Conservative site talks about wolves

Talk about real wolves

Moderator: AWolf2B

Post Reply
User avatar
bluecollie55
Alpha
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:43 am
November Challenge Goal: 0
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 0
Location: Newville PA U.S.A.
Contact:

Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by bluecollie55 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:04 pm

Earlier this week I was on a politically conservative site thaat discusses their opinions and viewpoints on Hollywood and the state of making movies. I frequently go over there to be open to their viewpoints.

One article that have brought my attention was about the subject of wolf hunting in Alaska, as invoked by an anti-wolf shooting ad by singer Ashley Judd that attacked Governor Sarah Palin. The article writer and many of the posters call it wolf population control, like when hunters hunt to control the population of deer. They want to reduce the numbers to keep the wolves from starving to death and keep predator and prey balenced.

Go to ths link and read the article (scroll above if you can't get it) and the posts below. I was rather surprised, since the tone of the article and the most of the posts are not the rude lubo-phobia remarks at another conservative site I formerly frequented.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jlott/2009/02/09/why-does-ashley-judd-want-wolves-to-suffer-cruel-deaths/

EDIT: had to fix the URL so that you can link to it better, also, look out for some few mentions on certain contriversal topics.
Last edited by bluecollie55 on Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wolves are nature's best friend.

User avatar
Bluewolf
Alpha
Posts: 6317
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:20 pm
Gender: Male
Skype: bluewolf128
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by Bluewolf » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:18 pm

If thats meant to be an image tag, then its not working I am afraid.
"If a man dedicates his life to good deeds and the welfare of others, he will die unremembered. If he exercises his genius bringing misery and death to billions, his name will echo down the millennia for a hundred lifetimes. Infamy is always more preferable to ignominy."-Fabius Bile

User avatar
ecco
Emeritus Staff
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:11 pm
Gender: Female
Location: South England
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by ecco » Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:30 pm

error 404.

But just based on what you side, this strikes me as idiocy anyway. When i was what... 13? In science, we learned about food chains etc and that there is a natural pattern of numbers of animals, when the prey's population eg rabbits shoots up, soon after the predators eg foxes goes up too cos theres more food, then cos so many rabbits got eaten theres not enough food so the predators die off, then the prey are free to breed more and it starts again.


so i hate this whole "culling" BS. its stupid. the only reason i can see that being necessary is if it gets completely out of control, or if an animal has somehow gotten to a country it doesnt belong in and is spreading and could cause harm to the ecosystem there or whatever.

>.<;;

User avatar
bluecollie55
Alpha
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:43 am
November Challenge Goal: 0
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 0
Location: Newville PA U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by bluecollie55 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:35 pm

Bluewolf wrote:If thats meant to be an image tag, then its not working I am afraid.


Sorry, I used the Img button for images by mistake. I edited with the URL feature so that it would get you to the site now. :sad:
Wolves are nature's best friend.

Marji4x
STAFF
STAFF
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:43 pm
Skype: marji4x
November Challenge Goal: 180
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 0
Location: East Coast North America
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by Marji4x » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:39 pm

There is an excellent essay by Michael Crichton on the subject of man's stewarsdship of the earth that goes into things like balancing predator/prey and other natural phenomenons.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-complexity.html

I think it makes sense that it would sometimes be necessary considering we don't live in a completely natural world anymore. Man has encroached over pretty much everything except the very deepest oceans at this point, so there's not really much of a "natural state" of animals in a lot of areas.

Unfortunately, just killing off a bunch of animals doesn't always preserve the balance and it's such an intricate system that the slightest thing can set it off. But I can see that it sometimes it necessary and also scandalizes everyone when it happens.

No one complains about the deer though when it happens to them :P

We sympathize with carnivores somehow, perhaps because they are more intelligent
Uzuri wrote:*gives Marj village idiot hat*
It's official!!!! >:D

User avatar
Uzuri
STAFF
STAFF
Posts: 20497
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:54 pm
Gender: Female
Skype: Uzuri153
November Challenge Goal: 180
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 180
Location: In my lair, where I gnaw the souls of disobedient posters
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by Uzuri » Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:42 pm

It makes perfect sense to do so to balance things and preserve species--but it makes no sense to do so just so we have more elk to shoot. I think that's where the current problem is.
Zib, go suffer for your art.

Wait. 20 and 20 and 20 is not 50!

Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor. --from "1776"

There's a difference between the Electric Slide and a ballet.

User avatar
snowmuzzle
Alpha
Posts: 1011
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:54 pm
Gender: Female
November Challenge Type: frames
Location: Devon

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by snowmuzzle » Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:22 pm

They talk about hunting to stop the population from crashing (and therefore somehow making it a happier ending for the wolves as they get shot instead of starved). So does that mean we're gonna start shooting birds so they won't suffer when the worm population goes down? You can put as many frills on it as you like, but hunting normally boils down to enjoyment.
Do you lie awake at night because you fear being found out? Or is it because you know some day you'll have to face up to that what you are doing is wrong?

Marji4x
STAFF
STAFF
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:43 pm
Skype: marji4x
November Challenge Goal: 180
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 0
Location: East Coast North America
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by Marji4x » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:43 pm

except that I don't think worms go down like that...they're pretty much around all the time except in certain seasons and birds know when that is and have made adjustments over the centuries.

It's hard to compare them to wolves, there is probably a lot of different factors.

Tinkering with natural processes is always tricky but I don't think big game/ big hunter populations are probably in their natural state anymore which is why we keep having to cull them once in a while
Uzuri wrote:*gives Marj village idiot hat*
It's official!!!! >:D

User avatar
Uzuri
STAFF
STAFF
Posts: 20497
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:54 pm
Gender: Female
Skype: Uzuri153
November Challenge Goal: 180
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 180
Location: In my lair, where I gnaw the souls of disobedient posters
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by Uzuri » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:07 pm

I can understand that... or could if we didn't introduce man the hunter on both sides (eg: you can't bitch that we have too many polar bears AND too many seals, so we need to shoot both of them... um... let the bears eat the seals, duh).

In other words: culling carnivorous is fine if and only if it's for the recovery of a species population that is in trouble, but not if it's to encourage the overpopulation of a species that we're just farming for big game hunters. Am I making the difference clear?

Like around here we're starting to have a coyote problem. They've done their job and trimmed the rodent population, so it's probably OK to have limited hunting. But if we had something around that hunter deer (which we don't; coyotes don't), which we have too many of, we couldn't just shoot the deer-eating whatever-it-is just so that we could sell more buck licenses next year. That's not right.

Leave the natural balance to do it's thing when it's doing it's thing and only step in when its out of whack. Don't drive it out of whack, then try to step in and fix it.
Zib, go suffer for your art.

Wait. 20 and 20 and 20 is not 50!

Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of being rich than face the reality of being poor. --from "1776"

There's a difference between the Electric Slide and a ballet.

User avatar
lauren
Emeritus Staff
Posts: 2057
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 10:09 pm
November Challenge Goal: 0
November Challenge Type: frames
November Challenge Progress: 0
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by lauren » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:05 pm

I'm late to the party.

No one complains about the deer though when it happens to them :P


I've heard the same "shoot them before they starve" logic applied to deer often, and I've also seen people vehemently opposed to killing non-predatory species. Wolves are a "poster child species" if you will, and get an unusual percentage of people's attention. I can understand why this happens, but it is unfortunate in many ways.


Honestly, if people are genuinely worried about animal (and plants etc. in some cases) population levels (and they should be), they tend to advocate for large stretches of land/water where human hunts are either heavily restricted or banned, and patch-working factors are eliminated. They also tend to focus on the effects of the ever growing human population. I don't believe that humans are very capable of being stewards to nature, as nature has it's own way of working (which includes cycles of things such as starvation), and people have consistently shown that, even when truly well intentioned, they are not capable of grasping all the intricacies by any means. Even when not trying to make the natural world fit into our own social values and ideals, things tend to mess up from elephant reintroductions (aggressive males, captive-raised groups whose matriarch abandons the herd when released in the wild, etc.) to non-native animal introductions. People who are genuinely trying to keep some balance between nature and human society should be commended (in my opinion of course), but the most effective human run programs either try to allow nature to do its thing, or recognize that they will have shortcomings, and be very wary of their decisions.
Image

User avatar
ecco
Emeritus Staff
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:11 pm
Gender: Female
Location: South England
Contact:

Re: Conservative site talks about wolves

Post by ecco » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:32 pm

I think Uzuri pretty much hit the nail on the head. Well said :)

Post Reply