George Bush is about to make wolf-slaughtering legal.

[shitty wok]

Brought back from the brink of extermination and, for no conceivable reason, GWB wants to put them right back. I think it can safely be said that he has caused as much damage American wildlife as he's done to Middle East peace hopes. Wanna stop it? www.nrdc.org

[Soda_Can_Sniper]

How much damage are they causing to the deer/moose populations?

I think it's odd that they're opening season on an animal under endangered protection, but if it's causing problems, temporarily rescinding it's protection will help balance out nature without wiping out both species.

I do think aerial gunning is wasteful and tasteless when it comes to how we value nature, and DNR should have better means of taking care of the problem.

[Trousersnake]

I never realised wolves were an endangered species. Who is going to slaughter them anyhow? Is it most likely just farm owners not wanting their stock fucked up or the general gun-toting community as a whole shooting for 'game'??

[Slave of the Beast]

How much damage are they causing to the deer/moose populations?

I think it's odd that they're opening season on an animal under endangered protection, but if it's causing problems, temporarily rescinding it's protection will help balance out nature without wiping out both species.

I do think aerial gunning is wasteful and tasteless when it comes to how we value nature, and DNR should have better means of taking care of the problem.

The whole concept of the anthropogenic "balancing out nature for nature's benefit" is utter horseshit. Using it as a reason to control the population of a native species, simply makes the culling of an economic nuisance sound more acceptable to the slack jawed populace, who never think to question how the fuck nature coped prior to the invention of the hunting rifle. The cyclical fluctuations of predator-prey populations 'balance out' very well long-term, all in the complete absence of human intervention. Clearly, prior to the meddling of the human species, 'nature' must have been in all kinds of disorganized shit.

[Soda_Can_Sniper]

The whole concept of the anthropogenic "balancing out nature for nature's benefit" is utter horseshit. Using it as a reason to control the population of a native species, simply makes the culling of an economic nuisance sound more acceptable to the slack jawed populace, who never think to question how the fuck nature coped prior to the invention of the hunting rifle. The cyclical fluctuations of predator-prey populations 'balance out' very well long-term, all in the complete absence of human intervention. Clearly, prior to the meddling of the human species, 'nature' must have been in all kinds of disorganized shit.

I'll agree with you to a point, call it what it is. If they're causing problems, whack em.

I just think it's a complete waste of resources when the last decade was spent nurturing them back into their native area after being wiped out, to aerial gunning because the smallest groups of game animals are "threatened".

I gotta wonder, if deer and elk weren't such a moneymaker, what would be done? Would we let the wolves chew up their population, or knock a few off the charts so they don't do as much damage?

[mayor of monkey town]

Theres no doubt its happening for economic reasons - i think its pretty clear the nature seems to do its best with minimal human intevention.

The problem stems from land usage, as cities sprawl so do farms, new roads and a new lumber mill.

The enviroment can generally sustain a controlled number of 'game' hunters whatever it is they want to kill - but this number gets smaller as the habitat of the animals is reduced.
And i have no doubt in my mind that it is being reduced through sprawl, climate change and effects of human actvities.

[Soda_Can_Sniper]

That article vague, as is much other info. Have the wolves have caused problems, or something else.. That's why I find this so odd - to restore a species from the edge, and then turn back on them, why? In such a wasteful and inhumane manner..

And yeah, urbanization is bad for hunting, that's why so many hunters go 100mi out to a friend's land, lodges, or complete wilderness.

Setting a bag limit usually makes it so hunters don't create a gap in the population. If limits become restrictive, DNR will just have to watch for poaching. The Fudds will piss and moan, but they'll take it. They have to if they want to continue hunting.

[deus-redux]

I love it how people think they're a chosen species, and that nothing would be here without us.

The existence of man spans a pathetically small geological or even evolutionary time.

-deus-

[shitty wok]

I love it how people think they're a chosen species, and that nothing would be here without us.

The existence of man spans a pathetically small geological or even evolutionary time.

-deus-

And yet has only left a legacy of devastation and misery to the planet.

[wolfy_9005]

God damned GWB.....anyone wanna make hunting his sorry ass legal? :)

Wolves = cool
GWB = gay(with john howard aka australian prime minister)

[carma]

ok. they are not taking them back to the brink of extinction. they have no natural preditors(other than humans). so what do u do?? u have to control the species some how. as a hunter i find the people that say dont hunt are doing more harm than good. scenario reintroduce the wolf population and not control it, exponential growth of the population. more wolves more to feed, other populations go to the brink of extinction. thus losing the food for the wolves and then killing a mass number of them, or even worse causing the extinction of another species. so if u control one u can control the other.

oh and i think busch is the biggest mistake in the history of the us.

and humans have caused this mess so it is time they did something to help fix it

[Slave of the Beast]

ok. they are not taking them back to the brink of extinction. they have no natural preditors(other than humans). so what do u do?? u have to control the species some how. as a hunter i find the people that say dont hunt are doing more harm than good.

So prior to hunting by the human species, the global ecosystem was "doing more harm than good" to itself.

Are you being intentionally stupid?

scenario reintroduce the wolf population and not control it, exponential growth of the population. more wolves more to feed, other populations go to the brink of extinction. thus losing the food for the wolves and then killing a mass number of them, or even worse causing the extinction of another species.

Wrong. (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html)

so if u control one u can control the other.

The point is control is not required, at least not for the reasons usually given.

[carma]

the global ecosystem was doing fine before humans got involved. now that humans are involved it is a different story, because of the fact that now humans are a predator to most other species. i should have stated this in the previous post.

" Logic and mathematical theory suggest that when prey are numerous their predators increase in numbers, reducing the prey population, which in turn causes predator number to decline. The prey population eventually recovers, starting a new cycle.Observing that frequent additions of paramecium produced predator-prey cycles in a test-tube led to the idea that in a physically heterogeneous world, there would always be some pockets of prey that predators happened not to find and eliminate. Perhaps when the predator population declined, having largely run out of prey, these remaining few could set off a prey rebound. Spatial heterogeneity in the environment might have a stabilizing effect. "

which is true. but you add hunters logical and thinking beings who find the "prey pockets" and then dispose of them. thus being said it would make it extremely hard for the populations to grow again. not to mention the fact that it would cause genetic deformities in the animals due to inbreeding.

i agree control is not needed for most of the reason usually given, but there are the other reasons.

[shottyupaninfant]

The fuck you care if wolves are wiped out? If you met one in woods, unarmed, it would kill you. Why shouldn't you kill it?

[deus-redux]

The fuck you care if wolves are wiped out? If you met one in woods, unarmed, it would kill you. Why shouldn't you kill it?

If it met you, and it was unarmed, in your living room, you'd kill it. Why shouldn't it kill you?

Same difference.

-deus-

[Thunderhammer]

The fuck you care if wolves are wiped out? If you met one in woods, unarmed, it would kill you. Why shouldn't you kill it?

Asides from the fact that it is very unlikely that you would ever meet a wolf in the first place, seeing as they can probably smell you from miles away and would probably stay the fuck away from you out of fear, you might want to rethink that statement.


The only bad wolf is a hungry wolf - just like humans when they need to whet their appetite.

[Experimental]

That's ridiculous.

[Thunderhammer]

That's ridiculous.

Is it?

Or are you just scared that i'm right?

If George Does decide to implement this, then he should probably consider making the various animalistic urges of humans (such as rape, exploitation, slavery, etc) punishable by death.

I can see how you might view this as ridiculous, but let me clarify;

The wolf is hungry, the wolf must feed - it's the human's own fault if he happens to be the only thing within reasonable proximity.

The human is hungry - but not for food, No; the Human needs transcend those of animalkind, our needs apply to mating, to entertainment, to self-gratification - it's the fault of those whom do not prepare themselves for the eventuality that one may come along and vindicate them of whatever it is that the original human wants.

Obviously, this might be hard to stomach - people don't like being compared to animals, despite the fact that it is exactly what they are.

EDIT: Of course, i say 'they', when infact i should have said 'We'.

[LuKaZz420]

I think you should only be allowed to shoot animals you'll eat and there are plenty of, or animals that might be a danger to you, I don't think that's the case for wolfs.

[Thunderhammer]

or animals that might be a danger to you, I don't think that's the case for wolfs.

Wolves might be a danger, don't get me wrong - it's the same as if another human were to attack you, you wouldn't just stand there and take it, you'd either run for it or put up a fight.

The case is that simply shooting your gun into the air would most likely scare the wolf off in the first place - not sure what effect it would have on a pack, tho.

[Jaguarstrike]

If its nature, its nature, dont fuck with it. So long as man isnt wiping a species out we shouldnt be "fixing" natures problems. Look where "helping out" got us in iraq.