Swamp People

[headhunter]

So it could just be my naturalist side coming out but am i the only one disgusted with the fact that they kill a huge amount of animals for profit? i realize that the population is to large, but if it had to be done why do they have to Profit? and on top of that is the fact that they are sometimes killing living things that have been around for sometimes 150 years! I mean thats frigging outrageous! More so that the american public is watching it and find it entertaining, what is this coming to? and dont even get me started on Ax Men....all of those types of shows just boil my blood....rant over and please comment and talk id like to know other peoples opinion about this.

~headhunter

[Chreees]

Just the way the overpopulation issue was solved. Of course someone's gotta make money- It's a cycle, and applies to most situations in life. The license people get money, then the gator killers get their money, and all the people involved with the products that are made from the gators get their money. It's the way of most things in life. If someone's gonna do something, they're going to expect profit for it.

[Rani]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1330064074' post='540318']
Just the way the overpopulation issue was solved. Of course someone's gotta make money- It's a cycle, and applies to most situations in life. The license people get money, then the gator killers get their money, and all the people involved with the products that are made from the gators get their money. It's the way of most things in life. If someone's gonna do something, they're going to expect profit for it.
[/quote]

I agree however, I believe that's the wrong path for humanity to be on. Until we get over this "more, more, more, mine, mine, mine" behavior and philosophy, we're never going to find lasting peace and tranquility, not with other nations and people, and certainly not within ourselves.

'Rani

[Chreees]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330361315' post='540643']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1330064074' post='540318']
Just the way the overpopulation issue was solved. Of course someone's gotta make money- It's a cycle, and applies to most situations in life. The license people get money, then the gator killers get their money, and all the people involved with the products that are made from the gators get their money. It's the way of most things in life. If someone's gonna do something, they're going to expect profit for it.
[/quote]

I agree however, I believe that's the wrong path for humanity to be on. Until we get over this "more, more, more, mine, mine, mine" behavior and philosophy, we're never going to find lasting peace and tranquility, not with other nations and people, and certainly not within ourselves.

'Rani
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more.

[king_lunchb0x]

Their is a lot of species that are non-native species that were introduced long time ago to areas of America that population ended up growing out of control. One example is the peccary in Texas, If i remember correctly many people are encouraged to hunt as many as they can. They have no real predators thus population is out of control. I think its based on a case by case basis. Some animals Should be limited or even protected. Others are a over-populated and destroy the natural habitat for indigenous species.

[Satou]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1330365709' post='540656']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330361315' post='540643']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1330064074' post='540318']
Just the way the overpopulation issue was solved. Of course someone's gotta make money- It's a cycle, and applies to most situations in life. The license people get money, then the gator killers get their money, and all the people involved with the products that are made from the gators get their money. It's the way of most things in life. If someone's gonna do something, they're going to expect profit for it.
[/quote]

I agree however, I believe that's the wrong path for humanity to be on. Until we get over this "more, more, more, mine, mine, mine" behavior and philosophy, we're never going to find lasting peace and tranquility, not with other nations and people, and certainly not within ourselves.

'Rani
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more.
[/quote]
[quote name='king_lunchb0x' timestamp='1330367990' post='540665']
Their is a lot of species that are non-native species that were introduced long time ago to areas of America that population ended up growing out of control. One example is the peccary in Texas, If i remember correctly many people are encouraged to hunt as many as they can. They have no real predators thus population is out of control. I think its based on a case by case basis. Some animals Should be limited or even protected. Others are a over-populated and destroy the natural habitat for indigenous species.
[/quote]


I agree with these points.

[Rani]

Okay, well here's a question.... What makes a species part of the natural ecology? Does it have to have been here 1,000 years? 100? Most of them, including humans, arrived "here" from "somewhere else". Species tend to migrate wherever there's a land bridge, or now airline giving them access.

Plus I don't know that all species introduced by man are harmful to the environment they're introduced to. Some may, in fact, be beneficial, filling a previously unrecognized gap. Or one that had been occupied by another species driven to extinction by, (oops!) man. Nature has a wondrous tendency to balance itself, or re-balance itself out if we just keep out of it's way. The more we "contribute" the more it seems we muck it up. So I'm not sure the Non-Indigenous argument is a fair one considering it would likely play itself out according to nature's laws if we left well enough alone..

'Rani

[gramps]

I don't watch that show, but I have seen a few minutes of it. What tickles me is that it has subtitles so the rest of the country can understand what they're saying. I don't need the subtitles.

As far as killing for profit, I don't have a problem with it. Gator hide and meat is valuable; somebody has to harvest them; and I'm glad it's not me. If we don't manage the populations of some wild species, then they're going to suffer from over-population and that's not pretty.

We have gators as far north as my part of Alabama and it's only getting worse. Nobody wants to be fishing or swimming, and lose their best friend, child, or spouse to a gator. Yeah, we'll kill the gators before that happens.

[king_lunchb0x]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330382196' post='540714']
Okay, well here's a question.... What makes a species part of the natural ecology? Does it have to have been here 1,000 years? 100? Most of them, including humans, arrived "here" from "somewhere else". Species tend to migrate wherever there's a land bridge, or now airline giving them access.

Plus I don't know that all species introduced by man are harmful to the environment they're introduced to. Some may, in fact, be beneficial, filling a previously unrecognized gap. Or one that had been occupied by another species driven to extinction by, (oops!) man. Nature has a wondrous tendency to balance itself, or re-balance itself out if we just keep out of it's way. The more we "contribute" the more it seems we muck it up. So I'm not sure the Non-Indigenous argument is a fair one considering it would likely play itself out according to nature's laws if we left well enough alone..

'Rani
[/quote]

Some animals are losing to competition that was introduced,intentional or not, by humans. This is why I say they should be case by case basis. Make sure a groups numbers are not to low and also not to high. Since we were the ones that really contributed to the problem shouldn't we try to go back and clean it up before things get too out of hand. I think if we were to not interfere with wildlife like we do now i think there would be a greater number attacks on humans. Thats why I believe case by case basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_the_Everglades
http://news.discovery.com/animals/invasive-fish-drives-madagascar-bird-extinct.html

[Rani]

[quote name='king_lunchb0x' timestamp='1330420090' post='540789']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330382196' post='540714']
Okay, well here's a question.... What makes a species part of the natural ecology? Does it have to have been here 1,000 years? 100? Most of them, including humans, arrived "here" from "somewhere else". Species tend to migrate wherever there's a land bridge, or now airline giving them access.

Plus I don't know that all species introduced by man are harmful to the environment they're introduced to. Some may, in fact, be beneficial, filling a previously unrecognized gap. Or one that had been occupied by another species driven to extinction by, (oops!) man. Nature has a wondrous tendency to balance itself, or re-balance itself out if we just keep out of it's way. The more we "contribute" the more it seems we muck it up. So I'm not sure the Non-Indigenous argument is a fair one considering it would likely play itself out according to nature's laws if we left well enough alone..

'Rani
[/quote]

Some animals are losing to competition that was introduced,intentional or not, by humans. This is why I say they should be case by case basis. Make sure a groups numbers are not to low and also not to high. Since we were the ones that really contributed to the problem shouldn't we try to go back and clean it up before things get too out of hand. I think if we were to not interfere with wildlife like we do now i think there would be a greater number attacks on humans. Thats why I believe case by case basis.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_the_Everglades"]http://en.wikipedia...._the_Everglades[/url]
[url="http://news.discovery.com/animals/invasive-fish-drives-madagascar-bird-extinct.html"]http://news.discover...rd-extinct.html[/url]
[/quote]

Okay, I'm going to be very radical here and say that attacks on humans are not what I personally consider to be a reason to try and kill off a local species even if it is a new introduction to an area. I do absolutely agree with you on the case by case basis, and if we caused the problem then yes, it would seem we have a responsibility to resetting the balance if at all possible. I just don't see humanity as any more inherently valuable or worthwhile than any other species, so I don't think attacks on humans should be the basis for wiping them out. What bothers me is that "protecting" is often used as an excuse to kill for profit. I feel like we don't know enough or are integrated enough into the balance of nature at this point in time to arbitrarily start wholesale slaughter in the name of human good. And there is indeed something inherently dark and ugly about benefiting financially off death especially when it's the death of another creature who is only trying to survive.

Of course there are exceptions but good example is Africa where villages are often located right in the middle of lion and cheetah hunting areas. They take certain precautions like keeping their children close, put up thorned fences, and stay in during prime hunting hours. And if a single animal gets too aggressive then yes, they'll kill it. But they don't assume they have more right to live than the lions and start trying to kill them all off so they can be lazy and not keep up precautions and common sense. The difference is unfortunately in so called Western civilization where we think only our ease of life has value. That's the same attitude that has us invading oil rich lands instead of minding our own business. It's that "mine, mine, mine" thing again. And honestly? I think at some point in time Mother Nature or God or whatever you choose to call it, is going to decide that humanity is the greatest blot on the face of the earth and that will be all she wrote. Apparently we learned nothing from that whole flood thing.

'Rani

[king_lunchb0x]

they tried to put that flood in the past as soon a possible. I think the number one threat to humanity is humans. We do so much shit to destroy wildlife ourselves and we are now just changing our ways. Africa is just as bad as any other country. There is Brutal killings of elephants just for their tusks. At least the 90% of the alligators are being used up. Natures is too powerful and it will claim us eventually. But until then why can't we just have some Boar burgers if we want them. Honestly I think in trying to prove what I wanted, I proved that you are right...You must have been on the debate team.

[Rani]

[quote name='king_lunchb0x' timestamp='1330452351' post='540818']
they tried to put that flood in the past as soon a possible. I think the number one threat to humanity is humans. We do so much shit to destroy wildlife ourselves and we are now just changing our ways. Africa is just as bad as any other country. There is Brutal killings of elephants just for their tusks. At least the 90% of the alligators are being used up. Natures is too powerful and it will claim us eventually. But until then why can't we just have some Boar burgers if we want them. Honestly I think in trying to prove what I wanted, I proved that you are right...You must have been on the debate team.
[/quote]

lol... Thanks for the compliment, but nah.... Just a woman. You know we're practically impossible to argue with. 'Cuz we don't shut up long enough to [u]let[/u] you win, lol..... And I totally agree with you. The biggest threat to the planet and everything on it is us.

'Rani

[gramps]

We can't go back to a lifestyle where our movements are restricted and we have to live inside a thorn fence. We're out and about 24/7/365.

Has anybody ever considered that by keeping a species from going extinct, we're actually preventing evolution from taking its course to let another species step forward and fill the niche left behind? After all, over 98% of documented [i]species[/i] are now [i]extinct[/i]. We're part of nature, too, and I consider it quite arrogant for us to think we know better which species to keep and which to destroy.

[headhunter]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330445491' post='540806']
[quote name='king_lunchb0x' timestamp='1330420090' post='540789']
[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1330382196' post='540714']
Okay, well here's a question.... What makes a species part of the natural ecology? Does it have to have been here 1,000 years? 100? Most of them, including humans, arrived "here" from "somewhere else". Species tend to migrate wherever there's a land bridge, or now airline giving them access.

Plus I don't know that all species introduced by man are harmful to the environment they're introduced to. Some may, in fact, be beneficial, filling a previously unrecognized gap. Or one that had been occupied by another species driven to extinction by, (oops!) man. Nature has a wondrous tendency to balance itself, or re-balance itself out if we just keep out of it's way. The more we "contribute" the more it seems we muck it up. So I'm not sure the Non-Indigenous argument is a fair one considering it would likely play itself out according to nature's laws if we left well enough alone..

'Rani
[/quote]

Some animals are losing to competition that was introduced,intentional or not, by humans. This is why I say they should be case by case basis. Make sure a groups numbers are not to low and also not to high. Since we were the ones that really contributed to the problem shouldn't we try to go back and clean it up before things get too out of hand. I think if we were to not interfere with wildlife like we do now i think there would be a greater number attacks on humans. Thats why I believe case by case basis.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_the_Everglades"]http://en.wikipedia...._the_Everglades[/url]
[url="http://news.discovery.com/animals/invasive-fish-drives-madagascar-bird-extinct.html"]http://news.discover...rd-extinct.html[/url]
[/quote]

Okay, I'm going to be very radical here and say that attacks on humans are not what I personally consider to be a reason to try and kill off a local species even if it is a new introduction to an area. I do absolutely agree with you on the case by case basis, and if we caused the problem then yes, it would seem we have a responsibility to resetting the balance if at all possible. I just don't see humanity as any more inherently valuable or worthwhile than any other species, so I don't think attacks on humans should be the basis for wiping them out. What bothers me is that "protecting" is often used as an excuse to kill for profit. I feel like we don't know enough or are integrated enough into the balance of nature at this point in time to arbitrarily start wholesale slaughter in the name of human good. And there is indeed something inherently dark and ugly about benefiting financially off death especially when it's the death of another creature who is only trying to survive.

Of course there are exceptions but good example is Africa where villages are often located right in the middle of lion and cheetah hunting areas. They take certain precautions like keeping their children close, put up thorned fences, and stay in during prime hunting hours. And if a single animal gets too aggressive then yes, they'll kill it. But they don't assume they have more right to live than the lions and start trying to kill them all off so they can be lazy and not keep up precautions and common sense. The difference is unfortunately in so called Western civilization where we think only our ease of life has value. That's the same attitude that has us invading oil rich lands instead of minding our own business. It's that "mine, mine, mine" thing again. And honestly? I think at some point in time Mother Nature or God or whatever you choose to call it, is going to decide that humanity is the greatest blot on the face of the earth and that will be all she wrote. Apparently we learned nothing from that whole flood thing.

'Rani
[/quote]

This was my train of thought when i first started this in a nut shell good post +1

[TheScotsman]

Ever see herds of deer starving to death from overpopulation and a cold winter? Winter 08/09 I had more than 20 winterkills lying around the treeline of my field. What in the world would make you think it's better for them to starve slowly to death in the cold of January, than get popped when they are all fat & happy in the fall? Your point is one typical of younger city-dwellers that have spent far too long "hunting" for dinner in the frozen food isle, and never faced the reality of where your chow actually comes from. Not in any way intended to be any form of insult, but rather an observation. Don't take it wrong. IMNHO everyone should have to live off what they raise/grow/kill for a year. Makes you appreciate the creature that died for your big mac - and the fact you didn't have to club a cow to death for your survival.

Invasive species are a real problem, many of them have no natural predation keeping their numbers down. The collateral damage some cause quite litteraly destroys the ecosystem in an area. It goes well beyond out competing a native similar species, so many invasves chew giant holes into the food chain, and upset the balance of every other species in the enviroment. Then what happens is that the only way to eliminate the probelm is a complete kill of the location to get rid of them (and unfortunately every thing else). When they talk about poisioning an entire lake to a dead zone, then repopulating it just to get rid of some creature/plant that some jackass set loose, it's a real wake up call - especially if that lake is out your front door.

Another local invasive is the European starling, sure let's keep them around. They are great... After all they are real survivors, they decended from a flock of around 100 turned loose in central park in the 1800's. They crowd out the purple martins, and they stick to grain for food... hell, they are small, and don't eat much, right? Good plan right up to the point that west nile shows up, and the purple martins are not around to eat mosquitoes. Not a problem you say? Well the USDA doesn't agree, they are on a quest to poision as many of the starlings as possible. I prefer the application of 17hmr to tossing toxins about the place.

And don't even get me started on the damn mute swans. mean-ass-lake-wrecking-floating-buzzards. Destroy loon nests, damage native goose and duck nesting, overgraze the weeds and leave little fish with no place to hide... but they sure pop nice when they meet 6mm projectiles. Get them right at the water line and they look like they got punted.

Just letting things live because they will is about as naieve as my dumb-ass inlaws from Estes Park feeding the mountian lions in the hopes that the now (hopefully) full kitty-cats won't munch on that rat with a thiroid problem that they called a dog. It failed. cat strolled up on their deck and ate chico-the-kitty-burrito right there in front of their screaming kids. (you can tell I was really sympathetic about it) Nature isn't all full of fluffy little cuddly warm animals, most of them will eat, stomp, bite, or generally kick the stuffing out of any person dumb enough to get in their territory.

The swamp thing show is the kind of stupidity they run to entertain people that can't figure out how to creatively occupy their time. how many fugly guys in bib overalls can they put in one place? If you multiplied the collective cast IQ by their belly diameter, it still wouldn't be a number greater than a speed limit in a school zone.

[Chreees]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1330498373' post='540923']
The swamp thing show is the kind of stupidity they run to entertain people that can't figure out how to creatively occupy their time. how many fugly guys in bib overalls can they put in one place? [b]If you multiplied the collective cast IQ by their belly diameter, it still wouldn't be a number greater than a speed limit in a school zone.[/b]
[/quote]

The Louisianan accents must really fool you into thinking that, huh?

Don't judge a book by its cover, Scotsman.

[Chreees]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1330498373' post='540923']
The swamp thing show is the kind of stupidity they run to entertain people that can't figure out how to creatively occupy their time. how many fugly guys in bib overalls can they put in one place? [b]If you multiplied the collective cast IQ by their belly diameter, it still wouldn't be a number greater than a speed limit in a school zone.[/b]
[/quote]

The Louisianan accents must really fool you into thinking that, huh?

Don't judge a book by its cover, Scotsman.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1330503068' post='540927']
[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1330498373' post='540923']
The swamp thing show is the kind of stupidity they run to entertain people that can't figure out how to creatively occupy their time. how many fugly guys in bib overalls can they put in one place? [b]If you multiplied the collective cast IQ by their belly diameter, it still wouldn't be a number greater than a speed limit in a school zone.[/b]
[/quote]

The Louisianan accents must really fool you into thinking that, huh?

Don't judge a book by its cover, Scotsman.
[/quote]

Are you telling me the previews just do't do these NASA rocket scientists justice?

[Chreees]

Lol, it's not even worth arguing with you. Nevermind.

[Stuie]

Never seen the show, but I have only one thing to add.

Whether killing gators for profit... i don't really have an opinion.

But letting all that Gator Tail go to waste... that's a tradgedy... with some Cherry Mustard .... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[img]http://a2.urbns.pn/w/s/sT/exLqskcPYDU48v-640m.jpg[/img]

[gramps]

Sort of off-topic, but I'm getting tired of crap reality shows taking over the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, and History International (H2 now). Nothing but various people doing their jobs, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and criminal tribulations. That's channel drift at its finest.

For example coming up on History tonight ----> Mudcats, followed by Cajun Pawn Stars, followed by Swamp People, followed by EVEN MORE Swamp People. That's not HISTORY by any stretch of the imagination. A pox on their studios and offices!!

[king_lunchb0x]

very true, its a reality show world now. I loved history channel specials on War, prohibition or ex-Presidents to name a few. They rarely show them any more. I do like top shot however, they shoot some awesome guns. And on disc Drity Jobs is my fav show on that channel.

[Satou]

However, having a show about KILLING native creatures like alligators gives other hunters and people who may not be licensed to do so the idea that they should go out and kill Alligators and other wildlife because of the cash and potential fame. Not only that People would also get the bright idea that HAY INSTEAD OF HUNTING GATORS LETS GO HUNT MORE DANGEROUS/ENDANGERED PREY, BE STUPID HUMANS AND WONDER WHY WE HAVE NOTHING LEFT IN OUR WORLD THAT IS COOL DERP. Especially since most people are media illiterate and are just that easily influenced by what they watch on their television sets - which is rather stupid.

Plus there are commercial industries that already do this legally by raising them like cattle for the sole purpose of meat and other things so other than population control there is no real need for hunters killing out the wild stock. And not too long ago, Alligators and various other members of their species were and are considered endangered because of the over hunting , killing of them for various items - i.e meat and skin to make women's fashion and killing them because people were afraid.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='gramps' timestamp='1330638455' post='541116']
Sort of off-topic, but I'm getting tired of crap reality shows taking over the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Science Channel, and History International (H2 now). Nothing but various people doing their jobs, pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and criminal tribulations. That's channel drift at its finest.

For example coming up on History tonight ----> Mudcats, followed by Cajun Pawn Stars, followed by Swamp People, followed by EVEN MORE Swamp People. That's not HISTORY by any stretch of the imagination. A pox on their studios and offices!!
[/quote]

+1 Good grief, I am SSSSOOOO sick of the crapality TV. Oh, well, at least I get allot done when the best thing to do with TV is shut it off.

[gramps]

Hunters in the past may have been irresponsible, but today's hunters as a group are very responsible. They enjoy their sport and work to keep game animals at an ideal population size. Simply buying hunting equipment puts billions into conservation.

Yes, gators were hunted to the point they were endangered, but that was way back and done mostly by poachers. The American alligator hasn't been on the Endangered Species list since 1987. The problem we're having now with them is that they have no natural predators and are growing in population to the point where they're becoming dangerous to humans. Yeah, I choose humans over gators. I'm funny like that.

Ever been face-to-face with a gator in the wild? Thought not. I have, and I was unarmed. Not a situation for the squeamish. Hunting them for population control is dangerous and whoever does it deserves to be rewarded for their effort.