shooting humans is okay, but shooting wolves is bad. It's good to know that you have a firm understanding of ethics. I'm going out right now and shooting a wolf because you insulted me. I hope you're glad that you caused a wolf to die.
what an a**.I really hate people like that, who's values are like that. If you can even CALL those values. And that's not even what they said either.
BOO.FRICKIN.HOO if you got insulted! I don't give a damn
I can proudly say that I am not a stamp of the person beside me
shooting humans is okay, but shooting wolves is bad. It's good to know that you have a firm understanding of ethics. I'm going out right now and shooting a wolf because you insulted me. I hope you're glad that you caused a wolf to die.
what an a**.I really hate people like that, who's values are like that. If you can even CALL those values. And that's not even what they said either.
BOO.FRICKIN.HOO if you got insulted! I don't give a damn
OH HELL NO! How the f*** DARE HE!
Edit: Anyone want to put this as an announcement, at least up to August 6th, so that everyone can see this and sign the petition?
A couple of people at YouTube mentioned a decrease in the elk population being the justification for this garbage, so I just debunked that. From here:
A change in the size of one population in a food chain will affect other populations.
This interdependence of the populations within a food chain helps to maintain the balance of plant and animal populations within a community. For example, when there are too many giraffes; there will be insufficient trees and shrubs for all of them to eat. Many giraffes will starve and die. Fewer giraffes means more time for the trees and shrubs to grow to maturity and multiply. Fewer giraffes also means less food is available for the lions to eat and some lions will starve to death. When there are fewer lions, the giraffe population will increase.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some w**** he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
unfortunatly for us, most people could care less what happens to the wolves. Heck, if you told most people about ti, they'd probibly agree its wrong, then never think about it again for the rest of their lives. And for some strange reason, locals in the areas witht the wolves want them all to die, wheather it be old superstitions, fear for property, whatever irrational logic. I seriously doubt the government will send aircraft out to activly kill the wolves, they might spread poision, but they would definatly have no problem declairing open season on them till they were all dead. What annoys emthe most about thiswhole situation isnt nesisaily the senseless killing of the wolves, but the fact that the governement supported the wolves recovery from endangerment, just to let them be killed off in the end anyway. It just adds to the list of retarded wastes of resources our government is so fond of commiting.
While you're at the Defenders site, if you can spare $25, please Adopt A Wolf. I did last night. $25 is within everyone's reach, just go without Starbuck's for a week.
Wolves are worth it, aren't they?
Second reading edit:
The arguments that wolves compete directly with human hunters is a fallacy. Human hunters go for medium-to-high quality prey. The vast majority of hunters consider meat in the freezer to be their "trophy" and that's okay. Very few — like 1-2% of all human hunters go for the eight-point herd bulls.
Wolves, on the other hand, concentrate their efforts on catching the slow, the old, the weak, the sick. Human hunters will pass up animals that are sick because they don't want to get sick themselves; no thanks to our ultra-sterilized domiciles. Wolves don't care because they've been eating sick animals all their lives and have better systemic tolerance than we do.
Wolves take out the genetic spikes — mature male ungulates who simply never grow branched antlers — so we should be thankful to them. We can get those 6 to 8-point stags because the 1 - 3 point stags don't cuckold the herd masters and pass their genes along.
In short: Wolves and human hunters don't compete. We prey on parallel streams of the same resource.
And it should go noted that not everyone who goes into the woods with a weapon and a slip of paper from the state game resource agency is actually going to come out dragging a 500-pound animal. Human hunter success rate is about the same to slightly lower than that of a wolf pack's.
spongypants23 wrote:So far it doesn't look like CNN is interested in doing a story on this, but then again I'm not sure how long it usually takes for a news station to take a story.
Usually they look at how "hot" it is for the intended market. News used to be informative, but even CNN has gone the route of selling commercials, then news...
RedEye: The Wulf and writer who might really be a Kitsune...
vrikasatma wrote:While you're at the Defenders site, if you can spare $25, please Adopt A Wolf. I did last night. $25 is within everyone's reach, just go without Starbuck's for a week.
Wolves are worth it, aren't they?
They definatly are.. I will adopt one when I get my next pay check
I can proudly say that I am not a stamp of the person beside me
I honestly don't have $25... But I did post this at another forum I go to, and that generated some disgruntlement (except for one person who doesn't share the view that this is necessarily a bad thing, but his reasoning seems... off), so hopefully someone over there will do so.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some w**** he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
Let's try and figure out what's going on in the Idaho governor's head. 39% of his state wants wolves gone, mostly ranchers who are fearing for their livelihood. The some 42% that want or don't mind the wolves aren't talking to him, since their protection still falls under federal regulation. So as far as he's concerned, there's plenty of people who vehemently want wolves gone and only a few who want them there, who can be passed off as treehuggers. And I have to admit, though 42% may want to keep wolves, most of them only care fleetingly. So as a politician that wants to be reelected, he has to cater to the majority's desire, and as a politician I have to admit that he's doing the right thing.
Of course, morally and environmentally I think it's terrible. I do work in a wolf rescue after all, and I know how amazing these animals are and how idiotic and inhumane it is to slaughter so many.
I'm a life member of the North American Hunting Club. They recently had a poll amongst the membership: "If the timber wolf were removed from protective status today, would you buy a license?"
The results were a sharply divided and *very* close. 51% said they would. 49% said they wouldn't.
I would also like to put out that in Alaska, you can't, by law, hunt anything else from an airplane. By law. So if you book a hunt and fly into the location, you cannot hunt that day, you can't even touch your weapon. The guide picks up your weapon at the plane and puts it away under lock and key until the next morning.
What I'm thinking is two-pronged. 1) A boycott of states that allow the hunting of wolves under this plan. Admittedly, it's not terribly much of a sacrifice because there's nothing in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming that isn't here in Oregon, so why should I drive hundreds of miles and pay for a price-inflated non-resident license for something I need only drive 100 or so miles for? And they would notice because all three states rely pretty heavily on out-of-state hunters coming in to hunt.
And 2) Giving up one deer a year for Wolf. Or going hunting one year, and stay home the next.
There's some heated debate here in Oregon about wolves in our state. They're traveling in from Idaho and state game officials think that there's a breeding pair already established here. In Eastern Oregon, there's a lot of ranchers and it's open range, so they're up in arms, but those of us west of the I-5 corridor are speaking up for them. Right now, it's pretty close numbers in the divide. It's not Idaho's argument that they're decimating (sic) the game herds, it's the old saw about wolves taking down cattle and sheep. Never mind that the government compensates ranchers for predation.
He's just trolling, he isn't going to actually do anything. Probably just a 12 year old.
"We used to laugh at Grandpa when he'd head off and go fishing. But we wouldn't be laughing that evening when he'd come back with some w**** he picked up in town."
-Jack Handey
ravaged_warrior wrote:He's just trolling, he isn't going to actually do anything. Probably just a 12 year old.
Yeah, wolves are hard to shoot. They're spookier than deer. They smell a human and take off at a flat-out run and don't stop until they've put a forest, a river and a mountain behind them.
Where's a middle schooler going to get $2500 to go to Canada to shoot a wolf?
<--- THEY PWN U
