Debate and Discussion

Endangered Gray wolves no longer protected...
PIT_FACE at 9:41PM, April 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
Due to complaints from elk hunters and livestock farmers around the Yellowstone Park area, the Bush Administration has decided to COMPLETELY lift the ban on hunting the already endangered Gray Wolves,despite the fact farmers already have the right to shoot wolves that threaten their livestock, the administration is proposing to completely LIFT the ban on killing all Gray Wolves. This means trapping, poisoning, and shooting them from helicopters, in mass numbers, with absolutly NO NEED for a permit or liscence.

http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/campaigns/wildlife/save-endangered-gray-wolves.html

if you dont like this, there's a link in the link where you can message your state rep about it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
ozoneocean at 5:05AM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
From what I remember of all the early news about this (before it happened), I THINK it was more about the fact that mining operations couldn't go ahead because of the endangered wolves in those areas… Not so strange, that sort of thing happens ALL the time. The US does it with national parks a lot, Alaska is getting the treatment…

Every country does it. Indonesia is a very bad offender, So is Brazil, Malaysia, and especially Australia.

there's nothing left-wing or “conspiracy” about it either, it's simply a commercial reality.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
PIT_FACE at 8:02AM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
even if that is it,it really doesnt change my argument i dont think. i mean, there should still be some kind of cap on it. enforce a liscence or a limit or something if you have to take the habitat away. unless i misunderstand something, which i really hope i do, this is completely reversing any protection of these wolves and allowing hunting, trapping,and killing them without limitation, an endangered species,mind you. i dont care who does it, it's wrong and unnecessary.
that's why i think it's a suspicious operation, because with either scenario it's very drastic to just undo everything that American tax dollars had payed to create and say “alright! it's open season on these guys!” so that any joe hick can just come in and grab themselves a piece is just completely unnecessary.

even if it is just for commercial reality, there should be some kind of limitation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
Aurora Moon at 9:26AM, April 4, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I have to agree with pit-face here too…

there should be some kind of limitation. and if the Grey wolves are having such a negative effect on the land there, why not just relocate them if they're endangered? or is it because they can only live in a specific area that they cannot be relocated?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
SpANG at 12:44PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
See, here's the thing. As we encroach and build more and more on places that used to be wildlife havens, we are giving the animals no place else to go.

ALL COUNTRIES including the U.S., need to balance nature and their endless desire to consume. There MUST be a harmony if the human race is to survive. Otherwise, you are just “pushing the ball down the road”, as it were.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
crazyninny at 12:55PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,457
joined: 7-20-2006
I think this is a stupid move. Already people kill them becuase they feel they have the right to do so, now, we ARE giving them the right to kill them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:49AM
Hawk at 3:53PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
SpANG
See, here's the thing. As we encroach and build more and more on places that used to be wildlife havens, we are giving the animals no place else to go.

ALL COUNTRIES including the U.S., need to balance nature and their endless desire to consume. There MUST be a harmony if the human race is to survive. Otherwise, you are just “pushing the ball down the road”, as it were.

I understand what you're saying, but when you really think about it, it's not cut-and-dry greed and consumption… The population is increasing and for some reason all these new humans want places to live. I wish there was an easy answer to balancing homes for wildlife and homes for people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
Atom Apple at 4:50PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
I like how we can kill any animal as much as we want, but once some organization stamps it with an endangered label suddenly it's bad.

Also, what Hawk said. Natural selection. Why do you think they're endangered in the first place?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
PIT_FACE at 8:58PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
you know..i see the point being brought up a lot in diferent places that humans are part of nature so why should we go out of our way to do anything?
lets take a step back for a minute, outside of just this problem. “uhh we made the wolves endangered…uhh we didnt…” i'm just sick of being jerkered around about a bunch of shit that i or anyone else that i know of dont understand. maby it's not our job to regulate nature cuase we are nature, maby it IS our job becuase we may be somewhat more conscious of it. i dont realy care right now.

i'm just sick of all this shit happening that doesnt need to happen, and happens with total disregard to the rest of this country. a species that has just been taken off of the endangered species list all of a sudden looses all protection and will be easily pushed back to the brink of extinction becuase of a few pissed off elk farmers that had the right liscences to hunt them in the first place, got pissed, or something like that. this doesnt seem like something wrong to you? moraly or not, you dont feel like there's something there that doesnt connect? arent any of us tired of this shit?

it's our job to keep check on this kind of stuff,but when it's time for us to be weary of it, we get into fights about right and left and being paranoid and what not. we're all against eachother instead of using our fucking brains…it's fucking sick.

and im not pointing fingers at anyone in particular on here, but it's what i tend to see whenever a subject concerning ANYTHING like this comes up,anywhere. it keeps shit from getting solved becuase people think of parties instead of thinking. i dont want to see this go that way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
ozoneocean at 9:01PM, April 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
Hawk
I wish there was an easy answer to balancing homes for wildlife and homes for people.
From that perspective, it is :)
People don't need to have homes in the ranges of these animals and that's not the cause of their delisting. Look at the U.S. man, even with over 300 million people there are still MASSES of room. It's not about people needing homes, that's simply emotionalising the thing like hypothetical arguments about torture where people balance the life of 300 or a little child on the torture of one person.

It's not the real situation.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
Atom Apple at 1:36AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Meh. Just wolves.

Do they consider how the livestock feel before killing them? Who's to be protected, the species that benefit society or the ones that cause the problems?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
ozoneocean at 1:40AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
I think it's the ones in danger of dissapearing entirely. ;)

Elks are fine, people like hunting them too much to want them to die out :)
In fact animals like that are one of the reasons game preserves and wildlife areas were created: so people were able to keep having something to hunt.

Wolves don't do so well with that because they're a top level predator.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
Atom Apple at 1:50AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Meant to say livestock, elk just rolled out.

And that's what I've been talking about, why must every species live on forever? How come when other animals kill off a species obviously not meant to live in that environment it's just nature, but when we do “Oh we're the big bad bully among living things”?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
ozoneocean at 2:01AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
Because we're the ones that do the deciding. You might be on the side of those that could do without them, but there a a hell of a lot of people with the other opinion.

We really have no reason to cause them to become extinct. The housing thing is a poorly thought out red herring lol!
The real reasons are convenience and short term monetary gain. As they are with a lot of things. Whether that's exploiting forestry, a mine, farmland, housing…

And what happens when certain species are removed? Usually the imbalance causes more and worse problems, unforeseen. We like to think that we're masters of the natural world, but that's a fantasy. Big events like storms and Tsunamis ram that home all the time.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
Atom Apple at 2:15AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
You say we decide everything then go on to say we don't?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
ozoneocean at 8:00AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
I never said that Atom. That's the trouble with reducing an entire multi-sentence post into a single sentence…

Anyway, you've joined two different things together. What I'm saying is that:
1. human beings write up endangered lists.
2. Human beings think they're outside of nature, exempt from its effects and consequences. And yet we aren't.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
Atom Apple at 9:31AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Yes, and it's great we write up endangered lists because we can avoid upcoming disasters. But why waste time on the ones that don't affect us? Shouldn't we be adding more effort to the predicted bee doomsday?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
ozoneocean at 9:52AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
With animals there are relationships that go pretty deep. Kill off one species and how many others does that affect? Maybe the removal of all wolves will result in a population explosion of things like rabbits, and they'll decimate farmland?
I dunno, it can happen. That's just an example, but that actually did happen in Australia. Except it was with the introduction of rabbits and they didn't have predators here to start with.

In other places, harmless prey animals that are normally kept under control, spread out and increase in population and carrying dangerous diseases to farm animals and into human populated areas; things like tuberculosis and rabies.

From what I know of the bee thing, it's more a problem with commercial hives. But there IS a hell of lot of research going into it already.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
PIT_FACE at 10:42AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
let's not forget it's also an attraction for tourists and what not around there. there'a a lot of interest in the fact they were brought back and it makes money for those areas, so that's another advantage of them being there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
Atom Apple at 10:44AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Well there, all I needed was a good reason. Still, are they saying if an animal isn't endangered you can kill it without a license?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
PIT_FACE at 11:03AM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
this is the thing, the wolf population reached 1,500, prompting the government to take em off the endangered species list, despite that scientist that study wildlife populations and what not say that the population should be up to at least 2,500 or 3,000 to be safe. after they were taken off the list,it was granted that they could be shot on site without liscence and the government has already bought two planes for the sake of gunning down wolf packs, including pups, which which will stunt the growth the species in the area irreparably.

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
Atom Apple at 1:44PM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Deer are far from endangered but you still need a license to hunt them. Unless this isn't hunting and just shoot one when you see it? I hope people aren't dumb enough to do that and just keep it of the defensive.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:07AM
PIT_FACE at 8:53PM, April 5, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,574
joined: 4-21-2007
it sounds like that's the way it's going.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:44PM
Hawk at 9:51AM, April 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
Hawk
I wish there was an easy answer to balancing homes for wildlife and homes for people.
From that perspective, it is :)
People don't need to have homes in the ranges of these animals and that's not the cause of their delisting. Look at the U.S. man, even with over 300 million people there are still MASSES of room. It's not about people needing homes, that's simply emotionalising the thing like hypothetical arguments about torture where people balance the life of 300 or a little child on the torture of one person.

It's not the real situation.

You're essentially right, I guess. We could gradually spread into the desert or maybe even stack houses on top of each other to slow the growth. I just can't blame people for wanting to live somewhere that has resources like water and soil.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ozoneocean at 10:57PM, April 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious Hawk. Wait until 2100, then you might have a point. As of now, it's pretty silly. You're misjudging land availability VS population density VS population numbers.

Short answer is: no land shortage for housing.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
Kohdok at 11:59PM, April 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
Ozone is right. I've travelled all over the country and I've seen enough hospitable places that aren't national parks where people can live in this country. We're not as bad off as China, yet. China might have a problem, but China has a population more than three times larger than ours and it consists of a lot of inhospitable mountain ranges.

America isn't dominated by the Himalayas and has a huge amount of wilderness that hasn't been used yet. The arguement that we need more room to live is total BS.

The Bush administration has been the least environmentally-friendly administration put into effect ever, or at least since before progressivism.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Calbeck at 3:42AM, April 7, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
PIT_FACE
Due to complaints from elk hunters and livestock farmers around the Yellowstone Park area, the Bush Administration has decided to COMPLETELY lift the ban on hunting the already endangered Gray Wolves

“…the gray wolf is regarded as being of least concern for extinction according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.”

“In the northern Rocky Mountains, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park and U.S. Forest Service lands in central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. The reintroduction was successful, and the recovery goals for this population have been exceeded.”

“Wolf recovery has been so successful that the Service has proposed removal of the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains from the threatened and endangered species list.” (note: that's not “the Bush Administration” talking)

— Wiki

And the simple fact remains that even if every gray wolf in the United States was rounded up and slaughtered — all 10,000+ of them — it wouldn't put a dent in the 52,000 gray wolves that live without protection (and with hunters going after them) in Canada.

This means trapping, poisoning, and shooting them from helicopters, in mass numbers, with absolutly NO NEED for a permit or liscence.

Incorrect: states are still required to post hunting seasons for wolves (meaning that no, you don't get to use poison or just blaze at them from helicopters, unless that's legal for other forms of game), and they remain protected within Yellowstone EXCEPT when Game and Wildlife officials deem a culling is required to protect other species. Federal regulations also continue to mandate a minimum wolf population be maintained regardless of other factors.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
ozoneocean at 4:12AM, April 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
Quoting wiki for a start is flimsy, but those are simply what bodies of the SAME government have said… ;)
If you want to push for an agenda, that's what you do. Remember Iraq? They were meant to be independent agencies there too, but it didn't prevent the group-think.
Calbeck
And the simple fact remains that even if every gray wolf in the United States was rounded up and slaughtered — all 10,000+ of them — it wouldn't put a dent in the 52,000 gray wolves that live without protection (and with hunters going after them) in Canada.
What are you on man? Your maths is fuzzy… With a total of 62,000, minus 10,000 is a MASSIVE dent of 16% of the North American wolf population -Not that this will occur ^^

The fact that the numbers are greater in Canada even without protection is a massive indictment of the U.S. and its policies towards its native wildlife over the years. Your quoting of those numbers does nothing but completely cut your shaky little knees out from under you :)



Kohdok
Ozone is right. I've travelled all over the country and I've seen enough hospitable places that aren't national parks where people can live in this country. We're not as bad off as China, yet. China might have a problem, but China has a population more than three times larger than ours and it consists of a lot of inhospitable mountain ranges.

America isn't dominated by the Himalayas and has a huge amount of wilderness that hasn't been used yet. The arguement that we need more room to live is total BS.

The Bush administration has been the least environmentally-friendly administration put into effect ever, or at least since before progressivism.
China also has protected areas, deserts, etc. And a lot of people still living in rural areas. The move to the cities in large numbers is recent and that's where most high-rise living is to accommodate those newly centralised urban populations.

If anyone is trying to use that housing thing as an argument in the US it's nothing more than a cheap canard. It's not a need in any sense. It's a good way for real estate speculators to make a bit of money by having that land available to them to sell- the US government is hardly going to demand market prices…
But even then the housing market in the U.S. isn't that great right now, while the cost of primary goods worldwide is going up (given the demand in China ironically), so farming and mining are better reasons to free up land in these ways. ^_^
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
DAJB at 6:26AM, April 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
Pfft! Grey wolves! Who needs ‘em? They only chase out all the red wolves anyway!

Oh no, wait - I think that’s squirrels.
;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Hawk at 3:54PM, April 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious Hawk. Wait until 2100, then you might have a point. As of now, it's pretty silly. You're misjudging land availability VS population density VS population numbers.

Short answer is: no land shortage for housing.

Don't underestimate how fast Mexico is moving North.

And I'm not saying there's no more room for houses. I'm saying humans and wolves both want the nice real estate. And my original post wasn't meant to justify people moving into wolves' territory, just an explanation that it's people wanting decent places to live, not an evil conspiracy to evict wolves.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved