DescentBB

So while the animal lovers all got their panties in a wad over Cecil the lion, no one hearda peep from them over the govt. killing a mama grizzley with cubs that killed a hiker in Yellowstone. Even tho the guy did not follow park rules and had to bear repellant, somehow our govt. thought it best to kill the mother grizzley for protecting her young. Yeah, animal rights groups my fanny.

http://news.yahoo.com/yellowstone-park- ... 17168.html

Grizzley Bears are not an endangered species. Big difference.

Lions are not endangered either so you might want to rethink your statement.

woodchip wrote:Lions are not endangered either so you might want to rethink your statement.

Is that so?

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15951/0

Yes...your link lists them as vulnerable and not endangered. As to Cecil, the lions in Zimbabwe are shown to be increasing. From your link:

The overall classification of the Lion as Vulnerable masks a dichotomy: we observe that sample Lion subpopulations increased by 11% in four southern African countries (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe)

the point is that lions are in short supply, grizzlies are not. For the record, could you clarify why you are complaining about 'animal lovers' as if that is something one shouldn't aspire to? I guess pro-life only works for you in a limited human context, and only for unborn ones at that?

Grizzlys in the lower 48 are in short supply:

"In November 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the whitebark pine issue, resulting in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population remaining on the threatened species list. "

I suggest once again slick, you at least make a rudimentary search before you come up with such uninformed ideas.

woodchip wrote:Grizzlys in the lower 48 are in short supply:

"In November 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the whitebark pine issue, resulting in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population remaining on the threatened species list. "

I suggest once again slick, you at least make a rudimentary search before you come up with such uninformed ideas.

I'll admit on that one I merely asked my West Coast fishing buddies. They would differ, and 3 of them guide in Yellowstone. Of course, you are citing 4 year old data, so maybe it was a short term effect. At any rate, you chose to avoid my broader question. Why are 'animal lovers' addressed by you as if they are a bad thing?

Woody, you're argument is a little specious. Even in Africa, lions that turn to man-eating are hunted down and killed, endangered or not. The same applies to Grizzlies, endangered or not. A Grizzly kills and eats a human, it has to die for the safety of the other humans visiting the park. I'm sure if for some reason a even a wolf started killing humans in the U.S. somewhere, unlikely but who knows, it would be hunted and killed as well for everyone's safety. Problem wolves are even killed if they get a taste for cattle, rare as wolves are in the U.S. We've got cougars here in my location. If one started up munching on people's pets, or children, it too would be killed because now that animal has become accustomed to the taste and ease of killing this type of prey. Humans always come first on this planet, even though "we" are the ones encroaching on most of these animal's habitats and because "we" don't like getting eaten.

But I will agree with you on one thing. Animal lovers are hypocrites every time they conceive a child. Whether they like it or not, the planet is getting crowed with more and more humans and either the humans take up space or the animals take up space. We all can't occupy the same space and get along like a bunch of lovers. The animals will do what comes naturally when crowded out of their habitats, eat what's available and easy, many times us humans.

callmeslick wrote: At any rate, you chose to avoid my broader question. Why are 'animal lovers' addressed by you as if they are a bad thing?

Didn't say they were a bad thing per se (reread my OP). What I object to is their selective anthropomorphism.
Giving Cecil human like characteristics so the world would feel sorry for him after his demise and saying nothing about the grizzly defending her children shows they are hypocrites. If the park wanted you to be able to defend yourself against the animals they would let you walk around armed. As it is the park officials clearly point out that the park is for the animals and humans are but visitors. If some idiot does not want to follow the minimal defensive rules and winds up dead...then too bad. If the grizzly shows repeat behavior and kills and eats more humans then she should perhaps be removed. As it is she is now been killed and so will her cubs all because some back country hiking neophyte thought he knew what he was doing.

Yes, protecting young is not the same thing as starting to hunt humans.

at any rate, if we are venturing into Cecil the Lion(which no one has, on this board in the weeks since the story broke), I find it disheartening that so many people get worked up over one lion, yet have no issue with thousands of humans shot and killed in the US, millions displaced worldwide, millions more starving daily. I agree with the original premise about the lion hunt angst being overdone, but for FAR different reasons than Woody, I suspect.

Humans are a long ways away from any endangered/threatened/vulnerable species lists though.

Krom wrote:Humans are a long ways away from any endangered/threatened/vulnerable species lists though.

right, but I never suggested that was MY criteria, only an explanation for the selective animal outcry observed by Woody.

Bears a problem? This guy does them,too.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/photos ... ar-BBlJXOi

Krom wrote:Humans are a long ways away from any endangered/threatened/vulnerable species lists though.

that might be because WE make the lists. Anyhow, this came to mind:

woodchip wrote:Yes...your link lists them as vulnerable and not endangered. As to Cecil, the lions in Zimbabwe are shown to be increasing. From your link:

The overall classification of the Lion as Vulnerable masks a dichotomy: we observe that sample Lion subpopulations increased by 11% in four southern African countries (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe)

The only difference between "vulnerable" and "endangered" on the Endangered Species list, is a slightly higher number.

callmeslick wrote:

Krom wrote:Humans are a long ways away from any endangered/threatened/vulnerable species lists though.

that might be because WE make the lists. Anyhow, this came to mind:

I miss the Calvin and Hobbes strip.