Thread: Endangerd species

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

So, are you saying it's okay to vandalize construction equipment, fire bomb homes, destroy property, kill and maim innocent men, women, and children, put people out of work and damage the economy, all in the name of protecting animals???

Len, I don't feel that is much of a argument. If a sealer is going to pound a baby seal to death with a club than in the law of 'an eye for an eye' Yes. Maim and kill whomever to get the point across. At least then people could relate to what is being done. Instead of using the economy as an excuse.

You're in your 40's (according to the profile), didn't you have hippy or beatnik family members?
[J]

Originally Posted by Songo

lol yeah a dodo bird whould have been cool to see, cause all we have now are fossils and

*scintific) pictures, that are supposed to be acurte, and plus we kill off trees, we kill ourselfs!

no trees means no oxyg[e]n...so yeah where killing ourselfs off to.

Note the majority of the atmospheric O2 is maufactured by single-celled photosynthetic organisms that live in the oceans. Therefore there would still be oxygen producers around to scrub out C02 and produce O2.

I don't understand this topic. What are we debating about? there's endangered species, ok no duh, what are trying to tell us? Trying to make us feel guilty and change our lifestyle? Try to inform us about what's happening? Almost every person who's gonna post here already knows the state of endangered species, what's this dumb topic's purpose? Please, let me know, because I'm not seeing where this topic's going.

The level of misinformation in this thread just boggles the mind.

1. Extinction is actually a natural occurance when the ecology of an area changes. There are more "endangered" species who would have died naturally that humans have saved then extinct species we have killed.

2. The Dodo was excessivly stupid. They would have died without us. (There is a reason you call someone a Dodo when they are being dense.)

3. The majority of species who have been saved have been saved by private property owners who have used their lands as private preserves and control all, if any, hunting on it.

4. The majority of "endangered" species are not found in Zoo's but on the afformentioned private property.

5. The majority of our oxygen does not come from forests. It comes from grasslands and algy found in our oceans (which cover 70% of the planet). The ironic part of this is that well meaning people dug up grasslands and planted forests in the attempt to preserve our oxygen supply and actually measurably depleated it (in that area). As a result there is actually now more forest in the US then there was 200 years ago.

6. Becoming a vegetarian does not help endangered or at risk species since they are not being used for food. As a matter of fact it has actually been proven that when a species does enter the culinary world it actually results in a rise in that species population because the people involved now have a reason to preserve it even if it is just for profit.

7. The buffalo is neither endangered or at risk. Not only is there a thriving wildlife population but there is 3-4 times as many being raised in private herds for food. (see point 6)

8. Man encrouching on "Habitat" does not actually endanger the species involved, they mearly adapt. Something that actually infuriated animal activists. Animals aren't stupid, they realize that it is actually easier to get a meal when they live close to "man". Unfortunatly that sometimes results in confict when the species is a preditor. The only way to fix that however would be to put them on an uninhabited islands. Does anyone have one to donate?

9. The seals are not beaten with clubs unlike what protesters are telling you, they are shot. Not only does the seal hunt provide most of the income for a coastal area but due to new government regulations they actually have an excess of seals this year beyond what the habitat can sustain.

10. Murdering people and vandalizing property is a just as wrong as shooting an animal for "sport" and then wasting the meat/hide, in fact it is worse. Animals expect to be hunted, they are part of the foodchain. We are not. Killing someone is a poor way to win an arguement and only shows the weakness of your position.

Finally, if you wish to debate please ask a question instead of simply repeating activist retoric. And you are correct, poachers are despicable and should be linned up and shot IMHO.

Yay! someone who isn't a blind vegetraian. here's what I say to you wannabe "herbivores" http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

I hate people who don't eat meat because they think they're doing good.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Originally Posted by jao

Len, I don't feel that is much of a argument. If a sealer is going to pound a baby seal to death with a club than in the law of 'an eye for an eye' Yes. Maim and kill whomever to get the point across. At least then people could relate to what is being done. Instead of using the economy as an excuse.

You're in your 40's (according to the profile), didn't you have hippy or beatnik family members?
[J]

Unfortunatly, when ever your talking about large populations of people, you have to talk about politics. And when your proposing a solution where people will be forced to lose their jobs, give up their SUVs and hamburgers, you know what the answer is going to be. Now if you look at real world examples, what organization has had the biggest impact on the preservation of endangered species? Compare an eco-terrorist group like the 'Earth Liberation Front' vs. a political based group such as 'The Nature Conservancy' or 'The Sierra Club'

The thing is, nothing short of Nuclear Armageddon is going to reduce the 6 BILLION plus population problem that this world has. Given this fact, what can you do to deal with this problem. Throughout my life I have witnessed many groups with an 'Overthrow the World Order' attitude, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Charles Manson Cult group, Jones Town, etc. etc. The most that these groups ever accomplished was to become a footnote in history. At the same time, trivial, nonviolent peace movements, which should never have had the chance of succeeding, did succeed! (Such as the collapse of the Berlin wall, the overthrow of the dictatorship in the Phillippines) Thinking that you can reshape the world through violence (and without the military forces of a world superpower) is nothing short of a delusional fantasy. If you truly wish to try to change the world for the better, you have to have the courage to face the problem, and work with the resources you have available....

.......


Ok I wasn't sure whether to take you seriously in your previous post. Which is why I wasn't too serious in my own.

My only comment is if something is tivial and succeeds, is it really trivial?

Just teasing. Great reply for this topic..

Originally Posted by Dark.

Yay! someone who isn't a blind vegetraian. here's what I say to you wannabe "herbivores" http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html

I hate people who don't eat meat because they think they're doing good.

Here's the Dark I know and love...Pure foolishness!

You hate people who don't eat meat because their reasons involve doing good?

Ok, what bad comes from not eating meat?

Even better! What bad comes from eating meat?

I guess it isn't as macho to order a Falafel pita than 12oz steak.

I still eat animal products if it is being served but I don't go out of my way to request them. Then again, this isn't a debate about eating meat. It is about the way we treat the planet. We see it was we own the planet, not share it.