10-20-2002, 02:11 PM
|
#103
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Moni:
|
Interesting because a deer's natural predator would be........a wolf.
No kidding, that was my point. There are either no wolves in the PA and mid-atlantic states or not nearly enough to do the job, so MAN does it for them. I will also say that being killed by a High Power rifle round has to be less excruciating than either a long drawn out death through disease and starvation OR being ripped to pieces by the jaws of a predator. Maybe hunters are just more humane than nature
To say that no hunting for sport is done in your state is only a generalization using people you know personally as an example. I've lived in the midwest (OH,and IN and have LOTS of family in PA) and there are plenty of people who pay for their hunting license to go out and kill for nothing more than sport. Strictly speaking, you cannot deny it does occur.
Im saying that technically since even IF the hunters are JUST hunting for sport, the STATE is using those people for the benefit of the heard...which is why they have specific numbers of permits each year for each type of game allowed to be hunted. Since the STATE is using the hunters for non-sport specific herd management I submit that no licensed hunting is "Just" for sport.
How do groundhogs and porcupines damage property (i.e. what property do they damage that warrants killing them) and how can they endanger livestock in a manner that would put that livestock's life at risk?
Ever seen what happens to a horses leg when it hits a groundhog hole?
Ever see what has to be done to those horses? Or how about when a groundhog burrow collapses and causes a tractor to roll on the farmer who is driving it?
Ever see what just a single porcupine can do to the wood used in a house, barn, doghouse or any other wooden structure? Not to mention the number of dogs that have to be put down due to tangles with porcupines. (quills piecing the throat, face, eyes and mouth. Not very pretty that either.
The brackets thing with the MW online dictionary is understandable. I have done something like that here myself at one point.
(You could still acknowledge that slaughter is an inappropriate term.  [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
I suppose if slaughter is only to be used for food type killing I guess it is wrong. I didn't know that the secondary definition was geared toward human casualties. Hmmm now Im curious and will have to find the appropriate term [img]smile.gif[/img] arguments (discussions, debates..whatever) can be so educational [img]smile.gif[/img]
EDIT: for stupid typo's and spelling problems.
EDIT to the EDIT: for yet more typo's
[/QUOTE]
[ 10-20-2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
|
|
|
|