PDA

View Full Version : How Do You Feel About Hunting?



Pages : [1] 2

Astrid Runa
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Edit: Before you vote, watch this video. Warning: It may make you cry.
It certainly made me cry, anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sj0Rfk-qjU

What are your views on hunting and particularly wolf hunting?
Do you think Arial shooting of wolves is right?
Do you think what Palin did to those wolves and their cubs was right? (She ordered the shooting of wolves from the air. She then ordered for the cubs to be rounded up and shot. 24 wolf cubs died needlessly)

I am a huge fan of wolves. They are my favourite animal on the entire planet.
I don't think the hunting of wolves is right. They aren't a danger to anyone unless you provoke them. Yes, people may say that they're invading our towns and cities, but the reality is, we're invading their habitats due to our ever increasing population.

As for the shooting of those wolves, could Palin not just have ordered the wolves and their cubs to be taken into captivity instead of shooting them?
Why did she have to kill innocent pups?

A lot of people seem to forget that their precious doggies are descendants of wolves, that they were wolves before man came along and domesticated them. That's all dogs are. Domesticated wolves. Just like cats are domesticated big cats, only smaller.

So, wolf hunting. Right or wrong?

((P.S: If this is in the wrong place, please move it to the correct place but PLEASE tell me where you moved it so I can find it! Thank you))

Méldmir
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 11:50 AM
No, I don't wolves should be hunted, because there are so few of them left. You can almost count the number of wolves in Scandinavia on your fingers. Sure, the farmers hate the wolves for apparent reasons and want to kill them. But in that case, it's an either or situation, you either let them live or you kill each and everyone of them left. But killing all wolves in Scandinavia would be more than a tradegy, in my opinion. So instead of going around and killing them in helicopters, they should spend money on attempting to find techniques to keep the wolves away from the sheep. Surely with the technique of today there must be some smart way to keep wolves from getting to the poor sheep?

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 11:57 AM
It is the same government that basically hunts us, so I doubt you will see much support for it in a nationalist Germanic site.

From my experience (and myself including), the majority of us respect nature and would never support this. Actual hunters who are not just in it for money also tend to disagree with it, as it is destroying the wilderness they rely on.

The only time I could really support it would be due to diseased or deranged animals that are a threat to the environment and communties (and by communities, I do not mean when they are the ones causing the problem and the animals are reacting).

And I am going to disagree with your point about us expanding... we are not. Europeans are retracting, the other races are the ones expanding. Blame them.

thoughtcrime
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:07 PM
I'd say it depends. I like animals a lot, too, but I'm not against hunting per se. I wouldn't say it's generally wrong to hunt wolves.However, I'm for an ecological ("green") hunting ethos. A hunter should live in accord with his hunting grounds and not plunder it in favour of short-sighted capitalistic interest.

-Hunt only if it doesn't damage the eco-system of your grounds as a whole
-Avoid hunting when the population has many puppies
-Respect your prey
-Kill quick and clean, avoid letting an animal suffer

A good and skilled hunter can stabilize, nurture and protect his population. At the given time, I think wolves shouldn't be hunted because they're already so few and must be protected.

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:14 PM
I'd say it depends. I like animals a lot, too, but I'm not against hunting per se. I wouldn't say it's generally wrong to hunt wolves.However, I'm for an ecological ("green") hunting ethos. A hunter should live in accord with his hunting grounds and not plunder it in favour of short-sighted capitalistic interest.

-Hunt only if it doesn't damage the eco-system of your grounds as a whole
-Avoid hunting when the population has many puppies
-Respect your prey
-Kill quick and clean, avoid letting an animal suffer

A good and skilled hunter can stabilize, nurture and protect his population. At the given time, I think wolves shouldn't be hunted because they're already so few and must be protected.

I agree with your opinion mostly, but what is your reasoning for allowing sport hunting in a healthy population?

Should we enslave more young men in Ireland if their population increases again, just because we can? Hunting a wolf is not the same as hunting animals like rabbits, deer, duck, and so on. There is no purpose except extermination.

thoughtcrime
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:19 PM
Hunting a wolf is not the same as hunting animals like rabbits, deer, duck, and so on. There is no purpose except extermination.

Well, and the pelt. I personally wouldn't kill a wolf only for its pelt (for reasons of personal sympathy), but I don't see how its more or less immoral than to kill another animal for it's meat.

Sigurd
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:25 PM
Well, and the pelt. I personally wouldn't kill a wolf only for its pelt (for reasons of personal sympathy), but I don't see how its more or less immoral than to kill another animal for it's meat.

If you kill an animal for consumption, you may use the pelt as well as "part of the package", it's not used otherwise you you may just as well use it. If you kill it solely for the pelt, you're essentially taking its life for no other reason than to gratify the needs of greedy pseudo-fashionables, as real-pelt coats are most commonly worn by wannabe-high-society women and homosexuals. ;)

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:27 PM
A wolf pelt is also of poor quality compared to an animal such as a rabbit or mink. You would never find an operation existing to produce wolf fur. So I do not think this is a valid arguement.

Sigurd
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:28 PM
A wolf pelt is also of poor quality compared to an animal such as a rabbit or mink. You would never find an operation existing to produce wolf fur. So I do not think this is a valid arguement.

Then again, one could argue that ancient Germanics clad themselves in wolf skins for battle at times, and that therefore we should also do this. :wsg

PS: This is not my actual opinion. I dont have a wolf as my avatar for no reason. ;)

Old Winter
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:28 PM
EQobIUE1zTU
ArYAQBZ0W0o
Alaska residents have twice voted to ban aerial wolf hunting-- first in 1996 and again in 2000. Both times, the Alaska Legislature overturned the will of the people and allowed the Board of Game to re-create the programs after the two-year initiatives expired. 671 wolves have been shot by Alaska residents in private aircraft over the past four years.

Ow, btw, because i know some Skadi members would want to know this, Sarah Palin's monther is jewish, so instead of being in the land where she belongs (Israel) she tries to kill all the wolfs in Alaska.

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:34 PM
Then again, one could argue that ancient Germanics clad themselves in wolf skins for battle at times, and that therefore we should also do this. :wsg

PS: This is not my actual opinion. I dont have a wolf as my avatar for no reason. ;)

Well there was reason at that time. I doubt people in Alaska who have helicopters need wolf skins to survive the winter. Many people at that time even used human skin.

And as for Palin, I had no idea she was Jewish, but I did know she always has an Israeli flag in her office.

thoughtcrime
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:53 PM
A wolf pelt is also of poor quality compared to an animal such as a rabbit or mink. You would never find an operation existing to produce wolf fur. So I do not think this is a valid arguement.

You're talking as if I'd be advocating wolf hunting. I only stated that killing a wolf without an ecological reason is no different from killing another animal without an ecological reason. Neither is needed to survive nowadays, both are done for sports and/or profit alone. You're right that killing wolves is much more uneconomical than killing, for example, deers, who have much more meat. This makes killing a deer for food more reasonable than killing a wolf for it's fur. So, on a rational basis, wolf hunting is nonsense.

Astrid Runa
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 12:55 PM
Wow.
Thanks for the replies, guys.

While I don't condone hunting, killing to end an animals misery is, I suppose, alright. But only if the animal is suffering.

Wolves are so important to the ecosystem and if we lose wolves then the whole ecosystem will be thrown into a frenzy.
(I'm currently saving up money to adopt a wolf called Mai, an Alpha Female. She was only born in 2006, bless).

velvet
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:05 PM
I dont think wolf hunting is right.
They dont pose a threat to people, usually, only when people go into the wilderness and then cry about being 'attacked' by them. Or built their farms in areas, far away from any further civilisation and then cry about that the wolves 'steal' their cattle, when they served it to them on a silver plate.
It's the same with bears, I was so unbelievable angry when the Bavarian government decided to shoot the 'problem bear' Bruno. He just walked the border, he didnt even were near any village, but out of fear he could become dangerous, they allowed shooting him. Countless people took their guns and travelled down there to hunt Bruno, the immigrant bear, the first bear for over 50 years I think who wanted to settle on German soil. Most likely he would have gone back further south or east anyway, since there is no other bear.

Wolves usually stay away from larger settlements, they are just as scared by us as we are by them. We should learn to appreciate the wilderness as what it is: wild and keep away from it, so that wolves and bears are not forced to enter villages or cities. When they do it is a clear sign that we have done something wrong.
Instead of shooting them, we better start hunting the other, evil animal, which do pose a threat to us.

thoughtcrime
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:05 PM
While I don't condone hunting, killing to end an animals misery is, I suppose, alright. But only if the animal is suffering.


Right, but sometimes even healthy animals must be hunted for the good of the ecosystem. For example, the forests in germany lack natural predators like wolves who prevent the deers from overpopulating the forest. While we don't have enough wolves here, we need hunters to deal with the overpopulation of deers, who bring the ecosystem out of balance.

That's why...


Wolves are so important to the ecosystem and if we lose wolves then the whole ecosystem will be thrown into a frenzy.

:thumbup

Sigurd
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:09 PM
It's the same with bears, I was so unbelievable angry when the Bavarian government decided to shoot the 'problem bear' Knut.

Knut's alive and well and still a tourist attraction in the Berlin zoo. I think you might be talking about Bruno here. ;)

velvet
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Knut's alive and well and still a tourist attraction in the Berlin zoo. I think you might be talking about Bruno here. ;)

Oops, right, Knut is the icebear, Bruno the immigrant (my ability to remember names is not the best, I have to admit :( :~()

Sigurd
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Bruno the immigrant

The immigrant, yeah right. Just because parts of Tyrol have been unrightfully part of Italy for 90 years, doesn't mean dear is Bruno a "Dago Bear", even though he was arguably "swarthier" than polar-bear Knut. ;)

thoughtcrime
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:39 PM
even though he was arguably "swarthier" than polar-bear Knut.

How? It's only his pelt, his skin is black. That's like saying a negro in a white t-shirt is white ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

velvet
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 01:58 PM
The immigrant, yeah right. Just because parts of Tyrol have been unrightfully part of Italy for 90 years, doesn't mean dear is Bruno a "Dago Bear", even though he was arguably "swarthier" than polar-bear Knut. ;)

I just said he crossed the German border, nothing about his color or where he came from :oanieyes
Fact is, we dont have bears, and the first one who came was shot, sanctioned by your beloved Bavarian government (I just wished they would have been so rigerous with other immigrants :D )

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Funny how when a bear migrates to Germany, suddenly everyone is up in arms and shooting at it for a danger to the community.

Nevermind those other ones.

velvet
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 03:31 PM
that they were wolves before man came along and domesticated them. That's all dogs are. Domesticated wolves. Just like cats are domesticated big cats, only smaller

On a sidenote, cats domesticated themselves to the time man started to store food (about 10.000-8.000 years ago). The house cat does not descent from european wild cats, but from north african wild cats (looked very much like Abessinier nowadays), who are basically the same size.

There is good reason to think that the wolf also domesticated itself, probably already more than 30.000 years ago, and probably socialised already with the Neanderthals. Although the development from a mere 'prey sharing' relation to actual breeding of them might have taken another 15-20K years.

But the hints point to that these species decided to socialise with humans, not vice versa ;)

Zimobog
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 05:00 PM
Hunting wolves is just fine with me, provided there are enough wolves to sustain a healthy population of them.

Astrid Runa
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Hunting wolves is just fine with me, provided there are enough wolves to sustain a healthy population of them.



Which there isn't....
Wolves are on the brink of extinction, mate.

Zimobog
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Wolves are on the brink of extinction, mate.

Not so in Alaska, where I am.

So you Europeans killed all your wolves off, eh? That's sad. Maybe we could send you some, but I'm not sure I would trust you guys with our wolves since you killed off all the ones you had.

Our Alaskan predator control methods will ensure there are healthy populations of wolves for you to enjoy should you ever come to Alaska!


You're talking as if I'd be advocating wolf hunting. I only stated that killing a wolf without an ecological reason is no different from killing another animal without an ecological reason. Neither is needed to survive nowadays, both are done for sports and/or profit alone. You're right that killing wolves is much more uneconomical than killing, for example, deers, who have much more meat. This makes killing a deer for food more reasonable than killing a wolf for it's fur. So, on a rational basis, wolf hunting is nonsense.

Your rational basis is flawed and I will tell you why I say that. Reducing predators will result in more prey species surviving to adulthood and to enter the gene pool, bolstering the number of deer or whatever prey species are in the area.

If you want to hunt deer, also hunt surplus wolves so the numbers of both will be more balanced and sustainable.

Wearing wolf fur and any other fur kills fewer animals than wearing petroleum based microfibers or nylon. Nothing bulldozes more virigin habitat than "big ag" planting cotton. Nothing adds more pesticides and herbicides to our ecosystems than growing our clothing. Look at how our rivers and streams are being polluted by people who rely on food they can't kill themselves, like run-off from stock-yards and crops entering our water and blood.

It is the urbanization and the detachment of humans from the act of hunting/gathering that is murdering the planet, not the traditional lifestyle! If there is no market for fur, it destroys the livelihood of people living traditional, eco-friendly lives in the rural parts of Canada and Alaska. It will force us to become shuffiling drones in the cities. How many of you will support the arts and crafts of small time manufacturers? Who much of the crap in your house was made in China? Who is killing the wolves? YOU ARE.

Fur is biodegradable and naturally renewable... 100% natural and 100% traditional.

Hunting and trapping reminds us of our place in the ecosystem. You city people don't know what your missing!

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 07:47 PM
It depends which area. Because in the Carpathians, we've both many wolves, and bears, which can become a threat to peoples living near the forests, or even in cities, because of the habitat expansion.

Wolves can become threat to livestock in the mountains. They eat the sheep and cause damages to shepherds and animal owners in such areas. So in my view it's acceptable to hunt and kill a wolf to protect your herd, if you've no other option. In my area they usually just shoot the wolves on sight with an old fashioned hunting/shotgun, things like aerial shooting would be too expensive and tedious.

Nachtengel
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 08:01 PM
It depends which area. Because in the Carpathians, we've both many wolves, and bears, which can become a threat to peoples living near the forests, or even in cities, because of the habitat expansion.

Wolves can become threat to livestock in the mountains. They eat the sheep and cause damages to shepherds and animal owners in such areas. So in my view it's acceptable to hunt and kill a wolf to protect your herd, if you've no other option. In my area they usually just shoot the wolves on sight with an old fashioned hunting/shotgun, things like aerial shooting would be too expensive and tedious.
You are expanding into its habitat, not viceversa. Animals don't come to cities or villages on their own, from forests far away. They avoid human contact. But if you bring the village to the forest, you shouldn't be surprised. :oanieyes

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 08:12 PM
You are expanding into its habitat, not viceversa. Animals don't come to cities or villages on their own, from forests far away. They avoid human contact. But if you bring the village to the forest, you shouldn't be surprised. :oanieyes
Yes of course it's the humans who enter the animal habitat. But the expansion is unfortunately necessary. Sheep need to go on the alpine meadows for the grass. Transylvania and Romania generally still has large rural areas. Sheep, cows, are raised by shepherds and herders in the mountains. You can't ask the mountain peoples to move to the city because their villages or houses are near the wolves' areas and the sheep, goats, cattle need area to graze. They're typically rural, mountaineous and hill folk.

It's the same with bears. But bears come even to some cities, big cities near the forest range. They're attracted by food and leftovers from garbage cans.

I'm against animal cruelty, but in my view killing to protect yourself and your animals is justified. If there's an other alternative, then it should be used. But what can a sheep herder do, ask the wolf not to come to his meadows anymore? Well some peoples started to install electric fences.

I'm understanding the point of view of peoples from Germany, where such wildlife is scarce. But that isn't the case here. If a species is endangered, then of course hunting should be limited or disallowed.

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Your rational basis is flawed and I will tell you why I say that. Reducing predators will result in more prey species surviving to adulthood and to enter the gene pool, bolstering the number of deer or whatever prey species are in the area.

If you want to hunt deer, also hunt surplus wolves so the numbers of both will be more balanced and sustainable.

Why hunt so many deer? I thought Alaska was wealthy with minerals, oil, and a fishery?

Plus if you hunted too many deer, the wolf population would slowly shrink to adapt to it. Where I live it actually made them go extinct due to lack of caribou (although it was a small population, about 1000 total, same as the extinct Indians). All of this resulted without an extermination programme against wolves. So either way, it is not needed.


Wearing wolf fur and any other fur kills fewer animals than wearing petroleum based microfibers or nylon. Nothing bulldozes more virigin habitat than "big ag" planting cotton. Nothing adds more pesticides and herbicides to our ecosystems than growing our clothing. Look at how our rivers and streams are being polluted by people who rely on food they can't kill themselves, like run-off from stock-yards and crops entering our water and blood.

This is capitalism and globalism. People have been wearing non-skin clothes for thousands of years.



It is the urbanization and the detachment of humans from the act of hunting/gathering that is murdering the planet, not the traditional lifestyle! If there is no market for fur, it destroys the livelihood of people living traditional, eco-friendly lives in the rural parts of Canada and Alaska. It will force us to become shuffiling drones in the cities. How many of you will support the arts and crafts of small time manufacturers? Who much of the crap in your house was made in China? Who is killing the wolves? YOU ARE.

Haha, a traditional life style? Surely you must be joking?

Hiring a band of illegal snipers to man helicopters and then chasing individual members of wolf packs until they collapse to shoot them unfairly - repeating for the whole pack, then finishing it off by killing puppies is not what I would consider traditional in any way.

This is what people are mad about mostly. It is a programme of extermination, illegal, voted against by the people of Alaska, and the creation of foreign Jews.

The rest of what you mentioned is yet again capitalism (and again, Jewish). An entirely different issue.



Fur is biodegradable and naturally renewable... 100% natural and 100% traditional.

So is cotton.


Hunting and trapping reminds us of our place in the ecosystem. You city people don't know what your missing!

Us dang city folk dun know bouts thems flying machines, ya huh?

Stop pretending this is some sort of traditional thing that is healthy for the environment. I wonder where the helicopters and guns were made, anyway? China?

And trapping wolves? Most people dislike horrific torture.


You are expanding into its habitat, not viceversa. Animals don't come to cities or villages on their own, from forests far away. They avoid human contact. But if you bring the village to the forest, you shouldn't be surprised. :oanieyes

I think in that regard, it is the fault of the government, not the villagers themselves. What exactly are they to do when left alone?

If there is a problem with wolves, then figure something out, I would say. Some sort of deep link-fence around the field might work for the sheep. Germany certainly has the money for it considering all the welfare they give out to towel heads.

Astrid Runa
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Not so in Alaska, where I am.

So you Europeans killed all your wolves off, eh? That's sad. Maybe we could send you some, but I'm not sure I would trust you guys with our wolves since you killed off all the ones you had.

Our Alaskan predator control methods will ensure there are healthy populations of wolves for you to enjoy should you ever come to Alaska!



Your rational basis is flawed and I will tell you why I say that. Reducing predators will result in more prey species surviving to adulthood and to enter the gene pool, bolstering the number of deer or whatever prey species are in the area.

If you want to hunt deer, also hunt surplus wolves so the numbers of both will be more balanced and sustainable.

Wearing wolf fur and any other fur kills fewer animals than wearing petroleum based microfibers or nylon. Nothing bulldozes more virigin habitat than "big ag" planting cotton. Nothing adds more pesticides and herbicides to our ecosystems than growing our clothing. Look at how our rivers and streams are being polluted by people who rely on food they can't kill themselves, like run-off from stock-yards and crops entering our water and blood.

It is the urbanization and the detachment of humans from the act of hunting/gathering that is murdering the planet, not the traditional lifestyle! If there is no market for fur, it destroys the livelihood of people living traditional, eco-friendly lives in the rural parts of Canada and Alaska. It will force us to become shuffiling drones in the cities. How many of you will support the arts and crafts of small time manufacturers? Who much of the crap in your house was made in China? Who is killing the wolves? YOU ARE.

Fur is biodegradable and naturally renewable... 100% natural and 100% traditional.

Hunting and trapping reminds us of our place in the ecosystem. You city people don't know what your missing!

I don't even think you give a damn about the ecosystem.
Do you have any idea of the consequences of removing anything from the food web?
If we kill off the wolves, yes, deer populations will increase. But what do deer eat? Plants. If there are too many deer, then they eat all the plants then bingo! Barely any foliage.
Food webs are very delicate. You decrease the number of one thing even the slightest and the whole chain feels it, that includes us humans.
We may be at the top of the food chain, but by God if nature intends it, then the wolves will turn on us at the hunter will become the hunted.
Your old fashioned ways have no place in this world.
I said it once, I'll say it again.
MOVE ON WITH THE TIMES.
For once, Kogen, I agree whole heartedly with your post.
Wolves FTW!!!

Zimobog
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Thorsdottir wrote:
If we kill off the wolves, yes, deer populations will increase. But what do deer eat? Plants. If there are too many deer, then they eat all the plants then bingo! Barely any foliage.

Is this what happened in Europe? You killed all the wolves and then deer ate all your foliage? :D In my area, there is no shortage of browse for the prey species to eat. There is simply too many predators eating the calf moose and caribou (this includes bears and wolves) to sustain our herds without predator control.

No, seriously, would you say you have a healthy number of deer, or did the deer disappear also?

Kogen wrote:
Where I live it actually made them go extinct due to lack of caribou (although it was a small population, about 1000 total, same as the extinct Indians). All of this resulted without an extermination programme against wolves.

See... the wolves eat all the caribou and then each other.
Predator control works to sustain levels of healthy predator and prey.

velvet
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Why hunt so many deer? I thought Alaska was wealthy with minerals, oil, and a fishery?

Can you eat minerals or oil? Can you grow much cerials, fruits, whatever in Alaska? I doubt.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Zimobog talked about the single wolf near his house somewhere in the wilderness, and likewise I'm sure he would love to shoot one of the helicopters, because, that indeed has nothing to do with traditional lifestyle.


Plus if you hunted too many deer, the wolf population would slowly shrink to adapt to it. Where I live it actually made them go extinct due to lack of caribou (although it was a small population, about 1000 total, same as the extinct Indians). All of this resulted without an extermination programme against wolves. So either way, it is not needed.

Indeed, exterminate the prey will do the same job


This is capitalism and globalism. People have been wearing non-skin clothes for thousands of years.

Ehm, I think to remember that the first clothing were indeed skin and fur. That with the cotton thingy came waaaay later ;)



If there is a problem with wolves, then figure something out, I would say. Some sort of deep link-fence around the field might work for the sheep. Germany certainly has the money for it considering all the welfare they give out to towel heads.

In their 'rightful defense' against predators our farmers and herders successfully eliminated wolves, bears and even the most wild cats, eagles and other big birds. In Germany sheep can walk free without fear of being eaten by a wolf, so we really have no use for deep link fences or other high-tech stuff :(

Man got along with predators for thousands of years, once in a while a sheep or cow fell prey to a wolf or a bear. Well, and? The wolf has a right to live as well as the sheep. The crux in the natural relation between us and the predators was the valuation of 'causing damage' to the 'production'.

Although I am strictly against killing any animal out of 'personal fun' or 'sport' (in fact, I would love to subscribe the law that allows hunting such freaks), I still have to agree with Zimobog. If everyone would live like he lives, our planet wouldnt die.
Cities, which seperated us from anything natural, made our world crumble, not some people in the wilderness shooting a moose for the winter.

Instead we get meat from animal farms, pumped full with antibiotika and other synthetic poison, which slowly but steadily will damage our genes, and to avoid deseases among these cattle that is held totally unnatural it gets gasses with nicotin (chicken and egg production), all sorts of chemicals to prevent infection from rotting cattle among the living, because it is 'too expensive' to remove the dead ones for the mass farmers.... bah, no, really. This really is no 'clean' alternative.
Mass growing of plants is the very same, gene-manipulated stuff to have it grow faster with more produce, hectoliterwise poured out pesticides and what not all, grown in monocultures that make the ground for years a wasteland - for a short time profit of some 'food concerns'...

Kogen
Friday, September 18th, 2009, 10:29 PM
See... the wolves eat all the caribou and then each other.
Predator control works to sustain levels of healthy predator and prey.

No, you misunderstood. We ate a lot of the caribou, then their populations slowly got smaller as they bred less and eventually spread out to eventually die off.

But my point here is that they were not exterminated by people, but rather died out due to a lack of food source. In a large wolf population like Alaska, hunting their prey will naturally lead to the population decreasing, but not lead to extinction (unless hunting went out of control). My example was an extreme one, as it was such a small population (and it happened to humans, as well; has since been fixed due to introduction of moose as extra food).


Can you eat minerals or oil? Can you grow much cerials, fruits, whatever in Alaska? I doubt.

Already I am doubting how this reply will be...

I mean as something to buy the food with. I am certain Alaska imports food. I know you are not stupid, you know why I mentioned this.



Oh, and I'm pretty sure Zimobog talked about the single wolf near his house somewhere in the wilderness, and likewise I'm sure he would love to shoot one of the helicopters, because, that indeed has nothing to do with traditional lifestyle.

Read the opening post to this thread.


Indeed, exterminate the prey will do the same job

Do Alaskans live solely off of what the wolves eat? The region is very big, I highly doubt this. They export fish/crabs all over the world, as well. Alaska seems rich with food, and weath for importing more.


Ehm, I think to remember that the first clothing were indeed skin and fur. That with the cotton thingy came waaaay later ;)

In an ice age, sure. But people have been using plants for clothing since they decided to wear clothing if available. Alaska certainly can afford clothes for the people there. They are not poor or retarded.


In their 'rightful defense' against predators our farmers and herders successfully eliminated wolves, bears and even the most wild cats, eagles and other big birds. In Germany sheep can walk free without fear of being eaten by a wolf, so we really have no use for deep link fences or other high-tech stuff :(

Someone was saying in a mountain region that the issue exists.

And I have seen German wolves in videos, apparently the population is increasing.



Man got along with predators for thousands of years, once in a while a sheep or cow fell prey to a wolf or a bear. Well, and? The wolf has a right to live as well as the sheep. The crux in the natural relation between us and the predators was the valuation of 'causing damage' to the 'production'.

I think a wolf is higher than a sheep. Just as I think I am higher than a sheep.

There are plenty more sheep than wolves in the world.


Although I am strictly against killing any animal out of 'personal fun' or 'sport' (in fact, I would love to subscribe the law that allows hunting such freaks), I still have to agree with Zimobog. If everyone would live like he lives, our planet wouldnt die.
Cities, which seperated us from anything natural, made our world crumble, not some people in the wilderness shooting a moose for the winter.

People in my family eat rabbits, but they do not hunt foxes. Yet we have clothing and no pollution barely. Seems to work out fine without mindless violence against other hunters.


Instead we get meat from animal farms, pumped full with antibiotika and other synthetic poison, which slowly but steadily will damage our genes, and to avoid deseases among these cattle that is held totally unnatural it gets gasses with nicotin (chicken and egg production), all sorts of chemicals to prevent infection from rotting cattle among the living, because it is 'too expensive' to remove the dead ones for the mass farmers.... bah, no, really. This really is no 'clean' alternative.
Mass growing of plants is the very same, gene-manipulated stuff to have it grow faster with more produce, hectoliterwise poured out pesticides and what not all, grown in monocultures that make the ground for years a wasteland - for a short time profit of some 'food concerns'...

Well again, this is capitalism and globalism. The system is dangerous to everything and one cannot blame it about this subject. Everyone here is using a computer, for example, just because that is how it is. Individuals cannot defeat it so easily.

As for the topic, I think some people are misunderstanding it (or maybe I am, the creator can inform me). What I see is a topic about asking how people feel about the systematic extermination of wolves by the Jewish Alaskan government, with it totally ignoring the population's vote on the issue and even ignoring their own laws. They do not care about normal hunters at all, they care about money. I do not think a reasonable person can support this.

velvet
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:20 AM
No, you misunderstood. We ate a lot of the caribou, then their populations slowly got smaller as they bred less and eventually spread out to eventually die off.

Then man ate too much of them.
A predator animal is very unlikely to rot out its prey. See lions for example, they prey thousands of zebras and others, large numbers fall prey to crocodiles while crossing rivers, it doesnt damage the pray population the least.

Another problem probably is that man doesnt have a predator anymore that keeps him in check.


Already I am doubting how this reply will be...

I mean as something to buy the food with. I am certain Alaska imports food. I know you are not stupid, you know why I mentioned this.

Yes, but where does this imported food come from? It comes from the mass production concerns, which damage our environment and economy not only with their unhealthy method to keep cattle, but also by essentially unneeded transports of the mass-produced and highly processed food.


Do Alaskans live solely off of what the wolves eat? The region is very big, I highly doubt this. They export fish/crabs all over the world, as well. Alaska seems rich with food, and weath for importing more.

True, but as said above, I'm not a big fan of having food transported all around the globe.


In an ice age, sure. But people have been using plants for clothing since they decided to wear clothing if available. Alaska certainly can afford clothes for the people there. They are not poor or retarded.

Indeed they can. But nowadays most clothes are produced in India or China (hence Zimobog's question who is willing to support small businesses / skill workers, people who make clothing home in Alaska, Vinland or Germany and not buy the 'cheaper' imports from the other end of the world)


Someone was saying in a mountain region that the issue exists.

Siebenbürgen is (unfortunately) not Germany anymore :)


And I have seen German wolves in videos, apparently the population is increasing.

We dont have free living wolf populations, we have some parks who keep them in large areas, completely fenced though and alpha-wolved by a human.
Probably once in a while one single wolf comes over the Czechian border, dont know, or deep down in Bavarian mountains, but as far as I know there are no free living populations.


I think a wolf is higher than a sheep. Just as I think I am higher than a sheep.

There are plenty more sheep than wolves in the world.

Indeed, therefore there is no reason to hunt wolves or not to leave them a sheep once in a while ;)


People in my family eat rabbits, but they do not hunt foxes. Yet we have clothing and no pollution barely. Seems to work out fine without mindless violence against other hunters.

You only eat rabbit? :-O


Well again, this is capitalism and globalism. The system is dangerous to everything and one cannot blame it about this subject. Everyone here is using a computer, for example, just because that is how it is. Individuals cannot defeat it so easily.

Does that make sense first to conclude, correctly, that the system is dangerous and then saying it cant be blamed for the damage it causes?

Anyway, indeed individuals can do something against it. Dont buy your meat at Walmart but buy it from a local butcher, care for where other things you need to buy are produced and dont buy imports when there is a local alternative. When you have a farmer around, buy as much as possible directly from him.
YOU (everyone) can break the system's power and influence, it is up to you to change your own behavior.


As for the topic, I think some people are misunderstanding it (or maybe I am, the creator can inform me). What I see is a topic about asking how people feel about the systematic extermination of wolves by the Jewish Alaskan government, with it totally ignoring the population's vote on the issue and even ignoring their own laws. They do not care about normal hunters at all, they care about money. I do not think a reasonable person can support this.

I dont support this, in fact I said these freaks who fly around with their helicopters should be free to be hunted, not they should be free to hunt. Probably I misformulated? Anyway, again, I dont support helicopter hunting of wolves, I dont support aerial seal hunting in Africa for the profit of a (Jewish) Australian company, I dont support wale hunting for Chinese potence creams, and I also dont support mass animal farming when I can avoid it, I dont buy poisoned Indian or Chinese clothing, I dont buy gene-manipulated American sweet corne...

I would support a more rural life, and I am just consequent when I think that hunting is a part of that. Rural life and mass imports of food dont go along very well.

I dont say to abandon therefor each and every 'comfort', but essentially, it is the big cities which damage our world and our society, cities in which people are completely unrooted from nature.
Without meaning that as reproach, but you showed the effect quite clearly. You say Alaska could import everything it needs, as if that what is imported would be produced, somehow mysteriously, in some magic plant out of nothing. It is exactly these plants and the cities they supply which make the dangerous system possible and have it controlling ever more and more of our lives. You consider it somehow clean, because in the supermarket you dont see how the nicely cut steak was raised, there is no blood, no butcher, everything is clean. Too many people these days just have forgotten that the steak once was alive, and lived a life without any dignity in a mass animal farm on two squaremeters and never has seen real grass.

It isnt 'just how it is', it is like that because we let it become like that.

Nachtengel
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:26 AM
There are five packs in Saxony of up to eight wolves each, plus a couple of loners in neighbouring Brandenburg, making 40 or fewer in total in the entire country.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=112306

oakenbough
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:37 AM
In nature the number of wolves would increase and increase until either a hard winter or lack of food (after they have killed all the deer) would kill them, so they can either die of starvation every few years or be killed with a bullet, from my point of view I know which death I would prefer.

As we have killed off most of the other top predators that would have competed with the wolves for prey and space, we have to take their place, same as with the foxes in this country.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Wolves have their place, but sometimes they kill with no reason other than sport. I like to vacation in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan wolves have become quite populated there in the last few years. The deer heard has suffered and people's pets have been killed. People who live in the UP rely on the deer for meat and income from guest hunters. Wolf populations should be kept in check but not destroyed.

Vindefense
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 04:26 AM
The funny thing is if wolf populations are not regulated they can quickly become a nuisance. The same people who are complaining about their senseless slaughter will be the first to demand that something is done especially when they are personally on the receiving end. It is a no win situation. If the officials do nothing to control the population they will be criticized when it becomes a problem. If they do, they are demonized. Same thing happened out west. :shrug If we let hunters and trappers manage the population it is the same as introducing a natural predator into the mix. Which is exactly what man is to wolves.

Here is a similar situation. I grew up in an area with a large old growth forest that was turned into a park as the city developed. There was always an abundant supply of healthy white tail deer and of course the residents surrounding the park demanded a prohibition on hunting. Not even with a bow. After several years of unchecked population growth and many thousands of dollars in damages to vehicles and property. These same residents were now demanding that something be done about the deer problem. So the city sent 'trained officers' (local law enforcement snipers) in at night. Big problems developed, many of the cops missed the vitals, leaving many deer wounded and unharvested. And it is no exaggeration to say they really botched the job. So naturally the residents complained about that. Their property trespassed, deer dead in their driveways etc. Solution? Now bow hunting is allowed. For 12 years now, what should of took place long ago has proved to be an effective measure of control.

like I always say to people who complain about the killing of animals, if you care so much, leave your home, bulldoze it and let them move back.

Lest anyone gets the impression I am indifferent, wolves are my favorite animal. I have nothing but respect and love for them.

Kogen
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 11:56 AM
Then man ate too much of them.
A predator animal is very unlikely to rot out its prey. See lions for example, they prey thousands of zebras and others, large numbers fall prey to crocodiles while crossing rivers, it doesnt damage the pray population the least.

Caribou are still here, it was just a conflicting issue of Europeans, Indians, and wolves hunting the same herd. It could not handle so many hunters at the same time. It has since been fixed and the wolf could survive here now (actually the ecosystem is ruined with coyotes because there are no wolves here; idiots will not admit it however).



Another problem probably is that man doesnt have a predator anymore that keeps him in check.

He has himself. I do not think it is so much man needs a predator as it is we need to stop babysitting the entire world against nature (disease, et cetera that exists to reduce overpopulation).



Yes, but where does this imported food come from? It comes from the mass production concerns, which damage our environment and economy not only with their unhealthy method to keep cattle, but also by essentially unneeded transports of the mass-produced and highly processed food.

You do not know where it comes from, it is impossible to guess this. My suggestion was at least a type of solution instead of doing nothing.



True, but as said above, I'm not a big fan of having food transported all around the globe.

Then they can eat their own fish? If they can feed the world with it, then they can feed themselves.


Indeed they can. But nowadays most clothes are produced in India or China (hence Zimobog's question who is willing to support small businesses / skill workers, people who make clothing home in Alaska, Vinland or Germany and not buy the 'cheaper' imports from the other end of the world)

This is not the fault of wolves, though. Why blame them for slavery in China/India? It is our fault for letting Jews do this to us.


You only eat rabbit? :-O

No, my point is there is no conflict with other animals that eat rabbit. The foxes and rabbits have been fine long before man arrived. And they have been fine around bears, wolves, and other animals. Nature balances itself; we just need to act responsible.



Anyway, indeed individuals can do something against it. Dont buy your meat at Walmart but buy it from a local butcher, care for where other things you need to buy are produced and dont buy imports when there is a local alternative. When you have a farmer around, buy as much as possible directly from him.
YOU (everyone) can break the system's power and influence, it is up to you to change your own behavior.

A poor person is not going to buy their food more expensive for no reason. The problem is the government. Within a year, a nationalist government could have solutions for all of these problems already in place. A few us doing that only helps slightly, so it not significant enough (and yes, I do do that frequently).


I would support a more rural life, and I am just consequent when I think that hunting is a part of that. Rural life and mass imports of food dont go along very well.

Rural life alone does not work; there are other people who will take advantage.

Stupidity is also not justified just by living in a rural area.



Without meaning that as reproach, but you showed the effect quite clearly. You say Alaska could import everything it needs, as if that what is imported would be produced, somehow mysteriously, in some magic plant out of nothing.

Again, I provided a solution. I never said it was perfect, but it is a solution.

Ignoring a problem does not solve it.



It is exactly these plants and the cities they supply which make the dangerous system possible and have it controlling ever more and more of our lives. You consider it somehow clean, because in the supermarket you dont see how the nicely cut steak was raised, there is no blood, no butcher, everything is clean. Too many people these days just have forgotten that the steak once was alive, and lived a life without any dignity in a mass animal farm on two squaremeters and never has seen real grass.

They will do that with or without wolf hunting. So it is another subject, and a much bigger subject.


It isnt 'just how it is', it is like that because we let it become like that.

Then let us try to fix it?


In nature the number of wolves would increase and increase until either a hard winter or lack of food (after they have killed all the deer) would kill them, so they can either die of starvation every few years or be killed with a bullet, from my point of view I know which death I would prefer.

To be blunt: you have no right over the lives of others and your personal opinion about how you want to die is not relevant at all. You are not a God or master of nature.


As we have killed off most of the other top predators that would have competed with the wolves for prey and space, we have to take their place, same as with the foxes in this country.

England is not Alaska. They have all their bears, wolves, trees, lack of Baghdad in the front yard, and so on.


Wolves have their place, but sometimes they kill with no reason other than sport.

Prove it.


I like to vacation in the Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan wolves have become quite populated there in the last few years.

Because they are restoring their lost populations. It is good.



The deer heard has suffered and people's pets have been killed.

So I suppose the deer herd was doing fantastic when it was bullets instead of teeth killing it. And only domesticated animals matter, who cares about the wild ones.

Entirely egotistic reasoning and against nature.


People who live in the UP rely on the deer for meat and income from guest hunters. Wolf populations should be kept in check but not destroyed.

Well maybe there are too many people there to sustain an environment? Perhaps our own population should be kept in check before we blame it on others.

We are the smarter ones, right?


The funny thing is if wolf populations are not regulated they can quickly become a nuisance.

The funny thing is: no. Stop pretending you are God and all the poor animals are helpless without you.



The same people who are complaining about their senseless slaughter will be the first to demand that something is done especially when they are personally on the receiving end.

So now you know exactly what me and the wolves think and act? Wow, you are a smart one!


It is a no win situation.

Yes my Lord, please guide us. Only you know the solution.


If the officials do nothing to control the population they will be criticized when it becomes a problem.

They were repeatedly told not to and they did it anyway.


If they do, they are demonized.

Because they were repeatedly told not to.



Same thing happened out west. :shrug If we let hunters and trappers manage the population it is the same as introducing a natural predator into the mix.

Or alternatively, sadistic freaks with their wires and traps can stop killing all the bears for fun, and killing the prey animals for trophies. The idiots who always say we should blame wolves are always the ones killing bears and other animals for fun that are needed to keep the forest healthy.


Here is a similar situation. I grew up in an area with a large old growth forest that was turned into a park as the city developed. There was always an abundant supply of healthy white tail deer and of course the residents surrounding the park demanded a prohibition on hunting. Not even with a bow. After several years of unchecked population growth and many thousands of dollars in damages to vehicles and property. These same residents were now demanding that something be done about the deer problem. So the city sent 'trained officers' (local law enforcement snipers) in at night. Big problems developed, many of the cops missed the vitals, leaving many deer wounded and unharvested. And it is no exaggeration to say they really botched the job. So naturally the residents complained about that. Their property trespassed, deer dead in their driveways etc. Solution? Now bow hunting is allowed. For 12 years now, what should of took place long ago has proved to be an effective measure of control.

What does this have to do with exterminating wolves? It is a deer issue and has nothing to do with wolves.


like I always say to people who complain about the killing of animals, if you care so much, leave your home, bulldoze it and let them move back.

Oh, so this was the wisdom I was waiting for.


Lest anyone gets the impression I am indifferent, wolves are my favorite animal. I have nothing but respect and love for them.

It is too bad you are utterly clueless about what you are talking of.


And before anyone says I am clueless as well, since I am saying it to others on this subject, half of my nation is on mainland North America. Here there are wolves and people together, yet there is no wolf extermination programme. A few people hunt them for fun or just hate them, but it is only a very small minority doing that, so it is not significant. Sometimes wolves do come to communities and harass people or attack pets (with some dying), and then those wolves are always shot because they are being aggressive. People live off of the same prey as the wolves, and yet we still both co-exist with healthy populations. No one is trying to effectively exterminate the other, and no person has ever died as a result. Nature seems to have worked here without legions of trappers and helicopter snipers.

It can work everywhere else too if people stop being generic 'conservatives' who actually know nothing of what they are doing. Try actually finding alternative solutions instead of mindless violence you got from reading a passage in the Bible about "do whatever you want, animals are worthless'. It is by Jews and referring to Jews, as Germans are included in these animals. Our people respect nature and continue to do so when foreign rot is not influencing us. The whole concept of modern environmentalism/animals rights is German; created by the Third Reich through Adolf Hitler (his first name means Noble Wolf, even). Everything against this movement is Jewish in origin; be it Jews themselves, their method of economy, or their ‘spin-off’ religions of Christianity and Islam.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 12:49 PM
Man is the dominate creature on this earth and yes we should act responsible. To put a animals rights above that of a human is folly and leftist.:|

I do not need proof to know wolves kill for sport I have seen it with my eyes more than once.

The Third Reich had hunting clubs as does Germany today. Hunting is a instinct for man just as it is for animals.

Kogen
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 01:44 PM
Man is the dominate creature on this earth and yes we should act responsible. To put a animals rights above that of a human is folly and leftist.:|

I suppose you have a foster child in Africa, too. Praise Jesus.


I do not need proof to know wolves kill for sport I have seen it with my eyes more than once.

Well I do.


The Third Reich had hunting clubs as does Germany today. Hunting is a instinct for man just as it is for animals.

Show me a wolf hunting club in the Third Reich.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 02:19 PM
I suppose you have a foster child in Africa, too. Praise Jesus. .



I am not a Christain like you so I would not support something like that. If you can't discuss the facts your point is mute.




Show me a wolf hunting club in the Third Reich..


All hunting is the responsibility of the hunting clubs that includes the control of predators and prey.

velvet
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 02:29 PM
It has since been fixed and the wolf could survive here now (actually the ecosystem is ruined with coyotes because there are no wolves here; idiots will not admit it however)

My words, dont mess around with nature, as it balances itself ;)


He has himself. I do not think it is so much man needs a predator as it is we need to stop babysitting the entire world against nature (disease, et cetera that exists to reduce overpopulation)

Good, I see our views dont differ so much. :thumbup


You do not know where it comes from, it is impossible to guess this. My suggestion was at least a type of solution instead of doing nothing.

The difference is, I know where large parts of my meat come from, I know the cattle lives not far from my town and the local butcher makes nice steaks or whatever from it. Do you call that 'doing nothing'? I know it will not change the world, if everyone would do it though, it would change a lot.
Solutions dont come over night, change doesnt happen over night, but in the frame of my possibilities I work and act against the system.


Then they can eat their own fish? If they can feed the world with it, then they can feed themselves

For example, yes. I guess they do that anyway.
The problem, the big problem behind, is that most food isnt sold and consumed in the country where it is produced, many things are produced for export only.
When Alaska fish is exported to the entire world, the question though is, where do they take all that fish from? And which consequencies does it have when they empty the entire sea? It's the same here, the north sea is just empty, there are only a few fishers left who hardly can sustain themselves.
Skills vanish, knowledge vanishs, the economical chain changes, such things have many effects, some immediate, others only show up in the long run. Good though is none of these effects.


This is not the fault of wolves, though. Why blame them for slavery in China/India? It is our fault for letting Jews do this to us.

Where did I blame the wolves for it?



No, my point is there is no conflict with other animals that eat rabbit. The foxes and rabbits have been fine long before man arrived. And they have been fine around bears, wolves, and other animals. Nature balances itself; we just need to act responsible

Didnt say anything else ;)



A poor person is not going to buy their food more expensive for no reason. The problem is the government. Within a year, a nationalist government could have solutions for all of these problems already in place. A few us doing that only helps slightly, so it not significant enough (and yes, I do do that frequently).

Actually it is not so much more expensive. You see, I'm not rich, in fact we fall under the poverty line and indeed it would be a bit cheaper to buy certain things in the supermarket instead of the bio butcher and the bio bakery. But first, I dont consider it necessary to eat meat every day, in fact we have at least two or three days a week 'cold kitchen', means we eat bread, bought in the bakery with 'real' incrediences instead of highly processed and partly even synthetic ones. The difference is that you have enough with the half of the mass you'd need to have the same effect with the supermarket bread. Same with meat, meat from animals raised with natural food has fewer losses from cooking, tastes much better and again, you dont need so much.
I do that for several reasons, first because it is a matter of taste, second it is healthier, and third because I believe that it can change something.

Indeed, a government with common sense could bring about a change from the top down, but where will that government come from? It needs a base, people who believe that the world could be different from that.
Waiting that such a government will come about 'just so' cant be a solution, it will not come when there are no people who believe in a change and act in their belief of right and wrong. One of the things I consider wrong is mass animal farming, therefor I try not to support it with buying their stuff.



Rural life alone does not work; there are other people who will take advantage.

Stupidity is also not justified just by living in a rural area.


Nothing does work alone. There is no single solution to all problems. And no solution will solve all problems at once, but we need to start somewhere.
I'm very well aware that rural life alone will not help, in fact, rural life will be only possible again when certain things are brought on the way. Still I consider it part of a possible solution and a needed part of a mutual development within that changing process.



Again, I provided a solution. I never said it was perfect, but it is a solution.

Ignoring a problem does not solve it.

Where is importing everything and supporting the 'system' with these imports a solution? It will only worsen the problem.



So it is another subject, and a much bigger subject.

No, it is just another part of the problem. Again, there is no 'single, all is fine solution'.



Then let us try to fix it?

Yes :thumbup



Man is the dominate creature on this earth and yes we should act responsible. To put a animals rights above that of a human is folly and leftist

Who gave you the right to place yourself above nature and to disrespect it? This is indeed a Jewish idea: 'make yourself the world a subject'. This idea does not include any responsibility, this is only about dominance for whatever price.
Man should finally understand that he is PART of nature and fully dependend on it. Nature can do well without us, we though cannot exist without nature. Messing around with a system that worked for million of years will eventually kill our species off. And man should finally understand that he has no right whatsoever to make other species suffer for selfish profit fantasies.

Vindefense
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 03:55 PM
The funny thing is: no. Stop pretending you are God and all the poor animals are helpless without you.

Excuse me? What are you talking about, and what authority do you have to support such an accusation? I am not for the killing off of a species in it's entirety, that is a crime against nature. I am for sensible management. though.


So now you know exactly what me and the wolves think and act? Wow, you are a smart one!

NO Reply.


Or alternatively, sadistic freaks with their wires and traps can stop killing all the bears for fun, and killing the prey animals for trophies. The idiots who always say we should blame wolves are always the ones killing bears and other animals for fun that are needed to keep the forest healthy.

Only cats kill for fun. Man always kills for a reason.


What does this have to do with exterminating wolves? It is a deer issue and has nothing to do with wolves.


It has everything to do with the issue and the video at the beginning which is nothing but sensationalist propaganda.


Oh, so this was the wisdom I was waiting for.


Insulting me does not change the bitter truth. You obviously have no real argument to discredit me.


It is too bad you are utterly clueless about what you are talking of.


If clueless to you means capable of seeing the situation in a rational light, then yes I am guilty as hell.


A few people hunt them for fun or just hate them, but it is only a very small minority doing that, so it is not significant.

This is significant, it creates the balance needed to allow wolves and man to co-exist. Wolves have no natural predators other than man until they become a burden on the food supply then they eat each other.


Nature seems to have worked here without legions of trappers and helicopter snipers.

When man manages any animal population, he is in effect an agent of nature and the role we play is vital in this regard to maintain this equilibrium.

:) Velvet, I know you directed this to J Baugham, but I just can't resist. This part of your statement I fully agree with:


Man should finally understand that he is PART of nature and fully dependend on it.

The following part is untrue:


Nature can do well without us,

Since man is part of nature, we must except that our role here is just as vital. Man is capable of limitation, the animal kingdom is not. We are the final check, if we cease to exist it is reasonable to conclude that the animal kingdom would kill itself off.

And I agree with this:


we though cannot exist without nature. Messing around with a system that worked for million of years will eventually kill our species off. And man should finally understand that he has no right whatsoever to make other species suffer for selfish profit fantasies.

Ultimately, the backbone of that system is man's capability to hunt predators, which supports equilibrium in nature.

Addition. Kogen said:

Show me a wolf hunting club in the Third Reich.

What do the words Reichsjaegermeister mean to you then? .

thoughtcrime
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 04:18 PM
Man should finally understand that he is PART of nature and fully dependend on it.


Nature can do well without us, we though cannot exist without nature.

Sorry, but I find this two statements a bit contradictionary. If mankind is just another species in the balance of nature, how is it more replaceable/insgnificant than, say, wolves?

One could argue that wolves are the older species, but then again, there was a time when neither man nor wolf existed ;)

I feel that you underestimate the importance of mankind to the ecosystem. We are the highest of hunters, the terran master species. No species can control the terran nature, for good or bad, like us. I agree that we have to bear this responsibility with great cautionness. We, as the highest species, have the duty to be the keepers of balance.


Only cats kill for fun. Man always kills for a reason.

I disagree, many species, including humans, kill for "fun", more specific, out of their hunting instinct. Mankind is however best in suppressing that instinct by reason, and this is most needed, because if our power is uncontrolled, we'll destroy ourselves and anything around us.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Who gave you the right to place yourself above nature and to disrespect it? This is indeed a Jewish idea: 'make yourself the world a subject'. This idea does not include any responsibility, this is only about dominance for whatever price.
Man should finally understand that he is PART of nature and fully dependent on it. Nature can do well without us, we though cannot exist without nature. Messing around with a system that worked for million of years will eventually kill our species off. And man should finally understand that he has no right whatsoever to make other species suffer for selfish profit fantasies.

I never said I was above nature nor did I want dominate it or the world. All of Mankind is part of nature. We have to do our part to maintain the world around us if we expect to live in it.
Do I agree with the type of hunting shown on this thread ....NO. I do however agree with hunting for food and for income(not gross profits) if that is the situation you live in. Having to control wolf populations may have to be done from time to time. The type of Killing shown on those videos is not hunting but killing. Yes they should have tried to relocate the wolves to area that could support them and did not have other wolves.

Hunting is as old as mankind itself and we have in the past hunted without regard to our world. In the U.S. habitat for all wildlife is supported by the hunters themselves through taxes on hunting gear and license fees. Hunters in this country have done more to support all wildlife than any other group.

To think the world was a harmonious place before mankind goes along the lines of jewish thinking(garden of eden). The world is savage place with or without mankind.

It is not that I don't like wolves(I do like wolves and all animals). I'm just saying banning hunting is bad and over hunting is bad. Logic needs to be applied in these areas.:|

Zimobog
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 05:31 PM
There are two kinds of people on this subject, those who know that man affects nature no matter what the intent and therefore should have some sort of plan for managing his effects and interaction with nature...

and those who think that interacting with nature is morally wrong.:-O

When the moralists run out of steam (and always very quickly) they can only slander the people who advocate management, because disagreeing with their "brilliant arguements" obviously means that we are morally corrupt or ignorant. Read back thru this thread and similar ones... anyone who ever dares disagree with them is a redneck (complete with a comical accent), a cookie-cutter conservative, a egotist, a liar, a jew, a capitalist, a despicable Christian...

There really isn't any arguing or reasoning with people who think that nature shouldn't be untouched by man. This is because it is a moral position, it has nothing to do with facts or the science on which predator control is based. The anti- arguement is all moralism and no facts. If I am wrong, let me see the anti-hunters hire indepentant biologists instead of Hollywood publistists to run their next propaganda campain.:P

I just try to put another opinion out there so the anti-hunters/trappers don't think they speak for a majority.

:D

Zimobog
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 05:39 PM
Don't Skimp on Funding Where Predator Control is Concerned

...part of an article to illustrate the point that predator is science accepted by majority of wildlife biologists except fo when a philosopical bias exists:



....Many biologists (especially outside Alaska) don't support intensive management because they believe that factors other than predation will prevent harvest goals from being achieved.
Some of these arguments are justified because information is lacking, but many are based on philosophical bias. Regardless, whenever controversial experiments in predator control are involved, the standards of evidence are very high.

Fish and Game has faced this problem for over 25 years. Despite clear evidence as far back as the early 1980s that predation by bears and wolves plays a major role in limiting moose numbers and harvest, it is only recently that a majority of biologists now agree with those conclusions. It took years of hard work and well-designed studies to convince this majority. The intensive management experiments being implemented now by the Board of Game and the Fish and Game include many new ideas. Unless there is adequate funding to design, implement and evaluate these ideas over the next 5-10 years, professional support will deteriorate...

Don't Skimp on Funding Where Predator Control is Concerned

Pat Valkenburg / Opinion / Fairbanks Daily News-Miner / February 20, 2006

Astrid Runa
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 06:17 PM
The funny thing is if wolf populations are not regulated they can quickly become a nuisance. The same people who are complaining about their senseless slaughter will be the first to demand that something is done especially when they are personally on the receiving end. It is a no win situation. If the officials do nothing to control the population they will be criticized when it becomes a problem. If they do, they are demonized. Same thing happened out west. :shrug If we let hunters and trappers manage the population it is the same as introducing a natural predator into the mix. Which is exactly what man is to wolves.

Here is a similar situation. I grew up in an area with a large old growth forest that was turned into a park as the city developed. There was always an abundant supply of healthy white tail deer and of course the residents surrounding the park demanded a prohibition on hunting. Not even with a bow. After several years of unchecked population growth and many thousands of dollars in damages to vehicles and property. These same residents were now demanding that something be done about the deer problem. So the city sent 'trained officers' (local law enforcement snipers) in at night. Big problems developed, many of the cops missed the vitals, leaving many deer wounded and unharvested. And it is no exaggeration to say they really botched the job. So naturally the residents complained about that. Their property trespassed, deer dead in their driveways etc. Solution? Now bow hunting is allowed. For 12 years now, what should of took place long ago has proved to be an effective measure of control.

like I always say to people who complain about the killing of animals, if you care so much, leave your home, bulldoze it and let them move back.

Lest anyone gets the impression I am indifferent, wolves are my favorite animal. I have nothing but respect and love for them.

Manage my arse!
How can you even suggest that we let hunters even touch a wolf?
Wolves are not overpopulated. The red wolf is in severe danger of dissapearing off the face of the planet because we were "keeping their numbers in check".
Wolves are slowly dissapearing and all you can say is that we need to keep their numbers in check??!!
If you want to keep their numbers in check, you don't bloody shoot them in the leg and leave them to die painfully and slowly!
If it has to be done, and I mean absolutely has to be done, then a bullet in the brain would be the quickest solution.
And you don't kill the pups, either. They are the next generation and wolves only breed once a year.
And I've lost my train of thought.
It'll come back to me later.

jacktheknife
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 06:25 PM
Gentlemen,

{This post is about Coyotes.
I've never seen a wolf,
but 'wild dogs' are, after all 'wild dogs'.}

Coyotes,
I've killed a hundred of them.
Took three to the fur buyer in one week 25 years ago,
three nice ones case skinned, they were beautiful.
Coyotes are the ultimate prey for a hunter or a trapper
and a man can learn a lot from them.

But I realized years ago, that Coyotes 'are'...
really just Dogs. The ultimate dog.
And I loved my hounds, {all gone now}
more than anyone here could ever imagine.
{They were dogs too}

But "A Coyote is a dog":
is not only true, it is a profound, beautiful and spiritual truth.
A coyote is 'the ultimate dog'.
Nobody feeds him,
nobody takes him to the vet,
he has to deal with rabies, parvo, heartworms,
wounds and such if he lives 2-3 years he is lucky!

My old fur buyer said to me once:
"He wouldn't have it any other way."
"The Coyote doesn't want any help"

Add to that situation every human is out after old Yote.
Hunting them down like well... dogs.
Sorry...

But I respect their pride.
I respect their self reliance, I do.
I makes me feel good to hear them howling at night,
and I don't like to kill them any more.
Like the old Mexican Corredo {ballad} goes...
"El Coyote is just out looking for something for his family to eat."

Metal spinning targets are fun,
as are just throwing beer bottles in the creek
and shooting them as they drift past,
especially during a flood when they move really fast!
Cut the Yotes some slack,
unless you skin them or boil their skulls,
use glands, leaf fat, urine and dung for lure or something.
And yeah... $25. sounds real good...
But just to shoot a dog and throw him in the ditch
makes my heart sick and sad.

A man can learn a lot from 'old Coyote'.


Thank you

J. Winters von Knife
http://jacksknifeshop.tripod.com/

Astrid Runa
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Excuse me? What are you talking about, and what authority do you have to support such an accusation? I am not for the killing off of a species in it's entirety, that is a crime against nature. I am for sensible management. though.

Aye, and what management would that be, eh? The same "management" that has nearly wiped the red wolf off the face of the planet?



NO Reply.

*snorts* Of course you dinnae hae any reply.


Only cats kill for fun. Man always kills for a reason.

And what reason is that, eh?
Dominance? Being "the alpha male", as it were, eh?
Trying to prove that man is above nature, eh?
Nobody will be above nature, because it was nature that made us!


It has everything to do with the issue and the video at the beginning which is nothing but sensationalist propaganda.

I beg your pardon?
Are you calling me a sensationalist? Do you honestly have the gall to call me a sensationalist?




Insulting me does not change the bitter truth. You obviously have no real argument to discredit me.

Not nice, being insulted, is it?
Yet you seem to have no problem whatsoever with insulting others.


If clueless to you means capable of seeing the situation in a rational light, then yes I am guilty as hell.

There's nothing rational about a situation where innocent wolves and their pups are being murdered for their fur, meat and for money.



This is significant, it creates the balance needed to allow wolves and man to co-exist. Wolves have no natural predators other than man until they become a burden on the food supply then they eat each other.

Wolves would only eat each other if man removed their food supply.
Excuse them for fighting for survival.


When man manages any animal population, he is in effect an agent of nature and the role we play is vital in this regard to maintain this equilibrium.

*rofl*
Agent of nature? Wow, that's a fancy word for murderer.





Since man is part of nature, we must except that our role here is just as vital. Man is capable of limitation, the animal kingdom is not. We are the final check, if we cease to exist it is reasonable to conclude that the animal kingdom would kill itself off.

Actually, I think you'd be quite wrong there.
If man were to become extinct, nature would continue on as normal. It would restart, grow and flourish in the absence of man. Man has been killing it for centuries. You honestly think nature would die without us?
That's the most naive thing I've ever heard.


Ultimately, the backbone of that system is man's capability to hunt predators, which supports equilibrium in nature.

Aye, predators that would kill us in a heartbeat if we posed a threat.

Kogen
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 07:07 PM
The difference is, I know where large parts of my meat come from, I know the cattle lives not far from my town and the local butcher makes nice steaks or whatever from it. Do you call that 'doing nothing'? I know it will not change the world, if everyone would do it though, it would change a lot. Solutions dont come over night, change doesnt happen over night, but in the frame of my possibilities I work and act against the system.

Yes, this is fine, but still my solution is managable. Food can be shipped from other regions without being negative on the environment like it currently is. Just think about how much food we would have if meat was not even mass-produced, the amount of grains would be huge. This is what could be shipped. I am sure you know our people lived off bread mostly in the past and it worked.


When Alaska fish is exported to the entire world, the question though is, where do they take all that fish from? And which consequencies does it have when they empty the entire sea? It's the same here, the north sea is just empty, there are only a few fishers left who hardly can sustain themselves.
Skills vanish, knowledge vanishs, the economical chain changes, such things have many effects, some immediate, others only show up in the long run. Good though is none of these effects.Again, this is going too far out of the current subject. Obviously I do not support over fishing, nor do I think Alaska would need nearly as much fish to reasonably use it as their own food source.

Anyway, I think replying to the rest is pointless. I agree with most of it but it is too off topic. The solution I provided is for the direct topic, how to fix all the problems that would cause are outside of what I am saying.


Excuse me? What are you talking about, and what authority do you have to support such an accusation? I am not for the killing off of a species in it's entirety, that is a crime against nature. I am for sensible management. though.

This is not sensible management.


Only cats kill for fun. Man always kills for a reason.No.


It has everything to do with the issue and the video at the beginning which is nothing but sensationalist propaganda.
True, but that is how you get the support of idiots. Be dramatic and keep stating the same thing. It gets their attention and eventually sinks in. It is just how most things are.


If clueless to you means capable of seeing the situation in a rational light, then yes I am guilty as hell.Please define your version of 'rational'. It is apparently different than mine.


This is significant, it creates the balance needed to allow wolves and man to co-exist. Wolves have no natural predators other than man until they become a burden on the food supply then they eat each other.We do not co-exist for the most part, as people kill them. How many wolves kill us in comparison? I would bet their food which people use as an excuse kills more of us.

No natural predators? Well obviously... they are at the top of their food chain. You will not find predators of eagles, either.


When man manages any animal population, he is in effect an agent of nature and the role we play is vital in this regard to maintain this equilibrium. Then why is there no equilibrium?


What do the words Reichsjaegermeister mean to you then? .Hunting Master of Germany.

What does it mean to you and how does that answer my previous question?


When the moralists run out of steam (and always very quickly) they can only slander the people who advocate management, because disagreeing with their "brilliant arguements" obviously means that we are morally corrupt or ignorant.

Well what is your brilliant arguement concerning this?

link (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.w ikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2 F9f%2FWolf_distr.gif)

It does not appear to be management to me. It is extermination and it is being continued. The goal is to entirely remove them. Every bit of the remaining wolf populations in the US are being fully assulted right now.



Read back thru this thread and similar ones... anyone who ever dares disagree with them is a redneck (complete with a comical accent), a cookie-cutter conservative, a egotist, a liar, a jew, a capitalist, a despicable Christian... And suddenly if we live in a city (even though I do not), we can be insulted as ignorant and the entire cause of problems?

I would say that most of what you listed describes America very well.


There really isn't any arguing or reasoning with people who think that nature shouldn't be untouched by man. This is because it is a moral position, it has nothing to do with facts or the science on which predator control is based. The anti- arguement is all moralism and no facts. If I am wrong, let me see the anti-hunters hire indepentant biologists instead of Hollywood publistists to run their next propaganda campain.:PSince when do people listen to scientists over actors? You know this is not true.


I just try to put another opinion out there so the anti-hunters/trappers don't think they speak for a majority.Look at the poll results. You will notice the majority opinion is not your opinion.


Don't Skimp on Funding Where Predator Control is ConcernedYou needed a biologist to tell you that bears and wolves eating moose reduces the moose population? And how is this a problem? Stop killing so many moose and eat some fish instead, the wolves will not take those from you. Maybe hunt some Eskimos in helicopters too, they eat moose. Or are they your fellow man and above nature too?


Gentlemen,

{This post is about Coyotes.
I've never seen a wolf,
but 'wild dogs' are, after all 'wild dogs'.}

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, then.

Peoples Observer
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 07:28 PM
I believe its not right to hunt the mighty Wolf.

They have diminishing numbers and are an important part of the hierarchy in nature. Kind of like Sharks in the ocean. The prime hunters.

If a Wolf is directly threating you then you must defend yourself and kill it.

I'd rather go "Coon" hunting any day ! :thumbup

velvet
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 08:35 PM
:) Velvet, I know you directed this to J Baugham, but I just can't resist. This part of your statement I fully agree with:

Always nice talking to you ;)


Since man is part of nature, we must except that our role here is just as vital. Man is capable of limitation, the animal kingdom is not. We are the final check, if we cease to exist it is reasonable to conclude that the animal kingdom would kill itself off.

I have to partly disagree. Man limits other species, but man doesnt limit himself. That we are now in the position that we must regulate other species is mainly due to that our 'limitation' went out of control and we removed the most other species (specially predators) from the environment that formerly kept prey in check.

The main problem I have with that development is that it happened in not even 1000 years, an eye blink in the time of our existence. When we go on that rapidly to extinct one species after another, where will this end? Especially when considering the developments in the last 50 years.

As I said before, I dont have a problem with hunting as such, but once man started to hunt a species, it never took long to have this species extinct or near to extinction. Just see your American bisons which once populated all of North America, gone, the pumas, mainly gone, here in Germany return some wolves after 200 years of extinction, bears gone, wild cats gone except for some small populations, countless other species extincted. Instead we (even here in Europe :-O) have to deal with rapidly growing racoon populations, but not enough foxes, big cats or wolves anymore to deal with them.
So far I fail to see the responsibility in the action of man. :(
An example of outright stupidity of man would be for example the import of american grey squirrels to deal with another species (forgot which one) in England. Yes, they 'solved' the problem, and became a pest themselves which cause quite a damage now.

And the last thing. The natural environment exists for million of years, it worked perfectly fine. Indeed some species died out, others came new, but basically it stayed largely unchanged, and man didnt change it fundamentally for thousands of years either. If you think the animal kingdom would kill itself off without man, how did it exist then all this time? ;)


I feel that you underestimate the importance of mankind to the ecosystem. We are the highest of hunters, the terran master species. No species can control the terran nature, for good or bad, like us. I agree that we have to bear this responsibility with great cautionness. We, as the highest species, have the duty to be the keepers of balance.

We are just another predator, a part of the ecosystem, not its master.
I agree that we are the only species capable of fundamentally changing our environment. But I think that responsibility would include not to do everything just because we are theoretically able to do it. Mostly even without thinking about the consequences, or that our actions could have any. The arrogance of man will be our own extinction when we dont learn that soon. And I dare to prophet that the world after that will be just perfectly fine without us ;)



Only cats kill for fun

No, they dont. Like all cats they hunt when they have the opportunity and keep the prey for later. Big cats store their prey in trees, to bring a mouse up onto a tree would be, well, superfluous. ;)
But its not out of fun or cruelty or what ever horror stories there have been invented about cats. No animal hunts without purpose.



Hunting is as old as mankind itself and we have in the past hunted without regard to our world. In the U.S. habitat for all wildlife is supported by the hunters themselves through taxes on hunting gear and license fees. Hunters in this country have done more to support all wildlife than any other group.

This is a claim all hunters bring over and over again. Our German hunters justify their existence through the extinction of all of our predator species, which makes them indeed needed to maintain all other populations of animals. Where are your bisons? Extincted by hunters who acted against their own claimed maxime of 'maintaining' by extincting the entire species.
I have no problem with people like Zimobog going out for a moose or whatever. I have a problem with the hunters who over-hunt every species and later whine when other predators come to get some children or pets, because they have shot all their prey dead and then go extincting the predator too.
We expand in every little corner of the world, in regions where the wildlife works until the very moment man sets his foot into these regions, and then 'hunters' come and want to 'maintain' this wildlife and call that 'equilibrium', that what they have just destroyed.

Man is able to limit populations, why does man not limit his own over-population? This is my point. WE are the problem, and there is noone to limit us. 'Maintaining' this problem without changing it will have us extinct soon too. I believe this planet is too small to sustain 6,7bio human beings. It's just a fact, and the sooner we start to deal with it, the better.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 10:34 PM
This is a claim all hunters bring over and over again. Our German hunters justify their existence through the extinction of all of our predator species, which makes them indeed needed to maintain all other populations of animals. Where are your bisons? Extincted by hunters who acted against their own claimed maxime of 'maintaining' by extincting the entire species.
I have no problem with people like Zimobog going out for a moose or whatever. I have a problem with the hunters who over-hunt every species and later whine when other predators come to get some children or pets, because they have shot all their prey dead and then go extincting the predator too.
We expand in every little corner of the world, in regions where the wildlife works until the very moment man sets his foot into these regions, and then 'hunters' come and want to 'maintain' this wildlife and call that 'equilibrium', that what they have just destroyed.

The over hunting practices that happened 100 years ago or more are no longer practiced now. The fact that in the last 100 years we have learned to control our hunting and use extra revenues to purchase more land for habitat cannot be denied. A lot of land made available through these purchases is not for hunting just habitat restoration.
The Bison were hunted in to large of numbers for two reasons. The first was that people thought they would never kill all of them. The second was the U.S. Army wanted to destroy the food source of the Native Americans. Both reasons were not just or farsighted, but you can hardly blame todays hunters for their destruction. Bison are not extinct and there several large herds in the Western U.S. and Canada roaming free and eating grass and being eaten by wolves.:)

Kogen
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 11:18 PM
The over hunting practices that happened 100 years ago or more are no longer practiced now. The fact that in the last 100 years we have learned to control our hunting and use extra revenues to purchase more land for habitat cannot be denied. A lot of land made available through these purchases is not for hunting just habitat restoration.
The Bison were hunted in to large of numbers for two reasons. The first was that people thought they would never kill all of them. The second was the U.S. Army wanted to destroy the food source of the Native Americans. Both reasons were not just or farsighted, but you can hardly blame todays hunters for their destruction. Bison are not extinct and there several large herds in the Western U.S. and Canada roaming free and eating grass and being eaten by wolves.:)

That is a lie, though? Unless you mean just bison, this thread opens with an American programme to exterminate wolves. It is occuring in every place they exist to any significant numbers in that country.

velvet
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 11:36 PM
The over hunting practices that happened 100 years ago or more are no longer practiced now. The fact that in the last 100 years we have learned to control our hunting and use extra revenues to purchase more land for habitat cannot be denied. A lot of land made available through these purchases is not for hunting just habitat restoration.
The Bison were hunted in to large of numbers for two reasons. The first was that people thought they would never kill all of them. The second was the U.S. Army wanted to destroy the food source of the Native Americans. Both reasons were not just or farsighted, but you can hardly blame todays hunters for their destruction. Bison are not extinct and there several large herds in the Western U.S. and Canada roaming free and eating grass and being eaten by wolves.:)

Well, if that is so, good :thumbup

But this sounds as if man were able to learn something from his mistakes of the past. You will excuse me when my trust in that ability is yet limited ;)

SpearBrave
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 12:04 AM
That is a lie, though? Unless you mean just bison, this thread opens with an American programme to exterminate wolves. It is occurring in every place they exist to any significant numbers in that country.

Here is your American program on wolves:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/09-02.htm

The numbers are increasing in many areas and plans to add more areas in the future.:)
Leftist groups have a way of distorting facts and policy. Most of groups like PETA are out for one thing---MONEY

Leonhardt
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 01:08 AM
This is a current concern in the Upper Midwest because their numbers have increased faster than expected. Some states have several hundred wolves. They do eat some sheep, but there is no sheep shortage in the US. They are "wait and see" in government. There is an abundance of deer.

They have already filled in all the underpopulated areas, so they are hoping that their numbers will become steady. If their number get around a thousand, some people will want a wolf hunting season. Of course, the problem wolves will be shot.

In California they have some problems with the cougars in the mountains. There have been no wolf attacks so far.

Kogen
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 04:23 AM
Here is your American program on wolves:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/09-02.htm

The numbers are increasing in many areas and plans to add more areas in the future.:)
Leftist groups have a way of distorting facts and policy. Most of groups like PETA are out for one thing---MONEY

Currently only Alaska and two isolated (and small) locations in the US have good wolf populations. There is no way you can say they are doing good at all. They are nearly extinct in the wild Alaska is really the only place where they have not been ruined. Remember that it is voted against by Alaskans.

The hunting amount for the wolves is huge and they do not count the fact that these are pack animals. Ruining one pack will lead to the entire pack dying, as well as all the young dying. It is extermination.

You are either looking at false propaganda by the US government who is doing the extermination, or are purposely lying and part of it.

These claims are just so obviously lies that is it hard to imagine anyone can believe it. It is like saying our race is doing fine.

SpearBrave
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Currently only Alaska and two isolated (and small) locations in the US have good wolf populations. There is no way you can say they are doing good at all. They are nearly extinct in the wild Alaska is really the only place where they have not been ruined. Remember that it is voted against by Alaskans.

The hunting amount for the wolves is huge and they do not count the fact that these are pack animals. Ruining one pack will lead to the entire pack dying, as well as all the young dying. It is extermination.

You are either looking at false propaganda by the US government who is doing the extermination, or are purposely lying and part of it.

These claims are just so obviously lies that is it hard to imagine anyone can believe it. It is like saying our race is doing fine.

The U.S. government has a lot of faults but lying about wolf populations is not one of them. I have been to several locations were wolves are doing fine. Even the Wolf Center's own reports show increases in numbers. The U.S. fish and wildlife services has even released wolves in areas that did not have enough prey to support them. In fact just in my life time the have reintroduced eagles,otters,beavers,turkeys,and bobcats to my own area of the country and they are increasing and doing fine.
As stated in my last post animal rights groups are looking for a paycheck. To get money they use a lot of hype and propaganda,try doing some research on facts and data before you form a idea. If you follow the money in most of these groups you find a lot of old hippie leftest getting a nice paycheck. They try to attract the youth as volunteers and indoctrinate them to their ideas which include multiculturalism ,race mixing, and homosexuality.

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 07:41 PM
When people keep saying that predator control was "voted against" I see the repeated confusing of two separate things:

1) the predator control program.
2) "aerial" wolf hunting.

They are not one and the same.

1) Predator Control is the "shooting from aircraft" and is conducted only by biologists and certified contractors, not citizen-hunters. It is not hunting, I agree. It is a predator control program. The biologists do everything involved in the enumeration of the predators. They decided based on scientific research when to start doing it, and how many predators need to be removed in an area before they stop. If you still don't think that that "predator control" doesn't benefit both predator and prey... fine, you all are entitled to your opinion.

Just don't forget that:
a) you are disagreeing with the majority of biologists who study the wolf packs in Alaska.
b) most of you don't live in Alaska. This means these aren't your neighborhood moose, caribou, or wolves. They are ours.
c) Alaska is a constitutional republic and under Article VII, the state (AKDFG) has a constitutional mandate to protect "sustainable yield" of wildlife resources. Including prey and predators. I am happy whenever the government does what it is constituitionally mandated to do and unhappy when it tries to over step it's constitutional boundries.

2) The second issue is the one that was "voted twice against" and than overturned by my State legislature.. "Aerial wolf hunting" is what the media and environmentalists call it. Everyone else calls it "same-day-airborne hunting". I will try to explain what this means to what hunters, law enforcement and biologists. Please understand that it is not the same program that we saw video of.

In Alaska, we have had laws against flying in a plane the same day you take an animal in a hunt. For instance, this ment one could not fly over a mountain lake, see some caribou/moose/bear on it, land and shoot... legally. You are not legal to hunt until 3am the next day after being airborne. But...

In some predator control areas (the areas being game management areas), the Board of Fish and Game changed a couple of regulations to help reduce the number of predators:

a) ...raised the bag limit for hunters. For instance, in gmu14a, I may take "one black bear". In gmu16 (a predator control area), I may now take "three black bears" and I may now take "ten wolves". All harvests must be reported by filing out a harvest report. These reports help biologists know when it is right to reduce the bag limit or stop the hunt altogether.

b) ...waive the usual "same day airborne" regulation for predator hunting. This means that in certain predator control areas, a hunter could now land in a plane and shoot a wolf or bear, as long as he/she is 300 ft from the plane. This is what was "voted against twice" by the majority of Alaskans (who do not own planes or hunt from them). Either way, all harvests must be reported in the manner described in 2a.

So it is a myth that predator control is or was opposed by the majority of Alaskans.

Things Kogen said:

You needed a biologist to tell you that bears and wolves eating moose reduces the moose population? And how is this a problem? Stop killing so many moose and eat some fish instead, the wolves will not take those from you. Maybe hunt some Eskimos in helicopters too, they eat moose. Or are they your fellow man and above nature too?

Wow, I really wish you lived here so you could show us Alaskans how to eat well, do away with pesky biologists, and get along with the Eskimos!


Look at the poll results. You will notice the majority opinion is not your opinion.

See 1b above.


And suddenly if we live in a city (even though I do not), we can be insulted as ignorant and the entire cause of problems?

Please, Kogen, tell me where you live so this won't happen again!

Jokes Alaskans tell:
Question: Where do environmenatlist come from?
Answer: The airport!

And I didn't say ignorant... you thought I infered it because you are so sensitive.


It does not appear to be management to me. It is extermination and it is being continued. The goal is to entirely remove them.

Your view of this Alaskan issue is... limited. I will post some links to help you see both sides better (conservation vs. environmentalism).

I don't think I will ever be able to change anyone's opinion, but for those of you who haven't made up your minds yet, please read up on this and search out the research behind it.

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Important Facts about Alaskan Wildlife and Predator Control


* Wild game is an important food source for many Alaskans and the goal of predator control is to reduce wolf and bear populations in order to increase the number moose and caribou available to be used as food by people

* In much of Alaska, predators keep moose and caribou populations below what their habitats could support

* There are up to 11,000 wolves, 30,000 grizzly and over 100,000 black bears in Alaska

* Wolves and bears may kill up to 80% of the moose or caribou that die each year

* The goal of predator control is to sustain healthy caribou and moose populations AND healthy wolf and bear populations

* In control areas, predator numbers may be reduced, but are never completely eliminated

* There is no indication that predator control permanently damages wolf or bear populations

* There are only five current wolf control programs in place, covering only 9% of Alaska

* Predator control is not hunting; it is a wildlife management tool only used to reduce excessive predator populations. As a result, the rules of fair chase do not apply

* When properly conducted, predator control programs have successfully increased moose and caribou populations


How Predator Control Works

* Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) studies predator and prey populations

* If there is a significant decline in the number of moose and caribou in a certain area, ADF&G will try to increase these populations by improving habitat, reducing hunting quotas, or relaxing restrictions on trapping or hunting of predators

* Predator control programs are only implemented after the above options have been exhausted

* Predator control is most often used in areas where moose and caribou are important food sources for Alaskans.

* Predator control decisions are made by the Alaska Board of Game in an open, public process

* In control areas, predator numbers may be reduced by pre-determined numbers, but are never completely eliminated

* In remote areas, predator control programs allow aircraft to shoot predators directly from the air or locate the predator by aircraft, land and exit the plane, and then shoot the animal

* Limited permits are given for predator control and they are strictly monitored by the state

* All eliminated predators, and information regarding the animal, are immediately reported to the ADF&G

* When population reduction goals are reached, the predator control program is halted

* Predator control is not implemented on national monuments, wildlife refuges, and parks.

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:00 PM
The State's predator control program started under Gov. Frank Murkowski and continued under the Palin/Parnell regime has been successful. In the McGrath area, the moose population increased from 2,774 moose in 2004 to an estimated 5,500 today. 28 Wolves were killed by trapping or from aircraft. The Nelchina basis, Game Management Unit 13, near where I live, the moose population has increased 27%. 119 wolves were killed. Non-resident hunters were allowed hunts in the Nelchina basin for the first time in over 10 years.



Predator control is conducted by allowing a set number of wolves and bear to be killed in order to raise the survival rate of moose and caribou calves. Predation of calves by bear and wolves decimated the moose populations around McGrath and the Nelchina River area before the predator control programs were put in place.

Prior to Murkowski instituting these programs, animal rights activists and environmentalist activists--read nut jobs--were very successful in allowing the animal populations of these areas to be decimated through over predation. In which case, both the prey and the predator suffer. When the prey animals fall below a certain number, the predators starve. Therefore, intellgent game managment is essential to maintaining Alaska's big game populations.





In 1976, the Cowper Administration tried predator control using helicopters. This program failed, as that was a very cold winter. Three BLM contracted hunters and helicopers were based in Glennallen. Cold weather that year contributed to the failure of that program. And, the program attracted law suits from the environmental whackos. Temps were down to -50 deg. F during January-February of 1977. (I know, I was there working at the time.)


In Game Management Unit 13 where I live, the problem was and still is Griz. Brother bear kills a lot of moose calves. However, the numbers of bear have been reduced, increasing the moose survival rate.

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Wolf management isn't about sport

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., understands the essence of Alaska's wolf population control program perfectly. "Shooting wildlife from airplanes is not sport," Feinstein declared.

Unfortunately, Feinstein doesn't seem to grasp the implications of her own declaration. She and others last week relaunched an effort to curtail Alaska's wolf management via federal law.

Feinstein did so, at least in part, because she believes the state's effort violates "the hunting principle of fair chase."

No, it does not, because, as she said, Alaska's wolf control program is not sport.

"Fair chase" is a loose, ever-shifting set of guidelines employed by individual hunters who, for a variety of personal reasons, often make their hunts more difficult for themselves and thus potentially less lethal to their prey. More power to them, but such standards are illogical when attempting to manage wildlife populations.

What homeowner would set a mouse trap but leave it unbaited just to give the mice a chance? What farmer would put cats in the barn but remove their claws so the rats have a fair shake?

When attempting to control an animal population, neither individuals nor the government can apply standards of fair chase, because those standards are designed solely to make success more difficult. In a control effort, the intent is to kill the animal. The most efficient, quickest method should be used. The state of Alaska follows that mandate when it kills wolves using gunners in aircraft.

Arguments about technique aside, the question remains: Should the state even attempt to control wolf populations? Opponents of the current control efforts have a range of arguments.

Some make the false claim that the state is attempting to exterminate the species. The state, quite obviously, is attempting to give Alaskans more reliable, year-to-year seasons and bag limits by moderating the natural, but often extreme, fluctuations in predator and prey species.

Other opponents offer more intelligent criticism - that the state's effort could cause undetected, long-term malformations in the ecological landscape. They march under an unassailable banner reading "more study needed." More study would be an excellent step, but evidence to date shows no reason to suspect any great trauma to the landscape - certainly nothing to justify eliminating the state's option.

In a curious nod to the essential legitimacy of wolf control, Feinstein's legislation actually would allow such a program but only in biological emergencies where elimination of a moose or caribou prey population is imminent. Of course, that's the wrong time to apply such control. Managers shouldn't wait for an animal population to be on the edge of extinction before acting.

And imagine the limits managers might adopt if, in such an emergency, they still were constrained by the rules of "fair chase." We could send them out dressed in loincloths and armed with spears. Just to be fair.

Astrid Runa
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:06 PM
That still doesn't excuse the murder of those poor wolf cubs.
For Goddesses' sake, they were rounded up and shot! Not from the air, from the ground!
And yet you still have the nerve to sit there and tell me that it's "population control".
What kind of heartless beast kills innocent wolf pups, huh?
Especially when they could just as easily have taken them into captivity.

Sigurd
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:11 PM
In danger of sounding a bit like Göring - the names Feinstein and Murkowski don't sound quite kosher --- or should I say a little bit too kosher for my taste? :shrug

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:33 PM
Sigurd wrote:
In danger of sounding a bit like Göring - the names Feinstein and Murkowski don't sound quite kosher --- or should I say a little bit too kosher for my taste?

Feinstein is and Murkowski isn't. Hope that helps.;)

Thorrsdottir wrote:

That still doesn't excuse the murder of those poor wolf cubs.
For Goddesses' sake, they were rounded up and shot! Not from the air, from the ground!
And yet you still have the nerve to sit there and tell me that it's "population control".
What kind of heartless beast kills innocent wolf pups, huh?
Especially when they could just as easily have taken them into captivity.

I am pro-management, but if non-lethal methods were used I think more Outsiders would be supportive, too. These lethal methods are just the best they can do for now. In the old days orphaned calfs, pups, and cubs were raised and released. Now they are just euthanized :~(. A local gal was jailed for "stealing" two moose calfs from an animal shelter and trying to raise them on her farm. I gave a donation to her legal defense. We Alaskans do care about wildlife, especially us hunters because we need a healthy ecosystem to live in, too.

Would captivity or relocation of predators seem a better management method? You seem to not be against management so I thought I'd ask.

I would like the people of Alaska to vote a massive increase in the AKDFG budget for wolf research and relocation. Relocation to Ireland,Scotland, England, America or Europe, even to areas that have killed off all their wolves in the past. It just seems better than wasting them. Can you and I agree on that at least, Thorsdottir?

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:38 PM
MOOSE, CARIBOU: State says program is working; critics say it creates a game farm.

By MARY PEMBERTON
The Associated Press

Published: September 13th, 2009 10:21 PM
Last Modified: September 14th, 2009 09:23 PM

An Alaska wildlife management program in which wolves are shot from low-flying airplanes and black bears are baited and snared is helping to increase the numbers of moose and caribou, state wildlife officials say.

The program has long been the target of wildlife conservation groups who view it as state-sponsored slaughter. Last fall, one of those groups launched an ad criticizing then-Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, for expanding the program.

State officials contend the program is aimed at helping Alaskans who rely on hunting to survive and had complained there wasn't enough game to hunt and eat.

The program began under Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski. Private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in six rural areas of the state.

Since the program began in 2003, more than 1,000 wolves and hundreds of black bears have been killed in an effort to drive down the number of predators.

"I think there are some real success stories here," Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said.

The agency recently released its 2008-2009 predation management summary that indicates moose and caribou numbers in six predator control areas have increased. The agency points to two areas in particular as examples of where the program is showing strong results: the Nelchina Basin area and the southern Alaska Peninsula.

The program is getting substantive results in the McGrath area, where it began in December 2003. Last winter and spring, 28 wolves were killed in the McGrath area. Nineteen were taken under the program and nine were hunted or trapped.

The agency said the moose population there has grown from 2,774 in 2004 to an estimated 5,500 moose now. The goal is to reach 6,000 to 8,000 moose.

"Moose numbers have come up substantially," Bartley said.

In the Nelchina Basin area -- one of the more contentious predator control areas because it is accessible to urban hunters from the Anchorage area -- 119 wolves were killed. Fifty-five of those were taken under the control program and the other 64 were hunted or trapped.

That, the state said, helped the moose population increase 27 percent. The harvest, meanwhile, went up 18 percent.

The situation is so improved in the Nelchina Basin that for the first time in more than a decade nonresident hunters will be allowed to hunt bull moose.

Bartley said the 50-permit, nonresident hunt should not interfere with the supply of moose for Alaskans because it is being allowed in more remote areas only. Nonresident hunters have been "frozen out" of hunting in that area of the state for years, Bartley said, and there is a benefit to the state to have them in it.

"Everybody loves to beat up on the ugly, old nonresident but the fact is they pay a lot of the game management bills in Alaska," he said.

Critics say the nonresident hunt being allowed in the Nelchina Basin reveals the true intent of predator control in Alaska. They have said the predator control program is nothing more than a front for big game guides who pay big fees to the state and need trophies for their out-of-state clients.

"Predator control programs are simply perpetual killing events designed to give nonresident trophy hunters access to Alaska as a game farm," said John Toppenberg, director of the 1,200-member Alaska Wildlife Alliance, a conservation group.

The program is meant to meet the needs of commercial guides and nonresident trophy hunters -- not the subsistence needs of rural Alaskans, he said.

Wade Willis, a former Fish and Game biologist and outspoken critic of the program, agrees. It looks like predator control is never going to end, he said.

"It is a perpetual predator control program, artificial manipulation of the game to create nothing short of a game farm," said Willis, who was formerly associated with Defenders of Wildlife in Alaska.

It is up to the Alaska Board of Game to end predator control, but Bartley said the board likely won't stop intensive management in the control areas anytime soon.

"I think the board wants to see that they do function normally for a number of years in a row," he said.

Zimobog
Sunday, September 20th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Status of Intensive Management Programs Reported

Denby S. Lloyd, Commissioner


The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) reports progress toward wolf population objectives of most of the six predator management projects in Alaska. Several of the programs are also showing direct benefits to ungulate populations. “We have survey information showing that numbers of moose have increased in the Nelchina Basin, in a portion of the Upper Yukon/Tanana area, and near McGrath,” said Division Director Doug Larsen. “When weather cooperates and public participation is facilitated (Zimobog says:this means hunters, btw :)), we are seeing positive results.”

Larsen also noted that programs are continuing to be evaluated to identify where changes are warranted. The Alaska Board of Game recently terminated the brown bear control component of the Upper Yukon/Tanana area based on recommendations from ADF&G attributed to low program results. Most projects rely heavily on volunteer permittees, and the cost of fuel has affected participation, resulting in lower numbers of wolves taken in some of the more remote areas.

In two areas, the Board of Game this year authorized department staff to take wolves from helicopters. In the Southern Alaska Peninsula in Game Management Unit 9, the predator management program is restricted to state biologists. In the Upper Yukon-Tanana area , and in Eastern Alaska (Units 12, 20 & 25), the Board allowed department staff to take wolves when it became apparent that the permit holders were not going to achieve control objectives. The success of these two programs demonstrated that department staff using helicopters can be a critical factor in attaining predator removal goals.

Although wolves taken by permittees must be reported within a few days of take, other hunters and trappers may not be reported for up to 30 days after the end of the legal season to report their harvests. Final figures will be completely compiled in late July. Population estimates are augmented with reports and sightings of individual wolves and packs shared with the department by hunters, trappers and others in the field.

Specific project progress is attached to this release.

###

1 July, 2009
Specific Project Progress for ADF&G Predator Management:

Unit 13: The Nelchina Basin wolf management program was begun in 2003 and reauthorized in 2005 to increase the moose population. The spring population objective of 135-165 wolves has been attained for the fourth year in a row. The estimated total take of wolves in the unit from all sources last winter is 114.

Due to rough terrain and thick forests, aerial control measures were used for the entire season. The Nelchina Basin wolf management program is scheduled to continue without changes this fall.

Moose trend count data show an increase in numbers (up roughy 30%) and ratios (calf:cow – 19:100, bull:cow – 35:100) since active wolf management began.

Unit 16: Wolf management in Unit 16, west of Anchorage, was authorized in 2004 to increase moose populations. Although wolves are more wary and more difficult to take, the same-day-airborne program has continued to be successful in reducing the wolf population to desired levels with strong public participation. A total of 41 wolves was taken by permittees, hunters, and trappers. The spring population objective was 22-45

Due to high mortality rates of moose calves, black bear management in Unit 16 was initiated in 2007 and the program was expanded to include foot snaring in the spring of 2009. The preliminary objective is to remove up to 60% of the black bears present in the unit. Based on surveys conducted in the spring of 2007, doing so would require removal of more than 1,000 black bears. In the fall of 2008, 120 black bears were taken through hunting and control. Spring 2008 numbers brought the count to roughly 500 black bears.

Moose calf:cow ratios, survival of adult moose, and moose population size appear to have improved slightly since predator management activities were initiated, however population and harvest objectives are not yet met.

Upper Yukon-Tanana: The wolf management program in all of Unit 20E and portions of Units 12,20B, 20D and 25C was implemented in 2005 to increase numbers of moose as well as caribou in the Fortymile caribou herd. The number of wolves taken previously fell short of management objectives due to fuel costs and weather conditions. In 2008-09, the Board of Game authorized ADF&G staff to use helicopters. Last winter, permittees, hunters and trappers, and ADF&G staff took 217 wolves, and department staff estimate that 117 wolves remained in the area at the end of April 2009.

Although the wolf management program was successful this year, growth of the Fortymile caribou herd may be slow due to low calf production. The moose population in southern Unit 20E increased from 2004-2009, and was likely influenced by other factors in addition to wolf removal. Such factors include weather, habitat change due to fire, and changes in bear distribution.

The public aerial program will continue next winter, and, weather and snow conditions permitting, department staff will again augment the project with helicopters if the public is not able to achieve the wolf population objective. Brown bear control in the unit has been ineffective and no bears were taken by permittees last winter. The brown bear control program was suspended by the Board in March 2009.

Unit 19A: The program in the Middle Kuskokwim area was implemented in 2004 to promote growth in the moose population. Wolf population objectives were achieved in early years, but poor weather and poor snow conditions hampered the effectiveness of the permittees in winter 2008-09, resulting in only of 26 wolves. Next winter, public aerial measures will be conducted within the Central Kuskokwim Villages Moose Management Area portion (4,000 square miles) of Unit 19A from November 2009 through April 2010. Further removal of wolves by department staff may be recommended in spring 2010 if public permittees are not successful in reaching population objectives.

Unit 19D East: The 19D East program was implemented in 2003 to increase the moose population. Wolf population objectives have been reached in several of the past years. Last winter’s objective was to remove 35-59 wolves in Unit 19D East, and as many black bears and brown bears as possible from a small area immediately surrounding McGrath. Permittees, hunters, and trappers removed 28 wolves, 4 black bears, and 3 brown bears. Department staff estimated that 47-71 wolves remained in the area in spring, 2009. The moose population surrounding the village of McGrath nearly doubled during 2001-2008, despite severe weather conditions during two of the previous six winters.

The public aerial wolf management program will be conducted within the 4,600 square mile Wolf Control Focus Area portion of Unit 19D East next winter. Department aerial removal using helicopters may be recommended for March 2010 if public permittees are not able to reduce the wolf population to the control objective. Changes to the bear reduction program authorized by the Board will take effect in April 2010, including taking brown bears (including sows and cubs), sale of un-mounted, tanned hides, and use of foot snares.

A more detailed summary report of all predator management programs in Alaska will be posted in late July on the department’s website.

Astrid Runa
Monday, September 21st, 2009, 01:39 PM
Increasing prey numbers is no excuse to shoot innocent wolves.
As I said, if you decrease wolf number even by the slightest, the whole food chain is sent into dissaray (SP?).

Zimobog
Monday, September 21st, 2009, 04:59 PM
Thorsdottir,

Please reread the "Status Report" of the management program I posted on the last page. Reducing the number of wolves and bears by just a few increased the number of prey for all predators. It was man that provided the balance. Nature doesn't balance. It allows extinction. Look at all the animals that are now only fossils (mammals, reptiles, anything...). Nature caused them to go extinct. Not man.

If removing predators throws the food chain into disarray, wouldn't removing prey (as wolves do, 8 pounds of red meat a day) do it too?

Astrid Runa
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 08:50 AM
Okay, for a start, wolves never eat more than the pack needs. They're not greedy like us humans. Wolves are the closest thing to nature, like many other animals, that you'll get. They don't take more than they need, as they are still in touch with nature, but we are not.
Oh, and by the way, my Grandparents adopted a wolf for me for my birthday today.
His name is Pepe and he's a Timber Wolf.

Kogen
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 09:59 AM
This reply it short since I do not have much time to post right now, so I can do a longer one later to anyone that replied to me later.

I just wanted to point out that suggesting moving the wolves to Europe is foolish. Look at the map I posed earlier of where they are extinct in the US; it is most of the country. Only 3 states have healthy wolf populations. If they are breeding good, then start moving them around the country. The money used to cause all the violence could better be spent on that (or, you know, actual problems instead of against harmless animals).

Zimobog
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 05:35 PM
Thorsdottir wrote:

Okay, for a start, wolves never eat more than the pack needs.

Yes, but too many individual or packs of predators can wipe out all the prey in an area, forcing the packs to move or starve. Management provides the balance that preserves both prey and predators.

If you watch the National Geographic special "The Wolves of Yellowstone" you can watch a pack called "the Wizards" have their territory invaded and individual pack members killed by invader wolves from another area. The smaller pack is exterminated by the invaders except for three wolves. The Wizards were not able to move to another part of the country before the wolf war.

The larger pack had killed all of the prey in it's area and had to move and kill rivals to support itself. The wolves also kill coyotes just for fun in this film.:|


Oh, and by the way, my Grandparents adopted a wolf for me for my birthday today.
His name is Pepe and he's a Timber Wolf.

Happy birthday and what a great gift!:thumbup

Kogen wrote:
I just wanted to point out that suggesting moving the wolves to Europe is foolish. Look at the map I posed earlier of where they are extinct in the US; it is most of the country. Only 3 states have healthy wolf populations. If they are breeding good, then start moving them around the country. The money used to cause all the violence could better be spent on that (or, you know, actual problems instead of against harmless animals).

Do you really mean foolish or not "cost effective"? :D Are healthy Alaskan wolves going to swim to Europe?

I think it is a romantic idea but the thought of healthy wolf packs and ungulate populations running around in Europe sounds nice to me.

So should we lobby to move the wolves to the Lower 48? We really do have enough in Alaska.

velvet
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 07:29 PM
Probably a bit foolish, because, well, I guess our hunters would be all to keen to hunt some 'evil' wolves and 'save' the poor populace from them :(

Zimobog
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 08:00 PM
Do Europeans still really consider wolves to be "evil"? :-O

There has been a total 180 degree turn in American public opinion it seems from "kill all wolves" of 100-50 years ago to "kill no wolves" of the last few years. Both could result in extinction of populations. Both ignore management as an option.

Neither emotionally-charged opinion seems to balance healthy wolf and prey populations that I advocate thru scientific selective management and hunting/trapping.

Both the "kill all wolves" or the "save all wolves" crowds seem to base their opinons on sensation and heart-felt emotions more than anything.

velvet
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 08:34 PM
Yes, for some reason wolves are still considered 'evil' or dangerous, at least here in Germany. I've read up a bit. All in all it seems we have about 50-60 free living wolves here, the four to five small packs in eastern Germany which Todesengel mentioned, and some single wolves walking around, down to Hessen and up to Schleswig Holstein.

Although the wolf is not allowed to shoot, hunters did nonetheless, the judge sentenced them for high fines.

The packs in eastern Germany are the only ones breeding though. The other wolves obviously seem to be from these packs, but since there are no other wolves, no new packs come to be. And some of them were knocked down by cars.

Although it is only so few of them yet, the hunters in the Lausitz region demand that they can hunt them. The nature conservancy people though say no. They have understood that the wolves are no danger to people and in fact show that the environments where they settle are healthy.

Our hunters here indeed are the problem. The single bear was shot, in other places wolves were shot and they also shoot foxes (it's not allowed everywhere) and even normal dogs and cats. So when you could re-educate them to take a stance like your Alaskan hunters, I guess in some years then we could have some more healthy wolf packs too ;)

For now though I guess your wolves are more save in Alaska than here. Not with these freaks as hunters :(

But send some to Scandinavia. There are about 180 wolves, but nature people said they have too less genetic variance among them which will probably reduce their population dramatically. Some fresh blood might help that ;)

SpearBrave
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009, 09:54 PM
As I stated earlier in this thread not to long ago there were no wolves in UP Michigan now there are many. When they first started appearing(with tracking collars) Michigan was trying also to establish it's moose herd. The wolves hurt the spread of moose. The federal government was in charge of the wolves and the state in charge of the moose. The feds jumped the gun and should have waited for the moose heard to increase.

You can't just wave a magic wand and there will be wolves. Habitat has to be prepared first. Also you want to make sure the wolves you are relocating are of good genetic material.

Nordlander
Thursday, September 24th, 2009, 08:44 PM
Wolves are predators plain and simple .They not only kill for meat but as any hunter or rancher in Northern areas will till you they also kill for pleasure.That does not mean they should be hunted to extinction .Hunting laws and regulations have come a long way and most game animals now( except in Afrika where poaching rules)are more plentiful now than ever.Hunting revenues has made this so.If you let the Wolf population run wild without proper management problems arise (and have) A hunter of the Northern Forest respects ALL animals ,but HE (The Hunter) is still the master


Okay, for a start, wolves never eat more than the pack needs. They're not greedy like us humans. Wolves are the closest thing to nature, like many other animals, that you'll get. They don't take more than they need, as they are still in touch with nature, but we are not.
Oh, and by the way, my Grandparents adopted a wolf for me for my birthday today.
His name is Pepe and he's a Timber Wolf.

That is totally false ,Wolves kill for the sake of killing more than any other animal .I have witnessed this . This is one of the reasons they have been hunted to near extinction.,of which I am not for .You must keep a balance in nature and to let Wolves run wild unchecked is not sound game management

Astrid Runa
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:09 AM
Wolves are predators plain and simple .They not only kill for meat but as any hunter or rancher in Northern areas will till you they also kill for pleasure.That does not mean they should be hunted to extinction .Hunting laws and regulations have come a long way and most game animals now( except in Afrika where poaching rules)are more plentiful now than ever.Hunting revenues has made this so.If you let the Wolf population run wild without proper management problems arise (and have) A hunter of the Northern Forest respects ALL animals ,but HE (The Hunter) is still the master



That is totally false ,Wolves kill for the sake of killing more than any other animal .I have witnessed this . This is one of the reasons they have been hunted to near extinction.,of which I am not for .You must keep a balance in nature and to let Wolves run wild unchecked is not sound game management

Says you who probably takes pride in the fact that innocent wolf pups were rounded up and shot for no reason.
How much do you know about wolves? Have you actually ever taken the time to read a non-biased argument about wolves?
Since I adopted Pepe, I have read more about wolves than ever before.
I believe that if we educate people on the truth about wolves and show that they aren't "evil" and they don't kill soley for fun (that is a human thing, not a wolf thing).
I suggest that you don't spout utter rubbish to someone who knows a lot more than she appears to. I'm not stupid, I'm not a child, so don't talk to me like I'm one.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:16 AM
Says you who probably takes pride in the fact that innocent wolf pups were rounded up and shot for no reason.
How much do you know about wolves? Have you actually ever taken the time to read a non-biased argument about wolves?
Since I adopted Pepe, I have read more about wolves than ever before.
I believe that if we educate people on the truth about wolves and show that they aren't "evil" and they don't kill soley for fun (that is a human thing, not a wolf thing).
I suggest that you don't spout utter rubbish to someone who knows a lot more than she appears to. I'm not stupid, I'm not a child, so don't talk to me like I'm one.
You shouldn't assume that the wolf situation is the same everywhere. It's well known here that wolves don't kill solely for fun. They kill because of hunger, to feed themselves. But the sheep they eat aren't theirs, and neither are the yards and houses they enter in and damage. A human can't expect a wolf to stop coming and eating the sheep and destroying the fence which means more sheep escaping. :| If the wolf doesn't stop it, it's going to be shot. The natural world is a cycle, of life and death. Something dies for something to live, every day. The sheep and deer which are eaten by the wolves aren't evil and don't 'deserve' it either, but it's the nature's law, whether you like it, or not. Humans are submitted to it too, but the potential predators of ours much stronger to be able to kill us, like the dinosaurs, are extinct now, so we are luckier to be near the top of the pyramid.

Astrid Runa
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:26 AM
You shouldn't assume that the wolf situation is the same everywhere. It's well known here that wolves don't kill solely for fun. They kill because of hunger, to feed themselves. But the sheep they eat aren't theirs, and neither are the yards and houses they enter in and damage. A human can't expect a wolf to stop coming and eating the sheep and destroying the fence which means more sheep escaping. :| If the wolf doesn't stop it, it's going to be shot. The natural world is a cycle, of life and death. Something dies for something to live, every day. The sheep and deer which are eaten by the wolves aren't evil and don't 'deserve' it either, but it's the nature's law, whether you like it, or not. Humans are submitted to it too, but the potential predators of ours much stronger to be able to kill us, like the dinosaurs, are extinct now, so we are luckier to be near the top of the pyramid.

But people seem to think that the wolves are on our territory, when in reality, it's the other way around. We're moving onto their territory.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:32 AM
But people seem to think that the wolves are on our territory, when in reality, it's the other way around. We're moving onto their territory.
Yes, our habitat is expanding into theirs. It's the same as with bears. The cities are built near the forests so the bears come inside the city. But what's the solution? To breed the sheep in automated facilities, trapped in little boxes? Then it's considered animal cruelty. To push humans to live 10 in an apartment so there are no newer buildings? Either way you do it, you can't win on all fronts. We've anthropocentric cultures. When bird or swine flu becomes a threat, humans cull the suspicious animals. But if a human is sick they try to cure him. Each species is focused on preserving itself first and foremost.

velvet
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 01:19 PM
Yes, our habitat is expanding into theirs. It's the same as with bears. The cities are built near the forests so the bears come inside the city. But what's the solution? To breed the sheep in automated facilities, trapped in little boxes? Then it's considered animal cruelty. To push humans to live 10 in an apartment so there are no newer buildings? Either way you do it, you can't win on all fronts. We've anthropocentric cultures. When bird or swine flu becomes a threat, humans cull the suspicious animals. But if a human is sick they try to cure him. Each species is focused on preserving itself first and foremost.

Indeed, this is the central problem. Humans are but another predator, and instead of exterminating the nature around us we should finally learn to limit ourselves.

Once again: WE are the problem. And when people talk about predator/game management, man should not be excluded from this consideration. Humans are too many and must be controlled.
When you need mass animal farming, start to extinct other predators because they are a concurrence to your own game and have ten people in an apartment, it is a clear sign that humans are too many. Instead of killing wolves or bears, cull some humans :shrug

Nordlander
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 04:58 PM
Says you who probably takes pride in the fact that innocent wolf pups were rounded up and shot for no reason.
How much do you know about wolves? Have you actually ever taken the time to read a non-biased argument about wolves?
Since I adopted Pepe, I have read more about wolves than ever before.
I believe that if we educate people on the truth about wolves and show that they aren't "evil" and they don't kill soley for fun (that is a human thing, not a wolf thing).
I suggest that you don't spout utter rubbish to someone who knows a lot more than she appears to. I'm not stupid, I'm not a child, so don't talk to me like I'm one. I give a factual knowledgeable explaination about wolves and you accuse me of "taking pride in rounding up wolf pups and killing them "I would resent that statement but I must consider the source.I have lived around wolves and have many friends who are ranchers and game managers in Montana the state I grew up in.I have been around these animals most of my life, and I will tell you this; a wolf does kill for the sheer pleasure of killing another animal ,not good or bad as it is their nature.And if you do not want people to talk to you like a child then stop acting and writing like one

Kogen
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 05:23 PM
But if a human is sick they try to cure him. Each species is focused on preserving itself first and foremost.
You have just described the biggest problem the world has ever faced since humanity existed. No crime is greater than this.

And for a fact, no, other species do not preserve themselves solely. If a coyote tries to steal a wolf's food, the wolf will kill it; yet they are both the same species. They do not bring it back to their den to feed as we do with other races, then let it go to continue stealing.


A human can't expect a wolf to stop coming and eating the sheep and destroying the fence which means more sheep escaping.

We can build giant walls around cities that can stop entire armies in the hundreds of thousands and construct space stations, yet we cannot build a fence around some sheep to stop a small canine?

Think about that for a moment.


If the wolf doesn't stop it, it's going to be shot. The natural world is a cycle, of life and death. Something dies for something to live, every day.

Not only that, but it is going to become extinct. There is a difference.

Our race should understand this more than any other.


The sheep and deer which are eaten by the wolves aren't evil and don't 'deserve' it either, but it's the nature's law, whether you like it, or not. Humans are submitted to it too, but the potential predators of ours much stronger to be able to kill us, like the dinosaurs, are extinct now, so we are luckier to be near the top of the pyramid.

The wolves hunt deer for food. We hunt deer for food. Those of us that hunt wolves do it for greed. It is not the same.

Also you seem to not be able to understand the difference between hunting and self defence, or that fact that we can over come problems without violence. Why are you being so simplistic?


a wolf does kill for the sheer pleasure of killing another animal ,not good or bad as it is their nature.

Provide some examples or quote yourself if you already did?

I would really like to know what kind of animals a wolf kills for fun then ignores, even though it knows by instinct that it should horde any extra food. Dogs still do this, even, when they bury/hide food they cannot eat at the moment.


And if you do not want people to talk to you like a child then stop acting and writing like one

Your post quality differs little from the person you are writing of.

Nordlander
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 07:46 PM
You have just described the biggest problem the world has ever faced since humanity existed. No crime is greater than this.

And for a fact, no, other species do not preserve themselves solely. If a coyote tries to steal a wolf's food, the wolf will kill it; yet they are both the same species. They do not bring it back to their den to feed as we do with other races, then let it go to continue stealing.



We can build giant walls around cities that can stop entire armies in the hundreds of thousands and construct space stations, yet we cannot build a fence around some sheep to stop a small canine?

Think about that for a moment.



Not only that, but it is going to become extinct. There is a difference.

Our race should understand this more than any other.



The wolves hunt deer for food. We hunt deer for food. Those of us that hunt wolves do it for greed. It is not the same.

Also you seem to not be able to understand the difference between hunting and self defence, or that fact that we can over come problems without violence. Why are you being so simplistic?



Provide some examples or quote yourself if you already did?

I would really like to know what kind of animals a wolf kills for fun then ignores, even though it knows by instinct that it should horde any extra food. Dogs still do this, even, when they bury/hide food they cannot eat at the moment.



Your post quality differs little from the person you are writing of.

That Wolves kill for fun has been documented many times. Russell Annabelle the long time(30 years) Alaskan outfitter and writer has mentioned this many times in his writings . Teddy Roosevelt mentioned this many times in his writings from the west,T.R. Quote;The wolfpack will not only hunt for food ,but as I have observed many times wolves kill just for the fun of it as I have returned to a wolfpack kill many times only to find a moose or deer rotting and the wolves never to return. Andy Russel outfitter author of "Grizzly Country " and lifetime liver in Alberta said ;"I never could find it in my heart to love the wolf as i do other animals as a wolf will kill for the sheer pleasure of it" Marty Stouffer of "wild America "fame has done documentarys on this subject. The Montana fish and game commissions surveys after the Yellowstone wolf relocation program registered complaints from neighboring ranchers saying "wolves have been killing our cattle just for fun " The commission found most of these accusations to be true.And I have personally witnessed wolves killing for fun as I grew up in the mountains of Montana ,wolves would kill cattle and let them lay if they were not hungry. I made the childishness statement because thats what it was "stating that I would enjoy rounding up wolf pups and killing them" in so many words. If you want to live in" disney land "with the talking wolves and dogs and bears thats fine ,my Daughter liked that stuff too when She was 5 ,but please ,dont try to argue that "dizzy land " Bambi mentality with someone who knows what they are talking about. Read some real information from some real people (Not Walt Disney) and then maybe someone (with intelligence that is )will take you seriously. MAN IS THE KING OF THE PREDATORS; To be anything else is unnatural

Kogen
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 09:33 PM
That Wolves kill for fun has been documented many times. Russell Annabelle the long time(30 years) Alaskan outfitter and writer has mentioned this many times in his writings . Teddy Roosevelt mentioned this many times in his writings from the west,T.R. Quote;The wolfpack will not only hunt for food ,but as I have observed many times wolves kill just for the fun of it as I have returned to a wolfpack kill many times only to find a moose or deer rotting and the wolves never to return. Andy Russel outfitter author of "Grizzly Country " and lifetime liver in Alberta said ;"I never could find it in my heart to love the wolf as i do other animals as a wolf will kill for the sheer pleasure of it" Marty Stouffer of "wild America "fame has done documentarys on this subject. The Montana fish and game commissions surveys after the Yellowstone wolf relocation program registered complaints from neighboring ranchers saying "wolves have been killing our cattle just for fun " The commission found most of these accusations to be true.And I have personally witnessed wolves killing for fun as I grew up in the mountains of Montana ,wolves would kill cattle and let them lay if they were not hungry. I made the childishness statement because thats what it was "stating that I would enjoy rounding up wolf pups and killing them" in so many words. If you want to live in" disney land "with the talking wolves and dogs and bears thats fine ,my Daughter liked that stuff too when She was 5 ,but please ,dont try to argue that "dizzy land " Bambi mentality with someone who knows what they are talking about. Read some real information from some real people (Not Walt Disney) and then maybe someone (with intelligence that is )will take you seriously. MAN IS THE KING OF THE PREDATORS; To be anything else is unnatural

I quickly did not understand any of that.

Do you know what paragraphs are?

And since you know of all these sources, could you find a visual/document of it, proving it to be wide spread?

I still find it hard to believe that an animal that knows it may not have food tomorrow would leave food to rot because it is bored.

Wulfram
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:02 PM
I still find it hard to believe that an animal that knows it may not have food tomorrow would leave food to rot because it is bored.

You can also find examples of dolphins that kill for fun as well.
There was an article written a few years ago called 'The 6 Cutest Animals That Can Destroy You'. Here is a quote:


For the last 17 years or so, marine biologists have begun paying a great deal of attention to dead baby dolphins and porpoises of all ages washing up ashore, and we quote, 'mangled in unexpected ways.'
Fourteen-foot male Bottlenose Dolphins were hunting down porpoises, beating to death and then playing with their corpses, all for no readily apparent reason.

If you have ever owned a cat or observed cats, you will have seen that on occasion they will capture then torture their prey until the animal lies dead or exhausted.
Sometimes the cat will proceed to eat the animal. But other times it will simply get up and walk away, leaving the animal uneaten.
I have seen this happen numerous times and my own conclusion was that the cat was thoroughly enjoying itself, and then became bored.

Kogen
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:29 PM
We are not talking of dolphins and cats.

And also, a domesticated cat does not worry about food.

Wulfram
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:37 PM
We are not talking of dolphins and cats.

And also, a domesticated cat does not worry about food.

I was using other examples to explain how the wolf's behavior is not an exclusive occurence and is quite common among other species.

"Domesticated" cats can survive without human assistance in many types of environments. I saw a docu a while back that featured cats living in the harshest desert climates for years at a time.

Kogen
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:41 PM
The arguement others are trying to make is that hunting parties should slaughter packs of wolves for the purpose of saving innocent deer they want to hunt. Or something like that, I cannot understand their logic yet.

To me, it seems like they think they own all food-animals and that wolves are evil because they eat the same ones. Someone is also trying to say that wolves are evil because they hunt for entertainment (which I do not believe, and I do not care what dolphins and cats do), yet they seemingly forget that people do the same thing, anyway.

I think it is all Christian egotism and lack of logical thinking.

Nordlander
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:05 PM
Do not misunderstand me .I am not critisizing the wolf or blaming the wolf.It is a wolf (an animal) and they do what is instinctive to them.If they kill in nature ,it is because they have an instinct to .I am just against unreasonable interference by man in nature to save one animal while others suffer the consequences because of "Hollywood" setiment .The wolf in Europe was a beast that killed hundreds of thousands of humans in the middle ages and after.Its record is somewhat better in North America due to more living space and less humans .Alaska and Canada still have many wolves.As living space becomes a premium so does the wolfs existance. As humans ,who have the power of reason ,unlike animals,we have a responsibility towards all animals of the earth. Myself ,as a hunter and a lover of nature not only want to preserve my love of hunting ,but also the existance of animals for years to come.This is where game management and conservation comes in play.Revenues from hunting proceeds in the billions of dollars yearly insures this by properly setting up hunting seasons and bag limits ,restocking programs for fish and animals and careful study and management to insure that we will have thes animals forever.Sometimes animals are protected and stiff fines were placed on people who shot them.In the state that I now live in we now have Bobcat and Elk a plenty where they were almost extinct a few years ago.As for myself yes I hunt for food (I did so today by harvesting a deer) but I hunt because it is my NATURE to do so .I love to hunt and to deny it would be to deny my very existance and make me a hypocrite.But when I do hunt ,I do so ethicly and I have the good feeling that my money spent is going to the protection of the very thing I love.

Kogen
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:13 PM
And their instinct, from my experience with domestic canines, is to preserve food, not leave it to rot. I still do not believe they kill for fun.

Essentially, they do what you do. So what is wrong with that?

Nordlander
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:47 PM
And their instinct, from my experience with domestic canines, is to preserve food, not leave it to rot. I still do not believe they kill for fun.

Essentially, they do what you do. So what is wrong with that?

In answer to your question ;If you read a little bit and bacame more informed on the subject then you would at least have a little knowledge on the subject you are talking about. To answer your insult; no they do not do what I do because I use all the parts of a deer and never leave a kill to rot .I know of no hunters that do this

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 12:12 AM
You can also find examples of dolphins that kill for fun as well.
There was an article written a few years ago called 'The 6 Cutest Animals That Can Destroy You'. Here is a quote:

Some biologists assumed that the dolphins that are killed are seriously ill or just too weak and would hinder the herd on their way to other regions.
Wales have a death cult, in human terms a religious concept, when they feel their times is over they go to certain shores and actually commit suicide there.
They just do what is good for them and their herd. It has nothing to do with fun.

And btw, any wild animal is a danger. A rabbit due to its size much lesser than a washbear, fox or wolf. Ever been bitten by a wild horse? I was glad that it wasnt my hand, only my upper arm, a finger would have been gone. Wild animals = danger. No exception.


If you have ever owned a cat or observed cats, you will have seen that on occasion they will capture then torture their prey until the animal lies dead or exhausted.
Sometimes the cat will proceed to eat the animal. But other times it will simply get up and walk away, leaving the animal uneaten.
I have seen this happen numerous times and my own conclusion was that the cat was thoroughly enjoying itself, and then became bored.

They dont kill out of fun for killing. They follow their instinct, and when they're not really hungry, they do play with their mouse, yes. But "an evil will to torture and kill" is an entire human concept. It is utter BS to apply that to any wild animal.
It is a pervert, indeed christian moral judgement to do so.

Do you know how kitten learn hunting a mouse? The mother brings them a living mouse and the kitten, four or fife at the same time, start to jump on it, walk around it, bite it, hit it with their claws, etc.

A moral human thinks: the cats are cruel and kill for fun.

The mother cat thinks: an essential lesson to survive.

Cats dont have an idea of moral. They have their instincts, their love for their kitten, domesticated cats also have their love for their humans and bring them mice or birds. But they still dont have a moral.

Animals do nothing without purpose. Just because humans are obviously unable to realise this purpose doesnt make it absent.


The wolf in Europe was a beast that killed hundreds of thousands of humans in the middle ages and after

BS. Wolves fear humans, they dont hunt humans. If humans were killed THEY attacked the wolf first, or just sent their little children into the forest, the fault of humans too. And when you build your farm into the deep forest and keep there chicken or sheep, it is like serving the wolves their meal on the silver plate. You shouldnt be too surprised when they come and get one or two, or attack you while you try to keep them out of your funny fenced area.
What do you think is a fence for a wolf? Does it tell him that he has to stay out and use the bell and that he only can enter when you said 'come in'? LOL, ridiculous. A fence for wolf is just a stupid thing standing around with absolutely NO purpose.

Still, the very most stories of the 'evil wolf killing humans' are nothing but fantasy, in the middle ages as well as today. And christianity did a good deal of the witch hunt against every evil, in form of wolves, cats (millions of them were killed, accused of being the devil's witches), and also humans, mostly women. This is were the story of the 'evil wolf' comes from, not so much real experiences.

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 12:37 AM
In answer to your question ;If you read a little bit and bacame more informed on the subject then you would at least have a little knowledge on the subject you are talking about.

I do not know what you mean. Point out what I need to be educated on.


To answer your insult; no they do not do what I do because I use all the parts of a deer and never leave a kill to rot .I know of no hunters that do this

Firstly, it was not an insult.

Secondly, what use does a wolf have with deer fur, bones, and so on? They kill it for some meat, feed the entire pack, then go home to feed their pups. Once they leave, other animals such as foxes and avians come to eat the rest. Once they are done, insects eat what little is left. After that, the remaining material decays into the ground for the plants. Then the deer eats it again. This is a healthy ecosystem.

When my family hunts moose, for example, we always leave the mound of unrequired parts (guts, et cetera) there for the foxes and bears. I do not see this as a waste.

Wulfram
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 12:40 AM
Some biologists assumed that the dolphins that are killed are seriously ill or just too weak and would hinder the herd on their way to other regions.

Possibly, but this does not explain why they also kill baby dolphins as well.


Wales have a death cult, in human terms a religious concept, when they feel their times is over they go to certain shores and actually commit suicide there.

Actually, this is only an admitted theory. In truth, nobody really knows why whales beach themselves.


Ever been bitten by a wild horse?

I was kicked by one.


They dont kill out of fun for killing. They follow their instinct, and when they're not really hungry, they do play with their mouse, yes.

You say they don't, I say that they do. Until we can actually ask a cat if it has fun biting, swatting and clawing the mouse, then there really is no definite way for either of us to know. To me they seem to be having fun at the mouses expense.


Animals do nothing without purpose. Just because humans are obviously unable to realise this purpose doesnt make it absent.

There is no sure method for determining this. I guess we are both putting words into their mouths. :D

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Possibly, but this does not explain why they also kill baby dolphins as well.

When it is ill or too weak, it is ill or too weak, whether baby dolphin or not.
You know, in ancient times this was done with human babies too. People checked it if it was ill or defect and when they found it is, it got killed.


Actually, this is only an admitted theory. In truth, nobody really knows why whales beach themselves.

No, but it is a theory that is consistent with all animals that live in herds. When members become too old, and therefor a burden for their herd with no use anymore, they leave their herd to die.


You say they don't, I say that they do. Until we can actually ask a cat if it has fun biting, swatting and clawing the mouse, then there really is no definite way for either of us to know. To me they seem to be having fun at the mouses expense.

You judge what you see by moral standards.
For the cat the mouse is prey, it is just food on feet, not a living being. But your judgement of the cat's behavior starts exactly on that perception. You expect the cat to recognise the mouse as a living being, in a christian moral way essentially of the same worth like any other living being. You expect the cat to realise that she wipes off another life when she kills the mouse. But as said, it is just food on feet.
Unless you can possibly assume that the cat understands the concept of the 'worth of life as such' you cant go on judging her by that moral standard.


There is no sure method for determining this. I guess we are both putting words into their mouths. :D

No, you put words into their mouth by placing a false assumption (see above) as the startpoint.
But when you cannot put aside that moral thinking you will never be able to understand animal behavior. Animals do not have a moral.
Man has a moral, and in this day and age it is a really sick one. :(

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 01:31 AM
Possibly, but this does not explain why they also kill baby dolphins as well.

Same reason the Spartans did?

The dolphins are perhaps not too different than us when it comes to preserving our race.

Nordlander
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 02:13 AM
Just some documentation of Wolf attacks in Medieval Europe:If folks would do some research instead of emotional rantings about the poor wolf you will find governments mandates and laws concerning massive UNPROVOKED wolf attacks on humans in Europe and else where.
QUOTE FROM TEXT:
In Europe and North Asia, wolves were considered the most dangerous animal to man and his livestock. In France, there were special government institutions for wolf control from at least the regin of Charlemagne (768-814 AD) which remained in place well into the 20th century. Single wolves gained the kind of notoriety reserved these days for serial-killers - the 'Beast of Gevaudan' who roamed the South of Auvergne from 1764 to 1767 and killed at least 60 people. Packs were even more feared and alarming. In 1439, during civil war between the followers of the Count of Armagnac and those of the Duke of Burgundy, opportunistic and hungry wolves roamed right into Paris and proceeded to kill and eat 14 people in as many days.

And after Cromwell's 1649 campaign in Ireland, wolves were such a serious problem that there was a five pound bounty on wolf heads, the same princely sum being offered for Catholic priests. So there we have it: wolves were not popular. They were seen as clever and evil animals. They dared to take on man, occasionally winning, and in doing so, were attributed with seeming almost human, manifesting some of out worst fears about our suppressed animal instincts There are many documented cases of packs of wolves and individuals terrorizing whole communities of people and killing and eating them.

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 02:39 AM
But you are aware that 'Beast of Gevaudan' was revealed to be a human serial killer, yes?

And, with this, your quote "wolves were not popular. They were seen as clever and evil animals. They dared to take on man, occasionally winning, and in doing so, were attributed with seeming almost human, manifesting some of out worst fears about our suppressed animal instincts" you gave yourself the very HUMAN interpretation of things.

And it is indeed maybe the most important one. The wolf is just one step down the ladder from human, who considers himself as the master of predators. The bear got extinct here in Middle-Europe exactly due to that reason, the bear was one step higher on the ladder. Probably the wolf is too, when he comes in packs.

Both species are concurrence to the same prey. While bears and wolves deal with each other, man goes hunting them.

And by the way, this is not about the 'poor wolves', but about stupid man. Stupid man keeps talking about maintaining balance, when it is he who disturbs that balance.

Start maintaining man's populace, this would be a service to the balance in nature :wsg

Nordlander
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 02:58 AM
But you are aware that 'Beast of Gevaudan' was revealed to be a human serial killer, yes?

And, with this, your quote "wolves were not popular. They were seen as clever and evil animals. They dared to take on man, occasionally winning, and in doing so, were attributed with seeming almost human, manifesting some of out worst fears about our suppressed animal instincts" you gave yourself the very HUMAN interpretation of things.

And it is indeed maybe the most important one. The wolf is just one step down the ladder from human, who considers himself as the master of predators. The bear got extinct here in Middle-Europe exactly due to that reason, the bear was one step higher on the ladder. Probably the wolf is too, when he comes in packs.

Both species are concurrence to the same prey. While bears and wolves deal with each other, man goes hunting them.

And by the way, this is not about the 'poor wolves', but about stupid man. Stupid man keeps talking about maintaining balance, when it is he who disturbs that balance.

Start maintaining man's populace, this would be a service to the balance in nature :wsg

IF you had read the article a little closer it read QUOTE FROM TEXT ,NOT "My Quote" I just copied this article to show you "once again" How wrong you "Bambists" are about the wolf .If you can stop you incessent bleeding heart theatrics long enough to do a little RESEARCH you will find the wolf "especially in Europe" to be a viscious killer who had plagued mankind for centuries which eventually led to his (the wolfs)demise.The blood thirstiness of the wolf and his competition with man has led him down the path which we have now.It is part of nature.And we "stupid men " as you call us who are so responsible ,I say this.When you give up your house ,your car and all of the possetions that make a 'Civilization" then I will listen to you ,Because it is that "civilization" that has led to the demise of the wolf.If it is them or us ,I take us.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 03:34 AM
If the wolves are part of nature and man is part of nature then we are natural opponents and are at war. In war you try to destroy your opposition not help it. Just a thought what do you think? ;)

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 03:44 AM
If the wolves are part of nature and man is part of nature then we are natural opponents and are at war. In war you try to destroy your opposition not help it. Just a thought what do you think? ;)

You are at war with wild life?

And in general, no, war is not about exterminating your enemy. That is actually very rare.

But last time I checked, unless you are fighting some hive insects, you are not going to see animals set up an army.


Just some documentation of Wolf attacks in Medieval Europe:If folks would do some research instead of emotional rantings about the poor wolf you will find governments mandates and laws concerning massive UNPROVOKED wolf attacks on humans in Europe and else where.
QUOTE FROM TEXT:
In Europe and North Asia, wolves were considered the most dangerous animal to man and his livestock. In France, there were special government institutions for wolf control from at least the regin of Charlemagne (768-814 AD) which remained in place well into the 20th century. Single wolves gained the kind of notoriety reserved these days for serial-killers - the 'Beast of Gevaudan' who roamed the South of Auvergne from 1764 to 1767 and killed at least 60 people. Packs were even more feared and alarming. In 1439, during civil war between the followers of the Count of Armagnac and those of the Duke of Burgundy, opportunistic and hungry wolves roamed right into Paris and proceeded to kill and eat 14 people in as many days.

And after Cromwell's 1649 campaign in Ireland, wolves were such a serious problem that there was a five pound bounty on wolf heads, the same princely sum being offered for Catholic priests. So there we have it: wolves were not popular. They were seen as clever and evil animals. They dared to take on man, occasionally winning, and in doing so, were attributed with seeming almost human, manifesting some of out worst fears about our suppressed animal instincts There are many documented cases of packs of wolves and individuals terrorizing whole communities of people and killing and eating them.

Why are you babbling on about the 17/18th century?

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 03:57 AM
I just pointed out to you that the 'beast' was a human serial killer, but you refuse to even consider the argument, but you accuse me of not researching.

You cannot prove anything with quotes, yours or others, which are proven to be wrong.

I dont deny that there have been wolves killing humans. But this is not the point. We are NOT THE MASTERS OF NATURE, we are but part of it. And if there is a tiny bit of responsibility left in human (spoiled by the biblical bs 'make yourself the world/nature a subject'), you should better start considering that man is not entitled - and obviously not able either - to call himself a master of anything, because he lacks responsibility.

I agree, civilisation is nature's demise. But civilisation will also be our demise. Civilisation has unrooted man from nature. Man considers 'nature' a place to go to on weekend to spend some hours in the green. The real nature though contains also wild animals, and it is just nature when some humans fall prey to other predators. Man shouldnt make a drama of it. Who engages in dangers, you know.

Civilisation has planted a question into man's head: how the hell can nature dare to attack me? When I'm the master of the world, I who made myself the world a subject? How can it dare?

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but this is the most stupid thought ever. Feel like a king if you want, but understand that you're only so long a king as your 'subject' is able to recognise you as king. This is limited to other humans. Nature doesnt understand that, and nothing that lives in her. Man is but a part of her, he can never be her master. It is not possible. At the end nature will win. It is up to man if he thinks 'I take as many other species with me into demise as I can' or try to let something alive when he leaves. You seem more keen to the first option (If it is them or us ,I take us).

Nature is not your enemy, man is.

Nordlander
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:02 AM
You are at war with wild life?

And in general, no, war is not about exterminating your enemy. That is actually very rare.

But last time I checked, unless you are fighting some hive insects, you are not going to see animals set up an army.



Why are you babbling on about the 17/18th century?

Obviously you are not the sharpest tool in the shed ,but if you have read Velvets statement I was showing her she was wrong. You shouldn't really post with stupid statements if you have nothing to offer. Opposing views yes I will debate but not childish statements

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:08 AM
You are at war with wild life?

And in general, no, war is not about exterminating your enemy. That is actually very rare.

As you should Know from my other post on this thread I like wildlife. I also stated that man is part of nature and has that responsibility to live and work around it.

You seem to know a lot about war. How many wars have you fought in? Have you ever seen combat? When you have fought in personal in a war, come back and tell me it is not about exterminating your enemy.:|

There are all kinds of war country vs country, idea vs idea, and man vs. beast. Things in nature are always at war with one another.

Vindefense
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:26 AM
They dont kill out of fun for killing. They follow their instinct, and when they're not really hungry, they do play with their mouse, yes. But "an evil will to torture and kill" is an entire human concept. It is utter BS to apply that to any wild animal.
It is a pervert, indeed christian moral judgement to do so.

Hmm... That word instinct. I agree with Ronan, it is pointless to try to understand or judge anything that animals do. I also agree with you, everything that they do has purpose.


Cats dont have an idea of moral. They have their instincts, their love for their kitten, domesticated cats also have their love for their humans and bring them mice or birds. But they still dont have a moral

I have to agree. The dismembered leavings of chipmunks and mice on my front door stoop and shop bench can be no less than my cat's gratuitous appreciation. :D


Animals do nothing without purpose. Just because humans are obviously unable to realise this purpose doesnt make it absent.


Then, you must equally accept that man does nothing without purpose and everything we do, although it may not be easily understood, is neither right nor wrong.


And by the way, this is not about the 'poor wolves', but about stupid man. Stupid man keeps talking about maintaining balance, when it is he who disturbs that balance.


But, If balance were indeed being disturbed life as we know it would not be possible. Our ecosystem is the combination and cooperation of various natural occurrences and any serious disruption carries with it dire consequence.


We are NOT THE MASTERS OF NATURE, we are but part of it. And if there is a tiny bit of responsibility left in human (spoiled by the biblical bs 'make yourself the world/nature a subject'), you should better start considering that man is not entitled - and obviously not able either - to call himself a master of anything, because he lacks responsibility.


You argue that man is part of nature, which is harsh and unforgiving yet when the actions of man mirror this, instead of being within natural law you condemn him for going against it. ???:)

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:28 AM
There are all kinds of war country vs country, idea vs idea, and man vs. beast. Things in nature are always at war with one another.

I have to disagree. Man leads wars, but even man's wars are only lately about exterminating the enemy.

In ancient times, when war was somehow a fair thing, soldiers met on a battlefield, fought each other and the one who won got the land and the people. It has never been about exterminating. But this is not the topic here.

War is a human concept. If the f.e. African wildlife were a war about exterminating the enemy, there wouldnt be any hyaenes, lions, crocodiles, vultures or what you will. They would have exterminated each other thousands of years ago. This is however not the case. It is because they dont lead a war against each other, they just take their place in nature. If it werent for the predators, the prey herds would explode in numbers, eat away all the food and would exterminate themselves by it. This is how balance works.

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:36 AM
Obviously you are not the sharpest tool in the shed ,but if you have read Velvets statement I was showing her she was wrong. You shouldn't really post with stupid statements if you have nothing to offer. Opposing views yes I will debate but not childish statements

A near-illiterate person is calling me childish?

Regardless of this, one of the examples you used was actually a human. And beyond that, more wolves are killed than people, even at their claimed height of killing us.

I suppose next we have to attack the sky? You know, lightening and all that.


As you should Know from my other post on this thread I like wildlife. I also stated that man is part of nature and has that responsibility to live and work around it.

And as you know, wolves are nearly extinct in most of the USA. Even now the Mexican Wolves (also in the USA) have only about a dozen members left, and most of them only have three legs due to trappers. Yet people like you actually support the idea of hunting them in such a pathetic situation. It is like kicking a child.


You seem to know a lot about war. How many wars have you fought in? Have you ever seen combat? When you have fought in personal in a war, come back and tell me it is not about exterminating your enemy.:|

Go tell that to John Keegan.


There are all kinds of war country vs country, idea vs idea, and man vs. beast. Things in nature are always at war with one another.

War is a concept of civilisation. It did not exist prior.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:46 AM
OK , I was using real human combat as a example. Now back to the point nature is always at war. I have seen a murder(thats what you call a flock of crows) of crows attach and kill an owl for no reason. I have seen a coyote kill a red fox for being in its area. I have also seen sparrows gang up on hawks and kill them. So if man is part of nature and is living in nature when wolves come after his livestock or the game he hunts for food it is only natural for man to want to kill wolves.

Besides wolves had to have gotten the bad rep. somehow.;)

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:52 AM
OK , I was using real human combat as a example. Now back to the point nature is always at war. I have seen a murder(thats what you call a flock of crows) of crows attach and kill an owl for no reason. I have seen a coyote kill a red fox for being in its area. I have also seen sparrows gang up on hawks and kill them. So if man is part of nature and is living in nature when wolves come after his livestock or the game he hunts for food it is only natural for man to want to kill wolves.

What you describe is not war.

The coyote killed the fox because it was a direct threat, it never found some other coyotes then purposely went out to kill it.

Plus I would assume you are smarter than a coyote.


Besides wolves had to have gotten the bad rep. somehow.;)

Filthy Semites, perhaps? The same people that burned us alive in mass and destroyed our culture.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:52 AM
John Keegan, still no combat on a personal level.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:56 AM
John Keegan, still no combat on a personal level.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan

Yet he knows more than hundreds of millions of soldiers, officers, and generals.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Yet he knows more than hundreds of millions of soldiers, officers, and generals.

But still has not been in combat or had to fire a shot in anger or defense. Until you have been there you cannot know what it is like. I will not talk about this anymore. It is not part of the thread and you will not understand.

Zimobog
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 05:20 AM
Kogen said:
If a coyote tries to steal a wolf's food, the wolf will kill it; yet they are both the same species.

:D Wolves and coyotes are the same species? Which do you think you know more about, Kogen, the coyote or the wolf?

If a wolf kills a coyote, it is self-preservation. If I kill a wolf, it is "greed".



There is a group here that it is romanticizing wolves and another that is making villains of the wolves. I like wolves. I think they are like humans.



I am hearing two distinct groups here but I don't think either side is seeing that both sides are correct:



Wolves kill for fun, wolves waste meat, wolves kill mostly pregnant and immature prey.

Wolves are beautiful, intelligent (much more so than dogs), and interesting. They are worth preserving.



Both sets of statements are correct.



I don't agree that wolves are dangerous to man. It has been a long time since a wolf has ate a man, even here where wolves are numerous. Wolves will have 5-7 pups a litter.



Wolves will eat all the prey in an area and than each other, some will try to move to new areas and if a wolf pack already lives there a wolf-war will follow in which many wolves perish. There should be about one wolf per twenty moose in order for there to be a balance (good sustainable numbers of prey and predators).



There is no balance in nature, there is feast or famine.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 12:18 PM
You have just described the biggest problem the world has ever faced since humanity existed. No crime is greater than this.
Caring about ourselves first isn't a crime. I agree we should be careful with nature as much as possible and not commit unnecessary damages, but when the question is our versus the survival of others, if we put altruism above everything, we will be extinct more sooner than later.


And for a fact, no, other species do not preserve themselves solely. If a coyote tries to steal a wolf's food, the wolf will kill it; yet they are both the same species. They do not bring it back to their den to feed as we do with other races, then let it go to continue stealing.
The wolf and the coyote aren't the same species, Kogen. The coyote is the Canis latrans species, and the wolf is the Canis lupus species. But, even between members of the same species, you can see sometimes a fight, for everyone to save his own family first. Some animals even let the weakest of their offspring to die, and provide the food to the strongest. Why is this happening? Out of cruelty? Out of hatred? No. It happens because they want to ensure the perpetuation of their genes. Nature is a continuous struggle, in the forests, at the seas, or in the cities.


We can build giant walls around cities that can stop entire armies in the hundreds of thousands and construct space stations, yet we cannot build a fence around some sheep to stop a small canine?

Think about that for a moment.
We can, of course, but it depends on the circumstances. Building fences means money, and the mountain peoples don't have the money and technology to build strong or electrified fences there. hey improvise from wood or wire, and some animals manage to destroy them. Lately there have been funds to construct electrified fences. But they also leads to the death of some wild animals that come in the region. By the way, wolves live in packs, and when they're hungry, it's more than a small canine which attacks.


Not only that, but it is going to become extinct. There is a difference.

Our race should understand this more than any other.
It depends on the area. Wolves aren't in danger of extinct in the Carpathians. You see, that isn't a heavily industrialised region where there's no peril if you walk in the woods. You can get attacked by a wild animal like a wolf or a bear any time. We're talking of different worlds. :| Where wolves are in danger of extinction, it's normal for measures to be taken and to forbid the hunting. We've plants like the Edelweiss which are protected species for example.


The wolves hunt deer for food. We hunt deer for food. Those of us that hunt wolves do it for greed. It is not the same.
How is greed defined for you? When you take something you no longer need? Would killing an animal to eat it when your stomach is already full, and you only take a chunk of it, and leave the rest to rot count as greed? Because then some wolves are "greedy". I don't think you should be assuming why every peoples hunt wolves. It's true some hunt for greed, especially the politicians. I can recall the communist dictator in this country used to ask his peoples to hunt as many animals as possible and then lay them on the ground lined up so he could brag he did it all by himself. But that isn't the only reason. Some peoples hunt wolves for their fur, or to display them in animal museums, or for research projects.


Also you seem to not be able to understand the difference between hunting and self defence, or that fact that we can over come problems without violence. Why are you being so simplistic?
Here self defense is one of the prime reasons why peoples in the mountains go and hunt wolves down and kill them. They do it to protect their herd. To make sure it doesn't come and disturb it again.

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Hmm... That word instinct. I agree with Ronan, it is pointless to try to understand or judge anything that animals do. I also agree with you, everything that they do has purpose.

It is not pointless to try to figure it out. If we'd understand more of the things animals do we'd probably understand ourselves much better too. Man is an animal, and he will forever remain an animal. The complete denying of this fact is part of the reasons for our demise.


I have to agree. The dismembered leavings of chipmunks and mice on my front door stoop and shop bench can be no less than my cat's gratuitous appreciation. :D

The cat-man relation is a complicated one. While man keeps his cat somewhat immature due to her domestication, she also sees man as part of her family, of her offspring, which of course needs to be fed. When she brings you prey it shows that she cares for you. ;)


Then, you must equally accept that man does nothing without purpose and everything we do, although it may not be easily understood, is neither right nor wrong.

The difference lies in the fact that animals dont have morals, they dont know anything about the concepts of 'right' or 'wrong'. They just do what is their nature, without thinking about it, without judging it, and without reflecting it. They dont have a choice. But they also dont destroy.
Man has for some reason developed these abilities, at least theoretically. He doesnt use it for the betterment of his world though. Man thinks just because he is able to do certain things he is entitled to do them too. There is no thought about consequences, no responsibility. Instead he uses his mental abilities to find all sorts of excuses why the destruction he produces is not his fault.



But, If balance were indeed being disturbed life as we know it would not be possible. Our ecosystem is the combination and cooperation of various natural occurrences and any serious disruption carries with it dire consequence.

Will you say the world is perfectly fine?
It is not. Man has caused in the last 100 years or so huge damage, of which some things are irreversible. The dire consequences will occure, some do occure immediately, some will take some years, or even decades to show effect. But as said above, man still thinks it is not his fault and just goes on with producing more dire consequences.


You argue that man is part of nature, which is harsh and unforgiving yet when the actions of man mirror this, instead of being within natural law you condemn him for going against it. ???:)

I'm not sure if I understand that sentence.
Man goes against the law of nature by his initial actions, which has led to the extinction of many species. Yet man finds all sorts of excuses why he 'had to do it', while at the same time claiming he would understand the laws of nature, act by them and do it all for the balance.
In truth, it is about his own egoism. Make yourself the world a subject. Man destroys and then says it is not his fault. Man is a wild animal, a dangerous predator which does not have any natural enemies anymore. His numbers explode, and noone understands that the balance he is always talking about is also required for him. He does not care, because he thinks he is the master.

As I said, our so-called civilisation will be our demise. Man has raised himself above nature in his arrogance. Civilisation will be our very death though.

Remember the legend of Atlantis? This is not about the highest civilisation which went lost for an 'undefined' reason, this is about the very reason why it vanished. This high civilisation died because of its decadence, its arrogance, its ignorance. The civilisation of Atlantis is nothing to thrive for, it is something to prevent to happen ever again. But man, despite his ability to think, to realise context, to record history, does never learn out of his mistakes and lethal errors.

All high civilisations perished, and they all perished at their peaks. They destroyed nature, they turned the natural order upside down, they became the enemies of nature and eventually they became their own enemy. And they wiped themselves off the face of the world. This time, our civilisation though, will not leave something from which nature will recover so easily. This time man will make sure that the planet will be never the same again. We have the technology that allows the total destruction of this planet. This time not only our civilisation will perish, this time life itself will perish.

Do you think this has anything to do with responsibility? With understanding anything of that what man does, using his so-called mental abilities, understanding contextes, understanding consequencies? Man has become decadent and arrogant and ignorant, and we will wipe ourselves off the face of the world, and with us life itself. And we have already started to do so. We wipe off one species after another, for stupid reasons (like the bisons for removing the living source of the Indians), and many people recognise this as valid excuse. We bring foreign species into living space which cannot deal with it, dogs in Australia, grey squirrels in Britain, washbears in Europe, ... and then dare to call that balance. We destroy, without thinking, without understanding what we do. And even more worse, even if we understand the consequencies of our deeds, we do not care.

However, to return to the wolves. Yes, they kill each other when they have become too many. They generate themselves a balance in their own population. There can never be a total destruction of their population, the winning packs will always remain and recover a healthy population size. They dont extinct their prey either. They kill single individuals of other species which enter their area and pose a threat at them. But they dont go hunting that other species down 'to prevent it from returning'.
Man does, while he doesnt controll his own population. Man is the factor of imbalance, but he refuses to understand.

Nature made all of us, the prey, the predators and all the rest of nature. Nature made a balance, man destroyed that balance with his arrogance in believing he would be above nature.
Man will never be able to create a balance as long as he doesnt limit himself. We should learn from the wolves. They know. And they act by the law of nature, because they dont know weird morals. :)

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Kogen said:

:D Wolves and coyotes are the same species? Which do you think you know more about, Kogen, the coyote or the wolf?

The wolf, I suppose?


If a wolf kills a coyote, it is self-preservation. If I kill a wolf, it is "greed".

There are more coyotes than wolves. You should probably notice that no one is speaking against coyote hunting, as coyotes are in no danger overall. They have apparently adapted to survive with people hunting them.

The wolf, however, has not. Their populations overall are decreasing.


Wolves kill for fun,

Can you prove that? No one has yet.

And even if they do, so what? Does that mean you should kill them for fun, even though you look at it as a fault on their part?

If something else acts stupid, you suddenly have to copy it?

Perhaps we should all become wiggers and rape white women.


wolves waste meat,

All the coyotes, foxes, birds, and insects that live off of what the wolf kills for them would disagree. So would the people who never crashed into a moose on their way home, because 'balance hunters' want huge populations of them and hate other hunters.


wolves kill mostly pregnant and immature prey

Well obviously? Why would they attack strong prey? They have nothing to prove.


Wolves are beautiful, intelligent (much more so than dogs), and interesting. They are worth preserving.

Then do not support the people that call for hunting them down to 10%, or send in extermination squads. That is what is happening.


Wolves will eat all the prey in an area and than each other, some will try to move to new areas and if a wolf pack already lives there a wolf-war will follow in which many wolves perish.

So what are you? The UN?

If they want to fight eachother, let them. It is none of our concern. The wolves are not going to interupt our wars, either.


There should be about one wolf per twenty moose in order for there to be a balance (good sustainable numbers of prey and predators).

Probably true.

Now how many people should there be?


There is no balance in nature, there is feast or famine.

Yet the system of nature is still here. How did that happen?

Go into a remote area with no people and little has changed for many thousands of years. Everything is fine.


Caring about ourselves first isn't a crime.

You said humanity, not us. I do care about our people first.


I agree we should be careful with nature as much as possible and not commit unnecessary damages, but when the question is our versus the survival of others, if we put altruism above everything, we will be extinct more sooner than later.

Correct. But the wolf is not a threat to us. Remove the wolf and we still face the same issue; nothing will change for us.


The wolf and the coyote aren't the same species, Kogen. The coyote is the Canis latrans species, and the wolf is the Canis lupus species.

Well I was unaware of that. But they are still closely related, as wolves and coyotes can freely mate with eachother, like us and other human races. I do not think they are evolved enough to be seperate yet, as coyotes still form packs and act like wolves at times.


But, even between members of the same species, you can see sometimes a fight, for everyone to save his own family first. Some animals even let the weakest of their offspring to die, and provide the food to the strongest. Why is this happening? Out of cruelty? Out of hatred? No. It happens because they want to ensure the perpetuation of their genes. Nature is a continuous struggle, in the forests, at the seas, or in the cities.

Point?

Hunting wolves leads to incest and is against this.


We can, of course, but it depends on the circumstances. Building fences means money,

We have money.


and the mountain peoples don't have the money and technology to build strong or electrified fences there.

If our people come first, then start sharing.


Lately there have been funds to construct electrified fences. But they also leads to the death of some wild animals that come in the region.

So we need to stop this because other animals are dying. What are these and why are they more important than wolves?

Perhaps a new method is needed. I do not see why there is a reason to give up. Walls are an evolution of innovation through problems.


By the way, wolves live in packs, and when they're hungry, it's more than a small canine which attacks.

Well they are not going to engineer a way through the wall together. If one can get through, any number can.


It depends on the area. Wolves aren't in danger of extinct in the Carpathians. You see, that isn't a heavily industrialised region where there's no peril if you walk in the woods.

Then that is of no concern right now.


You can get attacked by a wild animal like a wolf or a bear any time.

I thought there was no peril?

Personally I have never been attacked by coyotes or bears. They see me, I see them, then we continue on. I am more worried about other people.


We're talking of different worlds. :| Where wolves are in danger of extinction, it's normal for measures to be taken and to forbid the hunting. We've plants like the Edelweiss which are protected species for example.

Having wolves in a tiny bit of mountains is not ideal. It is like saying Germanics are doing fine when all that is left is our people in the same mountains. We may as well be dead at that point.


How is greed defined for you?

Killing for some sort of profit, either physical or mental, is greed.


Would killing an animal to eat it when your stomach is already full, and you only take a chunk of it, and leave the rest to rot count as greed?

Yes, as I would give the rest of it to something else.


Because then some wolves are "greedy".

Again, foxes and other animals eat this. Nature evolves and balances itself. Wolves have been doing this before we were there.


Some peoples hunt wolves for their fur, or to display them in animal museums, or for research projects.

Criminals, then. These people should be hunted.


Here self defense is one of the prime reasons why peoples in the mountains go and hunt wolves down and kill them. They do it to protect their herd. To make sure it doesn't come and disturb it again.

If they care so much about their herd, then why are the rural people not having large families anymore? What do they do with all the money they make from the herd?

What about the invasion all around them that threatens our existance, why are not they forming militia to fight against that?

They deserve to be devasted by nature if they are weak cowards; their purpose no longer exists.

velvet
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 09:29 PM
Well I was unaware of that. But they are still closely related, as wolves and coyotes can freely mate with eachother, like us and other human races. I do not think they are evolved enough to be seperate yet, as coyotes still form packs and act like wolves at times.

Indeed, they are certainly not very distinct species:

Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae (canine, dog-like)
Genus: Canis (real dogs)
Species: Canis latrans || Wolf: Canis lupus

"Coyotes have also been known on occasion to mate with wolves, though this is less common than with dogs, due to the wolf's hostility to the coyote. The offspring, known as a coywolf, is generally intermediate in size to both parents, being larger than a pure coyote, but smaller than a pure wolf. A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89 percent wolf. A theory has been proposed that the large eastern coyotes in Canada are actually hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges.[20] The Red Wolf is thought by certain scientists to be in fact a wolf/coyote hybrid rather than a unique species. Strong evidence for hybridization was found through genetic testing, which showed that red wolves have only 5% of their alleles unique from either gray wolves or coyotes. Genetic distance calculations have indicated that red wolves are intermediate between coyotes and gray wolves, and that they bear great similarity to wolf/coyote hybrids in southern Quebec and Minnesota. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA showed that existing red wolf populations are predominantly coyote in origin."
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote)

The Coyote is basically just the real north American wolf variant of the same origin like the eurasian Grey Wolf (ugh, immigrant).


Where wolves are in danger of extinction, it's normal for measures to be taken and to forbid the hunting.

The question though is, why allow the hunting down to the point of near-extinct and then take measures to reverse the effects of man's deeds? Where is the sense in that?

The wolf doesnt pose a threat to the existence of man, if there is a threat, then it affects individuals, but not our existence as such.

Quite in contrast to hordes of third world, hostile and essentially uncivilised immigrants, who raid our lands, rape our women, kill and steal, and destroy our communities, which are not able to be civilised either. They DO pose a threat to our very existence.

Something is very very wrong with priorities here. :scratch

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 10:15 PM
Everyone I know of involved with Red Wolves agree that they are an actual unique breed. It is just the coyote breeding as become a problem due to the small numbers. It is nearly impossible to put them back into the wild due to this, with the (I think) one successful pack being mutilated by hunters, which will again make it extinct in the wild soon.

Even with just a single pack out there, they still seem to think it has to be 'balanced'. I see this in some European countries too.

Nordlander
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 11:47 PM
Right now we are being over run with a sort of coyote/brush wolf in Pa. The game commission has put an unlimited bag limit on them to reduce their numbers as they are killing livestock and biting kids at school bus stops.Also they are carrying rabies .I did my part last year by shooting 15 of them and hope to do much better this year.We use dieng rabbit calls to bring them in .Some townships are putting a bounty on them

Willow
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 12:13 AM
The reality of it is, that there is nothing 'natural' about the way they hunt nowadays, i mean, aerial shooting is downright despicable, and it's not as if they're doing it for food - they do it for fun. There are also some areas where wolf populations have been in serious decline, so to allow hunting is not on.
I myself would find it great fun to hunt the hunters themselves, give them a taste of what it's like...

Kogen
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 01:55 AM
Right now we are being over run with a sort of coyote/brush wolf in Pa. The game commission has put an unlimited bag limit on them to reduce their numbers as they are killing livestock and biting kids at school bus stops.Also they are carrying rabies .I did my part last year by shooting 15 of them and hope to do much better this year.We use dieng rabbit calls to bring them in .Some townships are putting a bounty on them

Well that is a coyote, not a 'brush wolf'. Killing the wolves makes them over populated and a problem, like you have described.

Although we have the same problem, yet no one was ever attacked. Do your children taste better?

Nordlander
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Well that is a coyote, not a 'brush wolf'. Killing the wolves makes them over populated and a problem, like you have described.

Although we have the same problem, yet no one was ever attacked. Do your children taste better?

NOT a Coyote.Most Coyotes average about 30-35 pounds .My average weight of the brush wolves I shot last year was 74 pounds. The game commission says they are a cross between an eastern wolf and a coyote but that is what they say.A timber wolf will go to 150. the largest Wolf I shot in Montana when I was a kid was 171 lbs,The rumor is the insurance companies brought them in to keep down the deer population and cut down on premiums paid for hitting deer (200,000 a year they claim) But I do not know if this is true

White Africa
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Where is the "other" option for this poll? I'm not against wolf hunting, provided that there are enough wolf packs in the area, however, I am against these modern and (in my opinion) petty and cowardly methods of hunting (wolves and other animals) like Palin is practicing. It's like the people who shoot at a crowd of surplus elephants where hunting them is allowed. Where is the challenge? Where is the chance for the animal to defend itself?

SpearBrave
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 10:33 AM
If you look at the post that started this thread I really don't think that wolves are hunted much in that manner. The video is propaganda at its best. If you follow the people who made that video they are probably asking for money somewhere or setting you up to ask for money. Maybe you feel it is right to send money to these groups. That is your personal choice, but keep in mind most of these groups also support a very leftist agenda including multiculturalism.:|

Kogen
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 12:29 PM
If you look at the post that started this thread I really don't think that wolves are hunted much in that manner. The video is propaganda at its best. If you follow the people who made that video they are probably asking for money somewhere or setting you up to ask for money. Maybe you feel it is right to send money to these groups. That is your personal choice, but keep in mind most of these groups also support a very leftist agenda including multiculturalism.:|

And I suppose the Conservative groups people pay to hunt wolves do not support multiculturalism at all. Just look how greatly they have run the world in the last decade.

I even looked at the Canadian (conservative government) tourism site that promoted wolf hunting for tourists, and it was offered in 10 languages; some not even European.

Many environmental groups also oppose immigrants for an obvious reason.

And how would you know how they use their money, anyway?

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 12:33 PM
You said humanity, not us.
We are humanity.


I do care about our people first.
So then why's it a crime to cull suspect chicken and pigs if we're under threat of bird or swine flu?


Correct. But the wolf is not a threat to us. Remove the wolf and we still face the same issue; nothing will change for us.
The wolf, or the bear, or any other animal is a threat to us if we live near it and it eats our resources. The wolf isn't a threat to me because I don't live in the mountains. I don't hunt it. But it is a threat to mountain peoples with sheep or cattle.


Well I was unaware of that. But they are still closely related, as wolves and coyotes can freely mate with eachother, like us and other human races. I do not think they are evolved enough to be seperate yet, as coyotes still form packs and act like wolves at times.
There are other animals that live in packs. pack behaviour isn't only wolf specific. Wolves and coyotes are separate. They're the same genus, but different species.


Point?

Hunting wolves leads to incest and is against this.
Only if the packs are too few and too small. Here this isn't the problem.


We have money.
Like I said, you shouldn't assume everywhere else in the world where there are wolves is the same as your region.

If our people come first, then start sharing.


So we need to stop this because other animals are dying. What are these and why are they more important than wolves?
If an animal is a protected species, then it's because it's numbers are dwindling. They're more important because they're fewer and have low replacement levels. If you go to Wikipedia and search wolf, you'll see its conservation status. It's tagged as "least concern". It's the same conservation category under which humans fall. That means there are enough wolves on the planet and their reproduction rate is enough to supply hunting without risking to cause them extinction. In some areas where there are few wolves, of course measures need to be taken. But not here. Because we've enough wolves.


Perhaps a new method is needed. I do not see why there is a reason to give up. Walls are an evolution of innovation through problems.

Well they are not going to engineer a way through the wall together. If one can get through, any number can.
Like I said, it's being worked on that. But until it's done and ready, it's justified to kill the wolves who attack and eat the sheep.


Then that is of no concern right now.
It is of concern. Because a human who walks in a forest here protects himself.


I thought there was no peril?
I said it's not one of those regions where there is no peril. I meant to say, there is peril here.


Personally I have never been attacked by coyotes or bears. They see me, I see them, then we continue on. I am more worried about other people.
I don't know how many bears and coyotes are there and what's their behavior. But here, they attack peoples. Some peoples had to hide for hours in garbage cans to avoid being eaten by the bears. Bears and wolves attack because they perceive the human as a threat.


Having wolves in a tiny bit of mountains is not ideal. It is like saying Germanics are doing fine when all that is left is our people in the same mountains. We may as well be dead at that point.
Where then, in the cities? :| Wolves should live in their own habitat. And for the xth time, they are not in danger of extinction.


Killing for some sort of profit, either physical or mental, is greed.

Yes, as I would give the rest of it to something else.

Again, foxes and other animals eat this. Nature evolves and balances itself. Wolves have been doing this before we were there.
You realise if our ancestors hadn't hunted for physical "profit" they would have frozen and starved?


If they care so much about their herd, then why are the rural people not having large families anymore?
The highest births are in the rural areas actually.


What do they do with all the money they make from the herd?
They sustain themselves and their families. They pay the household costs. They buy the necessary things to maintain a herd. The money isn't so big for rural peoples anymore, because they've competition now, the big corporations which sell in supermarkets.


What about the invasion all around them that threatens our existance, why are not they forming militia to fight against that?
I don't know that.


They deserve to be devasted by nature if they are weak cowards; their purpose no longer exists.
But nature isn't like this. It's not the survival of the strongest or most courageous. It's the survival of the fittest. And the humans are somewhere at the top of this pyramid. Whether we like it or not. :shrug

Kogen
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 12:50 PM
We are humanity.
I do not consider myself or anyone else here part of that mass of garbage known as humanity.



So then why's it a crime to cull suspect chicken and pigs if we're under threat of bird or swine flu?
Did I say it was?

Having conditions where these diseases exist is the crime.


The wolf, or the bear, or any other animal is a threat to us if we live near it and it eats our resources. The wolf isn't a threat to me because I don't live in the mountains. I don't hunt it. But it is a threat to mountain peoples with sheep or cattle.
I live next to bears. I have never been attacked.

I do understand that fights do happen, but they also happen with people. This is just how it is.

I also do not hunt people just because I get into a fight with them sometimes.


There are other animals that live in packs. pack behaviour isn't only wolf specific. Wolves and coyotes are separate. They're the same genus, but different species.
Well then Negros are a difference species. Stop calling me part of their 'humanity'.


Only if the packs are too few and too small. Here this isn't the problem.
Define 'here'.


Like I said, you shouldn't assume everywhere else in the world where there are wolves is the same as your region.
If our people come first, then start sharing.

Germany does not have money? It is one of the richest and most giving countries in the world. All of Germanic Europe is like this.


If an animal is a protected species, then it's because it's numbers are dwindling. They're more important because they're fewer and have low replacement levels. If you go to Wikipedia and search wolf, you'll see its conservation status. It's tagged as "least concern". It's the same conservation category under which humans fall. That means there are enough wolves on the planet and their reproduction rate is enough to supply hunting without risking to cause them extinction. In some areas where there are few wolves, of course measures need to be taken. But not here. Because we've enough wolves.
Same as us? I would put myself on the endangered list. I do not believe their status ratings.


Like I said, it's being worked on that. But until it's done and ready, it's justified to kill the wolves who attack and eat the sheep.
Yes, in self defence. Not hunting.


It is of concern. Because a human who walks in a forest here protects himself.
Again, I walk in the forest and have no issues.

And yet again, I have issues when I walk down the street sometimes, yet I still do not shoot people I do not like.


I don't know how many bears and coyotes are there and what's their behavior. But here, they attack peoples. Some peoples had to hide for hours in garbage cans to avoid being eaten by the bears. Bears and wolves attack because they perceive the human as a threat.
Here they run away.

Are they starving where you are?


Where then, in the cities? :| Wolves should live in their own habitat. And for the xth time, they are not in danger of extinction.
Yes, they are in danger of extinction. Where are you getting the idea that they are doing fine?

Isolated populations that are being 'managed' is not a fine situation. And as soon as Germanics like myself who protect them are gone, they will be slaughtered fully.


You realise if our ancestors hadn't hunted for physical "profit" they would have frozen and starved?
Do you realise we have clothes now?


The highest births are in the rural areas actually.
Well here is is not. They all migrate and the communities are rapidly dying.

I have read the same reports about rural Europe being abandoned.


They sustain themselves and their families. They pay the household costs. They buy the necessary things to maintain a herd. The money isn't so big for rural peoples anymore, because they've competition now, the big corporations which sell in supermarkets.
And I suppose the wolves are not in any sort of difficult situation either.



But nature isn't like this. It's not the survival of the strongest or most courageous. It's the survival of the fittest. And the humans are somewhere at the top of this pyramid. Whether we like it or not. :shrug
I do not see this as the situation.

If we are at the top, then why are we dying?

velvet
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 02:55 PM
If you look at the post that started this thread I really don't think that wolves are hunted much in that manner. The video is propaganda at its best. If you follow the people who made that video they are probably asking for money somewhere or setting you up to ask for money. Maybe you feel it is right to send money to these groups. That is your personal choice, but keep in mind most of these groups also support a very leftist agenda including multiculturalism.:|

Zimobog posted the link to the Game Board, that video is no propaganda but shows just the truth how they manage to keep the wolf population in check. They dont call the shooting from helicopters 'hunt' but renamed it to population controll. It doesnt change the facts though.

And even if groups who are against such hunting are leftists, the conclusion cant be: I'm ultra-right wing, they are leftists, therefor everything they oppose must be wrong. This is too easy.
But it is not the case. Hard-core environmentalists oppose mass immigration the same way, because of the negative effects of it on the environment.

And hard-core environmentalists support population limitation of humans, there are even people who say half a billion humans on the entire world are enough. This means, 6,2bio must be removed. Coincidentally, the white population of the world counts in to half a billion :D

Zimobog
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Velvet said:
However, to return to the wolves. Yes, they kill each other when they have become too many. They generate themselves a balance in their own population. There can never be a total destruction of their population, the winning packs will always remain and recover a healthy population size. They dont extinct their prey either. They kill single individuals of other species which enter their area and pose a threat at them. But they dont go hunting that other species down 'to prevent it from returning'.
Man does, while he doesnt controll his own population. Man is the factor of imbalance, but he refuses to understand.

Nature made all of us, the prey, the predators and all the rest of nature. Nature made a balance, man destroyed that balance with his arrogance in believing he would be above nature.
Man will never be able to create a balance as long as he doesnt limit himself. We should learn from the wolves. They know. And they act by the law of nature, because they dont know weird morals.

I disagree with some of these statements. Wolves (and man) will certainly reduce prey numbers below recoverable limits if unchecked. A wolf has no way of telling what he is doing as far as "balance", he only knows hunger. Man should know better.

There are areas of Alaska where there are no animals at all becasue the predators ate the prey and than starved themselves. There is no balance in Nature. Look at all the fossils of extinct creatures that lived before man. Why are they now extinct?

Kogen
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:09 PM
Look at all the fossils of extinct creatures that lived before man. Why are they now extinct?
Because evolution does not exist, the environment does not change, and no animals existed before man.

Nordlander
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Because evolution does not exist, the environment does not change, and no animals existed before man.

Where did you get that from ?Man is no more than a million yeas old and probably not even 40,000 as some archeologists contend ,yet mammals and dinosaurs and their descendents are hundred of millions of years old.This is a scientific fact.

velvet
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:37 PM
I disagree with some of these statements. Wolves (and man) will certainly reduce prey numbers below recoverable limits if unchecked. A wolf has no way of telling what he is doing as far as "balance", he only knows hunger. Man should know better.

There are areas of Alaska where there are no animals at all becasue the predators ate the prey and than starved themselves. There is no balance in Nature. Look at all the fossils of extinct creatures that lived before man. Why are they now extinct?

Change happens.
But wolves existed in Europe for millions of years, yet there is still deer and sheeps and what not all. The Coyote exists in America for 1,8mio years, yet there is still deer and elks and what you will.

MAN extincted the bison (yeah, blah blah, I've read up, the existing bisons are mixed breeds with cattle, nothing pure left of them). MAN extincted the wolf and the bear in Germany. MAN extincted the Tiger in large parts of Asia.

Have a look at African wild life (I guess it's the most undisturbed), there are crocodiles and lions and cheetahs and what you will, and there are elephants and gnus and zebras and antilopes and what not all. They deal well with each other.

Only MAN explodes in numbers. And when that happens and expands his habitats into regions where such systems worked for millions of years and eat away all the prey, then the predators become a problem.

Man should first keep HIS numbers in check and then see what 'balance' else is needed. As long as man is too many, you wont get support from me for any measures against nature. Only MAN has extincted many creatures. The sabre-tooth tiger, the mammuth and many others, because he doesnt limit himself. Man is so stupid and manages even to extinct his own cattle (sheep races, cow races...). And dont tell me man would have learned. He hasnt.

Are you going to keep human population in check?




Where did you get that from ?Man is no more than a million yeas old and probably not even 40,000 as some archeologists contend ,yet mammals and dinosaurs and their descendents are hundred of millions of years old.This is a scientific fact.

Modern man is about 1,8-2mio years old, but anyway, I think this was sarcasm ;)

Sigurd
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 08:43 PM
MAN extincted the bison (yeah, blah blah, I've read up, the existing bisons are mixed breeds with cattle, nothing pure left of them). MAN extincted the wolf and the bear in Germany. MAN extincted the Tiger in large parts of Asia.

I wouldn't be surprised if WOMAN also had her part in the extinction of these unique lifeforms. It's not always just evil white MAN, sometimes also evil white WOMAN. :wsg

On a more serious note, the rate of extinctions rose sharply when Christianity overcame Europe and much of the civilised world, no doubt this also has to do with the different view towards nature that is taken. Whilst the organic Heathen faith teaches that we are part of nature, Christianity establishes us as lord over them.

And of course, supremacy can sometimes breed arrogance. And that's where the hunting for fear, sport or cruelty begins. :shrug

SpearBrave
Monday, October 5th, 2009, 11:45 PM
And I suppose the Conservative groups people pay to hunt wolves do not support multiculturalism at all. Just look how greatly they have run the world in the last decade.

I even looked at the Canadian (conservative government) tourism site that promoted wolf hunting for tourists, and it was offered in 10 languages; some not even European.

Many environmental groups also oppose immigrants for an obvious reason.

And how would you know how they use their money, anyway?

In the US we have something called the Freedom of information act most of these groups carry what is call a 501c3 non profit status. You can look up any 501c3 or request their finical records. When you do that they show that as a group they did not make a profit. Here is the catch look at the administration cost(wages paid to board members and staff). Sometimes these figures are in the millions. It is not just leftist groups who do this it is most groups. The reason I know this is that I started a 501c3 for artists. When I got the info from the government it had list of other 501c3s and their board members. Soon after I started this corp. people came out of the wood work wanting to be on the board. They all wanted to apply for grants and set themselves up with a pay check for doing it. The whole thing made me sick, but I carried on. Today the group is still going and teaching children and no one is getting paid and the children get free art classes.:)
As I have stated before 'follow the money' if it seems like a good cause to you than fine, but just check it out first.;)


And even if groups who are against such hunting are leftists, the conclusion cant be: I'm ultra-right wing, they are leftists, therefor everything they oppose must be wrong. This is too easy.
But it is not the case. Hard-core environmentalists oppose mass immigration the same way, because of the negative effects of it on the environment.

And hard-core environmentalists support population limitation of humans, there are even people who say half a billion humans on the entire world are enough. This means, 6,2bio must be removed. Coincidentally, the white population of the world counts in to half a billion :D

Hard-core environmentalists have only recently started to oppose mass immigration. I'm also very leary of right wing groups asking for money. I think you know how I feel about the human population.:D


sorry for the late reply I have been working:)

Vindefense
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 03:28 AM
Man is an animal, and he will forever remain an animal. The complete denying of this fact is part of the reasons for our demise.

Man is part animal, part spirit hence, a hybrid. Wolves are animals, and they are predators. Zimbog is right when he said "in nature it is either feast or famine". While our overall conception of nature is one of balance, in reality chaos rules. We are the ones who conceive balance and responsible conservationists attempt to convey this, but in the end we may as well try to stop the wind.



The cat-man relation is a complicated one. While man keeps his cat somewhat immature due to her domestication, she also sees man as part of her family, of her offspring, which of course needs to be fed. When she brings you prey it shows that she cares for you. ;)

That is your perception, it isn't necessarily wrong yet it may also be for other reasons, we can't possibly know all we can do is guess. All science can do is provide a picture of possible scenarios.



The difference lies in the fact that animals dont have morals, they dont know anything about the concepts of 'right' or 'wrong'. They just do what is their nature, without thinking about it, without judging it, and without reflecting it. They dont have a choice. But they also dont destroy.
Man has for some reason developed these abilities, at least theoretically. He doesnt use it for the betterment of his world though. Man thinks just because he is able to do certain things he is entitled to do them too. There is no thought about consequences, no responsibility. Instead he uses his mental abilities to find all sorts of excuses why the destruction he produces is not his fault.

But if we did not base our actions morally, we would be just another predator. The circle of life was illustrated quite well in the Disney movie the 'Lion King.' The lion's, taking the part of man to maintain balance, which meant keeping the predators in place. Without man the predators would rule. The lesson of the Dinosaur also shows us the end of such a world.



Will you say the world is perfectly fine?

No.


It is not. Man has caused in the last 100 years or so huge damage, of which some things are irreversible. The dire consequences will occure, some do occure immediately, some will take some years, or even decades to show effect. But as said above, man still thinks it is not his fault and just goes on with producing more dire consequences.

Yet, there is nothing new under the sun.



I'm not sure if I understand that sentence.

If we are part of nature, than it follows that our work here must serve some purpose. It is quite possible that this purpose is to keep predators in check.



Man goes against the law of nature by his initial actions, which has led to the extinction of many species. Yet man finds all sorts of excuses why he 'had to do it', while at the same time claiming he would understand the laws of nature, act by them and do it all for the balance.
In truth, it is about his own egoism. Make yourself the world a subject. Man destroys and then says it is not his fault. Man is a wild animal, a dangerous predator which does not have any natural enemies anymore. His numbers explode, and noone understands that the balance he is always talking about is also required for him. He does not care, because he thinks he is the master.

Going against the law of nature carries with it a consequence, yes. That is why in the US anyway, there are numerous conserveation laws all designed to prevent the unnecessary extinction of a species.



As I said, our so-called civilisation will be our demise. Man has raised himself above nature in his arrogance. Civilisation will be our very death though.

Yep.



Remember the legend of Atlantis?
...But man, despite his ability to think, to realise context, to record history, does never learn out of his mistakes and lethal errors.

Quite right.



All high civilisations perished, and they all perished at their peaks. They destroyed nature, they turned the natural order upside down, they became the enemies of nature and eventually they became their own enemy. And they wiped themselves off the face of the world. This time, our civilisation though, will not leave something from which nature will recover so easily. This time man will make sure that the planet will be never the same again. We have the technology that allows the total destruction of this planet. This time not only our civilisation will perish, this time life itself will perish.


If it happened before, than we can rest assured that somehow, life survived and will probable survive again. What lives forever?



Do you think this has anything to do with responsibility?...We destroy, without thinking, without understanding what we do. And even more worse, even if we understand the consequencies of our deeds, we do not care.

Come now, of course we care or we would not have conservation laws. ;) The wolf would have been killed off, the eagle, the humpback whale all would have went extinct. But really, who are we to decide what should be saved from extinction?

Posted by Sigurd:

Whilst the organic Heathen faith teaches that we are part of nature, Christianity establishes us as lord over them.


Where is your reference for this? Not that I doubt, it I am just curious as to where these 'teachings' originated from.

velvet
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Man is part animal, part spirit hence, a hybrid.

When this is so, then why does man not learn? Why does his so-called 'spirit' allows him to analyse, to understand, but does not allow him to act in accordance with this understanding?


Wolves are animals, and they are predators. Zimbog is right when he said "in nature it is either feast or famine". While our overall conception of nature is one of balance, in reality chaos rules. We are the ones who conceive balance and responsible conservationists attempt to convey this, but in the end we may as well try to stop the wind.

When nature is chaos (it is not, but it may seem chaotic to the simple minded human), then why the Hel do we try to destroy that order?
The 'chaotic' order of the multiverse exists for billions and billions of years, it works perfectly fine. But man, is his attempt to 'order' it to simplicity, attempts to destroy the very basic of life.
Before we try to 'order' something, we'd better try to understand it ;)


That is your perception, it isn't necessarily wrong yet it may also be for other reasons, we can't possibly know all we can do is guess. All science can do is provide a picture of possible scenarios.

Read "Paul Leyhausen - Cats, a behavior study".
This study was not a short term study, but actually it was a study Leyhausen did throughout his lifetime. He lived in the same town that I grew up in, I know the places of study and I also know the study populations.
This is not an unfounded 'personal perception', I've read countless books on cat's behavior, and I had myself cats all my life and did in indeed certain studies on them myself (very unscientific of course).

But much more interesting is that you do it again. Above you said that we are the masters of nature, that our purpose is to create balance in the chaos. On what do you rely if not on science? But in the case of cat's behavior you deny happily any valid claim and dismiss it as 'personal perception', read: fantasy.


But if we did not base our actions morally, we would be just another predator.

We are just another predator. Mainly because our 'morals' are based in something that solely believes in our total destruction (read: x-tianity).
As long as our morals are not based in the law of nature, we will destroy. And we will destroy the very basics of our lives with a 'moral' that is designed against the laws of natures.


The circle of life was illustrated quite well in the Disney movie the 'Lion King.' The lion's, taking the part of man to maintain balance, which meant keeping the predators in place. Without man the predators would rule. The lesson of the Dinosaur also shows us the end of such a world.

Dont you understand that MAN is exactly this predator that has to be kept in check? :(



If we are part of nature, than it follows that our work here must serve some purpose. It is quite possible that this purpose is to keep predators in check.

Our purpose is to destroy?

When we are part of nature, and we are, then our actions must be in accordance with the law of nature. But we dont even understand the law of nature, and for a thousand years we dont even have an interest anymore to understand the law of nature (the interest got teached out of us), because we have started to believe in our arrogance that we would stand above nature, that we would be entitled to dictate nature our laws.
We shouldnt mess with something that we dont understand, dont you agree?


Going against the law of nature carries with it a consequence, yes. That is why in the US anyway, there are numerous conserveation laws all designed to prevent the unnecessary extinction of a species.

See above. Laws will never be able to replace the understanding of the laws of nature in EVERYONE. And human laws will never prevent humans from still acting against these laws, because you can buy you free of your guilt.


If it happened before, than we can rest assured that somehow, life survived and will probable survive again. What lives forever?

I said, this time will be different.
When we die, we will leave a mess of toxics and nuclear waste that will extinct every life. I doubt that it will be required for us to die out. Some freak will some day, in the not so distant future, press the red button, and then all the freaks will press their red buttons. We will not bomb us back into stoneage, but into nonexistence. This time life itself will perish from this planet.

Because man lacks responsibility.


Come now, of course we care or we would not have conservation laws. ;)

If we would care, we would not need 'conservation laws' ;)


The wolf would have been killed off, the eagle, the humpback whale all would have went extinct. But really, who are we to decide what should be saved from extinction?

Who are we to decide about what goes extinct?





Hard-core environmentalists have only recently started to oppose mass immigration. I'm also very leary of right wing groups asking for money. I think you know how I feel about the human population.:D

Yes :thumbup

I would think that that the hard-core environmentalists only recently start to oppose mass immigration, because it didnt exist in that form 20 years ago. Mass (im)migration in that form is a fairly new development, but the environmentalists are the first ones to realise its effects, not from a 'personal' standpoint in regards to a certain folk (where the red flags 'xenophobia', 'anti-semitism' etc are waved so quickly), but from a general point of view.

But although they dont spouse any racists views, it contains a fairly racist standpoint, an underlying racist principle. Only whites have developed measures to limit their own population (the so pathetically becried decline in numbers), third world populations breed like rabbits. So the human rabbits must be reduced, for we (whites) are the ones who are able to realise the negative effects of overpopulation. :wsg

Zimobog
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 06:23 PM
When we are part of nature, and we are, then our actions must be in accordance with the law of nature.

There are no "laws of nature". People imagine that there are because they assume that nature must mirror our own societies. This is anthropocentric and vain. Belief in them amounts to mythology. There is no wolf living today or ever that cares about "laws of nature". There is no animal except man that can even conceptualize a "law" other the law of the pack, of tooth and claw.

I have yet to encounter a Skadi user who is in favor of hybridization of a species. Let us test that in regards to wolves. Wolves are "race-mixers". Does this mean they are "following" the laws of nature or not?

I am of course referring to the "red wolf" mentioned earlier by someone (actually a coyote/wolf hybrid, not a real wolf). I am referring to the solid black wolf (accounts for around 1/8 of the wolves here in Alaska), who has the genes ofCanis lupus familiaris in its veins due to intermixing.

What about other wolf/dog hybrids owned as "pets" by people who undoubtedly wish to tame nature or some other nonsense. What are folks thoughts about hybridization of wolves? Should we exterminate only hybridized individuals?

The only law of nature I am aware of is "Might Is Right". Man has invented the whole of the all other laws save "Might is Right" (for good or evil).

I can see this thread is going in a million different directions, but I would like to add that predator management is a huge success here in Alaska. It has been demonstrated.

I don't have an e-version, but the Journal of Wildlife Management Volume 60, number 3 shows this.

The long and short of it: a predator control program ran in GMU 20a (near Fairbanks) from 1976 until 1995. At the beginning of the program there were 2500 moose, 2200 caribou and 239 wolves living in GMU 20. When the program ended, there were 8600 moose, 3000 caribou and 244 wolves. Alaskan biologists, trappers, and hunters harvested about 50 wolves a year for the duration of the program. So nearly a thousand wolves were harvested and yet the overall number of wolves increased.

Not far from GMU 20a lies the Denali National Park. Being a federal outpost, it does not fall under Alaska's control. The Federal government during the time of this program had no predator control (although they were of the "kill 'em all" type during our Territorial days when it came to wolves). Within the park, wildlife numbers plunged to dangerously low levels. It is likely that surplus animals (both prey and predators) from 20a ended up there due to to lack of competition. I speculate that there in the Park the wolves ate/fought themselves to extinction. 90% of adult wolf mortality is wolf-on-wolf.

This means there is now a healthier wolf population and healthy prey populations thanks to management and human harvests. If any of you should be lucky enough to ever visit my great land, you are more likely to see wolves because of it. If you ever come here and camp, you are more likely to hear wolves howling because of it.

I am of the opinion that people who oppose hunting, trapping, and management are actually anti-nature and anti-animals. These programs are of obvious benefit to the population. If we were to stop harvesting wolves all together and in one hundred years the wolves were to go extinct, you would be the people with your forefingers thrust sanctimoniously in the air bellowing out "nature has spoken!"

This isn't about wolves to antis and environmentalist, their agenda is much
deeper.

Athalwulf
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Hunting as a form of survival is fine with me, but hunting for recreation is as much of a sport as war.

I also don't care about how the cows that are raised to be eaten are killed. No matter what they're going to end up on your plate.

Zimobog
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 07:12 PM
It's a wolf-eat-wolf world in the wilds of Alaska
By Tim Mowry

Originally published Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 12:00 a.m.
Updated Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 9:34 a.m.

FAIRBANKS - For all the controversy and headlines that Alaska’s aerial wolf control program generates, the real killer of wolves in the Last Frontier escapes the spotlight.

Wolves — not hunters, trappers or government-permitted sharpshooters in Super Cubs — kill most of the wolves that die in Alaska each year.

“Intra-specific strife is common,” is how Fairbanks wildlife biologist Craig Gardner puts it, after 22 years studying wolves and other critters for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “Wolves kill wolves.”

Gardner, who also traps, estimates that about half the wolves that die each year in Alaska are killed by other wolves.

According to estimates from the Department of Fish and Game, there are anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 wolves roaming Alaska. In an average year, about 1,250 are killed through hunting, trapping and predator control.

Fellow biologist Tom Meier, who studies wolves in Denali National Park and Preserve, figures that “at least” 60 percent of the wolves that die in Alaska’s most famous national park are killed by their canid cousins.

“That, by far, is the most common cause of death,” he said.

The number would probably be higher than 60 percent, Meier said, but biologists have a hard time determining how some wolves die because “by the time we get to the carcass, there’s not enough left to figure out how they died,” he said.

“Some of those are probably killed by wolves, too,” Meier said.

The park service tries to keep radio collars on at least two wolves — usually the alpha male and female — in each of park’s 18 wolf packs, which enables biologists to track different packs for research. The packs in Denali Park range from three to 20 wolves, and the total population is about 100 wolves.

“We have to put out 20 (collars) a year because so many do get killed,” Meier said.

Fang wars

Wolf packs in Alaska may be a symbol of true wilderness to many people, but in some respects they resemble inner-city gangs.

Each wolf pack has a pair of leaders, the alpha male and female. Each pack has a territory, or turf, it marks and defends. Fights between packs are common — and often deadly.

In the past two years, Gardner has documented several fights between wolf packs on the Tanana Flats south of Fairbanks while tracking roughly a dozen wolf packs as part of a study examining lice on wolves in the area. Gardner didn’t actually witness the fights, only the aftermath in the form of dead, radio-collared wolves he picked up or injured wolves he spotted from the air.

“There have been some pretty good rumbles,” Gardner said.

The latest brawl occurred in October between the Clear Creek Butte and Tatlanika packs. Judging from what he can piece together from his tracking flights, the Tatlanika Pack traveled more than 40 miles out of its territory to end up where it did.

The alpha male and female in the Clear Creek Butte Pack, both of which were wearing radio collars, were killed in the fight, Gardner said. While it’s impossible to say how many wolves were killed in the fight, it appeared both packs suffered significant losses. There are six wolves unaccounted for in the Tatlanika Pack, Gardner said.

“All we know is they left with 15 wolves three or four days before the fight and they came home with nine,” Gardner said of the Tatlanika Pack.

The Clear Creek Butte pack, meanwhile, had decreased from 13 to nine wolves, he said.

“It looks like a bomb went off in both of them,” the biologist said. “I’ve never seen it where it looked like a hockey fight. It looked like they all just dropped their gloves and went at it.”

Bite to kill

More often than not, it’s the alpha males or females that are killed “because they’re the ones out front doing the fighting,” Meier said.

Danny Grangaard, a former wildlife technician for the Department of Fish and Game in Tok who is considered one of the state’s most expert wolf trappers, agreed.

“You rarely see anything but the dominant male or female dead,” he said.

Big wolf packs pick fights more than smaller packs, too, Grangaard said.

“When you get a big pack they’re a lot more aggressive than a small pack,” he said.

Big packs have more big wolves and it’s typically the big males that do much of the fighting, Grangaard said.

“If you’ve got a small pack, you won’t have two big males,” he said. “But if you get a pack of 16 or 17, there’s going to be two or three 120- or 130-pound males.”

Typically, wolves that are killed in fights are not torn to shreds.

“They’re not all ripped apart, but if you skin them there’s all kinds of hemorrhaging (from bite marks),” Meier said.

Both Meier and Grangaard have found dead wolves with teeth holes in their skulls as a result of fights. Nearly all the male wolves Grangaard has found dead from fights have holes in their skulls from canine teeth.

“It’s always just one bite in the head and a skull fracture,” he said. “There ain’t no bite marks on the necks or shoulders.

“Their intention is to kill, not get in a fight,” Grangaard said. “When they bite, it’s some place that’s going to do damage.”

Grangaard has come across the aftermath of several wolf fights over the years, both while trapping wolves and tracking them for the Department of Fish and Game. The fights don’t appear to last long, he said.

“You look at the tracks in snow and I’ll bet that fight lasts two minutes,” Grangaard said. “There’s very few tracks and a wolf laying there dead.”

Defending their turf

It’s all about territory.

Fights between wolf packs usually occur when one pack trespasses into another pack’s territory, which happens often, according to biologists who track wolves.

Most of the time, wolf packs do what they can to avoid each other, which is why they continually mark their territories, Gardner said.

But sometimes wolf packs get so big they tend to make large movements out of their territories, he said. They go on a one- or two-week foray — or “holiday,” as Gardner put it — and end up bumping into another pack. Most fights happen on the edges of territories, he said.

At the same time, Gardner has seen packs of wolves almost deliberately cross into another pack’s territory.

It doesn’t appear their movements into other territories is driven by a lack of food. Even wolves with plenty to eat in their own area will pack up every now and then and explore a neighboring pack’s territory, he said.

Independent wolf researcher Gordon Haber, who has studied wolves in Denali Park for more than 40 years, calls them “extraterritorial forays.” Haber said wolves are constantly “probing” adjacent territories and it doesn’t take them long to pick up on vacancies, which they are quick to take advantage of.

“It doesn’t take them more than a few weeks or even days for them to pick up on that,” Haber said.

Neither does it take long for wolf packs to detect intruders in their territories.

“I’ve always been impressed by how fast resident wolves can detect it and from how far away,” Haber said.

He has seen instances where a neighboring pack crosses into another pack’s territory and the resident pack picks up on it from 10 miles away, even though the wind is blowing in the wrong direction to pick up their scent.

Several years ago, Haber witnessed two wolf packs meet on the Denali Park Road in what he was sure was going to be a fight as he was tracking wolves in an airplane.

“They just milled around each other all huffed up,” he said. “It was the strangest thing. We figured we were going to see fur and blood fly everywhere.”

Hungry country

Cannibalism among wolves is not uncommon, either.

While Meier has never seen wolves kill members of their own packs, he has seen wolves cannibalize pack mates after they are killed by other wolves or die for other reasons. He recalled an incident several years ago in which 6-month-old pups ate their parents after the older wolves were killed in a fight.

It’s not unusual for trappers to find wolves they’ve caught eaten by other wolves, especially when they are caught in snares, Grangaard said. Surprisingly, that’s not the case with wolves caught in leg-hold traps, Grangaard said, perhaps because the trapped wolves are still alive when other wolves arrive on scene.

“I’ve had a lot of heads hanging in snares, where the whole body has been eaten,” he said, recalling one winter when he lost nine trapped wolves to cannibalism.

Once, Grangaard said, he interrupted a wolf eating another wolf he had snared.

“When he heard me coming he took off and hit another snare,” he said.

In recent years, Meier said, he has seen more wolves being eaten after they are killed.

“Last winter, just about every wolf we went to check out was eaten,” he said. “I don’t think they’re killing them to eat them. They’re killing them for the territory.”

Zimobog
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 07:32 PM
Vinland Viking wrote:
Hunting as a form of survival is fine with me, but hunting for recreation is as much of a sport as war.

I hope you wont wait until a survival situation arises to attempt to develop the skill of hunting! I assure you by then it will be much too late to learn.

Hunting is not easy. It takes a lifetime to hone the predator's instinct and to gain the insight into the habits of your prey. It requires astute observation of wildlife on it's own terms and encompasses a myrid of other equally important secondary survival skills in order to be successful.

Kogen
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 07:33 PM
I also don't care about how the cows that are raised to be eaten are killed. No matter what they're going to end up on your plate.

Try explaining this to the people who have died of mad cow disease for the sake of corporate profits (or all the methane that is worse than CO2 excess).

Although I am not sure what this has to do with the topic.

Zimobog
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Kogen wrote:
Try explaining this to the people who have died of mad cow disease for the sake of corporate profits.

I tried to, but being dead, they couldn't hear me. :D

Nordlander
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Vinland Viking wrote:

I hope you wont wait until a survival situation arises to attempt to develop the skill of hunting! I assure you by then it will be much too late to learn.

Hunting is not easy. It takes a lifetime to hone the predator's instinct and to gain the insight into the habits of your prey. It requires astute observation of wildlife on it's own terms and encompasses a myrid of other equally important secondary survival skills in order to be successful.

Well said,I have always believed the left wing lunatic communist controllers have through misinformation used animal and nature lovers as a back door means of gun control through anti hunting lies.Unfortunatly these well meaning nature lovers are being used as dupes for the extreme left who want to see every natural right taken away from us

velvet
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 10:35 PM
There are no "laws of nature". People imagine that there are because they assume that nature must mirror our own societies.

Our societies should mirror the law of nature. Right now, humans even deny that the law of nature exists.


for good or evil

Human concepts.


So nearly a thousand wolves were harvested and yet the overall number of wolves increased.

By 5.


This means there is now a healthier wolf population and healthy prey populations thanks to management and human harvests. If any of you should be lucky enough to ever visit my great land, you are more likely to see wolves because of it. If you ever come here and camp, you are more likely to hear wolves howling because of it.

That's fine for you, really. Here, we dont have wolves.
Oh, ja, right, the one pack with 40 members and about 20 'unpacked' single wolves (half of them died on streets, a danger that doesnt exist in that way in Alaska where large areas of almost untouched nature exist).
Does a single 40 member pack need 'predator control'?


I am of the opinion that people who oppose hunting, trapping, and management are actually anti-nature and anti-animals.

Once again, I dont oppose hunting as such.

But I ask you once again: will you limit human numbers? Man is a predator. Why dont you support predator controll in this case?

Old Winter
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 11:20 PM
How can anyone support wolf hunting when wolves are a endangered species :|

SpearBrave
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 11:21 PM
But I ask you once again: will you limit human numbers? Man is a predator. Why dont you support predator control in this case?

I wonder if the same people who make videos like one that started this thread would do something more constructive. Like teaching third world nations birth control. Than again that would be against their multicultural views. They say they are against mass immigration but they are also for race mixing. If we want to control third world populations than maybe we should come up with a plan on our own.


How can anyone support wolf hunting when wolves are a endangered species :|

Because in some areas there are to many and some areas there are none. So you hunt wolves in the places where there are to many. Moving wolves to new areas is easier said than done.

Jäger
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 11:45 PM
The answer is easy, if we need to hunt wolfs, we do, if not then not.


Wolves kill for the sake of killing more than any other animal.
I wonder, how can we deduce joy from inexplainable killings with certainty?
Observations of killings without being eaten is weak evidence for the exact reasons, even more so, when there are many animals that kill, but don't eat. Which makes the statement even more curios, what is different that to say cats, or apes?

Ocko
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 01:42 AM
Last week my neighbor killed a brown bear. He was eating the dogs and sheep in the neighborhood.

I have seen a mountain lion walking between houses.

If you have kids or care about kids you kill those animals. you don't want them around.

Coyotes are a pest here, everybody shoots them. They are far from dying out.

If you are romantic and love those animals you are most likely a citydweller.

I love bears, mountain lion and wild animals but I also go out and hunt dear. So more dear is around so more pumas you have. they look good in a zoo, not on a tree in your garden.

Kogen
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 01:59 AM
I have seen a mountain lion walking between houses.
So?

Most places offer services to relocate the animal.

I have seen large male moose in my yard, which could easily kill anyone, yet I do not run for the gun. I ignore it and it leaves.


If you have kids or care about kids you kill those animals. you don't want them around.
And if you care about both?


Coyotes are a pest here, everybody shoots them. They are far from dying out.
Like the other two animals you listed, you might notice none of them are wolves.


If you are romantic and love those animals you are most likely a citydweller.
So if you are a barbarian and hate those animals, you are most likely a villager?

Not exactly giving praise to anyone here.


I love bears, mountain lion and wild animals but I also go out and hunt dear.
So citydweller?


So more dear is around so more pumas you have. they look good in a zoo, not on a tree in your garden.
I thought you loved them?

Nordlander
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 02:16 AM
Last week my neighbor killed a brown bear. He was eating the dogs and sheep in the neighborhood.

I have seen a mountain lion walking between houses.

If you have kids or care about kids you kill those animals. you don't want them around.

Coyotes are a pest here, everybody shoots them. They are far from dying out.

If you are romantic and love those animals you are most likely a citydweller.

I love bears, mountain lion and wild animals but I also go out and hunt dear. So more dear is around so more pumas you have. they look good in a zoo, not on a tree in your garden.

Well said ,it is hard to understand these left wing loonies and tree huggers with no hunting knowledge or experience with wild animals (no the city zoo doesn't count).They all have their feet very firmly planted ,about 3ft. off the ground

Kogen
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 02:58 AM
Well said ,it is hard to understand these left wing loonies and tree huggers with no hunting knowledge or experience with wild animals (no the city zoo doesn't count).They all have their feet very firmly planted ,about 3ft. off the ground
So you are saying they are ignorant?

Maybe take a look at what you just said of them.

I really wish people would stop this 'I live here so I am smarter than someone who lives there' arguement.

Nordlander
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 03:16 AM
So you are saying they are ignorant?

Maybe take a look at what you just said of them.

I really wish people would stop this 'I live here so I am smarter than someone who lives there' arguement.

No ,I just feel sorry for people who stupidly argue for the sake of argueing about something they obviously know nothing about ,thats all

Kogen
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 03:20 AM
No ,I just feel sorry for people who stupidly argue for the sake of argueing about something they obviously know nothing about ,thats all
You feel sorry for them by calling them stupid?

Athalwulf
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 04:35 AM
I hope you wont wait until a survival situation arises to attempt to develop the skill of hunting! I assure you by then it will be much too late to learn.

I have hunted "for survival" before, but not on the scale of a deer or a wolf. I've hunted rabbits, squirrels, and boars for food before.

Bärin
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 04:44 AM
Wolf hunting is wrong. Killing for self defense is something else, that's justified. But why do you need to hunt a wolf? Do you need it to eat? No. Do you need the fur? No. There are animals with better fur that can keep you warm. Why then? To stuff it and display it? To brag about yourself? That's hedonist degeneration.

Athalwulf
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 04:50 AM
Wolf hunting is wrong. Killing for self defense is something else, that's justified. But why do you need to hunt a wolf? Do you need it to eat? No. Do you need the fur? No. There are animals with better fur that can keep you warm. Why then? To stuff it and display it? To brag about yourself? That's hedonist degeneration.

There are also animals with tastier meat.

Curious though, do you only see the hunting of wolves as wrong? If it's only wolves that you care about, what is the reasoning? (I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just wondering.)

Zimobog
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 05:28 AM
Wolf hunting is wrong. Killing for self defense is something else, that's justified. But why do you need to hunt a wolf? Do you need it to eat? No. Do you need the fur? No. There are animals with better fur that can keep you warm. Why then? To stuff it and display it? To brag about yourself? That's hedonist degeneration.

Barin,
Thanks for visiting in on this thread.
I think what is important is to keep in mind that we are talking about wolf hunting in Alaska (where I live). The government of Alaska is being attacked by propaganda videos like the one produced by environmental extremists that spawned this thread.

Our system of government is a Constitutional Republic. Our State Constitution makes the following statements in regards to wildlife, hunting, and conservation:


(the underlines are mine)

2. General Authority

The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.

§ 3. Common Use

Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use.

§ 4. Sustained Yield

Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.


As you can see, our State government is operating as stewards of the land and resources held in common by Alaska's people, in order that the people can benefit from the resources. These resources include wildlife (like moose and wolves), fish, minerals, timber, etc.

I have recently posted some statistics from our Department of Fish and Game earlier showing that the number of wolves actually increased after 15 years of a program to control their numbers, as well as massive increases in the numbers of moose/elk (by +6100) and also of reindeer/caribou. This is due to a successful program.



... predator control program ran in GMU 20a (near Fairbanks) from 1976 until 1995. At the beginning of the program there were 2500 moose, 2200 caribou and 239 wolves living in GMU 20. When the program ended, there were 8600 moose, 3000 caribou and 244 wolves. Alaskan biologists, trappers, and hunters harvested about 50 wolves a year for the duration of the program. So nearly a thousand wolves were harvested and yet the overall number of wolves increased.

I understand that in Germany, there are something like 20 wolves. If I lived in an area with only 20 wolves, I would also be opposed to any type of a wolf harvest.

You say that there a better furs with which to keep one warm than wolf. If this is true, tell me why even Greenpeace ordered wolf fur ruffs on their parkas when they were here :thumbup. No, wolf fur breaks up the blowing cold wind and traps the warm breath close to the face better than any material known to man. Wolf is by far the most desirable trim material, followed by wolverine. A good parka can be made from caribou or beaver, but marmot is the most sought after for traditional reasons. Our Alaskan furs have a market all over the world, including Germany. Nothing beats fur for combating the cold!

Nachtengel
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 05:42 AM
What are the practical uses of wolves besides the fur? How much can you really produce out of a wolf pup's coat? And, why is it necessary to make such a show out of it, like Palin does? :confused

Zimobog
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 06:09 AM
Todesangel wrote:
What are the practical uses of wolves besides the fur? How much can you really produce out of a wolf pup's coat? And, why is it necessary to make such a show out of it, like Palin does?

Todesangel,
Killing the young pups isn't what I would advise the Department if I was on the citizen's council. Studies show that wolf packs will accept new members if they are very young, like under a year old. I have always advocated relocating wolf pups to non-control areas of Alaska, or even to areas of the world who want to reintroduce wolves. Some here (forgive me, I can't recall who) said Norway's wolves were inbred and needed new DNA. We could send them there if only we had the support.

Even if we just tried it with 8 or 9, it would be worth it just to collect the data on wolf social structure. Just to see if it would really work.

Palin is a public person. I can't really speak for things she does.:ccolor

Bärin
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 06:47 AM
There are also animals with tastier meat.
Precisely, and our culture isn't a wolf or dog eating culture. That's alien to us.


Curious though, do you only see the hunting of wolves as wrong? If it's only wolves that you care about, what is the reasoning? (I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just wondering.)
I see the hunting of animals who aren't used as "resources" like Zimobog called them as wrong. That means animals you won't use the meat for eating or fur/skin for clothing, or you don't need to use for milk, cheese and the like. Like I said, other cultures eat dog and cat, but not us. If wolf fur is good enough to keep you warm and protected, fine, I stand corrected, then wolf hunting isn't degenerate. But otherwise, if someone wants to hunt an animal for a trophy, something that becomes a luxury or fad instead of a necessity, then it's decadence and I frown upon it heavily. :thumbdown

Ward
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 06:51 AM
And, why is it necessary to make such a show out of it, like Palin does? :confused

It's just a publicity stunt. She wants to create the perception of herself as a modern-day Annie Oakley. God how I wish this little neo-con b-imbo would just go away forever. Her sheer stupidity helped put Obama in the White House.

Anyway, I've always been fascinated by wolves and canines in general. I firmly believe the old maxim that dogs are man's best friend. I love the little bastards! :) And I find it amazing that all breeds of domesticated dogs, from Great Danes to Yorkshire Terriers, descend from wolves.

I try not to let my romanticism of wolves go so far as to blind me from some of the hard realities of them, but I'd prefer that they weren't hunted unless absolutely necessary.

Resist
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 07:24 AM
Sarah Palin is a show off, and using her videos and eccentric attitude for this poll is biased. This is not the way most people hunt wolves. Wolf hunting is right, as long as there are enough wolves, and wolf hunting is much more ecological than producing clothes out of cotton or some other plant.

velvet
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 12:41 PM
I have always advocated relocating wolf pups to non-control areas of Alaska, or even to areas of the world who want to reintroduce wolves. Some here (forgive me, I can't recall who) said Norway's wolves were inbred and needed new DNA. We could send them there if only we had the support.

That would have been me who said that ;)
It's not only Norway's wolves, all of Scandinavia. There are about 180 all in all, and because they've been almost extincted there too some decades ago, there is heavy inbreeding with the problems that go along with that (infertility etc).


Even if we just tried it with 8 or 9, it would be worth it just to collect the data on wolf social structure. Just to see if it would really work.

That would be great :thumbup
Let's found some sort of organisation. I'm sure wolf pups could be transported in common dog kennels, it cant be so expensive, no?


I understand that in Germany, there are something like 20 wolves. If I lived in an area with only 20 wolves, I would also be opposed to any type of a wolf harvest.

Thanks, this is what I wanted to hear ;)

Ocko
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 04:13 PM
So?

Most places offer services to relocate the animal.



You call Fish and Game but they tell you its your problem or if (and it is an IF not a WHEN) they come out, the animal is long gone. Relocating? you propably know as well that relocated animals have the tendency to come back. At least pumas and bears do so. Relocating where to? Into another pumas or bears territory? they end up dead anyway by fighting with each other.



And if you care about both?


The priority is the kid, not the bear.



So if you are a barbarian and hate those animals, you are most likely a villager?


Most villagers are living close to nature. thats why most of them live there. Animals on top of a foodchain are magnificent animals. But if they consider my kids as food then I show them that I am on top of the food chain. Thats the 'law of nature'.

Your fear and stand about killing animals might be grounded in Christianity. But I do eat meat and I am honest enough to kill them myself.

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 07:51 PM
The wolf is a teacher for our warriors and people should fear them both, but I suppose it does not hurt to take the occasional pelt, put it on and howl like a wolf. If necessary, one may also shoot the wolf beforehand.

Jäger
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 07:57 PM
The wolf is a teacher for our warriors ...
An aspect we shall never forget, this principle holds true for many, if not all, species we know, there are so many strategies for survival it is a wealth of knowledge we can find in nature, e.g. shark skin swimsuits are just one of the more recent discoveries.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 08:05 PM
I do not consider myself or anyone else here part of that mass of garbage known as humanity.
If humanity = the mass of humans, then we are all it. That's what I meant by humanity.


I live next to bears. I have never been attacked.
But other peoples who live next to bears have been attacked.


I do understand that fights do happen, but they also happen with people. This is just how it is.
Yes, I've not said no.


I also do not hunt people just because I get into a fight with them sometimes.
But if a person attacks you, you defend yourself. If a thief comes in your home again and again, you do something about it, to stop him from coming there.


Well then Negros are a difference species. Stop calling me part of their 'humanity'.
Biologically humans are the same species. We've different races. You've said it yourself earlier.


Define 'here'.
Transylvania and the Carpathians. Naturally everyone is talking about his own region in this theme, because that's where we live and where we know about the situation better.


Germany does not have money? It is one of the richest and most giving countries in the world. All of Germanic Europe is like this.
I'm not from Germany, do you see my username and profile? I'm Transylvanian Saxon. Please read my posting again. I was talking about the Carpathian mountains. They're not located in Germany. Germany isn't experiencing wolf problems. Germany's wolves are very few.


Again, I walk in the forest and have no issues.
Again, it's you personally. I don't know how your forests are like, but here peoples were hurt and killed by contact with wild animals.


Yes, they are in danger of extinction. Where are you getting the idea that they are doing fine?
From their status given by the conservationist societies. Go to WIkipedia and enter wolf. The status is "least concern".


Do you realise we have clothes now?
Of course, but do you realise producing the clothing is much more pollution to the environment than killing an animal? As peoples said, the factories cause smoke, consume much electricity, dump toxic waste, deforest areas and destroy natural habitats to expand and create more industries.


I have read the same reports about rural Europe being abandoned.
It's on the verge of that. Industries like the clothing is one of the reasons. Because of industrialisation. See? Our ancestors were hunters, gatherers, and animal farmers.


I do not see this as the situation.

If we are at the top, then why are we dying?
Humans aren't dying. Not the human species, but a subgroup, our race is dying. That's because we are killing ourselves off.

Kogen
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 08:50 PM
You call Fish and Game but they tell you its your problem or if (and it is an IF not a WHEN) they come out, the animal is long gone. Relocating? you propably know as well that relocated animals have the tendency to come back. At least pumas and bears do so. Relocating where to? Into another pumas or bears territory? they end up dead anyway by fighting with each other.
Then what is the whole problem? The animal walked by, then left.

And perhaps if you never lived in a region full of Mestizos and queers, the services would be more efficient.

As for relocating, why would an animal walk miles (or whatever) for the sake of having another stroll through your garden? I am not getting any sense out of this. The moose I have seen in my yard are never the same ones. I am not sure why puma/bears would do this at all, so I do not believe it (unless you leave raw meat next to your children).

And what do you mean they fight eachother to death? This happens all the time? Do bears/puma have specific territory in your yard, so therefore cannot be moved?


The priority is the kid, not the bear.
But I said what if both.


Most villagers are living close to nature. thats why most of them live there. Animals on top of a foodchain are magnificent animals. But if they consider my kids as food then I show them that I am on top of the food chain. Thats the 'law of nature'.

Name some pumas and bears in California that eat children on a regular basis.

It would be a shame if this was all fictional.


Your fear and stand about killing animals might be grounded in Christianity. But I do eat meat and I am honest enough to kill them myself.
I do not understand this statement at all.


If humanity = the mass of humans, then we are all it. That's what I meant by humanity.
Well I do not care about humanity, so do not bother talking to me of it.


But other peoples who live next to bears have been attacked.
How many of them lost the fight compared to bears losing? How many of them are there compared to the amount of bears?


But if a person attacks you, you defend yourself. If a thief comes in your home again and again, you do something about it, to stop him from coming there.
Self defence is not hunting.

And no, I have had someone rob my house, but I did not get a crew of snipers in a helicopter to shoot a thousand people in his community. Instead I got better locks for my doors and used insurance. I was mad, yet I never used violence.


Biologically humans are the same species. We've different races. You've said it yourself earlier.
I was trying to point out the double standard you make. We are a species, fine. But you said coyotes and wolves are a different species, which is not true, as they are no different than comparing us to Negros. We either both are or none of us are; pick one.


I'm not from Germany, do you see my username and profile? I'm Transylvanian Saxon. Please read my posting again. I was talking about the Carpathian mountains. They're not located in Germany. Germany isn't experiencing wolf problems. Germany's wolves are very few.
I saw the German flag colours and assumed. I do not see ethnicity as location.


Again, it's you personally.
Well I must be real special.

I wonder if anyone else here was attacked by wolves and bears while walking in the forest? Perhaps there should be a poll.


I don't know how your forests are like, but here peoples were hurt and killed by contact with wild animals.
Alright then, but so what? We agreed that is how it is, forest or city.


From their status given by the conservationist societies. Go to WIkipedia and enter wolf. The status is "least concern".
I stated prior (maybe not to you) that I do not believe these rating systems. It is too symplistic - ignoring regions, breeds, stability, future conditions, and so on.


Of course, but do you realise producing the clothing is much more pollution to the environment than killing an animal? As peoples said, the factories cause smoke, consume much electricity, dump toxic waste, deforest areas and destroy natural habitats to expand and create more industries.
And this happens in India/China. Blame them, not wolves.

Or rather, 'humanity'.


It's on the verge of that. Industries like the clothing is one of the reasons. Because of industrialisation. See? Our ancestors were hunters, gatherers, and animal farmers.

And what do you propose, that we all should wear wolf skins?

And how would we get that? With these guns and helicopters? I wonder how those are made?

I already pointed this out earlier in the topic that the same people who hunt wolves use products that are just as destructive. It is another double standard to pass this blame on, then ignore it when you do it.


Humans aren't dying. Not the human species, but a subgroup, our race is dying. That's because we are killing ourselves off.

You are poor at judging the current conditions we are in, then.

You say the same thing of wolves, just because some place has a good population right now.

Resist
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 09:36 PM
How many of them lost the fight compared to bears losing? How many of them are there compared to the amount of bears?
The data is incomplete, but here you go, some links about fatal wolf and bear attacks on humans.

Wolf attacks on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans)
List of fatal bear attacks in North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_Amer ica_by_decade)

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 09:59 PM
How many of them lost the fight compared to bears losing? How many of them are there compared to the amount of bears?
I've not statistics about it, but a human who isn't walking in the forest to hunt has few chance to defend himself against a bear. The bear is stronger, faster. Fighting back is indicated against some animals, but not the bear. The indicated method is to play dead, but that doesn't work always either.


And no, I have had someone rob my house, but I did not get a crew of snipers in a helicopter to shoot a thousand people in his community. Instead I got better locks for my doors and used insurance. I was mad, yet I never used violence.
The wild animals as big as bears destroy the locks, and they use other means to enter, like breaking the window. If they smell food, they find a way to it and damage what's in the way. I'm not blaming the bears because they're just doing their natural thing, but I'm not blaming humans for keeping them away either. Sometimes it's possible to keep them away without having to kill them. We've bear sanctuaries and protected parts of the forests where they're kept. But it's not possible at all times.


I was trying to point out the double standard you make. We are a species, fine. But you said coyotes and wolves are a different species, which is not true, as they are no different than comparing us to Negros. We either both are or none of us are; pick one.
There is no double standard. It's a biological fact Kogen, just read in a book or research it online: wolves are Canis lupus, coyotes are Canis latrans, these are two different species. They're the same genus, but not the same species. Whites, blacks and the rest of modern humanity are the same species, Homo sapiens, and the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. If you talk with biological terms, they must be used correctly.


I saw the German flag colours and assumed. I do not see ethnicity as location.
I don't use a German flag. I use the Transylvanian flag, and my location, Hermannstadt, is a Transylvanian Saxon city.


I wonder if anyone else here was attacked by wolves and bears while walking in the forest? Perhaps there should be a poll.
Many peoples here are from Germany and the forests of Germany have no bears or wolves. Other Germanic nations in Europe are in similar situations. Many peoples here are from the urban areas and rarely ever walked in forests. Besides a poll on a forum doesn't reflect reality since we're a reduced population.


I stated prior (maybe not to you) that I do not believe these rating systems. It is too symplistic - ignoring regions, breeds, stability, future conditions, and so on.
Hmm, then propose a new kind of rating system. But it looks like you are ignoring regions and conditions too, because you use your standard to judge my region and others. Wolves are not an endangered species in my region, you get this?


And this happens in India/China. Blame them, not wolves.

Or rather, 'humanity'.
It happens in Germanic countries too. We are polluting the environment through industrialisation too.


And what do you propose, that we all should wear wolf skins?
No. We should try to limit pollution. I'm saying wolf hunting shouldn't be blamed, because it's less environmental damage.


And how would we get that? With these guns and helicopters? I wonder how those are made?
No. I've not said we should use these methods. Like peoples said, the video is a publicity stunt. Ordinary hunters here don't even use such methods, and I doubt they're the norm in other nations too.


I already pointed this out earlier in the topic that the same people who hunt wolves use products that are just as destructive. It is another double standard to pass this blame on, then ignore it when you do it.
Shepherd and mountain peoples use wool for their clothes. I've not said hunters aren't guilty, or that I'm not guilty of engaging in other forms of pollution, I said wolf hunting is far less damaging. If you remove wolf hunting you won't reduce pollution.


You are poor at judging the current conditions we are in, then.
I think you are. Because the world is facing overpopulation. In history, we were never so many humans, and we weren't in danger of extinction then. Humans will be among the last animals to dwell the earth before we become extinct because of conditions like increasing sun heat and temperatures, or some other external factor like asteroids or comets. Maybe even then we will have the technology to colonise another planet or star.


You say the same thing of wolves, just because some place has a good population right now.
Then the problem isn't with that place. It's with the other places that don't. If a place with high wolf population gets more and more wolves, then it leads to overpopulation. It will have an effect on prey and other species. Populations need to be kept in check.

Kogen
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 10:41 PM
The data is incomplete, but here you go, some links about fatal wolf and bear attacks on humans.

Wolf attacks on humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans)
List of fatal bear attacks in North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_Amer ica_by_decade)
Well according to this, it is barely anything for world-wide figures. Negros do more in a day than what a wolf does in a decade, plus most are from a specific region in Russia (which would also mean a specific breed and situation).


I've not statistics about it, but a human who isn't walking in the forest to hunt has few chance to defend himself against a bear. The bear is stronger, faster. Fighting back is indicated against some animals, but not the bear. The indicated method is to play dead, but that doesn't work always either.
Well why do they attack? Mothers only defend cubs and males would want something better to eat. I can only see the starving and sick attacking a lone person.

But if you are afraid, then take guns when walking and only do it in groups. But from what people have told me of their experience, if you ignore it, it goes away.


The wild animals as big as bears destroy the locks, and they use other means to enter, like breaking the window. If they smell food, they find a way to it and damage what's in the way. I'm not blaming the bears because they're just doing their natural thing, but I'm not blaming humans for keeping them away either. Sometimes it's possible to keep them away without having to kill them. We've bear sanctuaries and protected parts of the forests where they're kept. But it's not possible at all times.
At my cabin we place spikes around entrances so the bears do not 'sack' the building. We also have rifles.

But in my 20 years going there, a bear never attacked while we were in it. The noise/lights scare it.


There is no double standard. It's a biological fact Kogen, just read in a book or research it online: wolves are Canis lupus, coyotes are Canis latrans, these are two different species. They're the same genus, but not the same species. Whites, blacks and the rest of modern humanity are the same species, Homo sapiens, and the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. If you talk with biological terms, they must be used correctly.
Well I will just take your word for it, I suppose. But as far as classing them goes, my opinion does not change.


I don't use a German flag. I use the Transylvanian flag, and my location, Hermannstadt, is a Transylvanian Saxon city.
I said colours.


Hmm, then propose a new kind of rating system. But it looks like you are ignoring regions and conditions too, because you use your standard to judge my region and others. Wolves are not an endangered species in my region, you get this?
What about in 30 years when there are barely any Germans left?

Are the Gypsies going to be as nice as you?

Maybe you (community) should be hunting them to balance things for yourself.


No. We should try to limit pollution. I'm saying wolf hunting shouldn't be blamed, because it's less environmental damage.
Well I am disagreeing. I think alternative methods can be achieved.


No. I've not said we should use these methods. Like peoples said, the video is a publicity stunt. Ordinary hunters here don't even use such methods, and I doubt they're the norm in other nations too.
Then why are the ordinary hunters using figures and results of this as evidence in this topic?

They support it.


Shepherd and mountain peoples use wool for their clothes. I've not said hunters aren't guilty, or that I'm not guilty of engaging in other forms of pollution, I said wolf hunting is far less damaging. If you remove wolf hunting you won't reduce pollution.
False; you will reduce some kinds of pollution, as hunters cause this with their supply demands.

And as a repeat: someone shooting a wolf that is attacking them is not hunting. Generally this is acceptable.


I think you are. Because the world is facing overpopulation. In history, we were never so many humans, and we weren't in danger of extinction then. Humans will be among the last animals to dwell the earth before we become extinct because of conditions like increasing sun heat and temperatures, or some other external factor like asteroids or comets. Maybe even then we will have the technology to colonise another planet or star.
Animals higher on the food chain die first when the system collapses. This is basic fact.

A mouse, for example, will likely not be troubled.


Then the problem isn't with that place. It's with the other places that don't. If a place with high wolf population gets more and more wolves, then it leads to overpopulation. It will have an effect on prey and other species. Populations need to be kept in check.
People with experience of wolves have mentioned how the wolves kill eachother when that happens, just as we do. Then there is disease and so on.

How do you think it worked before people?

Ocko
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 11:16 PM
There aren't so many attacks because people shoot those bears/pumas who come close to homes.

Where your cabin is it might not be populated as much. But I am living in a tiny village and after that there are 50-60 miles of sparsely populated wilderness around.

Older bears and pumas rarely come to homes. They go around them. The younger ones sometimes aren't so sure about their hunting skills, they go after livestock and sometimes after humans. An adult might be able to fend off a puma a child never will be.

If you feel comfortable to have wild bear around children let them be there. A 400 pound wild bear where kids play doesn't make me comfortable. My neighbor acted upon it and I had my gone loaded over the door.

I defend my space and keep it clean of predators, animal or human.

Old Winter
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 11:25 PM
Because in some areas there are to many and some areas there are none. So you hunt wolves in the places where there are to many. Moving wolves to new areas is easier said than done.

Sedate and move or just make a wall between them and the humans.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 11:38 PM
Sedate and move or just make a wall between them and the humans.

I think you would have to move the whole pack and that might take time with some wolves being held in captivity for long periods of time. Also it would take the right place to move them to, wolves require large tracts of land with little or no humans per square mile.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, October 17th, 2009, 09:42 AM
Well why do they attack? Mothers only defend cubs and males would want something better to eat. I can only see the starving and sick attacking a lone person.
They attack because they perceive human presence as a threat. Mothers always defend the cubs even if the human doesn't attempt to harm them. It's a behaviour in many animals. A friend of mine was bitten by a female dog just for walking nearby a building under which she hid with her pups. There's no blame in this, not the human and not the animal, it's a natural reaction.


But if you are afraid, then take guns when walking and only do it in groups. But from what people have told me of their experience, if you ignore it, it goes away.
The experience I've heard from peoples is a different one.


At my cabin we place spikes around entrances so the bears do not 'sack' the building. We also have rifles.
Yes that's a good thing.


But in my 20 years going there, a bear never attacked while we were in it. The noise/lights scare it.
It's true, but many of the cabins attacked by bears in this region aren't electrically equipped, and the bears usually attacked when no one was home. That's why they managed to destroy the houses.


I said colours.
The colours aren't identical either.


Then why are the ordinary hunters using figures and results of this as evidence in this topic?

They support it.
Hmm, I don't understand, who? Peoples here who hunt said they support the traditional way, not the publicity way.


People with experience of wolves have mentioned how the wolves kill eachother when that happens, just as we do. Then there is disease and so on.

How do you think it worked before people?
Before people I think some animals were more dominant than others and hunted down other animals. Some animals became extinct because of it.

Ocko
Monday, October 19th, 2009, 06:43 PM
If the bear or the wolf is in his habitat and I go there then there is a sort of etiquette between bear and human:

bear sees human
human sees bear
human says shit
both turn 180 degrees and walk away.

99% it works this way.

With pumas it is different. They are cats, you don't see them but they see you. If you see one they want to be seen or they don't mind. Both are not good news.

coyotes are pretty fierce animals. they are overly aggressive. (crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes retain that fierceness, crossbreeds between dogs and wolfs are coy). They are also tricky a female seducesses a dog (or a male makes the dog run after him) away and then the pack finishes the dog and they have a feast. They don't attack people unless they have rabies.


Every summer I see rattlesnakes. Once I tried to make them rattle but the snake just coiled and was ready to bite. I usually bring them away from the house. the kids know those snakes and know how to handle them. Snakes don't bite if they have a chance to snake away.

Nachtengel
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 09:33 AM
http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/23620.jpg

Hunters in Sweden will be allowed to take aim at wolves for the first time in 45 years following a Riksdag decision to control the predators’ population, wildlife officials said on Wednesday.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is to announce by mid-December its quota for the wolf cull, expected to be between 20 and 40 animals, Susanna Löfgren of the agency told AFP.

"That (number is) what (experts) have offered us, we're working on it and a decision will be taken mid-December," Löfgren said.

The regions where the hunt will be allowed are the provinces of Dalarna, Gävleborg county and Örebro county in the country's centre, as well as the provinces of Västergötland in the southwest and Värmland in the west.

The Swedish parliament decided in October to limit the wolf population to 210 animals, spread out in 20 packs, for the next five years by issuing hunting permits in regions where wolves have reproduced in the past three years.

"The main reason for the decision is to raise the (public's) acceptance of wolves" in Sweden by limiting their number, Löfgren said.

The animal's presence is controversial in the Nordic country as domestic and wild animals are increasingly attacked by wolves, which have been sighted recently near residential areas, including near the capital Stockholm.

The environmental protection agency estimated Sweden's wolf population to be between 182 and 217 animals last winter.

It said the hunt would start in January and end before mating season begins in mid-February.

Wolves almost became extinct in Sweden in the 1970s but their number has increased steadily since efforts were made to reintroduce the animal to the country.

Like some other European countries, Sweden allows the hunt of protected species, such as the brown bear and the lynx, in order to cull stocks.

http://www.thelocal.se/23620/20091203/

Nordlander
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 01:46 PM
http://www.thelocal.se/23620/20091203/
Wish I could get over there to get in on that.Looks like some great shooting!

Blod og Jord
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 04:28 PM
I voted right, but I think there are exceptions, for the places where wolves aren't enough to sustain hunting. So I agree with everyone who stated a position like this.
I also haven't read the full thread so apologies if I'm repeating some of the arguments. :)
Our ancestors relied on hunting. It's a tradition.
I'm opposed to animal cruelty, but I don't think hunting falls under that category.
I think when the man hunts, it's a challenge. The animal has a chance.
Animals hunt too. Some are predator and some are prey.
We ourselves are prey occasionally, although we would have been more often if some animals hadn't gone extinct millions of years ago.

Jäger
Saturday, December 5th, 2009, 10:29 AM
I'm opposed to animal cruelty, but I don't think hunting falls under that category.
Cruelty is to make one unnecessarily suffer. Depending on why you hunt, etc. it might be cruel or not.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 18th, 2009, 01:41 PM
No rare creature should be hunted. I don't know of anyone whose professional opportunities are so limited that if they didn't slaughter as many fluffy animals as possible they and their family would starve.

And let's face it, preserving wolves and other animals isn't just in the animals' interest. It's aesthetic pleasing for humans to know that nature thrives, to see it thrive. Humans absolutely loathe one another, so it's puzzling some people want to see human habitation as the rule everywhere. There are six billion plus people on the planet; we've already secured our existence. Still, some people won't be satisfied until we infest every square inch of the planet, and only then will they realise they preferred the animals to the wretches now there.

But like I say, I have no idea why anyone -- most people, even -- would support humanity over nature when it's an incontestable fact that people can't stand other people.

Nachtengel
Friday, January 8th, 2010, 01:45 AM
http://www.thelocal.se/articleImages/24240.jpg

Sweden's first wolf hunt in 45 years came to an end on Tuesday after hunters met their quota of 27 kills in just four days, as ecologists blasted the hunt as rushed and cruel and slammed the government's decision to allow the cull.

The final two wolves of the quota were killed in central Sweden on Tuesday, bringing to an end the first wolf hunt since 1964 as a number of hunters reported receiving anonymous death threats.

Parliament decided in October to limit the country's wolf population to 210 animals for the next five years.

The cull was meant to run between January 2 and February 15, but hunters killed 20 wolves on the first day, sparking the ire of animal rights activists and local officials.

"I think the hunt was carried out very quickly, there were too many kills all at once," said Stig-Åke Svenson, head of the local branch of the environmental agency in the central Dalarna region where hunters killed 10 wolves instead of the nine allotted to the region.

"And across the entire country, seven wolves were first wounded before they were killed, and that's a very high number. These are problems that need to be investigated ahead of a possible wolf hunt next year," he told AFP.

Some 12,000 hunters had been granted permits to take part in the hunt, a number environmentalists said was out of proportion to the total of 27 authorised kills in five central regions.

They also criticised the lack of coordination between the regions.

"The hunt was totally out of control, the quota was even exceeded in Dalarna, and thousands of hunters were allowed to take part in the kill," lamented Mikael Karlsson, the head of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) who has filed a complaint against Sweden with the European Commission.

The SNCC claimed the hunt violated European Union legislation on species and habitats.

"This hunt was aimed at pleasing the loudmouthed hunters" who have been calling for a wolf hunt for years, Karlsson said.

But Torbjörn Lövbom of the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management said the criticism was "exaggerated".

"The hunt went well for the most part, apart from the one wolf too many that was killed in Dalarna. The cull was completed quickly because the snow made it easier for us," he said.

A fresh snowfall makes it easier for hunters to follow the animal's tracks.

Several hunters have filed police complaints after receiving anonymous death threats, the Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management said.

The Swedish government has also been the target of heavy criticism, in particular Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren whose image as a nature lover has taken a blow.

"The hunt turns to Carlgren," headlined an editorial in tabloid Aftonbladet, the country's most widely read newspaper.

The minister "says the hunt will put an end to the inbreeding in the Swedish wolf population ... That's of course nonsense," it said.

Wolves had virtually disappeared from Sweden in the 1970s. They have thrived since being reintroduced but suffer from the effects of inbreeding because they all descend from the same handful of animals that were introduced.

The government plans to release some 20 new wolves into the wild by 2014 to broaden their gene pool and improve their health.

"If the environment minister's real aim was to combat the wolves' heart, back and kidney problems then the hunt would have been organised differently," the paper wrote.

Parliament's decision to allow the wolf hunt was aimed at increasing public acceptance of the predators.

The animal's presence is controversial in the country as domestic and farm animals are increasingly attacked by wolves, which have been sighted recently near residential areas, including near the capital Stockholm.

There were between 182 and 217 wolves in Sweden last winter, the Environmental Protection Agency said, noting that new litters had been born since then.

http://www.thelocal.se/24240/20100107/

Mother Earth
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 05:27 AM
I'm against hunting wolves or any animals, and I don't think humans hunting them is necessary to keep them in check. Remember we came on this planet well after the animals, and they kept each other in check before our presence.

I do agree there are many people on this planet. The few that get attacked by wolves are an insignificant drop in an ocean of billions. Our predators are gone, so we thrive. Wolves aren't a realistic threat, or other wild animals. We can avoid them without getting killed.

Zimobog
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 02:27 AM
Mother Earth, please consider my opinion that this approach (or non-approach) will cause wolves to go extinct here in Alaska. Wolves can and will eat all the prey and then go extinct themselves if there are more than one wolf per twenty prey animals. There are areas here in Alaska that are sterile from over-predatation from wolves and bears. Areas that man does not live in or hunt in. I guess that is what kind of animals "keeping each other in check" you are talking about.

Of all the millons of species that are extinct, almost none where made that way from humans except for in the last century. May be it is industrialization and loss of habitat that is to blame and not hunting? May be it is that Nature is cruel, and the only lives that have value are those one choose to value?

Jäger
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010, 11:26 AM
I guess that is what kind of animals "keeping each other in check" you are talking about.
Well, so the wolves survived for round about 1 million years, because they made many species extinct during this process? Then again, something must have survived, or else we wouldn't see so many creatures on our planet.
Can you explain this some more?

Zimobog
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 04:33 AM
Jager wrote:


Well, so the wolves survived for round about 1 million years, because they made many species extinct during this process? Then again, something must have survived, or else we wouldn't see so many creatures on our planet.
Can you explain this some more?

I would happy to explain. :thumbup

Wolves may have caused or contributed to the extinction of other animals but I didn't mean to sound like I was blaming them for the past or anything at all.

I was speaking of the present, here in Alaska, where we have many predators that if unmanaged will deplete populations of prey to levels that are unrecoverable during their breeding cycle. This will cause the predators themselves to die off in large numbers, which is losing situation for humans and for other predatory genus like bears and wolves. I like living in a place with lots of predators and prey. The number biologists are looking for is 1:20.

One more thing, not directed at Jager but at those who claim to oppose wolf hunting:

In areas where there are no wolves, or areas where wolves are rare, "wolf hunting" opinions are simply academic stimulation and to argue the point that it is "wrong" or "right" is moot. One cannot defend wolves they do not have any more that one can hunt non-existent wolves.

Nachtengel
Thursday, January 28th, 2010, 08:35 PM
The government on Thursday ordered the Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) to prepare for the active import of foreign wolves into Sweden from the east.

At the same time, wolves that naturally make their way into reindeer grazing areas in the north of the country are to be pushed south to central Sweden where the country’s wolf population is concentrated.

“At most 20 healthy wolves that are unaffected by inbreeding will be assimilated with Swedish wolves over a five-year period,” Swedish environment minister Andreas Carlgren told the TT news agency.

He added that the move will require buy-in from people who live in the affected areas.

“It puts a lot of responsibility on the hunting organizations. I’m making a clear and direct appeal to them to take responsibility and contribute to the strengthening work which the Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) is about to start,” said Carlgren.

The Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet) has, according to the minister, agreed to help bring the wolves into Sweden.

“I expect that the National Hunting Association (Jägarnas riksförbund) will do the same,” he added.

Following the controversial wolf hunt carried out earlier this year, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency will examine how it was carried out, including what was done before and during the hunt.

Among other things, the agency will look into the frequency of hunting injuries and the training of hunters, the demographic and genetic consequences of the hunt on Sweden’s wolf population, and how various parties affected or involved reacted to the hunt.

“Both wolf parents were shot on one reserve. Researchers have said that the orphaned pups will likely make it, but we’re going to investigate whether or not they do,” said Maria Ågren, director general of the environmental agency.

Another issue is whether or not 12,000 hunters were really required to kill 27 wolves.

“We want to know how many hunters are really needed to carry out a hunt like that, and if the hunters accepted their share of the responsibilities which come with the right to hunt. Make no mistake about this point; I’m not going to pull any punches if the hunters didn’t live up to their responsibilities,” said Carlgren.

http://www.thelocal.se/24664/20100128/

Oxygen
Monday, February 1st, 2010, 02:54 AM
I believe that most of the people who have children and live in an area with some sort of big predator changes their mind quite quickly on being anti hunting when the big bad wolf turns up at little Timmys pre-school. Thats why there is huge support for wolf hunting in the areas that actually have wolves in Sweden and virtually no support at all for it in the areas that dont. Being confronted with an un-idealized reality does that to man.

Reshki
Thursday, February 4th, 2010, 03:28 PM
I think there needs to be a distinction made between hunting wolves (or any predator) and defensing oneself against them. Most people (here in the US) that wouldn't hunt a wolf, would not hesitate to kill one in defense.

Unfortunately, they (very stupidly) released wolves in to somewhat populated areas over here, and wolf vs human encounters happen too often. Let's face it, we're two predatory species vying for territory.

The other matter, brougth up several times, is that predators need to be kept in check. If they grow too numerous, they'll cause major problems, and you'll have people wanting to drive them to extinction again.

Everything has to be balanced.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:32 AM
Since we touched on the subject of hunting in several threads I thought it would be nice to have a overall discussion on hunting in general.:)

Please post your thoughts about hunting here. Do you like to hunt? Do you Like to eat wild game? Do you think hunting is Germanic? Are you opposed to hunting?

RoyBatty
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:37 AM
Hunting for food, no problem.

Hunting for sport and wanton killing - I don't like this.

Astrid Runa
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:44 AM
I don't agree with hunting for sport.
I think it's cruel and inhuman.
I'm majorly against the hunting and killing of wolves.

But if you hunt and kill for food and use EVERYTHING from the animal, including the skin and bones, then I suppose that's acceptable.

wittwer
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 02:46 PM
Since we touched on the subject of hunting in several threads I thought it would be nice to have a overall discussion on hunting in general.:)

Please post your thoughts about hunting here. Do you like to hunt? Do you Like to eat wild game? Do you think hunting is Germanic? Are you opposed to hunting?

Hunting? It's ok. Certainly beats lying on the couch staring at the Boobtube or Computer.
I've hunted and fished (fishing can be construed as a form of hunting) since I was nine or ten years old. As for target game, Mice, Rats, Squirrels, Rabbits, Prairie Dogs, Pronghorn, Deer, Pheasant, Ducks, Geese, and in the aquatic realm, fish, frogs, crawfish, assorted mollusks.

As for the cultural attributes of hunting, it's certainly not Germanic in nature. More like Paleolithic... ;)

Ocko
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 02:53 PM
I am a hunter. I go for deer and wild hog.

when out on suvival exercises I do trapping, whatever I catch there I eat.

Hunting has different phases:

phase I : shooting whatever moves

phaseII : going for the challenge (trophy)

phase III : filling the fridge

phase IV: being out in nature is the most important thing, you shoot what is necessary to shoot.

Thorwolf
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 02:58 PM
I love to engage in wild hog hunting! Here in Texas, we have so many of them, it is a public service to take them out. I have allways enjoyed this. Next, I want to start doing hog hunting with a spear, just like the germans did, long after the advent of guns. It is for sure more manly, you must risk your life in order to bring home the bacon. lol.

I am not a big fan of stand shooting, this to me has more in common with target shooting. where is the thrill of the hunt? I prefer to stalk my prey!

Ocko
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:13 PM
They still do hog hunting with lances in Germany. It adds some thrill to the fun.

wild hogs are bad here (northern Cal) too, uprooting gardens, lawns etc. They clearly make a mess. You can't shoot them around the houses and those bastards are cunning and moving around.

So you have to track them.

I think of getting a 'deutscher Jagdterrier' for hog hunting.

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:19 PM
I don't currently have the financial means to hunt, but I definitely support hunting, both for food and for sport.

A lot of people oppose hunting for sport because they assume hunting for sport = killing for fun. No, hunting, like all sports, has certain rules and expectations that one must adhere to in order to be sportsmanlike.

I would never lay a trap of any kind or use a stand if I were hunting merely for a trophy. However, if the primary motivation behind the hunting trip was sustenance, it would be perfectly reasonable to use any means necessary to ensure I had food on the table.

Grimsteinr
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Hunting was a regular thing in my Family. I learned to shoot and hunted with a .22 when I was 10. In my 12th Winter I went rabbit hunting with a 16 ga, shotgun of my Father's. For my 14th Xmas, I was given a 20 ga. pump shotgun.
I've really only killed small game. Ive shot rabbits, squirrels, muskrats, groundhogs, raccoon, peccaries, bobwhite quail, and pheasant, with .22 and shotgun. It was all, always regarded as "food for the table".
I have eaten all of those. As well, I have eaten deer, Russian boar, and American Bison/buffalo.

Roderic
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:34 PM
Do you like to hunt?

Yes.

Do you Like to eat wild game?

Yes.

Do you think hunting is Germanic?

Yes.

Are you opposed to hunting?

I certainly oppose the killing of animals threatened by extinction or protected by the law and i understand that some people have pitty of the animals killed because they are very graceful in the wilds and some hunting technics can be very cruel for the animals.

I also think that hunting as a sport is a less noble activity than hunting for food or hunting as a training method for war.

And being a hunter is one of the few excuses that allows civilians to own guns in many western european countries.

So i am in favour of hunting because it is a more healthy and useful activity for our people than staying at home playing gameboy.

Thorwolf
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:39 PM
They still do hog hunting with lances in Germany. It adds some thrill to the fun.

wild hogs are bad here (northern Cal) too, uprooting gardens, lawns etc. They clearly make a mess. You can't shoot them around the houses and those bastards are cunning and moving around.

So you have to track them.

I think of getting a 'deutscher Jagdterrier' for hog hunting.



have you ever seen a cold steal boar spear? If not you should check one out. They are great. I have seen a 800+ lb. hog dispatched with one. Although I would consider a steel shaft, as hogs in Texas are rather large!

Ocko
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 03:54 PM
I have been toying with the idea of lancing hogs but I have a healthy respect of them.

I do own 3 16th century japanese lances, they would do well for that. the vibs of them call for blood. Maybe one day I do.

Reshki
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Do you like to hunt?

Yes.


Do you Like to eat wild game?

Hell yes.


Do you think hunting is Germanic?

Of course it is.


Are you opposed to hunting?

Obviously not.


Now, for some caveats. I don't "trophy hunt". Trophy hunting being defined as guys going out to kill the biggest buck/boar/whatever to keep its head and leave the rest for the coyotes (not that coyotes need to eat).

I also don't consider stand hunting to be hunting. It's a shooting game, but you're not hunting anything, you're waiting for something to come in range.

I like spot and stalk hunting, and I eat most of what I kill. Some goes to my dogs (no, I don't "run" deer or bay hogs with my dogs, it's just a treat for them when I get home), some gets left for carrion and buzzards. The meat I eat or give to places that feed the poor with it.

I hunt deer -- with bow and arrow and rifle.
I hunt hogs -- with guns, boar spears, and occasionally, a knife. In fact, hogs are considered pest animals here, they multiply so fast, and outside of Wildlife Management Areas, you can hunt them year round.
I also hunt rabbit and squirrel.

What some don't understand is that prey animals need to be hunted, because if you don't kill off a percentage of the population, they will become too numerous, overfeed and end up starving to death, pestilence increases, and many become too weak competing for resources, that they die. In the end, you end up lose far more of the herd than if you hunt them.

Likewise, I understand some not wanting to hunt predators, as some are our totem animals like wolves (mine is the grizzly bear), but even they must be hunted to some degree, otherwise, they come into conflict with humans, both killing livestock, and eventually killing humans, particularly children. So they must be hunted to keep their population in check, but not to extinction.

flâneur
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 07:06 PM
I dont have time these days but im in touch with someone who will get me a Harris hawk when i move to fortress Europe.
Heres me aged about seven with my first peregrine falcon....which flew off.....oh how i cried.:(

Ive had kestrels,sparrowhaks,peregrines,buzzards and even a goshawk which was a fearsome beast.

I love falconry because it involves being quiet and alone,and you can eat what you get if its big enough and your falcon or hawk gets fed wild hot meat which he loves.....and it involves being out in the fresh air for hours on end.

nauthiz
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 07:46 PM
Absolutely a hunter here. I don't have the desire or the money to buy meat from the store. I do get beef raised by my neighbors and i hunt deer and elk for my meat. I freeze some and can some. I also fish.
I suppose a lot of people haven't had the chance to live like I do, there is much sacrifice to do so. Not all, but many people have an opinion about hunting from living in a bubble and believeing all they read about how savage us hunters are. The truth is quite the contrary.

Thorolf
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 07:50 PM
ive always loved to go hunting, my dad took me hunting the first time when i was about 6. Ive heard a lot of criticism from people for hunting, but the people against it around here are stupid. The deer here have no natural predators, something has to eat they will overpopulate worse than they already have.

Caledonian
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 08:10 PM
I like hunting.

I've hunted deer, rabbit, coyote, possums, quail, wild turkey, and racoons.


Before I die I would like to hunt a bear or mountain lion just for the sheer thrill of it all in that I would like the challenge.

[I would also like to get better at using a bow as it is more challenging than your standard rifle.]

[Living in the big city I haven't gone hunting in about four years meaning I'm a bit out of practice.]

[There is nothing more thrilling than carving up your dinner with a hunting knife after killing it yourself.]

Hamar Fox
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I'm definitely against hunting...animals anyway. I actually love animals a lot more than people, and could derive no pleasure from killing one. The ratio of humans to animals, of whatever species, is already too high. Killing any member of any species, but especially non-vermin, just adds to making the world an uglier place.

SpearBrave
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 10:05 PM
I am a very avid hunter, in fact it is one of things I think about the most.

Although I do get quite a bit of game, I have long been at the stage where going hunting is more important than killing game. It is a way to stay in tune with nature and keep your skills sharp about the wild world around you.:)

As far a trophy hunting goes I do see why some would want to keep a skull, head or hide from a particularly good animal. It is a way to honor the animal and the hunt. I don't much like the idea of just killing a animal for the trophy and leaving the meat and carcass for the scavengers. Given that every now and then you take a trophy sized animal then I don't think it is wrong to honor it by displaying the head, skull, or hide as long as you as honor it by eating the meat. I don't personally have any taxidermy heads as I just like to keep the cleaned skulls and hides.

I also understand that there is a need to hunt to control predator populations and nuisance animals that are not always the best to eat.

I hunt or have hunted the following game Deer, Moose, Bear, Boar, Elk, on the large game list. On the small game list I hunt Rabbits, Squirrels, and various game birds. As far as none game animals I hunt coons(the four legged type:D)ground hogs, opossums, coyotes, foxes, and turkeys.

Yes I list turkeys as none game because the only wild turkey I like comes from a bottle and is made in Kentucky;). Turkeys are very hard on crops and other game bird populations, since I don't much care for the way they taste I give them away.

For large game hunting I use a long bow, shotgun with slugs, rifle, handgun, and flintlock muzzle loader. Here in Indiana rifles are not permitted to be used on Deer, so I mostly use bow,shotgun, and flintlock. For small game I use a either .22 or a shotgun for birds.

Of all the hunting I like to do my favorite is bird hunting with dogs. I raise English Setters just for the purpose of hunting game birds such as Quail, Pheasant, Hungarian Partridge, Prairie Chicken, Woodcock, and last but not the least Ruffled Grouse. To me a bad day of Grouse hunting is better than a good at anything else. It is a thrill to watch your dogs running at full speed turn and lock on point. When the Ruffled Grouse is flushed your heart beats as fast as his wings do and you only have a few seconds to make a shot before the bird is gone. In a good Grouse woods you may get as many as 50 flushes in day but only a few birds as they are quick. Yes I do keep the tail feathers of Grouse I have taken as records of past hunts. Grouse tail feathers form a fan like turkeys.

Anselm
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 10:39 PM
Yes.
Likewise, I understand some not wanting to hunt predators, as some are our totem animals like wolves (mine is the grizzly bear), but even they must be hunted to some degree, otherwise, they come into conflict with humans, both killing livestock, and eventually killing humans, particularly children. So they must be hunted to keep their population in check, but not to extinction.

Wolves try to avoid people. There's never been a case of a wolf, unless it had rabies attacking a human. There were cases of wolf attacks in 18th century Japan due to a rabies outbreak.

Predators do a much better job than humans at managing populations, because they take the weak or sick. Hunters usually take "trophies" and the strong. But a lot of hunters just like killing. I knew guys that'd shoot dogs or anything.

I'm a vegan nowadays, although I grew up hunting, but I think hunting, if done respectfully and humanely, is better than factory farming, because the animals are free until they're killed. The land to raise cattle is taken from wolves and other predatory animals driving them from their habitat.

Ocko
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:12 PM
I have seen a 800+ lb. hog dispatched with one

there aren't 800 lbs hogs, thats BS

Landers
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:30 PM
I'm a hunt-sab (http://hsa.enviroweb.org/).

Wulfram
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:51 PM
I support hunting if it is for food. However, Ted Nugent-style hunting I don't.
I have watched his show a few times.
During one episode he sneaks up on a young bull elephant that is placidly munching away on some grass and he shoots and kills it with a rifle.

Easy as that. Fish in a barrel they say. That struck me as being rather way too easy.
When it comes to a majestic animals like that I get the impression that the animal should be given the chance to fight for its life.
Instead, most hunters, especially when the game is potentially dangerous, will kill their prey from the safety of a blind or perch.

Why not confront the Grizzly bear instead? Why not provoke it into charging you first?
This way the hunter can not only test his bravery but also his skill as a hunter.
If he is brave enough and skilled enough then he can take the bear down immediately.
If he isn't then I can't think of a more honorable way for a hunter to leave this world than to be mauled by an angry Grizzly. ;)

Gerulf
Sunday, October 24th, 2010, 11:53 PM
There's nothing at all wrong with hunting. Human beings have been hunting for as long as we have walked this earth. Hunting is part of the natural survival instinct that ALL people possess, whether they think they do or not.

SpearBrave
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 12:03 AM
I'm a hunt-sab (http://hsa.enviroweb.org/).

Then you are criminal in my home state.

Indiana was one of the first states to pass laws against hunter harassment.:thumbup

Hersir
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 04:10 AM
there aren't 800 lbs hogs, thats BS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275524,00.html But I guess it must be some kind of hybrid, bred especially for hunting.

My family have mostly been fishermen and not hunters, but at the island where my mother grew up there are sometimes some moose that swim there from other islands. I really like meat from deer, rein deer and moose.

Whale is good too, but a bit hard to hunt those:P The small ones are endangered so I wouldnt hunt them. I got a type of dolphin on the hook when I was fishing this summer, but luckily it got loose pretty quickly. Hope it wasnt hurt badly. Hunting is common in Norway.

Even Pentti Linkola supports hunting. Humans wouldnt have been able to evolve big brains without eating meat.

Æmeric
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 04:24 AM
I have nothing against hunting though it has been over 30-years since I last hunted - wild boar in Arizona. I think the quota for deer should be increased in Indiana. We have way too many deer, more are killed every year by automobiles then by hunters. I did hit a deer a few years ago, it cost me about $1,500.

theTasmanian
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 05:43 AM
there aren't 800 lbs hogs, thats BS


Largest Feral pig confirmed kill in Australia as far as i know was 220kg's(485lb)

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/regions/content/2007/s2586799.htm


800+ is probably not a common thing i would say ;)

theTasmanian
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:11 AM
Hunting.........Love it:D

I am not a trophy hunter...i just don't get it plenty of friends are not me my be making a arch of antlers or having a cleaned skull in the shed but not a trophy as SpearBrave mentioned

I mainly hunt for food and its Human or dog food depending on the condition of the Animal or shot placement

I do how ever do a lot of culling of Wallaby's(Native species) and Rabbits(feral) as the wallaby's can become a very large pest population competing with Dairy cattle for food...so it can be a job "Shooting"(big difference between shooting and Hunting) with the aid of a spotlight and 4x4 tractor/4x4 ute as above the meat is used when possible

the main animals i shoot/hunt

Wallaby(Native animal you must have a Permit)
Rabbit(Feral)
Hare(Feral)
Goats(Feral)
Fallow deer(Feral but under permit as they are a "Game" species and under management)
Duck(Permit)
Pea fowl aka Pea cock/pea hen(Feral and i often call them "Big chewy chickens")
Native hen(Native only found in Tasmania Permit needed...as for eating its said to be cooked with a rock.......you eat the rock as its softer but i will try it myself one day)

Tasmania does not have Feral pig's like the rest of Australia.pity i love Pork:D

I have in the past hunted Camel(Australia has the worlds largest Feral population) and Donkey's(Feral)

Mainland Australia also has Samba deer ,Hog Deer ,Sika deer ,red deer and Chital deer there is also talk of making a Crocodile season.....................mmm sweet chicken :dinner:

Ruffus wallaby
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/theMISSIONARY_257/Firearms/Rufuswallaby.jpg

Bennett's wallaby(we shoot those too...lovely skins)
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/theMISSIONARY_257/Firearms/Benettswallaby.jpg

Native Hen
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/theMISSIONARY_257/Firearms/Nativehen.jpg

SaxonCeorl
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:24 AM
Hunting isn't my thing (I wasn't raised with it), but I don't have a problem with it. I'm not exactly what you'd call a strong proponent of animal rights, so I don't mind hunting for sport. My only concern is that hunters follow strict safety precautions to prevent injury or death to other humans.

The only aspect of hunting I have a problem with is exposing young boys to killing and guns at an early age, as I think such exposure may desensitize them to the tremendous seriousness of what a gun is capable of.

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 02:50 PM
there aren't 800 lbs hogs, thats BS


I beg to differ, google it. now keep in mind that I am talking feral hogs, not pure russian boar!

All across the south, we have huge numbers of feral hogs, and sometimes they get extremely large. have you ever heard of hogzilla?

If you truly beleive there are no 800 lb hogs, I sugest you do more reaserch before you go with a spear>

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 02:55 PM
PrintShareThis
AP



Jamison Stone, 11, poses with a wild pig he killed near Delta, Ala.
An 11-year-old Alabama boy used a pistol to kill a wild hog that just may be the biggest pig ever found.

Jamison Stone's father says the hog his son killed weighed a 1,051 pounds and measured 9-feet-4 from the tip of its snout to the base of its tail. Think hams as big as car tires.

If the claims are accurate, Jamison's trophy boar would be bigger than Hogzilla, the famed wild hog that grew to seemingly mythical proportions after being killed in south Georgia in 2004.

Hogzilla originally was thought to weigh 1,000 pounds and measure 12 feet in length. National Geographic experts who unearthed its remains believe the animal actually weighed about 800 pounds and was 8 feet long.

Sigurd
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 02:56 PM
I must say I have not hunted myself, but it certainly is somewhere on my "to do" list, I do wish to obtain a hunting licence at some point. The idea of shooting your own food actually seems quite appealing to this Teuton. :)

I would say I probably agree with most things that have been said by folks in this thread. Hunting for food is good, traditional and does not do any harm. If it starts out as sport and then has the animal - preferably all parts of it - used then that is also fine. But hunting for sport alone is something I cannot find myself agreeing with, and it is something I consider as too decadent for a self-respecting Germanic, regardless of how many of our lords and ladies loved nothing better.

I'd say we should stick within nature here, and let her guide us a little more. With some common sense, we'd know which animal population to shoot at which time of year, and what to do with them, and which ones to stay clear of. Those close to extinction in a certain region should certainly be off the bill at least until the population has grown back a little. ;)

SpearBrave
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 03:13 PM
I have nothing against hunting though it has been over 30-years since I last hunted - wild boar in Arizona. I think the quota for deer should be increased in Indiana. We have way too many deer, more are killed every year by automobiles then by hunters. I did hit a deer a few years ago, it cost me about $1,500.

I will see what I can do about those deer this year.:)



The only aspect of hunting I have a problem with is exposing young boys to killing and guns at an early age, as I think such exposure may desensitize them to the tremendous seriousness of what a gun is capable of.

If anything teaching our youth about firearms shows them respect for what firearms can do.

I hope it never comes but there may be a day when we need these desensitized young men to protect our race and culture.

Ocko
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 03:22 PM
I have never seen a hog bigger than around 200 pounds. And that in itself is a ferocious animal.

As you mentioned a SPEARED 800 lbs hog I question that even more.

I know about hunters and fisherman that the fish gets bigger with every retelling of the story, the buck gets more tines and so on.

I don't know about domestic (feral) hogs but wild boars most unlikely get that weight.

here is a record boar from your home state:

world record boar (http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/view/Post/171/New-World-Record-Weiser-Weight-Tusk-Free-Range-Boar)

that one weighted about 600 lbs. Its hard to believe anyway.

flâneur
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 05:31 PM
I have never seen a hog bigger than around 200 pounds. And that in itself is a ferocious animal.


I think you should pay a visit to any British high street on a friday night....around midnight say...;)

Old Winter
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Hunting is usually done by old fat man who can hardly hold their weapon straight, i once demonstrated against a hunters day (was a anniversary or something) somewhere and every last one of them fitted that description.

SpearBrave
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Hunting is usually done by old fat man who can hardly hold their weapon straight, i once demonstrated against a hunters day (was a anniversary or something) somewhere and every last one of them fitted that description.

Hunting is usually oppossed by people that are too sissy to track and kill their own food. I know I have seen several of them demostrating against hunting.:P

Actually hunting is very pysical activity and hunters are all ages and body types. ;)

Old Winter
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:30 PM
Hunting is usually oppossed by people that are too sissy to track and kill their own food. I know I have seen several of them demostrating against hunting.:P


They are usually vegetarian or vegan.

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:46 PM
I have never seen a hog bigger than around 200 pounds. And that in itself is a ferocious animal.

As you mentioned a SPEARED 800 lbs hog I question that even more.

I know about hunters and fisherman that the fish gets bigger with every retelling of the story, the buck gets more tines and so on.

I don't know about domestic (feral) hogs but wild boars most unlikely get that weight.

here is a record boar from your home state:

world record boar (http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/view/Post/171/New-World-Record-Weiser-Weight-Tusk-Free-Range-Boar)

that one weighted about 600 lbs. Its hard to believe anyway.




A feral hog, is half russian boar, and half escaped farm hog. and weather you beleive it or not , the fact is they do exist. and some of them have been dispatched with a spear. You see, the statistic you give is for a russian boar, they are considered game animals, and as such are subject to licencesed hunting only.

The feral hog, on the other hand is not a game animal,more of a pest than anything else. and as such they are not protected. you do not need a license to hunt them, just a hunting lease. of the 250 countys in Texas. 200 of them are overrun with feral hogs.

If you doubt it, come on down to Texas some time, and we will go hunt some.

I will show you what a catch dog can do! be sure to bring something high power, my sujestion would be short barreled, .45-70. maybe a marlin 336 a.


and as for the fish story, look at the pictures yourself. foxnews.com story#0,2933,27...

wittwer
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 06:48 PM
In N.A. there is only one native species which really isn't from the Boar/hog family and that is the Banded Peccary aka the Javelina and is located in the S.W.. As for the others, there are wild boar (introduced from Europe), feral hogs (escaped livestock), and hybrids (cross mating between boars and hogs). All of these can be extremely destructive to the native ecosystem and at times must be culled from the wild.

As for size, from the Illinois DNR, boars are on average approx. 200 lbs. and feral Hogs are approx. 200+ lbs, stnd about 3ft. high at the shoulder, have an average tail length of 12in. and are about 5ft. in length from the snout to the tip of the tail. There have been reports of larger animals in the wild, but without corroborated data available, these reports must be taken as possible good "fish stories".

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 07:02 PM
there is data, how about pictures of hogs 9 ft 4 in from snout to tail, mare than 4 ft at the shoulder, and waying in at 800 plus lbs. look at the news story I posted above, and you will see one.

You can doubt it all you want.


Ocko, I went to the link you gave for the 6oo pounder. It is nowhere near the size of the animal I am trying to tell you about. go to the fox news report and see a picture of this hog, I am not making any of this up!

since you have seen a picture with your own eyes, why is it hard to beleive that even bigger ones are out there?

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 07:13 PM
Pound Monster Pig, Bigger Than 'Hogzilla'
Saturday, May 26, 2007


PrintShareThis
AP



Jamison Stone, 11, poses with a wild pig he killed near Delta, Ala.
An 11-year-old Alabama boy used a pistol to kill a wild hog that just may be the biggest pig ever found.

Jamison Stone's father says the hog his son killed weighed a 1,051 pounds and measured 9-feet-4 from the tip of its snout to the base of its tail. Think hams as big as car tires.

If the claims are accurate, Jamison's trophy boar would be bigger than Hogzilla, the famed wild hog that grew to seemingly mythical proportions after being killed in south Georgia in 2004.

Hogzilla originally was thought to weigh 1,000 pounds and measure 12 feet in length. National Geographic experts who unearthed its remains believe the animal actually weighed about 800 pounds and was 8 feet long.

After seeing the pig in person, taxidermist Jerry Cunningham told The Anniston Star it was "the biggest thing I'd ever seen ... it's huge."

The Anniston Star reported that the feral hog was weighed at the Clay County Farmer's Exchange in Lineville. Workers at the co-op verified that the basic truck scales used were recently certified by the state. But no workers from the co-op were present when the hog was weighed.

Jamison is reveling in the attention over his pig, which has a Web site put up by his father — http://www.monsterpig.com (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mons terpig.com) — that is generating Internet buzz.

"It feels really good," Jamison, of Pickensville, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It's a good accomplishment. I probably won't ever kill anything else that big."

Jamison, who killed his first deer at age 5, was hunting with father Mike Stone and two guides in east Alabama on May 3 when he bagged Hogzilla II. He said he shot the huge animal eight times with a .50-caliber revolver and chased it for three hours through hilly woods before finishing it off with a point-blank shot.

Through it all there was the fear that the animal would turn and charge them, as wild boars have a reputation of doing.

"I was a little bit scared, a little bit excited," said Jamison, who just finished the sixth grade on the honor roll at Christian Heritage Academy, a small, private school.

His father said that, just to be extra safe, he and the guides had high-powered rifles aimed and ready to fire in case the beast with 5-inch tusks decided to charge.

With the pig finally dead in a creek bed on the 2,500-acre Lost Creek Plantation, a commercial hunting preserve in Delta, trees had to be cut down and a backhoe brought in to bring Jamison's prize out of the woods.

It was hauled on a truck to the Clay County Farmers Exchange in Lineville, where Jeff Kinder said they used his scale, which was recently calibrated, to weigh the hog.

Kinder, who didn't witness the weigh-in, said he was baffled to hear the reported weight of 1,051 pounds because his scale — an old, manual style with sliding weights — only measures to the nearest 10.

"I didn't quite understand that," he said.

Mike Stone said the scale balanced one notch past the 1,050-pound mark, and he thought it meant a weight of 1,051 pounds.

"It probably weighed 1,060 pounds. We were just afraid to change it once the story was out," he said.

The hog's head is now being mounted on an extra-large foam form by Cunningham of Jerry's Taxidermy in Oxford. Cunningham said the animal measured 54 inches around the head, 74 inches around the shoulders and 11 inches from the eyes to the end of its snout.

Mike Stone is having sausage made from the rest of the animal. "We'll probably get 500 to 700 pounds," he said.

Jamison, meanwhile, has been offered a small part in "The Legend of Hogzilla," a small-time horror flick based on the tale of the Georgia boar. The movie is holding casting calls with plans to begin filming in Georgia.

The Anniston Star reported that congratulatory calls have come all the way from California, where Jamison appeared on a radio talk show. Jamison apparently has gotten words of congratulation from Rickey Medlocke of Lynyrd Skynyrd, country music star Kenny Chesney, Tom Knapp of Benelli firearms and Jerry Miculek of Smith & Wesson.

Jamison is enjoying the newfound celebrity generated by the hog hunt, but he said he prefers hunting pheasants to monster pigs.

"They are a little less dangerous."

The Associated Press contributed to this report



For some reason, I can't get the picture on here. Go look for your self.

how is that for evidence?

Ocko
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 07:19 PM
ok, there are monster hogs. Weight not corroborated but definetly more than 200 lbs.

Here in California you can hunt hogs all year long but you need to buy a tag, its about 15 bucks a piece.


The ones which are running around here look pretty much russian boars, might have some feral blood in them but is not that dominant.

Cal. is also way more populated than Texas, a big hog wouldn't be able to hide.

Hogs weight you are talking about are getting close to cattle. It simply doesn't fit my imagination of what a hog is.

BTW I have a remington 770, 7mm, that should do a hog anysize.

Thorwolf
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 07:25 PM
It most certainly would! If you read the story, the weight was recorded on a truck scale callobrated by the d.o.t., go to the site, and see for your self.

I am glad to see that you are at least willing to listen to reson ocko.

I am not trying to fight with anyone here, just reporting on what I know to be true.

SpearBrave
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 07:53 PM
I know the hogs here in Indiana are of European/Russian stock, most adults killed are in the 200 to 300 lb range. Even a boar that size can take a hit pretty good. I have seen one shot four times with a 12 ga. slug in the vitals and still want put up a fight.

Their size may have something do with the winters, as food becomes scarce in the winter. If the wild pigs are anything like their domestic cousins then the more you feed them the bigger they get.

Caledonian
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 08:19 PM
Hunting isn't my thing (I wasn't raised with it), but I don't have a problem with it. I'm not exactly what you'd call a strong proponent of animal rights, so I don't mind hunting for sport. My only concern is that hunters follow strict safety precautions to prevent injury or death to other humans.

The only aspect of hunting I have a problem with is exposing young boys to killing and guns at an early age, as I think such exposure may desensitize them to the tremendous seriousness of what a gun is capable of.

I've shot off guns since I was twelve both pistols and rifles. ;)

[When younger I was accompanied by a adult of course.]

I remember that young age shooting beer bottles on a abandoned farm in the middle of nowhere where the beer bottles were on a fence in a distance.

[Great memory.]

Ocko
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 08:26 PM
did you drink them first?

Caledonian
Monday, October 25th, 2010, 08:36 PM
did you drink them first?

:D No man I was only twelve at the time.

If I recall correctly it was the adults present drinking at that time.

[Somewhat of a barbeque atmosphere where everybody after a feast started shooting off some rounds.]

[It was a fun day as I recall in memory.]

Northumbria
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 06:14 PM
Hunting for food, no problem.

Hunting for sport and wanton killing - I don't like this.

I agree with this. Hunting for sport is useless and a waste of an animals life, if you hunt for food that's fine but hunting for fun just reduces the amounts of wildlife needlessly. Culls if required (due to humans driving natural predators extinct) are also fine but again the meat shouldn't be wasted but instead fed to the dogs for example.

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 06:56 PM
I will fish, and release the fish once I take a picture, but I wont kill anything just for the hell of it, its just not right.

thea
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 02:55 AM
In N.A. there is only one native species which really isn't from the Boar/hog family and that is the Banded Peccary aka the Javelina and is located in the S.W.. As for the others, there are wild boar (introduced from Europe), feral hogs (escaped livestock), and hybrids (cross mating between boars and hogs). All of these can be extremely destructive to the native ecosystem and at times must be culled from the wild.

I can justify the hunting of invasive species. Hunting native species on the other hand - not so much...

Schubert
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 03:37 AM
I hunt deer, hog, bird, and occasionally a healthy grey squirrel if we want to spice up the stew in camp. Nothing better than a long hunt in the deep woods of the Northwestern Cascades with my father and grandfather, whether game is killed or not.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 03:51 AM
Nothing better than a long hunt in the deep woods of the Northwestern Cascades with my father and grandfather, whether game is killed or not.

That is a good point.:thumbup

Just the whole part about going hunting is more important than the actual killing of game. It is the tradition and the company of friends and family.

While some say "why don't you just go hiking " well I do that, but it is just not the same as stalking and carrying weapons. I often go squirrel hunting and just aim but don't fire( I don't like their meat that well).

Ælfrun
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 04:00 AM
Hunting is a good essential skill to have. Killing animals for food, clothing, bones etc is acceptable as long as the whole animal is being used. The way the chinese kill wild animals for fur is not acceptable. I do not wear fur, and I think that hunting endagered animals is very wrong.

Atali
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 05:17 AM
if you're going to use the entire animal, go for it. but if not, let it live...there's no sense in killing something for fun.