Wolf kills mule

[justuschickens59]

I sympathize with the ranchers, I really do. However, it is a basic fact of life that animals have as much right to live in their territory as humans do. Unfortunately, we humans have infringed on natural habitats of nature to the extent that some wildlife is becoming extinct, and this is just not right. Human beings do NOT have the right to totally wipe out another life form, animal or not, because it is not "convenient" for us, or because it doesn't fall into our grand plan. We talk about how we "own" this land and that land - when in actuality, we don't "own" the land. We might purchase the "right" to live on the land, build on the land, farm the land, etc., but human beings do not "own" the land. Human beings have this idea that we are superior to all other beings because we are #1 on the food chain and because we are supposedly "smarter." Well, folks, human beings aren't "smarter" than most animals - we prove that on a daily basis. Most animals would never do the atrocities to each other that the "smarter" human beings inflict upon each other on a daily basis. Human beings kill human beings every day, most of the time for no reason or for money, and these human beings are not "killed" for their crime (most of the time). Animals don't kill to commit a crime, they kill to survive - such is the law of Mother Nature. The Earth is here for ALL life forms. Human beings need to figure out that we are not #1, we are not better, and we are not the only ones with rights. Human beings could learn a lot from animals if we would get our heads out of our butts and figure out that we are not "superior" to them.

This is just my very strong opinion.

I found a quote some years ago that everyone really needs to read and take to heart.

We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals... In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.

Henry Beston​

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I think you are missing the point of open range and closed range. You live in closed range there you are required by law to fence in, in open range the law says if you live here by your choice, you must fence out.

You are refusing to fence out what the government says you cant kill. Twistt it how ever you want its still you not wanting to do what is required...
.

 

[chickened]

We are fencing them out unfortunately the government thinks fences work, look up the definition of a fence that the government uses in the wolf plan, I have, you can neither fence wolves in or out that is the point, when an animal is listed as an endangered species it gets a status that one can do "nothing" meaning no-thing nadda no can touchy zippo off limits, you get my drift? you can not do anything to a wolf without a permit or permission it is a violation of the laws of the ESA that is the problem. Sure you can build an enclosure that is wolf proof given enough funds, but who can afford that? Your solutions are the same ones the government gives... meaningless. If jumping to the moon would keep the wolves off my property by some strange means would that be a valid way to deal with them? seeing as it would be impossible or impractical either way? There is no reality in your solutions, what you are saying is oh yah it can be done you are just not making a big enough fence cuz money is no object to you you do not need to be fiscally responsible just hawk the farm and build the fence and magically your business will turn a profit. Most would sell the farm.

If you or I created a problem where the only reasonable solution was to accept what we did and tell you you like it or else it would be called extortion or a monopoly and it is illegal. The government is not a king we are subjects under we have rights and those rights are suspended by the ESA.

You are refusing to fence out what the government says you cant kill. Twistt it how ever you want its still you not wanting to do what is required...
.

 

[Matthew3590]

Wait, so you are not allowed to kill the wolves on your property? (this information might be wrong) I was at the knoxville zoo with my school and we were looking at a type of wolf native to the region (looks like a coyote) and he said that if he is attacking your livelihood then you are allowed to shoot it. That information might be false or only for the state of Tennessee.

 

[chickened]

Maybe on Animal Planet or in the National Geographic.

The law says you have a deed to your property as owner.

Looking both ways before crossing the road does make me think I am a little smarter than an animal, how about you?

People do things for many reasons maybe not all the right ones but reasons nevertheless.

We have a responsibility as stewards which does elevate our position. Otherwise we would be on all four fighting for that kill.

I guess I should ask in all fairness to the conversation are you being serious?

I sympathize with the ranchers, I really do. However, it is a basic fact of life that animals have as much right to live in their territory as humans do. Unfortunately, we humans have infringed on natural habitats of nature to the extent that some wildlife is becoming extinct, and this is just not right. Human beings do NOT have the right to totally wipe out another life form, animal or not, because it is not "convenient" for us, or because it doesn't fall into our grand plan. We talk about how we "own" this land and that land - when in actuality, we don't "own" the land. We might purchase the "right" to live on the land, build on the land, farm the land, etc., but human beings do not "own" the land. Human beings have this idea that we are superior to all other beings because we are #1 on the food chain and because we are supposedly "smarter." Well, folks, human beings aren't "smarter" than most animals - we prove that on a daily basis. Most animals would never do the atrocities to each other that the "smarter" human beings inflict upon each other on a daily basis. Human beings kill human beings every day, most of the time for no reason or for money, and these human beings are not "killed" for their crime (most of the time). Animals don't kill to commit a crime, they kill to survive - such is the law of Mother Nature. The Earth is here for ALL life forms. Human beings need to figure out that we are not #1, we are not better, and we are not the only ones with rights. Human beings could learn a lot from animals if we would get our heads out of our butts and figure out that we are not "superior" to them.

This is just my very strong opinion.

I found a quote some years ago that everyone really needs to read and take to heart.

We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals... In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.

Henry Beston​

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

The law that says you cant hunt an kill wolves is a federal law that spans the whole of the lower 48 states.

 

[justuschickens59]

Maybe on Animal Planet or in the National Geographic.

The law says you have a deed to your property as owner.

Looking both ways before crossing the road does make me think I am a little smarter than an animal, how about you?

People do things for many reasons maybe not all the right ones but reasons nevertheless.

We have a responsibility as stewards which does elevate our position. Otherwise we would be on all four fighting for that kill.

I guess I should ask in all fairness to the conversation are you being serious?

I am being 100% serious. And your reference to looking both ways before crossing a road makes you smarter - ummmm, are you serious? This is your argument as to why you think you are smarter than the average bear? LOL. I don't think so. You were TAUGHT to stop and look both ways before crossing the road - you were not born with that knowledge. Animals are also TAUGHT by their parents, albeit different things than we humans are taught by our parents, but they are taught, nonetheless. We could no more exist as animals do than they could exist as we do. Does that make us more intelligent? I don't think so. There are many different forms of intelligence and just because you know to stop and look both ways before you cross a road does not make you more intelligent than animals.

So according to your statement above, it is okay for one person to kill another person because, according to you, they have a reason although it may not be the RIGHT reason? So this is okay? Again, are you kidding me??? I guess it was okay for the Native Americans to be wiped out because somebody else was greedy and wanted to "own" that land? So killing them all to get what they wanted is okay? That reason was the RIGHT one? Again, we don't "own" the land. It is not ours to own. The land does not belong to the government to give ownership of. We buy rights to that piece of property, but we don't own it.

I agree, that we have a responsibility as a steward - I don't see most people accepting that responsibility. Most humans think they have the right to use and abuse Mother Earth as they see fit - again, wrong. Humans don't have the right to wipe wildlife out of existence to make more room for strip malls, grocery stores, housing developments, golf courses, etc. We might be #1 on the food chain, but this does NOT give us the right to destroy this planet and its creatures.

And I will again state that just because we "think" we are smarter than animals, does't make it correct. We may have the ability to think and reason more than an animal, but that does not make us more "intelligent."

We, as a people, need to learn what respect is. Not just respect for wildlife and nature, but respect for everything. The only thing that most humans respect these days is money, and that is very, very sad.

 

[Duramaxgirl]

I sympathize with the ranchers, I really do. However, it is a basic fact of life that animals have as much right to live in their territory as humans do. Unfortunately, we humans have infringed on natural habitats of nature to the extent that some wildlife is becoming extinct, and this is just not right. Human beings do NOT have the right to totally wipe out another life form, animal or not, because it is not "convenient" for us, or because it doesn't fall into our grand plan. We talk about how we "own" this land and that land - when in actuality, we don't "own" the land. We might purchase the "right" to live on the land, build on the land, farm the land, etc., but human beings do not "own" the land. Human beings have this idea that we are superior to all other beings because we are #1 on the food chain and because we are supposedly "smarter." Well, folks, human beings aren't "smarter" than most animals - we prove that on a daily basis. Most animals would never do the atrocities to each other that the "smarter" human beings inflict upon each other on a daily basis. Human beings kill human beings every day, most of the time for no reason or for money, and these human beings are not "killed" for their crime (most of the time). Animals don't kill to commit a crime, they kill to survive - such is the law of Mother Nature. The Earth is here for ALL life forms. Human beings need to figure out that we are not #1, we are not better, and we are not the only ones with rights. Human beings could learn a lot from animals if we would get our heads out of our butts and figure out that we are not "superior" to them. This is just my very strong opinion. I found a quote some years ago that everyone really needs to read and take to heart.
[COLOR=FF0000]We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals... In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=FF0000]Henry Beston[/COLOR]​

My strong oppinion and also the founding fathers; ames Madison said, “The government is instituted to protect property.” Some argue that a benevolent government should control property, because the government can distribute the fruits of ownership more fairly. This sounds good, except that these proponents can’t point to a single good example. Concentrated property ownership always inflicts oppression. This is not black and white. It’s a sliding scale. The more private property is protected, the freer the economic system and the more liberty is enjoyed by the citizenry. The more property and planning are centralized, the more liberty is eroded. It doesn’t really matter if it’s feudalism, fascism, communism, theocracy, socialism, or even crony capitalism. To one degree or another, liberty is eroded in all these systems. The Founders were right. Private property rights and liberty are intertwined. read more here; http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/liberty-and-private-property 63% of Idaho or about 53000 square miles is owned by the government. So there is plenty of room for wildlife. The wolves have plenty of protected lands for their needs. No one can really say WE are encroaching on their lands. at least not in Idaho where less then 40% of land is private. and if you think so, then come from your big metropolitan area out here and see Idaho for yourself then maybe I will be more interested in listening to your ideals of how this state should be run. As someone else pointed out just the ones killing livestock and pet animals on private land need to be removed/destroyed. By the way I agree that we do not have the 'right' to destroy other people or nations or wiping out complete animal species... Just the ones harming us and ours on our land. I think the founding fathers called it ' life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' with in the laws of nature. I'm paraphrasing...

 

[justuschickens59]

My strong oppinion and also the founding fathers;
ames Madison said, “The government is instituted to protect property.”
Some argue that a benevolent government should control property, because the government can distribute the fruits of ownership more fairly. This sounds good, except that these proponents can’t point to a single good example. Concentrated property ownership always inflicts oppression. This is not black and white. It’s a sliding scale. The more private property is protected, the freer the economic system and the more liberty is enjoyed by the citizenry. The more property and planning are centralized, the more liberty is eroded. It doesn’t really matter if it’s feudalism, fascism, communism, theocracy, socialism, or even crony capitalism. To one degree or another, liberty is eroded in all these systems.
The Founders were right. Private property rights and liberty are intertwined.
read more here; http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/liberty-and-private-property
63% of Idaho or about 53000 square miles is owned by the government. So there is plenty of room for wildlife. The wolves have plenty of protected lands for their needs. No one can really say WE are encroaching on their lands. at least not in Idaho where less then 40% of land is private. and if you think so, then come from your big metropolitan area out here and see Idaho for yourself then maybe I will be more interested in listening to your ideals of how this state should be run.
As someone else pointed out just the ones killing livestock and pet animals on private land need to be removed/destroyed.
By the way I agree that we do not have the 'right' to destroy other people or nations or wiping out complete animal species... Just the ones harming us and ours on our land. I think the founding fathers called it ' life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' with in the laws of nature. I'm paraphrasing...

As I said, my postings are my opinions only. This is how I feel and this is how I believe and this is how I live my life.

You know what they say about the word ASSUME !!! You assume that just because a person does not live in Idaho that it means they live in a "big metropolitan area." WRONG !! I might not living in ranch country, but I live in farming country surrounded by acres upon acres of tobacco, soy, corn, and other crops, and NOT a "big metropolitan area." In my "big metropolitan area" I have a small farm where I grow a lot of my own food, raise my chickens, animals, raise fruit trees, grapes, herbs, etc. At my home in my "big metropolitan area" I cannot get cell phone service, DSL or cable TV. My "big metropolitan area" is 40 miles from the nearest grocery store or gas station.

I'm not specifically speaking of just Idaho in general, I'm talking about world-wide, the wiping out of the existence of animals for human gain. It's wrong, period, whether in Idaho or Timbuktu.

As far as wiping out the existence of a people, I had directed that to a person who said that people do things because they are smarter and always have a reason, even though that reason may not be the right one. I was trying to make a comparison.

From now on, before you "assume," you might want to ask. After all, you know what they say about people who ASSUME.

 

[Duramaxgirl]

Wow touchy much? I didn't assume anything of you I was simply trying to make a point. Sorry you took it that way.
And I'm glad you live in a nice rural area. I also was trying to agree with you on the wiping out animal species statement you made.
Trying to find common ground is all.
I just find it disturbing that many of the wolf supporters are located outside the wolf inhabited area... Again I say many not all. How many different species of wolf are in your area?