Cat flips out bites owner 20 times

Timothy Treadwell: I've always wished I was gay, it would have been a lot easier. You know, it's just Bing! Bing! Bing! - gay guys, no problem. They go to restrooms and truck stops and perform sex, it's like so easy for them and stuff.

Please tell me you just made that up.
 

First of all, I couldn't possibly have said this any better:

And what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell, this bear was a friend, a savior.

Second of all, that Treadwell guy must have been high. Only people with a screw loose, either naturally or artificially, would say some of the things he said.
 
First of all, I couldn't possibly have said this any better:



Second of all, that Treadwell guy must have been high. Only people with a screw loose, either naturally or artificially, would say some of the things he said.

He was ENTERTAINING to watch though. He has one VERY HUMOROUS line near the beginning of the movie that I can't remember and hoping CANDY or SHAWNDAVID can fill it in.
 
Well he wasn't much of an expert was he? I mean anyone who tries to live with animals like they're people is doomed to a grizzly death. That's just Darwinism.




How many different animals do you live with currently?

1745f6f3f5f04f6.jpg
 
And I don't treat them like people, except for putting them in clothes and naming them and everything...

:eek:
 
A piece of my soul dies every time a woman personifies an animal.

When men do it I just throw up in my mouth a little.
 
A piece of my soul dies every time a woman personifies an animal.

When men do it I just throw up in my mouth a little.

Alright, I may put my dog in clothes but she's still a dog. My cats are most certainly cats. They're all individuals and well behaved.
 
I get made fun of because I'm the one that never speaks to the animals in a regular voice :eek:
I was always told dogs pay more attention when you use a sing-song voice. The state police put on shows with their rescue dogs are always talking to them like little girls.
 
I was always told dogs pay more attention when you use a sing-song voice. The state police put on shows with their rescue dogs are always talking to them like little girls.

Funny, I've got my dog trained on hand signals, so unless I'm saying, "No" or "Come" I don't talk to her much... she's a dog not a kid.
 
As Pandora just alluded to, have we figured out yet why it's logical to have to sanitize every square foot of earth in order to live without fear of teeth and claws?

Every animal has a need to propagate and spread, so I won't dwell too much on the "they were here first" argument, though there is an element of truth to that as well. My primary point is simply to ask why we must live so far outside of rational need.

We don't HAVE to eliminate all predators from state parks, though you want to just in case. There simply isn't that much of a threat. I can't count the number of state parks I've been to in my life, and I've never been threatened once. Bear encounters, a badger or two, even a wolverine. The moose that got all huffy was Norwegian and probably drunk, so it doesn't count.

I'm not discounting your opinions or your life accounts, nor am I discounting those of people you know. I'm simply saying that per capita there isn't a "problem" with predators, but merely a nuisance. And I don't think that extinction is a logical response to nuisance.

I absolutely choose to live in a land where there is a broad range of natural wonder to experience and enjoy, even if it means that some of it could kill me. And that's really the only point that need be considered. People WANT predators around, whether other people lose pets or livestock to them or not. I understand the financial stress predators cause. I think everyone does. I am able to empathize with the ranchers and farmers and their way of life, I truly am. I simply choose to ignore it. Why? Because I place more value on a species of creature that everyone should be able to observe and enjoy than I do on money.

And in all fairness to Wonko you HAVE changed your stance. Initially it was wipe out all predators everywhere, and lately it seems to be wipe out all predators in state parks. Which to me is also illogical, due to the ranges of the animals in question. Animals don't observe park boundaries. I'm not saying that to patronize you, I'm saying it for the sake of elaborating on a point. How do you keep predators out of the parks in question? You would have to eliminate vast numbers of them in surrounding territories too, which takes me back to my original point.

Why bother if they simply aren't that much of a threat? It is a well known fact that North American predators do not routinely stalk people. Will they on occasion? Yes, but as I've said before so will herbivores, which kill people daily across the globe. It's a matter of simple animal behavior.

But we, as logical cognitive creatures, are capable of realizing that the benefits of the species we share the world with far outweigh the hindrances. You are clearly biased towards the animals in question, and bias doesn't effectively play into objective, logical considerations.

Here's what I propose. Instead of telling us why they should be eliminated, tell us instead why they should be preserved. Examine the other side and do the research. If your response is that it isn't necessary because you know that they contribute nothing but unnecessary peril to everything around them, then you clearly haven't done the research. They are highly beneficial, I assure you. But don't take my word for it.

Sarcasmo and I agree on something. I's skurd. :omy: