START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Opposition to Wolf Hunt Seems Purely Emotional ( By: Peggy Callahan)


Animals  (tags: Wolves, Peggy Callahan, Commentary, Study, Wolf Hunt, She was on board that ordered the wolf h )

Roxy
- 920 days ago - startribune.com
Wolves in Minnesota have been extensively studied, both in captivity and in the wild. Topics from social ecology and behavior to physiology and pharmacology have been examined by scientists such as Todd Fuller, Dave Mech, Ralph Bailey and Rolf Peterson



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

naomi cohen (43)
Thursday November 22, 2012, 5:08 pm
signed! thankyou, roxy.
 

Shadow Manypaths (16)
Thursday November 22, 2012, 5:59 pm
(signed what? i saw a newspaper article...)

this is rampant rubbish, as it is not live-trapping (though using legholds is deplorable considering the many better alternatives) and release by professionals that is the issue, but HUNTING by private citizens, the piece conveniently ignores the real issue behind the movements to protect wolves currently extant. Ms. Callahan's contentions are not so much inaccurate as irrelevant - the issues she cites are not the ones in contention.
 

Michael M. (62)
Friday November 23, 2012, 12:27 am
Rox, I got disturbed enough to post a scientific comment among the heavy star-tribune comments. It concerned selection pressures and ethics of scientists involved (I'm familiar with most of Mech, and some works of some of the mentioned others on the gray wolf, and am familiar with a couple severe weaknesses in their work. But since I could not tolerate the small-mindedness of academia due to reasons you know, I am not now involved in that profession).

I finished with an invitation to wolf-hunt opponents to find more rigorous scientists who would clearly support opposition. However, the best evolutionists quantitatively study shorter-lived animals, and would be too busy, no doubt.
I took Callahan directly enough to task that my comment may be erased, although mostly scientists will understand my scorn as worded.

Yes, Shadow, it is rampant rubbish, although only slowly will this culture come to realize the complete depths of their landfill.

Roxy, we're outa here, only here for a moment for you, until I can figure out something effective. The final moon of the two I mentioned is filling. You and yours are constantly in this moment of our hearts.
 

Danuta Watola (1243)
Friday November 23, 2012, 4:00 am
Noted
 

Michael M. (62)
Friday November 23, 2012, 3:23 pm
Steve S offered this short reference to us under"Last 500 Ethiopian Wolves Hindered by lack of diversity.

http://www.wildsanctuary.org/wolf-legislation--what-wolves-offer-humanrsquos.html.
In that wildsanctuary article authors noted ecological disruption in unpredated populations affecting humans:
Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.

Ms. Callahan appears also to ignore the capacity of wolf hunt opponents to understand basic tenets of ecosystem change, and instead relegates them to "emotional" response as if that vague epithet (in her apparent usage)were the entirety of their mental functioning or argument.
 

Roxy H. (340)
Friday November 23, 2012, 4:08 pm
O there it is, TY, I told him to place it on one of your threads. Thanks dear :) Needed it safe. Hugs
 

Thomas P. (468)
Friday November 23, 2012, 4:48 pm
Noted....Is Ms. Callahan serious? Thanks for all you do for wolves Roxy.
 

Roxy H. (340)
Friday November 23, 2012, 5:14 pm
Yes, isn't Miss Callahan Charming? "cough" "gag"
 

June M. (116)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 10:05 am
noted..thanks for the article Roxy
 

Julie E. (375)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 10:52 am
Thank you.
 

Darla Taylor (46)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 11:18 am
Noted. Thanks so much, Roxy.
 

Colleen Prinssen (14)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 2:09 pm
all we need is more wolves to keep the wolf population in check, because they will just kill eachother right?
 

Tom Edgar (56)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 2:17 pm
I am not in favour of killing the wolves but as I am in Australia it matters little.
The cull seems to be minuscule compared to the one current in Sweden.

Apart from that, the article was well written, backed by intelligent research, giving attribution to sources and making valid assertions, this contrasts strongly with the responses by others which validates her assertion that those in opposition do so emotionally.
 

Isabelle J. (87)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 2:25 pm
Thanks !
 

janet f. (29)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 3:12 pm
Well, Peggy, the wolf hunt is supported solely because the state and federal gov't are pandering to a special interest group...the ranchers.

No, I do not want animals killed because some small group of people think that some number they pulled out their ass is the maximum number of wolves that should be allowed to live in a particular state. That's no reason to kill animals.
 

jo M. (3)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 3:30 pm
Her article makes a lot of sense, I'm always amazed that when different groups spends months or even years hashing out compromises on controversial issues just to have others think their concerns are more important. Wolf hunts are here to stay, as long as wolf populations continue to increase.
 

Ruth M. (252)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 3:40 pm
Noted
 

Janet R. (37)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 4:26 pm
I think these states need to stop catering to the hunters and ranchers and start listening to wildlife specialists about whether or not there are too many wolves. There is rarely proof that a dead cow was killed by a wolf and the hunters simply enjoy killing so they are not really doing anything beneficial for the ecosystem just getting their rocks off killing an innocent creature.
 

michelle m. (41)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 4:46 pm
I no longer travel annually to the USA and Canada from Australia because of the disgraceful hunting and killing of innocent animals.Many other people are also boycotting.Shame on these countries.No wonder Americas econmy is in such a mes.Lets hunt and exterminate the hunters.I advocate that we establish hunt the hunter travel expeditions.
The only good hunter is a DEAD one!!!!

Thanks Roxy.Well done.
 

Christine Stewart (133)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 7:34 pm
This woman is vile. I am quite sure the padded researcher's leghold trap is nothing like the bone crushing hunter's trap- remember the a**hole gloating over the wolf that was caught in a trap in the snow- blood was covering the snow- so humane? bull! Opposing the wolf hunt on the grounds that sport hunting is for sadistic creeps? Call me emotional, then!
 

karen n. (57)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 8:57 pm
i have noted and read this article-i have never had the pleasure of seeing a wolf in the wild-i would be in awe if i did-i have so much respect for them,they are such beautiful animals-i just wish others would learn to cherish and appreciate them instead of fearing them or makeing them be some horriffic creature to be feared as in a horror movie-i just hope all the nonsense stops and people wake up and respect and protect them again.
 

Roseann d. (178)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 9:39 pm
So to not have emotion... So it's better to be a frigging robot? Anti-hunt activists have both the science and the emotion...to be human is to be humane.
 

Ruth S. (300)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 6:03 am
Hunters think that they getaway with their crimes, but the truth is that you can never getaway from the Almighty!
 

Linda Wallace (26)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 6:58 am
I feel that the hunting and trapping of wolves is cruel and wrong. I don't care if that feeling is emotional or not.
 

Patricia W. (5)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 7:08 am
DEVIL WOMAN HAS NO SOUL!!!!
 

Karen B. (8)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 5:44 pm
I AM EMOTIONAL ABOUT WOLVES, TO NOT REALLY CARE IS TO SLAP GOD IN THE FACE.!!! THEY WANT TO LIVE ALSO, THE WOLVES.!!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE.!!!! GO SHOOT YOURSELF, IF YOU WANT SOME TARGET PRACTICE, YOU BIG, COWARDLY, MEN BABIES.!!!!
 

Tom Edgar (56)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 6:33 pm
Still not one in opposition response intellectually, nor in refutation to the scientific points and attributions she made.
It is laudable that responses and observations are made emotionally, but only if they are also supported by intelligent, fact based refutations of her article. Many a Terrorist, regardless of faith, acts purely from emotionally driven ideology. Doesn't ever make the act, emotionally motivated a responsible one.

To accuse her of having no "SOUL" when there isn't such a thing is rather pointless, once again, as with others, this is shooting the messenger but the message lives on. If there is an argument for "Culling" it is to prevent starvation when over population numbers are reached, or even the predatory nature of the animal compels them to hunt in human areas. It is similar to the human over population really with its inevitable starvation and wars of territorial expansion. maybe we should be culling humans, or is that what is happening already in the M E? Oh !Sorry that is collateral damage.
 

Cathy P. (95)
Monday November 26, 2012, 8:43 am
I disagree with this post.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday November 26, 2012, 8:53 am
This article is BS. Trying to justify the killing of the wolves at any cost. Sure the amount of illegal killings will go down if there is open season on wolves year round. The cap on the number of wolves means nothing if they plan on doing nothing to those who take more than 400 wolves, and 20 percent of a species' population is not small. There is no way a species can recover sufficiently from that big of a take. Additionally, I am sure that the hunt is planned for next year too and so on. 20 percent of a population over a 5 year period will leave the population extinct. So the fact that people are reacting emotionally is supposed to somehow be a bad thing. Emotional motivation does not equate to terrorism, it just means people have a conscience about the unjustified killings. Obviously, those trying to promote the killing of wolves are trying to hind behind any kind of nonsence. Just because the pro hunters of wolves have no conscience or morals behind what they are doing doesn't make them the responsible ones. Pure and simple, this is a monitary ploy to increase the money gained by increasing the take on other big game species due to the lack of predatory species. Once the wolf is gone I am sure the regulators will move to the bear, and coyote. And regulators will have no other option but to increase the number of game animals hunted in order to control this increase in their population. You increas the number of big game animals taken you increase the money generated to hunt them. This is wrong on every level and I feel the emotional anti-wolf hunters need to speak even louder.
 

Dan S. (9)
Monday November 26, 2012, 9:54 am
No amount of "research" will negate the fact that hunting and trapping wolves (or any animal) for the purpose of killing them is totally wrong. Does Peggy Callahan mean, then, that humans will endure the same fate when the Earth becomes over populated? Soylent Green here we come!
 

Past Member (0)
Monday November 26, 2012, 1:29 pm
I contend that there is not one person in support of hunting can provide research data that supports this massive killing of the wolves. The so called experts merely state that they have researched, and and demonstrate a rather calus lack of emotions, they do not provide any unrefutable data that there is a need to kill the wolves. In fact culling the wolves if properly done would not kill entire packs. Supporters of these killings have not provided any valid information to prove that culling(killing) is even necessary for the wolves and our ecosystem. They have simply allied themselves with a minority of people who have a distorted or absent since of morality. The vast majority of supporters are farmers who want to kill all wolves to grow their herds on public lands and this is a direct result of some misguided information provided by wildlife services trying to beef up their budgets. With the almighty hunter fearful of loosing their precious trophy game and free land for grazing, the dollar signs in the eyes of the burocrats and hunters outweigh the life of the wolf. It is shameful that the wildlife agencies have sold out their reputations and they are solely responsible for the not so distant future extinction of the wolf. Our emotions are in the right place if it deters even one wolf from being slaughtered. The more emotional we are the greater impact we have protecting them.
 

Diane L. (110)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 3:31 am
At first "reading", the article is well stated, however as Past Member and others have said, taking 20% or more of any population is just plain WRONG.
 

Roxy H. (340)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:11 am
Well note to Tom Edgar, all I have to say to you, is I hope when there is an animal that does not deserve to be tortured, killed, abused that is endangered and does not even live in most of the world, sitting in your front yard, Peggy Callahan comes and helps you rescue it from the trappers
 

Ana Fontan (16)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 2:27 pm
Noted with profound dissagreement
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday December 19, 2012, 11:27 pm
Noted and thanks for all you do for wolves, Roxy. Greatly appreciated. :)
 

Dianne D. (470)
Sunday December 30, 2012, 10:31 pm
Wolves play a very important part in the eco-system and they should not be hunted, or culled. The ranchers need to take responsibility for their cattle. In most cases, the wolf is not responsible for the dead cow, but ranchers point the finger at them just so there is one less preditor in the world and the rancher doesn't have to watch the cattle as closely.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.