George W. Bush declares war on Yellowstone grizzly bears
|
Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
|
11-15-2005 08:43
From: someone the Bush administration on Tuesday announced that it plans to remove federal protections for the animals in the areas around the national park.
(MSNBC) So it has begun, Boy George promissed to remove 99% of all animals from the endangered list for hunters and now he is making good on that promiss.
|
Aaron Levy
Medicated Lately?
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,147
|
11-15-2005 08:56
Because THEY AREN'T ENDANGERED. The list is made-up.
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-15-2005 08:58
Uh.. do you have any actual information about this?
I mean, it doesn't sound like he's removing animals from the endangered species list.. he's removing other additional protections that animals near the federal park enjoy.
However, in that situation, animals that are endangered would still be protected.
Also.. this is not talking about animals that are actually in yellowstone.
|
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
|
11-15-2005 09:07
From: Aaron Levy Because THEY AREN'T ENDANGERED. The list is made-up. They were listed as threatened and have made a recovery. They were removed from the threatened list and states now have the option to allow limited hunting as they see fit, especially in areas where bears are in conflict with humans. As far as I know hunting of grizleys in Yellowstone itself is still not permitted and I hope it never is. If their populations decline significantly again they will be added to the threatened list again and the bans on hunting (or otherwise harming) them will resume. Up to you to decide if its bad or not, it sounded reasonable to me. They did a story on NPR this morning http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013084
_____________________
From: Bud I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
|
Sansarya Caligari
BLEH!
Join date: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 1,206
|
11-15-2005 09:15
Guess it depends on your perspective. For the past 10 years at least ranchers in Montana have been shooting bison that cross the state line from Yellowstone when the bison start moving north. They claim the bison carry brucellosis which endangers their cattle, but to date only one bison has tested positive for brucellosis and no cattle have ever contracted brucellosis from bison. Thousands of bison have been slaughtered and were not used for meat, robes, etc. until Northern Plains Indian tribal activists took notice and began protesting. These bison are the decendents of the original bison of the northern plains--the few that remained after mass slaughters of bison to make way for pioneer settlement of the west, an act which devastated the Northern Plains tribes because it severely limited their food supply. Kill the buffalo, starve the Indians, bam! West is settled...I believe these bison being killed are endangered because they possess important properties for research into how Northern Plains Indians lived, their diet, etc. prior to white contact. Diabetes being one of the devastating diseases that affect Native people, perhaps research into the original diet of Indians through these descendants of the original northern plains bison might give insight in how to save Native people from dying of a preventable disease like diabetes. Regardless of whether or not the BEARS are endangered, unless there is a viable human need for bear meat, bear robes, bear oil, etc. then they should not be killed. Hunting for sport is wrong. Sure, the state my profit from hunting licenses. Some famous chef might find a way to make bear meat a delicacy in a restaurant somewhere, and hunters everywhere can prove their "worthiness" by killing a bear... but that is SO WRONG! It completely goes against the human animal's balance with the earth and with their relationship to it (so what else is new?). Are the grizzlies out of control and killing people in Yellowstone? No, probably not. I hear more stories about shark attacks than bear attacks. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8971332/
|
Sansarya Caligari
BLEH!
Join date: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 1,206
|
11-15-2005 09:39
From: Zuzu Fassbinder They were listed as threatened and have made a recovery. They were removed from the threatened list and states now have the option to allow limited hunting as they see fit, especially in areas where bears are in conflict with humans. As far as I know hunting of grizleys in Yellowstone itself is still not permitted and I hope it never is. If their populations decline significantly again they will be added to the threatened list again and the bans on hunting (or otherwise harming) them will resume. Up to you to decide if its bad or not, it sounded reasonable to me. They did a story on NPR this morning http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013084 Thank you for posting that link. It's a very interesting argument from both sides of the issue. I still stand by my previous post; however, if human life is threatened then there does need to be some control. I can see the situation getting totally out of hand though, and as a Native person I can't condone the killing of bears for sport. There has to be a balance that can be reached towards beneficial co-existence between bears and humans.
|
Hank Ramos
Lifetime Scripter
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 2,328
|
11-15-2005 09:45
It's interesting that "Conservatives" say they are for families and believe in God. Yet they always find a way to try and destroy God's creations and to mortgage our children's futures! 
|
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
|
11-15-2005 09:48
From: Roland Hauptmann Uh.. do you have any actual information about this?
I mean, it doesn't sound like he's removing animals from the endangered species list.. he's removing other additional protections that animals near the federal park enjoy.
However, in that situation, animals that are endangered would still be protected.
Also.. this is not talking about animals that are actually in yellowstone. Roland, Roland. It is not worth the time to refute these sorts of posts. I will share with you the reason. This used to be in Magnum's signature, but not anymore. magnumserpentine.blogspot.com Draw your own conclusions.
|
Roland Hauptmann
Registered User
Join date: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 323
|
11-15-2005 10:17
From: Enabran Templar magnumserpentine.blogspot.com
Draw your own conclusions.
Heh... I like the comment that removal of the filabuster would actually cause the government to grind to a halt.
|
Enabran Templar
Capitalist Pig
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 4,506
|
11-15-2005 12:38
From: Roland Hauptmann Heh... I like the comment that removal of the filabuster would actually cause the government to grind to a halt. My favorite part was all the commands issued to his audience to boycott things, as well as commands issued directly to those in congress. It was pretty good reading, like a piece on the Onion, only... weirder. I'm sad it isn't updated any long.
|
Moss Talamasca
Serpent & Thistle
Join date: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 367
|
11-15-2005 12:46
Mmmmm... Bear. We all love tha taste of bear every now and again, don't we? Let the hunters have their fun. How else can we all enjoy the delicious bear meat?
Bear is so good.
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
11-15-2005 16:57
From: Enabran Templar Roland, Roland. It is not worth the time to refute these sorts of posts.
Roland Roland Roland. Keep those dogies Roland. Rawhide!
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence." -Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
|