Talk:Wolf hunting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would rather not have a merge. There is a clear reason to have an article for the controversy. But that is distinct from the actual practice of hunting wolves which is of interest in itself. There is no controversy over killing wolves with eagles I know of, and there are people who would be interested. So all those who want to argue over the rights and wrong of killing wolves in the United States can go to their own page, and anyone who wants to read about the hunting of wolves can read this one. A fair and reasonable division if you ask me. There is, after all, the actual hunting and then there is the politics of the thing. Different issues. Lao Wai 15:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- All right, then let's push anything controversial about wolf hunting into wolf hunting controversy. That leaves us with a series of three articles at the moment:
- By the way, you write English very well. Uncle Ed 15:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:text move
Disputed text:
- The most common justification is to preserve economically valuable livestock. Early settlers in the United States tried to eliminate wolves entirely, by offering bounties for each wolf pelt as evidence of a kill. For several decades much of the Great Plains area and Mountain States were devoid of wolves. Some wolf sub-species were hunted into extinction.
One wants scare quotes around justification, the other wants them off. I should just clap you both in irons for such a trivial disagreement, but actually this will be ever harder for you: find a way to agree on a version of this paragraph. Then I unlock the page, and it can go back. Uncle Ed 00:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
i do not bweleive you can relaly call it a justification, becasue this is the reason why american farmers (as an example) have attempted to extermoinmate wolves, and thats not relaly fair, because only some do this, only a very rare few, and yet, all wolves are punished, and at times shoton sight for this. that is why the justicication quotes seem to belong. Gabrielsimon 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
i also beleive it should be labelled a FASLE justification, because its relly not a justification at all, unless its from the point of bview of those who wish to annialate wolves. Gabrielsimon 00:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
im not the one pusheing POVs here, as it seems, friday is pushing a pro hunter POV Gabrielsimon 00:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for explaining your point of view. Can we agree that some folks who kill wolves claim they're defending livestock? Can we agree that in the opinion of those people, this is a reason for killing the wolves? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm talking about the reasons people offer for killing wolves. If you want to avoid the word "justification", that's great, I can work with you there. What about something like,"Many ranchers believe that killing wolves in defense of livestock is acceptable."? Friday 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
yes, that is better, but i do hope you can see why i objected? Gabrielsimon 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sadly, I do not see why you objected. To me, the sentence "The most common justification is to preserve economically valuable livestock" does not express approval or disapproval of the offered justification. However, I'd rather move forward then backward, and if you're OK with something like what's suggested above, I don't see the reason to dwell on past disagreements. Friday 00:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- PS, in case it helps you understand me, I objected to the scare quotes because to me they implied that the offered justification was NOT valid. I don't think it's our place to make that judgement here. Friday 01:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
the quotes were to signify thatthe justification is not absolute. ~!Gabrielsimon
- Look we have three pages now, wolf, wolf hunting and wolf hunting controversy. This page has a link to the controversy page. Would it be too much to ask you all to take your dispute to that page and leave this page alone? Wolves are hunted in the United States (and Canada for that matter). They are hunted from the air. The most frequent justification is attacks on livestock - whether that justification is justified or not must be something for the wolf hunting controversy page. I took, oh, minutes, to write this page. I feel very propriatorial about it. Would you please let me have at least a day or two to bask in a warm glow before trashing it? Lao Wai 09:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable paragraph
I have a few comments on this paragraph:
In the United States wolves are usually shot. They are considered challenging game because, it is claimed, they can take a bullet and keep going. Also common is aerial hunting via helicopter. After chasing an entire pack into the ground, hunters land, walk up to the exhausted wolves and shoot them at point blank range. This is widely seen as not very sporting. Alaska voted in a state-wide referendum on November 7, 2000, to ban this method of hunting by private citizens. Governor Frank Murkowski, however, continues to permit the "land and shoot" practice in certain areas of the state, describing this as "public participation" in "predator control programs." Somewhat curiously, the state does charge a fee (reportedly in excess of USD 1,000) for a permit, despite the fact that, ostensibly, the permit-holder is performing a service for the state. Wolves are listed as endangered in the "lower 48" states, and it is illegal to hunt them.
I've never heard of an animal being considered challenging to hunt because they "keep going" after being shot. It's very common for animals of any type to "keep going" after being shot. A source would be helpful.
Also, this paragraph asserts that entire packs are chased at once, until they're all exhausted. Seems strange to me that the pack would stay together no matter what's chasing it. Again, a source would be great.
"Widely seen as not very sporting". I agree it's not sporting, but these are weasel words.
"Reportedly in excess of $1000". Surely the fee for the permit is verifiable.
"Somewhat curiously" seems like a bit of POV. We don't need to tell the readers what's curious, I think we can present facts and let them decide for themselves.
In the states I'm familiar with, killing nuisance animals is legally distinct from normal hunting, with different restrictions and permits. Maybe we should distinguish between them, or maybe they're the same thing in Alaska?
Also, I can't verify the claim of endangerment. This says that the Red Wolf and Ethopian Wolf are endangered, but I see no Canis Lupis, which I believe are the only kind of wolf in the continental USA.
If anyone has sources and/or thoughts on this, that would be great. Friday 00:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
if you wish to verify the fee for the permit, then by all means, why not look it up? Gabrielsimon 00:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- So far I'm unable to find it. I was hoping whoever put the claim there would know where it came from. Friday 01:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
i didnt place it there, but i would suggest, in the case of american states, wildlife and natural resources, or simply looking up wolf hunting liscenses, with the appropriate state name... i will also try, shortly. Gabrielsimon 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
As the person who wrote a number of the points in question, I suppose I should clarify. For the purposes of this discussion, let us assume that by "hunting" we mean "hunting for sport."
Friday wrote: "In the states I'm familiar with, killing nuisance animals is legally distinct from normal hunting, with different restrictions and permits. Maybe we should distinguish between them, or maybe they're the same thing in Alaska?"
De jure, those two things are indeed distinct in Alaska; it is illegal to hunt wolves for sport using Same Day Airborne Hunting (aka "land and shoot") or aerial hunting (shooting from an aircraft in flight). The loophole used by the Alaska state executive is, as described in the article, to issue permits allowing the Same Day Airborne Shooting and aerial shooting "to establish a wolf population reduction or regulation program for purposes of aiding in the administration of wildlife management" (see section 5 AAC 92.039 and 5 AAC 92.110 of the Alaska Administrative Code). Legally, the pilots and gunners are not hunting, but are assisting the ADF&G in carrying out its predator control programs; thus, they may be likened to private citizens deputized by a sheriff. (Which is, incidentally, why such permits are not on the ADF&G's price list of fishing, hunting and trapping licenses.) But there are a number of provisions under 5 AAC 92.039 which are inconsistent with this contention.
First, paragraph (d)(5)(A) states that an issued permit is valid until April 30th (unless other circumstances arise before that date, such as the quota of wolves authorized to be culled has been met); thus, a pilot or gunner has to acquire a new permit every year. Second, paragraphs (d)(5)(B) and (d)(6)(B) indicate that permits are issued for a specific area or subdivision of that area; thus, a pilot or gunner cannot lend his services to the state wherever needed, but has to acquire separate shooting permits for different geographical locations. Third, paragraph (d)(6)(E) permits ADF&G to limit the "number of wolves authorized to be taken under a permit"; this is a separate provision from the quota on the number of wolves to be culled. Finally, subsection (e) specifies that "a wolf taken under a permit becomes the property of the permittee," provided the permittee has adhered to the conditions specified in the permit.
So we have a time limit on the permit, a geographical limit, a bag limit and the shooter gets to keep the trophy. To paraphrase the old saying, if it waddles like a hunting license, and quacks like a hunting license...
Alaska's "predator control programs," incidentally, cannot reasonably be described as aimed at the eradication of "nuisance animals." We aren't talking shooting a particular wolf who tends to prey on livestock; we're talking about killing a quota of wolves, without specifying the individual animals to be killed.
Regarding the figure of 1,000 dollars, the number is not verifiable from the ADF&G's site for reasons stated earlier. I got the figure from a source I personally trust, but I'll do some legwork on getting that corroborated.
I didn't write the "widely seen as not very sporting" line, but I fail to see why these are "weasel words." As far as I can see, it's no more nor less than the truth. There are people who engage in the practice, so evidently it's not universally seen as unsporting, but there are many people (including a majority of the voting public of Alaska) who do.
I did write the phrase "somewhat curiously"; this was not intended to advocate a particualr POV, but to convey as briefly as possible, and without verging off-topic, that it is very unusual, if not completely unheard of, for a private citizen to pay the government in exhange for being allowed to perform a service for that government. (Before you bring up the purchasing of officers' commissions in the British army in the 19th century, the aspiring officer did not pay the government; he paid the regimental commander. Any private citizen with enough social status and money could raise his own regiment at personal expense, and selling commissions was a way to recoup his investment. The regimental commander was at least as motivated by the desire to gain prestige and power as he was by a desire to serve the state; usually more so.) If you can come up with a better formulation, I'm more than willing to hear it. I should add that my point was not to advocate an opinion on hunting/killing of wolves using aircraft, but rather to illustrate that the Alaskan state executive is circumventing the law banning such practices.
As far as endangerment goes, Canis lupus is listed as endangered in Arizona, New Mexico and part of Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, and as threatened almost everywhere else in the "lower 48" (but not in Alaska) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. See the relevant USFWS page and look under "Mammals." The red wolf, incidentally, is native only to North America; in fact, it is native only to the United States.
"Seems strange to me that the pack would stay together no matter what's chasing it." Wolf communication is pretty sophisticated, but it doesn't extend to pre-arranging rendez-vous points; if they scatter, they might never manage to regroup. And that would severaly jeopardize their chances of survival, and the wolves know it; that's why they operate in packs to begin with. --Euromutt 10:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for your response. Sounds like you're our subject matter expert here. I hope some of this makes it into the article. Friday 13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
that dude pretty much backs up everything ive been saying. Gabrielsimon 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent. Do you see how other editors tend to respond positively when sources are provided? I have a couple questions.. Is being legally defined by US law as "endangered" different from being considered endangered by conservationists, then? If so, maybe we should try to explain the differences. It looks to me like other articles use a standard notion of conservation status. I see that it's clearly stated in this article that we're instead talking about law, that's great. I see that they're NOT listed on the "Red List", anyone think this is worth mentioning?
- Also, if nobody has a source for "They are considered challenging game because, it is claimed, they can take a bullet and keep going." does anyone mind if I take it out? I dislike "it is claimed" and this quote seems implausible to me, based on my (admittedly non-verifiable) experiences. Friday 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- PS. This assertion seems very questionable to me: "There has never been a properly documented case of a wolf attack on an adult human in Europe." Verifying the lack of documentation seems unlikely. Friday 00:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
legally defined by gonverments as endangered, or threataned means, that the governemnt has the responsabillity to help preserve the creature, as it seems to me, if its only conservation groups, then the gov lily wont take action. as it happens a lot of creatures, when shot in a clumbsety manner will struggle to thier feet and try to excape. its instinct. creatures like deer are pretty easy to hit in the heart tho, so those ahent as " challenging" as it were. Gabrielsimon 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
as fort he wolf attack thing, i ould surmise that it is true that there has nerver been an unprovoked attack, otherwise i have no opinnion. i know the mind of wolves they dont just attack, (by and large) for no reason, they fight to defend thiemselves and thier young, or to feed themselves and thier pups. Gabrielsimon 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Apparently you're not a hunter. You're right though, shot placement is key. This is true of almost any animal, whether they're considered "tough" or not. However, deer may well be tougher than you think. I've personally seen them run, sometimes hundreds of yards, when mortally wounded, even with heavily damaged heart and/or lungs. It's quite amazing. However, they're not considered a particularly tough animal by any hunters I've ever encountered. I'll try editing the sentence in question and see how it goes.
- I agree that wolves don't tend to attack humans for no reason, this is not remotely an implausible claim IMO. But it doesn't tell us anything about whether there are properly documented exceptions to the rule. As a general rule, I dislike assertions about things that do NOT exist. Friday 01:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
i can seeyour point, and it does make sense. its possible to place it as there has been no record of unprovoked wolf a ttack" ro some such,m because although they will if starving or rabid, a wolf wont endanger tis young or its packmates by attacking something as dangrous as a human without cause. and no, im not a hunter, tho i have hunted before, it was only with a blade and a bow ( i refuse to use guns for any reason... they disgust me) its not terriblt supriosing that a deer would go so far when so w ounded, considering its only trying to live, tro escape... wolves are smaller, so they are likly harder to hit... and aparently a lot smarter then deer. Gabrielsimon 01:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article is a mess!
No disrespect intended, and I know that there has been a lot of difficulty in trying to get here, but there are some problems here. The opening paragraph has the sentence, "There has never been a properly documented case of a wolf attack on an adult human in Europe." Very interesting fact, but what does it have to do with Wolf Hunting, or even, Wolf Hunting Controversy? Does anyone mind if I just delete it?
Paragraph 2, "Several types of dog have been specially bred in countries like Italy which will remain with a flock and protect them from wolf attacks." Undoubtedly true, but what does it have to do with Wolf Hunting? RPellessier | (Talk) 04:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
