|
Termyn8or -> RE: A hunting story/Rant (11/19/2006 1:57:20 PM)
|
[Stuggling to find the right words to bring a twisted logic to this, and still make the point]
Thinning out the herd, yes, it is logical since we have found it necessary to remove the predators. I don't know if yall are rock music listeners, but I hear Ted Nugent's family kills what they eat and eat what they kill. They have money, but have shunned the grocery store and embraced nature.
Now what was said about say a twelve point buck is true, probably not the best meat, and older than some. Probably has sired quite a few. Also remember that such a buck has years of experience fighting for it's survival and you are not likely to be the first to see him.
Such a buck has the guile to survive amidst Billy Bob and Bubba unless they take to spotlighting them. An experienced hunter has better chance of bagging the beast. Unfair advantage ? Of course. It is the human mind that puts him at the top of the food chain. If deer had the ability to make weapons and found us tasty we would be in big shit. If we hadn't killed their predators we would be in big shit.
Where does that leave us ?
When I was a kid, we had three choices when Star Trek was on, watch it and shutup (only the old man could comment, but even he usually waited until they were reruns), go outside, or get thrown in the closet for an hour. Remember there were no VCRs back then.
Well I remember an episode entitled "The Trouble With Tribbles" in which someone grabbed a few of these furry little creatures to sell. Because they multiply so fast, removing them from their environment full of predators was illegal, even though the person who did it was probably unaware of this.
Now thinning the herd has become a necessity. Poor things are hungry all the time. Would you rather be shot or starve and freeze to death ? Yup, if they don't get enough food to maintain their metabolism at a high enough level they will be very cold and could freeze to death.
Physically Man is at a disadvantage to alot of animals. However these animals think of themselves first. Our intellect puts us at the top of the food chain. Certain elements of society would like to convince us that we have no right to be there.
Let's put things into another "perspective". Perhaps WE are the herd that needs thinning out ! Yes. We continually encroach on wilderness with our developments and shopping malls. We continually reproduce too much. (not everybody). We continually wreck the environment. And we do it more and more every day.
I really wonder why all the planned parenthood, the zero population growth and the people who were for responsible reproduction are gone. What happened ? They felt the need decades ago, and now the population is way more out of control but nobody says anything like, people ought to stop having 6 kids. If it keeps up we ain't gonna be able to feed them. Where are all these people ? Did Jerry Springer or Maury Povitch buy them all off or something ?
Even though we are human, and capable of alot more than most animals, and as such deserve dominion over the planet, we are very foolish to think that the natural laws do not apply to us. When there gets to be too many of us we will all die a slow and agonizing death. As a species almost.
There is a very interesting writup on the subject in the YPSE supplement. I don't remember what year but in the study they took a few deer to an island. It had rich vegetation and did support a very very thick herd of deer. It however was limited in space, absolutely, by water. Food was not scarce, and what they were after was looking at the behaviour and other things, rather than just the availability of food. It is just a coincidence that it was deer.
I shall not hijack this thread, I'll start one about this, I have the article scanned, but it is JPGs. It'll be referred to by a link. They are in a htm page and will display consecutively at a readable size. For some inexplicable reason I can't use OCR on a JPG, it needs it in it's native scanner format. Perhaps I'll rescan it, I would really like to quote some of it here. But the crux of the article is this, overpopulation, even when there is enough food, is detrimental to a species.
You might think this hard, but that is precisely why I am very selective about doling out any charity. I embrace the give a fish/teach to fish theory. Who can argue with the premise that it is better to teach others to get their own rather than to give it to them ?
Well the deer used to run on alot bigger grounds, we fucked that up for them. Predators notwithstanding they are still crowded, and are still vegetarian. How many plants and trees does it take to feed one deer ? How many plants and trees fit into a certain area ? How many deer are there ?
Those who don't want us to shoot Bambi, are the ones who pave the road to hell. There are plenty on Bambis, and if they all survive they will be tortured to death with hunger and cold, in that order. Bambi's whole species could die from that, so kill a few (adult) Bambis and save the rest.
And there is another factor. If I am hungry and I see an edible animal I have the right to eat it. Survival is a right. Unless it is someone's pet, sorry about it's luck. Old guy down the street (really old) was telling me about the depression when they raised rabbits. Nice cute fuzzy little wuzzies and then CHOP ! Off with their head. It was that or starve.
AND, last but NOT LEAST, people are really paying too much attention to what everybody should be allowed to do, and not enough to go and do what they want to do.
T
|
|
|
|
