They should allow hunting only. Killing the animals to control them is wrong. If the wolves want to take over alaska, thats fine, maybe they will let us get some of that prime oil out of there.
Alaska has that. It's called Denali National Park. It's an immense, almost trackless wilderness that I have visited personally, unlike most of the Lower 48 interventionists who want to tell Alaskans how to manage Alaska and its resources.
Actually, there are organizations that are trying to protect wolves in all parts of the country not just Alaska. I just decided to pick on Alaska for this post I was unaware of Denali National Park, so wolves are protected in that park so no one can shoot them if they are inside of park? Please say "yes" it will make me feel better. Alaska sounds like a really beautiful place, I hope I get to see it someday.
This is a little off the subject but I just recieved this email from the petition site regarding the endangered sea turtles and I thought I would see if any one else might want to sign: Hi Rebecca, Over 40 endemic and threatened species, including sea turtles, are endangered by the development of two mega-resorts on the Caribbean Coast. Urge Puerto Rico's Senate to support protecting these species from mega-resorts>> The Northeast Ecological Corridor (NEC), on the eastern corner of the mainland of Puerto Rico, is home to many tropical habitats and endangered species. The Corridor harbors coral communities, mangrove and coastal pre-Columbian forests, a bioluminescent lagoon and one of the most important nesting sites for the endangered Leatherback sea turtle. The government of Puerto Rico will soon vote on a bill that would designate the NEC a nature reserve. This bill will ensure protection for this extraordinary area once and for all. Together, we can save these wild lands!
So now you are wanting to impose your wishes on the citizens of the towns of Luquillo and Fajardo -- without paying them a dime in reparations for the financial hardship you are about to impose upon them? Isn't that more than a bit rude? How would you feel if I came over to your house and told you how I felt that you should use your dining room and you front yard -- and then made my wishes the law of the land with no compensation to you? That is nothing but organized theft.
Not true. New York allows deer hunting. If they need to thin the deer, they can just issue more permits. To quote the state of New York, "Properly controlled deer hunting is an important tool in managing deer populations; striking a balance in wildlife and habitat resources."
Will, I'm actually quite surprised you have this view. "Wildlife Management" is the natural resources equivalent to "Central Planners" in a national economy. It is a group of government bureaucrats who decide the best plan to pursue in intervening in nature's path, imposing "5-year plans" on entire ecosystems. The entire concept is categorically and diametrically opposed to your espoused worldview - "hands off, Government," absent strictly interpreted government functions (if I recall, national defense, in the main).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/ There arn't enough hunters, hunting is a dying sport There are deer everywhere in rural NY, the only thing that kills them is cars and harsh winters
When they fuck up the ecosystem in the ocean it effects areas around it so its not just about the towns of Luquillo and Fajardo If there is not leather back turtles what will the sharks eat, what happens when the jellyfish are not eaten by the turtles. Keeping the balance in the ocean eco-system is worth way more $ then a couple resorts. Since apperently dollar value is the only thing someone like your self understands. The healthy ocean eco-system in the caribean is supports way more jobs and creates way more wealth then a couple resorts with some bell-boy jobs. Thye can build resorts without screwing up animals breeding grounds, most of the time the things that do the most damage are big fake beaches
ferret: Did you read the article you linked to? Here's let me help you with some of the relevant points: "In the early 20th century, states limited hunting ..." In the 14,000-acre Letchworth State Park in western New York, a 1,200-acre “safety area†for recreation where hunting is forbidden has seen vast damage from overbrowsing by deer. Have you ever tried to get a hunting license? It's bloody rocket science -- and it's expensive. I was turned down last year for an elk license because of the severe shortage of game animals. This is extremely common. Approximately 50% of elk hunters in Colorado are turned down every year. Where game populations are too high, it is usually because wildlife management has been mismanaged. You want just the right balance -- sometimes you end up with too much and sometimes you end up with too little. This is typical of any command economy. np: A great point, and one I am happy to respond to! The question is: Where is this hunting taking place? If the hunting is on private land, then I believe that the private property owners should have the first and last say in wildlife management. If the government is the property owner, then they must take the responsibility for wildlife management. Until we get the government out of the business of owning land, government-run wildlife management is a natural consequence of the current system.
(Sorry, posted before seeing the post above - still, I am actually asking a different question (I think) - doesn't nature know better than Burke's "metaphysical abstractions" when it comes to "managing" said nature? - whether government,or private landowner - isn't there a clear analogy between the natural cycles resulting from predator/prey balances, and the free market?): Will, with respect what I am going to is, in my mind, an apparent disconnect between your firm conviction in the efficacy of "the invisible hand," when it comes to a commerce - by definition, an extra-natural process; but your reliance on government intrusion in predator-prey balance - by definition, a natural process. In other words, hands off unnatural constructs, but hands very much on natural processes. I don't understand the disconnect.
Let's frame that argument. Are you following the Western tradition of placing man outside of nature or the Eastern tradition where man is a part of nature? I follow the Eastern tradition. Man and wolf are competing for the same resources. We are just as natural as the wolf. When I feel my arm, I feel flesh and bone. That flesh and bone requires sustenance as much as any wolf does. Can the wilds survive without any wildlife management? Sure they can! They have for billions of years! Does that meet our goals? No, it doesn't. Meeting the goals of humans requires that we meddle -- that we take action. If we take no action, only the desires of the wolf are met -- because the wolf will always take action. We would be, in effect, walking away and granting complete and total victory to our natural competitor. Is this always the wrong thing to do? No, of course not, most competitions aren't worth winning. It is only sensible to compete when it gives us something we want. In this case, we want: Game meat Tourist dollars To get what we want, we must compete with the wolf. And yet we do not wish to destroy the wolf. We do not seek complete victory. We merely seek to achieve a balance between our desires for game meat and tourist dollars and our desire to have wolves around. Both are important goals -- to humans. The solution is wildlife management. We keep the wolf population at a level where we can compete with them favorably and we keep the wolf population at a level where we can still enjoy the existence of another predator species. To get back to your economic analogy, both we and the wolves are economic competitors. We're Macy's and Gimbel's. We're not a government which is outside the system, we're economic actors which exist inside the system. Does my overall ethical framework make sense? Does it seem logically consistent?
If concern over the welfare of sea turtles upsets you Will, I'm sure helping baby seals will just drive you crazy. I just signed a petition to stop Canada's seal hunt and am boycotting seafood from Canada until it stops. Seal Hunt Petition Perhaps in your line of thinking, no one should care about what is happening in other parts of world and only Canadians have a right to speak out about what is happening in Canada. But I don't think like you do, so let's just agree to disagree.
I've applied for both deer and elk permits this year. If I get a permit and if I am in the country in October, I intend to drag my lazy butt out into the cold and use my pathetic skills to kill Bambi. I suspect that Bambi will be quite safe, but I have every intent of feasting on her flesh.
Concern is a great thing. If you are concerned, then spend your money to bend the world to your wishes. My only objection arises when people use force (in this case, the force of government) to take what they want from other people without their consent. You are attempting to take food out of the mouths of Canadians. Do you intend to compensate them for their loss? And no, having the taxpayers compensate them for their loss is just taking the money from yet another party. If you want to be morally correct, the money must come out of your own pocket. I like books, but I don't expect other people to pay for my books. You like seals, but you expect other people to pay for your seals. That is where the conflict arises.
If someone is making money off the suffering of others I will boycott them. That means I will not be sending them a check to compensate for my boycott, and I will sleep well at night. Boo hoo I'm crying because they can't make money off the clubbing of innocent baby seals, don't care.
Baby seals aren't used for food - they are used for the fur trade - as are many of the animals killed. We've evolved past Ugg and Nugg needing to make clothing out of animals, and we have synthetics to compensate. Or sheep. If they are so desperate for money that they club seals - perhaps they should buy llamas or other furry animals and sheer there fur for cash. I know that one of those related llama species makes a fur that is in very high demand - with the price being higher than silk I believe. There. They can all raise those things and sheer them - and to do it they can all go to Arizona. Another animal that is being slaughtered in the U.S. is the Coyote - When did desert dogs become such a problem and threat? When we started building in their habitats. Ohhh, what a great threat they are... And they're a problem because... because... because we like to smell roadkill? And yet we keep on killing and killing and killing. And now about the Red Wolf So we've almost gotten rid of that one - wanna go out and shoot it Will? Just rid the world of one more pesky predator? It wouldn't be hard, only 270 are left. While we're at it lets look at old Lupus himself - the Wolf We've driven it into Canada, and wiped it out of most locations worldwide. Mmm, but we're not done yet - they need to be exterminated, just like Hitler toward the Jews... right? We're just not doing good enough - we have to EXTERMINATE THEM ALL! So what! Who cares if the ecosystems collapse - we're human and we can adapt without there being any consequences - right? While we're at it lets start burning more coal, get rid of the filtration programs, drill for oil all over the world, and burn our mattresses in the yards. Then let's just nuke things because we feel like it - after all we're humans, right? Ah who cares if we make another dust bowl like in the great depression, we can just nuke it and turn it into glass, that way when the three legged six armed Timmy goes to school he can see his own reflection the whole way. /sarcasm Why is it that man can take compassion for humans, which are wasteful, criminal, cruel, dishonest, murderers, molesters, and rapists - and not for animals? It seems animals get worse sentences than humans who rape ten women. You want a sport? I'll give you one. Human Hunt. Criminals, against hunters. That would be fair. Man vs. Man. Televised too.