Post by: wolfbait on January 09, 2019, 05:00:44 PM
http://freerangereport.com/new-mexico-county-using-cages-to-protect-kids-from-aggressive-mexican-gray-wolves/?fbclid=IwAR1l7odXYPVSYqUhTi4QdKjwjcxcs4r_yUXNhOlrJKLOEFblYnQ6k8B6-EI
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 09, 2019, 05:44:28 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2019, 06:03:43 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 09, 2019, 10:02:42 PM
Oh my. How many attacks have there been there?!?
:chuckle:
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 :twocents: 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...
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2019, 10:11:18 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 09, 2019, 10:25:57 PM
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.
Aw there a wonderful bunch of wolf huggers, their last comments really show their level of mentality...
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2019, 10:40:14 PM
Comical coming from a guy who posts pictures of coyotes and claims they are wolf pups (only to be publicly humiliated and forced to recant.Oh my. How many attacks have there been there?!?:chuckle:
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 :twocents: 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...
Oh, and how did your prediction that all elk hunting would end in Idaho by 2012 (because of wolves) turn out? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2019, 10:43:27 PM
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.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 09, 2019, 10:47:37 PM
Dude, he just posted an article, don't get all triggered :DOH: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! :chuckle:
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.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2019, 10:48:29 PM
Dude, he just posted an article, don't get all triggered :DOH: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! :chuckle:
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.
Every time wolfbait suddenly stops to post, you run into him and get some stank on your face.
Seriously dude, you need to quit stalking him.
Post by: dwils233 on January 09, 2019, 11:22:09 PM
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
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2019, 06:36:39 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 10, 2019, 07:27:29 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 07:34:18 AM
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 been recorded in North America. This is no longer the case in NM, AZ, TX, WA, and OR. What we know about wolf behavior is that when they're not hunted by man, they become more and more habituated, come closer and closer, until human/wolf conflicts begin. We know this is true from Siberia, Iran, Northern Europe, and Kazakhstan. Populations in those countries are mainly disarmed. About every 20-30 years, the government must come in and thin out the packs after they become habituated and eventually stalk and kill people. We can see this beginning now in WA where one county has already warned its citizens that wolves are being seen in town and closer to homes. I believe that we will see this becoming more and more common until attacks actually do occur.
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.
Post by: timberfaller on January 10, 2019, 07:39:44 AM
Its only a matter of time. Sat having coffee with a friend just out of the town of Winthrop not to long ago, first school bus stop was just across his driveway. Parents sent their kids out to wait, less then a hundred yards away from them was a crouching cougar watching them. Lucky for us and them, the bus showed up just before he wanted to take off. Brought some dogs in and ran the cat and got rid of it!
Common sense is NOT common anymore!!!
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2019, 08:07:35 AM
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
Well 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.
Post by: Dan-o on January 10, 2019, 08:39:36 AM
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.....
Post by: woodswalker on January 10, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
Quote
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.
See Russia for wolf attacks, progression thereof.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2019, 11:04:42 AM
I'm not a pro-wolf advocate - I'm a pro logic and facts advocate...something desperately missing from most of your posts. Your bar for being "pro-wolf" is if anyone rejects your crazy statements...which is hilarious given most of your sources.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
Well 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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2019, 11:26:14 AM
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
Post by: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:11:08 PM
Post by: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 12:20:31 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 10, 2019, 12:40:13 PM
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.....
Having had experience with WDFW and their lies in confirming wolf predation on livestock, yep. And as I stated WDFW etc. will blame, everything and anything except the wolf, and their counter parts the fake environmentalists will do the same.
I remember a few years ago when a guy up in the Pasayten Wilderness shot a wolf that he thought was attacking him, big investigation by the USFWS and WDFW, story disappears never to be heard about again. Another reason aggressive wolves go unreported, is the public turns them into worm dirt, who want's a bogus investigation from a bunch of frauds?
The USFWS etc. cover-up and lie to protect their wolves, they have been doing it before and since the introduction. Anyone who has followed the wolf history of the introduction to date, beyond what the fake environmentalist etc. spew can see the protection of wolves above all else.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on January 10, 2019, 12:48:49 PM
I guess I always figured that the investigation came back and he was cleared. Do you have information different than that?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 12:52:08 PM
:yeah: 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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 12:54:09 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 02:16:09 PM
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.
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.
Get back to me on that one when Washington is crawling with grizzlies.. Unlike you I've lived amongst them (Alaska bush, not in town.) and will assure you wolves are timid compared to grizzlies when seeking out food sources.
Post by: Cougartail on January 10, 2019, 02:34:49 PM
:yeah: 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.
It's funny to watch the newbies in Alaska. They stick out like a sore thumb. lol Revolvers on their hips and rifles in there hands everywhere they go! After a while they tire of the weight and realize the real threat level, rarely carrying again. Once you actually have encounters with wolves and bears you know when and where to carry.. which is almost never.
I was always far more worried about domestic dogs than bears while in Alaska. (and never once worried about wolves..)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2019, 02:39:45 PM
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.
Kodiak had the same problem with bears. A couple of the ranchers switched to bison and beefalo. Evidently they do better against bears.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 10, 2019, 02:49:46 PM
:yeah: 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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 02:51:51 PM
:yeah: 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.
Post by: dwils233 on January 10, 2019, 03:22:41 PM
:yeah: 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 :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2019, 03:23:45 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2019, 03:43:06 PM
:yeah: 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 :twocents:
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.