# WHY!!!!!



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Why does my mom and sister have to be so into animal activists and poor wolves getting shot. What should I tell them to say something why hunting is important I am stumped.

Thanks


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Tell them wolves kill nice and cuddly elk and deer with big brown innocent eyes, just for the fun of it. Well, they do........


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

I've tried they just say well if there was no hunters then it would be how it's supoosed to. They don't care if a wolve kills all the elk or deer they think that is the right thing. :|


----------



## apollosmith (Jun 29, 2008)

Wildlife currently have a MUCH smaller amount of free range than they have for the last forever. And they are fairly constrained even within their range due to roads, trails, ranches, hikers, etc. If we did not manage the animals, then they would be in a very constant state of flux - at first with population growing so large that they eat everything in their existing range, forcing them into human populations (imagine a hungry herd of elk foraging between the lanes of I15), and then eventually the entire herds being wiped out. In the meantime predator herds will be exploding, thus resulting in massive numbers of predators and no wild game. This will drive the hungry predators to do what they do best - hunt things like small children and pets. This would be exacerbated with the species of wolf that is currently here, because they are much bigger and more aggressive than the original wolves ever were. Eventually the predators all die out while the wild game populations slowly increase.

It would be a very ugly cycle that would not only be decimating to some species, but would have a significant impact on humans. This is certainly an over-generalization, but that's how I'd explain the need to manage wildlife.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Thanks I will tell them I went along those lines but they were just like that's how it's supposed to be but it's not.

Thanks


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Tough sale you got there. 

Have you tried showing them the areas in the nation that have gone to the live and let live way of thinking. Most of these areas now have confrontations with these predators.

I would also remind them that we are apart of the food chain.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

What states have done that? Yes I will thanks.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

katorade said:


> Why does my mom and sister have to be so into animal activists and poor wolves getting shot. What should I tell them to say something why hunting is important I am stumped.
> 
> Thanks


Tell them your embarrassed to be living with (let alone related) to someone who is so ignorant, and ask them how they think wolf populations are bought into balance in the wild?

I'll save you the time and then you can laugh at their stupid answer: They kill everything they have to eat until they literally starve themselves back into balance with their environment. Without predatation control elk, deer and anything else unfortunate enough to be on the menu soon suffers a significant loss of population size and health.

Given the choice, I would prefer to see herds of deer and elk as opposed to packs of wolves.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Or present a simple numbers game. If their issue is with fuzzy creatures getting killed, do the math. Idaho is allowing 220 wolves to be killed. how many fuzzy creatures like deer and elk will those wolves kill? One per week, per wolf? That equals 11,000 year. So 220 critters die, or 11,000 critters die. make the choice.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Or present a simple numbers game. If their issue is with fuzzy creatures getting killed, do the math. Idaho is allowing 220 wolves to be killed. how many fuzzy creatures like deer and elk will those wolves kill? One per week, per wolf? That equals 11,000 year. So 220 critters die, or 11,000 critters die. make the choice.


They don't understand they think that it's the way its supposed to be. :|


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

katorade said:


> They don't understand :|


Then just go back to being embarrassed about how ignorant they are...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

katorade said:


> What states have done that? Yes I will thanks.


I should have said communities. It seems like I have heard that there are communities in California and Colorado that have stopped hunting cougars and coyotes. Now they are starting to have more interaction then they want. Now that I think about it, I think there are some places back east that are being over runned with white tails, thus causing issues with Lyme disease (white tails being a host for the ticks). When I get a chance I'll see if I can find some articles.

I think your lessons with them need to include the issue of balance and how the balance is achieved.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

I think in the balance argument, the most important yet mainly overlooked fact if human impact. The Indians did not have a DWR. But they also only killed what they needed to survive and used every part of there kill for there survival. Thus keeping the balance mother nature intended, by being a player not a steward. 

Today we have the easy life of procesed food and government assistance that has allowed our numbers to explode. We have made our own rules thru our inteligents (or lack there of depending on perspective). We have walked away from the natural world and created our own. 

This is why today we need to manage game. As stated before if we let nature do its thing we risk the quality of life we have all became used to. Bottom line because we have the opertunity to sit in our tempature controlled houses, and debate each other on the merits of hunting animals. We lose the right to let nature manage itself @ the cost of our comfort.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

pkred said:


> I think in the balance argument, the most important yet mainly overlooked fact if human impact. The Indians did not have a DWR. But they also only killed what they needed to survive and used every part of there kill for there survival. Thus keeping the balance mother nature intended, by being a player not a steward.
> 
> Today we have the easy life of procesed food and government assistance that has allowed our numbers to explode. We have made our own rules thru our inteligents (or lack there of depending on perspective). We have walked away from the natural world and created our own.
> 
> This is why today we need to manage game. As stated before if we let nature do its thing we risk the quality of life we have all became used to. Bottom line because we have the opertunity to sit in our tempature controlled houses, and debate each other on the merits of hunting animals. We lose the right to let nature manage itself @ the cost of our comfort.


Things are managed impart to remove the peaks and valleys of the cycles. If we ignore nature she will correct. We are currently learning that lesson each fire season. So I don't believe nature has lost any rights. Man is part of nature and when we operate within natures boundaries nature does not need to correct as often. If a predator eats all it's prey, they either move or die. Man is no different.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I am not a wolf guy by any means. In fact, the area I grew up hunting in - Challis Idaho - the deer and elk herds have been decimated by the wolves. I hate them. But the reality of it is in spite of all the habitat concerns we want to cite, hunters enjoy the sport, yes sport, of hunting. There are far more effecient ways of procurring food. I am a hunter and I recognize this. And wolves are a serious threat to the sport I enjoy. Wolves will reduce herd sizes as they have done in my homeland. They will reduce hunting opportunity for people. Relying on wolves, or people to serve as primary predator will result in ebbs and flows - because that is how nature is. But bottom line is - we as hunters prefer to be the predator that kills and eats the prey, than wolves. Which is why we want them dead. It is a preference issue. Not a biological issue. And the same goes for the other side of the argument as well.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> .......It is a preference issue. Not a biological issue. And the same goes for the other side of the argument as well.


What would be an example of a biological issue?

Man is at the top of the food change, just like the wolf would be over the coyote. Wolf moves in to an area and the coyote is displaced. More wolfs, less coyotes.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> What would be an example of a biological issue?


That wolves need to be restored to bring balance back to the ecosystem. LIke the argument for inside Yellowstone - which is a different thing all together than non-national park settings. Lots of research in Yellowstone on the functionality of the overall ecosystem since wolf introduction. It is the same claim of wolf proponents in areas outside YNP.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> It is a preference issue. Not a biological issue. *And the same goes for the other side of the argument as well.*


I think GaryFish nailed it right there. That argument is all about preference Let's not forget that in spite of what some may choose to believe, we are also part of the nature's design. I think it's silly to think that just because we have the power of logical thought that we should be barred from taking part in natural food chains and enjoying the bounty that nature has to provide. Men have been harvesting wild animals for thousands of years and will continue well into the future. And there's nothing wrong with that. Who's to say that a wolf killing a deer is natural and a human killing it is not when we've been killing and eating them for just as long.

As far as predator control goes, would they think it was so bad if a rancher shot a wolf that was decimating his cattle? Or if a pet owner shot a bobcat that was stalking his pet? The bottom line is we protect the stuff that has value to us. And Deer and Elk definitely have value to us. wolves have their place too but like everything else it's a limited place. Like has been said before, with the booming human population other species' habitat will become limited.

Sometimes I feel like telling the people who have a problem with human impact that the only real solution is human population control and maybe they should start with their own posterity. Of course that might not go over so well when you're talking to family members.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > What would be an example of a biological issue?
> ...


What did the wolf bring to the table that is out of balance in the case of Idaho or say Montana?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> What did the wolf bring to the table that is out of balance in the case of Idaho or say Montana?


In the case of central Idaho, deer and elk herds are a fraction of what they were in the early 90s - prior to wolf introduction. The habitat on the Lost River Range, White Clouds, and east fork, Yankee Fork, Middle Fork and main Fork drainages of the Salmon River - most of the Frank Church supported much larger herds of both deer and elk. There was also an attained balance with wildlife grazing animals, and domesticated grazers. Though, there were allotments that were overgrazed and poorly cared for. The wolves have knocked the wildlife populations out of balance for human hunting interests. Additionally, as deer and elk herds have diminished, wolf populations have increased predation on domesticated grazers as well - knocking the human use out of the balance that existed before.

Like I said, it is a preference issue. If you prefer deer and elk be killed by humans, then the wolves have been horrrible in central Idaho. If you don't perfer human hunters, then the wolves are just happy to be doing what they do best.

And I guess the problem is in trying to do too many things. IN our efforts of intervention, we can A) have huntable populations of deer/elk AND graze domestic livestock, or B) have large populations of wolves but no human-huntable populations of deer/elk AND graze domestic livestock. Attempting all three will result in failure to have huntable populations of deer/elk and domestic livestock grazing.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > What did the wolf bring to the table that is out of balance in the case of Idaho or say Montana?
> ...


I kind of take it, you may think I am for the wolf. I am not. I just as soon never see one in Utah.

To me it is not a perference issue, but a balancing issue. For the most part Idaho was in balance for the resources being used. Then the wolf was reintroduced with no control. Everything (wildlife, live stock, and so on.) being controlled except the wolf. It would be the same out come if you turned all the humans loose in yellowstone to shoot what ever the wanted, when ever they wanted. Human's are part of the eco-system. If we were left un-controlled we would see the big swings that nature uses to balance things out. In Idaho and Montana the wolf is out of balance in our controlled world. If the wolf is not brought into check, nature will do it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I didn't take it you are pro/anti wolf at all. Just asking some good questions. I think you have very clearly articulated the issue.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> pkred said:
> 
> 
> > I think in the balance argument, the most important yet mainly overlooked fact if human impact. The Indians did not have a DWR. But they also only killed what they needed to survive and used every part of there kill for there survival. Thus keeping the balance mother nature intended, by being a player not a steward.
> ...


You make a good argument. I dont mean to say Nature has lost all her rights. But man kind has changed the rules a bit. Mother nature will always have the last word long after the human race is extinct. But on the Man as predator issue. I dont agree, today the greater pecentage by far are not predators just consummers. So if man were to eat all its pray, they dont move or die. We as a species manipulate our environmet to fofill our needs. An exsample is domesticated animals or farming, two things not one animal in nature does. This is the point i was making. We have altered the natural way of things, so as stewards it is our job to maintain balance as best as we can.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

pkred said:


> You make a good argument. I dont mean to say Nature has lost all her rights. But man kind has changed the rules a bit. Mother nature will always have the last word long after the human race is extinct. But on the Man as predator issue. I dont agree, today the greater pecentage by far are not predators just consummers. So if man were to eat all its pray, they dont move or die. We as a species manipulate our environmet to fofill our needs. An exsample is domesticated animals or farming, two things not one animal in nature does. This is the point i was making. We have altered the natural way of things, so as stewards it is our job to maintain balance as best as we can.


No mankind has not changed the rules. In part man has learned to live within the rules. We sometimes get to big for our britches and then nature does her thing.

Predators are consumers. But man is also unique in that we are capable of building as well as consuming.

If your thought of the natural way of things is to have big peaks and valleys in the life cycles, then I guess your are right. Personally I don't think that way. I believe we play the game by the rules, becuase if we don't nature will correct.


----------



## shootemup (Nov 30, 2008)

katorade said:


> Why does my mom and sister have to be so into animal activists and poor wolves getting shot. What should I tell them to say something why hunting is important I am stumped.
> 
> Thanks


Really when it comes to dealing with people who are strongly opinionated it is hard to explain to them why things like hunting are important. They, in many but not all cases, refuse to even give the other side of the story a chance. With people like this I just try to express why it is a important issue to me. I would say something like:

"I can see how you would feel strongly towards wolves, they are beautiful animals and i would love to see some of them in the wild. However, like with all things there needs to be a balance. My worry with wolves is they are a pack animal, because of this there is a hirarchy (sp?) meaning young males not strong enough to take lead of a pack and are not willing to be a submissive will leave to create a pack of their own taking a female with them or find a single female later and create their own pack. This happens quite often, because of this wolves are able to expand a very fast rate. 
This in many cases leaves packs in areas they are not welcome such as areas with live stock. (a single lost cow will cost a rancher thousands in the long run through loss of future calves, and cost of replacement) By controlling populations through hunting many of these human/animal conflicts can be prevented, by instilling a greater fear of humans areas where humans many be. Also keeping numbers at an exceptable carrying capacity will keep other animal populations from being wiped out due to "wolves over hunting and area." Hunting in *my opinion *in the long run can help to protect both human and wildlife intrests.

Its pretty hard to dispute an opinion because it is your belief not theirs and no one has the right to tell you your opinion is stupied. (though we might feel that way) However, by expressing your ideas in this way it is non confontational and will let them know that you have put some thought into it and not just jumped on the "i hate wolves" band wagon.

This is just the way i would do it.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html
There's a pretty good fact sheet. If it were my mother, I would remind her that God created man in His image, omnivorous. We were created to compete with other predators for protein in the form of meat. Wolves must have a predator if nature is to be natural. Man is the wolves' predator. This is highly personal and not meant to offend anyone, but I believe the following words to be true:


> Doctrine and Covenants 49:18-21
> And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance...And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.


Now, I believe the last sentence there to be as true as the first. I do believe it is man's place to eat meat. I also believe nobody should kill wantonly. I have to ask myself the question: is killing wolves at this point beneficial to mankind? Or is it wasteful destruction? Biologists who study the wolves for a living are telling us that they've reached healthy capacity and it's time to eliminate some of the population. They are not recommending open hunting and destruction of the population. The recommendation is for population control to ensure a healthy ecosystem. I would agree with the biologists in charge of game management at this point. Some population control is needed to ensure a healthy future for the wolves. Otherwise, the ultimate predator will consume the wolves: disease.


----------



## katorade (Sep 23, 2007)

Thanks I will try to find the equal part of the story. But It's hard to convince people.

Thanks


----------



## shotgunwill (May 16, 2008)

I would try and explain it like this: Wolves are cute and cuddly until they *EAT YOU*.

Seriously though, there has to be some common ground between you and your family. As long as they are *not* brow beating you with their propaganda, and generally making life hard for you, I'd just let it go. Yup, I'd let it go.

*Most* people who takes their opinions to the activist level, cannot be reasoned with. Even if, and that's a big if, you can logically explain the need for predator control in a way they can understand, at that point they will most likely stick to their guns. It really is a waste, my mother is such an activist.

Of course, she likes to spout her vomit to me, and I just retaliate by posting up pics of my kills. :twisted:

Will


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Remember: Anthrax is natural. so is Polio, Smallpox and Plague. The world is better off now that those things are controlled.
Saying that it is good because it's natural for wolves to take an animal down and start eating it while it is still alive or eat the calf out of a cows stomach and leave the cow to die is in-humain. 
I have seen coyotes do these things.


----------

