This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash

Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash - Comments

wildhog's Avatar Comment 1 by wildhog

Shooting wolves?

This isnt a wildlife management problem, its a human overpopulation problem. Fucking humans..

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:53:40 UTC | #926775

GPWC's Avatar Comment 2 by GPWC

Comment 1 by wildhog :

Shooting wolves?

This isnt a wildlife management problem, its a human overpopulation problem. Fucking humans..

I completely agree.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:28:37 UTC | #926781

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 3 by Red Dog

The Native Americans are using religion because its the best chance they have to not be brushed off. Your average US politician doesn't care a bit about the countless treaties with Native Americans that the US ignored nor about the legacy of virtual (or in some cases actual) genocide. But frame the debate in terms of religious freedom and at least there is some possibility that you might get support from the bible thumpers.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:34:33 UTC | #926783

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

Wolves were here first.

Always consider that when make such decisions as Wisconsin will make.

By the way, there are not that many wolves in Wisconsin! About 800 wolves in the state, so hunting seems a bit premature.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:56:30 UTC | #926790

maf2002's Avatar Comment 5 by maf2002

Yes no need to hunt them unless pests and no need to believe them like brothers. Or is there a need I don't know about?

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:15:25 UTC | #926793

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 6 by aquilacane

If the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Game Commission can provide legitimate evidence in support of their claim, it should be listened to. That won't happen, so their argument doesn't actually exist, which ends it there. The conservationist are hired to gather and report on the data used to determine the availability of wolves to be shot, they are important. The hunters are the demand, they may want less or more than availability, so they are important. Politicians do the biding of the people, they are important.

If this goes through and becomes profitable, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Game Commission will be making money off of it. That's how much I think they really believe.

Where there's a bill there's a way.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:26:09 UTC | #926794

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 7 by ukvillafan

  1. This is about man's desire to destroy and enjoy the kill as it is about 'wildlife management'.

  2. In essence, the claim is that "we need to be able to kill some wolves so that we can slaughter more of our own domesticated stock, lose less to predation and make more money.

  3. Seeing as humans do not NEED to eat meat at all to survive this is an economic issue for farmers and, as such, has dubious moral validity.

  4. Religion and tradition should be irrelevant. The main issue is man's all-consuming desire to dominate and kill his fellow species and make money out of it.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:44:17 UTC | #926797

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 8 by alaskansee

@ wildhog

Yup too many humans. Too many "wild" hogs too.

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:59:21 UTC | #926800

Nekura's Avatar Comment 9 by Nekura

I know some stories about wolves, too! Maybe we should base legislative decisions on them, too. Clearly wolves are a danger to straw and stick infrastructures, so they should be protected with poisoned pork bait.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:14:25 UTC | #926812

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 10 by Helga Vieirch

Actually the evidence (scientific) indicates that wolves have made the whole ecosystem healthier when ever they have been reintroduced. I think it is likely true that the Ojibwa are using the "spiritual" argument because they think it might be listened to more than any ecological or science-based objection to the slaughter. The main proponents are not farmers, apparently, but companies that guide hunters in to help them get a trophy deer. The deer have become much warier and no longer congregate in the way they used to when wolves were not around. So the guides have a harder time finding them and the hunters sometimes take much longer to bag their trophy. See this report, which describes a similar situation in another state.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:36:58 UTC | #926817

AnAtheistBastard's Avatar Comment 11 by AnAtheistBastard

Comment 4 by Neodarwinian :

Wolves were here first.

Always consider that when make such decisions as Wisconsin will make.

By the way, there are not that many wolves in Wisconsin! About 800 wolves in the state, so hunting seems a bit premature.

So were the Indians.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:44:56 UTC | #926818

louis14's Avatar Comment 12 by louis14

Yes Helga. I saw a TV program about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Since they were reintroduced, they have reduced the elk population. This means that cottonwood tree saplings are managing to grow, which produces the material that beaver need to thrive. The woodlands are increasing and the beaver are returning to Yellowstone.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:49:11 UTC | #926819

Mamba24's Avatar Comment 13 by Mamba24

Are any of you guys who are posting here even hunters? Do you have any knowledge of wildlife policies? 800 wolves in ONE state is not a small number. Even one wolf can cause havoc on other wildlife forms, now consider that they travel in packs......No one is saying that we should wipe out the wolves, they do play a role in keeping Elk and Deer populations down, as well as other ecological benefits. But you shouldn't put so much doubt in Fish and Game or other Wildlife agencies. They will only put out a limited number of wolf tags. I live in Montana, we had a wolf hunting season and It was very successful, I don't even think all the tags were filled and they considered extending the season another couple weeks before they decided against it. There's nothing wrong with hunting wolves as long as we make sure we don't over-hunt them and manage the wolf population. I think my state has done a great job at managing our wolf population and keeping it at a healthy population level. As for you guys saying that people just want to hunt wolves for "financial" purposes, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Most people don't hunt for "financial" purposes, it's not about money, it's about their love for the outdoors and traditional ethical hunting. Hunters aren't just mindless barbarians who just want to wipe everything out. Hunting is apart of our nature, we've been doing it for million of years, going back to Homo Erectus possibly. "Ukvillafan" says that humans don't even need to eat meat........Really? So we should all become vegetarians because killing other animals(which is completely natural) is bad? I assure you that it's not as simple as "people just wanting to kill wolves just so we can kill more of our domesticated stocks". It's true for some people, mainly farmers, and there's nothing wrong with their opinion, but most hunters don't own farms or livestock. We can manage wolf populations at a healthy level that works for everyone. I think the fact that this Native American group had to resort to religion, just shows a lack of real argument on their part.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:49:05 UTC | #926829

silverwolf7's Avatar Comment 14 by silverwolf7

Mamba:

I have a question for you: Why do you think there's nothing wrong with hunting wolves? You mention "traditional, ethical hunting", which to me is an oxymoron, but I nonetheless acknowledge the difference between drunken rednecks with shotguns and people who have a degree of respect for the animals they hunt, the environment, etc, whether that's because they are part of a hunter/gatherer culture or because they are simply intelligent.

I must first point out that, probably similar to others on this site, I find tradition a poor substitute for ethics, and tradition alone an insufficient justification for any practice that may cause harm- which hunting certainly can do. From this basis I must point out that wolves are a very intelligent, complex social species, quite different from the bears and mountain lions that you might also choose to kill, and it seems to me that any species with high levels of sociality and intelligence should be given a particularly strong leniency before we as humans feel justified to kill them.

However, this kind of wolf hunting can't at all be described as traditional or ethical either. How is killing such an animal, not out of self-defense and of course not out of hunger, traditional or ethical? Wolves are apex predators like us; their "natural" role is not that of prey any more than ours is.

And whether you like it or not, ranching interests such as the Cattlemen's Beef Association and so-called hunter's rights organizations like the Anti-Wolf Foundation do take it upon themselves to demonize these animals at every turn, and stand to lose quite a bit if wolves are allowed to simply be left alone by humans until (and if) they begin to reclaim territory where humans actually live and not merely rural ranches populated by bloated cattle. Similarly, elk and deer hunters must adjust their behavior and limits to return to the original, wolf-included equilibrium, and not the relatively new artifice of humans replacing wolves as apex predators of deer and elk, and often weakening the gene pool by targeting stronger and healthier prey rather than sick or older animals.

I'm not saying there's not good argument that could be made for a "hunt" (though I haven't heard one yet), only that careful consideration must be taken before making such decisions, and that the interests of hunters and ranchers should not necessarily be taken for granted.

Back OT:

I'm familiar with the Ojibwe (having studied some American Indian history in college) and most of your comments about this religious argument are probably correct; Indians have always had an extremely difficult time getting attention from the US Government, no matter how strong their argument is; this kind of thing is a last resort that will likely be tried by more tribes in the future.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:30:43 UTC | #926833

Robert Firth's Avatar Comment 15 by Robert Firth

I would support allowing anyone to hunt wolves, subject only to two simple conditions. First, they can only use a weapon they have made themselves, and second, the weapon must rely only on individual muscle power.

Or maybe a third: I get to bet on the wolf.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:47:38 UTC | #926839

Mamba24's Avatar Comment 16 by Mamba24

"I have a question for you: Why do you think there's nothing wrong with hunting wolves?"

-For the same reason I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting Elk, Deer, antelope, or any other big game animal. Humans are animals. Animals hunt other animals. It's natural. WHY do you think there is something wrong with hunting??

"You mention "traditional, ethical hunting", which to me is an oxymoron,".......

-An oxymoron? Sorry I don't see the oxymoron you are referring too.....Do you know what an oxymoron is?

"but I nonetheless acknowledge the difference between drunken rednecks with shotguns and people who have a degree of respect for the animals they hunt, the environment, etc, whether that's because they are part of a hunter/gatherer culture or because they are simply intelligent."

-Yes because believe or not there are codes and regulations hunters have to abide by, like you can't be driving around drinking beers and shooting out of the vehicle. All hunters have to take and pass a hunter safety education course, where they teach proper hunting techniques and ethics. Make sure you take a good shot and put the animal down so they don't have to suffer more than necessary. If you take a bad shot and only wound it, and then it gets away, then it's suffering pain inflicted by you. That's considered unethical hunting. So yeah, it's not just a bunch of rednecks out there.

"I must first point out that, probably similar to others on this site, I find tradition a poor substitute for ethics, and tradition alone an insufficient justification for any practice that may cause harm- which hunting certainly can do."

-Well first off, it's not a "substitution" for ethics, ethics isn't being substituted. Cultures all over the world practice hunting, some egalitarian societies consider it an art-form. I'd like to know what "harm" you are referring to that hunting supposedly causes. So by your opinion, are some hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, that rely almost entirely on hunting......causing harm?

"From this basis I must point out that wolves are a very intelligent, complex social species, quite different from the bears and mountain lions that you might also choose to kill, and it seems to me that any species with high levels of sociality and intelligence should be given a particularly strong leniency before we as humans feel justified to kill them."

-Yes they are intelligent creatures..........so that means that they can't be killed? So any species that has a certain degree of intelligence is therefore off-limits? Because by your logic it's "unjustifiable"? Hunting is a part of nature silverwolf, animals kill and eat each other, always have. There's a difference between ethical hunting and torture. And no, you can't kill mountain lions, and most people don't hunt bear.(out of the few kinds that you can hunt)

"However, this kind of wolf hunting can't at all be described as traditional or ethical either. How is killing such an animal, not out of self-defense and of course not out of hunger, traditional or ethical? Wolves are apex predators like us; their "natural" role is not that of prey any more than ours is."

-So according to your opinion, the only ethical and justifiable kind of hunting is either out of self-defense or hunger? Are you kidding me? Just for your information, lot's of hunters DO eat the animals they kill. What's your position on cattle farms then? Most of these animals are fed and raised only to be slaughtered. Where do you think the regular beef you buy at the store comes from? Or are cows not intelligent enough to be on the don't touch list? In my opinion, hunting in the wild is even more ethical than raising and slaughtering cattle. At least there is a fair pursuit, where the prey has a chance to escape and survive, kind of like how nature works. And now your saying that wolves can't be hunted because their natural role is that of a predator, as if there is some big natural law book you're quoting from. You're going to have to use an actual argument if you're going to convince me of your position. Making stuff doesn't cut it, and yes I know wolves are natural predators, and they still are.

"And whether you like it or not, ranching interests such as the Cattlemen's Beef Association and so-called hunter's rights organizations like the Anti-Wolf Foundation do take it upon themselves to demonize these animals at every turn, and stand to lose quite a bit if wolves are allowed to simply be left alone by humans until (and if) they begin to reclaim territory where humans actually live and not merely rural ranches populated by bloated cattle."

-And whether you like it or not, a lot of the wolves that are in these territories........aren't even native to those places....a lot the wolf populations were placed there from Canada. And yes I know there are extreme radical groups out there, and they need to checked. Fish and Game isn't going to allow the wolf population to be wiped out. There is reasonable people that manage these things, it's good to fight the radical groups and pay attention to them, but I wouldn't get all worked up over them.

"Similarly, elk and deer hunters must adjust their behavior and limits to return to the original, wolf-included equilibrium, and not the relatively new artifice of humans replacing wolves as apex predators of deer and elk, and often weakening the gene pool by targeting stronger and healthier prey rather than sick or older animals."

-You don't think wildlife agencies know this stuff? Are you really so worried about the gene pool weakening from killing all the stronger and game trophies? LOL Wow. It's the healthy and strong that have the best chance of passing on their genes buddy.....

"I'm not saying there's not good argument that could be made for a "hunt" (though I haven't heard one yet), only that careful consideration must be taken before making such decisions, and that the interests of hunters and ranchers should not necessarily be taken for granted."

-How about that it's a natural part of life? Animals hunt and kill other animals......I haven't heard any reasonable arguments against hunting from you yet....

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:25:40 UTC | #926843

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 17 by RomeStu

The ethics of hunting aside, this for me is a great example of the enormous strength of religion within the framework of tradition in a small population whose traditions have been dealt a pretty severe blow over the recent centuries.

In other words are these native American religions/traditions stronger because they are / have been under threat?

One lot of woooo is much like another in the sense that it is all rubbish, but special sensitivity is often given to tribal religions as if they have some "secret ancient knowledge" that the developed world has lost. It seems to me somehow more disrespectful to openly deny the "wolf-brother" religion, than to deny a mainstream religion like christianity.

Has anyone ever polled native Americans to see whether they actually believe this stuff, like creationists actually believe their woooo? Or is it just a tool to prevent their tribal culture from dying out? Would any native American admit to being an atheist, or would they be seen as denying their own culture?

On the positive side, their religious beliefs are far less damaging to the world and to other people, as they seem mainly based on respect for nature.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:03:59 UTC | #926847

mordiwilwey's Avatar Comment 18 by mordiwilwey

We have no wolves at all, in the wild, in England. Really shocked that Americans kill them for fun. We do hunt animals in England, howeverr this is for food. Living in the country, I regularly eat rabbit, guinea fowl and occasionally deer and pheasant. I don't get the argument that hunting a wolf for fun is for food. This sounds like another excuse to abuse animals for fun. We have outlawed hunting foxes with dogs as we see this activity as barbaric and an inefficient way to deal with threats to small farm animals. farmers shoot foxes getting too close to farm buildings however no one wants to waste their time chasing foxes across the country, killing for fun.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:05:35 UTC | #926848

PERSON's Avatar Comment 19 by PERSON

Comment 16 by Mamba24

Humans are animals. Animals hunt other animals. It's natural.

So hunting humans is OK? What kind of argument is that? Ebola is natural, should we support that too?

You mention "traditional, ethical hunting", which to me is an oxymoron,.......

An oxymoron? Sorry I don't see the oxymoron you are referring to.

Presumably "ethical hunting", where what you regard as unethical and ethical are unethical and more unethical to him. Do you think the type of hunting discussed here is not truly traditional?

tradition isn't being substituted

Then it's no basis for an argument in favour?

are some hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, that rely almost entirely on hunting... causing harm?

It depends what they're hunting and how. One's interests can alter one's assessment of a situation. If you do not rely on a population's stability for survival, your view can easily differ from one required for sustainability. Other interests come into play, such as a desire to get the best kill, or the most kills. Not for everyone, all the time, but I can't see how they cannot become more of a factor.

Yes they are intelligent creatures... so that means that they can't be killed?

On what other basis would we exclude species from hunting? If not that, why not hunt humans?

So any species that has a certain degree of intelligence is therefore off-limits? Because by your logic it's "unjustifiable"?

Why not?

Hunting is a part of nature, silverwolf, animals kill and eat each other, always have. There's a difference between ethical hunting and torture.

Again, the fact something occurs in nature is not sufficient to justify it.

And no, you can't kill mountain lions, and most people don't hunt bear.(out of the few kinds that you can hunt)

Thanks for this information, that's interesting.

hunting in the wild is even more ethical than raising and slaughtering cattle.

That depends on how the cows are raised and slaughtered. Given current practices, I'd say that's true, though that's more to do with the welfare of the animal. You seem to be basing it on the naturalness of the action:

At least there is a fair pursuit, where the prey has a chance to escape and survive, kind of like how nature works. And now your saying that wolves can't be hunted because their natural role is that of a predator,

So does the naturalness of something justify it or not?

as if there is some big natural law book you're quoting from.

Which you seem to have been doing repeatedly.

I know there are extreme radical groups out there

I'm glad you acknowledge this. It would be understandable if these groups are well resourced by industry. I can't see why the equivalent absolutist anti-hunting groups would be similarly resourced, so I suspect there is a systemic bias in one direction, even without prejudices of lawmakers based on party affiliation.

There is reasonable people that manage these things, it's good to fight the radical groups and pay attention to them, but I wouldn't get all worked up over them.

Such groups usually have influence by inserting their ideas, propaganda and sometimes outright lies and makebelieve into the mainstream discussion. Some of it is quite subtle, based on other such groups I've seen. It may be necessary to watch them more closely than you realise.

It's the healthy and strong that have the best chance of passing on their genes buddy.

This is only true if they've not been shot before breeding and raising/protecting their offspring from competitors (I'm not sure if it happens for these species, but infanticide against rivals is not uncommon in the natural world; is this something humans should emulate too? It's natural, no?). How do the hunting regulators control which targets are selected? Won't a hunter want the best kill they can get?

How about that it's a natural part of life? Animals hunt and kill other animals......I haven't heard any reasonable arguments against hunting from you yet

Yet again, that's just not good enough.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:15:07 UTC | #926852

PERSON's Avatar Comment 20 by PERSON

By the way, I hope I don't come off as too confrontational here. I'm honestly just trying to think this through rationally. I, for one, appreciate seeing your views here. You seem to be a decent guy.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:35:02 UTC | #926855

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 21 by susanlatimer

Comment 20 by Person

By the way, I hope I don't come off as too confrontational here. I'm honestly just trying to think this through rationally. I, for one, appreciate seeing your views here. You seem to be a decent guy.

You're not being too confrontational. It's important to think things through, rationally in a situation like this. We're talking about killing sentient creatures. A case should be required for that. There might be one but it hasn't been made yet.

An appeal to nature is always worth questioning. And so far, that's what you've been offered.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:52:40 UTC | #926856

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 22 by Alan4discussion

Comment 12 by louis14

Yes Helga. I saw a TV program about the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Since they were reintroduced, they have reduced the elk population. This means that cottonwood tree saplings are managing to grow, which produces the material that beaver need to thrive. The woodlands are increasing and the beaver are returning to Yellowstone.

There are numerous examples of damage to eco-systems by testosterone fuelled macho hunters blasting away at top predators (wolves, lion, tigers, or fishing for sharks etc). Fortunately this is being curtailed in many parts of the world, but lots of species are still endangered as a result of expanding human populations.

Organisations managing hunting are there to make money, pandering to the egos of trophy hunters - usually from cities. Limited hunting for food species taking a balanced harvest, makes sense, egotistical hunting of top predators does not. A common problem with excessive reduction in wolf populations, is a population explosion in the coyote population. Some have been very slow to understand this. Over protection of deer etc has been shown to be disastrous time and again. - Hence the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone.

Comment 13 by Mamba24 - There's nothing wrong with hunting wolves as long as we make sure we don't over-hunt them and manage the wolf population.

This is only justified if there is an ecological problem of an excessive population out of balance with prey species. Often the reduction of wild deer etc is the result of over hunting, or the expansion of farm land into wildlife grazing areas.

This sort of question is only part of the US problem of the widespread ownership and use of guns.

The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html The UK where gun ownership is strictly controlled, does not even appear on the graphs on the link.

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year.

Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in the U.S. and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. (Huiras, et al, 1990) A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters.

Accidents while actually hunting seem a small %, probably because during hunts guns are handled by people who know how to use them, but then there is the issue of ownership and storage at other times.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:49:20 UTC | #926882

Sinister Weasel's Avatar Comment 23 by Sinister Weasel

It is difficult to decide this without more information. Wolves would certainly benefit the ecosystem and do a better job of controlling large grazing animals than hunters, I also believe they would regulate their own numbers (which I am sure is understood by those involved). But if they are also targeting domestic livestock to boost their numbers then that would change things and hunting would be logical (or reintroduction where numbers are scarce?).

However there is valuable research being ignored that would solve the problem for all. As wolves are highly territorial, recorded howls from large rival packs have been proven to keep wolves out of certain areas, even when they have learned to take vulnerable livestock.

Here is a clip from 'Wolfman' that aired a few years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PnX-F_ne5k

I am bias as I love wolves, but I am also a hunter myself and regularly eat rabbits that I have taken from the wild (by bird of prey, ferrets or rifle). I don't see any ethical problem with this, certainly less so than buying bacon from Denmark or other places where sow crates are mainstream. Humans have meddled too much, it may therefore be the case that more human meddling is necessary to correct the natural balance.

Of course, 99% of all of the world's problems would be solved by reducing the human population, or so I believe anyway.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:51:58 UTC | #926892

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 24 by potteryshard

Why not license the hunters to go after each other?

If we're going to pretend to talk about about justitying wolf hunting via population controls, shouldn't those measures be applied first to the species that has genuinely become a fecundity blight? A lot more meat on them too.

/set sarcasm flag

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:12:23 UTC | #926897

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 25 by aroundtown

This story is just riddled with the story of the heart of man. Just because you can does not mean you should. As far as the Indians are concerned this was their land by "first right of possession" and just because some scumbag in bloomers jumped off a sailing ship and claimed the Continent for the King or Queen does not mean it was legal. The occupiers simply came up with the scummy treaty scheme and purported the Indians had broken the treaties, this is a pile of dung tactic they utilized to rationalize the theft of their land. Just ask, or take a look, at the Cherokee as to how that all worked for them in "becoming civilized" and doing what the white man wanted, the white man turned around and gave them the hosing of a lifetime and put them on the trail of tears and stole their land anyway. I will take the opportunity to remind people that they had actually won a supreme court decision to uphold their rights and in the end the President simply ignored the supreme court decision and screwed the Cherokee anyway. That should give you an idea of how it really works here, or anywhere for that matter.

This wolf hunt is just one more glaring example of mans arrogance and "fear" when it comes to the wolf having the right to live on the land without being harmed. Man is a scumbag that has deep rooted fears of anything that can kick his butt so that is really what these jock hunter worms won't admit. These Hunters will kill the wolf and feel some type of pride in the ability to kill the animal that scared him inside his mind. Just like the grizzly bear who scares the crap out of man they are also in the sights of the hunter scumbags. I have no doubt that the wolf will survive but not because it had any hope in the actions of man, they will survive because we will eventually destroy ourselves and then they will not be threatened or harmed by us any further. One can hope, and I do, that man will be held accountable for what he has done and I think that is already underway with nature getting it sorted out to clobber our habitation and comfort zones. It's going to be the wakeup call of the ages and the Republipukes and their ilk will suffer from their indifference eventually.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:43:51 UTC | #926917

Deako's Avatar Comment 26 by Deako

One can hope, and I do, that man will be held accountable for what he has done and I think that is already underway with nature getting it sorted out to clobber our habitation and comfort zones.

I'd rather we applied the brakes before driving off the edge of the cliff - or alternatively have some large cushions at the bottom. Why the need for punishment?

Greg

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:57:33 UTC | #926959

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 27 by aroundtown

Comment 26 by Deako - I'd rather we applied the brakes before driving off the edge of the cliff - or alternatively have some large cushions at the bottom. Why the need for punishment?

It's not about punishment it's about realities. In 1975 we were roughly a population of 3.4 billion and now, as of 2012, we are right around 7 billion. My point is this, mankind does not possess the ability to act in concert with our concerns, be they large or small, with one unifying voice. That is why we will fail and for no other reason. One good example in small context is this thread on the wolf story, one wants to shoot a wolf in the ass and one wants to protect it. It is no different than a huge block of individuals wanting to do something about global warming, some want to install safety measures and the others want to drive their cars and could not care less. So it is not just my assumption and views on our collective condition that means anything about my suggestion about our demise, I am simply pointing out the percentages. I will admit that I have a great deal in common with George Carlin in that I really don't go in for Human worship and when one steps back and looks at what we have done in roughly 200 years of the industrial revolution it is easy to speculate on our lack of foresight. Those waiting for a god to help them are going to waiting a very long time because the entity does not exist to assist man. The concept was only made up to serve his emotional needs because he is afraid on a myriad of levels, but mostly the fear is of mortality.

It is quite unfortunate that the two greatest traits of man in my estimation are greed and desire and you see this played out everyday. The one percent will always want more and there is little we can do to level the playing field now.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:18:38 UTC | #926999

silverwolf7's Avatar Comment 28 by silverwolf7

Comment 16 by Mamba24 :

-For the same reason I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting Elk, Deer, antelope, or any other big game animal. Humans are animals. Animals hunt other animals. It's natural. WHY do you think there is something wrong with hunting??

Why do you default to the position that killing animals is automatically appropriate? I see nothing wrong with hunting, but I do think that civilized humans should have some justification for killing other mammals.

-An oxymoron? Sorry I don't see the oxymoron you are referring too.....Do you know what an oxymoron is?

I was merely saying that I don't see how hunting can be described as "ethical". Necessary, maybe, but not "ethical".

-Well first off, it's not a "substitution" for ethics, ethics isn't being substituted. Cultures all over the world practice hunting, some egalitarian societies consider it an art-form. I'd like to know what "harm" you are referring to that hunting supposedly causes. So by your opinion, are some hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, that rely almost entirely on hunting......causing harm?

Hunting involves making ethical decisions. If "tradition" is used as a catch-all to justify behavior, rather than actually giving good reasons for it, you are substituting tradition for ethics. Hunting causes harm because animals are being killed, so it seems to me that supposedly civilized humans should have a reason to do so that's better than "I feel like it".

I have nothing against subsistence hunting, or people who choose to live in hunter-gatherer cultures hunting, etc. In such a way of life, there's often no other way to survive. Seems like a good enough justification for hunting to me.

-Yes they are intelligent creatures..........so that means that they can't be killed? So any species that has a certain degree of intelligence is therefore off-limits? Because by your logic it's "unjustifiable"? Hunting is a part of nature silverwolf, animals kill and eat each other, always have. There's a difference between ethical hunting and torture. And no, you can't kill mountain lions, and most people don't hunt bear.(out of the few kinds that you can hunt)

Yes. It's not unjustifiable (after all, we kill our own kind in the right circumstances) but it is harder to justify. I wouldn't hunt an ape, an elephant or a dolphin either, for similar reasons. But I would of course kill one in self-defense just as I would a human.

And, as cruel as nature itself is, typically the smartest animals are on top of the food chain- humans, dolphins, apes, etc all tend to be apex predators of their own niches. So it seems a little strange to kill other apex predators, rather than prey animals, when not in self-defense.

-So according to your opinion, the only ethical and justifiable kind of hunting is either out of self-defense or hunger? Are you kidding me?

No. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Just for your information, lot's of hunters DO eat the animals they kill. What's your position on cattle farms then? Most of these animals are fed and raised only to be slaughtered. Where do you think the regular beef you buy at the store comes from? Or are cows not intelligent enough to be on the don't touch list? In my opinion, hunting in the wild is even more ethical than raising and slaughtering cattle. At least there is a fair pursuit, where the prey has a chance to escape and survive, kind of like how nature works. And now your saying that wolves can't be hunted because their natural role is that of a predator, as if there is some big natural law book you're quoting from. You're going to have to use an actual argument if you're going to convince me of your position. Making stuff doesn't cut it, and yes I know wolves are natural predators, and they still are.

I agree with you on that. Domesticated meat is inevitably more cruel than hunted meat, most of the time.

-You don't think wildlife agencies know this stuff? Are you really so worried about the gene pool weakening from killing all the stronger and game trophies? LOL Wow. It's the healthy and strong that have the best chance of passing on their genes buddy.....

Wildlife agencies "know this stuff", they just don't always make the best decisions. And humans are pretty powerful animals, thanks to our technology, last I checked. So if someone decides to target the strongest elk in the group, I'm pretty sure we humans could manage to kill it and bring it home.

-How about that it's a natural part of life? Animals hunt and kill other animals......I haven't heard any reasonable arguments against hunting from you yet....

I was actually referring to a wolf hunt, the original topic. But I will say this: Even if, for some reason, you equate "natural" with "ethical", you oversimplify your position. Not many adult apex predators intentionally hunt down and kill other adult apex predators of another species (ie, humans hunting wolves). That's neither common nor "natural". Just saying "animals kill animals" oversimplifies a pretty damn complex interrelationship between predators and prey, and you know it.

I could actually make an argument about all hunting, and not merely this issue, but that is a huge can of worms and not actually the topic we're discussing here.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:46:52 UTC | #927010

LabSpecimen's Avatar Comment 29 by LabSpecimen

Perhaps someone could start a discussion on the message board about the ethics of hunting. Seems like a good topic.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:56:40 UTC | #927015

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 30 by aroundtown

Hunters approve of the season, and Republicans are all for it, as are some Democrats. Wildlife biologists have a number of criticisms and suggestions about the bill involving how, when and how many wolves should be killed.

Does anybody else ever see the irony of supposedly intelligent individuals (humans) with their call to cull the heard for the health of the environment i.e. Bison, Wolves, vermin of many distinctions, the list goes on and on, but you never hear about the need to cull the Human hordes with this same argument. Just pointing out that oddity. Why is they are expendable and we are so precious and important. I would suggest it is probably has something to do with self-interest if I had to guess. I will offer another example from George Carlin once again regarding his opinion on the sanctity of life - sanctity of life would apply to the living in his estimation because of self-interest. Life really doesn't mean much to the dead in his opinion and I would agree with that proposition.

Just look at that last sentence from the article I posted in this post. "When and how many wolves should be killed". What a pathetic view regarding these marvelously evolved, interesting, animals.

My private joke before I ditched religion was this - I use to daydream of a god that confronted these wolf killers when they came to be judged. Sitting by his side was a pack of wolves and you hear this god explaining that they were his favorite creation and with some satisfaction I could imagine the expression on the faces of these hunters and how much they wished they could take it back. It was a fun little mental jog for me. But alas that was then and this is now and I am aware that no such entity exists but yet again it was fun to imagine.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:59:50 UTC | #927019