If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Having successfully restored the Gray Wolf into the environment, Minnesota to celebrate by killing them all off again   (startribune.com) divider line 91
    More: Sad, Minnesota, environments  
•       •       •

6396 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2012 at 1:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-18 12:09:17 AM
If depredations are not the basis for a hunt, why kill wolves? This is a sport season, pure and simple. Recreational killing.

Killing is fun! YEEE-HAW!
 
2012-10-18 12:16:36 AM
media.animegalleries.net

Bring it!
 
2012-10-18 12:46:29 AM
Could we maybe rebreed them without that pesky "burning desire to live" thingee?
 
2012-10-18 12:47:05 AM
They do that in Alaska as well. They have yearly wolf hunting to thin out their numbers so there's more caribou and other wild game available for hunters to kill.

Because the only REAL Apex predator in nature is man.
 
2012-10-18 01:47:03 AM
How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.
 
2012-10-18 01:47:12 AM
They were a fad.
 
2012-10-18 01:49:40 AM
Being a Minnesotan I think I'll wear my favorite shirt everyday in a show of solidarity with the wolves.

www.animalshirts.net

Or I could just continue going on not giving a fark. Yeah I'll do that.
 
2012-10-18 01:54:17 AM

Ambivalence: They do that in Alaska as well. They have yearly wolf hunting to thin out their numbers so there's more caribou and other wild game available for hunters to kill.

Because the only REAL Apex predator in nature is man.


Yeah, because wolves always go after the alpha male caribou with the big antlers, right?

//well, no, they go after the weak, young, and sick (kind of like Congressional Republicans)
////never cry wolf
///have no idea if that movie was scientifically accurate
//will never ever eat a live mouse, though
/but one never knows what might happen
 
2012-10-18 01:58:30 AM

Raoul Eaton: //well, no, they go after the weak, young, and sick (kind of like Congressional Republicans)


Dick.
 
2012-10-18 02:01:46 AM

ozarkmatt: Raoul Eaton: //well, no, they go after the weak, young, and sick (kind of like Congressional Republicans)

Dick.


They go after Dick like congressional republicans?
 
2012-10-18 02:01:53 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Do your worst, you farking Minnesota pissants.
 
2012-10-18 02:05:15 AM

brap: Could we maybe rebreed them without that pesky "burning desire to live" thingee?


That's called "domestication," and PETA says it's bad and wrong.

/funny how quickly people forget
//they forgot how destructive wolves were as soon as they were gone, and they're forgetting how sad and guilty they felt now that they're back
 
2012-10-18 02:12:34 AM
":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.
 
2012-10-18 02:14:50 AM
FTA:
"During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the (Republican)Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved."

images.sodahead.com

/They're just animals for gods sake
 
2012-10-18 02:18:57 AM

fusillade762: If depredations are not the basis for a hunt, why kill wolves? This is a sport season, pure and simple. Recreational killing.

Killing is fun! YEEE-HAW!


Well, that and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that one has an extraordinarily enormous penis I'm talking HUGE!! Like, it has to ride shotgun in the Humvee
 
2012-10-18 02:27:59 AM
images.wikia.com
 
2012-10-18 02:33:36 AM

Satyagraha: FTA:
"During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the (Republican)Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved."

[images.sodahead.com image 350x342]

/They're just animals for gods sake


They're predators, which in turn keep the other species in check (barring of course random factors like a disease or drought/flood year that keeps their prey at lower populations). They were hunted nearly to extinction in the upper mid-west early last century or so (can't remember exactly since my research paper was done in 2006).

Ranchers biatch about them because of the (potential) economic loss, but in terms of balancing the ecosystem, all predators are invaluable. Humans are the interlopers in their natural territory, not the other way around.
 
2012-10-18 02:37:28 AM

vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.


static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-10-18 02:37:35 AM
They need to be relisted on TESA.
 
2012-10-18 02:41:20 AM

fusillade762: vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.


Finally! This should have been the Boobies.
 
2012-10-18 02:44:10 AM
Is that how Kevin Love broke his hand?
 
2012-10-18 02:46:53 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.


Frankly the specific numbers don't matter all that much. If there is an important apex predator whose populations, numbering only two or three thousand, are only just recovered after being hunted nearly to extinction -- AND it is already very likely that some will be killed due to livestock depredation laws -- it seems plainly obvious that we should restrict any other activity that will have any impact on their numbers. Their population is not large, even now; WHY should we be allowing people to shoot them at all??
 
2012-10-18 02:48:37 AM

Satyagraha: /They're just animals for gods sake


Sounds like someone doesn't appreciate nature.

/Or understand ecosystems
 
2012-10-18 03:06:14 AM
If it's any consolation, it costs like $30 whole dollars, if you win the lottery and are a resident. $250 for non-residents.

Too old, no longer a hunter.
Would only hunt food.

That's okay isn't it?
 
2012-10-18 03:11:19 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.


So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me.
/not
 
2012-10-18 03:16:24 AM
Have you ever tasted wolf? It's kind of like doberman with a little bit of squirrel thrown in.
 
2012-10-18 03:18:19 AM
images.forbes.com

"Just stay still and they wont see us."
 
2012-10-18 03:20:22 AM
"Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls."
Too bad there isn't a breed of dog that can be used to protect livestock.
 
2012-10-18 03:24:50 AM
% of cattle population killed and eaten by wolves last year - 00.000000001%
% of cattle population killed and eaten by people last year - 99.999999999%.

If I were a cow, it would not be wolves that I would be worried about.

Jest sayin'
 
2012-10-18 03:45:07 AM
In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered. Turns out one reason is that coyotes will hunt and kill the calves. The female pronghorns leave newborn calves hidden in the grass while they are grazing, until the calves can keep up with the herd. Coyotes come along and kill the calves. The small (newborn) calves are only big enough to feed a small family pack of coyotes, hence a lot of coyotes can devastate a calving ground.

Since the calves are so small, they are not favorite prey of the wolf packs; however, the coyotes stay away from areas where the wolves have established themselves. Result: The pronghorn calves have a chance to grow up and replenish the herd. A larger wolf pack will not need to eat more than a few pronghorns, since they'd rather take bigger prey (elk, bison) when they can. The net result is that more wolves = more pronghorn.

Funny how that works out.
 
2012-10-18 03:55:04 AM

Gyrfalcon: In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered. Turns out one reason is that coyotes will hunt and kill the calves. The female pronghorns leave newborn calves hidden in the grass while they are grazing, until the calves can keep up with the herd. Coyotes come along and kill the calves. The small (newborn) calves are only big enough to feed a small family pack of coyotes, hence a lot of coyotes can devastate a calving ground.

Since the calves are so small, they are not favorite prey of the wolf packs; however, the coyotes stay away from areas where the wolves have established themselves. Result: The pronghorn calves have a chance to grow up and replenish the herd. A larger wolf pack will not need to eat more than a few pronghorns, since they'd rather take bigger prey (elk, bison) when they can. The net result is that more wolves = more pronghorn.

Funny how that works out.


Ecosystems. How do they work?
 
2012-10-18 03:56:02 AM

simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me.
/not


According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.
 
2012-10-18 03:58:26 AM

Gawdzila: Satyagraha: /They're just animals for gods sake

Sounds like someone doesn't appreciate nature.

/Or understand ecosystems


if we don't kill them they will die!
 
2012-10-18 03:58:33 AM
Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters
 
2012-10-18 04:02:01 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters


I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.
 
2012-10-18 05:04:47 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me.
/not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.


They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.
 
Skr
2012-10-18 05:12:46 AM
I have seen the billboards about this for a while now. Was wondering what it was all about. Sounded like some nutter shiat on the billboards "Stop the DNR from killing the Wolves" but it seems like the licenses are going to actually go out . Meh I don't think the hunting should happen, nor do I think they should have been removed from protected status. Does anything good come out of the government when the public is locked out? Seems the locking out itself is nefarious at the least.

Anyways, I haven't checked out the wolves at the Minnesota Zoo for a while, but the couple that live in Como seem to be pretty cool. White one that is always chilling out and a grey one that loves pacing. Arctic Foxes there are a blast as well. They REALLY love the white bunnies they are given to eat.
 
2012-10-18 05:23:50 AM

BolloxReader: Pray 4 Mojo: simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me.
/not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.

They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.




Turning wolves into game will ensure less poaching. Big game hunters tend to police themselves very well and will not stand for stealing/poaching of animals. Hunting of wolves will also prevent livestock predation. Wolves need to fear man for their own good
 
2012-10-18 05:59:27 AM

vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.


Weak argument. Nature gifted wolves enhanced hearing, superior smell, night vision, and fangs. Nature gifted humans the ability to pre-plan. A human hunters ability comes with caveat that we wont enter a hunt until we are assured success. Just like a Wolf hunting a sick caribou with 12 of his friends.
There's no fair fights unless by fair the wolf and the human are placed in a stadium at noon and the wolf has his fangs filed and mace applied to his face.

Id watch that.
 
2012-10-18 06:08:50 AM

simplicimus: Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.


Sort of like how the white-tail deer has?

Link 

Link
 
2012-10-18 06:24:17 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: BolloxReader: Pray 4 Mojo: simplicimus: Pray 4 Mojo: ":A few facts -- the wolf population has been stable since 1998 without hunting or trapping. The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally."

Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

So they're planning to wipe out 1/2 to 1/3 of the population? Sounds genetically sound to me.
/not

According to numbers apparently pulled from the ass of the person that wrote this.

That's the problem.

They know about how many wolves are poached. People have already been poaching them, like they poach every animal.

They know about how many wolves are killed for killing cattle each year.

They know how many licenses are being handed out for hunters to hunt wolves. They are guessing how many wolves will be taken.

It looks like they can account for about 600 wolves outside of ordinary game hunting. I don't know how they are estimating the game hunting-- only one per hunter, only so many licenses, and a certain percent will be successful, perhaps? Or perhaps they are allowing a total of 400 wolves to be taken legally, first come first served. Not a hunter, so I don't know how they balance such things out but I know that in Indiana they estimate how many deer will be killed when they allow deer hunting in state parks. Someone's got a formula.

Anyway, I know the first two numbers are easily projected because they have already been doing those things.



Turning wolves into game will ensure less poaching. Big game hunters tend to police themselves very well and will not stand for stealing/poaching of animals. Hunting of w ...


Yep.

Even if those numbers are completely accurate... they are dependent figures. Also... the data I looked up pretty quick show that the population increased 20% from 1998 to 2007. So the "facts" in this piece setting off my bullshiat detector appears to be valid.

Write all the op-ed pieces you want if you're trying to save the wolves. I got no issue with that... but if you're going to lay out "facts"... then farking back them up. Making up fairy tales only weakens your position.

And I would guess... if this were an editorial about the need to have the population of wolves thinned out and laying out 'facts' that are not backed up... the Fark tree hugger patrol would be here ripping it apart. Just cause it backs your position doesn't make it okay.

/Have hunted wolves
//Never saw one the whole time
///it was cold
 
2012-10-18 06:34:10 AM

kendelrio: simplicimus: Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

Sort of like how the white-tail deer has?

Link 

Link


And this is because we eliminated most of the other predators.
 
2012-10-18 06:41:46 AM

Gawdzila: Pray 4 Mojo: Pro-tip:

If you're trying to convince me your position is correct... when you provide "facts"... you should... you know... show me that you didn't pull numbers out of your butt.

Frankly the specific numbers don't matter all that much. If there is an important apex predator whose populations, numbering only two or three thousand, are only just recovered after being hunted nearly to extinction -- AND it is already very likely that some will be killed due to livestock depredation laws -- it seems plainly obvious that we should restrict any other activity that will have any impact on their numbers. Their population is not large, even now; WHY should we be allowing people to shoot them at all??


You silly sons of biatches! This is about showing the wolves who boss. Make sure they don't get too comfortable with us and start eating your babies out of your front yard.
 
2012-10-18 07:25:27 AM

simplicimus: "Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls."
Too bad there isn't a breed of dog that can be used to protect livestock.


Wolves will generally beat dogs in a battle. At best, the pack will move to an easier target.
 
2012-10-18 07:31:09 AM
Here in New Mexico, they reintroduced the Mexican Gray Wolf, but you still get news articles about how ranchers say they are a menace, and lot of them get shot on sight, even though they are supposedly protected. *sigh*
 
2012-10-18 07:37:46 AM

homelessdude: % of cattle population killed and eaten by wolves last year - 00.000000001%
% of cattle population killed and eaten by people last year - 99.999999999%.

If I were a cow, it would not be wolves that I would be worried about.

Jest sayin'


Would you rather be killed by wolves or be knocked unconscious by a quick blow to the head before having your throat cut?
 
2012-10-18 07:42:21 AM

Subtle_Canary: vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

Weak argument. Nature gifted wolves enhanced hearing, superior smell, night vision, and fangs. Nature gifted humans the ability to pre-plan. A human hunters ability comes with caveat that we wont enter a hunt until we are assured success. Just like a Wolf hunting a sick caribou with 12 of his friends.
There's no fair fights unless by fair the wolf and the human are placed in a stadium at noon and the wolf has his fangs filed and mace applied to his face.

Id watch that.


As someone said upthread, humans are the only real "apex predator." The rest of nature exists solely by our decision to preserve it. If we're going to just kill things for fun when we have absolutely no chance of failure, then let's stop being coy and just wipe all the other animals out. Or, if we're going to claim we're killing for sport, let's make it actually sporting.

/I always feel like I seem way too hostile when people can't hear my voice.
 
2012-10-18 08:33:43 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters


Many hunters have a different notion of what the stewardship of nature entails. Among other things is making sure the lucrative hunting industry is not impacted. To that end the numbers of competitor species (cougars and wolves especially) are controlled not to achieve natural balance, but to allow for sufficient game for sports hunters. Nature isn't so much protected as 'managed'.
 
2012-10-18 08:53:24 AM
Lionel Mandrake

Well, that and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that one has an extraordinarily enormous penis I'm talking HUGE!!
Perhaps you should spend a tad less energy being obsessed with other men's junk.
 
2012-10-18 08:55:18 AM
Gyrfalcon


In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered.

Yellowstone is the perfect example of what a mess the eco-nazis make when put in charge of "preservation".
 
2012-10-18 09:08:39 AM

kendelrio: simplicimus: Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

Sort of like how the white-tail deer has?

Link 

Link


This. We also have this issue in the state where I live, although it is not Maine, deer are overpopulated and are starving to death, even with hunting - which culled the herds by about 90,282 in 2011 (down 14% due to poor weather in the season) We could certainly use some alpha predators here because starvation and disease are not humane ways to decrease the deer population.

Also (FTFA) More than 75 percent of respondents to a Department of Natural Resources survey taken earlier this year opposed the season that is scheduled to commence Nov. 3.

As usual, the government totally ignores the people who know better; the officials who always think they are intellectually superior to the "unwashed masses", when in reality they don't have a farking clue.
 
2012-10-18 09:16:12 AM

vwarb: Subtle_Canary: vwarb: How about we allow the wolf hunting season these people so badly desire, but they have to go into the woods with only their hands. They'll of course be allowed to use whatever tools they fashion while hunting, but that's it.

Weak argument. Nature gifted wolves enhanced hearing, superior smell, night vision, and fangs. Nature gifted humans the ability to pre-plan. A human hunters ability comes with caveat that we wont enter a hunt until we are assured success. Just like a Wolf hunting a sick caribou with 12 of his friends.
There's no fair fights unless by fair the wolf and the human are placed in a stadium at noon and the wolf has his fangs filed and mace applied to his face.

Id watch that.

As someone said upthread, humans are the only real "apex predator." The rest of nature exists solely by our decision to preserve it. If we're going to just kill things for fun when we have absolutely no chance of failure, then let's stop being coy and just wipe all the other animals out. Or, if we're going to claim we're killing for sport, let's make it actually sporting.

/I always feel like I seem way too hostile when people can't hear my voice.


Sporting?
Gonna have to teach them how to use an AK, otherwise, no sport.
 
2012-10-18 09:22:38 AM

Another Government Employee: simplicimus: "Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls."
Too bad there isn't a breed of dog that can be used to protect livestock.

Wolves will generally beat dogs in a battle. At best, the pack will move to an easier target.


Here, try a few of these.

Link

Then, if things appear to be going badly for your side, you go out there with your shotgun and level the playing field.

At least, that's what you do when you raise livestock. If you can be bothered to get up off your a*s.

I guess that's why you work for the government.
 
2012-10-18 09:30:15 AM

ladyfortuna: Humans are the interlopers in their natural territory, not the other way around.


How can humans be interlopers? You think we came from Mars?
 
2012-10-18 09:43:01 AM

Tatterdemalian: brap: Could we maybe rebreed them without that pesky "burning desire to live" thingee?

That's called "domestication," and PETA says it's bad and wrong.

/funny how quickly people forget
//they forgot how destructive wolves were as soon as they were gone, and they're forgetting how sad and guilty they felt now that they're back


How could anyone forget PETA and The Wolf? 
 
Next to Baby Elephant Walk and The Teddy Bear's Picnic  it was my favorite track off of  TODDLER ROCK!
 
2012-10-18 09:52:26 AM
If you recreational hunt anything, you are an asshole.

For the sake of my argument, I will define "recreational hunt" as not killing for food, clothing, population control, or protection (whether it be yourself, family, pet, or livestock).
 
2012-10-18 10:15:27 AM

for good or for awesome: ladyfortuna: Humans are the interlopers in their natural territory, not the other way around.

How can humans be interlopers? You think we came from Mars?


No, she means by humans achieving vastly superior breeding success, and takeover of the wolves prior territory.
 
2012-10-18 10:36:32 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters


Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.
 
2012-10-18 11:11:06 AM
While I tend to think that killing wolves is generally not good, I also think that anything HSUS says (that article was written by the MN Director of HSUS) should be taken as utter and complete bullshiat until such time as it has been independently verified using unbiased sources. They are emphatically NOT your local humane society - they don't give money to local shelters and are a political action group, just like (and in league with) PETA. They'd love to see laws enacted that would forbid all contact/interaction between humans and animals, including pet ownership.

In addition to that, MN DNR has typically been pretty good at managing wildlife populations, and I sincerely doubt that they'd allow a non-sustainable number of animals to be taken.
 
2012-10-18 11:13:53 AM
some != all

/ there's no reason why limited hunting would result in the extinction of wolves -- they do reproduce, just like any other animal
 
2012-10-18 11:18:16 AM
I'll say it again, unless you're hunting for food, sneakily shooting an animal minding its own business earns you zero man points in my book. If anything, I would deduct points.
 
2012-10-18 11:22:43 AM

browntimmy: I'll say it again, unless you're hunting for food, sneakily shooting an animal minding its own business earns you zero man points in my book. If anything, I would deduct points.


Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.
 
2012-10-18 11:36:18 AM

for good or for awesome: ladyfortuna: Humans are the interlopers in their natural territory, not the other way around.

How can humans be interlopers? You think we came from Mars?


Reptilian aliens.
www.thelivingmoon.com
 
2012-10-18 11:39:57 AM
Gyrfalcon


In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered.


Yellowstone is the perfect example of what a mess the eco-nazis make when put in charge of "preservation".


There are a lot of really messed up things about Yellowstone, and its not just the eco-nazis' fault. Part of it is that (for instance) over fears of brucellosis, bison are shot on sight if they leave the park, so the grazing space is cramped by a much larger animal. Part of it is that pronghorn are migratory, and their migratory path is being damaged by methane drilling operations between Rock Springs and Jackson. Part of it is that there just isn't that much prairie land in Yellowstone, so the area couldn't support many pronghorn to begin with. Yellowstone is jacked up because people expect it to be this little bit of land that exists in isolation from the surrounding area. Unfortunately, bison, elk, deer, moose, bear, wolf, and cougar can't read maps so they don't know not to leave the park. And a fence around the park to keep them in is specifically antithetical to the conservation goals of the National Park System. There's a continuing campaign to eradicate all wolves from the area, despite the fact that bears are the far greater threat to livestock, and they'll break into your house too. Of course, the eco-nazi position is to eradicate all of the livestock. I actually think that well regulated hunting for wolves is a great idea, but the Minnesota DNR (and also the Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming DNR) need to avoid a slow-eradication of the wolves. If your management plan calls for the eradication of a native species (even if its been reintroduced after you eradicated it the last time), then its not a *management* plan.

The thing about wolves is that we're not so many generations removed from when they really were a big problem, and there was no system of restitution for losses. Ranchers tend to have a very long (e.g. multigenerational) memory about wrongs done to them, so we have an awful lot of ranchers who are lobbying their congresspersons about wolf policy, but still think the situation on the ground is identical to 1890.
 
2012-10-18 11:40:54 AM

jshine: browntimmy: I'll say it again, unless you're hunting for food, sneakily shooting an animal minding its own business earns you zero man points in my book. If anything, I would deduct points.

Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.


That's nice, but in the scenario I described, that's a dishonorable lack of respect for life. Which is a trait usually reserved for small children, the mentally handicapped, and sociopaths. I'm not saying you're one of those, just that you have a lot in common.
 
2012-10-18 12:11:25 PM

udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.


Bullshiat. Most of extinctions in modern times comes from market hunters fueling east Asia's greed and habitat loss. Sport hunters have cause no extinctions and aid in the recovery of many game and non game animals.
 
2012-10-18 12:22:55 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters


bullshiat. how dare you invoke the names of men much greater than you when you don't understand a damn thing about them.

they wouldn't have supported this over-killing.
 
2012-10-18 12:32:58 PM

olstyn: They'd love to see laws enacted that would forbid all contact/interaction between humans and animals, including pet ownership.


[CITATION NEEDED]

(valid reasons to disagree with HSUS exist.. but you're pulling shiat out of your ass)


jshine: Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.


oh you're just so superior, aren't you? not judging... oh wait YOU JUST DID JUDGE SOMEONE.

stfu hypocrite.

petsfed1: There are a lot of really messed up things about Yellowstone, and its not just the eco-nazis' fault


"eco-nazis"? really? grow the fark up.

petsfed1: Ranchers tend to have a very long (e.g. multigenerational) memory about wrongs done to them


and are butthurt easily and refuse to consider anything other than their own lazy ass modern form of ranching (let the herd wander on public lands unescorted with no predator mitigation actions taken).
 
2012-10-18 12:42:33 PM

Gyrfalcon: In Yellowstone, the pronghorn population is critically endangered. .


That's only in Yellowstone, Gyr. We've still got antelope playing all over the place out west. I've seen lots of them less than 50 miles outside the park. Hope you makes you feel better.

You're right though. I've rarely seen a pronghorn in Yellowstone. Deer don't do so well there--they're crowded out by the big critters that everyone wants to see--the bison and elk.

The last Minnesota population survey was completed in 2007, and it established a population range from 2,100 to 3,500 wolves. This year, 400 wolves are expected to be killed during the scheduled season. Another 300 will be killed legally under livestock depredation controls, plus an estimated 300 more will be killed illegally.

Yeah you wish. Let's see how the wolf eradication program is going in Montana:

Statewide quota: 220
 Total Harvested: 166, 75 percent.
 The season closed Feb. 15, an extension of 46 days beyond the scheduled Dec. 31, 2011 closing. A total of 45 wolves were harvested during the extended season.


So despite the resident hunting licenses going for $19, and the hunting season being extended, hunters still couldn't meet the quota. And some people wanted to extend it even more, right into the wolf's breeding season, which is unsportsmanlike at best, and I have some other words for it too. (Because wolves stop moving while they raise pups, and would be quite easy to kill.)

No outfitter got a wolf. This year, they're opening a trapping season, and have been swamped with people applying for a trapping class. So they can do it "humanely". Because there's nothing more humane than catching an animal (any animal) in a trap and leaving it to writhe around in pain and panic for at least hours, and sometimes, days.

It appears that all those "shoot, shovel, and shut up" guys were lying about how many wolves they've killed over the years no matter how many stickers they put on their trucks, since they can't seem to shoot one even when they're legal. And this was the second year of legal hunting. I expect hunters will find it even harder to spot a wolf this year, since they've learned. And unless someone is being really, really aggressive, 300 wolves killed for livestock depredation sounds high. In Montana, 770 wolves were killed between 1987 and 2011 for depredation reasons.

Numbers were similar in Idaho, even with a longer season. And they can "harvest" (don't call it "hunting" or "killing", please) two wolves, as well as trap them. Montana is looking into doing the same thing. Because, you know, if you can't find one wolf to shoot, you should definitely be allowed to shoot two.

Now I know that Minnesota is a very different place from Montana, more populated, and the wolves probably live their lives differently there. But they ain't stupid. And there's a lot of deep woods in Minnesota. I'll be watching the reports to see how it goes, but I don't think wolves will be leaving Minnesota anytime soon. They're like knapweed. Or zebra mussels. Mu-hahahahaha.
 
2012-10-18 12:51:34 PM

olstyn: While I tend to think that killing wolves is generally not good, I also think that anything HSUS says (that article was written by the MN Director of HSUS) should be taken as utter and complete bullshiat until such time as it has been independently verified using unbiased sources. They are emphatically NOT your local humane society - they don't give money to local shelters and are a political action group, just like (and in league with) PETA. They'd love to see laws enacted that would forbid all contact/interaction between humans and animals, including pet ownership.

In addition to that, MN DNR has typically been pretty good at managing wildlife populations, and I sincerely doubt that they'd allow a non-sustainable number of animals to be taken.


It's the word "sustainable" that's at the crux of the issue. For the DNR sustainable is maintaining a token enough population of wolves so that it doesn't jeopardize the multi-billion dollar hunting industry, with it's very well-financed lobbying interests. For environmentalist, sustainable is a predator-prey population that balances itself. But that arrangement can leave game scarce and skittish come hunting season.
 
2012-10-18 12:52:10 PM
Wolves were never "reintroduced" into Minnesota. They've been here the whole time.
 
2012-10-18 01:00:38 PM

Kazan: olstyn: They'd love to see laws enacted that would forbid all contact/interaction between humans and animals, including pet ownership.

[CITATION NEEDED]

(valid reasons to disagree with HSUS exist.. but you're pulling shiat out of your ass)


I submit their entire position on the python ban/Lacey Act issue. Of course, as an owner of two reptile pets (geckos, for the record), I have to acknowledge that my anti-HSUS bias originated from the feeling that I'm about to be shoved off of a slippery slope, but that doesn't make me wrong.

There's also the fact that HSUS is against the no-kill movement with regard to shelters - they'd rather see animals killed than adopted.

Perhaps they're not quite as extreme as PETA, and perhaps I engaged in a bit of hyperbole when I said they're against all human/animal interaction, but they've definitely got a lot of wrong going on, and I think that the Star Trib made a major mistake by publishing one of their position papers as if it was news.
 
2012-10-18 01:01:42 PM
People need to stop poaching wolves!!!
They are much better scrambled or sunny side up.

/but seriously, thanks subby for that article
 
2012-10-18 01:06:40 PM

TenJed_77: kendelrio: simplicimus: Mid_mo_mad_man: Regular sport hunting of wolves will allow their numbers to grow and secure their surviving into the future. Its already happen with deer, elk, bears and turkeys in the USA. Sport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

I understand your point of view, but even without human intervention, the populations would stabilize.

Sort of like how the white-tail deer has?

Link 

Link

And this is because we eliminated most of the other predators.



Oh Snap!
 
2012-10-18 01:31:25 PM

olstyn: There's also the fact that HSUS is against the no-kill movement with regard to shelters - they'd rather see animals killed than adopted.


i'm against no-kill as well because i've seen what happens. there are animals that are unadoptable, unkeepable and in pain and a painless euthanasia is a mercy. I had to put down a kitty I cared very much about after having got him from a no kill rescue.. that knew none of his issues (because hey had too many cats) and who had no understanding of quality-of-life over quantity of life.

"kill many" and no-kill shelters are both wrong.

olstyn: Perhaps they're not quite as extreme as PETA, and perhaps I engaged in a bit of hyperbole when I said they're against all human/animal interaction, but they've definitely got a lot of wrong going on, and I think that the Star Trib made a major mistake by publishing one of their position papers as if it was news.


to the vast majority of people the HSUS is a perfectly reputable organization.
 
2012-10-18 01:50:55 PM

Kazan: olstyn: There's also the fact that HSUS is against the no-kill movement with regard to shelters - they'd rather see animals killed than adopted.

i'm against no-kill as well because i've seen what happens. there are animals that are unadoptable, unkeepable and in pain and a painless euthanasia is a mercy. I had to put down a kitty I cared very much about after having got him from a no kill rescue.. that knew none of his issues (because hey had too many cats) and who had no understanding of quality-of-life over quantity of life.

"kill many" and no-kill shelters are both wrong.

olstyn: Perhaps they're not quite as extreme as PETA, and perhaps I engaged in a bit of hyperbole when I said they're against all human/animal interaction, but they've definitely got a lot of wrong going on, and I think that the Star Trib made a major mistake by publishing one of their position papers as if it was news.

to the vast majority of people the HSUS is a perfectly reputable organization.


Ok, I admit that I didn't think the no-kill shelter thing all the way through (I was operating under the assumption that medically recommended/suffering ending euthanasia didn't count).

As for your "perfectly reputable" comment, that's because the vast majority of people are not paying attention to what HSUS really does and what they really stand for, including many (most?) of their donors, many of whom probably think, due to their misleading television ads, that a large portion of their donations go directly toward helping animals in shelters:

http://www.humanewatch.org/images/uploads/TVDeception.pdf
 
2012-10-18 02:08:57 PM

Kazan: jshine: Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.

oh you're just so superior, aren't you? not judging... oh wait YOU JUST DID JUDGE SOMEONE.

stfu hypocrite.



How so? I commented only on myself and speculated that an attitude of indifference probably exists among other people (which, I think you'll agree, is very likely).
 
2012-10-18 02:15:14 PM

browntimmy: jshine: browntimmy: I'll say it again, unless you're hunting for food, sneakily shooting an animal minding its own business earns you zero man points in my book. If anything, I would deduct points.

Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.

That's nice, but in the scenario I described, that's a dishonorable lack of respect for life. Which is a trait usually reserved for small children, the mentally handicapped, and sociopaths. I'm not saying you're one of those, just that you have a lot in common.



I'm no hunter; I've never shot an animal in my life. When I said that I don't pass judgement, I meant it in exactly that way. I don't do this myself, but it doesn't affect me personally, nor is dispatching a wolf with a rifle particularly cruel to the wolf (indeed, most humans don't get such a quick death). Wolves in MN must not be endangered (it's the DNR's job to ensure sustainability), so there is no greater risk to the species.

For these reasons, I have no rational grounds to oppose hunting among those who choose to do it. If you feel this line of thinking makes me a sociopath (or something like one), then I suppose you're free to hold that opinion, but I don't understand what its based on.
 
2012-10-18 03:11:58 PM

jshine: ..I don't do this myself, but it doesn't affect me personally, nor is dispatching a wolf with a rifle particularly cruel to the wolf (indeed, most humans don't get such a quick death).


You know what's even better than a quick death? Living. And if someone or something was going to die, I'm sure they'd like it to be for a better reason than Bubba likes to chase stuff in the woods.
 
2012-10-18 03:24:19 PM

browntimmy: jshine: ..I don't do this myself, but it doesn't affect me personally, nor is dispatching a wolf with a rifle particularly cruel to the wolf (indeed, most humans don't get such a quick death).

You know what's even better than a quick death? Living. And if someone or something was going to die, I'm sure they'd like it to be for a better reason than Bubba likes to chase stuff in the woods.


Bubba is the one paying to protect the wolves and manage them. Small scale hunting will improve the wolves. The total harvest of wolves will be tiny
 
2012-10-18 03:27:38 PM

jshine: Kazan: jshine: Perhaps, but then again, there are many people who would not care one whit how many points they have in your book. I, for one, don't see it as my role to pass judgement on the actions of everyone I meet.

oh you're just so superior, aren't you? not judging... oh wait YOU JUST DID JUDGE SOMEONE.

stfu hypocrite.


How so? I commented only on myself and speculated that an attitude of indifference probably exists among other people (which, I think you'll agree, is very likely).


the context of your statement clearly implies that you think the other person is stepping beyond their proper bounds.
 
2012-10-18 04:32:18 PM

browntimmy: jshine: ..I don't do this myself, but it doesn't affect me personally, nor is dispatching a wolf with a rifle particularly cruel to the wolf (indeed, most humans don't get such a quick death).

You know what's even better than a quick death? Living. And if someone or something was going to die, I'm sure they'd like it to be for a better reason than Bubba likes to chase stuff in the woods.


Everything dies, and I doubt wolves are sophisticated enough to ponder the ephemeral nature of their existence, nor to mourn its impending end.
 
2012-10-18 05:05:56 PM
There is a whole lot of bullshiat in that article.

If you don't want the wolves thinned out, fine. Take the damned things with you on the way out. We don't want as many as we have and we certainly don't want our domestic animals preyed upon by them. And don't give that crap about the govt paying for the dead domestics. While you are fighting to get your compensation from people who really want to disqualify you, you still have little Suzie crying over her dead pony.

Those of us outside of the cities which is where the idiots who write these bullshiat articles usually live, see the need for management.

Also, on another note, if they are not allowed to be harvested legally, we can always go back to the 3 S's.
 
2012-10-18 09:42:46 PM
It will teach the wolves to fear the men. There is iron in this path.
 
2012-10-18 10:23:22 PM

Satyagraha: FTA:
"During the government shutdown of 2011, the compromise five-year wait was stripped away by the (Republican)Legislature. The State Capitol building was closed to the public when the final language was approved."

[images.sodahead.com image 350x342]

/They're just animals for gods sake


So are we.
 
2012-10-18 11:51:20 PM

udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.


Really?
Are you sure?
Which ones were they?

Oh, never mind! I see you prefaced your statement with "Bullshiat".
 
2012-10-19 02:30:29 AM

Jimmysolson: udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.

Really?
Are you sure?
Which ones were they?

Oh, never mind! I see you prefaced your statement with "Bullshiat".


Are you really ignorant enough to think that we have not hunted, who knows how many species to extinction?
How about we start in North America with the Passenger Pigeon?
or Carolina Parakeet?
or Falkland Island wolf?
or Bubal Hartebeast
or the Great Auk?
or Quaggas?
/grew up hunting and still do
 
2012-10-19 06:01:25 AM

TenJed_77: Are you really ignorant enough to think that we have not hunted, who knows how many species to extinction?
How about we start in North America with the Passenger Pigeon?
or Carolina Parakeet?
or Falkland Island wolf?
or Bubal Hartebeast
or the Great Auk?
or Quaggas?
/grew up hunting and still do


...and was there any attempt to regulate hunting of those animals, or did their overhunting and subsequent extinctions occur prior to modern knowledge of such things?
 
2012-10-19 08:15:49 PM

TenJed_77: Jimmysolson: udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.

Really?
Are you sure?
Which ones were they?

Oh, never mind! I see you prefaced your statement with "Bullshiat".

Are you really ignorant enough to think that we have not hunted, who knows how many species to extinction?
How about we start in North America with the Passenger Pigeon?
or Carolina Parakeet? MARKET HUNTING
or Falkland Island wolf? MARKET HUNTING
or Bubal Hartebeast MARKET HUNTING
or the Great Auk? MARKET HUNTING
or Quaggas? MARKET HUNTING
/grew up hunting and still do


NO ANIMAL HAS EVER BEEN DRIVEN TO EXTINCTION BY SPORT HUNTING OR POPULATION CONTROL.EVERY SINGLE SPECIES WHICH WAS HUNTED TO EXTINCTION WAS THROUGH MARKET HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED IN ALMOST 100 YEARS.
 
2012-10-19 11:40:11 PM

TenJed_77: Jimmysolson: udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.

Really?
Are you sure?
Which ones were they?

Oh, never mind! I see you prefaced your statement with "Bullshiat".

Are you really ignorant enough to think that we have not hunted, who knows how many species to extinction?
How about we start in North America with the Passenger Pigeon?
or Carolina Parakeet?
or Falkland Island wolf?
or Bubal Hartebeast
or the Great Auk?
or Quaggas?
/grew up hunting and still do


The bullshait called was for the 'thousand for every', that threw me for a loop.


You missed, Big Foot and a few others.

We seem to not agree on some points. Such is life!
 
2012-10-20 12:34:53 PM

foxtail: TenJed_77: Jimmysolson: udhq: Mid_mo_mad_man: RSport Hunters not tree huggers tend to be the best stewards of nature. Remember Roosevelt, Audubon, and the other pillars of conservation in America were big game hunters

Bullshiat. For every species that has been successfully "managed" by/for hunters, there are thousand species who have been hunted to extinction.

Really?
Are you sure?
Which ones were they?

Oh, never mind! I see you prefaced your statement with "Bullshiat".

Are you really ignorant enough to think that we have not hunted, who knows how many species to extinction?
How about we start in North America with the Passenger Pigeon?
or Carolina Parakeet? MARKET HUNTING
or Falkland Island wolf? MARKET HUNTING
or Bubal Hartebeast MARKET HUNTING
or the Great Auk? MARKET HUNTING
or Quaggas? MARKET HUNTING
/grew up hunting and still do

NO ANIMAL HAS EVER BEEN DRIVEN TO EXTINCTION BY SPORT HUNTING OR POPULATION CONTROL.EVERY SINGLE SPECIES WHICH WAS HUNTED TO EXTINCTION WAS THROUGH MARKET HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED IN ALMOST 100 YEARS.


Hey, that is boot strapping, hard working, wealth building you are talking about.
I thought we were talking hunting here, not profiteering at society's expense.

/DIAF Mittens
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report