The Black Vault

Dark-Samus wrote:So a deer is less valuable in life than a panda?

Who are we to decide that?

You don't understand the damage that overpopulation does.

If there are too many deer, they destroy the ecosystem. They put every plant and critter into a dangerous area that faces total extinction. It's like that with ANY over-abundant wildlife. If there's not enough counter-balance, the system crumbles.

Deers are always falling into overpopulation, and for the sake of the environment as a whole we need to do something about it. We help curb the destruction of the ecosystem in that regard.

Pandas, on the other hand, are critically endangered. They are hundreds of years away from overpopulation, and are thus "more important". Believe it or not, not many people want to see a species die out before its time. Yes, we were the cause of it, but we're trying to rebuild it as much as we can.

It all goes back to the continuing progressive agenda for fundamentally transforming America. Of course they're not advocating a total ban on fishing; yet. The transformation is all about baby steps as it has been for many decades. What's the old saying? Give someone a fish and you feed them for a day, but teach them how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime. If people are no longer allowed to fish for themselves, they will undoubtedly be dependant on the government for the fish that feeds them. That's just totally cuckoo I know, but still...

Same thing goes for 'our precious guns'. What's cuckoo is there are still some who deny the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Another saying that comes to mind - If gun ownership is outlawed, only outlaws will own guns. Meaning only law abiding citizens will be punished by any law that bans guns because criminal thugs and gang members are certainly never going to willingly and peacably give theirs up.

By the way nightwolf, it's not paranoia if it's true.
paranoia - Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
I believe, if asked, the Founders would agree that suspicion of motives is a good thing; especially when it concerns the government. Also, given the current state of affairs, our paranoia is neither baseless nor excessive. You should try it sometime. JOIN US, JOIN Us, JOIN us, JOIn us,...

You don't understand the damage that overpopulation does.

If there are too many deer, they destroy the ecosystem. They put every plant and critter into a dangerous area that faces total extinction. It's like that with ANY over-abundant wildlife. If there's not enough counter-balance, the system crumbles.

Deers are always falling into overpopulation, and for the sake of the environment as a whole we need to do something about it. We help curb the destruction of the ecosystem in that regard.

Pandas, on the other hand, are critically endangered. They are hundreds of years away from overpopulation, and are thus "more important". Believe it or not, not many people want to see a species die out before its time. Yes, we were the cause of it, but we're trying to rebuild it as much as we can.

Ofcourse they are dangerous because you have exterminated their natural enemies to the degree that they cannot control it themselves.
Again humans is the biggest threat ever.

Dark-Samus wrote:Ofcourse they are dangerous because you have exterminated their natural enemies to the degree that they cannot control it themselves.
Again humans is the biggest threat ever.

Sounds about right.

My point is, though, that killing a deer helps the larger picture. The only thing killing a panda does is put an already critically endangered species even deeper down the can.