More "wolf" news!
12-22-2004, 06:53 AM
#21
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale Arizona USA
Posts: 527
RE: More "wolf" news!
After our last few years of HUGE forest fires people began analyzing our USFS and guess what. It was infiltrated by huggers with a definite agenda of reducing and eliminating logging and closing forests to protect their pet species like the good old wolf. We need to get our elected officials to start purging that agency of individuals that push agendas that are harmful to the majority of US citizens. After the chaos blows wide open on the damage from the wolf program who will stand up from the group responsible and say they will pay to fix the damage. You won't be able to find one of those wolf huggin homos in the entire west. They will just move on to burning down new homes near their favorite hiking trails.[:@]
12-23-2004, 09:50 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Elizabeth Colo. USA
Posts: 4,413
RE: More "wolf" news!
Given an abundance of prey, predators will explode until the numbers are brought down, then starve (or spread out, which isn't really that possible in this case).
The wolf knows no boundary, they will go where the food source is. Eventually, I would guess, if left unchecked by man, there would be a growing number of "human vs. wolf" conflicts, and then and only then would the liberals agree to do some sort of "management" of the wolf, which then would be something like trying to capture and relocate, or give them shots to stop them from successfully bredding.
There has been talk of introducing the wolf in CO., but I haven't heard much about it recently. I'd like the chance to hunt them, but am realistic enough to no that from plane, or snowmobile, would be my best chance of killing one. I heard them while hunting in AK this fall, but never saw one!
12-24-2004, 09:28 PM
#23
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beautiful Western Montana
Posts: 2,308
RE: More "wolf" news!
I believe in predator elimination to a large extent. I don't mind predators around, just not in certain areas. The bigger problem is the liberal utopian dream of "returning to nature". At some point, we have to admit that we are never going to return to nature. My position is that humans do a better job then wolves of maintaining populations. We got rid of the wolves many years ago, and now USFS wants to bring them back. Why? Seriously ask yourself why. What is the point? This whole idea of returning nature to what is was is fundementally flawed for two reasons. First, we are to far along to return the wilderness back to wilderness. Should we level NYC? Should we tear out all the roads and dams? Should we eliminate the progress that we made? Of coarse not. Secondly, how does anybody define what point we are to return to? Should we return it to what it was 200 years ago? Pre-european man? What if we had the technology to re-create dinosuars should we retun it to that? I simply cannot see what advantage it is to re-introduce the wolf other then sentimental purposes. That begs the question: should we trust an oraganization that is willing to be swayed be sentiment rather then practicality? Sustaining elk populations for human sport and food is no different then raising cattle. Should we free the cattle? The earth is mans' garden, it should be protected and tended by man, not by wolves.
ORIGINAL: CalNewbie
Muley69 makes an interesting point: "Keep in mind also that population control is the heart of hunting. If the wolves can do an adequate job of controling the elk population, why even have hunters? "
Reading this and the posts with the comment "Kill a wolf and save 100 elk" got me to thinking. Assume for a moment that the wolves are established in an area (through re-introduction or natural causes) and that they reduce the elk herd to such a point that there is no "surplus" available for hunters. I suspect that there are very few subsistence hunters out there these days. Would you feel justified in eliminating the wolves for eating the elk that they need so that we can hunt elk? If nature has balanced the equation on its own, what's our moral arguement for knocking out a species just so we can have access to it? If its OK to introduce elk in Kentucky, why not wolves in Colorado?
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on that.
My opinion is that its not quite that simple, even if you shot every wolf that left Yellowstone and kept them bottled up inside. I think its more complex than that because it almost assumes that man is not part of nature. The wolf kills coyotes that compete for its food and territory that's OK, but if man kills wolves that compete for its food and territory, that's not OK? Given an abundance of prey, predators will explode until the numbers are brought down, then starve (or spread out, which isn't really that possible in this case).
Man is usually more sensible in his approach, promoting a sensible, sustainable harvest. If they want to control elk populations in Yellowstone, let hunters in (crazy talk, I know). True, we don't always agree on how, and state DNR's have a crazy balancing act But I suspect we'd all like the opportunity to try.
Muley69 makes an interesting point: "Keep in mind also that population control is the heart of hunting. If the wolves can do an adequate job of controling the elk population, why even have hunters? "
Reading this and the posts with the comment "Kill a wolf and save 100 elk" got me to thinking. Assume for a moment that the wolves are established in an area (through re-introduction or natural causes) and that they reduce the elk herd to such a point that there is no "surplus" available for hunters. I suspect that there are very few subsistence hunters out there these days. Would you feel justified in eliminating the wolves for eating the elk that they need so that we can hunt elk? If nature has balanced the equation on its own, what's our moral arguement for knocking out a species just so we can have access to it? If its OK to introduce elk in Kentucky, why not wolves in Colorado?
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on that.
My opinion is that its not quite that simple, even if you shot every wolf that left Yellowstone and kept them bottled up inside. I think its more complex than that because it almost assumes that man is not part of nature. The wolf kills coyotes that compete for its food and territory that's OK, but if man kills wolves that compete for its food and territory, that's not OK? Given an abundance of prey, predators will explode until the numbers are brought down, then starve (or spread out, which isn't really that possible in this case).
Man is usually more sensible in his approach, promoting a sensible, sustainable harvest. If they want to control elk populations in Yellowstone, let hunters in (crazy talk, I know). True, we don't always agree on how, and state DNR's have a crazy balancing act But I suspect we'd all like the opportunity to try.
12-25-2004, 06:41 PM
#24
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 815
RE: More "wolf" news!
well put muley69. I say kill em on site and leave em lay. I never thought I'd say something like this as I wont even shoot coyotes when their fur isn't prime. Matter of fact I got into it w/ my brother because he shot a badger and left it lay this year.
