operation p.a.w. ;; don't let the howls stop

[Zarago]

Just to be irritating-
Traps have to be checked every 24 hours by law. ^^ So no, the wolf doesn’t sit there for days/weeks on end. That is just a bunch of propaganda spread by animal rights enthusiasts and the like.
I do agree that it isn’t the best way to hunt, but it’s not *terrible* in my opinion. I understand how some people think it is, though.
I live trap problem raccoons myself-but it’s called a live trapping for a reason, and we check them daily when they are set up.

Just because they must by law, does not mean that every soul will do it, especially the sort to go out setting snares and leg-hold traps in the first place. I don't have an issue with live traps in the slightest though.

[van]

No, not everyone will, but not everyone won’t either.
I’m sure there are a few people out there who won’t follow the laws, but they will probably be caught sooner or later. It isn’t very easy to evade the law with hunting and trapping.
My reasoning;
.You must check them daily-if an animal is left in a trap for more than a day, than the trapper will be fined.
.You must have a license. [Discluding live trapping]
.Trapping is regulated and has seasons just like hunting.
.You must get permission from the owner of the land you are using to set traps if it isn’t your own. You can’t just put the traps anywhere.

Contrary to popular belief, trapping isn’t just going out and setting some inhumane traps to slowly and painfully kill the animal over a week’s time, leaving the animals young to starve.
No joke, that’s what someone from PETA described it as. Like I said, it’s just a bunch of propaganda.
As long as it’s done lawfully [usually trapping under law is pretty humane], then I tolerate it.

[Zarago]

As I stated before, I have no issue with humane and regulated hunting, but even if this 'includes' leg-hold traps, I still do not support them. They cause far too many issues and far too much pain to whatever unfortunate creature becomes caught in one, and this sometimes includes people's pets. Particularly dogs.

I'd post a video, but I don't want to cause too much disruption to younger users.

[zima.]

How do you become a member?

[Zarago]

How do you become a member?

Code: Select all

I, [your username], will dedicate myself to helping wolves have a better future. I swear to give my all in protecting these beautiful creatures, and will help in anyway I can.

Fill this in.

[zima.]

I, Arula Nischala, will dedicate myself to helping wolves have a better future. I swear to give my all in protecting these beautiful creatures, and will help in anyway I can.

[LoveBands]

I, avanlea, will dedicate myself to helping wolves have a better future. I swear to give my all in protecting these beautiful creatures, and will help in anyway I can.





[url=v4][/url]

[Sadies]

I personally believe killing any animal for fun is wrong. If you can pat to shoot an animal then you should be able to
Pay to shoot a human I'n my opinion and that's not right according to human right but what about animal rights! I disagree with killing wolves as they already naturally control their own numbers by lack of food ect so no need to kill them.

you would rather grey wolves starve a slow, painful death rather than a
fast, clean bullet to the brain (instantly killing them)?
--
animal rights is a terrible idea mainly supported by PETA.
I think you mean animal welfare, which is perfectly fine.

animal welfare is ensuring pets/animals get regular servings of food and clean water.
animal rights is a cat voting.
--
also, here's a link to grey wolf overpopulation, ourpawprints c:

No, I would not like to see any animal suffer but weak wolves like that are normaly killed by other wolves who come into contact with them and see them as a threat also that is what nature intended and although cruel that's what nature intended.

You need to remember the difference between hunting and euthenasia. Hunting is going out with the intent of killing an animal with no intent to do any good.. Euthenasia is humanely killing an animal for the better of that animal. Culling is wiping out more animals to stop disease spread and controling species number.
We are talking about hunting, not euthenasia or culling therefore I do not agree with it at all.
--
I agree with both animal welfare and rights. I understand welfare is more important but rights is also important. Animal roghts is important, you say it's rubbish but you do agree with animal rights whether strong or not. For example keeping a dog locked I'n a cafe with no human company, that's not bad for the animals welfare but it's not fair or right for the dog.
--
Grey Wolves are overpopulated because to many other predators have been killed and so the prey has had the chance to overbreed meaning the wolves overthrive. People need to bring in more of other predators to hunt the deer.

[Nyxeva]

I personally believe killing any animal for fun is wrong. If you can pat to shoot an animal then you should be able to
Pay to shoot a human I'n my opinion and that's not right according to human right but what about animal rights! I disagree with killing wolves as they already naturally control their own numbers by lack of food ect so no need to kill them.

you would rather grey wolves starve a slow, painful death rather than a
fast, clean bullet to the brain (instantly killing them)?
--
animal rights is a terrible idea mainly supported by PETA.
I think you mean animal welfare, which is perfectly fine.

animal welfare is ensuring pets/animals get regular servings of food and clean water.
animal rights is a cat voting.
--
also, here's a link to grey wolf overpopulation, ourpawprints c:

No, I would not like to see any animal suffer but weak wolves like that are normaly killed by other wolves who come into contact with them and see them as a threat also that is what nature intended and although cruel that's what nature intended.

You need to remember the difference between hunting and euthenasia. Hunting is going out with the intent of killing an animal with no intent to do any good.. Euthenasia is humanely killing an animal for the better of that animal. Culling is wiping out more animals to stop disease spread and controling species number.
We are talking about hunting, not euthenasia or culling therefore I do not agree with it at all.
--
I agree with both animal welfare and rights. I understand welfare is more important but rights is also important. Animal roghts is important, you say it's rubbish but you do agree with animal rights whether strong or not. For example keeping a dog locked I'n a cafe with no human company, that's not bad for the animals welfare but it's not fair or right for the dog.
--
Grey Wolves are overpopulated because to many other predators have been killed and so the prey has had the chance to overbreed meaning the wolves overthrive. People need to bring in more of other predators to hunt the deer.

Deer do not need any more predators hunting them. Do you even realize what bringing in more predators would do to the environment? Your previous wolves would suffer because of it. My precious deer would as well.

[sidereus]

there is not enough deer/elk as it is in many areas. that is the problem.
so no, bringing in more predators (actually, what 'other predators'? bears? not much else hunts deer/elk) is not the answer. :|
--
about animal welfare vs. animal rights:

Animal Welfare
Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. The term animal welfare can also mean human concern for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal ethics and animal rights. Welfare is measured by indicators including behavior, physiology, longevity, and reproduction. Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used by humans. These concerns can include how animals are killed for food, how they are used for scientific research, how they are kept as pets, and how human activities affect the survival of endangered species.

Animal Rights
...is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, ranging from the protectionist side of the movement, presented by philosopher Peter Singer—with a utilitarian focus on suffering and consequences, rather than on the concept of rights—to the abolitionist side, represented by law professor Gary Francione, who argues that animals need only one right: the right not to be property. Despite the different approaches, advocates broadly agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.

In short...

Animal Welfare :
The humane treatment and exploitation of animals as pets, food, resources, tools, entertainment, test subjects, ect.

Animal Rights :
The complete abolition of animals as pets, food, resources, tools, entreatment, test subjects, ect.
-taken from here.