"Wolf slaughter" planned in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

nw843x said:
Here's some more "cute" wolves .....
Click to expand...


I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this. Does the fact that wolves must eat to survive negate their right to be protected? Does the fact that wolves must hunt in the wild to survive negate their right to be protected? Are you arguing that because wolves are predators that they somehow don't deserve to be protected? I don't quite understand your reasoning.

If you are arguing that since wolves must hunt to survive they don't deserve our protection then maybe I should show you a picture of a Meat-Factory where Cow's are butchered. That wouldn't be pretty. Or how about some violent war pictures showing how violent humans are? Would you then argue that humans should be "culled" because they are also violent? I think that with that line of reasoning, Humans should be culled more than wolves because humans are actually over populating. Wolves are highly underpopulated.
 
nw843x said:
Here's some more "cute" wolves blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

Your posts are amongst the most retarded and pointless I have yet come across on this forum.

Wolves hunt other animals. Did you think we didn't know this? It may come as a shock to you but by-and-large the inhabitants of this forum have some type of education, and basic concepts like this have not passed us by.

Do you eat meat? Maybe we should cull you.
 
qayak said:
You seem to want to believe that life and death must have a fairy tale happiness to them. Some animals die so that others may live and it isn't pretty. Life is a struggle which is why you do not see the moose lie down and give up. Your desire to shoot the moose simply robs it of any chance of escape. If the moose knew what you intended, I doubt it would be any more willing to "go gentle into that good night."

I have to ask though, why do you think it would have been okay to "help" the moose if it weren't so far gone? Wouldn't that have been immoral of you to help a single animal at the expense of ten others? It certainly would have been illegal. In fact, your circling down and scaring off the wolves is called wildlife harassment and is illegal as well.
Click to expand...

"Fairy tale happyness" - far from it. These photos were meant to show that wolves are very much intelligent and opportunistic predators.
"Your desire to shoot the moose" - was just that - a desire at the time. Did it happen? Nope.
 
Dustin said:
I was paraphrasing what the sentiments of that site and speaking an overall truth.
Click to expand...
I don't really have a problem with the honesty of that site because it remain technically correct in spite of its' "sentiments". I concede that perhaps your dishonesty is to yourself but your statements remain factually dishonest. The very name of this thread is a fabrication of facts.

Dustin said:
As far as what specific territory the wolves could go to, I don't know. A good candidate would be the southern states where the wolf populations are basically non-existent in the wild.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that from the Ozarks region I mentioned south and west is the areas not historically inhabited be grey wolves. In 1976 I personally seen individual grey wolves in East Texas (Big Sandy area) which is barely outside of historically range (when they were extinct in US). There are Roadrunners here on this poperty in Georgia way outside of documented territory.
Historical Grey Wolf range; (scroll to bottom)
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/population/range.htm

Dustin said:
No, This is what it said...
Click to expand...

I said;
Clearly as the reference stated the "service" will not even delist Wyoming because of that "states" inadequacies even though they wanted to.
Click to expand...
And you countered with a quoted from the site;
At present, the Service wants to delist wolves in all of Wyoming, but will not until the state adopts a management plan similar to Idaho and Montana which protects some wolves to keep the species alive (i.e., ten breeding pairs or packs of wolves and 100 wolves in each state).
Click to expand...
You claim this falsifies what I said??? We have already established that the ten breeding pairs qualification is a minimum in spite of the site continually qualifying statements with it as if it was a target to imply their "sentiments".

Perhaps since you didn't really specify where in what you quoted from me you meant were I said;
Relisting will be hung over all the "states'" heads to try to get the "states'" to adopt better management plans.
Click to expand...
????
Surely not where I pointed out they said "could" where you said "would". As there is nothing left perhaps you just wanted impose your "sentiments" that I was wrong?

If your reading comprehension is not capable of seeing past "sentiments" perhaps you should read some other sources, unless "sentiments" are all your comprehension is capable of.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_gwol.html
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/index.asp
The actual recovery plan; (pdf)
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf
 
nw843x said:
"Fairy tale happyness" - far from it. These photos were meant to show that wolves are very much intelligent and opportunistic predators.
Click to expand...

Yes. They hunt wildlife. Way to go, genius. We so did not know that. Everyone here thinks that wolves get fed by the Food Pixies.

Fact: Wolves tend to avoid humans, and things that belong to humans, unless they are too hungry to do otherwise. This kinda has to do with the fact that we committed near genocide on their numbers, and only the ones that were scared stiff of getting anywhere near us survived.
 
Lonewulf said:
Yes. They hunt wildlife. Way to go, genius. We so did not know that. Everyone here thinks that wolves get fed by the Food Pixies.

Fact: Wolves tend to avoid humans, and things that belong to humans, unless they are too hungry to do otherwise. This kinda has to do with the fact that we committed near genocide on their numbers, and only the ones that were scared stiff of getting anywhere near us survived.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that a pack of wolves would rather hunt and kill a wild ungulate that was raised in an environment where predation is a fact of life, and depending on the season through deep snow in the hills and mountains or would a pack of wolves rather go to a farm or ranch where the cattle are contained by a fence on generally flat ground and where their sustenance is brought to them by some upright, pink squishy thing?
 
nw843x said:
Are you trying to say that a pack of wolves would rather hunt and kill a wild ungulate that was raised in an environment where predation is a fact of life, and depending on the season through deep snow in the hills and mountains or would a pack of wolves rather go to a farm or ranch where the cattle are contained by a fence on generally flat ground and where their sustenance is brought to them by some upright, pink squishy thing?
Click to expand...

Based on research and study into wolf behavior and how they avoid humans... they'd go for wildlife. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please deliver it. So far, you've brought nothing to the table but your own messed-up logic. Which may work in your world, but not the real one.
 
my_wan said:
I don't really have a problem with the honesty of that site because it remain technically correct in spite of its' "sentiments". I concede that perhaps your dishonesty is to yourself but your statements remain factually dishonest. The very name of this thread is a fabrication of facts.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Dishonest? Who's being dishonest here? Me? Since when is paraphrasing something being dishonest? And how is this thread a fabrication of the facts?


my_wan said:
Are you aware that from the Ozarks region I mentioned south and west is the areas not historically inhabited be grey wolves. In 1976 I personally seen individual grey wolves in East Texas (Big Sandy area) which is barely outside of historically range (when they were extinct in US). There are Roadrunners here on this poperty in Georgia way outside of documented territory.
Historical Grey Wolf range; (scroll to bottom)
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/population/range.htm
Click to expand...
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/population/range.htm

Yes.




my_wan said:
I said;

And you countered with a quoted from the site;

You claim this falsifies what I said??? We have already established that the ten breeding pairs qualification is a minimum in spite of the site continually qualifying statements with it as if it was a target to imply their "sentiments".
Click to expand...

The Service WANTS to delist them in Wyoming and will do so once Wyoming adopts a management plan.

You don't seem to get it. I've been through this already with you. The states WANT to get the numbers down to the minimum.


my_wan said:
Perhaps since you didn't really specify where in what you quoted from me you meant were I said;
Click to expand...

This sentence makes no sense.

my_wan said:
????
Surely not where I pointed out they said "could" where you said "would". As there is nothing left perhaps you just wanted impose your "sentiments" that I was wrong?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're even talking about.

my_wan said:
If your reading comprehension is not capable of seeing past "sentiments" perhaps you should read some other sources, unless "sentiments" are all your comprehension is capable of.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_gwol.html
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/index.asp
The actual recovery plan; (pdf)
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf
Click to expand...

1. How do these sources contradict mine exactly?

2. You're citing the exact organization which I'm criticizing for wanting to delist the wolves.
 
I find it disconcerting how some people dispute the facts either due to personal bias against wolves or simple denial. Trying to powder up the cold hard fact that many of these states want to slaughter wolves to their bare minimum numbers and the fact that the Fish and Wildlife service has no problem with it is one of the main reasons why these animals constantly need protection.

Either that or they're wildlife haters.

:(
 
Hmmm...

fws said:
Threats
In its final rule to delist the Western Great Lakes DPS of the gray wolf, the Service evaluated current and future threats to the species. These threats are spelled out by the ESA. They include loss or modification of habitat, overutilization for commercial or other purposes, disease or predation, inadequacy of existing laws or regulations (other than the ESA), and other natural or human-caused threats. The degree to which future wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes DPS would face these threats depends mainly on how the states and tribes manage their wolves after delisting. Therefore, the Service evaluated the Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin wolf management plans accordingly and found that the plans adequately protect wolves and ensure their existence in the Western Great Lakes DPS for the foreseeable future. The Service has also contacted other federal land management agencies and Midwestern tribes to obtain information on their likely protection and management of wolves after delisting.
Click to expand...

From http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/2007delisting/summary.htm

Maybe they've thought this through?
 
Lonewulf said:
Hmmm...



From http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/2007delisting/summary.htm

Maybe they've thought this through?
Click to expand...


No. The only concerns of the Fish& Wildlife service seems to be to keep the population above 300 otherwise they have more work on their hands. They couldn't care less about the over 900 wolves that would be killed as a result.

Also, That's about the wolves in the Western Great lakes territory not the Northern Rocky Mountain territory.
 
Last edited:
Dustin said:
No. The only concerns of the Fish& Wildlife service seems to be to keep the population above 300 otherwise they have more work on their hands. They couldn't care less about the over 900 wolves that would be killed as a result.
Click to expand...

Are you sure on that, though? Have they been quoted as saying that they desire to wipe out 900 wolves? I'm afraid of zealots and vigilantes (loosely defining the terms here) going gung-ho and attempting to wipe the wolves out. I know that Fish and Wildlife practices have been unfriendly in the past, especially in regards to wolves, but is there reason to believe that they're the same today?

Also, That's about the wolves in the Western Great lakes territory not the Northern Rocky Mountain territory.
Click to expand...

Mea culpa. However, the way I see it is if they're taking in all those factors for the Western Great Lakes territory, they're probably doing the same for the Northern Rocky Mountain Territory.

Still, 1200 wolves isn't that much. I don't see why we need to dwindle their numbers quite yet.
 
As far as the NRM territory goes, Wyoming is so eager to slaughter the wolves that as I've mentioned, they have filed a lawsuit against the Fish&Wildlife service to push them to turn the decision over to them whether to protect the wolves or not. Here's an example of how the govt of Wyoming feels about protecting the wolves of it's state...
Wyoming’s Democratic Governor, Dave Freudenthal, has recently said “wolves are causing an unacceptable impact on our elk and moose populations,” while other political leaders would like to declare any wolf outside Yellowstone or the Grand Teton national parks “an unprotected predator” which again translates to killing all wolves -- young, pregnant, etc. -- by “any means, without limit, at any time, for any reason, and regardless of any direct or potential threat to livestock.” Wolf packs from Yellowstone National Park now roam outside of the protective boundaries into the rest of Wyoming so this is especially alarming.
Click to expand...

Once Wyoming adopts a so called "management plan" then it's free reign wolf slaughtering.
 
Lonewulf said:
Are you sure on that, though? Have they been quoted as saying that they desire to wipe out 900 wolves? I'm afraid of zealots and vigilantes (loosely defining the terms here) going gung-ho and wiping the creatures out. I know that Fish and Wildlife practices have been unfriendly in the past, especially in regards to wolves, but is there reason to believe that they're the same today?
Click to expand...

I don't think they've stated that exactly but the threat is that hunters will reduce their populations down to 300 or even below that number due to the legislators of those specific states making it legal.



Lonewulf said:
Mea culpa. However, the way I see it is if they're taking in all those factors for the Western Great Lakes territory, they're probably doing the same for the Northern Rocky Mountain Territory.
Click to expand...

It won't make any difference once they relinquish the responsibility to those specific states.
 
Dustin said:
Excuse me? Dishonest? Who's being dishonest here? Me? Since when is paraphrasing something being dishonest? And how is this thread a fabrication of the facts?
Click to expand...
They say "could" you say "would" and you call it paraphrasing.

Dustin said:
The Service WANTS to delist them in Wyoming and will do so once Wyoming adopts a management plan.

You don't seem to get it. I've been through this already with you. The states WANT to get the numbers down to the minimum.
Click to expand...
The delisting is in the original reintroduction charter (pdf I linked to). My hats off to them for using the states behavior against them to deny delisting. As long as the states maintain that position they will not get control. If they get that control and abuse it it'll be even worse for them. Think about it as it stands. Someone shoots a wolf and you call the police or the game warden and get squat. That sucks. The feds have to be called when hundreds of local people are available and paid with your money but their hands are tied. Thumbs up to the service for using their leverage to force changes even though it violated their charter (which is why they have to WANT to).

Dustin said:
This sentence makes no sense.
Click to expand...
You disagreed with my statements and since your refutation actually backed my statement I was sarcastically wondering which of my three points you were referring to.
Dustin said:
I have no idea what you're even talking about.
Click to expand...
What you become blind when I set theirs and your quote side by side and show where they say "could" you say "would".

Dustin said:
1. How do these sources contradict mine exactly?
Click to expand...
I only needed your source and just the part of your source you quoted to do that. So how does suggesting you read some other sources besides one site with its' own "sentiments" translate to contradict. It was more a suggestion you learn something.

Dustin said:
2. You're citing the exact organization which I'm criticizing for wanting to delist the wolves.
Click to expand...
So. Learn about your enemy if that's how you want to take it. You can even read back and forth arguments between the states and the service in there.

I'll not be responding here anymore, the thread speaks for itself. :relieved:
 
my_wan said:
They say "could" you say "would" and you call it paraphrasing.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's also called being "realistic".


my_wan said:
The delisting is in the original reintroduction charter (pdf I linked to). My hats off to them for using the states behavior against them to deny delisting. As long as the states maintain that position they will not get control. If they get that control and abuse it it'll be even worse for them. Think about it as it stands. Someone shoots a wolf and you call the police or the game warden and get squat. That sucks. The feds have to be called when hundreds of local people are available and paid with your money but their hands are tied. Thumbs up to the service for using their leverage to force changes even though it violated their charter (which is why they have to WANT to).
Click to expand...

On the contrary the only thing currently preventing the states from getting control is the fact that they haven't formed a 'management plan' which they are in the process of doing. They're also SUING the F&W service. Moreover, The service WANTS to delist the wolves. They couldn't care less about them.



my_wan said:
What you become blind when I set theirs and your quote side by side and show where they say "could" you say "would".
Click to expand...

Yes, I was being realistic and changing it to "would" because that's what's going to end up happening.
 
If the people of those states dont want wolves, why do you force them? Wolves are plentiful in other areas, (Canada)
 
Texastwister said:
If the people of those states dont want wolves, why do you force them? Wolves are plentiful in other areas, (Canada)
Click to expand...

  1. Many of the people of those states DO want wolves.
  2. What's "right" or "wrong" isn't up for a vote. If those people in those states didn't want evolution taught would you be making the same argument? I doubt it.
  3. These wolves have as much of a right to be there as any humans do. It's their home too after all, and they deserve a right to live there without being hunted down and killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom