think the death penalty is ever appropriate for animal cruelty?

[pontius]

Originally Posted by maxalmon
http:///forum/post/2454798
So we should let animal abusers and cruelty experts continue to do, what they do because coyotes #'s exploded...........I'm lost, what does this have to do with animal abuse?
A farmer who shoots a wolf/coyote is not the same as an animal thrill kill

that's exactly right. throughout this thread, I've seen the killing of these 53 sea lions equated to:
1. hunting
2. killing a coyote or other predator who may be a risk to livestock or family members
3. declawing a house cat
4. killing 'varmint' (vermin, like rats, squirrels, and groundmoles)
it's hard to attempt to have any kind of civil discussion about this topic when it's constantly getting completely highjacked by completely unrelated topics.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2454865
that's exactly right. throughout this thread, I've seen the killing of these 53 sea lions equated to:
1. hunting
2. killing a coyote or other predator who may be a risk to livestock or family members
3. declawing a house cat
4. killing 'varmint' (vermin, like rats, squirrels, and groundmoles)
it's hard to attempt to have any kind of civil discussion about this topic when it's constantly getting completely highjacked by completely unrelated topics.
Pontius, you need to read the thread more closely.... your summation, as well as Maxalmon's is flawed.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2454773
Lol, the Bison scared me to death... We (my cousin and I) were hiking in Yellowstone. We were crawling under some thick evergreens and came right up on it. We crawled back quietly and quickly I assure you.

Predators "regulate" nature much better than man. That's my point. Ya, I've seen Canids killing their prey. Cats kills quickly, dogs otoh kill brutally.
A great example of my point is the Grey Wolf in Yellowstone Park (I did my senior Seminar in college on the Reintroduction fo the Grey Wolf into Yellowston and the Central Idaho Wilderness). In the 20-30s there was a bounty placed on wolves. The US Fish and Wildlife, along with Park Service, hunted the wolves to extinction in the Park. The thinking was they were a nuisance predator that was killing too many of the other animals.
Now, fast forward... Studies in Yellowstone showed numerous imbalances as a result. The coyote population grew in numbers far more than usual (wolves kill coyotes). The numbers of foxes in the Park plummeted (Wolves mostly ignore foxes, while coyotes see them as competition and kill them). Secondary predators like lynx, Martins, badgers, etc. decreased in numbers. They feed on the carcasses of wolf kills. The coyotes weren't killing enough large prey animals to feed them. Bird of prey numbers also were affected. Scientists learned they were also feeding on wolf kills. Small subterranean mammals, which are preyed upon by coyotes, had their numbers diminish. This began to effect the different plant life and the balance of forests and meadows in the Parks...
The point is, we can't properly balance nature like nature can. We simply don't understand it's intricasies.
"The point is, we can't properly balance nature like nature can. We simply don't understand it's intricasies"
But you just explained them

In a place like Jellystone

allowing the wolf population to grow and regulate things is fine and as it should be. I got to watch a pack stalking some antelope there a few years ago, pretty cool. But in areas with human populations it isn't realistic. You think a wolf is going to chase down a deer or elk when a cow, sheep or dog is available? The pro wolf groups don't like to admit the downside of expansive populations of wolves. I talked with a nationally quoted government official in the "wolf recovery" program for Montana when it first started and he was POed over the whole importation of wolves from Canada deal. The Wolves were not actually extinct, just sparse. He was in favor of allowing our native population to slowly recover on it's own. Of course the wolf activists couldn't have that.
1t's like the hobby biologists who want to "reintroduce" Grizzlies to the Bitterroot-Selway area in Montana/Idaho. These selfish pr,,,,,,, people are only interested in furthering their own "careers". Grizzlies are not mountain dwelling animals. They will end up in the valleys where they can feed on livestock, dogs and people. Again, Yellowstone is a great place for them but not in areas where people are in any signifigant number.
There is plenty of area to allow for both methods of control. You gotta remember hunting provides a lot of money for wildlife conservation programs too.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2454999
Pontius, you need to read the thread more closely.... your summation, as well as Maxalmon's is flawed.
um, no, your thinking is the one that's flawed. you're the one saying that killing 53 sea lions is no worse than declawing a pet cat. and I know, you're saying the declawing thing is what "experts" say. forget about "experts" say and use some common sense like I've been saying all along. what does your common sense say? mine says that anyone that would go so far as to manually kill 53 animals at a pop is clearly disturbed and should probably be removed from whatever society they're in.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2454865
that's exactly right. throughout this thread, I've seen the killing of these 53 sea lions equated to:
1. hunting
2. killing a coyote or other predator who may be a risk to livestock or family members
3. declawing a house cat
4. killing 'varmint' (vermin, like rats, squirrels, and groundmoles)
it's hard to attempt to have any kind of civil discussion about this topic when it's constantly getting completely highjacked by completely unrelated topics.
The problem is, that the mentioned situations ARE directly related. But you dont want to recognize it. Possibly because it doesnt get the results you want.
We can do a good job regulating populations. The Black Bear is doing well in my area, with populations becoming somewhat problematic in this county. Mostly because of ignorance on the part of individuals wanting to "interact" with them, by feeding them. I heard a report recently where a large male had to be put down because it had broken through someones door to get to the fridge. They came home to find him there, terrified now because of the damage done. when previously they had been feeding the Bear at their front porch then baiting it to come inside and take pictures of it. The conservation department had a meeting on the subject shortly after having to put the Bear down. The people who fed him felt they where being "humane" helping a hungry animal out. When in reality, they were responsible 100% for it's demise. To some, that could be seen as animal cruelty, I myself would be compelled to believe so. By your standards, then the death penalty should be considered.
We killed 8 dear 2 years ago at our property. Through the different seasons as well as different individuals. My then 9 y.o. son got his first that year. A little basket 6 point. He was soooo excited. But finally, I got tired of stringing 'em up and stopped. One day alone we had 4 we strung up. WAY more meat than I would ever use, my buddy took 3 of them. To some, seeing those 4 deer hanging up would be seen as cruel. It's really not a pretty site. The population though was huge prior to this. Counting 15 deer opening morning 2 years prior. They were small, thin and overall not healthy. After the population begins to get to a certain point, they become diseased which spreads prevalently. Slow agonizing and just unfortunate. To me, the "humane" thing to do is, whittle the herd down. Which means killing a bunch of them, giving away whatever meat you cant eat, and hoping that whoever you give it to actually eats it all. This year, all season long, I counted 4 total. They were all bigger, healthier and much fatter. Actually putting on some nice horns to boot. I took 1, a good 8 point and left everybody else alone. If that's not a success story, I don't know what is. Don't say that it's the lack of predators, because it's not. There are at least 2, probably 3 packs of 5-6 coyotes running here. We hear them all the time. They don't leave this area very far, pickings are easy for them. Since the population of dear have dwindled, they have become less prevalent. These animal breed very successfully, and the population grows every year. My neighbors are thankful that I work on them like I do. The conservation department will help, but they use snares to kill 'em. Which again, by some standards is seen as inhumane.
The whole point to different situations is that while what might seem to one as cruelty, to another, it might seem as humane. Without getting all the information, you CANT make a correct decision. Wait till you get all the facts, then get emotional if you want. Don't subscribe to the RHETORIC!

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2455304
um, no, your thinking is the one that's flawed. you're the one saying that killing 53 sea lions is no worse than declawing a pet cat. and I know, you're saying the declawing thing is what "experts" say. forget about "experts" say and use some common sense like I've been saying all along. what does your common sense say? mine says that anyone that would go so far as to manually kill 53 animals at a pop is clearly disturbed and should probably be removed from whatever society they're in.
You say they are clearly disturbed, but you dont know the whole situation. So therefore they can not e "clearly" disturbed. It is possible, that they did not enjoy doing this, but saw it as a necessity.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2455185
.... You think a wolf is going to chase down a deer or elk when a cow, sheep or dog is available? The pro wolf groups don't like to admit the downside of expansive populations of wolves. I talked with a nationally quoted government official in the "wolf recovery" program for Montana when it first started and he was POed over the whole importation of wolves from Canada deal. The Wolves were not actually extinct, just sparse. He was in favor of allowing our native population to slowly recover on it's own. Of course the wolf activists couldn't have that.....
Nah, the wolves were definitely extinct from Yellowstone. There were a few sightings of single wolves in Idaho before the reintroduction, but no viable population. At the rate the wolves were moving south from Canada through Montana it was estimated it would have been 30 years before they made it into Yellowstone.
Surprisingly, given a choice, wolves will normally choose natural prey over cattle and sheep. This has been shown time and again in areas where livestock is raised. As long as their natural prey is available wolves typically choose it over domestic livestock.

Predation on livestock does occur, but not anywhere nearly as often as ranchers would have you believe. There is not a single State in the US where wolves kill anywhere near as much livestock as domestic dogs..
I understand the issue of habitat and neighborhoods colliding. It's definitely an issue. Partly due to the fact that people keep choosing to move into the wood. Here in Texas we have a problem with people feeding deer in their backyards. The deer population is being artificially supported by deer feeders in these neighborhoods. Now, the population is too big for the resources and if people quit feeding there will be a huge dieoff.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2455304
um, no, your thinking is the one that's flawed. you're the one saying that killing 53 sea lions is no worse than declawing a pet cat. and I know, you're saying the declawing thing is what "experts" say. forget about "experts" say and use some common sense like I've been saying all along. what does your common sense say? mine says that anyone that would go so far as to manually kill 53 animals at a pop is clearly disturbed and should probably be removed from whatever society they're in.
Please quote any link, not only on this thread but in the entire history of the internet, where I said killing 53 sea lions is no worse than declawing a pet cat...
My point, which would be clear if you properly read my post where I first mentioned this, is that "animal cruelty" is a grey term and is defined differently by different people.
"Common sense" is based solely on an individual's perspective. Sure, to us that sounds like animal cruelty. Of course, if fishing has become scarce off the coast of Ecuador, and a poor fishermen has starving kids; killing the natural competition is also "common sense" to him....
I'm not saying for sure that is what happened. My point, which has not changed in this entire thread, is that animal cruelty can depend on who is defining it.
If it ends up being a group of rich teenagers from California who took daddy's yatch down to the Islands and clubbed some seals with a 9 iron then sure that would be animal cruelty in my mind... Then again, the kids I know who shoot varmints for fun are just as guilty of it. The guy who shoots coyotes to get rid of them is just as guilty of it... the neighbor who kills snakes to get them off her land is just as guilty of it.... etc.

 

[wattsupdoc]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2455404
Nah, the wolves were definitely extinct from Yellowstone. There were a few sightings of single wolves in Idaho before the reintroduction, but no viable population. At the rate the wolves were moving south from Canada through Montana it was estimated it would have been 30 years before they made it into Yellowstone.
Surprisingly, given a choice, wolves will normally choose natural prey over cattle and sheep. This has been shown time and again in areas where livestock is raised. As long as their natural prey is available wolves typically choose it over domestic livestock.

Predation on livestock does occur, but not anywhere nearly as often as ranchers would have you believe. There is not a single State in the US where wolves kill anywhere near as much livestock as domestic dogs..
I understand the issue of habitat and neighborhoods colliding. It's definitely an issue. Partly due to the fact that people keep choosing to move into the wood. Here in Texas we have a problem with people feeding deer in their backyards. The deer population is being artificially supported by deer feeders in these neighborhoods. Now, the population is too big for the resources and if people quit feeding there will be a huge dieoff.
I agree with the wolf thing, as well as big cats, they get a bad rap. However, feeding the deer is not the issue with herd population here. I do not feed them, neither do any neighbors I know. Whitetail proliferate very well. All they need is shelter, and minumall NATURE provides this very well. An older lady owns 40 acre track that butts up to my property, she doesnt allow any hun ting or improvemnts on it. She believes natural preservation is best for the population. It is dense there, and a hotbed for deer. Whitail can survive with a very poor diet, but not be very healthy. Because the area is so densly covered, they thrive very well, but there is no real forage for them.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2455404
Nah, the wolves were definitely extinct from Yellowstone. There were a few sightings of single wolves in Idaho before the reintroduction, but no viable population. At the rate the wolves were moving south from Canada through Montana it was estimated it would have been 30 years before they made it into Yellowstone.
Surprisingly, given a choice, wolves will normally choose natural prey over cattle and sheep. This has been shown time and again in areas where livestock is raised. As long as their natural prey is available wolves typically choose it over domestic livestock.

Predation on livestock does occur, but not anywhere nearly as often as ranchers would have you believe. There is not a single State in the US where wolves kill anywhere near as much livestock as domestic dogs..
I understand the issue of habitat and neighborhoods colliding. It's definitely an issue. Partly due to the fact that people keep choosing to move into the wood. Here in Texas we have a problem with people feeding deer in their backyards. The deer population is being artificially supported by deer feeders in these neighborhoods. Now, the population is too big for the resources and if people quit feeding there will be a huge dieoff.
According to the USDA guy there were plenty of wolves here to repopulate, it would have taken longer but there are supposedly genetic differences between what was brought in from Canada and the native population which was this guy's major gripe.
I don't know what area it's been shown again and again that wolves go for natural prey over lovestock but in Montana and Wyoming there are too many instances of livestock kills in times of excellent game populations for me to take that seriously.
Deer feeders should be shot.

People just don't get it. If you have a ranch or something that is one think but people feeding in town just causes trouble.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2455648
According to the USDA guy there were plenty of wolves here to repopulate, it would have taken longer but there are supposedly genetic differences between what was brought in from Canada and the native population which was this guy's major gripe.
I don't know what area it's been shown again and again that wolves go for natural prey over lovestock but in Montana and Wyoming there are too many instances of livestock kills in times of excellent game populations for me to take that seriously.
Deer feeders should be shot.

People just don't get it. If you have a ranch or something that is one think but people feeding in town just causes trouble.
The genetic argument was largely disproven. Many anti-wolf activists tried to argue that the "Yellowstone" wolf was extinct, and therefore the reintroduction was against the law.
I haven't seen numbers recenty. Before the introduction took place, however, wolf predation was studied on livestock in states like Minnesota and Montana. Like I said, coyotes and dogs were both responsible for more predation than wolves. I'm sure this is largely due to coyotes and dogs feeling more comfortable closer to human populations.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2455667
The genetic argument was largely disproven. Many anti-wolf activists tried to argue that the "Yellowstone" wolf was extinct, and therefore the reintroduction was against the law.
I haven't seen numbers recenty. Before the introduction took place, however, wolf predation was studied on livestock in states like Minnesota and Montana. Like I said, coyotes and dogs were both responsible for more predation than wolves. I'm sure this is largely due to coyotes and dogs feeling more comfortable closer to human populations.
The guy talking about the genetics was the person overseeing the program for the USDA. Really don't see where he had a reason to make anything up.