From: vkunch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Virginia P Kunch)
Subject: Re: Working with Wolves
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:27:45 GMT

In article <BuJuD4.MDD@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094lrtr@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Brent Fiene) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.135138.207@uwm.edu>, vkunch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Virginia P Kunch) writes...
>>In article <BuF1M8.I89@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094lrtr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Brent Fiene) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep11.021124.23688@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, joi@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (JMM) writes...
>>>>In article <BuDoCC.J6A@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094lrtr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Brent Fiene) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Sep10.184445.25108@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes...
>>>>>>In article <BuDBns.Aw4@acsu.buffalo.edu> rmr@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski) writes:
>>>>>>>pierccm@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyone else out there interested in working with wolves as a career (or
>>>>>>>>already working with them)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>	Well, you could go to Alaska with a 7.65 mm and shoot down the
>>>>>>>damn airplanes ... and anybody who crawls out of them alive ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>	... but assuming you don't have an automatic weapon handy, you 
>>>>>>>could do something more constructive ... like sabotage the planes on 
>>>>>>>the ground.
>>>>>>(some more suggestions deleted)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OWooOOOOOoooooOOOO
>>>>>>>Rick
>>>>>>Rick -
>>>>>>Why do you advocate killing of humans?  Why do you advocate sabotage?
>>>>>>Don't humans have a right to live that is equal to the wolves?  Aren't
>>>>>>humans part of the animal kingdom?
>>>>>>Mary Otto
>>>>>
>>>>>saying that hunting is legal is saying that we are a superior species.
>>>>>we have alot to learn from wolves(and other species). i advocate the
>>>>>hunting and killing of sane murderers who kill for the fun of it. if you
>>>>>dont like it... go to hell!
>>>>>
>>>>>-brent
>>>> 
>>>>Wolves hunt.  Wolverines also hunt--for the fun of it.  Weasles have been
>>>>known to slaughter an entire hen house and leave it.  That also sounds
>>>>like hunting "for the fun of it".
>>>
>>>if i had a hen house, i would shoot that weasle. as for the the wolves
>>>hunting, that is survival of the fittest. the animals they catch are
>>>the diseased and crippled, etc. the slaughter of these is a necessary
>>>evil, sadly. BUT, if humans went hunting with no weapons (well, i'll
>>>let them bring a knife) i would not say a word. they would then be
>>>catching the diseased and lame, and helping that species.
>>>
>>>> 
>>>>It's not very constructive to insult and condemn out of hand.  Humans are
>>>>part of the animal kingdom, and the biggest fault I see is not recognizing
>>>>that we are PART of nature and must regain that sense of living with and 
>>>>not against the rest of nature.
>>>> 
>>>>Incidentally, saying things like "do nature a favor, stay the hell away
>>>>from it" fails to recognize that we are a part of it.  We don't have to
>>>>destroy when we appreciate.
>>>
>>>sorry, but we are too far away from nature, that is a fault of our
>>>forefathers. the only thing all but a handful of us can do now is
>>>destroy it.
>>>> 
>>>>Fanaticism on either side of environmental issues will never solve the
>>>>problems that we've created.  It only creates more problems and fuels
>>>>the fires that destroy.
>>>
>>>they say the same thing about government revolutions. the ones leading
>>>the revoultions in their respective ex-communist countries were called
>>>fanatics by there governments.
>>>> 
>>>>I can understand the anger you're displaying.  I sometimes get very angry,
>>>>too--and definitely very sad to see beautiful creatures destroyed by
>>>>thoughtless or callous individuals.  The key is *education* and understanding
>>>>the other points of view.  That way we can persuade, convince, and preserve
>>>>what we most love, without becoming destroyers ourselves.
>>>
>>>sorry again. but the point of view you ask me to understand is that its
>>>ok to kill wildlfe because they are inferior to us (basically they could
>>>not produce firearms). i will never agree with this.
>>>> 
>>>>	Joy Metcalf
>>>
>>>-brent
>> 
>>It seems to me that you're presenting a very simplistic and romanticized 
>>version of wolves and hunting.  First of all, wolves do NOT only kill the
>>lame, diseased, old, etc.  They are opportunists by nature and will kill
>>what they can catch -- if that happens to be a young, healthy animal, so
>>be it.
>
>what they can catch is not young and healthy, the young and healthy animals
>can get away. i am talking the majority anyways.


Yes, they can catch young & hellthy animals.  You're wrong here.

>> 
>>I don't think anyone on this network believes that wolves (or other wildlife
>>for that matter) are (is?) inferior to humans, especially because they 
>>cannot produce firearms -- Come on... let's not be antagonistic, shall we?
>not antagonistic... realistic
>> 
>>The problem of wolf ecology is a global problem.  Terrorist activities, such
>>as shooting down aircraft, is bound to give environmental activists a bad
>>name and thereby thwart our efforts to improve the ecology of the planet.  I
>>already know what kind of response I'm going to get to that, but ...
>> 
>>And, by the way, can we please watch the language a bit, here?  It could
>>cause problems to the network, the sender, etc.  Besides, there are other
>>ways to express strong emotions.
>
>nothing personal, but you are kind of being a panzy about this. you think
>with your big words and fancy talk you can cover up the fact that you
>refuse to take a stand or make a point. i do , however, apoligize for my
>language, but i get passionate about this.

If you're going to insult me, you could at least spell it right -- it's "pansy."And I am making a point, but obviously my "big words and fancy talk" confounded
you.  Sorry, let me make it a bit clearer:  From your previous (that means "earlier") postings ("I would allow [humans] knives"in battle against blah blah blah), it appears that you think quite a bit of yourself and have very little factualinformation to back it up.  If you think something simplistic like shooting downaircraft will significantly better the plight of the wolf, well, again, you're
wrong.  As far as taking a stand, since this is my swan song to this network,  
here it is:

	1.  I agree that wolves and hybrids sometimes prove to be acceptable
	companion animals, but the majority of cases do not work out favorably
	for either the family or the animal.  A shame, considering how vastly
	intelligent wolves are.  The results are often tragic for all parties.
	
	2.  The best way to support wolf recovery and ecology is to continue
>-brent
to support government agencies and small but dedicated (and well-informed groups, such as Timber Wolf Alliance in Wisconsin) that share your goals.  Gonzo
environmentalism frequently finds people in over their heads.


>
>> 
>>-g. kunch
>>vkunch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

When I logged onto this network, I had hoped to find stimulating conversation
about wolves, and for the most part, this has been the case.  But the addition
of recent users who can't keep their personal insults out of the discussion
has left a nasty taste in my mouth.  I apologize to the other users for my own 
personal attack on this network, but some things are just too much to bear.
Good luck and long live the Wolf!