Liam Neeson Vs PETA

Empty Hands said:
Wolves don't compete with us. Loss of a top predator also affects the rest of the ecosystem in sometimes catastrophic ways, and we've been dealing with that in the US for some time now. We've had to take over the wolf's role, which is why we are trying to bring them back. Populations with a top predator reach dynamic equilibrium. Populations without a top predator results in catastrophic boom/bust cycles that can other loss of species or damage/destruction of the environment. In engineering terms, you are removing the negative feedback loop. It's stupid, short-sighted thinking.
Click to expand...

The History of Yellowstone Park illustrates that perfectly.
 
1) It is legal to hunt gray wolves in Alaska.

$wolf.jpg

2) Not much on hunting for fur or trophies, so good that the wolf got eaten


3) Most predators taste like crap. Bear can be okay, depending on diet and time of year, but a lot of places have their bear season in the spring, when bears are waking from hibernation, and they tend to not taste so great. I've never hunted mountain lion, but someone who did cooked up some backstraps for me once-tasted like chicken.....:lol:...no, really.
I'd imagine wolf tastes a lot like dog, though, ,and, as most of you know, every time I've had dog, I had seconds.

I imagine wolf puppy is downright delicious.

4) Good on Liam Neeson-I like that guy.
 
You're not wrong in what you say, EH, about the environmental effects of eliminating a 'tier' of the food chance balancing act. But I would maintain that wolves, bears and other top predators did compete with us in the past and paid the price. They either did it by predating the same species we were after or more directly by trying to eat us. Britain did away with all of them centuries ago and I would argue we have one of the best managed environments in the world (tho the industrial revolution and recent too rapid population expansion have rather blotted our copy-book in that regard :o). We as a species don't tend to eliminate the predators and leave a vacuum; historically we become the top predator (tho we can be quite poor at maintaining the balance and so cause extinctions).

There's a reason why most animals are afraid of us, even the predators and I'd like to keep it that way. I have said before, whenever a predator kills a human, that that is because we are no longer killing enough of them to keep them current on who is top dog. I know that's horrid and simplistic and animal lovers who only like the 'pretty ones' hate me for it. But in this case I am staunchly humano-centric - if it kills humans, then it dies (if at all possible).
 
Sukerkin said:
You're not wrong in what you say, EH, about the environmental effects of eliminating a 'tier' of the food chance balancing act. But I would maintain that wolves, bears and other top predators did compete with us in the past and paid the price. They either did it by predating the same species we were after or more directly by trying to eat us.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Britain, but the Grey Wolf was exterminated in the lower 48 states by the early 1900's to 1930 or so. We were hardly in danger.

Sukerkin said:
There's a reason why most animals are afraid of us, even the predators and I'd like to keep it that way. I have said before, whenever a predator kills a human, that that is because we are no longer killing enough of them to keep them current on who is top dog. I know that's horrid and simplistic and animal lovers who only like the 'pretty ones' hate me for it. But in this case I am staunchly humano-centric - if it kills humans, then it dies (if at all possible).
Click to expand...

According to one study I found, hornets/bees/wasps are the largest single cause of death at 27.4% of animal related fatalities, followed by dogs at 10.7%. Snakes, insects and arthropods round out most of the list, with rats the first standalone wild mammal category at 0.15%. Deaths due to large mammals are so miniscule they don't even have their own standalone categories, at most the "other mammal" category comprises 10% over a 10 year period, including all mammals, which might include domestic horses.

If you care about people dying, it's not mountain lions or wolves you should be worried about - it's stinging insects and domestic dogs. Meanwhile wholesale destruction of predator species because they "look scary" is quite capable of causing environmental devastation that will result in human suffering on it's own. As an engineer, I'm surprised you would support removing critical feedback loops from our "life support system" because they look scary, while rarely hurting people.
 
Interesting factoid about the 'hornety' danger, mate! So I have good reason for my phobic reaction to wasps it would seem ("Suffer none to live!" I cry) :lol:.

I think you may have misread me a little; I should emphasise the 'long view' I take on this reaches back through the millennia.

Nowadays of course, we have other ways of getting our food and direct competition from predators without opposable thumbs is not a factor.

Beasties can look as scary as they like as long as they leave humans alone - when they don't, then it's a visit from high velocity lead that should be their fate. The hard part is retaining their fear of humans without having to kill them in job lots. I don't know if it possible to keep one without the other - it'd be nice if it was.
 
Here is a nice article on Liam Neeson and why he beats out the current girly men at the box office...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/c...ld-liam-neeson-is-actions-most-bankable-star/

Compare the box office results for “The Grey” to the opening weekend haul of Taylor Lautner’s “Abduction” from late last year:
“The Grey” – $20 million
“Abduction” – $10.9 million
Lautner’s got Neeson by 40-odd years, and you just know Neeson doesn’t have six-pack abs like Mr. “Twilight.” Audiences didn’t care. They responded to the way Neeson goes about his business on screen. It’s never smooth or calculated, but Neeson’s characters settle scores and survive in a way that hearkens back to how male movie stars used to behave on screen.
HeÂ’s a manÂ’s man, and that makes him a rarity in todayÂ’s Hollywood.

Neeson rejuvenated his career with “Taken,” the 2008 surprise smash that cast him as an older spy who could still crush anyone who gets in his way. Even “Unknown,” a deeply silly action film, earned a respectable sum with Neeson going through the motions.
Actors typically don’t reinvent themselves as action heroes later in life. The elder statesmen of the action genre – think Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris and Harrison Ford – are simply giving audiences more of what they’ve come to expect from them.
What middle-aged actor would turn to his agent and say, after years of playing serious roles, that he wants to be the next Steven Seagal?
Click to expand...
 
Or readers of the "Wheel of Time" in which they really are 'people', with their very own Wolf Dreamscape.
 
Empty Hands;[URL="tel:1458032" said:
1458032[/URL]]Hopper, Dapple, Young Bull and Long Tooth will be paying Mr. Neeson a visit very soon. ;)
Click to expand...

Reckon he'll make them into jerky and stew as well.......
 
Josh Oakley;[URL="tel:1458066" said:
1458066[/URL]]Frankly, I think this was unnecessary, and wasteful.
Click to expand...
e?

Wasteful? How, exactly? Maybe that meat-which, according to the story, had been in a freezer for six months-should have been fed to the "poor?"

"Wasteful," like that, maybe?

I mean, them that's "meat"-gets "eat."

Really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

G.E. did pay taxes...

Previous Thread

Schroedinger's homicide

Next Thread

Similar threads

Bob Hubbard
  • Sticky
Japanese Sword Arts Faq Version 2.9
Replies
0
Views
21K
Bob Hubbard
Bob Hubbard

Latest Discussions

Back
Top