From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:52:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Scott Wood writes:
>>>(ie liberating animals to starvation and little or no care)

Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>>Explain to me how someone liberates a wild animal to starve to death?
>>Granted, a hunter would do this, but the animal ends up dead anyway!

Scott Wood writes:
>But these are not wild animals.  They are domesticated.  Or at least thats
>is what the rest of us were talking about....

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!
Check the subject line.  We are talking about banning hunting, black bears
Wayne Pacelle, etc.....

>>>People who's license dollars and club dues and hands-on efforts attribute
>>>to more feeding, 

>>which increases the population they are trying to control.....

>Duh?!?!?  No it doesn't.  What have I been saying over and over.  The increase
>in population decreases food.  Increasing food helps support existing
>populations and hasn't near the effect on numbers as lack of food does.
>Good food supplies produce healthy deer.  Perhaps you are getting confused
>with the fact that as a result, healthy deer produce healthier - more
>resilient off spring.  Thus can help influence positive population growth.

So why are you proving my point........

>I suppose you cry for them when a coyote does manage to catch up with one?
>Or when a car hits one?  

Cry?  No.  Feel sad?  Yes

>Or how about when lack of food leads them to starve?

Cry?  No, I feel mad because no one is paying attention to the NEEDS of the
planet and its animals.

>Predators are a natural part of the world.  Just because man uses tools that
>make him able to get it over with faster (guns/bows) that does not remove
>him from the scheme.  

Does man have to hunt animals to survive?

>And I should point out, that legal hunting sets limits
>on the animals taken - mother nature doesn't.  Nor does she care about
>present populations when she kills more animals off (by disease, predators,
>starvations, etc)

Mother nature often takes the sick, weak, and diseased.  Man, all too often,
takes the strong.  How does man know how many animals it should take?

>>What of the groups that own non-hunting habitat sanctuaries?

>That are funded by federal and state moneys and grants you mean?  

No, I was thinking of private groups that rely on donations and investments
to raise revenues to acquire more habitat.

>>>And how in the hell do you intend to decrease breeding of wild animals?
>>>That is preposterous.  I suppose you are going to spay and nueter them too?

>>How about injecting them with anti-bodies that weaken the cell walls of the
>>unfertilized egg, thus sterilizing them?  How about having hunters ONLY
>>target females until the population is below the capacity of the land?

>And how ethical would it be to inject deer - I mean the drug would have had to
>have been tested on lab animals to be sure it was safe for the deer....

The vaccine is tested on deer for deer.  Not quite the same as testing
Imuran on mice for another species(human) altogether.

>>So, the reason that there are too many deer is because human intervention has
>>has altered nature's balance?  Seems we can't do a good job of management.

>We have improved environmental conditions to support larger populations,
>but at the same time introduced an efficient and discerning predator to
>provide a balance.  What's wronge with that?  

Is level that supports larger populations the best balance?  
Isn't a wolf an efficient and discerning predator?  How about bears?  How
about coyotes?  How about some birds?

>I suppose your solution would
>be to let the mature forests take over again, 

And what of the various animals that make there homes in mature forests?
Do we force them into extinction?  You will always have new growth forests
because some forests are constantly renewed.  But a forest can only get
old once......

>and we can all go back to
>living in tee pees like the indians did before we got here?  Then again,
>a tee pee was made out of deer hide - sorry!

They were also made of birch bark - sorry!

>>And what of the state's where natural predator reintroduction is being
>>blocked, even though naturalists say it should be done? 

>Examples...  If you're going to ask me for them, I will ask you for the
>same.

Yellowstone ....  reintroduction of wolves.  
Yellowstone ....  relocation of bears.
Florida ....  reintroduction of panthers. 
Colorado ...  grizzlies

>>>I have witnessed elk and elk damage first hand.  Until you have spent as
>>>much time in the woods with them as I have, I would not question their
>>>interaction with their environments ecology.
>>>swood

>>Why do you assume that I have not spent most of my early years in the great
>>outdoors of the UP?

>Well, you just proved my assumption.  There are no Elk in the U.P. STUPID!

How about Isle Royale?  Or isn't that in the UP?  Man, I must be stupid. :-)
It also has moose and wolves.  Well, at least it did in the 70's....   
They probably are under some form of management too......

>The Elk populations in Michigan are centered in the north west portion in
>about a 20 mile radius approximately around the city of Atlanta, Michigan.

Isn't Atlanta about 45 minutes from Alpena?  Wouldn't that make it the
North East portion of the LP!?  What's preventing the elk from moving
down to that National Forest (or is it up)?  Tell you what, the next time
I go up to Rogers City and visit the relatives, how about you getting me
onto this preserve to see the damage first hand.....?

Rob U, has driven through Atlanta, though can't remember it  :-)
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -