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 26
    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 (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-27 01:46:41 AM  
5 votes:

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 03:36:35 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:33:29 AM  
3 votes:
Seems the hunters just want to shoot everything they can.
2014-01-26 11:42:28 PM  
3 votes:
Morons.
2014-01-27 11:08:07 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:51:24 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:36:10 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:45:30 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:37:12 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:34:32 AM  
2 votes:
Do the wildlife a favor, okay?  JUST......DON'T......HELP!!!
2014-01-27 02:28:40 PM  
1 votes:
Some of the comments on that article have made me wonder how some people aren't too stupid to breathe. Yeah, the "ecosystem" is a liberal lie.
2014-01-27 08:23:24 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:59:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:51:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:36:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:24:19 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-27 04:44:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:28:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:07:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:56:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:51:17 AM  
1 votes:

cryinoutloud: maybe they need some flow charts or something.

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 467x600]


Web?

jasonsandwich.com
2014-01-27 01:45:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:44:32 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:43:55 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:12:26 AM  
1 votes:
maybe they need some flow charts or something.

imagizer.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report