Giant wolf epidemic

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Dr.3D]

Just send a few battle-hardened cops, that should solve the problem.

Yeah, they would probably think those are dogs and shoot every one of them.

 

[Lucille]

I didn't care to see it before, but I might stream The Grey this weekend.

 

[Lafayette]

The North Remembers!

 

[Original_Intent]

The sheep refuse to carry guns.

Well played.

 

[dillo]

Make wolf free zones

 

[erowe1]

You'd need more than a hand gun to protect yourself against a pack of 20 of those if they attacked.

Seriously. And 30-round magazines.

 

[S.Shorland]

Don't they whelp 3 times more often than your own wolves? Rosa Koire mentioned it as part of UN Agenda 21.You will be living in towns.The roads will be pulverised and your ranch made uneconomic.

 

[Victor Grey]

This has happened time and again on the wolf issue. It comes to the same outcome time and again, like clockwork. The people in support of this idea, don't understand anything, and they don't care.

Environmentalists and conservationists are almost like oil and water. They can't mix, they aren't the same substance. One is somewhat sensible, rational and understands ecology. The other is based on pure emotion and irrational principles that aren't based on reason nor logic.
It is an entirely different set of heuristics that conservationists and the rough environmentalist use to view nature.

You get a group of usually urban environmentalists involved in the wolf issue, it's like handing a decision to a slow kindergarten child, it really is.
All they seem to think, is solely along the lines of: "durr wuf purdy. No bad is woof. Ooo, wulf purdy, mmmhmmm." That is the heart of them. Forget details, forget the actual realities of what the environment actually is as it stands, I want to see me a wolf, yay nature.

From that you get decisions such as relocating Canadian wolves that never existed there, that are much larger than any subspecies which properly resided in the area.
What happens is a reoccurring meme that shows how they do not understand ecology.

The wolves they introduce go in, and they will eventually kill practically all the deer. They will reproduce rapidly as result. That is what a wolf does in a high prey environment, it's what makes them successful in the natural norm of things.

They don't simply eat the deer either, they will kill them for sport. Yes, that is true, that is the nature of wolves in that biological situation. It isn't a natural occuring norm for there to be that many deer around; reason being predators eating them for food. When there are more prey than wolves can eat on a natural, regular basis, they kill the rest for some reason.

I don't why that is that wolves do that, but that is what a wolf does in a high prey environment. They will eat until they are full, and then they will hunt and kill further, even if the carcass rots. Must of been some natural advantage to that against other competing predators, perhaps. The old primitivist notion that nature never, ever "wastes" isn't true with wolves, for whatever biological reason that may be. That is what happens however.
When the wolf innate instincts tell it "hey look at this unnaturally large amount of prey here (ranchers large herd of cows) I'd better kill them, eat and make lots of babies and then kill off the rest so that the bears and mountain lions don't find them make babies themselves" and as result a rancher comes out and sees a lot of dead cows laying around mostly uneaten, there's trouble.

The result of all this is in effect, is an ecological "bubble" of wolves happening. It's a recurring situation. Too many wolves, not enough prey. Keeping in mind, these are wolves which themselves, in addition to being in this artificial situation man has affected, simply aren't by their biology meant to be there.
They cannot succeed in the long run. They're not the subspecies of wolf with the design for that location. They're too large.

Afterwards all the wolves can do, is start to eat livestock, because there is now an unnaturally high population of wolves in the area and no game. (That came as result of an unnaturally high initial game population that humans cultivated.) Human had took the ecological niche of wolves, via hunting.

In the end, what you get from introducing wolves into an artificial, tweaked environment are angry ranchers, and ultimately starving wolves.
Nature trying to rebalance itself to an unattainable norm that was so for millennia, thanks to the lesser habitat and the unnatural predator brought into the area.

Environmentalists don't understand population growth of animal and the proper management responses, the effects of human development which is there (and it's not going away,) the effects of human game hunting and human conservation measures and that affect had on the natural food supplies of various animals, or anything else.
They don't.

No, the environmental Citymcdumdum just wants to feel "mmm wuf purdy."

They want to throw an unnatural predator that works through a hardwired instinct that worked perfectly in the common norm for eons, into a tweaked ecolocial situation that isn't the norm, and then, claim some sort of nature's laissez-faire.

Unfortunately for them, it won't work like that, and even in situations where it could it would take decades for things to balance out naturally if not centuries. & who knows how long for those wolves to biologically adapt to their environment through natural selection, if that were possible.

In the meantime you'd have huge fluctuations of shrinking/exploding wolf and prey populations, with starvation and diseases in the wolves in this artificial, faux-natural environment imposed by environmentalist sentiments that view areas where ranchers raise cattle as the same as a place where wolves really could have a more naturalistic norm, such as a large nature reserve.

 

[Lucille]

Don't they whelp 3 times more often than your own wolves? Rosa Koire mentioned it as part of UN Agenda 21.You will be living in towns.The roads will be pulverised and your ranch made uneconomic.

Wow. Those people truly are evil geniuses.

 

[S.Shorland]

Well....She mentioned that a friend of hers had told her about it.She thinks it is tied in because on the wildlife corridor maps,there are no national boundaries.you must watch Rosa Koire videos as she takes it right through in terms of planning as she was a property appraiser for California in eminent domain cases.She does mention the wolves in one of them as an illustration and I'll try to post it if I find it again.You will be coralled into population hubs with most of the western USA being returned to nature with zero human use.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

a shadow moves across the land

 

[Lucille]

Well....She mentioned that a friend of hers had told her about it.She thinks it is tied in because on the wildlife corridor maps,there are no national boundaries.you must watch Rosa Koire videos as she takes it right through in terms of planning as she was a property appraiser for California in eminent domain cases.She does mention the wolves in one of them as an illustration and I'll try to post it if I find it again.You will be coralled into population hubs with most of the western USA being returned to nature with zero human use.

I did a little searching, and I totally believe releasing these wolves are a part of their insane "Wildlands Project." Like I said, evil geniuses.

 

[S.Shorland]

54:30 to 1:17:00 covers this topic and shows the wildlife 'corridors' map (your whole country more or less).

 

[Expatriate]

This has happened time and again on the wolf issue. It comes to the same outcome time and again, like clockwork. The people in support of this idea, don't understand anything, and they don't care.

Environmentalists and conservationists are almost like oil and water. They can't mix, they aren't the same substance. One is somewhat sensible, rational and understands ecology. The other is based on pure emotion and irrational principles that aren't based on reason nor logic.
It is an entirely different set of heuristics that conservationists and the rough environmentalist use to view nature.

You get a group of usually urban environmentalists involved in the wolf issue, it's like handing a decision to a slow kindergarten child, it really is.
All they seem to think, is solely along the lines of: "durr wuf purdy. No bad is woof. Ooo, wulf purdy, mmmhmmm." That is the heart of them. Forget details, forget the actual realities of what the environment actually is as it stands, I want to see me a wolf, yay nature.

From that you get decisions such as relocating Canadian wolves that never existed there, that are much larger than any subspecies which properly resided in the area.
What happens is a reoccurring meme that shows how they do not understand ecology.

The wolves they introduce go in, and they will eventually kill practically all the deer. They will reproduce rapidly as result. That is what a wolf does in a high prey environment, it's what makes them successful in the natural norm of things.

They don't simply eat the deer either, they will kill them for sport. Yes, that is true, that is the nature of wolves in that biological situation. It isn't a natural occuring norm for there to be that many deer around; reason being predators eating them for food. When there are more prey than wolves can eat on a natural, regular basis, they kill the rest for some reason.

I don't why that is that wolves do that, but that is what a wolf does in a high prey environment. They will eat until they are full, and then they will hunt and kill further, even if the carcass rots. Must of been some natural advantage to that against other competing predators, perhaps. The old primitivist notion that nature never, ever "wastes" isn't true with wolves, for whatever biological reason that may be. That is what happens however.
When the wolf innate instincts tell it "hey look at this unnaturally large amount of prey here (ranchers large herd of cows) I'd better kill them, eat and make lots of babies and then kill off the rest so that the bears and mountain lions don't find them make babies themselves" and as result a rancher comes out and sees a lot of dead cows laying around mostly uneaten, there's trouble.

The result of all this is in effect, is an ecological "bubble" of wolves happening. It's a recurring situation. Too many wolves, not enough prey. Keeping in mind, these are wolves which themselves, in addition to being in this artificial situation man has affected, simply aren't by their biology meant to be there.
They cannot succeed in the long run. They're not the subspecies of wolf with the design for that location. They're too large.

Afterwards all the wolves can do, is start to eat livestock, because there is now an unnaturally high population of wolves in the area and no game. (That came as result of an unnaturally high initial game population that humans cultivated.) Human had took the ecological niche of wolves, via hunting.

In the end, what you get from introducing wolves into an artificial, tweaked environment are angry ranchers, and ultimately starving wolves.
Nature trying to rebalance itself to an unattainable norm that was so for millennia, thanks to the lesser habitat and the unnatural predator brought into the area.

Environmentalists don't understand population growth of animal and the proper management responses, the effects of human development which is there (and it's not going away,) the effects of human game hunting and human conservation measures and that affect had on the natural food supplies of various animals, or anything else.
They don't.

No, the environmental Citymcdumdum just wants to feel "mmm wuf purdy."

They want to throw an unnatural predator that works through a hardwired instinct that worked perfectly in the common norm for eons, into a tweaked ecolocial situation that isn't the norm, and then, claim some sort of nature's laissez-faire.

Unfortunately for them, it won't work like that, and even in situations where it could it would take decades for things to balance out naturally if not centuries. & who knows how long for those wolves to biologically adapt to their environment through natural selection, if that were possible.

In the meantime you'd have huge fluctuations of shrinking/exploding wolf and prey populations, with starvation and diseases in the wolves in this artificial, faux-natural environment imposed by environmentalist sentiments that view areas where ranchers raise cattle as the same as a place where wolves really could have a more naturalistic norm, such as a large nature reserve.

Interesting. Would give you rep but the forum is messed up right now.

So this sort of thing has happened many times? I do recall hearing about the exact scenario before (gov't "re-introduced" wolves, they ate all the deer and moved on to livestock and pets) but it was in a different location than Idaho.

 

[opal]

I think it was Carter that did that in our locale with western coyotes.. and they're still here - just a few less since we got our property and chickens