It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Good Samaritans Face Fine After Rescuing Deer From Icy Water

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


WTF?? I rescue woodland box turtles from the road ...I guess there is a natural selection depend on if a ford or chevy smash it. Those turtles commonly live to be 100 years old. Man has many effects on nature some negative some positive .....
edit on 17-12-2010 by fnpmitchreturns because: grammer


Your actions pose a limited amount of risk in rescuing those turles, good for you. Here is the shocker: I would do the same as you but their actions are not against natural selection. In that case it is our actions endangering them, which is quite different from the deer story.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


okay let's assume for a second you are right.

animals are ruled by natural selection

therefore humans in their intellectual superiority are ruled by mob rule.

so since no one else agreed with you, mob rule dictates you are the weakest link.

so hey, carefull with that thin ice when you actually leave the house.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


If we are playing the "what if" game to such an extreme...

WHAT IF that deer will now pass his "defective" genes that eventually mutate in to a gene set that provides immunity to HIV, colo-rectal cancer, and SARS. Scientists would not have been able to utilize these wonderful genes had you let the deer die.

WHAT HAS YOU DONE!



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Ahh but it is, only the smartest and the most genetically sound animals tend to make it through hunting season, just like water buffalo on the savanna being hunted by lions. Hunting for food is natural and those that just trophy hunt usually hunt on game ranches these days, those places where nothing is natural there fore they are not impacting the natural selection of nature.


Obviously you have never hunted and are an armchair know-it-all. You are most likely a bookworm who thinks you know reality but has little experience with what happens beyond your front door.

I was once just like you and am grateful to no longer be. It took years to break me of that ignorant, arrogant and self indulgent mindset...but eventually did once getting outside and getting my hands dirty.

I'm sure the Discovery Channel and National Geographic give you what you perceive as a basis in logic but you might want to head outside and see how the real world works.

Back on topic, some folks gave a crap about a deer and saved it. They got ticketed for doing so by an individual who sat there until the deer was let go rather than him warn them up front about the "laws" they'd be breaking by attempting to save the deer. "Warn" them???????

This conversation has eroded to a point that continuing it truly defies logic for those who deem themselves competent adults and deem themselves capable of making a decision on their own without some bookworm telling them how they should have done it.



I am actually a very avid hunter, feel free to look at my past posts and threads. I am far from a book worm acctually quite the opposite. It isn't about control, I know though that this is what you all want it to be about. It is about people not putting other people at risk.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


If we are playing the "what if" game to such an extreme...

WHAT IF that deer will now pass his "defective" genes that eventually mutate in to a gene set that provides immunity to HIV, colo-rectal cancer, and SARS. Scientists would not have been able to utilize these wonderful genes had you let the deer die.

WHAT HAS YOU DONE!


I am not playing the what if game, I am just stating facts. I am not even stating oppinions. Most of you are stating oppions based on emotion rather than logic. There is a difference between what a person is capable of and what a deer is.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

The reason the deer was in the water was due to a lack of natural instincts. It is that simple. It needs to die in order to prevent deffective genes from being further introduced into the deer population. This is a deer not a person, I understand that alot of people have a hard time with the concept but it is a fact. I am all for rescuing people, due to the fact that the person or their offspring, that you rescued might be the one that cures cancer or some other terminal illness. The deer will do none of these things. It is a deer.


Your entire supposition is based upon your own theory. You have provided no basis in fact and yet continue to speak as if you were not only there but also were privy to the reason the deer ventured out onto the ice.

Are you responding seriously or are you just trying to stir up strife?

You have not made one point that can be proven yet continue to spout off as if you're an expert on such matters.
When is the last time you actually hunted deer? When is the last time you got off your couch and spent some time learning their patterns?

I have no shortage of deer in my yard so if you're willing to get off your ass and go out in the cold to watch their patterns, you're welcome to come and do so. I'm guessing you'd prefer sitting at your laptop and tossing out theories with no basis in fact and then crying you've been attacked by those who have gotten off their asses and have done their due diligence to learn about deer. Turn off the laptop and step outside for a bit. It's a whole new world compared to what you think you know based on Wiki or any of the other sites you've gleaned what little you know about the real world.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


okay let's assume for a second you are right.

animals are ruled by natural selection

therefore humans in their intellectual superiority are ruled by mob rule.

so since no one else agreed with you, mob rule dictates you are the weakest link.

so hey, carefull with that thin ice when you actually leave the house.

Come on people several of you keep on stating things like "so hey, carefull with that thin ice when you actually leave the house." I am having an adult converstation about this topic. Stating things like that is not going to promote either side of this. It only shows that when you are posting about things, that you use your emotions more than logic. There is no logic in the actions of these people saving this deer only emotions.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

The reason the deer was in the water was due to a lack of natural instincts. It is that simple. It needs to die in order to prevent deffective genes from being further introduced into the deer population. This is a deer not a person, I understand that alot of people have a hard time with the concept but it is a fact. I am all for rescuing people, due to the fact that the person or their offspring, that you rescued might be the one that cures cancer or some other terminal illness. The deer will do none of these things. It is a deer.


Your entire supposition is based upon your own theory. You have provided no basis in fact and yet continue to speak as if you were not only there but also were privy to the reason the deer ventured out onto the ice.

Are you responding seriously or are you just trying to stir up strife?

don't know how long they will let this stay up but here's my face book page with 2 deer I shot this year one with my rifle on november 23 and another with a deer I shot on october 4th with my bow. www.facebook.com/okta2john

You have not made one point that can be proven yet continue to spout off as if you're an expert on such matters.
When is the last time you actually hunted deer? When is the last time you got off your couch and spent some time learning their patterns?

I have no shortage of deer in my yard so if you're willing to get off your ass and go out in the cold to watch their patterns, you're welcome to come and do so. I'm guessing you'd prefer sitting at your laptop and tossing out theories with no basis in fact and then crying you've been attacked by those who have gotten off their asses and have done their due diligence to learn about deer. Turn off the laptop and step outside for a bit. It's a whole new world compared to what you think you know based on Wiki or any of the other sites you've gleaned what little you know about the real world.





posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

I am not playing the what if game, I am just stating facts. I am not even stating oppinions. Most of you are stating oppions based on emotion rather than logic. There is a difference between what a person is capable of and what a deer is.


PLEASE state one fact you've made and actually provide the resource to back it up. We're all ears. Otherwise, go back to typing on your laptop in your warm house and leave these topics to those who have lived them rather than spout facts you've never personally lived.

It just so happens I'm going deer hunting in the morning. Do you have any tips for me since you're the know-it-all regarding deer? Should I just set out a patch of ice and wait for them to walk on it?
edit on 17-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What if the deer was an endangered species? Whe should rescue it, shouldnt we?...or should we 'leave it to die because it will ruin the gene pool if it doesnt'



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senz20
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


What if the deer was an endangered species? Whe should rescue it, shouldnt we?...or should we 'leave it to die because it will ruin the gene pool if it doesnt'


Let it die. Failure to may lead to the demise of the herds genetic composition.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

I am not playing the what if game, I am just stating facts. I am not even stating oppinions. Most of you are stating oppions based on emotion rather than logic. There is a difference between what a person is capable of and what a deer is.


PLEASE state one fact you've made and actually provide the resource to back it up. We're all ears. Otherwise, go back to typing on your laptop in your warm house and leave these topics to those who have lived them rather than spout facts you've never personally lived.

It just so happens I'm going deer hunting in the morning. Do you have any tips for me since you're the know-it-all regarding deer? Should I just set out a patch of ice and wait for them to walk on it?
edit on 17-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


FACTS?

It is real simple, they went into icey water.. CHECK
Deer was in icey water due to a lack of instincts.. CHECK
Conservation officer was present on the scene.. CHECK
Conservation officer chose not to rescue animal.. CHECK
2 people went against what the conservation officer felt was best.. CHECK
Icey water kills people.. CHECK
Rescuing people in icey water puts more people at risk than those who need rescuing.. CHECK
People were cited for putting their lifes and others at risk.. CHECK


Those were from an earlier post in this thread. Looks like facts to me...... So I am supposed to tell you how the deer are patterned on a place I have never been and have no idea about the terrain, food supply, or amount of surounding pressure? Can we keep on topic please? My deer hunting knowledge/experience is not what we are discussing. It blocked my post above to my facebook where there are plenty of photos.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   


Come on people several of you keep on stating things like "so hey, carefull with that thin ice when you actually leave the house." I am having an adult converstation about this topic. Stating things like that is not going to promote either side of this. It only shows that when you are posting about things, that you use your emotions more than logic. There is no logic in the actions of these people saving this deer only emotions.


I've been told by many, many people that I have no emotions and only use logic for making decisions.

The logic you have attempted to use for this topic has FAILED. Go find another topic to inject your limited knowledge into.

Best of luck to you.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
ok let's get back to what is actually at stake here, the deer is but a supporting character.


so these guys get a fine for not wearing safety vests while entering the waters at a us national park.
assumedly if they had worn them to save the dear all would be fine, right?

*tinfoil hat on*

hmmm could this be related to not only the privatization of the natural parks, but also *wild speculation mode*
obamacare? in the sense that if now americans have "free" healthcare, putting themselves in any situation wich is hazardous to one's own health is a contract breach, and therefore liable to criminal prosecution?

*tinfoil hat off*




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
ok let's get back to what is actually at stake here, the deer is but a supporting character.


so these guys get a fine for not wearing safety vests while entering the waters at a us national park.
assumedly if they had worn them to save the dear all would be fine, right?

*tinfoil hat on*

hmmm could this be related to not only the privatization of the natural parks, but also *wild speculation mode*
obamacare? in the sense that if now americans have "free" healthcare, putting themselves in any situation wich is hazardous to one's own health is a contract breach, and therefore liable to criminal prosecution?

*tinfoil hat off*



Had they have been wearing live vests then the rescue efforts to save them would have been exponentially less risky for their rescuers. They could have been rescued by grapples or hooks designed for such rescues. instead of sinking where diving would have been necessary.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


There has not been one piece of logic used to challenge my position on this subject. There has however been alot of emotionaly charged statements. Please post logic points like I did my facts.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Looks like facts to me......


Hence your quandary. They look like facts to you but look like immature rantings to those of us who know what we're talking about.

I'd love to continue with this childish banter but do have to get my gear ready to hunt in the morning. If you'd be kind enough to bestow all of your wisdom regarding the stupidity of deer, their imbecilic travel patterns and how to figure out which ones are just dying to...die..I'd be most grateful as I'm sure the others on this thread who hunt would be.

It seems you are an expert on everything. Just ask you...even though you haven't provided anything other than conjecture. I love guys like you...since I used to be one.

Go back to your laptop and find another topic you can potentially hijack based on your Discovery Channel and National Geographic knowledge. Some of us have to use real world knowledge so don't have the luxury of sitting there talking smack about things we know nothing about.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress


Had they have been wearing live vests then the rescue efforts to save them would have been exponentially less risky for their rescuers. They could have been rescued by grapples or hooks designed for such rescues. instead of sinking where diving would have been necessary.


lol OK

but FACT is these guys didn't had to get rescued at all.
so you're whole logical argument is still coming from speculation or "the what if game"



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bozzchem

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Looks like facts to me......


Hence your quandary. They look like facts to you but look like immature rantings to those of us who know what we're talking about.

I'd love to continue with this childish banter but do have to get my gear ready to hunt in the morning. If you'd be kind enough to bestow all of your wisdom regarding the stupidity of deer, their imbecilic travel patterns and how to figure out which ones are just dying to...die..I'd be most grateful as I'm sure the others on this thread who hunt would be.

It seems you are an expert on everything. Just ask you...even though you haven't provided anything other than conjecture. I love guys like you...since I used to be one.

Go back to your laptop and find another topic you can potentially hijack based on your Discovery Channel and National Geographic knowledge. Some of us have to use real world knowledge so don't have the luxury of sitting there talking smack about things we know nothing about.




My hunting gear is already ready. It is a heavy bag but it has everything I need. All I have to do is grab one of my rifles or bows and grab my bag, it always is ready. My posts in this thread were not in any form a type of "hijacking" I was contributing to the discussion. My contributions may not have been to your liking but they are however very factual and far from conjecture. I have asked for anyone to disprove what I have said but they haven't. I haven't talked "smack" or said anything that is hostile towards another person other than the two that did the rescue. My only hostile statement to them was that they should have gotten a worse reprimand, and that they were ignorant in their actions. Disprove my facts that I stated. They cannot be disproven that is the problem you are having with this discussion. At no point have I discussed the amount of knowledge or experience that anyone posting on here has, but yet mine has been attacked. Why? Well because when logic prevails in a conversation all that is left for those that have the non logical side of the arguement is to attack the other aspects of the person that is contrary to what their beliefs are.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherYOU

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress


Had they have been wearing live vests then the rescue efforts to save them would have been exponentially less risky for their rescuers. They could have been rescued by grapples or hooks designed for such rescues. instead of sinking where diving would have been necessary.


lol OK

but FACT is these guys didn't had to get rescued at all.
so you're whole logical argument is still coming from speculation or "the what if game"



Isn't that what all citations are about from speeding or anything for that matter. It isn't the fact that you did have a high speed accident, but that you could. It isn't the fact that they did put others at risk but that they could have. The citation is a hopeful reminder of the fact that more thought about consequences needs to put into our actions before we make them.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join