|
C R E A T E A D |
Should wild animals be punished?
| #1 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 10:59 AM | |
 Margarita   9,140 Posts 612 Achievements  
|
I'm sure some of you heard that there was a Grizzly bear that attacked three people in Montana 'unprovoked'. Personally, I feel this this is bullcrap. Why do we as a society feel the need to punish beautiful, wild animals for being wild animals? What places us higher on the food chain than a grizzly bear protecting her cubs? These animals clearly feel threatened, so they attack. We are in their home, the woods. I'm not saying people shouldn't go camping. As much I hate camping, I understand a lot of people love it. But we need to be more respectful to the wild animals that live there. Instead of spending the money to kill the animals, why not take it and spread awareness on how not to be attacked. One way to protect yourself against a grizzly bear is to spray it with pepper spray, as Jack Hannah did. So, your thoughts? edited because of link fail Last Edit by:
Margarita 7/31/10 - 11:02:04 am
|
| #2 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 11:37 AM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One  290 Posts 442 Achievements |
According to the story they were asleep in their tents, that's hardly a threat. If a bear ripped me from my slumber and started feeding on my limbs, pepper spray wouldn't be very high up on my list of thoughts. Either way, we as a society also remove humans who infringe on others rights to live. Being mentally disabled isn't an excuse to go around murdering people in their sleep simply because you're acting on a primal instinct and lack theory of mind, so why should being cute and furry? As a side thought, would being in a cannibals territory; by your own choice or otherwise; give them the right to attack and eat you in your sleep if they felt you were a potential threat?
|
| #3 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:11 PM | |
Donated to the Cash Shop  1,179 Posts 380 Achievements |
It's a bunch of BS if you ask me. If you go camping in bear country, IF YOU GO ANYTHING IN BEAR COUNTRY, you should know the risks of bear country. It was a mother bear, there where objects in her territory that made her feel threatened. She's a bear, she can't go: "Oh, they're sleeping. No threat to me at all, better let them sleep." She felt these tents, and the people in them where threatening her and her cubs. Besides, there are bear-free camping grounds people can camp at. Whenever I watch Animal Planet, like I do anymore it's all violence now, there's shows how people where maliciously attacked by animals. Poor poor you for hiking in bear country, poor poor you for throwing rocks at the animal, and poor poor you for getting too close to it, poor poor you for keeping a wild animal has a pet. Animals can't process: "Oh don't attack them! They're not really a threat!" An animal doesn't have complex reasoning. So no, I believe we has a higher species should know the dangers of wild animals. /Edited for failure./ Last Edit by:
Leafeon 7/31/10 - 12:26:53 pm
|
| #4 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:20 PM | |
| Paint Is a Survivor  4,621 Posts 490 Achievements |
 ....to me it seems perfectly like a provoked attack (in a sense at least). It was a MOTHER BEAR who found something out of the ordinary on her turf, and therefore registered it as a threat. Plus....the whole food chain thing also comes into play. I definitely disagree with the bear being euthanized, it should've been relocated further into the region where less campers go. Basically what Leafeon said. Humans aren't stupid, you should know the risks. "Three million tourists a year visit the remote and wild Yellowstone region of Montana and Wyoming, which has an estimated 600 grizzlies." That's a good amount of grizzlies. Also: @Atheist Quote: As a side thought, would being in a cannibals territory; by your own choice or otherwise; give them the right to attack and eat you in your sleep if they felt you were a potential threat? This to me seems like a pointless argument, since as far as I'm concerned, cannibals are an unnatural thing seeing as humans as a species are not carnivores. Last Edit by: User not found (1): Paintz 7/31/10 - 12:21:07 pm
|
| #5 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:29 PM | |
| you is FIERCE  3,528 Posts 750 Achievements |
 Quote By @Atheist: According to the story they were asleep in their tents, that's hardly a threat. If a bear ripped me from my slumber and started feeding on my limbs, pepper spray wouldn't be very high up on my list of thoughts. Either way, we as a society also remove humans who infringe on others rights to live. Being mentally disabled isn't an excuse to go around murdering people in their sleep simply because you're acting on a primal instinct and lack theory of mind, so why should being cute and furry? You're holding these animals to too high of a standard. They are /animals/, not humans. They're not going to differentiate between those are annoyances and threats, as @Leafeon said. Quote By @Paintz: I definitely disagree with the bear being euthanized, it should've been relocated further into the region where less campers go. Basically what Leafeon said. Humans aren't stupid, you should [k]no[w] the risks. I agree with the statement above. Instinct isn't going to change. Edit: Took out example. Last Edit by:
you 7/31/10 - 1:22:43 pm
|
| #6 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:31 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
Camping in a forest where bears are present doesn't equal consent to be attacked/eaten any more than living in a bad neighborhood is consent to be stolen from or shanked. It's called an 'acceptable risk' and we take them every day, like driving in a car even though you may crash. I'm curious how you all know she was feeling threatened and not actively hunting human because she'd acquired a taste for it. @Paintz You don't have to eat only human meat to be a cannibal. @you No, you don't have a right to shoot a trespasser if they aren't posing an active threat... such as passing out drunk on your lawn.
|
| #7 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:39 PM | |
| you is FIERCE 3,528 Posts 750 Achievements |
 @Atheist I don't consider camping in a forest, in which bears are present, to be an "acceptable risk." I didn't say trespasser. I said burglar. As already stated... Quote: They're not going to differentiate between those are annoyances and threats...
|
| #8 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:45 PM | |
Donated to the Cash Shop 1,179 Posts 380 Achievements |
@ Atheist Camping with bears and sleeping with lions isn't an acceptable risk. It's called being an idiot who's asking for trouble. Clearly, you don't like this bear for some reason. She was a wild animal, who was a mother. Mother wild animals don't take crap from anything. If YOU where her and you were just walking along with your cubs, and all-of-the sudden you see tents and hear things in them breathing, wouldn't you be a bit unnerved to see things on your territory that weren't there before? Wild animals have natural fears of humans, and wild animals act on fears and instincts. She clearly saw these objects has a clear threat to her and her cubs, and wished to get rid of the problem. Last Edit by:
Leafeon 7/31/10 - 12:47:34 pm
|
| #9 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 12:48 PM | |
| Sharl is Darksided!  835 Posts 536 Achievements |
Quote By @Leafeon:
poor poor you for throwing rocks at the animal ....wow. Anybody dumb enough to chunk rocks at a bear deserves to be chewed, for being too damn stupid to live.
|
| #10 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:10 PM | |
Donated to the Cash Shop  5,134 Posts 224 Achievements |
 Quote: Do you have a right to shoot that burglar? It's self-defense. ... No you don't... The burglar actually has to THREATEN you with violence (either attack or say, 'I will kill/hurt you') for violence in self-defense to be used. If a guy breaks into my house and I blow his brains out when he's crawling in though the window, I will be charged with murder. Also, humans have higher reasoning. Bears don't. Not exactly a good argument, though I get your point. I don't agree with it being euthanized, but for gods sake everyone assumes we need to hold all humans to some greater level. 'As higher reasoning beings we should accept and be fully aware of all risks'. By that logic, we'd all stay in padded rooms in our homes. Being going outside MIGHT mean you get hit by a car. You MIGHT fall off your bike. You MIGHT get struck my lightning. When camping, no one prepares for the worst. No one camps expecting to be mauled by a bear. The people didn't know it was her turf. Didn't know she (specifically) was there, or had cubs. They were pretty much in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, they knew there are bears in the park. Yes, there is a chance of encounter. But they did not feel as if they had done anything. This is key. When You assume risk you do not seek reason to encounter risk. They were not attempting and not assuming that they were provoking a bear attack. Again, does this mean the bear who acted on instinct deserved to die? Hell no! She was protecting her young and defending her turf. For an animal this is acceptable. There is no fault of the animal, and it should have been relocated. It's like sharks being hunted down after attacks. Unfair, and unjust, and just dehumanizing to our own species. But, what about tigers? When tigers taste human blood, they will actively hunt humans, even walk into populated areas beyond its natural territory to hunt. If relocated, it would hunt humans in the area. What is the solution when you literally have a 'blood-thirsty' animal? (I am not saying the bear was, by the way. I am going to the end of the spectrum where these attacks are not on protective instinct)
|
| #11 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:11 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@you When arguing concepts and using examples they need to be relevant to the scenario. The humans weren't burglarizing the bears pelts and berries, they were sleeping. There are approximately 2 injuries per year from bear attacks. Your chance of being hurt by a bear there in Yellowstone is about 1 in 2 million. At such a low rate, how is it an unacceptable risk? @Leafeon See above. Ripping someone out of their tent and feeding on them isn't what any animal that I'm aware of does when they feel threatened or afraid; that's hunting.
|
| #12 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:20 PM | |
| Jodie Gets Around  15,761 Posts 814 Achievements |
Trick or Treat @ Jodie ~*~ style-file ~*~ comissions ~*~ tumblr  To the whole burglar argument, the law in my country is the intruder has to be on the second step of your stairs before you can consider it a threat and take self-defensive action. l: Or if you live in a single floor home, they have to be a certain distance from the room you're in.As for the bear, I think it's not entirely the people's fault. Yes they were camping in the middle of grizzly country, and yes they should have known the risks. But saying that the bear had a right to maul them is idiotic, bears do not always attack when they feel threatened, they do as most other animals do and try and warn off the intruders before they attack by growling or taking a swipe at them. This bear was not defending as an action alone, or she would have just done the above, she was also hunting.
|
| #13 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:20 PM | |
| you is FIERCE 3,528 Posts 750 Achievements |
 @Atheist Quote By Ariawyre: Also, humans have higher reasoning. Bears don't. Not exactly a good argument, though I get your point. ^ That is my ultimate point. I regret the usage of that example now. (Editing it out soon)
|
| #14 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:24 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@you but not all humans do have higher reasoning. Where do we draw the line of accountability for ones actions? If a person kills and eats others because they don't know any better, how should they be dealt with? They can't just be released back into society without rehabilitating them. How would you suggest a bear or a human incapable of reasoning be rehabilitated? If they can't be, should they be euthanized or caged?
|
| #15 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:30 PM | |
Donated to the Cash Shop 1,179 Posts 380 Achievements |
@ Atheist They were sleeping. In a mother bear's territory. And it's unacceptable because it's bear country, and camping in bear country is asking for it. There are MANY camping resorts that are bear free they could have camped at. I don't care how low the rate is. Wolf attacks are extremely rare, and yet they happen. crap happens, and you should always know there is that chance of being attacked, rare or not. Quote: At least one of the bears fed on his body. You know for sure it wasn't one of her cubs? You know for sure that because she killed them, she was the one who HAD to of eaten him? Bear cubs get hungry, and meat is meat. Also, just because animal eats something it kills, it doesn't mean it was hunting it. In the wild, animals kill, or try to drive off, things that threaten it. If they kill it, half the time they might end up eating it because meat is meat. Quote: all three cubs were present for and likely participated Alright, lets say she DID, hunt them to feed her cubs. Why are the cubs not being killed? They too are dangerous wild bears, that attack this person and killed him, and then ate him. Edited for failure. Last Edit by:
Leafeon 7/31/10 - 1:48:23 pm
|
| #16 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:42 PM | |
| PoisonCandy is a hoot!  2,035 Posts 445 Achievements |
      If I found some stranger sleeping in my house, I'd probably kill them too.  Last Edit by: User not found (1): Kylias 7/31/10 - 1:42:54 pm
|
| #17 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:50 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@Leafeon It is because it is? That's a bare assertion fallacy. How is camping there "asking for it" when you're more likely to be struck by lightening in bear country than attacked by a bear? As for the rest, it's all speculation. We don't know why she attacked and killed, only that she did and they fed on the kill. Those bears now recognize the taste and smell of humans as a food source. Whether they're caged or euthanized now doesn't really matter to me as long as they're not left out there to hunt more people down, although caging would of course be preferable.
|
| #18 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 1:57 PM | |
| Karasu Gossiper  1,367 Posts 695 Achievements |
Once animals taste human flesh, they get a hankerin' for it. I don't really see what the issue is.
Dogs are sometimes put down for simply biting people. Oh and bears are not carnivores, they are omnivores. =/
|
| #19 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:00 PM | |
Donated to the Cash Shop 1,179 Posts 380 Achievements |
@ Atheist It's basically 'asking' for it because it's bear country. With a est. of 600 grizzly bears, one should know there is always a chance of being attacked by one, slim to none or not. Many things are slim to none, but they still happen, and being attacked by a bear can easily be avoided by not camping in bear country in the first place. Instead they should have tried a place with no bears/ dangerous wild animals. I'm not saying it should have happened, I'm just saying just because it probably won't happen, doesn't mean it won't. Bear country is dangerous, and it'd be better safe than sorry. And I agree that if they did hunt them, they shouldn't be left out in the wild. I also don't think the cubs should go to a zoo like stated in the article. If the cubs also hunted them with her, putting them in a zoo is well...dumb. Tasty zoo handlers. If the bears did hunt them, then yes, they should be put down/ removed from the wild. However I don't believe she was hunting them, so I didn't see the need for her death. I get your argument, and I agree at a lot of points. Last Edit by:
Leafeon 7/31/10 - 2:10:32 pm
|
| #20 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:20 PM | |
| Satisfy Gets Around  1,691 Posts 584 Achievements |
@Margarita They're saying "unprovoked attacks" .. You're provoking wild animals the second you step out into nature. Yeah, these people weren't poking the bears with sticks or smearing honey all over themselves.. but there is a reason they're called WILD animals. "The bear was euthanized after wildlife officials captured the sow and her three cubs" - 3 cubs! They didn't stop to think, hey maybe this mother felt threatened or saw the opportunity to feed her children. Yes, feed her children humans in this case. Humans have a nasty superiority complex. 'Aasheim said the cubs will likely be placed in a zoo' - Yeah because that's a great place for them. Way to take away their mother so more animals can rot away in zoos.
|
| #21 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:31 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@Leafeon Of course it'd be preferable to camp where nothing can hurt you, but pretty much any forest poses a threat of some kind. And of course there's always a chance that you'll be attacked or otherwise injured. When it's that unlikely though, the fault hardly remains with the people when they did nothing to provoke the attack. It's not like they ran up and stuck a skewer in her eye, that would be asking for it. I'm not sure of their reasoning for killing the mother and keeping the cubs either, and won't pretend to have any idea of what they should do aside from removing the bears from the wild after they've tasted human. @Satisfy those pesky bears need to learn to control their emotions if sleeping provokes such rage that they must torture, mutilate and devour the offender.
|
| #22 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:42 PM | |
| Satisfy Gets Around 1,691 Posts 584 Achievements |
@Atheist Attacking prey is an instinct. It doesn't necessarily mean the animal was some enraged beast. Attacking sleeping prey seems like a lot less work to me. Quote: must torture, mutilate and devour.. Are you serious? What do you think happens when animals eat other animals in the wild? Do you think they slip them some pill? No, they attack and devour. Humans torture and mutilate prey all the time.. except our wild is in a slaughterhouse.
|
| #23 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:49 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@ Satisfy I was only addressing your assertion that simply being there, even sleeping, is provoking an attack. It's more likely that she was hunting them or possibly defending territory, which you also stated. The first part was just silly. Last Edit by:
Atheist 7/31/10 - 2:50:31 pm
|
| #24 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 2:56 PM | |
| Satisfy Gets Around 1,691 Posts 584 Achievements |
@Atheist Quote: It's more likely that she was hunting them or defending territory Yes, this is probably the case. However, this attack could have been the result of hunting and/or defending territory even if the victims were sleeping. Being in the wild in general is provoking a wild animal.. regardless of what you're doing. Sleeping is still being there.
|
| #25 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 3:10 PM | |
| Athens is a Skilled Hooker  3,727 Posts 649 Achievements |
Being in the wild in general is provoking a wild animal.. regardless of what you're doing. I have to agree with this. In the wild..we're technically trespassing on their turf and most will do things to drive us off. No one can say for certain what drove that bear to do what she did..though it is unfortunate that she was killed. I think relocation isn't an option with a man killer because there's less and less places where animals such as those can live out their lives free of human interference. Humans are just....every Loving where.
|
| #26 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 3:13 PM | |
| Atheist Only has Room for One 290 Posts 442 Achievements |
@Satisfy I'll concede. If there's anything addressed to me to reply to in the next couple of hours I'll get back to it then.
|
| #27 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 3:28 PM | |
| Margarita 9,140 Posts 612 Achievements |
Exactly. For those enjoy camping, there are plenty of places in the US and Canada to go camping that isn't in grizzly bear country or puma country. The difference between grizzly bears and other bears is that grizzly bears like to kill their food and eat it because it's fresher as apposed to a black bear that doesn't kill their prey before eating. They find something and eat it. And bears and other wild animals aren't like humans. They live in the moment. You're in my home, so therefore you area threat. For them there's no, "Oh well maybe their just here for the night and they're sleeping so they aren't going to bother me and my cubs." Mother bears will go full blown ape crap if you get close to their young.
|
| #28 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 3:47 PM | |
 PurpleInkis crazy about vending  1,967 Posts 1,040 Achievements |
 People feed bears at Yellowstone. Bears equate people with yummy, yummy food. Bears feel hungry and go to where people are and look for food. Bears find food in the form of people. So, not necessarily did these bears feel that they were threatened. It's pretty likely they are so used to people feeding them, their hunger drove them to where they could easily get a meal. So, no, the bears should not be punished for following their instinct. But, of course, they will be because man feels like he must be able to control all beasts. And apparently bears should know better than to eat people. Riiight. |
| #29 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 4:17 PM | |
| Whitemoon is a Mirage  2,506 Posts 705 Achievements |
That's why I find putting wild animals off just because they get aggresive, or because their condition - it's just as cruel as bullfighting. P.S.: Is there a topic about bullfighting in these forums? |
| #30 :: July 31st, 2010 @ 7:20 PM | |
| Margarita 9,140 Posts 612 Achievements |
Exactly. While I don't like camping, I realize a lot of people do. There are plenty of places to go that isn't in grizzly bear country. I guess I just don't understand how you go into a wild animal's home and be surprised it feels threatened. And like you said, humans are stupid. You'd think we'd learn to not go into bear territory because people get attacked. Yeah, it is a tiny percent chance of happening but still And I do not believe there is a bullfighting topic. There was legalized dog breed debate sometime ago.
|
| #31 :: August 2nd, 2010 @ 7:21 AM | |
| BlocksBlocksBlocks The Doctor  1,600 Posts 717 Achievements |
Quote By @Lexus: I think relocation isn't an option with a man killer because there's less and less places where animals such as those can live out their lives free of human interference. Humans are just....every Loving where. That's a really good point. (And one of the many reasons I support VHEMT.) But if we're assuming that human lives deserve to be saved, I don't think killing this bear was wrong. Some animals are simply fond of slaughtering people and can't be stopped without guns. If you don't believe the bear deserves to die in order to save the lives of humans -- including zookeepers and park rangers -- you're privileging animal lives over human lives. I want humans to go extinct but even I don't want to see people torn apart by bears. Last Edit by:
BlocksBlocksBlocks 8/02/10 - 7:21:33 am
|
| #32 :: August 2nd, 2010 @ 8:58 AM | |
| Vivian Subeta Luva  59 Posts 66 Achievements |
Ugh. I totally agree. It's wrong to go hunt down an animal for something like that. Over the years I've learned that animals never do things unprovoked. If the bear attacked those people it's because it felt threatened or because humans were beginning to take over its territory or maybe its had a bad experience with humans in the past. Animals just don't do things for 'no reason'. As humans, we cut down trees, destroy habitats, and build our homes on the homes of animals. And then we for some reason expect these animals to just get up and move elsewhere. WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO? idiots. You just think they're peacefully going to coexist with us? How can you get mad at the geese eating on your lawn or the squirrel in your tree when they were there first? People are just dumb. "Some animals are simply fond of slaughtering people and can't be stopped without guns." ^ how about relocation? you can't say that one particular species is "fond of slaughtering people". Like I said, animals don't kill without reason. Last Edit by:
Vivian 8/02/10 - 9:00:19 am
|
| #33 :: August 2nd, 2010 @ 2:16 PM | |
| Athens is a Skilled Hooker 3,727 Posts 649 Achievements |
I want humans to go extinct Same  And I don't think its about fondness....I think its more the fact that some animals learn that humans are the EASIEST prey out there. The only thing we really have over animals is our brains but lately the people I've been encountering..don't even seem to have that 
|
| #34 :: August 2nd, 2010 @ 11:59 PM | |
| ELVIS Junior Archaeologist  957 Posts 333 Achievements |
 I believe in this case that the action taken was acceptable. While it is upsetting to know that a creature had to be harmed, it was the best procedure. The bears were not provoked and that is the biggest reason why I feel that such action should be taken. It would be one thing if the people injured had been threatening or harming the bear because then the bear's action would have been justified and reasonable. However, they were attacking a campsite outside of the park at night. And at their current location, the bears stood as a threat towards residents of a town. Also, they are only going to euthanize the mother, not the cubs.
|
| #35 :: August 3rd, 2010 @ 12:20 AM | |
KitteyCat1010 2,012 Posts 561 Achievements |
@Margarita
If it was unprovoked, move the momma and the baby bears to another location were humans cannot go in. If their bullcrapting and it was provoked, then tell the people to stfu and go on with their lives. The way I see it, a mother bear is one animal you want to love with if your suicidal. They are one of the most protective freaking animals EVER and even I wouldn't step a hundred feet from a mother bear and her cubs, I would pet a lion if I had the chance. I'm just throwing my two cents in because I feel I should mention that mother bears DON'T know reasoning, all they know is love, protect, hunt, and teach.
|
| #36 :: August 3rd, 2010 @ 10:01 AM | |
| Margarita 9,140 Posts 612 Achievements |
But you're provoking the bears just by being there. You are in their home. Like you said, mother bears don't know reasoning. They smell and see you, they are going to think their cubs are in danger. Why should wild animals have to change for humans? Why can't humans say, "Gee, this is a grizzly bear home. Perhaps it would be better for me to go camping elsewhere?"
|
| #37 :: August 3rd, 2010 @ 5:16 PM | |
| KitteyCat1010 2,012 Posts 561 Achievements |
@Margarita
Well, that's true as well. You'd think because of our brain development we would be smart enough to think of that. I have officially declared myself an alien because I don't want to be a human = /. Animals were here WAAAAAAAAAAY before ANY human EVER was, why can't we work around that?
|
| #38 :: August 3rd, 2010 @ 7:46 PM | |
| COLT Do you have a life?  6,321 Posts 237 Achievements |
|
| #39 :: August 4th, 2010 @ 12:01 AM | |
| Ezeku Blabbermouth  910 Posts 72 Achievements |
... You know humans are animals, right? XD To 'aliens', we're just a particularly controlling species of mammal that considers ourselves above other evolutions. BUT, that is entirely beside the point. My opinion is pretty much the same as the majority of the board; If you don't want to get eaten by a bear, don't go camping in bear country. If you do, and you get eaten by a bear, don't blame the bear, blame your dumbass for setting up a tent right in the middle of its territory. While I agree that the bear shouldn't have been left alone once it associated people with food, I don't think it should have been killed and had its cubs taken off to a zoo. That part just baffles me.
|
| #40 :: August 4th, 2010 @ 12:11 AM | |
| Rinoa is a Time Lord  4,525 Posts 499 Achievements |
  why go camping in bear territory ESPECIALLY at this time of year!! Bear cubs are active this time of year. This bear was only being a mother and not taking chances. If my mama saw some weird beings that could possibly hurt me she wouldn't just sit by and do nothing!
|
© 2006-2013 Agoge, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
About Subeta | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Link Back | Apply for Staff | Rules
Use of this site signifies your acceptance of the Terms and Conditions