Animal Population Control?

[Sara]

The way I see it, humans are technically animals. According to, well, the world, we are vastly overpopulated. If we're killing the wolves and such, why aren't we killing ourselves as well?

 

Think about it. If there was some higher power created that could outnumber us all and overpower us all, how would we feel if they were to start killing us off, just because we're "overpopulated"?

[̊ ˉˉ ̊]

It's quite uncommon, but every now and again I've come across some senile, absolutely nuts senior that just happens to own a gun.

and why are they senile?

 

 

You have to think of overpopulation. You mentioned wolves, for example. Wolves are known for eating many animal that we use for livestock. Now, if the population of wolves would increase, then there would be mouths to feed on our livestock and other animals. Plus with more population, there is more reproduction, which leads to a bigger population, ever expanding. If the wolves were left alone to grow, they would eventually, not consciously though, kill off our livesstock, and all of the other animals they eat. Now, you know wolves eat very common animals. After one common animal is extinct, what will all the other creatures that also feed on this animal, even depend on it, eat? They would die out. We would have no livestock, keeping in mind that a very large portion of our meat intake is from farm animals like cow and pig. That's fine, you'll say, we'll just go vegetarian! Though what if those other animals that went extinct? Coming from a wolf, their main diet were insects or small rodents, many of which feed on crops that we grow. Now that their predators are gone they are free to flourish, and their population grows, and just like the wolves their demand for food grows, eventually creating a cycle of destroying our crops and other resources. Keep in mind that in order for humans to have reached the top of the food chain, this had to happen to other creatures. We don't want it to happen to us. But it's not population were controlling, it's overpopulation. As far as nothing goes too far, we leave it alone. But precautions must be made sometimes, and death is just a part of life.

 

And no, were not going to start killing off humans when we get overcrowded. That is an issue the world is still trying to deal with now.

"Think of overpopulation" one word, deer. unless deer are hunted, they overpopulate, ruining the local vegetation, thereby making it harder for other species to live, and they also pose a greater threat to drivers when there are larger quantities of them, and the most efficient way of keeping their population under control? hunting. One person, with either a gun or a bow, could kill them at little cost, and the meat could be used for food. one "alternative" method is to give them pills to sterilize them, but that is expensive and the substances given to them can get into predators or scavengers that eat them, possibly harming them.

 

"And no, were not going to start killing off humans when we get overcrowded. That is an issue the world is still trying to deal with now."

We already are killing ourselves off, it's called war. That may not be the thought behind it, but that is what happens.

 

 

And one thing I cannot stand, those people that abuse & kill pets. I think the people who do that kind of stuff should be sent to the mental ward of a prison, because they're insane, and they're criminals.

[dazedANDconfused]

and why are they senile?

 

I definitely didn't mean to use that in an offensive context, the individual I'm referring to does fall under that category however unfortunately...

I think I heard my mom talking to his daughter once, she was saying he was in the early stages of Alzheimers or something alone those lines. :(

[Unstream]

The way I see it, humans are technically animals. According to, well, the world, we are vastly overpopulated. If we're killing the wolves and such, why aren't we killing ourselves as well?

 

Think about it. If there was some higher power created that could outnumber us all and overpower us all, how would we feel if they were to start killing us off, just because we're "overpopulated"?

Yes, we do kill each other. All the time. Like I said, look at the middle east.

 

And us humans have complex thoughts, unlike animals. Their thoughts and feelings are basically hunger, "need food", and fear. We have more complex thoughts. Therefore your analogy of a higher being killing us is a poor one. Plus, animals don't mourn over death the same way we do. They have no sense of family or friends. No sense of love.

 

And I completely agree with rosyfinch13.

[ΩCCΩ]

a) Please see where The middle East is located than speak cuz I live At UAE (United Arab Emirates) and as far as I see if you kill anybody here than it is the HUGEST crime (Middle East is only the gulf countries and Iran.Period).

b) Scientists are currently thinking of this matter, and yes I dont think that we have to worry about overpopulation.The thing about Global Warming IS true, even if it was for only 6 degrees it is Dangerous.

[dazara]

And for one, wolves aren't defenseless.

 

Ha! Human's don't kill each other? Just look at the Middle East. There's enough of that for population control. And many countries have laws that prevent people from having more than one child. That's population control there.

 

Really, when we kill an animal, we're saving others.

 

Wolves are defense less when they are looking down the barrel of a gun. I never said humans don't kil each other. I said they don't kill each other because there are too many of us. And as for your last bit, think about that when you are about to get killed.

 

The way I see it, humans are technically animals. According to, well, the world, we are vastly overpopulated. If we're killing the wolves and such, why aren't we killing ourselves as well?

 

Think about it. If there was some higher power created that could outnumber us all and overpower us all, how would we feel if they were to start killing us off, just because we're "overpopulated"?

 

Exactly ^_^

[Unstream]

The thing is, us humans, we can grow our crops, we can herd our meat, we can cause food to be created at ridiculous rates. Wolves, the last time I checked, can't control their food supply, while us humans can, and since we can, we won't starve ourselves. That's why we aren't considered overpopulated. And if we were, well, I'm not too sure we wouldn't kill each other so there's enough for everyone.

 

So what's better? Killing a couple wolves and saving the rest of them, or letting them all live for the moment and then having every single one of them eventually die off from starvation?

[dazara]

The thing is, us humans, we can grow our crops, we can herd our meat, we can cause food to be created at ridiculous rates. Wolves, the last time I checked, can't control their food supply, while us humans can, and since we can, we won't starve ourselves. That's why we aren't considered overpopulated. And if we were, well, I'm not too sure we wouldn't kill each other so there's enough for everyone.

 

So what's better? Killing a couple wolves and saving the rest of them, or letting them all live for the moment and then having every single one of them eventually die off from starvation?

 

Alright, I've lost when it comes to defending wolves. But what about elphants? Seals? What have they ever done?

 

KILLER SEAL ON THE LOOSE o_O

[Unstream]

The thing is, seals and elephants aren't killed by the government to stop overpopulation. Seals are hunted by the Inuit people, and they are valued for their meat and oil. Elephants are hunted by other tribal people, just because they're big (maybe the meat too, I dunno). They've both been hunted for various reasons in the past and are now near extinction, so the government actually protects them.

[Batman]

Ok I do think its funny that people start freaking out about population control because it is brutal or whatever you want to call it. But yet they are ok with destroying the very ecosystem they are trying to "save" by protecting these species. No one can say that they are ecofriendly. They may try to cut back on things that will negatively effect it in a bad way but bottom line we are another species just like those that we are trying to control their population to protect ours. If we get to close to their land or threaten their way of life they of course try to keep us away. People do what is best for people same as an animal will do what is best for animals.

[livvy]

I'm all for population control, as long as it's controlled. When people go out and kill tons of animals in the name of 'control' where control isn't needed, that's wrong. But some populations do need control, such as deer. And a large part of the need of animal population control is because we DON'T implement HUMAN population control.

 

A lot of people will argue that we DO kill each other off. Well, yes, we do, but I haven't heard any news bulletin saying: 'For the sake of population control, all people over the age of 75 and/or with paychecks under $______, who are wholly or mostly dependent on government support and welfare, will be shot on ~~/~~/~~~~. We apologize for this inconvenience.'

So we really don't control our own population. (I'm NOT advocating that we go to as extreme measures as I mentioned above.) We say we aren't overpopulated because we still have room to expand and still have food and other resources. At whose expense? The animals we're 'controlling'. God, or the supreme being, or the laws of ecology, or whatever you believe made the world as it is today, made it pretty well, with natural selection, natural predation, natural extinction, natural habitat changes, and natural control. OUR infringement on THEIR habitat and THEIR population has messed up the ecosystem for everyone, and created the need for controls. If we'd just let the wolves do their work, the deer wouldn't have to be controlled, and if we weren't controlling the deer, the wolves would essentially control their own population by the amount of food available. Yes, there would be some starving pups for that to happen, but that's nature, and that's how the world is supposed to work.

 

I'm sorry if that turned into a rant. It really wasn't intended to. All I mean to say is that population control is necessary... because of us.

 

~ Livvy

[Revenge]

Why then, are we prepared to kill other animals? There are more humans in the world than wolves, but we do not kill each other to 'balance the ecosystem' as you say.

Let me explain this again.

You have to think of overpopulation. You mentioned wolves, for example. Wolves are known for eating many animal that we use for livestock. Now, if the population of wolves would increase, then there would be mouths to feed on our livestock and other animals. Plus with more population, there is more reproduction, which leads to a bigger population, ever expanding. If the wolves were left alone to grow, they would eventually, not consciously though, kill off our livestock, and all of the other animals they eat. Now, you know wolves eat very common animals. After one common animal is extinct, what will all the other creatures that also feed on this animal, even depend on it, eat? They would die out. We would have no livestock, keeping in mind that a very large portion of our meat intake is from farm animals like cow and pig. That's fine, you'll say, we'll just go vegetarian! Though what if those other animals that went extinct? Coming from a wolf, their main diet were insects or small rodents, many of which feed on crops that we grow. Now that their predators are gone they are free to flourish, and their population grows, and just like the wolves their demand for food grows, eventually creating a cycle of destroying our crops and other resources. Keep in mind that in order for humans to have reached the top of the food chain, this had to happen to other creatures. We don't want it to happen to us. But it's not population were controlling, it's overpopulation. As far as nothing goes too far, we leave it alone. But precautions must be made sometimes, and death is just a part of life.

 

And no, were not going to start killing off humans when we get overcrowded. That is an issue the world is still trying to deal with now.

 

 

Why should us, humans, decide whether there are too many of a certain species in the world? I do not think it is fair.

Me:Why, hello Mr. Squirrel, do you know just how many deer there are in the world?

Squirrel: ...

Me:Really? Well, do you think there are too many of them?

Squirrel: ...

Me: Well, what are you gonna do about it?

 

What we are all trying to say is that we're not just going around killing every animal because we feel like we have to. Some people control population by nudoring. That's something different altogether. But your explaining something and completely misreading it. Yes the world has gone through tons of things, extinction, evolution, all that. You think the natural order is just gonna go through all the extinction and rebirth of species, and leave the humans alone? You think we're so undeserving to have a little game, yet so important that the hand of imminent death will never point its finger at us? Sure, a wolf is defenseless at gunpoint, so put us in its shoes you say. You think the wolf still isn't gonna fight back?

[-Kai-]

In fact we don't have much space to poblate, so this comes again we're invading ecosystems and the people say:

as wild animals are a thread to our babies we have to move them to another palce... and they can't soy the kill them just becuase they want... Humans as the ruler specie in the world thinks that they have controll over all different species. what do you tell me about the bull massacre? that stupid tradition that many countries have... thats killing for pleasure and joy... and they have farms full of bulls just to do that... the point is that humans are destructive and want to play as God.

[Unstream]

In fact we don't have much space to poblate, so this comes again we're invading ecosystems and the people say:

as wild animals are a thread to our babies we have to move them to another palce... and they can't soy the kill them just becuase they want... Humans as the ruler specie in the world thinks that they have controll over all different species. what do you tell me about the bull massacre? that stupid tradition that many countries have... thats killing for pleasure and joy... and they have farms full of bulls just to do that... the point is that humans are destructive and want to play as God.

We're talking about animal population control, not the mindless killing off of a whole species.

[FutureTXTurkey]

This is very complex topic we are discussing here and I am half tempted to do one of my famous link covered posts pointing to this source and that, but being as I should have been in bed about two hours ago, I will spare you all reading my army of background research, and just give you my opinion.

 

I think for the most part violent forms of animal control should be viewed like war should be viewed. It is an absolute last resort, and should be carefully planned, precisely executed, and enacted with the utmost economy, killing only just as many as animal experts and environmental scientists have deemed necessary. I don't think we can totally rule it out as, "let nature sort nature out," because sometimes the alterations of populations were caused by us in the first place, we can't tamper with nature to increase a population and then decide, "Oh, well, this is nature's job, we will just make it worse."

 

Especially if there are endangered species involved. Either the over populated species is a recovering endangered species, and over population can be just as detrimental as underpopulation, or if another endangered species is adversely effected by the over population of a species. This is a very delicate situation and although it might be nature's will to see a species die out, I just can't believe that we should allow it to happen if it can be stopped. I would ask anyone who would disagree to point to me a single solitary circumstance in which diversity hurt a community. I'm not an expert, but if I learned anything in 3 years of environmental science classes it's that diversity is the backbone of a successful environment.

 

I will say however, that I unequivocally disagree with how we handle killing a population. High speed, mass killing, with high powered weapons is too reckless, not to mention how such a drastic shock to an environment can be incredibly harmful, even if it was in an effort to balance the population. I also insist an animal population should only be deemed "over populated" by a source of respected and verifiable animal experts or environmental scientists. Farmers inconvenienced by a large wolf population should not be able to lobby to congress and have it decreed that we will now be mowing down the "over-populated" wolf community. Nor should the death of humans, as tragic as it might be, be cause for the same faulty lobbying.

 

I'm really sorry your chickens are dead or that your cousin was killed in a bear attack, but your lose does not automatically mean the animal population is out of control. In fact what it is far more likely to be an indicator of is how completely out of control the human population is, and how vastly we encroach on our wildlife habitats. I lived in TN where I saw time and time again the ordering of violent population control methods because one human was killed. One human! How can we say that it was a population issue when the only witness to why the attack occurred is dead, we can't bend to human fear, as we are pron to do, and without further research, as an attempt to appease what is little more than a frightened mob with pitchforks, determine what is an extremely delicate scientific and environmental matter.

 

Like you guys said of course we aren't going to be killing off humans, but while we are on the subject of population control how about we exercise a little more control of our own. Like more money going to sex education programs in impoverished and overpopulated countries. Or less money going to programs that create new babies using neither birth parents DNA. If you are going to have a baby that is genetically, totally not yours, how can you be so selfish as to refuse to adopt one of the millions of needy children in the world?

 

Also as far as Unstream mentioned about non violent ways of controlling a population, such as spaying. I am all for that as far as domesticated animals are allowed. We have more than enough breeders to keep any domestic animal far from extinction, and far to many pets roting away in pounds and shelters. However when it comes to non domesticated animals I don't think it is a wise decision unless, in the future the species is carefully monitored, with emergency breading plans fully completed and ready to implement if necessary.

 

And finally the comment about wild animals killing domestic animals and causing a food shortage? I beg you please to research the number of domestic animals bred just in the USA every year. This is the kind of scare tactic lobbyists love to throw out there, but pending some absolute world wide pandemic it would take an animal population so out of control that it would probably be beyond us to fix it anyway. I mean the concept that over populated wolves in one area are going to wipe out the whole chicken industry is just absurd. Not to mention that if you think the domestic animal population is more important to our survival than the wildlife population you are completely and entirely mistaken, and I beg of you that you will take an Environmental science course ASAP. Most species, whose populations haven't been tampered with by humans, have a population threshold. A max population that they can sustain before they begin to die off, especially if they are an indigenous species. So this is why, unless we know we somehow caused the over population in the first place, I am usually against violent population control methods. In most cases, except for the exceptions I mentioned above, a species population will balance on it's own.

[Unstream]

And finally the comment about wild animals killing domestic animals and causing a food shortage? I beg you please to research the number of domestic animals bred just in the USA every year. This is the kind of scare tactic lobbyists love to throw out there, but pending some absolute world wide pandemic it would take an animal population so out of control that it would probably be beyond us to fix it anyway. I mean the concept that over populated wolves in one area are going to wipe out the whole chicken industry is just absurd. Not to mention that if you think the domestic animal population is more important to our survival than the wildlife population you are completely and entirely mistaken, and I beg of you that you will take an Environmental science course ASAP. Most species, whose populations haven't been tampered with by humans, have a population threshold. A max population that they can sustain before they begin to die off, especially if they are an indigenous species. So this is why, unless we know we somehow caused the over population in the first place, I am usually against violent population control methods. In most cases, except for the exceptions I mentioned above, a species population will balance on it's own.

I think what we were talking about was not a wild animal wiping out a domestic animal, but a wild animal wiping out another wild animal. I mean say there is an extremely high population of hawks for some reason. That would cause a drastic decrease in the rodent and small bird population. Now that those are gone, insects don't have their major predators, and can flourish and destroy a lot of crops. It's not them killing off the whole domestic animal population, it's them killing off the majority of their prey.

[dazara]

The thing is, seals and elephants aren't killed by the government to stop overpopulation. Seals are hunted by the Inuit people, and they are valued for their meat and oil. Elephants are hunted by other tribal people, just because they're big (maybe the meat too, I dunno). They've both been hunted for various reasons in the past and are now near extinction, so the government actually protects them.

 

Elephants ARE hunted for population control. They are. Not the american government, but other groups.

[Ruto]

I think it is selfish and unfair to put our needs in front of the lives of other creatures.

 

I just needed to say this: if a human or some other animal gets too close to a predator's territory, or their cubs, that predator will not think twice about attacking and killing the invader. They are not being selfish by doing so, they are just protecting themselves and their young.

[Unstream]

Elephants ARE hunted for population control. They are. Not the american government, but other groups.

No they aren't. Seriously, who thinks "Oh, there's too many of an endangered species. I think I'm going to kill them because there are too many, even though they're endangered."

[dazara]

I just needed to say this: if a human or some other animal gets too close to a predator's territory, or their cubs, that predator will not think twice about attacking and killing the invader. They are not being selfish by doing so, they are just protecting themselves and their young.

 

But we aren't killing them because of that. They are killed because some people think there are too many of them.

 

 

 

No they aren't. Seriously, who thinks "Oh, there's too many of an endangered species. I think I'm going to kill them because there are too many, even though they're endangered."

 

 

I'm not going to name names. But some do.

[Revenge]

Listen, I'm only 15. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. But it just seems common sense to say that if somebody is in your space-- I'm NOT saying this is the entire problem. I haven't researched this, it's just coming from me. But--some body is obstructing your future, potentially. Maybe you don't your future there to end? Maybe?

 

I don't know if you get what I'm saying, but we're not wiping out an entire species for fun.

 

But, If you think something is going to go wrong, you'd want to prevent it. This is true for both sides, but not one side alone.

 

We are animals too. In most cases if you invade another animals territory threateningly, note that I said threateningly, 'cause we do coexist with animals, that animal will attack.

 

Now I completely lost my train of thought, so I'm gonna end it here. Just be considerate of both sides and stop acting like whoever doesn't agree with you is an evil, cruel person, dazara.

[Sara]

Yes, we do kill each other. All the time. Like I said, look at the middle east.

 

I meant purposely, for the sake of controlling population...

[Unstream]

I meant purposely, for the sake of controlling population...

Allow me to point you towards a point I made earlier:

 

The thing is, us humans, we can grow our crops, we can herd our meat, we can cause food to be created at ridiculous rates. Wolves, the last time I checked, can't control their food supply, while us humans can, and since we can, we won't starve ourselves. That's why we aren't considered overpopulated.

 

We don't have the same need to have our population controlled like wild animals do.

[livvy]

We don't have the same need to have our population controlled like wild animals do.

 

Why is that? Our ever-growing population is harming the environment just as much as any oversized animal population would, if not more. Why don't we need to be controlled?

 

~ Livvy

[Ruto]

Listen, I'm only 15. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. But it just seems common sense to say that if somebody is in your space-- I'm NOT saying this is the entire problem. I haven't researched this, it's just coming from me. But--some body is obstructing your future, potentially. Maybe you don't your future there to end? Maybe?

 

I don't know if you get what I'm saying, but we're not wiping out an entire species for fun.

 

But, If you think something is going to go wrong, you'd want to prevent it. This is true for both sides, but not one side alone.

 

We are animals too. In most cases if you invade another animals territory threateningly, note that I said threateningly, 'cause we do coexist with animals, that animal will attack.

 

Now I completely lost my train of thought, so I'm gonna end it here. Just be considerate of both sides and stop acting like whoever doesn't agree with you is an evil, cruel person, dazara.

 

I agree with this 100%. Humans do not kill animals "because some people think there are too many of them". We try to control populations that are threatening our way of life and survival. If one species becomes too bountiful, it may harm the environment, and in the process, harm our food reserves. I'm not saying that humans don't harm the environment, but a species looks out for its own kind first. Mankind isn't going to sacrifice itself for the pack of wolves a few acres away.