"

The funny/tiring thing is that the movement organizations tend to only give attention to the animals who are popular or on these special lists as well.  The wolves are a great example.  And I've been trying to rally the troops about the mountain lions at Kofa for coming on three years now, and aside from a small handful of close friends and maybe one or two other people who will write in to support the lions, it's a bit like biking through a foot of mud.

And the language in the kill-the-lions proposals that the Kofa NWR puts out include the fact that the sheep are special and the lions are not.  I mean, they come right out and say that.  (Not that the "historically significant" bighorn sheep population is safe from human hunters either; they only want to keep the sheep population safe from the lions FOR the hunters.)

I guess I expect it, to some degree, from the general public, because that is how so much of dialog in society is shaped (whether we're talking about humans or non-humans), but you'd think at least the animal rights movement would get it.

And maybe it is these organizations that are part of the problem in the percetions of society as a whole. If even the AR organizations are only going to mobilize for the "special" animals, well, as you said, "we're pretty well stating that it's OK to kill animals in general, as long as they're not special animals."

I think the issue of a species vs. the individual is one of the main obstacles that prevents animal rights advocates and environmentalists from working together more.  In general, a species is not of major concern with environmentalists unless it is endangered.  On the other hand, when there are too many of a species harming an ecosystem (like kangaroos in Australia) environmentalists are more than willing to support culls.

It does beg the question of what is the humane thing to do when a species is overabundant to the extent that is damaging an ecosystem and harming other species (which is made up of individuals.)  Do animal rights advocates believe there is such a thing as harmful species overpopulation?  And, if there is, what is the humane action?  Or should there be no action at all?

I thought this post (and the related one) was just plain COLD. (Toward the wolves and "special" animals.)

I am hopeful on getting the wolves back on "the list" if that is what it takes to get around the politics of murder. The reasoning may be indecent, but if it is the only way to stop the hunts, then I am all for it!

If the "front door" is locked.... use the back door! There is always a way around, if you put forth the effort.

By the way...no one here in Montana who advocates for animals gives any less time to the farm or domestic animals. You have to give priority to the ones with the most need at each given time. All animals equally.

Our animal sanctuary (although not advertised as such) has room for horses, burros, cows, goats, llamas, sheep, chickens, dogs, cats, and birds. We also rehab the wildlife to be released and remain wild. We run a spay/neuter task force (free of charge) for dogs and cats, and allow the wildlife to roam on hundreds of acres, free from hunters.

We also fight for the wolves, grizzlies, bison, and any other animals that are being threatened. Maybe some people cannot relate because the wildlife is not in their backyards.

We don't discriminate just because there are millions of a species or only a couple thousand, but we know when to put our efforts into a particular species that needs the attention.

Oh, and by the way... most of us (in our activism group) chose to remain childless. We believe that the over-population of human beings around the world is the root problem to the murder of so many other species- whether it be for food or space. Until we can cut down the human population and get control of our own species, we have no right to try to "control" or manage another species.

My comment from the WOLF posting: this is a matter of life, death, agony, torture, animal dignity, and human morals & ethics. It is worth every ounce of our strength, deep thought, and will to make CRUCIAL decisions for the wolf's survival which is a mirror of our own.

This underscores the above posting. What we do to them, we do to ourselves. Keep the vicious away from us all. If we can not save animals from heinous cruelty for man's pleasure, our own demise to the same if not worse ends seems destined. 

"Every animal knows more than you do. "Native American Proverb (Nez Perce) 

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Gandhi

I am hopeful for a wolf hunt soon here in Wisconsin.  I am afraid to take my dog with me in parts of the northwoods here as some packs have learned to kill dogs, even in people's back yards.  Right now it would be a crime for me to defend my dog (which won't stop me).  Wolves have no more right to the deer than I do.

Actually wolves have to kill deer to survive. You don't. You go to the supermarket. Walk your dog in town with sidewalks and people barriers already installed for your protection.

Don't go out in the deep forest or what is left of it looking for trouble. Stay far away from the wolf packs with your dog and they will not bother you.

The wolves will not invade the towns so you should/must not invade their territory.

Respect for the wolf lands will keep you and dog safe.

Your reasoning really exposes some hubris Thomas. Let's say I enjoy swimming in a river I know to be populated with alligators; animals who've lived there far before I decided to go for a swim. One day I'm bitten. A reasonable response would be to avoid that particular swimming location, or accept the risks. Another would display a lot of hubris: I'm a human and therefore my whims ought to be catered to; so, let's kill the alligators living in the river so that I can enjoy my swim. It's like walking in the woods known to be populated with other predators. You are knowingly putting yourself at risk and when that risk manifests itself you reason as if you weren't knowingly putting yourself at risk. It's truly bad logic Thomas.

I agree, you should defend yourself. There isn't anything in the argument for animal rights that would deny that. However, you can't drag an animal into the theoretical "burning house" -- it's me or him -- scenario, and then reason as if just by happenstance, this terrible situation occurred Thomas. That's why we can't reasonably hunt wolves or other predators and pretend that we haven't created the situation whereby killing these animals becomes, at times, a case of self-defense.

You're sliding, obviously, from "self-defense" to "because killing is fun."  

Now, what if I were to argue that I kill humans because I enjoy it. I also kill in a particular area because I enjoy it. Furthermore, I like hunting humans because they're particularly ingenious in their strategy to avoid my gun shot. In fact, I intend to purchase a desolate location where I'll bring humans to hunt. Am I justified in doing so? If not, why? Besides the legal matter, which doesn't suggest "morality" given that just twenty years ago I could rape my wife, legally, because the marriage contract in practice makes her my property, on your own reasoning, I would be justified. What you'll see Thomas is that those reasons you begin to list for why it's wrong will apply to nonhuman animals as well.

It's all about that dude and his dog. Life is nothing but his ego trip that counts. This is what is wrong with America. The "what's in it for me" attitude. What about kindness, empathy, understanding, earth-human relation? The animals do not deserve to die by this person's egotistical, I want this for me and I deserve this because I count more than god and mother nature attitude.

Pardon while I vomit.

I refer Thomas to Christ Jesus' Sermon on the Mount Beatitude, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall inherit the earth."