What would you do about the wolves?
- Thread starter Randy in Arizona
- Start date
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Rich
). PLEASE don't lump naturalists in with those fanatics at PETA! I've been a naturalist ever since I was old enough to walk the boonies alone and wonder at things. I earned my B.S. in wildlife biology, and my grad work was in vertebrate autecology, but the difference between some naturalists (including me) and others is that we tend to keep the emotion out of things, and recognize the need for wildlife management. Those left-of-center let their emotions get in the way too often and judgement gets clouded. Think of a naturalist as a profession. Like most others, you get people from all walks of life, with widely varying personalities, opinions, intelligence, and politics.
Aw geeze Rich! I'm both a conservationist AND a naturalist (yup, both can co-exist in the same body
). PLEASE don't lump naturalists in with those fanatics at PETA! I've been a naturalist ever since I was old enough to walk the boonies alone and wonder at things. I earned my B.S. in wildlife biology, and my grad work was in vertebrate autecology, but the difference between some naturalists (including me) and others is that we tend to keep the emotion out of things, and recognize the need for wildlife management. Those left-of-center let their emotions get in the way too often and judgement gets clouded. Think of a naturalist as a profession. Like most others, you get people from all walks of life, with widely varying personalities, opinions, intelligence, and politics.Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
jeff_troop
I think you're hitting Cal a little below the belt, Jeff. I realize you're relatively new to the board, but Cal is definitely not a troll. He's the real deal, a dedicated naturalist, and believes in what he's saying, whether or not we agree with him. Let's keep the debate civil and intellectual.
I think you're hitting Cal a little below the belt, Jeff. I realize you're relatively new to the board, but Cal is definitely not a troll. He's the real deal, a dedicated naturalist, and believes in what he's saying, whether or not we agree with him. Let's keep the debate civil and intellectual.
CarbineCaleb, i also notice that you are good at answering the questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and avoiding the ones that may indeed indicate to us what you really know about the subject, so let me try again:
where was the last place that you lived where your livelyhood and private property were directly affected by wolves?
where was the last place that you lived where your livelyhood and private property were directly affected by wolves?
CarbineCaleb, let me qualify myself on this subject:
i lived in WY for 25 years. i have many friends and family who live in WY. some of them live, work, and play where their lives are directly affected by wolves. most folks whos lives are directly affected by wolves do not want them there.
currently i live in denver and will be leaving very soon (can't knock the city till ya try it
). i see the attitude down here all the time. many folks think that WY is some type of personal playground or wildlife refuge.
it is not. it is people's home. people from CO, DC, and MA are not qualified to make decisions that do not affect their lives but WILL affect the lives of people in WY.
that is my entire argument and point.
i lived in WY for 25 years. i have many friends and family who live in WY. some of them live, work, and play where their lives are directly affected by wolves. most folks whos lives are directly affected by wolves do not want them there.
currently i live in denver and will be leaving very soon (can't knock the city till ya try it
). i see the attitude down here all the time. many folks think that WY is some type of personal playground or wildlife refuge.it is not. it is people's home. people from CO, DC, and MA are not qualified to make decisions that do not affect their lives but WILL affect the lives of people in WY.
that is my entire argument and point.
CarbineCaleb
New member
Well, except for the real finegrained stuff (like what's underfoot, soil, talus, boulders), which does affect matters some... yes it does tell you all you need to know about difficulty. If you're bushwhacking (going offtrail), then you also need to know the density of the trees - the fewer the better... but on trail, the topo is sufficient.
Here are some of the things I would do when reconoittering... and a good university library will have the topo maps for the entire USA. When already going to a particular region, you just get the maps for that area to carry with you and do detailed planning (write to the USGS and send them something like $5 per map).
- Look for lots of brown (contour lines) and also some bodies of water (lakes, rivers, creeks) for added interest
- Check the elevations at the tops of all the peaks
- Check the elevation difference between the bases and the summits
- Check the elevation differences you'll see along a prospective route
- Check the gradients you'll see along a prospective route
- Avoid marshy areas to reduce insects
- Choose trails away from the main (herd) trails
- Choose trails that go over summits, or through high passes, through steep high notches, right underneath or right along the top of big cliffs, best views are closeby and parallel to a densely contoured stretch, most work is perpendicular to and across a densely contoured stretch.
- Where possible, plan the overnight stops at a location with water
Once you've been in the general area at least once, you even know what kind of plants and trees you'll find before you ever see the spot - that varies in a region with rainfall, standing water presence, elevation, and soil type... The only caveat I'd give is that a small stream on the map may have dried up - but you can tell it's iffy by the size on the map. Topo maps are a wonderful thing!
No, I haven't lived in an area where my livelihood or private property are affected by wolves. I haven't said that people should just sit by while their livestock are being eaten though... that's why I don't understand where some of these comments are coming from.
CarbineCaleb
New member
redhawk41:
I am not a city guy either - lived in downtown Boston my first 4 months here - was interesting, and I am glad that I had the experience, but it wasn't for me. Air is too dirty, rats/homeless people/crime too frequent (and I was in the BackBay section), traffic too dense and fast, landscape is too hard and hot. I live about 40 miles north of Boston now, right next to a National Wildlife Refuge on the ocean. It's still close enough to commute for work, but I can be in New Hampshire in 15 minutes, and Maine in 45 minutes. As pretty as it may be out west, Maine is my favorite state!
If you ever get into the New England area, I can help you find your way to good things, and buy you a beer - and I promise not to bring up the wolves if you won't.
I am not a city guy either - lived in downtown Boston my first 4 months here - was interesting, and I am glad that I had the experience, but it wasn't for me. Air is too dirty, rats/homeless people/crime too frequent (and I was in the BackBay section), traffic too dense and fast, landscape is too hard and hot. I live about 40 miles north of Boston now, right next to a National Wildlife Refuge on the ocean. It's still close enough to commute for work, but I can be in New Hampshire in 15 minutes, and Maine in 45 minutes. As pretty as it may be out west, Maine is my favorite state!
If you ever get into the New England area, I can help you find your way to good things, and buy you a beer - and I promise not to bring up the wolves if you won't.
hey its no problem! we obviously share a few things in common or we wouldn't be posting on this board
besides, it sounds like we share a similar interest in the outdoors and such. i think it is good to talk about this type of stuff.
i for one am not for total eradication of wolves, i just wonder why they were eliminated from the places that humans now inhabit.
IMO it's because they can't coexist peacefully being competing predators at the top of the food chain and all.
much of Canada is afterall a frozen tundra, perfectly unsuitable for most human habitation and especially ranching. perfect place for the wolves
Last edited:
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Capt-
Admitted and apologies for having said it.
PETA are environmentalists, not naturalists.
On another note, this thread is getting way too personal, way too quick.
We're all on the same side here. Can we all just step back for a day?
Rich
jeff_troop
New member
some people are very slick with their insults. (check the bear thread) being a veteran on the board doesn't deny a person the ability to practice troll like behaviors whether intended or or not. as far as being civil and intellectual, again read the bear post. often a subtle jab buried inbetween civil and intellectual words.
me being new here is irrelevant. i am not new to the planet or the internet and believe me all boards are very similiar with the same characters. some types like to post ad nauseum about their intellect and beliefs. often repeating the same thing over and over. that is nothing more than a type of trolling as the intent is to conitinually illict response or simply to have the last word.
troll like behavior is not limited to full time trollers.
and this subject was never on topic to begin with.
my final word is be objective.
good luck with the ideological debate.
If I owned a ranch, and wolves were killing my livestock. I would kill wolves on my propery. Out there in the boonies where the wolves roam, it is the wolf and the rancher.
I suspect that re-introducing wolves into areas where livestock are raised will not be very successful because that is probably what most ranchers will do. Wolves became extinct in ranch country for a reason. Wolves being wolves, and ranchers being ranchers - doesn't sound to me like anything will change.
I suspect that re-introducing wolves into areas where livestock are raised will not be very successful because that is probably what most ranchers will do. Wolves became extinct in ranch country for a reason. Wolves being wolves, and ranchers being ranchers - doesn't sound to me like anything will change.