i see your point, but just because someone offers $$$ for the furs&bodies of the animal, does that make it allright to hunt it to extinction over?
especially an animal that was allready on the endangered species list to begin with?
Which animal was
hunted to extinction?
Can you name an animal that was
hunted to extinction while it was on the endangered list?
i have nothing against hunting in its true form:for survival. when you hunt to eat the meat. but when your in a part of the world that is allmost overrun with deers, do you really need to hunt an endangered animal for its meat?
and most of these cougers probally werent even killed because of that. they were most likely killed out of ignorance. people look at a big predator like that, and they immediatly think "kill it!". its like how most people react to snakes. if you see a snake in your field, 8/10 people would try to kill it instead of just letting the snake go along its way. if the cougers attacking your livestock, then theres diff ways of removing the problem without actually killing it. you could of had it captured, and relocated.
You're right (although your logic is twisted) when you say "most of these cougers probally werent even killed because of that", but I bet you don't know why. You're right, because most of the cougars that died
weren't hunted. They (a few, anyway) may have been shot, poisoned, or trapped, certainly,
but they weren't hunted. In reality, the majority likely died due to habitat encroachment. They died because another species moved in and utilized the environment for it's own needs (which is exactly what the cougar was doing up until that point).
Hunting is a regulated activity. Part of that regulation is not allowing endangered species to be hunted. If an endangered species is killed, it isn't hunting. It's a violation of federal law (here in the US).
And killing cougars is not like killing snakes. My wife would probably kill a snake, but she wouldn't kill a cougar. 8 out of 10 folks would not kill a cougar. 99.9 out of 100 would never even see it.
Moving an animal isn't always a good option (and it's ofetn a bad option). It really comes down to why it was there in the first place. Viable, healthy cougars generally don't come close enough to people to kill their livestock, unless they have no other option. Of course, habitat encroachment may take away their other options... Moving an animal is seldom as easy and effective as most city-folk believe.
and yes i fully understand humanity is the problem, thats why ive been saying we have lost our respect for nature. we kill animals off without even shedding a tear when there gone. we demolish the rain forrest for trees to make paper out of, and by doing that were pushing very rare animals out of there homes.
You're also doing it by buying pre-packaged food, going to school, heating your house, doing your laundry, and watching TV. No need to get all elaborate and bring up the rain forests. The rain forest argument is just an attempt to shift the blame to someone else. If you exist (and I believe that you do), you're responsible for the death of animals (the overwhelmingly vast majority of which you are not eating, or seeing, or hearing, or thinking about).
and in the cougers case, america was its territory before humans ever arrived. i feel we had no right to kill it off.we tend to forget that most animals have been around longer than we have when we're destroying there homes.
The "before humans" argument can be used for any animal, really. But then again, what does it matter? Are we part of the ecosystem? Or not?
If not, humans are an invasive species. And, our human response to that is to attempt to eradicate the invasive species (unless we like them or can profit from them; pheasants are an example). Should we eradicate ourselves? Or at least limit ourselves to a small portion of Africa (where we came from)? That would probably mean putting our population at a "controlled" level as well. Anyone want to volunteer to be "culled" for the good of the earth?
If we
are part of the ecosystem, then maybe we should just leave ourselves alone, and let happen what will happen? If we're part of the ecosystem (part of nature) then our activities are "natural", and no more evil than a robin eating a worm, or a flower growing. To
not leave ourselves alone would be unnatural.
Beaver (an animal I've trapped many of, sold many hides of, and eaten just a few of) are a very destructive animal. They take a "nice" place, and destroy it by altering water flow, and clearing trees and saplings. They dig ugly canals and tunnels to make their work easier and safer for themselves. The slow the flow of water, and make it impossible for the native fish (trout) to spawn. In the end, the beaver eat themselves out of house and home (they eat the bark of the trees they cut down, no trees equals no beaver food). At that point, they either die or move to another location to begin the process again. The original "pristine" habitat will take decades to repair itself. The pond will fill in gradually, leaving a marsh, and then a meadow. The stream may eventually carve it's way back through.
In the meantime, all sorts of other critters will use the "artificial" habitat left by the beaver activities. What looked like horrific damage to some organisms, is cherished by others. Deer (and cougars which eat the deer) will find the meadow to be a good thing.
Maybe people are like beaver? Who knows what will happen after we destroy the original habitat. Do we have a "right" to survive and prosper?
