Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Super pack' of 400 wolves terrorise remote


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

You say human life is more worth than another life?

That's the main reason for the problem... if humans could do like chinese and get a rule on how many children each and one can have, there would be NO overhumanity and no starvation. People are making the world worse by "living their life". Humans are like vermins, thus lesser valuable in life than a wolf.

If they were like the Chinese they would be eating the wolves along with the dogs and cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure most of you people mean well with your "save the wolves" rhetoric. But have any of you been around wolves and seen the damage they do to livestock and wild game and even humans?

Here in Montana, we cull out a given number each year legally. And as many Montana residents know the three S's. SHOOT, SHOVEL, and SHUT-UP.

So until you've witnessed their damage firsthand, you can say all you want, but that won't change the attitude of people who have witnessed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say human life is more worth than another life?

That's the main reason for the problem... if humans could do like chinese and get a rule on how many children each and one can have, there would be NO overhumanity and no starvation. People are making the world worse by "living their life". Humans are like vermins, thus lesser valuable in life than a wolf.

Burning building. Kitten and baby in it. You can only save one. Which one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Culling is the only solution for the people in this Siberian community right now -- the only way to maintain their standard of living and protect their pets, livestock & possibly families.

No its not. It's the only solution you choose to see. Set the Fallen brought up another good technique. Using smells and sounds which deter unwanted animals. . . something I learned from living in bear territory at one point. Not only is it effective, its easy and requires less environmental strain. Considering Russia is under environmental stress, it is making things worse by adding to it. It's amazing how quickly humans jump at the opportunity to kill something. It's not even the easy way out!

It reminds me of the feed lot cow issues. They feed the cows corn, which they can't digest properly. They get sick. Humans pump them full of stuff so they can digest the corn. The cows digest it better, but they are still getting sick because of the unsanitary conditions and unnatural diet. They die young. Humans pump them up with hormones and steroids so they grow bigger faster, so they can kill them for food before they die from feedlot life. The hormones and steroids survive into the meat that we eat, affected how our bodies function. The new acidity level in the cow's stomach, which we created, gives birth to a new strain of e. coli that is very dangerous to humans. Humans decide to fix the e. coli and other harmful bacteria problems by mixing meat with an ammonium solution. Do you know what would have stopped the problems from the start? FEEDING THE FREAKING COWS GRASS. But that's too simple for us. We are above such simple solutions. We have to harm the animals and, in turn, ourselves in order to fix the problem to our satisfaction. We insist upon unnatural solutions that lead to more problems.

Do you know what would happen if the wolves were left alone and methods put in play to deter them from homes and livestock? The population would even out ON ITS OWN. Do you know what happens once humans go gun crazy? They end up killing far more than necessary and just add to the environmental strain, creating a new web of problems that will have to be dealt with eventually.

You know, if we had any foresight as a species we'd be doing pretty good. Unfortunately, we have none. Hence the horrible state of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure most of you people mean well with your "save the wolves" rhetoric. But have any of you been around wolves and seen the damage they do to livestock and wild game and even humans?

Here in Montana, we cull out a given number each year legally. And as many Montana residents know the three S's. SHOOT, SHOVEL, and SHUT-UP.

So until you've witnessed their damage firsthand, you can say all you want, but that won't change the attitude of people who have witnessed it.

No, but I've lived, and my family still does live in coyote (LOTS and LOTS of coyotes), mountain lion, jaguar,bear, and bobcat country, and NEVER have myself or anyone in my family EVER needed to employ any "Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup" crap. Never not once, even having a house smack in the middle of a female mountain lions territory, and another one (my dad's current house) on land with a HUGE coyote pack in an area with a "coyote problem", and we have never had any problems from ANY of them. My dad keeps mini horses, regular horses, so many cats its ridiculous, and a number of other animals that would be prime pickings for the coyote pack on his land. Not one of his animals has ever disappeared. Why? Because he employs nonlethal techniques, and they, obviously, work. When his neighbors complain about trouble on their property, my dad helps them out and they have no more.

The problem isn't with the animal, its with the people. And I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out how to control predators without culling, then you shouldn't have livestock to begin with. There are plenty of those out there that have learned how to do it, you can too. It's not a difficult process, it just involves a lot of critical thinking and, sadly, we seem to not like to do that. There were WAY more wolves around in the past, and Natives found ways to live peacefully with them. Maybe its because my family has native roots, we learned how to coexist through methods that have been passed down. It's mostly common sense, people just need to think about it instead of jumping to the "SHOOT THEM" answer.

They live here too, this is their home too. They have just as much right to it as we do. It's the culling of predators which has led to so much overpopulation among other species which are even more destructive, but in ways that are less obvious. It's a circle. If we don't coexist, we mess things up, we pay in the end. It's a simple concept which people seem to have a very difficult time in grasping.

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure most of you people mean well with your "save the wolves" rhetoric. But have any of you been around wolves and seen the damage they do to livestock and wild game and even humans?

Here in Montana, we cull out a given number each year legally. And as many Montana residents know the three S's. SHOOT, SHOVEL, and SHUT-UP.

So until you've witnessed their damage firsthand, you can say all you want, but that won't change the attitude of people who have witnessed it.

Humans try to kill all wolfs in norway, only 30 wolfs are in norway, really small packs here and there.

They say "there is a wolf at each door, trying to eat the children", if it is not a lie, then do the pack run over 500 miles each day to be able to stand at each door to wait for their children each morning? It sound more unrealistic than flying raindeers and santa.

Lies do not change the fact, just because you fear something it does not make it right killing it. I would trust my sister and brother wolf more than a human, for they are not like humans and do not lie. I have seen wolfs in the free, and they keep their distance from humans for they are not seekers of pain. People who witness ufos or aliens do not nececarily tell the truth, but witnesses must be more worth than what the truth is.

Though I doubth it standing in a court if witnesses told someone did not kill, when the proffs tell othervise...

Burning building. Kitten and baby in it. You can only save one. Which one?

If I was to chose I would spare the kitten.

I am not a judge of life, but my intention would have been to save any life. All life has the same value.

A human life would be a longer one, meening more deaths to stay alive, unececary living, maybe becoming fat and imobile, ruining even hurting some other life in the future, while a cat would not kill so much to survive.

If I saved the kitty I would spare more suffering in the world than nececary.

On the other hand... if I were to save the child, the babe of witch you speak, then I would be responsible for whatever action that life would be on the world, and such a responsibility would meen more than the saving I could do. It would meen teaching things that the parents would denie me to teach. A childs life would perhaps be more suffering than it was worth, but I suppose I would try saving both if possible.

Both lifes would be valuable in some ways, but if only I could save one, it would be the kitty in most situations, as it would not make the world suffer more than nececary.

Maybe I would save no one, for I am no hero, but that would be for the situation to decide.

No its not. It's the only solution you choose to see. Set the Fallen brought up another good technique. Using smells and sounds which deter unwanted animals. . . something I learned from living in bear territory at one point. Not only is it effective, its easy and requires less environmental strain. Considering Russia is under environmental stress, it is making things worse by adding to it. It's amazing how quickly humans jump at the opportunity to kill something. It's not even the easy way out!

It reminds me of the feed lot cow issues. They feed the cows corn, which they can't digest properly. They get sick. Humans pump them full of stuff so they can digest the corn. The cows digest it better, but they are still getting sick because of the unsanitary conditions and unnatural diet. They die young. Humans pump them up with hormones and steroids so they grow bigger faster, so they can kill them for food before they die from feedlot life. The hormones and steroids survive into the meat that we eat, affected how our bodies function. The new acidity level in the cow's stomach, which we created, gives birth to a new strain of e. coli that is very dangerous to humans. Humans decide to fix the e. coli and other harmful bacteria problems by mixing meat with an ammonium solution. Do you know what would have stopped the problems from the start? FEEDING THE FREAKING COWS GRASS. But that's too simple for us. We are above such simple solutions. We have to harm the animals and, in turn, ourselves in order to fix the problem to our satisfaction. We insist upon unnatural solutions that lead to more problems.

Do you know what would happen if the wolves were left alone and methods put in play to deter them from homes and livestock? The population would even out ON ITS OWN. Do you know what happens once humans go gun crazy? They end up killing far more than necessary and just add to the environmental strain, creating a new web of problems that will have to be dealt with eventually.

You know, if we had any foresight as a species we'd be doing pretty good. Unfortunately, we have none. Hence the horrible state of the planet.

I find it horrible when people showel cows full of things they can not live of.

Grass eating cows taste better and have a happy life, even their milk is better...

For anything to become better humans truly have to change for the greater good of all, not just for themselfs. But going gun crazy is the only thing man knows, so why use the brain when you could taste the joy of killing. I would say peace is better solution as long as it is possible, as the great chinese warlord of the past said "war is a unececary risk, avoiding it is the best way to fare". I think the same can be said for nature, avoiding hurting it would be the best way to coperate with it.

No, but I've lived, and my family still does live in coyote (LOTS and LOTS of coyotes), mountain lion, jaguar,bear, and bobcat country, and NEVER have myself or anyone in my family EVER needed to employ any "Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup" crap. Never not once, even having a house smack in the middle of a female mountain lions territory, and another one (my dad's current house) on land with a HUGE coyote pack in an area with a "coyote problem", and we have never had any problems from ANY of them. My dad keeps mini horses, regular horses, so many cats its ridiculous, and a number of other animals that would be prime pickings for the coyote pack on his land. Not one of his animals has ever disappeared. Why? Because he employs nonlethal techniques, and they, obviously, work. When his neighbors complain about trouble on their property, my dad helps them out and they have no more.

The problem isn't with the animal, its with the people. And I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out how to control predators without culling, then you shouldn't have livestock to begin with. There are plenty of those out there that have learned how to do it, you can too. It's not a difficult process, it just involves a lot of critical thinking and, sadly, we seem to not like to do that. There were WAY more wolves around in the past, and Natives found ways to live peacefully with them. Maybe its because my family has native roots, we learned how to coexist through methods that have been passed down. It's mostly common sense, people just need to think about it instead of jumping to the "SHOOT THEM" answer.

They live here too, this is their home too. They have just as much right to it as we do. It's the culling of predators which has led to so much overpopulation among other species which are even more destructive, but in ways that are less obvious. It's a circle. If we don't coexist, we mess things up, we pay in the end. It's a simple concept which people seem to have a very difficult time in grasping.

Norway is a good example of how lazy people can be with predators.

When the predators finaly are stable, and animals are hunted when trown out in the wild withouth any farmer watching over them, what does it say about the humans that farm them? They do nothing to take care of their farm animals, and to lazy to heard the sheeps or reindeer, they prefer shooting them instead of find other solutions. To blame on others is to easy when the humans do nothing themself to find solutions.

Weapons is all they know.

Have any of you seen the movie "FROZEN"? Watch it and see what you opinion is then.

That movie is not a good movie.

It's the worst holywood bull I've ever seen. What kind of ski resort has only one day open in the week? Seriously? Also wolfs are never close to such places, and the worst of all, the ****ing idiotic woman survives (the one you go around hoping would die through all the movie).

The wolfs are not like that, and it is obvious they are not wolfs but dogs. Do I have to go further?

Using that movie as any kind of reference or making a opinions on wolfs is stupid.

At the weary least it might show one thing with any predator that might be true, taking easy pray when you break your legs falling, though a wolf would never sit around waiting at the ground for people to jump into their mouth. Wolfs are never at places that stink human, they keep away. Coyotes might be clos, but not wolfs. Wolfs are shy to humans.

It reminds me of a story were a bear killed a human and ate him, and some wolfs howled in the distance, though the proof showd that it was a bear, they killed the wolfs because they "though" they had killed him. The bear went free even though it was more dangerous and the culpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SUPER PACK!!!! RAWR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certain that there is an ample amount of hysteria in these claims... after all, 40 will look like 400 when there's no time to count 'em. It's the same BS "y'all" (the white man) did to the buffalo that once roamed N. America.

Just kidding, if you didn't catch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is surely a sign of inteligence in the animals to coperate.

Why is the only option to kill them? They are obviously highly inteligent, should they not be helped?

We might be able to communicate with them if the story is true.

It is inhuman to kill another society.

Yes its true that they deserve to live on earth as much as we do and I doubt that the wolves are targeting humans here, so why kill them?

this is just pure cruelty.

"Bounty: Twenty four teams of hunters have been employed by authorities to tackle the wolf pack, with officials paying £210 for every one killed"

And wow they are actually promoting for this hunting of wolves ?

As I can see here, instead of trapping them and leaving them in a secure environment they are just relying on killing them, this is just brutal or maybe its just not economical for them to trap them first and them transport them to another safe location, now this is very bad,.

400 in a pack? Not freekin likely. Wolves could not possibly quickly evolve a workable hierarchy or pack structure in such a large group.

A more likely explanation is human fear/embellishment & numerous hungry packs over a period of time perhaps?

I highly doubt you would be saying that if you lived there -- and these packs were targeting your livestock, pets, or your family.

I think these packs could be taken care of without killing but it is very sad its because of the reason that I described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was to chose I would spare the kitten.

I am not a judge of life, but my intention would have been to save any life. All life has the same value.

A human life would be a longer one, meening more deaths to stay alive, unececary living, maybe becoming fat and imobile, ruining even hurting some other life in the future, while a cat would not kill so much to survive.

If I saved the kitty I would spare more suffering in the world than nececary.

On the other hand... if I were to save the child, the babe of witch you speak, then I would be responsible for whatever action that life would be on the world, and such a responsibility would meen more than the saving I could do. It would meen teaching things that the parents would denie me to teach. A childs life would perhaps be more suffering than it was worth, but I suppose I would try saving both if possible.

Both lifes would be valuable in some ways, but if only I could save one, it would be the kitty in most situations, as it would not make the world suffer more than nececary.

What bizarre logic. Do you consider yourself a misanthrope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the animal kingdom AND human beings pay for the miscalculations of....man.

Where do you and others get this from? There is no evidence in that story that humans caused the declination of the rabbit food source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This story is complete BS.

Pack size is highly variable and fluid because of the birth of pups, dispersal, and mortality. Prey availability and size are also factors. Where prey animals are smaller, packs are often small. Where prey is large, the packs may be larger. For example, in Alaska and northwestern Canada some packs reportedly have over 20 members. One pack (Druid Peak pack) in Yellowstone National Park once swelled to over 30 members, but this is highly unusual and not necessarily an advantage. More pack members means more food must be obtained. Wolf packs are generally largest in late autumn when the nearly-grown pups are strong enough to hunt with the adults. Over the winter months, some wolves may disperse to find mates and territories of their own. Others die, and by spring, before the arrival of a new crop of pups, the pack size has often diminished.

Red wolf packs are generally smaller than gray wolf packs and usually have 2 to 8 members, but a pack of 12 has been observed in the wild.

quote source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you and others get this from? There is no evidence in that story that humans caused the declination of the rabbit food source.

Omigosh, I mentioned it in an earlier post.

40% of Russia is considered under high or extremely high environmental stress, and this is excluding radiation zones. They have not been so strict with their environmental regulations. This leads to all kinds of environmental issues. Their air and water qualities are rated among some of the worlds worst.

The area in question may have a small population, but you have to factor in the industrial impact including mining (Verkhoyansk is a tin/gold mining area. Poor mining procedures lead to more water pollution, deforestation, and land degradation) and logging:

In the 1990s, the atmosphere of economic stress and political decentralization has the potential to accelerate drastically Russia's rate of deforestation and land degradation, especially in remote areas. Environmentalists fear that timber sales will be used as a short-term stimulus to regional economies; already, Chinese, Mongolian, and North and South Korean companies have taken advantage of looser restrictions and the critical need for hard currency (see Glossary) to begin clear-cutting Siberian forests.
Inefficient lumbering procedures cause unnecessary loss of timber; as much as 40 percent of Russia's harvested trees never go to the mill, and unsystematic clear-cutting prevents productive regrowth.
Acid rain from European and Siberian industrial centers and from power generation plants has reduced the Siberian forests by an estimated 730,000 hectares. Hydroelectric dams on Siberian rivers raise significantly the temperature of air and water, destabilizing the growing conditions of adjacent forests.

source

The melting of the permafrost layer, caused by deforestation, endeavors related to oil and gas exploration/drilling, mining, hydroelectric dams, and warmer temperatures (the area has experienced warmer winters for the last 10 years. This year probably wasn't "unnaturally cold", but colder than the last few years), which has disrupted not only the vegetation growth but also the nutritional value of the vegetation. The clear-cutting has magnified this problem, creating large portions of land where vegetation recovery has been extremely slow or not seen at all. Add to this the other factors of land degradation, from soil erosion to acid rains and the fact that the people make much of their living off hunting fur animals and. . .Gee, I can't see how man could have had a role at all. :rolleyes:

I daresay rabbits have not been the only things that have been affected. I'll go out on a limb and say their entire ecosystem is feeling the impact of all of this. The only reason the rabbits have been noticed is because they affect the wolves behavior, and the wolves affect man's behavior. We never take note of anything until it affects us, and then, instead of admitting our role in it, we'll grasp at straws to blame something else.

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omigosh, I mentioned it in an earlier post.

40% of Russia is considered under high or extremely high environmental stress, and this is excluding radiation zones. They have not been so strict with their environmental regulations. This leads to all kinds of environmental issues. Their air and water qualities are rated among some of the worlds worst.

The area in question may have a small population, but you have to factor in the industrial impact including mining (Verkhoyansk is a tin/gold mining area. Poor mining procedures lead to more water pollution, deforestation, and land degradation) and logging:

source

The melting of the permafrost layer, caused by deforestation, endeavors related to oil and gas exploration/drilling, mining, hydroelectric dams, and warmer temperatures (the area has experienced warmer winters for the last 10 years. This year probably wasn't "unnaturally cold", but colder than the last few years), which has disrupted not only the vegetation growth but also the nutritional value of the vegetation. The clear-cutting has magnified this problem, creating large portions of land where vegetation recovery has been extremely slow or not seen at all. Add to this the other factors of land degradation, from soil erosion to acid rains and the fact that the people make much of their living off hunting fur animals and. . .Gee, I can't see how man could have had a role at all. :rolleyes:

I daresay rabbits have not been the only things that have been affected. I'll go out on a limb and say their entire ecosystem is feeling the impact of all of this. The only reason the rabbits have been noticed is because they affect the wolves behavior, and the wolves affect man's behavior. We never take note of anything until it affects us, and then, instead of admitting our role in it, we'll grasp at straws to blame something else.

I have to agree with everything you said here. In my earlier post I neglected to take deforestation into account. This of course would not necessarily have anything to do with population. Russia and the former Soviet Union have never been known for their conservation efforts. It's too bad that these wolves will have to pay the price for human's lack of foresight again.

On another note I also posted something to the effect of this area not being a prime vacation spot. Ironically I found this article from 2009:

The Cold Pole

Verkhoyansk, Russia

Nowadays, the city is attempting to attract "extreme tourists," who are drawn by the intense cold. For much of its history, however, Verkhoyansk was a preferred exile destination, used first by the czars, then later by the Soviets. In the 20th century, Verkoyansk's population peaked at 2500 residents.

Full Article

:unsure:

I also have to agree with those who have posted that 400 wolves in a pack seems extreme, i can't seem to find anything to dispute this number though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anythings blood-thirsty its the Human race, killing everything in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omigosh, I mentioned it in an earlier post.

40% of Russia is considered under high or extremely high environmental stress, and this is excluding radiation zones. They have not been so strict with their environmental regulations. This leads to all kinds of environmental issues. Their air and water qualities are rated among some of the worlds worst.

The area in question may have a small population, but you have to factor in the industrial impact including mining (Verkhoyansk is a tin/gold mining area. Poor mining procedures lead to more water pollution, deforestation, and land degradation) and logging:

source

The melting of the permafrost layer, caused by deforestation, endeavors related to oil and gas exploration/drilling, mining, hydroelectric dams, and warmer temperatures (the area has experienced warmer winters for the last 10 years. This year probably wasn't "unnaturally cold", but colder than the last few years), which has disrupted not only the vegetation growth but also the nutritional value of the vegetation. The clear-cutting has magnified this problem, creating large portions of land where vegetation recovery has been extremely slow or not seen at all. Add to this the other factors of land degradation, from soil erosion to acid rains and the fact that the people make much of their living off hunting fur animals and. . .Gee, I can't see how man could have had a role at all. :rolleyes:

I daresay rabbits have not been the only things that have been affected. I'll go out on a limb and say their entire ecosystem is feeling the impact of all of this. The only reason the rabbits have been noticed is because they affect the wolves behavior, and the wolves affect man's behavior. We never take note of anything until it affects us, and then, instead of admitting our role in it, we'll grasp at straws to blame something else.

Lovely polemic. However, there is NO proof that this PARTICULAR problem was caused by humans. The article itself states:

Dr Valerius Geist, a wildlife behaviour expert, said the harsh Siberian winter - where temperatures plummet to minus 49C - had killed off the animal's usual prey.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354445/Super-pack-400-wolves-kill-30-horses-just-days-remote-Russian-village.html#ixzz1DUzD6TYl

Unless of course we blame it on cooling caused by man made global climate change -- which would be a significant stretch in logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Verkhoyansk is considered one of the coldest inhabited spot in the world. And recent temperatures have been warmer than normal, not colder. This year has had around the same temperatures as the previous years. -46 degrees (Fahrenheit, btw) was one of the coldest temperatures I could find for the 2010-2011 winter months, and that is, in no way, a very cold winter for the area. Most days were milder, with temperatures in the -20's. The animals in this area have lived there for many years, they have evolved to withstand much harsher winters than this. -90 degrees Fahrenheit is the record low, just to give you an idea of HOW cold it can get. It is no surprise for temperatures to get down to -60's C during colder years, with the averages being around the -50 C zone.

Again, I will say, man will grasp at anything to avoid blame.

And, lacking the sense of the balance that occurs in nature, I am not surprised how you see no correlation with the environmental problems existent there. I find most humans need direct cause and effect in order to comprehend certain things. . .but it just isn't present in nature much of the time. It is a chain reaction and one that may not have a clear cut beginning/end, and may include several different factors. In other words, viewing such incidents with a black and white mentality are folly, at best. Reducing things down to "This caused this" generally does not work. It's more of a "This caused this, which caused this and this, which caused this, this, and this, etc".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, lacking the sense of the balance that occurs in nature, I am not surprised how you see no correlation with the environmental problems existent there. I find most humans need direct cause and effect in order to comprehend certain things. . .but it just isn't present in nature much of the time. It is a chain reaction and one that may not have a clear cut beginning/end, and may include several different factors. In other words, viewing such incidents with a black and white mentality are folly, at best. Reducing things down to "This caused this" generally does not work. It's more of a "This caused this, which caused this and this, which caused this, this, and this, etc".

Holy condescending Batman. :rolleyes: I perfectly understand how complex systems in nature can interact. You also seem to think I'm some conservative, black and white thinker -- not so, I believe that man is *** up the planet to some degree, especially post Industrial Revolution.

However I also can understand that these people, surviving in one of the harshest coldest places in the world have to take pragmatic and rational (rational: meaning untainted by love the fuzzy bunny emotion) actions to protect their livestock and way of life.

BTW the same complexity in your logic also works against you. Perhaps a butterfly farting in Japan started the chain of events that penultimately killed the rabbit's that then caused the bloodthirsty wolf super-pack.

400 wolves mmmm I would like to see the "ALPHA" male that runs that show

Nahhh it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have no one thought of the wolf as they do help the entire ecologic balance in many area of the world!

Sigh...I believe sometimes men need to let nature take its course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy condescending Batman. :rolleyes: I perfectly understand how complex systems in nature can interact. You also seem to think I'm some conservative, black and white thinker -- not so, I believe that man is *** up the planet to some degree, especially post Industrial Revolution.

However I also can understand that these people, surviving in one of the harshest coldest places in the world have to take pragmatic and rational (rational: meaning untainted by love the fuzzy bunny emotion) actions to protect their livestock and way of life.

BTW the same complexity in your logic also works against you. Perhaps a butterfly farting in Japan started the chain of events that penultimately killed the rabbit's that then caused the bloodthirsty wolf super-pack.

I'm not being condescending, I'm being rational. The solution to kill the wolves is not rational, nor, as pointed out before, is it the easiest solution. I don't believe any word out of my mouth has insinuated that I have any fuzzy bunny emotions about anything. I actually find that funny as most people seem to feel my problem is the lack of emotion I have during debates. It's called common sense. The population will even out on its own if, indeed, there is a population problem to begin with, everyone seems to be in agreement a pack of 400 is an exaggeration. All they have to do is use methods to keep the wolves away. It's the most logical and best solution for all involved. The livestock won't be bothered, and the numbers will even out if there is, indeed, a problem.

And no, my logic doesn't work against me because it is logic, hence it uses a LOGICAL approach. Your butterfly example lacks logic, hence it would not be involved in a logistical answer. I don't know what you don't understand about the environmental pressures in this area, I've stated them over and over. It was only a matter of time before the effects on wildlife started to make themselves more known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population of wolves will most likely balance out but only after many have starved to death. Deterrents wont work either as if food resources become more scarce they will become more bold and come into human territory and prey upon domestic livestock. I can see how a cull will spare much suffering on both sides.

I find this interesting as I recently attended a lecture on eusocialitity and sociality. One of the theories is that extreme habitats can cause sociality and ultimately eusociality as in mole rats, termites and ants. The more members in a group can allow a wider range to be covered, and more food to be found which may feed greater numbers of the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.