The Wolf Slaughter Continues... Here's What You Can Do To Help.

[red dog 1]

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 09:29 PM - Edit history (2)

From: Defenders of Wildlife

STOP THE UNNECESSARY WOLF KILLING

"In early February, employees from Wildlife Services -- the federal program under the Department of Agriculture -- gunned down 14 wolves from a helicopter in the Lolo region of Idaho's Clearwater National Forest
This ill-conceived mission helped carry out Idaho's plan to radically reduce the number of wolves to artificially boost game populations in the area.

The Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) --
the federal agency in charge of Wildlife Services -- is asking the public to comment on their operations and budget. We need to let them know that killing wolves and other predators for boosting game population is expensive, unscientific and unnecessary.
Write a message to APHIS urging them to put an end to their participation in aggressive and unscientific wolf killing".
http://action.defenders.org/site/R?i=vsfnwt1xTMtscDmb90Qnbg

Also visit http://www.savewolves.org and click on TAKE ACTION which will bring you to a page where you can then click on "Protect Wolves in National Forests" and "Urge Western Governors to Prevent Wholesale Wolf Slaughter"

[saras]

1. The "game" are mostly pests to farmers anyways... sick fun for rich fucks

[jsmirman]

2. Why can't you post a link

to Defenders of Wildlife?

Would this be some sort of violation? Their front page and main window covers the campaign, and I'd be glad to provide the link (I'm sure you can do this, as well), if there is not a problem with that.

[red dog 1]

4. The link to the page which has the form to use is working now, thanks.

[jsmirman]

5. Great, thanks

(for anyone who missed the edit, red dog has now provided the link in the OP)

[life long demo]

3. Thanks for the notice and website

Already signed all the letters. But it is such a bloodfest out there in the midwest, I'm so afraid that it won't stop till the last one is killed. Breaks my heart.

[red dog 1]

6. Thanks for signing....It breaks my heart too.

According to Defenders of Wildlife:

"killing wolves and other predators is expensive, unnecessary, and unscientific,
because it does not address other causes of elk decline."

[Cerridwen]

9. What other causes of elk decline?

Do the defenders say?

Do they provide the science they say the government doesn't?

Do you have a link?

[red dog 1]

13. Wolves Aren't Killing All the Elk in Idaho or Anywhere Else For That Matter

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/stop-the

[Cerridwen]

14. Ok. I get that you think an anonymous blog,

that currently isn't loading for me, is a reliable source. I'd like something with a little more, hmmmm, scientific veracity.

For example; it appears that black bears and mountain lions are killing off elk calves.

Shall we hunt black bears and mountain lions to protect the elk calves/population? Do you care about the elk population? Do you think the elk population has any role in the ecological system?

What about the other food sources of the wolves; do we care about them? Are they part of the ecological system?

Hell. Do you even think there is an ecological system?


eta: thanks. it finally loaded after you updated the link. unfortunately, the content of an anonymous blog changes little in what I said above.

[red dog 1]

15. There's no need to get belligerent.

"Hell! Do you even think there is an ecological system?"


http://animalrights.about.com/b/2011/06/01/dont-blame-wolves-for-elk-deaths.htm

[Cerridwen]

16. Shall I post for you the 'scientists' who say

that global warming is not scientifically proven?

Belligerent?! Sweetums...not hardly.

You posted something from an anonymous blog about something which you don't apparently have a lot of knowledge. I asked if you have any idea about the ecological system. It makes sense since you don't appear to have much knowledge...scientific knowledge...about the issue for which you advocate.

If asking for proof is belligerent...you might be on the wrong board.

[red dog 1]

17. So you're a global warming denier?

As well as mean-spirited?

[Cerridwen]

18. Reading comprehension...

it is an art and a skill.

Good luck! You are sure gonna need it.

Mean spirited?! You're okay with letting the elk population be decimated by wolves, mountain lions, and black bears. You have no concept of maintaining the very subtle balance of the ecological system of forage and habitat and would allow a preditor to die a slow, painful death due to starvation because disney and wolf-lovers think wolves are cuddly puppies(?!) and I am mean-spirited?!

Good luck with that.

I hope you never have to look one of your pets in the eyes and make the right decision for them. I pity your 'cuddly puppies'.

[red dog 1]

19. What "predators die a slow, painful death due to starvation" because of wolves?

"You have no concept of maintaining the very subtle balance of the ecological system of forage and habitat and would allow a predator to die a slow painful death due to starvation...?

(By the way, ARE you a global warming denier?)

[Cerridwen]

20. If the wolves...and black bears and mountain lions

decimate the elk herds, the wolves move on to the other wildlife in the food chain.

As the food chain is reduced, wolves die of starvation. Starvation is not a good way to die. You'd know that had you ever seen an animal or human dying due to starvation.

Am I a global warming denier?! LOL Again, reading comprehension...try harder. You're gonna keep trying to apply that tag to me and it's so not going to work. Keep trying.

If you had ever...EVER...had to make a decision about the suffering of another living being, you would not now try to make the case you are trying to make.

You want to make the world a better place and stop having to "manage" the wildlife...stop breeding humans. Full stop.

As we expand our need for habitat we destroy the habitat of wildlife. Figure it out.

[red dog 1]

21. "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

Wise advice!

So I'm through wasting my time arguing with you,

Every single one of your replies to my posts have been nasty, negative, sarcastic, and extremely mean spirited............What are you so angry about?

You said:
"If you had ever...EVER....had to make a decision about the suffering of another living being. you would not now try to make the case you are trying to make."

Clearly, the case I am trying to make here is to help PREVENT "the suffering of other living beings"..., the wolves.

How can you care "about the suffering of another living being",
and still be FOR the shooting of wolves from helicopters???

Aren't wolves living beings too?

[Cerridwen]

22. No you're not.

You're trying to set up a situation in which the wolves die from hunger.

All of the animals we've discussed need forage and habitat to survive.

The overwhelming variable in this discussion is humans...we breed...we take over the lands, the habitat, the forage...and animals die.

We get to choose if it is painful or painless.

Stop eating beef...no grazing lands required.

Stop drinking milk, eating cheese...see above.

Stop wearing wool from sheep...eating cheese...see above.

You want wolves to live...stop moving into their habitat.

It's really not that difficult.


As to me being nasty...wow, you're new here, yes?

[jsmirman]

23. Even if we conceded the necessity of this - which, scientifically,

we do not, what part of the lack of humanity of shooting these animals from flying planes, refusing to spend extra money to trap and relocate these animals, the extra charge justified by the fact that humans have decided this is necessary - and the most dominant reason involving a cause that entirely relates to the humans, and the destruction of wild animals who have as much right to be where they are as anything else does (you seem to grasp the whole "intrusion on natural habitat" thing) are you on board with?

We've caused this problem, we're doing this to benefit a segment of "humanity" (a term I use loosely here), and we're doing it in the most cruel, fucked up, thoughtless, alternate solution not exploring kind of way. Unless you hate animals, I'm having a hard time seeing how you can support wolf culls enacted by shooting death from flying planes.

[Drahthaardogs]

8. Idaho is not the midwest.

There are no wolves in the Midwest.

[jsmirman]

7. Signed and forwarded

via social media.

Here is what I wrote (as an addendum to their standard text):

The above are the standard comments, and I agree with all of them. My added personal comments are simple: this is inhumane, this is anti-animal, this is anti-common sense, and if I have any faith in progress, one day future generations will look back on actions such as these and condemn our reckless cruelty. Have you no decency or courage to do what is right under the responsibilities that have been placed in your hands?

[flvegan]

10. Okay, look you all are missing the point.

Humans NEED to kill the wolves so that humans have more animals to kill that the wolves would otherwise kill. Jeez.

[Cerridwen]

11. Answer one question for me, please.

When the elk population is decimated, will you then holler about saving the elk?

Because, as it's been shown, our flora and fauna stand in the vacuum that is the ecological system. If the elk die off it won't impact any other species or their habitat. Unless of course the wolves then move to the next food source and to the next and the next after that. All while the forage and habitat shrink to a size that would give norquist a hard-on.

[BlueIris]

12. After reading "Never Cry Wolf," I could never sympathize with wolf killers. nt