Wolves; Alaska; Hunting...

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="dmpotter";p="238599"]After all, I can start down the slippery slope and apply your argument to the moose. Wolves murder the moose, right? Therefore, some form of punishment must be taken against the evil murdering wolves. So why not capital punishment? The hunters are just executing justice against the wolves.[/quote]

Hm. How about, no?

An interesting thought: There's no reason to kill the wolves, so it could be said that killing the wolves iswrong. The wolves, however, hunt the moose out of necessity (unless you want to show me wolves, or fuck, any animal for that matter, that kills for the sake of killing?). There's a big difference.

[Deacon]

[quote="furre";p="238593"]I must've missed where Beast said he was a furry. Care to show me, Deacon?[/quote]
The dude calls himself "Beast", comes on the forums with a wolf in his sig and a wolf as his avatar and posts about how horrible it is for people to be allowed to hunt wolves. Forgive me for jumping to conclusions. I must've missed where it mattered one way or the other. Care to show me, furre?

Your justification for killing wolves is that there are a lot of them? We have to wait for Alaskan wolves to become endangered before we stop shooting them?
That is an interesting way to view the world... Amazing lack of empathy. Really, fascinating. Maybe you could donate your brain to science or something?

You don't get to STOP people from doing what they want to do unless there's a reason to stop them. It's called freedom. If some idiot wants to hunt elk, let him. If he wants to hunt wolf, let him--especially if it puts his mind at ease about whatever it is for which he's blaming the wolf. If there are special circumstances, such as a governmental regulation prohibiting the hunting of a specific animal due to its rarity, then whatever, but otherwise cry on someone else's shoulder. There's a lot more important stuff to worry about in life. What you classify as a lack of "empathy" I classify as a healthy dose of realism. Or perhaps you're only for people having freedom as long as they act exactly as you would and hold your exact ideals, and you live in a world so cushy that you believe a priority should be spending money on preventing people from exercising those freedoms when there's no valid reason to stop them?

[furre]

The dude calls himself "Beast", comes on the forums with a wolf in his sig and a wolf as his avatar and posts about how horrible it is for people to be allowed to hunt wolves. Forgive me for jumping to conclusions. I must've missed where it mattered one way or the other. Care to show me, furre?

Gladly. I should assume that you're a furry that likes fat girls wrapped in twinkies? And that you pass time by making pointless posts in public forums (oh, and who likes wrestling)? Jumping to conclusions like that is generally considered retarded. There is a difference between being for animal rights and being a furry, it seems you might've missed that. See, Smaointe is for animal rights. Garr is a furry. MissCheetah, despite having a name, avatar and possessing a drawing of herself with kitty ears, tail and paws, isn't a furry.

You don't get to STOP people from doing what they want to do unless there's a reason to stop them.

And in this particular case, I (and I assume, a few others as well) have the audacity to presume that the wolves in question aren't interested in being shot. That's a reason. A pretty good one too, if you ask me.
While we're at it, your post "Shut up, Beast" was quite obviously an attempt at stopping Beast from further voicing his opinion. Let's hear a good reason to why he's not allowed to care about wolves in Alaska. Let's hear why you infringed on Beast's freedom.

If some idiot wants to hunt elk, let him. If he wants to hunt wolf, let him--especially if it puts his mind at ease about whatever it is for which he's blaming the wolf.

If some idiot wants to shoot everyone at the post office because they are obviously responsible for the milk in his fridge being sour that very same morning, let him? That's freedom? Or hang on, a wolf's life doesn't matter, but those people at the post office do? I mean, both idiots' minds would be at ease...

There's a lot more important stuff to worry about in life.

Such as? While I do agree with you, I want to hear what you think is more important.
And if there is something more important, why are you wasting your precious time in this discussion (with such deep, well put and thought out arguments like "Shut up, Beast"). Of all the places on these forums, you think there are more important things to worry about than THIS? Why aren't you busy in the games forum telling everyone there are more important things to worry about than if FF8 was better than FF9 or not?
In my opinion (which I'm sure you don't care about) worrying about people killing wolves for no legitimate reason is more important than worrying about if Miyamoto will make another Mario or not.

If there are special circumstances, such as a governmental regulation prohibiting the hunting of a specific animal due to its rarity, then whatever, but otherwise cry on someone else's shoulder.

So, if something isn't illegal, do it? No morals or ethics or anything? Like I said, interesting way to view the world.

[Deacon]

[quote="furre";p="238659"]I should assume that you're a furry that likes fat girls wrapped in twinkies? And that you pass time by making pointless posts in public forums (oh, and who likes wrestling)? Jumping to conclusions like that is generally considered retarded.[/quote]
Yeah, jumping to conclusions like THAT would be very retarded, since they're totally nonsensical and stupid.

There is a difference between being for animal rights and being a furry, it seems you might've missed that. See, Smaointe is for animal rights. Garr is a furry. MissCheetah, despite having a name, avatar and possessing a drawing of herself with kitty ears, tail and paws, isn't a furry.

So being referred to as a furry is an insult for you, then?

Let's hear why you infringed on Beast's freedom.

Before answering a "why" question, perhaps you'd like to explain "how" I infringed upon anyone's freedoms?

If some idiot wants to shoot everyone at the post office because they are obviously responsible for the milk in his fridge being sour that very same morning, let him? That's freedom? Or hang on, a wolf's life doesn't matter, but those people at the post office do?

Ding ding ding! We have a winnar!

So, if something isn't illegal, do it? No morals or ethics or anything? Like I said, interesting way to view the world.

Well, if you've ever read anything I've written, you'd know better than to try to patronize me like that--especially when it's totally inaccurate.

[furre]

So being referred to as a furry is an insult for you, then?

Being referred to as an atheist would be an insult to me, seeing as it is inaccurate. I don't care about Garr being a furry, I don't care about Soth being an atheist, I don't care about Blaze being a christian, I don't care about MissCheetah being a woman, but I'm neither of those things. Calling me something I'm not I consider an insult.

Let's hear why you infringed on Beast's freedom.

Before answering a "why" question, perhaps you'd like to explain "how" I infringed upon anyone's freedoms?

You don't get to STOP people from doing what they want to do unless there's a reason to stop them. It's called freedom.

I thought it was quite clear that was what I was referring to, oh well, guess I'm weird. Shit happens. But if you also read my entire post, you might notice the few sentences that come before I accuse you of infringing on Beast's rights, namely:

While we're at it, your post "Shut up, Beast" was quite obviously an attempt at stopping Beast from further voicing his opinion. Let's hear a good reason to why he's not allowed to care about wolves in Alaska.

If some idiot wants to shoot everyone at the post office because they are obviously responsible for the milk in his fridge being sour that very same morning, let him? That's freedom? Or hang on, a wolf's life doesn't matter, but those people at the post office do?

Ding ding ding! We have a winnar!

Now tell me why the dozen people at the post office are more important than two dozen wolves. I mean, it was just two idiots killing stuff to set their minds at ease. It's called freedom, isn't it?

If there are special circumstances, such as a governmental regulation prohibiting the hunting of a specific animal due to its rarity, then whatever, but otherwise cry on someone else's shoulder.

So, if something isn't illegal, do it? No morals or ethics or anything? Like I said, interesting way to view the world.

Well, if you've ever read anything I've written, you'd know better than to try to patronize me like that--especially when it's totally inaccurate.

That's how I interpreted it. And while I have read some things you have written, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what you meant. But do enlighten me. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong.


I'm still curious about what stuff is a lot more important to worry about, you seem to have forgotten to reply to that. Or you simply chose not to because you realized it was a retarded argument.

[Deacon]

[quote="furre";p="238674"]I thought it was quite clear that was what I was referring to, oh well, guess I'm weird. Shit happens. But if you also read my entire post, you might notice the few sentences that come before I accuse you of infringing on Beast's rights, namely:

While we're at it, your post "Shut up, Beast" was quite obviously an attempt at stopping Beast from further voicing his opinion.

[/quote]
Ah... Well, I can't *make* him shut up. But I can hopefully make him so mad that it dawns on him how rediculous it is to be so wound up over some animals being allowed to be hunted.

Now tell me why the dozen people at the post office are more important than two dozen wolves.

Because the people are people and the animals aren't.

That's how I interpreted it. And while I have read some things you have written, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what you meant. But do enlighten me. Instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

There's a difference between having personal standards of behavior (aka morals), not doing something just because there's not a law against it, and *stopping* other people from doing it. I think adultery is horrible and breaks just about every moral code I've got going, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get so wound up over someone else doing it that I'm going to try to make it illegal.

I'm still curious about what stuff is a lot more important to worry about, you seem to have forgotten to reply to that. Or you simply chose not to because you realized it was a retarded argument.

I chose not to because the question was an incredibly retarded one. What's more important than worrying about whether somebody hunts a wolf of which there is an abundance? How about pretty much anything else.

[peter-griffin]

Hey furre, you're not allowed to eat food anymore, understand? NO MORE FOOD. I'M SHUTTING DOWN YOUR SHOPPING CENTER AND EVERY SHOPPING CENTER IN A 250 MILE RADIUS.

So now that I've taken away your food, you probably want it back. But if I won't give it back, you're probably going to want to get rid of me. And that's the case here.

If the wolves aren't to blame, and the villagers are just getting stupid, then if it gets proven to them, they're wrong. If they go out and kill wolves and still can't find moose, then they'll know they were stupid. So let the problem solve itself.

I'd much rather see a wolf die than a moose. My dog fought off 2 wolves before being killed by the rest of the pack. This was 100 feet from my house, and the wolves came after my dog and myself totally unprovoked. They didn't bother coming after me, because I returned with my old Nagant and shot myself down another 2. Wolves aren't even indegenious to my area, and I'd only seen them three or four times before, so its not like they're competing for food. My dog was black and white, longhaired, and only medium sized. These wolves dwarfed my dog. They weren't attacking to protect themselves, and they didn't look hungry. They attacked with no visible reason. Granted, not all wolves are the same, and they stereotypically don't attack unprovoked, but this time, they did. And hence, I don't like them. I really, really hate them. I might even make the pilgrimage up to Alaska so I can take down a couple of wolves (legally, this time, because all breechloading rifles >.22 are illegal in NJ).


Wolves are NOT gentle. They are well evolved killing machines. They are the tigers of North America, making up in teamwork and smarts what they don't have in strength. You can't pet a wolf, you can't approach a wolf, you can't befriend a wolf. A wolf is MUCH different than a dog. Dogs are smaller and much more domesticated. Wolves are usually 200+lbs with extremely sharp teeth and will chase you, peaking at usually 32mph, for hours on end. Beast, as much as you'd like to commune with this part of nature, it does NOT want to commune with you. It isn't your friend, it's not your companion, so get over it.

[Beast]

Wolves are NOT gentle. They are well evolved killing machines. They are the tigers of North America, making up in teamwork and smarts what they don't have in strength. You can't pet a wolf, you can't approach a wolf, you can't befriend a wolf. A wolf is MUCH different than a dog. Dogs are smaller and much more domesticated. Wolves are usually 200+lbs with extremely sharp teeth and will chase you, peaking at usually 32mph, for hours on end. Beast, as much as you'd like to commune with this part of nature, it does NOT want to commune with you. It isn't your friend, it's not your companion, so get over it.

Another sad case of how myth can corrupt the truth. Another incredible case of blind ignorance. Some facts, to prove how much of an idiot you are for believing these myths:
#1 - Wolves are actually afriad of humans, and will actively avoid them. Why? Well the wolves may have sharp teeth, but humans have 5.56MM rifles, care to tell me which species is the more dangerous and threatening? Hmmm?
#2 - 200LB? Er, WTF? Last time I checked 133lb was heavy for a wolf, I have no idea where you got 200lb from, that's just stupid.
#3 - It has been noted some wolves can each 40mph

It's your kind of attitude that keeps these myths alive. Tell me, which species is really the more dangerous, the species that hunts for food, and is usually passive otherwise, or the species that researches thermonuclear weapons and better ways of killing....? Hmmm?

I'm sorry to hear what happened to your dog; like humans some wolves are different fom others, but the way you put it (contradicting yourself, I believe), Its like saying all of the Japanese are psychopathic killers because a group of them set my house on fire, and killed my pet cat.

@ Deacon: Do you actually know WHAT a furry is? If you definition is someone who likes anthropomorphic animal porn, then you definition is incredibly innaccurate. Yes there ae furries that like this, but that doesn't mean every furry does. I don't. I don't wear an animal costume either, nor do I want to have sex with non-human animals. I know very well I am physically human.

Incase you didn't get any of the more than obvious hints, yes, I am a furry. Take that how you will but I will not tollerate abuse because of this. Stop using the same f**king stereotypes that you should have really grown out of by now. This applies both to furries and Wolves.

[dmpotter]

[quote="Beast";p="238798"]Another sad case of how myth can corrupt the truth. Another incredible case of blind ignorance. Some facts, to prove how much of an idiot you are for believing these myths:
#1 - Wolves are actually afriad of humans, and will actively avoid them. Why? Well the wolves may have sharp teeth, but humans have 5.56MM rifles, care to tell me which species is the more dangerous and threatening? Hmmm?
#2 - 200LB? Er, WTF? Last time I checked 133lb was heavy for a wolf, I have no idea where you got 200lb from, that's just stupid.
#3 - It has been noted some wolves can each 40mph[/quote]
Wait, so you're telling this guy that wolves aren't dangerous, even though they ate his dog, because he sited some facts that are slightly wrong?!

I'm sorry, but his base case is still right on the money - wolves are dangerous. Even at 133lbs per wolf, wolves fight in packs. They're still dangerous. You can't disprove that - wolves are pack animals that hunt meat to survive. When competeing with humans for space and food, clashes will occur and in these cases the wolves should lose.

This isn't to say that we should kill all the wolves - I'd much rather see a thriving wolf population off in the wilds of Alaska (or any state) than see all the wolves dead. But you're going way off the deep end in defending wolves against people. Some people hunt, just like wolves do. Some people hunt wolves. And it really isn't that big a deal unless they start causing serious damage to the wolf population. Let them hunt a few wolves. You have no problem with the wolves hunting a few moose, right? So why can't people hunt a few wolves?

[Beast]

Perhaps I should be more specific. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan. yes, I eat meat. I don't believe killing for food is wrong, it is part of nature's cycle, it is a function that the entire world adheres to. I do however, respect the animal that died so that I may live.

Killing for the sake of killing? Wrong. Yes I'd believe the wolves that attacked his dog were in the wrong, but there are still a lot of details missed out, the dog may have provoked the attack, for instance, the dog may have even attacked first, but until I have these details I will not really be able to conclude.

Yes, wolves are dangerous, they have sharp teeth and will attack if provoked enough. I never stated wolves are not dangerous, stop putting words in my mouth, thank you.

So are humans - You provoke the wrong human and you get a gun pointed at your head. You walk into a dark alley and someone could mug you. With every species there are the agressive members. Humans are not excluded from this. Humans are not as "special" as they would like to believe. If you want to say that wolves are not "special" because they rely on primitive instincts, then you can apply that to humans as well as we rely on some primitive instincts too, as much as we try to hide the fact.

When competeing with humans for space and food, clashes will occur and in these cases the wolves should lose.

Why should they?? Can humans not with their "incredibly superior intellect of dewm" work out a compromise?

[Phong]

I believe he specifically stated that his dog had NOT provoked the attack. And forgive me for my misunderstanding, aren't these wolves being killed to preserve the moose population, and not "for the sake of killing" as you say ?

Or do you, like so many choose not to believe the stated purpose of the thing because it comes from the government ?

[dmpotter]

Hmm... I just had a nice productive talk with the wall. It was so much nicer than this discussion. Beast - get over it. Wolves and humans cannot co-exist in the same space. We have a compromise - when wolves invade human controlled areas, we use something called a "gun" to teach them to leave. Well, the survivers to leave.

Besides, to steal a dumb argument from that web page you originally linked to, we're helping the wolves by hunting them. See, by removing the weakest members of the wolf pack, we're helping select out the bad wolves and helping evolve the wolves. So hunting is a good thing, see?

Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You don't mind the wolves hunting, but you mind humans hunting wolves. If wolves can hunt, why can't people hunt?

[Deacon]

[quote="Beast";p="238846"]Killing for the sake of killing? Wrong.[/quote]
Why? And why would you even bring up the concept, since that's not the case here?

And why are you even posting on an internet forum? Aren't you aware of the amount of electricity you're using that stripping our precious mother nature of her resources and polluting the environment? You're going to harm the wolves!

[Fixer]

As an Alaskan-born individual, I have some background on wolves that some folks would like to know:

All wolves are not like Disney movies. They are not friendly to humans. They see humans the same way they see a deer, only they know we are a lot more dangerous. They will steal infants left unattended given an opportunity, hunt and kill children playing in the forests which are abundant in Alaska, and generally not be very good neighbors.

Should they be exterminated? HELL NO! They keep the other populations in check, like the rabbit and other rodents in Alaska. Some moose would starve due to rabbit overpopulation eating all the grass if there were no wolves. Only the moose that stick to the wetlands would ever see food, and those are not generally in danger from wolves anyway.

Hunt wolves that are near the settlements to drive the moose closer to the settlements for hunting purposes. Leave the wolves that are farther away alone unless their numbers appear to be increasing too much.

[AlexanderBarca]

[quote="dmpotter";p="238851"]Hmm... I just had a nice productive talk with the wall. It was so much nicer than this discussion. Beast - get over it. Wolves and humans cannot co-exist in the same space. We have a compromise - when wolves invade human controlled areas, we use something called a "gun" to teach them to leave. Well, the survivers to leave.[/quote]


Pardon me for interjecting, but weren't the wolves there first? Aren't we the ones invading their lands?


As far as this goes, I think a mass wolf hunting to "thin out the population" is wrong. If wolves "attack" you, by all means, defend yourself. However, I don't think that kids should be playing in woods by themselves if parents know that wolves are about. Couldn't that problem be solved by not leaving your baby unattended and not letting your children play in a dangerous area without supervision?