forum Politics and Society ›› Half of world's animals gone since 1970 ›› new reply Post Reply
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
August 10 2015 6:44 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Not to say that I agree, but I think bears are euthanized after getting into a cabin or killing a person because that particular bear now sees those as sources of food, which is dangerous to humans.



that's the old thinking about predators, largely a cover for vendetta mythology. the research shows otherwise. top predators see everything as a source of food because that's what it means to be a top predator, and when people make themselves available, they get on the menu. just as when they make themselves unavailable, the predator looks for something else to eat. as sad as it is that this hiker died, he walked into their habitat, not the other way around. his choice to take that risk will now be responsible for the end of three lives including his own.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
August 10 2015 6:51 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
WREN
Pulp Free
52,194 Posts
36/M/PA


offline   (20)
August 11 2015 7:44 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Bears don't really eat humans. I mean if they are diseased/rabid they probably will kill and eat anything. If a bear gets into a house, which isn't that common, it's for another food source and the human just got in the way. Now if the park rangers are able to determine the bear is, in fact, diseased or rabid, then it would be best to put it down because it's not only a danger to humans, it's a danger to the entire ecosystem of that area.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
August 11 2015 4:42 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
i'm not sure i'd risk validating the park service's justification for euthanizing them with the possibility that the animals might be rabid or diseased. the people that want to kill them would be doing it regardless of any physiological condition they might have.
WREN
Pulp Free
52,194 Posts
36/M/PA


offline   (20)
August 14 2015 8:07 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
I don't know the NPS's true policy on euthanizing an animal within a national park but I would have to believe there is some sort of checks/balance to the process. There are enough animal warfare groups out there that will scream bloody gore if you kill a protected animal for no reason. Sure, I'm sure there are ton of situations that slip through the cracks, it's a government agency, but something that is making the news like this case, I would think there would be some sort of pressure to prove the status of the bears health before just putting it down.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
August 14 2015 9:45 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
pretty much when it comes to the larger scary animals. the grizzly, the wolf, mountain lions, polar bears, etc. are all routinely put down in these situations with little or no public resistance because they have been so effectively vilified in popular culture, tradition and even religion, that the gut reaction tends to be fear and not empathy. while that may not be true for us, we are still in the minority, and even the growing admiration for such animals tends to be thrill or fear-based, like "look at that big thing kill that other big thing, kewll!" rather than any sort of sympatico or care. all that combined with that 'taste for human blood' bullshit mythology that almost everyone still believes, and in this case acts on.

as for the national park service or fish and wildlife, i learned long ago when trying to help some wolves in idaho that had strayed off their allotted territory and ultimately received the same outcome, that these agencies are not as staffed by hippy vegan animal rights advocates as many people might think. they are just as often, if not more often peopled by hunters who view themselves as 'conservationists', or even just 9-5'ers that lack any visible ideology on the subject at all. even the laws on the books are only so good until someone looks the other way, and looking the other way for something like this, or knocking down eagle roosts by developers to avoid protected status laws like i used to see fairly often, is as commonplace as the euthanizing of grandparents with morphine in hospitals to clear bedspace. people who live in the few areas of wilderness-plenty often don't give a shit about scarcity everywhere else, hence the hunting & logging practices in sarah palin's alaska, the amazon, and the south pacific.

admittedly, habitat destruction has a far greater effect than particular cases like this, but it is precisely the mentality that allows cases like this that leads to that. if people don't value a single life enough, they won't value the many lives in an entire ecosystem when someone wants to develop it or cut a highway through it, dump in it, etc.

there may be a web of life, but there's also a web of death, and it's based on greed, stupidity, sadism, apathy, and indifference, the vanguard of this sixth great extinction.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
August 22 2015 7:49 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
well, at least one other person gave a shit:



Federal officials defied their own rules in deciding to kill the mother bear behind this month’s Yellowstone tragedy. The lives of endangered species are about to get even cheaper.

"Does the feeding of wild animals upon a human corpse fall into the category of “natural behavior”? Even if it doesn’t, should every bear who feeds upon a dead man be condemned to die? When I was Green Beret medic in Vietnam, there were plenty of stories of tigers eating the bodies left dead by military collateral damage, and more tales that the big cats developed a distinct taste for human flesh. I have no idea if any of this crap is true.

Prior to 2011, bear policy often forgave defensive attacks by mother grizzlies, even if the human was killed. The attitude toward bears who may have tasted human flesh was reasonably unclear because if the body was out in the wilderness for any amount of time, many different bears may take turns at devouring the corpse. With DNA evidence, individual bears who ate human flesh can be identified, but does this mean the park service thinks they all should be killed?

The defensive killing of a human by a bear defending cubs or a carcass is not the same as killing a human with intent to eat him or her.

There’s a crucial disconnect for the bears between the fatal natural defensive mauling by the Lake Village mother grizzly, and the subsequent feeding and stashing of the body. Yellowstone could have shed light on this most common of bear misunderstandings and still justified what they had already decided—to kill the mother grizzly and put the cubs behind zoo fences.

Instead, on Aug. 13, they killed the mother and the park issued this news release: “An important fact in the decision to euthanize the bear was that a significant portion of the body was consumed and cached with the intent to return for further feeding. Normal defensive attacks by female bears defending their young do not involve consumption of the victim’s body.”

At best, this statement is both wrong and misleading. Grizzly mothers never kill people with chow on their charging minds or in order to get food. The “consumed and cached” event is a separate issue.

This murky government policy represents the decision-making used this week to kill the Lake Village mother and condemn her cubs to zoos. It’s largely a judgment call from a closed-door, opaque policy that worries about lawsuits and covering their “public safety” ass. The public is not involved this insular governmental discussion."







also:

Orphaned cubs of euthanized grizzly to go to Toledo, Ohio Zoo
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
September 7 2015 9:46 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
...more from this asshole:





Hunter who killed lion will resume Bloomington dental practice Tuesday


'In an interview conducted jointly Sunday by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Associated Press, Walter Palmer said, "If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn't have taken it. ... Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion."'



...because anything that hasn't been named by people is fair game. what a piece of shit.
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 8 2015 9:57 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: Rats in the walls

...more from this asshole:





Hunter who killed lion will resume Bloomington dental practice Tuesday


'In an interview conducted jointly Sunday by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Associated Press, Walter Palmer said, "If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn't have taken it. ... Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion."'



...because anything that hasn't been named by people is fair game. what a piece of shit.



So, perhaps this assbadger thinks its fine to shoot infants with a hunting rifle as long as their parents haven't named them yet?
crunkmoose
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts
61/M/MA


offline   (9)
September 8 2015 9:58 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Frankly, I sometimes think it is a bit of a shame that more of those animals gone since 1970 weren't humans.. or at least certain kinds of humans (ie: assholes)
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
September 19 2015 12:46 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
half as many animals and twice as many humans in the same 40 year period.




also









Sumatran Rhino Goes Extinct in the Wild in Malaysia

by Ashley P. Taylor, Live Science Contributor | September 13, 2015

The Sumatran rhino is now considered extinct in the wild in the Southeast Asian country of Malaysia, according to a new study.

No wild Sumatran rhinos (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) have been found on the Malaysian peninsula since 2007, and what are thought to be the last two female rhinos in Malaysian Borneo were caught and placed in captive breeding programs in 2011 and 2014.

Sumatran rhinos once ranged across most of Southeast Asia. The rhino's major decline, from both poaching and logging, took place in the 1980s.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
September 25 2015 2:24 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
September 25 2015 2:24 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
.

25 September 2015

ANCHORAGE - Authorities have launched an investigation into the deaths of 25 walruses found shot dead on an Alaskan shoreline with their tusks removed.

The animals were found dotted along the shoreline of Cape Lisburne, about 50 miles north of Point Hope, just over a week ago.

Officers fear the animals were slaughtered for ivory. Like elephants, the animals grow tusks which contain the material - which can sell for high prices in some parts of the world.
Rats in the walls
crush, kill, destr
1,170 Posts
34/M/NY


offline   (1)
November 6 2015 3:16 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
WREN
Pulp Free
52,194 Posts
36/M/PA


offline   (20)
November 6 2015 3:18 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Humans are a disgusting, destructive species.
forum Politics and Society ›› Half of world's animals gone since 1970 ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: Half of world's animals gone since 1970

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:







Subject


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol


google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band



Your ad here?