# wolf hunting



## Beastcub (Sep 3, 2009)

they are allowing it in more states {

i singed this http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/165659664
they are close to their goal, so hopefully some one here will sign it too.

i am not against hunting in general but wolves are still a recovering species.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

signed


----------



## Barak (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed Too


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 3, 2009)

Of course I signed, geez!


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Of course I signed, geez!


 
http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/65000/65100_metal_gear_awesome.jpg


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 3, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/65000/65100_metal_gear_awesome.jpg


 
Not sure I understand @_@


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed - thanks for sharing that Beastcub.  Burns me to find humans hunting things we don't need to hunt.  I don't mind humans protecting themselves, but if we're not directly threatened, they have as much right to exist as we do.


----------



## CAThulu (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed, and sending the page off to friends and family via email.  Thank you for posting this *G*.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Not sure I understand @_@


 
solid snake... metal gear solid. egorapters parody metal gear awesome


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 3, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> solid snake... metal gear solid. egorapters parody metal gear awesome


 
But I mean, why did you put that pic?


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> But I mean, why did you put that pic?


 
you said Fine geez I thought thats what you would look like


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 3, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> you said Fine geez I thought thats what you would look like


 
I said of course I signed, geez!  As in, who wouldnt want to save those cute wolves... xcept those dumb hunters and those who dunno enough bout wolves to like em


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 3, 2009)

And signed. Thanks for linking it.

I have to wonder if petitions like this ever do anything, as far as policy decisions go.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 3, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> And signed. Thanks for linking it.
> 
> I have to wonder if petitions like this ever do anything, as far as policy decisions go.


 
I doubt it, but incase it DOES work, we've got nothing to lose


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> I said of course I signed, geez! As in, who wouldnt want to save those cute wolves... xcept those dumb hunters and those who dunno enough bout wolves to like em


 
fine if you don't want to look cool. everyone loves wolves.


----------



## Ilayas (Sep 3, 2009)

Where the hell are they getting that 70,000 number?  Seems awfully high..........   Also you'll note that the number not bolded is the 220 which is the actual wolves that will be killed (not 70,000).  I'm all for responsible wild life management that includes the hunting of animals (even wolves) there are some places were wolf populations are far past the recovery stage (to the point of being a determent to the local ungulate population) and some places were they are not.  

If you look at this map http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/wolf/quota.cfm  you can see the actual break down of how many and where the wolves will be hunted.  220 seems like a high number but Idaho is a big state and there are more wolves there then you would think.  

This right here just seems like a knee jerk reaction to play on people's emotional heart strings.


----------



## HoneyPup (Sep 3, 2009)

Not sure if these petitions do anything or make a difference, but I signed anyways.


----------



## Jack (Sep 3, 2009)

signed.


----------



## Hir (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

It's a shame far less people would sign this if it was an ugly animal that nobody knew about. All animals deserve a place on this planet, not just the cute ones.

Signed


----------



## Aeturnus (Sep 3, 2009)

I signed it, but I highly doubt it'll do any good. The people of Idaho doesn't even want wolves in their state.

All I can say I hope wolves in Washington don't get the same fate.


----------



## Kommodore (Sep 3, 2009)

Oh no! We can't be mean to the pretty animals! We should totally pass more laws restricting people's leisure to protect a glorified dog that would survive the hunt as a species anyway. Coolio. I mean it is not like they are not really an endangered species anymore or anything.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Oh no! We can't be mean to the pretty animals! We should totally pass more laws restricting people's leisure to protect a glorified dog that would survive the hunt as a species anyway. Coolio.


 
shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all. I really don't see the point in hunting somthing your not going to eat anyway.


----------



## nobu (Sep 3, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all. I really don't see the point in hunting somthing your not going to eat anyway.



exactly, wolves just taste like angry.



Zoopedia said:


> It's a shame far less people would sign this if it was an ugly animal that nobody knew about. All animals deserve a place on this planet, not just the cute ones.



Unless they're tasty, then they're fair game.


----------



## Kommodore (Sep 3, 2009)

Shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all? Why not, because it makes you feel bad? I assert that you should not put the welfare of the animal over the needs or desires of the person - that's the real moral wrong here. I see no reason why people should not be able to make sport of hunting an animal that by all means is in no danger of dissapearing anymore if they so pleased, or why eating should be even considered when judging whether or not the hunt was justified. The end result is that he animal died, be it for sport or for food, I don't see why we should be creating these false barriers on why one is better than the other when they have the same result. 

People should be able to hunt a wolf if it tickles their fancy.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all? Why not, because it makes you feel bad? I assert that you should not put the welfare of the animal over the needs or desires of the person. I see no reason why people should not be able to make sport of hunting an animal that by all means is in no danger of dissapearing anymore if they so pleased, or why eating should be even considered when judging whether or not the hunt was justified. The end result is that he animal died, be it for sport or for food, I don't see why we should be creating these false barriers on why one is better than the other when they have the same result.
> 
> I see no logical reason why someone should not be able to hunt a wolf if it tickles their fancy.



Because it's cruel?


----------



## Kommodore (Sep 3, 2009)

Yeah it isn't like that has variable definitions or anything.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all? Why not, because it makes you feel bad? I assert that you should not put the welfare of the animal over the needs or desires of the person - that's the real moral wrong here. I see no reason why people should not be able to make sport of hunting an animal that by all means is in no danger of dissapearing anymore if they so pleased, or why eating should be even considered when judging whether or not the hunt was justified. The end result is that he animal died, be it for sport or for food, I don't see why we should be creating these false barriers on why one is better than the other when they have the same result.
> 
> People should be able to hunt a wolf if it tickles their fancy.


 
so by your reasoning I could kick the shit through a dog because I felt like it at the time. thats pretty fucked up


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yeah it isn't like that has variable definitions or anything.



Of course it does, but taking a life because you find is pleasurable or convenient when there are alternatives is something most would call cruel.


----------



## Kommodore (Sep 3, 2009)

> so by your reasoning I could kick the shit through a dog because I felt like it at the time. thats pretty fucked up



Yes it is fucked up, you would be a dick if you did that. But _you_ shouldn't be able to force me into your moral dogma if I were in the dog-kicking business. The fact of the matter is that what you think is cruel and what I or other people think is cruel varies wildly. You think hunting is cruel, others think beating is cruel, yet others think that merely owning an animal as a pet, even lovingly so, is cruel. Why is that definition of cruelty any less valid than mine or yours? It isn't, but I bet you would be pissed if you could not own a pet because enough people thought it was a "mean" thing to do. 

The cruelty does not matter because the desires of the person should come before the wellbeing of the animal in law. Not because it is a "good" thing to kick the shit out of a dog, but because you have no moral authority to define when and where the animal's needs outweigh the human's. The only objective way to solve the dilemma is to eliminate the variable altogether. So long as what you do has no effect on me, you should be able to do it. Any other argument is just pushing your morality on others, which is the root of the problome here. I, for one, like pets and would be happy if I could keep them, even if it is "cruel."


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yes it is fucked up, you would be a dick if you did that. But _you_ shouldn't be able to force me into your moral dogma if I were in the dog-kicking business. The fact of the matter is that what you think is cruel and what I or other people think is cruel varies wildly. You think hunting is cruel, others think beating is cruel, yet others think that merely owning an animal as a pet, even lovingly so, is cruel. Why is that definition of cruelty any less valid than mine or yours? It isn't, but I bet you would be pissed if you could not own a pet because enough people thought it was a "mean" thing to do.
> 
> The cruelty does not matter because the desires of the person should come before the wellbeing of the animal in law. Not because it is a "good" thing to kick the shit out of a dog, but because you have no moral authority to define when and where the animal's needs outweigh the human's. The only objective way to solve the dilemma is to eliminate the variable altogether. So long as what you do has no effect on me, you should be able to do it. Any other argument is just pushing your morality on others, which is the root of the problome here. I, for one, like pets and would be happy if I could keep them, even if it is "cruel."




See what your saying is it would be ok to torture an animal until it died so someone could releive their boredom is equal to a person killing an animal to save their life if they are being attacked or starving to death. You saying an humans comfort comes before an animals life is your own opinion too.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yes it is fucked up, you would be a dick if you did that. But _you_ shouldn't be able to force me into your moral dogma if I were in the dog-kicking business. The fact of the matter is that what you think is cruel and what I or other people think is cruel varies wildly. You think hunting is cruel, others think beating is cruel, yet others think that merely owning an animal as a pet, even lovingly so, is cruel. Why is that definition of cruelty any less valid than mine or yours? It isn't, but I bet you would be pissed if you could not own a pet because enough people thought it was a "mean" thing to do.
> 
> The cruelty does not matter because *the desires* of the person should come before the wellbeing of the animal in law. Not because it is a "good" thing to kick the shit out of a dog, but because you have no moral authority to define when and where the animal's needs outweigh the human's. The only objective way to solve the dilemma is to eliminate the variable altogether. So long as what you do has no effect on me, you should be able to do it. Any other argument is just pushing your morality on others, which is the root of the problome here. I, for one, like pets and would be happy if I could keep them, even if it is "cruel."


 

That is what ticks me off, I believe the needs of a person comes before an animal but not "desires". Needs such as food or shelter or defence of a person or property. But desires ...


----------



## Kommodore (Sep 3, 2009)

> See what your saying is it would be ok to torture an animal until it died so someone could releive their boredom is equal to a person killing an animal to save their life if they are being attacked or starving to death. You saying an humans comfort comes before an animals life is your own opinion too.



No, what I am saying is that you don't use these completely subjective moral boundaries to pass laws, when at all possible. Yes, saying a humans comfort comes before an animal's life is my opinion, but the difference is that my opinion does not affect _you_. Getting rid of animal cruelty laws does not stop you from being nice to your pet or an other animal you happen across. You passing a law that bans all hunting for its cruelty affects me. Do you see the difference? 

While my moral opinion that animals come second in every way is no more valid than yours, I am not imposing my morality on you. When passing a law, such as an animal cruelty law, the less subjective morality you put in it the better, less we devolve into a theocracy or the like. I say hunting wolfs should be legal not because it is moral, but because stopping it would be imposing a subjective morality through law. _That_ is my problem with this animal cruelty nonsense. Not that I approve of beating animals on an ethical level, but because I don't like the idea of people passing laws based on their feeling. 

Again, the stance that you should ban wolf hunting is _conceptually_ the same as banning the ownership of pets because enough people think it is a cruel activity. If a simple majority, 51/49, were to vote away pets, you would feel pretty pissed that people would pass into law their personal opinion on what is cruel and what isn't, I can only imagen. 

It is the same thing here.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 3, 2009)

Why is it so bad to hunt wolves, especially if they were overpopulated in an area?


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> No, what I am saying is that you don't use these completely subjective moral boundaries to pass laws, when at all possible. Yes, saying a humans comfort comes before an animal's life is my opinion, but the difference is that my opinion does not affect _you_. Getting rid of animal cruelty laws does not stop you from being nice to your pet or an other animal you happen across. You passing a law that bans all hunting for its cruelty affects me. Do you see the difference?
> 
> While my moral opinion that animals come second in every way is no more valid than yours, I am not imposing my morality on you. When passing a law, such as an animal cruelty law, the less subjective morality you put in it the better, less we devolve into a theocracy or the like. I say hunting wolfs should be legal not because it is moral, but because stopping it would be imposing a subjective morality through law. _That_ is my problem with this animal cruelty nonsense. Not that I approve of beating animals on an ethical level, but because I don't like the idea of people passing laws based on their feeling.
> 
> ...


 
I don't honestly believe it's the same thing and I do think your wrong, I do think Hunting for anything other than food should be banned. But you have your opinions and I respect that in a person and I wont argue with you anymore, that ok?



Shenzebo said:


> Why is it so bad to hunt wolves, especially if they were overpopulated in an area?


 
I suppose as nature would sort it out.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 3, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Why is it so bad to hunt wolves, especially if they were overpopulated in an area?



INB4: WOLFS ARE TEH CUTE YOU BARBARIAN.



chrispenguin said:


> I suppose as nature would sort it out.



There's no nature there anymore. Or anywhere else.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Sep 3, 2009)

these things make thing i should start hunter hunting.
why not hunt an overpopulated speace like humans?
lets see
use bigger size boots than mine
use the most commonly used sniper rifle with the most commonly used bullets to kill hunters from good posotion
leave no trace of recoverable dna like hair or anything else
burn teh boots and suit in furnace 
did i forgot anything?

signed


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> No, what I am saying is that you don't use these completely subjective moral boundaries to pass laws, when at all possible. Yes, saying a humans comfort comes before an animal's life is my opinion, but the difference is that my opinion does not affect _you_. Getting rid of animal cruelty laws does not stop you from being nice to your pet or an other animal you happen across. You passing a law that bans all hunting for its cruelty affects me. Do you see the difference?
> 
> While my moral opinion that animals come second in every way is no more valid than yours, I am not imposing my morality on you. When passing a law, such as an animal cruelty law, the less subjective morality you put in it the better, less we devolve into a theocracy or the like. I say hunting wolfs should be legal not because it is moral, but because stopping it would be imposing a subjective morality through law. _That_ is my problem with this animal cruelty nonsense. Not that I approve of beating animals on an ethical level, but because I don't like the idea of people passing laws based on their feeling.
> 
> ...



Ah but the difference is I don't wolves to be hunted for their sake not mine. While those who do want to hunt them want to do so for selfish reasons.


----------



## Shino (Sep 3, 2009)

Done.

Yet another crappy Bush legacy we're having to pick up the pieces from. Damnit, I feel like a nanny cleaning up after a messy two-year old. Asshole.

(Sorry about the political rage, but it's well-deserved.)


----------



## Glitch (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed.
Seriously, it's probably for profit; the government never cares.  Money from wolf-killing licenses.. yup.

I hate this country.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 3, 2009)

Shino said:


> Done.
> 
> Yet another crappy Bush legacy we're having to pick up the pieces from. Damnit, I feel like a nanny cleaning up after a messy two-year old. Asshole.
> 
> (Sorry about the political rage, but it's well-deserved.)



It's beyond well-deserved.  We have a lot of cleaning to do.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 3, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Shouldn't be cruel to any animal at all? Why not, because it makes you feel bad? I assert that you should not put the welfare of the animal over the needs or desires of the person - that's the real moral wrong here. I see no reason why people should not be able to make sport of hunting an animal that by all means is in no danger of dissapearing anymore if they so pleased, or why eating should be even considered when judging whether or not the hunt was justified. The end result is that he animal died, be it for sport or for food, I don't see why we should be creating these false barriers on why one is better than the other when they have the same result.
> 
> People should be able to hunt a wolf if it tickles their fancy.



You serious?
They've been a recovering species for years, and now - just as they're making a comeback - want to have them killed for no reason whatsoever outside of sport.

Killing for food is fine for deer, rabbits, and other game animals.  Killing anything for sport should be illegal.


----------



## Aeturnus (Sep 3, 2009)

I don't have a problem with people hunting wolves if it's for food, and I don't really see people in Idaho or Montana doing it for that reason. A couple might but not all. I also fail to see how "population control" is a good reason to kill animals. If humans would leave things alone, nature will take care of itself.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 3, 2009)

Glitch said:


> You serious?
> They've been a recovering species for years, and now - just as they're making a comeback - want to have them killed for no reason whatsoever outside of sport.
> 
> Killing for food is fine for deer, rabbits, and other game animals.  Killing anything for sport should be illegal.



Who knows what nut wrote that petition. It might as well be that the wolves are invading into human-settled territory.



Aeturnus said:


> If humans would leave things alone, nature will take care of itself.



Another delusional nature freak... Nature doesn't exist enymore (as you'd prefer it, at least), anywhere near human settlements. Natural habitats are ruined for populations that might have once lived there, worldwide. The only way people would leave it alone is if they left the area completely and not seek there anything, at any time.
But we both know (I hope) that is unrealistic.
Hell, iirc, these populations were regenerating because people were settling wolves there (unless I'm thinking of the wrong place, correct me then) not in some magical, "natural" way.



I'll leave signing that petition to people who actually live there.


----------



## Hir (Sep 3, 2009)

Cute_Wolfy said:


> did i forgot anything?


Yes. How to type.


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 3, 2009)

I understand hunting nuisence animals, but when you're hunting them just for sport, no, I don't understand that. Especially when your hunting from an airplane. That's not hunting, and it's definetly not sport; sport would imply a challenge. 

Besides, it goes back to the whole thing of "Well, we nearly hunted them into extinction, but we brought them back! Now we're gonna go hunt them again." As logic goes, that's pretty fucking retarded.


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Sep 3, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Yes. How to type.


i mean if i forgot anything important


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 3, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Why is it so bad to hunt wolves, especially if they were overpopulated in an area?



i agree, hunting them is alot better than slow starvation after depleting food.


----------



## Ratte (Sep 3, 2009)

Thinning out the population like this will be better in the long run.  Wolves need more area and more food, so instead of having them starve to death, this is the best option.

It should also help them disperse themselves more in their area.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 3, 2009)

Ratte said:


> Thinning out the population like this will be better in the long run.  Wolves need more area and more food, so instead of having them starve to death, this is the best option.
> 
> It should also help them disperse themselves more in their area.



exactly, most just dont understand that.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 3, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Who knows what nut wrote that petition. It might as well be that the wolves are invading into human-settled territory.



Relocation > shooting because someone wants to have a taxidermy they shot down.

Same issue with the alligators down here in FL.  Some dumbfuck from Ohio let her little chihuahua off its leash in a park with huge-ass signs saying KEEP DOGS ON LEASH AND AWAY FROM POND.  ALLIGATOR IN POND.  Even better, there was a dog park on the other side of said park.
So, this moron has her dog eaten by this 8-foot gator.  Of course the stupid bitch BAAAAAWWWWS over her little dead rat, and causes the gator to get hauled off and killed.  A threatened animal gone because of a retard tourist.  She even sued a few grand for her "trauma".

Story somewhat unrelated... I guess.  
But seriously, why can't they take the wolves from the "overpopulated" area and move them elsewhere?  Or take them to a sanctuary?  Nature won't balance itself out, but the wolves are living in a fraction of their original habitat.
Besides, they were there looonnggg before humans barged in.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Glitch said:


> Relocation > shooting because someone wants to have a taxidermy they shot down.
> 
> Same issue with the alligators down here in FL. Some dumbfuck from Ohio let her little chihuahua off its leash in a park with huge-ass signs saying KEEP DOGS ON LEASH AND AWAY FROM POND. ALLIGATOR IN POND. Even better, there was a dog park on the other side of said park.
> So, this moron has her dog eaten by this 8-foot gator. Of course the stupid bitch BAAAAAWWWWS over her little dead rat, and causes the gator to get hauled off and killed. A threatened animal gone because of a retard tourist. She even sued a few grand for her "trauma".
> ...


 
True its like the bloke who left all his food out at night in the woods then shit him self when a grizzly came, he screamed and the grizzle bit off a part of him, I can't remember what. goes to hospittle. fine. 2 weeks later he goes out specificly to shoot the poor thing, now wears its teeth around his neck.


----------



## pixthor (Sep 3, 2009)

Signed.


----------



## Matt (Sep 3, 2009)

I heard that on the news this morning. The first thing I thought was "bullshit!"


----------



## Matt (Sep 3, 2009)

so I'm guessing having animals on the endangered list is a good thing. 'cause as soon as they open hunting for wolves, the numbers are gonna drop way below endangered.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 3, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> True its like the bloke who left all his food out at night in the woods then shit him self when a grizzly came, he screamed and the grizzle bit off a part of him, I can't remember what. goes to hospittle. fine. 2 weeks later he goes out specificly to shoot the poor thing, now wears its teeth around his neck.



Exactly.  
Humans are idiotic... It's like they are surprised that something happens that would normally be expected occurs.

Like 2 puts it.
"What are these people, like, sitting at home on the toilet like 'Oh Jesus... what the... a turd just fell out of my ass!  Who the hell knew that would happen?!'"
Of course that one was on babies...


----------



## Tazzin (Sep 3, 2009)

Internet petitions rarely do anything anyway.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 3, 2009)

Tazzin said:


> Internet petitions rarely do anything anyway.


 
stopped a car tax hike in england


----------



## Thatch (Sep 3, 2009)

Glitch said:


> Relocation > shooting because someone wants to have a taxidermy they shot down.
> 
> Same issue with the alligators down here in FL.  Some dumbfuck from Ohio let her little chihuahua off its leash in a park with huge-ass signs saying KEEP DOGS ON LEASH AND AWAY FROM POND.  ALLIGATOR IN POND.  Even better, there was a dog park on the other side of said park.
> So, this moron has her dog eaten by this 8-foot gator.  Of course the stupid bitch BAAAAAWWWWS over her little dead rat, and causes the gator to get hauled off and killed.  A threatened animal gone because of a retard tourist.  She even sued a few grand for her "trauma".
> ...



Because there most likely is NO place else. If they're overpopulated there, then imagine what woudl happen in other places if they moved them.

And yes, they were there long before humans barged in. But when we did, they dissapeared. Now we decide wheter they live there or not.

It may seem brutal, but the truth is, all the animal-lovers are delusional. You cannot keep the state of the world as it was in completely different conditions. Organisms prospered and died out, once their habitats dissapeared for three and a half billion years now. The conditions on earth have changed, not by stricte "natural" means, but by human exploatation, but it's truly only force of nature, natural selection. We are the dominant species, we drove other species away. We did not ruin the balance, we created out own. Because the world is not static, no matter how much you'd wish it to be.
To be completely honest, the "greenies" are more cruel and hypocritical than those who kill the animals, because they want to force them to live in conditions that are unsuitable for them. And why? For simple entertainment (ergo the thing they criticise so stronly the other side for) - they want to see all those cute, fuzzy animals prance around for them like in a kids movie, forgetting about the harsh reality of life. That's simply not right.

Of course I'll agree the shooting them down from planes and such is not sporting, but rather pathetic (unless done by ACTUAL animal control, who do it because it's their job to, so they don't want to risk theri lives), but that's beside the point.




As for the gator, yeah, that's more then retarded. I mean, it was in a park FFS.


----------



## Hir (Sep 3, 2009)

Cute_Wolfy said:


> i mean if i forgot anything important


Yes. How to type.


----------



## Azure (Sep 3, 2009)

ITT, furries don't understand nature at all.  If you just let the wolves chill, pretty soon, there will be no deer left.  Or rabbits, or foxes, or any of that other cute shit that tickles your fancy.  We are the keepers of the balance in nature, and have been so for a long time, not the animals.


----------



## Ziff (Sep 3, 2009)

I would sign but im too young >.> i wish I was 18... i wouldve been born in the 80's which I love and I'd be doing cool stuff


----------



## Cute_Wolfy (Sep 3, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Yes. How to type.


typing grammatically corekt in ze internet iz waste of time. Since you type without ze need to examine every single word. Both ways have the same result typing gramatically inccorekt iz just faster!


----------



## Thatch (Sep 3, 2009)

Cute_Wolfy said:


> typing grammatically corekt in ze internet iz waste of time. Since you type without ze need to examine every single word. Both ways have the same result typing gramatically inccorekt iz just faster!



Spelling =/= grammar :V


----------



## Darkwing (Sep 3, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> ITT, furries don't understand nature at all.  If you just let the wolves chill, pretty soon, there will be no deer left.  Or rabbits, or foxes, or any of that other cute shit that tickles your fancy.  We are the keepers of the balance in nature, and have been so for a long time, not the animals.



Bullshit.

Did you ever learn about the cycle?

Wolves come in and populate, Wolves eat all of the deer/other cute shit. Deer/other cute shit get driven out of the woods. Wolves die from starvation, and eventually there are so few Wolves in the area that Deer/other cute shit move back into the Woodland area.

And the cycle goes on and on and on.

While we do have control over nature, we shouldn't be fucking around with the populations of certain species, because nature already has that covered, and is doing a good job at it. If we get in the way of it, it just fucks shit up even more.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 3, 2009)

fuck it, lets just nuke the world and start over, let evolution handle this shit.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 3, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> While we do have control over nature, we shouldn't be fucking around with the populations of certain species, because nature already has that covered, and is doing a good job at it. If we get in the way of it, it just fucks shit up even more.



You forget one thing. That is OUR teritory, we write the rules. If we have to control the population, so the starved wolves won't seek other sources of food, like our farm animals or US, we DO it.
This is not the world without humans anymore. That's why it cannot function like it did without humans.



blackfuredfox said:


> fuck it, lets just nuke the world and start over, let evolution handle this shit.



I want to be immortal to see it though. And hyoomans would survive either way, while all the cute fuzzy animals would not :V


----------



## pheonix (Sep 3, 2009)

Something smells fishy in the whole thing. I'm not gonna sign it cause there's really nothing wrong with population control especially to something that's not near extinction. This is just people thinking that killing animals as a sport is wrong which I don't fully agree with the whole thing but it could help more then hurt. I also don't like signing something someone else wrote up. I hate when people put words in my mouth, I'd rather write up my own opinions on the matter rather then agree to some insane wackjobs outlook on things.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 3, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Did you ever learn about the cycle?
> 
> Wolves come in and populate, Wolves eat all of the deer/other cute shit. Deer/other cute shit get driven out of the woods. Wolves die from starvation, and eventually there are so few Wolves in the area that Deer/other cute shit move back into the Woodland area.



Then wolves move onto cattle, chickens and other rancher game which means they're risking themselves by becoming sedentary and moving into human territory, earning them a quicker shot to the face. 

The culling of 220 wolves doesn't bother me. The fact that there are 10700 wolf permits that have been sold in Idaho and 2700 permits sold on the first day in Montana (where there are only 75 slated) does bother me and seems a bit irresponsible.


----------



## Azure (Sep 3, 2009)

Darkwing said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Did you ever learn about the cycle?
> 
> ...


And when is the last time this happened naturally? Nature ain't got shit covered when it concerns human beings.  That's why were responsible for it.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 3, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> And when is the last time this happened naturally? Nature ain't got shit covered when it concerns human beings.  That's why were responsible for it.



yep, lets nuke that shit, FOR SCIENCE.


----------



## Darkwing (Sep 3, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> And when is the last time this happened naturally? Nature ain't got shit covered when it concerns human beings.  That's why were responsible for it.



Good point.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 3, 2009)

We should all live underground with surface access for sports and parks and get around using underground trains. Let nature grow over the top .

Ok maybe not, but it would be pretty cool.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Sep 4, 2009)

People who signed this shit apparently don't understand population control. 

Or do you prefer all of the cute woodland creatures being all eaten up in that area, and then all the wolfs to die of hunger.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Signed - thanks for sharing that Beastcub.  Burns me to find humans hunting things we don't need to hunt.  I don't mind humans protecting themselves, but if we're not directly threatened, they have as much right to exist as we do.



Agreed ^



prettylilpup said:


> Not sure if these petitions do anything or make a difference, but I signed anyways.



Wont know unless you try. It will either work, or it won't, wether it works or not we can at least say we tried.

Signed.


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 4, 2009)

they're shooting deer everywhere everyday. but, you don't care about that because they're not fluffy and cute like wolves. after all, we need to stop them only from shooting the animals we think are cute that we don't eat! :c those adorable little fluffy wolves need a home more than any other animal does! >:C

hypocrisy, you show yourself again.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> they're shooting deer everywhere everyday. but, you don't care about that because they're not fluffy and cute like wolves. after all, we need to stop them only from shooting the animals we think are cute that we don't eat! :c those adorable little fluffy wolves need a home more than any other animal does! >:C
> 
> hypocrisy, you show yourself again.



Wrong, it is not hypocritical at all. They are not eating the wolves when they kill them, deer get eaten, the difference is right there.


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Wrong, it is not hypocritical at all. They are not eating the wolves when they kill them, deer get eaten, the difference is right there.



devil's advocate. people only want to stop wolf hunting so they can defend their fluffy-wuffy-widdle wolf butts :c


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> devil's advocate. people only want to stop wolf hunting so they can defend their fluffy-wuffy-widdle wolf butts :c



Not all of us. I don't like animals being hunted for the hell of it. If the animal was to be eaten at the end of the hunt then fine, go ahead and hunt.


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> they're shooting deer everywhere everyday. but, you don't care about that because they're not fluffy and cute like wolves. after all, we need to stop them only from shooting the animals we think are cute that we don't eat! :c those adorable little fluffy wolves need a home more than any other animal does! >:C
> 
> hypocrisy, you show yourself again.


I'm actually genuinly confused by how you support the idea of not supporting this because other animals die too.

Who said we don't care? I'm sure there are petitions to stop Deer hunting too, the petition isn't called "Save The Wolves! Shoot The Deer!".


----------



## Thatch (Sep 4, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> the petition isn't called "Save The Wolves! Shoot The Deer!".



It should. DIE DEER DIE!


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

szopaw said:


> It should. DIE DEER DIE!


I'd like so totally sign.


----------



## HoneyPup (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> they're shooting deer everywhere everyday. but, you don't care about that because they're not fluffy and cute like wolves. after all, we need to stop them only from shooting the animals we think are cute that we don't eat! :c those adorable little fluffy wolves need a home more than any other animal does! >:C
> 
> hypocrisy, you show yourself again.


I actually think deer are just as cute if not cuter than wolves, but I'm okay with them being hunted because people actually eat them. Unless I'm mistaken, these people are not eating the wolves they kill.


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> I actually think deer are just as cute if not cuter than wolves, but I'm okay with them being hunted because people actually eat them. Unless I'm mistaken, these people are not eating the wolves they kill.


Venison stew is delicious! :3


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Venison stew is delicious! :3



Never had venison, want to try it.


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Never had venison, want to try it.


I absolutely love it.


----------



## HoneyPup (Sep 4, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Venison stew is delicious! :3


I have some venison in my freezer. Stew sounds really good, that might be what I'll do with it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> I have some venison in my freezer. Stew sounds really good, that might be what I'll do with it.



SHARE!!


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> I have some venison in my freezer. Stew sounds really good, that might be what I'll do with it.


PROTIP: Juniper berries compliment the taste of the venison perfectly.


----------



## Elessara (Sep 4, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> PROTIP: Juniper berries compliment the taste of the venison perfectly.


----------



## HoneyPup (Sep 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> SHARE!!


Sure...I'll e-mail you a bowl of stew 

I need a good recipe.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Sure...I'll e-mail you a bowl of stew
> 
> I need a good recipe.



-wonders what digital stew would taste like-


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> -wonders what digital stew would taste like-


That would depend on how you eat it :V


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 4, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Not all of us. I don't like animals being hunted for the hell of it. If the animal was to be eaten at the end of the hunt then fine, go ahead and hunt.





DarkNoctus said:


> I'm actually genuinly confused by how you support the idea of not supporting this because other animals die too.
> 
> Who said we don't care? I'm sure there are petitions to stop Deer hunting too, the petition isn't called "Save The Wolves! Shoot The Deer!".





prettylilpup said:


> I actually think deer are just as cute if not cuter than wolves, but I'm okay with them being hunted because people actually eat them. Unless I'm mistaken, these people are not eating the wolves they kill.



so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?


----------



## Hir (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?


Probably not, but I wasn't even making that point in the first place. My point is that just because theres a petition for one animal, that doesn't mean that we don't care about other animals.


----------



## HoneyPup (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?


yes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 4, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> Probably not, but I wasn't even making that point in the first place. My point is that just because theres a petition for one animal, that doesn't mean that we don't care about other animals.



Of course we care about other animals. Just today, i went to get my bike out of the shed outside, didn't see anything out of the ordinary, when i returned, there was a dead rabbit laying just a few feet away. I had only been gone maybe 20 minutes, so it had not been dead for long. I wouldn't of wanted to skin it and eat it as I don't know what killed it, couldn't find any wounds from fighting, nor any obvious signs it had been hit by a car on the road, but my neighbour said he had seen a lot with the "mitzy" disease, the brain disease, which I think could be what killed it. Eitehr way I wouldn't of taken the risk of eating it personally.



HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?



Indeed. The only other reason I'd alow such hunting is that if there genuinely was an over population of a certain species that needed controlling.


----------



## Rel (Sep 4, 2009)

Bowtoid_Obelisk said:


> The culling of 220 wolves doesn't bother me. The fact that there are 10700 wolf permits that have been sold in Idaho and 2700 permits sold on the first day in Montana (where there are only 75 slated) does bother me and seems a bit irresponsible.


This is so much win here ^

Anyway, you guys should see some of the stuff that really goes on. At least 60% or more of my school is going hunting for wolves this, or next weekend. (even when wolf season isn't open, most people hunt wolves anyway). Which is alittle unsettling, but then again, the people up here grew up with it, like its their tradition (until the murdered the whole population in ID).

We also have all of this shit splattered all over the media like wolf hunting is the next best thing since bread. Even with the guy killing the first wolf 'legally', receiving death threats, and boycotted. (which is a little too far imo). I dont mind wolf hunting, but i do mind 10,000+ permits allowing people to kill 5000-10,000+ that live here.

(also, there are rarely anybody that eat the meat of a wolf... although they do eat rocky mountain oysters. lol)


----------



## Thatch (Sep 4, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?



LOL, now only to tell that by eating the flesh of wolves they gain their strenght ect. ect. and voila, you've got yourself a market XD


----------



## Tycho (Sep 4, 2009)

One of the bigger problems the wolves face is habitat encroachment.  People get all pissy when the wolves start taking their pets or farm animals for prey, and go on the warpath (HOW DARE THOSE WOLVES EAT FLUFFY).  Well, you drove away/killed their normal prey, what the fuck do you expect? Stupid hick farmers/ranchers are bad about this, they can't see anything beyond THEIR farmland, THEIR sheep.  They don't give two shits about anything else.  My suggestion, relocate (or shoot THEN relocate) the people, raze the suburbs, move the farmers to where the suburbs were, draw a nice big black line on the map and reserve it for wildlife, and shoot anyone who crosses into that reserve without a permit.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 4, 2009)

Tycho said:


> One of the bigger problems the wolves face is habitat encroachment.  People get all pissy when the wolves start taking their pets or farm animals for prey, and go on the warpath (HOW DARE THOSE WOLVES EAT FLUFFY).  Well, you drove away/killed their normal prey, what the fuck do you expect? Stupid hick farmers/ranchers are bad about this, they can't see anything beyond THEIR farmland, THEIR sheep.  They don't give two shits about anything else.  My suggestion, relocate (or shoot THEN relocate) the people, raze the suburbs, move the farmers to where the suburbs were, draw a nice big black line on the map and reserve it for wildlife, and shoot anyone who crosses into that reserve without a permit.




No we should all live in huge underground cities and let nature grow over the top :Y


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 4, 2009)

I enjoy shooting animals for their pelts and their flesh. Upon eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of the animal, and upon placing its pelt over my head, I have absorbed the spiritual energy and traits of the animal. Now we must get the wicker man ready and consult the necronomicon.


----------



## Iakesen (Sep 4, 2009)

Signed. It would be better to just relocate the wolves, not shoot them. There's plenty of space in Canada.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 4, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> No we should all live in huge underground cities and let nature grow over the top :Y



The prospect of this actually fascinates me.

I can think of plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work, but still...


----------



## Wreth (Sep 4, 2009)

Tycho said:


> The prospect of this actually fascinates me.
> 
> I can think of plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work, but still...



Hahaha me too, about both thinngs you said.


----------



## SpartaDog (Sep 4, 2009)

I'm not sure what to think about this. I agree that humans fucked up the world, and that they now owe it to the animals. I also agree that sport hunting is completely illegal. There's only one other animal that kills for sport: Chimpanzees. Hmm...

However. I agree too that because the world's been fucked up SO bad, we can't just let things go. Just stepping back isn't going to work. 

But I believe in relocating. Yellowstone is still trying to up its population, I think (don't quote me on that). 

My parents and I both believe in this philosophy: If you don't want to deal with wolves/bears/coyotes, don't live in wolf/bear/coyote country. I'm not saying they should move the people now, I'm just saying the people should deal with it or move themselves.

I don't know. I'm torn. I think the bigger issue is the hunting of mustangs. I mean, wild horses don't sneak into your farms and steal your sheep, at least. (Not that I consider that a valid reason for hunting wolves, but it's a better reason than profit).

I know I'm gonna get chased with torches and pitchforks for this post.


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 5, 2009)

Ragnarok-Cookies said:


> People who signed this shit apparently don't understand population control.
> 
> Or do you prefer all of the cute woodland creatures being all eaten up in that area, and then all the wolfs to die of hunger.



Funny, I remember a couple of years ago that it was more of an issue of there being enough for the wolves to eat, but not enough for the wolves to eat AND for people to hunt, which pretty much exposed the whole "population control" argument for the load of horseshit it was. What it all boils down to is "humans want to kill things for fun." I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying that people at least need to be honest and quit pretending their making some sacrifice for the greater good.


----------



## Foxstar (Sep 5, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> they're shooting deer everywhere everyday. but, you don't care about that because they're not fluffy and cute like wolves. after all, we need to stop them only from shooting the animals we think are cute that we don't eat! :c those adorable little fluffy wolves need a home more than any other animal does! >:C
> 
> hypocrisy, you show yourself again.



What happened with deer is a prime showing of why wolves need to be controlled. Bambi is cute and all, but not controlling deer has led to a crapstorm of issues. And deer eat -grass-. You let wolves start even come close to getting deer like numbers and then enjoy walking out of your door one morning to find the half-eaten remains of your dog, cat and whatever else. Enjoy that wonderful smell of wolf urine as they mark everything. Thrill to the beloved sight of a pack staring at you..right before they move in and eat you.


----------



## Foxstar (Sep 5, 2009)

Iakesen said:


> Signed. It would be better to just relocate the wolves, not shoot them. There's plenty of space in Canada.



Relocating a apex pred that needs a HUGE amount of space is easier said then done.


----------



## Kitsune Dzelda (Sep 5, 2009)

"Only take what you need."

A philosophy that, understood right, will make this not an issue.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 5, 2009)

Kitsune Dzelda said:


> "Only take what you need."
> 
> A philosophy that, understood right, will make this not an issue.



Good philosophy, unfortunately, many people are greedy in this day and age.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 5, 2009)

Kitsune Dzelda said:


> "Only take what you need."
> 
> A philosophy that, understood right, will make this not an issue.



And who's to decide what I need? Me? I'll take everything. Others? Communism didn't work.
Don't play with utopias, it's futile.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 5, 2009)

szopaw said:


> And who's to decide what I need? Me? I'll take everything. Others? Communism didn't work.
> Don't play with utopias, it's futile.



Told you people are greedy these days.

EDIT: Although, there is another old saying: "better to have to much, than not enough"


----------



## Glitch (Sep 5, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?



Last time I checked, deer are overpopulated everywhere.
Wolves haven't been like that for a long time; a little bit of Idaho does not equal the country/world.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Sep 5, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so if they eat the wolves, would you guys be okay with it?


 
sure if the wolves arn't under threat.


----------



## Gonebatty (Sep 5, 2009)

This is bs, we take their land AND kill them? wait, where have I heard of that before?


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 5, 2009)

Gonebatty said:


> This is bs, we take their land AND kill them? wait, where have I heard of that before?



i bet the indians wouldn't appreciate getting compared to wolves. maybe they would, but i bet they wouldn't.


----------



## Gonebatty (Sep 5, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i bet the indians wouldn't appreciate getting compared to wolves. maybe they would, but i bet they wouldn't.



mmmmmm... Not my brightest moment. sorry. But just saying it happened before. (run to the hills plays)


----------



## Azure (Sep 5, 2009)

Well, they're still gonna kill those wolves.  And nobody here did anything to stop it.  Because clearly you don't care enough, or don't know enough about the actual situation besides ZOMG CUTE WOLVES. Shut up, all of you. If you dislike the human race so much, do something about it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 5, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Well, they're still gonna kill those wolves.  And nobody here did anything to stop it.  Because clearly you don't care enough, or don't know enough about the actual situation besides ZOMG CUTE WOLVES. Shut up, all of you. If you dislike the human race so much, do something about it.




The way I'd want to "do something about the human race" isn't legal.

Now, instead of giving these folk a permit to shoot wolves, who, to my knowledge these wolves don't do much harm to people, why do they not give these people a permit to kill people instead? 

And I am talking about serial killers, pedo's etc etc. That would be putting their guns to some better use.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Sep 5, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> If you dislike the human race so much, do something about it.


 
Suicide bombing?


----------



## Azure (Sep 5, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The way I'd want to "do something about the human race" isn't legal.
> 
> Now, instead of giving these folk a permit to shoot wolves, who, to my knowledge these wolves don't do much harm to people, why do they not give these people a permit to kill people instead?
> 
> And I am talking about serial killers, pedo's etc etc. That would be putting their guns to some better use.


Give it a shot dude.  You can always languish in prison. I think I'll make a thread about the meshing of ignorances that exist between furries and animal rights activists.



Harebelle said:


> Suicide bombing?


Muslims got ya beat bro.  And they kill goats by slitting their throat.  How inhumane. Honestly, I think it's people being disgusted by the fact that sometimes we kill things, instead of the reality at hand, like WOLVES IN YOUR BACKYARD.


----------



## virus (Sep 5, 2009)

I've gotten to the point I don't care anymore. I want humans to destroy the ecosystem to see the gruesome outcome. Nature will make a human killer. Oh glorious days!


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 5, 2009)

virus said:


> I've gotten to the point I don't care anymore. I want humans to destroy the ecosystem to see the gruesome outcome. Nature will make a human killer. Oh glorious days!



no, we will kill nature, one day everyone will get pissed at each other, and nuke the FFFFFFUUUUUUUUCK out of this planet, probably the Moon and a bit of Mars with it.


----------



## Thatch (Sep 5, 2009)

virus said:


> Nature will make a human killer.



...It happened, many times, actually. And they killed it, each time.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 5, 2009)

Signed.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 5, 2009)

virus said:


> Nature will make a human killer.



HIV.  Ebola.  Smallpox.  Bubonic plague.  Measles.  Cholera.  Hantavirus.  SARS.  Spanish Flu. To name a few.

It is not for want of trying on Nature's part that it has failed to wipe us out.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 5, 2009)

Tycho said:


> HIV.  Ebola.  Smallpox.  Bubonic plague.  Measles.  Cholera.  Hantavirus.  SARS.  Spanish Flu. To name a few.
> 
> It is not for want of trying on Nature's part that it has failed to wipe us out.



so lets beat it first, who wants to sign my  "Lets Nuke Nature: Our Real Enemy" petition.


----------



## Kitsune Dzelda (Sep 5, 2009)

*sigh* only a piece of a greater issue I guess wolf hunting deals with.

Understood right that philosphy makes sense.  I can go without the finer things in life, as long as my basic needs are met.


----------



## Nargle (Sep 5, 2009)

I have no problem with hunting. In fact, hunting is vital to the survival of certain species, deer for instance, that would overpopulate and starve otherwise. However, when an animal is hunted to the point that it is being threatened, then that is a problem, especially when that animal needs to be around to help control the population of another animal. Last I checked, there was a serious deer overpopulation problem, and we need wolves to help keep the population from getting out of control.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Sep 6, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I have no problem with hunting. In fact, hunting is vital to the survival of certain species, deer for instance, that would overpopulate and starve otherwise. However, when an animal is hunted to the point that it is being threatened, then that is a problem, especially when that animal needs to be around to help control the population of another animal. Last I checked, there was a serious deer overpopulation problem, and we need wolves to help keep the population from getting out of control.


We can also start giving out deer licenses. Hey what can I say, it is a business. If wolves start eating up all of the deer, there wouldn't be enough for us to kill.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 6, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I have no problem with hunting. In fact, hunting is vital to the survival of certain species, deer for instance, that would overpopulate and starve otherwise. However, when an animal is hunted to the point that it is being threatened, then that is a problem, especially when that animal needs to be around to help control the population of another animal. Last I checked, there was a serious deer overpopulation problem, and we need wolves to help keep the population from getting out of control.




Hmm, well, if we are not allowing animals to "over populate" the planet, why are we allowing ourselves to do so?, isn't that hypocritical on our part?, by our, I mean humans in general.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 6, 2009)

Ragnarok-Cookies said:


> We can also start giving out deer licenses. Hey what can I say, it is a business. If wolves start eating up all of the deer, there wouldn't be enough for us to kill.



Again Kitsune's Philosphy can come into play "Only take what you need" .


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 6, 2009)

Ratte said:


> Thinning out the population like this will be better in the long run.  Wolves need more area and more food, so instead of having them starve to death, this is the best option.
> 
> It should also help them disperse themselves more in their area.



I agree with this.  Also I don't find wolves cute.  >_>


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 6, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Hmm, well, if we are not allowing animals to "over populate" the planet, why are we allowing ourselves to do so?, isn't that hypocritical on our part?, by our, I mean humans in general.



I do believe China has a quota on the number of children a Chinese family can have.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 6, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> I do believe China has a quota on the number of children a Chinese family can have.



They do, I believe it is 1 child per couple. I think.


----------



## Beastcub (Sep 6, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They do, I believe it is 1 child per couple. I think.



yeah, with twins/multipul births being the only exception since fate/nature decided to make more and it was not the parents choice.


----------



## Azure (Sep 6, 2009)

Kitsune Dzelda said:


> *sigh* only a piece of a greater issue I guess wolf hunting deals with.
> 
> Understood right that philosphy makes sense.  I can go without the finer things in life, as long as my basic needs are met.


Here, allow me to reduce your quality of life immensely.  Since you only *need* food, water, and shelter, I guess you'll make do with some animal skin rags for clothing, said animal carcass for food, and all the ground wate you can drink.  Grow up people. We've evolved from that, it's time to act like we have.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 6, 2009)

i didn't sign
too many wolf furries


----------



## Tycho (Sep 6, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They do, I believe it is 1 child per couple. I think.



Doesn't stop them from breaking it.  They simply send the "extra" kids out for adoption if they get caught.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 6, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Doesn't stop them from breaking it.  They simply send the "extra" kids out for adoption if they get caught.



And Angelina Jolie like a moron adopts them.    She's trying to complete her collection of having a child from each country.


----------



## Asswings (Sep 6, 2009)

How did I miss this thread...?

Look dudes, I'm IN Idaho. 
Are you? No?

Keep your nose out of our business, city kids. 

I'm FOR wolf hunting. And don't go OH SEND THEM TO CANADA. That's where we got them.


----------



## Hir (Sep 6, 2009)

lazyredhead said:


> i didn't sign
> too many wolf furries


Better go and kill some foxes then, to even things out further.


----------



## Klay (Sep 6, 2009)

I signed. I don't really see the point in ANY hunting, let alone wolves.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Sep 6, 2009)

Hunting for food is completely acceptable for ovbious reasons, while hunting for sport is, in my humble opinion, completely abhorrent. I have never killed an animal for sport, and I never intend to, however to deny someone else's right to do so by passing some ridiculous legislation, effectively telling them how they should go about their own business, is equally abhorrent. To say that proper measures to protect the wolf population shouldn't put into effect would be extremely unwise, as it would do more good than harm to ensure their species survival. Let whoever wants to hunt anything do it, just don't expect me to condone or take part in it.


----------



## Nargle (Sep 6, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Hmm, well, if we are not allowing animals to "over populate" the planet, why are we allowing ourselves to do so?, isn't that hypocritical on our part?, by our, I mean humans in general.



Dude, I never said that wasn't an issue. However, do you honestly think there is an ethical way to control human overpopulation? BTW, the only reason there IS a problem with deer, is because their habitats are being eaten up by human development. We're just trying to keep things as balanced as possible.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 6, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Dude, I never said that wasn't an issue. However, do you honestly think there is an ethical way to control human overpopulation? BTW, the only reason there IS a problem with deer, is because their habitats are being eaten up by human development. We're just trying to keep things as balanced as possible.



Indeed. One bunch of humans comes along and fucks things up, leaving another bunch of humans to put the first bunch humans mess right.


----------



## alaskawolf (Sep 6, 2009)

you can have our wolves


----------



## Tycho (Sep 6, 2009)

...wait.  They're being killed because they're bringing the ungulate population down?

What the fuck?

THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

Wolves hunt deer.  Wolf numbers increase.  Deer numbers decrease.  Not enough deer to sustain all the wolves.  Wolf numbers decrease.  Predation is decreased.  Deer numbers increase.  Cycle repeats.  (Unless you have dickhead Idahoan ranchers and farmers killing off wolves and hunting deer, that throws a little bit of a wrench into the whole process.)

This is fucking NORMAL.


----------



## Slade (Sep 7, 2009)

Not signed.

I'LL SHOOT WHATEVER I WANT DAMMIT. >:V


----------



## Asswings (Sep 7, 2009)

Slade said:


> Not signed.
> 
> I'LL SHOOT WHATEVER I WANT DAMMIT. >:V



ALRIGHT HI FIVE.

Here's for not caring if a certain animal is murry purry!


----------

