they don't care about the balance.
That stamp was trying to tell all of the wolf fans that actual wolves are not the same as the wolves in the Balto movies, Ookami, or Wolf's Rain. If you were to run up to an actual wild wolf you better pray the wolf picks flight over fight and in recent years the wolves have been picking fight a bit more often.
wolves won't always accept pups from other packs, some might even kill them because of competition (this include other predatory animal cubs)
"Why should we give wolves such special treatment? What makes them a special snowflake to the point that hunters shouldn't hunt them, but it's okay to point the gun at bears and bambi?"
Wolves are not endangered anymore, at least not the greys.
I don't think it was because the wolves saw what the coyote was doing was messing up the balance because they were killing young prey. The wolf neither do other predators, really enjoy sharing prey with other predators. Wolves, coyotes, and bears are all natural rivals
Let's say the wolvers were slowly dieing out from, whatever reason, would this stop a bear or any of the grizzly bears from stealing food from wolves or killing them when they feel the need to?
Don't be so quick to assume that just because I don't agree with everything you say automaticly means I'm going to ignore it.
QuoteLet's say the wolves were slowly dieing out from, whatever reason, would this stop a bear or any of the grizzly bears from stealing food from wolves or killing them when they feel the need to?
Never expected the animals to care, but wolves are smarter than you are giving them credit for. If wolf numbers are low, why would a wolf be hunting anything large enough to get a bears attention, why would it approach a bear at all? A bear can not wipe out all wolves, because while they do not like each other, they also respect each other.
And numbers become overpopulated because of human intervention as well. increasing numbers for the specific goal of hunting them for example. numbers wouldn't have to balance themselves out if humans didn't keep sticking their nose into it.
I love you so much for making this thread, and I too love all wolves. I just can't stand the fanbase that tries to make them these god-like animals whose lives are more valuable, and are superior to the "evil" humans. Even worse, is when they pull facts out of no where. I'm going to lose my mind if someone comes in here screaming about Sarah Palin and starts saying "SAVE THE WOLFS".
Even worse, is when they pull facts out of no where.
Ahhh... I have been expecting someone to post this thread eventually.^
I agree with everything here. I understand, there is nothing that is exactly special that makes a wolf a harmless animal. They are wild animals, and they have natural instincts to kill just like any other animal. I honestly don't mind wolf hunting. As long as it keeps the population down and protects livestock, even if the animal had a contagious sickness, it would be better to put it down, because if people tried to cure it, it would need special attention, the wolf could get used to people and therefore more encounters would occur. I am the same for deer hunting and all else, as long as the animal is not endangered or protected I'm ok with it.
Don't get me wrong, I love wolves along with many other animals.
But they in a way Do care for each other in a way, most animals do, for example, elephants, primates, and even wolves. Most of the time they kill to protect themselves or their pack, along with their offspring, territory, and dwindling food sources.
I respect wolf haters also, I don't like every animal, and other people are the same, I can understand if;
- A wolf once attacked a friend or family member
- A wolf repeatedly hunts livestock
- Or if you just don't like them
And to recap the animals don't care. It's unlikely for another species to take pity on another species, let alone prey. An example here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0y9j32h70 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix0y9j32h70)
I also understand about the Keeping the animal population down also.
But I have to say that Humans are in fact destroying the planet faster than any other natural event could. We cause pollution, global warming and even made some vital species go extinct. Take a vulture for example, if it wasn't for them, the savannah would be full of carcasses. These are creatures that we underestimate, bees, fish, plankton, penguins. Without Penguins, Sea Lions would go extinct. And without fish, seals would die, meaning no food for Polar bears. Bears also clean up old carcasses that any other animal can't digest.
And Yes I have seen the why do people hate wolves thread; I can understand everything about it. =I
Sorry if I am being pointless, I go sunburned today and I am very irritated at the moment x-x
-May edit- o-o
I think you explained your point very well, Minnie, and it's also very refreshing to see people having civilized discussions (well, for the most part, anyway...-_-) on this thread.
Though I disagree with you on one thing, about nature not having it's own balance. Animals go extinct when they are no longer able to cope with their changing environment (whether that's climate change or human intervention). When an animal goes extinct, populations of different species fluctuate for a while as their competition decreases, and then become stable again when a new species takes the place of the old.
Let's use the California condor as an example. Before humans nearly drove it to extinction, it was the chief scavenging bird of its ecosystem. When it became extinct in its home area of California, other animals replaced it as chief scavenger bird (the turkey vulture and crow). Carcasses were eaten at a healthy pace and nature balanced itself out. In other words, the world will keep on turning even without California condors. Nature will retain its own balance without them.
But here's something that makes humans such wonderful, strange, complex creatures. Even if Nature doesn't care what happens to the condors, we do. Which is why California condors are now recovering slowly in parts of Utah. It's not that Nature can't balance itself out, it's just that we humans are sentimental (and we also love playing God).
I think you explained your point very well, Minnie, and it's also very refreshing to see people having civilized discussions (well, for the most part, anyway...-_-) on this thread.
Though I disagree with you on one thing, about nature not having it's own balance. Animals go extinct when they are no longer able to cope with their changing environment (whether that's climate change or human intervention). When an animal goes extinct, populations of different species fluctuate for a while as their competition decreases, and then become stable again when a new species takes the place of the old.
Let's use the California condor as an example. Before humans nearly drove it to extinction, it was the chief scavenging bird of its ecosystem. When it became extinct in its home area of California, other animals replaced it as chief scavenger bird (the turkey vulture and crow). Carcasses were eaten at a healthy pace and nature balanced itself out. In other words, the world will keep on turning even without California condors. Nature will retain its own balance without them.
But here's something that makes humans such wonderful, strange, complex creatures. Even if Nature doesn't care what happens to the condors, we do. Which is why California condors are now recovering slowly in parts of Utah. It's not that Nature can't balance itself out, it's just that we humans are sentimental (and we also love playing God).Beautiful post Abomine. <3
I agree with you 100%
So yes, sometimes the other side has difficulty seeing the whole, but from what you've shown me, you do to. BOTH SIDES NEED TO WAKE UP TO REALITY. BOTH SIDES are wrong in cases, and BOTH SIDES need to get their act together. I could write more about why you are wrong, and why they are wrong as well, but honestly, I know you're not going to read a word of what I write, as both sides think they are perfect. The reality isn't your view OR theirs, it is somewhere in between. Your side views them as dangerous wild beasts that would happily turn on man, and they view them as perfect.
You know, when you see something like this, with two sides, you know the best side to take? The one in the middle. The one that is most likely to be true because both sides will have exaggerated to one side or the other while the truth lies in the middle.
So yes, sometimes the other side has difficulty seeing the whole, but from what you've shown me, you do to. BOTH SIDES NEED TO WAKE UP TO REALITY. BOTH SIDES are wrong in cases, and BOTH SIDES need to get their act together. I could write more about why you are wrong, and why they are wrong as well, but honestly, I know you're not going to read a word of what I write, as both sides think they are perfect. The reality isn't your view OR theirs, it is somewhere in between. Your side views them as dangerous wild beasts that would happily turn on man, and they view them as perfect.
You know, when you see something like this, with two sides, you know the best side to take? The one in the middle. The one that is most likely to be true because both sides will have exaggerated to one side or the other while the truth lies in the middle.
I'm going to quote this for you guys, again. Yes, wolves aren't cuddly bunnies, but you know what? You guys are just as bad for exaggerating the bad side of the wolves. Wolves do NOT rip people limb from limb, no matter WHAT fairy tales you read. My post was to point out that while you guys are right in saying wolves aren't friendly, all you're doing is exaggerating the bad side of wolves. That makes you just as bad as the people you are trying to disprove.
I'm sorry, but I could only sit back and watch for so long before I started getting annoyed.
Wolves shouldn't be underestimated because of their statistics or what studies have revealed in 'how they USUALLY act' or 'MAY act in a situation'.
They're no different than any other predator on the planet: they are wild. They are unpredictable.
Therefore we must treat them like any wild animal: with respect, caution, and not react to them through our emotions or any sort of attachment we hold to animals. They can only gather an average, and we aren't always going to run into the "average pack of wolves" on a camping trip. We may spot them, or not see them at all.
When I read studies or behavior reports on animals I use them as a reference to help me on a camping trip, not expect them to behave like studies say. I am prepared to see what is 'expected' [with wolves, skittishness], but am also wary that they may not act as scientists have recorded [fearlessness and dangerous levels of curiosity].