<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Nov 23 2003, 07:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Nov 23 2003, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Natural selection isn't survival of the strongest, it's the survival of the most able. Wolves kill other small animals, they're evil ! This isn't a mass genocide, it's the control of population. People aren't being killed off yet simply because we don't realize our life isn't worth anything. Since our population isn't being kept in check, and we need to expand, other species are changed and adapted to fit us. Would you rather kill off a random selection of people? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Control of a population which barely exists? GG.
To add onto that mojo, wolfs dont kill to control a population. They kill because they need to eat. I could see us killing a wolf or two IF we needed the meat THAT BAD. But not just to "control population." Thats horrid.
Wolves have well (and I mean very well) under 1 million.
If the choice is to see another species die off slowly because of human greed, a species which is already low in population size and every loss is a major loss, or have a small disaster take out some humans, humans whom have 6 billion other people to fill their niche, then i'd choose the humans die.
and animals existed here before us. The only reason they let us do anything is that we kill animals that don't conform to our view or interfere in our chosen way of life.
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Nov 24 2003, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Nov 24 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you rather kill off a random selection of people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aren´t we doing this every day anyway, although it is absolutely not necessary?
<!--QuoteBegin--MedHead+Nov 24 2003, 12:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Nov 24 2003, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is being done to preserve the moose and caribou that have been hunted by predators (which could include wolves) below the minimum allowance. If we stop the 'massacre' of wolves, we must allow other endangered species to suffer. View both sides before making a decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the attitude in the first place that allows the whole thing in Alaska to take place - and moose/caribou I think are HARDLY endangered are they? (are they?)
Hrm they shouldn't be. There herd animals and those always have a large population. Even the bison who are still fairly small as a population have a very large about of individuals(sorry for the bad sentence that's the best way I could say it) Anyway I'ev seen bison and the herd that I was was giant. This was a species that was hunted to near extinction. Now moose and caribou have never been on an endangered species list. There must be a very large amount of them. Also were forgetting that it only takes one or to caribou to feed an entire pack of wolfs. There is no chance that wolfs can hunt moose or caribou to extinction, that's our job.
They're doing a similar thing on Fraser Island in Queensland. My favourite place in the world. They're culling the dingo population because there have been a number of attacks on tourists because they've become accustomed to humans giving them food. The tourists are specifically instructed NOT to feed the dingoes.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kung Fool+Nov 23 2003, 08:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kung Fool @ Nov 23 2003, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Nov 24 2003, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Nov 24 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you rather kill off a random selection of people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aren´t we doing this every day anyway, although it is absolutely not necessary? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but that's a choice, right? Killing unborn babies is different than killing animals, right?
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Nov 23 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Nov 23 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (not 1 person in recorded history has ever been attacked by a wolf) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In North America. Ah the ignorance indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--MedHead+Nov 23 2003, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Nov 23 2003, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is being done to preserve the moose and caribou that have been hunted by predators (which could include wolves) below the minimum allowance. If we stop the 'massacre' of wolves, we must allow other endangered species to suffer. View both sides before making a decision. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm, there are by FAR more moose and caribou then wolves, and even if it wasn't that way, humans kill more moose and caribou everyday then wolves kill in a year, so I guess the shooting should begin, who wants to be shot first to "Save the moose and caribou!!1!!11!1!"?
Here are some numbers for you to chew on-
Wolves in Alaska: 4,900-6,200 wolves
Caribou in Alaska: 576,000 caribou
Moose in Alaska: 144,000-160,000 moose
I picked Alaska because this is the area where all meet and live together. As you can obviously see, moose and caribou ALONE outnumber wolves by a hell of a lot, not to mention when they're combined.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->View both sides before making a decision.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learn the facts before posting things that are false please.
First off, a bit of humour: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second: Most of you are ASSUMING that it is sensless. It really depends. Personally, I think relocation would be better, but where in the U.S.A. are you gonna send'em too? Canada has sent you a bunch of our wolves to reintroduce populations, but you're country is too populated for them and they've begun causing problems. Farmers and ranchers are bothered by wolves, because they do go for "easy", dumb targets like calves and chickens. And why not? It's easy food. But WE need that food. And those ranchers make their living off of them. There is no easy answer there.
Now the other consideration. Moose and Caribou populations. These populations go up and down like a yo-yo. A good winter, lots of soft snow, wolves can't move through and they end up starving. Moose with long legs = teh win. A bad winter with lots of hard pack that heavy moose sink through constantly, but light wolves walk on top of? Wolves = teh win. Around here, the Moose have been exploding. We have too many. Wolf populations are in all likelyhood low in comparison.
Now, if down in whatever state that is in (such little info is given that we can't tell where it's happening) they have a high number of wolves to moose, many of those wolves are going to end up dying anyway. But consider this. Remember those ranchers I was talking about earlier? What if the wolves are surviving on (and not auto-balancing) by eating things they normally wouldn't? Well they are. Humans have introduced an extra source of food for the wolves. That has to be considered. This could cause an exploding wolf population to grow larger than it should. Thankfully in northern Canada, it hasn't come to this and normal balancing can be observed. But the population density of the U.S. is making it difficult for ANY species to live normally.
This is why population control of some form is needed. It's cruel yes. But what are else can they do? Think of a better viable solution and submit that. Don't **** about it.
I for one, do believe Earth needs some population control of the Human race. I say the sooner the rest of you go and move onto Mars, the better. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--BadKarma+Nov 23 2003, 07:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BadKarma @ Nov 23 2003, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Nov 23 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Nov 23 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (not 1 person in recorded history has ever been attacked by a wolf) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In North America. Ah the ignorance indeed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There has been no DEATH caused by a wolf attack. I for one know people that have been attacked by wolves.
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Nov 23 2003, 10:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Nov 23 2003, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Learn the facts before posting things that are false please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I did some searching. The reason I posted was the reason presented to enact the bill to shoot wolves. That is the legitamate reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 23 2003, 07:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 23 2003, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> then why don't they simply relocate the wolves to a less-populated region, such as Alaska or Canada or even New England? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not a simple matter of relocating animals like that. You can't just drive out in the middle of no where and open the cage and say "There ya go!"
That's like 5 year old Johnny putting a pet fish in the toilet and saying "You're free!"
Wolves are territorial. Sure, the population that is here may be sparse, but believe it or not, it probably is already claimed by another group of wolves. The wolves that being relocated are completely lost, have no idea where food can be found, or shelter AND they have NO claim on the land. They would be chased down by the exisiting wolf population. The relocated wolves wouldn't stand a chance in hell. They'd be forced to move to places where the existing population doesn't like to go, like near human civilization. And when they get near people, they cause trouble. So back to square one. My point? Either way they are screwed. Spending thousands if not millions of dollars on relocating these animals just to have mother nature kill them. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
I have no idea, but isn't Vermont/New England on the eastern seaboard? The most populated part of your country? (Again going back to the animals being to close to human contact...)
And you're right about that last point. It's the almighty dollar controlling the fate of the wolves, along with the world. Those of you who don't want to have the wolves shot, I'd suggest you start raising money now. You raise enough to have them relocated PROPERLY you'll do a lot better. (And don't assume the government wants to spend money on that kind of thing. I wouldn't want mine to.)
<!--QuoteBegin--BigDXLT+Nov 23 2003, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigDXLT @ Nov 23 2003, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There has been no DEATH caused by a wolf attack. I for one know people that have been attacked by wolves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, you're right, it was killed not attacked. My bad. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And BadKarma, not saying "in North America" is far less ignorant then saying wolves kill our kids. (reminds me of anti-communist propaganda in a way)
<!--QuoteBegin--BigDXLT+Nov 23 2003, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BigDXLT @ Nov 23 2003, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's like 5 year old Johnny putting a pet fish in the toilet and saying "You're free!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So if little Goldy wasn't set free when I put him in there... where'd he go?
I'll tell you this much. NOT to a better place. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wolves haven't really done anything to be saved but we owe them that. For hundreds of years we have killed them and labeled them "savages" and "man-killing beasts". They were slaughtered because of that VERY false information (not 1 person in recorded history has ever been attacked by a wolf) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny that, THIS <a href='http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-wkp7-explaining-attacks.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-wkp7-explain...ng-attacks.html</a> says otherwise and I'm more than 100% sure I can find papers in X journal of Zoology that would agree. I seriously doubt your claim, especially considering these attacks are fairly common in European history. Of course then we developed bows and guns, and suddenly teeth and pack hunting didn't have the advantages it used to.
While I'm against the culling of wolves because, ecologically anyway, they are an important part of the ecosystem as all predators are. We've got problems in many places of the world where we've wiped out the predators and now the prey species have gone out of control. However, I feel no direct sympathy for the wolves, but I do not think there is much of a true scientific basis for further reducing their population based on the amount of prey available (if figures are true).
Incidently, predator populations are nearly always lower than prey populations, and are in equilibrium with their prey. High prey=High predator, low prey, the predators start to die off as well because there isn't enough prey to sustain the population. Little wolf cubs hence starve to death ANYWAY in a natural system. Possibly what they are doing with this is keeping this normal interaction at a lower level by culling the number of wolves to a certain level (therefore predator population doesn't get as high [theoretically] as the prey population).
I wish I could post a diagram, things are easier to explain with diagrams.
But the issue is that in a couple years the prey population will explode, and then we'll issue more hunting permits to cull that population and meanwhile the wolves will be able to make a comeback due to that population and then we'll kill them again.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 23 2003, 08:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 23 2003, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Umm, Vermont/New England has few/no wolf population.
The issue is just that allowing them to be hunted is quick, it's easy and it's cheap.
it all comes down to the almighty dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes... it's cheaper. Also, the wolves aren't adjusted to the climate, animals, and hunting conditions, and they wouldn't adjust... so they're die anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand that this is a joke, but it's not even funny so I'll attack it anyway. Leather is cow hide. We're killing the cows for their meat, the leather is just a usefull byproduct.
As for the wolves...
I strongly oppose the killing of animals for such silly reasons as population control and fur. Killing animals mearly for their hide is dispicable, only humans are evil enough to do such a thing. Nature has its own way of controling the population, humans tend to screw with this system though, but the problem isn't the animals, it's the humans. This is one of those times [This part removed, some people were offended and I can see their point].
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited November 2003
skulkbait, on the whole you are somewhat correct, but here's where you're wrong:
<!--QuoteBegin--you+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (you @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strongly oppose the killing of animals for such silly reasons as population control...Nature has its own way of controling the population, humans tend to screw with this system though, but the problem isn't the animals, it's the humans<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as a supporter of animal rights LAWS (the laws that exist now, not f***ing greenpeace radicalism)
i have to say that the control (or calculated extermination) of populations that are out of hand is occuring EVERYwhere.
why complain about this one? because wolves are cute? yes they are. but they're not endangered.
what's your point? are you sympathizing with the individual wolves, or with the well-being of the entire ECOSYSTEM?
reemphasis: <b>are you sympathizing with the individual wolves, or with the well-being of the entire ECOSYSTEM?</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strongly oppose the killing of animals for such silly reasons as population control and fur. Killing animals mearly for their hide is dispicable, only humans are evil enough to do such a thing. Nature has its own way of controling the population, humans tend to screw with this system though, but the problem isn't the animals, it's the humans. This is one of those times I almost wish that Greenpeace was more like Al-Quaeda. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay. You've seriously crossed a line there. I'm not kidding. That's a serious case of speaking without thinking. There are eco-terrorists out there already. They've already done horrible things. Things like tree-spiking (where chainsaws hit them and buck back, severly injuring if not killing the guy doing his job to cut down the tree), and tying wire across trails so that ATVs or Snowmobiles catch them and go out of control, again with the intent to severly injure or kill the rider. There are more things that I won't even mention.
I'd like to request that the mods lock this forum now. You have aimed it toward flame war, on purpose I should add, and it may as well end now. Points have been made. And now lines have been crossed. Good day, and go to hell.
A few small questions, reply with your view, but give no reasons. this is to avoid flame wars. No person may respond to another person's response either.
The wolf issue: (Acceptable, neutral, not acceptable) (acceptable = killing the wolves is acceptable)
save the whales: (YES!, NO!, what?)
Vegetarian: (am, am not)
Pollution levels: (no pollution should be allowed, laws should be much stricter, polluting to the extent of the law is acceptable, neutral/don't care, pollution should be regulated by the polluting companies)
Abortion: (Acceptable, neutral, not acceptable)
Just trying to get a view of the general mindset. Remember, do not post any rationale for your view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->reemphasis: are you sympathizing with the individual wolves, or with the well-being of the entire ECOSYSTEM?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ecosystem would be just fine if humans didn't **** with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i have to say that the control (or calculated extermination) of populations that are out of hand is occuring EVERYwhere. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And of course, this somehow makes it right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why complain about this one? because wolves are cute? yes they are. but they're not endangered.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it happens to be the topic of this thread, and I happen to have an affinity for canines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have aimed it toward flame war, on purpose I should add, and it may as well end now. Points have been made. And now lines have been crossed. Good day, and go to hell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I'm pretty sure that YOU are the one who just turned it into a flame war.
BTW, I have removed my comment because I can see your point about it. You might also wish to do the same to avoid getting this thread locked.
Wolves are fine the way they are, they should focus on other animals with ballooning populations....
Humans Deer ( I HATE THE DEER!! THEY KAMIKAZE MY KAR AND EAT THE KORN!) Raccoon (They eat the corn!) Groundhogs (They make holes in the field, bad for equipment) Turkeys (Yes, they eat the corn to, and the stupid govermnet is the ones who increased the pop in the first place)
Comments
Control of a population which barely exists? GG.
Wolves have well (and I mean very well) under 1 million.
If the choice is to see another species die off slowly because of human greed, a species which is already low in population size and every loss is a major loss, or have a small disaster take out some humans, humans whom have 6 billion other people to fill their niche, then i'd choose the humans die.
and animals existed here before us. The only reason they let us do anything is that we kill animals that don't conform to our view or interfere in our chosen way of life.
Aren´t we doing this every day anyway, although it is absolutely not necessary?
This is the attitude in the first place that allows the whole thing in Alaska to take place - and moose/caribou I think are HARDLY endangered are they? (are they?)
There must be a very large amount of them. Also were forgetting that it only takes one or to caribou to feed an entire pack of wolfs. There is no chance that wolfs can hunt moose or caribou to extinction, that's our job.
They're doing a similar thing on Fraser Island in Queensland. My favourite place in the world. They're culling the dingo population because there have been a number of attacks on tourists because they've become accustomed to humans giving them food. The tourists are specifically instructed NOT to feed the dingoes.
They should shoot the tourists methinks.
--Scythe--
Aren´t we doing this every day anyway, although it is absolutely not necessary? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but that's a choice, right? Killing unborn babies is different than killing animals, right?
/sarcasm
In North America. Ah the ignorance indeed.
Umm, there are by FAR more moose and caribou then wolves, and even if it wasn't that way, humans kill more moose and caribou everyday then wolves kill in a year, so I guess the shooting should begin, who wants to be shot first to "Save the moose and caribou!!1!!11!1!"?
Here are some numbers for you to chew on-
Wolves in Alaska: 4,900-6,200 wolves
Caribou in Alaska: 576,000 caribou
Moose in Alaska: 144,000-160,000 moose
I picked Alaska because this is the area where all meet and live together. As you can obviously see, moose and caribou ALONE outnumber wolves by a hell of a lot, not to mention when they're combined.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->View both sides before making a decision.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learn the facts before posting things that are false please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second: Most of you are ASSUMING that it is sensless. It really depends. Personally, I think relocation would be better, but where in the U.S.A. are you gonna send'em too? Canada has sent you a bunch of our wolves to reintroduce populations, but you're country is too populated for them and they've begun causing problems. Farmers and ranchers are bothered by wolves, because they do go for "easy", dumb targets like calves and chickens. And why not? It's easy food. But WE need that food. And those ranchers make their living off of them. There is no easy answer there.
Now the other consideration. Moose and Caribou populations. These populations go up and down like a yo-yo. A good winter, lots of soft snow, wolves can't move through and they end up starving. Moose with long legs = teh win. A bad winter with lots of hard pack that heavy moose sink through constantly, but light wolves walk on top of? Wolves = teh win. Around here, the Moose have been exploding. We have too many. Wolf populations are in all likelyhood low in comparison.
Now, if down in whatever state that is in (such little info is given that we can't tell where it's happening) they have a high number of wolves to moose, many of those wolves are going to end up dying anyway. But consider this. Remember those ranchers I was talking about earlier? What if the wolves are surviving on (and not auto-balancing) by eating things they normally wouldn't? Well they are. Humans have introduced an extra source of food for the wolves. That has to be considered. This could cause an exploding wolf population to grow larger than it should. Thankfully in northern Canada, it hasn't come to this and normal balancing can be observed. But the population density of the U.S. is making it difficult for ANY species to live normally.
This is why population control of some form is needed. It's cruel yes. But what are else can they do? Think of a better viable solution and submit that. Don't **** about it.
I for one, do believe Earth needs some population control of the Human race. I say the sooner the rest of you go and move onto Mars, the better. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Heck, in Vermont, the cows outnumber the people.
In North America. Ah the ignorance indeed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There has been no DEATH caused by a wolf attack. I for one know people that have been attacked by wolves.
I did some searching. The reason I posted was the reason presented to enact the bill to shoot wolves. That is the legitamate reason.
It's not a simple matter of relocating animals like that. You can't just drive out in the middle of no where and open the cage and say "There ya go!"
That's like 5 year old Johnny putting a pet fish in the toilet and saying "You're free!"
Wolves are territorial. Sure, the population that is here may be sparse, but believe it or not, it probably is already claimed by another group of wolves. The wolves that being relocated are completely lost, have no idea where food can be found, or shelter AND they have NO claim on the land. They would be chased down by the exisiting wolf population. The relocated wolves wouldn't stand a chance in hell. They'd be forced to move to places where the existing population doesn't like to go, like near human civilization. And when they get near people, they cause trouble. So back to square one. My point? Either way they are screwed. Spending thousands if not millions of dollars on relocating these animals just to have mother nature kill them. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
The issue is just that allowing them to be hunted is quick, it's easy and it's cheap.
it all comes down to the almighty dollar.
And you're right about that last point. It's the almighty dollar controlling the fate of the wolves, along with the world. Those of you who don't want to have the wolves shot, I'd suggest you start raising money now. You raise enough to have them relocated PROPERLY you'll do a lot better. (And don't assume the government wants to spend money on that kind of thing. I wouldn't want mine to.)
Yea, you're right, it was killed not attacked. My bad. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And BadKarma, not saying "in North America" is far less ignorant then saying wolves kill our kids. (reminds me of anti-communist propaganda in a way)
So if little Goldy wasn't set free when I put him in there... where'd he go?
Funny that, THIS <a href='http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-wkp7-explaining-attacks.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-wkp7-explain...ng-attacks.html</a> says otherwise and I'm more than 100% sure I can find papers in X journal of Zoology that would agree. I seriously doubt your claim, especially considering these attacks are fairly common in European history. Of course then we developed bows and guns, and suddenly teeth and pack hunting didn't have the advantages it used to.
While I'm against the culling of wolves because, ecologically anyway, they are an important part of the ecosystem as all predators are. We've got problems in many places of the world where we've wiped out the predators and now the prey species have gone out of control. However, I feel no direct sympathy for the wolves, but I do not think there is much of a true scientific basis for further reducing their population based on the amount of prey available (if figures are true).
Incidently, predator populations are nearly always lower than prey populations, and are in equilibrium with their prey. High prey=High predator, low prey, the predators start to die off as well because there isn't enough prey to sustain the population. Little wolf cubs hence starve to death ANYWAY in a natural system. Possibly what they are doing with this is keeping this normal interaction at a lower level by culling the number of wolves to a certain level (therefore predator population doesn't get as high [theoretically] as the prey population).
I wish I could post a diagram, things are easier to explain with diagrams.
it's a never-ending cycle.
The issue is just that allowing them to be hunted is quick, it's easy and it's cheap.
it all comes down to the almighty dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes... it's cheaper. Also, the wolves aren't adjusted to the climate, animals, and hunting conditions, and they wouldn't adjust... so they're die anyway.
basically, i don't see what the problem is if a population's getting out of hand.
they're not "lowering the numbers" of alaska's bengal tigers.
it's wolves.
I understand that this is a joke, but it's not even funny so I'll attack it anyway. Leather is cow hide. We're killing the cows for their meat, the leather is just a usefull byproduct.
As for the wolves...
I strongly oppose the killing of animals for such silly reasons as population control and fur. Killing animals mearly for their hide is dispicable, only humans are evil enough to do such a thing. Nature has its own way of controling the population, humans tend to screw with this system though, but the problem isn't the animals, it's the humans. This is one of those times [This part removed, some people were offended and I can see their point].
<!--QuoteBegin--you+ above--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (you @ above)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strongly oppose the killing of animals for such silly reasons as population control...Nature has its own way of controling the population, humans tend to screw with this system though, but the problem isn't the animals, it's the humans<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
as a supporter of animal rights LAWS (the laws that exist now, not f***ing greenpeace radicalism)
i have to say that the control (or calculated extermination) of populations that are out of hand is occuring EVERYwhere.
why complain about this one? because wolves are cute? yes they are. but they're not endangered.
what's your point? are you sympathizing with the individual wolves, or with the well-being of the entire ECOSYSTEM?
reemphasis: <b>are you sympathizing with the individual wolves, or with the well-being of the entire ECOSYSTEM?</b>
edit: (in which OTHER WILD ANIMALS ALSO DO LIVE)
Okay. You've seriously crossed a line there. I'm not kidding. That's a serious case of speaking without thinking. There are eco-terrorists out there already. They've already done horrible things. Things like tree-spiking (where chainsaws hit them and buck back, severly injuring if not killing the guy doing his job to cut down the tree), and tying wire across trails so that ATVs or Snowmobiles catch them and go out of control, again with the intent to severly injure or kill the rider. There are more things that I won't even mention.
I'd like to request that the mods lock this forum now. You have aimed it toward flame war, on purpose I should add, and it may as well end now. Points have been made. And now lines have been crossed. Good day, and go to hell.
The wolf issue:
(Acceptable, neutral, not acceptable) (acceptable = killing the wolves is acceptable)
save the whales:
(YES!, NO!, what?)
Vegetarian:
(am, am not)
Pollution levels:
(no pollution should be allowed, laws should be much stricter, polluting to the extent of the law is acceptable, neutral/don't care, pollution should be regulated by the polluting companies)
Abortion:
(Acceptable, neutral, not acceptable)
Just trying to get a view of the general mindset. Remember, do not post any rationale for your view.
The ecosystem would be just fine if humans didn't **** with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i have to say that the control (or calculated extermination) of populations that are out of hand is occuring EVERYwhere. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And of course, this somehow makes it right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->why complain about this one? because wolves are cute? yes they are. but they're not endangered.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it happens to be the topic of this thread, and I happen to have an affinity for canines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have aimed it toward flame war, on purpose I should add, and it may as well end now. Points have been made. And now lines have been crossed. Good day, and go to hell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I'm pretty sure that YOU are the one who just turned it into a flame war.
BTW, I have removed my comment because I can see your point about it. You might also wish to do the same to avoid getting this thread locked.
Humans
Deer ( I HATE THE DEER!! THEY KAMIKAZE MY KAR AND EAT THE KORN!)
Raccoon (They eat the corn!)
Groundhogs (They make holes in the field, bad for equipment)
Turkeys (Yes, they eat the corn to, and the stupid govermnet is the ones who increased the pop in the first place)
Yes, I lived/do live sometimes on a farm.