From: shawn@ut-emx.uucp (Shawn Boyd)
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
Subject: Re: Working with Wolves
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:48:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

In article <Bv3By5.7E7@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094lrtr@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu 
(MENION LEAH) writes:
>In article <80317@ut-emx.uucp>, shawn@ut-emx.uucp (Shawn Boyd) writes...
>>In article <BuuCs1.Io1@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094lrtr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu 
 (MENION LEAH) writes:

 Well, guys -- this thread has strayed substantially from the specific topics
 that the charter of this group calls for, and I'm sorry for having been a 
 contributor to it.  I'm sure that I don't have to point out to you though 
 that some of the ecological discussions have touched on topics and issues
 dealing with problems that have a major negative impact on the wolf population
 on the North American continent.  We are beginning to see a faint pinpoint
 of light at the end of this tunnel though (instead of the blackness and 
 desolation) of the disappearance of another species from natural habitats.

 It is wonderful to see you report the reappearance of Wolves in the wild even
 though such reports are spotty.  I would be interested to hear of any others.
 Perhaps if we all pitch in and help out, we can find a way to work together
 turn at least some of the mess we've made around.  Almost without exception
 we are all caught up in the web of production and growth that has fueled 
 the destruction we've witnessed over the last century, and perhaps are all 
 responsible at least to some extent for this sorrowful state of affairs.  The
 disappearance of wolf packs from most of the places where they once roamed 
 freely is surely part of this process, and should probably be of at least 
 tangential interest to all readers of this group.

 Somewhat by way of apology, I have tried to encourage some discussion of the
 following topics which I think would be very important to subscribers of this
 group; 

 1) The impact on predators, especially canine predators and particularly
 wolves (at least in this group) of the use of poison baits and tube guns on
 lands where coyotes have (and perhaps with luck some day) wolves might come 
 to exist.
 
 2) A call for reports on places on the North American continent of places 
 where the hunting of wolves is allowed.  Opinions are happily invited, and 
 gratefully read.

 3) Further reports (see above) of wilderness wolf sightings.

 4) Thoughts on the past abuses brought on by human practices which have 
 contributed to the disappearance of the animal from most of its former natural
 habitat -- this would include all potentially intrusive activities such as 
 land development, both agricultural and industrial, as well as anything anyone
 can report concerning wastefull and thoughtless hunting -- this is especially
 important to topics "1" and "2" above.  I want to hear any reports so that I 
 can get back to my organizations to work on verification and then get active
 on the matter.  Believe me, if you can put this sort of thing on peoples' 
 political agendas you have unleashed a powerful and effective force to put a 
 stop to this sort of thing.  Certainly one much more powerful than shooting
 at airplanes.

 This thread has strayed into the territory of a defense of hunting due to 
 what I considered to be dangerous and misleading postings concerning hunters 
 and the lifestyle of hunting.  I cannot remain silent when it is suggested 
 that felony behaviour in strict violation of all laws governing human conduct 
 be visited on hunters because we choose to take animals in a differenct 
 fashion than other omnivorous people.  To this end, I have said enough, and 
 will now go silent on the topic as I complete this posting.  However, further
 related postings dealing with the re-introduction and survival of wolves in 
 what is left of natural habitats that might support them would be of great
 interest.

 Thank you all for listening and responding... and now if I may paraphrase the 
 famous (or perhaps infamous) Tom Horn, I'll say;

 "You may consider the following my final word[s] on the matter."

 Shawn
  
>Any hunter reading this... i ask one question. Why do you hunt? This is
>not a sarcastic statement. I am just looking for the opposing viewpoint
>without any other issues clogging it up.

 There are many reasons for hunting.  I think that I've made mine fairly 
 clear -- I hunt to add game to what I eat, and to honor and participate 
 in a human tradition that has been with us for a millinea.  The ecological 
 impact of responsible, legally sanctioned hunters is on the whole, positive,
 with very few negative impacts on the environment.  For the past fifty years
 hunters have been working hard to hold the line on modern encroachments to
 wildlife habitats, and have been very successful at doing so.  The fact is,
 we are as much a part of that habitat as the other animals who exist upon 
 it, we have recognized that, and are working hard at preserving what little
 we have left of it... with a good deal of success.  :-)

 Hunts are also often organized when protectionist measures which were too 
 extreme have resulted in the overpopulation of an area with a species.  The 
 current most common example is the overpopulation of deer in rural settings
 where man has chosen to eliminate predators not primarily through hunting
 mind you, but through more cost efficient and modern methods, such as the
 use of predator guns and poison baits, and then outlawing the only natural  
 predator of these animals left -- hunters.  Hunters are very effective under
 these conditions in that they can go into an area with this sort of problem
 and act to safely (and economically) remove the excess population, with the
 ability to effectively discriminate on the basis of sex, size and general
 health of the animal being taken.

 The topic of poison baits, by the way, is certainly more germane to the 
 charter of this group than the recent topics that have been covered in this
 thread, and I'd be very interested in hearing what you folks have to say 
 about this sort of practice.  The functionality of a poison bait trap is 
 obvious.  Some of you might be less familiar with what is called a coyote
 gun.  It essentially is a pipe armed with a 12 guage shotgun shell fired by
 a regular pin mechanism, triggered by a cloth or cotton ball which has been
 treated with a bait substance interesting to species being taken.  The whole
 mechanism is planted firmly in the ground at a slight angle, business end up, 
 and is loaded not with shot, but instead with cyanide pellets which is more 
 effective at insuring a death blow to the animal that triggers the weapon.

 These devices were developed primarily for use on coyotes on Western ranches,
 but have been used extensively on wolves before they became a protected 
 species.  Also note that some areas of Canada are currently open to wolf 
 hunting, and I'd like to hear what any of you might know about that.  I find
 the notion alarming.  Also, I'd like to add that any of you who might find
 themselves in an area where such control measures might be utilized (usually
 on private lands where there is a coyote population present) should make 
 inquiries concerning the location of such devices or baits.  The baits are 
 particularly attractive to domestic pets, and a coyote gun will not dis-
 criminate between you or any other animal, and will kill you dead, dead, dead.  
>A responsible farmer grazes cattle in different fields at different times.
>this stops the process of stripping grasslands into deserts. that is an
>old argument. 

 Brent!  Try thinking about what you just said.  Now... first let me ask how 
 does an argument being around for a long time invalidate it?  Answer: it 
 doesn't.  So that point is settled.  The fact that some farmers are responsible
 doesn't mean that all are, and we need to work hard with the people who feed 
 our civilization to help find new methods of production that are not as des-
 tructive to our environment.  That discussion will lead us far afield of the 
 charter of this group, so I'll leave off there, except to say that you keep 
 missing the point.  

 Modern, responsible hunters are associated with a tradition that has been 
 destructive to species in the past.  We are working hard to change the 
 destructive practices of the past which were very much a part of hunting, and
 you know what... we're succeeding.  The problems typically associated with 
 ecological encroachment are no longer associated with legally sanctioned 
 hunters acting in accordance with the law.  The ecological impact is instead,
 caused primarily through urban sprawl and the pollution associated with it
 (primarily through our inefficient transit methods -- the automobile) and 
 industrial pollution.

 Less importantly, but still significantly we have problems with our food 
 production system being ecologically unsound in some of the niches where 
 it has chosen to use techniques where abusive land use strategies produce
 short term profits at the expense of long term consequences.  OK, I see 
 below that want examples... OK, I'll give you examples;

>what ecological consequences are there from responsible
>farming now?
 
 Nice try.  The fact is, that today, modern farming methods coupled with, 
 short sighted and often downright greedy administration policies, whether 
 they are legally sanctioned or not, have a far greater impact on our 
 environment than hunters.  In answer to your question, I'll name a few:

 1) The depletion of natural water resources through overuse, specifically
    the tapping of Ogallala aquifer for surface irrigation in the midwest,
    the silting of the the lower Rio Grande by excessive damming in the 
    Southwest for use primarily in cotton production, but also to produce
    a variety of other livestock foods (hay, sorghum and alfalfa -- none of
    which would grow there otherwise) as well a onions and chiles.  The 
    depletion of surrounding water sources through the use of aquaducts in
    California to transport water to feed major metropolitan areas, but 
    which is also used to irrigate crops such as oranges that simple would
    not grow there otherwise.

 2) The addictive use of pesticides and other chemicals, the long term 
    effects of which we are just beginning to feel.

 3) The overgrazing of public lands (yes, publicly owned lands) at taxpayer's
    expense, which results in a wide variety of abuses, not the least of 
    which are the elimination of natural habitats through the introduction of
    roads and fences and water use, but also through a more prevalent existence
    of people and heavy machinery who do not tread lightly upon the land.  This
    kind of abuse is particularly subtle in that a cow in the mountains does 
    not generally indicate a major source of pollution to most people.  In fact
    such a presence on public lands is a strong indication that opportunistic 
    rancher with good political connections has probably gotten the BLM to 
    open up these tracts for pennies on the dollar in comparison to what 
    normal leasing aggreements would normally call for.  Such practices can 
    result in the relatively limited impact of polluting streams with live-
    stock feces, which has resulted in greater prevalence of such biotoxics
    as giardia in our mountain streams (not to mention the impact of seeing a 
    dung polluted waste hole where there used to be a pond on a babbling 
    brook) all the way to the elimination of large tracts of land for decades
    of use by what use to be indigenous wild species.

    This is abuse is in practice right now, Brent, and is responsible for some
    of the meat that YOU CHOOSE TO PAY TO HAVE PRODUCED.

 The list goes on and on, Brent.  Now YOU go look it up.

>Please dont tell me what my choices are. my schools meal plan is very limited,
>i never choose to eat meat if there is an alternative.

>Again, the same old "eat what we kill" argument.

>overpopulation is the fault of the humans, plain and simple, so you were
>right not to go too deep into that.

>they dont restrict themselves, they just dont have a choice. the predator
>will always catch the weakest in the herd, because its the easiest. haven't
>you ever watched wild kingdom :)

 Apparently you do.  That must be where you formed your notion of how non-human
 predators hunt.  Brent, I said it before, but you've chosen to delete and 
 ignore the following point.  Human hunters take weak or slow animals to 
 strong and healthy animals in roughly the same ratios as other predators... 
 and no, my information did not come from Marlin Perkins working as a 
 spokesperson for a multinational corporation.  Your attempt at humor is 
 pathetic even as a joke, and as an attempt to blow smoke over your poor 
 reasoning and lack of factual understanding of and experience with hunting 
 both by human and nonhuman species, it is just plain sad.

>Thank god at least some sanctions have set in.

 A lot have been implemented, and not only do they call for restricting kills
 on endangered animals or even those with mildly depleted populations (usually
 caused by drought or fire, but often caused by the intrusion of man in his 
 non-hunting role of "civilizer") but have brought about major reversals in 
 the habitat for wildlife through the efforts of hunters.

>Yeah, like i was advocating it.  [i.e. hunting animals with an assault rifle
 designed to inflict casualty, not necessarily death, on the intended target in 
 war situations...]

 No Brent, you weren't advocating it.  You were saying that you couldn't see 
 the difference between using that or what are currently legally sanctioned 
 weapons designed to be used in skillfully tracking and taking an animal in the 
 field.  Since you clearly don't understand the difference between the two,
 let me point out to you that hunting weapons are designed to kill quickly
 and efficiently (unlike the ball peen hammers used to kill the animals you
 eat) while an assault rifle is designed to maim and wound as much as it is
 to kill, on the theory that a wounded combatant takes up the time and energy
 of at least two individuals whereas a dead combatant takes only one.  As 
 such it would be effective for what you propose to do those you suspect 
 (SUSPECT mind you) of poaching.  So Brent, while I don't any use for an 
 AK-47, or an M-16, I think that those who follow what you are preaching might.

 Personally, I don't really believe you have the gumption to try it, but there
 are those out there listening who might, and I assure you that I'll respond
 whenever I hear that such behaviour is being proposed -- no matter how 
 ludicrous and improbable the source.
 
 
>You help to preserve species, then you go out and kill them. very interesting
>one two punch.

 So do you Brent, every time you choose to eat a rain forest burger, or perhaps
 one produced at public expense in a National Forsest, or every time you pay
 for a vegetable produced with waters from the Ogallala or put on a cotton shirt
 made from muddied trickle of the Colorado or the Rio Grande, or take a drink of
 California orange juice.

 Except for one thing, Brent.  I haven't heard from you yet what contributions
 you make to organizations which are at least trying to help reverse some of 
 the trends brought on by what we percieve to be the necessary problems brought
 on when try to support modern society.  I'd very much like to hear that you've
 joined a local chapter of an ecological group who does community service work
 on local projects which can help enhance our environment.  I'll even pay your
 dues for the first term to one of the them.  Do you have a local chapter of
 the Sierra Club or Greenpeace where you live?  Do you belong to any of these 
 organizations?  If so, do you participate in their activities?

 Lots of hunters belong to these organization, and we are beginning to show
 through our efforts, that we are at least as concerned about what is happening
 to our wildlife habitats, not from the impact of hunting, but instead through
 the depradations and abuses which have come to be part of our society much 
 more recently than the time honored and noble practice of hunting. 

>My point is that i feel hunting to be immoral, and i am just trying to see
>what would bring someone to kill a fellow creature for the thrill of the
>hunt.

 And my point is that I don't feel compelled to argue the morality of hunting
 with anyone who is willing to pay to have the animals he chooses to eat 
 slaughtered and then from this holier-than-thou ivory tower proceed to im-
 periously, and ignorantly, point an accusing finger at a group of 
 individuals who are working hard to preserve a natural heritage and the 
 ecological habitats upon which it abides, and call them immoral thrill seekers.

>>>we should just stay away.
>> 
>> Away from what?  Nature?  Sorry, compadre; that ship has sailed.  You are
>> part of nature, and becoming closer to it in a careful and responsible way
>> is a life enriching experience.  Doing so does not exclude hunting.
>> 
>Going into nature with a loaded weapon is not the way to get back. 

 On the contrary, sometimes it's the very best way, especially under conditions
 that mandate it.

>as i
>said, the human race just doesnt coincide with nature anymore.

 You've said this several times without explaining what you mean.  I can only 
 guess that you've developed this opinion from a primarily urban experience.
 Have your wilderness experiences been so unhappy that you truly believe that
 mankind is not part of nature any longer?  Do you have any wilderness or back-
 country experiences that you'd care to share?

 How sad if you truly believe this.  Let me just borrow an old phrase and say,
 "Brent, you need to get out more."  Take a hiking a trip.  Get an open water
 SCUBA license and do some open water diving.  If you can't afford that, then
 just get a basic set of mask, fins and snorkel and do some free diving.  Do 
 some camping or find a friend with a sail boat and go sailing.  You'll find
 that mankind is still part of a wonderful web of nature that we are continually
 learning how interact with.  It doesn't sound like you've done much of this,
 and you should.

 Your cry that "the human race just doesn't coincide with nature anymore" is 
 not only badly crafted verbage (I can only guess at what you mean when you
 say, "coincide with nature") it is also unsupported by you and untrue, and so 
 very very sad.  It sounds like the wail from the depths of a very dark and
 unhappy place.  Punch loose and get outside for a while.  Things are going
 downhill, but with some hard work and help we can at least put some hope 
 back into the notion of restoring our natural environments, but you can't 
 contribute unless you get out there and help, and participating in an outdoor
 sport which will hone your woodcraft or water skills is a good first step.  
 After all, you'll have a lot of trouble contributing to a weekend long work
 party to replant natural growths or do erosion control work if you haven't 
 learned how to live comfortably out of a tent for several days or how to 
 keep the giardia out the water you drink.  I'll skip the issue of what it 
 would take you get to become an ecologically aware diver, but will gladly 
 put you on to some literature that could get you started.  The point is this,
 get out there and DO SOMETHING to get over this black and desolate view of
 mankind and nature that you seem to have.  We'll never get any part of the 
 problem fixed with attitudes that bleak and dark being spread around.

 Mankind is still part of nature, whether we like it or not.

>I feel sorry for any person that would have to work in such a plant [speaking 
 of meat processing plants]
>but the truth is, there is nothing that can be done. my only protest is to 
>continue trying to become a vegatarian. 

 Then do so.  I could understand your position at least partially if you could 
 claim to abstain completely from the consumption of meat.  Of course, I'd 
 certainly feel compelled to point out to that you need to eliminate the use 
 of other animal products as well, especially leather belts and shoes.  Here's 
 a good starting place for you.  If your budget is limited you can certainly 
 save some money by buying non-leather clothing.

 Of course, this won't do much environmentally, but it would go a long way to 
 making you look less sanctimonious and holier than thou when you criticize 
 hunters by showing a conscientious effort on your part to respect the right
 of animals to live without their lives being interrupted by hunters, especially
 if your going to advocate taking shots at them.  By the way, I suggest you 
 think long and hard before you do this.  Armed confrontatin with a trained 
 hunter who is very probably a highly skilled woodsman is not what I think you
 want.  I certainly don't advocate it, and I honestly believe that you should 
 withdraw your advocation of it.
 
>That hunting is just a way to make humans feel superior. or even worse
>just for its just something to do for fun. people do not hunt to eat...
>instead they eat to tell themselves in their own minds that what they are
>doing is ok.

 No Brent, I've answered this morals charge above briefly and will try to 
 give you some idea of what hunters are about when we are in the field.
 Subjugation of an animal is not what we're after.  The need to hunt and 
 be part of a natural cycle of life and death runs strong in the human 
 animal, some of us feel it more accutely than others.  Your morals charge 
 is out of line, Brent.  You kill to survive, and so do hunters; but we 
 also hunt to maintain a long and very honorable tradition in a society
 that not only legally sanctions these activities and oversees them for
 the good of society as a whole as well as the preservation of wildlife and
 their habitats, but which also recognizes it as a rewarding and venerable 
 and occasionally even a necessary activity.

 None of your charges hold water, and most are shot through with innacuracies
 (perhaps deliberate, perhaps not) or with what turn out to be hypocrocies when
 further analysis of the problem is applied -- your ecologically based charges
 fall primarily into this category.  As far as morals go, I simply don't feel
 the need to discuss the issue with you further until I know more about what 
 you personally are doing to help preserve and become more familiar with the 
 species you are so willing to verbally defend at the expense of a group of 
 individuals who are making a concerted and honest effort to do so.

 OK, that's enough.  I've said my part.  Brent, I'll let you have the last word
 so that I may have the last laugh.

 Best of the world to you.  Hope things brighten up a bit for you.

 Shawn
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy