Wolves Are Back in california

Sweet!
Got any wolf tickets I can buy?
 
No, not even kind of close.

You stated that you prefer the life of the wolf over that of the dog or cow (hint: that's a subjective opinion).

I know it's an opinion (hint, saying "subjective opinion" is pretty redundant).
Are you going to spend all day telling me things I know?


I stated that the dog and cow are both property (hint: that's an objective fact).

Indeed. Except you didn't say that to me, and I had to go back and check the post, but yes, you did say that. I am not denying that, so where are you going with this?

Then I stated that wolves and other predators are often invasive to the property of the farmer/rancher.

You said they are an invasive species. Which is false, afaik. They're a naturally-occurring predator in an area that the rancher chose to work in.

You then somehow derived the idea that this statement of fact was in some way subjective because a wolf MAY have walked on that property a long time ago.

No, I derived that your opinion is subjective. What are you not understanding? All opinions are subjective. you said nothing that added no particular value (telling me that the farmer was harmed by the loss of property) so I essentially responded with the fact that wolves are not an invasive species to the area, and what could have been paraphrased as "your opinion is just as subjective as mine, so what's your point?"
That second part is where you got confused, and assumed that I was calling property damage an opinion. I wasn't. Read more, and get over it.


You implied claim that the wolf has some sort of claim to a stretch of land is also a subjective opinion.

where did I imply that the wolf has some sort of claim to the land?
I said it was not an invasive species. I didn't suggest that gave it some sort of legal right. You conjured that claim up all on your own.

I suggest reading up on Aristotle and his "A is A" law of identity. It will help you a lot in the future when you decide to have these debates.

I don't trust your interpretation of any book you read. You seem to struggle with comprehension.
 
No one with a brain pretends that wolves are cuddly animals but they serve an important role in the ecosystem

As I replied to spin_, you obviously have not talked to many wolf activists.

So yes, there are benefits to having wolves when it comes to ecology.

Except that the ecology is already out of balance when humans are around. It is not like we can go back to living like in the stoneage. Like it or not, humans are the top predator today. not wolves.
 
So, can you name a single function in the ecosystem that a wolf can preform that a human simply can't?

Yes or no?

The fact that a human would be filling the role would, by its very nature, mean that the function is probably not being performed in its every facet.

So, yes. It is undeniable that predators have a number of functions in every ecosystem, and a human proxy would be imperfect at best. If you're denying this, you might as well deny evolution.
 
how dangerous are wolves for humans? i sure as hell don't want to come across one.
 
If a wolf is attacking a farmer's livestock, he has every right to kill that wolf.

True. I jumped the gun a bit on that one. The poster I was responding to didn't actually have a position, just a bunch of pictures and a stated goal of not letting people think of wolves as cuddly.
It seemed like he was promoting extinction of the species (which is what the article was about) and my responses were made on that assumption.

I would prefer that farmers fire their guns into the air and scare the wolves off (we do that here with lions) but I honestly don't know how wolves respond to gunfire, or how quickly they learn.
 
how dangerous are wolves for humans? i sure as hell don't want to come across one.

If you come across one, you're probably in danger as that animal doesn't have the benefit of belonging to a pack. So it's probably underfed and pretty desperate.
 
As I replied to spin_, you obviously have not talked to many wolf activists.
You can appreciate the beauty and majesty of a wolf and still understand the danger.
Except that the ecology is already out of balance when humans are around. It is not like we can go back to living like in the stoneage. Like it or not, humans are the top predator today. not wolves.
Humans aren't ubiquitous though, there are plenty of uninhabited woodlands that would benefit from the return of wolves. Also, as I mentioned earlier, not all apex predators fill that niche the same way with the same effect on the environment.
 
True. I jumped the gun a bit on that one. The poster I was responding to didn't actually have a position, just a bunch of pictures and a stated goal of not letting people think of wolves as cuddly.
It seemed like he was promoting extinction of the species (which is what the article was about) and my responses were made on that assumption.

I would prefer that farmers fire their guns into the air and scare the wolves off (we do that here with lions) but I honestly don't know how wolves respond to gunfire, or how quickly they learn.

That's true. I'm sure that would do the trick, but then you also risk that wolf returning. Possibly with more wolves. It's a shitty situation as no one wants to have to kill a wolf.
 
You can appreciate the beauty and majesty of a wolf and still understand the danger.

Most activist cannot.

Humans aren't ubiquitous though, there are plenty of uninhabited woodlands that would benefit from the return of wolves.

Do you have any concept of the range a normal wolfpack need? there are not many such large wilderness areas remaining.
And that is not taking into consideration that wolves seek out inhabited areas for ease of finding pray.
 
True. I jumped the gun a bit on that one. The poster I was responding to didn't actually have a position, just a bunch of pictures and a stated goal of not letting people think of wolves as cuddly.
It seemed like he was promoting extinction of the species (which is what the article was about) and my responses were made on that assumption.

Please do not strawman me. I have never stated that I want wolves exterminated. I have, I hope, made it very clear that my objection is to the people who mindlessly supports reintroduction of wolves without regards to the people who actually has to suffer the consequences of the wolves presence.
The pictures, uncomfortable as they are, served their purpose. Before them the only objections to wolves reintroduction mentioned was "rednecks" that disliked the competition for game animals. I have not seen that even mentioned afterwards.

I would prefer that farmers fire their guns into the air and scare the wolves off (we do that here with lions) but I honestly don't know how wolves respond to gunfire, or how quickly they learn.

Wolves are afraid of firearms, but they learn fast if the sound is not followed by consequences. But how big is the chances that farmers are around, or near enough to the fields, to scare the wolves with firearms when the pack attacks during the night. A wolf attack is fast, stealthy, brutal and usually over in seconds. often they are under cover of darkness. You do not see many guard-towers with snipers armed with nightscopes in most cattle grazing fields today (well, you live in the south africa, so maybe).
 
Rofl at thinking farmers should just scare the wolves. Like the wolves aren't going to come back again and again to an easy food source. Some people just have no common sense.
 
If I recall correctly, I believe you can still hunt wolves in Alaska. It's on my list of animals to hunt when I finally go on my Alaskan hunting trip (Brown Bear, Grizzly Bear, Moose, Caribou, and a wolf).

Yep and I believe tags were issued in Montana or another state up that way.

I was actually referring to the first tags issued in California. :)
 
Do you have any concept of the range a normal wolfpack need? there are not many such large wilderness areas remaining.
And that is not taking into consideration that wolves seek out inhabited areas for ease of finding pray.

Like I said, there should be consideration for the people who live near wolves. I don't know what the laws are but perhaps allowing them to shoot wolves who come within a certain range of their property might help. That way, bold and curious wolves get weeded out.
 
Rofl at thinking farmers should just scare the wolves. Like the wolves aren't going to come back again and again to an easy food source. Some people just have no common sense.

Thats nothing. Wait until you see someone suggest to target wolves with glow-in-the-dark paintball pellets, to make them afraid of humans and more visible. No I am not kidding. This has been a serious suggestion by eco-warriors to relevant governmental departments as an alternative to selective hunt of habitual cattle-killers.
 
Like I said, there should be consideration for the people who live near wolves. I don't know what the laws are but perhaps allowing them to shoot wolves who come within a certain range of their property might help. That way, bold and curious wolves get weeded out.

I seem to remember if we look into how well this has gone historically, there's no mechanism to prevent people just shooting said animals into extinction (or near to it) and claiming they only ever shot the animals within X yards of their houses, or whatever restriction is placed on the action.
 
I seem to remember if we look into how well this has gone historically, there's no mechanism to prevent people just shooting said animals into extinction (or near to it) and claiming they only ever shot the animals within X yards of their houses, or whatever restriction is placed on the action.

Ideally there would be some enforcement so if the body seems to have been moved then the farmer would get charged with illegally killing it.

Of course, things don't always turn out ideally.
 
Last edited:
1. This sounds like a Sweden-specific problem (insert clean double entendre about immigration, wolves at the door, lunatic progressives etc)
2. You're complaining about wolves killing livestock and dogs. Not sure about anyone else here, but I'd place more value on the life of a wolf than on that of a dog or cow.

Fish and game places more value on livestock over wolves. A wolf is worth an $8 tag and a $20 hunting license. A good steer is worth $2k
 
Back
Top