And along those lines, the wolf that was just "re-introduced" was not a western wolf, it was the Canadian wolf. The leopard that was mentioned is not the african leopard but another type of leopard.
True, it was the type of leopard you find in south america, which also happens to be one of the only place it's still alive. Also, I was not aware that there was a difference between the wolves they jacked from canada and the ones that were gone in the first place (since canada is irrefutably as west as we are), but I'm sure the difference is negligible, whereas the differences between a mammoth and an elephant are many and obvious, such as them not even being the same species and thus being unable to reproduce with eachother, but I digress...
These wolves now live in an environment changed by man. Man, as a part of the environment, has a responsibility to manage the population, including hunting.
The environment isn't really changed by man in the sense that the environment changed from the iceage to the modern temperate climate. Anyway, I do agree that man has a responsibility to manage the environment of which he is part, so how is it responsible to declare it open season on a predator that is only now just beginning recover from being over-hunted in the first place?
The foolishness of people saying how predators do not need to be hunted- what happens if they wolves eat too many deer?
First, they are going to need to eat a ton of deer for that to even be a problem. Second, predatory species end up controlling their own population based on how plentiful food is. For instance, right now, they'd have a population boom because there is lots of food. When/if that changed, food being less plentiful alone would lead to less pups being born. The only way you'd have tons of wolves and not enough deer would be if some disease or something struck down the deer or their source of food, dramatically reducing the numbers in a rapid fashion. Wolves alone won't cause a change rapid enough to hurt themselves.
They starve? Well, that is what would happen without man in the equation.
So yeah, this is false based on everything I just wrote.
What really happens is they eat cattle and pets and continue to decimate the deer population because they do not suffer.
This is why human intervention (hunting) is required.
I'm sure they eat much more venison than they do beef. And a cull (hunting) would only be required if a situation occurred when there were in fact too many wolves and not enough deer. IF/WHEN that happens, go shoot as many as you want, but that's not what's happening now.
Why do so many people on this site, particularly, think that hunting means we hop on a 4 wheeler and blast away at every wolf in sight?
Because it's that type of irresponsible hunting that's driving so many wild populations to extinction? Also, because with open season edicts such as this, that's what tends to happen. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or seen people doing this in Illinois to coyotes, and from what I've read, we're not nearly as drunk or cantankerous as the folks in wisconsin, so I can only imagine how it goes down up there. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with hunting, but if you're going to open up wolves to hunting, they should do so via the issuance of permits, which will not only help deter poaching, but also help to keep their population within a strict set point. For instance, say it's been determined that a healthy wolf population for an area is 3,000, but there are 3,200 of them around; issue 200 permits, and problem solved. If the number goes below 3,000, no permits will be issued. Seems like an easy fix to me...
Cosmoline:
Believe me nothing will change the stance of the actors on carrying firearms faster than seeing the tracks of old horribilis.
I was thinking this, but didn't want to say it