Wolf Attack Kills Teacher

[Mentor]

I feel bad for her family, they raised a fool.

This is disrespectful, and unnecessarily so. Your point, shared by many others, is clear - the circumstances called for a more prepared outlook, greater situational awareness, etc. Valid points.

The tone of your remarks about the deceased is callous, though. It says more about you than it does about her, in my opinion.

All the best,

- Mike

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

I am all for animal predators in the environment. It bothers me not at all. But I also advocate humans moving through a potentially more dangerous environment armed to deal with it.

I'm sorry to see the backlash against the animals which killed this woman. I'm sorry that she didn't understand the environment she was moving through.

Most of all, I'm sorry that we humans have become so arrogantly dominant in our world that we believe that nothing else has a legitimate place in it, if it somehow (even slightly) threatens us.

Andy

 

[Don'tkillbill]

I feel for her family, friends and students.

I think we need more wolves in the wilderness and yes they kill ask some one from India.

In 3 years in the 90's almost 100 people mostly kids died in wolf attacks in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans#Asia

I still think we need more in the northern lands.

 

[DustinL]

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.

:thumbup:



BlackKnight86,
You lived in African for a year. Did you raise cattle or goats to make your living there? Or did you live in the city working in an office? Big difference!
Yes wolves are a direct threat to my livelyhood. They will kill my cattle, that is a fact. And contrary to popular myth they don't just kill what they need to survive. It's documented that they will kill more than they will consume.
We are going to have to learn to live with them that is true, but I need to be able to protect my property. And if that means shooting some wolves then that is what needs to happen.
I am not a biologist so why the hell do I need to come up with the management plan? All I want to do is protect what is mine. The states that are dealing with this have come up with viable management plans and they need to be implemented. I am done with this discussion, it is bad for my blood pressure. It's been a good one and fairly civil which is nice for a change. Thanks
Dustin

 

[H2H907]

Who do you think is fighting to preserve all that wilderness you love so much - big business? The Republican Party?

Hunters and fishermen, with the enormous amounts they spend annually on hunting and fishing licenses, and through fundraising organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. A hunter knows conservation far more personally than a hippie from Greenwich Village or San Francisco. Hunters and fisherman carry the conservation budget compared to the drop in the bucket that "environmental" groups contribute.

And, as has been said several times, NO ONE is advocating the extermination of ANY species. My personal beef is that they just don't belong near human settlements. When wild animals lose their natural fear of men, it's bad for both humans and animals.

 

[Scott Free]

I believe a rancher has every right to kill any wolf he sees that he even thinks is threatening his livelihood—as long as the wolf AND the livestock are on his property. Much of ranching in the West is not on private property, though. When a rancher decides to graze his stock on Federal lands, he has entered the world of Federal politics. As such, his wants carry no more weight than those of the eighteen year old vegetarian who has never stepped foot out of New York City.

 

[Buffalohump]

Hunters and fisherman contribute to existing parks. But it takes truly motivated and driven people to create NEW wilderness areas where there were none before. Or to push for the expansion of existing parks.

The biggest land owner in any country is the government. They are under tremendous pressure from various lobby groups on how that land should be used.

Organizations like the Sierra Club lobby to have the land preserved just as it is. Once that happens, then the hunters, fishermen, campers and traillists get the benefit of it and yes, support its upkeep with their license fees, etc.

Hunters and fishermen, with the enormous amounts they spend annually on hunting and fishing licenses, and through fundraising organizations such as Ducks Unlimited. A hunter knows conservation far more personally than a hippie from Greenwich Village or San Francisco. Hunters and fisherman carry the conservation budget compared to the drop in the bucket that "environmental" groups contribute.

And, as has been said several times, NO ONE is advocating the extermination of ANY species. My personal beef is that they just don't belong near human settlements. When wild animals lose their natural fear of men, it's bad for both humans and animals.

 

[Buffalohump]

:thumbup:

I am all for animal predators in the environment. It bothers me not at all. But I also advocate humans moving through a potentially more dangerous environment armed to deal with it.

I'm sorry to see the backlash against the animals which killed this woman. I'm sorry that she didn't understand the environment she was moving through.

Most of all, I'm sorry that we humans have become so arrogantly dominant in our world that we believe that nothing else has a legitimate place in it, if it somehow (even slightly) threatens us.

Andy

 

[A.L.]

Wolves don't spread to human lands, humans spread to wolf land.
Most people have lost their whole idea of natural cycle, that we are somehow more justified for the planet than any other living being. That being said, Im not from PETA and I do eat tasty animals.

So what should be done, inquisition against wolves? No, although I hear talk about that all the time. Wolf population control? Maybe. When you go to the wilderness you play with the rules of wilderness.

Without sounding too offensive or W&C (although I propably do), I don't feel too symphatetic for this jogger.

 

[SouthernCross]

For every one who thinks man is at the top of the food chain, I'll ask a simple question.

How do you think you would go without weapons against a Bear, Mt Lion, Wolf pack, Lion, Tiger, Great white shark, saltwater crocodile, etc, etc,etc,etc ?

I'd suggest not confusing what our technology has enabled us to do, with what we can do by ourselves.




Kind regards
Mick

 

[ScotchDave]

For every one who thinks man is at the top of the food chain, I'll ask a simple question.

How do you think you would go without weapons against a Bear, Mt Lion, Wolf pack, Lion, Tiger, Great white shark, saltwater crocodile, etc, etc,etc,etc ?

I'd suggest not confusing what our technology has enabled us to do, with what we can do by ourselves.




Kind regards
Mick

The point is that we as humans can go out naked into the wilderness and with the correct knowledge end up with tools, weapons, water, food and clothing.

The first thing I would do if stuck in the wild knifeless would be crudely knap some flint (or other usable stone), then use that to cut a branch and sharpen said branch. Then I would have a rudimentary cutting tool, a weapon and a walking stick. That would take a good few hours or more, but after that I would no longer be without weapons.

In a bit,

Dave

P.S. I'm not saying these tools and weapons would be great, but they'd be a damn site better than nothing.