Idaho Woman Attacked by Wolf

Off Topic
401

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So many non-hunters convening to decide what’s sporting or not. Interesting.

Maybe:

[i]T-Nation should convene a group of folks who don’t step foot into a gym for an upcoming article to help us decide proper squatting depth.

A group of plumbers should convene to help decide how to battle the resurgence of the Ebola virus in Africa.

A convent should decide how NASA should transition from the space shuttle and space station to exploring Mars.

A group of journalists should help determine the proper grade and the pumping station distances for the Keystone Pipeline.[/i][/quote]

Shooting a baited wolf isn’t as complicated as the issues you’ve identified. It doesn’t take an expert to realize it’s grimy. Should we bring in a botanist to tell us grass is green?
[/quote]

Why is bait not sporting, plenty of sustenance hunters use bait and I don’t see anyone calling them grimy or non-sporting (even when they use traps)? We still haven’t had anyone explain to us what sporting is…[/quote]

Sustenance hunters are hunting for survival, not for entertainment. I don’t think fair chase applies here because of what is at stake. I think traps are grimy, and should only be used when absolutely necessary.

Let’s start with this:

“Fair Chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over such animals.” Ã?¢?? Boone and Crockett Club
[/quote]

And yet animals shot over bait where legal are eligible to make it into the B&C books. In this definition the word “free-ranging” is the key to fair chase and has nothing to do with baiting.
[/quote]

Yes, where legal. So all things legal are ethical, and all things illegal are unethical?

402

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Yes, where legal. So all things legal are ethical, and all things illegal are unethical? [/quote]

Not sure who is arguing that. My ethics allow me to shoot prairie dogs, ground squirrels, coyotes, wolves and other predators and pests at will without eating them. What makes your ethics better than mine?

403

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
hunting a baited animal is the equivalent to fishing with dynamite.

and comparing the hunting techniques of the ancient native people to the modern hunter is one of the more ludicrous comparisons i’ve read on here in awhile. [/quote]

Wouldn’t it be comparable to fishing with a baited hook? Do you hunt?
[/quote]

If you drew the fish in with a bait and then speared it, yes. However, fishing requires the fish to “take the bait”.

You can do catch and release fishing as well.

[/quote]

So you object to fishing near a light source which draws in bait fish? Where legal of course.

404

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Reminds me of this recent article. What did the guy think was gonna happen?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/mans-attempt-to-swim-across-crocodile-infested-river-sadly-ends-in-predictable-way/[/quote]

Just read this. I like when the cop says, they think they got the croc responsibile…

What that SHOULD have said, was that Mr. Cole was responsible for the outcome. The croc just did what they do best, pick out the easiest food source, and go for it. Grab it, drag it to the bottom, and let it drown, then proceed to eat it. I like how an animal gets punished for someone else being on the short end of the gene pool.

Darwin award right there.[/quote]

Ya, it pisses me off every time an animal is put down for doing exactly what it’s designed to do. [/quote]

Because a hunter does exactly what it’s designed to do?[/quote]

I don’t understand the question?

Some guy in the article tried to swim across a Croc infested river, when he was eaten, the Croc was killed. That is stupid, imo.

[/quote]

The croc has had the taste of human blood.[/quote]

…because some dumb ass purposefully entered the croc’s habitat and it did what it’s designed to do the animal should be put down? Agree to disagree I guess.

405

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
hunting a baited animal is the equivalent to fishing with dynamite.

and comparing the hunting techniques of the ancient native people to the modern hunter is one of the more ludicrous comparisons i’ve read on here in awhile. [/quote]

Wouldn’t it be comparable to fishing with a baited hook? Do you hunt?
[/quote]

If you drew the fish in with a bait and then speared it, yes. However, fishing requires the fish to “take the bait”.

You can do catch and release fishing as well.

[/quote]

So you object to fishing near a light source which draws in bait fish? Where legal of course.
[/quote]

What’s with your fixation on bait? I’ve already said that if you’re hunting to sustain yourself baiting is an ethical practice as sustenance is not sporting. To create an unfair advantage just to kill something and calling yourself a sportsman is ridiculous.

406

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Reminds me of this recent article. What did the guy think was gonna happen?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/mans-attempt-to-swim-across-crocodile-infested-river-sadly-ends-in-predictable-way/[/quote]

Just read this. I like when the cop says, they think they got the croc responsibile…

What that SHOULD have said, was that Mr. Cole was responsible for the outcome. The croc just did what they do best, pick out the easiest food source, and go for it. Grab it, drag it to the bottom, and let it drown, then proceed to eat it. I like how an animal gets punished for someone else being on the short end of the gene pool.

Darwin award right there.[/quote]

Ya, it pisses me off every time an animal is put down for doing exactly what it’s designed to do. [/quote]

Because a hunter does exactly what it’s designed to do?[/quote]

I don’t understand the question?

Some guy in the article tried to swim across a Croc infested river, when he was eaten, the Croc was killed. That is stupid, imo.

[/quote]

The croc has had the taste of human blood.[/quote]

…because some dumb ass purposefully entered the croc’s habitat and it did what it’s designed to do the animal should be put down? Agree to disagree I guess. [/quote]

It’s like being mad at the sun for getting a sun burn.

407

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Reminds me of this recent article. What did the guy think was gonna happen?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/mans-attempt-to-swim-across-crocodile-infested-river-sadly-ends-in-predictable-way/[/quote]

Just read this. I like when the cop says, they think they got the croc responsibile…

What that SHOULD have said, was that Mr. Cole was responsible for the outcome. The croc just did what they do best, pick out the easiest food source, and go for it. Grab it, drag it to the bottom, and let it drown, then proceed to eat it. I like how an animal gets punished for someone else being on the short end of the gene pool.

Darwin award right there.[/quote]

Ya, it pisses me off every time an animal is put down for doing exactly what it’s designed to do. [/quote]

Because a hunter does exactly what it’s designed to do?[/quote]

I don’t understand the question?

Some guy in the article tried to swim across a Croc infested river, when he was eaten, the Croc was killed. That is stupid, imo.

[/quote]

The croc has had the taste of human blood.[/quote]

…because some dumb ass purposefully entered the croc’s habitat and it did what it’s designed to do the animal should be put down? Agree to disagree I guess. [/quote]

It’s like being mad at the sun for getting a sun burn. [/quote]

I mean, basically.

408

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Yes, where legal. So all things legal are ethical, and all things illegal are unethical? [/quote]

Not sure who is arguing that. My ethics allow me to shoot prairie dogs, ground squirrels, coyotes, wolves and other predators and pests at will without eating them. What makes your ethics better than mine?
[/quote]

If they are causing property damage or threatening your life, then you have killed them for a purpose other than sport, and I don’t see a problem.

409

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…because some dumb ass purposefully entered the croc’s habitat and it did what it’s designed to do the animal should be put down? Agree to disagree I guess. [/quote]

It’s like being mad at the sun for getting a sun burn. [/quote]

I mean, basically.[/quote]

You can’t mess with a croc, unless you are this guy.

410

[quote]on edge wrote:

Hunting for food you don’t really need is far different than doing what you need to do for survival.[/quote]

On Edge, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “food you don’t really need.”

Do you mean hunting for food in excess of one’s minimum daily caloric requirements? Do you mean to imply that a chubby hunter is not as sporting or ethical as a skinny one because fatties don’t really need the extra calories?

Or perhaps you mean to say that stalking a wild animal through the wilderness and dispatching it with a high-velocity projectile is somehow less ethical when the one doing the stalking and dispatching has the means to procure food in a more civilized manner, namely going to the store and buying a styrofoam package of meat that has been sliced off the corpse of an animal confined in a pen, medicated and force-fed until it is knocked in the head by a pneumatic bolt and its throat slashed?

Clarify, if you would be so kind.

411

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

Hunting for food you don’t really need is far different than doing what you need to do for survival.[/quote]

On Edge, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “food you don’t really need.”

Do you mean hunting for food in excess of one’s minimum daily caloric requirements? Do you mean to imply that a chubby hunters is not as sporting or ethical as a skinny ones because fatties don’t really need the extra calories?

Or perhaps you mean to say that stalking a wild animal through the wilderness and dispatching it with a high-velocity projectile is somehow less ethical when the one doing the stalking and dispatching has the means to procure food in a more civilized manner, namely going to the store and buying a styrofoam package of meat that has been sliced off the corpse of an animal confined in a pen, medicated and force-fed until it is knocked in the head by a pneumatic bolt and its throat slashed?

Clarify, if you would be so kind.
[/quote]

I agree. Hunting is far more humane than buying shit at the grocery store.

412

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
…because some dumb ass purposefully entered the croc’s habitat and it did what it’s designed to do the animal should be put down? Agree to disagree I guess. [/quote]

It’s like being mad at the sun for getting a sun burn. [/quote]

I mean, basically.[/quote]

You can’t mess with a croc, unless you are this guy.

- YouTube [/quote]

Ya I’ve seen this guy before. The whole thing is incredible. There’s another guy like this too, but I forget where. Costa rica as well maybe.

413

Full documentary here. It’s a great watch.

414

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Yes, where legal. So all things legal are ethical, and all things illegal are unethical? [/quote]

Not sure who is arguing that. My ethics allow me to shoot prairie dogs, ground squirrels, coyotes, wolves and other predators and pests at will without eating them. What makes your ethics better than mine?
[/quote]

If they are causing property damage or threatening your life, then you have killed them for a purpose other than sport, and I don’t see a problem.

[/quote]

Okay, I think you have touched on the crux of the issue.

Although I cannot speak for every wolf hunter in the world, those I have spoken to in Idaho and Montana know exactly why they hunt wolves.

It is not solely “for sport” or “for fun”, even though they may have fun doing it.

You live in Alberta? Then depredation of cattle and game by wolves is something you are familiar with. People in Idaho, Montana, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia are doing what herders and hunters have done since man first herded sheep and cattle, and hunted game: they are eliminating competition by other predators.

Property damage? Yes. When a wolf pack invades the herd and slashes the throats of thirteen calves, that’s thirteen to fifteen thousand dollars worth of property damage. Threat to life? Well, yes. When the elk herds are reduced by wolf depredation, or they change their migration pattern to avoid depredation, the rural hunters who might live a hundred miles form the nearest grocery store, and whose lives may actually depend upon securing meat for their freezers before they are snowed in, are going to be at very least severely inconvenienced.

Listen, I have no desire to kill a wolf. I love wolves: I think they are magnificent animals, and that the world would be a bland and insipid place without them. However, I can certainly understand why a man or woman living in the north, raising cattle or sheep or depending on game meat to get through the winter might have a less romantic view of them, and might consider their killing as justified.

And from the sound of your last post, so can you.

415

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Listen, I have no desire to kill a wolf. I love wolves: I think they are magnificent animals, and that the world would be a bland and insipid place without them. However, I can certainly understand why a man or woman living in the north, raising cattle or sheep or depending on game meat to get through the winter might have a less romantic view of them, and might consider their killing as justified.

And from the sound of your last post, so can you.[/quote]

We agree.

For me, there has to be a purpose for the kill other than entertainment, fun, whatever. If you have fun doing it, well I suppose that it is better than feeling shitty about something that would behoove you.

416

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

Yes, where legal. So all things legal are ethical, and all things illegal are unethical? [/quote]

Not sure who is arguing that. My ethics allow me to shoot prairie dogs, ground squirrels, coyotes, wolves and other predators and pests at will without eating them. What makes your ethics better than mine?
[/quote]

If they are causing property damage or threatening your life, then you have killed them for a purpose other than sport, and I don’t see a problem.

[/quote]

The ranchers who let me shoot prairie dogs and coyotes definitely have a purpose for letting me shoot them. I have no problem admitting I find great sport in calling in coyotes or picking off prairie dogs from 200 yards away.

418

[quote]WWEAttitude wrote:
It`s really not that hard to understand.Wild animals are supposed to fear humans because we are a superior lifeform, capable of more complex tasks apart from the biological functions of sleeping, eating, and mating. Generations of evolution from the hunting-gathering era has led wild animals to instinctively avoid the alphas of the natural world, i.e. humans unless threatened, because they know that we can easily end them with more manpower and weaponry. Ever see a fox or gazelle attack a lion? it’s cuz they know that they’re not supposed to because of Darwinism.

Wolves are intelligent animals, so they should know not to attack humans. Any intelligent animal choosing to go against its biological programming, or that doesn’t have that evolutionary instinct to be cautious deserves to be put down.[/quote]

This was months ago, and I’m not sure what point the poster thought he was trying to make, but here’s a video about spherical animals in Africa.

EDIT: better link.

419

Fwiw, crocs will kill anything that it can… Human blood or not, it doesn’t influence what it eats.

420

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

…If you’re eating the animal, I don’t care how you get it as long as it’s killed humanely…

[/quote]

Then lambasting the Plains Indians is in order.

There’s hardly a more inhumane way to kill bison than to run them off buffalo jumps. It took most of them several hours or even days before they died because they had to wait for the squaws to show up with knives and lances while they lay piled up on top of each other, broken and bleeding and suffering horribly – not to mention being disemboweled alive by the wolves and coyotes that followed the herd and took advantage of the carnage caused by the Indians.

You keep on pontificating, modern day city boy. I’m all ears. Love hearing your informed perspective.[/quote]

Hunting for food you don’t really need is far different than doing what you need to do for survival.[/quote]

And?

Running several hundred buffalo off a cliff was not only inhumane but it was a vast waste. Most of the meat rotted. That is simple fact.

The Indian of yesteryear gets a pass for wasting literally tons of meat and the guy down the road gets scorned by modern day non-hunters for killing a wolf just for the experience (and to help lower their numbers)? How does that work?

By the way, how can one not really need food? (As in, “Hunting for food you don’t really need”)[/quote]

Links? I always thought they used everything but, a lot of articles make no mention of it.

http://www.vorebuffalojump.org/pdf/VBJF%20Newslet%20-%20nutrition%20article.pdf