10-06-2011, 02:43 PM
I see that there is a strong opposition to anything I say about conserving some of the wild sheep on the Big Island. I cherish both our native and non-native animals and enjoying watching and photographing both in the wild. I never once said that we should let animals run wild over the islands as there are facts and examples that show how destructive animals can be when left unchecked.
I just wanted to state a few possibilities that would make both sides of the argument satisfied (such as a hybrid ecosystem) but for some reason only those that love the native trees and birds are allowed to be happy. What supreme authority does any one person have to decide what animals get to live, at the expense of others? Apparently any sort of compromise to this issue is "childish" or a "joke" and only extreme action (annihilation of the sheep) is the logical answer.
Don't forget that these are living, breathing animals being sentenced to death. Does their mass slaughter really not bother anyone else?
Last I checked the point of a conservation area was to conserve it's natural resources. There are actually people employed with this job by an agency, uhh I think its called DLNR. Natural resources include animals both native and non-native alike. If you don't consider animals a resource then consider this, what if you could no longer buy meat from the grocery store? I'm sure the first place you would turn is to your neighborhood hunter, or the wild pigs tearing up your back yard.
The people that I know that hunt are not an unintelligent bunch whom rely on welfare and drive around a truck with half a dozen dogs in the back as you may believe. Your opinion of hunters is very skewed.
If this lack of morality and strongly biased beliefs persist, then yes I agree Hawaii is doomed.
I just wanted to state a few possibilities that would make both sides of the argument satisfied (such as a hybrid ecosystem) but for some reason only those that love the native trees and birds are allowed to be happy. What supreme authority does any one person have to decide what animals get to live, at the expense of others? Apparently any sort of compromise to this issue is "childish" or a "joke" and only extreme action (annihilation of the sheep) is the logical answer.
Don't forget that these are living, breathing animals being sentenced to death. Does their mass slaughter really not bother anyone else?
Last I checked the point of a conservation area was to conserve it's natural resources. There are actually people employed with this job by an agency, uhh I think its called DLNR. Natural resources include animals both native and non-native alike. If you don't consider animals a resource then consider this, what if you could no longer buy meat from the grocery store? I'm sure the first place you would turn is to your neighborhood hunter, or the wild pigs tearing up your back yard.
The people that I know that hunt are not an unintelligent bunch whom rely on welfare and drive around a truck with half a dozen dogs in the back as you may believe. Your opinion of hunters is very skewed.
If this lack of morality and strongly biased beliefs persist, then yes I agree Hawaii is doomed.