"we often see wild mallard ducks in our driveway, and we've taken to throwing them some bread in the mornings"

Solf, please be cautious about this. We were told that bread for ducks and geese is like candy for kids, empty calories.

May 1, 2012 -- 10:09PM, arielg wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 9:11PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 7:21PM, arielg wrote:

As I mentioned in an earlier post (to which nobody responded), Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu long ago observed that it is unnatural for humans to think they can control what happens in the natural world and that it is wrong to try.

Solfeggio:

That was a beautiful quote that I did not even respond to because  it is so foreign to the hunter's mentality which prevails in these pages that it would be a waste of time to attempt to include it in the discussion.  It would just go over their heads  and  simply be ignored, like it was.

 

You have no idea how ignorant that statement is.

I'm a hunter, and I'm all for wilderness areas, National Forests, and other areas that are essentially left untouched by human structures, dwellings or roads. So, speak for yourself.

The very concept of National Parks, wilderness areas and National Forests was concived largely by people who were hunter/conservationists?

Every hear of Aldo Leopold? Here's a tip, watch the biographical film on him "The Green Fire," and get back to me.

 

This is the quote Solfeggio was referring to.

It is the complete opposite of your position and philosophy.

 

 Finally, there is a quote by the founder of Taoism, Lao Tzu:

The world is ruled by letting

things take their course

It cannot be ruled by interferring

That's an ironic thing to say when one is sitting in a climate-controled room on a computer. 

May 2, 2012 -- 6:30PM, solfeggio wrote:

The idea is to try to leave as faint a footprint on the natural world as we can.  We know that we are all going to leave some sort of footprint just by being alive.  But we can try to minimise it.

For your information, mouse, we do not live in a 'climate controlled' house, because houses in New Zealand don't have central heating.   In cold weather, individual rooms are heated by small space heaters when we occupy the rooms and then turned off again when we leave the room.  And New Zealand's energy system is hydroelectric.

We live in the city because we are city people and this is where we prefer to live.  We didn't create the city, and whether we live here or not is not going to change the city's footprint one iota.

In our personal lives we try to do what we can to minimise our contribution to waste in several ways.  We don't buy new clothes, books, furniture, dishes, DVDs, CDs, or toys for the grandsons, for instance, but always buy from second-hand shops.

And, when we are through with whatever we've bought, we give it back to a second-hand shop like the Sallies or the church-run charity shops in our area.  Nothing is wasted, everything possible is recycled.

We have one car, but it is a 1993 Subaru that gets excellent mileage, and we only use it for long hauls.  Whenever possible, we walk.

As much as possible, we don't buy processed foods but buy the raw vegetables, fruits, seeds, and nuts, and cook them ourselves at home.  In order to cut down electricity use, we don't have a standard oven or standard fridge but rather use the smallest possible models such as used on boats or hotels.

Our country has a recycle programme in which all glassware is put out in a wheelie bin on a Monday morning and collected to be used again.  The same goes for cans and plastic.  Everybody is very good about putting things out like this.

We're always looking for ways to soften our human footprint on the world.

 

 

 

 

Bully for you, Solf, and it sounds as if you and I are on the same page, in that regard. My family and I also many things second-hand, recycle and drive older vehciles that were bought and paid for with cash.

I would add, responsible, ethical hunting is also a great way to soften my footprint. I'm getting lean, organic meat for my family -- through my own direct efforts, and not having to rely on agri-industry, processing factories or the trucking industry to get it to me. 

You might not like it, and I understand your moral objections to hunting. But hunting's ties to conservation are deep. I hate to keep trumpeting his name, but Aldo Leopold founded conservation/environmentalism as Americans and many in the others Western world know it, and he was a hunter and outdoorsman. Many of us still honor his "land ethic." Not every hunter is a fat yayhoo on an ATV, with a case of beer strapped to the rear rack. 

Regarding such animals as wolves and grizzlies, what I'm sensing here is a tension between folks who either have never been to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosytem, or have visited as leisurely interlopers -- an those of us who actally live and have to make a living here.

My point all along is, there has been hype, exaggeration and bombastic rhetoric on both sides of the wolf issue. And those with the most shrill, extreme voices have gotten the most press. I've spent most of my adult working life as a journalist. So I know first had that many reporters, particularly those in the broadcast mediums, tend to gravitate toward the most sensational angles, and the most polarized voices on any issue.

So, they will find a member of an extreme animal rights/environmentalist group, who hates the idea of even one wolf being killed -- and quote him. And then they will find a bitter redneck hunter or outfitter, who thinks wolves are wrecking everything, and quote him. 

Who gets ignored is a broad spectrum of people in the middle, who value sensible conservation and ecological diversity, but also recognize the practical problems of living in the proximity of large predators, and the legitimacy of human interests and traditions in this part of the world. 

Ranchers and huntes have been on this land for a long time. We've more than paid our dues in terms of the money we've put up, the work we've put in, and the conservation we've stood up for -- in protecting the land from such things as sprawling subdivisions and irresponsible energy development. 

So, I find it a bit offensive that we should just be expected to stand aside and give the wolves a free run at cattle and game herds, with no regard whatsoever for our efforts, traditions and interests. I also resent the sterotypes that are leveled against hunters and ranchers and particlar, and rural Western people in general, whenever the wolf issue comes up. 

This is my homeland, Solf. These are my people and my culture. And it truely is a rich and deep culture. I don't expect you to agree. Heck, even I don't agree with all of it. But I would like to think you can understand that -- just as you value the people and place you come from. 

There is, absolutley, a place for wolves on the landscape. And there is also good reason for hunting some of them.

May 3, 2012 -- 5:22PM, arielg wrote:

There is, absolutley, a place for wolves on the landscape. And there is also good reason for hunting some of them.

That "good  reason" was invented by hunters to justify the fact that  they like doing  that.

 Their consciousness doesn't  allow them to say that, so they have to sugar coat it with  some rational excuse. First come the hunting, then the justifications. It is not the other way around.

 It is not like they got together and said.  "Boy, we hate to do this, but we gotta".

When you can come up with a reasonable argument, instead of a stupid stereotype, let me know.

May 3, 2012 -- 5:50PM, arielg wrote:

You wouldn't know what a "reasonable argument" was, unless it had a target on it. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I'm more than happy to keep giving you ample rope.