Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
And with this I am out of this thread..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShE27Hst_NM&feature=kp
Neat Wolf Pic
- Thread starter uclueletcharters
- Start date
Fish Assassin
Crew Member
That was great CL!
Very interesting thread. Some great studies posted and many well informed first hand experiences shared. I have friends in Park County, WY (Powell and Cody) who are ranchers, hunters, hunting guides, run B&B’s and are all conservationists. They are also actively involved in determining the impact of wolves back to Yellowstone.
My only addition is, given the human population is growing and we are the dominate species, fund the scientific community appropriately – to determine what can be done, to maintain a viable ecosystem.
Very interesting thread. Some great studies posted and many well informed first hand experiences shared. I have friends in Park County, WY (Powell and Cody) who are ranchers, hunters, hunting guides, run B&B’s and are all conservationists. They are also actively involved in determining the impact of wolves back to Yellowstone.
My only addition is, given the human population is growing and we are the dominate species, fund the scientific community appropriately – to determine what can be done, to maintain a viable ecosystem.
DVL U Know
Member
Love how throughout history we have been afraid of wolves...cause they are smart predators...sometimes smarter then us...now everyone wants to pet them and hold them up as their spirit animal, cause they are cool! Wolves don't care, they would eat you if they got a chance, they know what their job is--to be a predator.
What's our job? To restore order a system we hardly understand--good luck with that. Oh, and we did kinda log away the majority of the woods in the last 50 years...just to screw with things.
I know I am living where wolves used to range...but unlike deer wolves don't eat flowers...just pets and children and such. But a cool wolf tattoo on my chest would be cool....
What's our job? To restore order a system we hardly understand--good luck with that. Oh, and we did kinda log away the majority of the woods in the last 50 years...just to screw with things.
I know I am living where wolves used to range...but unlike deer wolves don't eat flowers...just pets and children and such. But a cool wolf tattoo on my chest would be cool....
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Wow Wolf, what an emotional statement. The has been NO recorded instance of a wolf killing a child in N. America. This is an attempt at demonising the wolf to justify killing them all.
As for “destructive”. That is a totally inappropriate adjective. Wolves are a natural operating part of the ecosystem. They do not “destroy” anything. They hunt to kill prey to feed their young. Have done for thousands of years! How could they possibly be “destroying” anything if they have been around that long.
There is one reason only that these myths are perpetuated. Wolves are competitors. We want the deer and moose and so do they. And that is the motivation for hundreds of years of ruthless killing and extermination policies. And that is truly “destructive” as others here have explained. Over grazing and over population of many of the wolves former prey animals (NOT just deer) is the result.
Nope not true. Many biologists and scientists from the U.S. wildlife service studied the issue for many year before bringing back wolves. Elk and other grazing animals were overgrazing the riparian zones and many other creatures were affected by this. Loss of domestic animals is another matter entirely and happens because ALL creatures like an easy meal – even humans. The local ranchers are compensated for their occasional losses.
Simple idea about "balance" but the wolves are in fact in balance with far more than just deer/moose populations. There are hundreds of interactions in an ecosystem, many of which we do not understand. The law of unintended consequences will happen if we say "OK we have killed X deer therefore we must kill Y wolves". It is never that simple and hundreds of other factors are at work which your simple mathematics overlooks.
I do not understand what you mean by "eat themselves out of a food supply and move on". Wolves in the wild cannot move on because all the prey habitats are divided not territories. In addition, before the white men came there were millions of bison, hundreds of thousands of caribou, and uncountable numbers of deer which sustained First Nation for centuries. When on earth did wolves “eat themselves out of a food supply”?!!
Right on C.L. Absolutely and you point shows up the fallacy of the "big bad wolf" argument. We do not kill wolves "to keep our children safe". If that were the true logic then as you say millions of dogs would have to be killed because far more "children" are killed or injured that way.
The "keep our children safe" argument is invented to justify killing a competitor and make the act seem noble and worthy. No more no less.
I would like to know your sources for this statement. Where are your studies of the predator/prey relationships is Yellowstone that prove your (wild) allegation.? How on earth can packs “grow and grow”. This is an unsubstantiated emotive statement. Last time I looked there were still Elk in Yellowstone. Very interesting three way relationship between elk, wolves and grizzlies in fact. And the few losses suffered by ranchers (compensated) is very far from “out of control”.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Absolutely right on Rovingfisherman!!
As I have said above. I would like to see your biological and scientific sources which prove that wolves “kill everything and move on”. This is in fact an unsubstantiated emotive statement which is ecologically impossible.
You keep trying to prove on “moral grounds” that wolves are “evil”. They have no motivations, morals or ideas of joy and fun as we would know that. They kill to eat. That is all. If there are number of easy kills, they make them and come back and eat later if they cannot consume all their prey in one go. Your observations do not invalidate a host of published biological data which show wolves come back to prey and will eat carrion. How long did you stay and observe? A day, a week, a month? How far were you from the carcasses??
As for ticks and parasites, those interactions have been ongoing for thousands of years, so again any that may have a real biological foundation (let’s see links to your scientific sources) are natural and in NO way a justification for killing wolves.
Of course there is a more behind “cute” predatory animals than some people realise. That is STILL no reason to demonise them and kill them indiscriminately.
Absolutely GDW. Farm animals in the way of wolves are easy prey. That is not the fault of wolves – that is the fault of us humans who choose to farm where they do. Same as the new pen fish feed lot owners who are “outraged” when seals raid their pens and believe they are justified in shooting the “nuisance” predators.
Great post Roving! But I think your logic and rationale is a bit too sophisticated for the “bang bang flops” around here!
Some good points and then the wolves eat children myth gets trotted again! Complete lies and fabrication again to demonise and justify the killing of wolves. Pets maybe, but children? - it has NEVER happened in North America.!!
More children are killed as a result of vehicular collisions with deer than by any other animal. In that sense deer are the most “dangerous” animals in North America. Another unintended consequence of removing all those predators!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Prove that wolves don't kill for fun English. You seem to think that it is impossible for them to do so. Prove that super packs (a term biologists actually came up with) can't or don't exist. Just like us humans other predators are ever adapting in this world we live in. I agree that most of the change is human caused.
Anyway this thread is way off track. Way to much emotion going on.
Nice picture for sure Uclueletcharters. Very cool to be able to snap that one
. Thanks for sharing.
Anyway this thread is way off track. Way to much emotion going on.
Nice picture for sure Uclueletcharters. Very cool to be able to snap that one
. Thanks for sharing.
Last edited by a moderator:
rovingfisherman
Active Member
Ok this is my last post on this topic...if you don't get it after this then you never will and there is really no point. Try and read the whole thing and skip the big words if you have to.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_and_moose_on_Isle_Royale
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_and_moose_on_Isle_Royale
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Prove that wolves don't kill for fun English. You seem to think that it is impossible for them to do so. Prove that super packs (a term biologists actually came up with) can't or don't exist. Just like us humans other predators are ever adapting in this world we live in. I agree that most of the change is human caused.
Anyway this thread is way off track. Way to much emotion going on.
Nice picture for sure Uclueletcharters. Very cool to be able to snap that one
Firstly since you obviously believe wolves have human emotions and do kill “for fun” I think the onus is on you to prove they have human motivations, not the other way round.
However, what I do when I hear unsubstantiated myths like “wolves kill for fun” is I check it out in the published wild life literature and articles.
Here are just a few who refute such nonsense.
The one below is a good one from an Alaskan outdoor writer and I quote:-
“The very notion that wolves kill just for the fun of it is one of the biggest myths about wolves---and one of the most inherently stupid conclusions. To make the statement, the claim, that a wild carnivore does not kill in order to eat, does not kill in order to survive---but rather kills for its own amusement---is inherently dense.”
Read the full article here. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/151633
Here are some others…..
http://www.oregonwild.org/fish_wildlife/bringing_wolves_back/wolves-misunderstood
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/do_wolves_kill_for_sport.html
http://isleroyalewolf.org/node/42
http://www.justbeings.com/#!wolves--livestock/c1ma6
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/...cle_3d52fff0-17e6-11df-91e1-001cc4c002e0.html
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...e-yellowstone-a-better-place-researchers-say/
The existence of large or “superpacks” is another question entirely and I am not sure what point you are making other than that they would need a large territory and would compete with bears, cougars, coyotes etc. for all kinds of prey
Englishman, cats kill for fun, do they not? I hardly see that as believing they have human emotions. I believe it is a fair statement to say wolf's do jump on any opportunity that comes to them to kill, whether they are hungry, or have recently fed. Some populations of prey can only handle so much predators, and in area's where humans actively hunt we throw off natures balance. There just aint enough prey around for the both of us. I for one believe in a hierarchy amongst beasts, and that our needs should be taken first, ahead of the wolfs needs.
OldShoreFisherman
Active Member
Englishman,
Would you please quit muddying the waters of bogeyman prejudices, unsubstantiated beliefs and urban legends with rational arguments and facts!
Would you please quit muddying the waters of bogeyman prejudices, unsubstantiated beliefs and urban legends with rational arguments and facts!
wolf
Well-Known Member
HAVE you ever seen a wolf in the WILD???? been near them seen what they have done i hardly doubt it I have seen they kill for fun a few times to let the meat ROT YOU run on emotions like a woman not on facts I HAVE SEEN it and witnesses it. been hunting for almost all my life in BC worse i ever saw was in the early 80s in nitnat valley when the population was really booming and they wiped out a whole hillside and dead deer were rotting everywhere and they didnt kill "the weak and the young" got some nice 5 pt antlers to prove it ....YOU dont need to find a publication for that but while you are looking find the one where there was a study on "if seals it salmon"
OldShoreFisherman
Active Member
Among other things, you might want to work on your punctuation and drop the sexist comments.
Good grief.
I would suggest it is a good time to drop this repetitive discussion.
I will say that I have known a great many ethical hunters and hunter organizations that have made a huge difference in critical species conservation and habitat purchase, restoration and protection. Hunters generally do this quietly and usually with their own money and without much of the funds wasted in high administration costs and self promotion or personal financial benefit. They do not tend to stand on street corners with a ‘look at me saving the world attitude’ while hitting the public up for money. They actually get things done and there are some species I would suggest would be in far more serious trouble without their efforts. We would also have less critical habitat such as wetlands and estuaries which benefit a great many species besides ducks, moose and fish without their efforts. Hunters spend a great deal of time in the wilderness in close proximity to many species. They value that environment and the species they hunt and protect to insure a continuation of that way of life. They have often been the first to notice systemic problems and environmental disasters in the making and been the first to fight against them and have been doing it long before it became fashionable and an industry onto itself.
I will say that I have known a great many ethical hunters and hunter organizations that have made a huge difference in critical species conservation and habitat purchase, restoration and protection. Hunters generally do this quietly and usually with their own money and without much of the funds wasted in high administration costs and self promotion or personal financial benefit. They do not tend to stand on street corners with a ‘look at me saving the world attitude’ while hitting the public up for money. They actually get things done and there are some species I would suggest would be in far more serious trouble without their efforts. We would also have less critical habitat such as wetlands and estuaries which benefit a great many species besides ducks, moose and fish without their efforts. Hunters spend a great deal of time in the wilderness in close proximity to many species. They value that environment and the species they hunt and protect to insure a continuation of that way of life. They have often been the first to notice systemic problems and environmental disasters in the making and been the first to fight against them and have been doing it long before it became fashionable and an industry onto itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
