I say this all with the utmost respect and to clearly state I am attempting to get at a bigger picture out there in response. True, it's perhaps shadowed in a thesis practically and jumbled in a concept I'm not sure I've found 100%.
Forgive me my mistakes, please.
If you read slowly you will understand I am writing this not trying to yell or over-feed you stuff -- I'm just slowly trying to give an idea as to where I think people should try to stand and why.
By no means is it something I force on anyone. If you don't like it, forget about it then and let's all move on.
I'm simply putting this out there if you're willing to listen.
I know I wrote a lot. That's apparent. You'll get over it or die unhappy with me. Heh.
Ralith wrote:Ink wrote:While I understand what you're saying Sabre, I also don't agree with you.
Wolves have a tendency to kill more than their fair share.
Define "fair share."
Fair share: What would have been killed in the wild. Whole flocks wouldn't be rendered lifeless.
Despite what you might think they [wolves] have to live amongst us to survive. Irregardless of how wrong that seems to anybody. They'll abide by us or die by us -- it's not a game of right or wrong it's a pick or choose.
Culture will issue them a ticket for survival, but it might just be in a zoo if they demonstrate what 'wild' animals do -- bring chaos to our world. A world run by products and market value.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:There's nothing harmonious or balanced about wolves, they're animals and they have destructive habits too.
You could say the same for the same reasons about any animal, even the herbivores. But most people tend to mean 'working well with the natural system' when they say those words, and wolves do that just as well as most other creatures, and a hell of a lot better than we do.
Yes and I sort of meant it in that fashion -- Any animal. Including us. Hence the point. Most people don't understand that
'works well with nature' doesn't have anything to do with
'plays nice with others'. Hence my choice of words. The natural world is constantly at war with itself -- it's a world that's neither peaceful or noble or tragic. It's chaos, true and utter freedom. Blood baths and beauty all together in one.
Wolves are beautiful to us but to nature they can do as much damage as they can add to the picture of it. All creatures have that power.
And, to branch off a bit, judging ourselves, animals that are part of this cycle too, won't do anybody any good. It makes people angry and nothing changes. Start changing minds, get the ball moving on something else other than the old, "We're so f*** horrible!"
We can only be so terrible because we continue to attempt to live by that order and continue to live in the degrading fashion that embodies that. I don't see any of you dropping your lifestyle to go live like hunter-gatherers. None of us can gravitate to that because to do that would to be like becoming less than human and to do that would mean society itself would reject us. That and we're of no use to the species if we wander off.
We just end up in limbo having done nothing but put ourselves out for the wolves... this time literally, perhaps.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:No sense in putting them on a pedestal. Put them in a pen with some sheep and they will kill -all- the sheep. Why? God, why does my dog INSIST on chasing cats? It's a thrill.
Wrong. On the first count, referring to the sheep, that's because domestic sheep are supremely screwed up, as inbreeding tends to do, and 'send' all the wrong 'signals' in comparison with their wild counterparts. The wolf evolved with the wild equivalents, and doesn't have any low-level handling of domestic animals in general. With a prey animal like sheep, it's quite apparent. At the root, the wolf is killing for food, both immidiate and for storage and later consumption.
On the second count, the dogs-chasing-cats thing, the cause is simple territorial nature.
What? You don't think chasing sheep is fun? Looking at it I think it would be fun for them. Inbred sheep have nothing to do with it. If they're in a tight little pen being circled by a wolf crying out and scurry around they would indeed be very fun to chase and pounce on.
It's instinct, kill it if you can. I never judged it, I just said they do it. Don't tell me I'm wrong when we know for a fact they do it. And my dog is far from territorial with my cat -- he just likes to chase the cat. Sometimes he doesn't, if he's tired he doesn't, or if the cat's too pre-occupied to run he doesn't care. But when the cat runs they have a ball. Animals have fun doing things -- even what we'd see as malicious things.
Why did the fox kill all my ducks and chickens last summer? Because they were in the pen, they couldn't get out but the fox was in there. And what better than to run after the squalky thing that can't get away? The fox only took two of my ducks after he dug and squeezed into my nice, yet sadly not fullproof duck pen.
He naturally would have never got them all but without the ability to scatter they just ran in circles. And such things happen... to no fault of the fox or my ducks. That doesn't mean I wasn't viciously pissed off all my work in that pen, those ducks, and such went down the tubes and one summers worth of breeding-stock got massacred.
I can imagine the fury if that was a fenced in bunch of yews or calves. And by the nature that is man and the nature that is wolf I can't hold a grudge to either party. Neither knows the better of the other.
So is the way of the world...Not understanding each other -- why the wolf might like to chase and kill things it can or why any creature might pen up its prey.
*Shrugs*
Misunderstandings and miscommunications are part of all life. Especially those that intertwine.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:They are killers, like we're killers -- it makes neither better or worse in the end.
Any carnivore is a killer, as are most omnivores, and it could be argued that a large number of herbivores also share that trait. Why is it relevant?
Because everybody's, at one point, is on this judgemental kick. The farmers are bad, the wolves are good, the people are stupid, save all of the world but damn we suck!
It's a sign to get off of it all ready -- people will do what people will do.
We won't remedy that by redressing everyone. People just get pissed off when that's done and pissed off people achieve nothing. In facts, it sets us back with angry stereotypes of each other and that's pretty much it.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:Unless you start pinning up cultural taboos -- which the wolf has none of, making the analysis faulty.
Again, why is this relevant? We're not discussing cultural outlook here.
Yes, yes in fact we are discussing cultural outlooks here. Your cultural outlook here is to look at the wolves and help save them. You view those that want to kill them are bad -- I dare say we're looking at different point of views and without referencing those you're just one voice shouting at someone you know nothing about and care nothing about except to erradicate.
The first line of this is understanding, a little, who you're talking at all the time. This branches into conversations and not arguments. We have to give before we can take in this world and that means cultural viewpoints will have to be looked at.
People have to talk to people, that's how anything gets done.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:Likewise, it's something that can't be judged.
What, exactly, is something that can't be judged?
The fact that we can't align wolves and ourselves culturally. Thus meaning if we start pre-judging ourselves to wolves -- it's like talking to a wall. No progress jumps here thus it can't be a factor we take into concideration to judge... Otherwise we're wasting our time.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:On the same token people who hate the wolf and are fanatical about the wolf are two sides of a tolken nobody sensible wants to listen to. There's no reason in throwing "Kill them all!"'s and "Save every last one!"'s at each other...
Agreed on that point. If for no other reason than "Saving every last one" is effectively impossible, and if we're going to consider it morally right to hunt anything, there's no logical reason the wolf should be excluded, although I'm sure most of us would like it to be.
Yes. We all would like something to be the way it can never be. But idealism will get nothing done. You can talk to wildlife managers about it and they'll tell you the same thing.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:The wolf WILL survive. Why? Because every major city has an ourpouring of grief that values into the many millions (because they believe every last word they're told) and every farmer has heard a story or seen a wolf so they're ready to lock and load (because they believe every last word they were told).
However, the balance could tilt one way or the other, potentially making the wolf extinct. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make such broad generalizations; there are certainly people in each location that believe each side.
It was meant to be a generalization. And I will make such generalizations to prove points. This point was there are a lot of people beating on loud drums -- and they're doing it well. All I can hear is a lot of angry people, nothing really potent except for those that are busy doing something while everyone's yelling about what's wrong, what's right, and how bad it is.
I never said there weren't people in the middle. There are people all over the place -- it's the simple fact that the two parties I noted are the two parties you always hear from or hear people citing.
It's the quiet, sensible ones you rarely hear.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:Then nobody talks to each other and nobody wants to listen.
This is the case with the extreme opposition on just about any discussion.
No, this is the case with extreme opposition alone. Discussion is when someone takes someone else's plee in on a level, not when people stamp around their point of view on poster boards with ill thought manners to make things personal war.
We're fighting for a discussion, and if we have to fight for a discussion nothing, absolutely nothing will get done but a lot of useless yelling. We have to start sharing information in finding a way to help find a middle ground or else we're running a rat race.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:Who's stuck in the middle? The people who're working their asses off to save the damn wolf. Who are the people with the information about how we must interact to keep the peace, and how to keep them from dwindling. These are the people that make the decisions everybody points fingers at... because everybody else is in middle of a squabble about what's right and what's wrong and how much the other person is lesser of a person because blahblahblah.
I don't follow your logic there. I would think that they'd be on the pro-wolf side, only typically with more accurate reasons than usual.
There's no pro-wolf side on the middle line. It's not a political embodiment we're talking about -- it's about people seeking better answers. It's people who take care of all the raging forces. These are the babysitters who're actually out in the field doing tests on wolves, providing breeding facilities and the DEC, Wildlife Fish and Game organizations and such that monitor both fanatics for or against killing of these animals.
These people see from a birds eye view everything we fight about. It has nothing to do with taking sides. They see the place for hunting and the place for saving a species -- the place where things aren't zenful but where they're at least going to allow life to go on... for all the parties involved.
These people alone will be the silent saviors of the wolf and the farmer and the hunter because their voices are muffled somewhere below the roar of people who want to save these animals and people who want them gone.
They also are the people with the greatest power:
To manage and oversee the wolf.
Ralith wrote:
Ink wrote:Just because they might be taken off the Endangered Species list, a rather biased list of things going extinct we like (forgetting all those bad things we've eradicated or are currently trying to kill which nobody cares about), does not mean that people are going to go out there wielding axes and flame throwers in order to abuse the population of wolves and kill them off so cunningly.
No, but it does mean we're one step closer to a biased politician ordering a "population control" operation. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing; it's so one sided at all.
Yes, there are other things not receiving nearly enough attention, and things we probably don't even realize we're killing off, but that's not entirely relevant. Here, a large portion of us for some reason or other have an interest in the survival of the wolf in particular. There are places out there where the same'll be true for large cats, or any number of other things.
Politicians don't eradicate animal populations, they hustle people into ordering such things. They can cry and stamp their feet and throw influence and weight around. But if you're so reserved to think the government is all power-consuming then go ahead believing.
Politicians are headfigures, they're the distraction point for the magic of politics all together. While you look at this one issue their other hand is behind their back doing something else. And when they're like, 'Whoops! Pissed the people off..." They apologize. The rest of the world then goes on merrily until late breaking news points out, "Oh, they did -this- while we were over here squabbling about something they knew they have no power or business dealing with...
Ooohhh..."
I have faith in fanaticism that the wolves aren't going anywhere. But then again, I'm a dreary one-sided optimist in this situation.
I kind of find it naive that you say it doesn't really matter other things are up and forgotten. I try not to throw things onto my list of "I want to save" "Meh, doesn't matter that much". I mean, what's killing off horrible bacteria? Ohh... diversity? That key aspect of players in this world needs to be diverse in order to maintain itself...
Or the fact we're shutting down evolution? Or the disruption of ecological law? I may be one-sided but I try not to keep my love of things somewhat impartial.
You worry about wolves but care not for other things that are forgotten? I don't see that as potentially promising for the worlds future.
We bleed for the natural aethetics we want to keep but forget to manage everything else. Sure way to end a world. That's what we did when we unleashed DDT to kill off pesky mosquitos. Ahh... mosquito free! Woops! Birds are dying!
I'm saying that taking a stance that serves the purpose of both man and wolf will be a generously rewarding thing. Understanding each person, and each animals value will hold a key to keeping this entire planet from entering an endangered listing beyond what it all ready has.
Why? Because we all have to live and share the same earth. Irregardless of how naturally removed we've become we all are meshed together, steered into one fine planet, battling and killing over the same thing: Survival.
Right and wrong will play a part in each of our moral judgements but not in the call of what we do as a population. We are growing species, a flourishing one bent on domination because that's what we've been cued up to do. If not the bible-speak of man saying we're above the beasts, or the figurative launch of people who craze that we should hold animals higher than mankind.
I simply am saying there is more to the story than is being told here. I say it without baggage, without attempt to cull you to another side. I merely am saying that if we march in moderation a little and accept that nothing is black and white or idealistic in perspective we can do better.
It might take a little bit of whispering, a little more reading, and a softer tone, rather than people pissing people off or shouting vile things at each other.
Taking a stance to learn about each other might be the only way to save both man, the wolf, and other things. But if we continue to beat on the same drum we begin to drown out all that really matters into a pool of how much we hate ourselves for being human and what a horrible world this is with us in it.
I like the moderate stance of give and take -- having all or nothing doesn't work and we all ready know that fact. All it takes is time to sit down and
listen.
There's also a First Nations legend that says if you kill a deer, bury the gutpile and the next spring, a fawn will be born on that spot. Not altogether far-fetched: rotting meat is nitrogen-fixing, a great fertilizer, and would stimulate the growth of a thicket. Does give birth to their fawns in thickets.
Sorry.
