MikeyLikesIt wrote:I had a bad rat problem a few years back, and thats how we got rid of them (in conjuction with releasing our fearless killer kitty on the Basmatis
Perhaps instead of the rats being called Basmatis, the person who allowed the cat to kill them could be called as such, with an extra qualifier: stupid.
Aw, no offense towards rat lovers or the rats themselves. No need for hostility either. I was just letting nature take it's course.
Nature's course does not involve humans keeping cats in the first place, now does it?
Likewise, does nature's course involve putting up concrete jungles in place of animals' homes, then allowing them to be killed when we decide they are Basmatis in their own territory which we've invaded?
We've already taken their homes; the very least we can do is to try our best not to kill them. We shouldn't brag about allowing other animals of which we are in control to kill them, then call them Basmatis after they're dead.
I apologise for calling you a stupid basmati, but at least you were alive to hear it.
Cranberry wrote: when we decide they are Basmatis in their own territory which we've invaded?
Tell ya what Cran. Why don't you do a paleontological study of the history of the North American ecosystem, and when you've determined which species were there "first," (discounting any which are extinct, unless we're opting to replace them with their closest living genetic relatives,) we'll lobby for the "North American Give It Back Act (NAGIBA)," and when all habitats have been restocked with their original life forms, we'll all drink purple koolaid.
Sorry...I know I'm a cynical dynamist, and your feelings are hurt for the animals being unkindly labeled "Basmatis," (a pov I share, btw,) but I do think it's sometimes a characteristic trait of the young to take things too seriously. You will disagree with me. I am cool with that.
Cranberry wrote:
Perhaps instead of the rats being called Basmatis, the person who allowed the cat to kill them could be called as such, with an extra qualifier: stupid.
Aw, no offense towards rat lovers or the rats themselves. No need for hostility either. I was just letting nature take it's course.
Nature's course does not involve humans keeping cats in the first place, now does it?
Likewise, does nature's course involve putting up concrete jungles in place of animals' homes, then allowing them to be killed when we decide they are Basmatis in their own territory which we've invaded?
We've already taken their homes; the very least we can do is to try our best not to kill them. We shouldn't brag about allowing other animals of which we are in control to kill them, then call them Basmatis after they're dead.
I apologise for calling you a stupid basmati, but at least you were alive to hear it.
The common brown rat is as muchan invader to these lands as we are as emmline so aptly hinted to. And nature's course would invlove having cats, perhaps because unlike you I view homo sapiens as an animal in the environment as well. The reason we have domesticated animals is not because we're evil, pests exploiting the earth, it's because we've evolved into a very intelligent resourseful species. In other words, we own cats to kill off pests that might spread desease, dogs to help hunt and protect, livetock for food. Granted, with the development of new food technologies, these reasons for having domesticated animals have become less in this country. But travel somewhere else, to a country where the common brown rat can spread disease and devetation amongst the human population and ask yourself if my line of thinking might have some logical course to it.
I am no advocate of "steel jungles" as you put it, I'm in school t be a veterinarian and love animals as much as the next Animal Planet junkie. An animal should be able to run about in it's own territory. But guess what? Nature's not a very kind thinng either, it's not as if they'd have it any easier if we weren't here with our cats. Rat's wouldn't even be in most of the world if it weren't for humans. So for the sake of ending this debate, let's leave it at that!
....and anyway, who says it's not nature's course or plan for us humans to put animals in cages, or to eat them, or to do whatever we do, be it good or be it bad? I mean, we humans are also a part of nature, we too have evolved to what we have become according to which ever laws of nature may apply.
just a thought..
amar wrote:who says it's not nature's course or plan for us humans to put animals in cages, or to eat them, or to do whatever we do, be it good or be it bad? I mean, we humans are also a part of nature, we too have evolved to what we have become according to which ever laws of nature may apply.
just a thought..
who says it's not nature's course or plan that they'll eat you amar
but i believe zoo's are a bad thing, and pets and livestock should be treated with respect, aswell as wild life.
Cranberry wrote: when we decide they are Basmatis in their own territory which we've invaded?
Tell ya what Cran. Why don't you do a paleontological study of the history of the North American ecosystem, and when you've determined which species were there "first," (discounting any which are extinct, unless we're opting to replace them with their closest living genetic relatives,) we'll lobby for the "North American Give It Back Act (NAGIBA)," and when all habitats have been restocked with their original life forms, we'll all drink purple koolaid.
Sorry...I know I'm a cynical dynamist, and your feelings are hurt for the animals being unkindly labeled "Basmatis," (a pov I share, btw,) but I do think it's sometimes a characteristic trait of the young to take things too seriously. You will disagree with me. I am cool with that.
I was actually not speaking of the individual rat species, but towards animals and wildlife in general. I should've made that clearer.
Zoos are NOT a bad thing, not at all. I wonder how many young (or older) people have been positively influenced by a trip to the zoo and decided to go into fields of work that benefit animals. Another thing is that, although not totally successful, quite a number of endangered species have been reintroduced back into nature or at least captive populations are maintained through the work of captive breeders. The California Condor and the Perigrine falcon are two very good examples I am familiar with.
Steven - IDAwHOa - Wood Rocks
"If you keep asking questions.... You keep getting answers." - Miss Frizzle - The Magic School Bus
Zoos are NOT a bad thing, not at all. I wonder how many young (or older) people have been positively influenced by a trip to the zoo and decided to go into fields of work that benefit animals. Another thing is that, although not totally successful, quite a number of endangered species have been reintroduced back into nature or at least captive populations are maintained through the work of captive breeders. The California Condor and the Perigrine falcon are two very good examples I am familiar with.
...the Black Footed Ferret...although, if the continuing extermination of it's prey species, the prairie dog, isn't checked, no amount of captive breeding will keep it on the face of this planet. That pretty much goes for any life form, remove habitat and food, life form becomes extinct.
Zoos are NOT a bad thing, not at all. I wonder how many young (or older) people have been positively influenced by a trip to the zoo and decided to go into fields of work that benefit animals. Another thing is that, although not totally successful, quite a number of endangered species have been reintroduced back into nature or at least captive populations are maintained through the work of captive breeders. The California Condor and the Perigrine falcon are two very good examples I am familiar with.
One of my father's friends was heavily involved in the Peregrine captive breeding effort - he had a huge free-flight aviary attached to his house, and helped raise birds for release. A large part of their effort was devoted to teaching the young birds how to hunt - no matter how good the instincts, there's a lot of learned behavior in being a successful predator.
Nature's a balance. And predators are not only a part of nature, but a necessary part - most prey species, when their predators are eliminated, breed to the point of overpopulation, disease, and starvation.
For that matter, anyone who thinks "herbivore" implies gentle behavior show see some of the dominance battles our backyard squirrels get into.
I suggest you read "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. It will not necessarily change your pov, but should at least present some interesting other sides of the story.
(Actually, I recommend it to anyone, even if you don't have preconceived notions about zoos. Thought provoking from a religious standpoint as well.)
