CDN Kayaker Fights Off Wolf With Knife

ZOO's are torture to these creatures use to roaming 1000's of miles of territory and they are stuck in a box equivillant to you being put into a closet for the rest of your life and told to be happy.

The original Twilight zone did an episode on this exact topic and it was perfect.

Stuck in a box for life I'd chew your head off for fun too.

Been to a zoo once never again. The kids see animals in the wild only or on TV.

Its sick when you think about it. Dont give me the "we are learning more about them in zoo's to save the species BS". If all the money Zoo's take in and spend was invested in conservation there would be a markedly smaller endangered list.

Skam
 
I disagree with killing the predators in the wild that attack humans in the wild. That's their home. In my opinion, the same rules apply to other animals as apply to homo sapiens: if they enter your home with deadly intent, blow their brains out. But if you enter their home, you are automatically the invader, and thus are fair game. Zoos are doing quite a bit of good. We have a zoo a couple towns over called the Popcorn Park Zoo, that's operated by the ASPCA. This zoo takes in wounded, sick, mistreated animals and gives them a second chance, or even a third or fourth chance. Without the zoo, many would have been killed, or simply died on their own. How long do you think a three legged deer would last in the wild?
 
How much money would be put into conservation without zoos bringing wildlife close to people to engage their interest and respect for it? How much good would conservation itself do without the knowledge zoos allow us to develop about the animals? Where would bison, Pere David's deer, or Przevalski's horse be without zoos having rescued all-but-extinct populations?

Self-contained answers are to science as cults are to religion, they feel good when you participate whole-heartedly, but they have little relation to the real world.
 
TemplarKnight21c said:
But if you enter their home, you are automatically the invader, and thus are fair game.
Click to expand...

How is a hunter, a trapper, a hiker, a camper an invader in a wilderness or national park in his own country? How are we not part of nature as long as we live and work within the same habitat as the non-humans?

A developer or miner or logger who diminishes that habitat might be an invader, certainly in this country where there are alternative locations for them to exploit. How about Africa, where starvation is rampant, and the good soil of the forest may be technically off-limits as a preserve?

It's easy to write that we need to control our population growth, but which people alive today should we cut back on first? Any volunteers?
 
Esav Benyamin said:
How much money would be put into conservation without zoos bringing wildlife close to people to engage their interest and respect for it? How much good would conservation itself do without the knowledge zoos allow us to develop about the animals? Where would bison, Pere David's deer, or Przevalski's horse be without zoos having rescued all-but-extinct populations?

Self-contained answers are to science as cults are to religion, they feel good when you participate whole-heartedly, but they have little relation to the real world.
Click to expand...

Spin it!;)

With Zoo's there is less urgancy and say hell we can breed them any time we want, forget the wild population.

The best animal science and conservation ever done is in THEIR habitat "THE REAL WORLD" , not mere notation of what 5cent tourist snacks they prefer in a foreign environment under stress. I can think of a few well known groups that fund this field science theres just not enough of them and too many want to touch the fuzzy caged bear up close types.

I guess I have a problem taking humans out of the food chain by locking up the competition.

Its cruel and we are smarter than this.

Thats all.

Skam
 
TemplarKnight21c said:
Without the zoo, many would have been killed, or simply died on their own. How long do you think a three legged deer would last in the wild?
Click to expand...

I am all for treating animals we caused pain, its helps minimize our impact.

AS for wild game on a slippery slope its called the food chain, its a delicate balance we need to learn to stay out of.

Some need lessons on the food chain and they get in in the wild and the city.

Skam
 
Esav Benyamin said:
How is a hunter, a trapper, a hiker, a camper an invader in a wilderness or national park in his own country? How are we not part of nature as long as we live and work within the same habitat as the non-humans?

A developer or miner or logger who diminishes that habitat might be an invader, certainly in this country where there are alternative locations for them to exploit. How about Africa, where starvation is rampant, and the good soil of the forest may be technically off-limits as a preserve?

It's easy to write that we need to control our population growth, but which people alive today should we cut back on first? Any volunteers?
Click to expand...

Humans destroy everything they come into contact with. Our home planet is going to hell in a handbasket, because of use screwing up. We really don't belong in the woods. Without our weapons and tools, we'd be picked off in a heartbeat. But every time that happens in today's world, humans seem to think there's a big problem with having a spot lower than top of the food chain, and immediately destroy the offending creature, simply for acting upon its nature. Honestly, I don't like my own species very much. I feel the planet would be better off without us. I'm offended every time one of my brethren claims to be higher than the other animals, because, quite frankly, we're the wusses of the animal kingdom.
 
In comparitive terms Wolf attacks are rare, especially in India where the population is 1,129,866,154, a link to India perspective on wolf attacks http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_human/india_abstract_003.asp
If you go out into the wild be prepared, it as simple as that, I have been attacked by a bear and charged by a rhino, I knew that I was in that enviroment, I did my best to take precuations, and to know what to do if such an event happened.

I do agree that we now as a race, have to start looking at future birth control, but its not an easy subject for politicians to bring up.
 
TemplarKnight21c said:
Humans destroy everything they come into contact with.
Click to expand...
Not true. Especially not true in some areas more than others. Adirondack State Park: once clear cut; look at it now. Yellowstone: wolves reintroduced. Africa and Asia: wildlife preserves established where previously the locals had no concept of caring for wildlife.

Humans aren't even the only species to alter their environment. Elephants are notorious for it. Overpopulation of elephants is devastating to woodlands.

Our home planet is going to hell in a handbasket, because of us screwing up.
Click to expand...
Our home planet scarcely notices us most of the time. And if we are factored in as another lifeform, it never particulaly notices us. What you call going to hell in a handbasket could also be described as redistribution of materials.

We really don't belong in the woods. Without our weapons and tools, we'd be picked off in a heartbeat. But every time that happens in today's world, humans seem to think there's a big problem with having a spot lower than top of the food chain, and immediately destroy the offending creature, simply for acting upon its nature.
Click to expand...
As you define us as not belonging in the woods, where do you think we do belong? Did we evolve in tall, rectangular rock formations and fields with plant life growing in straight rows?

Many human populations still live in habitat like our earliest ancestors'. They don't get picked off in a heartbeat. That only happens to people unfamiliar with the old ways.

They are numerically small populations because that habitat never supported larger populations, only urban/technological civilization does that. And we are now beginning to understand how to make urban/technological civilization self-sustaining.

Honestly, I don't like my own species very much. I feel the planet would be better off without us. I'm offended every time one of my brethren claims to be higher than the other animals, because, quite frankly, we're the wusses of the animal kingdom.
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious you feel that way, but why any one person disagreeing with you should offend you escapes me.

If we're such wusses, why are we such a problem for the planet?
 
Yoshi said:
I do agree that we now as a race, have to start looking at future birth control, but its not an easy subject for politicians to bring up.
Click to expand...

Birth control, as in govenment enforced fertility limits? Superfluous. Look at Europe. The native populations are repoducing at less than replacement ratios. Europeans in Italy and Germany and Russia and many other countries are dying out!. Without government enforced birth control.

Increased female education levels and economic stability tend to reduce population growth without panic solutions destructive of social cohesion.
 
We are such a problem for the Planet because we are such wusses, we drive a car a mile down the road to get shopping, a mum takes her kid to school in a big guzzling 4x4 car two miles down the road, we sit in comfortable houses with plasma TV, fridges, freezers, computers, we dump loads of non bio degradable material so on and so on (and I am just as guilty as the next person).
If everyone on this planet was to live as we do on average in the UK, we would need three earths to sustain it, for everyone to live on avarage as in the USA, we would need five planets, thats the problem.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Not true. Especially not true in some areas more than others. Adirondack State Park: once clear cut; look at it now. Yellowstone: wolves reintroduced. Africa and Asia: wildlife preserves established where previously the locals had no concept of caring for wildlife.

Humans aren't even the only species to alter their environment. Elephants are notorious for it. Overpopulation of elephants is devastating to woodlands.


Our home planet scarcely notices us most of the time. And if we are factored in as another lifeform, it never particulaly notices us. What you call going to hell in a handbasket could also be described as redistribution of materials.


As you define us as not belonging in the woods, where do you think we do belong? Did we evolve in tall, rectangular rock formations and fields with plant life growing in straight rows?

Many human populations still live in habitat like our earliest ancestors'. They don't get picked off in a heartbeat. That only happens to people unfamiliar with the old ways.

They are numerically small populations because that habitat never supported larger populations, only urban/technological civilization does that. And we are now beginning to understand how to make urban/technological civilization self-sustaining.


It's pretty obvious you feel that way, but why any one person disagreeing with you should offend you escapes me.

If we're such wusses, why are we such a problem for the planet?
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by you disagreeing with me. This is a discussion of opinions. If we didn't disagree, there would be no conversation. I have great respect for the older peoples, the Native Americans who gave back what they took, and only took what they needed. The Aborigines of Australia, before it was colonized. We're a problem because we need all of these technological advances to survive, which also makes us inferior. If it weren't for heating, and air conditioning, and modern housing, all these things we take for granted, a good portion of the human population would die off. Why were the replanted trees gone to begin with? Human interference with the environment.

This whole concept is difficult for me, because I see human actions as interfering with nature, but in my belief system, nothing unnatural can exist in nature. It's difficult, and I apologize if the points I'm trying to make are vague. It is also 3:37 AM, which might help as well...
 
Esav, education is an excellent method of birth control along economic stabilty, but does the World have that much time left to do that?
 
Yoshi: "We are such a problem for the Planet because we are such wusses, we drive a car a mile down the road to get shopping, a mum takes her kid to school in a big guzzling 4x4 car two miles down the road, we sit in comfortable houses with plasma TV, fridges, freezers, computers, we loads of non bio degradable material so and so.
If everyone on this planet was to live as we do on average in the UK, we would need three earths to sustain it, for everyone to live on avarage as in the USA, we would need five planets, thats the problem."

OK. What do you personally plan on doing to reduce what you do to the planet? And if not now, when?

By the way, keep an eye on it: India plus China equals approximately one-half of the human race, and they are rapidly urbanizing and industrializing.
 
First off Good job Kayak Guy :thumbup: but why wasnt your knife on you ?? I wonder if this would have been different if it happened to a well heeled forum reader ?

TemplarKnight21c said:
We really don't belong in the woods. Without our weapons and tools, we'd be picked off in a heartbeat. But every time that happens in today's world, humans seem to think there's a big problem with having a spot lower than top of the food chain, and immediately destroy the offending creature, simply for acting upon its nature.
Click to expand...

We Dont Belong In The Woods ??

Where do we belong then?? in a house or apartment building as we started, wait, no, thats right we came from the wilderness, and using our tools, the most important of which being our brain, made it into a society. Yes we would be easy prey without skills and tools developed over time, but the fact that we can develope and use them is our natural defense.

We are not "Invaders" in the woods, We are guests, and as good guests we should treat the inhabitants with respect and obey their rules as best we can.

But much like in the human world, if your host attacked you unprovoked, you are within your rights to defend yourself.

I agree that destroying an animal simply because it has attacked a human is wrong unless its done in defense. what i mean is it is stupid to kill a zoo animal because teenagers went into its cage, or kill the grizzly that ate Grizzlyman or whatever he called himself, no ones life was in immediate danger in either of those scenarios and killing the animal diddnt really make sense.


If you hate humanity then do the world a favor and dont breed !, seriously save your money buy property and when you die leave it in trust For a nature preserve etc. until that time, dont use or consume anything man made because that will only add to the destruction. in fact the plastics used to make your computer and the energy powering it both consumed fossil fuels, the harvesting of which probably killed some animals and plants. you murderer!!!
 
Yoshi said:
We are such a problem for the Planet because we are such wusses, we drive a car a mile down the road to get shopping, a mum takes her kid to school in a big guzzling 4x4 car two miles down the road, we sit in comfortable houses with plasma TV, fridges, freezers, computers, we dump loads of non bio degradable material so on and so on (and I am just as guilty as the next person).
If everyone on this planet was to live as we do on average in the UK, we would need three earths to sustain it, for everyone to live on avarage as in the USA, we would need five planets, thats the problem.
Click to expand...

Dude,don't buy into that liberal guilt trip.
It's just a political power play.
 
soccergod04 said:
I was just watching Shark Week and they were talking about Tiger shark attacks. They said that over the past 40 years there have been outbreaks of attacks at various times, and due to public outcry they culled the population of Tiger sharks in the area.

Guess what happened? The attacks continued. Not only that, but removing the apex predator from the environment also let other, smaller sharks' numbers grow. The smaller sharks ate all of the fish in the area and the economy suffered.

Coexistance, anyone?
Click to expand...

so why dont they feed the tiger sharks a few idiots a week, problem solved, less idiots, less shark attacks due to well fed sharks, more fish, better economy - more money spent on schools, better educated people, less idiots - damn it nearly worked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top