Author Topic: polar-grizz (Read 1682 times)

tce2506 · « **Reply #75 on:** May 12, 2006, 07:06:24 PM »

That's great Curval, and I respect your choice to "not poke holes in animals", but the fact remains that without sportsmen who hunt, many species that are thriving today, would not be around in healthy numbers. The whitetailed deer and Wild Turkey are prime examples. I mention healthy numbers because without hunting, overpopulation would lead to disease and starvation. I personally don't mind paying taxes on my hunting supplies as long as the money goes back into wildlife programs. When it goes to repave roads, or pay for welfare, then you'll hear me howling. Try not to take every post on here as a personal jab, as they aren't all directed solely at you( at least mine wasn't).

xrtoronto · « **Reply #76 on:** May 12, 2006, 07:52:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is a well reasoned argument that the pleasure that a hunter gets may very well be fulfillment of the ancient drive to get food, and that drive has been encoded in us since we first became a human species. As sex drives vary among individuals, so might the hunting drive.

That the ingrained drive to hunt can be screwed up in some individuals, as can be the sex drive, that doesn't detract from the base instincts that could drive both behaviors.

If you step back and think about it, you would notice that both behaviors stem from fullfillment of ancient behaviors. One to eat and one to procreate. Both drives are extremely important to the survival of any species.

While I believe that the above argument has some merit, it has nothing to do with my opposition or encouragement of illegal hunting, or whether or not I believe in the justification of human dominance over nature. Where you made that leap is within your psyche, not mine.

If you look at an earlier post of mine in this thread, you will note that I believe that the destruction of Polar Bears in the St Louis Zoo was unwarranted, even though they had devoured idiotic children who broke into the zoo and entered the Polar Bear exhibit.

This may give you some clue as to the relative importance with which I view the human / animal relationship.

In your first paragraph you forget that this Polar bear was not killed for food it was killed for trophy. No one would argue killing to sustain life is wrong. Killing to get a trophy kill is unconscionable.

As far as getting a belly full of food and sex, I agree they are the two most powerful drives we have and in that order. When an animal has enough food it will not kill for food. Why should we? Killing for trophy game is some pathological ego driven phenomena; Probably an over compensation for feelings of inadequacy..."See what a big man I am...look at what I killed!"

Sometimes reading the responses on this BBS makes me feel alien to this world. I have never known the urge to kill animals like this. Never. I look at these creatures with wonder and awe and have done so since before I could speak. The Inuit in Canada's north have been sustaining life on whaling and other big game for thousands of years. I have no problem with them hunting as they do. These people are extremely skilled at using every thing from their kills. Nothing goes to waste. It's not for pride...It's not for money...they kill to survive. That's the difference.

Debonair · « **Reply #77 on:** May 12, 2006, 08:05:33 PM »

hybrids tend to be sterile.
thats why you'll never get laid driving a prius.
seriously, though pizzly wouldn't have had cubs.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #78 on:** May 12, 2006, 08:10:04 PM »

The thing about killing small population sized animals (like any apex predator) is that (1) you may be killing animals that have certain traits for future survival, and (2) it takes the population much longer to recover from hunting losses.

So what if this hybrid bear was better suited for swimming long distances and could handle warmer weather? If it could have passed those traits on, maybe the polar bear population could better deal with global warming. This is just an example, the actual hybrid bear that was shot may not have been able to reproduce for all we know.

Polar bears do hunt humans. Special training for kids, along with people on 'polar bear patrol', are standard practices for villages and towns in the Far North. But then again, bull sharks in Florida, along with Tiger sharks in Hawaii routinely attack people.

Mr Big · « **Reply #79 on:** May 12, 2006, 08:36:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
In your first paragraph you forget that this Polar bear was not killed for food it was killed for trophy.

No, he didn't forget. He was talking about the emotional pleasure of hunting and how it could be argued that the pleasure of hunting is the fullfilment of an ancient human drive, necessary for human survival.

Maverick · « **Reply #80 on:** May 12, 2006, 08:52:29 PM »

Hunting is a rather personal sport. There are folks who do not want to hunt and that is perfectly fine. They are welcome to survive on the efforts of others who can provide meat fish and fowl for them to consume along with the other foods they do not provide for themselves. This is one of the benefits of an urbanized and non agrarian society. One does not have to be directly involved in providing the food that gets on the table.

Hunting for food is also one of the reasons to hunt. There are others as well. Game animal management is one of them. The appearance of large numbers of people taking over the habitat are a major concern for maintaining a stable population of the animals that inhabit the geographic area. The actual balkance that nature maintains, is disturbed by the loss of habitat. Some kind of management is required to maintain a stable and viable population of animals.

A hunter is actually fulfilling their part in nature as a balance in maintaining populations. The carefully scheduled harvest of excess animals maintains a healthy population in any area. In some cases this management has actually allowed more animals than ever before to live in larger areas of the country. The white tailed deer is a good example. The fee's that the hunter pays, quite willingly, is to maintain and support the habitat for animals and their population. Those are quite often ONLY supported by the hunters as the non hunter simply ignores that which is outside of the city.

Some folks are so removed from the natural cycle of predator and prey that the only way they can think of it is to consider participation in that natural cycle as being somehow "not natural" and something to be ridiculed.

A non hunter is not ridiculed for not hunting, that's their choice. It should also be fairly obvious that they should extend the same curtesy to hunters, often it isn't. It becomes something to be held up as a matter of scorn that someone does something that the nonhunter does not understand. That lack of understanding is sad in that it becomes a point for the non hunter to claim somehow they are superior in their understanding of nature even though they do not participate in it.

Curve, you "support" animals by not poking holes in them. That's fine but do not think that just by not hunting that you actually have done something to help them because you haven't. You've just ignored them and left them on their own, without support or assistance in a more populous globe. A managed population is a healthier one when the numbers are kept at a level supportable by the eco system they inhabit. Ignoring them allows them to breed to starvation or to become a problem impacting the human population or both.

I suspect that the polar bear hunt is one based on a population survey that found a small reduction in the bear population would be benificial to the over all population. The bear is at the top of the food chain and other species of animals are affected by the bear population. By scheduling a hunt, especially a high priced hunt they accomplished 2 things. They kept the population in that area to a viable level and they actually made money to help support other game management operations that will have a beneficial impact on the overal animal population there. Definately a win win situation.

xrtoronto · « **Reply #81 on:** May 12, 2006, 08:59:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr Big
No, he didn't forget. He was talking about the emotional pleasure of hunting and how it could be argued that the pleasure of hunting is the fullfilment of an ancient human drive, necessary for human survival.

I would agree with that NUKE only if the kill is for food. To go out needing food and finally make a kill must be intensely satisfying. To kill for trophy is not normal and not reflected in natural world. It's a human thing. The pleasure is not the fullfillment of an ancient human drive but rather in service of some need of that individual ego...to me its an over compensation for feelings of inadequacy. (posibly something else closely related to this but whatever the reason, it's ill conceived)

Hangtime · « **Reply #82 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:21:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I guess we see things differently. But anything that views me as food and works towards that end I consider to be aggressive towards me. If it wants to eat me, that makes me its prey. As a predator, it is aggressive towards its prey. Tell me again how a polar bear is not aggressive towards humans, and yet it views humans as food.

"Hey dude, chill, that polar bear isn't aggressive, he's trying to bite your bellybutton in half because he wants to eat you". Sure thing.

ROFL!!

You should have a lil talk with my ex-wife about guns. Yer logic train is tuff to derail.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #83 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:27:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
I would agree with that NUKE only if the kill is for food. To go out needing food and finally make a kill must be intensely satisfying. To kill for trophy is not normal and not reflected in natural world.

The behavioral parallel with sex is quite apparent here. I would imagine that the vast majority of us believe it would be "intensly satisfying" to shag Jessica Alba. We would not need to impregnate her in order to have the "intensly satisfying" feeling, although that would be the point from a species survival point of view. From a trophy hunting point of view, few of us, if successful, would have the fortitude to keep quiet about the encounter.

Edit>> sorry, my faux pas. I mentioned a hot babe and did not post a picture.

Mea culpa.

Hangtime · « **Reply #84 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:37:04 PM »

If any of you folks have a cat, and have any powers of observation you will have seen first hand just a tiny tip of the ferocity and focus that goes into a 'hunt'.

I am very glad the viscious little beastie that shares my abode weighs only 12 pounds... beacuse if that damned thing weighed 1200 pounds, for SURE i'd be a giant cat **** right about now.

And that cat would not have taken me out because it was 'hungry'.

Any man that thinks that the creatures at the top of the food chain in their local enviornment kill just for food has been hoodwinked.

And, should you ever encounter 1200 pounds of bear; I do hope you've tided up your personal affairs, because if YOUR the one being hunted, I doubt you'll be resurfacing as anything other than a bear ****... 'bang stick' or not.

Toad · « **Reply #85 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:40:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Oh PLEASE!!!

Don't try and tell me that hunters willingly fork out taxes when they buy ammo or pay license fees. They HAVE TO if they want to get their hunting jollies. It is law.

I'll tell you what I contribute, or more precisely "how" I contribute...I don't punch holes in wildlife for fun.

And you don't do a damn thing to preserve or restore wildlife habitat, most likely.

You must have missed this:

Quote

NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Quail Unlimited, sportsmen contribute an additional $300 million each year to wildlife conservation activities.

Those are VOLUNTARY organizations Curv; people join them because they want to, not because you must be a member to hunt. Because membership in those organizations entitles you to do ONE thing...contribute money directly to habitat and wildlife preservation.

Hunters also support the Fish and Games agencies with funds generated by licenses and fees when the legislatures won't fund them with tax revenue.

Do some research on the origin of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. That was a tax on hunting equipment supported and passed by...you guessed it... hunters. Prior to the Pittman-Robertson Act, money intended for wildlife conservation often got redirected to fund other local projects such as road repairs.

Yeah, you don't "punch holes in wildlife for fun". No sir... you're a far, far better man than that. You exclusively hire animal assassins to cover themselves in blood 8 a day hours at minimum wage to serve your hunger and feed your family.

And I'm SURE you contribute HUGE amounts to voluntary wildlife organizations to preserve habitat and the wildlife itself.

Bravo!

Toad · « **Reply #86 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:43:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
When an animal has enough food it will not kill for food.

[/b]

No, but they will kill for the sake of killing.

Ever had a fox get in your henhouse?

An opossum get in your quail pen?

Lost 55 quail one night when an opossum chewed through the hardware cloth and killed ~25% of the quail in the pen. Only one or two were eaten.

There's a lot of other animals that could serve as similar examples.

Toad · « **Reply #87 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:45:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp

So what if this hybrid bear was better suited for swimming long distances and could handle warmer weather?

Apparently you are unaware that this "unique" hybrid breeding has already occurred in zoos?

BTW, their offspring are also fertile.

It's not like it doesn't already exist or can't be done again.

xrtoronto · « **Reply #88 on:** May 12, 2006, 09:50:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Any man that thinks that the creatures at the top of the food chain in their local enviornment kill just for food has been hoodwinked.

I just saw a couple weeks ago on PBS a show on the last free running horses in this canyon in Wyoming. (I think it was Wyoming) Anyway, this lady films the life of this horse over 5 years and there is a part in it where this other male comes along and finds a newborn calf (the mother couldn't get it to stand up) and this stallion killed it by picking it up by its teeth and smashing it around till dead.

I have seen footage of whales killing seals. This was explained saying it was a fight for diminishing food stores.

Male lions are famous for killing others cubs. If he does kill the cubs then the mother will come into heat within a couple days when he gets to perpetuate his lineage.

One of the Atlantic sea birds, possibly the Puffin, lays two eggs knowing only food for one will be provided. The bird that gets the food is the louder, more aggressive and stronger of the two. The other is left to die and then tossed out of the nest.

Harsh, but these things have been going on for millions of years.

Hangtime · « **Reply #89 on:** May 12, 2006, 10:12:07 PM »

Yup. it's a cruel world. We, alone; keep pets; will kill to protect them, stock zoos, 'worry' about the enviornment, take steps to insure it's preservation... and as Toad sez; it' usually the guys that actually hunt that take a particular intrest in the balance of nature and actully give something more than PC lip service to that end.

So, if some rich yutz pokes a hole in a starving polar bear for 50 grand it's a pretty fair bet that somewhere along the line the species he's culled of one will be reimbursed by the assured survial or several others from the proceeds of that 'hunt'.

Circle of Life stuff, with the 'human' element added.