Hunting

[Silverscale derg]

Also, something all the tree hugging hippies always seem to forget, but humans are the only species on this planet with enough compassion to actually care if another species goes extinct. No lizard cares if they kill off another species, they don't even comprehend that is what they are doing. Given the opportunity every other species on Earth will consume until there is nothing left. The only reason they don't is because they are kept in check by the balance of the ecosystem, but if left unchecked (which is what an invasive species is) they will just consume and consume. Humans are the only species to understand the consequences; whether are not they can prevent the natural drive to consume everything, however, is yet to be seen.

I'm not a tree hugging hippy. I'm not against hunting, i'm against needless killing. Lizards do care, they're a bit distanced from each other because they know the faith they will suffer. There are predators for a reason. Predators counter prey. They will eat each other and that's fine. The population of both will dip before they balance out. It's good they're kept in check but humans being the "smart" and "moral" group of people that they are or that they at least claim to be should not needlessly kill. There should not be predator culling contests, nor bounties on wolves, nor piles of dead iguanas. One, two fine as long as you eat it but if it's a full out cull then that's wrong. You claim something that humans do. Humans are unchecked and look how polluted everything is. Everything is slowly turning to stone as well. Humans are going to be the ones to suck the earth dry...not iguanas, not wolves, not brown anoles, not foxes, not coyotes, not bobcats, not deer, not boar...humans...

 

[metis]

IMO, killing animals for necessity is justified but killing animals for fun I think is sadistic. Amerindians, for example, were well aware of the dangers of over-killing, plus most groups had a love/hate relationship with hunting, especially since they believed spirits resided in the animals. To make up for the need to hunt, ceremonies were held to honor those spirits. Not all groups practiced this, but most that I have studied did.

 

[Stanyon]

Amerindians, for example, were well aware of the dangers of over-killing

and overpopulation it seems if we look to the mass buffalo drives (buffalo jumps) to reduce numbers increasing the overall health of the herds.

 

[Silverscale derg]

IMO, killing animals for necessity is justified but killing animals for fun I think is sadistic. Amerindians, for example, were well aware of the dangers of over-killing, plus most groups had a love/hate relationship with hunting, especially since they believed spirits resided in the animals. To make up for the need to hunt, ceremonies were held to honor those spirits. Not all groups practiced this, but most that I have studied did.

Killing for food is one thing, "population control" is uncalled for. Spirits do reside inside animals, they want their life to not be in vein. To be tossed out is to be in vein, they wish a good meal for those who killed them and for them not to be made into a meal is disrespect. Sure they may run but still. Those who kill deer and only ONE pig instead of a culling of them are okay. They eat the meat and there's that. The ones who kill wolves even if they're "Canadian" wolves, Coyotes, fox, Iguanas, brown anoles and other creatures of a mix of reptiles, birds, and warm blooded creatures for trophy are sick.

 

[Quintessence]

*** STAFF REMINDER ***​

Rule 3 is a thing, guys.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.​

 

[Nakosis]

That is quite cringe. I only kill one large warm blooded creature to curve bloodlust

So is this bloodlust part of what causes you to feel dragonkin?

 

[Father]

Mandatory. Birth. Control.
1 kid per family. 2 if twins.
just like one needs to pass tests for adoption so too for creation.
that will be all

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not a tree hugging hippy. I'm not against hunting, i'm against needless killing. Lizards do care, they're a bit distanced from each other because they know the faith they will suffer. There are predators for a reason. Predators counter prey. They will eat each other and that's fine. The population of both will dip before they balance out. It's good they're kept in check but humans being the "smart" and "moral" group of people that they are or that they at least claim to be should not needlessly kill. There should not be predator culling contests, nor bounties on wolves, nor piles of dead iguanas. One, two fine as long as you eat it but if it's a full out cull then that's wrong. You claim something that humans do. Humans are unchecked and look how polluted everything is. Everything is slowly turning to stone as well. Humans are going to be the ones to suck the earth dry...not iguanas, not wolves, not brown anoles, not foxes, not coyotes, not bobcats, not deer, not boar...humans...

I'm just waiting for the robots to take over. At which time biological life will no longer be necessary.

 

[Aldrnari]

As someone who was raised in a family that were avid outdoors men (and women), maybe I can add my perspective as a hunter. We were always raised that harvesting an animal should be done as "ethically" as possible. What that means to me is that killing an animal should be done as quickly, as painlessly, and as respectfully as possible. This is why correct use of firearms is so important.

Humans, traditionally, were persistence hunters. We ran after and stalked prey until they were too exhausted to run further. We would then club or stab the frightened animal to death. Compared to an instant (well placed) shot, that seems a bit worse, wouldn't you agree?

Wolves are also persistence hunters, and I've also seen them kill for "fun", only to abandon their prey (in this case, a coyote). I wouldn't use them as examples of ethical hunters, IMO, as they can be pretty cruel in the ways they bring prey down (it isn't pretty). They are effective hunters, though.

 

[Silverscale derg]

I'm just waiting for the robots to take over. At which time biological life will no longer be necessary.

Sure

 

[Silverscale derg]

As someone who was raised in a family that were avid outdoors men (and women), maybe I can add my perspective as a hunter. We were always raised that harvesting an animal should be done as "ethically" as possible. What that means to me is that killing an animal should be done as quickly, as painlessly, and as respectfully as possible. This is why correct use of firearms is so important.

Humans, traditionally, were persistence hunters. We ran after and stalked prey until they were too exhausted to run further. We would then club or stab the frightened animal to death. Compared to an instant (well placed) shot, that seems a bit worse, wouldn't you agree?

Wolves are also persistence hunters, and I've also seen them kill for "fun", only to abandon their prey (in this case, a coyote). I wouldn't use them as examples of ethical hunters, IMO, as they can be pretty cruel in the ways they bring prey down (it isn't pretty). They are effective hunters, though.

"humane" and fair are far from the same thing. Other animals hunting each other is more fair yet they can't use weapons so it isn't the most painless. You shouldn't call it harvesting as if they had no meaning in the life they lives such as they share the same name of picking a crop. They had a life to live, every creature taken has a life but even if done with a gun which is a bit unfair to me it should only be done in need for food, not a cull.

It would be more fair for humans to have to work for their food. Sure it isn't "humane" but humans kill "Canadian" wolves because they kill deer, Coyotes because they sometimes prey on livestock but take this example. A food source which is fairly still, or one that runs away? Humans chose the standing still one.

Wolves may overkill but they at least eat some as for humans that kill for fur. Them having to kill their food go after the weaker ones making the population stronger being that they're easier to bring down but humans favor the good looking ones which happen to be healthy. I don't care if they aren't bringing down their kill in as a humane way as humans, humans have weapons, humans use a call to make it sound like prey is hurt so predators come just so humans can sit in one place and shoot. It's not right.

 

[Silverscale derg]

So is this bloodlust part of what causes you to feel dragonkin?

No it isn't, i'm a sick dragon, I deserve to be in a mental house but ehh no one besides the internet knows

 

[Valjean]

Humans are very much a part of nature. Animals hunting animals is one of the ways nature handles population control and guess what, humans are animals.

Humans have removed themselves from the normal checks and balances of Nature. We're no longer part of the fabric. Functionally, we're more like an infectious organism.

The territory belongs to the dominate species in the area. You seem to have this silly notion that nature is nice or fair, but she is not. Nature is cruel and favors the strong while allowing the weak to die. Over 99 percent of all species that have existed have gone extinct. Nature is not nice or fair and humans are the dominate species in Florida, the territory belongs to them. Now I am not saying they should destroy it but if iguanas are like rats then some mass killing may be in order. After all the humans need to defend their territory.

The 'territory' belongs to no-one, it's just territory.
Nature favors not the strong, but whatever species can find a successful way to integrate into the territorial community and successfully reproduce.
What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?

I am all for protecting the environment and the ecosystem, as in the end it directly benefits humans, but not for the moronic and senseless advocating of some invasive varmints.

That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Humans have removed themselves from the normal checks and balances of Nature. We're no longer part of the fabric. Functionally, we're more like an infectious organism.
The 'territory' belongs to no-one, it's just territory.
Nature favors not the strong, but whatever species can find a successful way to integrate into the territorial community and successfully reproduce.
What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?
That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself.

"Functionally, we're more like an infectious organism."

Infectious organism are part of the "fabric". I know humans like to entertain that somehow they are not part of nature, but nothing escape nature as it is literally everything.

"The 'territory' belongs to no-one, it's just territory."

"What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?"

We are like rats, but it is not OK to mass murder humans. Not sure why I have to explain that one to you.


"That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself."

I am sorry if I value human life over some lizards, but invasive species can do a lot of damage if left unchecked, and we are humans and they are lizards, we are more important than them. Do you not understand how special a human life is?

 

[Valjean]

"Functionally, we're more like an infectious organism."

Infectious organism are part of the "fabric". I know humans like to entertain that somehow they are not part of nature, but nothing escape nature as it is literally everything.

True, but infectious organisms can also get out of hand and cause epidemics. The human infection shows no sign of burning itself out, like the Spanish flu or Bubonic plague.

"What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?"
We are like rats, but it is not OK to mass murder humans. Not sure why I have to explain that one to you.[/quote]But you do. Why are hominens a moral exception?

"That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself."
I am sorry if I value human life over some lizards, but invasive species can do a lot of damage if left unchecked, and we are humans and they are lizards, we are more important than them. Do you not understand how special a human life is?[/QUOTE]I agree that invasive species can damage an ecosystem, but I don't understand why one, particular invasive species, especially one that's unusually virulent, should be singled out as "more important' or special.
"Special exceptionalism", perhaps? -- you'll have to explain to me how special human life is. Sorry for my ignorance.

 

[Silverscale derg]

Humans have removed themselves from the normal checks and balances of Nature. We're no longer part of the fabric. Functionally, we're more like an infectious organism.
The 'territory' belongs to no-one, it's just territory.
Nature favors not the strong, but whatever species can find a successful way to integrate into the territorial community and successfully reproduce.
What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?
That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself.

Thank you, some one that agrees. Humans sure did remove themselves from nature. Some creatures have their own version of territory with canines being what first come to mind. "strong" is not a strict word. One can be weak yet witty but you'd say his strenth helped him through. Humans are already destroying reptiles, some knowingly and some unknowingly especially with "pest" control. Chemicals used to protect crops from bugs makes non iguana lizards food source toxic and forcing them to go after each other just to live. Rat traps with poison also effect snakes too as toxins in prey effect predators more harshly because they consume more prey for the energy they used.

 

[Silverscale derg]

True, but infectious organisms can also get out of hand and cause epidemics. The human infection shows no sign of burning itself out, like the Spanish flu or Bubonic plague.

"What if it's the humans that are 'like rats'? Is some mass killing then justified?"
We are like rats, but it is not OK to mass murder humans. Not sure why I have to explain that one to you.

But you do. Why are hominens a moral exception?

"That's a very speciesist attitude, and a dangerous one. Dominating a system destroys the system. Like a lethal infectious agent, destroy your host and you destroy yourself."
I am sorry if I value human life over some lizards, but invasive species can do a lot of damage if left unchecked, and we are humans and they are lizards, we are more important than them. Do you not understand how special a human life is?[/QUOTE]I agree that invasive species can damage an ecosystem, but I don't understand why one, particular invasive species, especially one that's unusually virulent, should be singled out as "more important' or special.
"Special exceptionalism", perhaps? -- you'll have to explain to me how special human life is. Sorry for my ignorance.[/QUOTE]

The human infection is quite tragic. It prevents other species from evolving, for example canines which live in packs. The leaders get food because they know how to hunt yet teaches as well. To put it into perspective of humans, a professor of sorts. Humans are spreading yet don't like other species to even dare think of spreading. Humans take up so much land. I know it's not okay to mass murder humans especially because they don't taste very good but at the very least if you promote the slaughter of any animal for anything other than food such as sport and "population control" then you shouldn't complain about humans for my view is all life is equal. Even though I am not a fan of humans I respect that they're another life form. the brown anole being "invasive" is just utter lunacy, they help eat insects and from my understanding humans don't like insects. Sure Iguanas may have gotten to places like Florada and PR but that doesn't mean they're invasive. They eat plants for crying out loud. They do literally nothing harmful for the environment. They don't eat as much as boars do. They walk then eat some then walk a bit more and do the same. They leave some there and don't take all of it, and they don't dig under to the roots either so it's like grass cutting but it feeds them. Sure by human standards of being invasive they fall under it but humans do more harm than them.

 

[Aldrnari]

"humane" and fair are far from the same thing. Other animals hunting each other is more fair yet they can't use weapons so it isn't the most painless.

Not sure where you get the idea that humans are the only ones who use weapons (or tools, in general). Ravens and otters use rocks to crack open shells of mollusks, and gorillas have even been observed throwing dirt (as in, to blind) and rocks (not small ones, mind you) at other animals, competing males, and even humans (which can be deadly). Chimpanzees have also been known to make spears and even hoard arsenals of weapons, and also use these spears to hunt.

You shouldn't call it harvesting as if they had no meaning in the life they lives such as they share the same name of picking a crop. They had a life to live, every creature taken has a life but even if done with a gun which is a bit unfair to me it should only be done in need for food, not a cull.

So you say I shouldn't refer to animals I've killed as "harvested", but then say it should only be done for food. It isn't a term of disrespect, but an acknowledgement that these animals ARE killed for food. I cannot think of a hunter I've ever known who didn't eat what they killed. Hunters utilize more of that meat than anything you get from the butcher shop, which throws away "scraps" that most hunters would gladly use.

Something to think about, as well, is that most (deer) hunters only take one animal a year, and that animal's meat sustains them and their family for months. Think about how many chicken nuggets, cheeseburgers, and other meat products you've eaten in your life. How many animals died for those meals? Was it a fair way for them to die? Did they die in the wild, or in a meat factory where they were fed ground up meat (of the same animal) in their slop they were forced to eat?

It would be more fair for humans to have to work for their food. Sure it isn't "humane" but humans kill "Canadian" wolves because they kill deer, Coyotes because they sometimes prey on livestock but take this example. A food source which is fairly still, or one that runs away? Humans chose the standing still one.

Hmm, and what of spiders and their webs? What of snakes and their paralizing venom? What of the eagle that swoops down and snatches the unsuspecting fish? Successful hunters don't expend more energy than they consume. If they did, they wouldn't last long as a species. There's a reason that humans stopped running after animals in favor of growing their crops and using bows and their wits.

Wolves may overkill but they at least eat some as for humans that kill for fur. Them having to kill their food go after the weaker ones making the population stronger being that they're easier to bring down but humans favor the good looking ones which happen to be healthy. I don't care if they aren't bringing down their kill in as a humane way as humans, humans have weapons, humans use a call to make it sound like prey is hurt so predators come just so humans can sit in one place and shoot. It's not right.

I agree that it isn't right to kill for fur or trophy exclusively, as it seems disrespectful to me, but not all people do this. In fact, the fur trade is in decline as synthetic fur grows in popularity and reduces in price.

I agree that the natural way coyotes and wolves select their prey is beneficial to the species of their prey as a whole, but unfortunately that isn't the way things work anymore with the way humans have screwed up the balance of nature. If, for example, wolves or coyotes go unchecked and overkill the deer population, a disease can pass through that community of deer and wipe out the rest of them. Similar situations have happened in the past, and if unchecked, can absolutely lead to mass extinctions (there's already a lot of worry in regards to antelope herds).

Unfortunately, as people grow on population, their impact on the balance of nature will only strain it more.

Edit: just so folks know, I'm talking about USA when I describe people's impact on nature.

 

[Silverscale derg]

Not sure where you get the idea that humans are the only ones who use weapons (or tools, in general). Ravens and otters use rocks to crack open shells of mollusks, and gorillas have even been observed throwing dirt (as in, to blind) and rocks (not small ones, mind you) at other animals, competing males, and even humans (which can be deadly). Chimpanzees have also been known to make spears and even hoard arsenals of weapons, and also use these spears to hunt.



So you say I shouldn't refer to animals I've killed as "harvested", but then say it should only be done for food. It isn't a term of disrespect, but an acknowledgement that these animals ARE killed for food. I cannot think of a hunter I've ever known who didn't eat what they killed. Hunters utilize more of that meat than anything you get from the butcher shop, which throws away "scraps" that most hunters would gladly use.

Something to think about, as well, is that most (deer) hunters only take one animal a year, and that animal's meat sustains them and their family for months. Think about how many chicken nuggets, cheeseburgers, and other meat products you've eaten in your life. How many animals died for those meals? Was it a fair way for them to die? Did they die in the wild, or in a meat factory where they were fed ground up meat (of the same animal) in their slop they were forced to eat?



Hmm, and what of spiders and their webs? What of snakes and their paralizing venom? What of the eagle that swoops down and snatches the unsuspecting fish? Successful hunters don't expend more energy than they consume. If they did, they wouldn't last long as a species. There's a reason that humans stopped running after animals in favor of growing their crops and using bows and their wits.



I agree that it isn't right to kill for fur or trophy exclusively, as it seems disrespectful to me, but not all people do this. In fact, the fur trade is in decline as synthetic fur grows in popularity and reduces in price.

I agree that the natural way coyotes and wolves select their prey is beneficial to the species of their prey as a whole, but unfortunately that isn't the way things work anymore with the way humans have screwed up the balance of nature. If, for example, wolves or coyotes go unchecked and overkill the deer population, a disease can pass through that community of deer and wipe out the rest of them. Similar situations have happened in the past, and if unchecked, can absolutely lead to mass extinctions (there's already a lot of worry in regards to antelope herds).

Unfortunately, as people grow on population, their impact on the balance of nature will only strain it more.

Edit: just so folks know, I'm talking about USA when I describe people's impact on nature.

They use "weapons" on stuff that stands still. Humans use it on those that are living. You're speaking of human related animals with the monkeys and others that "god" tried to make hidden so he had them evolve. You shouldn't say harvested when talking about animals, you should say that you took their life for meat. Some aren't killed for food such as wolves and coyotes yet hunters say "harvest" sure they use their fur but that's disrespectful. I know some hunters but even raccoons have been thrown out after skinned. It's okay to hunt and I don't mind hunting although when hunters kill fellow predators just to have a few more deer to kill then that's just messed up. Humans have farms for meat, although not the best meat but predators have prey which is harder to kill and is worth for them to have than to humans which enjoy killing the stronger looking ones. I haven't eaten such rubbish in my life, I know meat is the life of others but to take the life of predators trying to survive is just wrong. What about spiders? They eat insects and so do lizards. Have you heard of considerations? Say a nut has slight toxins in it, a squirrel eats the nut, still fine, a cat eats the squirrel, the cat needing to eat more to fill up would consume more of the toxin, then a wolf would eat the cat, and making it even more toxic. The higher up you go the worse it gets. When you apply it to lizards which cold blooded creatures need a certain set of rules on their own being that they can't keep warm on their own, and that they just can't eat whatever they want. Insects get sprayed enough to kill them, lizards eat more than one insect per sitting...i'll let you figure out the rest. Sure "effective" but at least just use a bow. Using bait is just unfair. I know the fur trade is in decline but I've been advocating on facebook enough that they banned me and when I went to hunter threads that involved coyotes especially, wolves not as much, notice the as in the statement, they all say when a coyote walks under it turns the _______ hunt into a coyote hunt. That's needless killing and it needs to stop. Sure humans messed it up but step back, sure there will be a surplus cycle of both predators and prey but it will even out.

 

[Aldrnari]

They use "weapons" on stuff that stands still. Humans use it on those that are living. You're speaking of human related animals with the monkeys and others that "god" tried to make hidden so he had them evolve. You shouldn't say harvested when talking about animals, you should say that you took their life for meat. Some aren't killed for food such as wolves and coyotes yet hunters say "harvest" sure they use their fur but that's disrespectful. I know some hunters but even raccoons have been thrown out after skinned. It's okay to hunt and I don't mind hunting although when hunters kill fellow predators just to have a few more deer to kill then that's just messed up. Humans have farms for meat, although not the best meat but predators have prey which is harder to kill and is worth for them to have than to humans which enjoy killing the stronger looking ones. I haven't eaten such rubbish in my life, I know meat is the life of others but to take the life of predators trying to survive is just wrong. What about spiders? They eat insects and so do lizards. Have you heard of considerations? Say a nut has slight toxins in it, a squirrel eats the nut, still fine, a cat eats the squirrel, the cat needing to eat more to fill up would consume more of the toxin, then a wolf would eat the cat, and making it even more toxic. The higher up you go the worse it gets. When you apply it to lizards which cold blooded creatures need a certain set of rules on their own being that they can't keep warm on their own, and that they just can't eat whatever they want. Insects get sprayed enough to kill them, lizards eat more than one insect per sitting...i'll let you figure out the rest. Sure "effective" but at least just use a bow. Using bait is just unfair. I know the fur trade is in decline but I've been advocating on facebook enough that they banned me and when I went to hunter threads that involved coyotes especially, wolves not as much, notice the as in the statement, they all say when a coyote walks under it turns the _______ hunt into a coyote hunt. That's needless killing and it needs to stop. Sure humans messed it up but step back, sure there will be a surplus cycle of both predators and prey but it will even out.

That's an awefully large wall of text that's difficult to read on a small screen... Not trying to be nitpicky, but paragraphs are badly needed...

They use "weapons" on stuff that stands still. Humans use it on those that are living.

Err, not really just things that "stand still". Chimpanzees hunt bush babies and other animals with spears.

You're speaking of human related animals with the monkeys and others that "god" tried to make hidden so he had them evolve.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, or what/who you may believe "god" is in this context. I would appreciate some clarification.

You shouldn't say harvested when talking about animals, you should say that you took their life for meat. Some aren't killed for food such as wolves and coyotes yet hunters say "harvest" sure they use their fur but that's disrespectful. I know some hunters but even raccoons have been thrown out after skinned.

Might seem a little awkward if I was in a conversation with someone who hunts and I say, "Oh yah, I took this deer's life for meat when I went hunting over at the national forest by Sandy Hill".

I'm against hunting for furs, personally, if the whole animal isn't utilized. As for Raccoons, that usually happens when the hunter is ignorant on how to prepare them. Personally, I don't hunt raccoons. They aren't very tastey.

It's okay to hunt and I don't mind hunting although when hunters kill fellow predators just to have a few more deer to kill then that's just messed up. Humans have farms for meat, although not the best meat but predators have prey which is harder to kill and is worth for them to have than to humans which enjoy killing the stronger looking ones.

And what if letting the predators overpopulate results in the extinction of other animals? Sometimes disease rears it's ugly head and wipes out animals that are already weakened by overkilling them.

Although, I do agree with you on some of your other points.

I haven't eaten such rubbish in my life, I know meat is the life of others but to take the life of predators trying to survive is just wrong.

What makes predators a special case? Does that mean people shouldn't eat fish or bears?

What about spiders? They eat insects and so do lizards. Have you heard of considerations? Say a nut has slight toxins in it, a squirrel eats the nut, still fine, a cat eats the squirrel, the cat needing to eat more to fill up would consume more of the toxin, then a wolf would eat the cat, and making it even more toxic. The higher up you go the worse it gets.

Err... I'm confused. My original point about spiders, snakes, and eagles is that they hunt in ways that make the animals less challenging. Easier. Much like humans do. The less work a predator does, the more energy he/she conserves.

When you apply it to lizards which cold blooded creatures need a certain set of rules on their own being that they can't keep warm on their own, and that they just can't eat whatever they want. Insects get sprayed enough to kill them, lizards eat more than one insect per sitting...i'll let you figure out the rest.

Alrighty then.

Sure "effective" but at least just use a bow. Using bait is just unfair.

Animals use bait in the wild all the time. Ever heard of the angler fish?

I know the fur trade is in decline but I've been advocating on facebook enough that they banned me and when I went to hunter threads that involved coyotes especially, wolves not as much, notice the as in the statement, they all say when a coyote walks under it turns the _______ hunt into a coyote hunt. That's needless killing and it needs to stop. Sure humans messed it up but step back, sure there will be a surplus cycle of both predators and prey but it will even out.

I agree that hunting coyotes isn't right, but I have the luxury to feel that way in a state where coyotes aren't a problem. In some states, they really are an issue. As for people stepping back, good luck with that... Humanity is ever growing, for better or for worse.