This is a placeholder text
Group text
by alkster2002 on 11 April 2012 - 23:04
I think if you had the damn things out your back door like I have you would feel a little less pro-wolf with the number of problems encountered ............. the above post .... yes they do multiiply and they need another bout of mange and parvo to ecologically control it. Dont get me wrong but people who never have lived among the wolves have no clue .... there need to be a population of them but much more control in there numbers ............. Greg
by beetree on 11 April 2012 - 23:04
Excuse me, but wild animals have a place. Maybe you are in THEIR PLACE? I am given a night light camera to view whatever is attacking our bird feeders. Something with prehensile hands, I'm thinking. Bear says, my bro. NO WAY says I, raccoon.
We'll see soon enough, as soon as Dh sets the damn thing up.
We'll see soon enough, as soon as Dh sets the damn thing up.
by Felloffher on 12 April 2012 - 07:04
Alkster,
It's pointless to rationalize with people who live hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from these predators and don't have to deal with them. When the wolf population can't be supported by natural prey, they start to target ranches, pets and what ever else that provides an opportunity for a meal. I can sympathize with those who oppose the oil sands projects in Alberta, due to the environmental impact. However, I always get a good laugh out of people who point fingers at others while conveniently ignoring the impact they have on wildlife in their own area.
For those who signed the petition, where do we draw the line? Have you had a look in your own back yard? How many fish-bearing streams, fields or wooded areas were disturbed or desilated to allow for housing or industry in your own area and how many species were displaced?
Where I live it's open season on wolves almost year round. However, there is little or no opposition to it, no one signing petitions around here. Why is that?
It's pointless to rationalize with people who live hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from these predators and don't have to deal with them. When the wolf population can't be supported by natural prey, they start to target ranches, pets and what ever else that provides an opportunity for a meal. I can sympathize with those who oppose the oil sands projects in Alberta, due to the environmental impact. However, I always get a good laugh out of people who point fingers at others while conveniently ignoring the impact they have on wildlife in their own area.
For those who signed the petition, where do we draw the line? Have you had a look in your own back yard? How many fish-bearing streams, fields or wooded areas were disturbed or desilated to allow for housing or industry in your own area and how many species were displaced?
Where I live it's open season on wolves almost year round. However, there is little or no opposition to it, no one signing petitions around here. Why is that?
by Conspicuous on 12 April 2012 - 11:04
We don't all live hundreds & thousands of mils away from them! I have coyotes in my back yard, never had a problem. And yes we have livestock! And just because someone doesn't live near wildlife, it doesn't make this planet any less theirs to share. They deserve to have a voice as well.
We have a very healthy wolf population at the cottage, I've seen them myslef. Never had a problem. Nor with the bears! :)
And where do you live? You must be Canadian then?
It's one thing to take care of individual nuissance animals who are creating problems for you. It's another to indiscriminately kill them for no reason other than they are there. This is not our planet alone. The earth would be a pretty boring place without any wildlife on it.
We have a very healthy wolf population at the cottage, I've seen them myslef. Never had a problem. Nor with the bears! :)
And where do you live? You must be Canadian then?
It's one thing to take care of individual nuissance animals who are creating problems for you. It's another to indiscriminately kill them for no reason other than they are there. This is not our planet alone. The earth would be a pretty boring place without any wildlife on it.
by Felloffher on 13 April 2012 - 19:04
Conspicuous,
I think you are missing the big picture. The wolf kill isn't being done indiscriminately, it's a proactive measure to control the population before they become a nuisance.
We can all point fingers at government and industry for their terrible crimes against nature, but every single person on this planet is just as responsible. You use the products and burn the fuel in you vehicle that comes from these projects. Signing petitions and blaming someone else makes some people sleep better at night I guess.
I think you are missing the big picture. The wolf kill isn't being done indiscriminately, it's a proactive measure to control the population before they become a nuisance.
We can all point fingers at government and industry for their terrible crimes against nature, but every single person on this planet is just as responsible. You use the products and burn the fuel in you vehicle that comes from these projects. Signing petitions and blaming someone else makes some people sleep better at night I guess.
by Conspicuous on 13 April 2012 - 22:04
Oh PROACTIVE indescrimiate killing - that changes everything!! *headdesk*
by Felloffher on 14 April 2012 - 07:04
Maybe you should do your homework. Indescriminate is hardly the adjective that describes the situation. Google is your friend :).
by Conspicuous on 14 April 2012 - 13:04
What makes you think I don't understand what is going on? It's a pretty big thing in the news in Canada.
I simply do not support it Felloffher. You obviously do, and neither of us are going to agree, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
The unfortunate thing is we know we are going to bleed every last drop of oil from this planet, there is just no way around it, until more people find alternate ways to fuel their vehicles.
What I'm saying is - The wolves aren't the problem, IMO. Habitat destruction is the problem. Frankly, no matter what happens the future looks pretty bleak for the caribou, because we all know this is going to happen come hell or high water.
So lets say they poison all the wolves and remove that threat from the cariabou. Fantastic. The caribou still need to forage - where are they going to do that? They cannot forage in tar sand pits, so they will likely starve to death anyway. Now we've hurt two species (at least), instead of just one. That is my issue. Why kill two species? It's stupid and it makes me angry. I love wolves, I can can also appreciate the problems that arise when you take out a top predator. It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.
I simply do not support it Felloffher. You obviously do, and neither of us are going to agree, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
The unfortunate thing is we know we are going to bleed every last drop of oil from this planet, there is just no way around it, until more people find alternate ways to fuel their vehicles.
What I'm saying is - The wolves aren't the problem, IMO. Habitat destruction is the problem. Frankly, no matter what happens the future looks pretty bleak for the caribou, because we all know this is going to happen come hell or high water.
So lets say they poison all the wolves and remove that threat from the cariabou. Fantastic. The caribou still need to forage - where are they going to do that? They cannot forage in tar sand pits, so they will likely starve to death anyway. Now we've hurt two species (at least), instead of just one. That is my issue. Why kill two species? It's stupid and it makes me angry. I love wolves, I can can also appreciate the problems that arise when you take out a top predator. It just doesn't make any kind of sense to me.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
