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  
•       •       •

7121 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2014 at 1:24 AM (46 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
 
2014-01-27 06:36:07 AM  
Elk tastes good.
 
2014-01-27 06:36:39 AM  

Tatterdemalian: 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


Bullshiat, no biologist will tell you that because that is retarded.

Some predatory species (not all) will kill more prey than they can eat when the opportunity arises. Is it because they love killing? Maybe. But it's also so they can eat it later, which makes a lot of sense when survival relies on killing enough food. It's also a valuable ecological service as it provides other species with food and nutrients. Some predators only eat the choicest most nutritious parts when opportunity arises. It's not about being noble or ignoble or wasteful or not it's about survival and reproduction. It certainly doesn't justify shooting out a keystone species by the "animals are mean therefore environmentalism is stupid" crowd.

/ecologist
//environmentalist
///hates people a little bit more now.
 
2014-01-27 06:47:53 AM  

sjcousins: Tatterdemalian: 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

Bullshiat, no biologist will tell you that because that is retarded.

Some predatory species (not all) will kill more prey than they can eat when the opportunity arises. Is it because they love killing? Maybe. But it's also so they can eat it later, which makes a lot of sense when survival relies on killing enough food. It's also a valuable ecological service as it provides other species with food and nutrients. Some predators only eat the choicest most nutritious parts when opportunity arises. It's not about being noble or ignoble or wasteful or not it's about survival and reproduction. It certainly doesn't justify shooting out a keystone species by the "animals are mean therefore environmentalism is stupid" crowd.

/ecologist
//environmentalist
///hates people a little bit more now.


Be fair, those who think like that don't qualify as "people". Definitely homo puerilis, not homo sapiens.
 
2014-01-27 06:49:28 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 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!"


Imagine you're a fisherman. You usually catch enough fish for your family but it takes considerable time and effort and sometimes you go hungry.
One day, you go down the shore with your net and find a school of fish caught in a small tide pool. You catch one. Then you catch another. Oh god this is easy! You'll have food for weeks! You catch all the fish. Why? Because when presented with an opportunity to have surplus food for minimal time and effort, you seize it. Especially if you're a scavenging species who lives in a climate favourable for preserving carcasses for future feeding.
 
2014-01-27 06:51:37 AM  

doglover: 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.


I do the same thing with Little Debbie's Swiss Rolls.
Same logic, really.
They come 12 in a box, but since I have to eat them all in one go, I just duct tape the box to my jacket.

But on topic...

I see the bootstrappy ruggedly individualistic ranchers need more help from the gubmint.
They can't seem to do much for themselves, can they?
Cows get killed in a storm, they come begging.
Cows get killed by wolves, they come begging.
Cows lose forage to elk, they come begging.
 
2014-01-27 06:54:18 AM  

doglover: False.

Sheep are just too dumb to live.

Wolves "kill" 176 sheep. 10 had bite wounds. The rest asphyxiated.


imagizer.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-27 07:04:57 AM  
These dumbasss should look at what happend to Yellowstone once they killed all the wolves over 100 years ago. Everything they ate had no more predator so their population exploded and they stripped the park bare and ended up starving and dying of disese.
 
2014-01-27 07:12:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


When I was out in Yellowstone last summer the ranger was explaining to us how the reintroduction of wolves actually has been helping the bear population in a big way. Before the wolves were reintroduced the elk were eating a specific berry that the bears love. problem was the elk would eat ALL of them and leave nothing for the bears. Now the wolves are in the picture and the elk are shying away from the berry because the places they grow make them easy kills for the wolves.

/end CSB
 
2014-01-27 07:26:22 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I do the same thing with Little Debbie's Swiss Rolls.
Same logic, really.
They come 12 in a box, but since I have to eat them all in one go, I just duct tape the box to my jacket.


THERE'S NO TIME! JUST SHOVE THE BOX IN MY VEINS!

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-27 07:39:01 AM  

cryinoutloud: maybe they need some flow charts or something.

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 467x600]


Oh they understand the web of life. But now, without the wolf as natural apex predator, 'muricans who luv thur guns kin go shoot them big furry reindeer. And Idaho Fish & Game can make a quick buck on hunting licenses.
 
2014-01-27 07:44:37 AM  

mamoru: 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.


Because they usually only manage to bring down one prey animal before the rest escape. And when they don't, the predators do risk losing their prey to scavengers to run and hunt more, which is why, in areas with relatively high prey density, entire species can thrive just by scavenging what the predators kill.

/see, the animals don't study your Optimal Foraging Theory before they hunt
//I know, it's really surprising that being "more successful" doesn't translate directly into either "being smarter" or "doing what you think is right"
 
2014-01-27 07:48:27 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!)


Depending on various state legalities there are quite a few people who hunt medium size+ game with .223 and similar calibers (boar, deer, etc.).  There's a few crowds on that and I'm definitely of the camp that thinks it's not bueno.  The general argument you get is along the lines of "well I just use my awesome marksmanship to put one shot behind their ear."  And sure, a perfectly placed shot with something like a .223 will kill just about anything -- but going out of your way to do that leaves a lot of room for error and mistakes will often equate to a lot of additional suffering for the animal.  Of course you also have the AR hunters who put 10-15 rounds in whatever they shoot at.  Not a big fan.

7.62x39mm is quite a different story.  Under 100 yards it's quite effective with a big .30 caliber slug and some decent oomph behind it.  After 100 it kinda looks like lobbing a softball but can still be effective.

7.62x54R (mosin caliber) is certainly worthy of hunting about anything in NA though preferably not with the FMJ military surplus rounds (same with 73 .39mm).  After market hunting ammo is available for all that stuff now and it's also reloadable.
 
2014-01-27 07:54:24 AM  

Tatterdemalian: mamoru: 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.

Because they usually only manage to bring down one prey animal before the rest escape. And when they don't, the predators do risk losing their prey to scavengers to run and hunt more, which is why, in areas with relatively high prey density, entire species can thrive just by scavenging what the predators kill.

/see, the animals don't study your Optimal Foraging Theory before they hunt
//I know, it's really surprising that being "more successful" doesn't translate directly into either "being smarter" or "doing what you think is right"


Oh, and I once did provide links to specific examples, including to papers written by REAL biologists explaining why predators do this, which is probably why the mods have permanently removed my ability to post links, except for the single one at the beginning of quoted posts (and who knows how long that will remain).
 
2014-01-27 07:59:15 AM  

Tatterdemalian: And when they don't, the predators do risk losing their prey to scavengers to run and hunt more


After they have consumed the choicest parts of their kill. They do not just kill and kill and kill as a wasteful instinct. Natural selection is not forgiving to wasteful instincts. Such a trait would soon be out-competed by those in their population who waste less energy hunting while taking advantage of the energy at hand in the already downed prey, because they would have more energy available for successful reproduction than those who waste their time on extraneous hunting.

Optimal Foraging Theory is not something an organism needs learn or practice. It is a description of and predictor of foraging behavior based natural selection optimizing energy expenditure vs energy intake to maximize fitness.

Do you understand the least about behavioral ecology?
 
2014-01-27 08:02:39 AM  

mamoru: Tatterdemalian: And when they don't, the predators do risk losing their prey to scavengers to run and hunt more

After they have consumed the choicest parts of their kill. They do not just kill and kill and kill as a wasteful instinct. Natural selection is not forgiving to wasteful instincts. Such a trait would soon be out-competed by those in their population who waste less energy hunting while taking advantage of the energy at hand in the already downed prey, because they would have more energy available for successful reproduction than those who waste their time on extraneous hunting.

Optimal Foraging Theory is not something an organism needs learn or practice. It is a description of and predictor of foraging behavior based natural selection optimizing energy expenditure vs energy intake to maximize fitness.

Do you understand the least about behavioral ecology?


Obviously he doesn't.
 
2014-01-27 08:07:20 AM  

mamoru: Tatterdemalian: And when they don't, the predators do risk losing their prey to scavengers to run and hunt more

After they have consumed the choicest parts of their kill. They do not just kill and kill and kill as a wasteful instinct. Natural selection is not forgiving to wasteful instincts. Such a trait would soon be out-competed by those in their population who waste less energy hunting while taking advantage of the energy at hand in the already downed prey, because they would have more energy available for successful reproduction than those who waste their time on extraneous hunting.

Optimal Foraging Theory is not something an organism needs learn or practice. It is a description of and predictor of foraging behavior based natural selection optimizing energy expenditure vs energy intake to maximize fitness.

Do you understand the least about behavioral ecology?


I understand the one thing I need to understand: that any time someone talks as if anything in nature can be relied on to do the single best thing at all times, they're talking out their ass. Even if they have a pretty diploma claiming they're a biologist.

/Lily Glidden was a biologist, too
//didn't stop her from doing stupid things around animals on the assumption they would behave the way she wanted to believe they would, and eventually paying the price
///if your "behavioral ecology" leads you to the sort of conclusions you're posting, then I'm afraid your biology degree is about as useful as Robert "Six Septillion Percent Inflation" Mugabe's degree in economics
 
2014-01-27 08:23:24 AM  

Tatterdemalian: I understand the one thing I need to understand: that any time someone talks as if anything in nature can be relied on to do the single best thing at all times, they're talking out their ass.


So, claiming that natural selection will shape predatory behavior to approach some optimum is talking out of one's ass while claiming that, and I quote...

Tatterdemalian: predators only care about rendering as much mobile food non-mobile as they can

(emphasis mine)

is not, despite such a claim being against well supported theories (which are supported by evidence, mind you) and while not providing any evidence for that claim. I see.

A simple "No, I don't understand behavioral ecology" would have sufficed.

Tatterdemalian: Even if they have a pretty diploma claiming they're a biologist.


I'm sorry I disproved your "Ask any biologist" statement.
 
2014-01-27 08:35:40 AM  

mamoru: Tatterdemalian: I understand the one thing I need to understand: that any time someone talks as if anything in nature can be relied on to do the single best thing at all times, they're talking out their ass.

So, claiming that natural selection will shape predatory behavior to approach some optimum is talking out of one's ass while claiming that, and I quote...

Tatterdemalian: predators only care about rendering as much mobile food non-mobile as they can
(emphasis mine)

is not, despite such a claim being against well supported theories (which are supported by evidence, mind you) and while not providing any evidence for that claim. I see.

A simple "No, I don't understand behavioral ecology" would have sufficed.

Tatterdemalian: Even if they have a pretty diploma claiming they're a biologist.

I'm sorry I disproved your "Ask any biologist" statement.


Did you? I didn't see any links to your degree, but we can probably assume that Lily Glidden would have taken your stance, if she were alive, so I disproved it myself. Congratulations.
 
2014-01-27 09:01:22 AM  

Marmilman: 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?


Even reading it that way, it still has an extra chromosome.
 
2014-01-27 09:08:10 AM  
rlv.zcache.com
...kill the hunters.
 
2014-01-27 09:25:14 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-27 09:36:10 AM  
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then and have known ever since that there was something new to me in those eyes, something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.  - Aldo Leopold
 
2014-01-27 09:51:24 AM  

Jim_Callahan: 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.


It's not necessarily stupidity, but competing interests. The elk hunters and those who make their living off of the hunting/tourism industry want there to be as many elk as possible. More elk = more licenses sold = more money in their pockets (and, for the hunters, more elk to choose from and easier hunting). They knew full well that killing the wolves would cause the elk numbers to surge; that was the whole point. The problem is that the land owners have different priorities. They see the elk as a destructive force that needs to be controlled. The question then becomes whose interests ultimately win out. The government will try to strike a balance between the two conflicting interests, but someone is always going to be pissed off and say that they went too far in one direction or the other.
 
2014-01-27 10:06:36 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.


Two. It's happened twice that I know of--and believe me, if it was going on, it would get plenty of publicity. In the other instance, the sheep were in a pen in wolf country, had no guard dogs (pretty cheap insurance against wolves), and just like the other example, a lot of those sheep may have just suffocated or died of panic. They are entirely dumb enough to do so.


Poowaddins: 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.


They only have an abundance in some areas--in other places (such as where they're shooting the wolves in Idaho right now), the herds are smaller than they used to be, and the hunters are having a fit. So let's kill some wolves!!

Wildlife management is not about trying to restore an ecosystem, or to keep any kind of balance, anymore. It probably never was. it's about managing the humans who want to use and look at the wildlife. And no matter what you do, somebody is not going to be happy.


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.


No they don't. It is a waste of energy for a predator to take more than it needs. It is like if you needed a loaf of bread for your starving family, but instead you tried to rob the Sunbeam truck--and are shot or arrested. You don't help your family that way. Mr. Wolf doesn't help his family by going out and risking getting injured or killed by trying to kill an animal that is too big for him, or take more than he needs.

And I'd be willing to bet that those chicken coops that were "cleaned out" by coyotes had 5 dead chickens, and the rest ran for the woods. And a couple of them died of fright and mass panic. Yeah, all the chickens are "gone." Sure they're gone--they ran away. Even a chicken has enough sense to do that.

sjcousins: 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.


This biologist is telling you that you just made that up. Never heard of it.
 
2014-01-27 10:09:31 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 ...


I will refer you back to this post. Wolves might not always kill more than they need to, but once again it's not unheard of. And coyotes still do packs when they hunt. They aren't always solo or with their mate.
 
2014-01-27 10:16:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Jim_Callahan:


I see you two have this covered.
 
2014-01-27 10:20:17 AM  

cryinoutloud: 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.

No they don't. It is a waste of energy for a predator to take more than it needs. It is like if you needed a loaf of bread for your starving family, but instead you tried to rob the Sunbeam truck--and are shot or arrested. You don't help your family that way. Mr. Wolf doesn't help his family by going out and risking getting injured or killed by trying to kill an animal that is too big for him, or take more than he needs.

And I'd be willing to bet that those chicken coops that were "cleaned out" by coyotes had 5 dead chickens, and the rest ran for the woods. And a couple of them died of fright and mass panic. Yeah, all the chickens are "gone." Sure they're gone--they ran away. Even a chicken has enough sense to do that.


Well for animals that don't, they seem to do it more often than zero: one, two, three

The turkey coop held six turkeys. The only way out -- until we opened the door -- was the way the coyote(s) got in (think they dug in). My cousins and I also gathered most of 6 turkeys (kind of hard to miss a turkey head), so even if they died in a panic they were partially eaten.
 
2014-01-27 10:47:35 AM  
Wolves might not always kill more than they need to, but once again it's not unheard of. And coyotes still do packs when they hunt. They aren't always solo or with their mate.

The cameras were set up after a rancher reported more than a dozen of his lambs had been killed shortly after being put out to pasture. More lambs were killed after the cameras were erected. Not all were eaten. -

A dozen lambs, for a wolf pack of perhaps 6-8 wolves? Sounds about right. I wonder if that rancher had guard dogs, or guard llamas? Or even a damn human keeping an eye on them? Naw, that would be too hard. But it sounds like he did put up some cameras at his own expense, so that he could go running to the authorities with proof of what the terrible wolves were doing to him. I wonder if he's got his sheep on cheap, government-leased land too? Then look what happens as soon as he runs into trouble:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is helping the rancher in Baker City set up a flagged electronic fence to keep the predators out, and hopes, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to trap and radio-collar the offending animals. -

He calls on the government to help him out, and foot the bills for it too. The same government that needs to stay out of ranchers' business and stop forcing things down their throats! Their rugged, independent throats!

I work for these agencies that "work with ranchers" and they expect the gov to come in and give them fences, water lines, water tanks, kill weeds, and in return they put out salt blocks and very often overgraze the land until it looks like a dump site. And then if they have any problems with predators, they go running to the people in charge to cry about how they're being wiped out by predation and they need either help or compensation for it.

Ranching out west is not a big money-making business, that's why most people don't do it unless they're getting a lot of help from the gov. You'd think they'd stop to figure in that actual wild animals live out here too, but they're as innocent as a lamb to the slaughter when it's suggested that maybe they need to take some steps to protect their retarded cows and sheep.  They'd rather set out the bait and see if they can get some more "evidence" that wolves are killing the ranching industry. Then pick up their check from whatever agency will pay them for their loss.
 
2014-01-27 10:48:52 AM  
4. Realize you shouldn't say "Fire" around the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
 
2014-01-27 11:06:50 AM  

redmid17: The turkey coop held six turkeys. The only way out -- until we opened the door -- was the way the coyote(s) got in (think they dug in). My cousins and I also gathered most of 6 turkeys (kind of hard to miss a turkey head), so even if they died in a panic they were partially eaten.


So this is personal? Six turkeys? That's not a whole lot. Do you even know what killed them for sure? You know, dogs, your nice domestic dogs, will thrill kill more than most wild animals. Because we feed them and they don't need to hunt, and because they have the luxury of playing. They kill things sometimes just out of boredom. Wild animals don't get to do that much. I'm not seeing much of anything here except your story, which---WTF is your story, anyway? You have a beef with something because your turkeys got killed? And six turkeys is not exactly a herd of cows. it's more like a good meal for a small pack of coyotes.

redmid17: Well for animals that don't, they seem to do it more often than zero: one, two, three


Two of those are the stories already mentioned. I know of them, they happened pretty close to me. And the other story--five sheep is not a "flock." Also, it didn't happen in the U.S. Like I said, if there's any predation out of the ordinary, the ranchers and anti-wolf people make sure that it gets plenty of mileage.  And there are only two cases I know of where the wolves caused the deaths of a lot of sheep.

Have you ever been around sheep or cows much? It's a wonder the inbred specimens we have now don't just fall over and die from stupidity because they don't understand gravity.  They're fragile critters, made for our convenience. They aren't even fit to actually live out west without a whole lot of help.
 
2014-01-27 11:08:07 AM  
Elk hunters have actively encouraged thinning the wolf population.

These hunters are despicable. "Waaaahhhh! Kill the wolves because they're killing the elk and only we should get to kill the elk!" Fark off, shiatbags.

Tatterdemalian:
/remember, environmentalists don't love nature
//they don't even really love animals, or try to understand them
///they just hate humans


In this thread, you have posted some of the stupidest, most ignorant crap I've seen in a long time. At no point do you display any actual knowledge of the topic. You just spout anti-intellectual bullshiat, whining about them there fancy, elitist, degree earning twits with all their book-learnin'. Do you tell people that your degree is from the "school of hard knocks"?

I'm forced to conclude that your primary information sources are conservative talk radio and the guys at the bar.
 
2014-01-27 11:11:26 AM  

cryinoutloud: Wolves might not always kill more than they need to, but once again it's not unheard of. And coyotes still do packs when they hunt. They aren't always solo or with their mate.

The cameras were set up after a rancher reported more than a dozen of his lambs had been killed shortly after being put out to pasture. More lambs were killed after the cameras were erected. Not all were eaten. -

A dozen lambs, for a wolf pack of perhaps 6-8 wolves? Sounds about right. I wonder if that rancher had guard dogs, or guard llamas? Or even a damn human keeping an eye on them? Naw, that would be too hard. But it sounds like he did put up some cameras at his own expense, so that he could go running to the authorities with proof of what the terrible wolves were doing to him. I wonder if he's got his sheep on cheap, government-leased land too? Then look what happens as soon as he runs into trouble:


I'll assume you meant to include me in the reply since you're quoting me. Wolves need 5-10 lbs a day to survive/reproduce. They can probably eat up to 20 lbs or so. Unless the lambs were newborns, that's probably at least twice as much as they can eat in one sitting. Given that the same wolves killed more lambs, which weren't eaten, afterward kind of undermines your point.
 
2014-01-27 11:15:16 AM  

cryinoutloud: redmid17: The turkey coop held six turkeys. The only way out -- until we opened the door -- was the way the coyote(s) got in (think they dug in). My cousins and I also gathered most of 6 turkeys (kind of hard to miss a turkey head), so even if they died in a panic they were partially eaten.

So this is personal? Six turkeys? That's not a whole lot. Do you even know what killed them for sure? You know, dogs, your nice domestic dogs, will thrill kill more than most wild animals. Because we feed them and they don't need to hunt, and because they have the luxury of playing. They kill things sometimes just out of boredom. Wild animals don't get to do that much. I'm not seeing much of anything here except your story, which---WTF is your story, anyway? You have a beef with something because your turkeys got killed? And six turkeys is not exactly a herd of cows. it's more like a good meal for a small pack of coyotes.

redmid17: Well for animals that don't, they seem to do it more often than zero: one, two, three

Two of those are the stories already mentioned. I know of them, they happened pretty close to me. And the other story--five sheep is not a "flock." Also, it didn't happen in the U.S. Like I said, if there's any predation out of the ordinary, the ranchers and anti-wolf people make sure that it gets plenty of mileage.  And there are only two cases I know of where the wolves caused the deaths of a lot of sheep.

Have you ever been around sheep or cows much? It's a wonder the inbred specimens we have now don't just fall over and die from stupidity because they don't understand gravity.  They're fragile critters, made for our convenience. They aren't even fit to actually live out west without a whole lot of help.


I never said a herd of anything. There weren't any feral dogs on my cousin's farm or even in the area. Hole was way too big for a fox. I don't really have a beef with anything. All I was trying to point out is that sometimes predators kill more than they need to, and wolves aren't any different.
 
2014-01-27 11:25:43 AM  
We tried the whole eradication thing before. Many, many times. It nearly always causes problems, and yet we never learn that lesson.

There's always some inbred yokel who thinks that we need to kill all X to protect his Y. Sometimes those guys get put in charge of things they shouldn't be in charge of.

It's not some environmental hippie crap, it's just the way things work.
 
2014-01-27 11:29:15 AM  
Was Holiday Inn Express having a coupon night last night or something?
 
2014-01-27 11:37:39 AM  
"Some have established co-ops to shoulder the cost of trapping wolves that are eating the prized trophy animals"

Yes, because wolves look at a herd of elk and pick out the prized trophy animal to mount on the wall of it's den.
 
2014-01-27 11:44:43 AM  
The Issue here subby is that Mayfield is not around any wolf packs, being it is out in the desert.  Thus, the elk herds here are impacted by wolves the way that the herds are to the north.

Idaho as a whole has a pretty stable elk population.  To make up for the drop in populations in the forested areas, elk populations have been growing in the desert and southern mountain regions.  Trying to conflate the two here is being dumb about the situation.
 
2014-01-27 11:51:39 AM  

redmid17: Wolves need 5-10 lbs a day to survive/reproduce. They can probably eat up to 20 lbs or so. Unless the lambs were newborns, that's probably at least twice as much as they can eat in one sitting. Given that the same wolves killed more lambs, which weren't eaten, afterward kind of undermines your point.


Most studies show that wolves will kill about 1.4 to 1.8 elk per month.
 
2014-01-27 11:54:21 AM  

HeadLever: redmid17: Wolves need 5-10 lbs a day to survive/reproduce. They can probably eat up to 20 lbs or so. Unless the lambs were newborns, that's probably at least twice as much as they can eat in one sitting. Given that the same wolves killed more lambs, which weren't eaten, afterward kind of undermines your point.

Most studies show that wolves will kill about 1.4 to 1.8 elk per month.


Sounds about right. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing that wolves *never* kill more than they need to eat in one sitting. Surplus killing by predators doesn't exclude wolves.
 
2014-01-27 11:55:12 AM  

cryinoutloud: In the other instance, the sheep were in a pen in wolf country, had no guard dogs (pretty cheap insurance against wolves), and just like the other example, a lot of those sheep may have just suffocated or died of panic. They are entirely dumb enough to do so.


I have already called out your BS argument here. The sheep in Dillon were not in a pen, moron.  Quit spreading that lie.
 
2014-01-27 11:56:46 AM  

redmid17: Surplus killing by predators doesn't exclude wolves.


Wolves are usually the best at surplus killing.
 
2014-01-27 12:13:04 PM  

groppet: These dumbasss should look at what happend to Yellowstone once they killed all the wolves over 100 years ago. Everything they ate had no more predator so their population exploded and they stripped the park bare and ended up starving and dying of disese.


True to certain extent, but remember that the Yellowstone elk herd was not managed by hunting the way that the rest of this country is.  Each area has a real elk population goal that keeps in mind all stakeholders (ranchers, hunters, and wildlife enthusiast).  The YNP dynamic is different than most other places.

They are having the same issue at Rocky Mountain National Park.
 
2014-01-27 12:16:54 PM  

cryinoutloud: the herds are smaller than they used to be, and the hunters are having a fit. So let's kill some wolves!!


It is not that they are smaller than they used to be, but that they are small enough that all sports hunting has been curtailed for several hunts.  That not only hurts the hunters that lose opportunity, but it also hurts state revenue and money that typically goes toward wildlife conservation.  The state has specific goals on what it want to see in the way of elk populations and cow:calf ratios.

If you are really more than a armchair wildlife biologist, you should know this.
 
2014-01-27 12:20:34 PM  

chitownmike: So lots of extra elk, I don't see the problem


The problem is that the extra elk are where we don't need them while many areas don't have enough.  That is a problem for wildlife managers.
 
2014-01-27 12:21:11 PM  
Just wait until the elk get guns...
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-27 12:26:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


If you would have read and understood the article, it is not the hunters pushing for this.  It is the ranchers.  FTA:
Ranchers in Idaho are asking the state government to help eliminate some of the state's elk population.

The hunters would just be the likely tool used to reduce the elk populations in this area.
 
2014-01-27 12:27:03 PM  

redmid17: I'll assume you meant to include me in the reply since you're quoting me. Wolves need 5-10 lbs a day to survive/reproduce. They can probably eat up to 20 lbs or so. Unless the lambs were newborns, that's probably at least twice as much as they can eat in one sitting. Given that the same wolves killed more lambs, which weren't eaten, afterward kind of undermines your point.


So two sittings. They were gonna come back the next day and stuff themselves again. After that the scavengers come around. They probably killed enough to eat in a couple of days, since they were such easy prey. Probably were very young too--the youngest they could get, since obviously, they'd be the easiest to kill. That's still not a "rampage" or anything like it. Same with the turkeys--six turkeys is not a blood-lust rampage for even a few coyotes. Don't underestimate the dogs, either. They can roam as far as coyotes do, and they're gone just like the coyotes when the sun comes up.

You want to argue one side, I'm going to give you another one. Actually I don't give much of a fark, but those stories about wild animals going on savage killing sprees are mostly bullshiat.

And I have you on ignore, Headlever, I'm not even getting into it with you. You'll fight all day long even if you're wrong. I have things to do today, and I'm already tired of this argument.
 
2014-01-27 12:30:47 PM  

redmid17: Sounds about right. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing that wolves *never* kill more than they need to eat in one sitting. Surplus killing by predators doesn't exclude wolves.


Yep, on a daily basis (assuming 1.4 elk and a 500 pound average size) that comes to about 22 pounds of elk per day.
 
2014-01-27 12:39:05 PM  

cryinoutloud: You'll fight all day long even if you're wrong. I have things to do today, and I'm already tired of this argument.


That is because you are demonstratively wrong in most regards and you don't like getting called out on your BS arguments.  Regarding the surplus killing in Dillon that was in a 'pen':

"We went up to the pasture on Thursday (Aug. 20) - we go up there every two or three days - and everything was fine," rancher Jon Konen said. "The bucks were in the pasture; I had about 100 heifers with them on 600 acres."

You have been proven wrong on this multiple times, but still spout the lies.  This tells me that your arguments are not in the context of any intellectual honesty, but are instead driven by an agenda.
 
2014-01-27 12:39:40 PM  

cryinoutloud: redmid17: I'll assume you meant to include me in the reply since you're quoting me. Wolves need 5-10 lbs a day to survive/reproduce. They can probably eat up to 20 lbs or so. Unless the lambs were newborns, that's probably at least twice as much as they can eat in one sitting. Given that the same wolves killed more lambs, which weren't eaten, afterward kind of undermines your point.

So two sittings. They were gonna come back the next day and stuff themselves again. After that the scavengers come around. They probably killed enough to eat in a couple of days, since they were such easy prey. Probably were very young too--the youngest they could get, since obviously, they'd be the easiest to kill. That's still not a "rampage" or anything like it. Same with the turkeys--six turkeys is not a blood-lust rampage for even a few coyotes. Don't underestimate the dogs, either. They can roam as far as coyotes do, and they're gone just like the coyotes when the sun comes up.

You want to argue one side, I'm going to give you another one. Actually I don't give much of a fark, but those stories about wild animals going on savage killing sprees are mostly bullshiat.

And I have you on ignore, Headlever, I'm not even getting into it with you. You'll fight all day long even if you're wrong. I have things to do today, and I'm already tired of this argument.


Jesus. I didn't even say rampage. You farkers keep moving my goalposts and I have to reset them. All I ever said was that wolves can and do kill more than they can eat on occasion. I never said it was always. I never said it was extremely common. I usually cook about twice what I eat in one sitting so I have some leftovers. Me saying that doesn't mean I cook enough for an entire banquet hall.
 
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


Report