Wolf Attack Kills Teacher

teacher said:
Good post 'bearcut'. :thumbup:
Where is ANWAR....???
Click to expand...

118dt8l.jpg
 
Thanks 'Codger_64'...... :thumbup:

ANWR works a whole lot better when doing a 'search' than "ANWAR" too........ ;)
 
H2H907 said:
The point of my stupid political commentary (thanks for the civility, guys), was that various big-city based hippie organizations have for decades been inundating the public with this mantra that wolves don't kill/eat people.
Click to expand...

All they're doing is spinning too far in their direction...to offset the spin in the other direction; which would be the clowns who foam at the mouth demanding the extermination of an entire species as "pests", simply because they do what they do in a ever-shrinking range. They're not "hippies"...plenty of them are thoughtful people who simply care about the natural world.

There are those who feel that humans and apex predators cannot occupy the same space. Well, what, then is the solution? Are those people then implying that the species must be exterminated in the wild? If not, then what ARE they saying?
 
DustinL said:
What is really interesting is how people in the east and south feel that as long as it is not in your backyard it's ok for the government to force something on us westerners that is not needed and most of us don't want. We exterminated them because they are in direct conflict with our interests, they kill livestock and compete for the prey we like to hunt.I am higher on the food chain and I am ok with that. So by all means if you want em take them to Georgia.
Click to expand...

"People in the east and south" would have no problem entertaining legitimate approaches to solving problems; but "westerners" knee-jerk reaction to exterminate everything that gets in their way is not one of them. Just because something is geographically located in the same area you're in does not mean that you can deprive everyone else of it, any more than folks who live upstream of you on a river can dump their waste into that river, or dam it up, or otherwise deprive you of the resource. After all, if it's in their "backyard"....
 
BlackKnight86 said:
"People in the east and south" would have no problem entertaining legitimate approaches to solving problems;
Click to expand...

B.S. That is most certainly not the case in this situation. Just because we haven't completely overpopulated the west yet, and we still have large tracts of public land, you want to dump something here we don't want. If you want them so bad try to get them introduced in your state(they were probably native there at some point). Right now there are many more of us westerners just trying to get the government to let us manage them and protect our livelyhoods, than are trying to exterminate them.
 
BlackKnight86 said:
"People in the east and south" would have no problem entertaining legitimate approaches to solving problems; but "westerners" knee-jerk reaction to exterminate everything that gets in their way is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Do you really honestly believe all of what you wrote in the quote above?
 
DustinL said:
B.S. That is most certainly not the case in this situation. Just because we haven't completely overpopulated the west yet, and we still have large tracts of public land, you want to dump something here we don't want. If you want them so bad try to get them introduced in your state(they were probably native there at some point). Right now there are many more of us westerners just trying to get the government to let us manage them and protect our livelyhoods, than are trying to exterminate them.
Click to expand...

BS on your BS...how can you possibly know that? What suggestions have you offered? "Let us manage them"? You did...and they were driven to the point of extermination. That's one of the many reasons that the Endangered Species Act came into being...in fact, that's similar to every other reason that the Federal Government overreacts and expands: because of the general perception that if they don't, "the people" will screw things up. Again. Right or wrong, that's the perception, whether it's with wildlife or anything else.

So, I have a question for you: what is your solution? You say you don't want them in "your" "backyard". Fine. Where do they go? If humans and apex predators cannot live in the same area; and if there is no place that they can go, then logically you appear to be calling for their extermination. Is that correct? If not, then what is your management plan? Shoot them when you feel threatened? Gee, if I recall, that was the plan before the Feds stepped in...so how are you planning on doing it any differently?

I don't want to "dump" anything. I'm simply waiting to hear a plan that isn't some variation of "kill them" and "fed gov = bad".

teacher
Do you really honestly believe all of what you wrote in the quote above?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. The reason that I quoted his words was because he began using stereotypes; and I needed to illustrate a point. There is absolutely no reason to think everyone in either part of the country is monolithic in their viewpoints on this matter...or any.
 
This has been a very interesting thread. It would be a shame if it gets moved to Political. I hope the mods are generous, and I hope you guys play nice. :)
 
Like I said you are welcome to take all you want to your state. Oh wait that won't happen, people there would throw a fit just like we are, but there are more of you. You are saying the same stuff that everyone else who is not directly affected by them does. You want to be able to see them when it convenient for you then go home and forget about it. We don't have that luxury. Wolves are a direct threat to my ability to feed my family. I will fight with what I have to protect that ability. The states have already come up with management plans but the bunny huggers won't let the government de-list them because they don't want any management at all. Do you understand that they won't be happy unless we can't control the population at all? AND THAT IS NOT OK WITH ME. And yes the fed government is bad.

Edited to add.
In order to manage them we will have to kill some, sorry.
 
BlackKnight86 said:
No, of course not. The reason that I quoted his words was because he began using stereotypes; and I needed to illustrate a point. There is absolutely no reason to think everyone in either part of the country is monolithic in their viewpoints on this matter...or any.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who started using the stereotypes. read the whole thread.
 
If it looks like food, runs like food, and tastes like food wolves will eat it.
They are survivors, and if hungry enough will take advantage of the situation. The so called animal rights people would have you believe they are totally harmless(The wolves that is). As wolves populate and people encroach there will be more cases. When your pets go missing off your porch its time to carry a big gun and of course a knife just for coolness.
 
What amazes me about these threads is the attacks on 'hippies', environmentalists and organisations like the Sierra Club. This is the WILDERNESS and Survival Skills forum. You all profess to love spending time in the wilderness. Who do you think is fighting to preserve all that wilderness you love so much - big business? The Republican Party?

Wolves are an integral part of the wilderness. Its called an eco-system. It can't function properly without an apex predator.

http://magblog.audubon.org/reintroducing-wolves-national-parks-could-restore-ecosystems

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=179

The legislation to prevent people from shooting wolves on sight was necessary because they would have been hunted to extinction otherwise.

If you swim in the sea where there are sharks and you get attacked by a shark, is this surprising? No.

If you are going into the wilderness, take the necessary precautions and you will have NO problems, with wolves or anything else. You all know this.

You should be grateful you have the Sierra Club and those 'hippies' looking after your interests. Its your land, but without them, it would have been taken over and destroyed for the sake of fat profits a long time ago.

Here is a profile on one of those 'hippies' you despise so much. http://www.sierraclub.org/history/wayburn/ This man was responsible for the preservation of over 100 million acres of wilderness. Land that you can now enjoy in its natural state, free of highways, strip malls, factories, condos and all the other wonders of modern civilisation.
 
Last edited:
I just thought it should be noted that referring to the lady killed as being "stupid" may not be the correct choice of terms, even if not intended. Ignorant, misinformed, or oblivious, perhaps, but I am not personally comfortable in calling someone I do not know "stupid". I would find it equally insulting should a person who is able to survive in the wilderness in only a pair of skivvies wielding a good blade be called "stupid" because he does not understand the principles of quantum mechanics. Just saying my bit here, but when referring to the dead (or anyone whose situation we do not understand fully), it may be best to choose our words more delicately. :foot:


That having been said, I am in total agreement that the lady should have been more prepared and informed about what she was getting into. The event is indeed a sad one, and I will leave it at that without judging too deeply the person(s) involved and without pointing fingers at anyone, anything, any organization or political body. Suffice it to say, this is a very unfortunate occurrance. and we should all look toward the future in hopes of this event serving as a lesson for those who would otherwise remain unaware.
 
DustinL said:
Like I said you are welcome to take all you want to your state. Oh wait that won't happen, people there would throw a fit just like we are, but there are more of you. You are saying the same stuff that everyone else who is not directly affected by them does. You want to be able to see them when it convenient for you then go home and forget about it. We don't have that luxury. Wolves are a direct threat to my ability to feed my family. I will fight with what I have to protect that ability. The states have already come up with management plans but the bunny huggers won't let the government de-list them because they don't want any management at all. Do you understand that they won't be happy unless we can't control the population at all? AND THAT IS NOT OK WITH ME. And yes the fed government is bad.

Edited to add.
In order to manage them we will have to kill some, sorry.
Click to expand...

I am sorry Dustin, and I really am not picking on you. But aren't you exaggerating to say "Wolves are a direct threat to my ability to feed my family." ? Be serious. Isn't the current economic climate much more of a threat? Outsourcing of jobs? Competition? Who can honestly say such a thing?
And if wolves take your livestock, is killing wolves really the best and most creative solution you can come up with? As BuffaloHump also states, where does that end? You seem to be a lover of the outdoors, as I am and everyone else on this subforum. Kill all the predators, and our livestock is safe. All the farmers will then want most herbivores killed, because they will spiral out of control (no natural predation) and start feeding on crops.

Soon, the outdoors will be fit to enjoy mosquitoes, and not much else.

Other people already asked for a realistic solution: if you don't want them exterminated (and there need to be serious numbers of them to survive, not just a token few), isn't it a fact that we need to accept their presence, behavior and its consequences?

Bottom line: we love the outdoors in all its aspects. But apparently, only when it's convenient to us?
 
Buffalohump said:
What amazes me about these threads is the attacks on 'hippies', environmentalists and organisations like the Sierra Club. This is the WILDERNESS and Survival Skills forum. You all profess to love spending time in the wilderness. Who do you think is fighting to preserve all that wilderness you love so much - big business? The Republican Party?
...
Here is a profile on one of those 'hippies' you despise so much. http://www.sierraclub.org/history/wayburn/ This man was responsible for the preservation of over 100 million acres of wilderness. Land that you can now enjoy in its natural state, free of highways, strip malls, factories, condos and all the other wonders of modern civilisation.
Click to expand...

Great post. :thumbup: I couldn't think of anything funnier than being called a hippy myself. Former Marine, served in the IDF, voted conservative/libertarian all my life. Proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and supreme hater of all things leftist and collectivist.
I just think that man should stop encrouching on nature. Because there is no end to it, until nature itself ends.
And if you don't believe that, check Europe, where there isn't much nature left. It's always "just a few more hectares." Until you've got one big city, or one big park.
 
I really don't want to get into this thread but I think some of you aren't picturing the area properly. With healthy wolf populations in Yellowstone, the species is no longer endangered. The wolves spreading out from that sanctuary find themselves equally at home in the surrounding countryside.

But that surrounding countryside has a human population, and livestock. Wolves aren't stupid. If they find themselves under counterattack when they move too close to humans, they will pull back. They will take fewer domestic animals.

But if the wolves are protected by the Federal government in all parts of their range, the conflict will become more severe, and the people will become less sympathetic.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
I really don't want to get into this thread but I think some of you aren't picturing the area properly. With healthy wolf populations in Yellowstone, the species is no longer endangered. The wolves spreading out from that sanctuary find themselves equally at home in the surrounding countryside.

But that surrounding countryside has a human population, and livestock. Wolves aren't stupid. If they find themselves under counterattack when they move too close to humans, they will pull back. They will take fewer domestic animals.

But if the wolves are protected by the Federal government in all parts of their range, the conflict will become more severe, and the people will become less sympathetic.
Click to expand...

You expressed the problem well Esav. :thumbup: The wolves have migrated far out of Yellowstone and into areas they were never envisioned to inhabit when they introduced them into the area.

I think it really is hard for people who don't live here to understand things fully, just as it's hard for me to understand what living in NYC is like. I can visit but it's not the same as being there all the time.
 
DustinL said:
Like I said you are welcome to take all you want to your state. Oh wait that won't happen, people there would throw a fit just like we are, but there are more of you.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. You sound like you think people have never lived within the range of large predators before. It's happened throughout history, and it's still happening today...in places like Africa with MUCH larger predators. You ever been to Africa? I lived there for a year. Instead of coyotes, try walking around after dark with hyenas coming into the fringes of a city looking for a meal.

It's biologically impossible to reintroduce wolves everywhere. This is a gross oversimplification; but an animal population requires X range and Y prey animals in order for it to be viable. There is simply no room in most states to do it...period. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with folks' ability to recognize that a healthy ecosystem - including the wildlife - is a natural treasure; and they don't have to hunt, fish, camp, hike, draw, take pictures, or even see it, necessarily, to appreciate that.

You are saying the same stuff that everyone else who is not directly affected by them does. You want to be able to see them when it convenient for you then go home and forget about it. We don't have that luxury. Wolves are a direct threat to my ability to feed my family. I will fight with what I have to protect that ability. The states have already come up with management plans but the bunny huggers won't let the government de-list them because they don't want any management at all. Do you understand that they won't be happy unless we can't control the population at all? AND THAT IS NOT OK WITH ME.
Click to expand...

You assume falsely. You have no idea what I want; and I don't have any problem with culling wildlife. So, if you wouldn't mind, stop stereotyping everyone who doesn't regard the wolf as a "pest" as "bunny huggers". Some of us want caution in de-listing endangered species only because we know that there are folks out there who are all for the elimination of those species that they deem inconvenient.

I suspect it's all in the presentation. Like I said, all federal government expansion is usually an overreaction to an equally bad and opposite approach by people. The west managed their wolves before; and the animals were almost completely eradicated. I asked before if you agreed with that, and for your solution, and this is all you could come up with:

In order to manage them we will have to kill some, sorry.
Click to expand...

That is not a management plan. It's a reaction. What is your management plan? Either we can live within their range, or we can't. If we can, then we must provide them with enough space and food to sustain a population; and we must conduct our own affairs accordingly. If we cannot live within their range, then we must provide a place for them. If we cannot do that, then we must eradicate the species in the wild.

(Just a tip...I'm not saying you do; but if one feels that people should be able to jog alone in the wilderness with an Ipod, they would probably agree that people cannot live in the same range as large predators.)

This is not rocket science; it's basic biological science. It's one of those three choices.

So, what's your plan?

And yes the fed government is bad.
Click to expand...

That's just silly. That's the "presentation" to which I was referring earlier.

Ultimately, the federal government is the people. If you want to win arguments, then you need to win hearts and minds by offering real solutions. The reason that the "bunny huggers" don't want the wolves de-listed is that they don't trust people. Not that I agree with them; but I can see why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top