Wolf Alliance In CdA To Protest Hunt

21 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Me on August 28 at 1:53 p.m.

  I believe they are naive and also that they do not have all the facts. They run on emotion. I don't think they realize that no management isn't good for the wolves either.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  toadman on August 28 at 1:59 p.m.

  Their neither. They're just engaging in something very futile.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  moscow_minidoka on August 28 at 2:06 p.m.

  “I believe they are naive and also that they do not have all the facts. They run on emotion.”

  Gosh, I think that's actually true for BOTH sides in this debate - at least the people who show up to protest for either side.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  redman on August 28 at 2:12 p.m.

  Neither, they are the same people who protest any and all timber sales in our national forests, these are the same people who accuse us of murdering Turkeys every thanksgiving, a cort of turkey holocost, these are the same people who wish to impose their vegan values on the rest of us. This is not about wolves, this is about the right to hunt and access to the forests. These extremists use the wolf and the Grizzly and other species to limit access to their terms only. What they forget is that the national forests are for everyone to use and enjoy, not just their select brand of granola.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  moscow_minidoka on August 28 at 2:20 p.m.

  Wow, Redman, what logical fallacy! *ALL* people who protest against hunting wolves are:
  - Vegan
  - Granola
  - Haters of hunting

  Do you actually believe that? You're guilty of being just as short-sighted as the people you hope to slander.

  I know plenty of people who hunt, eat meat, and don't like granola but still are ok with wolf reintroduction. Quite a few of them have wildlife and conservation science backgrounds, and can give fact-driven reasons why wolves belong in Idaho.

  Not everyone who supports wolf introduction - or is against the hunt - is some sort of tree-hugging vegan who wants to slash the tires on your 4x4. The fact that you would paint so broad a brush and use such nasty overgeneralizations says much more about you than them.

  As I said above, both sides are guilty of simply coming from a place of emotion. Thank you for proving my point.

  Some of the pro-wolf people ARE “wolf-huggers.” But some of the anti-wolf people are simply reactionaries.

  Not all, on either side.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  redman on August 28 at 2:38 p.m.

  Moscow man, all you have to do is go on the websites of the groups trying to get an injunction like Defenders and its all there.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Phaedrus on August 28 at 2:40 p.m.

  I believe they are naive and also that they do not have all the facts. They run on emotion.

  Are we talking about the wo;f people or the Town Hall protesters?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Me on August 28 at 2:49 p.m.

  Hey - who's turn is it to award a hijack??? Thanks Phaedrus, for brining in the town hall protesters.

  “I know plenty of people who hunt, eat meat, and don't like granola but still are ok with wolf reintroduction. Quite a few of them have wildlife and conservation science backgrounds, and can give fact-driven reasons why wolves belong in Idaho.”

  I also know plenty of hunters who are also ok with wolf reintroduction - they only want them managed and controlled. Balance. They too have wildlife and conservation science backgrounds and can give fact-driven reasons why wolves should be controlled.

  I completely agree with you MM that emotions are high on both sides of the issues - ie note the sign that says wolf slaughter. Using a word like that puts a picture in people's minds and they look outside and see their puppy and picture drooling hunters with giant guns in some kind of firing squad with wolves lined up in front of them. This will be far from what the actual hunt looks like.

  On the other side, the save the elk types have websites with photo after photo of elk kills and go into great detail about how the wolves killed females and ripped fetuses out of them and left the rest.

  balance, balance, balance….

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  DCR on August 28 at 2:56 p.m.

  After reading the article about wolves slaughtering 120 sheep on a ranch near Dillon, MT last week, I'd have to say the protesters are naive. The sheep slaughter completely eviscerates wolf proponents' arguments that wolves only prey on the old, the very young, or sick domestic and wild animals.

  At best, it's naive of them to support the continued protection of demonstrably vicious “thrill killers;” at worst, wolf advocates are being intellectually dishonest in the face of incontrovertible evidence of the threat the current population poses to domestic and wild animals.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Me on August 28 at 3:01 p.m.

  DCR - but the argument will be 'so what'. I read the whole story and the comments were enlightening to say the least. The blame was put back on the rancher for hmmmm ranching. It was his fault for letting his sheep loose in wolf country (this particular ranch has been going for 50 years I believe).

  Always the number one argument seems to be - they were here first, we are in their territory, they are just being wolves and since we are the interlopers we have to live their way, not the opposite.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Phaedrus on August 28 at 3:16 p.m.

  wolves only prey on the old, the very young, or sick

  Like talk radio personalities? Or Glenn Beck?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  DCR on August 28 at 6:11 p.m.

  Thanks for the thoughtful response, Me -

  I'd have an easier time buying the “they were here first” argument, though, if I weren't personally aware that Beaverhead County hasn't had wolf attacks, much less anything of that magnitude, for nearly a century, and even before then nothing like this. These were clearly reintroduced wolves of a completely different variety than what may have once populated southwestern Montana.

  Besides, the “who was here first” nonsense is irrelevant in the argument over whether the wolves are “noble, timid creatures that only eat what they need and only thin the herd of the old and weak” as opposed to bloodthirsty, malevolent killing machines.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Phaedrus on August 28 at 6:35 p.m.

  all you have to do is go on the websites of the groups trying to get an injunction

  That counts as investigation?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Phaedrus on August 28 at 6:36 p.m.

  as opposed to bloodthirsty, malevolent killing machines.

  Like humans?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Me on August 28 at 6:58 p.m.

  Phaedrus - what do you mean by investigation? Not sure where that is coming from. Redman was simply pointing out that you can see what the defenders are about by their websites, which is true. Some are quite funny - using coyote photos instead of wolves and saying some not quite true things, such as Idaho wanting an unlimited hunt.

  As I stated earlier, there are some graphic sites on the other side too - we just need balance and management.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  DCR on August 28 at 10:20 p.m.

  I'm unaware of right wingnut radio personalities chewing the noses off healthy elk, or biting through the rear leg tendons of 120 perfectly healthy creatures within an hour or two, ripping their underbellies out and pulling their intestines around for a yard or two before moving on to another victim to do the same without taking nourishment, time after time, and leaving them to rot and waste, either literally or figuratively.

  Poor analogy - right wing talk radio, offensive as it is, doesn't hold a candle to the savagery of the wolf.

  Controlling such savagery is ecologically and economically sensible in the animal kingdom, but to compare it to the free exchange of ideas, no matter how ill-conceived or offensive, is akin to advocating censorship, which serves no purpose - societal, ecological, economic, or intellectual.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Phaedrus on August 28 at 10:32 p.m.

  right wing talk radio, offensive as it is, doesn't hold a candle to the savagery of the wolf.

  IDK, have you heard Glenn Beck?

  (PS. I have no problem with the wolf hunt , or hunting any other critters)

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Kage_Mann on August 28 at 10:37 p.m.

  Ok Phaedrus, I give,who is Glen Beck?

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Goblin_Princess on August 28 at 10:44 p.m.

  “I'm unaware of right wingnut radio personalities chewing the noses off healthy elk, or biting through the rear leg tendons of 120 perfectly healthy creatures within an hour or two, ripping their underbellies out and pulling their intestines around for a yard or two before moving on to another victim…”

  Sounds like “Wild Game Night” at Rush Limbaugh's house.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Kage_Mann on August 28 at 11:08 p.m.

  “Are those protesting the pending wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana naive or noble”?

  They're misguided.Remember, these people are the tree hugging,earth firster types who pop out of the woodwork.They don't care whether you can make a living or not, they just care about their own agendas.I know,I was surrounded by these misguided souls and who would come back to camp with their guitars playing songs of doom and despair.Now the wolf is their
  cause and if it wasn't the wolf, it would be something else.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  HonestGeorge on August 30 at 11:29 a.m.

  Naive, off-target and harmful. Idaho is a sheep raising/grazing state with about 200,000 domesticated grazing animals. Introducing wolves - in the number introduced - is like putting up a half-way house for sex offenders next door to a school.

  Flag as inappropriate

« Back to Huckleberries Online