Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Please - Do not buy fur!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cromulent
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisLM2001 View Post
    But simply releasing an animal into the wild because someone thought "wild is better", shows more than a lack of "compassion", it shows plain ignorance.
    I think Chris has just summed up why I so often disagree with animal rights activists.

    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    Anyone who believes animal cruelty must be stopped DOES know what they're talking about. It's the careless idiots with no regard for animal welfare who need re-educating.
    I think in this instance it is the animal rights activists that need re-educating, not the other way around.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    Yep, people interferring with nature as per usual.

    That's part of the problem. Leave nature and animals be.
    There's one thing mankind intervening to prevent extinction, it's another to CAUSE extinction.

    Man adopted the caretaker role (as he really has no choice, because he depends on the very nature he exploits), and that means to protect and preserve what natural resources that are left.

    If that means releasing back a native predator into an ecosystem without predators to control the animal population so they won't overbreed (which causes genetic problems; over feeding; and destruction of native plants and animals), then they have too -- since it was mankind that took them away in the first place.

    Nature is a delicate balance. From the grass on the ground, to man with a rifle. If each doesn't balance each out, the whole ecosystem crashes. Even hunters today understand this, and probably they're the most involved in conservation in the world, since they know what happens when they don't caretake their prey and the land they live on.

    The dollars I spend for a fishing license, for example, is there to help conserve the very natural resources I would fish out of the rivers and ponds. Not just the fish, their environment and food stocks. Our local white striped bass was almost extinct when a 20 year ban went into affect. It was so easy to fish for them, as they loved to lay their eggs around eddies by the dams. Throw a line out there in spring, and the daddies who were protecting the fries, would gobble anything attached. So easy they nearly were wiped out. 20 year ban, and natural resource officers patrolling the rivers and banks helped save them. The result, nature balancing itself, and today fishermen can again fish for them, with strict size and fishing limits.

    That's responsible caretaking -- conservation.

    But simply releasing an animal into the wild because someone thought "wild is better", shows more than a lack of "compassion", it shows plain ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    Animal cruelty is NEVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.

    Anyone who believes animal cruelty must be stopped DOES know what they're talking about. It's the careless idiots with no regard for animal welfare who need re-educating.
    Animal cruelty will exist long after humans are extinct. Because that IS nature.

    Mankind is the one with supposely "compassion", which defies nature. In the end, his "compassion" may even cause his own extinction, for the same reason of releasing a non-local predator into the wild to eat the native wildlife, because he felt "sorry" for it.

    Do you know what Kudzu is, Creepshow? It was imported as an ornamental plant. It got released into the wild, and the result it's strangling whole forests with it's vines that grows inches a day.

    That's what non-native plants and animals do. Without natural enemies it will overtake the region and kill off the entire ecosystem.

    That's not "compassion", that's species killing by stupidity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Originally posted by Wayne Luke View Post
    PETA is not an animal rights group though. It was started after the founder was bit by a dog. Their primary goal under all the gloss and campaigns is to get animal ownership banned and all current pets put to death. People who actually work for animal rights are doing so to prevent harm to the animals and provide safe shelter to them. Domesticated animals do not belong in the wild. They do not have the skills to survive and there are no predators left to keep them in control. Dogs and Cats have been bred to rely on humans as much as we rely on them for day to day life (some more than others). In the end, they will be hunted and killed by people. Look at the controls to keep non-native species in check like wild pigs in North and South America or the pacific islands and rabbits in Australia.
    I agree with basically everything you have just said! I just said myself that domesticated animals SHOULD NOT be released into the wild.

    I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here with regards to what I am trying to say.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Originally posted by Wayne Luke View Post
    PETA is not an animal rights group though. It was started after the founder was bit by a dog. Their primary goal under all the gloss and campaigns is to get animal ownership banned and all current pets put to death. People who actually work for animal rights are doing so to prevent harm to the animals and provide safe shelter to them. Domesticated animals do not belong in the wild. They do not have the skills to survive and there are no predators left to keep them in control. Dogs and Cats have been bred to rely on humans as much as we rely on them for day to day life (some more than others). In the end, they will be hunted and killed by people. Look at the controls to keep non-native species in check like wild pigs in North and South America or the pacific islands and rabbits in Australia.
    Um, I don't support PETA. AT ALL. Let me make that very clear right here and now.

    I support the RSPCA and HSUS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne Luke
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    I hate it when people try and make out it's animal rights activists who are to blame! Anyone who has animal rights high on their agenda is a good person in my book.
    PETA is not an animal rights group though. It was started after the founder was bit by a dog. Their primary goal under all the gloss and campaigns is to get animal ownership banned and all current pets put to death. People who actually work for animal rights are doing so to prevent harm to the animals and provide safe shelter to them. Domesticated animals do not belong in the wild. They do not have the skills to survive and there are no predators left to keep them in control. Dogs and Cats have been bred to rely on humans as much as we rely on them for day to day life (some more than others). In the end, they will be hunted and killed by people. Look at the controls to keep non-native species in check like wild pigs in North and South America or the pacific islands and rabbits in Australia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    I agree that animals that are DOMESTICATED should not be put out into the wild. Because yes, that would be extremely cruel.

    BUT, if people weren't cruel to animals in the first place, all of us wouldn't even be having this conversation and there wouldn't be a problem.

    I hate it when people try and make out it's animal rights activists who are to blame! Anyone who has animal rights high on their agenda is a good person in my book.

    It's the people who stand idly by and don't do anything to help (or those sickos who wear fur or hunt for "fun") who are at fault.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wayne Luke
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    No, I'm most definitely not joking.

    Animal cruelty is NEVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.

    Anyone who believes animal cruelty must be stopped DOES know what they're talking about. It's the careless idiots with no regard for animal welfare who need re-educating.

    But you're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

    There are better options available to alleviate animal cruelty than to introduce population imbalances that upset ecosystems. Introducing animals into an ecosystem brings a lot more than destruction than killing off other animals. It can cause crop devastation, water pollution, and disease to spread while wiping out indigenous species and possibly causing extinction. For humans it can exacerbate poverty and hunger by causing higher prices for goods and services.

    Releasing animals out into the wild that have never been in the wild is cruelty and shows a total disregard for animal welfare and for the ecosystems that provide life on this planet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisLM2001 View Post
    they're closely monitoring them and the ecosystem, so the wolves don't upset the balance by eating too much prey.
    Yep, people interferring with nature as per usual.

    That's part of the problem. Leave nature and animals be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    Originally posted by Cromulent View Post
    Your joking right? These animals destroyed the local ecosystem. They caused irreparable harm and killed off a significant portion of the local otters. Those ferrets had no natural right to be in that ecosystem and the ignorance of the animal rights activists caused more damage to the environment and more harm to animals in general than if they had just let them be slaughtered for fur.

    This is what annoys me. The complete ignorance of animal rights activists and the people who say "good for them" without knowing anything about what they are talking about.
    No, I'm most definitely not joking.

    Animal cruelty is NEVER acceptable, no matter what the circumstances.

    Anyone who believes animal cruelty must be stopped DOES know what they're talking about. It's the careless idiots with no regard for animal welfare who need re-educating.

    But you're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cromulent
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    There's a big difference between animals being killed by other animals in the wild (which is just nature taking its course), and animals being cruelly slaughtered for fur, Cromulent.

    I say good on the activists for releasing the ferrets.
    Your joking right? These animals destroyed the local ecosystem. They caused irreparable harm and killed off a significant portion of the local otters. Those ferrets had no natural right to be in that ecosystem and the ignorance of the animal rights activists caused more damage to the environment and more harm to animals in general than if they had just let them be slaughtered for fur.

    This is what annoys me. The complete ignorance of animal rights activists and the people who say "good for them" without knowing anything about what they are talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisLM2001
    replied
    Originally posted by Creepshow View Post
    There's a big difference between animals being killed by other animals in the wild (which is just nature taking its course), and animals being cruelly slaughtered for fur, Cromulent.
    Not when it destroys the ecosystem.

    Release too many predators in a small area too fast, and they'll eat everything, with dismal results for all animals -- and even plants -- in the area. It can cause extinction.

    Why when they released the wolves in the national parks, they're closely monitoring them and the ecosystem, so the wolves don't upset the balance by eating too much prey.

    Yin and Yang.

    Leave a comment:


  • Creepshow
    replied
    There's a big difference between animals being killed by other animals in the wild (which is just nature taking its course), and animals being cruelly slaughtered for fur, Cromulent.

    I say good on the activists for releasing the ferrets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cromulent
    replied
    There was a story in the UK a few years back about some animal rights activists releasing some Ferrets from a fur farm into the wild.

    Those Ferrets went and total decimated the local ecosystem doing more harm than good and killing far more animals than would have died if they had just been used for fur.

    It just goes to show that animal rights activists really do not always know what they are talking about.

    The only animal group I'm willing to support is the RSPCA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freesteyelz
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisLM2001 View Post
    If you've seen the terror acts PETA has done, you would claim their terrorists by that definition, too.

    I use the term "terrorist" very sparingly. It's probably because of my background in psychology and in law. Still, I will not dispute how you view PETA based on your experiences with them. You have your reasons for labeling PETA as a terrorist group and I'm not here to convince you to think otherwise.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X