# Beyond Infuriated...



## rekcerW (Jan 31, 2022)

You know, I try to avoid things like this like the plague, because it incites an amount of hatred that I can't fucking manage. To put it lightly, I have nothing but ill-wishes toward those who feel the need to kill anything simply for being what it is.

Here's the thing; regardless of your stance on the matter, there is no question that wolves are thinking, living, feeling inhabitants of this planet and they feel fear and stress just the same as any other sentient being. It has been confirmed through samples of fur collected on foliage in various regions that there is a significant increase in measurable cortisol levels - which is the main hormone released in the body while encountering stress - during so-called 'wolf management practices' and the fucking atrocities that are being committed right now against them for crossing the imaginary border of Yellowstone National Park.

It's not like they've had a significant opportunity to recover their population prior to the fucking degenerate Trump administration stripping their protections, and regardless, the sentiment of trying to boost numbers to enable future 'harvesting' for trophy-hunting/wolf-hating complete wastes of fucking skin is an abhorrent fucking thing and I wish every one of them their own fucking much worse horrific death. Additionally, the notion that they must be managed or they'll ruin prey populations alongside the common 'it's hunters that fund the majority of wildlife protections' rhetoric is a fucking bold-faced lie. It's crazy how in areas where they and other inhabitants are not 'managed' at all - a.k.a actual non-profit wildlife conservation foundations that physically buy private land and basically leave it the fuck alone - how things have a tendency to sort themselves out and find a natural balance, kind of like how they have for the last few million fucking years. A great example is the Great Bear Rainforest. On the 'we pay for everything' pile of shit, eco-tourism in that region has generated over 12x the income in that area. Something to the tune of over $15 million dollars in 2014 vs. $1.2 million for guided hunting. I wish I saved the study I had where the numbers were collected and broken down across several regions in North America, and I will find it and share it again, but the answer is a resounding no, hunters pay for fucking peanuts in conservation efforts in the grand scheme of things, and most of their money doesn't find its way back into actual conservation.

It's not like hunters are picking off the old, sick, or weak either. They're gradually widdling down the gene pool from its best candidates for reproduction.

To the tune of fucking whiny-ass ranchers, wolf depredation has been subsidized for years and it's worked fine, and there's always the option to learn how to build a fucking fence and shove your public grazing rights as far up your ass as you can stuff it.

I've been following stories of the various packs of wolves that reside in Yellowstone through people that have been following them around and documenting their tales for years and years and years now, and they're being fucking decimated. The Junction Buttes, Wapitis, The Mollie's... all of them... fuck... FUCK. There are only 71 fucking wolves left alive there right now.

I'd really love to physically see heads rolling, hopefully maybe one day, but regardless, if you give even a remote fuck, please write to your fucking parliament and share the shit out of this absolute insanity to anybody else who might care.

I just can't keep my mouth shut this time.


----------



## TyraWadman (Feb 1, 2022)

I do not live there but I am rooting for you and your cause. I hope something can be done about it before it's too late.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 1, 2022)

TyraWadman said:


> I do not live there but I am rooting for you and your cause. I hope something can be done about it before it's too late.


Me either, good ol' Canada here. Nothing to stop a person from writing in though!


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 1, 2022)

You're correct that trophy hunting can seriously undermine the genetic sustainability of species. 
It is crazy that our countries team with hundreds of millions of humans, and yet we still fear populations of wolves that number in the tens. 

At the least though, you are not Britain. We have, in essence, successfully removed our ecosystem.


----------



## TyraWadman (Feb 1, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> Me either, good ol' Canada here. Nothing to stop a person from writing in though!


Oh that's right! My bad!
Forgive my poo brain. I just want to make sure.

Are we writing to _*our*_ MPs? Or that U.S equivalent? Or both? 
And if so, is there a specific address/individual we need to contact?
I'm back in NB Canada if this helps. Lots of names pop up and I'm not sure if there is an ideal candidate to contact or if I should just send one to each of them and hope it resonates with at least one of them.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 1, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> You know, I try to avoid things like this like the plague, because it incites an amount of hatred that I can't fucking manage. To put it lightly, I have nothing but ill-wishes toward those who feel the need to kill anything simply for being what it is.
> 
> Here's the thing; regardless of your stance on the matter, there is no question that wolves are thinking, living, feeling inhabitants of this planet and they feel fear and stress just the same as any other sentient being. It has been confirmed through samples of fur collected on foliage in various regions that there is a significant increase in measurable cortisol levels - which is the main hormone released in the body while encountering stress - during so-called 'wolf management practices' and the fucking atrocities that are being committed right now against them for crossing the imaginary border of Yellowstone National Park.
> 
> ...


You're certainly entitled to your opinion(s).
As someone who lives in an extremely rural area, and have neighbors with working ranches barely surviving on a shoe-string budget, the reintroduction of wolves into the area is about the stupidest idea govt. has shoved down their/our throats, in awhile.
You want to promote the healthy biodiversity of predators, you do not bring them back into close proximity with humans.  Period.  That's only going to end one way for said predators, as history has proven over and over again.
So instead of railing against those trying to keep their property and family/friends lives safe and healthy, how about getting on the band wagon to the politicians responsible for this debacle, help them pull their heads out of their own asses to see the light/reality/world for what it is, instead of what their tender little feelings and dystopian world of unicorns and rainbows?
You're talking to someone who has been a life long proponent for preserving our natural habitats and endangered species, so don't think for one second I'm heartless or have nothing invested in this endeavor.
What I'm also smart enough to acknowledge is once you move people into a region and businesses/ranches are established, you don't rape them by reintroducing dangerous animals BACK into the area.
So, point your ire at those responsible for creating the problem, instead of raging against those trying to survive under it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 1, 2022)

If we do not adapt to live with animals, they will be driven to extinction.
...and this is the thin end of the wedge. I live in a country where even beavers, kites and hawks were driven to extinction and where their reintroduction is considered a threat. 
I live in a country whose native_ squirrel_ population went extinct, and where there are zero rivers that are free from contamination of human sewage.

We _already_ live in a dystopian world. One where the right for an entire species to even exist, even at a population under 100, is considered unacceptable because it is considered an inconvenience to human property.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 1, 2022)

Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 1, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> If we do not adapt to live with animals, they will be driven to extinction.
> ...and this is the thin end of the wedge. I live in a country where even beavers, kites and hawks were driven to extinction and where their reintroduction is considered a threat.
> I live in a country whose native_ squirrel_ population went extinct, and where there are zero rivers that are free from contamination of human sewage.
> 
> We _already_ live in a dystopian world. One where the right for an entire species to even exist, even at a population under 100, is considered unacceptable because it is considered an inconvenience to human property.


Unless humanity is hit with an 'Extinction level event,' it is our inevitable fate to turn 'Eden' (this planet) into an industrial wasteland.  We're already well under way in accomplishing that.
Unless humanity wises the hell up, en mass, and curbs its out-of-control over-population, and drastically reduces the unsustainable pressures on natural resources (and their ability to replenish themselves, where applicable), we'll soon be going to war over water, then paying for the very air we breath (unless of course, folks happen to like getting all their minerals in one breath?).
I don't see humanity wising-up to that degree.  What I do see is utter stupidity being embraced and pandered about like some form of Gospel, and can only shake my head and rejoice that I did not have children who would have to inherit any of it.
You might think I live a cynical life, and to some degree that would be true.  Mostly I love and appreciate the simple things and now that I've reached my 'Golden Years' merely want to enjoy those and do my level best to let others do the same w/o my poking my nose into their affairs.
Where I live, we have mountain lions, bears, even a badger (somewhere).  We also happen to have wolves right-next-door, and I've heard them howling on occasion.  I happen to adore lupines (just lookit mah avatar!), and respect the hell out of our ecosystem, but people have already thrown it out of natural balance, and that's just the way humanity works.  Dropping predators into already populated/developed areas is so g-damned stupid I don't even have the words (and would likely get myself banned if I typed the ones I want to).  When I'm out hiking or camping, I have my Doggo and he's a great deterent to anything that might try to give me grief.  I'd sure as hell hate to shoot a predator, but won't just sacrifice myself to one if it tried to make a snack out of me (or my doggo).


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Feb 1, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> As someone who lives in an extremely rural area, and have neighbors with working ranches barely surviving on a shoe-string budget, the reintroduction of wolves into the area is about the stupidest idea govt. has shoved down their/our throats, in awhile.


Have these ranchers ever said anything about the nature of their shoestring budget?

Are there other predators who go after their herds, or prey animals who try to beat the herds to their grazing areas (or steal from the farmer's other food stores)?

Are there certain laws being misused to directly harass the ranchers?

I'm trying to establish them as people with real fears rather than the "whiny" attitude OP seems to be projecting on them.  Those are just the first three questions that come to mind, and I'm hoping we can eventually get to something that nullifies their reasons for shooting/poisoning/trapping predator species.

Some of the ranchers might be better off folding them on their businesses but I'd REALLY rather try not to have that happen.




Fallowfox said:


> If we do not adapt to live with animals, they will be driven to extinction.
> ...and this is the thin end of the wedge. I live in a country where even beavers, kites and hawks were driven to extinction and where their reintroduction is considered a threat.
> I live in a country whose native_ squirrel_ population went extinct, and where there are zero rivers that are free from contamination of human sewage.


I remember you saying something like this about a year ago in regards to Scotland - where the ecosystem was basically turned into a giant hunting preserve for rich people.  So there's an established explanation, horrifying and piss-poor as it is, for why kites and hawks are considered a threat.

How are beavers considered a threat, though?  Is this like the tree-netting scenario in parts of Australia where suburban idiots actively try to keep "their" precious trees guarded?


And about those squirrels - have you ever been to the Isle of Wight or Brownsea Island?  That's roughly where they wound up, and as much as I despise government intervention those places REALLY need to be protected if you're to have any hope of fixing that part of the ecosystem.  (I'm playing a MUCH longer game here of restoration, do not consider human development to be mutually exclusive to ecosystem repair, and do not consider "it's just not the same" to be valid as an excuse at all.)

....I know about those because I remember commenting on a squirrel trapping video (they were trapping gray squirrels, which are native where I am but invasive over there) because I was concerned about collateral damage and they told me about the sheer displacement and mentioned Brownsea Island.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 1, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> You're certainly entitled to your opinion(s).
> As someone who lives in an extremely rural area, and have neighbors with working ranches barely surviving on a shoe-string budget, the reintroduction of wolves into the area is about the stupidest idea govt. has shoved down their/our throats, in awhile.
> You want to promote the healthy biodiversity of predators, you do not bring them back into close proximity with humans.  Period.  That's only going to end one way for said predators, as history has proven over and over again.
> So instead of railing against those trying to keep their property and family/friends lives safe and healthy, how about getting on the band wagon to the politicians responsible for this debacle, help them pull their heads out of their own asses to see the light/reality/world for what it is, instead of what their tender little feelings and dystopian world of unicorns and rainbows?
> ...


So do I. Still haven't had an issue in 30 years... so. Move if it's that big of a concern. Bears are a lot more concerning, there are hundreds of black bears around me, and they're a much more common sight, and can be much more aggressive. Also still haven't had a problem. Wolves avoid people typically like the plague (because they generally are).

And also, to elaborate on that a bit more. Fuck them. They're shit at business and I could give a flying fuck about them and how little money they make. There are plenty of other places that have already been overrun by farmland like the fucking prairies where shit like that is profitable and the only real predators kicking around are coyotes. It's not the wolves that are moving into their land, in fact, it's the polar opposite.

This makes it sound like you can see about 2" in front of your face.

In addition, I'd really like to hear where the fuck you think the wolves are supposed to go. They're literally getting mowed down for wandering outside of one of the few remaining places in your country where they actually have any protection whatsoever anymore. There are packs that have been established for years and years and generations upon generations that are fucking practically nothing now.

It's comical that you'd spout off like you're an advocate for conservation and in the next breath say that there's no place for wolves to coexist with humans.


----------



## Baron Tredegar (Feb 1, 2022)

I have never really understood hunting culture, and I have grown up around it my whole life. Growing up my dad and would ask me if I wanted to go deer and dove hunting, except for once Ive always said no, and that one time I went nothing was out. I always had to hear my cousins brag about going rabbit and deer hunting. I just never understood the appeal of killing something for sport. Here in Georgia, I always hear my peers and teenagers talk about hunting and idolizing the redneck lifestyle. It just makes no sense to me, that way of life is dying. Do they just have no vision and want to live in a trailer their whole life? It has been way past time for humanity to expand into the stars and begin colonizing the moon and mars. This world will not be able to sustain us for much longer.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Feb 1, 2022)

Baron Tredegar said:


> I just never understood the appeal of killing something for *sport*.


....you understand a VERY different culture around hunting than I do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I've been given the expectation that hunters are supposed to eat what they catch and kill, or at least feed their immediate families.  There's a major fish hatchery up the road where we are and thanks to loss of predators, we have overpopulation when it comes to deer and geese.  Hunting and fishing, at the very least, become maintenance measures we currently have to do.

Still pisses me off that I can't handle the taste of bone broth.


The reason I haven't gone hunting since I was 12, though, is because it involves sitting in one spot for hours and waiting for the animals to come by.  Similar situation with fishing if I've got to be direct.  I do not have the mindset required to do these things and I know and accept it, so I do not press the issue.


The old punt gun culture, getting hundreds of animals at a time?  That is not hunting culture to me unless you're feeding an entire village, which these people are generally NOT.


You want to try reintroducing wolves to our area, I won't whine.  If it becomes a necessary enough safety issue to boot them off my premises, that's what nonlethal methods are for.


----------



## Baron Tredegar (Feb 1, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> hunters are supposed to eat what they catch and kill, or at least feed their immediate families.


I definitely understand hunting for food and population control. At least most of the old people I am around understand that. Its these young trigger happy idiots with no responsibility I cant handle.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Feb 1, 2022)

Baron Tredegar said:


> I definitely understand hunting for food and population control. At least most of the old people I am around understand that. Its these young trigger happy idiots with no responsibility I cant handle.


That, I can recognize.


I might as well add that setting out to shoot endangered species strikes me as a MAJOR no-no.  I see hunting glorified as a dominance activity and it frankly breaks my heart that it gets viewed and acted on that way... because I see hunting as a preserver's job in a lot of ways.

It's like they know absolutely nothing about nature.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 2, 2022)

Baron Tredegar said:


> I have never really understood hunting culture, and I have grown up around it my whole life. Growing up my dad and would ask me if I wanted to go deer and dove hunting, except for once Ive always said no, and that one time I went nothing was out. I always had to hear my cousins brag about going rabbit and deer hunting. I just never understood the appeal of killing something for sport. Here in Georgia, I always hear my peers and teenagers talk about hunting and idolizing the redneck lifestyle. It just makes no sense to me, that way of life is dying. Do they just have no vision and want to live in a trailer their whole life? It has been way past time for humanity to expand into the stars and begin colonizing the moon and mars. This world will not be able to sustain us for much longer.


It's seen as an expression of "Gawd-givn dumminyun, a-hyuck!". Many of the problems in conservation and nonhuman welfare in the world can be traced back to the same creation story.


----------



## Punji (Feb 2, 2022)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's seen as an expression of "Gawd-givn dumminyun, a-hyuck!". Many of the problems in conservation and nonhuman welfare in the world can be traced back to the same creation story.


According to _actual _Christian doctrine, humanity's purpose as designated by God is to serve as stewards for all of creation. This literally means to maintain the world and everything on it.

It seems like the real problem is people using their own subjective opinions and beliefs to try to justify their own behaviours. That sure does seem to happen a lot, huh?


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Feb 2, 2022)

Punji said:


> According to _actual _Christian doctrine, humanity's purpose as designated by God is to serve as stewards for all of creation. This literally means to maintain the world and everything on it.
> 
> It seems like the real problem is people using their own subjective opinions and beliefs to try to justify their own behaviours. That sure does seem to happen a lot, huh?


....despite the agreement, I'm going to have to ask you to give evidence of this in the doctrine.  What Bible passages hint at this, etc.

Not out of skepticism, but if we're going to correct some of this destructive subjectivity we have to truly re-establish the doctrine proper.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 2, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> ....despite the agreement, I'm going to have to ask you to give evidence of this in the doctrine.  What Bible passages hint at this, etc.
> 
> Not out of skepticism, but if we're going to correct some of this destructive subjectivity we have to truly re-establish the doctrine proper.



Genesis 1:26-28

t. Atheist


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Feb 2, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Genesis 1:26-28
> 
> t. Atheist


Thanks for the effort, but I've gone over a few translations of this line.

I've yet to find a translation that doesn't phrase it as "dominion" or "conquest" and I've yet to find one that even hints at the word "shepherd" or "steward".  Going literally, that would support a lot of the prick activity we're seeing.

Gonna have to mix something like Proverbs 12:10 in there, and that's not even the best example.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 2, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> Thanks for the effort, but I've gone over a few translations of this line.
> 
> I've yet to find a translation that doesn't phrase it as "dominion" or "conquest" and I've yet to find one that even hints at the word "shepherd" or "steward".  Going literally, that would support a lot of the prick activity we're seeing.
> 
> Gonna have to mix something like Proverbs 12:10 in there, and that's not even the best example.



Domination to me would seem as ownership, with ownership comes  management of one's own entity of which you control (can't control over something that which you destroy).That's always been the way the religious of my family/friends have interpreted it too.

I personally have never needed a book to tell me we are the dominating species on this planet, it's kinda obvious.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 2, 2022)

I’m agnostic, so I’m very much reading these texts as texts (though I also have an English degree, so I do have some training in text analysis), not through a particularly religious lens.



Firuthi Dragovic said:


> Thanks for the effort, but I've gone over a few translations of this line.
> 
> I've yet to find a translation that doesn't phrase it as "dominion" or "conquest" and I've yet to find one that even hints at the word "shepherd" or "steward".  Going literally, that would support a lot of the prick activity we're seeing.
> 
> Gonna have to mix something like Proverbs 12:10 in there, and that's not even the best example.


I actually cracked out my Bibles to have a look. I’d personally say Genesis 1:29-30 also hold an implication of “coexist with the animals and share the fruits of the earth with them,” but that’s definitely something that is an interpretation, not explicit in the text.

Comparing the English and Swedish translations that I have, I’d honestly say that “dominion” in itself implies some measure of stewardship. The Swedish word used is a homonym for “advice” or “counsel,” and I suspect those meanings share etymology. (Not to imply that the Swedish is more correct or anything like that, just a “well if English uses this word and Swedish uses that, is there a common meaning between them that could suggest what the original said?”) Also worth looking at, given it’s Old Testament, is what’s been said about stewardship vs right-to-exploit within Judaism.

Look at how we describe the areas of influence of different deities in pantheistic religions; they’re frequently described as having dominion over this or that - while they absolutely control those elements (to some degree), they also tend to be a bit miffed if humans fuck with them, so there’s some aspect of guardianship there.


----------



## Baron Tredegar (Feb 2, 2022)

Where I am at I dont see as much people using religion to justify their hunting practices. It is more along the lines of "Im going hunting. Look at my gun collection and ARs in my jacked up pickup truck. I am very badass and say the N word. Yee Yee."


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 2, 2022)

TyraWadman said:


> Oh that's right! My bad!
> Forgive my poo brain. I just want to make sure.
> 
> Are we writing to _*our*_ MPs? Or that U.S equivalent? Or both?
> ...


Sorry, thought I already posted this. This site has some good resources!









						Home | RelistWolves.org
					

Fighting to put Gray Wolves back on the endangered species list.




					www.relistwolves.org


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2022)

People arguing about the Bible, as if the Bible _didn't_ tell people to steward the Earth that we _wouldn't_ have a responsibility to do it.

It's not heartless to fail in this endeavour. It's brainless, because we're the idiots who have to live on the planet.


----------



## Baron Tredegar (Feb 2, 2022)

Tbh most of the people I have heard in person talk about those verses in Genesis have been the ones who say we should do whatever we want with the earth and that climate change is a hoax.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> I remember you saying something like this about a year ago in regards to Scotland - where the ecosystem was basically turned into a giant hunting preserve for rich people.  So there's an established explanation, horrifying and piss-poor as it is, for why kites and hawks are considered a threat.
> 
> How are beavers considered a threat, though?  Is this like the tree-netting scenario in parts of Australia where suburban idiots actively try to keep "their" precious trees guarded?
> 
> ...



Beavers are considered a 'threat' by some farmers in the UK because they fell trees and flood land to produce ponds.
There are no remaining natural areas of wilderness in this nation, so any pond a beaver produces is invariably on somebody's property.

I feel it is sadly the natural end conclusion of thinking like that articulated by AniwayaSong, so the question is how can we avoid that situation?
Systems to compensate farmers who lose livestock to predators, or to reward farmers whose land supports diverse ecosystems are important.

Ultimately agriculture has to be adapted to work in sympathy with natural ecosystems, rather than existing in opposition to them- because human agriculture is reliant on the services that natural ecosystems provide, like pollination and soils. If we lose those services, we will lose the capacity to practice effective agriculture.


----------



## Filter (Feb 2, 2022)

I can see both sides of this. For years, they've been trying to reintroduce red wolves near where I live. I like red wolves. Everybody I know around here also seems to like them too. It's even illegal to kill them, but farmers sometimes do so when their livestock is threatened. Red wolves aren't much of a threat to humans, but they'll eat farm animals and pets if given a chance. If I saw a red wolf trying to get my cat, I'd turn that red wolf into a dead wolf in an instant. Yet another reason why my cat isn't allowed outside, for his own safety. Farmers don't necessarily have that option.

As far as being stewards of the planet is concerned, we should certainly protect the ecosystem for our fellow creatures, but that may require a little creativity and hard work on our part. Maybe try to move the wolves, or the people, somewhere else. Not that I pretend to have the answers, but it's a worthwhile problem to address.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2022)

Filter said:


> I can see both sides of this. For years, they've been trying to reintroduce red wolves near where I live. I like red wolves. Everybody I know around here also seems to like them too. It's even illegal to kill them, but farmers sometimes do so when their livestock is threatened. Red wolves aren't much of a threat to humans, but they'll eat farm animals and pets if given a chance. If I saw a red wolf trying to get my cat, I'd turn that red wolf into a dead wolf in an instant. Yet another reason why my cat isn't allowed outside, for his own safety. Farmers don't necessarily have that option.
> 
> As far as being stewards of the planet is concerned, we should certainly protect the ecosystem for our fellow creatures, but that may require a little creativity and hard work on our part. Maybe try to move the wolves, or the people, somewhere else. Not that I pretend to have the answers, but it's a worthwhile problem to address.


Some countries employ compensation schemes to cover the costs of predation on livestock.
Attacks on livestock are less likely in countries which have robust populations of wild prey.

I am not keen on trying to force people to relocate because it implies people cannot co-exist with wild animals that, up until a few centuries ago, were much more common place. I suppose the number of humans has also exploded since then, and we have novel technologies that make us much more dangerous to wild animals.
I think encouraging relocation might also result in strong resistance among people encouraged to move- as if somebody is bossing them around rather than giving them assistance.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Feb 2, 2022)




----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 2, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> Have these ranchers ever said anything about the nature of their shoestring budget?
> 
> Are there other predators who go after their herds, or prey animals who try to beat the herds to their grazing areas (or steal from the farmer's other food stores)?
> 
> ...


I know to the Nth degree the many ways modern ranchers are struggling to survive.  Since I merely live on a small ranch (and we don't suffer the losses of predation due to our own methods of keeping them away (which is doeable in a small acreage ranch, but not in a large one), I listen to those with larger spreads during our neighborhood/community get-togethers (which happen at least once a month, usually far more often) talk about them.
I'd suggest to anyone sincerely curious about this issue do some simple 'Google/Ewetube' searching, and find out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> I know to the Nth degree the many ways modern ranchers are struggling to survive.  Since I merely live on a small ranch (and we don't suffer the losses of predation due to our own methods of keeping them away (which is doeable in a small acreage ranch, but not in a large one), I listen to those with larger spreads during our neighborhood/community get-togethers (which happen at least once a month, usually far more often) talk about them.
> I'd suggest to anyone sincerely curious about this issue do some simple 'Google/Ewetube' searching, and find out.



The costs to livestock industry overall in territories with wolves are small. 

So this is a situation for insurance (if you prefer private sector funded approach) or compensation (if you prefer government funded approach).
Wolves killed between 100 and 3000 cattle in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2014, for example: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolf-economics-8-012/

The reason for the variation in the estimate is because of the difficulty verifying reported livestock kills. 

Even at the highest possible estimate though, this sort of level of damage could matter a lot to one individual rancher, but doesn't represent a scratch on the ranching industry as a whole. 
So this risk could be viewed as being mitigated through insurance like risks from severe weather, disease and so forth- which represent much larger threats to livestock and animal husbandry. 

The link I have posted cites original scientific research.


----------



## Filter (Feb 2, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Some countries employ compensation schemes to cover the costs of predation on livestock.
> Attacks on livestock are less likely in countries which have robust populations of wild prey.
> 
> I am not keen on trying to force people to relocate because it implies people cannot co-exist with wild animals that, up until a few centuries ago, were much more common place. I suppose the number of humans has also exploded since then, and we have novel technologies that make us much more dangerous to wild animals.
> I think encouraging relocation might also result in strong resistance among people encouraged to move- as if somebody is bossing them around rather than giving them assistance.


I didn't mean to suggest forced relocation. Maybe gently encouraging or facilitating it through tax breaks or other monetary incentives. Those who are less bothered, or better able to cope with the potential threat to their livestock may choose to stay where they are. Remaining in place might been considered a tacit acceptance of the risk.

There may also be other feasible solutions. Perhaps building animal bridges over busy roads to increase potential hunting range, or taking measures to increase the availability of natural prey. There are probably alternatives that we haven't considered yet.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 2, 2022)

To put a loss of 3000 cattle per year in context...

The UK lost 4.4 million cattle in a BSE outbreak in the early 1990's, which resulted from farmers feeding ground-up dead cattle to each other.

The UK then lost a further 6 million sheep and cattle in a 'Foot and Mouth' outbreak in 2001, which resulted from a pig-farmer feeding untreated waste to his animals and failing to report disease occurrence to the authorities.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 2, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> People arguing about the Bible, as if the Bible _didn't_ tell people to steward the Earth that we _wouldn't_ have a responsibility to do it.


I wouldn't call it arguing about the Bible - it's looking at "what are these people using to justify their trophy hunting?" and seeing that the answer for some is "the Bible," then having a relatively cursory look one place where the Bible may say the opposite. So far it's been civil, yeah? It's less that we wouldn't have a responsibility to take care of the Earth if the Bible didn't tell us so, as pointing out that the Bible doesn't say _not_ to take responsibility for the health of the world. (If it said not to take stewardship of the Earth it would be *wrong*, far as I'm concerned, but be that as it may.)

Like, I'm definitely appalled at people treating wolf packs as though the world would be better off without them. How many of these people hunt with dogs, or use dogs on their land, or otherwise have working dogs, or value their contribution to (human) society? (I doubt they'd see the irony, but I do.) Not that I'd imagine most of the people kvetching about the wolf "problem" would be very open to the idea, but I wonder if it would be plausible to do something similar to the cheetah protection programs in Africa. (Farmers are supplied with dogs that "adopt" their herds and guard them, cheetahs leave the herds alone because most wild predators prefer to avoid fights and the risk of injury they bring with them. Cheetahs don't get killed by farmers, livestock doesn't get predated on, everybody wins.) Or just go out with a pot of non-toxic paint.

They're wolves, not honey badgers. I'm sure they can be humanely convinced that livestock is more risk than it's worth.

I'm not saying the answer has to be to let predators roam wherever they please with no management at all. Relocating a pack that has moved into an area that endangers both them and people can be necessary in some cases. Deterring them from roaming into some areas can be necessary. In rare cases, a predator develops behavior that is directly dangerous to humans, and in those cases it may be necessary, as a last resort, to intervene using lethal measures, if other avenues have been exhausted. But it's vital for the survival of species (and if you think driving a species to extinction is excusable, you're not in good company here) that populations aren't allowed to (or at the very least not brought there by human interference) hit genetic bottleneck numbers. If anything, that may in the long run create even more trouble.


----------



## Punji (Feb 2, 2022)

Firuthi Dragovic said:


> ....despite the agreement, I'm going to have to ask you to give evidence of this in the doctrine.  What Bible passages hint at this, etc.
> 
> Not out of skepticism, but if we're going to correct some of this destructive subjectivity we have to truly re-establish the doctrine proper.


Genesis 1:26-28, as Ramjet said. It's important to mention "dominion" does not mean "domination." The ideas being expressed by this part of the book of Genesis is more along the lines of humans governing the natural world in God's stead.

An example which I haven't seen mentioned yet is Psalm 145. Verse 9 (RSV) states "The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that He has made." Christian doctrine holds the belief that God cares about all of His creations, not just humans. Further in verse 16 (RSV) "Thou openest thy hand, thou satisfiest the desire of every living thing." (Thou & thy referring to God).

Additionally within Psalm 145, verse 13 (RSV) refers to God's dominion over creation. "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures throughout all generations." When paired with the context of Psalm 145 being one of praise to God as well as the surrounding verses, we can reasonably say the term "dominion" is more aligned with the concept of governance and diligent care.


----------



## Parabellum3 (Feb 3, 2022)

Tbh I think a simple solution to this would be to reintroduce wolves in _animal friendly _states like California or something. These states can be ideal sanctuary states for them as they have laws protecting them at all costs. Reintroducing wolves into areas where people still haven't gotten over fairy tails usually doesn't mix well.


----------



## Parabellum3 (Feb 3, 2022)

Also to lighten things up, here's a wolf pupper I took from a sanctuary I went to.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 3, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> I wouldn't call it arguing about the Bible - it's looking at "what are these people using to justify their trophy hunting?" and seeing that the answer for some is "the Bible," then having a relatively cursory look one place where the Bible may say the opposite. So far it's been civil, yeah? It's less that we wouldn't have a responsibility to take care of the Earth if the Bible didn't tell us so, as pointing out that the Bible doesn't say _not_ to take responsibility for the health of the world. (If it said not to take stewardship of the Earth it would be *wrong*, far as I'm concerned, but be that as it may.)
> 
> Like, I'm definitely appalled at people treating wolf packs as though the world would be better off without them. How many of these people hunt with dogs, or use dogs on their land, or otherwise have working dogs, or value their contribution to (human) society? (I doubt they'd see the irony, but I do.) Not that I'd imagine most of the people kvetching about the wolf "problem" would be very open to the idea, but I wonder if it would be plausible to do something similar to the cheetah protection programs in Africa. (Farmers are supplied with dogs that "adopt" their herds and guard them, cheetahs leave the herds alone because most wild predators prefer to avoid fights and the risk of injury they bring with them. Cheetahs don't get killed by farmers, livestock doesn't get predated on, everybody wins.) Or just go out with a pot of non-toxic paint.
> 
> ...




I think people who cite the Bible to justify trophy hunting are just seeking an excuse to continue their hobby.
The Bible just happens to be a convenient shield to hide behind.

I suppose you _can_ convince other people of this by exposing that the Bible doesn't offer an instruction to 'dominate' nature, but ...eh
People use the Bible to justify a repertoire of harmful behaviours and some of those behaviours _can_ be supported by scripture, so I feel like debating the interpretation of scripture is orthogonal to 'stop hiding behind religious texts to defend doing something you know is harmful,'


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Feb 3, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I think people who cite the* Quran* to* justify terror attacks* are just seeking an excuse to continue their *terror attacks.*
> The Quran just happens to be a convenient shield to hide behind.
> 
> I suppose you _can_ convince other people of this by exposing that the *Quran *doesn't offer an instruction to do this, but ...eh
> People use the *Quran *to justify a repertoire of harmful behaviors and some of those behaviors _can_ be supported by scripture, so I feel like debating the interpretation of scripture is orthogonal to 'stop hiding behind religious texts to defend doing something you know is harmful,'



A little word replacement here and there with a different example makes this post a lot more inflammatory and likely would garner some reports for offensive speech.

I think that's a reminder that we are close if not already crossing a line with the religious stuff, when it's not a keystone with wolf hunting, but rather a few people taking an opportunity to express their less than friendly opinions on specific religions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 3, 2022)

Nexus Cabler said:


> A little word replacement here and there with a different example makes this post a lot more inflammatory and likely would garner some reports for offensive speech.
> 
> I think that's a reminder that we are close if not already crossing a line with the religious stuff, when it's not a keystone with wolf hunting, but rather a few people taking an opportunity to express their less than friendly opinions on specific religions.



_Jesus Christ _Nexus, talk about the fucking deep-end.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 3, 2022)

How about staying on topic instead of making not-subtle-whatsoever jabs at religions you personally don't like? If someone have grievances people's DM's are more often than not open, unless people want another thread closed because they prefer to behave like children? Thank you.

It's not exactly a secret that the wolf is the inspiration for my Fursona and the animal I kind of feel would be my spirit animal if I were to ever have one, so I guess I am a little conflicted on the topic. Is it wrong for the top apex predator(us) to displace(and in some cases dispose of) animals of lower intelligence? Is it wrong for us to focus on ourselves, with other beings and species being secondary?

To speak of how things are over here in Norway for a second, farmers are just outright fucking lazy in taking care of their sheep and farm animals. Instead of doing something simple like getting a herder or something to guard the sheep they leave them out grassing without supervision, often in the middle of the god damn woods too. With plenty of dangerous animals around, including the wolf. Is it the wolf's fault for going "ooo, yummy tasty prey!" when they see loose sheep without supervision running around when they are easy prey? No, it's not the wolf's fault in this regard. It's your sheep, you take care of them properly as these animals and their lives are your responsibility.

From the human perspective, we are the top of the food chain(s) to the point of having created some of our own. Unlike the wolf which is more animal in nature, we create societies and even vast empires. It's natural for a species to put their own interests first, and I won't exactly fault any species for focusing on themselves. I guess our interests span across time and on a vastly bigger scale. And to be able to continue our species we need space in order to do so.

As the species with the highest intelligence on the planet I feel we have a duty to take care of our environment and its inhabitants. It is our duty to take care of those with lower intelligence and making sure they are taken well care of in their own environments. Stewards, if you will. Is it a good idea to be taking bad habits/traits such as lack of care for our environment into space if or when we start traveling the stars? Personally I would say no.

We have many areas that are reservations and is where animals ought to be moved to, as living around humans can be extremely dangerous for everyone involved. And I am not interested in killing anything unless it's in actual self-defense.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 3, 2022)

For the record people hiding behind religion to do bad things aren't a reason to hate religion. 

They're a reason to hate _butt-heads_.



Yakamaru said:


> How about staying on topic instead of making not-subtle-whatsoever jabs at religions you personally don't like? If someone have grievances people's DM's are more often than not open, unless people want another thread closed because they prefer to behave like children? Thank you.
> 
> It's not exactly a secret that the wolf is the inspiration for my Fursona and the animal I kind of feel would be my spirit animal if I were to ever have one, so I guess I am a little conflicted on the topic. Is it wrong for the top apex predator(us) to displace(and in some cases dispose of) animals of lower intelligence? Is it wrong for us to focus on ourselves, with other beings and species being secondary?
> 
> ...



Sidebar on Norway:
when I was in Norway, I became convinced that the main reason that Norway's environment is so much more pristine than the UK's is simply that the Norwegian population is a lot smaller, so you cannot do as much harm as we have. 

e.g. Hunting polar bears continuing up until late in the twentieth century. 
If British people had been in charge of Svalbard in the twentieth century, and hunting the polar bears, we would have completely wiped them out. 
(fortunately they're protected now, but I don't know how sustainable their future is)


----------



## KD142000 (Feb 3, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> For the record people hiding behind religion to do bad things aren't a reason to hate religion.
> 
> They're a reason to hate _butt-heads_.


I'm not religious, but I'm picking up some strong anti-religion stuff in this thread.
Let's just be honest, hunting is a human being choosing to kill an animal for some reason. It's not them following instructions from a holy book


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 3, 2022)

KD142000 said:


> I'm not religious, but I'm picking up some strong anti-religion stuff in this thread.
> Let's just be honest, hunting is a human being choosing to kill an animal for some reason. It's not them following instructions from a holy book



God-granted dominion over nature was brought up on page 1 as a reason some people provide for hunting for sport. 

I agree with you that religious books are irrelevant to this; even if religion is used as a reason, the actual motive for people who do sport hunting is that they personally enjoy it and not their religion.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Feb 3, 2022)

Oh boy, aren’t we just rolling around in inflammatory threads lately?

In regards to hunting wolves, it’s actually very illegal to hunt them because of their endangered status. I don’t know if that’s true in every state, but in most, you could get arrested for doing that. Poachers are the scum of the earth.

Second of all, in regards to farmers killing them because they’re a nuisance, that is 100% on the farmers, period. If they can’t keep tabs on their livestock and keep them safe, then they suck at rearing livestock and should stick to harvesting crops.

Thirdly, if keeping wolves away from national parks is a thing, then that’s horrible, as well. It seems the only thing corporate interests care about in national parks is that they’re perpetuating a baseless fear against wolves that is unfair, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. Wildlife spaces should exist for the wildlife, if you want to live in a perfectly controlled environment, then never leave your goddamn house.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 3, 2022)

MCtheBeardie said:


> Oh boy, aren’t we just rolling around in inflammatory threads lately?
> 
> In regards to hunting wolves, it’s actually very illegal to hunt them because of their endangered status.



The Trump administration removed the endangered status of wolves in 2020. 

The Biden administration promised to review that decision, but did not decide to overturn it.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Feb 3, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> The Trump administration removed the endangered status of wolves in 2020.
> 
> The Biden administration promised to review that decision, but did not decide to overturn it.


Well, that sucks.

Knowing how dangerously low the population is, that has to be the worst decision ever made. I’m with OP on that one.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Feb 3, 2022)

Nexus Cabler said:


> A little word replacement here and there with a different example makes this post a lot more inflammatory and likely would garner some reports for offensive speech.
> 
> I think that's a reminder that we are close if not already crossing a line with the religious stuff, when it's not a keystone with wolf hunting, but rather a few people taking an opportunity to express their less than friendly opinions on specific religions.


There's a big difference between terrorist attacks and trophy hunting and you could have just used trophy hunting for Islam too, since there is similar material regarding stewardship of the natural world and hunting.

Instead of just going for the stereotype of Muslim condoning terrorist attacks. 

That aside, to everyone, the actual statistics that have been quoted here are actually illuminating and might put into context why the conservation of wolves is worthwhile and ultimately safe. 

I didn't know those statistics to begin with and I found them informative.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 3, 2022)

I'm suprised they're so little protected up here considering the numbers.
Not only can they be hunting by landowners year round, but some counties have $300-500 bounties per dog.

I get it for coyotes (literally millions of em up here), but with less then 10k Wolves in Alberta I don't see how they justify basically having a pest status.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 3, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> I'm suprised they're so little protected up here considering the numbers.
> Not only can they be hunting by landowners year round, but some counties have $300-500 bounties per dog.
> 
> I get it for coyotes (literally millions of em up here), but with less then 10k Wolves in Alberta I don't see how they justify basically having a pest status.


Yup, it's fucking bullshit. BC is even worse, sounds like they plan on gunning down another few hundred wolves from helicopters this year. The majority of it is in excuse of a dwindling population of woodland caribou when the real issue that every peer-reviewed paper seems to agree on is seismic exploration and logging being the root cause. It makes sense, creating cutlines of trees for kilometers upon kilometers which enables an easy means of travel for all sorts of predators to access the deep woodlands which would otherwise offer protection.  I've recently started donating to Echo Conservation lately because they have made some strides in the matter and others, and I've been donating to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation for approaching 13 years now. Both of them support great causes in all of their actions in my opinion. These fucking caribou are a lost cause unless industry practice changes, blaming wolves for it is fucking deplorable when the issue is clear. Fucking cheap-ass money-mongering politician motherfuckers lining their pockets with special interest groups' fringe-science bullshit drives me up the wall.

I took solace in the fact that at least the US considered them as endangered solely for the reason of them not being killed. It's been a relief to at least know the packs floating around Yellowstone were safe while this shit keeps on happening up here. It's absolute insanity to me to so much as consider taking the life of something so similar to us in the value of familial bonding and coaching through generations. It's amazing what they teach their young, each and every individual pack (when not fucking decimated by people I would do anything in my power to make not exist presented the option) has their own nuances related to just environmental circumstances and the literal personalities of the wolves that came together to form the pack that they teach to their young. It's stunningly beautiful how they coexist together and care for each other in my eyes. Some of the battles that happen when they cross paths and fight for territory can be so vicious, but the name of the game for each and every one of them is to support each other and protect what they hold true. Just like us. They're so fucking amazing, God I love the shit out of them.

It's pure unadulterated hatred that I feel right now, I haven't slept much for so long, it burns me to the root of my soul to know that people like that exist out there. I've pretended that they are few and far between, but apparently, there are many more people that hate such a beautiful being to the point of the Biden administration maintaining this fucking insanity.

I think depression might win over this one, I'm trying to keep my head up but I can't. There is nothing that fucking pisses me off more. We're in the middle of a mass-extinction event and this, FUCKING THIS, is what people concern themselves with to undo. Fuck everybody.


----------



## The_Happiest_Husky (Feb 3, 2022)

Sport hunters and all the similar groups piss me off. If you're gonna hunt something, it better not be endangered and you better be making full use of your kill

I don't hunt (too hyper to stand around in the woods lol), but I've got a good few cousins and mates who do. What do they all have in common? They hunt elk, squirrel, etc, where it's allowed and use every bit of the animal that they can feasibly do something with. That's what proper hunting is


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 3, 2022)

The_Happiest_Husky said:


> Sport hunters and all the similar groups piss me off. If you're gonna hunt something, it better not be endangered and you better be making full use of your kill
> 
> I don't hunt (too hyper to stand around in the woods lol), but I've got a good few cousins and mates who do. What do they all have in common? They hunt elk, squirrel, etc, where it's allowed and use every bit of the animal that they can feasibly do something with. That's what proper hunting is



I can agree with the endangered part, and when it comes to big game actually utilize what you kill (IE go for the meat not the rack).
Pest control is a whole other animal though.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 3, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> Yup, it's fucking bullshit. BC is even worse, sounds like they plan on gunning down another few hundred wolves from helicopters this year. The majority of it is in excuse of a dwindling population of woodland caribou when the real issue that every peer-reviewed paper seems to agree on is seismic exploration and logging being the root cause. It makes sense, creating cutlines of trees for kilometers upon kilometers which enables an easy means of travel for all sorts of predators to access the deep woodlands which would otherwise offer protection.  I've recently started donating to Echo Conservation lately because they have made some strides in the matter and others, and I've been donating to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation for approaching 13 years now. Both of them support great causes in all of their actions in my opinion. These fucking caribou are a lost cause unless industry practice changes, blaming wolves for it is fucking deplorable when the issue is clear. Fucking cheap-ass money-mongering politician motherfuckers lining their pockets with special interest groups' fringe-science bullshit drives me up the wall.
> 
> I took solace in the fact that at least the US considered them as endangered solely for the reason of them not being killed. It's been a relief to at least know the packs floating around Yellowstone were safe while this shit keeps on happening up here. It's absolute insanity to me to so much as consider taking the life of something so similar to us in the value of familial bonding and coaching through generations. It's amazing what they teach their young, each and every individual pack (when not fucking decimated by people I would do anything in my power to make not exist presented the option) has their own nuances related to just environmental circumstances and the literal personalities of the wolves that came together to form the pack that they teach to their young. It's stunningly beautiful how they coexist together and care for each other in my eyes. Some of the battles that happen when they cross paths and fight for territory can be so vicious, but the name of the game for each and every one of them is to support each other and protect what they hold true. Just like us. They're so fucking amazing, God I love the shit out of them.
> 
> ...



I hear ya, not really much you can do other then to keep supporting the orgs that will fight it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 4, 2022)

One of the unspoken things about hunting I feel should be commented on is the environmental impact of ammunition. 

Toxic heavy metals are still used in ammunition; the British government still hasn't managed to phase out lead shot for example. 








						Plans announced to phase out lead ammunition in bid to protect wildlife
					

The Government is considering a ban of lead ammunition to protect wildlife and nature as part of new plans under UK REACH




					www.gov.uk
				



These toxic metals not only harm wild life, but they find their way into the human food-chain where they concentrate and cause health problems like reduced intellectual abilities. 
Metal fragments in animal tissue can also concentrate in the food chain and represent a problem merely from a physical standpoint- such as accumulating in the bodies of birds that consume scavenged meat from the carcases of animals that have been shot. 

Honestly don't know how the culture of hunters can be changed to avoid using metal ammunitions though, short of advocating they use bows or spears for subsistence activities.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Feb 4, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> One of the unspoken things about hunting I feel should be commented on is the environmental impact of ammunition.
> 
> Toxic heavy metals are still used in ammunition; the British government still hasn't managed to phase out lead shot for example.
> 
> ...


I feel like we’ve had this conversation before? I think I have a new perspective from what I had before too, so it can’t hurt to address it one more time.

I actually agree that lead is harmful, and that more care should be taken by phasing it out. If we could move to non toxic alternatives, that would dramatically benefit wildlife populations. I agree on that now.

As for metal, then the realistic thing to do would be to move away from guns entirely, because if metals aren’t safe, then ammunition as a medium of hunting becomes obsolete. I don’t know what other material could be used, because the ammunition would lose shape and lethality if the alternative material doesn’t have the same strength metal or lead does.

I actually do think crossbows would be a better alternative to use, they’re easier to operate and don’t have the learning curve attached to spears, and don’t require the physical training and exertion that a traditional bow and arrow does.


----------



## LameFox (Feb 4, 2022)

The metal thing surprises me, I always assumed the way animals eat they'd always get bits of indigestible grit in them and just pass it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 4, 2022)

MCtheBeardie said:


> I
> 
> I feel like we’ve had this conversation before? I feel like I have a new perspective from what I had before, so it can’t hurt to address it one more time.
> 
> ...



I've brought this up before yes.

Incidentally, since this thread was initially about the United States, the last US administration spent a huge amount of effort trying to weaken or avoid legislation to decrease American children's exposure to lead.
If you read about the range of environmental protections weakened in the US over the last several years you'd think that it was controlled by vampires who were _deliberately_ trying to find ways to poison people.

I agree with you that ranged weapons like crossbows represent a more sustainable alternative to firearms. (also less dangerous to people I guess? and less noisy)



LameFox said:


> The metal thing surprises me, I always assumed the way animals eat they'd always get bits of indigestible grit in them and just pass it.



Many birds have an organ called the 'gizzard pouch' that deliberately collects hard items. In a natural scenario, tiny stones are collected in their diets and those stones aid digestion by helping to break-down ingested food items. 
When lead pellets are in the environment the birds consume those, they reside for a long period in the bird's digestive tract and slowly break down poisoning the bird/any animal or human that later consumes the bird's tissues.


----------



## LameFox (Feb 4, 2022)

Would they cope with non toxic metals? Or do they retain and eat enough of it to suffer some sort of obstruction? I remember reading at some point you can get copper bullets (more expensive though, but I'm not sure if that's the metal or that they aren't produced in high numbers. Lead goes for a bit too I think, we have about 500kg of it in the yard we meant to sell at some point).


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 4, 2022)

LameFox said:


> Would they cope with non toxic metals? Or do they retain and eat enough of it to suffer some sort of obstruction? I remember reading at some point you can get copper bullets (more expensive though, but I'm not sure if that's the metal or that they aren't produced in high numbers. Lead goes for a bit too I think, we have about 500kg of it in the yard we meant to sell at some point).



Some other non-lead ammunitions include tungsten, bismuth or steel.
I checked and all of these, including copper, will poison you if you're exposed to them for long enough or in high doses, with the exception of steel.
Iron _can_ poison people in high doses as well, but I would need to check a lot more about that.

In essence most of these materials either do not occur in these forms in nature, or occur in very trace amounts, which means biological systems have not evolved to cope with their presence if tiny pieces of them are littered throughout a piece of country side.

I have other suspicions about the manufacture or discharge of metal projectiles, because these probably produce nano-particles. I remember attending a scientific talk a few years ago where somebody was talking about micro-metallic particles released from car engines, which accumulate in the human brain and are causally implicated in dementia:








						Magnetite pollution nanoparticles in the human brain
					

We identify the abundant presence in the human brain of magnetite nanoparticles that match precisely the high-temperature magnetite nanospheres, formed by combustion and/or friction-derived heating, which are prolific in urban, airborne particulate matter (PM). Because many of the airborne...




					www.pnas.org
				




...I feel like it's a similar problem to plastic pollution. These materials are a ubiquitous part of the modern world. Our homes and streets are full of them, they're in the fields where our food grows etc.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 4, 2022)

Lead is mostly harmful as a vapor when lead is melted, and when small enough particles become airborne (hence why indoor shooting ranges need ventilation).

I have no problem with a lead shot  ban for shotgun when shooting over water, no point putting lead into waterways when steel shot exists.
Rifle bullets using lead on the otherhand isn't much of a problem as the vast majority of hunting rifle ammunition has the lead core molecularly bonded to the copper jacket (usually around 95% weight retention after an animal pass-through).

There are alternatives to a lead core (Tin being the most popular by far), but it doesn't carry the same weight as lead per volume which equals less energy on target.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 4, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Lead is mostly harmful as a vapor when lead is either melted or when small airborne particles are present(why indoor shooting ranges need ventilation).
> 
> I have no problem with a lead shot ban for shotgun when shooting over water, no point putting lead into waterways when steel shot exists.
> Rifle bullets using lead on the otherhand isn't much of a problem as the vast majority of hunting rifle ammunition has the lead core molecularly bonded to the copper jacket (usually around 95% weight retention after an animal pass-through).
> There are alternatives to a lead core (Tin being the most popular by far), but it doesn't carry the same weight as lead per volume which equals less energy on target.


You're cute when you talk guns.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 5, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Lead is mostly harmful as a vapor when lead is melted, and when small enough particles become airborne (hence why indoor shooting ranges need ventilation).
> 
> I have no problem with a lead shot  ban for shotgun when shooting over water, no point putting lead into waterways when steel shot exists.
> Rifle bullets using lead on the otherhand isn't much of a problem as the vast majority of hunting rifle ammunition has the lead core molecularly bonded to the copper jacket (usually around 95% weight retention after an animal pass-through).
> ...


You're definitely right about vapours, areas of London still have harmful amounts of lead in the atmosphere 20 years after lead in gasoline was phased out under European pollution rules. 
I was curious about whether shot and bullets have different environmental impacts. When I checked the positions of bird watching societies their opinion is that _any_ lead ammunition should be phased out and cited research showing lead exposure from bullets going up the food chain to people:


			https://www.rspb.org.uk/globalassets/downloads/documents/birds-and-wildlife/gamebird-shooting-review/lead-ammunition.pdf
		


I am struggling to find any studies about the environmental impact of copper as an ammunition. I guess it is almost certainly less dangerous than lead. 
Don't know if anybody is knowledge about this topic.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 5, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> You're definitely right about vapours, areas of London still have harmful amounts of lead in the atmosphere 20 years after lead in gasoline was phased out under European pollution rules.
> I was curious about whether shot and bullets have different environmental impacts. When I checked the positions of bird watching societies their opinion is that _any_ lead ammunition should be phased out and cited research showing lead exposure from bullets going up the food chain to people:
> 
> 
> ...



Hard to imagine with taking a proper heart and lung any lead residue in a gut pile (which is the only thing you leave behind).

Until a viable alternative is made or found, I don't see lead going anywhere.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 5, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Hard to imagine with taking a proper heart and lung any lead residue in a gut pile (which is the only thing you leave behind).
> 
> Until a viable alternative is made or found, I don't see lead going anywhere.


Well I guess that's the point of doing science isn't it?
To test whether what you imagine should be true really is. 

I think this is the study that the results derived from:








						Implications for wildlife and humans of dietary exposure to lead from fragments of lead rifle bullets in deer shot in the UK - PubMed
					

Lead poisoning caused by ingested spent lead shotgun pellets has long been known to be a cause of unnecessary mortality in waterfowl and has led to legislation limiting its use in many countries. Recent evidence has shown that the problem extends to terrestrial ecosystems and to fragmented rifle...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				



Thoracic shots with copper-jacket lead rifle bullets.
I think the authors specifically address your question of whether the 'viscera'/discarded guts ans goop contained lead fragments, and they did- which is how lead enters the food chain to scavenging birds. Obviously any piece of lead landing in the environment isn't exactly good news anyway I suppose.

My personal worry would be more the fact that tiny fragments get into meat intended for human consumption.
It probably explains why people who participate in subsistence hunting tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood:
I found this associated study which showed real meat from white-tailed deer shot by hunters with copper-jacked lead rifle bullets contained 'bio-available' lead. 

(my experience with that word in a different field of science is that it means 'in a form that the body takes up')








						Lead Bullet Fragments in Venison from Rifle-Killed Deer: Potential for Human Dietary Exposure
					

Human consumers of wildlife killed with lead ammunition may be exposed to health risks associated with lead ingestion. This hypothesis is based on published studies showing elevated blood lead concentrations in subsistence hunter populations, retention of ammunition residues in the tissues of...




					journals.plos.org
				




I was curious about whether the level of lead detected in blood in this study was _enough_ lead exposure to be a problem. It was _about_ the same level where you would expect to see decreased intellectual abilities, heart-related problems and delayed sexual maturation in male children.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 5, 2022)

Incidentally that last paper is the first one I have found which comments on toxicity from copper in ammunition. 

It comments on a low level of risk for human consumption, because copper ammunition is less likely to undergo fragmentation. 
It doesn't really tell me much about the effect on the environment though, where the copper presumably corrodes and then leaches copper salts or derived compounds into soils. 

I'm going to comment on the serendipitous coincidence that the lead author's name is 'Hunt'; that's amusing.


----------



## The_Happiest_Husky (Feb 5, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> It comments on a low level of risk for human consumption, because copper ammunition is less likely to undergo fragmentation.
> It doesn't really tell me much about the effect on the environment though, where the copper presumably corrodes and then leaches copper salts or derived compounds into soils.


From off the top of my head I believe (don't quote me) that when copper breaks down it binds to particles in the soil and slows decomposition by interfering with microorganisms and killing earthworms. I don't know the scale of the effect or how it compares to other metals though. I assume it's overall less harmful than lead


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 5, 2022)

Least there's still some feel-good stuff kicking around at the bare minimum




Gawd I love wolves so much


----------



## Raever (Feb 5, 2022)

Instead of complaining how about you donate that time/money to the Sanctuaries around the world aiming to rehabilitate the endangered species you're angry for? None of us will get anywhere in a thread like this...other than angrier/sadder. That said, the informative research shared has been enlightening at least. Thank you for that; to @Fallowfox in particular. Great points.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 6, 2022)

Raever said:


> Instead of complaining how about you donate that time/money to the Sanctuaries around the world aiming to rehabilitate the endangered species you're angry for? None of us will get anywhere in a thread like this...other than angrier/sadder. That said, the informative research shared has been enlightening at least. Thank you for that; to @Fallowfox in particular. Great points.


Umm. so given the opportunity to reiterate the point,          


> Yup, it's fucking bullshit. BC is even worse, sounds like they plan on gunning down another few hundred wolves from helicopters this year. The majority of it is in excuse of a dwindling population of woodland caribou when the real issue that every peer-reviewed paper seems to agree on is seismic exploration and logging being the root cause. It makes sense, creating cutlines of trees for kilometers upon kilometers which enables an easy means of travel for all sorts of predators to access the deep woodlands which would otherwise offer protection.  I've recently started donating to Echo Conservation lately because they have made some strides in the matter and others, and I've been donating to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation for approaching 13 years now. Both of them support great causes in all of their actions in my opinion. These fucking caribou are a lost cause unless industry practice changes, blaming wolves for it is fucking deplorable when the issue is clear. Fucking cheap-ass money-mongering politician motherfuckers lining their pockets with special interest groups' fringe-science bullshit drives me up the wall.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 6, 2022)

The_Happiest_Husky said:


> From off the top of my head I believe (don't quote me) that when copper breaks down it binds to particles in the soil and slows decomposition by interfering with microorganisms and killing earthworms. I don't know the scale of the effect or how it compares to other metals though. I assume it's overall less harmful than lead


I don’t know how it translates to soil, but there’s a reason old copper roofs don’t get covered in lichen and similar like many other roofing materials. Parents’ old house had copper in the chimney but not the roof covering, and there was a “clean” trail down the side of the roof where whatever came loose from the chimney washed down. (Or was it the other way around and the peak covering was copper and the roof got lichen in lee of the chimney? I don’t remember anymore beyond there being a difference and it being due to copper runoff.)

I hadn’t even thought of that until you mentioned.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 6, 2022)

@The_Happiest_Husky @quoting_mungo 

when I was trying to find out about copper, I first checked wikipedia and found out that copper is used as a coating on some ships' hulls because it kills-off algae and marine organisms that would encrust them. Evidently this does have harmful environmental effects in port settings where the boats and scrubbed-down and the copper accumulates. 
Your comments about roofing make a lot of sense. 

At least copper is used in the metabolisms of some organisms though, like humans, so our bodies have evolved to cope with small amounts of exposure.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 7, 2022)

Holy fuck the USFWS is considering reinstating protections due to the insane amount of petitions that have popped up. Please God, please!

Fuck me running though, the insane amount of people that are just hellbent and waiting to kill them given their first opportunity... Absolute fucking degenerates. I have minus respect for them and wish them nothing but fucking hell until they finally arrive there. I've tried to find a way to level with them mentally for things to make sense, but it just keeps being absolute hatred. I can't help that, I've tried, I just want them all to burn.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 9, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Well I guess that's the point of doing science isn't it?
> To test whether what you imagine should be true really is.
> 
> I think this is the study that the results derived from:
> ...



Finally got a chance to look at these.

Your first one from 2010 is stating 17% of the bullets weight were found as fragmintation upon examination, which tells me what round was used was not bonded, but regardless irrelevant to the main concern which is brought up by your second study showing elevated lead levels in blood serum in pigs after purposeful ingestion of lead fragmented venison.

Trouble with that study Fallow is I don't know of any hunter that uses the damaged parts of the meat surrounding where the bullet has entered and fragmintation could be present (temporary wound cavitation), the damaged tissue is extremely visible upon skinning and processing, that part is discarded and not used.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Finally got a chance to look at these.
> 
> Your first one from 2010 is stating 17% of the bullets weight were found as fragmintation upon examination, which tells me what round was used was not bonded, but regardless irrelevant to the main concern which is brought up by your second study showing elevated lead levels in blood serum in pigs after purposeful ingestion of lead fragmented venison.
> 
> Trouble with that study Fallow is I don't know of any hunter that uses the damaged parts of the meat surrounding where the bullet has entered and fragmintation could be present (temporary wound cavitation), the damaged tissue is extremely visible upon skinning and processing, that part is discarded and not used.



_'Considering that all the carcasses we brought to the processors contained fragments (15–409 fragments counted in radiographs), the high rate of removal evident in the ground meat implies meticulous care on the part of the processors to avoid contamination, but an apparent inability of 80% of them to do so entirely. We conclude that, in a majority of cases, one or more consumers of a hunter-killed, commercially-processed deer will consume bullet lead'_

The venison was processed by professionals meat processers, but _even the professionals_ weren't able to ensure carcases were free from lead fragments. 
This explains why humans who eat game meat have elevated lead levels.

I read the methods in detail and found the source of your confusion, which I have put in a spoiler because it is lengthy:


Spoiler



When the scientists state control pigs were fed venison from the same carcass that was free from lead fragments, they do not mean 'meat that wasn't near the gunshot wound'. 
The scientists analyses portions of ground-up meat with digital radiography and fluoroscopy to find batches that did not contain lead fragments.

Those sophisticated scanning methods are not available to a normal butcher, which explains why normal butchers are not able to remove all lead fragments.



I hope you don't mind me not checking the first study's ammunition to see if it is bonded or not at the moment; I will expend the effort to do so if you really want me to but I don't think it materially changes the fact that lead rifle ammunition significantly explains increased lead levels in the blood of people who eat game meats.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 9, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> _'Considering that all the carcasses we brought to the processors contained fragments (15–409 fragments counted in radiographs), the high rate of removal evident in the ground meat implies meticulous care on the part of the processors to avoid contamination, but an apparent inability of 80% of them to do so entirely. We conclude that, in a majority of cases, one or more consumers of a hunter-killed, commercially-processed deer will consume bullet lead'_
> 
> The venison was processed by professionals meat processers, but _even the professionals_ weren't able to ensure carcases were free from lead fragments.
> This explains why humans who eat game meat have elevated lead levels.
> ...


I don't have the brain capacity to read papers atm; is there anything stated about whether the meat from pigs with increased lead levels could cause lead accumulation in whatever eats the meat? Because I feel like that should be a concern for anyone that hunts anything that eat carcasses (whether opportunistically or because it hunted and killed the prey itself) - if wild animals eat an animal with ammunition remnants in it, they won't know to pick around bullet wounds, so they're likely eating the full dose of lead or just about.

Hopefully that was some kind of coherent. Hella brain fog today.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> I don't have the brain capacity to read papers atm; is there anything stated about whether the meat from pigs with increased lead levels could cause lead accumulation in whatever eats the meat? Because I feel like that should be a concern for anyone that hunts anything that eat carcasses (whether opportunistically or because it hunted and killed the prey itself) - if wild animals eat an animal with ammunition remnants in it, they won't know to pick around bullet wounds, so they're likely eating the full dose of lead or just about.
> 
> Hopefully that was some kind of coherent. Hella brain fog today.



The pigs were studied instead of humans, because it wouldn't be ethical to deliberately expose humans to lead. 
(I am stating this just for anybody who joins the conversation here)

Regarding bio-accumulation, this effect definitely explains lead-exposure that threatens scavenging birds. Hunters do not retrieve the carcases of all the animals they kill, 
and when scavenging birds eat them they ingest the lead fragments. 
This effect also exists in waterfowl that deliberately consume small hard objects, so they end up ingesting lead pellets from shotguns.
I don't know whether fragment ingestion could taint meats like wild boar. It's an interesting question.

Something else that has been crossing my mind is that these fragmentation studies are all about bullets that _hit_ animals. A large number of shots miss their target though, and rifle bullets probably hit tree trunks or the earth. I am curious whether the fragments go on to be ingested by grazing animals in the same way that shot pellets are ingested by waterfowl.


----------



## Baalf (Feb 9, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> You're certainly entitled to your opinion(s).
> As someone who lives in an extremely rural area, and have neighbors with working ranches barely surviving on a shoe-string budget, the reintroduction of wolves into the area is about the stupidest idea govt. has shoved down their/our throats, in awhile.
> You want to promote the healthy biodiversity of predators, you do not bring them back into close proximity with humans.  Period.  That's only going to end one way for said predators, as history has proven over and over again.
> So instead of railing against those trying to keep their property and family/friends lives safe and healthy, how about getting on the band wagon to the politicians responsible for this debacle, help them pull their heads out of their own asses to see the light/reality/world for what it is, instead of what their tender little feelings and dystopian world of unicorns and rainbows?
> ...



This may sound like a bizarre question, but I really do have to ask this honest question: are you a zoosadist?

You sound like every zoosadist I know. "Oh, I totally love wolves and am a genius of wildlife and such, BUT I fully support the extinction of wolves." These people ALSO:

1: Defend ALL forms of hunting and animal slaughter (unless those oh-so horrible animal lovers do it), even if it has absolutely no benefits whatsoever to the environment. (Yes, I get it has its uses, but hunting is NOT the answer to every f***ing problem with the environment).

2: Hate veganism, green energy and other forms of non-lethal conservation, treating it as inherently evil no matter how intelligent you are about it. (Yes, I know those things aren't perfect, but they're NOT as villainous as they're made out to be.)

3: Defend humanity at all costs (again, except for those oh-so horrible animal lovers). You're fine with billions of animals dying to humans, but anyone even DARES point out our own overpopulation and what we could do to help control it even in NON-LETHAL ways like birth control, you will treat that person as a scumbag and a heretic against the human race.

Why am I assuming these things? Because literally EVERYONE I've met who has made those claims (Love Wolves/Expert in Animals/Wants wolves extinct) is like this.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 9, 2022)

Baalf said:


> This may sound like a bizarre question, but I really do have to ask this honest question: are you a zoosadist?
> 
> You sound like every zoosadist I know. "Oh, I totally love wolves and am a genius of wildlife and such, BUT I fully support the extinction of wolves." These people ALSO:
> 
> ...


The only reason I'm indulging you by replying is because you seem to have taken such effort to make this ridiculous querry/insult in the first place.  That level of trolling usually inspires me to take-up-arms and retort, at least once.  Here it is.  Enjoy.


----------



## Baalf (Feb 9, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> The only reason I'm indulging you by replying is because you seem to have taken such effort to make this ridiculous querry/insult in the first place.  That level of trolling usually inspires me to take-up-arms and retort, at least once.  Here it is.  Enjoy.



Also, resorting to treating people like idiots and seductive reasoning every time someone points out that their views are suspiciously one-sided is another trait that seems to be common with the kind of person I've mentioned.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 9, 2022)

Since @AniwayasSong is here, may I ask what you think about private insurance companies mitigating livestock losses from predation? 
Would you be happy with that?


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 9, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Since @AniwayasSong is here, may I ask what you think about private insurance companies mitigating livestock losses from predation?
> Would you be happy with that?


Wolves are a threat to far more than livestock.  My issue (as the OP was supposed to focus on) was the RE-introduction of apex predators in already-settled-territory, or adjacent to, where said predators have easy access via their own mobility/broadening their territory/ies.
It's an incredibly stupid thing and I see the vast majority of anyone promoting or defending it justsohappens to not live in the very regions they're trying to screw up.  City folk or the woefully ignorant living rural, but not ranchers.
Now, there are already tons of red tape/laws/regulations regarding this, and I encourage anyone interested to lose their own minds treading through the miasma of legaleze in an effort to make sense of any of it, go for it.  I wish you well.
Here's a major problem with whatever happens to be in place-
How do you prove said livestock losses were due to wolf depredation?  Ranchers find a carcass and there are predator tracks/sign all over it, were they responsible, or did they simply find an already dead animal and enjoy a free meal?   Know how much $$$ it costs to pay people to guard herds, or set up game cameras all over your land and then the hardware/software to monitor and store all that data, 24/7/365?  Who's supposed to pay for all of this?  Not the people promoting/signing-into-law these re-introduction policies, that's for g-damned sure.
So you find one carcass.  Your neighbor finds another.  Further down the line (wolves cover quite the territory, for those who may not be aware of this), another.  Next month, rinse-and-repeat.
If said rancher(s) happen to have proof (and that demands contacting their local Game Warden/associated office(s), and them sending out personnel to record and document everything, which just adds to the already cumbersome forest of red tape which just chokes up the entire system), one kill/loss won't see them recovering jack.  That animal will not live, grow up, and then be harvested at full weight value, which is exactly how ranches survive and operate.It usually takes multiple (proven) kills before the State Dept. of Fish and Game will even consider stepping in and doing anything.
Meanwhile, the kills/losses continue, the predator packs thrive and grow, spread out and cause more problems.
This of course doesn't even address the losses of pets/other animals, and if said animals happen to be 'Wild', stressing their herds and the ecosystem yet more.  There is a reason, no, let me backtrack on that-  there are many reasons why hunters and hunting provide an enormous value to our entire system of $$$ and nature.  Licensing and such funnels more $$$ paid for by private citizens by way of tags and such (gear, et al), which keep our natural areas safe, sane, and hale.  
I noticed the topic of heavy metal poisoning in carcasses/kills.  If you truly want to blow your brain housing group entirely, take a quick peek at what all the pollution we're pouring into our world is and what it does.  Mine tailings?  How about acknowledged 'Superfund Sites' which total well over 100 in America alone?  Anyone want a glass of tap water from Flint Michigan?  I could go on, but those are totally different topics.  Apologies for sidestepping.
See the stupidity yet?
Anyone ever look at the State flag of California?  See that animal portrayed on it?  It's a grizzly bear.  Know how many years its been since grizzlies were in California?  Anyone seriously talking about re-introducing them, because they love the fuzzy theme?  No?  Why?
Why not?
Smart people do not introduce apex predators into already established ranching/farming regions.  
Sadly, the world has no lack of stupid people, so we get exactly what we're living with today.


----------



## Raever (Feb 9, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> Umm. so given the opportunity to reiterate the point,



If it need not apply to you, do not comment. It was a general statement.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 9, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I am curious whether the fragments go on to be ingested by grazing animals in the same way that shot pellets are ingested by waterfowl.


I don't know the grazing behavior of a super wide variety of animals, but I know horses are _very_ good at eating around things they don't want - doesn't mean they never eat something stupid, because horses are, by and large... variably smart, but does mean that I've heard stories of people having trouble hiding pills in a bucket of food because the horse just went "nope" and shuffled the pill out of the way with its lips as it ate around it. Being able to pick out the choice bits is probably a good survival trait, though probably also something that hunger can override. Goodness knows animals will eat some things in the winter they'd never eat in the summer.

Though if, hypothetically, fragments somehow ended up embedded in whatever they graze on? Fuck knows. I don't think they'd chomp down on a mouthful of grass and end up ingesting a lost bullet fallen on the ground between the grass straws, but if you had a tuber grow around lost shrapnel, or shrapnel hit some fruit they went on to eat? Maybe? This is all reasoning based on the grazing behavior I've personally seen, mind, so not really scientific.

Don't know if research has been done on heavy metal content of vegetation in heavily hunted areas - does anything that leeches out get absorbed by plants that then get eaten?


----------



## Baalf (Feb 9, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> Wolves are a threat to far more than livestock.  My issue (as the OP was supposed to focus on) was the RE-introduction of apex predators in already-settled-territory, or adjacent to, where said predators have easy access via their own mobility/broadening their territory/ies.
> It's an incredibly stupid thing and I see the vast majority of anyone promoting or defending it justsohappens to not live in the very regions they're trying to screw up.  City folk or the woefully ignorant living rural, but not ranchers.
> Now, there are already tons of red tape/laws/regulations regarding this, and I encourage anyone interested to lose their own minds treading through the miasma of legaleze in an effort to make sense of any of it, go for it.  I wish you well.
> Here's a major problem with whatever happens to be in place-
> ...



You keep talking about "already settled areas" where we introduce predators completely ignoring the fact that the BIG reason predators are introduced is to help cut down on overpopulated animals like deer.

But wait, I forgot. Humans are these perfect, flawless angels. We don't need apex predators, because we ARE the apex predators. We are the ONLY apex predator that ANY ecosystem needs because humans are magnificent and perfect creatures.

Also, once again, talking about all the "good" hunting does while ignoring the other people that spend money on wildlife, glossing over lead poisoning, effectively treating hunting as the be-all/end-all of animal saviorism. Hunters are amazing because of how they wipe out and slaughter the VERY FUCKING THING THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO SAVE!

Again, are you a zoosadist? When is it WRONG to kill an animal. When is it WRONG to wipe out creatures. When is it WRONG to destroy an entire habitat outside of "introducing an oh-so horrible animal." When are HUMANS SPECIFICALLY wrong for destroying the environment without help from "oh so horrible animals." Etc.

I know I'm making a big deal out of this, but honestly, people like you are the very fucking reason I am misanthropic.


----------



## Flamingo (Feb 9, 2022)

Baalf, being surprised that they'd "treat you like an idiot" after you insinuated they're a zoosadist is pretty curious. If you guys want to talk about this topic, maybe stop attacking one another and be adult about it.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> _'Considering that all the carcasses we brought to the processors contained fragments (15–409 fragments counted in radiographs), the high rate of removal evident in the ground meat implies meticulous care on the part of the processors to avoid contamination, but an apparent inability of 80% of them to do so entirely. We conclude that, in a majority of cases, one or more consumers of a hunter-killed, commercially-processed deer will consume bullet lead'_
> 
> The venison was processed by professionals meat processers, but _even the professionals_ weren't able to ensure carcases were free from lead fragments.
> This explains why humans who eat game meat have elevated lead levels.
> ...



High volume game meat processors are actually horrible tbh, I can imagine they don't take the time to cut the damaged parts off.Hell in some cases some of them actually bulk up orders with other hunters deer to save money.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 10, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> Baalf, being surprised that they'd "treat you like an idiot" after you insinuated they're a zoosadist is pretty curious. If you guys want to talk about this topic, maybe stop attacking one another and be adult about it.


Yes.
I 'Attacked' him.
Got it.
Thank you very much for that keen observation.
Now I know how things truly stand at this site.


----------



## Flamingo (Feb 10, 2022)

I'm literally supporting your right to debate the topic and addressing Baalf for calling you names. You're reading a bit much into the generalized second half of my statement, which is intended to be a message for the greater audience of FAF that participate in inflammatory topics and them PM me asking "y u close thread?" after people start fisticuffs.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> Wolves are a threat to far more than livestock.  My issue (as the OP was supposed to focus on) was the RE-introduction of apex predators in already-settled-territory, or adjacent to, where said predators have easy access via their own mobility/broadening their territory/ies.
> It's an incredibly stupid thing and I see the vast majority of anyone promoting or defending it justsohappens to not live in the very regions they're trying to screw up.  City folk or the woefully ignorant living rural, but not ranchers.
> Now, there are already tons of red tape/laws/regulations regarding this, and I encourage anyone interested to lose their own minds treading through the miasma of legaleze in an effort to make sense of any of it, go for it.  I wish you well.
> Here's a major problem with whatever happens to be in place-
> ...


I'll chime in for a minute, and just say this.....

I think you make some valid points as far as ranchers, farmers, and those that live off the land are concerned; in that they often times face a barrage of issues that many of us in more urban areas often times don't think about or deal with.

And, yes - predation is an issue for many of these folks who often times are left fending for themselves when they're protecting their land and livestock. But..... (on the flip side of that): others are also correct to point out (I think) that many of these folks kind of signed up for that when they chose to live this kind of life to begin with, and thus - dealing with Mother Nature first hand (which includes predatory species) is a part of the deal.

And given the concerns that many have of preserving endangerd species - re-introducing certain species to certain areas is in the best interests of not only that species itself, but also towards our planetary biodiversity as a whole..... think: bison (that were nearly wiped out for over a century), or... yes - the gray wolf that has been struggling to rebound as a species for years - (where even the Feds of both political parties placed them on the endangered species list).

And so, many of us see valid concerns on both sides, and perhaps - ranchers, farmers, and others (in these areas, in these states) could lobby and persuade not only their representatives at the State House and in Washington more about how best to go about this, but also - outreach to their fellow Americans more who are often times uneducated about day-to-day life in these rural areas.

Because there's clearly conflicts within these issues and interests that I and others see, and so - perhaps some sort of compromise policy might be in order, where: re-introductions are done in certain areas that the species can recover, but also - can protect people's livelihoods at the same time.

It's a hard issue that no one really seems to have a clear answer for. And it certainly could be argued that re-introdction measures are often times implemented in a "knee-jerk fashion" where it's often times done by those who aren't directly impacted by these decisions. But for those who live in these rural areas, speaking up more, lobbying more, and yes - compromising a little more (in certain areas) may be what's needed to help solve these problems and their concerns.

It's a bit unfair to say that urbanites are insensitive to the needs of ranchers and farmers, when often times these people don't understand and are ill-informed of that way of life to begin with. And yes - hunting does help keep predator populations in check, but.... on the flip side of that: over hunting, and over harvesting, can do more harm than good; is destructive, and often times unneccesary. And so - the caps that are frequently placed every year on the number of animals that can be taken is a good thing (I think), which in a way - is the sort of compromises and concessions that'll need to be made in the future.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 10, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> I'll chime in for a minute, and just say this.....
> 
> I think you make some valid points as far as ranchers, farmers, and those that live off the land are concerned; in that they often times face a barrage of issues that many of us in more urban areas often times don't think about or deal with.
> 
> ...


No rancher who saved up and bought their property, then invested all the extra money/time/labor, blood/sweat/tears to build their business, should have to suffer any idiot politician/bleeding-heart idiot's tender sentimentality that sees predators RE-introduced into once-safer regions.
Ever.
The simple fact this has happened and is supported/endorsed by so many who have absolutely NOTHING OF THEIR OWN HIDE AT RISK for it?
Pisses ME off.
So, there.
Don't piss in other people's Wheaties, and not expect them to fire back with their own angst.
I call that common sense.
Another valuable trait sadly lacking in today's society.
Thank you for chiming in, and sharing your perspective(s).
I never try to restrict another person's freedom of thought/speech.
That doesn't mean I will suffer being attacked for sharing mine-own.  (not that you did this, but I'm still fuming at the earlier BS from one other Member, and this Site's Staff's apparent incompetence in condoning it.  That's my onus to bear.)


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 10, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> You're cute when you talk guns.


'Lookit mah gun, mah gun is amazing!  Give it a lick, it tastes just like,,, Hoppes #9?!' 
wth?
;-)
(someone plz pass me some ketchup.  an' a bib.  this' gonna git messy)


----------



## Flamingo (Feb 10, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> I'm literally supporting your right to debate the topic and addressing Baalf for calling you names.





AniwayasSong said:


> this Site's Staff's apparent incompetence in condoning it.


----------



## Baalf (Feb 10, 2022)

Flamingo said:


> Baalf, being surprised that they'd "treat you like an idiot" after you insinuated they're a zoosadist is pretty curious. If you guys want to talk about this topic, maybe stop attacking one another and be adult about it.



Honestly talking from personal experience. People like AniwayasSong tend to have a very one-sided view when it comes to animals and hunting. Saying things like "I love wolves" and "I study wildlife conservation or whatever" are common things said by these kind of people to persuade others into believing they are not anti-environment, but rarely if ever support saving animals unless they get to kill them as well. Also, defending hunting and humans (besides Animal lovers) above everything else tends to be the agenda. They never rally against the inhumane killing of and overhunting of things, never rally against insane factory farming practices, expansionism, gasoline, etc. because, again, from my experience, these kinds of people DEFEND all of that.

This is why I ask questions like "When is it WRONG to kill an animal" without falling back to "buts" or blaming non-hunters and such.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 10, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> 'Lookit mah gun, mah gun is amazing!  Give it a lick, it tastes just like,,, Hoppes #9?!'
> wth?
> ;-)
> (someone plz pass me some ketchup.  an' a bib.  this' gonna git messy)


Do note I do not condone making a mess when eating. o3o


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Feb 10, 2022)

Baalf said:


> People like AniwayasSong tend to have a very one-sided view when it comes to animals and hunting. Saying things like "I love wolves" and "I study wildlife conservation or whatever" are common things said by these kind of people to persuade others into believing they are not anti-environment, but rarely if ever support saving animals unless they get to kill them as well. Also, defending hunting and humans (besides Animal lovers) above everything else tends to be the agenda. They never rally against the inhumane killing of and overhunting of things, never rally against insane factory farming practices, expansionism, gasoline, etc. because, again, from my experience, these kinds of people DEFEND all of that.


How well do you know them?

You've only interacted with this person a handful of times at most I'd assume. You have no idea what their morals, intentions, or life decisions are. It's not a good idea to just assume they have an agenda or cruel desires towards animals on the lone basis that they have a position you aren't fond of regarding wolves and conservation.

Loving wild animals doesn't require someone to carry the same stances you have. Take for instance, many people love drinking alcohol but would very much be against it being available to underaged individuals, or that people support their countries soldiers but are against big military spending or policies.

Things aren't black and white. Try to relax.


----------



## MaetheDragon (Feb 10, 2022)

Nexus Cabler said:


> How well do you know them?
> 
> You've only interacted with this person a handful of times at most I'd assume. You have no idea what their morals, intentions, or life decisions are. It's not a good idea to just assume they have an agenda or cruel desires towards animals on the lone basis that they have a position you aren't fond of regarding wolves and conservation.
> 
> ...


^ I second this.

It’s rather bold to make assumptions against someone that you don’t truly know. I’ve dealt with this situation not long ago. Of course, you have every right to be skeptical, but assigning values to someone when you don’t really know they have them, just because they have different ideas on the topic isn’t a sure fire sign that they’re the person you think they are.

Just because they’re a little aggressive with asserting their views doesn’t mean they don’t have the same goals in mind.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 10, 2022)

Ah yes, because someone looks at wolves as dangerous animals and want them in their own habitats away from human civilization is.. zoosadism? 

Am I the only one who are completely lost at this logic?


----------



## Rimna (Feb 10, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> Am I the only one who are completely lost at this logic?


No you are not. It makes no sense to me either


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 10, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> Do note I do not condone making a mess when eating. o3o


Say 'ello to mah leetle friend, whipped cream (in a can)!
(I am so going to Hell for all the different ways I could get myself banned, but won't die so easily by typing them all out!)


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 10, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> No rancher who saved up and bought their property, then invested all the extra money/time/labor, blood/sweat/tears to build their business, should have to suffer any idiot politician/bleeding-heart idiot's tender sentimentality that sees predators RE-introduced into once-safer regions.
> Ever.
> The simple fact this has happened and is supported/endorsed by so many who have absolutely NOTHING OF THEIR OWN HIDE AT RISK for it?
> Pisses ME off.
> ...


I hear what you're saying and I hope you and others can take my comments at face value, for whatever it's worth..... as compromise is possible, many of us will contend and say; and it doesn't always have to be an "us vs. them" scenario ☺..... political people are not the best advocates, I agree with you there..... *but* they are the ones who make these laws and policies and thus, they're the ones that we need to figure out how to work with legislatively to address these issues.

The re-introduction of these species needs to happen somewhere, right? And.... it's apparent to me that you agree that it's in everyone's best interest that species don't go extinct.... (as you said above).

And so, as imperfect as the system is, compromise is really the only way something productive could be done on these issues..... it's certainly possible that ranchers and others can protect their livelihoods and we can protect some of these species at the same time...... and thus, if concessions and compromises can be done - it's possible we can "walk and chew gum at the same time" (as they say).


Baalf said:


> Honestly talking from personal experience. People like AniwayasSong tend to have a very one-sided view when it comes to animals and hunting. Saying things like "I love wolves" and "I study wildlife conservation or whatever" are common things said by these kind of people to persuade others into believing they are not anti-environment, but rarely if ever support saving animals unless they get to kill them as well. Also, defending hunting and humans (besides Animal lovers) above everything else tends to be the agenda. They never rally against the inhumane killing of and overhunting of things, never rally against insane factory farming practices, expansionism, gasoline, etc. because, again, from my experience, these kinds of people DEFEND all of that.
> 
> This is why I ask questions like "When is it WRONG to kill an animal" without falling back to "buts" or blaming non-hunters and such.


Baalf: if you read my posting above you might be able to understand where people like Anywayas are coming from..... I agree with you that killing animals for no reason or... "just for the sport of it" is detestable, (and this is my opinion personally)..... but, at the same time: for the ranchers, farmers, and others who depend on the land for their economic survival, controlling apex predator populations is essential often times..... not just for their livelihoods but for *also* the environment as a whole..... because we do want to control apex populations when they get too large and become destructive themselves..... and in turn, not only are livelihoods put at risk, (when they're left un-checked) but also.... the populations of other species.
-----------------
I hope this helps you both.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> High volume game meat processors are actually horrible tbh, I can imagine they don't take the time to cut the damaged parts off.Hell in some cases some of them actually bulk up orders with other hunters deer to save money.


I don't believe the study names the meat processors or describes the size of their business.

I am getting the impression that you are trying to look for a reason to ignore the results of the study. I think the more obvious response is that the findings are basically what you'd expect from 'common sense', and that phasing out leaded ammunition is also common sense.

Copper ammunitions that are less polluting, and which have similar or superior ballistic properties for killing venison already exist. I believe copper is a more expensive metal than lead, but this cost should be viewed as worthwhile, when it is set against the costs of lead on the environment and people (and those costs are not simply moral; there is a real fiscal cost from pollution).



AniwayasSong said:


> Wolves are a threat to far more than livestock.  My issue (as the OP was supposed to focus on) was the RE-introduction of apex predators in already-settled-territory, or adjacent to, where said predators have easy access via their own mobility/broadening their territory/ies.
> It's an incredibly stupid thing and I see the vast majority of anyone promoting or defending it justsohappens to not live in the very regions they're trying to screw up.  City folk or the woefully ignorant living rural, but not ranchers.
> Now, there are already tons of red tape/laws/regulations regarding this, and I encourage anyone interested to lose their own minds treading through the miasma of legaleze in an effort to make sense of any of it, go for it.  I wish you well.
> Here's a major problem with whatever happens to be in place-
> ...



I am a little confused; you clarified at the start of your post that a threat to livestock is *not *the main reason you oppose their re-introduction, but the rest of your post only discusses the threat to livestock and domestic animals.
The maximum estimated losses of livestocks attributable to wolves (self reported from ranchers themselves) are overall, very small compared to threats such as severe weather or communicable diseases.
These risks that are already monitored and mitigated by private enterprise, and inspection of carcasses to confirm cause of death is already a requirement to control the spread of communicable diseases such as BSE and FMD.

So why can the risk of predation, which is much smaller than these existing risks, not also be encompassed under private enterprise and insurance?

I personally wonder whether larger risks, such as disease, might partly be mitigated by apex predators controlling natural populations that can act as a reservoir for diseases such as bovine-TB, because infected wild animals may be more likely to be predated upon.
(although it has historically been very difficult to quantify the role wild reservoirs actually play in communicable diseases in livestock- it is often politically convenient to blame them- so a much deeper assessment is necessary I guess)


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't believe the study names the meat processors or describes the size of their business.
> 
> I am getting the impression that you are trying to look for a reason to ignore the results of the study. I think the more obvious response is that the findings are basically what you'd expect from 'common sense', and that phasing out leaded ammunition is also common sense.
> 
> ...



Not at all, I just have problems with the study coming from someone who literally has experience in not only harvesting, put the processing side of it as well.Bullet fragments no matter how small ain't making it past the temporary wound cavity, just ain't happening.

I'd like to see it replicated with better conditions.

I


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Not at all, I just have problems with the study coming from someone who literally has experience in not only harvesting, put the processing side of it as well.Bullet fragments no matter how small ain't making it past the temporary wound cavity, just ain't happening.
> 
> I'd like to see it replicated with better conditions.
> 
> I


Do you accept that one of the problems you perceived in the study was a result of an accidental misunderstanding you made when you read the methods section?
(post #74)

At the moment, all I have to go on for the reason you reject the study's outcome is your personal incredulity.
I think the fact that elevated lead levels are widely reported in the literature among people consuming game meat (and these levels tend to vary with hunting season) demonstrate that leaded ammunition exposes humans to lead.
What _this_ study does is try to figure out how the lead makes its journey from rifle bullet to human blood stream.

With those conclusions I think there are 2 possible mitigation strategies:
1) Phase out leaded ammunition, to eliminate the source of the pollution.
2) Try to mitigate the risk of human exposure, by continuing further investigation to see whether it is possible to find means of processing carcasses that eliminates the risk of fragment exposure.

I personally think option 1) is better- can expand on reasons if necessary, but the most obvious one is that you might pursue option 2) and then discover that there is no realistic scalable way to eliminate exposure to lead fragments.

Edit: I guess a possible 'option 3)' would include advising pregnant women or children to avoid eating game meats, and recommending to adults that they should only consume limited amounts in order to control their potential exposure to lead. 
I am not sure this would be a very effective option though, because some people rely on game meat to supplement their diets, especially people on low incomes in rural locations.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't believe the study names the meat processors or describes the size of their business.
> 
> I am getting the impression that you are trying to look for a reason to ignore the results of the study. I think the more obvious response is that the findings are basically what you'd expect from 'common sense', and that phasing out leaded ammunition is also common sense.
> 
> ...


Incorrect.
I've maintained that the reintroduction of wolves into areas already occupied ARE a direct threat to all properties involved.  Ranches, communities, adjacent outdoor activities, pets, and the regional fauna.
These areas already cope with bears, mountain lions, coyotes, disease, loss-of-habitat (due to humanities presence), high and rising costs of feed, supplements, veterinary care, maintenance and housing, etc..
Only a fool adds more burden to an already stressed system.
Only a bigger fool promotes/defends that policy.
You asked me about insurance claims?  Know what happens if you get involved (by your fault or not), in an auto accident?  YOU pay a high 'Co-Payment' to repair your vehicle, and your rates go up.  If your claims continue?  Enjoy what follows.
The world is a huge place.
Humanity does not need most of it to survive.
The fact that humanity chooses to lay waste to so much of our terra firma, instead of preserving/protecting it, only proves our greed and stupidity will end our own antics. 
Hell, the dinosaurs enjoys MILLIONS of years of evolution/existence.  It took a hurtling rock to end their party.
We're doing it to ourselves.
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Sir Adams-  Thank you!


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2022)

AniwayasSong said:


> Incorrect.
> I've maintained that the reintroduction of wolves into areas already occupied ARE a direct threat to all properties involved.  Ranches, communities, adjacent outdoor activities, pets, and the regional fauna.
> These areas already cope with bears, mountain lions, coyotes, disease, loss-of-habitat (due to humanities presence), high and rising costs of feed, supplements, veterinary care, maintenance and housing, etc..
> Only a fool adds more burden to an already stressed system.
> ...



I don't believe you mentioned outdoor activities, regional fauna etc in your last post- I apologise I did not notice. 
I will take note that the reason you don't believe insurance could accommodate the economic costs of predation loss is because you don't believe car insurance operates in a fair way. 
I am not sure everybody else will perceive this as a reasoned argument though? 

To address the more 'philosophical' stuff: I am not sure that is is wholly correct to view natural components of ecosystems as 'burdens'. Contemporary ecological problems such as over-grazing by uncontrolled herbivore populations are a direct result of human intervention to eliminate natural predators, for example. 
 As I have pointed out, I think this is a slippery slope: similar arguments have been employed in the UK to oppose measures to re-introduce or assist beavers, hawk and eagle species. 

I think that addressing these attitudes is probably key to avoiding the mass extinction scenario you indicate you believe is an inevitable and terrible consequence of human activity.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you accept that one of the problems you perceived in the study was a result of an accidental misunderstanding you made when you read the methods section?
> (post #74)
> 
> At the moment, all I have to go on for the reason you reject the study's outcome is your personal incredulity.
> ...



Yup, I missed the part of processing before the radiological scan was done for lead fragments found in varying batches, I just don't see it with a proper skin & cut.
I'd like to see more clarity of rounds used/actual processing procedures before I could draw any conclusions from a study like that.

Lead be crazy though

Pretty wild to see those levels regardless.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Yup, I missed the part of processing before the radiological scan was done for lead fragments found in varying batches, I just don't see it with a proper skin & cut.
> I'd like to see more clarity of rounds used/actual processing procedures before I could draw any conclusions from a study like that.
> 
> Lead be crazy though
> ...



If the study's authors are incorrect and lead fragments are _not_ the main mechanism by which humans who eat game meat are being exposed to lead, then the alternative is probably much worse to consider.
If it's not ingestion, then it means it could be general environmental exposure resulting from the legacy of spent ammunition that already exists out here in the environment.

Let's hope it is _not_ that, because addressing that would be much more expensive (impossible?) task. It would also necessitate phasing out environmental deposition of lead from sources such as ammunition anyway.

You could work out the balance between these two potential routes of exposure if you phased out leaded ammunition in some territories and explored its effect on lead levels in people who eat game meats. 

I decided to do a search to check for this type of research.

I found there is evidence that restricting leaded ammunitions reduces lead exposure in wild animal species that scavenge carcasses, such as condors:








						Impact of the California Lead Ammunition Ban on Reducing Lead Exposure in Golden Eagles and Turkey Vultures
					

Predatory and scavenging birds may be exposed to high levels of lead when they ingest shot or bullet fragments embedded in the tissues of animals injured or killed with lead ammunition. Lead poisoning was a contributing factor in the decline of the endangered California condor population in the...




					journals.plos.org
				



Previous studies de-convolved the effects of rifles and shot, because restricting lead shot in wetlands reduced aquatic birds' exposure to lead, but did not reduce the exposure suffered by eagles.

I think it is reasonable to assume that this should apply to human populations too.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> If the study's authors are incorrect and lead fragments are _not_ the main mechanism by which humans who eat game meat are being exposed to lead, then the alternative is probably much worse to consider.
> If it's not ingestion, then it means it could be general environmental exposure resulting from the legacy of spent ammunition that already exists out here in the environment.
> 
> Let's hope it is _not_ that, because addressing that would be much more expensive (impossible?) task. It would also necessitate phasing out environmental deposition of lead from sources such as ammunition anyway.
> ...



Meh
 You'd think it would be a much bigger observable concern by now considering we've hunting game across the planet with lead ammunition for centuries.

I forgot btw, there is full solid copper alternatives now.






Hard on barrels though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2022)

Ramjet said:


> Meh
> You'd think it would be a much bigger observable concern by now considering we've hunting game across the planet with lead ammunition for centuries.



The effects of lead pollution on humans and wildlife are a big observable concern though? Lead pollution is a leading reason that many waterfowl or scavenging animals have historically been threatened. 

What's amazing really is that we know that exposure causes ill health, but there are governments who deliberately try to slow down aims to phase out environmental sources of lead (e.g. resistance to its removal as an additive in gasoline, or resistance to removing lead pipes from urban infrastructure). 

I guess we have a similar relationship with dangerous substances such as fibrous asbestos.



Ramjet said:


> View attachment 127441



Objection; the last image is a mushroom your honour!


----------



## TyraWadman (Feb 10, 2022)

We gonna need Phil Swift in here with all this flexing going on.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 10, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Objection; the last image is a mushroom your honour!


----------



## Baalf (Feb 10, 2022)

Yakamaru said:


> Ah yes, because someone looks at wolves as dangerous animals and want them in their own habitats away from human civilization is.. zoosadism?
> 
> Am I the only one who are completely lost at this logic?



Because he flat-out wants wolves extinct. That's more or less what he's been pushing. As for the people saying "I don't know him, don't judge." I've said it before and I will say it once more: I am speaking through experience. I am "making the assumption" because this has ALWAYS been the case with anti-wolfers and hunting activists that I have talked to.


----------



## Yakamaru (Feb 10, 2022)

Baalf said:


> Because he flat-out wants wolves extinct. That's more or less what he's been pushing. As for the people saying "I don't know him, don't judge." I've said it before and I will say it once more: I am speaking through experience. I am "making the assumption" because this has ALWAYS been the case with anti-wolfers and hunting activists that I have talked to.


"You're not actually believing what you are saying, here is what you are ACTUALLY believing.."

Yeah, no. That isn't how any of this works, mate. And neither what Aniwayas have said for that matter. Go back and read again what's been said.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 10, 2022)

Raever said:


> If it need not apply to you, do not comment. It was a general statement.


Fair enough, but 'you' without definition implies that you're responding to the original post 


AniwayasSong said:


> Wolves are a threat to far more than livestock.  My issue (as the OP was supposed to focus on) was the RE-introduction of apex predators in already-settled-territory, or adjacent to, where said predators have easy access via their own mobility/broadening their territory/ies.
> It's an incredibly stupid thing and I see the vast majority of anyone promoting or defending it justsohappens to not live in the very regions they're trying to screw up.  City folk or the woefully ignorant living rural, but not ranchers.
> Now, there are already tons of red tape/laws/regulations regarding this, and I encourage anyone interested to lose their own minds treading through the miasma of legaleze in an effort to make sense of any of it, go for it.  I wish you well.
> Here's a major problem with whatever happens to be in place-
> ...


I'm going to take some time with this one, but you are the exact fucking person. Stay tuned.

EDIT: Just please stop pretending that you're the only person that lives in the same place where wolves also live because it's fucking ignorant.


> Sadly, the world has no lack of stupid people, so we get exactly what we're living with today.


Yes, yes we do.


----------



## Raever (Feb 10, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> Fair enough, but 'you' without definition implies that you're responding to the original post



True facts!


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 11, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I will take note that the reason you don't believe insurance could accommodate the economic costs of predation loss is because you don't believe car insurance operates in a fair way.
> I am not sure everybody else will perceive this as a reasoned argument though?


That's kinda missing the point to what the concerns he raised were, in all honesty (in that regard)...... because if you're familiar with how the insurance industry works (here in the U. S. at least) , you'll understand that the minute claims are filed due to losses because of predation - the insurance company will surely increase / jack up the rates of the claimee - (be it the rancher, the farmer, or a similar type of customer).... and in turn, the cost of business will go up as a result.

I call it "business" because for many ranchers and farmers... that's exactly what it is to them..... a business. And they often times can't afford to file too many claims, because the cost of their insurance premiums will skyrocket every month as a result...... and, (like car insurance) the insurance company will label their farm or ranch a "high risk" business / or customer for them to cover..... (like a driver that has frequent accidents).

And so, often times ranchers and farmers are forced to cut their losses, and not file anything, because the increased insurance costs will outweigh the cost of losing some of their livestock.


Fallowfox said:


> To address the more 'philosophical' stuff: I am not sure that is is wholly correct to view natural components of ecosystems as 'burdens'.


It's simple: the concerns of over predation of apex species is seen as a burden to the people and businesses that live/work in these areas, as herbivore populations are often times a cornerstone of their livelihoods.....(think: cows, sheep, goats, those sorts of species).

And when apex populations (which are a part of the natural ecosystem, like us coyotes) - gets too large and becomes destructive, then.... many livelihoods are placed at risk as a result.

The concerns some have of over grazing, (which in the US as far as I can tell isn't too large) - will probably pale in comparison to the economic damage that'll be caused when apex predators are left unchecked.


----------



## Parabellum3 (Feb 11, 2022)

I find it strange how dangerous animals such as coyotes are given no attention at all in large cities even though they kill our beloved pets and sometimes attack children. Yet when a wolf kills a cow, it's considered to be the end of the world for everyone. What's the logic there?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> That's kinda missing the point to what the concerns he raised were, in all honesty (in that regard)...... because if you're familiar with how the insurance industry works (here in the U. S. at least) , you'll understand that the minute claims are filed due to losses because of predation - the insurance company will surely increase / jack up the rates of the claimee - (be it the rancher, the farmer, or a similar type of customer).... and in turn, the cost of business will go up as a result.
> 
> I call it "business" because for many ranchers and farmers... that's exactly what it is to them..... a business. And they often times can't afford to file too many claims, because the cost of their insurance premiums will skyrocket every month as a result...... and, (like car insurance) the insurance company will label their farm or ranch a "high risk" business / or customer for them to cover..... (like a driver that has frequent accidents).
> 
> ...



I had to remove you from my block list to reply to this. I am not sure why you were on my block list in the first place, and will assume it was a mistake. 

I cited scientific research earlier in the thread, which showed that the economic losses of cattle ranchers  to predation (in areas of the United States that have wolves) were a small overall cost. 
These costs were distributed unevenly though; sometimes individual ranches faced much higher costs than others. 

This is the kind of problem that is usually mitigated by insurance. For example, the risk to houses from storms is quite low overall, but an individual home-owner might be very badly affected by a tornado- so this risk is well mitigated by home insurance. 

How private sector insurance providers operate, and whether the rates they offer are fair and competitive, can be resolved either by political mandates on the types of services they are required to offer, or by free market competition between providers. (I think both are required personally). 

Hope you think that's reasonable and fair.



Parabellum3 said:


> I find it strange how dangerous animals such as coyotes are given no attention at all in large cities even though they kill our beloved pets and sometimes attack children. Yet when a wolf kills a cow, it's considered to be the end of the world for everyone. What's the logic there?



Animals like coyotes do face significant persecution from humans, but they have adapted into the ecological niche of living along-side humans much more effectively than wolves have. 

I am not knowledge enough to know what the reason for that is. I believe wolves and coyotes are inter-fertile as well, so it is interesting that they remain distinct species- there must be some substantial ecological difference between them that favours assortative mating or disadvantages hybrids.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Feb 11, 2022)

I'd add that it's also because of the historical depiction of wolves in much of literature as one of the arch enemies of people, and how many in the past symbolized it as a manifestation of evil and danger. Coyotes haven't been subjected to this same attitude as much.

You can find lots of old stories and fairy tales that feature wolves as the antagonist. Hundreds of years of this perception of a species no doubt has a deep impact on people's thoughts towards them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 11, 2022)

Nexus Cabler said:


> I'd add that it's also because of the historical depiction of wolves in much of literature as one of the arch enemies of people, and how many in the past symbolized it as a manifestation of evil and danger. Coyotes haven't been subjected to this same attitude as much.
> 
> You can find lots of old stories and fairy tales that feature wolves as the antagonist. Hundreds of years of this perception of a species no doubt has a deep impact on people's thoughts towards them.


That's true. Perhaps if coyotes had existed in Europe, we'd also have a more pernicious attitude to them as well?


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Feb 11, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> That's true. Perhaps if coyotes had existed in Europe, we'd also have a more pernicious attitude to them as well?


It's likely so

Europe does have a large history with farming and livestock, so no doubt coyotes would seize the opportunity of easy to access food. I wouldn't doubt they'd be portrayed very similarly like wolves have.

It reminds me of how the movie 'Jaws' featuring a great white shark scared people to death about the ocean, and really made people view sharks as terrible monsters.

This happened when beaches, swimming, and surfing were growing fast in popularity. It actually caused people to sail out to hunt sharks for sport believing they were protecting the ocean, unaware that they were damaging the ecosystem.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 11, 2022)

Parabellum3 said:


> I find it strange how dangerous animals such as coyotes are given no attention at all in large cities even though they kill our beloved pets and sometimes attack children. Yet when a wolf kills a cow, it's considered to be the end of the world for everyone. What's the logic there?



Idk we shoot lots of em out here, and I see articles in city news complaining about them all the time.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 11, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I had to remove you from my block list to reply to this. I am not sure why you were on my block list in the first place, and will assume it was a mistake.
> 
> I cited scientific research earlier in the thread, which showed that the economic losses of cattle ranchers  to predation (in areas of the United States that have wolves) were a small overall cost.
> These costs were distributed unevenly though; sometimes individual ranches faced much higher costs than others.
> ...


You're fkn wicked Fallow glad you're here!

Maybe there will be progress, but wait and see what tomorrow brings given the fucking opportunity. There's lots of fkn people right outside of the sidelines.

Yeah, wolves avoid people at all costs, that's what they do.  I'd try to not get shot if I had the option.


----------



## Parabellum3 (Feb 11, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Animals like coyotes do face significant persecution from humans, but they have adapted into the ecological niche of living along-side humans much more effectively than wolves have.
> 
> I am not knowledge enough to know what the reason for that is. I believe wolves and coyotes are inter-fertile as well, so it is interesting that they remain distinct species- there must be some substantial ecological difference between them that favours assortative mating or disadvantages hybrids.


They face mostly persecution in rural areas, not in cities since hunting is banned ofc, it's like a sanctuary for them.



Ramjet said:


> Idk we shoot lots of em out here, and I see articles in city news complaining about them all the time.


Yeah, but in the end they never take action, at least not to the point where they are driven out of their native lands.


----------



## Ramjet (Feb 11, 2022)

Parabellum3 said:


> They face mostly persecution in rural areas, not in cities since hunting is banned ofc, it's like a sanctuary for them.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but in the end they never take action, at least not to the point where they are driven out of their native lands.



True.

Alot of city people make the situation a whole lot worse too, as some will feed them out of the false belief of kindness.
Then they wonder why their cats keep disappearing.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 12, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I had to remove you from my block list to reply to this. I am not sure why you were on my block list in the first place, and will assume it was a mistake.


Eh... not really a mistake probably. TBH - I had you blocked myself for over a year, along with a few other people.... (back when the politics section was still active).... and recently - I took you and some of them off of it, (about six months ago or so) without telling any of you..... and so, that may be left over from that time, perhaps.

I realized over-blocking is unneccesary though; and in turn, I decided to interact with any and all that wish to do so...... (they're free to return the favor though, if they wish). ☺


Fallowfox said:


> I cited scientific research earlier in the thread, which showed that the economic losses of cattle ranchers  to predation (in areas of the United States that have wolves) were a small overall cost.
> These costs were distributed unevenly though; sometimes individual ranches faced much higher costs than others.


For many of these businesses, (many of which are small and family owned) a financial loss (due to livestock predation) is a loss; and no matter how small it is, it puts a dent in the profits (some of which are very modest), which most family farms can't afford to keep happening over and over again.

Thus, the re-introduction of predator species likes wolves is a major concern many of these people have that live this way of life, which many of us believe is valid enough given the larger economic concerns we'll face when these businesses may close and go under.


Fallowfox said:


> Animals like coyotes do face significant persecution from humans, but they have adapted into the ecological niche of living along-side humans much more effectively than wolves have.


Well..... we're a very adaptable and resilient species ☺; and in spite of those that wish to get rid of us we continue to persevere, continue to be a presence, and continue to live our lives to the fullest..... whilst avoiding and outwitting our enemies - as much as we possibly can.

Which can be frustrating to some, I know.... but the needs of having a holistic and biodiverse community and planet, keeps many of us coyotes going and also allows Mother Nature to give us a bit of help once and while too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 12, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Eh... not really a mistake probably. TBH - I had you blocked myself for over a year, along with a few other people.... (back when the politics section was still active).... and recently - I took you and some of them off of it, (about six months ago or so) without telling any of you..... and so, that may be left over from that time, perhaps.
> 
> I realized over-blocking is unneccesary though; and in turn, I decided to interact with any and all that wish to do so...... (they're free to return the favor though, if they wish). ☺
> 
> ...



Ah okay, that explains it. That's fine anyway; I certainly wouldn't expect anybody to be forced to talk to me! ;D 

I agree with you that risks of economic loss must be mitigated. 
The extirpation of native species isn't really an acceptable way to manage economic risks either. Insurance is a private sector solution. Nationalised solutions could include direct compensation from a tax-payer funded system, or alternatively you could encourage farmers to host threatened or rare species by giving them financial rewards or incentives for being able to prove that their land supports them.

Imo the 'best' solution here is whatever can be made to work.


----------



## loups_solitaire (Feb 12, 2022)

good news
OAKLAND, _Calif._— A federal judge today restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protection from the animals across most of the country. Today’s ruling prohibits wolf hunting and trapping in states outside of the northern Rocky Mountains.









						Federal Court Restores Gray Wolf’s Endangered Species Act Protection
					

Center for Biological Diversity: OAKLAND, Calif.— A federal judge today restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protection from the animals across most of the country. Today’s ruling prohibits wolf hunting and trapping in states outside...



					biologicaldiversity.org


----------



## Parabellum3 (Feb 12, 2022)

loups_solitaire said:


> good news
> OAKLAND, _Calif._— A federal judge today restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protection from the animals across most of the country. Today’s ruling prohibits wolf hunting and trapping in states outside of the northern Rocky Mountains.
> 
> 
> ...


You beat me to it.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 13, 2022)

loups_solitaire said:


> good news
> OAKLAND, _Calif._— A federal judge today restored protection to gray wolves, reversing a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protection from the animals across most of the country. Today’s ruling prohibits wolf hunting and trapping in states outside of the northern Rocky Mountains.


Well, they're on the endangered species list; and - no one on here (at least myself anyway, in my postings) says that they shouldn't be.

The sticking point and concerns many people have though is not debating whether they're endangered or not...... (personally, I agree that they are). But whether or not - re-introducing them into certain areas that we know have agriculture and livestock economic bases is a good idea or not. And perhaps - compromising (like I said earlier) might be something we have to look at in order to address these conflicting issues.

Where: the re-introductions happen in certain areas where there won't be conflicts.
----------------------------------
@Flamingo (I'm trying carefully not to get into the politics here, okay)? These are just my opinion statements below.
----------------------------------
@loups_solitaire But, this decision will probably be appealed, I imagine; especially when the current Administration (like the last one) supports them being de-listed also.... and - it'll be interesting for many of us to see what the current government and the Interior Secretary decides to do at this point; seeing that the judge that made this ruling is from the other party also, in spite of the press calling it a "Trump era" decision.

Either way - the farmers, land owners, and ranchers are the ones that'll ultimately live with the consequences of whatever decision is made; and those folks are the ones that'll probably need to advocate for themselves more in the years to come - in order to ensure that their voices are heard also on these issues..... (also like I said above).
-------------------------------


Fallowfox said:


> Ah okay, that explains it. That's fine anyway; I certainly wouldn't expect anybody to be forced to talk to me! ;D


And likewise...... there's no obligation to respond to one another..... and in fact - you've directly ignored me several times when I've pointed out flaws in your reasonings over the last few years, I believe.

And so, I know I'm not forced to ☺...... but I chose to do so because your points on insurance totally missed what many of these business owners concerns are.

Their rates will certainly go up, and the cost of their businesses will go up also. The residual result of that will be possibly higher prices (for urbanites like you and I) for things like eggs, milk, wool, and beef.

And eventually, the re-introductions of apex species into the wrong areas may cost all of us more money, eventually.... which in turn may create a "ripple effect" onto our larger economy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 13, 2022)

@Connor J. Coyote I don't think you're meant to contact people on your block list, so, you can't really expect me to have typed replies to you if you were blocking me. S: 
I'm sorry if that meant you felt I was ignoring you. If I wanted to read your posts at all I had to click a button to display them- and 9 times out of 10 I just didn't do that. 

The maths of the research I linked to earlier implies that, even if the very largest estimates for predation loss are accepted, that they are relatively small compared to other costs faced by people who raise livestock.
So we should view this as a challenge that is surmountable, because costs from livestock losses due to extreme weather or disease can be mitigated. 

I accept that decisions about re-introduction of apex predators are going to vary on a case-by-case basis, but I'd like to imagine folk can start with a solution-based attitude, and as Nexus pointed out with sharks, there are definitely some public perception issues about risk that could be changed.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 14, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> @Connor J. Coyote I don't think you're meant to contact people on your block list, so, you can't really expect me to have typed replies to you if you were blocking me. S:
> I'm sorry if that meant you felt I was ignoring you. If I wanted to read your posts at all I had to click a button to display them- and 9 times out of 10 I just didn't do that.


Nah..... that was before the block matey, that I was talking about earlier..... especially in the political section, (when it was active)...... but in any case, we're talking now.

I'd have to go back and dig within the archives - about certain topics over the years I've encountered (to obtain specific instances, where): excellent threads often times kinda just "petered out" after awhile, and never went any further..... often times because people (not just me, but others also) wouldn't reply to each other's points (either by choice or by encouragement from others to do so ☺); and in turn discussions ground to a halt..... (which gave the mods a break perhaps) on occasion.

But it's all good to me...... as I make my points on here when I want to say something and I often times just write up my thoughts at the time...... and (for the record): *I never* contact people on my block list once I block them.... with the exception of one time, which was a mistake on my part. And for very good reasons.... number one: it's a violation of the rules on here, which I follow to the letter as much as I can as a user, every time..... and frankly two: if I wanted to reply to someone's points then.... there's no reason for me to block them to begin with...... right?

But in any case, I realized that using this feature was largely unneccessary to begin with; (and in hindsight) I probably didn't need to do so, in some cases. ☺ But...... there are times in the social media environemnt - where sometimes personality disagreements are just too great, and in those rare cases the feature will still be useful to us all I think.



Fallowfox said:


> The maths of the research I linked to earlier implies that, even if the very largest estimates for predation loss are accepted, that they are relatively small compared to other costs faced by people who raise livestock.


It's a factor in these businesses...... that's my point.... and so, for those that live this way of life (farming, ranching, and so on) - it's a valid enough concern for them to possibly advocate for themselves more (both at the state and local level) when these re-introduction measures are being planned and implemented.

It's a business concern, not just a policy and biodiversity concern for them.


Fallowfox said:


> So we should view this as a challenge that is surmountable, because costs from livestock losses due to extreme weather or disease can be mitigated.



Well, we can't control Mother Nature with extreme weather though.... she'll do whatever she feels like.... so those costs cannot always be mitigated for many of these farmers and ranchers, and so - predation (due to these re-inroductions) will just compound their losses even more perhaps.


Fallowfox said:


> I accept that decisions about re-introduction of apex predators are going to vary on a case-by-case basis, but I'd like to imagine folk can start with a solution-based attitude, and as Nexus pointed out with sharks, there are definitely some public perception issues about risk that could be changed.


Well..... TBH: I can't read that other user's points at all due to my personal choice.... and thus, I'm unable to respond to their great points..... as much as I'd like to once and a while.

And frankly anyway - I don't really know about sharks all that much, in any case. I'm just a coyote that stands up for himself when he needs to..... that enjoys great companionship, a good cuddle, and a nice meal once and a while..... which I guess some could argue is predatory..... but others will also say (on the other hand) that that makes me some awesome husband material too.... so there.  
-----------------------------
Happy Valentine's Day. ☺ ♥


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 14, 2022)

@Connor J. Coyote 

I don't have the energy to deal with any accusations and disputes that, according to you, date back several years. I hope that is okay. 

I think we're repeating the same arguments now, and apparently you have blocked Nexus so you cannot see his contributions anyway...so I don't think I have anything left to discuss with you.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 15, 2022)

Congratulations pieces-of-shit. You have no fucking idea the amount of hatred that can exist in repercussion to your actions.

Montana and Idaho left.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 15, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't have the energy to deal with any accusations and disputes that, according to you, date back several years. I hope that is okay.


Well, I'm not referring to disputes...... I was referring to just "general topics" at hand at the time, where discussions that were both tense and yes, amicable never went any further because there were times when people stopped replying to one another. But hey - it's all good to me.


Fallowfox said:


> I think we're repeating the same arguments now, and apparently you have blocked Nexus so you cannot see his contributions anyway...so I don't think I have anything left to discuss with you.


Well.... thanks for your feedback in that regard.

And - it's always certainly one's prerogative to bow out of a discussion if they choose to do so, my fellow user..... as sometimes I do this myself. ☺ But perhaps - if you wish to engage in that other user's points, then... it may be best to do that with them.... and not me I think.

And so.... I'll wish you a great week at this point then.

(But as a side note) - I also say also that: if one doesn't wish to engage in any discussions, (especially with ones that one is or was an active part of) then..... I gotta wonder: what's the point of joining and maintaining a membership on a discussion forum then? Where discussing the topics at hand with other users is...... kinda the idea.
-------------------------
But in any case - my own points on this thread about how these re-introduction measures will affect many of those that live off the land, are spot on I think.... (at least as far as the business owners are concerned), and given the fact that they'll be on the "front lines" bearing the brunt of any of these big decisions, then.... they have the most right I think to speak out about it.... as they're the ones whose way of life will be placed at the most at risk..... and not the policy makers and advocates that are pushing these measures.

If the farmers, ranchers, and others get hurt economically, then..... that may eventually affect us all economically..... and at that point, we should all be concerned.

When the price of a pound of hamburger rises to well over $ ten-dollars a pound, then..... perhaps these advocates and policy makers will realize, that: implementing these measures (sometimes in a knee-jerk fashion) without consulting those that will be most affected by it is an unwise move for us all to make.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 15, 2022)

@Connor J. Coyote
Since you have probably blocked more users than anybody else on this forum, I am sure you understand that enjoying being on a forum isn't the same as enjoying the company of every individual or being obliged to reply to every one of their messages. ☺



rekcerW said:


> Congratulations pieces-of-shit. You have no fucking idea the amount of hatred that can exist in repercussion to your actions.
> 
> Montana and Idaho left.



Is there some more detail on this? I thought the protections extended to species listed as endangered applied on a federal level and superseded state law; is it possible for states to 'opt out' of recognising endangered species?


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 15, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> @Connor J. Coyote
> Since you have probably blocked more users than anybody else on this forum, I am sure you understand that enjoying being on a forum isn't the same as enjoying the company of every individual or being obliged to reply to every one of their messages. ☺
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently so, and the legal debate will continue.








						Gray wolf federal protections removed by Trump restored across much of US
					

California ruling does not affect wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming




					www.theguardian.com
				




Fuck I cannot stand those motherfuckers, it's driving me so far up the wall. "Move then," "no, this is our home and we're more important than everything else in a 100km radius, me me me." It's a really big win otherwise. I'm sure eventually mother nature will mop up the rest of the idiots or all of us at the same time, but always fuck the idiots.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 16, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> @Connor J. Coyote
> Since you have probably blocked more users than anybody else on this forum,


Hmm.... that's weird. And you know this.............. how???

At any rate - I didn't know that other users on my block list (which is supposed to be a private thing to begin with) was anyone else's business (including yours and that other user). 

But in spite of my opinions on that, I felt I needed to touch lightly on the subject here, as I was responding on the ability to respond to another user's points that you insisted on bringing up..... in spite of me not addressing their issues at all, up to this point.

That said, (as I said above) if you feel that you'd like to engage with that other user on their points, then...... by all means, feel free matey. 

But.... I cannot respond to their points directly myself, as it'd be a violation of the forum rules for me to do so; as I'm sure you may well know. And so, I wrote this point up on here not to bring up the topic in general about the blocking feature, but to be clear in the discussion we were having that the points they made and brought up I am not able to analyze and discuss.



Fallowfox said:


> I am sure you understand that enjoying being on a forum isn't the same as enjoying the company of every individual or being obliged to reply to every one of their messages.


Well, of course..... and that's why I use the block feature to begin with.... and this is done when I feel I need to with certain other users that I don't wish to engage with, or that make me uncomfortable.

But in any case - if you (or others, perhaps) wish to discuss in detail the viability and nature of the block feature overall (in general terms) then...... perhaps you or someone else can create another thread either in the community section or the site discussion section to do just that.
----------------------------------
Anyways..... my focus on this thread has been *trying* to get readers to see how these re-introduction measures can impact not only those that live this way of life, but also...... all the rest of us that depend on their products and services amongst the backdrop of our larger economy.

And thus, knee jerk (or half baked) re-introduction measures being broadly implemented matters to many people...... and not just for the concern of the endangered species itself; which I agree - should be protected in some way.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 16, 2022)

I'm not going to pretend to understand every single nuance of this subject, but I get the impression that there's actually two issues at play here: reintroduction and natural, organic migration of existing packs. I'm speaking largely in generalities here; I don't think the practice needs to be substantially different between different species.

For reintroduction, obviously it should be done to areas where the animals used to roam (before presumably human interference displaced them), and should be done with consideration to the impact on local agriculture and other factors. _But_ I do not believe that, in case of a particular individual or group becoming a threat to humans or human activity, it's anyone's business but Game & Wildlife (or whatever other agency is responsible, IDFK) to directly deal with those animals (whether that means relocating or putting them down). Permitting ranchers, hunters, etc. to shoot or trap protected species, even on a case-by-case basis, seems like a good way of introducing loopholes into the protections otherwise provided the species. 

That said, if it can be shown that reasonable precautions were taken (whatever those were determined to be) and livestock was still killed or maimed by protected predators, it should be the state's responsibility to pay out whatever standardized fee for the damages. FAIK that's the system in place here, at the very least with Sami reindeer (since their traditional keeping is migratory, so fences to protect the herds have limited viability). Relying on private insurance, which by definition is predatory, is not a good solution if the situation is in part created by government mandates.

Released animals of sufficient size to make it feasible should also be equipped with tracking devices so that there's a reasonable chance by monitoring agencies to pick up on potential problems before they become real problems.


Migration of packs is a more complex matter. A pack that originates in a protected area (such as preserves etc.) but belongs to a species that naturally roams over large areas should not be hunted based on them crossing an arbitrary border (unless they become a clear and present danger). If you start up a cattle ranch near a national park (I think that's the proper term?) that houses predators, you're frankly not making good business decisions, sorry.

We had a problem along these lines here - wolves that were protected on this side of the border were IIRC _shot from helicopters_ when they crossed the border into Norway. This was quite some time ago, but, like... The goal of protecting species should be to make sure you maintain genetic diversity, and I believe one of the animals killed was pretty important from that standpoint. In this case it was an international issue, which further complicated matters, I'm sure, but within a single country, or even within a single state (as would likely be the case with a pack from a natural park wandering outside its boundaries), it's kind of arse to pour chlorine in the gene pool because an animal crossed an imaginary line.

The government reimbursement if you take reasonable precautions should still probably be in place, but "reasonable precautions" might be a higher bar to meet, especially if you knowingly decided to house your livestock within X distance of where a protected predator was known to roam at the time.


I'd also be surprised if it weren't possible to set up pretty effective deterrents, depending on what wild animals you're trying to keep out. I posted about the research where they painted eyes on cow butts earlier in this thread if memory serves, and that apparently worked quite well. I seem to recall llamas are prone to protecting herds of sheep they're kept with, and they're probably sufficiently alien to give predators pause in areas where they're not native. I'm sure there's also things like pheromone/other scent-based "invisible fence" products available at least for some species. Because most wild animals _do not want to get into fights_. Getting into a fight means you might get injured, getting injured means you're either easy prey or unable to effectively hunt for sustenance.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 16, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, of course..... and that's why I use the block feature to begin with.... and this is done when I feel I need to with certain other users that I don't wish to engage with, or that make me uncomfortable.



I have tried to hint at this, but do not feel the message is coming across clearly. I want to discuss and am interested in the thread topic, but since I changed the forum settings to that I could view your posts, you have been making me uncomfortable on a personal level.

If you have  new content to add to the discussion I will do my best to try to respond nicely and discuss it in good faith. Please just show me the same courtesies and space you expect other people to provide you with.



rekcerW said:


> Apparently so, and the legal debate will continue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it was a state-level rather than federal move. 

On the subject of ultimatums along the lines of 'move away if you don't like it,' 
I don't want to encourage people to feel they have to move out of an area for it to be 're-wilded', because I think this would create animosity that will make it more difficult to balance conservation with human needs. 

'carrot' instead of 'stick'.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 16, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I have tried to hint at this, but do not feel the message is coming across clearly. I want to discuss and am interested in the thread topic, but since I changed the forum settings to that I could view your posts, you have been making me uncomfortable on a personal level.
> 
> If you have  new content to add to the discussion I will do my best to try to respond nicely and discuss it in good faith. Please just show me the same courtesies and space you expect other people to provide you with.
> 
> ...


That's where fences make things work and it drives me so much to listen to the constant bitching about just letting cattle out in the middle of nowhere to obliterate public grasslands and then whine when their stock encounters predators, it's really comical that they want people to feel sorry for them.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 17, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> I have tried to hint at this, but do not feel the message is coming across clearly.


Wait a minute here...... in our convo above you were the one who brought up the topic (in an off-hand way) about blocking to being with..... I responded to your commentary in kind by letting you know that there were probably reasons for your lack of ability to respond to my points up to now.... that's all.

And again, (that was because I blocked you personally when the politics section was active).... as I said:


Connor J. Coyote said:


> Eh... not really a mistake probably. TBH - I had you blocked myself for over a year, along with a few other people.... (back when the politics section was still active).... and recently - I took you and some of them off of it, (about six months ago or so) without telling any of you..... and so, that may be left over from that time, perhaps.
> 
> I realized over-blocking is unneccesary though; and in turn, I decided to interact with any and all that wish to do so...... (they're free to return the favor though, if they wish).


In turn, you decided to "dig a little deeper" (at that sore point) and bring up another user's comments to me that - throughout my dialogues on this thread, had nothing to do with what they were saying.

(I started out this thread by responding to Anywaysas and Baalf's points.... and you jumped into it later on which I responded to also). NO where - did that other user's participation or commentary on this thread or indeed - on the larger forum, factor into any of my dialogues up to this point.

Perhaps you were trying to get me to comment on them specifically? I dunno.... but in any case, I don't do that with users that I don't engage with..... unless it's with the individual directly about his/her status on my block list (via a PM).

But once their points were brought up to me, I informed you at that point for my reasons regarding my lack of responses on their points...... period.

There was nothing more to it than that.


Fallowfox said:


> I want to discuss and am interested in the thread topic, but since I changed the forum settings to that I could view your posts, you have been making me uncomfortable on a personal level.


Then why are you still responding to me and why haven't you used the block feature yourself at this point? As I also said above:


Connor J. Coyote said:


> (they're free to return the favor though, if they wish). ☺





Connor J. Coyote said:


> And likewise...... there's no obligation to respond to one another..... and in fact - you've directly ignored me several times when I've pointed out flaws in your reasonings over the last few years, I believe.
> 
> And so, I know I'm not forced to ☺...... but I chose to do so because your points on insurance totally missed what many of these business owners concerns are.


So.. there you go.


Fallowfox said:


> Please just show me the same courtesies and space you expect other people to provide you with.


Well, as a member of this forum going on nine years now, I think my record kinda speaks for itself at this point; in spite what people like that other user and those close to him may suggest. 

I go out of my way to be civil to people on this forum when I post things publicly, as much as I can. I'm not perfect, nor am I a Saint, but I do very well overall (I think) in that regard.
-------------------
That said, now that my points on this thread have been temporarily derailed because another user simply wants some attention, then...... if you decide not to block me at this point.... I'll be more than glad to consider bringing up some more points (to the table), that's on the topic. Thank you.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 17, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> That's where fences make things work and it drives me so much to listen to the constant bitching about just letting cattle out in the middle of nowhere to obliterate public grasslands and then whine when their stock encounters predators, it's really comical that they want people to feel sorry for them.


I can see there in some cases being utility in having shared greens for pasture, _*but*_ if you're going to use them that's a privilege that comes with responsibilities. (I know for instance there's a stretch of land along the coast in my province that is grazed in part for habitat preservation - some species thrive in grazed lands and it's important to make sure they don't come under threat for lack of habitat. Technically that area is fenced, and I'm pretty sure it's used by one specific farm, but the general idea could be applicable elsewhere.) Honestly, one reason I'm pro state reimbursement for lost cattle is that it disincentivizes poaching - if you shoot the predator instead of reporting the loss, you don't get your reimbursement.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 17, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> if you decide not to block me at this point....



Your personality takes too much energy to deal with so I'm going to have to. S:
Sorry, bye.



rekcerW said:


> That's where fences make things work and it drives me so much to listen to the constant bitching about just letting cattle out in the middle of nowhere to obliterate public grasslands and then whine when their stock encounters predators, it's really comical that they want people to feel sorry for them.



Is there a right to graze common land out of interest, or do grazing rights need to be agreed with the land's custodian? 
Maybe that varies state by state. 

Safer ranching practices could be incentivised by saying that predation is only compensated within private land. Somebody who wanted to defraud an insurer could drag a carcass onto private land, but the required energy to do that would be a deterrent. 

I think grassland song-birds are North America's most threatened group of bird species, so I am beginning to wonder whether ranching practises are related to this?
I had assumed that introduced predators and agriculture were responsible for reducing nest sites, but maybe that isn't the full picture?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 17, 2022)

Well, to the other users on here that I can no longer interact with now on this thread, I wish you all well then.... best wishes.  
------------------------
In any case, the re-introduction measures of wolves (as a species specifically) has actually been passed by a voter amendment actually, (I found out)..... in Colorado, where: landowners can be compensated for the wolf's depredation of their livestock.

I'll have to research some more.... but the fact that ranchers and farmers will be getting some sort of compensation for their losses, with measures such as this, goes to show that compromise is certainly doable in legislation...... (the sorts of compromises I hinted at above).

Depending on whether the recent decision here in California by a Federal Judge is appealed or not, it will most likely determine whether the wolves are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or..... the local State agencies.

According to my research that isn't clear to some people, and has yet to be determined; and so... a wait and see approach is happening in this regard....... and frankly - no one is waiting and seeing more than those that live off the land and live this way of life.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 18, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Well, to the other users on here that I can no longer interact with now on this thread, I wish you all well then.... best wishes.
> ------------------------
> In any case, the re-introduction measures of wolves (as a species specifically) has actually been passed by a voter amendment actually, (I found out)..... in Colorado, where: landowners can be compensated for the wolf's depredation of their livestock.
> 
> ...


Well.... as a side note on this thread..... I researched some more earlier today, and I found this rather alarmist article written by Yale University:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/americas-new-war-on-wolves-and-why-it-must-be-stopped

I'm not so sure that I'd call it a war though...... as that's a rather strong word to use I think.... and to me, seems a bit inflammatory. But - if the numbers that are in this article hold up, and are true, for example: (90% of wolves are allowed to be hunted in places like Montana), it claims - than.... there's clearly too much of a large quota that is allowed on the hunts at this point.... and thus, addressing that concern (of those that wish to push these re-introduction measures have of this large number) - would probably need to be considered also; in any new legislation coming up.

Thus..... whilst I'd argue it's not exactly a "war", it is however a rather competing interest that's playing out right now.... (and isn't just a theoretical phenomenon that's on this thread)..... and thus, hopefully a more level-headed legislature in Montana can correct these imbalances, if they're true.

(I'll follow this thread up in a week to see how it develops, and perhaps - when we hear back on the situation in Montana).... and add more information here perhaps when I find it, for those that may be interested.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 19, 2022)

No, it's a fucking war because there's so many people just waiting for the fucking opportunity to blow their heads off of their shoulders. The problem is much deeper than legislation, it's a complete misunderstanding of how fucking nature works and has had worked for the last few million years with some pretty big hiccups in the process we've seen in records with fucking insane outcomes.

It's a two way fucking street right now, either we turn one direction and just keep doing stupid fucking things over and over and blaming everything else for what fucks us over just so we can be the next thing that that is inevitably becoming the next big hiccup that everything else that this planet is supposed to recover from, or we turn the other way and stop being fucking stupid. It's not rocket appliances, it's what everything that those fucking idiots try to find like little bits of statistics with no causation that try to make them sound like they're so much more worthwhile that just keeps blowing up in their face over and over, and things have progressively been better for years, but everybody still has to listen to the loudmouth fucking know-nothings that got to where they are by spouting off bullshit they don't fucking know about their entire life.

We have the opportunity to be shepherds for this entire planet with the shit we know, but instead it's just holding off on releases of smartphones for a few years because manufacturers have kept folding fucking screens in their back pocket for a few years to make the next gen also a few thousand bucks. Like fucking come on...

fuck whiny ranchers, argh.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 21, 2022)

rekcerW said:


> The problem is much deeper than legislation, it's a complete misunderstanding of how fucking nature works and has had worked for the last few million years


Well, the problem I see with that argument my friend, is frankly that - if we let nature just run its course wildly, and do whatever it wants all the time, then it may place our larger society and well-beings (as a human species) at risk.

Nature does need to be controlled on occasion, (at lest we try to), by us humans because we can't afford as a species ourselves to let nature dictate how everything goes all the time.



rekcerW said:


> We have the opportunity to be shepherds for this entire planet with the shit we know,


Sure..... in some areas that's a laudable goal (I agree); but in some other instances, we gotta weigh out what the larger costs to us humans will be - if we place certain biodiversity concerns over the needs we have as a species ourselves, also.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 21, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Sure..... in some areas that's a laudable goal (I agree); but in some other instances, we gotta weigh out what the larger costs to us humans will be - if we place certain biodiversity concerns over the needs we have as a species ourselves, also.


I do not see any situation where it is _*ever*_ justified to drive a species to extinction, or force it to reach a genetic bottleneck, through our actions - the only exception being eradicating invasive species _from an area_ (with strong evidence that this will not fuck over the local environment to the detriment of native species, or the worldwide population of the invasive species. There's no invasive species that I know of where this would be a concern, but it's an important caveat). We're clever enough to find solutions that avoid that outcome. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with wolves in the US (I frankly don't have the expertise to make that judgment), but we have plenty of research saying "less than X individuals left in a breeding population will create a genetic bottleneck." There's evidence that cheetahs have gone through such a situation in the past, and it has seriously limited their genetic diversity (and IIRC also their health as a species, though my memory is admittedly fuzzy on that one). Reducing a species's genetic diversity will also reduce their ability to adapt to a changing environment or e.g. new pathogens.

Which, yanno, is very poor stewardship considering we're also driving the Earth towards significant climate change which will likely require a lot of species to adapt to changes in temperature, weather patterns, etc. I don't buy that our survival, either as a species or as individuals, hinges on impairing the ability for other species to survive.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 21, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> Which, yanno, is very poor stewardship considering we're also driving the Earth towards significant climate change which will likely require a lot of species to adapt to changes in temperature, weather patterns, etc. I don't buy that our survival, either as a species or as individuals, hinges on impairing the ability for other species to survive.



You reminded me that there is some work by the palaeontologist Vrba which shows species often adapt to climate change in the geological record by migrating to pursue their preferred climate, rather than adapting. 
So the fragmented nature of remaining wilderness, and the barriers constructed in the way of migration routes, are a serious problem.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 21, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> You reminded me that there is some work by the palaeontologist Vrba which shows species often adapt to climate change in the geological record by migrating to pursue their preferred climate, rather than adapting.
> So the fragmented nature of remaining wilderness, and the barriers constructed in the way of migration routes, are a serious problem.


That's a fair point! Changes in environment where relocation is not feasible is still... a complex issue at best.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 21, 2022)

quoting_mungo said:


> I do not see any situation where it is _*ever*_ justified to drive a species to extinction, or force it to reach a genetic bottleneck, through our actions - the only exception being eradicating invasive species _from an area_ (with strong evidence that this will not fuck over the local environment to the detriment of native species, or the worldwide population of the invasive species. There's no invasive species that I know of where this would be a concern, but it's an important caveat). We're clever enough to find solutions that avoid that outcome. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily the case with wolves in the US (I frankly don't have the expertise to make that judgment), but we have plenty of research saying "less than X individuals left in a breeding population will create a genetic bottleneck." There's evidence that cheetahs have gone through such a situation in the past, and it has seriously limited their genetic diversity (and IIRC also their health as a species, though my memory is admittedly fuzzy on that one). Reducing a species's genetic diversity will also reduce their ability to adapt to a changing environment or e.g. new pathogens.


I............... never said anything in any sort of way - in saying that extinction was okay. 

I honestly don't know where the extinction word (you used) is coming from; at least as far as what I've been writing on this thread so far - throughout my points.

In fact, it's been quite the contrary with me.... seeing that if you read what I wrote above, you'll know full well that I've said (more than once now on here) that I think many these species should be protected in some way. I never advocated for extinction. Anywhere.

But..... I did add to that also, that sometimes - we need to have some sort of impact and grasp as to what nature does in our larger holistic world. We can't control everything all the time, nor can we do so perfectly..... but, in regards to reintroduction measures - we can do so in a smart way, that keeps in mind the larger economic and societal concerns we'll all be dealing with - (as our own species being human) - if we just let nature do whatever it wants all the time.


quoting_mungo said:


> I don't buy that our survival, either as a species or as individuals, hinges on impairing the ability for other species to survive.


Well, what you "buy" is your prerogative..... but for many of the ranchers, farmers, and others who are on the front lines of all this, and who in turn, (at least here in the U.S.) are an integral part of our economic base that live this way of life....... many of them will tell you that their livlihoods and their ability to provide us all with the goods and services we've all come to depend on them for will be impacted adversely if hard-line environmentalists fully get what they want. There needs to be some balance, I argue here.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 21, 2022)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> I............... never said anything in any sort of way - in saying that extinction was okay.
> 
> I honestly don't know where the extinction word (you used) is coming from; at least as far as what I've been writing on this thread so far - throughout my points.
> 
> In fact, it's been quite the contrary with me.... seeing that if you read what I wrote above, you'll know full well that I've said (more than once now on here) that I think many these species should be protected in some way. I never advocated for extinction. Anywhere.


I have no way of knowing where you draw the line for what is and is not a justifiable  “biodiversity concern,” particularly since many areas (in the general, I’m not speaking about any specific species here) where reintroductions are done are areas where that species roamed until it went “locally extinct” (particular populations were lost) due to human intervention. Forcing populations under critical numbers, where they hit a genetic bottleneck (or killing a few particularly genetically valuable individuals), can also in some cases effectively amount to slow, drawn-out extinction. There’s a reason I included driving populations down to unsustainable levels as well.

Again, we’re clever apes. I get that ranchers want native predators to be someone else’s problem. I’m sure many hunters do, too. But “remove protections for a vulnerable species because it’s inconvenient to people and their businesses” is not a “clever ape” solution, it’s a “might makes right” solution. Those are not conducive to good stewardship of our natural resources. 

And of course reintroduction efforts need to take into consideration the natural behavior of the animal. That both includes selecting a suitable location _and_ managing locals’ expectations, good and bad. If we have seized so much land for ourselves that there’s no viable way for an animal to be reintroduced in a broad area, is it _really_ reasonable to say “well, I guess there won’t be $species in $state again?” (Or whatever.) Or should the response be “how can we make restoring biodiversity in this area viable?”

You can’t release a bunch of unrelated wolves willy-nilly and expect them to form a pack. You can’t expect a released animal to stay where it’s convenient for you, especially if the area you’d prefer it to be in is smaller than what it would naturally cover roaming around. So it’s our job not to keep them _in _(or what we’ve created is effectively a very large zoo enclosure), but to keep them _out_ of areas where they’d be a threat to humans, pets, or livestock.

I’m all for reimbursement for livestock lost to predation _if reasonable measures are taken to prevent it_. Your home insurance won’t be keen to pay out if someone steals your shit after you left your door wide open when leaving the house. (Leaving aside how predatory private insurance is, point is there’s an established reasonable expectation of you that you make it harder for a thief to fuck you over.)  I do think that leaving reimbursement for lost livestock to private insurance is a bad idea. Maybe especially if we accept your premise that livestock ranching is so central to the economy. The question becomes what measures are these businesses prepared to take, and are those measures a reasonable minimum (or better)?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 22, 2022)

It's been a great discussion on this thread I think.... but I'm kinda repeating myself on here at this point I think as well, (kind of like what Fallowfox said earlier) and so..... I'll just add some more follow up words to my points above.

In that...... poorly planned out re-introduction measures that are implemented can have an enormous impact on all the rest of us as well.... in spite of many of us not living on "the front lines" of these areas ourselves. And this is especially true for many hard-line environmentalists, I find.... that often times push many of these sorts of policies (both politically and legislatively) without fully thinking through all of the ramifications of what their actions will create.

All endangered species should be protected (I, like many farmers and ranchers, fully agree there). But on the flip side of that, so should our economic interests be protected as well. We can _"walk and chew gum at the same time"_ I think..... and thus, I'll simply reiterate my point above (in that): if compromise is possible, it should be done whenever we can.

It is possible - to re-introduce certain endangered species into certain geographical areas; and contain them as best as we can in these areas, which allows them to recover in same way, whilst still looking out for our economic interests.

(Some good examples of this, is the bison in places like Yellowstone or the Sea Otter in places like Alaska).

But regrettably - it seems that compromise (in itself) may be "too broad" of a goal for us to reach in some instances..... and this is simply due to the fact (I believe) of many hard-line environmentalists who often times refuse to sit down at the table with others (like farmers and ranchers) who have a vested interest in this process as well, and in turn - try to hammer out some sort of compromising agreement.

Thus, when everyone's heels are dug in.... nothing really beneficial that keeps everyone's interests in mind can probably be realized.

The end result is that farmers, ranchers, and others will now find themselves needing to scramble to comply and adapt to these new (somtimes draconian regulations), whilst at the same time trying to defend their land, property, and families..... whilst attempting to keep their businesses and livelihoods afloat as well.

They're the ones that will ultimately bear the economic and personal burdens of all this. And in turn, many of the costs of their good and services (that they provide to us) will go up as well.

When the price of a dozen eggs climbs to well over $ 5 dollars a dozen, (like it did here in California), or - when the cost of a gallon of milk reaches well over $ 8, probably only then will these economic realities hit us all, includig many of those hard-line environmentalists that pushed for many of these measures in the first place.

The complaints about these added costs will surely fly soon after, often times by many of these same advocates. And the ranchers and farmers will say back to them in kind that, _"sorry fellow urbanite citizens..... you can't have things both ways"_.

And at that point.... all of us may be paying for it in some way.


----------



## Kope (May 14, 2022)

I for one support the nonstop production of more fellow wolves  even if they over populate the world (such is our nature UWu)


----------

