Senate Gun Control

Large predator populations are already much lower than they should be. Bears in particular have been driven from large swaths of their former ranges in North America and at least a few distinct subspecies have been exterminated.

 

I think the wolves and cat lobby will do anything to prevent that

 

there is one animal species where the population is reaching dangerously unsustainable levels, but everyone would be rightly appalled if i offered mass slaughter as the simplest solution.

 

Cats?

 

I don't know... I think if you put your suggestion in rap form you might actually get a lot of "likes".

 

Culling/population control isn't quite the same thing as hunting, but I take your point. Culls might at times be deemed necessary to remove an invasive species or whatnot, but we should be working to find systems that limit human intervention/interference in the first place. I have the impression that the 'need' for hunting being involved in culling is manufactured by hunting enthusiasts anyway. There are less sadistic methods to control wildlife populations.

 

Yes, you see this in groups clamoring to be allowed to hunt tiny wolf populations in states across the western U.S. And low predator populations is a big factor in prey overpopulation (e.g., deer) for which hunting is also widely pushed as a "solution."

 

Just wondering, what methods are you thinking of?

 

Reintroduction of predator species helps.

 

In some cases, culling is the only option. I mean, good luck in introducing predators to deal with rabbit, wombat and kangaroo populations you guys.

 

Rabbits are invasive in Australia, no? Of course local predators wouldn't work.

 

Yellowstone Natural Park re-introduced wolves and it fully changed and made better the ecosystem. But yeah. Off topic.

 

Well if you absolutely need to kill then at least a tranquilliser dart is more humane than just a bullet or shotgun pellets. There's still the stress of being stalked and attacked, but at least in the end their end comes peacefully and relatively painlessly.

If you want to avoid killing at all then you'd want to look at changing/regulating aspects of our behaviour that cause animal population imbalances and unintentionally encourage unwanted interactions (e.g. messing with the food chain and habitat networks, offering high energy food waste as alternatives to natural food sources, etc). It's been a long time since I had a geography lesson so sorry if this is a bit vague.

 

Sir, that post was a dagger through my tender heart.

 

Awful animals. Dogs or GTFO.

 

You're a loyal servant of Her Majesty, so I shall excuse your faults.

 

She has the corgis, mate. Not the bloody long-haired Persians.

 

*Arthur theme starts running through her head*

 

OK Christopher Cross

 

So this took place practically in my backyard (I live in the general area of the state where this took place).
Good guy with a gun shoots intruder.

 

Forgive me, if I don't start clapping and singing congratulations..

 

One wounded, one dead, yay for the good guy with a gun! I presume it was a legal murder, too.

 

You mean murders intruder?

 

i think the fact that the good guy ended up merely wounded from a gun, while the bad guy ended up dead from a gun is pretty conclusive evidence that guns are necessary. i mean it's virtually impossible to envision a scenario where their fates might have been reversed.