30 geese carcasses strewn on roadway

[skarrlett]

I read this in the paper this morning. How disgusting would that be to see this on your daily walk. :no:


WOODSTOCK -- Evelyn White was shocked when she went for her walk yesterday and saw 30 dead Canada geese scattered along the end of Devonshire Avenue east of the city. "I saw the blood and feathers and as I kept walking, I saw more and more," said White. It was as though someone had killed them and then threw them into the bush."

The large birds were dumped in four areas along the extension of Devonshire, where it becomes Blandford-Blenheim Township Road 2, east of Innerkip Road.

Some of the bird carcasses were hanging from trees and others were slung over a wire fence.

The carcasses had the breast meat removed, apparently by hunters who then discarded the rest of the birds.

"They all had holes in their chest," White said.

"I know there are a lot of geese around and they can be a nuisance, but to do something like this is horrible," she said.

"This gives hunters a bad name," he said. "We also have a school bus that comes down this road to pick children up, so it's likely they saw it. That can be a little traumatic."

Jim Greenwood, a Natural Resources Ministry conservation officer in Aylmer, said it's common for hunters to improperly dispose of their game, though it's discouraged.

"We don't want to see animals disposed or parts of animals disposed, especially where the general public can see it," he said. "We don't want people going for a walk and seeing carcasses. Hunters have to respect those who don't hunt and don't want to see that."

He said disposing of game in residential neighbourhoods can also cause problems because pets might feed on them.

The Canada geese hunting season usually lasts from Sept. 25 to the end of December. But this year it was extended and hunting was allowed for a week in January as well as this week.

The season was extended and the limit per hunter increased to help reduce the goose population, Greenwood said. "When you have an increased harvest and two or three hunters out, they can harvest a good number of birds."

The ministry advises hunters to either bury remains or dispose of them in an area away from the public where wild animals will eat them, Greenwood said.

[The Hanged Man]

I read this in the paper this morning. How disgusting would that be to see this on your daily walk. :no:

I hate that, when ever I see a dead animal (rabbits, cats, birds, frogs etc) on the roadside I take it to a natural place and bury it or leave it amonst foliage depending where I am - It doesn't matter what Im doing at the time, I just drop it and take care of the poor creatures. I even managed to save a rabbit once, I thought it was dead but the thing came back, bless 'im.

I've a strong stomach, but I would have puked at the sight and smell of 30 dead geese. I hate how this thing happens unchecked - I doubt they would close the hunting season as a punishment because of the revenue generated by hunters.


The season was extended and the limit per hunter increased to help reduce the goose population, Greenwood said. If they stopped hunting, then nature would take over and do a better job of controling populations - the predators population would increase with that of the geese - thats if the hunters didn't shoot them up too.

[Dirty Martini]

Hey, the same thing happened around here, recently, in Clackamas County.

http://www.oregonlive.com/metrosouth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_south_news/107615885056220.xml

[DRAKE]

If they stopped hunting, then nature would take over and do a better job of controling populations - the predators population would increase with that of the geese - thats if the hunters didn't shoot them up too.

The only problem with that is mother nature tends to be much more cruel in the way she disposes of ovepopulation through the use of disease and predation. Hunters (not idiots like described in the above post) tend to make quick clean kills of animals they hunt and strive to achieve healthy population numbers. Just my .02 worth

[Flower]

This kind of stuff just makes me feel so sick. :sick:

[Walter]

What an awful thing to do. :no:

[That Alpaca Guy]

More hunter ethics?


The only problem with that is mother nature tends to be much more cruel in the way she disposes of ovepopulation through the use of disease and predation.

And much more sure. I’d by far prefer that Mother Nature takes care of said problem then let humans attempted to fill the gap.



Hunters (not idiots like described in the above post) . . .


A hunter is a hunter.



. . . tend to make quick clean kills of animals they hunt and strive to achieve healthy population numbers. Just my .02 worth

BS. Hunters do what they do because they enjoy it. The excuse it that they are ‘helping’ the population by their ‘sport’
I would not call hunting with dogs ‘quick clean kills’.

[DRAKE]

I’d by far prefer that Mother Nature takes care of said problem then let humans attempted to fill the gap.

This always struck my funny, so maybe you can explain it to me so that I may undesrtand. Some of the most active supporters of kindness to animals want to do exactly as you explained above while it is by far the most cruel means of population control. Why is that?


A hunter is a hunter.

That statement is so blatantly outrageous that I won't even respond.


Hunters do what they do because they enjoy it. The excuse it that they are ‘helping’ the population by their ‘sport’

It is true that hunters enjoy their activity. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise, if they do they are lying. Although I will disagree that they do not use population control as an excuse but rather as a benefit.


would not call hunting with dogs ‘quick clean kills’. would not call hunting with dogs ‘quick clean kills’.

I am sure you will agree, hunting with dogs is still a more efficient way than that of mother nature's methods.

[Jeffer]

I think introductions should be in order here.

Drake meet That Alpaca Guy. That Alpaca Guy, meet Drake. :p :hug: :rockon:

Jeffer

[Kelsk]

The only problem with that is mother nature tends to be much more cruel in the way she disposes of ovepopulation through the use of disease and predation. Hunters (not idiots like described in the above post) tend to make quick clean kills of animals they hunt and strive to achieve healthy population numbers. Just my .02 worth

If it was up to me then everything would be done by "nature" and there would be no people to get in the way at all. If I had a option between being killed by some one with a gun. Or being ripped to bits and being eaten and/or dying from a virus of some kind.. I'd take option 2.

[DRAKE]

If I had a option between being killed by some one with a gun. Or being ripped to bits and being eaten and/or dying from a virus of some kind.. I'd take option 2.

Well I, being a wuss I guess, would not choose that option for me personally and since animals are not capable of making decisions for themselves, doesn't it make sense to take the more humane option on their behalf? After all aren't most people that fight for animal welfare/rights doing so for the sake of animals in general rather than limiting human behaviour?

[Kelsk]

Well I, being a wuss I guess, would not choose that option for me personally and since animals are not capable of making decisions for themselves, doesn't it make sense to take the more humane option on their behalf? After all aren't most people that fight for animal welfare/rights doing so for the sake of animals in general rather than limiting human behaviour?

Unless there are so many animals that they are having to eat there own and there all dying extremely horrible deaths then I don't think there is a good valid reason to kill an animal.

[DRAKE]

If it was up to me then everything would be done by "nature" and there would be no people to get in the way at all. If I had a option between being killed by some one with a gun. Or being ripped to bits and being eaten and/or dying from a virus of some kind.. I'd take option 2.

But, by the above statement you are saying it doesn't matter what sort of death is in store for an animal, that you would not support hunting as a viable option of population control.

Then you said:


Unless there are so many animals that they are having to eat there own and there all dying extremely horrible deaths then I don't think there is a good valid reason to kill an animal.

I am confused...at what point are you saying that you support killing of animals, because it is apparent by the last post that there actually would be some point of overpopulation that you would support it


So if that is the case, I am assuming that then you would support hunting if the population was at a breaking point of self degradation?

[Kelsk]

But, by the above statement you are saying it doesn't matter what sort of death is in store for an animal, that you would not support hunting as a viable option of population control.

Then you said:



I am confused...at what point are you saying that you support killing of animals, because it is apparent by the last post that there actually would be some point of overpopulation that you would support it


So if that is the case, I am assuming that then you would support hunting if the population was at a breaking point of self degradation?

I would support hunting if the population was at a point of self degradation. Although I would not like this to happen because I would of thought that natural preditors would deal with this problem..
:think:
Erf.. If you have problems understanding my points of veiw then don't try. I confuse my self half the time and I'm not going to go into the details as of why.

[DRAKE]

Although I would not like this to happen because I would of thought that natural preditors would deal with this problem

Of course, I always considered humans to be natural predators. Of course there used to be more predators of larger animals that were more abundant than they are today, i.e. cougars, bears, wolves, etc. but because they were such a nuisance to peeople as poulations increased they were eliminated (a shame). Hunters have taken the place of those long gone predators.

You may not support hunting now, but wouldn't it be more humane to support the control of healthy populations now rather than when it is bleak?

[That Alpaca Guy]

I think it would be best if we did not begin a debate here, Drake. If you start a thread in the compost heap with that post I will reply.

[DRAKE]

I apologize. I did notice that there was a debate portion of the site, but did not know that my response to a thread (if contrary to someone's belief) had to be posted there. I assumed that the person that started a thread got to choose where the thread was placed.

So, for future reference. if I have a dissenting opinion to anyone's post on this board, I am to start a new thread in response to them in another portion of the site?

[That Alpaca Guy]

So, for future reference. if I have a dissenting opinion to anyone's post on this board, I am to start a new thread in response to them in another portion of the site?

As I see it, if your opinion is contrary, you can still post in the thread. But, if a response is made, and you want to respond to that, then it is best to start another thread in the right place. However If you only want to comment that your beliefs are different and how they are so, then is fine to post in the same thread.