do you intervene with cruel nature?

[drbill]

Good point, Scubaroo. I contacted two of the scientific consultants (both friends) on the filming of "Finding Nemo" and asked if they would do something to educate people about NOT buying clown fish for home aquaria. I was also interviewed by "USA Today" on the subject. Never seen "The Lion Kinng" though!

 

[Rick Murchison]

when you see a shark chomping on a helpless sea-turtle of dugong, do you intervene or let nature take its course?

Depends. In "my" part of the ocean Bull shark populations are just fine; loggerheads are in trouble. If I saw a Bull approaching a loggerhead I'd do what I could to foil the Bull and save the loggerhead.
Rick

 

[Al Mialkovsky]

I'm glad no one intervenes with me when I'm about to chomp down on a cheeseburger

Let it happen.

 

[Green Hand]

In nearly all situations [i.e.nature taking its natural cause] I would not intervene.

I get far more upset at mankinds senseless and very often cruel behaviour. We are one of the few species that actually kills our own. We also hunt for fun and enjoyment - which I don't approve of - unless you consume what you kill or are hunting listed feral species.

I had to chuckle at people worrying about animals hunting for survival - when mankind is involved in so many destructive and pointless activities that most of us would not think of protesting about, or intervenying in.

I know this thread paints me as a weak kneed, tree hugging liberal but I'm not - I think I am pretty realistic about things - but I do find mankind incredibly hypocritical and a master at constructing arguments to suit their interests. I have always liked the mirror at zoo's that says 'you are looking at the most dangerous creature in the World'.

Let nature be - our intervention has been destructive and interferring enough.

 

[Lightning Fish]

We are one of the few species that actually kills our own.

Define "few". To name several others:

bears, dogs, cats, spiders, lions, goats, elk, ...

 

[Green Hand]

Hence I said FEW not ONLY. You could also include birds and fish.

Even if you listed 20,50, 100 species this is a very small percentage when today scientists have classified around 1.5 to 1.8 million animals [of which half are insects].

Depending on the literature you read the scientific community believe there may be anything between 2-50 million species of animals in the world, and if youinclude plants the number increases to around 100 million.

The defining point in my original post was that mankind, at times, has killed for enjoyment.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

I don't interfere. I've seen my cats chase down rabbits and start chowing down on them... They are cats! That's what they DO! Ditto for sea creatures or any other aspect in nature. On the other hand, I've moved earthworms off of the sidewalk before the sun dried them out, and I've helped injured birds that have crashed into windows...

 

[Ishie]

I'll help things that aren't becoming an active part of the food chain.

I certainly wouldn't get between a turtle and a shark... for a number of reasons. If a shark takes a bite out of the turtle and the turtle makes it to shore, thus the shark has been deprived dinner, THEN I may help the turtle, but mid-feed, nope. If the shark can get the turtle, then it's the shark's dinner.

And if something attacks *me*, I will beat on it with every available resource I've got and not feel in anyway unnatural or hypocritical. Having a human fight off a shark or a bear or a human's friend fight off a shark or a bear is perfectly natural since few species take a kind view of being eaten, and social animals (like humans) tend to defend each other. What would be unnatural is if while a human was fighting off a bear, a shark in specialized gear ran up on land and attempted to separate the bear from its intended prey because it found the human cute.

 

[Mr.X]

I don't interfere. I've seen my cats chase down rabbits and start chowing down on them... They are cats! That's what they DO! Ditto for sea creatures or any other aspect in nature. On the other hand, I've moved earthworms off of the sidewalk before the sun dried them out, and I've helped injured birds that have crashed into windows...

Just a quick note about cats. Free roaming, domestic cats can have a huge, negative impact on natural wildlife. Domestic cats can greatly reduce natural bird populations (migratory species) and mammals too. There was a special on PBS which featured an English cat that basically decimated a number of birds and rabbits so much so so that this particular cat became a research study.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/excats/

p.s. I love cats. My Himalayan is so spoiled she never ventures out the door and knows that we wait on her hand and foot.

 

[drbill]

I know this thread paints me as a weak kneed, tree hugging liberal but I'm not - I think I am pretty realistic about things - but I do find mankind incredibly hypocritical and a master at constructing arguments to suit their interests. I have always liked the mirror at zoo's that says 'you are looking at the most dangerous creature in the World'.

You're not alone in your thinking, Green Hand. Mankind can be incredibly cruel towards their own species not to mention the rest of the residents of the planet. The only thing worse in terms of cruelty is womankind (just teasing on that part ladies).