On 5/8/12 3:34 PM, North Star wrote:
On May 8, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 5/8/2012 2:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:



In ,
says...

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:17:55 -0400, wrote:

I think we should do some "wildlife management" on people. Overcrowding
causes diseases to be spread easily. I wonder how much the states will
charge for a hunting license and what the bag limit of humans would be?
I see no difference in this than in any other "management".

http://www.deltacollege.edu/org/delt...ealrootofallev
il.html

We already do. It is called war and famine. When the resources are
stressed to the breaking point, the "management plan" is invoked.
It has been that way since we climbed down out of that tree to eat
things on the ground.

So, let's recap. You want to kill animals off so that they don't suffer
from famine, but it's okay for man to suffer that plight? Again, war has
nothing to do with this. Unless it's still your posit that soldiers are
killing for sport.

If you believe the current science, global warming will be the 22d
century management program. Places that used to be verdant will become
deserts and those populations will want to move into more temperate
zones. I doubt the current inhabitants will give up the land without a
fight ... they never do.

That is why we have Pentagon studies of global warming trends.

Again, why not let nature take it's course with animals? It's good
enough for man, it should be good enough for animals.

Is it good enough for man? Donny says his little island is suffering
from a population decline. That can't be good.

Look up the word 'stagnated', Stinky One.

Hmmm. You know, "arguing" with either Oscar, iLoogy, or JustSnot always
produces the same nonsensical responses from them. Perhaps they are all
one person.