Animation Source Forums

Does most of the world see wolves as some sort of horrible beast hell bent on killing all animals or something? I cant understand how this is allowed to happen, in America also! Doesn't your country preach freedom, liberty and equal rites? Or does "Freedom" only apply to the citizens (well the rich whites actually) and not the animals who were here before?

I know everyone on this site loves wolves and would do as much as they feel they could to help protect them from unjustified slaughter so that was aimed at the hunters and the people that allow it. This just angers me how they can create these reasons to murder hundreds of these poor animals

I wish I could do something, I cant even sign the petition as it is only listed for people living in America's states, I'm just stuck here with my crappy english government -_-

I hope the wolves can be saved from further harm

most deffinaty

ya no problem

i would because they are so pretty and i love them!

Thanks for the update.. I never got this one in my E-mail?

This is just barbaric and just purely sickening that anyone could do such a vile act.. I support DoW totally and agree this has to end NOW before it too late or the government allows them as much leeway as the ******* want!

These ******* should pay the price for these horrid acts..

THIS HAS TO STOP!

A highly annoyed
-Adriondack

what kinda person would not help wolves anyway?!

The evil people who hunt wolves. And hunting coyotes isn't better either. In my state people hunt coyotes. ><

This is absolutely outrageous. No, not the massive wolf 'slaughter' couched in human terms of 'mothers' etc. but the fact that some people are so rabidly opposed to it that I would fear for my life if I thought to so much as cross you. Let me respond to some of the allegations and statements made here, if I may.

Balto----> For heaven sakes, quit beating the Bush/Cheney drum. I don't care if you personally believe the duo to be worse than a dozen Hitlers and Judas Iscariot in leather pants riding a carousel. Then entire federal government at large is NOT 'the Bush/Cheney administration'. This has nothing to do with those two. Your update, which I assume is derived from some sort of periodical publication states, in part,

"Late last month, federal officials approved a wolf management plan for Wyoming strikingly similar to those they had earlier rejected. The plan gives wolves few new protections and allows them to be shot on sight if they wander outside the protected areas of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and surrounding wilderness areas."

How is this a problem? The wolves need to stay inside the areas protected for them. That's the point of a 'wildlife refuge'. The wildlife stays inside of it and takes refuge there. I don't want my pets or small children at risk because the wolves wandered out of the wilderness of Yellowstone and into my yard. And yes, there have been no documented evidence of non-rabid wolves attacking (says who, I'd like to know). But lets recall, until 1903, heavier than air flying machines didn't exist either. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as my dear old granny used to say.


Squival------> You state, in part,

"Doesn't your country preach freedom, liberty and equal rites? Or does "Freedom" only apply to the citizens (well the rich whites actually) and not the animals who were here before?"

What a ridiculous question! Of course the rights acknowledged in our constitution only apply to human beings. How do you serve a writ of habeus corpus to an dog? How can I inform a wolf of his right to vote (assuming he's over 18 and registered, of course)? No, equal protection under law only applies to human beings. Do you see where I'm going with this? And, if you wanna start to sound sanctimonious and pleased with yourself, maybe you better remember that Europe killed off most its wolf packs centuries ago as a common nuisance and danger. So, before you look down your nose and accuse evil ol' America of racism and barbarism, you might want to take a quick look and see if the pot isn't calling the kettle black around here.


Adriondack----> My goodness, we've certainly hit a nerve haven't we? You stated, in part, that

"These ******* should pay the price for these horrid acts.. "

What price did you have in mind? Prison? Death? That certainly fits the 'crime' being committed.


Banshee ~ Kid-------> "Evil' people? Isn't that a bit strong? I'd say the real evil people are the ones slaughtering people in Darfur, not the hunters in the backwoods of the US.


And please, I'd love to see someone get so worked up about rats or insects. Next time you're in a hotel, by all means, toss some rats into the kitchen. They'll love it there, and you might wind up with some nice typhoid fever! Yum, yum! Or next time you find your house caving in from a termite infestation, don't call the exterminator, oh heavens, no! Just sit there in your crumbling house and think, "Well, maybe if I just let them do their thing, I won't be an evil, disgusting, vile, murderous, pestilential, scabrous, punchinello of a person". And if some other wonderful example of God's creatures bless your domicile, such as some cockroaches, by all means, let them share your food. Pick them up; drop them in the Lucky Charms box. They'll thank you, and most importantly, my Earth Mother will thank you.

Thank God someone finally said something. And haven't we been over this before? It's not the Bush/Chaney administration, they do not have authority over these types of situations.

I'm also glad you pointed out that animals do not have a legal status in the American government, just like the British government.

Everyone here misses the point that wolves like all other animals can only grow to have so many before they lose their usefulness and start becoming a problem. In some area's they have reached that. Anyway they are not going to exterminate the whole wolf population with out someone stepping in and stopping them.

Im glad you took a dig at what I said but come'on! The point I was trying to make wasn't all hippy crap like "oooh man, love the wolves freedom for them, they should do as they want whooo" no not at all, that wasn't what I was trying to say, If I came across overlly twatish (I think the word is) then sorry mate but I was well annoyed at the time and all I wanted to say is that keeping wolves in set boundaries just won't happen, it's bloody wildlife we mean here of course their gunna spread its nature to them. So to solve this 'culling' vast amounts of them seems like a pretty poor solution to me, they pose an almost non- existent threat to humans, including children. And who deems us to say that we shouldnt treat animals the same way we should treat each other?

Feel free to have a dig at europe though how do you think I feel, England killed all the wolves here years and years ago (only just started their re-introduction to Scotland) and now America seems to be following the same trait I just dont want that to happen.

To be on fair ground with you though I realise I said a lot of bull**** above but I think you know that I wasn't obviously saying stuff like "constitutional rites for animals" and meaning it, what I said and meant was that there are other options to consider against wolf culling/ hunting and that the wolves should be thought of on the same level as humans so that the solution wont turn out to be "Git your guns boys we're on a yankee doodle *hic* huntin season, Yeehaw!"...

This is entirely true: under the law, animals can thusfar only be (legal) objects, whilst only natural persons and juristic persons (legal enteties) can be (legal) subjects. Only (legal) subjects can recieve rights, whilst (legal) objects can at best be the subject of a protective law.
This part of your entry made sense. After that, however, it became nonsensical again.


Although your obvious (radical) nationalism is noted, do go easy on the eurobashing, will you?
Centuries ago, Europeans also used to kill jews, witches, protestants, muslims and gypsies as a nuisance. Does make it impossible for us to condemn religious opression today?
Centurie(s) ago, the Union butchered some native americans every now and then. Does that make it impossible for the US to condemn genocide today? (no, it does not: in contrast to the EU, the US condemned the genocide taking place in Sudan as a genocide, whilst the EU only spoke of a masacre so as not to be obliged to intervene under the Genocide Convention)
This to illustrate your argument is an obvious fallacy ('tu quoque', in case you wondered).


You seem to be good at fallacies. This one is a 'slipery slope' mixed with a 'false dilemma'.
Rats are far more dangerous (black plague, anyone?) than wolves ever could be. Since humans are not machines, we are capable of applying a certain margin of appreciation when dealing with other lifeforms. The same applies for the bugs you mentioned.
Thus, not eradicating wolves will not leave us exposed to the real killers.


Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
Your 'pets and children' are more at risk from other people's dogs than from wolves. If we were to act in accordance to your granny, we should thus shoot all potentially dangerous dogs whenever they stray out of the vicinity of protected areas (house of owner, on leash of owner). Sory, good 'ol Max, you should have stayed at home today - bang.
Such society souns like a lot of fun.
Note that this is a slippery slope fallacy made by me! It just sounded good, but you should probably ignore it.

My 'obvious, radical' nationalism? What are you talking about? Because I claimed that a person from the UK acting outraged about a so-called "massacre of the wolves" while currently living on a continent that killed off its wolves and has, as yet, not repopulated them is a bit of the ol' pot and kettle? That's hypernationalism? Well, I'm sorry, I'm not in the vogue "blame America first" group. I know it's fun and trendy to whip on America but I like my country and all the opportunities its given me.

And what 'eurobashing' did I do? I pointed out a fact. Wolves in Europe are virtually nonexistent outside of Norway and the former Soviet Republics. And please, I'm not writing a scholarly thesis here. The thrust of my argument was, and still is, that if people from places where there are no wolves currently and there used to be some, then they would be better served to influence their own citizenry to reintroduce their own wolf populations, rather than attack others.

You stated, in part,
"Your 'pets and children' are more at risk from other people's dogs than from wolves. If we were to act in accordance to your granny, we should thus shoot all potentially dangerous dogs whenever they stray out of the vicinity of protected areas (house of owner, on leash of owner). Sory, good 'ol Max, you should have stayed at home today - bang.
Such society souns like a lot of fun.
Note that this is a slippery slope fallacy made by me! It just sounded good, but you should probably ignore it."

(Note: This is not a 'slippery slope' fallacy; it's a straw man. I never said anything about killing dogs on my yard. Millions die everyday in automobiles, I suppose next you claim I'd like to shoot the tires out of cars as they drive by. I spoke to the logical reasoning for the bill at hand, saying that it was probably a good idea. Whether you think so or not is up to debate, however, the reasoning behind the bill is what I said it is. The "logical fault" is with the bill's author, not with me.)

And as to my "rats and insects" part, which you had so much fun attacking, I was being a bit sarcastic. However, I don't know how animal rights activists can value one life more than another. A wolf is somehow better than an insect? Or is it that killing the insects is convenient for you and killing the wolves isn't something you'd do anyway. It's easy to ban what you have no intention of ever doing. If skydiving was outlawed tomorrow, I wouldn't have one thing to say about it, because I never intend to sky-dive. Besides, wolves are big and cuddly while insects look like scary outerspace monsters. Thus, inherently, their lives must somehow be worth less. The way you put it, human beings are able to decide which animals are worth saving and which animals we can do without. How nice. (The fact that humans are NOT machines also indicates that we may be able to hunt the wolves in a responsible fashion, without driving them to extinction, but hey, what do I know right?)


In any case, this arguing around in circles tires me. You can have the last word if you like.

If you insist. Arguing is fun.


Hmm, yes, that was a bit uncalled for, sorry.
Probably a stereotyping reflex from my part.


"...before you look down your nose and accuse evil ol' America of racism and barbarism..."
I find this stereotyping. Being critical of a government is not the same as looking down on an entire population/culture/nation.


The current generation did not make the wolves dissapear or had any part in it whatsoever; pot&kettle does not apply.
Wolves are, as a matter of fact, being reintroduced in certain mountanous regions in southern Europe. It might not be in enourmous numbers, but Rome wasn't built in a day either.


If you interpret it as "following the bill's reasoning will lead to..." it is a slippery slope. If you interpret it as if I restated the bill's reasoning to include shooting household pets, it is a straw man. Whatever interpretation is valid, is the subject of debate at the point of a sword
All the more reason to ignore it.


Point taken.


How animal rights activists can value one life more than another is their problem, for I do not count myself among them. But I know I can value one life more than the other.
And yes, a wolf is better than an insect, in my oppinion. Call it prejudice on a cross-specie scale.
And humans are better than wolves, by the way (taking marginal value into consideration).


Cuddly? Heavens, no! They're noisy, smelly, dirty and get hair all over my suit. I prefer it if they are kept away from me.


Yes, we are able. Call me an optimist.

no problem


....

And as for this, im just saying that is not the president and his officals in charge of what goes on? And YES, i understand that he doesn't make decisions(sp) by himself, he of coarse has his advisors.......but you know...i can see your point...we can't blame them...we have to blame ourselves, and i don't mean just you, or you, or even you over in the corner .......after all, those presidents, governors,mayors, or WHOEVER is to blame for this disaster of not only wolf killing, but polar bears, birds, WHATEVER IT IS.....the thing to blame is the resistance in our selves that make some of us say "there's no way this is happening" "that's what balto. want's us to believe".."we would have heard of this before".....WHATEVER IT MAY BE......but we can't deny that something is wrong...unless your just a very selfish stubborn person (and im not calling anyone here that)....im talking of those who ignore worldly matters.....by the way, happy live earth day everyone, hopefully the earth won't be under an extra 20 feet of water from scientist predicted reports. So....believe what you wish, help if your will allows you, and save what you can....because who know what will be left to save in say...20 years...50 years...100 years.....already animals have fallen extinct due to human activity, it can't be denied....i would just like to see the smallest possible number extinct when those times come. This is my opinion and belief, and i hope you'll take part in live earth. Here's an update on the Mexican wolves. http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2007/pr062607.html

P.S.:I didn't start this topic, or come here every so often to start fights....if you look, you will see that this is probably the only thing i have posted in for the past 5-10 months.....i came here to start to ask for help for wolves, and so far, im trying to expand that to asking for help for the world's problems , after all, why settle for just wolves being saved ........anyway, i just said that extra "P.S." message to tell you that im not here to start fights, im not here to upset nerves or whatever. Im here to get help, and if i changed once person's mind to help or save something, that i have done my job, and i feel good .


P.S. 2.0 ......[/quote]

Thank God someone finally said something. And haven't we been over this before? It's not the Bush/Chaney administration, they do not have authority over these types of situations.

I'm also glad you pointed out that animals do not have a legal status in the American government, just like the British government.

Everyone here misses the point that wolves like all other animals can only grow to have so many before they lose their usefulness and start becoming a problem. In some area's they have reached that. Anyway they are not going to exterminate the whole wolf population with out someone stepping in and stopping them.[/quote]

well, the animals were here before us were they not...but humans arn't animals after all, were an advanced life species above all and everything, creatures big and small, many and few, fall before our hands.....why save the animals, it's not our, is it?.....and as for there "always being someone to step and stop the destruction", i have a perfect example! ....The amazon river! after all, there was that one guy that came, and stop all foresting in the area, saving the wildlife and halting any further destruction of the rain forest.....there's just one problem, there was noone that steped in, that's why the rain forest is slowly dismishing(sp)......another good example is the polar caps .....god, everyone remember the time, when humans all over stop carbon dioxide pollution to save the earth and ice caps for new generations of humans to live upon.........another problem, is where's the guy....of coarse Al Gore is fighting now, but they're still going........So, lets just hope that someone steps in.

I voted undecided which isn't strictly correct, I will when i get my Debit card!
Sheba.