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.

Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:41PM, mindis1 wrote:

Well, I am not aware that kids are told that "dumb animals" do not feel pain or were put on earth to serve humans.  I was never taught any such thing; I don't know any kid who was ever taught any such thing.  (Of course, it is true that a buffalo's hide is not in any way as sensitive as human skin; even a cat's dermis is not as sensitive as a human's.  I once took care of friend's nearly-blind diabetic Pug who had to get daily insulin injections.  It was a very short needle, but all you had to do was get behind the dog and poke him with the syringe, and he never knew anything happened.  I definitely would have known if someone had stuck a needle even that short into my skin anywhere.)  And I definitely don't think the average intelligent adult believes that animals don't feel pain or were put on earth to serve humans.

Actually I do agree with you, but where I grew up I heard both that animals don't feel pain and are lower than humans because god said so....also that animals are dumb.

I grew up in Colorado -- the american west -- among old-timers that were so hardcore that they would kill whimpering kittens by decapitating them with shovels, or lock them in airtight boxes and dump them into the lake (not kidding), do the same to pups they didn't want, and to get the horrified kids to just shut up, they'd say things like that assuming that the dumb kids would believe them.  Fortunately, that kind of bs isn't prevalent anymore, and I would say that also is thanks to activists and not the "experts" in "management"

Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:57PM, rabello wrote:

Actually I do agree with you, but where I grew up I heard both that animals don't feel pain and are lower than humans because god said so....also that animals are dumb.

That's the prevalent teaching.  I once met a fisherman who said fish were stupid, and besides that they don't feel pain.  "Why do you think that?" I asked.  He said, "Because you can catch them and throw them back, and they'll come right back after the food that they got hooked on, I've seen 'em do it."

For a long time I was in a quandary about that.  Why would a fish come back to the hook that it just got hooked on?  I just now realized...Because there was no other food in the pond for it to eat.  

There are times in the yearly cycle where there is little to no food in the pond.  Fish like everything else go hungry in the wintertime.  They starve in winter in the water that is not warm enough to support the growth of algae, small insects, and the things they eat.  If a worm on a hook shows up, they'll go after it, even if they've been hurt by it.  This is like starving persons who put themselves in harm's way to find a little food.  The fish story no doubt came from places where there are small creeks and ponds.  The ocean is a different story.

A fish and any organism has the pain sensors that it needs in order for it to feel pain, so that it can survive.  There is no shortage of pain sensors on an animal no matter what kind it is.  Nature made it that way.

Solid wildlife managment has nothing to do with one's personal philosophical view of man's place in the universe.

You can ascribe yourself  the right to "manage" other forms of life  only if you think you are above and have the right to control what you are managing. Unlike Eisntein, you think we are a different (meaning better) kind of being.  That is certainly a philosophical view that will guide your actions and  justify your meddling in the life of other creatures.  What else can you base it on, but your basic view of animals?

(btw, I never said anything about man being the "center of the universe" in the sense that we have a God/Allah/Yahwey given right to simply rape the land and kill anything that gets in our way.)

You don't have to say it in so many words.

Look, this has gotten beyond silly. You obviously have no interest in actually learning anything about this issue.

No, we (I)are not interested in the details. We want to  go beyond the issue, because there is no acceptable solution on this level . We have to question the motives of the actors in order to understand what they are doing. How they view the animals they are trying to manage  is certainly very crucial.

More than one observer of this exchange has already made note of that. I'm quite comfortable in saying that you, Mindis, Solf and arlig are virtually cluesless as to what you're talking about -- but instead interested only in preaching an ideology.

Stop trying to teach us and start learning something new.  We know where you are coming from.  You don't see where we are coming from.

I'm wasting my time with you guys. Any other posters who wish to discuss the wolf issue are more than welcome. It's one of my favorite topics.

We are discussing more than the wolf issue.  We are discussing how people  relate to the other creatures that share the planet with us ( Maybe that is too much for you)

But, please. Be informed. That's all I ask.

Apr 13, 2012 -- 3:42PM, rabello wrote:

In terms of the primacy of human beings, keep in mind:

The best representation we have of hunting isn't the Marlboro Man throwing the steer to the ground with his bare hands to burn HIS mark into its flesh before it gets slaughtered, it is Sarah Palin hiding behind a bush to murder a magificent buck in his home, with a man standing next to her to make sure she uses the oversized Gun correctly.  It's be funny if it wasn't so immoral.

The second best representation, imo, is the photo the smugly smiling forest service employee posted of HIS trophy -- a suffering wolf with his foot caught in a steel leghold trap, wandering around in a huge circle stained with his own blood from the multiple gunshot wounds he received from people shooting at an already suffering, trapped animal.  Who knows it could have been a she, with pups, and from the picture is trying (of course) to get the damned trap off its leg.  What a hoot!!!

 

What about the regular ol' hunters that eat the animals they kill and share the meat with their families? THEY are really the best representation. You focus on extremes and condemn everyone by the extremes.