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

I begin to wonder if you read my posts at all or just skim a bit and draw conclusions, as your arguments fail to take much of what I say into consideration. Wolf culling is NOT cheaper. Possibly in the short term, but most definitely not long term. We have seen this over and over again. How many times before we learn our lesson?

And, again, the probability that the numbers have been greatly exaggerated will exacerbate long term problems and is yet another reason culling is not a good idea. They could wipe out the entire wolf population in the area because they exaggerated their numbers. Then what?

The "easy" solution is never the best solution with problems such as these. Quick, fast, and cheap answers are band-aid solutions and generally put in play by those too lazy or too ignorant to come up with something good and long term. In today's world, regardless of where you live, everyone wants instantaneous results and lose sight of the consequences that come along with getting those results. It's one of the reasons we've managed to muck things up as much as we have.

I have read your posts diligently. Thank you. IMO the root problem with your ideas... is simply your insistence that these people in Siberia live according to YOUR value system. How very arrogant to assume that these people are "lazy and ignorant" when in fact the problem may be that you are rigid and narrow in your believing that your value system is the correct one in this particular situation -- the assumption that your view and methods are the right ones certainly is easy from your armchair, in your warm and safe parlour.

Edited by Psukhe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase the question of yours for you.

What good do all the humans do?

If the rule applies for wolfs, and humans are to a species of this world, then the rule applies for humans to. If you have to kill a wolf to control them even though they are inteligent, then do the same with humans and don't act high and mighty all the time. There is a lot more useless humans around, more so than wolfs.

Consider the ecosystem and the things a wolf do, I see only animals that survive as part of the circle.

They are a good thing in nature and contains a order in the wilds, unlike humans.

Regarding humans, if the wolfs are in trouble, the population of humans is the thing that should reduce for the sake of the animals so the animals do not starve as cause of humans. Controling population of species is surely not one sided, but if killing can be avoided it should be done in such a maner before rater than later. To prevent this "starving" created by the human village, they should reduce their hunting, make rules for how many children a family should have, and take nonviolent acts to prevent unbalance in nature.

If a species dies out, there are things that is bound to happen as cause of this. with no wolfs a lot more moses would run about killing trees with overfeeding, or deers would eat the land until there is nothing left, even rabits would leave the grounds bare for life. If it was so, it would become like a death desert with no life able to survive, and thus nature will use many years to regain it's life again, if ever. Though I see that humans do not care to protect the world, but only nuture their own gread of controling land. With so much DEATH they could surly build the city more and then starve to death before knowing what they have done to bot themself and the nature.

Wolfs are nececary as part of the balance, humans are not thus I voice this opinion.

Though the wolfs are more than needed in their numbers, they will be able to solve as part of nature, but killing wolfs is not a solution whatever others might say. Life is more valuable than such small trival things as human issues of lazyness of respect to nature. Cowards always take the simplest solution, yet it solve nothing in the end... they should focus on a way to solve this rightfully on all parts.

I have to say though, humans in the past was more to my liking.

They would hold a proper court to solve it all with a judge and lawyers that protect the animals, all having eacual rights as everyone was living beings. Humans of today are to selfish.

"FACEPALM" :gun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha wolfs meat i guess could be aphrodisiac.....

i bet those who hunt them will not starve for meat...

Hhhhhmmmm..... Might not be bad. Maybe I'll have to try some one of these days. Or put it in the smoker and make some wolf jerky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, culling was the way they became Yellowstone National Park in America caused the extinction--only to use millions of Americans tax dollars to "re-introduce" the species to the Park after the balance of the buffalo, moose, mule deer etc. had themselves starved to death & died from overpopulation related diseases. I think there is a solution, but in the first place I have question that 400 wolves were terrorising just this one place.

A poorly executed plan does not mean that the plan is wrong.

I once burnt an omelette and had to start all again, costing me at least 60p in ingredients. Does that mean I should never cook an omelette again, or should I just make sure that my execution of the recipe is better next time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A poorly executed plan does not mean that the plan is wrong.

I once burnt an omelette and had to start all again, costing me at least 60p in ingredients. Does that mean I should never cook an omelette again, or should I just make sure that my execution of the recipe is better next time?

Oh Dougal, we are speaking of an entire ecosystem here-ready encroached by men-.

Not an omlette. Like comparing apples & oranges. Ecosystems perhaps so many thousands of years old, inturupted by "mens best intrests & judgements'. I am just saying, left to our own devices, we as humanity just suck at trying to perfect natures balance. Seems we never quite meet up to the natural order of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already altered the eco-system with the introduction of domesticated animals into the area. As long as research is done to ascertain the numbers of wolves I can't see the problem with culling their numbers to a more sustainable level. The impact of that on the eco-system would much likely be alot less harmful than an overgrown pack of wolves eating all the prey animals within the area.

Edited to add* I think we can assume that the eco-system is already out of whack by the fact that they have "400" wolves.

Edited by Dougal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read your posts diligently. Thank you. IMO the root problem with your ideas... is simply your insistence that these people in Siberia live according to YOUR value system. How very arrogant to assume that these people are "lazy and ignorant" when in fact the problem may be that you are rigid and narrow in your believing that your value system is the correct one in this particular situation -- the assumption that your view and methods are the right ones certainly is easy from your armchair, in your warm and safe parlour.

No, actually I don't. And you have no idea about my life or how it's been lived. I've spent long periods of time living out in the wilderness with no food other than what I could find and no roof over my head save one I've made, and am actually in the process of preparing to do it again. I've spent a good portion of my life learning how natives lived with the land rather than against it, learning their methods, medicines, and interactions. I've said before, I have worked with dangerous animals, I have also been exposed to them in great numbers, alligators especially. I used knowledge and critical thinking to survive, not a gun. Man existed before guns in these conditions, man can do it again. To choose an easy way out rather than learn from the ancestors is lazy, I don't care where you live and I have no pity for the place of residence. They live where their ancestors lived, and had their ancestors not survived just fine there would be no people there now. They did not use their environment as an excuse, if they did they would never have survived in such conditions. Apparently they knew what they were doing better than you think.

"Let us a little permit Nature to take her own way; she better understands her own affairs than we." ~Michel de Montaign

I believe that quote sums it up well. Humans, despite their arrogance, can never correct nature better than nature can correct herself. Let the expert sort it out. If your car is broken and you know little about cars, you take it to a mechanic that knows what they are doing, correct? Why? Because once you jump in and start tinkering around, you are likely to make things worse and create new problems. I will say it again to emphasize the point. Let the expert handle it. . .and the only true expert on Nature is nature herself.

And you have forgotten to comment on the exaggeration in the numbers. A Russian zoologist, who is also a wolf specialist, and familiar with the area has said that the numbers have been exaggerated, and they are using the pretext of hunting wolves to get money. . .both for killing the wolf in the first place and also for selling the pelt. Remember, this is an area big in the fur trade.They also plan to use helicopters to gun down the wolves once the days lengthen. Hmm. . .I wonder which is more expensive, a helicopter or a fence?

You are getting emotionally attached, I believe, to people that you know little about. You are defending the something which warrants no defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually I don't. And you have no idea about my life or how it's been lived. I've spent long periods of time living out in the wilderness with no food other than what I could find and no roof over my head save one I've made, and am actually in the process of preparing to do it again. I've spent a good portion of my life learning how natives lived with the land rather than against it, learning their methods, medicines, and interactions. I've said before, I have worked with dangerous animals, I have also been exposed to them in great numbers, alligators especially. I used knowledge and critical thinking to survive, not a gun. Man existed before guns in these conditions, man can do it again. To choose an easy way out rather than learn from the ancestors is lazy, I don't care where you live and I have no pity for the place of residence. They live where their ancestors lived, and had their ancestors not survived just fine there would be no people there now. They did not use their environment as an excuse, if they did they would never have survived in such conditions. Apparently they knew what they were doing better than you think.

"Let us a little permit Nature to take her own way; she better understands her own affairs than we." ~Michel de Montaign

I believe that quote sums it up well. Humans, despite their arrogance, can never correct nature better than nature can correct herself. Let the expert sort it out. If your car is broken and you know little about cars, you take it to a mechanic that knows what they are doing, correct? Why? Because once you jump in and start tinkering around, you are likely to make things worse and create new problems. I will say it again to emphasize the point. Let the expert handle it. . .and the only true expert on Nature is nature herself.

And you have forgotten to comment on the exaggeration in the numbers. A Russian zoologist, who is also a wolf specialist, and familiar with the area has said that the numbers have been exaggerated, and they are using the pretext of hunting wolves to get money. . .both for killing the wolf in the first place and also for selling the pelt. Remember, this is an area big in the fur trade.They also plan to use helicopters to gun down the wolves once the days lengthen. Hmm. . .I wonder which is more expensive, a helicopter or a fence?

You are getting emotionally attached, I believe, to people that you know little about. You are defending the something which warrants no defense.

What in heaven's name does your playing "nature girl" with alligators have anything at all to do with the real lives of people in Siberia?

I'm not emotionally attached to these backward people. I just respect their right to live & survive in the only way they know.

I understand the whole conservation thing. Just not sure how well it applies to the people barely subsisting in Siberia. These people survive by hunting & raising reindeer -- if they can't hunt what exactly do you suggest they do to survive?

BTW You do realize these are largely "native" peoples, right?

Ironically, you respect the American native's way of life, but not these people's ways to survive, based on following "their" ancestors practices of hunting for furs and raising reindeer?

Again, easy for you to judge and proselytize in front of your warm, first world keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually I don't. And you have no idea about my life or how it's been lived. I've spent long periods of time living out in the wilderness with no food other than what I could find and no roof over my head save one I've made, and am actually in the process of preparing to do it again. I've spent a good portion of my life learning how natives lived with the land rather than against it, learning their methods, medicines, and interactions. I've said before, I have worked with dangerous animals, I have also been exposed to them in great numbers, alligators especially. I used knowledge and critical thinking to survive, not a gun. Man existed before guns in these conditions, man can do it again. To choose an easy way out rather than learn from the ancestors is lazy, I don't care where you live and I have no pity for the place of residence. They live where their ancestors lived, and had their ancestors not survived just fine there would be no people there now. They did not use their environment as an excuse, if they did they would never have survived in such conditions. Apparently they knew what they were doing better than you think. "Let us a little permit Nature to take her own way; she better understands her own affairs than we." ~Michel de MontaignI believe that quote sums it up well. Humans, despite their arrogance, can never correct nature better than nature can correct herself. Let the expert sort it out. If your car is broken and you know little about cars, you take it to a mechanic that knows what they are doing, correct? Why? Because once you jump in and start tinkering around, you are likely to make things worse and create new problems. I will say it again to emphasize the point. Let the expert handle it. . .and the only true expert on Nature is nature herself. And you have forgotten to comment on the exaggeration in the numbers. A Russian zoologist, who is also a wolf specialist, and familiar with the area has said that the numbers have been exaggerated, and they are using the pretext of hunting wolves to get money. . .both for killing the wolf in the first place and also for selling the pelt. Remember, this is an area big in the fur trade.They also plan to use helicopters to gun down the wolves once the days lengthen. Hmm. . .I wonder which is more expensive, a helicopter or a fence? You are getting emotionally attached, I believe, to people that you know little about. You are defending the something which warrants no defense.

As Psukhe said these are largely native peoples they know exactly what they need to do to survive, before the gun they had the bow, the knife, the club they didnt just get a gun and say lets start killing stuff.

As they herd reindeer fences wont work because they would be constantly moving around for adaquate forraging to feed them so you may as well just fence off the whole of Siberia. BTW fencing is very expensive, it a few thousand to properly fence a hundred or so acres, so you could buy a few helicopters and a playboy bunny for the price of fencing the entire range required to feed the deer.

As these people rely on their stock the loss of even one can be a setback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What in heaven's name does your playing "nature girl" with alligators have anything at all to do with the real lives of people in Siberia?

I'm not emotionally attached to these backward people. I just respect their right to live & survive in the only way they know.

I understand the whole conservation thing. Just not sure how well it applies to the people barely subsisting in Siberia. These people survive by hunting & raising reindeer -- if they can't hunt what exactly do you suggest they do to survive?

BTW You do realize these are largely "native" peoples, right?

Ironically, you respect the American native's way of life, but not these people's ways to survive, based on following "their" ancestors practices of hunting for furs and raising reindeer?

Again, easy for you to judge and proselytize in front of your warm, first world keyboard.

just to correct you, these people are not "native" people. Perhaps they have lived there some couple of hundred years, but the animals have just as much rights as a human have. If you don't understand respect, then don't trow around idiotic opinions. I bet you have never ever been in a forest on your own in a whole week surviving on what you have. I know a lot of european "nativ" and no one that is "native" have ever trow around so much disrespect of animals as these siberian people do. Everyone I know hate the way farmers (that these siberian people most likely are) treat wild life.

As Psukhe said these are largely native peoples they know exactly what they need to do to survive, before the gun they had the bow, the knife, the club they didnt just get a gun and say lets start killing stuff.

As they herd reindeer fences wont work because they would be constantly moving around for adaquate forraging to feed them so you may as well just fence off the whole of Siberia. BTW fencing is very expensive, it a few thousand to properly fence a hundred or so acres, so you could buy a few helicopters and a playboy bunny for the price of fencing the entire range required to feed the deer.

As these people rely on their stock the loss of even one can be a setback

Not native... go to any place you like and no nativ will hold such a adidute to wildlife as these losers in siberia. Fences are just needed were they live, or are you saying the whole of the forest belongs to the "city"? It is not that expencive, truly if they work on it, it would not be that hard. They can even use electrical fences, a shocking suprice that would hold a wolf away. I bet the wolfs would stop going there if there was any willforce in these people, anything not realated to lazy ways that could be done. Leave the nature or may it haunt you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to correct you, these people are not "native" people. Perhaps they have lived there some couple of hundred years, but the animals have just as much rights as a human have. If you don't understand respect, then don't trow around idiotic opinions. I bet you have never ever been in a forest on your own in a whole week surviving on what you have. I know a lot of european "nativ" and no one that is "native" have ever trow around so much disrespect of animals as these siberian people do. Everyone I know hate the way farmers (that these siberian people most likely are) treat wild life.

Not native... go to any place you like and no nativ will hold such a adidute to wildlife as these losers in siberia. Fences are just needed were they live, or are you saying the whole of the forest belongs to the "city"? It is not that expencive, truly if they work on it, it would not be that hard. They can even use electrical fences, a shocking suprice that would hold a wolf away. I bet the wolfs would stop going there if there was any willforce in these people, anything not realated to lazy ways that could be done. Leave the nature or may it haunt you all.

All I got from that post is that some bloke's never spent a week in the woods on his own and therefore you feel that he can't have an opinion, and a sweeping generalisation about natives' attitude to wildlife.

Being native doesn't mean you have some deep telepathic bond to nature, it means you're from that area.

I think it's a bit high handed of you to suggest that they're "losers in Siberia" who are all too lazy and lack willpower. Do you have anything to suggest that they're "losers" or that they're lazy, or are you just trying to slate their name because they want to follow a path that you disagree with.

I bet the wolfs would stop going there if there was any willforce in these people, anything not realated to lazy ways that could be done. Leave the nature or may it haunt you all.

Yes, willpower alone has stopped countless wolf attacks.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just to correct you, these people are not "native" people. Perhaps they have lived there some couple of hundred years, but the animals have just as much rights as a human have. If you don't understand respect, then don't trow around idiotic opinions. I bet you have never ever been in a forest on your own in a whole week surviving on what you have. I know a lot of european "nativ" and no one that is "native" have ever trow around so much disrespect of animals as these siberian people do. Everyone I know hate the way farmers (that these siberian people most likely are) treat wild life.

Not native... go to any place you like and no nativ will hold such a adidute to wildlife as these losers in siberia. Fences are just needed were they live, or are you saying the whole of the forest belongs to the "city"? It is not that expencive, truly if they work on it, it would not be that hard. They can even use electrical fences, a shocking suprice that would hold a wolf away. I bet the wolfs would stop going there if there was any willforce in these people, anything not realated to lazy ways that could be done. Leave the nature or may it haunt you all.

Maybe that's the way it is, and the way you like it in "DRAGONLAND" but this is the "REAL" world. The people in Siberia are trying to do their best for theirselves and their familys, and if that means killing wolves, so be it.

Odie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in heaven's name does your playing "nature girl" with alligators have anything at all to do with the real lives of people in Siberia?

I'm not emotionally attached to these backward people. I just respect their right to live & survive in the only way they know.

I understand the whole conservation thing. Just not sure how well it applies to the people barely subsisting in Siberia. These people survive by hunting & raising reindeer -- if they can't hunt what exactly do you suggest they do to survive?

BTW You do realize these are largely "native" peoples, right?

Ironically, you respect the American native's way of life, but not these people's ways to survive, based on following "their" ancestors practices of hunting for furs and raising reindeer?

Again, easy for you to judge and proselytize in front of your warm, first world keyboard.

It "has to do with it" because I've been exposed to danger that, I feel, is on equal level. Oooo, I was all warm and toasty because I was in the south, so it makes it better, right? No, it doesn't. No cold to worry about, sure, but more venomous and disease ridden bugs and animals. One risk might be lower, but the others increase proportionally.

The only reason I know anything about this part of the world is because it (specifically, by name) has popped up within recent months within environmental groups that have begun researching in the area. I find it funny that this story comes out during the time all these groups are over there working on environmental protection and reversing some of the environmental degradation that has occurred. It seems more likely to me that the massive killing of wolves is something that happens frequently, but with the presence of groups who would oppose such a thing, a story has been concocted to make the practice "Okay". These groups, as I have already said, would fund non-lethal control (as well as do much of the work setting it up) and many of them also reimburse loss of livestock. So, if the problem is so severe, why deny this help? I believe THAT is the issue that you should consider, not the blind defending of the peoples right to kill the wolves. Not only would they not have to pay for most, if any, of the control, they would be paid if any of their livestock did get killed. . .So why would they shell out helicopter money to "cull" when there is an option available which is nearly free to them? Cost, obviously, is not the issue in this situation, and neither, apparently, is the profits lost from dead livestock. So what is the true reason for the killing?

Hunting for food vs. hunting just to hunt are two completely different things. If they were eating the wolves they hunt, perhaps I would have a different stance on the matter, but they are not. The people in this area are, most likely *not* indigenous, only about 10% of the population in the area is, and they are fading away quickly and so is their way of life. How does an indigenous people fade away? One way is cultural assimilation. For the most part, the native way of life has been lost in the area due to the heavy influx of non-natives due to mining rushes and railroads. By 1820, most of the indigenous people had been converted and blended into "normal" society. Seeing as though that was nearly 200 years ago, I can say, without much hesitation, that much of their older practices have been lost. Perhaps animal husbandry and fur trading is still around, but its maintenance and methods are probably very different from that of their ancestors. As can be seen in many instances around the world, the introduction of natives into "society" often leads to abuses of prior native systems.

IE- A fishing tribe gets introduced to "society", they find they can make "money" by selling the fish they once used only for their own survival; food, trade for supplies useful to them, tools, etc. They now are introduced to the concept of "money" and all that comes with it, good and bad. So, the more fish they get, the more money they can get. So they start catching more fish than they used to, depending on them now not only for food and whatnot, but also as an export. However, there is no guarantee that the area is able to sustain such practices, and, as it has in many cases, this leads to over-fishing, shortages, and environmental degradation.

Typically, native practices function in a way in which they are sustainable within the numbers of the group. When that is extended out into the world, the local environment can not handle it and begins to degrade.

Also, this place is not as cut off from the rest of the world as you seem to think. The way you make it sound, they're isolated with nothing but their own mental capacities. They aren't. They have food and clothing stores, tourism, etc. This isn't some land lost in time with absolutely no modern conveniences. So, stop playing the "You don't understand because you're behind your nice techno gadgets and have electricity" game. I understand fully, even more so because I *don't* rely on such things for much of the time. Another point I, apparently, failed to get across to you with my "nature girl" routine. :rolleyes: And, btw, that is *my* way of life. I spend VERY LITTLE time with electricity or modern living. . .but I don't expect you to understand what that entails. It's not some game I play, it's the way I LIVE. I know you probably can't grasp the fact that someone would do that without being *forced* to. . .

All I got from that post is that some bloke's never spent a week in the woods on his own and therefore you feel that he can't have an opinion, and a sweeping generalisation about natives' attitude to wildlife

Native, in the sense which it is being discussed here, speaks of those indigenous to the area. First nation, aboriginal, etc. Not a bunch of folks that have been there for a generation or two. And, being such, it is not a sweeping generalization that they tend to respect the land and wildlife they coexist with. They depend on the symbiotic relationship of their habitat for their own survival, they don't tend to get a kick out of mucking it up until they start becoming culturally assimilated.

You can pick any indigenous group that exists, and exists with little pressures from society (which may be difficult, as very few exist now that are untouched by modern living), and you can see for yourself how they interact with the world around them. They give and take. They respect the land and animals that nourish them, because they DEPEND on them to live. When "modern" ways come along, they begin to lose their dependence on the land to survive, and, in losing this, they lose their respect. In order to understand this fully, you must experience it for yourself. You have NO CHOICE but to have a respect for nature when you are depending on it in a one on one relationship for survival. You have NO CHOICE but to be aware of the consequences of every action. But, when you add the middle man, that relationship is lost.

You can see this, again, by looking at indigenous people who have become assimilated. You can actually track the changes that take place during the introduction of things such as money. You can watch the loss of nature-respect with your own eyes. You can watch it unfold by taking groups in different stages of assimilation and comparing them together. It's a very real thing, and not just "some sweeping generalization". If you really care to, you can see it, as well as the loss of it, by doing a little research.

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: my bad

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I got from that post is that some bloke's never spent a week in the woods on his own and therefore you feel that he can't have an opinion, and a sweeping generalisation about natives' attitude to wildlife.

Being native doesn't mean you have some deep telepathic bond to nature, it means you're from that area.

I think it's a bit high handed of you to suggest that they're "losers in Siberia" who are all too lazy and lack willpower. Do you have anything to suggest that they're "losers" or that they're lazy, or are you just trying to slate their name because they want to follow a path that you disagree with.

Yes, willpower alone has stopped countless wolf attacks.....

Surely you can take the killing of wolfs more serious than this? Others opinions on a thing has the same worth as yours.

What I sugest is rather the fact that the people are not native and that the reply on this topic surely was of someone that have no understanding on how nativ people work, and most likely, in that case, have no clue how it is to live on nature alone. If the person knew I would not assume it by the disrespect show toward nature in such a way. I find it rather stupid trowing around such remarks. Regarding the nativ issue, if they truly were nativ, they would not rape the land and leave it dead for their own fun. Native people survive of the land, there is no need for something spiritual, but a nativ would understand the concequens of taking more life than needed. It is most likely that you are not able to grasp a opinion that is realistic, withoth any humbo mumbo spiritual **** on the los. Not that spiritual humbo mumbo is bad, but there are other things in life more important, and I have never said that the spirits say "Don't do the spirits anything". All I say is my opinion.

My opinion is of these people as losers by the wery fact that they firstly, lie about a situation, secondly they kill rather than solve it calmly, thirdly they are obviously trowing around **** for people like you to protect and accept their actions. Your under the spell known as illusion....

I disagree with their actions of cours, I don't have to hide such a obvious fact in this situation.

Though... I don't have to slate their name as they do it so really nicely on their own. I just have to sit back and watch them do their stupidity and know they make fools of themself, though I have no taste for their choise and would do anything to save the wolfs, I am able to accept the fact that some people are just to lazy to change their ways, even if the other way is for the best for all.

Maybe that's the way it is, and the way you like it in "DRAGONLAND" but this is the "REAL" world. The people in Siberia are trying to do their best for theirselves and their familys, and if that means killing wolves, so be it.

Odie

Dragonland is a place that exist, though as you do not know me, you probably do not know were it is.

It is in this real world and no mater were a person is from, whatever should it mater on this site with people that should be able to discuss their opinions like grown and inteligent people? They are not doing their best obviously as they do much things in disregard for nature herself. They are doing their worst, and it will become far worse if they are allowed to keep this on. Of course you are on the humans side though, your not taking in the bigger picture of this all. How important wolfs really are in the nature and what would happen if they killed them all... even if their lie of 400 wolfs proved to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you can take the killing of wolfs more serious than this? Others opinions on a thing has the same worth as yours.

I am taking this seriously, perhaps you don't appreciate that these peoples livelihoods are at stake here. Are you taking this seriously? or are you just seeing this as another injustice to the natural world?

What I sugest is rather the fact that the people are not native and that the reply on this topic surely was of someone that have no understanding on how nativ people work, and most likely, in that case, have no clue how it is to live on nature alone. If the person knew I would not assume it by the disrespect show toward nature in such a way. I find it rather stupid trowing around such remarks. Regarding the nativ issue, if they truly were nativ, they would not rape the land and leave it dead for their own fun. Native people survive of the land, there is no need for something spiritual, but a nativ would understand the concequens of taking more life than needed. It is most likely that you are not able to grasp a opinion that is realistic, withoth any humbo mumbo spiritual **** on the los. Not that spiritual humbo mumbo is bad, but there are other things in life more important, and I have never said that the spirits say "Don't do the spirits anything". All I say is my opinion.

Yes I'd say that their lives and well-being is more important, that's my opinion of course.

I think the point is that these people feel they're not killing any more than is necessary, what they're doing, they're doing to protect their livestock.

As to the rest of that paragraph, I'm afraid I can't make out what it is you're trying to get at =/ sorry

My opinion is of these people as losers by the wery fact that they firstly, lie about a situation

Have we established that they're lieing? I admit that the numbers do seem disproportionate however we've not yet established that they're wrong.

secondly they kill rather than solve it calmly

Do you know what thought process they went through before deciding on this course of action? No, you do not, so stop assuming that just because their opinion goes against yours it's ill thought out. Hunters are not necessarily blood thirsty, infact I'd wager that a large number of hunters have a very healthy respect for nature.

thirdly they are obviously trowing around **** for people like you to protect and accept their actions. Your under the spell known as illusion....

Yes, I can see how that would be obvious when viewed through your wonderfully tinted glasses...You're under the spell known as self-righteousness.

I disagree with their actions of cours, I don't have to hide such a obvious fact in this situation.

Though... I don't have to slate their name as they do it so really nicely on their own. I just have to sit back and watch them do their stupidity and know they make fools of themself, though I have no taste for their choise and would do anything to save the wolfs, I am able to accept the fact that some people are just to lazy to change their ways, even if the other way is for the best for all.

There you go again calling them lazy. What are you basing this on? That they went to cull wolf numbers? Or is this just more baseless speculation that you're coming up with the try and make them look bad?

Dragonland is a place that exist, though as you do not know me, you probably do not know were it is.

It is in this real world and no mater were a person is from, whatever should it mater on this site with people that should be able to discuss their opinions like grown and inteligent people?

Grown intelligent people do not resort to having to call others lazy and stupid simply because they disagree with their view, they don't come out with "I've lived with nature so I CLEARLY know more than you" instead they come up with coherant thought out arguments with evidence to support them, something I've yet to see from you.

They are not doing their best obviously as they do much things in disregard for nature herself. They are doing their worst, and it will become far worse if they are allowed to keep this on. Of course you are on the humans side though, your not taking in the bigger picture of this all. How important wolfs really are in the nature and what would happen if they killed them all... even if their lie of 400 wolfs proved to be true.

Do you know that they're planning to kill them all? Or are you vilifying them again with no evidence? What do you think the impact would be if they killed 1/4 of them? Perhaps that would be enough of a cull to mean that the wolves natural prey is sufficient for their numbers? Until we know more all of this is just speculation. As I've said before, as long as research is done to ensure that they don't decimate the entire local population, a cull to more normal numbers seems like a perfectly valid option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not native... go to any place you like and no nativ will hold such a adidute to wildlife as these losers in siberia. Fences are just needed were they live, or are you saying the whole of the forest belongs to the "city"? It is not that expencive, truly if they work on it, it would not be that hard. They can even use electrical fences, a shocking suprice that would hold a wolf away. I bet the wolfs would stop going there if there was any willforce in these people, anything not realated to lazy ways that could be done. Leave the nature or may it haunt you all.

Yes Fencing is that expensive and that is not taking into account the costs of materials suited to the Siberian environment, Electric fences even more expensive will work briefly, the wolves will poke and probe and will find their way through.

These "lazy land rapers" as you seem to put it (I suppose you'll throw me in with that tag)have a more intimate relationship and knowledge of the earth and nature than any eco-warrior types. And just to say most farmers care for the land and their livestock and nature and put more in than we get out of it, its quite easy for people on the outside to jump on the bandwagon of how evil and damaging we are to the environment yet are happy to sit and eat the food we produce and expect to buy food for cheap and not expect any consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that some of the posters on here still have some sense.

Odie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also one of those that don't accept this story as credible. The Alpha position in a pack this large would be almost impossible to enact or sustain, with 399 other competitors to call into line. And I've also searched for other sources to this story and all the links thus far seem to be feeding the UK Mail article from their sites. No investigative reports wherein animal biologists, for instance, have ventured to the area to study the matter. I do imagine it makes for a great incentive for those who like to hunt, to venture to the region and as such increase their economy.

I'm also pro-wolf.

Shoot, shovel and shut up is a pathetic excuse for arrogance that whines and slaughters indiscriminately. People invade more wild life environments and are then surprised wild life dares live there, because the new house is meant to send the message that bi-peds reign supreme. Especially in the case of ranchers, who install a ready and contained food source for predators and then b**** and moan that the wolves, bobcats and cougar can't read the no trespassing sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It "has to do with it" because I've been exposed to danger that, I feel, is on equal level. Oooo, I was all warm and toasty because I was in the south, so it makes it better, right? No, it doesn't. No cold to worry about, sure, but more venomous and disease ridden bugs and animals. One risk might be lower, but the others increase proportionally.

The only reason I know anything about this part of the world is because it (specifically, by name) has popped up within recent months within environmental groups that have begun researching in the area. I find it funny that this story comes out during the time all these groups are over there working on environmental protection and reversing some of the environmental degradation that has occurred. It seems more likely to me that the massive killing of wolves is something that happens frequently, but with the presence of groups who would oppose such a thing, a story has been concocted to make the practice "Okay". These groups, as I have already said, would fund non-lethal control (as well as do much of the work setting it up) and many of them also reimburse loss of livestock. So, if the problem is so severe, why deny this help? I believe THAT is the issue that you should consider, not the blind defending of the peoples right to kill the wolves. Not only would they not have to pay for most, if any, of the control, they would be paid if any of their livestock did get killed. . .So why would they shell out helicopter money to "cull" when there is an option available which is nearly free to them? Cost, obviously, is not the issue in this situation, and neither, apparently, is the profits lost from dead livestock. So what is the true reason for the killing?

Hunting for food vs. hunting just to hunt are two completely different things. If they were eating the wolves they hunt, perhaps I would have a different stance on the matter, but they are not. The people in this area are, most likely *not* indigenous, only about 10% of the population in the area is, and they are fading away quickly and so is their way of life. How does an indigenous people fade away? One way is cultural assimilation. For the most part, the native way of life has been lost in the area due to the heavy influx of non-natives due to mining rushes and railroads. By 1820, most of the indigenous people had been converted and blended into "normal" society. Seeing as though that was nearly 200 years ago, I can say, without much hesitation, that much of their older practices have been lost. Perhaps animal husbandry and fur trading is still around, but its maintenance and methods are probably very different from that of their ancestors. As can be seen in many instances around the world, the introduction of natives into "society" often leads to abuses of prior native systems.

IE- A fishing tribe gets introduced to "society", they find they can make "money" by selling the fish they once used only for their own survival; food, trade for supplies useful to them, tools, etc. They now are introduced to the concept of "money" and all that comes with it, good and bad. So, the more fish they get, the more money they can get. So they start catching more fish than they used to, depending on them now not only for food and whatnot, but also as an export. However, there is no guarantee that the area is able to sustain such practices, and, as it has in many cases, this leads to over-fishing, shortages, and environmental degradation.

Typically, native practices function in a way in which they are sustainable within the numbers of the group. When that is extended out into the world, the local environment can not handle it and begins to degrade.

Also, this place is not as cut off from the rest of the world as you seem to think. The way you make it sound, they're isolated with nothing but their own mental capacities. They aren't. They have food and clothing stores, tourism, etc. This isn't some land lost in time with absolutely no modern conveniences. So, stop playing the "You don't understand because you're behind your nice techno gadgets and have electricity" game. I understand fully, even more so because I *don't* rely on such things for much of the time. Another point I, apparently, failed to get across to you with my "nature girl" routine. :rolleyes: And, btw, that is *my* way of life. I spend VERY LITTLE time with electricity or modern living. . .but I don't expect you to understand what that entails. It's not some game I play, it's the way I LIVE. I know you probably can't grasp the fact that someone would do that without being *forced* to. . .

Native, in the sense which it is being discussed here, speaks of those indigenous to the area. First nation, aboriginal, etc. Not a bunch of folks that have been there for a generation or two. And, being such, it is not a sweeping generalization that they tend to respect the land and wildlife they coexist with. They depend on the symbiotic relationship of their habitat for their own survival, they don't tend to get a kick out of mucking it up until they start becoming culturally assimilated.

You can pick any indigenous group that exists, and exists with little pressures from society (which may be difficult, as very few exist now that are untouched by modern living), and you can see for yourself how they interact with the world around them. They give and take. They respect the land and animals that nourish them, because they DEPEND on them to live. When "modern" ways come along, they begin to lose their dependence on the land to survive, and, in losing this, they lose their respect. In order to understand this fully, you must experience it for yourself. You have NO CHOICE but to have a respect for nature when you are depending on it in a one on one relationship for survival. You have NO CHOICE but to be aware of the consequences of every action. But, when you add the middle man, that relationship is lost.

You can see this, again, by looking at indigenous people who have become assimilated. You can actually track the changes that take place during the introduction of things such as money. You can watch the loss of nature-respect with your own eyes. You can watch it unfold by taking groups in different stages of assimilation and comparing them together. It's a very real thing, and not just "some sweeping generalization". If you really care to, you can see it, as well as the loss of it, by doing a little research.

Your opinions although clearly erudite, are too simple & really quite naive.

These people live by subsistence agriculture -- wolves that maim or eat their horses and reindeer can effect their quality of life health, and perhaps even their very survival.

Simply put, People > Wolves -- unless of course you are a misanthrope?

Look through these pictures & compare them to your life.

http://arcticphoto.co.uk/results.asp?gallery=yakut

You also realize that you actually said that you use very little "electricity" or engage in "modern living"....

ON THE INTERNET!?!?!

Holy sanctimonious batman.

Edited by Psukhe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinions although clearly erudite, are too simple & really quite naive.

These people live by subsistence agriculture -- wolves that maim or eat their horses and reindeer can effect their quality of life health, and perhaps even their very survival.

Simply put, People > Wolves -- unless of course you are a misanthrope?

Look through these pictures & compare them to your life.

http://arcticphoto.co.uk/results.asp?gallery=yakut

You also realize that you actually said that you use very little "electricity" or engage in "modern living"....

ON THE INTERNET!?!?!

Holy sanctimonious batman.

Wow, apparently my posts flew right over your head. OMG, I'm on the internet, I'm such a confused person that I don't know the internet uses electricity.

Simply put, in America, one can not simply go and "live outside", something which you would have considered had you not been so eager to try and "call me out". It requires permission, permits, etc. I do not own any land, I HAVE to do these things or I could be put in jail. When I say I spend very little time with electricity, I mean I use it when I'm not able to get said requirements and must, for limited times, live like a normal American. Why that is such a concept to grasp, I do not know. If you notice, which I'm sure you haven't, I spend short bursts on websites such as UM and then disappear for a few months at a time, and once it was a period of two years, these are the times when I am out of the modern living circle. I even teach wilderness survival, if that gives you any better idea of exactly how much time I have spent out and in dangerous places.

I am happy you find me naive on the subject, and have failed to regard anything I have put forth in my posts, including the help that is at hand for these people, which they are not taking. Help which would be nearly, if not completely, free to them, and reimburse them for losses of livestock and pay workers very good money if they do choose to help with fence building, etc.

The fact that you did not take the above into consideration is, IMO, what is truly naive.

Edit: BTW, the fact that you use erudite in a sentence with naive and simple seems a bit of a contradiction.

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Fencing is that expensive and that is not taking into account the costs of materials suited to the Siberian environment, Electric fences even more expensive will work briefly, the wolves will poke and probe and will find their way through.

These "lazy land rapers" as you seem to put it (I suppose you'll throw me in with that tag)have a more intimate relationship and knowledge of the earth and nature than any eco-warrior types. And just to say most farmers care for the land and their livestock and nature and put more in than we get out of it, its quite easy for people on the outside to jump on the bandwagon of how evil and damaging we are to the environment yet are happy to sit and eat the food we produce and expect to buy food for cheap and not expect any consequences.

Did you not read the post G&D left about the environmental groups that will pay for the stuff? So. . .talking about it being expensive is using an excuse that doesn't exist.

It seems to me like some people are just being a little ignorant and ignoring a few things just so they can support these people.

I even teach wilderness survival, if that gives you any better idea of exactly how much time I have spent out and in dangerous places.

And I have seen some of Ghosties work and I must say, she's not joking when she says she deals with a lot of dangerous situations and places. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you not read the post G&D left about the environmental groups that will pay for the stuff? So. . .talking about it being expensive is using an excuse that doesn't exist. It seems to me like some people are just being a little ignorant and ignoring a few things just so they can support these people. And I have seen some of Ghosties work and I must say, she's not joking when she says she deals with a lot of dangerous situations and places. :tu:

Did she not post that after me? :lol: I was responding to Set The Fallens post saying that fencing is cheap, Ive put up enough fences to know, and I'll tell you now working with barbed wire is no fun :tu::lol:

Im in my final year of my Zoology degree and we extensively study ecology, predator prey interactions and animal behaviour etc. These large numbers of wolves are putting pressure on already exhausted resources which wont be able to recover unless the numbers of these predators are brought down to some sustainable level. If not it is quite possible that this could result in a population crash which could wipe out wolves in the area altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And nature will bring them down on its own. The reason the resources are being exhausted in the first place is because of the deforestation and all in that area, even I've seen information on that problem. It's become a big deal in environmental circles. And no, the first post she did on it was on the last page or somewhere around there.

It'll work itself out, and the people have the choice to let it work out on its own, with help from others. . .And it seems like people on here aren't even considering it as a possibility.

And, I have to agree with some of the other posts, 400 sounds like its been blown out of proportion.

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.