On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>dh asked the Goober:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo declaired:
>
>declared, you stupid ****ing cracker; not "declaired". You are illiterate.
>
>>
>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>>> make any animals worse off.
>>
>> So what Goo?
>
>So, you don't have any point left, Goo.

The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo. It always
has been, and afawk it always will be. There is absolutely
NOTHING to make us believe "ar" would provide rights
or anything else for domestic animals, Goober. Advocates
of the misnomer kill unwanted pets, and contribute to the
deaths of wildlife in pretty much the same ways that everyone
else does. The only thing you people deliberately try to avoid
are things that provide life for the animals that you contribute
to the deaths of, Goo. You avoid meat, eggs, dairy products
etc which deliberately provide life for billions of animals, but
you don't avoid eating veggies which only contribute to the
deliberate killing of animals, but never deliberately to their lives.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:

>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>and presented no challenge:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>
>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>
>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>>>>> make any animals worse off.
>>>> So what Goo?
>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
>>
>> The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
>
>No

Yes it is Goo. But since you want to argue that it's not
Goober, try explaining which rights you think it would
provide for which animals. Go:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, an inept Goober failed completely to defend his beliefs:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:25:26 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>
>>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>>>and presented no challenge:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>
>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
>>>>>> So what Goo?
>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
>>>>
>>>> The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Yes it is Goo. But since you want to argue that it's not
>>Goober, try explaining which rights you think it would
>>provide for which animals. Go:
>
>No

LOL!!! You always fail Goo. Every one of you ALWAYS
fails to be able to explain which rights for which animals
Goober, proving that "ar" is a gross misnomer...proving it
time after time after time after time after time after time...
...............................after time after time............................
consistently!

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Goo lied:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:12:53 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, an inept Goober failed completely to defend his beliefs:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:25:26 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>
>>>>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>>>>>and presented no challenge:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>>>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
>>>>>>>> So what Goo?
>>>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is Goo. But since you want to argue that it's not
>>>>Goober, try explaining which rights you think it would
>>>>provide for which animals. Go:
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> LOL!!! You always fail Goo. Every one of you ALWAYS
>>fails to be able to explain which rights for which animals
>>Goober, proving that "ar" is a gross misnomer...proving it
>>time after time after time after time after time after time...
>>..............................after time after time............................
>>consistently!
>
>Win. I won

You loose every time you fail completely to explain
which rights for which animals Goo, and you fail
completely each time you are challenged to answer
the question. For example: In this particular example
which you are lying about winning, you in fact lost
because you failed completely to make any attempt
to explain. I will now cause you to loose again Goo,
by failing again to answer the question:

Which rights for which animals?

On Jul 17, 4:14*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
> - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
> >>>>>> and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
> >>>>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
> >>>>>>>>> * * So what Goo?
> >>>>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
> >>>>>>> * * The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
> >>>>>> No, Goo. *That isn't the point. *The point, Goo, is that you have no point at all. *Your stupid, bullshit cracker argument - that "aras" are "denying life" to "future farm animals" - is bullshit. *Your reason for hating "aras" is bullshit. **You* are bullshit, Goo.
> >>>>> * *Yes it
> >>>> No, Goo.
> >>> * You always *
> >> Win. *I won, Goo. *Your bullshit is discredited, and no one believes it.
>
> > * * You loose every time
>
> You ignorant pig-****ing cracker: *LOSE, not "loose". *There is no surer
> proof of illiteracy when someone writes "loose" for "lose", unless it's
> "I should have went..." *I know you use "went" in place of "gone", too.
>
> But I don't lose, Goo - I won. *I won in 1999, when I first demolished
> your ****witted "pre-existence"-based story, and I have never stopped
> smacking you down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



christ, more stupido shit and the complaint about spelling...




oh by the way.. ya hath been archived!


woot!

On Jul 17, 4:14*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
> - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
> >>>>>> and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
> >>>>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
> >>>>>>>>> * * So what Goo?
> >>>>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
> >>>>>>> * * The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
> >>>>>> No, Goo. *That isn't the point. *The point, Goo, is that you have no point at all. *Your stupid, bullshit cracker argument - that "aras" are "denying life" to "future farm animals" - is bullshit. *Your reason for hating "aras" is bullshit. **You* are bullshit, Goo.
> >>>>> * *Yes it
> >>>> No, Goo.
> >>> * You always *
> >> Win. *I won, Goo. *Your bullshit is discredited, and no one believes it.
>
> > * * You loose every time
>
> You ignorant pig-****ing cracker: *LOSE, not "loose". *There is no surer
> proof of illiteracy when someone writes "loose" for "lose", unless it's
> "I should have went..." *I know you use "went" in place of "gone", too.
>
> But I don't lose, Goo - I won. *I won in 1999, when I first demolished
> your ****witted "pre-existence"-based story, and I have never stopped
> smacking you down.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



you won? i hardly think that.. since you're a bigger loser than
most.


i wonder if i can go back in time and warn your mother.. since dad
won't pull out... in time!



...... to warn her... "use the clothes hanger... don't have this
child!"



bye bye!


inbred waste of sperm.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Goo AGAIN cowardly slinked from the challenge:

>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, dh AGAIN challenged the Goober:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Goo lied:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:12:53 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, an inept Goober failed completely to defend his beliefs:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:25:26 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>>>>>>>and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Goo tried to defend the misnomer:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>>>>>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
>>>>>>>>>> So what Goo?
>>>>>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it is Goo. But since you want to argue that it's not
>>>>>>Goober, try explaining which rights you think it would
>>>>>>provide for which animals. Go:
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! You always fail Goo. Every one of you ALWAYS
>>>>fails to be able to explain which rights for which animals
>>>>Goober, proving that "ar" is a gross misnomer...proving it
>>>>time after time after time after time after time after time...
>>>>..............................after time after time............................
>>>>consistently!
>>>
>>>Win. I won
>>
>> You loose every time you fail completely to explain
>>which rights for which animals Goo,

>You ignorant pig-****ing cracker: LOSE, not "loose".

Which rights for which animals, Goo?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT), "white, fat and fugly" > wrote:

>On Jul 17, 4:14*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
>> - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Rudy B. Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>
>> >>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rudy X. Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008, Rudy L. Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied
>> >>>>>> and presented no challenge:
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, fat pig-****er and moronic cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008, Rudy M. Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> preventing "future farm animals" (ugh) from existing does not
>> >>>>>>>>>> make any animals worse off.
>> >>>>>>>>> * * So what Goo?
>> >>>>>>>> So, you don't have any point left, Goo.
>> >>>>>>> * * The point is that "ar" is a gross misnomer Goo.
>> >>>>>> No, Goo. *That isn't the point. *The point, Goo, is that you have no point at all. *Your stupid, bullshit cracker argument - that "aras" are "denying life" to "future farm animals" - is bullshit. *Your reason for hating "aras" is bullshit. **You* are bullshit, Goo.
>> >>>>> * *Yes it
>> >>>> No, Goo.
>> >>> * You always *
>> >> Win. *I won, Goo. *Your bullshit is discredited, and no one believes it.
>>
>> > * * You loose every time
>>
>> You ignorant pig-****ing cracker: *LOSE, not "loose". *There is no surer
>> proof of illiteracy when someone writes "loose" for "lose", unless it's
>> "I should have went..." *I know you use "went" in place of "gone", too.
>>
>> But I don't lose, Goo - I won. *I won in 1999, when I first demolished
>> your ****witted "pre-existence"-based story, and I have never stopped
>> smacking you down.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>you won? i hardly think that.. since you're a bigger loser than
>most.

"I win, no matter what I do." - Goo

"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to
merit consideration." - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS* of
consideration." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo

"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo

"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo

"there is no point in mentioning my doctor." - Goo

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:45:54 -0700 (PDT), "white, fat and fugly" > wrote:

>On Jul 17, 4:14*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupidest pig-****ing cracker in existence
>> - blabbered and presented no challenge:
>>
>> You ignorant pig-****ing cracker: *LOSE, not "loose". *There is no surer
>> proof of illiteracy when someone writes "loose" for "lose", unless it's
>> "I should have went..." *I know you use "went" in place of "gone", too.
>>
>> But I don't lose, Goo - I won. *I won in 1999, when I first demolished
>> your ****witted "pre-existence"-based story, and I have never stopped
>> smacking you down.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>christ, more stupido shit and the complaint about spelling...

Goo is desperate. Eliminationists will try any tricks they can
think of to try preventing people from developing appreciation for
the lives of domestic animals, because doing so works directly
against their elimination objective:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
__________________________________________________ _______
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
. . .
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
.. . .
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, the helpless Goober admitted:

>dh challenged a helpless Goober:
>
>> Which rights for which animals, Goo?
>
>The concept of animal "rights" would not allow for the existence of
>livestock.

No rights for livestock. So which rights for which animals, Goo???

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Goo acknowledged the elimination objective:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:22:54 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, the helpless Goober admitted:
>>
>>>dh challenged a helpless Goober:
>>>
>>>> Which rights for which animals, Goo?
>>>
>>>The concept of animal "rights" would not allow for the existence of
>>>livestock.
>>
>> No rights for livestock. So which rights for which animals, Goo???
>
>The concept of rights would prevent livestock from existing.

Duh Goo.

>I hope that helps you understand, Goo.

So which rights for which animals, Goo???

>Goo - fits you like a glove.
__________________________________________________ _______
Jun 19 2005

dh defined the Goober:

> Amusingly, he thinks he's very smart, which is why
>he is Goobernicus...the moron who thinks he's a genius.

Goo was tremendously impressed when Tidal Wave pointed out:

"Goobernicus"! The name fits him like a glove.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, the Goober either

a) naively dreamed:
or
b) blatantly lied:

>dh AGAIN challenged the Goober:
>
>> So which rights for which animals, Goo???
>
>The animals that do exist - wild animals and some pets, plus a few in
>zoos - would have "rights", in the "ar" scheme of things, not to have
>certain things done to them.

There would be no domestic animals, including animals
in zoos Goo. All that's left is wild animals. Do you think they
would all have to be removed from fields before they are
plowed? Then again before they are planted? Again before
they are sprayed with any sort of chemicals? Again before
harvest? Every field? Every time? Who do think will do
it Goo? Where will the animals be taken, Goob? What
will happend to the animals who are already trying to
survive in the area you have in mind for re-locating all
the ones in all the fields, Goo? What about animals who
need re-locating because of road construction Goo?
Who will deal with all of that and how? What about
in the construction of homes and businesses Goober?
How about in the production of wood and paper products,
Goo?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Goo wrote:

>dh continued to present his 9 year old challenge to the Goober:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, the Goober either
>>
>>a) naively dreamed:
>>or
>>b) blatantly lied:
>>
>>>dh AGAIN challenged the Goober:
>>>
>>>> So which rights for which animals, Goo???
>>>
>>>The animals that do exist - wild animals and some pets, plus a few in
>>>zoos - would have "rights", in the "ar" scheme of things, not to have
>>>certain things done to them.
>>
>> There would be no domestic animals, including animals
>>in zoos Goo.
>
>There would be;

We have no reason to believe that Goo, so of course I
disbelieve it.

>just no livestock.

Why did you choose that one particular thing to be
honest about Goo, do you have any idea?

>>All that's left is wild animals. Do you think they
>>would all have to be removed from fields before they are
>>plowed? Then again before they are planted? Again before
>>they are sprayed with any sort of chemicals? Again before
>>harvest? Every field? Every time? Who do think will do
>>it Goo? Where will the animals be taken, Goob? What
>>will happend to the animals who are already trying to
>>survive in the area you have in mind for re-locating all
>>the ones in all the fields, Goo? What about animals who
>>need re-locating because of road construction Goo?
>>Who will deal with all of that and how? What about
>>in the construction of homes and businesses Goober?
>>How about in the production of wood and paper products,
>>Goo?
>
>Most animals would be wild animals.

Why do you want people to believe the misnomer
would allow for which domestic animals to exist Goo,
do you know?

>The idea of animal "rights" would
>prevent you from hunting them.

So to sum it all up: The "best" that the misnomer
has to offer is the elimination of domestic animals,
and the elimination of human wildlife population
management. That's all Goob, and neither one
sound like the best possible approach.