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.

(Digital Journal)   Step 1: Kill wolves to protect elk. Step 2: Kill elk to protect crops. Step 3: Fire Idaho Department of Fish and Game   (digitaljournal.com) divider line 140
    More: Silly, Department of Fish, wolves, Idaho, mooses, crops, Center for Biological Diversity  
•       •       •

7122 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2014 at 1:24 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-26 11:42:28 PM  
Morons.
 
2014-01-26 11:48:12 PM  
I'd wager the ranchers have Chinese Needle Snakes at hand.
 
2014-01-27 01:12:26 AM  
maybe they need some flow charts or something.

imagizer.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-27 01:24:59 AM  
They forgot the gorillas in there somewhere...
 
2014-01-27 01:29:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: They forgot the gorillas in there somewhere...


They simply freeze to death when winter comes.
 
2014-01-27 01:30:59 AM  
You can't go back from wolf season.
/insert cheesy movie promo
 
2014-01-27 01:32:18 AM  
www.picturesnew.com
 
2014-01-27 01:33:29 AM  
Seems the hunters just want to shoot everything they can.
 
2014-01-27 01:34:32 AM  
Do the wildlife a favor, okay?  JUST......DON'T......HELP!!!
 
2014-01-27 01:35:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: They forgot the gorillas in there somewhere...


You have to bring in the snakes first.
 
2014-01-27 01:37:12 AM  
The part that turned me into this graphic:

2.bp.blogspot.com

Was actually reading the articles and seeing that  literally everyone who is not an Elk hunter not only saw this coming, but stated the inevitable result loudly and repeatedly when the wolf season idea came up and have continued to do so since.

And yet somehow it's still a shock to the retarded farking hunters.  The fark is wrong with those morons?  In actual farking civilized stated, hunters  are the conservationists.  Hunters are like 80% of the reason Texas has black bears again.
 
2014-01-27 01:39:31 AM  
Is this where we biatch about government?
 
2014-01-27 01:43:55 AM  
I suddenly have much less respect for people who have this bumper sticker on their car:

www.carstickersdecals.com
And let me tell you, where I live, there are a lot of them.

I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.
 
2014-01-27 01:44:32 AM  
Unless humans can really do the job of apex predator to clean out the extra elk, it's probably better to let the wolves stay out in the cold and wet to do the job.

/The grill of your F-350 makes for a terrible substitute.
 
2014-01-27 01:45:05 AM  

Abacus9: Is this where we biatch about government?


That and short sighted hunters with more ammo than brains. Where's a Teddy Roosevelt when ya need him?
 
2014-01-27 01:45:30 AM  
Meanwhile, a generation of our kids are learning to associate youth and fun with killing wolves. Can someone please make this stop?
 
2014-01-27 01:46:41 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The part that turned me into this graphic:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x699]

Was actually reading the articles and seeing that  literally everyone who is not an Elk hunter not only saw this coming, but stated the inevitable result loudly and repeatedly when the wolf season idea came up and have continued to do so since.

And yet somehow it's still a shock to the retarded farking hunters.  The fark is wrong with those morons?  In actual farking civilized stated, hunters  are the conservationists.  Hunters are like 80% of the reason Texas has black bears again.


Because these aren't "hunters." These are assholes who get a hardon at the idea of being able to say they killed a wolf (as if a wolf was something besides a large dog that runs in packs) and will do literally ANYTHING to be able to keep on killing wolves because penis.

The idea that too few predators = too many grazers and too many grazers = having to fence them out of your fields at considerably higher expense is not particularly surprising; the fact that almost nothing kills elk except wolves is not especially new (grizzlies will take a few, but they're not primary elk predators) or surprising. So lots of elk need lots of wolves to keep the numbers down. No wolves = overpopulation of elk. And nobody will convince me that in the lower 48 that anyone is actually surviving on the elk they take, not when in Alaska they manage to do a whole winter on one or two moose. The number of elk hunters relative to the number of elk is not survival hunting.

No: Elk were never "endangered"--there were too many, and if the numbers went down when wolves were reintroduced, it's because that's the CORRECT number of elk for the area. There are not supposed to be half a million elk in the area; there are supposed to be 20,000. It's not about the elk, its about being able to kill wolves, because it's so manly to shoot a dog.
 
2014-01-27 01:51:17 AM  

cryinoutloud: maybe they need some flow charts or something.

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 467x600]


Web?

jasonsandwich.com
 
2014-01-27 01:53:44 AM  

Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.


They won't necessarily attack each individual animal, but predators will instinctively give chase to animals that flee, which is why they often advise people to not immediately flee from large predators. Livestock like sheep and cattle are stupid however, so they can trample each other if they get in a panic. See also 'worrying livestock'.

It's also the reason why in states with agriculture (like here in PA) it's legal to shoot dogs that stray onto your property. They can easily cause real harm by chasing or otherwise harassing them.
 
2014-01-27 01:56:46 AM  

Dadoo: I suddenly have much less respect for people who have this bumper sticker on their car:

[www.carstickersdecals.com image 850x373]
And let me tell you, where I live, there are a lot of them.

I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.


None. None of them are true.

If hunters shot everyone with that bumper sticker though... that might help the wildlife.
 
2014-01-27 01:59:08 AM  
Where did the possess the wolves and wean them on your hearty breastmilk tactic come into disfavor? Farking meta realists!
 
2014-01-27 02:03:45 AM  
Kill em all and let god sort them out.

Kill the elk, kill the wolf and it sorts everything out. No costs of fencing. No lost crops due to elk. No lost farm animals due to wolves.

Right?
 
2014-01-27 02:05:37 AM  

berylman: Where did the possess the wolves and wean them on your hearty breastmilk tactic come into disfavor? Farking meta realists!


Is that aphasia, too much scotch or authentic frontier gibberish?
 
2014-01-27 02:07:34 AM  
It sounds like the state didn't issue enough elk tags to compensate for the reduction in wolves. Folks have to be the predator they chose to displace.

There are a ton of sides to the old wolf debate, I kinda feel for all of them.
 
2014-01-27 02:12:40 AM  

mr0x: Kill em all and let god sort them out.

Kill the elk, kill the wolf and it sorts everything out. No costs of fencing. No lost crops due to elk. No lost farm animals due to wolves.

Right?


Got to get a stranglehold, right Ted?
 
2014-01-27 02:14:21 AM  
So lots of extra elk, I don't see the problem
 
2014-01-27 02:17:21 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: berylman: Where did the possess the wolves and wean them on your hearty breastmilk tactic come into disfavor? Farking meta realists!

Is that aphasia, too much scotch or authentic frontier gibberish?


Read it like this: Where did the "possess the wolves and wean them on your hearty breastmilk" tactic come into disfavor?
 
2014-01-27 02:20:20 AM  

Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.


Zero of them.

Wolves are pack hunters, they'll cut an animal (usually a weaker/slower one) using basic pack strategy, kill it, and eat it.  They're also scent trackers, so packs will typically stay as far away from anything that smells like humans or our vehicles as possible.

They won't intentionally worry a herd beyond what's necessary to get their one kill, and generally won't even touch actual domestic animals.

If you're curious, there is a pack species that  will harry and slaughter domestic livestock just because they're dicks that find it funny.  They're called feral dogs, and shooting them is entirely legal (well, anyplace that discharging a firearm in general is legal).  Bonus points for them being one of maybe two wild species present in the US that can be a real danger to humans (the other two being the mountain lion and the grizzly bear, wolves aren't on the list at all because, again, pack hunters are smarter than that).

// Also "a couple wolves" is not really a thing.  A typical wolf pack has 6-7 members, and they go up to about 15-20 but don't really go below 4 very often.
 
2014-01-27 02:23:17 AM  
I'd rather let the wolf/elk ratio sort itself out, myself. As for elk meat, they keep buffalo herds for food don't they?

I woke up still drunk. It's probably time to snack and take aspirin.
 
2014-01-27 02:32:11 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: berylman: Where did the possess the wolves and wean them on your hearty breastmilk tactic come into disfavor? Farking meta realists!

Is that aphasia, too much scotch or authentic frontier gibberish?


img.fark.net

Rowdir!
 
2014-01-27 02:50:43 AM  

Abacus9: mr0x: Kill em all and let god sort them out.

Kill the elk, kill the wolf and it sorts everything out. No costs of fencing. No lost crops due to elk. No lost farm animals due to wolves.

Right?

Got to get a stranglehold, right Ted?


Still cracks me up when I listen to The Great White Buffalo.  Ted talks about the Indians needed some food and some skins for a roof, they only took what they needed, baby.
 
2014-01-27 03:07:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.

Zero of them.

Wolves are pack hunters, they'll cut an animal (usually a weaker/slower one) using basic pack strategy, kill it, and eat it.  They're also scent trackers, so packs will typically stay as far away from anything that smells like humans or our vehicles as possible.

They won't intentionally worry a herd beyond what's necessary to get their one kill, and generally won't even touch actual domestic animals.

If you're curious, there is a pack species that  will harry and slaughter domestic livestock just because they're dicks that find it funny.  They're called feral dogs, and shooting them is entirely legal (well, anyplace that discharging a firearm in general is legal).  Bonus points for them being one of maybe two wild species present in the US that can be a real danger to humans (the other two being the mountain lion and the grizzly bear, wolves aren't on the list at all because, again, pack hunters are smarter than that).

// Also "a couple wolves" is not really a thing.  A typical wolf pack has 6-7 members, and they go up to about 15-20 but don't really go below 4 very often.


You're wrong and assuming that all the deaths are directly caused by the wolves. They aren't. Wolves tend to go for the minimal kill, but it doesn't mean they won't go for more than they need.
 
2014-01-27 03:11:33 AM  

cryinoutloud: maybe they need some flow charts or something.

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 467x600]


Where does man and his M16 hunting rifle fit into the web?
 
2014-01-27 03:18:48 AM  
By the way, can you effectively hunt big game with .223/5.56 or 7.62x39? And why are there all these pseudo AR-15s and AK-47s in the gun shop that chamber .22LR? And most of the "NATO milpat" rifles are at least half plastic and look like cheap toys, as opposed say to Hi-Point handguns that look pretty lethal (almost like you could beat an elk to death with one).

I can see a detachable magazine on a .22, they have imitation M-1 carbines like that, but there's no need to make it look like an OMG ASSAULT RIFLE with rails on four sides of the barrel and banana clips taped together and collapsible stocks and what not. Especially when you never shoot it outside of the range. It's a short-range plinker for pete's sake.

OTOH those old Mosin-Nagant 91/30s look pretty cool, they're accurate enough, they're almost indestructible, they're only $150 and the most common ammo for 'em is really cheap. My fantasy insurgent group would carry Mosins and Hi-Point .45 carbines and wear insulated coveralls in winter. (For our Long March we'd go to Bell County!)
 
2014-01-27 03:26:46 AM  

The One True TheDavid: By the way, can you effectively hunt big game with .223/5.56 or 7.62x39? And why are there all these pseudo AR-15s and AK-47s in the gun shop that chamber .22LR? And most of the "NATO milpat" rifles are at least half plastic and look like cheap toys, as opposed say to Hi-Point handguns that look pretty lethal (almost like you could beat an elk to death with one).

I can see a detachable magazine on a .22, they have imitation M-1 carbines like that, but there's no need to make it look like an OMG ASSAULT RIFLE with rails on four sides of the barrel and banana clips taped together and collapsible stocks and what not. Especially when you never shoot it outside of the range. It's a short-range plinker for pete's sake.

OTOH those old Mosin-Nagant 91/30s look pretty cool, they're accurate enough, they're almost indestructible, they're only $150 and the most common ammo for 'em is really cheap. My fantasy insurgent group would carry Mosins and Hi-Point .45 carbines and wear insulated coveralls in winter. (For our Long March we'd go to Bell County!)


Most states don't allow large game hunting with .223 caliber rifles. Whether or not you can effectively hunt large animals with it is another question. Are you a good or great shot? 7.62 x 39mm is fine, but you'd be surprised how many states don't allow hunting with a rifle.

A lot of guns have options for a .22 LR because it's 10x* cheaper to shoot .22 LR than it is .223. Also for your insurgency group, make sure you bring a lot of rifle cleaning supplies. Any ammo you're going to fire through the Mosin-Nagant is going to be incredibly corrosive. I strip mine down and completely clean after every time I go shooting (in addition to before each hunting season). For a cheap rifle, the mosin-nagant is awesome but man the ammo is dirty.

* don't have exact numbers but it's much, much cheaper
 
2014-01-27 03:28:28 AM  

redmid17: Jim_Callahan: Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.

Zero of them.

Wolves are pack hunters, they'll cut an animal (usually a weaker/slower one) using basic pack strategy, kill it, and eat it.  They're also scent trackers, so packs will typically stay as far away from anything that smells like humans or our vehicles as possible.

They won't intentionally worry a herd beyond what's necessary to get their one kill, and generally won't even touch actual domestic animals.

If you're curious, there is a pack species that  will harry and slaughter domestic livestock just because they're dicks that find it funny.  They're called feral dogs, and shooting them is entirely legal (well, anyplace that discharging a firearm in general is legal).  Bonus points for them being one of maybe two wild species present in the US that can be a real danger to humans (the other two being the mountain lion and the grizzly bear, wolves aren't on the list at all because, again, pack hunters are smarter than that).

// Also "a couple wolves" is not really a thing.  A typical wolf pack has 6-7 members, and they go up to about 15-20 but don't really go below 4 very often.

You're wrong and assuming that all the deaths are directly caused by the wolves. They aren't. Wolves tend to go for the minimal kill, but it doesn't mean they won't go for more than they need.


I heard once, a very long time ago, that it's the running thing that causes wolves to go crazy when they encounter penned livestock. Since wolves normally have to run their prey down over long distances, and that would cause stronger animals to gain distance and weaker animals to drop behind, wolves will attack animals that "stop running", like penned animals have to do. That sends the wolves kill-instinct into overdrive, as if they're faced suddenly with dozens of deer they had run down instead of the normal one or two.

It was a very long time ago and I have no idea where I saw it; but it makes sense to me. Something in the wolf brain going "This one's tired, let's kill it...no wait, this one's tired...no, this one..no, this...this one...howabout this one...aaaaahhhh!"
 
2014-01-27 03:33:32 AM  

The One True TheDavid: By the way, can you effectively hunt big game with .223/5.56 or 7.62x39? And why are there all these pseudo AR-15s and AK-47s in the gun shop that chamber .22LR? And most of the "NATO milpat" rifles are at least half plastic and look like cheap toys, as opposed say to Hi-Point handguns that look pretty lethal (almost like you could beat an elk to death with one).

I can see a detachable magazine on a .22, they have imitation M-1 carbines like that, but there's no need to make it look like an OMG ASSAULT RIFLE with rails on four sides of the barrel and banana clips taped together and collapsible stocks and what not. Especially when you never shoot it outside of the range. It's a short-range plinker for pete's sake.

OTOH those old Mosin-Nagant 91/30s look pretty cool, they're accurate enough, they're almost indestructible, they're only $150 and the most common ammo for 'em is really cheap. My fantasy insurgent group would carry Mosins and Hi-Point .45 carbines and wear insulated coveralls in winter. (For our Long March we'd go to Bell County!)


To be fair, they don't always sell 100 round .22 drum magazines. You need the four banana clips to hold all 100 shells and taping them is just an easy way to keep track of them.

www.gunknowledge.com
 
2014-01-27 03:36:35 AM  

Gyrfalcon: redmid17: Jim_Callahan: Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.

Zero of them.

Wolves are pack hunters, they'll cut an animal (usually a weaker/slower one) using basic pack strategy, kill it, and eat it.  They're also scent trackers, so packs will typically stay as far away from anything that smells like humans or our vehicles as possible.

They won't intentionally worry a herd beyond what's necessary to get their one kill, and generally won't even touch actual domestic animals.

If you're curious, there is a pack species that  will harry and slaughter domestic livestock just because they're dicks that find it funny.  They're called feral dogs, and shooting them is entirely legal (well, anyplace that discharging a firearm in general is legal).  Bonus points for them being one of maybe two wild species present in the US that can be a real danger to humans (the other two being the mountain lion and the grizzly bear, wolves aren't on the list at all because, again, pack hunters are smarter than that).

// Also "a couple wolves" is not really a thing.  A typical wolf pack has 6-7 members, and they go up to about 15-20 but don't really go below 4 very often.

You're wrong and assuming that all the deaths are directly caused by the wolves. They aren't. Wolves tend to go for the minimal kill, but it doesn't mean they won't go for more than they need.

I heard once, a very long time ago, that it's the running thing that causes wolves to go crazy when they encounter penned livestock. Since wolves normally have to run their prey down over long distances, and that would cause stronger animals to gain distance and weaker animals to drop behind, wolves will attack animals that "stop running", like penned animals have to do. That sends the wolves kill-instinct into overdrive, as if they're faced suddenly with dozens of deer t ...


False.

Sheep are just too dumb to live.

Wolves "kill" 176 sheep. 10 had bite wounds. The rest asphyxiated.
 
2014-01-27 03:52:58 AM  

Gyrfalcon: redmid17: Jim_Callahan: Dadoo: I'm always hearing stories about how a couple of wolves will take out an entire flock of sheep in one night (just for fun, apparently), but now I'm beginning to question how many are true.

Zero of them.

Wolves are pack hunters, they'll cut an animal (usually a weaker/slower one) using basic pack strategy, kill it, and eat it.  They're also scent trackers, so packs will typically stay as far away from anything that smells like humans or our vehicles as possible.

They won't intentionally worry a herd beyond what's necessary to get their one kill, and generally won't even touch actual domestic animals.

If you're curious, there is a pack species that  will harry and slaughter domestic livestock just because they're dicks that find it funny.  They're called feral dogs, and shooting them is entirely legal (well, anyplace that discharging a firearm in general is legal).  Bonus points for them being one of maybe two wild species present in the US that can be a real danger to humans (the other two being the mountain lion and the grizzly bear, wolves aren't on the list at all because, again, pack hunters are smarter than that).

// Also "a couple wolves" is not really a thing.  A typical wolf pack has 6-7 members, and they go up to about 15-20 but don't really go below 4 very often.

You're wrong and assuming that all the deaths are directly caused by the wolves. They aren't. Wolves tend to go for the minimal kill, but it doesn't mean they won't go for more than they need.

I heard once, a very long time ago, that it's the running thing that causes wolves to go crazy when they encounter penned livestock. Since wolves normally have to run their prey down over long distances, and that would cause stronger animals to gain distance and weaker animals to drop behind, wolves will attack animals that "stop running", like penned animals have to do. That sends the wolves kill-instinct into overdrive, as if they're faced suddenly with dozens of deer t ...


I won't pretend to know the entire wolfpack mindset/dynamic, but I do know they can and will kill more than they have to. Most predators do. Coyotes and foxes are not wolves, but it only takes once cleaning out a formerly occupied turkey coop to learn that animals aren't always going for the minimal.
 
2014-01-27 03:54:31 AM  
Even a man who is pure in heart
 and says his prayers by night,
 may become a wolf
when the wolfbane blooms
and the autumn moon is bright.
img.fark.net
I am sure the good citizens in Idaho will find a solution to their infinite recursion problem.
 
2014-01-27 04:08:11 AM  
Gyrfalcon:
No: Elk were never "endangered"--there were too many, and if the numbers went down when wolves were reintroduced, it's because that's the CORRECT number of elk for the area. There are not supposed to be half a million elk in the area; there are supposed to be 20,000. It's not about the elk, its about being able to kill wolves, because it's so manly to shoot a dog.

Unlike dogs, wolves really don't give a shiat what people think, and no amount of cajoling or bribery changes it. They make crummy house pets. Even the hybrids are kinda sketchy. Wolves are not just dogs. That said, there aren't enough of them that they need culling. Unless you actually see one stalking your livestock, there's absolutely no gawddam reason why you should kill one.
 
2014-01-27 04:08:36 AM  
I vacation in Northern Idaho and Western Montana every year, the absurd amount of anti-wolf, pro-elk rhetoric running around is a bit tiresome to wade through. If they're having an elk over-abundance, how about simply selling more tags, opening up more land to public hunting, or lowering the price of out-of-state tags. Elk is damn fine meat and I'd gladly hunt one of those rather than the 2-3 local white tailed deer I have to shoot to suffice on for the year, but I simply can't afford the travel or the tags for elk. Or, have controlled hunts and process the meat for needy people, it's nearly identical in texture and flavor to beef for me, most people wouldn't even know it. Or do like Indiana has done with it's overpopulation of white tailed deer, longer hunting seasons, and more tags for does, you know, the real ones that have any control in regards the over-population. In my county alone I could harvest 1 buck and 1 doe (or 2 does) and then up to 8 antlerless deer, all for the low price of $24/license and $15/bonus antlerless tag. That's a farking bargain when it comes to meat.

In this particular article however I absolutely adore the retard commenting over and over about the "non-native wolves". What the fark does that even mean and why does it matter? Where are we going to find "native" wolves when we've exterminated them entirely from the lower 48? They're all the same bloody species, one wolf from British Columbia is nearly genetically identical to all of the others I'd wager. So what if it didn't grow up in Idaho, that doesn't make it any less of a tool for controlling wildlife. But then again this  is Idaho, it's the most bassackwards, mouthbreathing, pit of retardmonkey filth I've traveled to. Kentucky doesn't have anything on the redneck retards of Idaho.
 
2014-01-27 04:35:42 AM  

Poowaddins: I vacation in Northern Idaho and Western Montana every year, the absurd amount of anti-wolf, pro-elk rhetoric running around is a bit tiresome to wade through. If they're having an elk over-abundance, how about simply selling more tags, opening up more land to public hunting, or lowering the price of out-of-state tags. Elk is damn fine meat and I'd gladly hunt one of those rather than the 2-3 local white tailed deer I have to shoot to suffice on for the year, but I simply can't afford the travel or the tags for elk. Or, have controlled hunts and process the meat for needy people, it's nearly identical in texture and flavor to beef for me, most people wouldn't even know it. Or do like Indiana has done with it's overpopulation of white tailed deer, longer hunting seasons, and more tags for does, you know, the real ones that have any control in regards the over-population. In my county alone I could harvest 1 buck and 1 doe (or 2 does) and then up to 8 antlerless deer, all for the low price of $24/license and $15/bonus antlerless tag. That's a farking bargain when it comes to meat.

In this particular article however I absolutely adore the retard commenting over and over about the "non-native wolves". What the fark does that even mean and why does it matter? Where are we going to find "native" wolves when we've exterminated them entirely from the lower 48? They're all the same bloody species, one wolf from British Columbia is nearly genetically identical to all of the others I'd wager. So what if it didn't grow up in Idaho, that doesn't make it any less of a tool for controlling wildlife. But then again this  is Idaho, it's the most bassackwards, mouthbreathing, pit of retardmonkey filth I've traveled to. Kentucky doesn't have anything on the redneck retards of Idaho.


Claiming that the imported "Canadian" wolves are larger and more aggressive than the natives gives them an extra bargaining chip in lobbying for the right to kill them. That's really all it is. They want to hunt wolves, and they want to hunt more elk. They want more things to shoot.
 
2014-01-27 04:44:55 AM  

redmid17: I won't pretend to know the entire wolfpack mindset/dynamic, but I do know they can and will kill more than they have to. Most predators do. Coyotes and foxes are not wolves, but it only takes once cleaning out a formerly occupied turkey coop to learn that animals aren't always going for the minimal.


Firstly, neither foxes nor coyotes are pack hunters (coyotes used to be, but they adapted to humans taking over).  Secondly, coyotes are a special breed to douchebag for an animal, they're dicks even compared to feral dogs.

Thirdly "more than they need" is shifting the goal posts a hell of a long way from "will slaughter an entire flock because they feel like it".  They'll take as many as they think they need, but it's the equivalent of you trying to work out how much of the mashed potatoes you want from the salad bar, there aren't wolf actuaries and logicians performing predicative calculus using the principia Wolfmatica and a Wolf Abacus.  Sometimes they'll kill something more than they can eat, but it's not because they didn't plan on eating it when they killed it.

I mean, you could get a wolf to attack you by attacking it first, I guess, but in general pack behavior is adapted to living on a territory with potentially limited resources long-term.  They're not coyotes, they don't just wander around like canine hobos eatin' whatever seems convenient.  This is actually a big part of the reason why is was such a huge farking pain in the ass to repopulate the damned things from yellowstone, being in a group and having an established territory is great when a bear wanders in to take your shiat but when the animal after you is a human it just means it's easy for them to find you.

// Also... yeah, sheep and some goats are kinda too dumb to live.  We had a dog kill ten of them once by barking at them through a fence.  No, not chasing them, not getting into their (five-acre) pen and barking... standing by the gate.  And barking.  for like an hour.  Ten bloody goats dead from heart attacks.  That kind of shiat's why i'm a city kid now.
 
2014-01-27 05:01:15 AM  

Jim_Callahan: redmid17: I won't pretend to know the entire wolfpack mindset/dynamic, but I do know they can and will kill more than they have to. Most predators do. Coyotes and foxes are not wolves, but it only takes once cleaning out a formerly occupied turkey coop to learn that animals aren't always going for the minimal.

Firstly, neither foxes nor coyotes are pack hunters (coyotes used to be, but they adapted to humans taking over).  Secondly, coyotes are a special breed to douchebag for an animal, they're dicks even compared to feral dogs.

Thirdly "more than they need" is shifting the goal posts a hell of a long way from "will slaughter an entire flock because they feel like it".  They'll take as many as they think they need, but it's the equivalent of you trying to work out how much of the mashed potatoes you want from the salad bar, there aren't wolf actuaries and logicians performing predicative calculus using the principia Wolfmatica and a Wolf Abacus.  Sometimes they'll kill something more than they can eat, but it's not because they didn't plan on eating it when they killed it.

I mean, you could get a wolf to attack you by attacking it first, I guess, but in general pack behavior is adapted to living on a territory with potentially limited resources long-term.  They're not coyotes, they don't just wander around like canine hobos eatin' whatever seems convenient.  This is actually a big part of the reason why is was such a huge farking pain in the ass to repopulate the damned things from yellowstone, being in a group and having an established territory is great when a bear wanders in to take your shiat but when the animal after you is a human it just means it's easy for them to find you.

// Also... yeah, sheep and some goats are kinda too dumb to live.  We had a dog kill ten of them once by barking at them through a fence.  No, not chasing them, not getting into their (five-acre) pen and barking... standing by the gate.  And barking.  for like an hour.  Ten bloody go ...


Most livestock is too stupid to live, and if ranchers are allowed to kill anything that threatens their fragile, artificial survival - they'll kill everything that they don't have a brand on. F**k 'em.
If your "wildlife management" plan involved killing off your apex predators, it sucks, and is broken.
 
2014-01-27 05:05:52 AM  
Seems to me that predators will kill whatever they can catch. In the open field, that's "the slowest one, or the first one to trip and fall"-the rest of the prey herd can escape in the time it takes to kill the easy one.
In a human-built coop or paddock, that's "everything". Not out of spite, but rather out of reflex: usually, after the first kill, there aren't any more valid targets around. But like that, well, once you're in hunt mode it's hard to stop. Just like a human at a buffet table for the first time.
 
2014-01-27 05:10:35 AM  

Ishidan: Seems to me that predators will kill whatever they can catch. In the open field, that's "the slowest one, or the first one to trip and fall"-the rest of the prey herd can escape in the time it takes to kill the easy one.
In a human-built coop or paddock, that's "everything". Not out of spite, but rather out of reflex: usually, after the first kill, there aren't any more valid targets around. But like that, well, once you're in hunt mode it's hard to stop. Just like a human at a buffet table for the first time.


Where did you get your degree in biology?
 
2014-01-27 05:24:30 AM  

redmid17: I won't pretend to know the entire wolfpack mindset/dynamic, but I do know they can and will kill more than they have to. Most predators do. Coyotes and foxes are not wolves, but it only takes once cleaning out a formerly occupied turkey coop to learn that animals aren't always going for the minimal.


Yeah, it's hilarious to hear from the "humans are ignoble, therefore non-humans must be noble!" crowd, but they're actually the same people that get behind the "Save Bambi, Shoot a Wolf" crowd when the "Save Bambi, Shoot a Hunter" schtick is getting them too much hostility.

Any biologist will tell you that predators only care about rendering as much mobile food non-mobile as they can. It's been called various names, "food caching," "scavenger feeding," but it all amounts to a wasteful instinct to kill as much as they physically can until they're literally too tired to kill any more, something environmentalists would rather shiat the bed and fling the poo than understand.

/remember, environmentalists don't love nature
//they don't even really love animals, or try to understand them
///they just hate humans
 
2014-01-27 05:59:09 AM  
I thought elk were some kind of vector for a prion disease like mad cow.  If that's accurate, why would anyone want to hunt it?  Dang, now I have to go do actual research before my fifth coffee.
 
2014-01-27 06:24:19 AM  

Tatterdemalian: it all amounts to a wasteful instinct to kill as much as they physically can until they're literally too tired to kill any more,


Really? Then why do most predators stop the moment they have taken down prey and start consuming them rather than continuing the hunt? Especially when looking at predators (like lions, for example) living and hunting in areas with relatively high prey density? Leaving downed prey to continue killing everything they can runs the risk of losing the downed prey to scavengers and other opportunists, turning it into wasted energy, which flies completely in the face of Optimal Foraging Theory.

Please provide specific examples that show that predatory behavior is a wasteful instinct to kill as much as possible instead of an evolutionarily optimized instinct to maximize energy return (food) for energy spent (hunting), because as a biologist, I find your bald assertion difficult to believe.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report