- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is your opinion on reintroduction of predators like wolves in the United States?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:44 pm to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:44 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
Just to be clear, I’m more on your side than not. But I’ll just ask, what is an acceptable number of predators in your opinion?
However many the environment can sustain without any wolves being present except in extreme remote areas where the impact to humans is severely limited.
0
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:48 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:there is a lot of bitching about wolves from hunters in these states. i hear it firsthand
, , Wisconsin, Michigan,, and Minnesota
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:53 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
People who are afraid of wolves being reintroduced into the wild are arguably the biggest pussies on this planet.
I tend to agree.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:53 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
there is a lot of bitching about wolves from hunters in these states. i hear it first hand
From guys paying thousands for guided hunts? Yea, that doesn't really matter to me. I'm a big hunter and have always wanted to go on a guided elk hunt, my brother and dad have been numerous times. But the wolves are mostly going to kill off the wounded, sick, smallest animals that the hunters weren't going to shoot anyway.
And again, I think people are forgetting how few of them are being released but act like they are effecting literally everything. Somehow wolves released in Yellowstone and a pack in Colorado are effecting hunters in Minnesota.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:59 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
You mean like they are right now? There are 80,000 grey wolves in North America right now. People are acting like the few being reintroduced are going to be some game changer with how wolves are co-existing with mankind. There's a reason you literally never hear about there being an issue with wolves is because they are co-existing. Alaska, Montana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Wyoming, and Minnesota all have a healthy population of wolves and are co-existing.
The USDA exterminated 142 or 5% of the population in Minnesota in 2023 due to demands by landowners that the population be cut. Does not sound like co-existing in peace.
The troubles with Wolves in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are legion and in fact farmers and sportsmen in those 3 states have decided to take matters into their own hands and damn the managers and have slowed down a 10 year increase in livestock predation. Manager's are aggressively pursuing illegal killing of wolves in all 3 states. Not at all peaceful....in fact in those 3 states the issue is about as likely to get a person killed. either a LEO or a farmer/sportsmen because folks in those 3 states are not exactly prone to doing things like we do them on the east coast.
Yes, wolves exist in areas with people. It has never been peaceful. It is very peaceful from Georgia or Alabama but if you are raising cows in Wisconsin where wolves are present I suspect the story would be different.
Wolves will not bend to the will of man. Never have, never will. Most of the populations which have been re-introduced in the lower 48 are not pure bred wolves...they are mixed breeds which are not as efficient and not as wild as their pure bred cousins. Even these mixed wolves prove to be a problem for people in every case. It is simply not something which would ever become an issue in an environment where anywhere near 1/3 or so of the population depended on living off the land....wolves were hunted to near extinction by man everywhere they existed when man had the ability to do so and they did so for a reason....they simply will not live in harmony with man. they will be a problem. always.
Wisconsin farmers exploring options, including litigation, after livestock kills due to wolves in Wisconsin grew by 30-50% over a 5 year study period. Not what one might call peacefully co-existing.
Michigan sportsman groups and farmer groups are currently suing the state and federal managers due to the over abundance of wolves in Michigan and the damage being done to livestock and wild game populations. Not exactly a peaceful sharing of the environment.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:08 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Thats hilarious...
Its happening here right now.
Is that why the state and the federal government have come to blows in the courts several times in the last 10-12 years over management of wolf populations in Alaska? Yes, wolves exist in Alaska. They are the source of a great deal of consternation to many people on both sides and have been the source of a good bit of litigation. By any measure that is not a peaceful co-existence.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:09 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Is that why the state and the federal government have come to blows in the courts several times in the last 10-12 years over management of wolf populations in Alaska?
Not around here. Just around Denali where the park is located.
We have so many wolves and bears, and they coexist with people just fine.
Strange how that works when your population isnt a bunch of selfish pussies.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:13 pm to AwgustaDawg
Great job at googling "problems wolves cause". Now google that with tons of other animals and you'll see problems.
You seem to think 1) co-existing means a wolf needs to be able to come up and lick you in the face like a dog or 2) they need to bend to the will of man. Why are we wanting wolves to bend to the will of man
Do you not realize how dumb that sounds? BEND TO MY WILL WOLF!!
That is in no way ever supposed to happen or should it happen. Trying to make wolves bend to the will of man is just a dumb fantasy that literally no one other than you wants.
The absolute worst case scenario you mentioned is 142 wolves being exterminated. 142. Again, there are 80,000 wolves in North America. Add to the fact that some landowner worth half a billion with 15,000 acres complained and he got what he wanted. Sounds like some super rich landowners demanded something happened and it happed. Woe to those landowners omg how terrible!
Again, your points are about an extremely small amount of wolves. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. When .001% of wolves are causing a problem, it's not really a problem.
You seem to think 1) co-existing means a wolf needs to be able to come up and lick you in the face like a dog or 2) they need to bend to the will of man. Why are we wanting wolves to bend to the will of man
Do you not realize how dumb that sounds? BEND TO MY WILL WOLF!! That is in no way ever supposed to happen or should it happen. Trying to make wolves bend to the will of man is just a dumb fantasy that literally no one other than you wants.
quote:
The USDA exterminated 142 or 5% of the population in Minnesota in 2023 due to demands by landowners that the population be cut. Does not sound like co-existing in peace.
The absolute worst case scenario you mentioned is 142 wolves being exterminated. 142. Again, there are 80,000 wolves in North America. Add to the fact that some landowner worth half a billion with 15,000 acres complained and he got what he wanted. Sounds like some super rich landowners demanded something happened and it happed. Woe to those landowners omg how terrible!
quote:
Wisconsin farmers exploring options, including litigation, after livestock kills due to wolves in Wisconsin grew by 30-50% over a 5 year study period. Not what one might call peacefully co-existing.
Again, your points are about an extremely small amount of wolves. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. When .001% of wolves are causing a problem, it's not really a problem.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:18 pm to Bison
I’m a big proponent of putting native animals back on native landscapes including predators.
Like others have said, once these predators start increasing and or accustomed to people we need to have a hunting season where ppl can draw or purchase tags.
None of this having governments kill them off to control the population.
Ranchers and farmers hate change more than most people but the world is constantly changing so they also must adapt.
Slightly getting off topic but bison need to be put back on federal lands in the west and treated like wildlife.
There is tens of millions of acres of federal land out west where these majestic animals should be roaming.
Same as elk which are a true prairie animal as well.
Like others have said, once these predators start increasing and or accustomed to people we need to have a hunting season where ppl can draw or purchase tags.
None of this having governments kill them off to control the population.
Ranchers and farmers hate change more than most people but the world is constantly changing so they also must adapt.
Slightly getting off topic but bison need to be put back on federal lands in the west and treated like wildlife.
There is tens of millions of acres of federal land out west where these majestic animals should be roaming.
Same as elk which are a true prairie animal as well.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:18 pm to AwgustaDawg
I would argue that if hunters need to artificially alter the natural environment by removing native predators in order to successfully hunt, then they aren’t really sportsmen at all. At least when ranchers bitch, they are doing so in an attempt to provide food for other people. The hunting complaint is just purely selfish and warped.
ETA: It would be like fly fishermen arguing that the government should exterminate eagles and ospreys because they eat trout. That would be insane.
ETA: It would be like fly fishermen arguing that the government should exterminate eagles and ospreys because they eat trout. That would be insane.
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:19 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:no not really
rom guys paying thousands for guided hunts?
local landowners with 40-160 acres
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:19 pm to LSUbub12
quote:
I’m a big proponent of putting native animals back on native landscapes including predators.
People move to land once occupied by wolves, cry when wolves show up.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:28 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Not around here. Just around Denali where the park is located.
We have so many wolves and bears, and they coexist with people just fine.
Strange how that works when your population isnt a bunch of selfish pussies.
3 minutes of searching the Google machine and I found this from the Juneau Empire...based on a wolf being sited near a middle school in broad daylight....advice on what to do if a Juneau resident encounters a wolf...
“If someone does spot a wolf it is similar to a bear in some respects except you should be more aggressive if it doesn’t back down and leave,” (not what one would call peacefully co-existing for a predator to NOT back down and leave in the presence of a human being, but we can discount that little bit of info for a moment).
" If the animal continues to approach, stand your ground and fight with any means possible" Erybody's idea of peaceful co-existence, this is very similar to the advice given to people in Urban areas when confronted by an aggressive predator who shows no sign of backing down. No one in their right mind would call that situation say in Atlanta a peaceful co-existence, but with wolves its different I guess....
And then this.....
“Within Juneau it is illegal (to hunt wolves) because you cannot hunt big game there under state regulations,” Churchwell said. “It would also be illegal to use a firearm there under Juneau City and Borough regulations."
So, fight the aggressive predator with any means possible, except of course a gun because that would be illegal. That is not a peaceful co-existence by ANY definition. If the Houston Chronicle had a similar article about aggressive predators who were humans people in Texas, who know damn well there is no way to peacefully co-exist with a predator who includes you on their menu, even remotely, without a gun ultimately. The mere fact that this is an article in a newspaper in Juneau belies the fact that people and wolves co-exist peacefully in Juneau...the fact that the paper found it necessary to warn what one would presume to be citizens of Juneay that it is illegal to discharge a firearm when protecting yourself from a wolf pretty much lays the lie to a peaceful co-existence. In a peaceful co-existence an attack or defending ones self with any means possible is not peaceful.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:28 pm to Bison
I’ve got no issues with Wolves, if the CPW came to the conclusion the landscape was ready for Wolves and that was their suggestion than go for it.
Fact of the matter is, the liberal anti-hunters who worship predators put this on the Ballot for the general public to vote on, the CPW was not allowed to comment, you know the lifelong biologists…
So the losers in Boulder and downtown Denver who have no knowledge whatsofricking ever about the impact of just tossing Wolves back out on the landscape voted yes.
It goes against everything the North American Model of Conservation stands for, luckily we just voted down a ban on Cat hunting which they tried to shove through the same way.
And no fricking surprise, the Wolf reintroduction has been a shitshow. More expensive than planned, wolves dying, they’re already making their way to the Front Range, and other states won’t give Colorado wolves.
This is what happens when you let morons with degrees in Gender Studies vote on reintroducing an apex predator.
Fact of the matter is, the liberal anti-hunters who worship predators put this on the Ballot for the general public to vote on, the CPW was not allowed to comment, you know the lifelong biologists…
So the losers in Boulder and downtown Denver who have no knowledge whatsofricking ever about the impact of just tossing Wolves back out on the landscape voted yes.
It goes against everything the North American Model of Conservation stands for, luckily we just voted down a ban on Cat hunting which they tried to shove through the same way.
And no fricking surprise, the Wolf reintroduction has been a shitshow. More expensive than planned, wolves dying, they’re already making their way to the Front Range, and other states won’t give Colorado wolves.
This is what happens when you let morons with degrees in Gender Studies vote on reintroducing an apex predator.
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:33 pm to Bison
quote:Like when insurance companies compensate you with 'fair market value' that's always in their favor? Always to the point of either accept their BS offer or hire an attorney? Like that?
The law compensates them at fair market value when a wolf kills cow.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:37 pm to Riverside
quote:
Just because someone purports to be an “expert” doesn’t qualify them to determine whether a wolf pack ought to be reintroduced into the wild
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:37 pm to Bison
quote:
I know It’s easy to look back at our ancestors and point fingers about how uneducated they were in terms of wiping out beaver, passenger pigeons, bison, etc .
quote:
Bison
Name checks out.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:40 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Its a way to frick with the vast areas of die hard conservatives in western states ruled by their very liberal population centers.
I could be swayed the other way on wolf introduction if they were dropped in the middle of Denver instead of 2 miles from my elk hunting spot.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:43 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Great job at googling "problems wolves cause". Now google that with tons of other animals and you'll see problems.
You seem to think 1) co-existing means a wolf needs to be able to come up and lick you in the face like a dog or 2) they need to bend to the will of man. Why are we wanting wolves to bend to the will of man Do you not realize how dumb that sounds? BEND TO MY WILL WOLF!!
That is in no way ever supposed to happen or should it happen. Trying to make wolves bend to the will of man is just a dumb fantasy that literally no one other than you wants.
The fact that wolves will not bend to the will of man is exactly why they will never be allowed to exist amongst human beings in any meaningful numbers. Like it or not man is the apex predator where he exists and has the technology to be.....which is the case in all of North America. The fact that other predators have learned to avoid man allows them some chance at survival. Wolves do not give a damn about the damage man can do to their population. Bears can be trained to do tricks for the amusement of man. I am not saying thats a good thing but it is a flaw in the character of a bear that largely does not exist in wolves and is evidence of the incompatibility of wolves living in close proximity to man...there is only room for one true apex predator....man has the ability to exterminate wolves, wolves have not been able to do that to man, thus man is "winning" and will continue to do so. I am not suggesting I want a wolf to do my bidding, I am stating unequivocally that the failure of wolves to become domesticated to a level akin to bears and other predators who do indeed share space with people is why wolves will never be tolerated...they simply refuse to comply with the wishes with another species who not only has the ability to elminate them it has done so....were it not for some of that group of predators re-introducing wolves to areas they would not exist in those areas today...left to their own devices those wolves would not be in those areas today because the people in those areas would once again hunt them to extinction if it weren't for the state making it a crime to do so. We can introduce lions to the streets of Macon Georgia...if they were protected by the state they would not peacefully co-exist with the people in Macon...and the people of Macon would eventually make them extinct just like man has done in every area of the world where wolves existed and man wanted to exist. It ain't going to happen.
Again, I LOVE the idea of wolves existing in remote areas. I do not nor do I intend to live in an area suitable for wolves. If I did indeed live in such an area and my livliehood was negatively impacted by their presence IF the state did not prevent my doing so I would not tolerate their existence. Nor would any human being in the history of mankind. They only exist under the protection of the state....that is not a peaceful existence.
Wolves are not a problem. You are correct. That is the point. People are the problem and people have the ability to take them out and will do so if left to their own devices....always have, always will. It doesn't matter if it is 10% of wolves or .00000000001% causing problems for man....if it were not for the protection of the state they would not exist because MAN does not want them in their back yards for the most part....when allowed to do so man will eliminate them from their (mans) environment. That is not a peaceful co-existence, it is about as far from such as one can get.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:46 pm to Bison
quote:
reintroduction of predators like wolves in the United States
quote:
Bison
You worried they going to eat your arse?
Maybe we can feed child predators to them.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News