Crush...Yiff...Destroy! Crush...Yiff...Destroy!
The CYD Forum Archive
 

Watership Down fan fiction, and not by furries...
   Crush...Yiff...Destroy! Forum Archive Index -> The Atrocity Archive
Author Message
Griphonix
Apocrisiary
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 50

Posted: 3/14/2005 5:57:06 AM     Post subject: Watership Down fan fiction, and not by furries...  

I have almost nothing to say, but this is very strange. I expected that someone somewhere would have made bad Watership Down fan fiction, but this is beyond even that...

O, Embleer Sith!">

Bizarre Star Wars/Watership Down crossover? I guess it could be worse, but it still scares me. I'm hoping that I never find any Watership Down slash, since it's a sacred childhood memory and all that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
doubtingwolf
Rasophore
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 57

Posted: 3/14/2005 6:31:16 AM     Post subject:  

Blargh! *cough*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Vociferator
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 551

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:31:34 PM     Post subject:  

Obi-Wan's ear itched. He raised his back leg to scratch it, and froze.

That's as far as I read. URK!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryFurreII
Qualificator
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 6

Posted: 3/14/2005 8:36:45 PM     Post subject: Re: Watership Down fan fiction, and not by furries...  

I'm hoping that I never find any Watership Down slash, since it's a sacred childhood memory and all that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done.


http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1803258/1/

Dredged this up while sniffing around FFN. It's, ah . . . :|
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DA
Vociferator
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 595

Posted: 3/14/2005 10:03:19 PM     Post subject: Re: Watership Down fan fiction, and not by furries...  



http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1803258/1/



*howls in horror* God :shock: if there was one thing I thought would never EVER be slashed it was that, someone needs shooting... :cry: my poor childhood memories...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MonicaKitty
Vociferator
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 450

Posted: 3/14/2005 10:07:07 PM     Post subject:  

If there's one thing I've discovered in the past few weeks learning about this stuff, it's this- Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is sacred.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Computolio
Vociferator
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 631

Posted: 3/15/2005 12:51:40 AM     Post subject:  

If there's one thing I've discovered in the past few weeks learning about this stuff, it's this- Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is sacred.


Actually, this is the first Watership Down slash fiction/porn/ANYTHING to appear anywhere, EVER.

The fact that it took THIS LONG for it to finally happen has to be a record.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DA
Vociferator
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 595

Posted: 3/15/2005 12:54:22 AM     Post subject:  

If there's one thing I've discovered in the past few weeks learning about this stuff, it's this- Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is sacred.


Actually, this is the first Watership Down slash fiction/porn/ANYTHING to appear anywhere, EVER.

The fact that it took THIS LONG for it to finally happen has to be a record.


It's either a miracle or the fact that the rabbits are too realistic, most furrys seem to go for the cartoonified rather then uber realistic for porn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Genghis
Venter
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 277

Posted: 3/15/2005 1:12:25 AM     Post subject:  

It's either a miracle or the fact that the rabbits are too realistic, most furrys seem to go for the cartoonified rather then uber realistic for porn.
You got that right.

In the book, they refer to such wonderful behaviour as the mothers eating their offspring if they happen to be disturbed or stressed. That sort of thing doesn't tend to sit well with most furries view of animals being all huggies and scritchies.



I once had to snap an infant gerbil's neck after the mother bit its legs off and left it for dead. It was a runt anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
weird_guy_in_the_corner
Venter
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 258

Posted: 3/15/2005 1:44:57 AM     Post subject:  

I once had to snap an infant gerbil's neck after the mother bit its legs off and left it for dead. It was a runt anyway.


Lovely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tass
Qualificator
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 35

Posted: 3/15/2005 1:50:51 AM     Post subject:  

I once had to snap an infant gerbil's neck after the mother bit its legs off and left it for dead. It was a runt anyway.


Lovely.

HEY, snapping necks is painless to the animal in comparison to the OTHER forms of death..

Like letting it sit there and bleed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/15/2005 5:10:00 AM     Post subject:  

It's either a miracle or the fact that the rabbits are too realistic, most furrys seem to go for the cartoonified rather then uber realistic for porn.
You got that right.

In the book, they refer to such wonderful behaviour as the mothers eating their offspring if they happen to be disturbed or stressed.


Huh? You two sure you don't have it backwards? Cartoonish distorted characters seem to be less popular or less common in furry fandom these days. Either that or the most popular 'cartoon' furries are the .. I guess you'd say either anime inspired or Terrie Smith inspired variety.


Id say way too many furries out there are hung up on all the real shit animals do. Hence all the vore and other shit out there. I'd say animal-rights style furries are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by furry hunters who think they are getting more in touch with thier predator wolf spirit or some horseshit. Or eat dog food or raw meat.. or whatever. Seems that sort of thing is the new furry fandom. At least, thats my take on it.

Also I believe it was a furry who came up with that monstrous defence of bestiality claiming that since animals are used for food/labor its ok to use them in any/all other respects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/15/2005 5:32:16 AM     Post subject:  

Id say way too many furries out there are hung up on all the real shit animals do. Hence all the vore and other shit out there.


But this proves the argument against furry realism. Snakes don't swallow mice whole so that their snake buddies can masturbate to it. They do it to survive. This sort of brutal, competitive and savage truth about nature is completely lost on them. They either view animals as all lovey-dovey or see themselves as a 10 foot tall wolf with Arnold-like muscles, when in reality they are an overweight McDonalds employee who still lives with his mother. There is no sense of competitive spirit or survivalism in them.

I really don't think hunters are furries too often, and most furries support animal rights in the same manner that they support their favorite band. To them it's cool to hate the evil hy00mons, and they will be the first to tell you about the plight of the wolves or any other cute cuddly creature (but any animal that is not cute lacks a right to life), but they do jack squat about it. The sit behind computers and bitch, rather than donate money. Indeed, many of them THINK they are enviromentalists, and therefore are 'ni tune with nature'. This way the compensate their claimed animal-rights stance and their rampant bestiality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/15/2005 6:27:47 AM     Post subject:  

I really don't think hunters are furries too often, and most furries support animal rights in the same manner that they support their favorite band. To them it's cool to hate the evil hy00mons, and they will be the first to tell you about the plight of the wolves or any other cute cuddly creature (but any animal that is not cute lacks a right to life), but they do jack squat about it. The sit behind computers and bitch, rather than donate money. Indeed, many of them THINK they are enviromentalists, and therefore are 'ni tune with nature'. This way the compensate their claimed animal-rights stance and their rampant bestiality.

If you want proof to your argument, look here: JUST. FUCKING. STUPID. Discuss.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rankin
TOP POSTER!
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 1514

Posted: 3/15/2005 6:58:55 AM     Post subject:  

JUST. FUCKING. STUPID. Discuss.


I wouldn't necessarily state that it would be an excuse to compensate for 'rampant bestiality' - I only know of one furry, directly, who tried to have sex with one of his pets - and when the dog wasn't interested, he stopped attempting - even if he didn't give the poor animal attention afterwards.

I do find that furries are somehow emotionally shunted, and do not know how to deal with them properly. Why else would they want to submerse themselves into a world of pukey-cute and cuddly-wuddly?

The web page above is the ranting of one idiot who thinks he can change the world. Yeah, he doesn't like his fuzzywuzzies being killed. I can empathise to a certain degree. I don't find the reason to kill another animal for no other reason than 'I can' somewhat deplorable. By this same token, over a decade ago, a friend and I started shooting gophers in his corn crop, with the reasoning being that we were "saving the corn." Hell, it was fun.

To take a blind stand against something merely because of it's results is asinine. If you're killing something for food, that's no different than how we slaughter animals every day. Only the means is different. If you're killing things for recreation, there should really be at least some reasoning, other than entertainment.

...at least, this is how I feel about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/15/2005 7:03:13 AM     Post subject:  

JUST. FUCKING. STUPID. Discuss.


well 2 things here.. one you guys are again refrencing really old material. That Furries against hunting link is everywhere..mainly cuz its prominently featured on that furry code page - a site everyone looking into furry fandom will hit eventually. Its old as shit and probably hasnt been altered since 1998.

I really don't think hunters are furries too often, and most furries support animal rights in the same manner that they support their favorite band.


I still say that whole 'furry fandom = animal rights camp' is one of the biggest myths about furry fandom. It really, really is.

The lovey dovey furry thing.. yes its definatly out there.. Im not debating that at all... but the other side of the coin is very prominent. Lots of furries point out how much they like eating meat etc. especially furries who fancy themselves as some sort of canids or other large predators (lions tigers and bears oh my, which is like 90% of all fuckin furries in existence.) Cmon you guys should know this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/15/2005 7:35:57 AM     Post subject:  

Let's see, this Furries Against Hunting group 'supports' anti-hunting legislation, but does so just by putting jpegs on webpages.

Proving the point that furries don't give a shit over endangered species unless they are fluffy. All the animals in the photos on that website are mammals which are commonly seen in furry art. Wolves, foxes, raccoons...

Also, it's clear the author makes NO distinction between hunting for food, for fur or for sport. I personally think that, yes, in some areas there is overhunting by humanity, but this doesn't mean that ALL hunting is immoral.

It's sad that many furries cannot make distinctions like this, to them so much is woefully black and white.

Here is a prime example of a person who is clearly NOT a hunter, but decides to write a college essay defending bestiality.

http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm

Also, Mouse, there is a difference between going out and BEING a hunter, and being a meat eater. You say most furries are hunters because they are not vegans. I say they are loosely animal rights activists who just are too damned lazy to do anything except write webpages.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rankin
TOP POSTER!
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 1514

Posted: 3/15/2005 7:37:54 AM     Post subject:  

Here is a prime example of a person who is clearly NOT a hunter, but decides to write a college essay defending bestiality.

http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm


No, manawolf fucks her pets, then eats them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/15/2005 7:50:50 AM     Post subject:  

Also, Mouse, there is a difference between going out and BEING a hunter, and being a meat eater. You say most furries are hunters because they are not vegans. I say they are loosely animal rights activists who just are too damned lazy to do anything except write webpages.


I wasn't directly comparing the two.. I was giving two examples. How many vegan or even vegetarian furries are there? not many at all. Not in my experience
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/15/2005 8:13:12 AM     Post subject:  

Yep, mouse. Just remembered it. I did a big rant on it back around 1998, which I've chosen not to reprint here because I was, what, some punk kid in high school with angst problems. I could write, I just couldn't make sense.

Back on topic. The fandom's pretty split, you know - the idea that furries are all for animal rights is only half correct. And only half wrong. In my years of Internetting I've learned most of the pro-animal rights camp looks like the author of that site. Yep, maybe 90% of the fandom is made of large predator wannabes. What d'ya see on that site? Pictures of wolves and foxes and leopards and cougars and large predators. No deer, no rabbits, none of the most usual hunting game. Most furry rights people are for carnivore rights. Fur con charity collections commonly go to efforts to save wolves and bears, or past that, just cute little pound puppies and animal shelters. Come on, mouse. Just because the carnivore lifestylers aren't advocates for the deer and cows and ugly/less fuzzy things, doesn't mean they aren't animal rights nuts.

The half of the fandom that isn't crazy pro-animal rights mostly doesn't care. Some (that I'd met around ALF) are just prey species and don't like to upset the carnivore lifestylers. And the rest probably just realize that things kill things. Now, who do I think is the largest faction? Furries who eat meat and petition for carnivore rights. They don't need to be vegan to be animal lovers.

So. To the topic of FAH, furries hung up on real animal shit, and gritty Watership Down-like realism. No, furries don't really like wanking to realistic animal stuff, and this is probably the reason WD hasn't been quite so raped, but it has been viewed as a sort of religious text. There's quasi-realistic death in there; compare it to furry wank snuff. Usually, things being swallowed whole and alive by dragons/balloons/elephantaurs and other fantasy imaginary bullshit. Yeah, wolf furry lifestylers like pretending they run around forests, leaping at deer and biting their throats, tasting that sweet sting of blood on their tongues, but give 'em a fresh deer and neither will they know what do with it nor be able to shove a knife into its gut. That's what practical hunting is about. And that's why I've never met a furry hunter. My friends grew up around practical hunting - no one has any wild delusions of the hunt. Furries decry 'cowardly snipers with ranged weapons and invisible traps' but how many have even looked at a deer in real life with the intent to kill it? 'Ah, great, majestic stag, free in the forest. Grow strong and raise your young today, for tomorrow, you may be my prey.' Hung up on animals, sure. Fantasy bullshit animals.

FAH is just a symptom of this. The idea of 'hunting and killing animals as experiences of orgiastic intensity and lust', what the fuck planet are these guys from? (Planet Europe, actually.) I've met tons of these people on SPR (you know, the faggy liberal European MUCK) with misconceptions about the American hunting experience. Hunting permits are given out in set numbers that permit hunting of one specific gender of species in one specific zone with one specific weapon at one specific time of year. Permits are restrictive to prevent depopulation, and are issued in the first place to prevent overpopulation. See, we've invaded all crazy animal territory just by existing, so hunters need to take the place of natural predators. After hard winters or when the populations get too high we (denizens of Missoula) have deer wandering around in the suburbs and eating off of downtown lawns, and every now and again a cougar that follows 'em down, or bears that go rummaging through trash cans. No, it's a bit more humane to keep their populations in check, through hunting, before they end up starving to death or wandering down Main Street looking for food.

Thus: gritty realism isn't sexual, furries are wusses, and FAH is a pretty typical Euro-furry philosophy.

I'm now the stand in Zen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/15/2005 8:18:36 AM     Post subject:  

I believe it's rather hard to become a hambeast on a vegan diet, so no, there are not many herbivore furries. With that being said, it doesn't mean there aren't many who bitch about things like hunting or wolf numbers diminishing or whatever other issue they have up their ass.

It's just made all that much worse because they DON'T put their money where their mouth is.

Furries make claims ranging from 'Wolves should be protected' to 'I'm a wolf/dragon hybrid in a human body prison' to even 'ALL HUNTING IS TEH EVUL', and they still would rather buy a picture they can masturbate to for $25 than donate that same amount of money to a chairity which is in line with their philosophy.

Auctions held at cons are troubling, with images of dog morphs with throbbing erections bringing money to help real dogs.

It would be a bit like auctioning off old playboys to donate money to a women's foundation; a blatant mixing of signals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Computolio
Vociferator
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 631

Posted: 3/15/2005 7:51:14 PM     Post subject:  

It's just a bunch of pretentious dipshits pretending to be cool by pretending to give a fuck about something, and hell, it's probably not even anywhere near as funny as say, Anime Fans Against Drunk Driving.

DRUNK DRIVING? GET A LIFE! BEYBLADE RULES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MicahFennec
Coadjutor
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 71

Posted: 3/15/2005 9:15:42 PM     Post subject:  

Maybe I'm totally missing something...or maybe I'm just too much of a GAWDDAMN FURRY myself...;D...but I don't see what's so reprehensible about the FAH site - it's a good cause, and raising awareness (which seems to be its main purpose, since it's not asking for money or whatever) is always a decent start, at the least.

And yes, it focuses on foxes, raccoons, and other popular mammals among furries, but the truth is, these *are* the animals that tend to be hunted for their fur and for various other reasons...are they not? I haven't really heard much about salamander hunting expeditions...*shrugs*

*is confused*

Oh...and I would like to say that I *do* give money to groups like Defenders of Wildlife, International Wolf Center, Calpirg, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only furry who does so. :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/15/2005 9:29:46 PM     Post subject:  

And yes, it focuses on foxes, raccoons, and other popular mammals among furries, but the truth is, these *are* the animals that tend to be hunted for their fur and for various other reasons...are they not? I haven't really heard much about salamander hunting expeditions...*shrugs*


Ugly fish are trawled by the thousands, and last I checked it was more common to shoot a duck than a bear, and more common to bag a deer than a wolf.

Oh...and I would like to say that I *do* give money to groups like Defenders of Wildlife, International Wolf Center, Calpirg, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only furry who does so. :P


Keep tellng yourself that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MicahFennec
Coadjutor
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 71

Posted: 3/15/2005 9:47:09 PM     Post subject:  

And yes, it focuses on foxes, raccoons, and other popular mammals among furries, but the truth is, these *are* the animals that tend to be hunted for their fur and for various other reasons...are they not? I haven't really heard much about salamander hunting expeditions...*shrugs*


Ugly fish are trawled by the thousands, and last I checked it was more common to shoot a duck than a bear, and more common to bag a deer than a wolf.

Oh...and I would like to say that I *do* give money to groups like Defenders of Wildlife, International Wolf Center, Calpirg, etc. I'm sure I'm not the only furry who does so. :P


Keep tellng yourself that.


True, but fish and duck are killed for food, which doesn't bother me (or a lot of other environmentalists) - raccoons, foxes, wolves, bobcats, etc. are killed for sport or trophies, which does, because it's wanton waste. *shrug*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/15/2005 9:53:52 PM     Post subject:  

hunted for their fur and for various other reason


By your own account, it's not a waste. I mean, technically we don't have to eat as much fish, or beef or anything else. Likewise, we could probably make do without exotic furs, but don't say that they are hunted for no reason if you have already provided a reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MicahFennec
Coadjutor
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 71

Posted: 3/15/2005 10:05:27 PM     Post subject:  

hunted for their fur and for various other reason


By your own account, it's not a waste. I mean, technically we don't have to eat as much fish, or beef or anything else. Likewise, we could probably make do without exotic furs, but don't say that they are hunted for no reason if you have already provided a reason.


Sorry, but I still don't consider going out hunting for the fun of it, or to hang a head on your wall, to be anything less than wasteful and disgusting. But that's just my opinion. If people actually ate the animals that they killed, it really wouldn't bother me much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rankin
TOP POSTER!
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 1514

Posted: 3/15/2005 10:15:14 PM     Post subject:  

If people actually ate the animals that they killed, it really wouldn't bother me much.


How about they just ate their droppings?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/15/2005 10:50:56 PM     Post subject:  

Maybe I'm totally missing something...or maybe I'm just too much of a GAWDDAMN FURRY myself...;D...but I don't see what's so reprehensible about the FAH site - it's a good cause, and raising awareness (which seems to be its main purpose, since it's not asking for money or whatever) is always a decent start, at the least.

If it's a good cause, which it isn't, then FAH explains why it's a good cause with all the wrong reasons. See, most wildlife funds explain that it's somehow beneficial to keep these species alive with large, wild populations. (And I've already explained why it, frequently, isn't beneficial. But this always varies by territory, so many charitable organizations really do help in their particular region. A blanket ban on all hunting would do far more harm than good. Read on.) FAH and its furry lifestyler ilk argue that hunting is bad because animals are people too - more or less. Note the language always used! Micah, do you call roadkill a 'casualty'? I hate to dwell on FAH specifically, because it's so damn old, but it states so well the Euro-furry and city dwelling lifestyler points of view with language I've heard for years now. It's sensationalist and flat out wrong. That rhetoric is used universally, the animal rights people try to make you feel like your brothers and sisters in the wild are 'persecuted' by cowards with sniper rifles for sexual pleasure.

Well, if you're from Southern California, I can imagine why you have your misconceptions. And I can't speak for the world. But here, we eat what we shoot. There's chucker wrapped up in the freezer not thirty feet away, and we had elk a couple of months ago. We hunted cats in Libby, because so much land can only support so many cougars, and so much of it had been taken up by towns, farms, mines, lumber operations and highways. Buck season is hella short, and no one mounts does as trophies, but does can be hunted way more often - deer breed like rabbits, and if they aren't shot, they'll eat up lawns and gardens until someone runs 'em over. Raccoons are pretty much big North American rats, large disease-spreading urban populations. Wolves who stray out of protected areas are captured and returned, or shot, and populations are carefully managed to prevent the species from crashing or expanding into populated areas.

Yeah, it's fun. But it's practical. As I'd already said, hunters fill a vital role in the modern ecosystem. FAH and organizations like it spread misinformation and lies. But they won't change anything. If they could, they'd realize their fantasy world of man and animal living peacefully side by side just - doesn't - work and society would go back to the system of controlled hunting it has today. Because it works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MicahFennec
Coadjutor
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 71

Posted: 3/15/2005 10:54:49 PM     Post subject:  

If people actually ate the animals that they killed, it really wouldn't bother me much.


How about they just ate their droppings?


*cringes* Doubt you'd get much nutritional value from those! :P Unless you're in dire need of intestinal flora...*snrk*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:26:57 AM     Post subject:  

As I'd already said, hunters fill a vital role in the modern ecosystem.


Wow.
This is painfully incorrect.

FAH and organizations like it spread misinformation and lies.


:roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:34:08 AM     Post subject:  

Care to explain how wild animal populations will not either outstrip their food supply or expand into human settlement?

Care to explain how hunting is a way for cowards to find sexual gratification?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:43:27 AM     Post subject:  

Care to explain how wild animal populations will not either outstrip their food supply


Populations control themselves , inthe way you mention right here.. Thus hunters are in no way essential to the ecosystem anywhere. 'Pretentious' is not a term people usually apply to hunters, but I swear its usually the first thing to cross my mind most times these discussions start.

The fact that you mention "human settlements" further points out how seperated we are from the natural world. Which , hey, is fine by me.

My natural habitat is in a bar, a pool hall, driving a car. Whatever. Not freezing my ass off in the woods to shoot at a defenseless animal. Id rahter be listening to good music or watching movies. I like society and culture and whats its brought and really have no desire to return a more simplified, primitive lifestyle.

Id rather leave wilderness and nature to its own and have as little to do with it as possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr. Mojo
Prattler
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 180

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:44:46 AM     Post subject:  

Of course hunters are an essential part of the ecosystem. Had hunters not existed millions of years ago, there'd be nothing left alive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Donotsue
Vociferator
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 666

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:50:45 AM     Post subject:  

Ach! Rabbit und deer iss tasty! =9
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/16/2005 6:51:55 AM     Post subject:  

Had hunters not existed millions of years ago, there'd be nothing left alive.


huh?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.
Either way.. uhh.. millions of years ago there wasn't any homo sapiens.. maybe a precursor...


And also its pretty common knowledge that humans currently really don't contribute anything to the planetary ecosystem. If we all hopped on a spaceship and left tomarrow.. wilderness would overgrow our cities....

meanwhile If every ant on the planet was instantly wiped out.. it would start a reaction that would likely extinguish life on earth in under a decade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/16/2005 7:03:54 AM     Post subject:  

Hmm. Well, it's true that when a population grows larger than the available food supply, it will naturally decrease in size. Through starvation, natch. But it'll crash the population for years, while predatory population control keeps prey populations at a pretty steady level from year to year. Feel free to prove me wrong.

There's the theory that it's more 'humane' to keep the population under control by hunting than it is by letting 'em starve. But from my experience, whenever food supplies grow low - that's when the deer and elk and moose and so forth move from the mountains into the cities. And the natural predators follow their prey down. This happens during unusually hard winters even with normal human population control. So it's not a 'what if' statement, it already happens. So I screwed up the question, yeah: it wasn't supposed to be an 'or' statement.

Right, removing the 'human settlement' problem isn't going to happen any time before we start living in utopian bubble cities. So it's a selfish 'us versus them' sort of situation. Somewhat regrettable. The furries don't seem to understand this, but hey, that makes 'em funny.

And the trip is half the fun.

Had hunters not existed millions of years ago, there'd be nothing left alive.

Rephrase this 'had predators not existed millions of years ago' and you'd be a lot closer. We just step in where we've, ah, already killed off and driven out the predators. Yeah, if humans all left the system, the predators would return - but as it is, predators require X amount of free territory, and most Xs are currently filled by us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SLaitila
Vociferator
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Posts: 408

Posted: 3/16/2005 7:17:29 AM     Post subject:  

It's not an ounce more humane to eat a McBurger than to eat game. It's still meat and also dead animal.

If you don't like hunting, eat vegetables and leave the meat eating to finnish people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/16/2005 7:26:20 AM     Post subject:  

There's the theory that it's more 'humane' to keep the population under control by hunting than it is by letting 'em starve.


Whoa, stop. You and angry puritan have been pointing out how brutal nature is this whole thread....

Ok, then you said humans hunting was essential...

key word being essential... I said it wasn't

Where does 'humane' come into it at all? I would actually be inclined to agree with this line of thinking.. but the fact is , its bullshit. Always. And chances are I know, and am friends with, more hunters than you are. Hell Western New York probably has more deer. I've had this arguement a million times. Euthanasia is not why hunters hunt. Why even go there? Its a last ditch arguement everytime.



But from my experience, whenever food supplies grow low - that's when the deer and elk and moose and so forth move from the mountains into the cities. And the natural predators follow their prey down. This happens during unusually hard winters even with normal human population control.


Again what does this have to do with original subject.. ?

Whether deer get into our cities , and whether predators follow them have nothing to do with humans being nessecary to that system. If anything its just an inconvenience to us.

People in my area hit deer constantly in thier cars and make a big fucking stink about it every year. (Its cuz they cant fucking drive.. cuz im pretty intense and serious about my driving and I've never hit anything) Well they rushed to create all this suburban sprawl in short order severely fucking up the land where they did it. Not only ecologically but also the stability of the ground by improperly draining the land. Now you have expensive houses sinking into the mud in suburbs and yards being over run by deer. It'd be some serious high comedy if I didn't feel bad for the deer with the bait and shoot programs they run every year. Mysteriously the oldest suburbs (where I live) don't have the deer problem.. whoa what a shock.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AngryPuritan
Vociferator
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 399

Posted: 3/16/2005 7:40:14 AM     Post subject:  

I think you are taking too extreme of a view, Mouse, much like how Railfox seems to be bordering on the other extreme.

The truth often lies somewhere inbetween. I feel that YES, in certain areas, there IS overhunting, and to prevent this we have regulations. When I went to Alaska, all the fur shops stocked wolf pelts, but never more than six, it seemed. If they each had twenty I would point out that they are depleting the species, but that's not an excuse to ban all hunting.

This is the difference between logical enviromentalism and mindless protesting of 'animals are people too'.

On the flip-side, yes, most hunters I know do make food stubs of deer, and in some areas of our great nation it is more fiscally reasonable to hunt than to buy meat. Indeed, deer populations in some places have risen so high due to removal or migration of predators that something does need to be done.

A few years back the state of Pennsylvania had to hire snipers to take care of a rampantly out of control deer population that threatened destruction of more delicate species of flora.

You see, nature doesn't magically fall into a balance, it violently does so, and the balance varies. When humanity is introduced, and animals are displaced, hunting can have benefits for that balance, or it can upset it farther, dependant on regulation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RailFoxen
Venter
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 251

Posted: 3/16/2005 8:02:40 AM     Post subject:  

Again what does this have to do with original subject.. ?

Watership Down features animals getting killed. You can't make porn out of killing animals. Not popular porn, anyway. But there isn't much relation between this and the subject. So, how are you?

And again, I just want to say this works for where I live - the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain regions. I try not to be too crazy about it, but when explaining my side I tend to forget about the valid points of the other side. (And if FAH made a valid point, let me know! 'Cause I don't think even the crazy environmentalists could find common ground!)

So, right. I don't care if they starve or get shot, because I'm a bastard, but someone looking for a 'humane' solution might look at that and agree. Ignore it if you like, it's extraneous.

Why do the hunters hunt? Yaaaah, because it's fun. I can't argue that. Why does the governing body allow hunting? Check the last few posts. It's cheaper to deal with 'em out in the woods than in the cities. So I suppose, then, you agree with the stavation-population crash theory, and the idea that we've taken up too much geography to allow large predator populations? If you do, then I suppose it's understood that hunters are are least essential in preventing the population roller coaster. Like AP says, nature adjusts violently. Then we ask... is it better for the species to crash, or tear up the local plant life, or adjust itself on the highways of civilized man? Or is it better for humankind to balance it manually? I don't have an answer, but I personally like the latter.

Really off topic, but if you'd like to discuss the wildlife hazard to vehicles, I have pictures of a dent in the pickup where a buck ran into /it/, rather than the other way about... deer are destructive little bastards. I'm happy to keep them out of the city through any means necessary.

Anyway. That's enough from me for one thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse
Needs to get out more
Joined: 13 Jul 2003
Posts: 1030

Posted: 3/16/2005 8:39:55 AM     Post subject:  

I don't have an answer, but I personally like the latter.


Neither do I other than that I try to contribute as little to that sort of thing as possible. Millions of animals are killed for food on our farms every year. Why would I have to go out and hunt for food ? Its just something I choose to not participate in.. or even approve of for that matter.

Im extremely materialistic, obsessively so sometimes. Especially with my vehicles. But I still would feel worse for a deer than my car if i hit one. I think something alive is more important than an inanimate object, and also I think life is important no matter how teeming.

Either way, I doubt Im going to change anyones views , and no one is changing mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rankin
TOP POSTER!
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 1514

Posted: 3/16/2005 8:42:23 AM     Post subject:  

If there's anyone who can find a middle ground, it's SHERIFF JOHN BURNELL. This, after all, is A DANGEROUS TOPIC THAT CAN TURN DEADLY!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Computolio
Vociferator
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 631

Posted: 3/16/2005 8:57:31 AM     Post subject:  

christ i am really hating this thread so much
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rankin
TOP POSTER!
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 1514

Posted: 3/16/2005 9:01:28 AM     Post subject:  

christ i am really hating this thread so much


So, merge this thread with the hating thread, Aussie Jim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MicahFennec
Coadjutor
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 71

Posted: 3/16/2005 9:27:21 AM     Post subject:  

Care to explain how wild animal populations will not either outstrip their food supply or expand into human settlement?


In an ecosystem that hasn't been damaged by people, predators, ie. wolves, keep prey populations under control...and the predators usually don't outstrip that food supply because generally prey animals are more prolific. In one area...I forget where, but I think somewhere in Alaska...people killed off all of the wolves so that there would be more caribou available for *people* to hunt. As you might imagine, without wolves to keep their numbers down, the caribou population exploded...and of course ended up outstripping its food supply. *start sarcasm mode* Yep, human hunters certainly are a natural part of the ecosystem, all right! /end

As for expanding into human settlement...that's a sticky issue that I don't want to get into (although it seems to me to be the other way around - we're taking over natural habitats, so where the heck are the displaced animals supposed to go?).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Computolio
Vociferator
Joined: 01 Jun 2003
Posts: 631

Posted: 3/16/2005 9:31:32 AM     Post subject:  

FRY TO THE RAINFOREST

AND SAVE THE NATURE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SLaitila
Vociferator
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Posts: 408

Posted: 3/16/2005 9:40:55 AM     Post subject:  

we're taking over natural habitats, so where the heck are the displaced animals supposed to go?




Note the missing ingredient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Donotsue
Vociferator
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 666

Posted: 3/16/2005 9:41:31 AM     Post subject:  

Arguing bout hunting is pointless...

Just think how much we'd hunt if we hadn't invented cows and pigs to slaughter! =) And chickens!
And chinks noticed dogs and cats are good to eat! =)

Some buggers hunt for fun...cuz they like to kill and feel manly... and some hunt for good eats! -And some
just because they are rich brittish lords... =)

Wonder how many people fish just for the heck of killing the fish! =)
Ha ha, die you trout! Take that, dumb bass! =)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Duck Stab
Qualificator
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 19

Posted: 3/19/2005 4:47:09 PM     Post subject:  

1: ecosystems are created and based on interdependent sets of variables.
2: outside interference with a system that has reached a "stable" floating point will cause it to tip rapidly in that direction.
that is why we now have to perform conservation, repopulations, culls, etc. Interference begets more interference.
At the end of the day, it's neither "good" nor "bad" to wipe out another species, but rest assured that if you do remove or interfere with something that is in a negative/positive feedback cycle, the workload for the situation to remain like the status quo will increase exponentially.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message