animals. BTW...those are inhumane deaths." Iwonic

Humans also die because of human existance and it reminds me of this quote I found a while back which makes so much sense when refuting with your absuridity.


"[1] If you live and pay taxes in an industrialized nation with a strong military, such as the United States, you inadvertently and indirectly, and hopefully unwillingly and regrettably, support the slaughter of innocent humans in the form of warfare in other countries (waged primarily for economic reasons; the economic reasons controversially thought to be also ‘national security’ reasons) and arms supply to violent militias, just like vegans inadvertently, unwillingly, and regrettably support the slaughter of innocent nonhumans by living and paying taxes in our animal-exploiting society."



Now lets do this again. Why are they producing deer if its about "reduction"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:24 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Well; let's see about Caroline's questions. I'll keep it basic....

I think the underlying premise of the question is itself in queston: I need convincing on what's being pushed as fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:34 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
http://www.iowadnr.gov/wildlife/files/drhist.html


I'll tend to stick to Iowa and the midwestern states as my base of operations in this discussion; since their so deer...opps, I mean dear to my heart.

Info seems to suggest, Caroline, In Iowa, it's the habitat and climate that are the main factors in high-deer population; not hunting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v2/issues/fig ... rview.html

Some additional info......

Note the factors stated as influencing populations numbers....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:52 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. The subject of deer population management, particularly white-tails, is a complex, not simplistic, subject. It is covered constantly in papers published in professional wildlife management journals. There is no one single cause, and no one single solution, to the problem that some ( not all, I might add ) deer populations are too large. Causes for increased number of deer include the following:

- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies.

- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source.

- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting

- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly.

- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the fact that these drugs do not last a long time. One dose typically lasts one year, then the population has to be re-treated. Third, unless a particular deer population is isolated from other populations, it is difficult to treat enough does to achieve a net population decline, as new, untreated does can enter the population from other areas. Fourth, contraception does not produce an immediate decline in population, unlike hunting or other lethal control methods which produce immediate mortality in the population. It would take several years to notice a statistically significant decline in a contraception treated deer population if there is a lack of predators and/or it is not combined with a lethal form of population control. Fifth, is the possible ecological effects of using this, especially large-scale. We still do not fully understand the possible long-term implications for other wildlife by introducing these drugs into the food chain. And once the proverbial genie is let out of the proverbial bottle, it cannot be put back in. Deer contraception is simply a management tool available to biologists. It can be effective in certain situations, but not all, and probably not most. To push it as some kind of cure-all solution based on a knee-jerk, emotional dislike for hunting is reckless, irresponsible, and unwise.

I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group