Quote:
9,3 - I hear what you are saying and know you have very good reasons for not liking wolves, but is this really true?
Yes, it IS true. But remember, "balance" is a term of personification. What we call wild swings in both carrying capacity and populations IS "natural balance". If you remove man from the equation {an utter impossibility, and an absurdity, of course, but for the sake of discussion, let's do it}, you get what? Well, in philisophical terms, "who cares"? Meaning, the deep meaning of our observations of biological conditions only have meaning IF we are there to describe them.
To sum up, human intervention causes imbalance (contrary to your statement). There already was a balance, but at an unacceptably low level for some. Now it can be argued that there is imbalance. Nevertheless, I think that an equilibrium of wolf numbers will be found, but at what cost?
I absolutely disagree 100% with this statement because, pardon me for saying, it lacks focus on value. Look, now let's inject people again to the equation. We are a biological organism. Somehow the "ecotheologists" {using Magnus Hagelstam's term} have hijacked the thinking of modern man to believe that man is an outsider to various ecosystems, when in fact we a deep insider, and many ecosystems exist only because of us and in fact ALL are impacted by us. "Wolves" or rats or anopheles mosquitos are given a pass to seek their own maximum gain, but people are seen as a superflous and intrusive element and should not seek their own maximum gain. These are of course statements of value. And, interestingly, most of the time the enviro's who demand the sacrifice and suffering of people aren't included in that list of people they expect to suffer for the cause. WE are.
And there it lies.
Science is the tool of values.
We do what we do for a purpose. If the purpose is to create an ecosystem where wolves exist, then we will have an ecosystem where game numbers are significantly depleted for human utilization and humans will pay a very high price in many other ways for the existence of wolves. We can use science to support that. If we want an ecosystem where certain animals {here, ungulates, bear, lion} are managed to maximum sustainable yield for human utilization, then wolves are OUT. I am not afraid to say that based on the options, I don't want a single living wolf in Idaho. If you want them in England, by all means, introduce them! IIRC, they were once there, yes? Well, if you say that is not practical, then my response is, it isn't practical, here, either, for all the same reasons. They are a pest and menace.
What we are re-learning is that Vernon Bailey was right, in his pamphlet on "The Destruction of Coyotes and Wolves", 1907. He was prophetic in saying, in paraphrase, that if we want to reap the benefits of a wolf-free existence {and the benefits for people are immense} then we must vigilantly and unendingly destroy them, persecute them and hold them down. To "go to sleep" for a while will result in their rising up, then our relearning just how serious a threat they are to us and our activities. Yup, we are RE-learning. The wisdom of our forefathers escaped us for 70 years, but we are gaining it back the hard way.
Daryl's exposition here is absolutely right-on.
Wolves are, in the presence of people, a disease organism.
All these discussion highlight the truth of Ed Bang's statement "Everyone loves wolves...unless you have to live with them".
|
Re: Hunting Wolves