Wolves as Endangered Species

[Neb]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: You know, this is the one thing that really gets me about this discussion. All these, lets call the group environmentalists, think we should just roll up our carpets and leave nature alone. Read this slowly and understand it: JUST BY EXISTING WE INFLUENCE NATURE! If you want nature to be left alone, lead the way: quit your job, burn your clothes, throw out all your technology (including the computer you read this message on), raze your house, then go out and live with nature. By using all the technology and manufactured goods, using medical facilities, and eating McDonalds hamburgers, paying taxes, etc, you are singlehandedly supporting the eradication of said wolves.

READ THIS SLOWLY AND UNDERSTAND IT: I never said that we should not influence nature, but neither should we just take whatever we can. We should let SOME nature be in peace. And if we remove the animals' food sources either we or our livestock become the new food sources for them, by being the only ones left.

Hmm, that would explain a few things.

Thanks for the insult, your posts shall be ignored from now on, have a nice day.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: UNTRUTH ALERT. Wolves are wild, dangerous animals. I know several people personally who have been attacked by both wolf and coyote. (Confirmed by tracks) One person in particular, would have had a dead wife if he hadn't just happened to arrive home at an unusual time. His wife was attacked leaving the car by wolves. I don't go out looking for wolves to shoot - they come to me.

This will be the last post of yours that I reply to.

Well, if they're being attacked then the wolves were probably starving or rabid. Note that, something that would make humans attack unprovokedly as well. Either that or where they lived had been placed in the middle of wolf territory, driving away the wolves' natural prey and leaving humans as the only thing to eat. You're arguing against a hell of a lot of scientists and people who have studied wolves when you're saying what you say.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Thoran Pretty much EVERY species out there would do the same thing in our position... or worse. We're the only species that would even think about the possibility that we might be going overboard with the "go forth and prosper" thing... every other one would happily breed itself into extinction without a second though. Our only hope is the big brain we have and the remote possibility that it might override our natural tendencies.

And I don´t mean to pick on you but what you´re saying makes absolutely no sense. Think on it. A wolf (or a pack) killes an elk. Do the elks turn rampageous and start hunting wolves? Yes we could eradicate every species on earth. Why don´t we then and see how long we survive after that. We could cut down every tree on earth, we´re alomst there. Again why don´t we and see how long we´ll live? If humans were supposed to be the only species on earth wouldn´t we be so already? Humans are at the moment NOT part of nature I´m sad to say. We try to control every other animal on earth. And survival of the fittest doesn´t apply to a whole world, simply within a species. That´s the whole point of Darwinism. If I were to put you unarmed in a cage with a wolf, would you survive? Darwinsim can´t cross those borders, it´s an evolutionary theory not a sheet of statistics.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If you bring up the "natural species" argument you open a can of worms that's too big for this thread. Invasive and transplanted species are so common it's impossible to trace back the roots. Corn, Horses in the Americas, lots of invasive species. It *is* a huge problem (e.g. zebra mussels, I could name two dozen others really fast) and should be seriously addressed - and there are national and international efforts to do so. If you are interested in a boring read on the topic, PM me and I'll forward you my 60-page thesis on it.

My fault. Bad choice of words. What I meant was that if we introduce livestock on wolves (or any other carnivore for that matter) territory losses must be counted with. That´s pretty much it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now I don´t believe one species has more right to live than any other. But if we are to kill wolves because they hunt our property, wouldn´t that mean we´d have to hunt a lot of other animals as well? I´m very sure bulls and cows have killed more people than wolves. OK, let´s go out and kill all the livestock, since they do more harm to humans! And to finish with a lighter point. Did you know that cows stand for approximately 0,5-1% of global warming?

[ 10-19-2002, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: Read this slowly and understand it: JUST BY EXISTING WE INFLUENCE NATURE! If you want nature to be left alone, lead the way: quit your job, burn your clothes, throw out all your technology (including the computer you read this message on), raze your house, then go out and live with nature. By using all the technology and manufactured goods, using medical facilities, and eating McDonalds hamburgers, paying taxes, etc, you are singlehandedly supporting the eradication of said wolves.

Preach It Brother Krustin Words of wisdom, worth quoting.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Neb: Well, if they're being attacked then the wolves were probably starving or rabid. Note that, something that would make humans attack unprovokedly as well. Either that or where they lived had been placed in the middle of wolf territory, driving away the wolves' natural prey and leaving humans as the only thing to eat. You're arguing against a hell of a lot of scientists and people who have studied wolves when you're saying what you say.

Neb, nothing personal, just because scientists or researchers study SOME wolves in a given area doen't mean all wolves are that way. The same thing goes for the wolves that Sir Krustin is refering too. Sir Krustin is from British Columbia, people are far from driving the wolves prey away from there. There vast areas of BC that the number humans that have "walked through" in the last 50 years can be counted on one hand. Except for around the cities, towns, and a few ski resorts BC is as wild as it was when Mammoths walked the earth.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by WillowIX: And I don´t mean to pick on you but what you´re saying makes absolutely no sense. Think on it. A wolf (or a pack) killes an elk. Do the elks turn rampageous and start hunting wolves? Yes we could eradicate every species on earth. Why don´t we then and see how long we survive after that. We could cut down every tree on earth, we´re alomst there. Again why don´t we and see how long we´ll live? If humans were supposed to be the only species on earth wouldn´t we be so already? Humans are at the moment NOT part of nature I´m sad to say. We try to control every other animal on earth. And survival of the fittest doesn´t apply to a whole world, simply within a species. That´s the whole point of Darwinism. If I were to put you unarmed in a cage with a wolf, would you survive? Darwinsim can´t cross those borders, it´s an evolutionary theory not a sheet of statistics. [/QB]

Sigh... what I said makes perfect sense, and herbivore or carnivore is totally irrelavent. A species will grow to the extent that it's possible in nature. If it were possible for elks to spread throughout the world, dominate every other life form, and in doing so somehow destroy the natural resources they're depending on for survival (causing their extinction)... THEY WOULD. They would not debate the question or have marches about how they need to do something different. They'd just eat and procreate until they were past the point of no return.

The whole "humans are not a part of nature" rubbish is another environmentalist mantra. What exactly IS nature then. Humans are as much a part of the natural world as any other species. We live by the same rules and die by the same rules (as the example you've provided illustrates contrary to your argument). Everything that we are is a part of the world, everything that we've made. Our evolution is an achievement of nature, not an abberation. Our long term survival doesn't depen on us "getting back to nature"... it depends on us as a species understanding that our survival now depends on more than the narrow rules written into an individuals base drives (survive, procreate, dominate...), there needs to be another set that does the same for societies and can somehow be communicated to and bought into by the individuals. (conserve, manage, coexist...) There's some hope, the radical environmentalists are a necessary evil... they raise the awareness of all to the problems that we SHOULD be thinking about, and in doing so are performing a valuable service.

Survival of the fittest does indeed apply across species as fully as within a species. If two similar species are competing for the same resource... who will win?

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I believe I saw that same program not long ago myself, Moni. I agree that it was very interesting and that wolves are fascinating creatures. Then again, I consider MOST animals to be fascinating. I also agree that - MOST of the time - wolves will not attack unless "provoked". But they are wild animals, and I consider ALL wild animals to be dangerous under the right circumstances. To say that wolves (or any other creature for that matter) would NEVER attack humans unless they were starved or threatened is just naive' in my opinon. Nachtrafe gave an account of just such an "unprovoked" attack, only to have his story criticized by a member who lives on another continent....yet claims to have more knowledge of what prompted the attack than the person who went through it. And to suggest that it is the farmer's fault that the wolves are attacking his animals and that he should just stand idly by as they kill the animals he depends upon for his livelihood is simply unbelievable. First off, it is very rare for ANY domesticated herd to have any "weak or old" members. They get sent to the slaughterhouse long before that happens. So the wolves are NOT doing the farmers any favors. Also, I haven't seen anybody advocate shooting a wolf for anything other than it being a threat to thier lives or livelihood, yet the "opposition" keeps "warning of the dangers of wiping out a species". Nobody here has said they hunt wolves just for sport. Personally, I am not a hunter (even though I live in the South......shhhhhh, don't tell anybody or they may kick me out). I would NEVER kill an animal for sport. I wouldn't even hunt to put food on the table unless it were absolutely necessary (which it is NOT in today's society). I have 3 uncles who were all avid hunters, but they also ate what they killed. I see nothing wrong with that...it just doesn't appeal to me. HOWEVER.....IF I were a farmer or rancher and a wolf (or wolves) were attacking my livestock, you better believe the only "relocation" I would do is putting them into the ground. I agree that MOST attacks on livestock are probably made by coyotes, rather than wolves. But whichever animal was attacking my herd, they're gonna get shot at. Are wolves truly "noble"? I don't think so. Nobility is a human trait, not a canine one. Their is a strict heirarchy in the wolfpack. The alpha male and alpha female rule the pack. Others are subservient, and the weakest are little more than slaves. They are bitten, cut, and attacked by every other member for the least little "offense". They are given nothing but the leftover scraps from the kill, which is one reason they cannot grow stronger and improve their station in the pack. Are wolves cruel, then? I don't think that's the case either. All the wolves accept the conditions of pack life. They are wolves and that's just the way things are for them. Are wolves beautiful creatures? Without a doubt....they are gorgeous. And it is their beautifully powerful features that cause us to label them as "noble". I also think Grizzly and Kodiak bears are beautiful, as well as tigers, cougars, and most other large cats. But the bottom line is that ALL these animals can be VERY dangerous....and I simply don't feel ANY animal deserves to live MORE than I do. So, if they threaten me or mine, I will defend myself. THAT is "nature's way".

Where did I ever suggest that wolves would only ever attack if they were provoked?

Where did I ever suggest that a wolf would NEVER attack a human unless it was starved or threatened?

Where did I ever suggest that it is the farmer's fault that the wolves are attacking his animals and that he should just stand idly by as they kill the animals he depends upon for his livelihood?

I never did. In any case.

...and so goes for the rest of your response, which appears as if it is all directed at me. I am not the person you seem to be arguing with in this thread and I won't tolerate your posts that are directed at me only when they contain statements I never made and opposing statements that you don't even know that I advocate or not.

This is not the first time you have directed your overall negativity over a topic at me in a thread but you need to take care that it be the last. I am not your whipping post and if I were a wolf, I'd bite you good and leave you wounded. I don't eat bad meat.

[ 10-19-2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Moni ]

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: quote: Originally posted by Moni: EDIT: and Neb is right...dog's have the potential to be more violent against man than wolves do.

The big difference between wolf and coyote (up here anyways) is wolves tend to be more fearful of humans. Coyote will walk right up to you with no fear.

But lately, even the wolves have been getting brazen...[/QUOTE]I know little to nothing about living in Canada and having to deal with these animals at my doorstep.

My original post in this thread was to confirm that wolves are indeed an endangered species in this country and that no one in the U.S. should be encouraged to hunt them and just keep quiet about it.

I can understand if you live out in the wilderness that you might have to defend yourself against wolves, coyotes, bears and mountain lions that see you as a new source of food but to hunt them for sport is murder.
Sportsmen who hunt wolves and coyotes don't even eat them do they?

(those were Arizona coyotes, not Texas coyotes...I forget that not everyone here knows I have only lived in Texas for three years and I apologize for the confusion there. I would imagine that the Texas coyotes are comparable to theose in AZ but I have yet to spend time in any of the unpopulated areas in this state to really see anything of what Texas wildlife has to offer)

From the Meriam Webster online Dictionary.

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy

The use of the term murder is incorrect whenever discussing the killing animals. As are any anthopamorphic terms. Any use of the term in relation to animals is just an attempt to evoke emmotional responses inappropriate to the subject. The term, slaughter, may be more appropriate.

I thought I was anal.
LMAO

EDIT: something outrageous or blameworthy is fitting btw..I couldn't type it out while I was laughing so hard.

[ 10-19-2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]