Wolves; Alaska; Hunting...

[Pout]

Yeah, I'm with StruckingFuggle on this one. This conversation has just been fueled way too much by extremists on both sides.

If the wolves aren't really lowering the moose population, as it suggests in the original link of this thread, than THAT is not a reason to kill them. There might be other reasons. If the hunters want to hunt them for food (a regulated amount of course to make sure this food source lasts as long as it can), or if packs are threatning the safety of the village (hunt would be allowed withing a certain radius) than by all means, go ahead and pull the trigger. But going off to kill the wolves on a false assumption just seems like a stupid action.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="siriansenemy";p="239089"]I was, however, demonstrating how ridiculous an argument sounds when you blow things out of proportion.[/quote]
Which pretty much all of you are doing.

OK, Beast didn't do the best job in laying things out. The page to which he pointed was pretty obviously slanted against the wolf hunts, and the owner of the page is against wolf hunts in general, judging by other sites on which his words appear, and by the fact that he lives in Oregon.

I went and looked up some other things on the hunt, which would seem to be a one-time cull of a few dozen (up to 40) in a 530-square-mile area near McGrath, AK, during only this winter and spring. This is in addition to ongoing efforts that have removed brown bears that also prey on moose. The town needs an annual supply of about 130 moose, but for the last decade has only been able to get about 90 moose each season reportedly because the predators are driving the moose herds farther from the town.

A little biology lesson for you all. These population shifts happen all the time. Prey become plentiful in one location, and the predators move there to make their hunts more successful with less energy used. In time, the predator population in another area declines as the prey moves away, thus eventually creating a reason for the prey to move over there. The predators follow, and the circle continues.

The difference here is that one of the predators (man) is less mobile because packing up an entire town and moving it everytime the moose move on is not feasible. Anytime a predator intrudes on another predator's territory and threatens a food supply, there's going to be a clash. It happens in the jungles, the deserts, and the savannah. That's all that's happening here. Sometimes one predator is much better off than others; this is why hyenas rarely stick around after a lion pride challenges it. The hyenas just aren't built or equipped to take on the lions, and in this case, the wolves aren't equipped to take on the humans.

Now, the efforts of the government in turning back something approved by initiative aside, and as much as I like and respect wolves, I think both sides are getting too jumpy here. It's limited, the wolves are not endangered, and they're making life near the town uncomfortable for whatever reasons (food, danger, etc). (For those of you worried about the young, the rest of the pack is there to aid any cubs left behind, just like they are when a moose or whatever other large prey kills an adult pack member.) I'm not big on things like hunters shooting from aircraft (which is only going to be allowed in this case in areas with dense vegetation), or even from trees. Maybe it's a little romanticized, but my vision of hunting involves tracking the animal, not waiting for an opportunity for one to drift into range or catch up to it in a vehicle that moves five to seven times faster than the prey can and which is unimpeded by terrain. I can't say that I disagree all that much with the reasoning of the townspeople, though, even if I disagree with the methods.

Now that the viewpoint is out of the way, some editorializing.

WTF? From Deacon's lame "Shut up" post (which contributed nothing and which served only as a flame) and his attack based solely on Beast perhaps being a furry (in whatever context), to furre engaging Deacon in a pointless debate about name-calling, to several others' knee-jerk attacks on one side or the other, I haven't seen so much pointless flaming in one thread in months. Beast brought up a current event which touches his heart, and all he sees is fire in every direction. I had hoped, considering the threads of the last few weeks, that we had started to move towards a little more civilized age in this forum. Even the Iraq invasion thread had more on-point posts than this. About the only ones I can't complain about are dmpotter and Fixer, who both tried to put a little sense of moderation into the thread, and who were fairly promptly shouted down with inane comparisons.

Most of you need to stop by Stephen's Guide to Logical Fallacies and learn a little about debating. Hell, everyone in this forum should bookmark it and go back and read it from time to time. (Yes, I do.) Maybe then we can get a little bit of sense back in here.

[Deacon]

Hahaha...great pic, Ebonlupus. It's great, because we all take the issue so much more seriously now that a reasonable illustration has manifested </sarcasm>

[quote="Ebonlupus";p="239282"]It's uncivilized to commit genocide on one group of beings so that another may prosper... Hitler tried this and it was regarded rather negatively by the thoughtful multitudes.[/quote]
You're comparing hunters to Hitler? And wolves to jews?

It's the 400+ people living in McGrath that is causing this "ecological emergency" not Wolves.

All this stress over 400 people and some wolves out in the middle of nowhere?

I think you should relocate the humans and leave the Wolves and moose to re-establish their natural balance. But then this would be reasonable and uncharacteristic of human vanity.

So what's it like to be able to live in your own little world? Also, what's it like in that world where human lives are secondary to some animals running around--animals that aren't even endagered.

Political and ecological concerns aside, chasing Wolves until they are exhausted and then gut shooting them from planes so they may writhe in agony until they die is cruelty... and so is allowing pups to starve to death in their dens because some greedy selfish bastard killed their parents.

They shot Bambi's mommy! Let's hold a funeral! Goodness knows nature is a fun place with bunnies and lions holding hands and singing songs in the flowery meadow... Sing me another sob story about some wolves running around in the wilderness while you make no mention of what to do about actual *human beings* that writhe in agony until they die of starvation in other parts of the world that are aparently out of reach of your sheltered world. Try explaining to the orphaned children why your panties are in such a wad over a handful of people and some wolves instead of worrying about how to solve actual problems.

I have a hard time caring about these very minor side issues, it's because my heart has been heardened listening to these extreemist greenies lament the collapse of the world because some wolves might be culled.

[Ebonlupus]

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

[Martin Blank]

Drop it, both of you. I'm tired of the personal attacks in this thread based on blind presumptions.

Deacon, if you can't conduct yourself in this debate without the use of such blatant and unnecessary sarcasm which only pulls away from the topic, please refrain from posting in it.

[Ebonlupus]

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

[Deacon]

I take solace in knowing that Ebonlupus only reinforces my perceptions with his ludicrous assumptions and remarks that he "must go do some work toward helping Wolves [note the capitalization] now." Say hi to the kids in Africa for me while you're at it, Ebon.

Edit: Pointless flamage removed. -- Martin

And by the way, it's "human", not "humanimal".

[SpiritWolf]

Just wanted to add my two cents worth to this discussion about the aerial wolf hunts in Alaska. The main reason given by Governor Murkowski for reinstating the hunts is that the residents of McGrath (population 470) have not been able to harvest enough moose to eat because, supposedly, area wolves are gobbling them up first.

It has been stated by Murkowski and his board of game that McGrath residents, being off-road and 300 miles from the nearest grocery store, do not have any other choice but to eat moose and other game. This is ridiculous in this day and age where there are certainly airplanes to easily fly food (and just about anything else) in. Funny how the planes are suddenly so available to kill wolves but have not been available to make a "food run." People have choices about how/where to acquire their food; wolves - living in Alaska long before humans - do not.

Evidence has clearly shown that the moose populations around McGrath are actually increasing, not decreasing. In areas where there are moose and wolves, but no humans, the delicate balance of nature is kept in check - naturally. It is only in human infested areas where moose and wolves also live that moose populations are suffering. Why? The answer is simple - overhunting by humans, not the wolves.

The area slated for the McGrath wolf kill is not as small as many think. It actually encompasses 1,720 square miles. This McGrath hunt is not a one-time thing either. It will continue every winter for a number of years, to ensure that new wolves entering the territory are eliminated. Further, the McGrath hunt is only the first of three planned exterminations. The second formal wolf "control" program is slated to begin in January or February of next year and will target up to 150 wolves (the estimated total population in the area). It encompasses 7,800 square miles just southeast of Denali National Park. Over the past three winters alone at least 640 wolves were killed within the area by private hunters and trappers, often using snowmobiles. When the third aerial wolf kill program is authorized later this winter it will cover an area of 6,000 to 8,000 square miles about 50 miles northwest of Anchorage. All of the aerial hunts will continue for a number of years, until all wolves in those areas are eliminated.

Those in favor of the aerial hunts have been quoted as not understanding what all the fuss is about - why do people care about the 40 to 45 wolves about to be murdered around McGrath? They state these numbers as if to say, "only 45 wolves at the most," as if it shouldn't matter because not a thousand wolves will be killed. Every wolf death, however, is murder. And the numbers? The slaughter begins with 40 or 45 but will NOT end there. Alaska's reinstated aerial wolf hunts have set a dangerous precedent, making it easier to eliminate even more wolves than usual - in a state which is already a hell hole for wolves to begin with. Between 1996 and 2002 alone, more than 7,000 wolves were killed via hunting and trapping, possibly even twice that number according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s harvest summary. Excessive hunting and trapping have resulted in the deaths of nearly 7,500 wolves in just the past five years.

Whether or not you believe in hunting, I would hope you at least believe in a "fair" hunt, not the barbaric practice which is just now beginning in Alaska. Many hunters have publicly stated that the aerial hunts are not hunting at all, but SLAUGHTER.

If you believe in a fair hunt, or in no wolf hunting at all, please add yours to the rapidly growing voice and sign our petition against the aerial wolf hunts in Alaska. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/372846429

[Calus]

Beast, Ebonlupus, and SpiritWolf are you the same person?

[Deacon]

Oh great...it's Looney Wars Episode II: Attack of the Furries.

[quote="SpiritWolf";p="239367"]This is ridiculous in this day and age where there are certainly airplanes to easily fly food (and just about anything else) in. Funny how the planes are suddenly so available to kill wolves but have not been available to make a "food run."[/quote]
I forgive your woeful ignorance because I'm willing to bet large sums of money that you are not a pilot. Foodstuffs take up lots of room and often end up being quite heavy, unless you only include dried grains and such, which still add up to quite a bit of weight. It would be economically laughable to suggest that people fly in food, much less suggest that they not be allowed to eat meat in order to allow the objects of your lust to feast at will.

It is only in human infested areas where moose and wolves also live that moose populations are suffering. Why? The answer is simple - overhunting by humans, not the wolves.

Agent Smith, I presume? Humans are an "infestation"? Nice attitude. While you're at it, explain why the wolf population thrives while the humans cannot harvest the necessary number of moose.

The area slated for the McGrath wolf kill is not as small as many think. It actually encompasses 1,720 square miles.

Not much land, there...only about 40 miles by 40 miles.

Further, the McGrath hunt is only the first of three planned exterminations.

At least use accurate terms instead of propagandizing the situation. To "exterminate" is "to get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate" which is not what's going on. So either you're ignorant or deliberately misleading, and neither help your cause. Perhaps "cull" is the term you're looking for?

Over the past three winters alone at least 640 wolves were killed within the area by private hunters and trappers, often using snowmobiles.

Wow...if the hunters are approaching on snowmobiles, then they're arguably bagging only the weakest of the lot.

When the third aerial wolf kill program is authorized later this winter it will cover an area of 6,000 to 8,000 square miles about 50 miles northwest of Anchorage. All of the aerial hunts will continue for a number of years, until all wolves in those areas are eliminated.

Is that your guess, or is this factual information? If you claim that it's factual that "All of the arial hunts will continue for a number of years, until all the wolves in those areas are eliminated," then what source do you have for that "fact"?

Every wolf death, however, is murder. And the numbers? The slaughter begins with 40 or 45 but will NOT end there.

Yeah, we're looking at a full-blown "Wolf Holocaust" next

Many hunters have publicly stated that the aerial hunts are not hunting at all, but SLAUGHTER.

This is a problem...why?

[Ebonlupus]

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

[Deacon]

Sorry, buddy, but when you display a lust for animal sex, it kind of throws off any objective discourse on said animals. If you consider the revelation of such to count as "a troll and a flamer" and "attacking people", then it sucks to be you. Here's a hint for future reference: if you'll just come out and establish that you screw dogs and fantasize about screwing wolves before commenting on the oh-so-horrible plight of a handful of wolves in Alaska who are running off meat needed by the people in the area, you'd probably cut off any of your alleged "attacks" at the knees. At least then you couldn't try to pawn off the revelation of your half-truths as flames. If you want to silence anyone who disagrees with you because they find your twisted world view and sex-obscured priorities to be sickening, you might want to undertake a little introspection instead of seeking to shut it out.

And if you'd actually like success with attempting to silence people, I suggest a private message to a moderator instead of a public demand that dissenting voices be silenced, something that does not help you at all.

[Ebonlupus]

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

[Deacon]

[quote="Ebonlupus";p="239405"]Are you a gay basher too? Think Colored people should still be your slaves? My spirituality and religion has no bearing on the reasoning behind my post.[/quote]
But your sexual lust for the objects of this discussion *do*. If you're unwilling or unacapable of figuring that out, then that's even less of a reason to pay attention to anything you say, as it is obviously incredibly subjective. I'm not actually sure where anyone mentioned anything about your "spirituality" or "religion". As for the rest of it, it's too ludicrious to even deserve an address.

[StruckingFuggle]

Hmmm. I enjoy sex with women. Does this bar me from "objective discourse" on, say, that thing in Vegas where men with paintball guns would 'hunt' naked women?