so they don't end up in the position of dying a slow, painful death (caused by disease, hunger, etc)? Since your against hunting, lets hear it. (This ought to be good folks...I bet the question is avoided)
2007-08-23 03:39:17 · 6 answers · asked by kirk0791 2 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
He doesn't give acrap about wild animals. He is just trying to gain an advantage with a very weak defense. He will most likely cry when vic gets the chair and he finds out that all his sports heros dont live up to his rather uncouth fantasies.
2007-08-23 04:12:56 · answer #1 · answered by coolhandven 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We need to round up all of over populated animals and make them fight each other to the death so people can get their rocks off and place some bets as well.This is somthing I would expect to hear.
2007-08-23 11:31:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If he doesn't answer I will.
The population of wild animals does not need to be "controlled." They have been doing a good job all by themselves for millions of years. Yes some die a "slow" death from starvation etc. but that's just life in the wild. This does serve a purpose.
That's how nature culls out the week in the population (gene pool) allowing the strong to survive and re-populate making the species stronger and healthier. Unlike hunting, which culls out the strongest leaving the animals with weaker genes to re-populate causing the overall health of the species to decline.
2007-08-23 11:07:18 · answer #3 · answered by tamarack58 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
To start with release all the animals currently in Zoos all over the World*... Set them free now*..... Hunter, Sportsman and Conservationist*...
2007-08-23 14:36:24 · answer #4 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We should run some ads urging them to abstain from sexual activity; in other words, "Just Say No".
2007-08-23 10:45:39 · answer #5 · answered by acmeraven 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm with the post above.
2007-08-25 06:41:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋