PDA

View Full Version : Norway to kill 25% of its wolves



Loki
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 07:26 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4194963.stm

Norway to kill 25% of its wolves

By Alex Kirby
BBC News website environment correspondent
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40747000/jpg/_40747273_wolffacex_wwf_203.jpg
One wolf pack is to be shot (Image: WWF-Canon/Chris Martin Bahr)

The Norwegian government has decided to kill five of the country's grey wolves - a quarter of the entire population.

It says the decision is necessary to protect domestic livestock, but one campaign group has condemned the cull.

WWF-Norway says two wolves have been shot already, one of them from a pack which has not been targeted and which it fears may now not manage to survive.

Wolves are protected in Norway, and are listed as critically endangered, and WWF says many people oppose the cull.

The decision to kill five animals out of the 20 remaining in Norway was taken by the nature directorate, which advises the government. WWF-Norway is calling for an immediate halt to the hunt.

Survival 'at risk'

Its head, Rasmus Hansson, said: "If the Norwegian environment minister does not stop this hunt, he will have the dubious honour of allowing the regular hunting of a nationally endangered species.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40747000/jpg/_40747279_wolfpairx_wwf_203.jpg
Breeding may be at risk (Image: WWF-Canon/Chris Martin Bahr)

"The culling of 20-30% of a population this size is a serious threat to the survival of this species in Norway.

"This practice is contrary to internationally accepted standards for wildlife management. No other country that I know of has such an aggressive policy towards its wolves."

The Norwegian parliament decided last May the country should sustain at least three family packs of wolves.

Packs can range in size from two adults to 10 or more animals covering several generations. WWF says the current hunt will reduce the number of packs to two at most.

Mr Hansson told the BBC: "One wolf from the pack to be culled was shot on 15 January, and another female from a different pack on 21 January.

"We don't know the exact size of the targeted pack, because we don't know whether it produced any cubs last summer. If it did, they will be left orphaned.

Steady decline

"Now, in all likelihood, by killing the wrong animal they've ruined another pack. The animal was an alpha female, so breeding may be affected and the pack could dissolve."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40747000/jpg/_40747277_wolfhowlx_wwf_203.jpg
Norway's wolves are now very rare (Image: WWF-Canon/Roger LeGuen)

WWF says there were an estimated 50-80 wolves in the southern part of Norway and Sweden in 2001, consisting of several families.

That year Norway approved the culling of eight out of its 25 wolves, leaving 20 today, because the target was not met.

A recent study of the wider Scandinavian wolf population concluded there were 120 at the most.

Mr Hansson said: "There is a serious risk of genetic degradation in this population because of its small size. A genetically healthy population... should have at least 800 individuals." He told the BBC: "The cull is meant to protect sheep. Sheep farming occupies 90% of Norway's territory. "We have 250-300,000 moose and 30,000 reindeer. In that perspective 800 wolves shouldn't be too many, though we've never suggested it - it's just a biological fact."

NormanBlood
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 08:06 PM
Somehow I don't think 120 wolves is going to affect farmers very much...this is ridiculous. I had no idea Norway's wolf population was so close to being wiped out.

cosmocreator
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 08:38 PM
"This practice is contrary to internationally accepted standards for wildlife management. No other country that I know of has such an aggressive policy towards its wolves."


The US does. I only vaguely recall the story but I think they killed off all the wolves in the northern mid-west. Recently, they've taken some wolves from Canada to try and repopulate the area but that has upset some ranchers.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM
Why are they messing with the wolves if there are less than 100 of them? They must be pretty ignorant, or are intentionally trying to make them extinct.

NSFreja
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 09:19 PM
Why are they messing with the wolves if there are less than 100 of them? They must be pretty ignorant, or are intentionally trying to make them extinct.Both the wolves and bears are far many more in both Norway and Sweden than they say...

/M

SouthernBoy
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 09:45 PM
Do they have a domesticated population that is sustainable though? I have absolutely no objection to shooting animals that are endangering people, even if it means their destruction.

jcs
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 10:07 PM
White, Nordish, Nordic interests can not be compromised.
We do not have to wreak havok on animal species to accomplish this aim. It takes little observation to notice that whenever man damages nature, he ends up harming himself. Slaughtering animal populations will disrupt the ecosystem and end up biting us in the a**.
Here's a better solution:
Parents--do not parade your children around wolves!
Elderly--you should have wisdom enough to not parade yourself around wolves!
If you cannot handle yourself in the wild, stay within the safe confines of civilisation. There is no need to kill members of an endangered species--a species that, as with all animal species, plays an integral role in the environment--just because you are afraid that someone might be stupid.

I'm sure our race has the intelligence and know-how to find a way to co-exist with nature. We managed to do it for millenia, you know...

NSFreja
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 10:15 PM
Belive it or not...It's almost more acceptable today to kill people in Sweden than there are to shoot a wolf or a bear and im not joking when i say that.

"Poor wolves/bears...we need more of them, d*mn hunters...Hey btw, did you read in the newspaper that young girl that got raped/killed? Oh yes, but it was her own fault, she shouldn't have gone out...Poor guy, he didn't know that in our swedish society, we don't kill/rape women, he need help to understand that, not be sentenced to jail...yadayadayada".
Understand how i mean?

We don't need more wolves here, not where i live anyway, we have enough of them already and they are far more than the government says.
They have started to go into backyards and so on and kill sheeps and i guess there will be a child or an elder that will be their dinner in near future.

You can't even kill a wolf or a bear if you catch them eating your sheeps etc without permission from the state.
And by not killing them, there will be disturbance in the ecosystem, just like the one we see here now. To many predators and not enough food...

/M

vegard
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 10:30 PM
Wolves endangering the existence of people?!!!! How come eastern europeans and russians are alive and kicking today then. Yes, some wolves ate up some dogs on our local hunting team, yes they eat sheeps, but no wonder, when farmers put sheep to graze out in the woods.

Even if a wolf should eat a human, who cares (other than the family of course)? I most certainly don't. There is room enough for wolves here too. The absolutely worst thing to encounter when waking up in your tent in the wilderness is the bah-bah sheep noise. No wonder the wolves eat them :)

cosmocreator
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 10:42 PM
We do not have to wreak havok on animal species to accomplish this aim. It takes little observation to notice that whenever man damages nature, he ends up harming himself. Slaughtering animal populations will disrupt the ecosystem and end up biting us in the a**.
Here's a better solution:


That's what happened in the US where they killed all the wolves. The rodent population exploded. I guess wolves eat rodents. Here in Canada where wolves have been killed off, other animals' numbers increase such as moose and deer. This has an impact on vegetation.

cosmocreator
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 10:54 PM
That's details, it's like wanting immigration for the sake of chinese food. In fact you reminds me of the lemmings. :laugh:


I'm more like the lone wolf.

jcs
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 11:02 PM
It's the same you knew, prominent lemmings believe niggers are good for their interests and you believe wolfs are....
Strawman fallacy: "what you say is similar to this, and this is bad, so what you say is bad."


Sure, explain the ENORMOUS good the Wolf will do here in Sweden and I'll change my mind.
See cosmocreator's post.


A the value of several Swedish children
Nine children die in 1800, so we must kill the wolves? Perhaps this is a little extreme.


B to cover for the terror on my people
There will always be things to fear. This is a poor reason to advocate the slaughter of a species.


C for our dogs
what makes dogs more valuable than wolves? oh, wolves are scary, I forgot.


D for the fewer animals for us to hunt
bloodlust is still a poor reason to eliminate the wolves. Plus, the main reason that animal populations become scarce is--you guessed it!--human intervention, not wolves.

NormanBlood
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 11:13 PM
Wolfe’s are dangerous; especially for children and elderly people (1) thus they have nothing to do in our lands.

There is no option a viable, without first braking the fundamental law that says; White, Nordish, Nordic interests can not be compromised.


This should be enough.



1. In 1800 a wolf killed NINE - Nordish - children and then feed on them, several cases where elderly people died because of Wolfes is reported in the church books.


http://www.jagareforbundet.se/images/viltvetande/vargfig3.jpg

A Swedish Wolf population can increase with 30-40% per year. The article never mentioned age distribution. It lied.


Wolfs, as a rule, do not attack humans or other preditors unless they have no other option or are ill. For example, if there is nothing else for the wolves to eat (the population of their usual pray has been lowered or has migrated elsewhere) and he is quite literally starving only then will he attack and devour a human. The other option is if the wolf is rabid, that is another situation as rabid wolves will attack anything that nears them. Wolves are not usually a danger to people but to livestock, ask any farmer. If 9 children were killed that year I would ask WHY. If rabies present in the region that would be one reason, if somehow their usual pray was made less available that would be another reason. As I said, humans are not part of a wolves natural pray and therefore they will rarely pray on them. Trust me, there are wolves and foxe all around the area from which my family come from and that is the ONLY time you ever hear about wolf attacks. The only time my grandfather saw one come close to the house (which led to the death of the family dog and the wolf;)) or the family was when there were reports of rabies in the region. Surely enough it ended up that it did have rabies. Don't be so quick to condemn the species.

And the points cosmo made are not "just details". If you exterminate a wolf population here in Canada the populations of their pray will skyrocket which has a chainreaction, as cosmo said, on the vegetation becoming scarce in the region which then leads to migration in areas which the species are never found and could be danagerous to be both the environment of that region and the species itself. Human interruption within the environment only brings troubles, it only ever has and only ever will.

NSFreja
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 11:24 PM
Wolfs, as a rule, do not attack humans or other preditors unless they have no other option or are ill. For example, if there is nothing else for the wolves to eat (the population of their usual pray has been lowered or has migrated elsewhere) and he is quite literally starving only then will he attack and devour a human. That is what i mean, the wolves here don't find much to eat because they have already killed so many moose and deer so it's not much let.
And that is also what i meant with disturbance in our ecosystem, to many predators and almost nothing for them to eat...just ends up in killing sheeps, cows, horses (yes, that have happend here) and dogs.

Wolves, bears, bob cats etc here are not all born in the wild. Even if the state don't admit it, there are zoo's that let their young bears/wolves/bob cats etc out when they become to many.

So that statistic Vikinkur posted, is not the whole truth about the wolfpopulation here.

/M

vegard
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:08 AM
Well, of course there should be wolves here, end of discussion. ANd the nine jerk off kids who died in 1800 were most probably mongolid. A great deal more people today deserve death by wolf, so bring them on. If you really are so useless that you manage to get eaten by a wolf,.... geez.... good luck your "RAHOWA".

If there is one place especially that needs wolves and predators seriously, it is the northern steppes (finnmarksvidda) and other regions where sami people have so many reindeers that the vegetation has close to ceased to exist. Predators also tend to weed out the weaklings of nature, which again secures a healthy stock of for instance elk.

The ONLY relevant problem with wolves is economic, because as I said they eat up sheep that graze in the forest and mountains. This was no problem in the olden days, as we had shepards then, but we dont have that today. There has been some success by putting a Lama out amongst the sheep in fact, as Lamas can kick wolf ass. In other words, all resources should be put into figuring out methods of keeping wolves from eating livestock without shooting them.

Son of a gun
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:14 AM
I think people should be allowed to kill wolves when they start causing troubles to people, no matter how few they are. I guess it's thouse ridiculous EU regulations which cause gray hairs for hunters.

I know an idiot who got his dog eaten by wolves at his own yard. All he did was shooting warning shots until ammos run out because he was afraid of sanctions he might get if he shooted those wolves. If that was mine dog, I would have shot those wolves

Hagalaz
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:25 AM
Let the wolves live on, even if some people get killed, to start slaying wolves by the hundreds would be to go against nature.

jcs
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:30 AM
I think people should be allowed to kill wolves when they start causing troubles to people, no matter how few they are.
Ugh! They only cause trouble for people because there are too many [explitive deleted] people! The problem with the wolf population was CAUSED BY HUMANS, due to our ignorance of nature over the past century or two.
Killing wolves will only cause more damage.


ANd the nine jerk off kids who died in 1800 were most probably mongolid.
They probably weren't mongoloid--they were likely children who were simply unfortunate enough to be around a diseased or starved wolf (still no reason to go on a wolf-killing rampage).


1. You truly believe that the wolf's are good for your interests don't you?

2. It can happen again.

3. Not if the species can't give us anything of value.

4. We can use the dogs.

5. Confused?
2. It should happen again. Man needs to be shown that he is not immortal from time to time, and tragedies such as this are a necessary part of life.

3. a. Wolves do help by eating other animals, thereby balancing the environment (and thwarting infinite human expansion)
b. One cannot measure animals on purely utilitarian levels (unless you're english :P )

4. Dogs are not vital to our survival, and we have bred them for long enough that we know how to get a new one easily. Plus, where do you think dogs came from?--wild canine species that probably ate a human from time to time.

jcs
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:48 AM
Guys, you're part of the problem you are fighting, you value wild beasts higher than Nordish children.
you value unreasonable slaughter of animals over your ancestors' views toward nature.

SouthernBoy
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 12:49 AM
You're like that kid you really believe that the wolves are good for your interests, so good that you can sacrifice your own people for them.
Don't you drag me into your flame war. If wolves are attacking humans, kill them. If they aren't bothering any one, leave them alone. The "live and let live" rule.

Zyklop
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:38 AM
Wolves and bears are extinct in Germany. Wouldn´t mind if you Scandinavians export a couple of them. We also have too many forestal damage done by deer.

The Horned God
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:46 AM
Whats the point of having wildlife at all if the people themselves aren't wild enough to understand what it means and appreciate it?

I don't believe in making animals extinct, Norway would be a less intresting place without the wolves.People are occassionally killed because wolves are so rare, that Norwegians are unprepared to handle an encounter with them when it does take place. Personally, I would like to see hundreds of wolves, the forests of Northern Scandinavia should teem with Elk and Deer and should echo to the howls of wolves, just as it was in all of the past ages!
However, I fully appreciate that children and old people have to be kept safe to, so here's my solution;
Irish wolfhounds! If there are Wolves roaming near a persons property the state should sponser them to keep a horse, a gun, and 10 of these guys;(see pictures) You mightn't even need your gun, as, in olden times these dogs were trained to run the wolf down then, go in and make the kill themselves, grabing the creature by the neck and shaking him to break his spine just like a cat kills a rat.
The breed is also know to be extremely reliable with children and old people.In my vision, no child or old person would be allowed to go anywhere near one of my new 'self-managing forests' without at least two trained wolfhounds and some sort of club or sword. :viking2:
I'm fairly confident that even the sickest wolves would steer clear.


http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/SCANSB/B-0414.jpg
Measured like this a large wolfhound can be over two meters in Height.

http://www.irish-wolfhound-page.de/start1.jpg

http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/fun/postcards/breedpostcards/Dogs/irish_wolfhound.jpg
http://www.canitalia.it/iori/irish.jpg
http://www.irish-wolfhound.cz/zeleny_pruh/obrazky/kennel3.jpg
http://www.wikinfo.org/upload/3/3b/Irish-Wolfhound2.jpg
http://www3.crittersofthecinema.com/animals/dogs_private/irish_wolfhound/irish_wolfhound_grey_1a.jpg


http://dogoftheday.com/archive/2000/March/19.jpg
Wolfhounds are big but I think this must be a record, the dogs' name was "Paddy" and he stood about seven feet tall on his back legs.



http://www.dogpage.us/images/irishwolfhound.jpg

http://www.irishwolfhoundclubofscotland.co.uk/IWHCS/donna.jpg

http://www.peppernix.com/gallery/portfolio/sighthounds/30913-0579.jpg

http://www.irish-wolfhound-hero.de/Titzi.jpeg

cosmocreator
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:53 AM
Cougars are more a threat than wolves. I wouldn't be scared of a wolve if I came face to face with one.

Here's a article that was in the news fairly recently. A 62 year old man fights off a cougar attack with a pocket knife and kills the cougar.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/s/c_fea_cougar_attack_BC.html

The Horned God
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 08:19 AM
Here's a article that was in the news fairly recently. A 62 year old man fights off a cougar attack with a pocket knife and kills the cougar.


That was very impressive, Big cats are thought to have been the main natural predators of early humans.
But for a lot of courage (and small piece of sharpened metal) the man would not have defeated the cat.



"The will to live was definitely in this person," said Corporal Jeff Flindall of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Port Alice, a small coastal logging community about 195 miles northwest of Vancouver.

Guest22
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 01:27 PM
I wish they'd just ship the wolves to Canada. We get bombarded by immigrants constantly, it'd be nice to at least get a few decent ones for a change.

Guest22
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 01:28 PM
http://dogoftheday.com/archive/2000/March/19.jpg
Wolfhounds are big but I think this must be a record, the dogs' name was "Paddy" and he stood about seven feet tall on his back legs.
I'm scared. :(
Beautiful dog though. :icon_ques

Loki
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 02:12 PM
Hmmm... Vikinkur I think you need to realise that Nordish people are close to nature. We are the only people on earth that really care about nature, wildlife and animals. You seem to be an exception though.

I personally love wild animals very much, and I find peace and solace by observing them in their natural habitats. Us Nordish people are not destroyers of nature, and should never wish to be.

NorwegianFury
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 02:28 PM
I personally love wild animals very much, and I find peace and solace by observing them in their natural habitats. Us Nordish people are not destroyers of nature, and should never wish to be.

You speak the truth! :)

Loki
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 02:46 PM
As you can se, you're only upset because you're animal lemmings.
... and a proud "animal lemming", at that. :icon_razz

beowulf wodenson
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 04:04 PM
Sad for Norway. Wolves were wiped out here in Ky. over two centuries ago probably. I think they've been reintroduced in the eastern part of the state in parks and such, but there are none in the wild in my part, the west. In their absence the damned deer have taken over, and THOSE are the true menace to farmers and drivers alike. The coyotes have also become abundant in the absence of wolves even though they weren't native to kentucky originally. I don't think wolves would be able to survive in my region, too heavily populated, the farmers and hunters would likely kill them. A shame, because there are no real predators to cull the deer population save human hunters and those only want to shoot something with antlers on its head. :icon_arro

Rehnskiöld
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 05:34 PM
Well, I once heard someone say,during a broadcasted debate that the wolves in Scandinavia(or Sweden at least) was really russian wolves that wandered there from Russia,since all the swedish/norweigan wolves has been extinct in the 1900.If it is so I see no reason for them to live there,if it is so they have no more reason to be there than the hordes of arabs and so on that have swamped theese lands reccently.

Although, had they really been the sort of wolf that originally inhabited the place they should not be wiped out I think.If they kill cheaps and people,thoose wolves might be shot but no need to kill them all.

Folkvang
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:06 PM
6 Billion people and we're bitching over 20 wolves... what the hell is wrong with us. We move into their territory and complain about them. Where else do they have to go?? I don't know about Norway, but here in the US if a wolf or other predator kills a farmer's livestock, the government compensates him for the loss, so he actually loses nothing.

Too many predators and not enough prey??? Are you serious?? Did you not read the article which stated the moose and deer population to be something like 330,000?? Yeah, 330,000 prey aren't enough for 20 wolves. Sheep are domestic livestock...they aren't natural prey for wolves. I dunno if any of you have seen the discovery channel or perhaps National Geographic, but you never see a pack of wolves moving silently through the mountains and plains stalking a herd of sheep. No. They turn to sheep and cattle because we keep encroaching on their territory.

We certainly are arrogant bastards.

Hagalaz
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:06 PM
As you can se, you're only upset because you're animal lemmings.



Hahahahahaha :rofl: :rotfl:


Actually, we are following the laws of respect inherited from our ancestors. I'm sure there are other ways to handle this "wolf problem." Killing all the wolves is not the way our ancestors would have handled this.

infoterror
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:12 PM
Mr Hansson said: "There is a serious risk of genetic degradation in this population because of its small size. A genetically healthy population... should have at least 800 individuals." He told the BBC: "The cull is meant to protect sheep. Sheep farming occupies 90% of Norway's territory. "We have 250-300,000 moose and 30,000 reindeer. In that perspective 800 wolves shouldn't be too many, though we've never suggested it - it's just a biological fact."

Somehow, a lot of biological fact does not get mentioned in a modern time.

Saddening, and maddening, this article. Root of the problem: too many people, and people unlike animals don't check their own growth. These wolves need more open space, and fewer sheep (read into that what you wish).

infoterror
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:13 PM
As you can se, you're only upset because you're animal lemmings.

No, I am upset because wolves as things-in-themselves are cool, which is a subjective measurement that reflects my will.

cosmocreator
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 07:41 PM
Hmmm... Vikinkur I think you need to realise that Nordish people are close to nature. We are the only people on earth that really care about nature, wildlife and animals. You seem to be an exception though.

I personally love wild animals very much, and I find peace and solace by observing them in their natural habitats. Us Nordish people are not destroyers of nature, and should never wish to be.


Exactly. :)

SouthernBoy
Sunday, January 23rd, 2005, 08:25 PM
Oh yeah!?


You knew what? I'm a hunter lemming and i'm proud of it!

:hug:

:rofl:
Are you allowed to hunt in Sweden?

friedrich braun
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 02:32 AM
I am with the wolves.

I hate what people have done, and are doing, to nature and animals.

I blame, in large measure, the three Middle Eastern Abrahamic monotheistic religions for erecting a wall between nature and the human animal. The Euro-pagans have always regarded Man as part and parcel of the natural world and not beyond and above it. FACT: THE LIFE OF A WOLF IS NOT LESS PRECIOUS THAN THE LIFE OF A HUMAN ANIMAL. It is only our megalomaniacal conceit that says otherwise. I would rather see the beautiful wolves develop peacefully in their natural habitat than watch scummy, diseased, egotistical, destructive human animals selfishly encroaching on their territory and killing them off.

NSFreja
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 01:39 PM
I personally love wild animals very much, and I find peace and solace by observing them in their natural habitats. Us Nordish people are not destroyers of nature, and should never wish to be.I love animals too, and i have worked with animals like bobcats etc...but still, i don't like when they come to my backyard, looking for food because they can't find it in the forrests. They are overpopulated here and they can't find enough food in their natural habitat.

They see my dog and cats as an "easy to catch dinner"...and god knows what will happen if any of them is hungry enough when my kids leaves home, early in the morning to walk to the schoolbus.

It's not that fun to look outside and see that a bear, wolf, bobcat or a wolverine have been visiting.
Yes, i have had wolverines coming here too, quite unusual when this is not a natural habitat for them. They live further north usually and only thing i can think about when it comes to them, is that there are almost no food left for them so they have started to move south.

And about the wolves, i heard something not long ago that we had less than 100 of them in whole Sweden (and that some of these 100 are "Norwegian wolves)...Strange, where i live we have 3 groups of wolves, with a population of around 5-9 wolves in each group.

/M

Constantinus
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 01:43 PM
How dangerous are those wolverines?

NSFreja
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 01:59 PM
How dangerous are those wolverines?They don't need to be hungry to kill...and these, quite small animals, can even take what the bear have killed if they want to. Even the bear back off from them.
They are usually very shy and they are rarely seen but when they get so near as 10 m from a house, then there is something that are really wrong.
Last year, the wolverines here got a litter, don't remember how many there were in that one, but i would really like to see them gone.
They don't belong here, not as far south as i live (i live in middle of Sweden) from their natural habitat.

/M

Constantinus
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 02:05 PM
I've never seen those things before, heard they're lethal to any pets which they encounter though.

NormanBlood
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 03:12 PM
That is what i mean, the wolves here don't find much to eat because they have already killed so many moose and deer so it's not much let.
And that is also what i meant with disturbance in our ecosystem, to many predators and almost nothing for them to eat...just ends up in killing sheeps, cows, horses (yes, that have happend here) and dogs.

Wolves, bears, bob cats etc here are not all born in the wild. Even if the state don't admit it, there are zoo's that let their young bears/wolves/bob cats etc out when they become to many.

So that statistic Vikinkur posted, is not the whole truth about the wolfpopulation here.

/M

Aha, ok. Would it not work better then to relocate the wolves to a similar environment, in another nation with more space for example? At least there wouldn't be a chance of people going "overboard" in the extermination of wolves. In my old city they did something similar with foxes that had made their dens in the city cemetaries:P But I guess its a little different as in Canada we have much more room and it was transporting them a few hours away.

beowulf wodenson
Saturday, February 5th, 2005, 05:51 PM
Due the densely grazed and populated area I live in wolves wouldn't ever be able to make a come-back, but the coyotes have no problem adapting to living close to man. Here in kentucky one can hunt and kill coyotes year-round, but not many people do, and no one really knows how many there are besides too many. Where I live I can hear the packs of them howling all night in surrounding fields. Those things really do need more than a 25 % reduction, as they aren't native to these parts anyway. My sister-in-law's dog recently lost a leg after a coyote attack.

Mistress Klaus
Monday, February 21st, 2005, 02:35 PM
Ok....there is really no point in adding another comment here....but..

*As usual, I am both angered & saddened (in a rage really) at the attitudes of humans around the globe towards wildlife. (I've said this too many times)

*I think (in regards to this Thread subject) it is a tragedy and rather disturbing that an animal who is a integrated part of the Nordic land, belief & old religion could be treated with such disrespect.

*Wolves in their natural habitat don't attack humans. Humans provoke it, through greed, overpopulation, stupidity, arrogance and no understanding of nature.

*The concept of 'survival of the fittest' is unjust when it comes to modern humans vs animals. Discard the weapons and fight one on one.

*I would rather be killed by an animal, than murdered by a human.

*I'd sooner shoot 10 people I consider 'pests' and 'threatening' than shoot a wolf.