Wolf-hating "hero" gets jail for poisoning pets

[Rev. Coyote]

I think this guy needs more than six days' jail time, but at least he's been convicted. The article says, "Sundles was considered a hero by wolf foes in Idaho." If that's the case, it shows what lowlife this movement is composed of. The guy poisoned peoples' pets, for gawd's sake.

LOSER -- another angry little bastard. I hope during his six days of incarceration he meets a nice boyfriend. Maybe that'll chill him out.
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Man Sentenced for Seeking To Poison Wolves

April 20, 2007

[nefarious]

The sentence seems light. I'm surprised he got off that easy. He deserved a much harsher sentence.

But, the "wolf hero" has a point about wolves. I can't understand the mindset that inspires reverence towards nature and especially dangerous predators. It made absolutely no sense to reintroduce wolves where they had previously been eradicated. Perhaps we could "reintroduce" saber-tooth cats into the homes of certain people who insist that wilderness areas be stocked with wolves, just to let them know how the Yellowstone bison feel about it if for no other reason.

Just the same, I'm not usually cool with people taking the law into their own hands. A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

[JP]

When a wolf loses the fear of humans is really the only time we would have a problem with it. As far as livestock, now that is a different story :haha: That's just easy pickings :nod:

[Rev. Coyote]

A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

This is a bit off the point you make, but...

Predation is a hazard of being in the livestock business. I think it's wrong for the government to provide any type of predator eradication service, as it does now. Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

[gonzo]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem. The keystone predator keeps the population of animals further down the food chain in check, and helps keep the ecosystem productive.

Over the past several years we've seen constant stories about the exploding deer population (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/). The increase of deer hurts the ecosystem because they graze forests and grasslands beyond the productive capacity. This loss of habitat affects every other member of the ecosystem.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that number of deer in the wild increases when it's primary predator is removed from the environment. By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).

Okay, now that I've written a lecture for a 7th grade biology class, let the flaming begin. :popcorn:

[JP]

Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer
Oh no, more farting cattle :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

[Sombeech]

The only crime was that he killed species other than wolves.


Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

:roflol: Enjoy that hamburger, hate the ranchers.

[Rev. Coyote]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem. The keystone predator keeps the population of animals further down the food chain in check, and helps keep the ecosystem productive.

Over the past several years we've seen constant stories about the exploding deer population (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6835501/). The increase of deer hurts the ecosystem because they graze forests and grasslands beyond the productive capacity. This loss of habitat affects every other member of the ecosystem.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that number of deer in the wild increases when it's primary predator is removed from the environment. By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).

Okay, now that I've written a lecture for a 7th grade biology class, let the flaming begin. :popcorn:


Very well said. Reminds me of Leopold's views in his Land Ethic.

We have the deer issue here in VA because we've got no predators, and hunting can't keep up with a reasonable cull.

[Rev. Coyote]

The only crime was that he killed species other than wolves.


Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

:roflol: Enjoy that hamburger, hate the ranchers.

Never said I hated ranchers. Plus, there's LOTS of beef raised on private land where the ranchers don't mooch off the public dole.

Just because I use a product (lumber, oil, beef) doesn't mean I can't hold the producers to some kind of a standard.

[Sombeech]

Just because I use a product (lumber, oil, beef) doesn't mean I can't hold the producers to some kind of a standard.

Man, this is a great burger! MMphhph can you um mmhphmm fence the cows in so the *gulp* wolves don't get to them? *scarf* If not, I will complain louder while buying your product.

[gonzo]

...Reminds me of Leopold's views in his Land Ethic.

I've never read Leopold before. I'll have to pick up his books next time I'm at the book store.


We have the deer issue here in VA because we've got no predators, and hunting can't keep up with a reasonable cull.

I found this quote from a 2007 Wyoming Game and Fish Department report (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:t2tHDbpclGcJ:gf.state.wy.us/downloads/doc/PressReleasewolfElkReport.doc+site:gf.state.wy.us+ elk+population&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a) interesting:

[quote=Wyoming Game and Fish Dept]
...in half of the [elk] herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can

[Rev. Coyote]

As for Sundles and his anger towards wolves, I just have this to say: if you're in the wilderness, it might be dangerous. If you can't accept that risk, go to Disneyland.

Hell yeah.

Listen, the Leopold book you want is called "Sand County Almanac." It's pretty heady, but lays a lot of the foundation for things Edward Abbey wrote years later.

[Death]

Wouldn't the fact that Wolves are an amazing and beautiful animal be enough to validate not killing them all off? I mean really why don't we go kill all the bears because sometimes they kill people, or maybe mountain lions because people want to live in the mountains? Honestly that kind of thinking is going to get us a world devoid of everything but Bambi and pretty bunnies.

[JP]

Wouldn't the fact that Wolves are an amazing and beautiful animal be enough to validate not killing them all off?
I'm sure they're pretty tasty along with some corn, broccoli, a sweet potato and then some Sam Adams White Ale to wash it all down :haha:

[nefarious]

A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

This is a bit off the point you make, but...

Predation is a hazard of being in the livestock business.

I think it's wrong for the government to provide any type of predator eradication service, as it does now. Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...First of all, the specific type of predation was introduced by the government where it previously had not existed, hence my call to hold the government accountable.

Furthermore, you have yet to make your case relating to "welfare ranching." Therefore, I can't entertain your concept of "biggest welfare teats," it is not for me to tell you what your argument is. But even if I were to grant your first point for the sake of argument, we would still have to assume that wolves never venture onto private land to attack people or cattle.

Finally, it's obvious you have a major beef with ranchers (no pun intended).

[nefarious]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem.I can understand that argument, but why should we form out such an important responsibility to wild animals?

By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.What does "natural" mean in this context, and why should we assume it is superior to intelligent intervention?

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).Well sure. And pretty much every business should plan for the IRS to unjustly seize their assets, because that is also a natural cost of doing business. On second thought, maybe it would be better to hold the government accountable for it's screw-ups.

[nefarious]

I think this guy needs more than six days' jail time, but at least he's been convicted. The article says, "Sundles was considered a hero by wolf foes in Idaho." If that's the case, it shows what lowlife this movement is composed of. The guy poisoned peoples' pets, for gawd's sake.The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

What strikes me as odd is the outrage people feel over the poisonings themselves. Sure, it was a cruel thing he did, and I would rather nobody treat animals like that. But the cruelity of a poisoning pales in comparison to what the government's wolves can deliver in Yellowstone.

A pack of wolves will often take more than an hour to kill a bison. It's impossible to imagine the sheer pain and terror a bison must suffer as it is taken down by wolves, but nobody has word one to say about that. I guess if something is "natural," some people assume that makes it good. I don't think that follows.

[gonzo]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem.I can understand that argument, but why should we form out such an important responsibility to wild animals?

By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.What does "natural" mean in this context, and why should we assume it is superior to intelligent intervention?

You must have missed my later post about the 26 year study done by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department where they found the number of elk had a greater reduction in herds that had wolf predation than in herds without wolves.

My definition of natural means restoring the habit to a productive level, where the forest (or grassland, or anywhere) isn't threatened by an over population of any one species. (Be it deer and elk, or prairie dogs). Humans haven't done a good job maintaining these natural balances, otherwise we wouldn't have seen such a drastic explosion of the deer population.

[Rev. Coyote]

Finally, it's obvious you have a major beef with ranchers (no pun intended).

I have a problem with any industry that receives major government subsidy, and have addressed this in other threads.

[Rev. Coyote]

The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

That may not have been his intent, but not to realize the possibility would give him the intellect of a plastic soap dish. "Misguided" is giving this prick far too much credit.

And if a wolf tried to kill him or his kids (highly unlikely), they should have just been more careful. Bears and cougars and snakes and scorpions are a bigger risk. If the woodlands scare you, stay in town.

[Scott P]

The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet.

Maybe not, but don't you agree that what he did was reckless?


Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

In North America, no one has been known to be killed by a wild wolf. Pet wolves or pet wolf hybrids are another story. They have been know to cause several deaths.

Europe and Russia have had some deaths though. Seventeen deaths of humans were reported in the last 50 years in Russian and Europe, mostly from rabies.

India is also a different story. Several children have been killed by wild wolfs in India. The main reason is that most of the wolves wild prey has been wiped out and that a large number of small children are left unattended for long periods of time.

[Rev. Coyote]

About 40 people are killed per year in the unitled states (ref: deathdata.org). Guess we should ban bacon.

"Ain't had as much fun since the hogs ate my brother!"

[gonzo]

We don't rent pigs!

[JP]

I look at it this way...What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? What ever happened to natural selection? Why must we get involved to save a species? Because it wasn't able to adapt to its surroundings? It wasn't able over evolution of its own to deal with predation? If a species was meant to be extinct due to its lack of survival skills, so be it. That is what was intended for that species. And if we stopped interfering with natural selection, there would be an equal balance.

Oh crap, too many wolves. Let's kill them all because they're killing beautiful elk...THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO! It's called population control. Oh crap, too many wolves, we might be attacked by one. Well Barney, if you're attack by one, kill it. If the attack goes successfully, chalk one up for the wolf in the never ending saga of natural selection.

[gonzo]

I look at it this way...What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? What ever happened to natural selection? Why must we get involved to save a species? Because it wasn't able to adapt to its surroundings? It wasn't able over evolution of its own to deal with predation? If a species was meant to be extinct due to its lack of survival skills, so be it. That is what was intended for that species. And if we stopped interfering with natural selection, there would be an equal balance.

On the surface I agree with you. Natural selection is the way that nature keeps populations under control. If a species can't adapt to the natural changes of it's environment it doesn't deserve to survive. But, in the late 1800s and early 1900s many western states offered bounty payments for dead wolves. In fact, the gray wolf was extirpated (locally extinct) in Montana by 1930s. I'd hardly consider hunting to extinction natural selection - especially when a bounty is involved.

[stefan]

I look at it this way...What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? What ever happened to natural selection? Why must we get involved to save a species? .

uhh ... cause we have, like, a conscience and find that coexistence might be a better way.

[that is if we are influencing the dwindling of the species]

[JP]

Targeting a specific species is not natural selection.

So, us going after wolves because there were fears and the government wanted them gone, is not natural selection. Natural selection at our hands would be killing ones for pelts, rogue ones and ones that attempted to harm or kill a human.

Just like the buffalo, we killed them all off so the Indians would have a harder time getting through the winters, that is not natural selection. Human involvement with the buffalo, like any other animal, is to take what you need, not mass genocide.


uhh ... cause we have, like, a conscience and find that coexistence might be a better way.
And that's what causes the problem. Throwing things off balance. Not everything can be saved Stefan and just because it hurts your feelings is not a reason to step in and try to correct it. You stepping in and trying to play God will always have an impact that might not be the best thing for our fur bearing friends.

So, were you all for eradicating the wolf from the face of the earth because it is an effective predation machine? What about now since they have been reintroduced to places they never should have been taken from in the first place? How do you feel that many of Bambi's will be prayed upon and killed? Should we target the wolves again?

[stefan]

And that's what causes the problem. Throwing things off balance. Not everything can be saved Stefan and just because it hurts your feelings is not a reason to step in and try to correct it. You stepping in and trying to play God will always have an impact that might not be the best thing for our fur bearing friends.


that's not what causes the problem. the problem was caused long before our conscience kicked in. our conscience unfortunately is the result of a delayed realization. i agree that meddling goes both ways, positively and negatively, and, moreover, that it's difficult to assess what is the true effect of our actions. and i certainly don't presume that we understand the best way ... regardless we have meddled and meddled greatly, and balance is continually lost before our corresponding realization and conscience kick in. we will never restore what once was, since our grandiose presence precludes that. howver, i do believe that by studying animals and plants (and ecosystems) in conjunction with our impact thereon and influence thereof, that we can find better ways of coexistence. but i believe this requires a fair degree of compromise on land/habitat.

and ... it's not about playing god. it's about realizing that our effect is large and deep. it's about using the feedback of self-awareness to reduce our effects, many of which can be termed a blatant disregard for anything other than ourselves. it's about recognizing and realizing the value of the natural world and considering the effect on it in our decision processes. our viewpoint is changing and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

[nefarious]

You must have missed my later post about the 26 year study done by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department where they found the number of elk had a greater reduction in herds that had wolf predation than in herds without wolves.I don't think "better" can be reduced to a simple equation like that. A reduction in the number of elk could also be achieved with a carpet bombing campaign.

My definition of natural means restoring the habit to a productive level, where the forest (or grassland, or anywhere) isn't threatened by an over population of any one species.OK. You used the word "natural" so many times in your previous post, I assumed you attached some sort of metaphysical or spiritual value to it. Many people do. So natural to you merely means "productive," fair enough. So what is it that the "natural" environment produces? Can managed eco-systems also produce this unnamed quantity?

Humans haven't done a good job maintaining these natural balances, otherwise we wouldn't have seen such a drastic explosion of the deer population.Understood, but if men successfully hunted the natural enemies of deer to extinction, he could probably control deer populations as well. Past failings don't make a case for surrender in this instance.

[nefarious]

The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

That may not have been his intent, but not to realize the possibility would give him the intellect of a plastic soap dish. "Misguided" is giving this prick far too much credit.Some pretty ugly tendancies are rearing their heads, rev. It's bad enough that you've allowed yourself to develop a hatred of cattlemen, but bigotry seems all the worse when it's directed towards the weakest of humans (people with "plastic soap dish" intellects).

So now I have to ask: Is it this guys lack of intellect that makes him "lowlife," or is it his cruelity towards animals that has you so outraged? Again, poisoning is probably less cruel than what the government wolves deliver to their larger prey, so why the selective outrage? Why is "natural" brutality celebrated so?
:ne_nau:

If the woodlands scare you, stay in town.Nothing like an unwarranted slogan to make someone appear thoughtless...and ignorant.

[Rev. Coyote]

OK, though I really tire of this point-by-point stuff, let's address some of your own "ugly tendancies," chiefy the one that causes you problems in reading comprehension. Here we go.


It's bad enough that you've allowed yourself to develop a hatred of cattlemen...

I don't hate cattlemen. If this is the message you're getting by my use of the term "welfare rancher" to describe a segment of the industry that enjoys profit enhancement from unfair government subsidy, then you're way off base. That's what I've addressed in several posts -- SUBSIDY. In fact, I spent last weekend with a family of cattlement I've known 20+ years, and they take a dim view of subsidy. Their stance in the marketplace is compromised by having to compete with cattlement who cash in on almost-free grazing fees and other goodies, while the run their ops on private land.

See?




The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

That may not have been his intent, but not to realize the possibility would give him the intellect of a plastic soap dish. "Misguided" is giving this prick far too much credit.Some pretty ugly tendancies are rearing their heads, rev. It's bad enough that you've allowed yourself to develop a hatred of cattlemen, but bigotry seems all the worse when it's directed towards the weakest of humans (people with "plastic soap dish" intellects).

Again, comprehension. See above. When you suggested this prick might not have understood that other animals could be harmed, I responded that if he'd not had that understanding then he'd have to be stupid as a plastic soap dish. In fact, I think the guy has to be pretty damn clever to poison peoples' pets and still end up with a fan club.


So now I have to ask: Is it this guys lack of intellect that makes him "lowlife," or is it his cruelity towards animals that has you so outraged? Again, poisoning is probably less cruel than what the government wolves deliver to their larger prey, so why the selective outrage? Why is "natural" brutality celebrated so?

To your first question, it's not only his cruelty to animals that pisses me off, but his recklessness. To your second convoluted query, (and this is truly obvious), animals in the wild -- having a distinct lack of supermarkets -- must hunt and kill for food. They don't do this to make a political point. The cretin in Idaho, however, dropped poison around to make a political point. A really cheap one.



If the woodlands scare you, stay in town.Nothing like an unwarranted slogan to make someone appear thoughtless...and ignorant.

Nothing unwarranted here, nor was I sloganeering. I mean that with all my heart -- the wildlands are dangerous for numerous reasons, and if those dangers are unacceptable to Mr. Idiot, he should MOVE. As to your assertion that I am thoughtless and ignorant, well, I could say you're just being a bigot -- same charge you leveled my way.

Now a question for you: Why do you have such sympathy for this dickhole in Idaho?

[gonzo]

Now a question for you: Why do you have such sympathy for this terrorist in Idaho?

I know the question isn't for me, and we are certainly on the same side of this issue, but I feel like I have to jump in at this point. I dislike the way people brand anyone with an opposing viewpoint and a violent streak a "terrorist". A terrorist deliberately inflicts violence against innocent people in an attempt to bring fear and insecurity to the masses (and often make a political point).

This guy in Idaho didn't target people, nor was his aim wasn't to make us feel insecure. He is not a terrorist. An idiot? Almost certainly, but he's not a terrorist.

This thread is quickly unraveling. Too many different and disparate arguments going on at that same time. (And, I've gone added yet another).

[Rev. Coyote]

Now a question for you: Why do you have such sympathy for this terrorist in Idaho?

I know the question isn't for me, and we are certainly on the same side of this issue, but I feel like I have to jump in at this point. I dislike the way people brand anyone with an opposing viewpoint and a violent streak a "terrorist". A terrorist deliberately inflicts violence against innocent people in an attempt to bring fear and insecurity to the masses (and often make a political point).

This guy in Idaho didn't target people, nor was his aim wasn't to make us feel insecure. He is not a terrorist. An idiot? Almost certainly, but he's not a terrorist.

This thread is quickly unraveling. Too many different and disparate arguments going on at that same time. (And, I've gone added yet another).

OK, I admit, I purposely planted that loaded language as a point of parody. Sometimes it doesn't translate.

But the guy is a dickhole.

[nefarious]

I don't hate cattlemen. If this is the message you're getting by my use of the term "welfare rancher" to describe a segment of the industry that enjoys profit enhancement from unfair government subsidy, then you're way off base.Virtually every industry enjoys government subsidies. Your selective outrage is suspicious. And again, you yourself are most likely subsidized by someone else since a minority of taxpayers pay a majority of the tax burden. Where's the public self flagellation?

That's what I've addressed in several posts -- SUBSIDY. In fact, I spent last weekend with a family of cattlement I've known 20+ years, and they take a dim view of subsidy.Next in the arsenal is the "black friend," then. Didn't see that one coming. :lol8:

One too many times you threatened to shoot cattle because other people hunt coyotes. There is no possible connection between the two things, but a pattern of hatred explains it quite nicely. When Iranians were outraged by insensitive Danish cartoonists, they attacked Jews. Surely "the Jews" were not responsible for what the Danes did, just as cattlemen are not responsible for the activities of hunters.

In fact, I think the guy has to be pretty damn clever to poison peoples' pets and still end up with a fan club.That is a convenient position for you to argue at this point, but all available evidence points to his lack of education and suggests he is an idiot.

To your second convoluted query, (and this is truly obvious), animals in the wild -- having a distinct lack of supermarkets -- must hunt and kill for food.Your response is invalid because wolves were reintroduced, by the government, into Yellowstone, and one of its purposes for doing so was to control the bison population. In other words, the government chose about the cruelest method imaginable to achieve its goal. You objection to cruelity just doesn't ring true. You obviously have no problem with it just so long as it's "natural," whatever that means.

Nothing unwarranted here, nor was I sloganeering.Yes it was and yes you were. Apparently, if a person has a problem with wolf attack, then he must be a coward. That's assinine.

Now a question for you: Why do you have such sympathy for this dickhole in Idaho?I don't think he's too bright. I pity him. It would be better to give him a much longer sentence (he earned it) but to also try to rehabilitate him. Give the poor bastard some book learnin' so he can do something productive with his life.

[JP]

i agree that meddling goes both ways, positively and negatively, and, moreover, that it's difficult to assess what is the true effect of our actions. and i certainly don't presume that we understand the best way ... regardless we have meddled and meddled greatly, and balance is continually lost before our corresponding realization and conscience kick in. we will never restore what once was, since our grandiose presence precludes that.
Well said. :nod:

[JP]

In other words, the government chose about the cruelest method imaginable to achieve its goal.
How does that equal the cruelest :ne_nau: That's natural selection. Too many bison due to the lack (which was brought upon by us trying to fix things, playing God) predation. This sort of things goes on everyday! Right in your backyard. It's not cruel, it's life.

[nefarious]

How does that equal the cruelest.It doesn't, but it represents a method that is among the most cruel. A pack of wolves can take over an hour to kill a bison, it can be an exceptionally painful and frightening experience for the bison to endure.

That's natural selection.There's that word again, "natural." It tends to be bandied about quite a bit but nobody can seem to explain why it deserves reverence.

Too many bison due to the lack (which was brought upon by us trying to fix things, playing God) predation."Playing God," there's another term I don't understand because it's intended to describe undesirable behavior. Every human endeavor is playing God when you get right down to it, but especially when it comes to medicine.

This sort of things goes on everyday! Right in your backyard. It's not cruel, it's life.Interesting display of cognitive dissonance. But in trying to reason our way back to a rational thought process, I don't see wisdom in taking ethics lessons from nature. That's precisely where your argument is taking us.

[JP]

A pack of wolves can take over an hour to kill a bison, it can be an exceptionally painful and frightening experience for the bison to endure.

"Playing God," there's another term I don't understand because it's intended to describe undesirable behavior.

Interesting display of cognitive dissonance. But in trying to reason our way back to a rational thought process, I don't see wisdom in taking ethics lessons from nature. That's precisely where your argument is taking us.
So, you feel bad when an animal is taken down in the wild by another? That's life. What, we should step in and stop all predation? It does happen in your backyard. Something in your backyard is preying on something else in your backyard daily. That's life. Cruel? Hell no, the predators need to survive as well and that's why they were given that ability to hunt. I'm sure if we could train the wolves to carry firearms the bison would die quicker, unfortunately that's not how they hunt.

[Rev. Coyote]

I don't think he's too bright. I pity him. It would be better to give him a much longer sentence (he earned it) but to also try to rehabilitate him. Give the poor bastard some book learnin' so he can do something productive with his life.

I knew, eventually, you would say something that makes some sense. Congratulations.

Oh, and here's $10 for using the phrase "cognitive dissonance." I love it when someone else on this board can come across as more of an elitist than Rev. Coyote.

Cheers!

[gonzo]

Oh, and here's $10 for using the phrase "cognitive dissonance." I love it when someone else on this board can come across as more of an elitist than Rev. Coyote.

That is quite a feat.

[Death]

I don't think he's too bright. I pity him. It would be better to give him a much longer sentence (he earned it) but to also try to rehabilitate him. Give the poor bastard some book learnin' so he can do something productive with his life.

I knew, eventually, you would say something that makes some sense. Congratulations.

Oh, and here's $10 for using the phrase "cognitive dissonance." I love it when someone else on this board can come across as more of an elitist than Rev. Coyote.

Cheers!

I give him even more points for using "self flagellation".

[Rev. Coyote]

I give him even more points for using "self flagellation".

Isn't that like "chicken choking...?"

[Death]

:roflol:

[Rev. Coyote]

I did a web search on the guy in the story -- Tim Sundles -- and got a lot of interesting hits. In precise scientific terms, he's a major dickhole -- and NOT a representative of the hunting community as he makes himself out. That part probably irritates me more than any other -- that nutcases like this Sundles fellow get confused with real hunters.

I'm thinking of mailing him a box of rubbers for his upcoming jail term. In case of wolf attack.

[nefarious]

So, you feel bad when an animal is taken down in the wild by another?I have a general sense that predation is inefficient, unnecessary, and cruel. It is the sort of thing that would develop in a world guided by natural laws rather than a benevolent administrator.

That's life. What, we should step in and stop all predation?This discussion centers upon decisions to emulate nature and to look to it for guidance in ethics. I have a pragmatic sense of the way things are, but I don't celebrate brutality or seek to increase its influence in the world.

It does happen in your backyard. Something in your backyard is preying on something else in your backyard daily. That's life. Cruel? Hell no, the predators need to survive as well and that's why they were given that ability to hunt.Interesting comment. So predators were "given" the ability to hunt? Who or what granted predators that ability?

Also, I'm not following your logic that "not cruel" = "something in backyard," or "predators need to survive." Perhaps you could explain your reasoning here.

[JP]

How is predation inefficient and unnecessary? I can see cruel to people with weak stomachs, but inefficient and unnecessary? It

[Rev. Coyote]

[quote=JP]I don

[JP]

I'd add that it's erroneous to ascribe human ethics to the behavior of animals.
I wholeheartedly agree :nod:

[Death]

Humans are far more cruel than any animal I have ever seen.

[nefarious]

How is predation inefficient and unnecessary? I can see cruel to people with weak stomachs, but inefficient and unnecessary?Life itself does not rely upon predation, its existence is not necessary. Predation is inefficient because energy is wasted converting plant life to meat. And having empathy is not weakness. I can't accept that unwarranted jab in lieu of a valid logical support for the idea that cruelity is not cruel if it happens a lot or if it happens in backyards.

[quote]I wouldn

[nefarious]

Precisely. I'd add that it's erroneous to ascribe human ethics to the behavior of animals.Would it be more or less erroneous than creating a Strawman Fallacy? :ear:

[gonzo]

Life itself does not rely upon predation, its existence is not necessary.

Go try and feed an all-natural raw food organic salad to a wolf or grizzly bear, then report back. :lol8:

[nefarious]

Life itself does not rely upon predation, its existence is not necessary.

Go try and feed an all-natural raw food organic salad to a wolf or grizzly bear, then report back. :lol8:
Better yet, report back when you have a relevant argument. Context is still pretty important here. Life itself does not rely upon predation and that is what I mean when I describe it as unnecessary.

[JP]

First of all, in the animal kingdom, life does rely on predation. Have you ever heard of the

[gonzo]

Life itself does not rely upon predation, its existence is not necessary.

There is a phenomenon in the wild called "predator swamping". The basic premise is that animal gives birth to more offspring than is necessary to sustain the animal's continued existence. The reason is that when the offspring are born (or more likely, hatched) the sheer number of new animals will overwhelm the predators, and the predators will be unable to eat them all, and thus a certain percentage of those animals will survive. A good example of this is the hatching of leatherback turtles.

Predation is necessary for life in this scenario because the prey animal is deliberately giving birth to more animals than the ecosystem can support. If you eliminated the predators the ecosystem would quickly be overrun by an overpopulation of sea turtles (or elk, or rabbits, or beetles, or any animal that engages this behavior). An overpopulation of the prey species would overwhelm the environment's ability to support that species.

I suppose you could argue that a human (or many humans) could be employed to control the population of nearly born creatures. Say, by stomping on the newly born turtles, or poisoning the beetle's food source. But, the logistics of monitoring and controlling the birth rates would be staggering -- especially when you're talking about something that as small, and breeds as prolifically as rabbits.

Edited to clarify my point about why predation is necessary in the case of animals that engage in predator swamping -- 05/02/07 18:22

[JP]

Nefer is just trolling :haha:

[nefarious]

Life itself does not rely upon predation, its existence is not necessary.

There is a phenomenon in the wild called "predator swamping".I understand the concept but I didn't know the term for it. Thanks.

I understand that once predation establishes itself within a system it becomes important--especially when prey evolve traits to counteract the challenges that predators present to their survival-- but that's not really where I'm going with this. I merely sought to attack the notion that we should look to nature for lessons in ethics.

I suppose you could argue that a human (or many humans) could be employed to control the population of nearly born creatures. Say, by stomping on the newly born turtles, or poisoning the beetle's food source. But, the logistics of monitoring and controlling the birth rates would be staggering -- especially when you're talking about something that as small, and breeds as prolifically as rabbits.Understood. This very concept is what inpired me to remind my fellow readers that I maintain a pragmatic view relating to the management of wildlife.

My argument from the very beginning has been very limited in scope. To be very specific, I would not have reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone Park to control Bison populations. It was cruel and it was unnecessary.

[nefarious]

There is no unwarranted jab.The jab was undeniable, actually, but no hard feelings. Really. Then again, by qualifying "jab" with "unwarranted," you aren't really denying that the jab took place...but...it's all good either way! :haha:
[quote]Wolves

[JP]

Hmmm, weak stomach. That

[Death]

Would it not be just as cruel to kill the wolves for being cruel to the bison? I am glad you like big hairy animals that wounder around eating grass, but the fact is that in nature the strong survive and in this case the wolves are the strongest. We as humans are part of nature just like wolves are. We survive because we are stronger than the rest and we prey on animals everyday.

[nefarious]

Would it not be just as cruel to kill the wolves for being cruel to the bison?Who advocated killing wolves? I apologize if your comment was meant for someone else, but I have no idea what you're referring to here.

I am glad you like big hairy animals that wounder around eating grass, but the fact is that in nature the strong survive and in this case the wolves are the strongest. We as humans are part of nature just like wolves are. We survive because we are stronger than the rest and we prey on animals everyday.This comment is equally mystifying but perhaps you meant it for someone else. :ne_nau:

[JP]

We survive because we are stronger than the rest
It's because we walk upright and eat with our hands :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:


Who advocated killing wolves? I apologize if your comment was meant for someone else, but I have no idea what you're referring to here.
This comment is equally mystifying but perhaps you meant it for someone else. :ne_nau:
See what happens when you dodge questions. :haha: You didn't think reintroducing the wolves into Yellowstone was appropriate, but you never answered how you would control the bison population or the rest of the animals the wolves prey on. Since the wolves are now pretty much established in Yellowstone, how would you go about getting rid of those pesky little carnivores? You never said anything about the total eradication of the wolf from Yellowstone over seventy years ago. I guess that wasn't cruel.

You seem to adore those big hairy creatures that graze on the grasslands of Yellowstone :haha:

[nefarious]

[quote=JP]Hmmm, weak stomach. That

[JP]

I wouldn

[nefarious]

[quote=JP]I wouldn

[JP]

Useless :roll:

[nefarious]

Just forget it, then. I don't have anything too enlightening to share here. I just think that nature is a thing guided wholly by natural law, which is a force that isn't beholden to human constructs like ethics. Therefore, I don't think to look to it for lessons on the subject. We are the gods of this world, and it is up to us to make it the best it can be.

That's all I've got when you get right down to it, just a different point of view. I hope you found it interesting or worth hearing about. If not, sorry for wasting your time.

[Rev. Coyote]

Just forget it, then. I don't have anything too enlightening to share here. I just think that nature is a thing guided wholly by natural law, which is a force that isn't beholden to human constructs like ethics. Therefore, I don't think to look to it for lessons on the subject. We are the gods of this world, and it is up to us to make it the best it can be.

That's all I've got when you get right down to it, just a different point of view. I hope you found it interesting or worth hearing about. If not, sorry for wasting your time.


How did we get this far from debating the point of whether Tim Sundles is a dickhole? Or is he the instrument of "natural law?"

[JP]

How did we get this far
Way back when wolves were cruel :haha:

[nefarious]

How did we get this far from debating the point of whether Tim Sundles is a dickhole? Or is he the instrument of "natural law?"It's a result of the discussion being hampered by a lack of critical thinking skills, and possibly intense emotional responses to the implications of the points I make.

Anyway, I can't agree with the actions of Mr. Sundles. He shouldn't have tried to poison wolves and he shouldn't have been so reckless with the use of poison. The guy took the law into his own hands and I don't think he wasn't justified in doing so, not in this instance.

On the other hand, I can sympathize with Mr. Sundle's frustration with the government, and I even hold similar beliefs in that wolves should not have been reintroduced into Yellowstone. The government should be held accountable for any damage or harm that these wolves bring to people or property.

PS-Tim Sundles is not an intrument of natural law.

[JP]

It's a result of the discussion being hampered by a lack of critical thinking skills
http://www.gaownersclub.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_violin.gif

[nefarious]

It's a result of the discussion being hampered by a lack of critical thinking skills
http://www.gaownersclub.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_violin.gifExhibit A. :)