New Mexico county using cages to protect kids from aggressive Mexican gray wolve

[pianoman9701]

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.

[dwils233]

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 

[KFhunter]

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.html

https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/man-fights-off-dogs-that-approached-kids-attacked-boy-at-bus-stop/887419182

Haven't you kept up with the pitbull thread which also includes other dangerous dogs?  many HW members think they should all be killed.
insurance companies might not insure your house
many muni's have banned them

dangerous dogs are fully habituated to people, they live where we live, as pman said, its unrelated.

[pianoman9701]

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 

Why should we ignore any of the dangers? I wouldn't be sitting still on the bench while my grandchildren were surrounded by a pack of domestic dogs. Neither would I let them play by themselves in wolf country where the wolves are coming closer and entering our towns. Again, these dangers are neither mutually exclusive or mutually dependent.