kombucha wrote:Ƭнɛ Ɔяʏιиɢ Ɖɛα∂ wrote:Moonlight Forest wrote:I feel like im the only person who understands anything! Im not going to kill you for taking down one or two but ive seen pics where they killed entire packs! And it sounds like you all just dont care about wolves being killed! Those who are truly devoted to them would never hurt them on purpose and would stand up for them no matter what!
I EXTREMELY agree with you on this one. I think starving wolves should be taken to sanctuaries, not killed. Wolves are a lot like us, but do people kill humans because there's 'too many'? No.
Starving wolves should be fed, fostered, tamed if possible. The only time someone should EVER kill a wolf is if the wolf seriously hurt/killed a human. The thing is, you wouldn't be the same if you killed the hunters. Hunters are humans, they are not innocent. Most humans aren't. Like seriously, wolves are not THAT different from us. They eat, they raise families, they have fun. They even communicate with eachother!
Animals DO comprehend pain, sadness, they ARE like humans, and DO feel the same emotions we do!
I believe you are right.
while i do agree with a few of your points, i disagree with one or two things, since it's a little extreme (sorry sorry sorry don't take this the wrong way). this is gonna be long, too, sorry!
okay. first of all what moonlight forest described was again poaching, not hunting, which people consistently tend to mix up and vilify on this thread. the main reasons we can't take starving wolves to sanctuaries is 1) lack of resources, 2) general danger for whoever's going out to get the animal, as well as the animal itself, and 3) a general upset of the food pyramid.
money doesn't grow on trees, and if we were to find every single starving wolf, not only would it be far too time-consuming, we simply don't have enough money to feed them .
also, there's simply not enough space, and patchworking packs of wolves together is dangerous for the animals as well, not to mention that you could be basically scooping up an animal (likely part of an existing pack, which could mean taking it away from its family and preventing it from providing food for its offspring etc.), taking it into captivity (which could put even more stress on the animal), and plopping it back (maybe not even in the right area; it might not be able to find the rest of its pack, either).
this also assumes that when the wolf returns, it'd be in the same place of "power" in it's pack, which is not the case, assuming they'd even accept it back.
when an animal is stressed out and starving, as well as a predator, it is not safe for people to go out and track it down. wolves are not going to be magically tame, and putting them together with other wolves that are strangers to them isn't safe either. this is also completely disregarding the point where you said to tame them. as cool as it would be to have a wild animal as a pet, its also really. a "tame" wolf is still a wolf, no matter how docile it seems to be. we can see this even with wolf-dog mixes, which still get a bad rep for being unsafe. you can't just take an animal out of its habitat and train it in a strange place and expect it to be 100% healthy and not stressed out.
on my third point, this is not healthy for the environment. sure, you might like wolves, and you might think having more of them is great, but the food chain doesn't really have that same idea. wolves eat deer, so more wolves means less deer. this isn't a bad thing, but if more wolves eat the deer, there's going to be less deer. this means more wolves go hungry, so let's say we take a bunch of starving wolves out. when the deer and wolf population gets big again, we put the wolves back in. no problem, right? no, big problemo. now, we suddenly have even more wolves than before, but still roughly the same amount of deer. this means that the deer population collapses in that area (no more deer ever) or very little deer. as a result, even if we take out wolves and feed them, not only will they be less prepared to deal with this food shortage, there's also less deer and more wolves to feed, which means it's going to take a lot longer for both populations to get back up again. but what goes down when this happens? wolves start looking for food in other places, which means wolves wander into farms and areas with a lot of people. this means that not only are wolves hurt, but this mean more people could get attacked by wolves. i don't care how much you might love wolves, but if it comes down to pick a wolf or a human being, i'm going to go with the person.
next point, people don't kill people because there's too many because that's really unethical, and as much as you may hate for me to say it, even though wolves are vaguely similar to people in raising families, having fun, et al, people have that and so much more. not saying people aren't innocent, but wolves aren't automatically "better" because of it (wolves are maybe even less innocent?). hunters don't kill just to kill, no matter how heartless you want to make them seem, and hunters are just as human as the rest of us. no matter how similar wolves are to us, it's not "heartless" or terrible to kill wolves legally and ethically. it's more than a little hypocritical to only defend wolves if you're trying to play the "they're just like us!!!" card, too. chimpanzees have around zero differences in the amino acid coding of their hemoglobin (basically what their blood is made of), and have many similarities in their actions (raising families, having fun, et. al) to us, but we don't see people touting that around, even though we are even more similar to them.
animals may have the same feelings we do, but people still have to eat, and there's nothing wrong with killing an animal legally for any reason. people have to eat, people have to pay the bills, people have to raise their own families. even if i kill an animal legally and don't use every part myself (i.e. selling it), i'm still taking care of my own family with the money and honoring the animal to an extent. laws are in place to keep the population stable and make sure the animal is in as little pain as possible (illegal traps are painful or cruel to the animal, that's why they're illegal!), so there is literally no justification that killing a wolf legally is wrong. hunters don't just shoot a wolf and toss out the body, and if you think that's true, you need to check your facts before you condemn a group of people.
TLDR; hunting when you follow the law makes sure that an animal is in little to no pain and that the population is not significantly hurt. taking animals out of the wild is dangerous to begin with, and taking the starving wolves to a sanctuary is not helpful. hunters and humans are not heartless, are not worth less than wolves or any other animal, and should not be killed in favor of wolves or any other animal.
(if you're gonna fight with me based on the tldr at least read the other part u memer)
^^^^^ THIS, omg. I agree with this wholeheartedly. you put it really nicely!
also, there's one thing that you didn't make too clear in there that I'd like to add. scientific studies studies show that animals do not feel the same emotions we do; just simplified versions. animals can't really comprehend love, death and life, so if a hunter were to shoot a wolf's mate or something, it wouldn't understand that it's dead and gone forever. they might feel a passing sadness, and recognize that it's dead, but they'll carry on and forget completely. they can feel basic emotions, like pain, sadness and joy, sure. but CERTAINLY not the extent we can. they're like us in some ways, but we're so different in others. it's not really fair to say, "oh, animals are just like us, so why aren't we killing off humans?" humans are the dominant species on earth because they're the most intelligent, and can comprehend emotions and have the most complex feelings. not to mention that killing people would be a crime, but I'm sure that you weren't making an actual suggestion by saying that.
also, there's one thing that you didn't make too clear in there that I'd like to add. scientific studies studies show that animals do not feel the same emotions we do; just simplified versions. animals can't really comprehend love, death and life, so if a hunter were to shoot a wolf's mate or something, it wouldn't understand that it's dead and gone forever. they might feel a passing sadness, and recognize that it's dead, but they'll carry on and forget completely. they can feel basic emotions, like pain, sadness and joy, sure. but CERTAINLY not the extent we can. they're like us in some ways, but we're so different in others. it's not really fair to say, "oh, animals are just like us, so why aren't we killing off humans?" humans are the dominant species on earth because they're the most intelligent, and can comprehend emotions and have the most complex feelings. not to mention that killing people would be a crime, but I'm sure that you weren't making an actual suggestion by saying that.
) I know I have weird opinions. Just a heads up. No one can chance them. Okay, here goes
thats why I have LOTS OF THOUGHTS
.png)
