Sentences with phrase «animal protectionists»

[18] Finally, trapping has been the subject of political activism [19] by animal protectionist groups seeking to restrict and / or ban trapping altogether.

[19] A brief overview of animal protectionist legislation in the United States and around the world see Andrew N. Rowan and Beth Rosen, «Progress in Animal Legislation: Measurement and Assessment,» in State of the Animals Iii: 2005, ed.

However, the legal actions taken by animal protectionist groups suggest the trappers» concerns are not without warrant.

[68] Animal protectionists talk about the foothold as if it only had only one design.

For example, animal protectionists argue that coyote trapping induces coyotes to disperse over greater distances (causing problems elsewhere).

[24] By such a limitation, the author engages animal protectionist arguments at their strongest point as land trapping results in greater injury potential than water trapping where drowning sets can be employed.

[54] Which is why animal protectionists spend so much energy trying to convince readers that so called «non-lethal» techniques work to stop wildlife damage.

Which is why animal protectionists spend so much energy trying to convince readers that so called «non-lethal» techniques work to stop wildlife damage.

A brief overview of animal protectionist legislation in the United States and around the world see

Animal protectionists assert that the trapping industry and wildlife damage control programs (such as the USDA - APHIS - Wildlife Services agency and private wildlife control companies) constitute the worst expression of environmental stewardship.

[89] What animal protectionists neglect to say is that trapper resistance stems from three different areas.

What about animal protectionist assertion that trapping is not necessary to mitigate wildlife disease epidemics, such as rabies?

This may evoke strong reaction from animal protectionists.

Animal protectionists cast a great deal of ire on the wildlife damage control programs, especially the work performed by USDA - APHIS - Wildlife Services (hereafter WS) which has historically administered predator control programs in the U.S.. For example, activists reject the idea that coyote control programs are needed to protect flocks from costly predation.

Animal protectionists seem to prefer state - run wildlife programs.

[36] It should be noted that CAR activists simply refer to the arguments against trapping presented by other animal protectionists.

But as before, animal protectionists do not provide the entire picture.

As usual, animal protectionists raise some important issues, but issues separated from context and clear definitions only result in muddled thinking.

While one suspects that animal protectionist standards are so high as to present insurmountable difficulties for a humane fur - trade (on their definition), it is worth noting that progress has been made.

[109] If by rabies control, animal protectionists mean eliminate or drastically reduce the incidence of rabies in wildlife populations, then they are correct.

Second, animal protectionists know full well that in the modern United States, Canada, and Western Europe, regulated trapping is not a factor in wildlife extinction.

Animal protectionists gain a great deal of political capital when pets become trapped, due to the intense media coverage responding to the shock of a pet idolizing public.

For example, most animal protectionists will argue that the mere death of the animal (unless to end suffering not induced by humans) is by definition cruel, as the animal will have lost its expectation of life.

[71] Animal protectionists regularly speak of traps «doing things».

A group of innovative animal protectionists developed a process called Trap - Neuter - Return, most commonly referred to as TNR among those in the field, to provide a better solution to the incessant killing that was the non-working «solution» for feral cats.

The thrust of this paper has been to help Christians recognize that the claims of animal protectionist groups, Christian or otherwise, need to be carefully evaluated.

[52] This author would caution readers to diligently inquire about the standard employed by animal protectionists.

[9] One group of animal protectionists, [10] known as Christian Animal Rights activists (CAR), assert that Scripture and science require us to protect animals from harm stemming from human behavior.

Much more dangerous are those Nazi ideas that blossom secretly, whether in feminist temples, the gardens of New Age, the greenhouses of ideological vegetarianism, or the discreet cult that animal protectionists have erected around our four - legged friends.

Animal protectionists are correct in noting that many trappers are reluctant to adopt less injurious technology.

Traps constitute a major investment, especially in light of lower fur prices in part due to animal protectionist's efforts to change the social acceptance of wearing fur.

The author suspects that most Christians, while not explicitly adopting animal protectionist ideology, have failed to properly consider the implications of adopting the hands - off view of creation espoused by animal protectionists.

The animal protectionists have made great headway exploiting the term live - trap as a synonym for cage traps.

It should be noted that the effects on the ecosystem and the animals have not been properly studied nor have the potential impacts been considered by animal protectionists.

[53] This radical understanding of suffering caused one fur - trapper to remark that animal protectionists would not be happy even if we trapped and killed the animals with «sweet dreams and tender kisses.»

Recall that animal protectionists by - in - large adopt a minimalist view of human intervention into the affairs of wildlife.

[13] In addition, these Christians suggest that an animal protectionist stance is more environmentally sound.

Also, the Marin County experiment was not the glowing success the animal protectionists would like us to believe.

[46] Just as human rights advocates would be outraged by police rounding up people without any real evidence of guilt, so the animal protectionists argue that traps injure many animals that trappers did not seek.

Here again, the animal protectionists play with the meanings of words.

[11] The environmental aspect of the animal protectionist movement will be clearly apparent to anyone surfing environmental websites.

In light of Larson's findings, it would seem clear that animal protectionists have not proven that trapping is an unnecessary component for effective predator management.