Post Reply
Page 21 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 7:09PM #201
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:01PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:02PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 2:54PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


[Mindis1:]  "Obviously, unless the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers, then something has gone very wrong with this program. It’s a shame that the animal-killing advocates here are not willing to condemn such hideous practices. "


Once again.. and pay carefull attention this time, because I'm getting sick of repeating this:

  • It was never the understanding or intention that federal protection of wolves would go on forever. Or, that no wolves would ever be killed. Federal agents have been killing wolves for years.
  • It was agreed upon, the second the wolf-reintroduction program began, that the end goal was to establish a population viable enough to delist the wolves, and hand managment over to the states, and the states' plans would include some hunting and/or trapping. 

Therefore, nothing has "gone wrong" with the progam. 



So, you’re saying that the re-introduction program from the beginning was intended to provide hundreds wolves to be killed and tortured by sick human animal-killers/hunters/trappers who get their jollies by torturing and killing wolves.


Obviously, relocating hundreds of wolves into an area merely so that sick human animal-killers can have the opportunity to trap, snare and shoot them is not related to any ecological benefit. It’s a shame the animal-killers here are not willing to condemn such a hideous program.




Do you have anything intelligent to offer to this discussion?



I merely pointed out that obviously there are two possibilities:  either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers; or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program.  You responded that it is not (b).  Therefore it is (a).


If you have any intelligible rebuttal to any of that, I'm sure you would have given it.




First, sheer ignorance. Second, false dilemma. 



You haven’t provided any alternative option than what I stated.





Because your "option" is completely rhetorical and has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 7:17PM #202
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:06PM, mindis1 wrote:


As a general comment here (so that everyone will hate me equally): I think it’s unfortunate, and treacherous, for this discussion to veer off into philosophizing about the motives of the average hunter and whatnot. After all, the people engaged in hunting, trapping, snaring and torturing these re-populated wolves are not the average hunter. And after all, the factory farmed animals that will be on most Americans’ plates tonight, or that the average American will serve to his/her pets from a can tonight, would undoubtedly have loved to have had the lives of the animals that the average hunter kills. After all, the single deer that the average hunter kills probably prevents hundreds of chickens from having to endure unimaginable horror in a factory farm.


It seems to me the important issue on this thread is that the wolf re-introduction program has merely provided the opportunity for a bunch of sickos to engage in the completely unnecessary and reprehensible killing and torture of re-introduced wolves--which will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected in these states. If the purpose of the re-introduction program was not to provide the sickos the opportunity for this blood party, then something has gone very wrong with the program. It’s a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates here do not see fit to condemn this situation, because it is in every way condemnable. There is no ecological benefit to merely providing sickos the opportunity to torture and kill hundreds of wolves--which, again, will apparently continue as long as wolves remain unproctected.




Pure, utter, unsubstantiated and glaringly ignorant supposistion on your part.


Furthermore, you're taking specific incidents of instance, and trying to apply them to general principle. Torturing animals is not par for the course, nor is it accordance with hunting ethics, or regulations.


Once again, the purpose of the re-introduction program was the re-establish a viable population of gray wolves in the general area of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. That objective was met, years ago.


The idea was never to keep the wolves under permanent federal protection. And nobody involved ever asserted no wolves would ever be killed. It was always understood at least some lethal control measures would be used on the wolf population. Even when they were under federal jurisdiction, agents, and in some cases, others, were authorized to kill wolves -- in order to cull their numbers and minimize conflicts with human interests.


It was always understood, that jurisdiction would be handed over to the states, and the states' managment plan would allow for some killing of wolves, by landowners protecting their livestock, by state agents removing wolves in instances of acute conflict with human interests, and by limited licenses to the general hunting public.


THe wolves are not "unprotected." Hunting is under restricted parameters, and the states have a vested interest in not letting the wolf populations dip below pre-determined minimum levels. Because if that were to happen, the program would revert to federal control -- and literally decades of work by hundreds of people would go down the tubes.


If anything, fewer wolves will probably be killed now, than were taken out by goverment agents under federal jurisdiction.


Nothing has "gone wrong" with the program. Apparently, a few individuals have abused the paramaters of it, made some deliberatly cruel and messy kills, and then had the audacity to brag about it.


Your reasoning here is like trying to say the purpose of building a road is to provide opportunity for reckless drivers.

 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 11:39PM #203
rabello
Posts: 20,876

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:00PM, mindis1 wrote:


Anyway, obviously you didn’t swallow the stuff about “dumb animals” not feeling pain or being morally inferior to humans. Why didn’t you?




Because when an animal is suffering you can see it in his/her eyes, hear it in his/her whimpering, watch it in his/her trembling.   Everybody can see such things, it depends on how much they care about it to be able to admit to what they see rather than what they "believe".


Thank whom or whatever that my father didn't hunt, either.  But in my small, western town, hunting season was always a bummer because there were a lot of hunters from town and from out of town, who would tie their kill to the hoods of their cars and then parade it up and down the street so that everyone could marvel at the trophies -- or at least they "believed" everyone would marvel at their trophies.



Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:06PM, mindis1 wrote:


As a general comment here (so that everyone will hate me equally): I think it’s unfortunate, and treacherous, for this discussion to veer off into philosophizing about the motives of the average hunter and whatnot. After all, the people engaged in hunting, trapping, snaring and torturing these re-populated wolves are not the average hunter. And after all, the factory farmed animals that will be on most Americans’ plates tonight, or that the average American will serve to his/her pets from a can tonight, would undoubtedly have loved to have had the lives of the animals that the average hunter kills. After all, the single deer that the average hunter kills probably prevents hundreds of chickens from having to endure unimaginable horror in a factory farm.


It seems to me the important issue on this thread is that the wolf re-introduction program has merely provided the opportunity for a bunch of sickos to engage in the completely unnecessary and reprehensible killing and torture of re-introduced wolves--which will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected in these states. If the purpose of the re-introduction program was not to provide the sickos the opportunity for this blood party, then something has gone very wrong with the program. It’s a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates here do not see fit to condemn this situation, because it is in every way condemnable. There is no ecological benefit to merely providing sickos the opportunity to torture and kill hundreds of wolves--which, again, will apparently continue as long as wolves remain unproctected.




I agree with you and certainly don't hate you for what you wrote.  I wish you could get an answer that makes sense about the bait and switch Congress allowed these states to get away with.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 1:14PM #204
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

The article about the wolf being trapped and tortured cites a specific, outrageous incident. Even though it's long on bias and short of facts, the article itself indicates that the F.S. official and "hunters" involved could very well face disipline, and charges.


Clearly, they violated every parameter of ethics, and probably, violated animal cruelty laws as well.


Trying to apply this case to the entire wolf reintroduction program, and the states taking over managment (which, again, was the plan all along) is false and dishonest. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 6:36PM #205
solfeggio
Posts: 9,101

Yeah, but mytmouse, even though you fancy yourself to be the acknowledged and peerless leader in the field of wolf hunting, you do not know for a fact that the wolf torture so grafically shown in the links was a one-off.


You do not know for a fact that this does not happen to other wolves in other places.


You do not know for a fact that leg-hold traps are rarely used by trappers in other states with other rules.


You do not know for a fact that people who hunt wolves believe in what you're always prattling about as this 'fair chase' sort of thing (whatever that is.)


For all you know, wolf torture goes on every day somewhere in the West, and the only reason you don't know about it yourself is that people aren't liable to boast about it online.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 9:50AM #206
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:36PM, solfeggio wrote:


Yeah, but mytmouse, even though you fancy yourself to be the acknowledged and peerless leader in the field of wolf hunting, you do not know for a fact that the wolf torture so grafically shown in the links was a one-off.


You do not know for a fact that this does not happen to other wolves in other places.


You do not know for a fact that leg-hold traps are rarely used by trappers in other states with other rules.


You do not know for a fact that people who hunt wolves believe in what you're always prattling about as this 'fair chase' sort of thing (whatever that is.)


For all you know, wolf torture goes on every day somewhere in the West, and the only reason you don't know about it yourself is that people aren't liable to boast about it online.


 




Solf, I'm not claiming to be the leading expert on wolves. I've simply stated, I most probably know far more than anybody on these boards because:


•I live right in the area where the program is taking place. I was in Montana when the wolves were first brought back -- 1995-1996, then lived in Idaho for several years, and currently live in Wyoming. I'm literally minutes away from the nearest wolf packs as I type this.


•Because of my work, I've been in regular contact with experts, interest groups and leaders directly involved in the reintroduction program, and the long, complicated process of getting managment handed over to the states. I've had face-to-face contact with folks who really do know more about the issue and program than anybody else. I've argued, and witnessed the arguments -- with all sorts, coming from all sides. From those who don't want any wolves touched, to those who hate wolves and want them all killed -- to a range of opinions in between. 


I've never said my opinon is the only valid one. I've merely pointed out, it's a very well-informed opinon. That's not bragging, that's simply fact.


Now, as to wolves being tortured, yes, I'm sure it happens. There is a lot of misplaced animosity toward wolves in this region. It offends and sickens me. However, that does not change the fact that such actions violate both existing animal cruelty laws, and the paramaters of basic outdoor and hunting ethics. 


You can't control everything everybody does out in the wilderness -- I'm not sure you grasp the vastness of the land out here, Solf. We're talking about a chunk of land that's likely bigger than your entire country.


What we can do is scorn, and punish, those who break the rules. The Game and Fish allows for hunting -- of wolves, and numerous other species. Deliberately making an animal suffer is patently illegal. Not to mention, immoral and directly counter to everything my father and others like him taught me about hunting, woodsmanship and respect for the wild and the creatures that inhabit it. 


This has been, and will continue to be, a very emotional subject. Over the years, I've heard a whole bunch of emotional blustering from both extreme sides. I really don't have time for that. 


Now is the time for the program to move forward, as planned, under state managment. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:16PM #207
mindis1
Posts: 7,604

Apr 14, 2012 -- 7:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:01PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:02PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 2:54PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


[Mindis1:]  "Obviously, unless the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers, then something has gone very wrong with this program. It’s a shame that the animal-killing advocates here are not willing to condemn such hideous practices. "


Once again.. and pay carefull attention this time, because I'm getting sick of repeating this:

  • It was never the understanding or intention that federal protection of wolves would go on forever. Or, that no wolves would ever be killed. Federal agents have been killing wolves for years.
  • It was agreed upon, the second the wolf-reintroduction program began, that the end goal was to establish a population viable enough to delist the wolves, and hand managment over to the states, and the states' plans would include some hunting and/or trapping. 

Therefore, nothing has "gone wrong" with the progam. 



So, you’re saying that the re-introduction program from the beginning was intended to provide hundreds wolves to be killed and tortured by sick human animal-killers/hunters/trappers who get their jollies by torturing and killing wolves.


Obviously, relocating hundreds of wolves into an area merely so that sick human animal-killers can have the opportunity to trap, snare and shoot them is not related to any ecological benefit. It’s a shame the animal-killers here are not willing to condemn such a hideous program.




Do you have anything intelligent to offer to this discussion?



I merely pointed out that obviously there are two possibilities:  either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers; or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program.  You responded that it is not (b).  Therefore it is (a).


If you have any intelligible rebuttal to any of that, I'm sure you would have given it.




First, sheer ignorance. Second, false dilemma. 



You haven’t provided any alternative option than what I stated.





Because your "option" is completely rhetorical





What is that supposed to mean? Evidently you don’t know. You throw out the term “false dilemma,” and when I point out that you haven’t offered any alternative option than the two possibilities I have stated, you respond that my “’option’ is completely rhetorical”. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.


That’s what you’ve done throughout this thread. Every time Rabello has made essentially this same point (I’ve only put what Rabello has already said dozens of times here into the form of a logical disjunction), you have merely avoided responding to it, posting a lot of muglub that is unrelated to the point. Quite obviously, the only reason you are spending so much effort avoiding the issue is because you are trying to find some way to justify animal-killing.  


I will state the disjunctive syllogism once again. Let us know if some little dim light bulb comes on and you think of a relevant response. There are two possibilities: either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You have already said several times, and have most recently repeated in #202, that it is not (b). Therefore it is (a).


Let’s formalize that disjunction:


P ν Q; ¬ Q


Therefore P.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 3:19PM #208
mindis1
Posts: 7,604

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:39PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:06PM, mindis1 wrote:


As a general comment here (so that everyone will hate me equally): I think it’s unfortunate, and treacherous, for this discussion to veer off into philosophizing about the motives of the average hunter and whatnot. After all, the people engaged in hunting, trapping, snaring and torturing these re-populated wolves are not the average hunter. And after all, the factory farmed animals that will be on most Americans’ plates tonight, or that the average American will serve to his/her pets from a can tonight, would undoubtedly have loved to have had the lives of the animals that the average hunter kills. After all, the single deer that the average hunter kills probably prevents hundreds of chickens from having to endure unimaginable horror in a factory farm.


It seems to me the important issue on this thread is that the wolf re-introduction program has merely provided the opportunity for a bunch of sickos to engage in the completely unnecessary and reprehensible killing and torture of re-introduced wolves--which will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected in these states. If the purpose of the re-introduction program was not to provide the sickos the opportunity for this blood party, then something has gone very wrong with the program. It’s a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates here do not see fit to condemn this situation, because it is in every way condemnable. There is no ecological benefit to merely providing sickos the opportunity to torture and kill hundreds of wolves--which, again, will apparently continue as long as wolves remain unproctected.




I agree with you and certainly don't hate you for what you wrote.  I wish you could get an answer that makes sense about the bait and switch Congress allowed these states to get away with.




It does sound like a bait-and-switch scam. However, the Bush Jr. administration obstructed the Endangered Species Act in ways that were unimaginable. As the Wikipedia notes:


The annual rate of listing (i.e., classifying species as "threatened" or "endangered") increased steadily from the Ford administration (47 listings, 15 per year) through Carter (126 listings, 32 per year), Reagan (255 listings, 32 per year), George H. W. Bush (231 listings, 58 per year), and Clinton (521 listings, 65 per year) before decline to its lowest rate under George W. Bush (60 listings, 8 per year as of 5/24/08).


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species...


The article gives further details:


In March 2008, The Washington Post reported that documents showed that the Bush Administration, beginning in 2001, had erected "pervasive bureaucratic obstacles" that limited the number of species protected under the act:


* From 2000 to 2003, until a U.S. District Court overturned the decision, Fish and Wildlife Service officials said that if that agency identified a species as a candidate for the list, citizens could not file petitions for that species.


* Interior Department personnel were told they could use "info from files that refutes petitions but not anything that supports" petitions filed to protect species.


* Senior department officials revised a longstanding policy that rated the threat to various species based primarily on their populations within U.S. borders, giving more weight to populations in Canada and Mexico, countries with less extensive regulations than the U.S.


* Officials changed the way species were evaluated under the act by considering where the species currently lived, rather than where they used to exist.


* Senior officials repeatedly dismissed the views of scientific advisers who said that species should be protected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2012 - 4:51PM #209
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:16PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 7:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:01PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 4:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:52PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:02PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 2:54PM, mindis1 wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 5:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


[Mindis1:]  "Obviously, unless the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers, then something has gone very wrong with this program. It’s a shame that the animal-killing advocates here are not willing to condemn such hideous practices. "


Once again.. and pay carefull attention this time, because I'm getting sick of repeating this:

  • It was never the understanding or intention that federal protection of wolves would go on forever. Or, that no wolves would ever be killed. Federal agents have been killing wolves for years.
  • It was agreed upon, the second the wolf-reintroduction program began, that the end goal was to establish a population viable enough to delist the wolves, and hand managment over to the states, and the states' plans would include some hunting and/or trapping. 

Therefore, nothing has "gone wrong" with the progam. 



So, you’re saying that the re-introduction program from the beginning was intended to provide hundreds wolves to be killed and tortured by sick human animal-killers/hunters/trappers who get their jollies by torturing and killing wolves.


Obviously, relocating hundreds of wolves into an area merely so that sick human animal-killers can have the opportunity to trap, snare and shoot them is not related to any ecological benefit. It’s a shame the animal-killers here are not willing to condemn such a hideous program.




Do you have anything intelligent to offer to this discussion?



I merely pointed out that obviously there are two possibilities:  either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide a blood party for human animal-killers/hunters/trappers; or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program.  You responded that it is not (b).  Therefore it is (a).


If you have any intelligible rebuttal to any of that, I'm sure you would have given it.




First, sheer ignorance. Second, false dilemma. 



You haven’t provided any alternative option than what I stated.





Because your "option" is completely rhetorical





What is that supposed to mean? Evidently you don’t know. You throw out the term “false dilemma,” and when I point out that you haven’t offered any alternative option than the two possibilities I have stated, you respond that my “’option’ is completely rhetorical”. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.


That’s what you’ve done throughout this thread. Every time Rabello has made essentially this same point (I’ve only put what Rabello has already said dozens of times here into the form of a logical disjunction), you have merely avoided responding to it, posting a lot of muglub that is unrelated to the point. Quite obviously, the only reason you are spending so much effort avoiding the issue is because you are trying to find some way to justify animal-killing.  


I will state the disjunctive syllogism once again. Let us know if some little dim light bulb comes on and you think of a relevant response. There are two possibilities: either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You have already said several times, and have most recently repeated in #202, that it is not (b). Therefore it is (a).


Let’s formalize that disjunction:


P ν Q; ¬ Q


Therefore P.








Once again, you're taking one outrageous incident, and trying to apply it to general principle.


It's been clearly stated, the actions of the people in question -- who deliberately tortured a wolf -- were both unethical and patently illegal, according to all standards and relevant laws and regulations dealing with wildlife managment, hunting and animal cruelty.


Again, your underlying argument is like saying that because somebody drove recklessly down a newly-built highway, then either the "program is flawed," or the entire purpose of the highway was to facilitate the antics of reckless drivers.


Past that, I'm not interested in playing your rhetorical games.


You're trying to make something out of nothing, in order to try making a point and present your supposistions as if they had any basis in fact. I know way too much, first hand, about this issue and the people who have dedicated literally years to making it all work to humor such unmitigated nonsense. You have no idea how stupid your sweeping statements sound in light of what's happening out here, and has been happening for years. 


Either pony up with some valid points based in fact and at least some degree of knowledge about the subject at hand, or drop it. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:18PM #210
mindis1
Posts: 7,604

Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 3:16PM, mindis1 wrote:


What is that supposed to mean? Evidently you don’t know. You throw out the term “false dilemma,” and when I point out that you haven’t offered any alternative option than the two possibilities I have stated, you respond that my “’option’ is completely rhetorical”. You’re not making any sense whatsoever.


That’s what you’ve done throughout this thread. Every time Rabello has made essentially this same point (I’ve only put what Rabello has already said dozens of times here into the form of a logical disjunction), you have merely avoided responding to it, posting a lot of muglub that is unrelated to the point. Quite obviously, the only reason you are spending so much effort avoiding the issue is because you are trying to find some way to justify animal-killing.  


I will state the disjunctive syllogism once again. Let us know if some little dim light bulb comes on and you think of a relevant response. There are two possibilities: either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You have already said several times, and have most recently repeated in #202, that it is not (b). Therefore it is (a).


Let’s formalize that disjunction:


P ν Q; ¬ Q


Therefore P.




Once again, you're taking one outrageous incident



Obviously I was not talking about one incident. Go back and read my post. Read it until you understand this fact: Either (a) the purpose of the wolf re-introduction program was to provide hundreds of wolves for sicko animal-killers to hunt, trap, snare, torture and kill (which is what is happening, and which has no ecological benefit whatsoever), or (b) something has gone very wrong with the program. You say it is not (b). Therefore, it is (a). Regardless of whether (a) or (b) is the case, it is a shame that the animal-killers and animal-killing advocates are unwilling to condemn what has happened, is happening and will continue to happen as long as wolves remain unprotected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 21 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook