Community Chat

[Venezia]

---

@AuntG wrote:

Seems to me it was Canadian Geese that took down Captain Sully's jet that he had to land in the Hudson River a couple of years ago.

---

So...the geese were flying where nature intended them to be and the jet crossed their line of migration.

Yes, it was an averted near-tragedy.  Does that mean we should kill all the Canadian Geese (and every other bird that has the temerity to fly where we don't want it)?

If we extrapolate that argument, we'd kill off just about every species of animal life.  Including ourselves, since humans cause many catastrophes, too.

One accident doesn't negate the reasons to protect wildlife.

[Venezia]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia thank you. I agree its not the wildlife causing the problems. They are trying to live in within the destruction of what we have caused.

After reading some of these replies I wonder how some of these posters would react if the wildlife spoke of them in such insulting manner or with such disregard to their rights to be alive.  Its very sad how little concern is given for these creatures.

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

---

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

---

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

---

So, you would prefer to see deer die a slow and painful death of starvation and disease?

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

---

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

---

[Marp]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

---

Your point about not needing to destroy animals to survive is well taken but it overlooks the fact that sometimes for the animals to survive some have to be sacrificed.  It is also sometimes the humane thing to do for the survival of the species.  Over population is a bigger threat than regulated culling.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

---

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

---

---

Then would we not be in competition with the animals for the land in order to grow for the "plant based diet".  If i was growing something for my families survival not sure I would want to share with the forest creatures. I don't think this is an issue about meat eater vs plant eaters it is an issue of resources.  As long as the human population is increasing, animals will continue to be displaced.

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Venezia wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

Nothing in this world is more destructive then adult humans and we seem to over look that. 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom  The discussion is about wildlife. 

---

Oh thanks for clearing that up because I was not aware. Why you gotta be like that???? 

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom - Your comment about human destruction is just as valid as many of the other comments on this thread.  It's about the interaction of humans and wildlife, IMO, and both play a part.

We have caused many of the problems that have forced wildlife out of its natural habitat.

---

@Venezia

I would agree.

At national parks where there are signs that specifically say, "DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE", and you see people feeding them from their vehicles.

That is doing the WILD animal no favors.

They don't learn to hunt on their own, and if a human gets hurt because of the HUMAN'S stupidity of blatently ignoring the signs, it is the ANIMAL that is destroyed.

I can understand thinning the deer population through hunting.

If there are too many deer, and not enough food for them, then they die a slow, painful death of starvation and disease.

How is that "kinder and gentler" than hunting?

Also, if the hunter uses the flesh, and not just kills just to hang a head on the wall, then I see no problem with hunting.

---

I disagree I am against hunting.  I understand your point but we live in a culture that looks at any animal that is not "human" as food or sport. And so we don't draw the line. It would be understandable if it we did not live in a westernized world and that we had no knowledge of a plant based diet. But we do and science and science is proving everyday that we do not need to destroy animals to survive.

---

---

Then would we not be in competition with the animals for the land in order to grow for the "plant based diet".  If i was growing something for my families survival not sure I would want to share with the forest creatures. I don't think this is an issue about meat eater vs plant eaters it is an issue of resources.  As long as the human population is increasing, animals will continue to be displaced.

---

There will always be an argument for either side you agree on so I don't know what to tell you. But to see the terror in a cows eyes when its going to slaughter or to see the same in a deer I can't see the justification. jmo.