Cat Hunting Legal?!!!

[Grandpa1968]

"honest, your honor, it ain't my cat!!"

[LadydeMontego]

[Patrish]

Originally Posted by LadydeMontego

[Mimi]

Originally Posted by Deadeye Elise

That's interesting Mimi, I didn't know that. I was watching a special on Koalas on animal planet just the other day. I guess according to the show I was watching, Koalas have like a favorite tree that they spend most of their time in, if you cut it down or if it dies then the koala eventually dies too because it feels lost or something?

Sorry Elise! I read this & forgot to reply!
Koalas tend to move from tree to tree, they only eat certain types of eucalypts but they can move to another tree. Koala trees are rarely removed from where they are now. Where I used to live there was a big male koala that used to 'waddle' up and down my driveway, to a tree out the back.. the males make the most horrid noise during mating season! It's a long grunting/snorting noise!

T... I didn't even look!!

LadyM, berry cute!!

[Tsalagi]

Originally Posted by Mimi

Where I used to live there was a big male koala that used to 'waddle' up and down my driveway, to a tree out the back.. the males make the most horrid noise during mating season! It's a long grunting/snorting noise!

T... I didn't even look!!

And you are sure it wasn't a constipated rugby player?

T

[Mimi]

You could have a very good point there T!

[Tsalagi]

Whats this about men being the more rational sex? Well no offence to the guys but I see that mostly guys are in favor of this discusting idea. That doesn't seem at all rational to me. To me the whole thing says, "if you have a problem shoot it!"
Come on! There are more "rational" ways of dealing with a problem.
I'm sorry if I offend anyone, this is just how I feel.

Throughout time, man has had the societal responsibility as hunter, trapper, protector of the family/village. It has been bred into the psyche of men for millions of years (if you are an evolutionist) or thousands of years (if you are a creationist). It a role as ingrained in men as the nurturing, nesting, social role of women.
Men are typically introspective, from sitting long hours in concealment as a hunter/lookout. He will react agressively in an instant to protect/defend what's "His". Violence is accepted in his life.
Today, there are few requirements for this rage directly, so he carries out this urge vicariously through body-contact sports, violent games, and "action" movies. The city-dwellers have used this almost exclusively, until drive-by shootings became popular among the underculture. Bullfighting, bear-baiting, rooster fighting, dog fights (staged or impromptu) satisfy that primitive urge, good or bad. And yes, it is a sex-specified response.
Men find it less "wrong", because that's part of their identity. Women find it more horrifying because of their societal role. Is it needed in today's society? Surely not the intentional goading of animals to fight as a gambling ritual. Hell, we've got pro football and basketball to satisfy that blood lust. Hunting instincts will probable never be removed. And men will NEVER be sensitive, sharing, highly communicative beings because its not their nature.

The old Indian sociologist
T

[Patrish]

Yes T...BUT....
Men know also they must discern the reasonings for the kill.
AS an example, a hunter will not go out and kill for the sake to kill, but for necessity.

Example one; Indians are the greatest attribute to showing how they only killed to provide many necessities for the family/village.

A buffalo would both provide food and shelter for a family.
They would also provide clothings for the winter, and many other items of necessity were brought by their decideness in hunting a certain animal.

Men also have the social responsibility to retain the value of lives.

If a small creature is not 'causing immediate' death and harm to the hunter and family, they will not attack the said animal. ONLY IF that animal were to provide nourishment...
However, if an animal is on the attack, yes they have the obligation to 'defend' themselves against a fatal attack. {Bear, lions..etc.}

As a social creature men are also respective to all life around them, lest they would not congregate to 'groups' for survival.

Most men have NO need to attack a cat, lest they were to starve and needed the food. Not saying this couldn't happen, because it could.
BUT in the stance of killing because one is annoyed...is a whole nother 'picture'.

[Tsalagi]

Originally Posted by Patrish

Yes T...BUT....
Men know also they must discern the reasonings for the kill.
AS an example, a hunter will not go out and kill for the sake to kill, but for necessity.

bOVINE EXCREMENT! If that were so, the woods of Pennsylvania would be empty every hunting season!

Example one; Indians are the greatest attribute to showing how they only killed to provide many necessities for the family/village.

A buffalo would both provide food and shelter for a family.
They would also provide clothings for the winter, and many other items of necessity were brought by their decideness in hunting a certain animal.

No shit? I'm sure I needed this bit of wisdom! I'm talking about the whitebreads who leave the urban jungle for deer season, pheasant hunting, etc.

Men also have the social responsibility to retain the value of lives.

Which is a lot more recent that their instinctual behavior.

If a small creature is not 'causing immediate' death and harm to the hunter and family, they will not attack the said animal. ONLY IF that animal were to provide nourishment...

That's entirely your definition.

However, if an animal is on the attack, yes they have the obligation to 'defend' themselves against a fatal attack. {Bear, lions..etc.}

As a social creature men are also respective to all life around them, lest they would not congregate to 'groups' for survival.

They are protective of their immediate group, that's why they congregated.

Most men have NO need to attack a cat, lest they were to starve and needed the food. Not saying this couldn't happen, because it could.

Your spinning, again. Animals can become pests! Treat them gentle and they never leave, but continue to be pests! You are not willing to accept that cute fuzzy, purring cats can also be pests. And "pest protectors" are simply adding to the problems when they spring traps, release animals from confinement, and refuse to control the population by neutering. If you want to "domesticate" a wild animal, then be responsible and practice population control. Collar, confine and be a responsible owner. And don't make the pest control officer an enemy. He's just trying to protect your health and well being.

BUT in the stance of killing because one is annoyed...is a whole nother 'picture'.

How about if one is protecting the public health of the community?
Is that a valid role?

T

[Sxygmom]

Originally Posted by tigergirl222

I had wondered if this would fit in....another cruelity to animals is DOG FIGHTING
This dog was found Monday, April 11th (2005), on a Belmont (I think it was Belmont) road by an elderly lady that thought the dog was dead. She stopped to double check and found that the dog was alive but bleeding profusely from wounds all over her body. This woman picked up the dog, put her in her car and carried her to the Eastridge Animal Hospital in Gastonia.

Dr. Lowery determined that she could be saved. The wonderful lady who found her is on a fixed income and cannot afford to treat this poor dog. Tri-County Animal Rescue had helped this lady find a home for another stray that she had found several months ago so she asked Dr. Lowery to call us. Dr. Lowery immediately called me at work to ask if Tri-County could help. My first question was "Can this dog be helped?". Dr Lowery said that she could be saved but would require lots of treatments. I told him to start working on her and that Tri-County would cover her bills.

This dog is now "Gypsy" and is on a slow road to recovery. She is at Eastridge Animal Hospital and will be there for a while until she can function on her on. She has holes all over her body and cannot even eat for all the trauma to her mouth. She has been starved and is nothing but skin and bones. Gypsy was probably used for dog fighting. Her ears have been cropped down to her head probably by her old "owners" in the typical "pit bull" mutilated fashion

if you can handle more detail
http://www.tricountyanimalrescue.net...rcritters.aspx

She has got a willpower to live that for sure

Now, this story has just brought tears to my eyes along with a bad and sad memory, Back in 1977 me and my boyfriend was rideding around and decided to stop by his place (he lived with his
grandma).

As we drove up, we noticed a crowd in front of the house, as we parked and was ready to get out, we saw the dogs fighting...It was horrible I was 17 at the time and was so scared that I stayed in the car and put my hands over my eyes, The noises from that fight that the dogs were in are still with me today.

It turned out that my boyfriends brother and his cousin were making the dogs fight for money.

To me that is so crule, anyway my boyfriends brother's dog died the next day!!!...very very sad day, and his grandma bought him that dog to, and she was very upset.