Kill, Kill, Kill, Happy Hunting

[Bodi]

I’ll adjust to your income for the interests of accuracy in our study. I’ll lower the amount to $10 a week. That’s very reasonable, eh? I bet you still won’t agree to it, though. :2razz: I think even you see the wisdom of not forfeiting money you don’t have to.



The average wolf pack is under twenty animals, even if a whole pack was wiped out in territorial area that’s a “minimal” loss to the thousands of other wolves, right? You used the same numbers applied to herds of cattle. Besides, you said wolf attacks on livestock aren’t that common, so there wouldn’t be that much contact between the ranchers and wolves, right?



Actively hunting wolves is not what I’m advocating. I don’t believe I stated that at any point. That’s a poor argument. A rancher should be able to control his own land though.



We’ve been well over this. The wolf population has rebounded at a very rapid rate. They are not in danger of disappearance. The only reason they weren't taken off the endangered list sooner is because the bleeding hearts don’t want to see a single one killed by humans. Putting the interests of an animal before the best interests of man is ludicrous.

For several pages now, the only argument you're putting forth is an emotional appeal to save the poor wolves from greedy, selfish people, but you obviously aren't willing to sacrifice any of your own income in a manner similar to these ranchers. There is no logical reason to not allow these ranchers to look out for their own interests.

Every time you use "bleeding hearts" you undermine the legitimacy of your position...

 

[theangryamerican]

Every time you use "bleeding hearts" you undermine the legitimacy of your position...

I'll take that gamble. There really has not been a valid counter position to my argument, so I can afford to lower my position a bit to give the opposition a fighting chance. :2razz:

 

[Bodi]

I'll take that gamble. There really has not been a valid counter position to my argument, so I can afford to lower my position a bit to give the opposition a fighting chance. :2razz:

There should be a balance... I agree. This issue is not like the Spotted Owl issue of the Pacific Northwest in the 90's. This is not wanting to destroy a natural habitat for profit. This is not going into their area and hunting them down for sport or revenge. This is about protecting their investment and property. I don't want to see wolves killed. BUT, if after all methods of stopping wolves are put in place and fail, such as better fences, motion detector foul smells our rubber bullets and whatever else... and the wolves still kill cattle, then in defence, if a wolf is spotted in a cattle area and after being scared away a couple of times (in which the rancher recieves compensation) then the rancher has every right to kill the wolf. They do the same to mountain lions and bears. They try to scare them away and remove them, but if that does not work, they are killed. It sucks, but unless man wants to give back... scratch that, man will ALWAYS have a problem with animals since we are encroaching into nature at every turn. That is just life...

 

[theangryamerican]

There should be a balance... I agree. This issue is not like the Spotted Owl issue of the Pacific Northwest in the 90's. This is not wanting to destroy a natural habitat for profit. This is not going into their area and hunting them down for sport or revenge. This is about protecting their investment and property. I don't want to see wolves killed. BUT, if after all methods of stopping wolves are put in place and fail, such as better fences, motion detector foul smells our rubber bullets and whatever else... and the wolves still kill cattle, then in defence, if a wolf is spotted in a cattle area and after being scared away a couple of times (in which the rancher recieves compensation) then the rancher has every right to kill the wolf. They do the same to mountain lions and bears. They try to scare them away and remove them, but if that does not work, they are killed. It sucks, but unless man wants to give back... scratch that, man will ALWAYS have a problem with animals since we are encroaching into nature at every turn. That is just life...

Precisely my point. What most people fail to realize when talking about how this will drive the wolf population back towards extinction is that the situation is very different this time around. 60+ years ago, there was a bounty on killing wolves. People were trying to exterminate the population completely. That's not at all what I've been arguing for and that’s not what anyone is suggesting should be done today. In fact, with the wolf population rebounding at such a rapid rate, there’s a danger that it may upset the natural balance in the complete opposite direction. Instead of too few wolves, we will have too many.

The quoted number of wolves is lower than the actual true population number. The US Fish and Wildlife Service only count confirmed packs and breeding pairs, and then that is only the ones that they can find. Many wolves are not confirmed because their habitats are further away and not easily accessible to people.

When counting wolves, one must also take into consideration that wolves are apex predators. They are the top of the food chain and aside from man, really have no natural enemies. Too many wolves will end up actually hurting the wolf population as a whole because they will greatly thin the amount of native game like deer and elk. This could put the deer and elk population in jeopardy and then we would see wolves dying of starvation instead. Starving wolves will go to greater lengths to get food and therefore, become an even greater threat to ranchers. Just for reference, a single wolf will kill the equivalent of at least 12 elk or 19 deer a year for food, but, given the opportunity will often kill many more in a behavioral pattern that is called “surplus killing.” It should be fairly easy to see how an over-abundance of wolves could quickly decimate a game population in a given territorial area…

A few wolves falling to a bullet in a rancher’s field may even be more beneficial to the species than just letting them continue to grow exponentially, undisturbed by man. Less wolves will actually mean a healthier population overall, so it is in their own best interest to not become too numerous.

Just sayin...

 

[Hoplite]

I’ll adjust to your income for the interests of accuracy in our study. I’ll lower the amount to $10 a week. That’s very reasonable, eh? I bet you still won’t agree to it, though. :2razz: I think even you see the wisdom of not forfeiting money you don’t have to.

Ok, but considering I can fix the problem WITHOUT risking any recovering species, I'm in a much better position than the ranchers.

The average wolf pack is under twenty animals, even if a whole pack was wiped out in territorial area that’s a “minimal” loss to the thousands of other wolves, right? You used the same numbers applied to herds of cattle. Besides, you said wolf attacks on livestock aren’t that common, so there wouldn’t be that much contact between the ranchers and wolves, right?

Ranchers are in contact with wolves constantly. Wolves are seen around rancher's property all the time. Should we let ranchers take shots whenever they feel like it?

Actively hunting wolves is not what I’m advocating. I don’t believe I stated that at any point. That’s a poor argument. A rancher should be able to control his own land though.

To what extent? Should he be allowed to shoot down any wolf that toes his property line?

We’ve been well over this. The wolf population has rebounded at a very rapid rate. They are not in danger of disappearance. The only reason they weren't taken off the endangered list sooner is because the bleeding hearts don’t want to see a single one killed by humans. Putting the interests of an animal before the best interests of man is ludicrous.

Except when there ARE no interests of man at risk. The population is still at risk and we still have unauthorized poaching going on. We dont need to add to that problem, especially when our interests in this are pretty much zero.

Show me that wolf attacks have a negative impact on our economy beyond costing a handful of ranchers a few hundred dollars.

For several pages now, the only argument you're putting forth is an emotional appeal to save the poor wolves from greedy, selfish people, but you obviously aren't willing to sacrifice any of your own income in a manner similar to these ranchers. There is no logical reason to not allow these ranchers to look out for their own interests.

I've spelled out my issues repeatedly, if you dont want to pay attention, that's your problem.

You are forgeting that wolves living in an area will have serious impacts on cattle productivity. The amount of stress cattle will undergo and other effects of predation such as dieting and grazing on more marginal ground will have effects upon the overall yield of the ranchers herd. Plus you have to take into account the increased supervision and work spent by the rancher now that he has to deal with wolf problems he did not have before.

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

I would also like to point out that wolves are having a devasting impact on other local wildlife in some locations. For example, in the Lolo Zone in central idaho, elk population have declined over 70% since 1998, with wolves being the leading cause of mortality. Clearly some game managment in areas like this would be a practical response to the wolf predation.

Can you show proof to substantiate this?

In fact, with the wolf population rebounding at such a rapid rate, there’s a danger that it may upset the natural balance in the complete opposite direction. Instead of too few wolves, we will have too many.

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

The quoted number of wolves is lower than the actual true population number. The US Fish and Wildlife Service only count confirmed packs and breeding pairs, and then that is only the ones that they can find. Many wolves are not confirmed because their habitats are further away and not easily accessible to people.

Again, proof?

 

[Ikari]

I only wish that wolves had guns and knew how to shoot them to make it even more fun.

If frogs had wings they would not bump their asses when they landed. Right? Humans developed the intellect to create firearms and rose quickly to the top of the food chain. Now there probably is a more reasonable solution to this that would allow ranchers to protect their lands but not have a free for all on wolves. But at the same accord, wolves are at the mercy of humans.

 

[drz-400]

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

Can you show proof to substantiate this?

There are on going studies regarding the effects of wolves on cattle, as well as other grazing animals:
ARS | Publication request: Effects of wolf predation threat on habitat use, activity, diets and resource impacts of wild and domestic ungulates

Also, you are correct in saying other predators kill more cattle than wolves, this is because there are considerably more of them. The relative risks of predation due to wolves is much higher.

http://rliv.com/pic/Collinge%20Paper.pdf

individual wolves were about 170 times more likely to kill cattle than were
individual coyotes or bears. Individual wolves were about 21 times more likely to kill cattle
than were individual mountain lions in 2005.

...

-Mark Collinge
United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife
Services, Boise, Idaho

The elk populations in centrall idaho have taken the biggest hit:

In the Lolo Zone, deteriorating habitat and other factors
contributed to a long population decline, dropping from
about 16,000 in 1988 to fewer than 8,000 elk by 1998.
Since 1998, the numbers have dropped to about 2,000 – a
decline of more than 70 percent...

In the Sawtooth Zone, elk
numbers also have declined (See
Figure 5). Here survival of sixmonth-
old calves was about 30
percent during the study. Overall,
predation by wolves was the leading
cause of death, but malnutrition was
also an important factor during the
difficult winter of 2007-08....

In both these zones, wolf
predation was the leading cause
of death of six-month-old calves.
Earlier research shows that in some
areas predation by black bears was
the primary cause of death of calves
less than six months old.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/news/fg_news/10/aug.pdf

 

[theangryamerican]

Ok, but considering I can fix the problem WITHOUT risking any recovering species, I'm in a much better position than the ranchers.

Ranchers are in contact with wolves constantly. Wolves are seen around rancher's property all the time. Should we let ranchers take shots whenever they feel like it?

To what extent? Should he be allowed to shoot down any wolf that toes his property line?

Except when there ARE no interests of man at risk. The population is still at risk and we still have unauthorized poaching going on. We dont need to add to that problem, especially when our interests in this are pretty much zero.

Show me that wolf attacks have a negative impact on our economy beyond costing a handful of ranchers a few hundred dollars.

I've spelled out my issues repeatedly, if you dont want to pay attention, that's your problem.

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

Can you show proof to substantiate this?

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

Again, proof?

Actually, you've done a very poor job of making any sort of argument at all in this thread. Your point seems to be "I don't agree with killing wolves," which is a fine personal opinion to have, however you've offered no credible basis for your argument. You should have noticed by now that I'm not pulling random thoughts from thin air here, but have been able to provided links to everything I've stated. Frankly, I'm getting a little bored with educating you, because it appears that from the bolded quotes above, you really are just uninformed on the subject. If you have reliable information that refutes my argument, prove your credibility by posting it now and then we may have something to discuss.