Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
03-18-2007, 03:07 PM
#72
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 217
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: Killer_Primate
Is my thinking too deep on this subject? I'll think about that, because sometimes it is.
My question to you is; Is your thinking too shallow on this subject?
Is my thinking too deep on this subject? I'll think about that, because sometimes it is.
My question to you is; Is your thinking too shallow on this subject?
No one needs to be criticized for their spelling, this isnt third grade or a spelling bee.
I remember a childhood story where a character was raised by wolves and they accepted him as one of their own. Mabye you should try that Killer Primate. Send me an E-postcard!!
03-18-2007, 05:38 PM
#73
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Northern Idaho!
Posts: 103
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: MinnFinn
I'm glad you called Mr. KP (kitchen patrol) on this arrogant use of language. I didn't like that..
A very well spoken thought outresponse you gaveFB44. (One off the subject question. Were there really 43 others with the name "Fuzzyballs" before you?
)
ORIGINAL: Fuzzyballs44
Being disgusted with the "infestation" of human beings on the planet is a fairly selfish and ignorant rant. If it means that much to you...then help us out by not procreating and start a suicide cult. Basically what your saying is...I'm better than the whole of the population and I should be here to pass on my genes; but the rest of you need to stop doing that.......
~Cam
Being disgusted with the "infestation" of human beings on the planet is a fairly selfish and ignorant rant. If it means that much to you...then help us out by not procreating and start a suicide cult. Basically what your saying is...I'm better than the whole of the population and I should be here to pass on my genes; but the rest of you need to stop doing that.......
~Cam
I'm glad you called Mr. KP (kitchen patrol) on this arrogant use of language. I didn't like that..
A very well spoken thought outresponse you gaveFB44. (One off the subject question. Were there really 43 others with the name "Fuzzyballs" before you?
)
Killer Primate: Disregarding the spelling and the grammatical errors (trader compared to traitor), your thoughts are too shallow to be deep. You basically are taking a viewpoint that is simple, but trying to add a lot of useless words to make you sound more intelligent that what is reality.
If you are so interested at sounding smart and pushing your closed minded and liberal views on everyone, then go join up in the democratic homepage and have conversations with people like yourself
03-23-2007, 07:40 PM
#74
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West. Though I do think they are gorgeous animals that have a right to exist and that as humans, we are their wardens and are responsible for their management as a species, since we've decided to live in their habitat and nearly brought them to extinction. I'm not familiar with the legal pitfalls mentioned or the issue of the quality of fencing etc etc.
But I do have an oppinion on a couple of things I saw on this thread.
One is that regardless of what anyone would like to admint, humans tend to completely exploit their environment and many folks have an utter lack of regard for preserving habitat or the species that hunter's enjoy harvesting - the $ talks most of the time, so if its lumber, or electric plants that dump mecury into our streams or settlers in the west that slaughtered (wholesale) all manner of buffalo, wolves bears, puma etc... its selfish human interest that most often guides our actions. Whether its wolves, spotted owls or bald eagles, humans' greed ruled the day.
Hunters, campers and ecologist have been the primary source of conservation - something all of us that love the wilderness benefit from.
And yet, I see posts advocating 'gut shots' to critically wound an animal which will die several days later. How is this even remotely ethical or 'hunter-like'? Its about the least honorable thing I have ever heard of. I sure hope none of the moderators are really into preservation of wolves, because they could easily forward that post and the person's IP address to federal authorities for investigation...
So, I guess while I really have no personal interest in wolves in Co, ID, etc, I guess as a person who understands history, human nature and our tendancy to cut an ecological swath through whatever environment we live in, it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
An interesting thing to note, its not just we of European descent are not the only wasters and destroyers; North America had tigers, lions, camels and many other species; The Clovis Indians killed most of them - the rest starved when their food source was hunted into extinction - by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event
Anyway, as with any board, this one seems to have noise. Its good to know not all hunters advocate maiming and torturing an animal by FMJ poor shot placement.
Happy Hunting!
But I do have an oppinion on a couple of things I saw on this thread.
One is that regardless of what anyone would like to admint, humans tend to completely exploit their environment and many folks have an utter lack of regard for preserving habitat or the species that hunter's enjoy harvesting - the $ talks most of the time, so if its lumber, or electric plants that dump mecury into our streams or settlers in the west that slaughtered (wholesale) all manner of buffalo, wolves bears, puma etc... its selfish human interest that most often guides our actions. Whether its wolves, spotted owls or bald eagles, humans' greed ruled the day.
Hunters, campers and ecologist have been the primary source of conservation - something all of us that love the wilderness benefit from.
And yet, I see posts advocating 'gut shots' to critically wound an animal which will die several days later. How is this even remotely ethical or 'hunter-like'? Its about the least honorable thing I have ever heard of. I sure hope none of the moderators are really into preservation of wolves, because they could easily forward that post and the person's IP address to federal authorities for investigation...
So, I guess while I really have no personal interest in wolves in Co, ID, etc, I guess as a person who understands history, human nature and our tendancy to cut an ecological swath through whatever environment we live in, it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
An interesting thing to note, its not just we of European descent are not the only wasters and destroyers; North America had tigers, lions, camels and many other species; The Clovis Indians killed most of them - the rest starved when their food source was hunted into extinction - by man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event
Anyway, as with any board, this one seems to have noise. Its good to know not all hunters advocate maiming and torturing an animal by FMJ poor shot placement.
Happy Hunting!
03-23-2007, 08:38 PM
#75
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: SeraphG
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
You also are incorrect in your assumption that those of us who do live in country where there are high concentrations of Gray Wolves that we want to "exterminate" them. You've made the same error that so many other people with generally "good intentions" make. You assume you value wolves or other wild animals more than we do. Wrong sir. Iand most others who do live in wolf country don't want to totally eliminate them. We do however want and deserve a say in how they are managed for our mutual benefit. So many people who don't have wolves in their backyards (literally) think it's great to have an unlimited number of them in someone else's backyard.
You've forgotten, at least in northern Minnesota woodlands, we've had Gray (or as they call them here Timber) Wolves all along. We didn't exterminate them or other species like the folks in many other states including your own did many years back. So, be a little humble before you cast the stone at us about "selfish gain".
And the last thing. I do personally know several people who have been chased by WILD wolves. Two loggersmy brother logs withhad to climb their loader trucks and stayed there of 20-30 min. before they left them. Anothera hunter who had to climb a tree.Also, myuncle who spent more years hunting, fishing, working in the woods than I've lived told about several occasions in the winter when he made large loops deer hunting to come back and find wolves had tracked him.
Indians in Canada have documented wolves attacking. One of the outdoors mags recently published the experience of hunters in Idaho with dogs who had their dogs cornered with them and nearly all dogs killed with the hunters narrowly missing the same fate.
What on Earth makes people think that wild large predators such as bears, mtn. lions and wolves won't in some cases attack people. The only thing that prevents wolves in some areas from being less likelyto threaten peopleis when they have been hunted (e.g. Alaska, Canada). In MN and other lower 48 states that havewolves they don't have the fear of man, because these animals have never been hunted.
I think Gray Wolves are amazing predators, too. They are powerful and big enough to take down health bucks and even moose here. But I also believe that humans have a role in nature to responsibly manage their population. I ask you to respect that view of us in states where wild wolves live, too.
03-23-2007, 10:03 PM
#77
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: MinnFinn
You're right, as most of the people who've forced the policy of "no wolf managment" by state wildlife departments, but rather federal "officials" and wolf "experts" who've read and written a whole lot about the animal they've spent little time around... you don't have experience with them.
You also are incorrect in your assumption that those of us who do live in country where there are high concentrations of Gray Wolves that we want to "exterminate" them. You've made the same error that so many other people with generally "good intentions" make. You assume you value wolves or other wild animals more than we do. Wrong sir. Iand most others who do live in wolf country don't want to totally eliminate them. We do however want and deserve a say in how they are managed for our mutual benefit. So many people who don't have wolves in their backyards (literally) think it's great to have an unlimited number of them in someone else's backyard.
You've forgotten, at least in northern Minnesota woodlands, we've had Gray (or as they call them here Timber) Wolves all along. We didn't exterminate them or other species like the folks in many other states including your own did many years back. So, be a little humble before you cast the stone at us about "selfish gain".
And the last thing. I do personally know several people who have been chased by WILD wolves. Two loggersmy bother logs withhad to climb their loader trucks and stayed there of 20-30 min. before they left them. Anothera hunter who had to climb a tree.Also, myuncle who spent more years hunting, fishing, working in the woods than I've lived told about several occasions in the winter when he made large loops deer hunting to come back and find wolves had tracked him.
Indians in Canada have documented wolves attacking. One of the outdoors mags recently published the experience of hunters in Idaho with dogs who had their dogs cornered with them and nearly all dogs killed with the hunters narrowly missing the same fate.
What on Earth makes people think that wild large predators such as bears, mtn. lions and wolves won't in some cases attack people. The only thing that prevents wolves in some areas from being less likelyto threaten peopleis when they have been hunted (e.g. Alaska, Canada). In MN and other lower 48 states that havewolves they don't have the fear of man, because these animals have never been hunted.
I think Gray Wolves are amazing predators, too. They are powerful and big enough to take down health bucks and even moose here. But I also believe than humans have a role in nature to responsibly manage their population. I ask you to respect that view of us in states where wild wolves live, too.
ORIGINAL: SeraphG
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
You also are incorrect in your assumption that those of us who do live in country where there are high concentrations of Gray Wolves that we want to "exterminate" them. You've made the same error that so many other people with generally "good intentions" make. You assume you value wolves or other wild animals more than we do. Wrong sir. Iand most others who do live in wolf country don't want to totally eliminate them. We do however want and deserve a say in how they are managed for our mutual benefit. So many people who don't have wolves in their backyards (literally) think it's great to have an unlimited number of them in someone else's backyard.
You've forgotten, at least in northern Minnesota woodlands, we've had Gray (or as they call them here Timber) Wolves all along. We didn't exterminate them or other species like the folks in many other states including your own did many years back. So, be a little humble before you cast the stone at us about "selfish gain".
And the last thing. I do personally know several people who have been chased by WILD wolves. Two loggersmy bother logs withhad to climb their loader trucks and stayed there of 20-30 min. before they left them. Anothera hunter who had to climb a tree.Also, myuncle who spent more years hunting, fishing, working in the woods than I've lived told about several occasions in the winter when he made large loops deer hunting to come back and find wolves had tracked him.
Indians in Canada have documented wolves attacking. One of the outdoors mags recently published the experience of hunters in Idaho with dogs who had their dogs cornered with them and nearly all dogs killed with the hunters narrowly missing the same fate.
What on Earth makes people think that wild large predators such as bears, mtn. lions and wolves won't in some cases attack people. The only thing that prevents wolves in some areas from being less likelyto threaten peopleis when they have been hunted (e.g. Alaska, Canada). In MN and other lower 48 states that havewolves they don't have the fear of man, because these animals have never been hunted.
I think Gray Wolves are amazing predators, too. They are powerful and big enough to take down health bucks and even moose here. But I also believe than humans have a role in nature to responsibly manage their population. I ask you to respect that view of us in states where wild wolves live, too.
Bears obviously attack people - BUT every case I have ever read about is not man-eating (i.e. a learned preference for man-flesh), but rather extreme starvation or being startled and humans having come upon them suddenly. A bear's 'personal space' is something like 100 yards. All attacks except for the starvation cases I've read were people stumbling WELL into that range. There are exceptions I'm sure.
Pumas have an immense prey drive and will definitely attack - ususally bikers and joggers pay the heaviest price, but I've seen video taken by a warden of a nuisance cougar carrying off someone's german shepherd. Not pretty. And yet, those instances are still relatively rare.
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'm just sharing information that is statistical, and of an expert nature (wolves being shy, hybrids and once-captive wolves being introduced into the wild contributing LARGELY to the boldness in wolves etc.) European wolves, you know - the ones that don't exist anymore because they were hunted into extinction? Those wolves were a different breed- they were truly terrors. Read on it and you'll hear account after account of wolves jumping right into campsites and taking off with (mostly) children or perhaps even women.
Are wolves becoming a problem? Maybe - I have no idea. But I never said anything about that - that wasn't my post. My post basically said
'Even if they are a problem, law is law and ethics are ethics. Shooting an animal sadistically to avoid jail time because you want to shoot it is (IMHO) wrong. And currently, the law agrees with me.'
If someone thinks its cool to wound an animal or preemptively kill an animal because its a predator I guess that's thier perogative - but most people are going to judge them harshly I think. Its excessive. Its cruel and its cowardly - they should take the clean shot like a man and risk their punishment by law. If its a principle, stand by it. Otherwise its just kind of snivelling. Personally, I think the 'principle' behind some of this stuff (see coyote story below) is just a cover - some people are just deep down cruel and maybe dig hurting things. but that's not really accepted in our society. So they justify it with 'principles'. But that's just my oppinion. Who knows?
But anyway, as I stated before, my commentary was on the brutalitly in some of the posts - I made no assumptions about anyone's conservationism - I merely pointed out that we (as a species) hunt things into extinction, destroy habitats and tend to react to predators in our expansions with hostility. You dig wolves? Cool. You dont wanna kill them all? Bravo. But by some of the 'Our granddaddies done good' and 'shoot em in the guts' type posts, well.... to me, that's not very species friendly, responsible, civilized, nature-friendly or even remotely balanced.
I'm actually kind of confused why you took offense. If you didn't spew any sort irresponsible, unethical hate, I doubt I was commenting on anything you've said =)
This thread sort of reminds me of a thread I read once about coyotes - a genuine nuisance in many areas. This one guy, thinking that everyone would be impressed, started telling all of these horrible ways he's killed coyotes (running them over with a snowmobile- a slow death apparently, trapping and then setting dogs on them, shooting them to wound and then toying with them etc). It just made him look like a pycho. But some of the comments were in the affirmative.
And it made me wonder, 'These are the guys that are wrap themselves in their conservation self-righteousness and trumpet all of the good they do for the environment and dog environmentalists for 'not understanding how things really are', and they are laughing about brutalizing a sentient, feeling animal. Aren't they supposed to be about taking the clean shot and minimizing suffering? That's what all of the pro-hunting literature and folks I've ever talked to say.'
I just think its interesting what people will admit to when the internet makes them annonymous =)
EDIT - I should also state that I agree with you - if they need culling, then someone needs to make that part of the management process. That's perfectly reasonable to me. Shooting an animal to bleed out over two days though, or eradicating it wholesale, that's where I tend to scratch my head and wonder at folks. I learned alot from this thread btw and its prompted me to read up on some of these issues =)
03-29-2007, 12:26 PM
#78
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,394
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: SeraphG
I haven't assumed anything - I was referring to the posts that people put into their own words. As to people being attacked, again, where is the documentation - there are plenty of people that could be stalked and killed- but wolves (at least if you talk to actual experts or read their accounts) are shy by nature and will avoid man. Now if man happens to bring a canid into their area well... that's just kind of asking for trouble. I'm not gonna take a dog to Alaska either - bears would eat that bon-bon outright....
Bears obviously attack people - BUT every case I have ever read about is not man-eating (i.e. a learned preference for man-flesh), but rather extreme starvation or being startled and humans having come upon them suddenly. A bear's 'personal space' is something like 100 yards. All attacks except for the starvation cases I've read were people stumbling WELL into that range. There are exceptions I'm sure.
Pumas have an immense prey drive and will definitely attack - ususally bikers and joggers pay the heaviest price, but I've seen video taken by a warden of a nuisance cougar carrying off someone's german shepherd. Not pretty. And yet, those instances are still relatively rare.
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'm just sharing information that is statistical, and of an expert nature (wolves being shy, hybrids and once-captive wolves being introduced into the wild contributing LARGELY to the boldness in wolves etc.) European wolves, you know - the ones that don't exist anymore because they were hunted into extinction? Those wolves were a different breed- they were truly terrors. Read on it and you'll hear account after account of wolves jumping right into campsites and taking off with (mostly) children or perhaps even women.
Are wolves becoming a problem? Maybe - I have no idea. But I never said anything about that - that wasn't my post. My post basically said
'Even if they are a problem, law is law and ethics are ethics. Shooting an animal sadistically to avoid jail time because you want to shoot it is (IMHO) wrong. And currently, the law agrees with me.'
If someone thinks its cool to wound an animal or preemptively kill an animal because its a predator I guess that's thier perogative - but most people are going to judge them harshly I think. Its excessive. Its cruel and its cowardly - they should take the clean shot like a man and risk their punishment by law. If its a principle, stand by it. Otherwise its just kind of snivelling. Personally, I think the 'principle' behind some of this stuff (see coyote story below) is just a cover - some people are just deep down cruel and maybe dig hurting things. but that's not really accepted in our society. So they justify it with 'principles'. But that's just my oppinion. Who knows?
But anyway, as I stated before, my commentary was on the brutalitly in some of the posts - I made no assumptions about anyone's conservationism - I merely pointed out that we (as a species) hunt things into extinction, destroy habitats and tend to react to predators in our expansions with hostility. You dig wolves? Cool. You dont wanna kill them all? Bravo. But by some of the 'Our granddaddies done good' and 'shoot em in the guts' type posts, well.... to me, that's not very species friendly, responsible, civilized, nature-friendly or even remotely balanced.
I'm actually kind of confused why you took offense. If you didn't spew any sort irresponsible, unethical hate, I doubt I was commenting on anything you've said =)
This thread sort of reminds me of a thread I read once about coyotes - a genuine nuisance in many areas. This one guy, thinking that everyone would be impressed, started telling all of these horrible ways he's killed coyotes (running them over with a snowmobile- a slow death apparently, trapping and then setting dogs on them, shooting them to wound and then toying with them etc). It just made him look like a pycho. But some of the comments were in the affirmative.
And it made me wonder, 'These are the guys that are wrap themselves in their conservation self-righteousness and trumpet all of the good they do for the environment and dog environmentalists for 'not understanding how things really are', and they are laughing about brutalizing a sentient, feeling animal. Aren't they supposed to be about taking the clean shot and minimizing suffering? That's what all of the pro-hunting literature and folks I've ever talked to say.'
I just think its interesting what people will admit to when the internet makes them annonymous =)
EDIT - I should also state that I agree with you - if they need culling, then someone needs to make that part of the management process. That's perfectly reasonable to me. Shooting an animal to bleed out over two days though, or eradicating it wholesale, that's where I tend to scratch my head and wonder at folks. I learned alot from this thread btw and its prompted me to read up on some of these issues =)
ORIGINAL: MinnFinn
You're right, as most of the people who've forced the policy of "no wolf managment" by state wildlife departments, but rather federal "officials" and wolf "experts" who've read and written a whole lot about the animal they've spent little time around... you don't have experience with them.
You also are incorrect in your assumption that those of us who do live in country where there are high concentrations of Gray Wolves that we want to "exterminate" them. You've made the same error that so many other people with generally "good intentions" make. You assume you value wolves or other wild animals more than we do. Wrong sir. Iand most others who do live in wolf country don't want to totally eliminate them. We do however want and deserve a say in how they are managed for our mutual benefit. So many people who don't have wolves in their backyards (literally) think it's great to have an unlimited number of them in someone else's backyard.
You've forgotten, at least in northern Minnesota woodlands, we've had Gray (or as they call them here Timber) Wolves all along. We didn't exterminate them or other species like the folks in many other states including your own did many years back. So, be a little humble before you cast the stone at us about "selfish gain".
And the last thing. I do personally know several people who have been chased by WILD wolves. Two loggersmy bother logs withhad to climb their loader trucks and stayed there of 20-30 min. before they left them. Anothera hunter who had to climb a tree.Also, myuncle who spent more years hunting, fishing, working in the woods than I've lived told about several occasions in the winter when he made large loops deer hunting to come back and find wolves had tracked him.
Indians in Canada have documented wolves attacking. One of the outdoors mags recently published the experience of hunters in Idaho with dogs who had their dogs cornered with them and nearly all dogs killed with the hunters narrowly missing the same fate.
What on Earth makes people think that wild large predators such as bears, mtn. lions and wolves won't in some cases attack people. The only thing that prevents wolves in some areas from being less likelyto threaten peopleis when they have been hunted (e.g. Alaska, Canada). In MN and other lower 48 states that havewolves they don't have the fear of man, because these animals have never been hunted.
I think Gray Wolves are amazing predators, too. They are powerful and big enough to take down health bucks and even moose here. But I also believe than humans have a role in nature to responsibly manage their population. I ask you to respect that view of us in states where wild wolves live, too.
ORIGINAL: SeraphG
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
I'm on east coast, so I have no oppinion or experience on wolves encroaching upon people out West.....
it is disturbing to me to think that there are still people that would rather destroy a species for selfish personal reasons than try to manage it effectively and try to co-exist. I have found only one truly verifiable attack of *WILD* wolves on humans; most of the attacks recorded, upon further investigation are actually captive wolves that children or others get too close to their chain. So 'people are getting attacked' is not really going to hold water with most people as a viable reason to shoot them - it simply isn't happening. And for my part, I think most or all of the 'I got ambushed and had to kill this wolf at point blank range' stories are unreliable - people will poach ANYTHING and it seems to me that without witnesses, it sounds like they happened upon a wolf on their property and took the shot.
...
You also are incorrect in your assumption that those of us who do live in country where there are high concentrations of Gray Wolves that we want to "exterminate" them. You've made the same error that so many other people with generally "good intentions" make. You assume you value wolves or other wild animals more than we do. Wrong sir. Iand most others who do live in wolf country don't want to totally eliminate them. We do however want and deserve a say in how they are managed for our mutual benefit. So many people who don't have wolves in their backyards (literally) think it's great to have an unlimited number of them in someone else's backyard.
You've forgotten, at least in northern Minnesota woodlands, we've had Gray (or as they call them here Timber) Wolves all along. We didn't exterminate them or other species like the folks in many other states including your own did many years back. So, be a little humble before you cast the stone at us about "selfish gain".
And the last thing. I do personally know several people who have been chased by WILD wolves. Two loggersmy bother logs withhad to climb their loader trucks and stayed there of 20-30 min. before they left them. Anothera hunter who had to climb a tree.Also, myuncle who spent more years hunting, fishing, working in the woods than I've lived told about several occasions in the winter when he made large loops deer hunting to come back and find wolves had tracked him.
Indians in Canada have documented wolves attacking. One of the outdoors mags recently published the experience of hunters in Idaho with dogs who had their dogs cornered with them and nearly all dogs killed with the hunters narrowly missing the same fate.
What on Earth makes people think that wild large predators such as bears, mtn. lions and wolves won't in some cases attack people. The only thing that prevents wolves in some areas from being less likelyto threaten peopleis when they have been hunted (e.g. Alaska, Canada). In MN and other lower 48 states that havewolves they don't have the fear of man, because these animals have never been hunted.
I think Gray Wolves are amazing predators, too. They are powerful and big enough to take down health bucks and even moose here. But I also believe than humans have a role in nature to responsibly manage their population. I ask you to respect that view of us in states where wild wolves live, too.
Bears obviously attack people - BUT every case I have ever read about is not man-eating (i.e. a learned preference for man-flesh), but rather extreme starvation or being startled and humans having come upon them suddenly. A bear's 'personal space' is something like 100 yards. All attacks except for the starvation cases I've read were people stumbling WELL into that range. There are exceptions I'm sure.
Pumas have an immense prey drive and will definitely attack - ususally bikers and joggers pay the heaviest price, but I've seen video taken by a warden of a nuisance cougar carrying off someone's german shepherd. Not pretty. And yet, those instances are still relatively rare.
Again, I'm not an expert, so I'm just sharing information that is statistical, and of an expert nature (wolves being shy, hybrids and once-captive wolves being introduced into the wild contributing LARGELY to the boldness in wolves etc.) European wolves, you know - the ones that don't exist anymore because they were hunted into extinction? Those wolves were a different breed- they were truly terrors. Read on it and you'll hear account after account of wolves jumping right into campsites and taking off with (mostly) children or perhaps even women.
Are wolves becoming a problem? Maybe - I have no idea. But I never said anything about that - that wasn't my post. My post basically said
'Even if they are a problem, law is law and ethics are ethics. Shooting an animal sadistically to avoid jail time because you want to shoot it is (IMHO) wrong. And currently, the law agrees with me.'
If someone thinks its cool to wound an animal or preemptively kill an animal because its a predator I guess that's thier perogative - but most people are going to judge them harshly I think. Its excessive. Its cruel and its cowardly - they should take the clean shot like a man and risk their punishment by law. If its a principle, stand by it. Otherwise its just kind of snivelling. Personally, I think the 'principle' behind some of this stuff (see coyote story below) is just a cover - some people are just deep down cruel and maybe dig hurting things. but that's not really accepted in our society. So they justify it with 'principles'. But that's just my oppinion. Who knows?
But anyway, as I stated before, my commentary was on the brutalitly in some of the posts - I made no assumptions about anyone's conservationism - I merely pointed out that we (as a species) hunt things into extinction, destroy habitats and tend to react to predators in our expansions with hostility. You dig wolves? Cool. You dont wanna kill them all? Bravo. But by some of the 'Our granddaddies done good' and 'shoot em in the guts' type posts, well.... to me, that's not very species friendly, responsible, civilized, nature-friendly or even remotely balanced.
I'm actually kind of confused why you took offense. If you didn't spew any sort irresponsible, unethical hate, I doubt I was commenting on anything you've said =)
This thread sort of reminds me of a thread I read once about coyotes - a genuine nuisance in many areas. This one guy, thinking that everyone would be impressed, started telling all of these horrible ways he's killed coyotes (running them over with a snowmobile- a slow death apparently, trapping and then setting dogs on them, shooting them to wound and then toying with them etc). It just made him look like a pycho. But some of the comments were in the affirmative.
And it made me wonder, 'These are the guys that are wrap themselves in their conservation self-righteousness and trumpet all of the good they do for the environment and dog environmentalists for 'not understanding how things really are', and they are laughing about brutalizing a sentient, feeling animal. Aren't they supposed to be about taking the clean shot and minimizing suffering? That's what all of the pro-hunting literature and folks I've ever talked to say.'
I just think its interesting what people will admit to when the internet makes them annonymous =)
EDIT - I should also state that I agree with you - if they need culling, then someone needs to make that part of the management process. That's perfectly reasonable to me. Shooting an animal to bleed out over two days though, or eradicating it wholesale, that's where I tend to scratch my head and wonder at folks. I learned alot from this thread btw and its prompted me to read up on some of these issues =)
It is so nice to have someone here who can see. I was surrounded by PIGS for so long in here I didn't come back for a while. Nice posts, well written. They'll gang up on you, but it doesn't mean that they're not fools.
Kind of reminds me of an old saying about "not many things more dangerous than crowd full of ......"
What was it again...
Anyway, good to hear your point, and I’m glad someone else is able to recognize the impacts of man, along with the associated responsibility and accountability of our actions.
Respectfully,
KP
03-29-2007, 06:37 PM
#79
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Idaho
Posts: 144
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
is it just me or is it a little funny that people of another opinionyou call"pigs"and "fools" and then end your post
"respectfully"
very respectful and mature i might add
ORIGINAL: Killer_Primate
SeraphG,
It is so nice to have someone here who can see. I was surrounded by PIGS for so long in here I didn't come back for a while. Nice posts, well written. They'll gang up on you, but it doesn't mean that they're not fools.
Kind of reminds me of an old saying about "not many things more dangerous than crowd full of ......"
What was it again...
Anyway, good to hear your point, and I’m glad someone else is able to recognize the impacts of man, along with the associated responsibility and accountability of our actions.
Respectfully,
KP
SeraphG,
It is so nice to have someone here who can see. I was surrounded by PIGS for so long in here I didn't come back for a while. Nice posts, well written. They'll gang up on you, but it doesn't mean that they're not fools.
Kind of reminds me of an old saying about "not many things more dangerous than crowd full of ......"
What was it again...
Anyway, good to hear your point, and I’m glad someone else is able to recognize the impacts of man, along with the associated responsibility and accountability of our actions.
Respectfully,
KP
03-30-2007, 09:13 AM
#80
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,394
RE: Wolves: Mother's Nature's Revenge
ORIGINAL: caselesss5
is it just me or is it a little funny that people of another opinionyou call"pigs"and "fools" and then end your post
"respectfully"
very respectful and mature i might add
is it just me or is it a little funny that people of another opinionyou call"pigs"and "fools" and then end your post
"respectfully"
very respectful and mature i might add
ORIGINAL: Killer_Primate
SeraphG,
It is so nice to have someone here who can see. I was surrounded by PIGS for so long in here I didn't come back for a while. Nice posts, well written. They'll gang up on you, but it doesn't mean that they're not fools.
Kind of reminds me of an old saying about "not many things more dangerous than crowd full of ......"
What was it again...
Anyway, good to hear your point, and I’m glad someone else is able to recognize the impacts of man, along with the associated responsibility and accountability of our actions.
Respectfully,
KP
SeraphG,
It is so nice to have someone here who can see. I was surrounded by PIGS for so long in here I didn't come back for a while. Nice posts, well written. They'll gang up on you, but it doesn't mean that they're not fools.
Kind of reminds me of an old saying about "not many things more dangerous than crowd full of ......"
What was it again...
Anyway, good to hear your point, and I’m glad someone else is able to recognize the impacts of man, along with the associated responsibility and accountability of our actions.
Respectfully,
KP
Please look at who I addressed my comment to. I did like his posts, and I respect his opinion. So I decided to close with "respectfully". I found this to be appropriate.
"Funny", you didn't address your comment to anyone. You imply that it is for me to read, I guess, since it isdirected at me. You didn't close your post either, and then comment on how I perform this function, "funny".
Disrespectfully,
KP