SF Chronicle RSS Feed - Tom Stienstra
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 916
- Reaction score
- 0
- Thread starter SF Chronicle RSS Feed - Tom Stienstra
- Start date
#1Predator
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,239
- Reaction score
- 350
It's the same reaction ... an emotional response regarding a scientific (unemotional) approach. All wildlife populations need to be controlled whether by nature (using disease and/or starvation as the big killers) or by man (controlled hunting/trapping). This is the law of carrying capacity that has been established by nature. Man did not make this law, nature did. Granted, some species deserve full protection mainly due to habitat loss which, in many cases, is man-caused. But that's a different matter.
It is logistically impossible for man to manipulate nature's way (i.e. feed starving wildlife, prevent wildlife accidents, stop natural predation, etc.) of controlling populations. Hunting/trapping is the only area of population control (versus nature's way of starvation, accidents, predation, disease/parasites, harsh weather) over which man has any influence.
Scientifically, regarding the killing of an animal by man, strictly (unemotionally) speaking, it makes no difference if the animal is shot out of a tree, killed by an arrow, killed after being caught in a trap or clubbed to death. The end result is the same...an animal was removed from the population base. If the "taking" of an animal was deemed necessary by the best scientific evidence available, then so be it.
But the manner of the animal's death is the main issue if the situation is addressed from a strictly emotional view point. Unfortunately, many people have been removed from the reality of agricultural life (where animals are slaughtered for food on the family farm/ranch) to the sanitized life of the city and the supermarket. This shift has resulted in an emotional response to a scientific approach. When emotions become involved, rational decisions are less likely to occur. IMHO, this is where we are at today.
It is logistically impossible for man to manipulate nature's way (i.e. feed starving wildlife, prevent wildlife accidents, stop natural predation, etc.) of controlling populations. Hunting/trapping is the only area of population control (versus nature's way of starvation, accidents, predation, disease/parasites, harsh weather) over which man has any influence.
Scientifically, regarding the killing of an animal by man, strictly (unemotionally) speaking, it makes no difference if the animal is shot out of a tree, killed by an arrow, killed after being caught in a trap or clubbed to death. The end result is the same...an animal was removed from the population base. If the "taking" of an animal was deemed necessary by the best scientific evidence available, then so be it.
But the manner of the animal's death is the main issue if the situation is addressed from a strictly emotional view point. Unfortunately, many people have been removed from the reality of agricultural life (where animals are slaughtered for food on the family farm/ranch) to the sanitized life of the city and the supermarket. This shift has resulted in an emotional response to a scientific approach. When emotions become involved, rational decisions are less likely to occur. IMHO, this is where we are at today.
WildlifeBranch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 56
Also, retired biol. Dick Weaver is still with us last I heard.
