They may occasionally get carried away, but those dead animals are NEVER wasted unless some stupid human interferes with it afterward.
House Cats will walk away from a full meal and kill a bird or rodent, yet you don't vilify THEM.
And Tammy, I stand by my statement - wolves do NOT get their jollies planning out how they are going to take down their prey. And that "extra" rabbit? It probably goes back to the den to feed pups or an injured pack member. The humans who pretend to "hunt" with traps like this are getting a sick, probably sexual, thrill from the pain and suffering of this animal. I have said it before and I will say it again now: If you are not hunter enough to stalk and bring down your prey with one clean shot, then sell your gun and keep yourself at HOME!
WHY do you people keep assigning HUMAN values and thought processes to animals? For Chrissakes, get your head out of the Disney books and movies! Anthropomorphism has no place in a RATIONAL debate! They are PREDATORS! Apex predators MEANT to do what they do, and to do it HOW they do it! Just because YOU think of it as vicious and cruel only shows how LITTLE you know about the natural world. NATURE IS HARSH. It has to be. Only humans and the animals they made and keep are no longer subject to natural selection. EVERY wild animal on the planet is subject to natural selection and natural selection is HARSH. It is CRUEL and it is VICIOUS. It also is the REASON strong, healthy wild animals are the norm and not the exception! Sheesh!
luckylogger, just in case you missed it - Nature is HARSH. Yes, a wolf kill is brutal. So are elk starving to death from mid-winter until spring because there aren't enough wolves or other predators to keep their numbers to a level that doesn't overburden the area's ability to produce food. HOWEVER, wolves do not get their jollies thinking about how they are going to bring down their prey. They think only of filling their bellies (a necessity for survival) and rearing their pups. Humans claim to be "higher beings" and yet they take pleasure in killing a magnificent animal in the most agonizing ways possible. Wolves, they just do what they do because that is how Nature made them. Those who take pleasure in the agony they can cause an animal - and a TRAPPED one at that - are simply sociopaths who lack the guts to face the consequences if they go after humans. But an animal, well - and animal can't talk and tell you what someone does to it, can it?
Oh, and dang - I DO know some people from Idaho. One of them posted photos of elk in his horse pasture with his horses. He even has his fences built specially so that the areas where the elk pass through are lower so the calves can get over them. WAIT! WAIT! WAIT!! There aren't any elk in Idaho - the wolves ate them all!! Pffffffffffffffft. Yes, if wolves are an ACTIVE threat to humans and stock, then they must be managed. That does NOT mean they need to be exterminated. That's how you got this problem to start with. The white-eyes wiped out most if not ALL of the wolves ALREADY THERE to make room for their four-legged locusts (sheep and cattle) and now that Nature is filling the vacuum with something better able to withstand YOUR predation, you gotta whine and cry.
Now, that said, I don't think it is any more right to make threats against the guy in this photo. Karma will see to him. I hope a stray, rabid chihuahua rips him a new ankle.
mythoughts, I like your post. Well stated.
elklover - if you truly "loved" elk, you would realize that wolves have their part to play in the healthy life of any elk herd. I love wildlife in pretty much all its forms - which is WHY I stand for a healthy balance. That healthy balance requires predators to keep the elk population at a level that the area they inhabit can sustain. If you want proof that a resident wolf pack keeps an area healthier, just look at what happened with Yellowstone. While the wolves were gone, the elk and deer overpopulated and nearly denuded areas of the park of vegetation. Coyotes had nearly wiped out the pronghorn antelope. Some plant species and those creatures that fed on them had all but disappeared because the elk would stay in one place and eat and eat until the plants were eaten down to the ground. When the wolves came back, the elk RETURNED to their natural grazing/browsing patterns. YES, their numbers dropped, but they NEEDED to be reduced. The threatened plant species rebounded. The species that fed upon those plants returned. The coyote population returned to a viable level, and the pronghorn antelope also rebounded. The entire area became healthier. But don't take my word for that. LOOK IT UP.
Wolves do not kill only for themselves. Many other species feed from wolf kills, thus wolves also provide food for other wildlife as well. There is no such thing as a wasteful wolf kill. Many other somethings will find sustenance there.
Now, someone (I'm not going to scroll through) stated that hunters hate wildlife. That is not true. Most REAL hunters LOVE the wild and the animals that inhabit it. However, I have noted that most of those who hunt wolves DO hate wolves, and relish cruel methods of killing them. If you can't take an animal down CLEANLY with one shot, then you have NO business hunting anyway, and if you deliberately gravely injure an animal in order to be able to shoot more of them, then you are an evil, sadistic piece of filth.
Angela Nash, if it's too difficult to hunt wolves in a way that insures a CLEAN kill, then why not just hang out around the cattle herds? According to YOU, wolves kill so many cattle that all you have to do to draw a bead on one is stake out a herd of cows or sheep and wait a few hours. Oh, wait - you can't do that because that number of wolf kills is BOGUS! A lot of ranchers blame kills by feral (or stray dogs that have formed a pack) dogs on wolves, or they find winter kills that coyotes and other wildlife have fed on and say "Wolves killed it." They also leave naturally dead livestock out as carrion, which ENCOURAGES livestock predation because wildlife starts to SEE livestock as prey.
A wolf pack CAN BE TRAINED to avoid livestock and human things - provided the humans in the area will MAKE THE EFFORT to do so. A resident pack that has been taught to avoid humans and livestock would actually be an ASSET - by repelling other packs and lone wolves passing through the area. But wait- that involves getting off the Internet and actually DOING something, so that's a no-go.
Laura Bryant Schneberger: Nature is HARSH. Wolves END far more pain and suffering than they cause within nature by taking down the wounded and ill - thus ending those animals' suffering and making room for those animals more fit to survive. IF they simply injure an animal and it escapes, some other predator will take them down in due course. Wolves and other predators thin the wild prey of those too weak, ill, injured or stupid to survive. THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE, just in case you missed what Nature's (or God's, if you prefer) plan was when designing the world and its ecology. (Yes, I firmly believe our world was CREATED, or designed or whatever you choose to call it, so let's not get too far into theology) If you prefer NOT to endorse any sort of creation theory, then you can say that was how the ecosystem evolved. The thing is, IT WORKED until humans overpopulated and began mucking about with the natural way of the world. So yes, the current "wolf problem" IS the fault of humans - humans who cannot bear to leave any place wild and who won't control their own breeding (something wolves DO, by the way - in lean years, no pups will be produced, or they won't survive) to keep from overrunning and destroying the wild areas of this planet.
IF a wolf pack becomes a REAL threat to humans, then yes, that pack must be eliminated. However, a new pack WILL soon move in. You people who say "invasive, non-native species" seem to have missed something. The HUMANS who moved into that area (white men - the Native Americans lived rather harmoniously with wolves. Yes, they killed some, but they never attempted to exterminate them like the white-eyes did) CAUSED a vacuum by killing off so very many of the wolves that had evolved to live there. Now, NATURE is filling that vacuum. You just don't like it because she is filling it with something more able to survive and withstand predation by humans.
I have seen animals with feet nearly severed by leg-hold traps. That's agony. Asphyxiation from a snare? That's agony. But, Karma is beautiful. They will reap what they sow.
Bruce V, you know, it annoys the daylights out of me, with my name spelled CORRECTLY right there, and some fool like you STILL misspells it. No "Y" in my name ANYWHERE.
Yes, NATURE is harsh - it's NATURE, and survival of the fittest applies. HUMANS, however, claim to be "higher beings" and indulging in deliberate cruelty to get our jollies is EVIL. I stated plainly - I don't have a problem with a CLEAN kill. Trapping, snares, aircraft hunting (and if you believe they are NOT using aircraft, you REALLY need to get your nose out of the fairy-tale books) poison and deliberately gut-shooting an animal are NOT clean kills. Of course, you probably figure it's okay to gut-shoot the deer or elk you're after and let it stagger around for a few hours before you finish it off, too. Also, if you think wolf extermination is NOT the agenda for these people, you'd better think again, too. Non-native? If they hadn't wiped out almost all (if not ALL) of the native Timber Wolf species, Nature would not now be seeking to fill the vacuum. Cattle, sheep, and HUMANS are the "NON-NATIVE" species.
Oh, and Elklover, the MAJORITY of the people have come down AGAINST delisting wolves and AGAINST the wolf hunts. But, MONEY TALKS and silver has crossed palms somewhere. Just for the record there, pal. I will give you that making death threats and posting someone's home address is pretty bogus, though.
All Comments »
© 2013 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation