......Tribe: Bald eagle permit a victory for tradition

[Haiku]

it doesn't come close to eliminating the problems that result from an increase in predator and human populations in the same location.

 

True, but I am not sure "kill them" is the right solution. Actually, I am sure it isn't. It's the same justification we used to kill Native Americans: they weren't human, and we wanted their land.

 

Tara

[pqr]

I am vegan, and I don't really see the need to kill animals, at all.

 

 

As you are a vegan I understand your belief that one should not eat animals, though a thick rare steak is a profound argument against this, but does this really extend to all animals?

 

Do you see the need to kill animals that eat or destroy crops, how about those that threaten humans? Where does this belief system draw the line between the value of human life and that of an animal? Are we only speaking of larger animals or may we exterminate mice in a house or wasp nests?

[Whereneverever]

True, but I am not sure "kill them" is the right solution. Actually, I am sure it isn't.

Tara

 

So, what is the solution?

[mamajag]

Why do we keep saying its an honorable death. I do not think anybody wants to die and when you think about it we are the ones who think its honorable not the eagle. You need it for your ritual fine but there is nothing honorable death. Yes there is always a more painful and disgraceful way to die (just look at the news) but that does not mean we make the death any better because it is killed for ceremony.

 

NOTE: I realize this is for their ceremony and yes they deserve it for their religion but I am just saying its not honorable.

 

There is a difference between how the animal is used. If I walk out in my front yard and start slaughtering squirrels for fun or to set the sights on my rifle, that is disrespectful and cruel. I'm not going to eat the squirrel so it's not a part of survival, and there is no religious part to it as my gods really don't want a squirrel sacrificed to them. It's just meaningless slaughter.

 

One bird for a religious ceremony where they animal and the life that was taken are treated with the utmost respect and honored for this is a very different thing.

 

There are NA tribes that believe the animals judge you first. If you weren't kind or did not treat them with the honor or respect they deserved, you fail no matter how well you did in any other aspect of your life. Even lower animals that were simply hunted for food played a role. You only kill what you can eat or use, and you do so as humanely as possible.

 

Sometimes I think modern people are too used to death being shrink wrapped on the grocery store shelf to understand the difference. Many of us consume food every day that was treated far worse than these two birds will be, and where is the outrage for that? It's far easier to be outraged over a license to kill 2 birds being granted to a minority group for religious purposes than it is to look in our own culture for the rampant misuse of animals that supports our way of life. I'm guilty of it, for sure. I just want my beef, and I am willing to forget far too often just what that industry does to animals to get it.

[Haiku]

So, what is the solution?

 

Find ways to live with them that respect their right to exist as much as ours. As long as we play the, "We're more important, and what we want is more important" card, nothing will change. People actually have to believe that all life is important and worthy of protection, not just human life (and many don't even believe human life is important and worthy of protection) for this to happen.

 

There isn't a quick fix. I know that. In the meantime, continuing the "they are annoying to us, kill them" line of thought just ensures that the problem continues.

 

Tara

[pqr]

True, but I am not sure "kill them" is the right solution. Actually, I am sure it isn't. It's the same justification we used to kill Native Americans: they weren't human, and we wanted their land.

 

Tara

 

 

You may be taking this a little far. Indians were viewed as being human, yes their land was wanted but there is nothing new about that. Men have always fought over land and they still do so today. Generally the loser lost the land.

 

Unassailable evidence that the government viewed the Indians as being human is seen in the fact that treaties were signed with them. Now if you are to argue that they were seen as being less than others you would be correct but I would like to see evidence of policy that denied the fact that Indians were human.

[Lady Florida.]

I am certainly not in favor of animals bearing the brunt of human religious or national or superstitious beliefs.

 

Nor am I.

 

 

 

This is not a good thing to say on these boards, I know, but I don't "get" (on a gut level) many of the religious exemption things anymore. But despite my own religious feelings and beliefs, I just don't think that religion should be a reason for changing rules we've otherwise come up with (animal treatment, how we treat our employees, how we can appear in certain situations, etc). I'm really not trying to divert the discussion onto this, but wanted to respond to the thought that this is important for religious respect, and explain that not everyone feels that way.

 

:iagree:Religious freedom is such a big umbrella that is used to excuse an awful lot of otherwise unacceptable behavior.

 

More that they are a separate, sovereign people in many ways, and that if we hadn't interfered they never would have stopped.

 

It's true and sad that the U.S. oppressed the Native Americans, took away their religious freedoms, and even forced them onto reservations that were not compatible with their way of life. However, we don't know that they never would have stopped certain practices. The Native Americans were not "backwards" when Europeans arrived here, and we will never know how their societies would have developed without European interference. It's quite possible that some practices have either been kept alive or revived because it's one of the few ways to keep their tribal identity.

 

Why do we keep saying its an honorable death. ...that does not mean we make the death any better because it is killed for ceremony.

 

NOTE: I realize this is for their ceremony and yes they deserve it for their religion but I am just saying its not honorable.

 

:iagree:I very much agree with you Brandi. I don't understand how being killed for ceremonial purposes makes it an honorable way to die.

[ktgrok]

Why do we keep saying its an honorable death. I do not think anybody wants to die and when you think about it we are the ones who think its honorable not the eagle. You need it for your ritual fine but there is nothing honorable death. Yes there is always a more painful and disgraceful way to die (just look at the news) but that does not mean we make the death any better because it is killed for ceremony.

 

NOTE: I realize this is for their ceremony and yes they deserve it for their religion but I am just saying its not honorable.

 

I think people meant that living a natural life then being killed quickly is better than the life and death of all the animals killed for food in our country.

[Haiku]

As you are a vegan I understand your belief that one should not eat animals, though a thick rare steak is a profound argument against this, but does this really extend to all animals?

 

Being vegan is more than just not eating animals. It's about the idea that animals exist for their own reasons and are not ours to use as we see fit. I know that some people consider that a nut-job idea.

 

Do you see the need to kill animals that eat or destroy crops, how about those that threaten humans?

 

People often like to throw it in my face that millions of insects are killed so that I can eat vegetables, as though that point defeats my entire line of thinking. My answer is, "I do the best I can." I reduce the death and suffering of animals as much as I can. I'm not perfect. But I try. As to animals that threaten humans, do you mean on an individual basis, like a rabid dog chasing a human, or do you mean on a large scale, like mountain lions or wolves threatening neighborhoods?

 

Where does this belief system draw the line between the value of human life and that of an animal? Are we only speaking of larger animals or may we exterminate mice in a house or wasp nests?

 

I think it's a fluid line that's not always fixed. Can the mice be removed without killing them? Can the wasps be avoided until the season is over and then the nest destroyed? We have left wasps nests up and just avoided the wasps. No one has ever been stung by a wasp on our property.

 

As for myself, I do the best I can. We had a flea problem a few years ago. We killed the fleas. You can't corral fleas and escort the outside; you can't put up flea fences. Other sentient beings (the kids, our pets) were being harmed. We had to weigh to relative harm. We killed the fleas. I felt bad about it.

 

If a rampaging bear broke into my house and threatened my kids, I'd kill it if I had to. Life is a trade-off. At that point it's not a human/animal issue. I'd do the same if a human broke in and threatened my kids.

 

But mainly I'm speaking to the idea that humans can move into wild animals' territory and then complain that wild animals are there, behaving like wild animals. To me, you either don't live there, or you make concessions so that you can leave peaceably. Killing animals, or people, because they have what you want and you find them annoying and not worth bothering about is not, to me, a good way to approach the issue.

 

Tara

[pqr]

Being vegan is more than just not eating animals. It's about the idea that animals exist for their own reasons and are not ours to use as we see fit. I know that some people consider that a nut-job idea.

 

 

 

People often like to throw it in my face that millions of insects are killed so that I can eat vegetables, as though that point defeats my entire line of thinking. My answer is, "I do the best I can." I reduce the death and suffering of animals as much as I can. I'm not perfect. But I try. As to animals that threaten humans, do you mean on an individual basis, like a rabid dog chasing a human, or do you mean on a large scale, like mountain lions or wolves threatening neighborhoods?

 

 

 

I think it's a fluid line that's not always fixed. Can the mice be removed without killing them? Can the wasps be avoided until the season is over and then the nest destroyed? We have left wasps nests up and just avoided the wasps. No one has ever been stung by a wasp on our property.

 

As for myself, I do the best I can. We had a flea problem a few years ago. We killed the fleas. You can't corral fleas and escort the outside; you can't put up flea fences. Other sentient beings (the kids, our pets) were being harmed. We had to weigh to relative harm. We killed the fleas. I felt bad about it.

 

If a rampaging bear broke into my house and threatened my kids, I'd kill it if I had to. Life is a trade-off. At that point it's not a human/animal issue. I'd do the same if a human broke in and threatened my kids.

 

But mainly I'm speaking to the idea that humans can move into wild animals' territory and then complain that wild animals are there, behaving like wild animals. To me, you either don't live there, or you make concessions so that you can leave peaceably. Killing animals, or people, because they have what you want and you find them annoying and not worth bothering about is not, to me, a good way to approach the issue.

 

Tara

 

I appreciate the answer. Obviously I disagree but there are some points of agreement.

 

I fully support humane treatment for animals, but do not put them on par with humans.

 

I have no issue with hunting, though do believe use should be made from the kill; eat it, wear it etc.

 

Animals eating crops? Fire away.

 

Animals that are raised for food? Pass the knife and fork.

 

Torturing an animal for fun? Call the cops and throw away the keys.

 

 

It should always be remembered that one of the reasons that we still have large tracts of wilderness and one of the reasons that we have so many wild animals in this nation is BECAUSE of hunters. Hunters pay the fees, support the economy, buy the land do a great deal that allows the continued existence of many large populations of animals. Just look to duck hunters and the preservation of wetlands.

Edited March 18, 2012 by pqr

[Haiku]

Unassailable evidence that the government viewed the Indians as being human is seen in the fact that treaties were signed with them.

 

That is true, but I have also read enough historical documents to know that many people did not think of Native Americans as humans. It's the same with black people and slavery. Although the government did consider them human, many individuals didn't. That idea is still echoed today in using the term "monkey" to describe a black person.

 

And the fact that the government recognized Native Americans' humanity but still treated them the way they did just bolsters the idea that we need a shift from the idea that "We're more important, and what we want is more important." If people had believed that and called for equal respect for Native Americans, what happened to them wouldn't have happened.

 

We need to shed the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

Tara

[pqr]

 

...bolsters the idea that we need a shift from the idea that "We're more important, and what we want is more important." If people had believed that and called for equal respect for Native Americans, what happened to them wouldn't have happened.

 

We need to shed the "us vs. them" mentality.

 

 

Had we done as you propose the United States would not exist. The Indians would not simply have given up their land. Of course the French, Spanish or even the Russians would have taken it so the "could of...would of....should of" would only have resulted in a different map but the Indians would still have lost their land.

[brandigirl]

Alright third try posting this :glare:

 

@Wendy B I understand Native Americans are treated awful. I am hispanc and have had some rough things happen because of it. I once had my 2nd grade teacher make me wear a straw hat and sing spanish songs while the class laughed at me. I was called a spick the rest of the year she was a pretty backwards women to say the least.

 

 

Look botton line if you do not need it to make it to the next day do not kill it. If you insist on killing for religious purpose do it get it over with and stop calling it an honorable killing. Eventually we all die and guess what given the chance between starving to death and killing something I will be first in line with a weapong hunting that animal down but if it has no reason to die I think its a crime. I just watched a show yesterday about this guy who shot a mountain lion . Yes its a beautiful creature but its was killing all of his live stock and had cornerd one of his children and was scaring the whole town they shot it problem solved. There was a distinct need to kill this animal as someone had been killed by a mountain lion the year before and they were pretty sure this was the lion.

[Haiku]

Had we done as you propose the United States would not exist. The Indians would not simply have given up their land. Of course the French, Spanish or even the Russians would have taken it so the "could of...would of....should of" would only have resulted in a different map but the Indians would still have lost their land.

 

Probably, but by "we" I meant humanity, not just Americans. ;)

 

Tara

[Impish]

*snip*

I don't know the background of this particular event, but I see a difference between law banning a practice that is occurring currently, and someone who wants to resurrect a tradition that their great-grandparents followed, but hasn't been since. One traditional hunt I'm aware of fell in that category, and to me it seems different to have to adapt your plans to resurrect old customs based on current laws or mores.

*snip*

Here's the thing:

 

Ppl didn't simply 'stop' traditions that their great gparents followed. They were forcibly stopped. Children were ripped from their families, either adopted out to 'white' families or sent to residential schools.

 

They were forbidden to speak their language, follow their religion, had their hair cut...the list goes on.

 

It was the decimation of an entire culture that has impact to today.

 

Tribes are attempting to recapture what was forcibly taken from them.

 

Obviously, I have no problem w/the hunt.

[pqr]

Probably, but by "we" I meant humanity, not just Americans. ;)

 

Tara

 

 

That is "the impossible dream," it violates every tenet of human nature.

[Haiku]

That is "the impossible dream," it violates every tenet of human nature.

 

Perhaps, but if as humans we have no capacity to examine our actions and motivations and strive to improve them, then what makes us different from animals?

 

Tara

[pqr]

Perhaps, but if as humans we have no capacity to examine our actions and motivations and strive to improve them, then what makes us different from animals?

 

Tara

 

No-one is arguing that we should not strive to improve but I am not too sure that the "us vs them" mentality is necessarily bad. "Us vs them" leads to competition, it leads to advancement. Most human advances have been made (as the word suggests) to get ahead. This may be economically, territorially or through other means, but has led to great strides. Yes there have been horrible wrongs perpetrated under this belief but that does not obviate the advances that come from it.

 

 

Further, I do take the "us vs them" attitude. I put the safety of my family above that of one in Norway and would be shocked if a Norwegian Father did not take the same view with regard to his family. I make no apologies for this nor do I see any failing in such an attitude.

 

You admitted that you too take an "us vs them" mentality regarding the need to exterminate certain infestations. The point is that we need maintain morality and proportion but not that we need erase a value, idea or motivation.

[mommaduck]

Here's the thing:

 

Ppl didn't simply 'stop' traditions that their great gparents followed. They were forcibly stopped. Children were ripped from their families, either adopted out to 'white' families or sent to residential schools.

 

They were forbidden to speak their language, follow their religion, had their hair cut...the list goes on.

 

It was the decimation of an entire culture that has impact to today.

 

Tribes are attempting to recapture what was forcibly taken from them.

 

Obviously, I have no problem w/the hunt.

:iagree:

[NASDAQ]

Animals are here to be useful.

[LostSurprise]

Considering that:

 

~In Wisconsin there are currently more bald eagles than any time since Europeans entered the state. They are in no way either threatened or endangered, in fact they are thriving.

 

~We have decided, as a country, to give Native Tribes the respect of national sovereignty.

 

~We have laws protecting religious freedoms if they do not infringe on the rights of others, disrupt society, or seriously detract from the land's future.

 

~We have a history of not respecting Native rights as sovereign nations, human beings with their own cultural beliefs, or religious believers. We have since, and are currently, trying to correct this.

 

~We allow people to hunt for trophies, eliminate disease, keep the ecological balance, or eliminate potential predators which could annoy us.

 

~Native Americans, in general, have a much more respectful/equitable relationship with animals.

 

 

I have no problems with this. I respect animals, but there are far more flippant or greedy animal rights offenders than this tribe.

 

I think part of the problem here is that people don't consider religious/cultural beliefs a legitimate *need* to a society. Personally, I find 2 eagles to be as legitimate as killing deer/civet/whales/beaver to cull the ingredients for making perfume. And most of us have owned perfume at one point or another. Not to mention the thousands of animal products that make our lives more comfortable but which aren't truly necessary for survival.

 

I consider the renewing of tribal tradition and society to be at least that important.

Edited March 18, 2012 by LostSurprise
grammar

[mamajag]

Unless I am missing something, isn't this just a matter of putting up a fence? I don't mean to sound blithe, because I grew up with coyotes and they regularly attacked the neighbor's ducks and any wayward cats. But really, if you live with wolves, put up a fence ... right?

 

Tara

 

Wolves and coyotes are smart. Fences generally won't hold them out if they are hungry enough to want to cross.

[mamajag]

True, but I am not sure "kill them" is the right solution. Actually, I am sure it isn't. It's the same justification we used to kill Native Americans: they weren't human, and we wanted their land.

 

Tara

 

Animals are not people. It is in no way the same. :confused:

 

If I see a predator animal (in my neck of the woods usually a coyote or some sort of wild cat and occasionally a bear), I let them pass through. Most of the time they do just that. I let the neighbors with livestock know so they can take the steps they think necessary to protect their livelihoods. Once my livestock start dying, I will kill the predator if I get the shot.

 

I've killed 2 predator animals in my life. In both cases they killed far more than they needed to for survival and had begun killing for sport. It is in no way fair to say I should have to bury and dispose of animals I care about so a predator can be entertained. It's in no way pleasant to deal with.

[brandigirl]

Considering that:

 

~In Wisconsin there are currently more bald eagles than any time since Europeans entered the state. They are in no way either threatened or endangered, in fact they are thriving.

 

~We have decided, as a country, to give Native Tribes the respect of national sovereignty.

 

~We have laws protecting religious freedoms if they do not infringe on the rights of others, disrupt society, or seriously detract from the land's future.

 

~We have a history of not respecting Native rights as sovereign nations, human beings with their own cultural beliefs, or religious believers. We have since, and are currently, trying to correct this.

 

~We allow people to hunt for trophies, eliminate disease, keep the ecological balance, or eliminate potential predators which could annoy us.

 

~Native Americans, in general, have a much more respectful/equitable relationship with animals.

 

 

I have no problems with this. I respect animals, but there are far more flippant or greedy animal rights offenders than this tribe.

 

I think part of the problem here is that people don't consider religious/cultural beliefs a legitimate *need* to a society. Personally, I find 2 eagles to be as legitimate as killing deer/civet/whales/beaver to cull the ingredients for making perfume. And most of us have owned perfume at one point or another. Not to mention the thousands of animal products that make our lives more comfortable but which aren't truly necessary for survival.

 

I consider the renewing of tribal tradition and society to be at least that important.

 

We need Oxygen we want religious ceremonies because we find them comforting. There is nothing wrong with wanting something but when do we draw the line as people not a country.

[mommaduck]

We need Oxygen we want religious ceremonies because we find them comforting. There is nothing wrong with wanting something but when do we draw the line as people not a country.

Matter of opinion based upon whatever your faith/view is. Yes, many of us consider the spiritual as real as the physical and the needs of both need to be met.

[brandigirl]

I am putting this in a life or death scenario not day to day life.

[mommaduck]

I am putting this in a life or death scenario not day to day life.

Yes, and there are those that believe in spiritual life and spiritual death. In fact, those that do are more likely to place issues of spiritual life and death above physical life and death because they believe that one affects the other. So if what we do spiritually affects us physically then, yes, it's of equal or even greater import. (we also have to deal with our spiritual life for a longer time than we do our physical)

Edited March 18, 2012 by mommaduck

[NASDAQ]

We need Oxygen we want religious ceremonies because we find them comforting. There is nothing wrong with wanting something but when do we draw the line as people not a country.

 

If that's your standard, you don't _need_ bald eagles to exist.

 

If (I assume) you are American, then religious freedom is a right that can be infringed on only when other constitutionally guaranteed rights are at stake. "Having nice bald eagles to look at" is not a right. "Never having any bald eagles die, ever" is also not a right.

[pqr]

Considering that:

 

 

~Native Americans, in general, have a much more respectful/equitable relationship with animals.

 

 

 

I would argue that while this is the case at times there are also many times when it is not the case.

 

A true contemporary hunter has a very respectful relationship with his prey. You should not make light of this.

 

Indians frequently used fire (ie burning the brush and forest) to drive animals to places where they could be killed, further slash and burn agriculture is hardly indicative of respectful equitable relationship. The "buffalo jumps" were very wasteful of meat but were also very effective in killing large numbers of buffalo in a short period of time, again not necessarily respectful but certainly effective.

 

I in no way condemn the Indians for these practices, they were essential to survival but they also were arguably not as respectful as current wisdom would argue.

 

The Indians lived a hard life and managed to survive, that is a testament to them. They should also not be condemned for perhaps being less ecologically aware than we are today but nor should they be given attributes that they may not have had.

 

There is real debate on the issue and I would be interested in seeing the data you use for your comment. The study of history is a study or truth as it was not as we wish it were.

[Impish]

Matter of opinion based upon whatever your faith/view is. Yes, many of us consider the spiritual as real as the physical and the needs of both need to be met.

 

Yes, and there are those that believe in spiritual life and spiritual death. In fact, those that do are more likely to place issues of spiritual life and death above physical life and death because they believe that one affects the other. So if what we do spiritually affects us physically then, yes, it's of equal or even greater import. (we also have to deal with our spiritual life for a longer time than we do our physical)

:iagree::iagree:

[Wendi]

Unless I am missing something, isn't this just a matter of putting up a fence? I don't mean to sound blithe, because I grew up with coyotes and they regularly attacked the neighbor's ducks and any wayward cats. But really, if you live with wolves, put up a fence ... right?

 

Tara

 

A friend of a friend nearly lost her small dog. It was in her backyard (surrounded by a 6-foot concrete wall), and coyotes jumped over the wall. A coyote grabbed her dog by the throat and attempted to take it back over the wall. It was too heavy, so the coyote ended up dropping it and left without it. So, no, a fence or wall is not going to protect you from hungry or determined coyotes or wolves.

 

Wendi

[brandigirl]

If that's your standard, you don't _need_ bald eagles to exist.

 

If (I assume) you are American, then religious freedom is a right that can be infringed on only when other constitutionally guaranteed rights are at stake. "Having nice bald eagles to look at" is not a right. "Never having any bald eagles die, ever" is also not a right.

 

 

Good point but what gives you, me or the native americans the right to kill anything they will not "die" without. By dead I mean like not breathing, cold foot, beggining to turn into a mushy pile of ick not emotionally dead.

[mommaduck]

Good point but what gives you, me or the native americans the right to kill anything they will not "die" without. By dead I mean like not breathing, cold foot, beggining to turn into a mushy pile of ick not emotionally dead.

 

Belief. Even if it's not spiritual. Most people believe that man is above animals and we are the caretakers. This not only means not intentionally driving species into extinction, but also means they can be used for food, for ceremony, and killed for keeping the population in check.

 

If you don't share another person's belief or views, then you most likely are not going to agree. Trying to understand their view, without insisting they are wrong, would be a nice middle ground of conversation (and one that I hope you are trying to reach) ;)

Edited March 18, 2012 by mommaduck

[brandigirl]

I am trying to do that but so far I am just sounding like a whining 2 yr old not very attractive eh? I guess I will just have to give it up.

[ktgrok]

Good point but what gives you, me or the native americans the right to kill anything they will not "die" without. By dead I mean like not breathing, cold foot, beggining to turn into a mushy pile of ick not emotionally dead.

 

If you feel that way I'd gently suggest you worry more about the millions of animals killed for food, the animals killed for leather, get rid of all your leather, honey, etc and the animals killed to make room for your house before you worry about 2 individual birds.

 

Do you get this upset every time you see an add for chicken nuggets?

[NASDAQ]

Good point but what gives you, me or the native americans the right to kill anything they will not "die" without. By dead I mean like not breathing, cold foot, beggining to turn into a mushy pile of ick not emotionally dead.

 

Article 1 of the Constitution. There's a right to free exercise of religion. Eagles have no right to life. Other people have no right to enjoy eagles. It's not even a competition here.

[TxMama]

Alright third try posting this :glare:

 

@Wendy B I understand Native Americans are treated awful. I am hispanc and have had some rough things happen because of it. I once had my 2nd grade teacher make me wear a straw hat and sing spanish songs while the class laughed at me. I was called a spick the rest of the year she was a pretty backwards women to say the least.

 

 

.

 

I think you missed my main point which was to give you a resource to understand the concept of sovereign nation.

 

However, I had a similar 2nd grade teacher and a similar experience. In no way did the times that I experienced prejudice when viewed as a Hispanic prepare me for the prejudice I experienced as a Native American when near the reservation. That was not the point I was hoping to make.

 

Treaties were signed in the 1800's that stated that Native American Tribes were sovereign nations. These treaties were ignored, and the tribes have battled in courts for these treaties to be recognized. It is a sad commentary that it has taken 4 years for this particular tribe to receive permission to participate in their religious ceremony. I might not understand their religious ceremony but I am glad that they are able to participate in it.

 

Bottom line, sovereign nation is an interesting area of law.

 

HTH

[brandigirl]

@Wendy B I was not comparing my situation to yours it was just an example. Yes I got your viewpoint what I wrote was just a few memories that crept back into my mind. Also depending on where you go the way people view you changes drastically.

 

@ktgrok I live in less than 300 square feet :D I like fake leather , and when I buy honey its from local farmers who only have a few hives (I have allergies and my allergist told me this would help never did anything so I stopped). I would be lying if I told you I did not feel a twinge of guilt every time I eat meat. I realize I cannot fix everything but if it were up to me I would fix all these problems. Kind of funny how I will die and the same issues will still be being raised :D. Technically we are omnivores, I am sure if a wolf was hungry and I was its only option I would be dinner. Its the cycle of life isn't it?

 

@ktgrok Who says eagles do not have a right to life? They are born and die just like me and you they reproduce, they fall ill and the court (watch their courtship its quite beautiful).

[NASDAQ]

Who says eagles do not have a right to life? They are born and die just like me and you they reproduce, they fall ill and the court (watch their courtship its quite beautiful).

 

Let's try this another way. Define "right" for me. Because I would say that a right is either granted by law, or granted by a sovereign creator and recognised by law. And under either of those two definitions, eagles do not have rights. They also don't have responsibilities, which is why they don't have to pay taxes or register for the draft.

 

You may like eagles very much, and like the way they court, and recognise that they live and die and breathe and so on. That is all very nice but none of those things result in a right to life.

[brandigirl]

I do not like eagles I like living creatures...

[NASDAQ]

Rights are not about what you like or don't like. People have a right to life whether we like the person or not. Dogs are universally liked and never have a right to life.

[brandigirl]

I see this is going nowhere so I am going to leave it alone but we all end up in the same ground (unless you end up cremated or something of the sort) and we all have different ideas of what happens afterwords.

[Jane in NC]

Considering that:

 

~In Wisconsin there are currently more bald eagles than any time since Europeans entered the state. They are in no way either threatened or endangered, in fact they are thriving.

 

~

 

Source, please? My point is not argumentative. I am simply curious how population counts of migratory birds are projected from several hundred years ago.

 

The Mathematically Curious Jane

[brandigirl]

Jane in NC I had not thought of that I am curious to see this also.:bigear:

[ktgrok]

@ktgrok I live in less than 300 square feet :D I like fake leather , and when I buy honey its from local farmers who only have a few hives (I have allergies and my allergist told me this would help never did anything so I stopped). I would be lying if I told you I did not feel a twinge of guilt every time I eat meat.

 

Ok, you feel a twinge of guilt, but you still do it. I'm sure the native americans feel a twinge of guilt when they kill the eagle. I'm not seeing how it ok to eat meat regularly but not ok to kill an eagle twice a year?

[creekland]

Rabbit populations tend to be cyclic. When the prey diminish in number, the predators will eventually diminish in number as well.

 

On a side note, I have wondered if reduced rabbit populations are due in part to rising coyote populations. I'd rather have more hawks than coyotes! ;)

 

The predators might disappear without rabbits IF the neighbors didn't keep replacing their free ranging chickens. The hawks have learned they have an on-going smorgasbord at their place - and then occasionally come over to ours. We have gotten to where we seldom let ours out and only do so when we can have people/activity going on outside to discourage hawks. But free-ranging eggs taste much better than cooped up eggs to be honest. A few less hawks would be welcome around here. This afternoon I saw two fussing over territory - right above the chicken smorgasbord.

 

We don't have coyotes in our area - more toward the mountains, yes, but not where we live. If we did, we could get rid of the coyotes just as we do foxes when needed.

[BillieBoy]

In response to the OP original question of whether or not I am bothered by this: Yes, but probably not in the way most people are.

 

What bothers me about the permit issued to a Native American tribe to hunt two Bald Eagles is not for the fact it is a bald eagle (which is not on the endangered list) or even for the use of the bird. It is, in fact, over whether or not they should even have to apply for a permit.

 

The legal jurisdiction regarding Tribal land is quite confusing and seems to differ from state to state. The whole issue of whether or not they are Sovereign Nations is quirky at best and I see both sides. On one hand, they should be able to govern themselves and on the other hand, most tribal lands (as I understand it) are in a U.S. trust and are therefore under U.S. Federal jurisdiction. The fact that the crime on reservations is two and sometimes three times our national average is another topic perhaps for another day.

 

As long as the act does not fall under the Major Crimes Act, and hunting does not, then I see no reason why they cannot hunt whatever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want on THEIR LANDS. How they manage their hunting practices is their own business.

 

However, when it comes to U.S. public lands then ALL people regardless of race, religion, or whatever diversity should have to comply with U.S. federal laws.

 

I say no permit necessary if on their lands. No permit granted if on U.S. lands.

[mamajag]

Perhaps, but if as humans we have no capacity to examine our actions and motivations and strive to improve them, then what makes us different from animals?

 

Tara

 

We aren't. If we are, it surely isn't in a "better" way.

[mamajag]

Good point but what gives you, me or the native americans the right to kill anything they will not "die" without. By dead I mean like not breathing, cold foot, beggining to turn into a mushy pile of ick not emotionally dead.

 

So do you wait until you are on the verge of death by starvation before you take a life to sustain your own? Plant life and animal life count.

[tex-mex]

 

 

Look botton line if you do not need it to make it to the next day do not kill it. If you insist on killing for religious purpose do it get it over with and stop calling it an honorable killing. Eventually we all die and guess what given the chance between starving to death and killing something I will be first in line with a weapong hunting that animal down but if it has no reason to die I think its a crime. I just watched a show yesterday about this guy who shot a mountain lion . Yes its a beautiful creature but its was killing all of his live stock and had cornerd one of his children and was scaring the whole town they shot it problem solved. There was a distinct need to kill this animal as someone had been killed by a mountain lion the year before and they were pretty sure this was the lion.

 

It would appear that your logic in your argument is that you see the killing or hunting as a crime. Many of us on the other hand, do not.

 

In the same token you are demanding we comply to your POV, but yet demand anyone else who does not subscribe to your viewpoint as evil or a criminal. Would it not be similar to cramming your views down our throats?

 

In order for your "freedom" to believe the way you strongly feel... you first have to allow others freedom to express their views. This is a good discussion and no one is slamming you. But try to look outside your filter and see the other person's way of thinking.

Edited March 18, 2012 by tex-mex