Seal hunting tourist attraction

While I don't like to repeat myself, I will do so.

Polar Bears prey mainly on seals. yes, they do eat other things because they are a super-predator in their environments, but their main food source is seal.

if seals become too plentiful, polar bears will increase in population. more prey, more predators.

seals cause no harm to anybody directly, but polar bears do. Especially here in the Land of Awesome People. They're starting to become quite a nuisance. One busted through this guy's window, dragged him outside of his house, mauled him, and left him for dead.

Quote:

---

And nobody has to sell fish to earn a living.

---

ever hear of Commercial Fishing?

most of the southern part of Alaska depends on commercial fishing, particularly south western alaska, an area bigger than England and Scotland put together.

seals and sea lions will go through and pick the nets of the fish while the boats are pulling in other nets. how can we tell? cuz we see a buncha seals surfacing to breathe over by our other nets, and the fish remaining have huge teeth marks in them and the nets are all torn up. no, it wasn't sharks because there are very few sharks in alaska and they get caught up in the nets when they try to eat the fish.

and the world is not overcrowded. the entire human population could fit within the city limits of Orlando Florida. tree huggers try to say the world is overcrowded.

if you truly believe the world needs less humans, go ahead and try and thin the population a little bit. you won't get far, but hey. you're doing your part for the planet. <--- sarcasm.

If there are less seals for polar bears to eat there will be more people getting attacked by them. And due to global warming caused by humans of course. ice is melting sooner and sooner each year and the waters are starting to freeze over later. This means that polar bears are not getting enough food, and are having less cubs. So an over population of polar bears due to there being more seals is not going to happen. And because the ice is melting sooner and the waters are taking longer to freeze over and polar bears are not getting enough food more have started venturing into areas where people live to look for something to eat. And that is most likely why that man got dragged from his home. And people who do fish for a living will have to learn to accept the fact that there are other living things on this planet that rely on fish to survive. So there going to just have to put up with seals taking fish from there nets or find another occupation.Its bad enough that they have to suffer getting caught in fishing nets without people killling them because there taking fish which is the only food available for them, unlike humans.And if the seal population has risen that will be because the polar bears are eating less of them. And lets not forget that is because of humans. And whats there suggestion, to make more animals suffer because of something they have done. And we are over populated by humans. It doesn't matter whether there is enough space on this planet for them all. I personally want there to be some landscape left that isn't covered in houses. And i don't believe in going out and slaughtering living things to thin out there population. Thats your mentality not mine.

Quote:

---

Thats your mentality not mine.

---

well it's not actually.

let's say that we leave the populations alone. let the fish and the seals and the bears just eat whatever they wish whenever. If there're too many seals, then the fish will be eaten by them, depleting the fish population. The increase in seals means more polar bears to eat them.

(By the way, melting polar ice is not hindering bear populations. ice is a detriment to the bears, actually)

now, once there's not enough fish for the seals to eat, they starve to death. once the seals starve to death, the bears start to starve to death.

now what's more cruel? maintaining the populations at balanced levels? or letting a bunch of animals starve to death because they devoured all their own food source?

and by the way, the population I was talking about thinning is the Human population. because if you truly believe the world is overpopulated by humans, then thinning the HUMAN population is the only real solution. all others are just half solutions that accomplish nothing and cause more problems than they solve. I DO NOT support the thinning of the Human population.

once you've studied biology a little more and you've gotten a little older, you'll learn that the media offers a skewed picture on this situation. Why does the media skew things? because people believe them and pay money to read about it.

Seals do not need culling they are not over populated. If seals and polar bears were left alone the seals would not become over populated so they would not all starve to death. And actually ice is not a hinderence to polar bears they catch seals on the ice or through holes in the ice. And if you read the whole of my last message you should see that i knew you were talking about thinning the human population. And Its you who needs to study nature further thats clear by your theory that if seals were not culled all fish, seals, and polar bears would die out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blaydie Blayde

now what's more cruel? maintaining the populations at balanced levels? or letting a bunch of animals starve to death because they devoured all their own food source?

---

A natural process isn't cruelty. It's nature. When humans kill for sport, it's cruelty.

If you want to kill seals or anything else for warmth or food (read: SURVIVAL OF YOU), by all means. If you want to kill them because it's cool and you pay a guy a thousand bucks to do so, that's like legal poaching. I'm not saying the industry should be done away with, as long as it's for a purpose. If it's for playing hunter in the wilderness, then you're an idiot and I want to play "The Most Dangerous Game" with you. :p

Ha ha ha hee hee hee har har hoo hoo hehaha ha

~ahem~
Sounds good to me, just because something is "cute" doesn't mean it should get special treatment. If its ok to shoot deer its ok to shoot seal.

I give up. one cannot argue logically and reasonably with people unwilling to see or understand reason and logic.

I get the impression that people haven't first hand seen animals in the wild starving to death as a part of the natural process of things. well I have. I'd have rather shot the poor thing than allow it to die slowly and in agony. I heard the screams of the dying and saw the pitifully empty bodies of the dead. if you want to inflict that on some poor young animal, be my guest. it's disgusting.

No you can not argue reasonably or logically because your arguement has no reason nor is it logical. Give me one species that has ever died out due to it starving to death because of an over population , i rest my case. Every time an animal becomes extinct it is because of humans interference and cruelty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeBlayde

I give up. one cannot argue logically and reasonably with people unwilling to see or understand reason and logic.

I get the impression that people haven't first hand seen animals in the wild starving to death as a part of the natural process of things. well I have. I'd have rather shot the poor thing than allow it to die slowly and in agony. I heard the screams of the dying and saw the pitifully empty bodies of the dead. if you want to inflict that on some poor young animal, be my guest. it's disgusting.

---

If you're referring to me, as far as I'm concerned I'm being reasonable and logical. Nature has taken care of business far before you or me came around and tried to tell it what to do, so I'm content with letting it stay that way.

I'm not trying to be a bitch, though I've been known to cross that line. All I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to kill HEALTHY animals for no reason other than entertainment.

If you weren't referencing me, theeeeen wheeeeeeeeeee!

Just out of curiosity, when you say you've seen starving animals are you talking about wild animals, domesticated animals, or both? Because there's a huge difference... that would bring up another discussion entirely.

starving animals in the wild. and it's never the adults that starve, only the young.

you grow up in alaska, you walk the beaches, you see things. Wish to God I hadn't seen that, but I did. and actually, I was referring to a certain 17 year old with my last post.

Ok then.

*wheeee's*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeBlayde

starving animals in the wild. and it's never the adults that starve, only the young.

you grow up in alaska, you walk the beaches, you see things. Wish to God I hadn't seen that, but I did. and actually, I was referring to a certain 17 year old with my last post.

---

That would be me then. And by attempting to make some kind of point about my age your proving that your really not as mature as you like to think you are.