Indians For Guns

The ranchers or the animal rights activist?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... g%3Ftag%3D

i think there is nothing wrong in killing a animal if u can use the money from it to save 10.
if not for those ranches those animal would be extinct by now.
some times i really feel sick about this animal right activist. they don't protest about hundreds of animals raised in a very very poor conditions, won't leave a dignified life than slaughter inhumanely. most of this activist just do it for publicity stake. most are page 3 celebrities.

Lovely find winnie.

The Ranches saved those animals from the brink of extinction.
and now when their numbers have increased the Animal Rights Activists want to take credit for it.

I was reading an article in a news paper recently which mentioned that the Delhi zoo has more blackbucks than what they can keep. So they have seperated the males from the females to prevent further breeding. I wonder what the animals rights activists have to say about this.
What makes sense to me is auctioning away the excess black bucks to pvt. land owners and allowing these animals to breed and live free instead of cramping them up and segregating them in the zoo.

@ winnie_the_pooh Thanks for sharing this thought provoking video

What struck me most was the question at the end. Who is winning? The answer was - No one, the animals are losing!

I would have to agree and think that the only way to see it is 'the numbers.' If you can not only save a species from extinction but actually rejuvenate their numbers then the means justify the end.

The animal rights activist will see the extinction of more species than any other, natural, or man made disaster. It is cheaper to maintain a healthy herd in the US, than it is in Africa. The corruption in African countrys drains funds away from the animals, and one small civil war can wipe out a species over night. The woman in the video is clueless. No common sense, and will live longer than the majority of the Oryx will as a species.

Hello WTP
Switch the same scene to Africa/India, replace the lion, leopard or tiger with a man and his rifle but with big bucks in his pockets to replace the animal he has shot, with many more. Well a convincing argument indeed, the animal rights activists need to do a rethink. The Texans have shown the way, the animal rights activists has done a good job in Senegal , but she does stammer and falter when asked what difference would it make if the animals native to africa were conserved in texas.
'The bottomline is numbers', well I disagree on that issue, the same increasing numbers in a cramped zoo or reserve would be cruel to the animals. I would agree to the bottomline only if the animals have the freedom to roam as in Texas.
Best Regards

hvj1 wrote: a cramped zoo or reserve would be cruel to the animals.

Absolutely - no two ways about that!

Another droll thought strikes me: If the same rule were applied to humans - sacrifice the few for the good of many - I wonder how many would agree? I guess it would depend on whether one were part of the 'few' or the 'many'

Where in India would you get a 30000 hectare pvt. game reserve? An attempt should be made. Even if it is at a smaller scale. I know it's a next to impossible task in our country with the present laws.
I went to a pet shop where they were offering Ringneck pheasants for Rs 15000 a pair . It is legal to keep them. You can also keep Silver and Golden pheasants. Rs 20000 a pair. Yet you can not keep an Indian parrot as a pet.
Doesn't make sense to me.
I was happy to see blackbucks thrive in the Texas video. If not in India. At least they have a bright future in the U.S.
There was also a big male Neelgai running at top speed in one shot.

The Animal Rights Activist says "You breed them to shoot them".
So does the butcher. He breeds them to kill them. She should close down all the slaughter houses.The world should turn vegetarian.

ckkalyan wrote:Another droll thought strikes me: If the same rule were applied to humans - sacrifice the few for the good of many - I wonder how many would agree? I guess it would depend on whether one were part of the 'few' or the 'many'

Another way of looking at it is that humans have taken the role of predators in the wild.As far as being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian goes,it is a personal choice.No one has the right to force some one to change his diet.

I do not see meat eaters trying to force every one to eat meat.However I do see veg. radicals trying to force meat eaters to give it up.For the record I am a vegetarian.

Another droll thought strikes me: If the same rule were applied to humans - sacrifice the few for the good of many - I wonder how many would agree? I guess it would depend on whether one were part of the 'few' or the 'many'

Here's a second droll thought: Both of our countries fought for independence, and those who died in that cause were the "few" who sacrificed their lives for the "many." We are alive, so by definition, we are the many. Which ones of us wish that the few hadn't died, and that we still were ruled by others?

When it comes to what the few thought, that could fill a book, I suppose.

But for sure, any nation that is willing to resort to arms to preserve its freedom operates on the principle of the few sacrificing their lives for the many.

And also, the whole idea of self-protection operates on a similar principle. How many of us are willing to allow ourselves and our loved ones to be murdered, so as not to injure or kill the murderer?

Survivability of any game animal is 35% mortality rate and if the ranchers are taking 10% then about 15% game is going to get too old to be eaten and collect diseases by age . Rest of the 10% is weather , starvation , accidents and predators . Any way it's my point .

Conservation's first rule is to control and count any race of species so you can take care of them . And to control , you needs to hunt and make a buck so you can feed the rest of them . It's called harvesting . You sow bunch of seeds to have new crop , those seeds must be sown or say wasted to get new crop .

And if I be commenting on any north American Gun Hunting For*m , I be a SOB hardliner but as people in India have different view points toward hunting and tends to be more or less veggies , so I'm going easy on the animal rights lady - Haji

Copy and paste and forward to 03.13, hit the cc box to see english captions. Watch till 03.49 minutes, and when you stop laughing forward to your anti-hunting friends

[youtube][/youtube]

Aloha,

Sometime in the 1800s the ruling monarch of Hawaii got as a gift from some Royal person in India a

bunch of Axis deer.

Today, they are or were on 5 of the 7 islands that make up the state of Hawaii.

They are legally hunted.

On several islands hunting them are not permitted or very controlled.

On at least one island, they are becoming major pests because of over population.

The deer are raiding home gardens, eating plants in yards and getting hit by cars.

Deer are fantastic jumpers. 6 foot fences are easy for them. Amazingly, the deer can dive

THRU a barbed wire fence. I have never seen that, but have friends who have.

I can say that Axis deer which feed on pineapples are Delicious.

I have been lucky enough to hunt them. The 2 that I took went down to a single

well placed 30-06 bullet.

Hawaii also has Ring Neck pheasent and the most prized is the Kalij pheasent.

I believe both birds are from India.

Most people in Hawaii are unaware of the Indian commection.