Oscar Wilde had it right about fox hunting. ...The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable
But the reason it works is that nature has programmed canines to hunt down and kill the competition. It's why ancient man domesticated wolves or other canines. They found the animals natural instinct to be useful.
A coyote will chase down a fox and kill it, simply for being a competitor. A wolf will do the same to a coyote. Lions do it to cheetahs.
A fox hunt is just a small tweak (domesticated canines) on what nature does everyday, while no one is really paying attention.
A pack of wild dogs hunt to eat or to preserve territory or species. A fox hunt is initiated by humans for the thrill of the kill. There's no comparison.
Or the thrill of watching dogs work.
That's the thing that non hunters don't understand. If it were about the thrill of the kill, people could simply capture a cat, throw it in a confined space with a pit bull and watch the cat get killed.
Now I'm not saying there aren't some messed up folks that get off on that, but that's nothing like a well trained group of dogs matching wits with a fox.
It's not hunting, if the animal doesn't have a damn good chance of getting away.
A pack of 30 or more dogs against one fox? Foxes live on average around 2 to 5 years. Hardly any need to cull them. Unless of course you want to gallop around the countryside in your red jacket on your big boned hunter in order to feel powerful and apex. It's been banned for a reason.
Wildlife contraception is used in zoos and aquariums to manage breeding programmes and prevent the existence of animals who cannot be adequately cared for. Contraception permits control of wildlife populations in national parks and other areas that do not permit hunting, trapping, or poisoning. Surely as a more civilised species we should look more to this, rather than make them suffer?
The idea of 30 dogs is a bit silly. Rabbit hunters only use one or two beagles. Of course rabbit hunters shoot the rabbits, as opposed to letting dogs tear them up. But that's the difference between being classified as vermin and game. One is considered a food source and another a pest. I can trap a rat, but not a quail.
Birth control doesn't really work in the wild.
Proper management does. That's why I live in an area teaming with wildlife. We act like nature sometimes.
There are already successful measures to shoot darts into animals with a contraceptive in them. What's the difference between shooting it dead and shooting a contraceptive dart into it?
The thrill of the kill.
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 06:30:30 PM
Are you saying government trappers enjoy the thrill, or the biologists that determine the number of animals that need to be killed do?
I was referring more to people who enjoy shooting coyotes, bobcats, foxes and racoons etc - the wildlife killing contests are done for the thrill rather than keeping an ecological balance.
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 08:42:32 PM
Maddog said
May 5 9:01 PM, 2021
John Doe wrote:
Maddog wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Oscar Wilde had it right about fox hunting. ...The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable
But the reason it works is that nature has programmed canines to hunt down and kill the competition. It's why ancient man domesticated wolves or other canines. They found the animals natural instinct to be useful.
A coyote will chase down a fox and kill it, simply for being a competitor. A wolf will do the same to a coyote. Lions do it to cheetahs.
A fox hunt is just a small tweak (domesticated canines) on what nature does everyday, while no one is really paying attention.
A pack of wild dogs hunt to eat or to preserve territory or species. A fox hunt is initiated by humans for the thrill of the kill. There's no comparison.
Or the thrill of watching dogs work.
That's the thing that non hunters don't understand. If it were about the thrill of the kill, people could simply capture a cat, throw it in a confined space with a pit bull and watch the cat get killed.
Now I'm not saying there aren't some messed up folks that get off on that, but that's nothing like a well trained group of dogs matching wits with a fox.
It's not hunting, if the animal doesn't have a damn good chance of getting away.
A pack of 30 or more dogs against one fox? Foxes live on average around 2 to 5 years. Hardly any need to cull them. Unless of course you want to gallop around the countryside in your red jacket on your big boned hunter in order to feel powerful and apex. It's been banned for a reason.
Wildlife contraception is used in zoos and aquariums to manage breeding programmes and prevent the existence of animals who cannot be adequately cared for. Contraception permits control of wildlife populations in national parks and other areas that do not permit hunting, trapping, or poisoning. Surely as a more civilised species we should look more to this, rather than make them suffer?
The idea of 30 dogs is a bit silly. Rabbit hunters only use one or two beagles. Of course rabbit hunters shoot the rabbits, as opposed to letting dogs tear them up. But that's the difference between being classified as vermin and game. One is considered a food source and another a pest. I can trap a rat, but not a quail.
Birth control doesn't really work in the wild.
Proper management does. That's why I live in an area teaming with wildlife. We act like nature sometimes.
There are already successful measures to shoot darts into animals with a contraceptive in them. What's the difference between shooting it dead and shooting a contraceptive dart into it?
The thrill of the kill.
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 06:30:30 PM
Are you saying government trappers enjoy the thrill, or the biologists that determine the number of animals that need to be killed do?
I was referring more to people who enjoy shooting coyotes, bobcats, foxes and racoons etc - the wildlife killing contests are done for the thrill rather than keeping an ecological balance.
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 08:42:32 PM
No you weren't.
That was done on private land, and those are not game animals. If a rancher wants fewer predators on his property, he is perfectly within his rights to shoot, or allow the shooting of those particular animals on his property. Same as you can kill a rat in your house.
Digger said
May 5 10:30 PM, 2021
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Oscar Wilde had it right about fox hunting. ...The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable
But the reason it works is that nature has programmed canines to hunt down and kill the competition. It's why ancient man domesticated wolves or other canines. They found the animals natural instinct to be useful.
A coyote will chase down a fox and kill it, simply for being a competitor. A wolf will do the same to a coyote. Lions do it to cheetahs.
A fox hunt is just a small tweak (domesticated canines) on what nature does everyday, while no one is really paying attention.
A pack of wild dogs hunt to eat or to preserve territory or species. A fox hunt is initiated by humans for the thrill of the kill. There's no comparison.
Or the thrill of watching dogs work.
That's the thing that non hunters don't understand. If it were about the thrill of the kill, people could simply capture a cat, throw it in a confined space with a pit bull and watch the cat get killed.
Now I'm not saying there aren't some messed up folks that get off on that, but that's nothing like a well trained group of dogs matching wits with a fox.
It's not hunting, if the animal doesn't have a damn good chance of getting away.
A pack of 30 or more dogs against one fox? Foxes live on average around 2 to 5 years. Hardly any need to cull them. Unless of course you want to gallop around the countryside in your red jacket on your big boned hunter in order to feel powerful and apex. It's been banned for a reason.
Wildlife contraception is used in zoos and aquariums to manage breeding programmes and prevent the existence of animals who cannot be adequately cared for. Contraception permits control of wildlife populations in national parks and other areas that do not permit hunting, trapping, or poisoning. Surely as a more civilised species we should look more to this, rather than make them suffer?
The idea of 30 dogs is a bit silly. Rabbit hunters only use one or two beagles. Of course rabbit hunters shoot the rabbits, as opposed to letting dogs tear them up. But that's the difference between being classified as vermin and game. One is considered a food source and another a pest. I can trap a rat, but not a quail.
Birth control doesn't really work in the wild.
Proper management does. That's why I live in an area teaming with wildlife. We act like nature sometimes.
There are already successful measures to shoot darts into animals with a contraceptive in them. What's the difference between shooting it dead and shooting a contraceptive dart into it?
There are measures.
Sort of like our TNR measures for feral cats.
They don't work.
We've tried in wild horses too.
Doesn't work.
Odd it seems to be working elsewhere.
Maddog said
May 6 12:21 AM, 2021
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Oscar Wilde had it right about fox hunting. ...The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable
But the reason it works is that nature has programmed canines to hunt down and kill the competition. It's why ancient man domesticated wolves or other canines. They found the animals natural instinct to be useful.
A coyote will chase down a fox and kill it, simply for being a competitor. A wolf will do the same to a coyote. Lions do it to cheetahs.
A fox hunt is just a small tweak (domesticated canines) on what nature does everyday, while no one is really paying attention.
A pack of wild dogs hunt to eat or to preserve territory or species. A fox hunt is initiated by humans for the thrill of the kill. There's no comparison.
Or the thrill of watching dogs work.
That's the thing that non hunters don't understand. If it were about the thrill of the kill, people could simply capture a cat, throw it in a confined space with a pit bull and watch the cat get killed.
Now I'm not saying there aren't some messed up folks that get off on that, but that's nothing like a well trained group of dogs matching wits with a fox.
It's not hunting, if the animal doesn't have a damn good chance of getting away.
A pack of 30 or more dogs against one fox? Foxes live on average around 2 to 5 years. Hardly any need to cull them. Unless of course you want to gallop around the countryside in your red jacket on your big boned hunter in order to feel powerful and apex. It's been banned for a reason.
Wildlife contraception is used in zoos and aquariums to manage breeding programmes and prevent the existence of animals who cannot be adequately cared for. Contraception permits control of wildlife populations in national parks and other areas that do not permit hunting, trapping, or poisoning. Surely as a more civilised species we should look more to this, rather than make them suffer?
The idea of 30 dogs is a bit silly. Rabbit hunters only use one or two beagles. Of course rabbit hunters shoot the rabbits, as opposed to letting dogs tear them up. But that's the difference between being classified as vermin and game. One is considered a food source and another a pest. I can trap a rat, but not a quail.
Birth control doesn't really work in the wild.
Proper management does. That's why I live in an area teaming with wildlife. We act like nature sometimes.
There are already successful measures to shoot darts into animals with a contraceptive in them. What's the difference between shooting it dead and shooting a contraceptive dart into it?
There are measures.
Sort of like our TNR measures for feral cats.
They don't work.
We've tried in wild horses too.
Doesn't work.
Odd it seems to be working elsewhere.
It works in very small areas. Like urban parks where there are small numbers of animals in a confined space. There are some barrier island off of NC where they can use it on the very small wild horse herd there.
You're dreaming if you think you can get within 50 yards (the range of a dart gun) of tens or hundreds of thousands of animals spread out over millions of acres.
It's a cool idea, but mostly reserved for animals in captivity.
Digger said
May 6 11:59 AM, 2021
Maddog wrote:
It works in very small areas. Like urban parks where there are small numbers of animals in a confined space. There are some barrier island off of NC where they can use it on the very small wild horse herd there.
You're dreaming if you think you can get within 50 yards (the range of a dart gun) of tens or hundreds of thousands of animals spread out over millions of acres.
It's a cool idea, but mostly reserved for animals in captivity.
It's more like 100 metres with modern dart rifles, which is 110 yards, but I get your point. It's obviously easier and cheaper to just kill them.
I can't imagine why a hunter wouldn't get a real kick out of stalking an animal to get close enough to do this, rather than kill it. Where's the sport in using a weapon that's so far away you don't have any challenges as a hunter? That's not really hunting is it? It's waging a war.
They are using this method via helicopter to control elephant populations in Africa.
-- Edited by Digger on Thursday 6th of May 2021 12:01:20 PM
Syl said
May 6 12:28 PM, 2021
I would have thought ivory poachers managed to control the elephant population in Africa without need of outside help with contraception....bastards.
JP said
May 6 4:16 PM, 2021
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Syl said
May 6 4:50 PM, 2021
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Do you mean when they are old and ill JP?
Maddog said
May 6 5:09 PM, 2021
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
It works in very small areas. Like urban parks where there are small numbers of animals in a confined space. There are some barrier island off of NC where they can use it on the very small wild horse herd there.
You're dreaming if you think you can get within 50 yards (the range of a dart gun) of tens or hundreds of thousands of animals spread out over millions of acres.
It's a cool idea, but mostly reserved for animals in captivity.
It's more like 100 metres with modern dart rifles, which is 110 yards, but I get your point. It's obviously easier and cheaper to just kill them.
I can't imagine why a hunter wouldn't get a real kick out of stalking an animal to get close enough to do this, rather than kill it. Where's the sport in using a weapon that's so far away you don't have any challenges as a hunter? That's not really hunting is it? It's waging a war.
They are using this method via helicopter to control elephant populations in Africa.
-- Edited by Digger on Thursday 6th of May 2021 12:01:20 PM
Hunters don't dart animals. If you want to see how close you can get and not harvest an animal, bring a camera.
We are using helicopters on wild pigs here in Texas. We have been fighting over the use of poison (I'm not a fan) for several years, because in spite of our large number of armed humans in Texas, we can't kill them fast enough.
Spending hours or days in the field trying to kill an animal is like pissing on a forest fire, if you have an out of control population.
Maddog said
May 6 5:17 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
I would have thought ivory poachers managed to control the elephant population in Africa without need of outside help with contraception....bastards.
Africa is a gigantic continent with dozens of countries. Many areas have done a great job with poachers and have so many elephants they are destroying their habitat, and the habitat of every other animal in the area.
Moving animals doesn't always work, and often ends up killing the animal.
I know it's hard to believe, but most people that shoot animals want the species, and every other species to thrive.
Obviously poachers are in a different category. They are usually in it for profit.
Maddog said
May 6 5:24 PM, 2021
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
JP said
May 6 5:26 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Do you mean when they are old and ill JP?
It's just interesting how it's widely acceptable to not allow animals to die naturally. No one really thinks about it. Bats an eyelid. Which is obviously overwhelmingly different to what happens with us humans.
-- Edited by JP on Thursday 6th of May 2021 05:28:15 PM
JP said
May 6 5:32 PM, 2021
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Syl said
May 6 6:23 PM, 2021
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
I would have thought ivory poachers managed to control the elephant population in Africa without need of outside help with contraception....bastards.
Africa is a gigantic continent with dozens of countries. Many areas have done a great job with poachers and have so many elephants they are destroying their habitat, and the habitat of every other animal in the area.
Moving animals doesn't always work, and often ends up killing the animal.
I know it's hard to believe, but most people that shoot animals want the species, and every other species to thrive.
Obviously poachers are in a different category. They are usually in it for profit.
I was reading up about African elephants before.
The females usually have only one calf per pregnancy, and in her lifetime, even though she can get pregnant into old age, the average elephant has no more than 7 calves.
Couple that with male elephants don't usually successfully mate till they are in their 40's or 50's.
Add that to the fact that in the past ivory poachers have killed so many in some parts of Africa the elephant almost became extinct.
Maybe if man wasn't so greedy in destroying great swathes of the planet, the elephant wouldn't have to be culled at all.
Syl said
May 6 6:28 PM, 2021
JP wrote:
Syl wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Do you mean when they are old and ill JP?
It's just interesting how it's widely acceptable to not allow animals to die naturally. No one really thinks about it. Bats an eyelid. Which is obviously overwhelmingly different to what happens with us humans.
-- Edited by JP on Thursday 6th of May 2021 05:28:15 PM
I would prefer it if people could be humanely and legally put to sleep rather than die naturally when they are so ill that life is unbearable....hopefully that day will come.
Maddog said
May 6 6:39 PM, 2021
JP wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
Maddog said
May 6 6:43 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
I would have thought ivory poachers managed to control the elephant population in Africa without need of outside help with contraception....bastards.
Africa is a gigantic continent with dozens of countries. Many areas have done a great job with poachers and have so many elephants they are destroying their habitat, and the habitat of every other animal in the area.
Moving animals doesn't always work, and often ends up killing the animal.
I know it's hard to believe, but most people that shoot animals want the species, and every other species to thrive.
Obviously poachers are in a different category. They are usually in it for profit.
I was reading up about African elephants before.
The females usually have only one calf per pregnancy, and in her lifetime, even though she can get pregnant into old age, the average elephant has no more than 7 calves.
Couple that with male elephants don't usually successfully mate till they are in their 40's or 50's.
Add that to the fact that in the past ivory poachers have killed so many in some parts of Africa the elephant almost became extinct.
Maybe if man wasn't so greedy in destroying great swathes of the planet, the elephant wouldn't have to be culled at all.
Part if it's greed. Part of it's a hungry continent and world for that matter. Part of it is that when we decide to "protect" an animal to counter previous abuses, we are often very good at it. Too good at times and it requires a small step back in the other direction.
Digger said
May 6 6:45 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
I would have thought ivory poachers managed to control the elephant population in Africa without need of outside help with contraception....bastards.
Africa is a gigantic continent with dozens of countries. Many areas have done a great job with poachers and have so many elephants they are destroying their habitat, and the habitat of every other animal in the area.
Moving animals doesn't always work, and often ends up killing the animal.
I know it's hard to believe, but most people that shoot animals want the species, and every other species to thrive.
Obviously poachers are in a different category. They are usually in it for profit.
I was reading up about African elephants before.
The females usually have only one calf per pregnancy, and in her lifetime, even though she can get pregnant into old age, the average elephant has no more than 7 calves.
Couple that with male elephants don't usually successfully mate till they are in their 40's or 50's.
Add that to the fact that in the past ivory poachers have killed so many in some parts of Africa the elephant almost became extinct.
Maybe if man wasn't so greedy in destroying great swathes of the planet, the elephant wouldn't have to be culled at all.
exactly
Digger said
May 6 6:47 PM, 2021
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
My dog must be the most indulged 'slave' that's ever been!
John Doe said
May 6 7:22 PM, 2021
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
My dog must be the most indulged 'slave' that's ever been!
Perhaps, but the poor sod has to look at you 24/7 - surely a fate worse than death!
-- Edited by John Doe on Thursday 6th of May 2021 07:26:21 PM
I was referring more to people who enjoy shooting coyotes, bobcats, foxes and racoons etc - the wildlife killing contests are done for the thrill rather than keeping an ecological balance.
https://www.humanesociety.org/news/disturbing-undercover-investigation-wildlife-killing-contest-texas-pharmacy-parking-lot
https://sanantonioreport.org/documentary-predator-killing-contests/
-- Edited by John Doe on Wednesday 5th of May 2021 08:42:32 PM
No you weren't.
That was done on private land, and those are not game animals. If a rancher wants fewer predators on his property, he is perfectly within his rights to shoot, or allow the shooting of those particular animals on his property. Same as you can kill a rat in your house.
Odd it seems to be working elsewhere.
It works in very small areas. Like urban parks where there are small numbers of animals in a confined space. There are some barrier island off of NC where they can use it on the very small wild horse herd there.
You're dreaming if you think you can get within 50 yards (the range of a dart gun) of tens or hundreds of thousands of animals spread out over millions of acres.
It's a cool idea, but mostly reserved for animals in captivity.
It's more like 100 metres with modern dart rifles, which is 110 yards, but I get your point. It's obviously easier and cheaper to just kill them.
I can't imagine why a hunter wouldn't get a real kick out of stalking an animal to get close enough to do this, rather than kill it. Where's the sport in using a weapon that's so far away you don't have any challenges as a hunter? That's not really hunting is it? It's waging a war.
They are using this method via helicopter to control elephant populations in Africa.
-- Edited by Digger on Thursday 6th of May 2021 12:01:20 PM
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Do you mean when they are old and ill JP?
Hunters don't dart animals. If you want to see how close you can get and not harvest an animal, bring a camera.
We are using helicopters on wild pigs here in Texas. We have been fighting over the use of poison (I'm not a fan) for several years, because in spite of our large number of armed humans in Texas, we can't kill them fast enough.
Spending hours or days in the field trying to kill an animal is like pissing on a forest fire, if you have an out of control population.
Africa is a gigantic continent with dozens of countries. Many areas have done a great job with poachers and have so many elephants they are destroying their habitat, and the habitat of every other animal in the area.
Moving animals doesn't always work, and often ends up killing the animal.
I know it's hard to believe, but most people that shoot animals want the species, and every other species to thrive.
Obviously poachers are in a different category. They are usually in it for profit.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
It's just interesting how it's widely acceptable to not allow animals to die naturally. No one really thinks about it. Bats an eyelid. Which is obviously overwhelmingly different to what happens with us humans.
-- Edited by JP on Thursday 6th of May 2021 05:28:15 PM
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
I was reading up about African elephants before.
The females usually have only one calf per pregnancy, and in her lifetime, even though she can get pregnant into old age, the average elephant has no more than 7 calves.
Couple that with male elephants don't usually successfully mate till they are in their 40's or 50's.
Add that to the fact that in the past ivory poachers have killed so many in some parts of Africa the elephant almost became extinct.
Maybe if man wasn't so greedy in destroying great swathes of the planet, the elephant wouldn't have to be culled at all.
I would prefer it if people could be humanely and legally put to sleep rather than die naturally when they are so ill that life is unbearable....hopefully that day will come.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
Part if it's greed. Part of it's a hungry continent and world for that matter. Part of it is that when we decide to "protect" an animal to counter previous abuses, we are often very good at it. Too good at times and it requires a small step back in the other direction.
exactly
My dog must be the most indulged 'slave' that's ever been!
Perhaps, but the poor sod has to look at you 24/7 - surely a fate worse than death!
-- Edited by John Doe on Thursday 6th of May 2021 07:26:21 PM