Free: Contests & Raffles.
Oh my. How many attacks have there been there?!?
You got quite the fan club WB, there's not too many times where I click one of your threads and your fan club hasn't already posted.
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on January 09, 2019, 05:44:28 PMOh my. How many attacks have there been there?!? Quote from: idahohuntr on January 09, 2019, 06:03:43 PM That's just about the answer most of us expect from you two, neither one of you have been right on the wolf issue from the beginning.I don't guess either of you give about the children or those who have to worry about wolves, whether it be the human dangers, livestock predation or the ungulate herds. Typical pro-wolfers...
Dude, he just posted an article, don't get all triggered In sticking with the topic, do you refute that some people in MX are building shelters for bus stops? It's being done in NM and TX and in here in Washington.
Quote from: KFhunter on January 09, 2019, 10:43:27 PMDude, he just posted an article, don't get all triggered In sticking with the topic, do you refute that some people in MX are building shelters for bus stops? It's being done in NM and TX and in here in Washington.No, I think its a great business plan. Can I build one for you and wb so you guys don't get eaten? I have a money back guarantee...if using one of my shelters one or both of you get eaten by a wolf, 100% refund!
Fine. If WAcoyote and idahohunter are going to get called out for flagging the absurdity of the "news article" then I'll play along too. If you Google "catron county wolves children" then you can find ONE fox news article from 2013 that talks about the 10 years old enclosures at the time of the article. Not much else. Of course the article also mentioned that only 3 wolf attacks on humans had occured in the last 4 decades (none by Mexican gray wolves) but those are just facts- let's not let those get in the way of biases!!The definition of fake news/ manufactured outrage right there
Wolves in the US have been hunted for centuries and before they were almost completely eradicated from the landscape with government assistance, they feared man and stayed away. This is the reason that very few attacks on people have Although posts like this are outdated, and attacks by the OP on those whose views are not perfectly aligned with his are common and often way over-the-top and inflammatory, assuming there's no danger to our population from wolves because of so few attacks in the past is naive at best and shows ignorance of long-term wolf behavior worldwide. I believe the attacks are coming and if we don't start showing them the danger of interacting with humans by delisting and managing, it's going to be tragic for some families.
Quote from: dwils233 on January 09, 2019, 11:22:09 PMFine. If WAcoyote and idahohunter are going to get called out for flagging the absurdity of the "news article" then I'll play along too. If you Google "catron county wolves children" then you can find ONE fox news article from 2013 that talks about the 10 years old enclosures at the time of the article. Not much else. Of course the article also mentioned that only 3 wolf attacks on humans had occured in the last 4 decades (none by Mexican gray wolves) but those are just facts- let's not let those get in the way of biases!!The definition of fake news/ manufactured outrage right thereWell gosh I guess if the "news" says there have only been 3 wolf attacks in the last 4 decades then, Wacoyote and Idaho are in the clear for their response, after all WDFW have the same mentality of Let's Wait and See..Shouldn't matter when the article was written, dumping fake pen raised wolves in the middle of cattle country and then protecting them above all else is the problem, same with the illegal wolf introduction.Should be if the wolves are hanging out around the public, shoot them-Period.I wonder how many time wolves have attacked people in WA, Idaho etc. and the papers never printed the story? I can remember several right here in the Methow, quite sure Bearpaw knows of a few.More wolf protection corruption-a wolf attack don't count as an attack unless the wolf kills the person, chewing a person up isn't considered a wolf attack as long as the person lives and if he/she lives-the wolf was curious, the wolf was just playing, the children were in the wolf's habitat, one BS excuse after another to protect their fake endangered wolves.Wacoyote, Idaho-h response isn't about when the article was written it's about standing up against anything that looks bad for the fake endangered wolves, they have spent several years defending wolves.
Do you ACTUALLY believe that if a wolf attacked and injured somebody - but didn't kill the person - that it wouldn't be counted as a wolf attack on a human?I'm quite certain those stores would make the town paper.I am not pro-wolf, certainly not for protecting them to the extent we do. I hate that some ranchers are being driven off land their family has ranched for years due to wolf protection. I'm fine if all of those wolves are killed.I wish pro-wolfers had to pay the actual price tag for the wolves.But you lose a lot of people when you say things like this.....
Your domesticated wolf is far more dangerous than the wild ones..
Something I found was interesting when talking to an old time Alaskan was a story about a guy who tried cattle ranching in our valley (Central Alaska) . The place is crawling with wolves but that wasn't what put him out of business. It was the grizzly bears.
Quote from: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:20:31 PMSomething I found was interesting when talking to an old time Alaskan was a story about a guy who tried cattle ranching in our valley (Central Alaska) . The place is crawling with wolves but that wasn't what put him out of business. It was the grizzly bears.Again, strawman. AK isn't WA, NM, AZ or TX. Almost all of AK is wild and they kill wolves on a regular basis up there, as well as grizzlies. Whole different dynamic.
Quote from: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:11:08 PM Your domesticated wolf is far more dangerous than the wild ones..The is the same strawman argument that you use for predator management, that cougars kill way more ungulates than wolves, so we don't need to worry about the wolves. BS. We need to manage both. Your argument this time says that because dogs are statically more dangerous, we should ignore the the danger that wolves present. Perfect strawman argument and also BS. We need to manage both. We're adding an additional danger by not managing these wolves and giving them a fear of humans. We're also lulling our population into believing that because this animal has attacked very few in North America in the last century, it's not a dangerous animal and never will be. Neither of these are true and a study of wolves worldwide proves their nature. Will you take responsibility for wolf attacks when they happen? Of course not. You'll make excuses. You'll claim it's isolated. Or when it continues, you'll slink away into the background...like a managed wolf. You have nothing to lose by supporting unfettered population of this apex predator.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 12:52:08 PMQuote from: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:11:08 PM Your domesticated wolf is far more dangerous than the wild ones..The is the same strawman argument that you use for predator management, that cougars kill way more ungulates than wolves, so we don't need to worry about the wolves. BS. We need to manage both. Your argument this time says that because dogs are statically more dangerous, we should ignore the the danger that wolves present. Perfect strawman argument and also BS. We need to manage both. We're adding an additional danger by not managing these wolves and giving them a fear of humans. We're also lulling our population into believing that because this animal has attacked very few in North America in the last century, it's not a dangerous animal and never will be. Neither of these are true and a study of wolves worldwide proves their nature. Will you take responsibility for wolf attacks when they happen? Of course not. You'll make excuses. You'll claim it's isolated. Or when it continues, you'll slink away into the background...like a managed wolf. You have nothing to lose by supporting unfettered population of this apex predator.That was my post about the dogs and nope it had nothing to do with strawmen. What it had to do with was pointing out that there is a real proven danger from dogs that gets ignored, but people freak out and build cages against a "danger" that is all supposition and speculation. Some times danger is all in your head. Like my friend who refuses to fly even though the odds of dying in a car is 1 in 98 and in a plane the odds are 1 in 7,178. The point is, when someone has their mind made up about something they fear, logic won't change their mind and illogical things will seem logical to them.
Quote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2019, 02:49:46 PMQuote from: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 12:52:08 PMQuote from: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:11:08 PM Your domesticated wolf is far more dangerous than the wild ones..The is the same strawman argument that you use for predator management, that cougars kill way more ungulates than wolves, so we don't need to worry about the wolves. BS. We need to manage both. Your argument this time says that because dogs are statically more dangerous, we should ignore the the danger that wolves present. Perfect strawman argument and also BS. We need to manage both. We're adding an additional danger by not managing these wolves and giving them a fear of humans. We're also lulling our population into believing that because this animal has attacked very few in North America in the last century, it's not a dangerous animal and never will be. Neither of these are true and a study of wolves worldwide proves their nature. Will you take responsibility for wolf attacks when they happen? Of course not. You'll make excuses. You'll claim it's isolated. Or when it continues, you'll slink away into the background...like a managed wolf. You have nothing to lose by supporting unfettered population of this apex predator.That was my post about the dogs and nope it had nothing to do with strawmen. What it had to do with was pointing out that there is a real proven danger from dogs that gets ignored, but people freak out and build cages against a "danger" that is all supposition and speculation. Some times danger is all in your head. Like my friend who refuses to fly even though the odds of dying in a car is 1 in 98 and in a plane the odds are 1 in 7,178. The point is, when someone has their mind made up about something they fear, logic won't change their mind and illogical things will seem logical to them.It's a strawman argument. The danger of dogs to the general population has nothing at all to do with the growing danger of wolves. It's the same as saying 30,000 people die in car accidents each year and you're worried about wolves? You can worry about both or neither. One has nothing to do with the other.
4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. 800,000 of them require medical care. About 30 people are killed by dogs every year in the USA and about half of those are children. In 2017 39 people were killed by dogs including 15 children. In 2016 31 people were killed by dogs including 13 children. And yet I don't see anyone building cages to protect their kids from dogs at bus stops. https://www.cbs46.com/news/dogs-attack-kill-atlanta-child-critically-wound-another-as-kids/video_0f9a6026-4ae9-5c75-8e78-243371c4b40c.htmlhttps://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/man-fights-off-dogs-that-approached-kids-attacked-boy-at-bus-stop/887419182
Quote from: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 02:51:51 PMQuote from: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2019, 02:49:46 PMQuote from: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 12:52:08 PMQuote from: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:11:08 PM Your domesticated wolf is far more dangerous than the wild ones..The is the same strawman argument that you use for predator management, that cougars kill way more ungulates than wolves, so we don't need to worry about the wolves. BS. We need to manage both. Your argument this time says that because dogs are statically more dangerous, we should ignore the the danger that wolves present. Perfect strawman argument and also BS. We need to manage both. We're adding an additional danger by not managing these wolves and giving them a fear of humans. We're also lulling our population into believing that because this animal has attacked very few in North America in the last century, it's not a dangerous animal and never will be. Neither of these are true and a study of wolves worldwide proves their nature. Will you take responsibility for wolf attacks when they happen? Of course not. You'll make excuses. You'll claim it's isolated. Or when it continues, you'll slink away into the background...like a managed wolf. You have nothing to lose by supporting unfettered population of this apex predator.That was my post about the dogs and nope it had nothing to do with strawmen. What it had to do with was pointing out that there is a real proven danger from dogs that gets ignored, but people freak out and build cages against a "danger" that is all supposition and speculation. Some times danger is all in your head. Like my friend who refuses to fly even though the odds of dying in a car is 1 in 98 and in a plane the odds are 1 in 7,178. The point is, when someone has their mind made up about something they fear, logic won't change their mind and illogical things will seem logical to them.It's a strawman argument. The danger of dogs to the general population has nothing at all to do with the growing danger of wolves. It's the same as saying 30,000 people die in car accidents each year and you're worried about wolves? You can worry about both or neither. One has nothing to do with the other.I think you might be a little over dismissive when calling it a strawman attack, but I do see where you are coming from too. There is a theory by a WSU professor that involved the hysteric catastrophic fear over nuclear power and waste disposal, even though fossil fuel has proven over time to be incredibly dangerous (oil spills, refinery explosions, etc) from a comparative analysis. Obviously, that guy does a better job of explaining and contextualizing it than I just did in a sentence but the point remains- We tend to latch on to a greater fear of catastrophy or disaster than we do over the more realistic and actual things that inflict harm. I think that idea applies here. Stoking fears over a supposedly impending child slaughter by wolf while ignoring many real and passive threats to those kids is kind of a disingenuous concern about children. Wolves are a big bad scary thing, but clutching our pearls over them while ignoring so many other threats means that we are more concerned with rationalizing a threat from wildlife than we are about the actual safety of children. I'm sure people will disagree with that sentiment but thats my