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 stated that the dog and cow are both property (hint: that's an objective fact).
Then I stated that wolves and other predators are often invasive to the property of the farmer/rancher.
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.
You implied claim that the wolf has some sort of claim to a stretch of land is also a subjective opinion.
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.
No one with a brain pretends that wolves are cuddly animals but they serve an important role in the ecosystem
So yes, there are benefits to having wolves when it comes to ecology.
So, can you name a single function in the ecosystem that a wolf can preform that a human simply can't?
Yes or no?
If a wolf is attacking a farmer's livestock, he has every right to kill that wolf.
how dangerous are wolves for humans? i sure as hell don't want to come across one.
You can appreciate the beauty and majesty of a wolf and still understand the danger.As I replied to spin_, you obviously have not talked to many wolf activists.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Why wouldn't I?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.