What do you suggest should be done to solve the wolf problem?
[/quote]
Kill 'em. Lots of 'em. They simply are more trouble than they’re worth in the Lower 48.
Harmful viruses are part of our environment too. We still purposely kill 'em all the time.[/quote]
Thats fucked up. Predators are vital to a healthy ecosystem.
[/quote]
Which ones?[/quote]
All of them. I don’t have an issue with wildlife management but wiping out a species because they don’t respond the way you want is messed up. I know in Michigan farmers are reimbursed for any livestock loss.
[/quote]
Getting back on topic. I think that if we are going to eradicate any species in the lower 48, it should be the wild pig, which is an invasive species, not native to the US - the wolves are, and I bet pigs are more annoying/dangerous than wolves. And who doesn’t enjoy a good pig roast/bbq?[/quote]
The Jews and Muslims don’t, but I’ll bet they would be on board with this idea.
Here’s an idea: the department of natural resources of each states institutes a “hog jihad” wherein Muslim groups are paid a bounty on every pig they kill, to be paid directly to the local mosque in each community, and the meat would go to the local churches to feed the Christian poor. That would be killing two pigs with one stone.
What do you suggest should be done to solve the wolf problem?
[/quote]
Kill 'em. Lots of 'em. They simply are more trouble than they’re worth in the Lower 48.
Harmful viruses are part of our environment too. We still purposely kill 'em all the time.[/quote]
Thats fucked up. Predators are vital to a healthy ecosystem.
[/quote]
Which ones?[/quote]
All of them.
[/quote]
Why?
I thought we WERE talking wildlife management here. Copy and paste where I said to wipe out a species. I’m betting you have no clue how many numbers they’ve burgeoned to out here. Or whether it’s appropriate – and even that depends on what you do for a living.
Folks like you sit in your snug little suburban homes far, far from where the “action” is taking place and spout environmentally conscious platitudes about what’s “healthy for the ecosystem” while getting most if not all of their information from other environmentally conscious platitude spouters.
Turn off your television and explore your real world not the one fabricated for you by those with questionable agendas and manipulated data.
By the way, they were artificially reintroduced here in recent years. How “natural” and “necessary” does that make them?
Also, loss reimbursement is basically a joke.[/quote]
Okay you didn’t say wipe them out, just kill lots and lots of them like viruses. Semantics. How many will you allow?
I don’t live in the suburbs, I drove through thirty five miles of woods and farmland on my way to work today. We have the same issues with increasing wolf numbers in Michigan just on a lesser scale. Frankly we could use some knocking down of the deer population, there is an animal that cost human lives.
As far as being artificially introduced it was because jackasses in the past killed anything indiscriminately that they could either profit from or that hurt profits.
Haha, have you ever tried to be reimbursed by the goverment, what kind of hoops do you have to jump, imagine it’s not worth it. Herte’s what I hate, people that don’t live in a rural area, trying to make the rules for us. Here in Canada a while back, 125 families formed a colalition, togeather they owned over a million acres, passed down through generations.
they wanted to be able to decide by votes amongst themselves, how to handle problems such as this. It worked fine for about 3yrs. A bunch of “Citiots” got wind of choices they were making, including culling wolves, an uproar was caused, a pettion was signed by a bunch of these same citiots that didn’t own any land, or have a clue about modern farming, and rural living, but the colalition was made ilegal.
You don’t see country folk trying to make up the rules for city folk to live by, but you see city folks trying to set rules for farmers all the time. They’re trying to make a living, they don’t want goverment handouts, just to make they’re own desions for they’re own land. I’m sure they know alot more about the “Eco system” then someone raised in the city who read a book about it. I see this all to often, and it angers me, some tree hugging citiot, who lives in the smog, but gets all up in arms about a dozen wolves being shot, so our farmers can carry on making ends meet, and feeding the rest of us. 2cents
…As far as being artificially introduced it was because jackasses in the past killed anything indiscriminately that they could either profit from or that hurt profits.[/quote]
Ahh yes, the eeeeevil capitalist jackass! The root of all that is wrong with the world.
Thanks for your insight, Karl.[/quote]
You are right, there was nothing morally wrong with wiping out the buffalo. As usual it is pointless to have a conversation with you. Pardner.
Of the many hypotheses seeking to explain the mass extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna (at least, the ones that don’t involve catastrophic global floods), many point to our species as the culprits, either through aggressive over-hunting of introduction of disease.
In our own time, we’ve seen the effect of aggressive, unchecked hunting of species to extinction or near-extinction. The moa, the passenger pigeon, and the dodo are no longer with us, because we killed them all. The bison are coming back, thanks to us, but we nearly wiped them all out, on purpose, for economic and political reasons more than for sport.
The terrible wolves and lions and tigers and bears cannot compete with us for sheer killing efficiency, and no population of wolves anywhere is capable of hunting an entire herbivore species to extinction. We, however, are fully capable of eradicating any species we put our minds to. And we’ve been doing a pretty good job on the lions, tigers, and bears. And now the wolves. And the chimps, and the gorillas, and the orangutans. And the rhinos. And the elephants.
Ironic that we are simultaneously the only predatory species with the capability to do so, and the only species that ought to know better. Somehow I get the feeling that when God told humans to subdue the earth and have dominion over all its creatures in Genesis 1:28, this isn’t exactly what he had in mind.
Of the many hypotheses seeking to explain the mass extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna (at least, the ones that don’t involve catastrophic global floods), many point to our species as the culprits, either through aggressive over-hunting of introduction of disease.
In our own time, we’ve seen the effect of aggressive, unchecked hunting of species to extinction or near-extinction. The moa, the passenger pigeon, and the dodo are no longer with us, because we killed them all. The bison are coming back, thanks to us, but we nearly wiped them all out, on purpose, for economic and political reasons more than for sport.
The terrible wolves and lions and tigers and bears cannot compete with us for sheer killing efficiency, and no population of wolves anywhere is capable of hunting an entire herbivore species to extinction. We, however, are fully capable of eradicating any species we put our minds to. And we’ve been doing a pretty good job on the lions, tigers, and bears. And now the wolves. And the chimps, and the gorillas, and the orangutans. And the rhinos. And the elephants.
[/quote]
So what? We’re only doing what’s natural.
We’re no different than the wolves, lions, tigers, bears, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, rhinos and…bonobos.
(for those of you wondering, that remark was dripping with sarcasm)
Exactly. But since when did you allow the Book of Genesis to have any authority?
[/quote]
Just using a metaphor I figured you’d understand.
I look forward to discussing the topic again when your sarcasm glands stop dripping.