Animal Activists have gone too far

Why does the fox deserve to be killed? I think the question is more along the lines of: why would you want to kill a fox? Answer being because they're warm, they damage property, and it's a challenge.

If we could speak to it freely it would probably have a higher moral standing anyway and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As far as animal overpopulation, just think about it. The land has a certain carrying capacity that it can hold. A muskrat can produce up to 75 offspring in one year. Think about that. If not properly managed it would take a short period of time for disease and starvation to become evident, and then an even shorter time for it to run rampant.

Humans don't hunt humans for just that reason. And how do you know that we are overpopulated? Besides, we're smart enough to sustain ourselves.

 

THE FOX IS PROTESTING! He is running like Hell!!!

 

yeah right, that's why there are millions of starving people out there. if everyone in the entire world lived as americans do we'd need at least 3 more earths to sustain ourselves. (I've read that number as high as seven, so I'm being rather conservative on this)

Seems like the foxes aren't the real problem here.

 

That's the truth!
And wouldn't you want somebody to defend you if you were being hunted?

 

Just because a dog is not in the hunting business anymore doesn't mean it has to be "put down".

 

...Maybe we should be going on "human hunts"...

 

These dogs are pack animals not household pets.

They will have to be put down.

 

This is a valid point.

 

I wouldn't want to kill a fox for those reasons...

Land doesn't belong to only humans. It's the fox's "property", also.

Nature has it's own ways of controlling animals that humans have exploited, called hunting to eat. There's no reason to worry about fox population unless you want to hunt them for food and hide. The only reason people who don't hunt them for real use worry about their population at all is because they want there to be less foxes and more humans.

You know we're overpopulated when other animals' populations start declining in direct relation to us.

Every being is smart enough to sustain itself.

 

Hmm...that sounds better than my answer

 

Are you serious?

 

I don't think it's right for a dog to be a "household pet", either. They deserve to live their own lives regardless if it has any purpose to humans. They never have to be "put down".

 

Of course they don't deserve to be put down, but what other choices are there?

They can't be house pets.

Letting them roam the countryside will not work.

You're talking about a lot of dogs bred for a single purpose that no longer exsists.

Who is going to finance the cost of taking care of them?

 

Why not? Just because?

How do ya figure? The day I see a fox stride into the courthouse to lay a claim a piece of land well by God it's his.

No, it's called starvation and disease.

Prove it.

Once again, context, you have to read within the context of what I was saying. Smart enough to sustain itself in correlation to population growth. What animal populations are in decline? Far as I know, animal populations are way up all across the country.

 

Are you serious? Because animals can't walk into a court room and lay claim to land then they have no rights to it?

And in response to your guesswork:
"Human activity often changes or destroy the habitats that plants and animals need to survive. Because human populations are growing so fast animals and plants are disappearing 1000 times faster than they have in the past 65 million year. Scientists estimate that in the 21st century 100 species will become extinct every day. "
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwep16.htm

 

You don't need to worry about them, they can make their own choices.

yes it will.

Because a dog is "bread" to serve a human, does not mean that is it's purpose.

Dogs don't need money to live.

 

because I simply wouldn't want to kill a fox for those reasons.

courthouses do not rule the land, nature does.

exactly. this is nature's way.

Yep, I have nothing to back this up. I wasn't sure, those were just ideas.

 

How simplistic. Fur is a natural renewable resource, from a true environmentalist standpoint we should all be wearing that instead of manufactured fabric.

Sorry but we rule the land, and the gubmint rules us.

Morality....where's yours?

 

Ya, cause we all know that something like cotton isn't renewable at all

 

That's about the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards; great interpretation!