Judithea wrote:
Lorvilran wrote:
What I'm saying is they take some of their wealth and ensure that their flock is protected instead of LETTING THEM ROAM! Which is what has been known to happen. We've said that adequate protection of flocks/herds is the answer not killing off a rather important type of animal. And what I'm saying is put aside SOME of their money towards fencing, not starve themselves.
Now we're talking, that sounds like a reasonable plan. Much better than most people here who seem to be whining about the issue rather than trying to propose a solution.
Now why couldn't putting up fences that are dug deep enough that wolves won't dig under, and built so that they won't get through be the solution instead of killing off an animal that actually has a purpose in the ecosystem? The US has gone down the route of mostly kill off the wolves before and we had Yellowstone so messed up we had to reintroduce wolves. Now that we have plants are thriving again and the ecosystem is back in balance. Wolves learn if something is easy or hard to get to and if the sheep or cattle are too hard to get to they avoid them and go back to the prey they are meant to go after.
Judithea wrote:
That honestly has to be one of the most mind boggling, naive, dense things I've ever heard.
Nobody here hates animals.. the entire discussion is ultimately about the importance of animal lives over human lives which, if you had read through the thread, you would see that animals hold a greater importance. Let's let the wolves kill all the cattle and put poor farmers out of the job. How dare hardworking farmers try to let their cattle roam free in their open fields!
I'd also like to know what fairy tale land you're living in. If wanting to ensure that other humans who work in dire consequences for things that we waste, makes you "despise" the human race then you're clearly deluded.
Nobody here hates animals.. the entire discussion is ultimately about the importance of animal lives over human lives which, if you had read through the thread, you would see that animals hold a greater importance. Let's let the wolves kill all the cattle and put poor farmers out of the job. How dare hardworking farmers try to let their cattle roam free in their open fields!
I'd also like to know what fairy tale land you're living in. If wanting to ensure that other humans who work in dire consequences for things that we waste, makes you "despise" the human race then you're clearly deluded.
Oh, because it's SOOO much better idea that people commit genocide on an animal just for a small population of livestock dying off than it is for farmers to protect their livestock better, apply stronger fencing and not let the sheep roam out into dangerous territory. Oh no, genocide is so much easier because, you know, we're humans. We are above all creatures. We're perfect, we're special. We get to overpopulate, but it's wrong if other species do it. We get to invade other animals territory, but it's wrong if other species do it! We get to destroy hundreds of trees and destroy habitats, but it's wrong if other species do it! I put animals above humans at times because HUMANS AREN'T ALWAYS IN THE RIGHT!
MODERATOR NOTE: I removed about 2/3 of this post. Following posts may appear to be responding to phantoms as a result. -Kim
"This decision includes a wolf family in Letjenna who have not taken or eaten one sheep since they established themselves there in the winter of 2011/2012."
So why should this pack that has never taken even one sheep also be put on the chopping block? Are you going to say that this doesn't need justifying too?
So why should this pack that has never taken even one sheep also be put on the chopping block? Are you going to say that this doesn't need justifying too?
Lorvilran wrote:
Now why couldn't putting up fences that are dug deep enough that wolves won't dig under, and built so that they won't get through be the solution instead of killing off an animal that actually has a purpose in the ecosystem? The US has gone down the route of mostly kill off the wolves before and we had Yellowstone so messed up we had to reintroduce wolves. Now that we have plants are thriving again and the ecosystem is back in balance. Wolves learn if something is easy or hard to get to and if the sheep or cattle are too hard to get to they avoid them and go back to the prey they are meant to go after.
I think it honestly just comes down to expenses. You need to remember that an average farm is easily over 1200 acres. That's discounting the farmers housing land and personal space distancing them from the animals. Sheep on the other hand need a very very wide place to roam free in order to be in good health. Building fences such as the ones you're suggesting are very very expensive especially if you want them to go extremely deep and high to prevent animals from getting in, which in simplicity is why most farmers just get small basic fences in their area because they usually don't except animals such as wolves to jump in so eagerly.
MugoUrth wrote:
Oh, because it's SOOO much better idea that people commit genocide on an animal just for a small population of livestock dying off than it is for farmers to protect their livestock better, apply stronger fencing and not let the sheep roam out into dangerous territory. Oh no, genocide is so much easier because, you know, we're humans. We are above all creatures. We're perfect, we're special. We get to overpopulate, but it's wrong if other species do it. We get to invade other animals territory, but it's wrong if other species do it! We get to destroy hundreds of trees and destroy habitats, but it's wrong if other species do it! I put animals above humans at times because HUMANS AREN'T ALWAYS IN THE RIGHT!
You need to calm down. My mind shuts off when individuals use unnecessary caps and bolded words in a creative discussion.
1. Building large defences are expensive.
2. No one is committing genocide on wolves.
3. Without the help of humans, many species would have already gone extinct. Our existence actively helps their existence.
4. I'd like you to stop making blunt accusations towards me because of my opinion on this certain topic. I don't support the mass killings of creatures for a pointless reason, but this isn't the case. Norway is completely in the right in choosing to do so. Your opinion and anger towards the matter is nothing short of drivel.
Katia wrote:
"This decision includes a wolf family in Letjenna who have not taken or eaten one sheep since they established themselves there in the winter of 2011/2012."
So why should this pack that has never taken even one sheep also be put on the chopping block? Are you going to say that this doesn't need justifying too?
So why should this pack that has never taken even one sheep also be put on the chopping block? Are you going to say that this doesn't need justifying too?
That I suppose is the only issue with the scenario but even then I could go as far as to say that just because they haven't done it yet, doesn't erase the possibility of them ever taking cattle. It's a tricky situation.
My frustration with this topic was the fact that your initial post was clearly made with the intention of getting people to side with you as shown by your bias post. It's always good to know both sides of the story before making a rough judgement.
Like I said before, these people didn't just wake up one day and decide to kill wolves. Something must have led it high up to the point that the entire country is willing to take part in the event.
Except it isn't the entire country, from what I've read it's a specific group who doesn't want to even try to relocate the wolves or build better fences. From my understanding Norway currently has something like 68 wolves and truthfully if you kill off 70% you aren't leaving enough for a healthy gene-pool.. The US reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone and it flourished under the reintroduction.
I've been reading this topic, and I just want to clarify a few points.
1. As Lorvilran pointed out, the population of wolves in Norway is extremely small. There will be only 20 wolves left in all of Norway once they're done culling the population.
2. Farmers aren't losing anything from losing sheep to wolves specifically. Not only are they are financially compensated for the sheep lost to wolves, they only lose 1.5% (and that is if we take the highest number, not the lowest) of all lost sheep to wolves, the rest are from natural accidents, car and train accidents. That probably means the numbers of 'lost sheep from wolf attacks' are artificially inflated to get more money from the government, putting the issue of lost cattle to wolves in murky waters at best.
3. Given the fact only 1.5% of all lost sheep are lost to wolves, we have 98.5% of all sheep losses contributed to other causes. Cars and trains probably kill more sheep than wolves do if we're being honest here. I don't understand how culling a pack of wolves to ridiculous small numbers, leading to inbreeding and genetic problems for when the population expands again, benefits anyone here.
4. Wolves play a ridiculously important role in ecology as a whole. I don't understand why this is dismissed. Wolves don't just cull the weak and sick animals from herds, they also maintain a balanced population in other predator species. Culling prey also leads to an increase in vegetation, among which are nearly extinct species of plants. It is proven that wolves have positive impacts on nature, any small amount of research will tell you that. Yes, wolves negatively affect farmers who have free roaming cattle, but as I stated before, farmers are compensated and only lose an incredibly small fraction of their herds to wolves. Nothing large enough to warrant eradicating 2/3rds of the wolf population to mind boggling small numbers.
If protecting flocks is really the prime motivator for this mass slaughter, then wolves are the least of their problems going by statistics. I'm curious how much cattle would be saved if car and train accidents were reduced. I'm curious how much cattle would be saved if sheep were contained in fenced areas where they are not as exposed to the elements where they get separated and lost from the flock, fall to their deaths, get snagged by predators other than wolves etc.
I mean, no matter how I look at this, culling wolves is not treating the real source of sheep loss here. It just makes me think this actually has nothing to do with protecting the flocks and more to do with a cultural bias towards the animals. I have yet to see any solid evidence telling me otherwise.
1. As Lorvilran pointed out, the population of wolves in Norway is extremely small. There will be only 20 wolves left in all of Norway once they're done culling the population.
2. Farmers aren't losing anything from losing sheep to wolves specifically. Not only are they are financially compensated for the sheep lost to wolves, they only lose 1.5% (and that is if we take the highest number, not the lowest) of all lost sheep to wolves, the rest are from natural accidents, car and train accidents. That probably means the numbers of 'lost sheep from wolf attacks' are artificially inflated to get more money from the government, putting the issue of lost cattle to wolves in murky waters at best.
3. Given the fact only 1.5% of all lost sheep are lost to wolves, we have 98.5% of all sheep losses contributed to other causes. Cars and trains probably kill more sheep than wolves do if we're being honest here. I don't understand how culling a pack of wolves to ridiculous small numbers, leading to inbreeding and genetic problems for when the population expands again, benefits anyone here.
4. Wolves play a ridiculously important role in ecology as a whole. I don't understand why this is dismissed. Wolves don't just cull the weak and sick animals from herds, they also maintain a balanced population in other predator species. Culling prey also leads to an increase in vegetation, among which are nearly extinct species of plants. It is proven that wolves have positive impacts on nature, any small amount of research will tell you that. Yes, wolves negatively affect farmers who have free roaming cattle, but as I stated before, farmers are compensated and only lose an incredibly small fraction of their herds to wolves. Nothing large enough to warrant eradicating 2/3rds of the wolf population to mind boggling small numbers.
If protecting flocks is really the prime motivator for this mass slaughter, then wolves are the least of their problems going by statistics. I'm curious how much cattle would be saved if car and train accidents were reduced. I'm curious how much cattle would be saved if sheep were contained in fenced areas where they are not as exposed to the elements where they get separated and lost from the flock, fall to their deaths, get snagged by predators other than wolves etc.
I mean, no matter how I look at this, culling wolves is not treating the real source of sheep loss here. It just makes me think this actually has nothing to do with protecting the flocks and more to do with a cultural bias towards the animals. I have yet to see any solid evidence telling me otherwise.
Sanne wrote:
Wolves play a ridiculously important role in ecology as a whole. I don't understand why this is dismissed. Wolves don't just cull the weak and sick animals from herds, they also maintain a balanced population in other predator species. Culling prey also leads to an increase in vegetation, among which are nearly extinct species of plants. It is proven that wolves have positive impacts on nature, any small amount of research will tell you that. Yes, wolves negatively affect farmers who have free roaming cattle, but as I stated before, farmers are compensated and only lose an incredibly small fraction of their herds to wolves. Nothing large enough to warrant eradicating 2/3rds of the wolf population to mind boggling small numbers.
See this, this right here is what I have an issue with. The amount of times I see people stating that (Insert animal group here) plays a large role in the environment is simply too high and in all honesty, I have to say that the statement itself is nothing short of nonsense. There is a saying that if you took out all the spiders from the earth, we'd all suffer. No we wouldn't. All this is simply fear mongering to try to make people view things in a different way, which I should add isn't necessarily a bad thing in the general look of things but people bring it up too much and it seriously has got to stop.
You said yourself that there are 60 wolves in Norway. I haven't bothered to research this myself so I'll take your word for it. Norway in size is 385,178 km² which covers the basis of the land including it's forest and greenery areas.
To tell me that the 60 wolves in Norway help to maintain something high and important is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure you'd agree. I've lived in the UK many times and like I said. There are no wolves in UK roaming freely, yet their environmental lands and things alike seem to be higher than Norway's and other countries with wolves. How at all is this possible if wolves play a "ridiculously" important role in environmentalism? We need to write that nonsense off the books.
I agree with you on pretty much everything else but I wouldn't go as far as to call the plans to be based on cultural bias.
Judithea wrote:
Sanne wrote:
Wolves play a ridiculously important role in ecology as a whole. I don't understand why this is dismissed. Wolves don't just cull the weak and sick animals from herds, they also maintain a balanced population in other predator species. Culling prey also leads to an increase in vegetation, among which are nearly extinct species of plants. It is proven that wolves have positive impacts on nature, any small amount of research will tell you that. Yes, wolves negatively affect farmers who have free roaming cattle, but as I stated before, farmers are compensated and only lose an incredibly small fraction of their herds to wolves. Nothing large enough to warrant eradicating 2/3rds of the wolf population to mind boggling small numbers.
See this, this right here is what I have an issue with. The amount of times I see people stating that (Insert animal group here) plays a large role in the environment is simply too high and in all honesty, I have to say that the statement itself is nothing short of nonsense. There is a saying that if you took out all the spiders from the earth, we'd all suffer. No we wouldn't. All this is simply fear mongering to try to make people view things in a different way, which I should add isn't necessarily a bad thing in the general look of things but people bring it up too much and it seriously has got to stop.
You said yourself that there are 60 wolves in Norway. I haven't bothered to research this myself so I'll take your word for it. Norway in size is 385,178 km² which covers the basis of the land including it's forest and greenery areas.
To tell me that the 60 wolves in Norway help to maintain something high and important is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure you'd agree. I've lived in the UK many times and like I said. There are no wolves in UK roaming freely, yet their environmental lands and things alike seem to be higher than Norway's and other countries with wolves. How at all is this possible if wolves play a "ridiculously" important role in environmentalism? We need to write that nonsense off the books.
I agree with you on pretty much everything else but I wouldn't go as far as to call the plans to be based on cultural bias.
I've given an example of an area that taking wolves out of the equation was a detriment and you've ignored it. Yellowstone National Park. A US park. Now it is much better after we reintroduced wolves that we'd hunted to almost nothing. The local prey species experienced a population boom and started eating more and more of the vegetation which harmed the beauty of the park. When we reintroduced wolves they hunted and got the population back to a good level. It cost the US more in the long run to reintroduce wolves than it would have to have used non-lethal methods of containment.
Factual evidence has been provided for why these wolves should not be killed. Research and a case study were given on how the wolves changed Yellowstone National Park. Why do you insist that none of these carry any weight, while never providing any proof, beyond personal opinion, that it is wrong to spare these wolves? Is there any evidence that the disappearance of all spiders in the world would not effect us? Do you have any facts or evidence to back your statement that, "the 60 wolves in Norway help to maintain something high and important is ridiculous"? You're only repeating, "I'm right and you're wrong," in different ways every time. Why ignore a wealth of information from one of the previous posts to instead target the wording of others?
Saying wolves are unnecessary because they don't have them in the UK is hogwash. They went extinct hundreds of years ago, but they are still looking to bring wolves back into the UK to help the land recover. Except for a low $10k collective loss for farmers (who are compensated anyway), there has been no real reason presented for their deaths.
Saying wolves are unnecessary because they don't have them in the UK is hogwash. They went extinct hundreds of years ago, but they are still looking to bring wolves back into the UK to help the land recover. Except for a low $10k collective loss for farmers (who are compensated anyway), there has been no real reason presented for their deaths.
Judithea wrote:
See this, this right here is what I have an issue with. The amount of times I see people stating that (Insert animal group here) plays a large role in the environment is simply too high and in all honesty, I have to say that the statement itself is nothing short of nonsense. There is a saying that if you took out all the spiders from the earth, we'd all suffer. No we wouldn't. All this is simply fear mongering to try to make people view things in a different way, which I should add isn't necessarily a bad thing in the general look of things but people bring it up too much and it seriously has got to stop.
You said yourself that there are 60 wolves in Norway. I haven't bothered to research this myself so I'll take your word for it. Norway in size is 385,178 km² which covers the basis of the land including it's forest and greenery areas.
To tell me that the 60 wolves in Norway help to maintain something high and important is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure you'd agree. I've lived in the UK many times and like I said. There are no wolves in UK roaming freely, yet their environmental lands and things alike seem to be higher than Norway's and other countries with wolves. How at all is this possible if wolves play a "ridiculously" important role in environmentalism? We need to write that nonsense off the books.
I agree with you on pretty much everything else but I wouldn't go as far as to call the plans to be based on cultural bias.
You said yourself that there are 60 wolves in Norway. I haven't bothered to research this myself so I'll take your word for it. Norway in size is 385,178 km² which covers the basis of the land including it's forest and greenery areas.
To tell me that the 60 wolves in Norway help to maintain something high and important is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure you'd agree. I've lived in the UK many times and like I said. There are no wolves in UK roaming freely, yet their environmental lands and things alike seem to be higher than Norway's and other countries with wolves. How at all is this possible if wolves play a "ridiculously" important role in environmentalism? We need to write that nonsense off the books.
I agree with you on pretty much everything else but I wouldn't go as far as to call the plans to be based on cultural bias.
The resources I've been trying to look into regarding how the Norway ecosystem is doing right now, are primarily in languages that I can't read, so I'm going to have to be honest and say I don't know what the current ecological situation in Norway is.
What I DO know is that there is massive amounts of research for other parts of the world where the positive effect of wolves' presence has been documented, Yellowstone (as mentioned repeatedly in this thread) included. This leads me to believe that the Scandinavian ecosystem can only benefit from a larger population of wolves, and that wolves play important roles in it all over the world.
http://www.defenders.org/places-for-wolves/ecological-role-wolves
https://www.livingwithwolves.org/about-wolves/why-wolves-matter/
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2004/dec/ecology-fear-wolves-gone-western-ecosystems-suffer
http://www.ecology.info/wolf.htm
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-video-ecological-role-wolves-yellowstone.html
http://www.missionwolf.org/page/trophic-cascade/
The evidence is there. I'm not sure how highly I value a personal opinion, versus cold hard facts and scientifically documented evidence in this matter. If I could read Norwegian and Swedish, I would probably be able to find more resources on this for the Scandinavian situation as well to support the claims we see in Yellowstone as well.
I also strongly believe that the human fear of wolves, held up through dozens of generations with myths and fear mongering, is the primary cause for the persecution of wolves we see in places like Norway. It was true that many many years ago, when we were making do without technology and without ample numbers to defend ourselves, wolves were predators we had to be wary of, perhaps even fear. But since then we've not only domesticated them, we have obtained the powers to influence predator and prey populations for a very long time now. We don't have to fear wolves anymore, and there is no data to backup claims that we should. But we do have massive amounts of evidence supporting the claims that wolves are important, and that is why so many people, including people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying ecology, are so upset with what is happening.
Judithea wrote:
You need to calm down. My mind shuts off when individuals use unnecessary caps and bolded words in a creative discussion.
1. Building large defenses are expensive.
2. No one is committing genocide on wolves.
3. Without the help of humans, many species would have already gone extinct. Our existence actively helps their existence.
4. I'd like you to stop making blunt accusations towards me because of my opinion on this certain topic. I don't support the mass killings of creatures for a pointless reason, but this isn't the case. Norway is completely in the right in choosing to do so. Your opinion and anger towards the matter is nothing short of drivel.
1. Building large defenses are expensive.
2. No one is committing genocide on wolves.
3. Without the help of humans, many species would have already gone extinct. Our existence actively helps their existence.
4. I'd like you to stop making blunt accusations towards me because of my opinion on this certain topic. I don't support the mass killings of creatures for a pointless reason, but this isn't the case. Norway is completely in the right in choosing to do so. Your opinion and anger towards the matter is nothing short of drivel.
Sometimes, CAPs are needed to get the point across.
1: Yes it takes hard work, but it's not as expensive as you'd think.
2: Uh, yeah, NORWAY is. Last time I checked, mass slaughtering is genocide.
3: We're doing a REALLY good job helping the bees and the bats and elephants and lions and a lot of other species. Humans are TRYING to make progress in helping certain animals, but everytime someone tries, there's a large corporation there to erase all progress they try to make. As for Elephants, Lions and Rhinos? We're actually making it WORSE for them. We're not setting boundries for them to be free and protected, we're not cracking down on poachers. Instead, we're having people pay to shoot more and more of them as if their numbers will magically grow if we believe enough and raise money to protect an EXTINCT species. Some humans do try to help, but as a whole species, we are doing a LOT more harm to nature than good.
4: no, Norway's NOT in the right. They're completely exaggerating on the matter.
Woah, mate. Let's stay friendly here.
MugoUrth wrote:
Judithea wrote:
You need to calm down. My mind shuts off when individuals use unnecessary caps and bolded words in a creative discussion.
1. Building large defenses are expensive.
2. No one is committing genocide on wolves.
3. Without the help of humans, many species would have already gone extinct. Our existence actively helps their existence.
4. I'd like you to stop making blunt accusations towards me because of my opinion on this certain topic. I don't support the mass killings of creatures for a pointless reason, but this isn't the case. Norway is completely in the right in choosing to do so. Your opinion and anger towards the matter is nothing short of drivel.
1. Building large defenses are expensive.
2. No one is committing genocide on wolves.
3. Without the help of humans, many species would have already gone extinct. Our existence actively helps their existence.
4. I'd like you to stop making blunt accusations towards me because of my opinion on this certain topic. I don't support the mass killings of creatures for a pointless reason, but this isn't the case. Norway is completely in the right in choosing to do so. Your opinion and anger towards the matter is nothing short of drivel.
Sometimes, CAPs are needed to get the point across.
1: Yes it takes hard work, but it's not as expensive as you'd think.
2: Uh, yeah, NORWAY is. Last time I checked, mass slaughtering is genocide.
3: We're doing a REALLY good job helping the bees and the bats and elephants and lions and a lot of other species. Humans are TRYING to make progress in helping certain animals, but everytime someone tries, there's a large corporation there to erase all progress they try to make. As for Elephants, Lions and Rhinos? We're actually making it WORSE for them. We're not setting boundries for them to be free and protected, we're not cracking down on poachers. Instead, we're having people pay to shoot more and more of them as if their numbers will magically grow if we believe enough and raise money to protect an EXTINCT species. Some humans do try to help, but as a whole species, we are doing a LOT more harm to nature than good.
4: no, Norway's NOT in the right. They're completely exaggerating on the matter.
If this gets too aggressive the thread gets locked and I don't think anyone really wants that.
Speak of the devil and she shall come. I am temporarily locking this thread so myself and the other moderators can get a handle on it and its parties.
Hi guys,
I appreciate the civil tone of the debate through much of this thread, and the apparently well researched and cited point and counterpoint.
As opinions are now being repeated, and a minority resorted to personal attacks and swearing that required a lot of mod work to clean up, we're going to close this topic to new responses. It will remain up for people to read and form their own opinions about the matter.
Thanks for your patience and understanding!
Kim
I appreciate the civil tone of the debate through much of this thread, and the apparently well researched and cited point and counterpoint.
As opinions are now being repeated, and a minority resorted to personal attacks and swearing that required a lot of mod work to clean up, we're going to close this topic to new responses. It will remain up for people to read and form their own opinions about the matter.
Thanks for your patience and understanding!
Kim
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » Norway is going to kill off 70% of it's wolf pop!
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Dragonfire, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus