a reply to: RAY1990
I probably didn't express my point well enough, maybe should've used snakes or spiders that will kill you given the chance. My point was
conflict with "wants vs needs" in mind.
Hahaha, no, using a dog was a better choice. I simply step on spiders, and I consider snake meat delicious.
I was actually bitten twice by a brown recluse spider about 20 years ago. I killed it and felt kinda sick afterwards so I went home, laid down, ran my
fever, and was fine a few hours later. The second bite went away; the first one left a hole in my back, which eventually scabbed over and I still have
to this day. Every now and then it itches. But even that was nothing like being attacked by a dog.
And a dog attack is nothing like being attacked by a pack of wolves. That was my point.
Animals usually only do do stupid things when they are injured, stressed or starving. As long as we don't do stupid things we can somewhat live
True enough, but with a caveat. Animals do not care what we want or need. By their very nature, wild animals are concerned only about one thing:
themselves. Man has developed this compassion that actually tends to threaten us when dealing with nature.
To a wolf, there are three classifications of other creatures: prey, to be eaten whenever one is hungry; competition, which includes any other
creature that may eat one's future prey; and pack members, who one must work with to survive. That's it. There's no other classification to a wolf.
Competition (like us) is to be destroyed whenever possible, and pack members will be spared as long as they are useful. That's not 'stupid things' to
the wolf; it's just what they do to survive.
The real issue is the environmentalists who refuse to accept that animals are animals. A lone wolf is a threat because he is likely not alone; there's
a pack around close. A wild boar is a threat because even though it's a pig and pretty intelligent as animals go, it has no fear of humans and will
gladly eat a few for breakfast (and they like to pack as well). A deer is a threat because if not controlled, it and its kin will destroy crops.
On the other hand, humans have shown a tendency to go overboard. That deer will destroy crops, yes, but only if allowed to populate itself too fast.
Hunting fixes that problem and maintains some deer to carry on the species. That's a great compromise. Wolves in remote areas where there are few
humans and no real farming (yes there are such areas) are no threat to humans; as soon as they come near humans, though, they must be destroyed. My
philosophy on this is that people have every right to ensure their safety and prosperity over animals, but there is also no need to go after those
animals which are, for one reason or another, not a threat. There is a difference between self-defense and vengeance.
I go by the adage: live and let live, or intrude on me and die. It seems to work well out here. I still have some squirrels even... if the population
is low enough, they eat the acorns and leave (most of) my nuts alone. No reason to exterminate them all, especially since more would just move in from
And animals are beautiful... well, except for possums and armadillos.