Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:03AM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:57PM, solfeggio wrote:

...It's hopeless... 

Yet here you are, still trying to preach your vegan righteousness to us fallen American meat-eating sinners...

This thread has not much to do with veganism, much less "vegan righteousness".

A lot of meat eaters are for the wolves, not the hunters, just like they are "for" the Canadian baby seals and "for" the ocean's whales, and "for" the dolphins that live in Japanese waters, and they are appalled at the 'bait and switch' the states under discussion pulled, once the pro-gun/pro hunting politico's in Congress gave them the opportunity.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:59PM, rabello wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:03AM, Mlyons619 wrote:

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:57PM, solfeggio wrote:

...It's hopeless... 

Yet here you are, still trying to preach your vegan righteousness to us fallen American meat-eating sinners...

This thread has not much to do with veganism, much less "vegan righteousness".

A lot of meat eaters are for the wolves, not the hunters, just like they are "for" the Canadian baby seals and "for" the ocean's whales, and "for" the dolphins that live in Japanese waters, and they are appalled at the 'bait and switch' the states under discussion pulled, once the pro-gun/pro hunting politico's in Congress gave them the opportunity.

 

You keep trying to cast this in over-simplified, sanctimonious "for" or "against" terms. That's irrational, and continues to advertise your ignorance.

There are a few, typically loud, voices on either extreme of this issue -- who want either all the wolves killed, or none of them touched at all. As I've already told you, over and over, both those views have lost.

Most people hold a range of views, somewhere in the middle. 

I, personally am all for the wolves being here. I can think of nothing more awesome than having active, wild wolf packs less than 50 miles from my house.

I also see nothing wrong with some well-regulated public hunting of wolves.

Some have raised some possible problems with a hunting program. The preponderance of both expert opinion and evidence at this time seems to suggest those worries are largely unfounded. But if, in fact, they prove true, then hunting will be scaled back, or eliminated.

You also seem to keep forgetting, or blatantly ignore, the fact that the last thing the states want is for the wolves to go back under federal protection. If too many wolves are killed, or if the long-term vitality of the regional wolf population comes under dire threat, that's exactly what will happen. 

Now, let that sink in.

Otherwise, I think I'm done with this. You are obviously strident in your views. I've demonstrated several times, you are apparenlty ignorant of this subject, and relying on "information" from very poorly researched and biased sources. 

Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You keep trying to cast this in over-simplified, sanctimonious "for" or "against" terms. That's irrational, and continues to advertise your ignorance.

There are a few, typically loud, voices on either extreme of this issue -- who want either all the wolves killed, or none of them touched at all. As I've already told you, over and over, both those views have lost.

Most people hold a range of views, somewhere in the middle. 

I, personally am all for the wolves being here. I can think of nothing more awesome than having active, wild wolf packs less than 50 miles from my house.

I also see nothing wrong with some well-regulated public hunting of wolves.

Some have raised some possible problems with a hunting program. The preponderance of both expert opinion and evidence at this time seems to suggest those worries are largely unfounded. But if, in fact, they prove true, then hunting will be scaled back, or eliminated.

You also seem to keep forgetting, or blatantly ignore, the fact that the last thing the states want is for the wolves to go back under federal protection. If too many wolves are killed, or if the long-term vitality of the regional wolf population comes under dire threat, that's exactly what will happen. 

Now, let that sink in.

Otherwise, I think I'm done with this. You are obviously strident in your views. I've demonstrated several times, you are apparenlty ignorant of this subject, and relying on "information" from very poorly researched and biased sources. 

You are the one who needs to let things "sink in".  You see, I understand and accept (because I have to) your pov that champions death.   You are the one who is unable to think outside your own ideological box.   How many time must one have to say it:  your argument -- that you are the only person who knows anything about it, and that everyone else is, therefore, required to genuflect before you "superior" knowledge -- does not convince.   The only thing you are doing is presenting one side of a controversy, in spite of all your holier-than-thou-ism, condescenson, and sometimes potty mouth,

You are, however, a passionate defender of your side, I'll give you that.  But, you speak in generalities, and never address the specifics of this particular topic.  You keep saying "some" hunting of wolves is OK -- well what qualifes as "some" hunting in your ideology?  Bring the number of animals down from over 1,000 to no more than 150 via hunting and trapping.  You have not defined your terms in all your putdowns of anybody else.   What about trapping and snaring....are those practices A-OK with you if you are "for" the wolves as you say?  What about those who torture them to death?  You haven't said one single thing about ANY of this in all your whining about how much more you know than anybody else.  "I'm the expert here, I'm the expert here" is looked upon as very tedious, at best. 

I hope you are finished with your preaching. This was a nice thread to consider views till you came along with "I'm to busy to actually address points, but I am the expert here and anybody who doesn't believe me is ignorant, uneducated, biased, blah blah blah.

Thank you, arielg.  You once again said it better than I did

Some people would say killing 80-90% of the repopulated wolves isn't consistent with "some hunting" of woves and is what is irrational.

I think the author of the article "The War on Wolves" hit on something important.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 3:48PM, arielg wrote:

You keep trying to cast this in over-simplified, sanctimonious "for" or "against" terms. That's irrational, and continues to advertise your ignorance.

There are a few, typically loud, voices on either extreme of this issue -- who want either all the wolves killed, or none of them touched at all. As I've already told you, over and over, both those views have lost.

Most people hold a range of views, somewhere in the middle.

  The so called  middle is just a little less killing.There is no middle  as there os no half pregnant. Either you are for killing, poisoning, hunting  or whatever, in whatever degree, or you are not.  Then we can discuss details about how to implement those basic views.

Some of us have explained very clearly what we base our positions  on. You are unwilling or unable to discuss or explore where your views come from. Your "position" is : "You got your opinion, I got mine.  I like to kill, you don't. I know about the subject, you don't. Animals kill. Let's not rock the boat. I have no idea what you are talking about.  It's all the same. Leave us alone" .

I, personally am all for the wolves being here. I can think of nothing more awesome than having active, wild wolf packs less than 50 miles from my house.

I also see nothing wrong with some well-regulated public hunting of wolves.

Some have raised some possible problems with a hunting program. The preponderance of both expert opinion and evidence at this time seems to suggest those worries are largely unfounded.

, the fact that the last thing the states want is for the wolves to go back under federal protection. If too many wolves are killed, or if the long-term vitality of the regional wolf population comes under dire threat, that's exactly what will happen.

Potahto, potaito. Tomahto, tomaito

Now, let that sink in.

Otherwise, I think I'm done with this. You are obviously strident in your views. I've demonstrated several times, you are apparenlty ignorant of this subject, and relying on "information" from very poorly researched and biased sources.

I am done with this means :" Since  repeating my rationalizations don't seem to convince anyone, I will just give up".  Maybe you should try a little self examination.

 

Once again -- you don't like killing animals. It is offensive to your personal moral code.

Bully for you.

Not everybody wants, or needs, to live by your moral code. 

I'm not rationalizing, I'm presenting my thoughts, based upon years of experience with this particular issue. And other posters have apparently found my contentions quite convincing. Perhaps because they aren't blinded by ideology.