Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 906377)

Thanks for the sobering statistics showing now besides the maiming, disfiguring of our pets , the destruction of our lifestock and game that it is now gotten to the alarming point that within the last seven years wolfs are not only attacking people and maiming them, they are actually killing them. I think those in charge of conservation have indeed done the right thing. Dismissing Bleeding Heart Liberals such as yourself and doing what is right for the wildlife population and human population. I am glad they don't see life as a Disney movie but the reality that it is. I have all the confidence in the world once they curtail the exploding wolf population (if that ever happens) they will once again shut down the hunting season. Thank god for hunters, they truly are Awesome. Disclosure. I am not a hunter however I respect their right to hunt and will continue to defend them against Bleeding Heart Liberals trying to interject more government into our lives and take away that right.

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_003.htm

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906428)

You always acted like I was a right winger. Now I'm a bleeding heart liberal all of a sudden?

Do you think there are too many government regulations when it comes to hunting (not just wolf hunting but all hunting)? Do you think there should be any regulations?

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 906432)

You are very much every thing the right wing is about. Contradiction. As far as do I think there should be more or less regulations, I am not a hunter so I am not the person to ask. That question would best be answered by Clip as he is a hunter. My gut is that those involved in conservation in this country take it very seriously and the regulations in place work.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906436)

I don't contradict myself at all. I think there should be strong regulation on activities that affect other people. There should be no regulation on things that don't affect other people. I should be able to do whatever I want in the privacy of my own home. If I'm blasting my music and disturbing other people, that is a different story.

As I said in a previous post, I should not be able to go to a park and chop down a giant tree because it is not my tree and some people may like that tree. I would say the same thing for shooting an animal. If you have a situation where a herd of animals absolutely has to be trimmed for their own good, then hunting may be ok, if there is no reasonable alternative (such as relocating the animals).

Originally Posted by 3kings (Post 906445)

In Pennsylvania alone last year there were 14,000 reported accidents and 41 deaths caused by deer being hit by cars. Certainly hunting helps reduce this number and it is still out of control.

An average year sees 350,000 deer shot legally in PA, where would you like to relocate them and who will pay for it?

Originally Posted by 3kings (Post 906445)

In Pennsylvania alone last year there were 14,000 reported accidents and 41 deaths caused by deer being hit by cars. Certainly hunting helps reduce this number and it is still out of control.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906448)

When people live in areas inhabited by animals, that is going to happen. What is the answer? Should we kill all the animals so that there will be no more car accidents?

Animals have just as much right to inhabit the country as we do. I realize there are situations where a herd gets so big that something needs to be done.

Originally Posted by 3kings (Post 906445)

In Pennsylvania alone last year there were 14,000 reported accidents and 41 deaths caused by deer being hit by cars. Certainly hunting helps reduce this number and it is still out of control.

An average year sees 350,000 deer shot legally in PA, where would you like to relocate them and who will pay for it?

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 906449)

We have a hunting season to cull the herd. Wild idea I know. Also I missed
"Animals have just as much right to inhabit the country as we do." I missed that, is it in the Bill of Rights or was it an Amendment? You are silly.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906454)

There is a possibility that hunting is the only feasible alternative in Pennsylvania. I couldn't tell you. I don't know what the situation is there. If there was a place to relocate the deer, I would say that people like JMS should pay for it. He likes the government to spend other people's money on programs they don't want. Let's see the government spend JMS' money on programs he doesn't want and let's see how he likes it.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906457)

You think that is a controversial statement? I think practically everyone would agree that animals have just as much a right to live as we do. Animals obviously don't have the same Constitutional rights as humans, but they still have a right to inhabit the earth.

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 906460)

Not true. The Trillion plus dollars we spent on the war is money that I don't want the government to spend. What is funny is you don't even realize how beyond absurd a "Relocation" of deer effort sounds to anyone living in reality. Now go back and enjoy your Disney channel.

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 906377)

http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_003.htm

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906463)

I'll watch the Disney channel and you can watch the hunting channel. Is there a hunting channel?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 906457)

You think that is a controversial statement? I think practically everyone would agree that animals have just as much a right to live as we do. Animals obviously don't have the same Constitutional rights as humans, but they still have a right to inhabit the earth.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 906466)

Are you a vagrant, Rupert?

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk (Post 906464)

I am somewhat skeptical of statistics coming from a site whose content creator doesn't know the difference between "lose" and "loose." Or that there is no "e" in "Grizzly."