NationStates Jolt Archive

A friend of mine is really upset about this issue and she asked for help in getting people to sign this petition. If you and people you know could sign this petition, it would be greatly appreciated. And feel free to discuss it too, as that's probably a good thing to do anyway. Thanks in advance for anyone who votes.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/664280276?z00m=101306&z00m=101306&ltl=1156829178

Nah.

I believe in collective punushment and im still not happy with the shennanigans they pulled with Little Red Riding Hood. Plus tearing down those houses without a proper permit. Those bastards are a menace!

no i will not sign some tree-hugger's petition.

I believe in collective punushment and im still not happy with the shennanigans they pulled with Little Red Riding Hood. Plus tearing down those houses without a proper permit. Those bastards are a menace!
funny. but those are just fairy tales. it never really happen.

You don't understand; the wolves want to be killed.

I believe in collective punushment and im still not happy with the shennanigans they pulled with Little Red Riding Hood. Plus tearing down those houses without a proper permit. Those bastards are a menace!
Wolves are pedophiles.

online petition.



uberlulz.

no i will not sign some tree-hugger's petition.

You don't really have to flame, do you?

You don't really have to flame, do you?

"Tree-hugger" is part of the common vernacular, just as much as "muslim-basher". I see no flame in the term.

The impact of online petitions is non - existent. Wolves if are deemed a menace should be killed to protect human interest.

*sighs* I'm supporting the non-killing of wolves, but yeah, online petitions means very little. Contacting your elected representatives has MUCH more impact than placing your email on a list.

MCLMM;11612589']"Tree-hugger" is part of the common vernacular, just as much as "muslim-basher". I see no flame in the term.


Hehehh yeah like 'Jesus Freak' or 'Bigoted Bastard' or 'Black ****' All are part of the common vernacular, as you say, yet inflametary they are, as was your 'Tree Hugger' if somebody took offence to it.

You don't understand; the wolves want to be killed.

I lol'd.

Some comments from the people that signed the petition made me lol aswell.

No ... we have had a problem up north with the wolf population for years

I'd certainly not support needless killing of animals. Wolves have always been a target of humans. Unless they attack someone I don't see the big deal.

if they arent killed, our women will mate with them creating a race of mutant...well...a race of these: http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8382/philodoxnp2.jpg :eek:

I'd certainly not support needless killing of animals. Wolves have always been a target of humans. Unless they attack someone I don't see the big deal.

We deffinatly see a few attacks a year ... they also like to prey on smaller livestock

if they arent killed, our women will mate with them creating a race of mutant...well...a race of these: http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8382/philodoxnp2.jpg :eek:

That is so awsome! Round up some women and give them to the wolves! :D

Winchester thirty-ought-thirties are best, they've got a lot of punch, and they are precise, when your livestock might be at risk.

That is so awsome! Round up some women and give them to the wolves! :D

blasphemy!!! no jello for you!

We deffinatly see a few attacks a year ... they also like to prey on smaller livestock

I'm sure many of the attacks on humans are done because the person was being stupid and if a few livestock get killed? Not a cause to start the mass slaughter of wolves.

blasphemy!!! no jello for you!

Hey I think having those creatures around will be pretty great. The Earth is pretty boring with just us homo sapiens.

Besides, I don't like jello, I'm a pie lover. :cool:

A friend of mine is really upset about this issue and she asked for help in getting people to sign this petition. If you and people you know could sign this petition, it would be greatly appreciated. And feel free to discuss it too, as that's probably a good thing to do anyway. Thanks in advance for anyone who votes.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/664280276?z00m=101306&z00m=101306&ltl=1156829178

I happen to quite like wolves. A friend of my Dad has one and they are lovely!

I'm sure many of the attacks on humans are done because the person was being stupid and if a few livestock get killed? Not a cause to start the mass slaughter of wolves.

Some ... we had a little girl get attacked in her back yard up north (neighbor to my grandma)

Anyways who is talking about mass slaughter? I was just talking about the ability to cull the ones when they start to attack an unreasonable ammount

Hey I think having those creatures around will be pretty great. The Earth is pretty boring with just us homo sapiens.

Besides, I don't like jello, I'm a pie lover. :cool:

no jello? *sigh* your a lost soul my friend...a lost soul...:(

jello>pie

Some ... we had a little girl get attacked in her back yard up north (neighbor to my grandma)

Anyways who is talking about mass slaughter? I was just talking about the ability to cull the ones when they start to attack an unreasonable ammount

There will always be some animal attacks. Putting that particualar one down would certainly be proper.

Perhaps you are advocating something else? I can understanding culling the ones who attack humans but the plan in Idaho according to the article is to kill 75% of the wolf population. I doubt they all have attacked a human.

I believe in collective punushment and im still not happy with the shennanigans they pulled with Little Red Riding Hood. Plus tearing down those houses without a proper permit. Those bastards are a menace!

http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20060826/5.html

What about the pumas/cougars/mountain lions?

I won't sign for two reasons. First, wolves usually steal and kill cougar youngs and eat them.

Second, if the wolves cease to exist and become extincted, there will be more prey and free space away from men for the mountain lions, so everything is good.

There will always be some animal attacks. Putting that particualar one down would certainly be proper.

Perhaps you are advocating something else? I can understanding culling the ones who attack humans but the plan in Idaho according to the article is to kill 75% of the wolf population. I doubt they all have attacked a human.

That I think would be a bit overboard … I mean we could stand to see a reduction here (we had a surge of dear a few years ago with the warm winters we have been seeing) now the dear are gone and the wolves are overpopulated and starving

It has become a big problem this year in this area … REALLY bad and yet we are talking about a reduction of like 12 percent not 75 … there is no way they have THAT much of a problem

That I think would be a bit overboard … I mean we could stand to see a reduction here (we had a surge of dear a few years ago with the warm winters we have been seeing) now the dear are gone and the wolves are overpopulated and starving

It has become a big problem this year in this area … REALLY bad and yet we are talking about a reduction of like 12 percent not 75 … there is no way they have THAT much of a problem

A reasonable amount would be fine. I know that around here they killed about 1/3 of the deer because they were so overpopulated. That kind of thing is sad but neccessary. This plan however seems just like a group of people who hate and fear wolves so they want to wipe them out.

Wolves in Idaho were reintroduced in 1994 as an experiment in repopulating them to the rocky mtns. They are considered a nonessential group to the survival of the gray wolf species and reintroduced under special management provisions {10(j) and 4(d)} (http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/05-136.pdf)of the endangered species act because the ranchers and others didnt particularly want them if it meant they had to tolerate wolf predation of their livestock. An Indian tribe there wanted the wolves back badly enough access to their land to bring in wolves and volunteer time and effort to study and manage them


http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/


The USFWS reintroduced fifteen wolves into Idaho in 1995. At that time, the Idaho Legislature strictly limited Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) involvement with wolves and wolf recovery. The USFWS proceeded with recovery and contracted with the Nez Perce Tribe to implement wolf management in Idaho. In 1996 an additional 20 wolves were reintroduced. Since then, the number of wolves in Idaho has increased, and by December 2005 it had grown to 500-600 wolves, 36 verified breeding pairs and 61 documented packs well distributed throughout Idaho.

How are wolves now listed under the Endangered Species Act?
Wolves in Idaho south of I-90 are listed as "experimental, non-essential," under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Rules governing management of wolves north of I- 90 differ from south of I-90. In 2003, the USFWS began the process of delisting wolves in the west. Under the ESA, the USFWS will de-list wolves when the population has recovered and the combined policies of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming provide an "adequate regulatory mechanism" to govern wolf management. To be "adequate" means to assure that if the states took over management, the wolves would be protected and maintained as a viable population sufficiently distributed among the three states. The USFWS interprets the ESA to mean that the three states have to provide wolf management plans and establish state laws that satisfactorily provide these protections. The states of Idaho and Montana have completed their plans and state laws, and they were deemed acceptable by the USFWS. Wyoming's plan was not acceptable, therefore it is expected that delisting will be delayed until Wyoming makes adjustments to its plan or courts rule otherwise. The revised 10(j) rule (see below) applies only within Idaho and Montana, until Wyoming's plan is accepted by USFWS. The revised 10(j) rule is designed as an interim measure to transition states into full management authority with delisting. The ultimate goal for the state and federal government is to recover wolves and delist them.



Overview of the 10(j) rules of how wolves in Idaho can be managed

Private Land

Wolves seen attacking livestock, livestock herding and guarding animals, and dogs on private land can be shot by the landowners without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be evidence of a wolf attack such as dead or wounded livestock, trampled vegetation, and mixed wolf and livestock sign. State lands are considered private for the purpose of this rule, and permitted livestock producers on state land can kill a wolf attacking their livestock.
Public Land

Wolves attacking, chasing, molesting, or harassing livestock and livestock herding and guarding animals on public federal lands can be shot by grazing permittees and guide/outfitters that use livestock as part of their federal land-use permit, on their active livestock allotments, and on public ceded lands by tribal members, without prior written authorization. It must be reported within 24 hours and there must be physical evidence of a wolf attack.
Under some circumstances landowners and public land grazing permittees and guide/outfitting permittees may be issued written authorization to use rubber bullets to harass wolves, or shoot-on-sight permits to kill wolves on their private land or their federal grazing federal allotments. Also under the revised rule, wolves determined to be causing unacceptable impacts to deer and elk populations can be controlled. This is allowed only after the states complete science-based documents that have undergone public and peer review and have been approved by the USFWS.

Under the revised rule, the states of Idaho and Montana each have developed agreements with the USFWS, listing authorities and responsibilities to lead gray wolf management in their states. Wolves in Wyoming still are managed under the old 10(j) rule, because that state doesn't have a wolf management plan approved by USFWS.

funny. but those are just fairy tales. it never really happen.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Some ... we had a little girl get attacked in her back yard up north (neighbor to my grandma)

Anyways who is talking about mass slaughter? I was just talking about the ability to cull the ones when they start to attack an unreasonable ammount

they want to kill 75% of the population though. And the website for Idaho's fish and game says that the new law they passed about these wolves (who are on the endangered species list) are "experimental, non-essential". But because they're on the endangered species list, they had to pass a law to get around it. And with 75% of the population being killed, that sort of a huge number of engardered animals being killed off because humans want them gone.

I just don't think it's fair that they are being killed because we want them gone. The animals were around before we were and they have as much right to live as we do. And if a few hunters are complaining that their hunting dogs are being killed, maybe they shouldn't be bringing their meat-filled dogs to the wolf-infested woods. I mean.. you're shooting the family of other animals and then you complain when "your family" (the dogs) are attacked? I call it poetic justice.

And yeah. I know online petitions aren't a big impact, but my friend was really passionate about this. She used to have a wolf as her pet and it was really cute. She just doesn't want to see so many of its kind die like this.

they want to kill 75% of the population though. And the website for Idaho's fish and game says that the new law they passed about these wolves (who are on the endangered species list) are "experimental, non-essential". But because they're on the endangered species list, they had to pass a law to get around it. And with 75% of the population being killed, that sort of a huge number of engardered animals being killed off because humans want them gone.

I just don't think it's fair that they are being killed because we want them gone. The animals were around before we were and they have as much right to live as we do. And if a few hunters are complaining that their hunting dogs are being killed, maybe they shouldn't be bringing their meat-filled dogs to the wolf-infested woods. I mean.. you're shooting the family of other animals and then you complain when "your family" (the dogs) are attacked? I call it poetic justice.

And yeah. I know online petitions aren't a big impact, but my friend was really passionate about this. She used to have a wolf as her pet and it was really cute. She just doesn't want to see so many of its kind die like this.

Yeah well the "Aw so cute" people managed to let that fact overwhelm other opposition up here

Thankfully we have changed that

Edit: Like stated before I think 75 percent is excessive though

they want to kill 75% of the population though. And the website for Idaho's fish and game says that the new law they passed about these wolves (who are on the endangered species list) are "experimental, non-essential". But because they're on the endangered species list, they had to pass a law to get around it. And with 75% of the population being killed, that sort of a huge number of engardered animals being killed off because humans want them gone.

I just don't think it's fair that they are being killed because we want them gone. The animals were around before we were and they have as much right to live as we do. And if a few hunters are complaining that their hunting dogs are being killed, maybe they shouldn't be bringing their meat-filled dogs to the wolf-infested woods. I mean.. you're shooting the family of other animals and then you complain when "your family" (the dogs) are attacked? I call it poetic justice.

And yeah. I know online petitions aren't a big impact, but my friend was really passionate about this. She used to have a wolf as her pet and it was really cute. She just doesn't want to see so many of its kind die like this.

Can you link to something besides the poll that shows they do indeed want to kill 75% of the wolves?

The 10(j)law is not new btw. It was brought in at the same time the wolves were in 1994 in order to manage a population which otherwise would not have been welcome. The definition of Idaho's wolf population has likewise always been "non-esential and experimental" since their reintroduction.

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/05-136.pdf

I am likewise against killing 75% of the wolf population. I am not however against culling wolves who are killing livestock. So far I cannot find any evidence that the intention or scope of wolf management in Idaho includes destroying 75% of them. Show me evidence that this is the case and I will be more than thrilled to sign the petition.

Meh, we killed off our wolves a long time ago, so my opinion means nothing. As much as I like wolves (hey, they gave us our pet mongrels) if a few have got to go to conserve other populations then so be it. Deer are also pretty rare in this day and age.

Honestly, though. A bunch of them will die of starvation anyway. Usually as prey numbers decline so do predator numbers. Nature has a way of balancing it off. Although if they did manage to kill off their prey it'd be the family rooster and the garbage bin next...

I would but I like seeing woodland ceatures die, seriously. So sorry no

since passing this law in 2001 how many wolves have been killed by the state of idaho? where were they located? what percent of the existing wolf stock does this represent?

do you have any information about this other than this online petition?

Some ... we had a little girl get attacked in her back yard up north (neighbor to my grandma)

Anyways who is talking about mass slaughter? I was just talking about the ability to cull the ones when they start to attack an unreasonable ammount

Ehh?

That is highly unusal. They tend to avoid humans.

I have heard another claim and it turned out to be a homeless dog.

Got a linky for that?

funny. but those are just fairy tales. it never really happen.

Wowwww!

A masterful statement of the obvious.

They say those wolves are an important part of Idaho's ecosystems... where's their proof?

wolves are one of the classic examples of a keystone species, whose role in an ecosystem is vastly disproportionate to their relative abundance. some particularly good studies on wolf-ecosystem relations have been done in yellowstone, where there have been visible and dramatic effects on both the health of their prey and the very existence of numerous biotic communities that otherwise did not exist.

in particular, wolves have had an enormous effect on riparian habitat, which is no longer overgrazed by elk. this has lead to the growth of healthy stands of willow and aspen which in turn encourages the return of beavers. which then allows healthy aquatic communities to develop and evens out the water supply. which works out great for various other species. etc.

I propose that we say people can kill wolves, but only with point-ed sticks.

I propose that we say people can kill wolves, but only with point-ed sticks.


Is that a monty python quote xD?


okay, and as for numbers, I don't have up to this date, but entire packs have been wiped out, including mothers, 11 month old pups and pregnant females. Killing that one pregnant female could potentially be killing a good 5 or 6 animals in one blow.

I believe in 2002 alone there were something like 30 or 40 wolves killed. For today's numbers, I can't find them.

Also, if farmers are losing livestock, one would think they'd try protecting them better. No dogs have ever gotten into my backyard because I have a fence. If the fences weren't something the wolves could EASILY go over or under, there wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps farmers are truly to blame for these problems. Also, as someone has already said, when grazing animals over grave, they kill a lot of the vegitation in the area. The increase in the wolf population is nature's way of saying "the elk have to stop alittle", so the wolves increase, the elk decrease, the vegetation increases, the beaver population increases, the water ecosystem increases, then things even out. It's happened hundreds of thousands of times even before us. They don't think about it what they have to do, they do what they need to do to survive. We can survive without killing the wolves. The ecosystem can survive without us interfering.

Also, about animals not having the same rights, I think the person who said that is lying. You want an intellectual creature, don't look at humans. If you give a monkey a slice of potato and some salt water, it'll dunk the potato in the water to make a salted chip. I'm not lying, for I've studied animals before and I've witnessed this in, what I believe to be Macaques. I studied this a few years ago, so I can't remember the exact species. However, the Macaques had fruit and were near the ocean and they began dipping their food into the salt water to get the salty taste, just like we do when we pour salt all over everything.
Beavers can build amazing houses out of wood they cut down and shape. This takes a sort of architectural know-how that humans need to be taught. We can't just do that naturally.
Gorillazs and other primates use sticks and other objects as weapons or eating utinsels.
Elephants can remember every aspect of an area up to the size of the state of Rhode Island. They can remember their family even after not seeing them for 30 or more years. They return to the places their fallen friends and family have died to mourn every few years. And they can memorize their rank in their group, in their area, and in groups they may not have even seen before. They have memories humans could only dream of having. That's intellectual.

What I've said about is actually fact, it's not a lie. You can look this up if you'd like. What I'm telling you is that animals aren't so different than humans. They use tools, they use logic, they use crafting skill, memory, and knowledge and they have lived a lot longer than us. Therefore, they have the same rights as those who can do the same things, but wear clothes when they do it. My dogs use the couch like me, they can open doors, they know what I mean when I tell them to go to their rooms cause they've been bad. They're very smart. (one time I told my injured dog that if she hadn't broken her leg I'd let her come upstairs and sleep in my bed with me. That night she moved the gate I had put infront of the stairs to keep her down and was laying outside my door until I finally got up and noticed her there. She had never done this before. Not until I told her that and I firmly believe she understood and nobody can tell me differently).
Anything with a conscience counts, in my book, as an equal creature and I know for a fact that animals have consciences. When my dogs do something bad they'll lay down someplace hidden, like under a desk or table, and cry for a long time. (cry = whimpering)

After that LONG explanation, I have to say one last thing on this:

wolves are important because if you take them out of that environment in a very drastic way, everything else will flourish in ways they shouldn't. Elk and moose numbers will rise, for sure, and there will be over grazing. Vegetation will start to dwindle. And so many other things. Controlling numbers is an issue, I understand, but for the numbers they want to reduce, it's uncalled for.

Is that a monty python quote xD?

Also, about animals not having the same rights, I think the person who said that is lying. You want an intellectual creature, don't look at humans. If you give a monkey a slice of potato and some salt water, it'll dunk the potato in the water to make a salted chip. I'm not lying, for I've studied animals before and I've witnessed this in, what I believe to be Macaques. I studied this a few years ago, so I can't remember the exact species. However, the Macaques had fruit and were near the ocean and they began dipping their food into the salt water to get the salty taste, just like we do when we pour salt all over everything.

They were probably Japanese Macaque (Snow Monkey).

http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/japanese_macaque.htm


Gorillazs and other primates use sticks and other objects as weapons or eating utinsels.

The Gorilla does have limited tool use.

The masters have been the chimps and Bonobos.


Elephants can remember every aspect of an area up to the size of the state of Rhode Island. They can remember their family even after not seeing them for 30 or more years. They return to the places their fallen friends and family have died to mourn every few years. And they can memorize their rank in their group, in their area, and in groups they may not have even seen before. They have memories humans could only dream of having. That's intellectual.


That they do. Even a chimp mother visted the remains of a lost child for awhile.....


What I've said about is actually fact, it's not a lie. You can look this up if you'd like. What I'm telling you is that animals aren't so different than humans. They use tools, they use logic, they use crafting skill, memory, and knowledge and they have lived a lot longer than us. Therefore, they have the same rights as those who can do the same things, but wear clothes when they do it.



Ahh read Peter Singer have we? ;)


My dogs use the couch like me, they can open doors, they know what I mean when I tell them to go to their rooms cause they've been bad.
*snip*


Becareful not to anthropomorphise. ;)

if they arent killed, our women will mate with them creating a race of mutant...well...a race of these: http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8382/philodoxnp2.jpg :eek:
your right. and we do not want to have werewolves in reality, do we?

Anybody who signs this petition should be thrown into a pit of angry bitch wolves armed with with no weapons.

They were probably Japanese Macaque (Snow Monkey).

http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/japanese_macaque.htm


The Gorilla does have limited tool use.

The masters have been the chimps and Bonobos.



That they do. Even a chimp mother visted the remains of a lost child for awhile.....



Ahh read Peter Singer have we? ;)



Becareful not to anthropomorphise. ;)


I'm not antrhopomorphising. That's true stuff. ;3

Maybe I read Peter Singer. Maybe I don't. YOU be the judge~

and I believe it was the japanese macaque, but they were in a warmer climate. The study I went through was looking at the difference between their habitats and how different their behavior was based on that habitat, even though they were the same exact primate. How those in warm habitats could learn how to ENJOY things like salty food, whereas the ones in the snow were focused on the survival only. If they could find food, it was a good day, not if they could season heaps of it. :3 but yes, it was that species. Thanks.


JiangGuo: I'm sure the wolves wouldn't give a shit if I was thrown in. They tend to stay away from humans. If you're thrown into them, no matter how angry, their first instinct is to back up and warn you. And if I prove harmless, unless they are starved, they'll leave me alone. SO now we have to throw in the variable of these angry wolves being starved. THEN I'd worry. But in the wild, I'm not in an enclosed pit, nor are they angry and hungry... so.. I'll save those ones and if I'm for some reason tossed into the pit you propose throwing me into, I won't hold it against the wolves.. they're angry, afraid I'll hurt them, and starving and realize I'm made of meat. It's nature. I'll deal with it -_-

Ehh?

That is highly unusal. They tend to avoid humans.

I have heard another claim and it turned out to be a homeless dog.

Got a linky for that?

Naw the parents ended up scaring it off ... the girl was unhurt ... it was in the middle of bumblefuck minnesota lol not entirly sure there is ANY web based newspaper that picked up on the story besides the local print ones

It just managed to pull the girl off the swing first ... nothing more then a few scrapes and a torn shirt

(if it helps it was about 2 miles out of Aurora MN

We have more problems with pets and such by far then people

Humans are a selfish species. Our main goal in life is to hump, hump, hump. It's not that wolves are killed as threats. It's usually that wolves are killed as competitors.

I believe that many places don't have a wolf problem. They have people problems. When was the last time a wolf traveled to another continent and wiped out entire species. When was the last time a bear clear cut an entire forest? When was the last time a deer wiped out entire ecosystems just to kill a few rival deer? Wolves aren't the biggest threat to the survival of the human race. We are. Most of us are just too blind to see that wolves didn't kill 50 million people in WWII or that the Amazon has any meaning to the survival of a severely overpopulated species such as our own. Don't believe me? Look at the global poverty rate. Also, if some alien race were to come and wipe out most of the human population, leaving just 5 million, we'd still survive if it weren't for our inability to go one week without some war or genocide going on.

Wolves are merely just victims of two rules:
1. If it has any fangs, it must be evil.
2. If it gets in the way of excessive, shortsighted gains, kill it without thinking of the consequences.

Wolves are our mian threat. We are.

To OP:
Depends. Will it get you laid, because I'm all for guys getting laid? I don't care about the wolves, and I ain't waisting my time if someone isn't going to get laid.

Humans are a selfish species. Our main goal in life is to hump, hump, hump. It's not that wolves are killed as threats. It's usually that wolves are killed as competitors.

I believe that many places don't have a wolf problem. They have people problems. When was the last time a wolf traveled to another continent and wiped out entire species. When was the last time a bear clear cut an entire forest? When was the last time a deer wiped out entire ecosystems just to kill a few rival deer? Wolves aren't the biggest threat to the survival of the human race. We are. Most of us are just too blind to see that wolves didn't kill 50 million people in WWII or that the Amazon has any meaning to the survival of a severely overpopulated species such as our own. Don't believe me? Look at the global poverty rate. Also, if some alien race were to come and wipe out most of the human population, leaving just 5 million, we'd still survive if it weren't for our inability to go one week without some war or genocide going on.

Wolves are merely just victims of two rules:
1. If it has any fangs, it must be evil.
2. If it gets in the way of excessive, shortsighted gains, kill it without thinking of the consequences.

Wolves are our mian threat. We are.

I agree. I think Agent Smith in the Matrix said it best. He said humans are a virus. Other animals stick to one spot and survive. Humans are more like a virus in that we use up the resources in one play and spread to another. We're the only species that's on every single continent aside the two poles, and there's even people living there now on research teams. The spread into where other animals live and we make their land ours. We even do it to our own species. You won't see a grey wolf kill another wolf for its land when they're not near eachother. Bears from China aren't going to invade and take imprison and kill Bears that are native to America. It won't happen. They haven't progressed to the point we have because they don't need to. They have resigned themselves to living in their niche, like they should. When we don't like how our niche is, we find another. We just destroy and destroy and we're never satisfied. We invade other countries and enslave peoples until someone beats us up and tells us what to do. Then we play by their rules til we overthrown them and put our own rules in place.

-__- I completely agree with you. We're to blame for wolves coming to our backyards, eating our livestock and stuff like that.. If we didn't move into their land, they wouldn't be smack-dab in the middle of ours.

Ah, the fight to save fluffy animals. If it was about eradicating snakes or something, I bet it wouldn't have even half the support it does now.

Ah, the fight to save fluffy animals. If it was about eradicating snakes or something, I bet it wouldn't have even half the support it does now.

you kidding? I love snakes. Infact, I'm fighting for this !) cause I love animals. they're the only things in life that don't judge you by appearance and, when kept domestically, love you no matter what you do.
B) I'm against animal cruelty and I help the endangered species through money donations >> so when my money is helping pretect the anmals they're not protecting, I get alittle mad. If I'm giving my money to help? I'd like to think it's helping and that I'm not just giving money for a totebag and a keychain (which come with a "thanks for donating :D open your wallet, bitch!" thank you card, btw). It's not about the money, it's that I'm trying to help and it seems the money people give to help animals isn't going anywhere.
C) my friend is very passionate about this and I want her to be happy.

Without the above reasons I'd still save snakes. Snakes are amazing creatures. Everytime there's a show about them on Animal Planet I watch. And the devoted snake lovers? they'd go NUTS.. not to mention all the Pandect fans who'd want to save snakes cause one of the characters in that comic is a snake xD;

But yeah. I think there'd be just as much of an outcry. It's not the fluffy cutsie wootsie part, it's the unjustice. If you told me 75% of the king cobra population was going to be killed for a reason as stupid as "the wolves ate the animals I hunt. Me want shoot things" I'd be pretty mad. Mad enough to have to go to my therapist and rant about how much I hate human beings.

Besides, all animals have a right, whether it be an ant or a whale. They all have rights.. And snakes are an amazing kind of animal.. they're fast and they're stealthy and they can do things no other animal can do. They can swallow prey whole and still move around, despite not having limbs. The Side Winder moves in the most amazing, interesting ways I've ever seen anything move. The muscles on snakes and the poison they weild is something to be rekoned with and it's nothing to be taken lightly when some of those deadly ones are in the same area as you. People are quick to kill, but there are people out there who make it their jobs to save these and other reptiles from bad situations. Like the Steve Irwin. He has a crocodule rescue team that specializes in capturing, tracking, and relocation cocodiles to keep them safe. They're not cute animals, but they are living and they do deserve it.

So don't be so quick to judge. For those that are signing, I'm sure it's because they're standing for justice, not because they think wolfies are adorable and just need a good scritch behind the ears. Killing animals for stupid reasons is just wrong. Strictly for food, that's okay.. We need food to survive. I love pigs though so I don't eat pig products other than bacon and that's only when my mom makes it. Otherwise, I won't eat any pig products.

I can't be vegitarian because I'm not healthy anyway and I need the meat in order to maintain what little health I have. However, if I did have a choice, I would be a vegetarian hands down because I don't think it's right to kill an animal.

Okay. I think I personally proved you wrong :3 I only hope I'm not the only one who believes in animal rights here. Maybe they all signed cause wolfies are cute, but I signed because I think it's immoral and wrong.

Why don't we just bomb the Idaho Capitol building like civilized folk. :gundge:

Why don't we just bomb the Idaho Capitol building like civilized folk. :gundge:

Because, apparrently, all people are worth more than any other species, even if the earth was severely overpopulated with people, that person was Hitler, and the animal was a rescue animal that would spend the rest of his life helping people.

Wolves are being hunted because they are simply inconvenient. Pffft, ariel hunters are pussies. Do they feel like big people shooting animals from a safe distance? Bet they won't even the odds by not being in a plane.

Why don't we just bomb the Idaho Capitol building like civilized folk. :gundge:

Because living in Idaho is punishment enough!

Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo
You're living in your own Private Idaho
Living in your own Private Idaho
Underground like a wild potato.
Don't go on the patio.
Beware of the pool,
blue bottomless pool.
It leads you straight
right throught the gate
that opens on the pool.

You're living in your own Private Idaho.
You're living in your own Private Idaho.

Keep off the path, beware the gate,
watch out for signs that say "hidden driveways".
Don't let the chlorine in your eyes
blind you to the awful surprise
that's waitin' for you at
the bottom of the bottomless blue blue blue pool.

You're livin in your own Private Idaho. Idaho.
You're out of control, the rivers that roll,
you fell into the water and down to Idaho.
Get out of that state,
get out of that state you're in.
You better beware.

You're living in your own Private Idaho.
You're living in your own Private Idaho.

Keep off the patio,
keep off the path.
The lawn may be green
but you better not be seen
walkin' through the gate that leads you down,
down to a pool fraught with danger
is a pool full of strangers.

You're living in your own Private Idaho,
where do I go from here to a better state than this.
Well, don't be blind to the big surprise
swimming round and round like the deadly hand
of a radium clock, at the bottom, of the pool.

I-I-I-daho
I-I-I-daho
Woah oh oh woah oh oh woah oh oh
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah
Get out of that state
Get out of that state
You're living in your own Private Idaho,
livin in your own Private.... Idaho

Thinking Like a Mountain
By Aldo Leopold

A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.

Those unable to decipher the hidden meaning know nevertheless that it is there, for it is felt in all wolf country, and distinguishes that country from all other land. It tingles in the spine of all who hear wolves by night, or who scan their tracks by day. Even without sight or sound of wolf, it is implicit in a hundred small events: the midnight whinny of a pack horse, the rattle of rolling rocks, the bound of a fleeing deer, the way shadows lie under the spruces. Only the ineducable tyro can fail to sense the presence or absence of wolves, or the fact that mountains have a secret opinion about them.

My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.

Is that a monty python quote xD?


okay, and as for numbers, I don't have up to this date, but entire packs have been wiped out, including mothers, 11 month old pups and pregnant females. Killing that one pregnant female could potentially be killing a good 5 or 6 animals in one blow.

I believe in 2002 alone there were something like 30 or 40 wolves killed. For today's numbers, I can't find them.

Also, if farmers are losing livestock, one would think they'd try protecting them better. No dogs have ever gotten into my backyard because I have a fence. If the fences weren't something the wolves could EASILY go over or under, there wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps farmers are truly to blame for these problems. Also, as someone has already said, when grazing animals over grave, they kill a lot of the vegitation in the area. The increase in the wolf population is nature's way of saying "the elk have to stop alittle", so the wolves increase, the elk decrease, the vegetation increases, the beaver population increases, the water ecosystem increases, then things even out. It's happened hundreds of thousands of times even before us. They don't think about it what they have to do, they do what they need to do to survive. We can survive without killing the wolves. The ecosystem can survive without us interfering.

Also, about animals not having the same rights, I think the person who said that is lying. You want an intellectual creature, don't look at humans. If you give a monkey a slice of potato and some salt water, it'll dunk the potato in the water to make a salted chip. I'm not lying, for I've studied animals before and I've witnessed this in, what I believe to be Macaques. I studied this a few years ago, so I can't remember the exact species. However, the Macaques had fruit and were near the ocean and they began dipping their food into the salt water to get the salty taste, just like we do when we pour salt all over everything.
Beavers can build amazing houses out of wood they cut down and shape. This takes a sort of architectural know-how that humans need to be taught. We can't just do that naturally.
Gorillazs and other primates use sticks and other objects as weapons or eating utinsels.
Elephants can remember every aspect of an area up to the size of the state of Rhode Island. They can remember their family even after not seeing them for 30 or more years. They return to the places their fallen friends and family have died to mourn every few years. And they can memorize their rank in their group, in their area, and in groups they may not have even seen before. They have memories humans could only dream of having. That's intellectual.

What I've said about is actually fact, it's not a lie. You can look this up if you'd like. What I'm telling you is that animals aren't so different than humans. They use tools, they use logic, they use crafting skill, memory, and knowledge and they have lived a lot longer than us. Therefore, they have the same rights as those who can do the same things, but wear clothes when they do it. My dogs use the couch like me, they can open doors, they know what I mean when I tell them to go to their rooms cause they've been bad. They're very smart. (one time I told my injured dog that if she hadn't broken her leg I'd let her come upstairs and sleep in my bed with me. That night she moved the gate I had put infront of the stairs to keep her down and was laying outside my door until I finally got up and noticed her there. She had never done this before. Not until I told her that and I firmly believe she understood and nobody can tell me differently).
Anything with a conscience counts, in my book, as an equal creature and I know for a fact that animals have consciences. When my dogs do something bad they'll lay down someplace hidden, like under a desk or table, and cry for a long time. (cry = whimpering)

After that LONG explanation, I have to say one last thing on this:

wolves are important because if you take them out of that environment in a very drastic way, everything else will flourish in ways they shouldn't. Elk and moose numbers will rise, for sure, and there will be over grazing. Vegetation will start to dwindle. And so many other things. Controlling numbers is an issue, I understand, but for the numbers they want to reduce, it's uncalled for.

These particular wolves were not in that environment until 1994. The ecosystem which they introduced them into is still probably not in balance with wolves yet. As far as your numbers go I believr that you pulled them straight from your ass. Less than 20 wolves were introduced to this ecosystem in in 1994 and yet you tell us that 6 years later they killed 40 wolves and somehow there are still wolves to kill. If the wolves are easily more than doubling their population every six years then they will indeed be needing to cull them until balance is reached in the ecosystem or lose most deer and much livestock to the wolves one year then lose most of the wolves to starvation the next year.

Ive linked you to the Enadangered Species Act rules which apply to the wolves twice now which give the aggregate numbers for gray wolves for 2005. I also linked you to the Idaho fish and game wolf information page. Maybe you should read them and develope an informed opinion or at least have realistic numbers to bullshit with.

Just to try to make the situation clear on the Idaho wolf population. Prior to 1994 we had already made the mistake of killing all the wolves decades earlier. Any and every gray wolf that is there now is the result of moving less than twenty wolves there in an effort to reintroduce wolves to the mountains in Idaho. The same people who brought wolves in are the ones who make the rules regarding which wolves can ne killed or worried and also the same who would do most of the relocating of problem wolves and probably a fair percentage of the killing of them. It isnt as if they want to destroy the wiolf population or for that matter individual wolves. They are attempting to bring it back wolves to the wild while covering the legitimate concerns of ranchers with predation. The only way that wolves were allowed to be artificially returned to Idaho was on the condition that problem wolves could be dealt with in a reasnoable fashion as layed out in rule 10j and 4d of the Endangered Species Act. Claiming that the bastards are just out to kill as many wolves as possible is rubbish. So is painting them as destroyers of the flourishing Idaho wolf population. Decent informed management and truthful well thought out programs which address the concerns of peoplwe along with the needs of wolves and the needs of the ecosystem they belong to is how they can and have been brought back from the brink of extinction in the US. Shrill bullshit can and has changed policy before in managing wildlife but uninformed or worse deceitful bullshit will cause kneejerk reaction and defensive posturing rather than a larger return of wolves to the lower 48. The days of this kind of political pressure and wildeyed urban environmentalists who know the outdoors and wildlife from what they read and what they see in zoos is exactly why there was so much antipathy from ranchers to wolves returning. They were far less afraid of wolf predation than they were of dumbasses living in urban hellholes taking away their ability to ranch (that's right city boy, ranch, not farm, ranch) because endangered species were let loose on their ranches. If you think for a second that this is'nt true think again. After enough financial ruin over stupid rulings over endangered species has happened many ranchers have taken the triple s theory of endamgered species to heart. Shoot shovel and shut up before they find out some have lived on your ranch for decades and they take away your ranch .

So to some degree the poll you have asked me to sign states that the only people who cared enough to bring wolves back to Idaho and the people whose land the wolves are now on do not know as much about having wolves as those who made the poll. The poll makers say that the people who brought in wolves where there were none are massacring wolves. Yet the wolves are thriving and making an unexpectedly good comeback. Who should I believe?

They are attempting to bring it back wolves to the wild while covering the legitimate concerns of ranchers with predation.

and thankfully they haven't been completely run over by the ranching lobby, which pretty much claims every dead animal was killed by a wolf and they should get to shoot them all on sight. oh, and they want compensation because they claim their cows aren't as fat as they used to be because now they're too afraid of wolves to eat. bunch of fucking whiners.

I'm of two minds.

On one hand, when human beings encroach upon the territory of other animals, deprive them of their habitats, and slaughter them, from a very early age I've always had a strong intuitive sympathy for the animals, and I retain that now.

On the other hand, I don't think I can justify that sympathy rationally while still holding to my general skepticism of animal rights in other areas.

Let me just say that at some point we should realize that we can't just keep on destroying everything natural that's in our path when it's convenient to do so. Not only is it ultimately impractical, as likely as it is to mean our collective self-destruction, but it also hardly appears to be a moral course of action.

to clear this up: I hate humans as a whole. I dislike being human. I wish I had been born an animal. Humans are selfish creatures. We ARE animals, but since so many idiots way we're not, I'll make that distinction as if we weren't animals.

ALSO! I do belive very strongly that animals don't judge based on looks. if you had a giant hump on your back, a dog won't give two shits, but a human would look the other way and comment on how ugly you are. A mentally retarded person may be made fun of and limited by society for their imperfections, but a dog will love them just the same. I came out as gay to my family and they treat me different now. However, nothing has changed in me and my dogs are the onlys ones who haven't noticed a change. They love you no matter what. If you hit a dog, it'll be hurt, but in no time it'll be waiting for you to return to give you its love, even if you show none of that love to your dog.

Now, at the moment I'm not sure if this is making much sense. I'm currently on a tranquilizer because I'm going into surgery tomorrow and I have to take it, so if this isn't the greatest post, it's because I'm falling asleep as I'm typing this.

Anyway, I'm not contradicting myself. Animals and humans are alike, but based on what I know about them , they are superior. They can do things we can, but because they did it without school and without classes. They are born with natural instincts to do the things that they do regardless of whether or not they grew up with other animals. As kids, we're taught about sex and suddenly we're like "omg.. sex is THAT!?" Animals don't get the talk. They are programmed to understand what sex is, how to do it and why they're doing it. They are programmed into knowing what to do in raising offspring, in dealing with other animals and the like.

I have no idea where you were going with that hitler thing. At all. But agian, I'm having a hard time concentrating but because I'll be needing bedres tomorrow, I'll wanted to get this over with, because it's too late to respond.

I'm glad I've given you a better understanding of animal rights and their ways of life. But, like you said with the potatoes, animals don't cook their food. Their digestive systems aren't made for that. Nor do we they need that. We happened to evolve the way we did, with minds similar to dolphins, which can understand the same ways we can. They can count, understand that the imagine in a mirror is themselves, and so one. They can tell what color is what and can perform very difficult tasks with very little time having to learn them. A gorilla, in a few lessons, can learn to speak sign language and communicate with humans. It takes a child roughly 8 years to get their own language down to where they can mostly understaad it. I'm just saying, we're not too different, but given their knowledge is all programmed in, they are superior. If you had given an archistect all the tools necessary, but hadn't yet trained him, he couldn't build anything. Give a young beaver the necessary building blocks to their house and they can whip up a house in no time, because it's what they know instictually how to do. Some people don't need lessons. NO beaver needs a lesson. So there is that gap of ability there. Watch "Most Extreme" on Animal Planet. A) the show is amazing and B) you'll learn some great facts about animals from the show comparing animal abilities to those of humans. It's very good and something you should look into so you can combat me on this.

Although I dont' agree with you, I respect your opinion and I find it interesting. Although again, I don't understand the hilter comment, Could you explain it again please? mybae it was your wording (or the medication. not sure)

and thankfully they haven't been completely run over by the ranching lobby, which pretty much claims every dead animal was killed by a wolf and they should get to shoot them all on sight. oh, and they want compensation because they claim their cows aren't as fat as they used to be because now they're too afraid of wolves to eat. bunch of fucking whiners.


Uh huh. The great big powerful scary rancher's lobby with the government in their pocket. You can fabricate better stories than that if you just give it some effort.

Uh huh. The great big powerful scary rancher's lobby with the government in their pocket. You can fabricate better stories than that if you just give it some effort.

could, but why bother when i've already got a true one?

could, but why bother when i've already got a true one?

Got any sources or just a gut feeling?

No ... we have had a problem up north with the wolf population for years

They've had a problem with the human population for years...

Really, I hate humans sometimes. We try to kill off an entire species of relatively harmless creatures because they can be inconvenient. What a bunch of wasteful panzies.

The wolf has always gotten such an undeserved bad rap, it's really quite a shame.

Killing off the entire wolf population because a few livestock got eaten? Why do you think they go for the livestock? Easy, it's because they're a lot easier to catch as domestication has made them slow and stupid. Build higher fences and quit whining, crybaby ranchers.

Is my opinion biased? Yeah, probably. But I don't fucking care.

Thinking Like a Mountain
By Aldo Leopold

snip

Thank you, Free Soviets, for posting this piece.

Got any sources or just a gut feeling?

sure - are we talking sway over the feds, the states, or a combination?

I support the wolfie cause. I mean, what gives us the right to take out vital species in the name of convenience and expect everything to work out good for us in the end? I guess it's like saying 1+1=green. You have the right, but it's still wrong. Not necesarily morally wrong, but just incorrect wrong.

People talk about culling wolves. If we really wanted to look for animals to cull, then cull ourselves. We're the ones leeching the planet dry. Sure, we have technology. What good is technology if it's just for immediate gain? Sure, television is nice, but reality tv is making us stupid. Sure, cars are fun, but we've become dependent on them. The more technology we create, the more we depend on technology to survive. We've become used to beating nature into submission as opposed to, say, actually using it to our advantage. Trust me. Until we build California towns that won't buckle in an earthquake and until morons stop moving into Las Vegas when water is getting expensive(yes, we have to pay to be able to use water for showering and drinking) and until we stop being so focused on proving that we're better than the foreigners(doesn't matter if you are American or French or Australlian or even Canadian. Admit it. You are a little racist. We all are), we shouldn't expect everything to turn out good in the end.

If it wasn't your medication, then maybe I put the Nazi analogy in the wrong paragraph. I reorganized my post anyway, for that among other reasons. I added and removed some stuff, and though I'm fairly sure I added much more than I removed, I think I for the most part removed filler and added examples.

As for your post, I guess I should wait until you recover from surgery and have more of a chance to respond to my reorganized post, but I'll type up a relatively more brief response to your newer one anyway...

Ok, fine, TECHNICALLY humans are animals if you're going by the animal kingdom definition. I don't even doubt much that humans evolved from monkeys. However, once we reached that threshold of technology and humanity, I think we separated ourselves from the other animals and are separating more so as we speak. The similarities are there but that doesn't make us the same. And again, I've already said we should distinguish between different species of non-humans, so no need to treat a mosquito the same way as a dolphin.

Again, you're insulting your own species, in this case generalizing about it. You say a human would comment on the ugliness, but first of all, commenting on the appearence doesn't necessarily mean judging someone based on it, someone can clearly indicate that they realize they are separate issues. Second of all, being human doesn't mean they're going to treat you badly for looking bad. I don't know how old you are, but I don't think people comment on that much past middle school, if even much DURING middle school. Well, I don't think it's many people anyway... also, how can you be so sure that animals don't care what you look like? What makes you think they wouldn't comment on people's appearance if they could talk?

So your family treats you different for being gay. That's not a truly based-on-being-human approach. I'd still consider the person a human being above all else, gay, bi, or straight, or unattracted, doesn't matter. A mentally retarded person will be given special ed classes by society itself if it's truly humane. I don't think I've ever seen people be made fun of for being mentally retarded in itself, except for a little bit in middle school for how they acted as a result. Once people mature out of the animalist instincts to pick on the weak and into being more humane, I think that makes a bigger difference. Again, I don't know how old you are.

You insist that animals will love you no matter what, and it seems like you're basing that impression on your pet and/or pets. Even a pet doesn't represent all pets, let alone all animals.

Again, if anything, how much it matters that we're human would probably if anything let us show more tolerance towards homosexuality as an alternate romance rather than the sexist approach of ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN, THAT'S THE NATURAL WAY which sounds like a nature-ethicalist argument, which sounds like, again, a more animalist approach. I advocate gay marriage and even gay adoption.

You indeed are contradicting yourself, though. You say they aren't different, then you say animals are way better and that humans are all about war and animals are all about staying to their habitat. They're either different and better, different and worse, the same, or different, but good in different ways... that I would agree with to some extent, I guess it depends on how you look at it for what you would consider "better"...

For example, you insist that not learning about it in school somehow makes them better... if anything, it makes them worse. Sometimes you got to draw the line and listen to what teachers tell you rather than thinking your own observations are right... though scarily enough, your point might apply more so given what happened to me to get me diagnosed with type 1 diabetes... and I'd go deeper into that but I'll see if you ask about it since for obvious reasons I shouldn't take up too much text with the more obviously irrelevant tangents.

But still, you say the fact that animals didn't learn this in school is a bad thing... well, what was school made by? OTHER HUMANS, as I've said before! Working together even with those from the past, we've developed knowledge to an extent animals probably don't have close to! For all we know animals probably might not understand natural selection and might mistake it for something else, which would be ironic in itself... again, look at my comment about the ion dissociation of salt in water...

I'll try to stop myself before I go on too long, I'm not sure if this was more or less concise (than my earlier post) I'm assuming more concise, but still I'm just saying that I consider the opinion that animals are actually BETTER than humans quite extreme, though I guess they are in SOME ways...


I will recomment when I'm more recovered. the 7 medications I'm taking is making me sort of uhm..... out of it. So I'll just say that the dog generalization isn't just mine. It was a subject taught in my psychology class as well as a few others (including Animals in Nature and Culture, which I need to take all four years of my schooling at increasingly advanced levels). But most of my examples would come from real life first-hand experiences, though, on the whole, animals give the only true unconditional love we humans can know. Even your own family can grow to hate you, but a beaten dog will still run up to you when you come home, though in the past it has been beaten for it. It can't NOT love you. Some take a turn and finally realize it's bad, but after watching the Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet, most abused animals have wonderful dispositions and are very friendly, despite being beaten and starved. Which goes to show that depth of love.

Which goes to show that depth of love.

I think it's more a depth of stupid. Some people are off that deep end, too.