It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jeantherapy
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Jagermeister
That's not really the point. They are still animals at the end of the day. If they are a threat to humanity then we have the right to control them as the top species on this planet. But I would never want a beautiful species like that wiped out.
Bees kill more people than wolves...Lightening strikes kill more people than wolves..etc. etc.
Thank you. I don't know if I want to laugh or cry at the stupidity of the idea that wolves could be a threat to humanity. They may be a threat to small groups of unarmed humans in the mountains, but they are perfectly content eating things which are not humans and living on lands which are not inhabited by humans, only they aren't being left much choice.
Originally posted by pheonix358
Humans are the most arrogant species alive.
Wolves need to be protected. When you consider than in times gone by, a dog and a child with a big stick were sufficient to protect a flock from wolves you have to consider and judge our big brave hunters that are afraid of a wolf.
Take their guns away and let them go one on one with a wolf. Oh, wait, yea, that will not work. A wolf would avoid the contact!
Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by VoidHawk
I say let's conserve all types of animals, not one type that you have a passion for.
Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by VoidHawk
I say let's conserve all types of animals, not one type that you have a passion for.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by VoidHawk
I say let's conserve all types of animals, not one type that you have a passion for.
I agree, and the best way to do that is to allow nature to run its course in a natural way. The wolves I posted about have NOT been reintroduced as many posters have assumed, they are making their own way back. Half of them have already been shot and this is such a shame. If you watch the vids in the op you'll see that ALL creatures benefit when their is a natural wolf population.
-en.wikipedia.org...
The island is well known among ecologists as the site of a long-term study of a predator-prey system, between moose and eastern timber wolves. There is a cyclical relationship between the two animals: as the moose increase in population, the wolves do also. Eventually, the wolves kill too many moose and begin to starve/lower reproductive rates. However, the introduction of canine parvovirus by a guest's (illegal) dog to the wolf population led to steep declines in the early 1980s. Another concern is the gradual aging of the ecosystems on Isle Royale. The boreal forest is maturing, leading to a decrease in the types of plants most favored by moose. Park management suppresses the natural fire-cycle which would otherwise renew sections of habitat to be more favorable for moose.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by VoidHawk
I say let's conserve all types of animals, not one type that you have a passion for.
I agree, and the best way to do that is to allow nature to run its course in a natural way. The wolves I posted about have NOT been reintroduced as many posters have assumed, they are making their own way back. Half of them have already been shot and this is such a shame. If you watch the vids in the op you'll see that ALL creatures benefit when their is a natural wolf population.
Adolescent members from packs of Mackenzie Valley wolves in Alberta, Canada were tranquilized and carted down to the recovery zones later that week, but a last minute court order delayed the planned releases.
The stay came from an appellate court in Denver and was instigated by the Wyoming Farm Bureau. After spending an additional 36 hours in transport cages inside the recovery zones, the wolves were finally released following official judicial sanction.
Yellowstone’s wolves stayed in acclimation pens for two more months before being released into the wild. Idaho’s wolves, conversely, were given a hard release. A total of 66 wolves were released to the two areas in this manner in January 1995 and January 1996
2005 estimates of wolf populations in the two recovery zones reflect the success the species has had in both areas:
Greater Yellowstone Area: 325
Central Idaho: 565
Only reason farmers kill them is to save some extra $$$ and nothing else. I live in a country with wolves and there are many people with hundreds of sheep and goats who easily co exist thanks to this dog.
Originally posted by parsecdude
Thirdly, because the population is growing out of control, our elk herd has been devastated by these huge beasts because their larger size and bigger packs make it easier for them to take down many large elk.Deer are just bonus points for them. The Yellowstone herd was once over 19k, now its down to less than 3k.
Indeed, local industry and environmental groups battled for years over the Yellowstone and Idaho wolf reintroduction effort.
The idea of wolf reintroduction was first brought to Congress in 1966 by biologists who were concerned with the critically high elk populations in Yellowstone.
Officially, 1926 was the year the last wolves were killed within Yellowstone’s boundaries, and over the succeeding decades, populations of elk and other large prey animals had soared, and new growth vegetation suffered as a result.
This is due to ecosystem instability when keystone predators are removed.
With wolves being at the top of the food pyramid, their absence let the elk population boom out of control. Soon deciduous woody species such as upland aspen and riparian cottonwood crashed as a result of overgrazing. This affected habitat for other species as well.
Moreover, coyotes tried to fill in the niche left by wolves, but were unable to control the large ungulate populations. Booming coyote numbers, furthermore, also had a negative effect on other species, particularly the red fox. Ranchers, though, remained steadfastly opposed to reintroducing a species of animal that they considered to be analogous to a plague, citing the hardships that would ensue with the potential loss of stock caused by wolves
Originally posted by parsecdude
These Timber Wolves also kill for fun and do not eat all of what they kill. There are reports from the Missourri Breaks CMR that there is even a pack of large wolves that EXCLUSIVELY go after large mature bulls just for sport.
Several local economies taht once thrived from the income generated by hunting have just been destroyed due to the rapid decline in elk numbers from wolf predation
Do wolves really attack their prey just for the fun of it?
No. When they kill more than they can eat in one sitting, the pack usually comes back for second helpings
Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent or more when they hunt in groups.)
Consequently, wolves are opportunistic hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been known to go after more than they can consume. But they're rarely wasteful. Hungry wolves are not above scavenging, and they often return to their kill—or another animals'—days later. They may even bury the leftovers to hide them from competitors such as wolverines. (This is probably how dogs, which are descended from wolves, got into the habit of burying bones.)
Originally posted by parsecdude
Several local economies taht once thrived from the income generated by hunting have just been destroyed due to the rapid decline in elk numbers from wolf predation
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mohandas Gandhi