Blacktail Slayer
New member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 3
..
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'Ummm..
That's what wolves do.... They kill stuff and eat stuff. It's kind of what they have done for as long as they've been around.
I'm failing to see how wolves being wolves makes wolf advocates inhumane and criminal. Did these advocates kill your cow and calves?
Just because you don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it (sadly). And just because someone takes the opposite stand than you doesn't make them criminal.
I see the argument, that without the wolf advocates there would be less wolves (perhaps you want NO wolves??) and thus, with less wolves the cow never would have died? Pretty lame argument in my opinion. That's life. Shit happens. Cows die. If not the wolves, then some stoned hippy from Ashland who decides animal sacrifice needs to make a righteous comeback.
'
I don't think that is the argument.
The irony (hipocrisy?) of the enviros argument is that they want to ban hunting because it is "cruel", yet are perfectly fine with wolves, as you put it, "doing what they do." That may very well fly in the enviros' heads, but an elk knows no difference in a wolf or a bullet, and most of time a bullet is much more humane.
I think the point in the OP is that if the enviros truely cared about animal suffering, they never would have advocated for the introduction of a predator as viscious as a wolf.
Now, we hunters know that nature is cruel and that virtually no animals in nature "die peacefully of old age" like many urbanites want to believe. In the animal world, you either starve/freeze to death or are killed by a predator.