t4terrific Wrote:In "the grand scheme of things", wolves are everything you said. If you are a small farmer, wolves can be a tremendous threat. As that farmer, who can't afford to lose a bit of livestock, killing any wolf you see (or any other predatorial animal that mat threaten), is much more reasonable than you make it seem. People took it to a devastating extreme at one point though and basically tried to exterminate the entire population. That sucks, I guess (though I don't think I'd want a pack of wolves running around my neighborhood).

I think wolves are excellent animals. I admire the wolf. It is a terrific hunter, and the societal tendencies of most dog-related animals is also a tremendous advantage.

t4terrific Wrote:I'm much more interested in my own survival though. Looking back, it's nice to say they should have been more fair, but I'd be more interested in my own well being first, second, third, fourth, and, fifth. Fairness to the wolves would have been lower on my scale of priorities. These people didn't have fat savings accounts, pension plans, real estate investments, and such manners of personal security we have today. They had to do all they could to make it through each winter. I'd never fault someone for doing what it takes to survive. If killing wolves was necessary to survive, then I'd rather see the wolves extinct than man. Wolves are great, and wonderful creatures. I have to root for my home team, that's mankind. I guess a coexistance could have been possible, but those people couldn't take chances. They were worried about their own survival. When there is that much at stake, there is no room for error.

I would be willing to kill 500 of the rarest ANIMALS (I'm not talking about people either) on Earth if it meant my own survival. I wouldn't even have to think about that one. It might suck, but that would be my choice every time. I don't hate the wolf, I admire them as much as you. I have to think about my own reallity, and in those shoes, I think my own survival outweighs fairness to animals or animals rights. Even the cute little Bambi doesn't hold a candle to my own desire to continue living.

That said, I'm all for doing everything possible, within reason, to protect animal species, plant species, lakes, rivers, coral reefs, and everything else that makes Earth such a wonderful place. I want to be able to go diving out at Point of Rocks Beach in 50 years, and it be as amazing as it was when I was 10. I want to go up in the hills in Alabama, follow a stream and see 10 or 15 box turtles there the way my dad and I did when I was a boy. I love the wilderness, and I love to see it untouched. Not at the expense of human lives though. I carried my pistol last time I was in them hills, and If I'd have had a run-in with some predatorial animal, I'd rather kill it, than be killed by it. Actually I'd rather watch it go on about it's business and give me something to marvel about for years.

KRW Wrote:Sorry, didn't like it. It had some points, but most of this article is to make you feel better about giving up more freedom for more security from the powers that be. It paints the pretty picture for the police state. Trained for action they may be, but they,more than likely won't be there when needed. This paints the picture that they are.
Most people (truely) are stuck in their everyday life, can't tell one day from the next. But truth be told, these are the same men that are descendents of warriors. We are all descendants of warriors or your line would never have made it to the 21st Century. Maybe scared witless and not trained, but they fought. Now if I had to bet on it, I would bet the sheepdog (as you call them)
will be setting at home watching a ball game and called to action AFTER the fact. The ones that will fight the fight will be the regular Joes. The sheep if you will. And in America, sheep carry guns to church too.

The post was sooo long I can't remember all the problems, but here's the gist for me. Have a nice day.

KRW

The Mad American Wrote:Well first, we didn't try to exterminate them, we did exterminate them in most parts of the country. Now with the repopulation of the wolves in some areas of the country any farmer who loses livestock is reimbursed in full, so afford and not afford don't really play here. (there have however been so few legitimate cases of this happening. One of the more notorious cases had a guy killing wolves who said they were killing his livestock, he staged a photo of a wolf he killed, it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen, wolf was shot with a high powered rifle, yet there was no blood around the scene, teh wolf was placed with its teeth around the cows throat...the cow was laying just on the edge of this guys property..)

The facts still remain that the hunters and sportsmen who piss and moan about the wolves are short sighted. The herd animals are in such bad shape in a lot of areas that if they give it time the wolves and the way nature works will get them back to being a well working mechanism. (I am only speaking about my part of the world here, low population of people, huge land areas, etc etc)

I wouldn't expect you would want a wolf running around your neighborhood. Neither would I but I do love the fact that they are running around in the Sawtooths again and in areas where they should be. The Nez Pierce Indian tribe took a couple packs of wolves that were supposed trouble packs in the lower part of my state. This was years ago, since they have been on Nez Pierce land there is never any news on them, they have gone about being what they are. Not being a chip in the great political games that we as people play.

I am by no means a tree hugging enviromentalist(actually so far from that in most things its not funny) but I really feel in a lot of things we need to keep our hands off and let things take their natural course if it isn't a direct impact on our growth or our cities. The wolves being back are in areas that has zero impact on anyone but dumb ass ranchers who still believe the campfire stories of wolves eating their Granddads.

Ashe Wrote:I don't get anything you said from that.
I think it has more to do with people having to make a concious decision to acknowledge that there are people out there that do not and will not care a bucket of spit about you, your family, or anything that doesn't have to do with them.
Sheepdogs in this context are not the plice and the military but regular citizens who understand that the world isn't a pretty place and are willing to protect themselves and others from the predators that walk and talk like the rest of us.
The way I see it is if you are carrying a gun to church/the store/movies then you arn't a sheep anymore.

What you get from this article sounds to me like an argument I have used against Anti-Gun people several times. "Who is supposed to protect me and Mine until the police decide to show up? Am I supposed to ask the person who cares nothing for the law to wait a few minutes before they kill me? Or should I have the right to Fight back?" It seems to me that most sheep can't tell the difference between the SheepDog and the Wolf

I think that people will see what they want to see in this. In some ways I agree with what I believe you are saying, and I'm sure that if you extend your "Sheepdog" definition to include people who's job isn't "To Serve and Protect" but Cashiers, Stockbrokers, and Soccer Moms who decide to carry some sort of defense against the Wolves, then you may agree we see pretty much eye to eye, if not thats okay too.

KRW Wrote:In fact I may start resorting to calling LEO's pigs again because of it.

The Mad American Wrote:The statement that killing all the wolves the way it was done was for survival is so absolutely incorrect but thats the history people are taught.

The killing of the wolves in Yellowstone was solely for the purpose of trying to keep the herd animals that most tourists wanted to see healthy and abundant. It had ZERO to do with survival. That bit them in the ass. The herd animals went nuts with population damaging the ecosystem of Yellowstone so far it could never be what it was originally.

Many of the cleansing the areas of the west of Wolves followed that same line of thinking. It was huge gatherings and planned clearing of the wolf populations.

It wasn't Ma and Pa Smith farmer or ranchers. If it was only them we would never have impacted the wolves like we did. There are still areas of the west that have such low population (and hopefully will remain that way) that if every farmer, rancher or whatever killed wolves that only and truly impacted their livliehoods, we would still have a very healthy and abundant wolf population. IT wasn't that way at all. It was great deep thinking people in government and their ilk who made decisions based on junk science and boogy man stories. (hey sounds like the global warming crowd now eh?)


(Sorry Ashe for hijacking your thread..just a pet peeve of mine)

KRW Wrote:It was just a way of settling the west, makeing it safer and more tempting for settlers to go west and settle (and the mentality is still around). First wipe out the enourmous buffalo herds, in turn, will starve out the plains Indian, then put a bounty on any other beast standing in the way. I may sound sarcastic, but it happened that way. Can't build a country and make money if heathens and predators are killing everyone.
That being said, I have no problem with defending yourself and your property from predators.
I would still have loved to ride over a hill and see an endless herd of buffalo, I still love to get back in some forgotten canyons and seeing nature at it's best. I still carry a gun, but that's for my own protection.

t4terrific Wrote:Okay. .