>>4935558
>28 minutes of YT hunter waffling on
He's just upset he doesn't get to kill the Elk himself. He even says he's apart of the ecosystem lol. Wolves fit more into an ecosystem than fag hunters using guns. Also "re-introducing", so wolves were there before and a native species anyway. I really don't give af about hunters or ranchers having a cry.

>>4935562
You didn't refute anything he said. And yes, humans are a part of their local ecosystems. Why is that strange?

>>4935558
The tide is turning AGAINST wolves in Colorado. Be sure to support the Republican politicians who oppose the disastrous wolf reintroduction policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-vote-stop-wolf-reintroduction/

>Patrick Davis, Campaign Manager for Colorado Advocates for Smart Wolf Policy and the man spearheading the movement, said he believes the tide has turned in Colorado. He said there are fewer people excited about wolf reintroduction than there are in support of it now.

>"I believe that Front Range voters are starting to read those stories and be more sensitive to the plight of their fellow Coloradans and not necessarily the hopes and dreams of the pro-wolf community," Davis said.

>"Our goal is to reverse a wrong that we believe happened in 2020 and maybe start fresh," Davis said. "I don't know where it goes from there, but our first step is to stop the bleeding and to get the wolf reintroduction repealed in November of 2026."

>Of the 10 wolves released into Colorado’s central mountains a year ago, three are dead and one remains in captivity, along with four of her pups, after a series of livestock killings involving her pack. Nine known wolves remain wild: six adults from the 2023 releases, two wolves remaining from a pack that migrated south from Wyoming and a pup that was left behind when the rest of the depredating pack was removed from the wild.

>Participants’ answers in the poll largely depended on their political party. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 33% of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters said continuing the reintroduction was a good idea.

It's only the urbanite late-sipping liberal faggots who support wolves in Colorado. The people who actually have to deal with wolves don't want them reintroduced.

>/pol/tards for the destruction of ecological systems

no surprises here

So why were elk overpopulated?
Because then hunting guides didn't have to get real jobs if there were too many elk. That's it. A bunch of mountain cabin, trailer park do-nothing pot smokers and their indian pals wanted easy money and food off the top for contributing jack shit to the USA. Trophy hunting isn't even shit to the economy. Sport hunters are a minority. People that want to look at a god damn forest instead of an overgrazed riverbank are the majority.

So why were wolves REALLY bad?
Because "ranchers" who contribute maybe 2% to the US beef supply wouldnt have to stop playing mexican cowboy and put their cattle in fences if wolves werent around.

>BUT THE BENEFITS AREN'T REAL
We can fucking see em. The stuff shaved head shit beard cigar-sucking bitch boys are actually whining about is the cost to trailer trash that wanted to play around instead of working a real job for a real white man and contribute some actual STEEL AND GEARS productivity to america instead of feather-indian one with nature bullshit.

Fuck ranchers. Get a real god damn job. Biggest whiners in the US after people that want to work from home to flip burgers.
>BUT ITS MY LIVELIHOOD
Feedlots make money. A ranch is so worthless you might as well be chief biggem smokem chasing buffalo.
Tourism makes money. Hunters are just tourism minus all the people. That's why the "hippy" forest is important. It makes money.

Or, go all new school "republican", return to tradition, and watch as elon musk and bill gates buy you out and sell the whole beef industry to non-american feedlots. Vid related, this is where your beef is going to come from. Wolves wreck ranches, but they can't get near these. These guys make more beef, per day, per mile, than any ranch. You leave the wolves alone to the tourist fags and put some fences and troughs up on your pastures, OR US BEEF DIES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e82wcA8J9iE
Enjoy being the organic free range shit no one buys. Maybe YOU'RE the goddamn hippy.

>>4935565
>Shitlib supports a policy as long as he doesn't have to deal with the consequences

Many such cases.

>>4935566
Correct. They actually are the hippies.
>muh traditional lifestyle duuuude

>>4935567
>consequences
Enjoy your dead sperms and mercury poisoning thanks to your corporate worship rightoid brainrot.

>>4935570
What does wolf reintroduction have to do with dead sperms and mercury poisoning?

>>4935564
>Ranchers crying
Just build proper fences for livestock retard. Wolves > Ranchoids and their LARP fest.

>>4935566
All your 4chan posts about how bad ranchers are have accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing and there will be ranchers forever no matter what you do

>>4935571
rightoid pro-corporate anti-enviromentalist views

>>4935566
>So why were elk overpopulated?
>Because then hunting guides didn't have to get real jobs if there were too many elk. That's it. A bunch of mountain cabin, trailer park do-nothing pot smokers and their indian pals

If you bothered to watch the video, you'd know that Yellowstone park rangers were doing a good job managing the elk population without any wolves around. Unless you think park ranger isn't a real job.

Ranchers need to learn what a livestock guardian dog is.

>>4935558
Why do all these guys look like that

>>4935573
>biggem smokem hairy feet tribe will exist forever, chief tell you just watch.
Ranchers are worthless welfare queens. Feedlots aren't just the future, they're the present. Brazil is taking over the beef industry while you're begging for wolf culls so you can keep using pastures and producing fewer cattle per square mile. Put up a fence, put out some troughs, hire a few guys to grab shovels. Get to it.

>>4935570
>Cows in the middle of nowhere are concentrated
>MY SPERMS GOING TO DIE DYING, RETVRN TO TRADITIION! HEYA HOYA HEYA HOYA *beats drum*

>>4935567
The consequences of ranchers being pushed out or towards modernization is cheaper, higher quality beef from the US so you will never, ever have to eat bugs. Feedlots now. Ranches no more. Imagine farmers bitching about threats to their horses. Oh damn, hold on. They use tractors. Follow suit.

>>4935575
>Yellowstone park rangers were doing a good job
And yet the herds were oversized. Wolf reintroduction cut them back down to carrying capacity. Shaved head, shit beard bitch boys with pot in their cigars are now complaining that they cant hide in a cabin, work only half the year, and fuck their dog the other half. Big deal.

>>4935578
Excessive masturbation causes premature hair loss.

>>4935580
>Feedlots

Feedlots are even worse for ecosystems.

>Feedlots are fenced-in outdoor areas where cows are crammed together to prevent them from exercising and obstructing the fattening process. The spaces are barren, lacking grass for cows to graze and trees for shade. Cattle have to stand in these small crowded areas in the ruminants of their own urine and faeces.

>Feedlots can get very muddy when it rains, causing cows to become wet, cold, and dirty. When it gets hot during droughts or summer, the lots become dusty and dry. With the lack of shade coupled with excessive weight brought on by being fed increasingly heavy diets, cows often experience heat stress problems that can sometimes prove fatal. Currently, there’s no legal requirement for farmers to provide shelter to cows in feedlots.

>Feedlots produce huge amounts of animal waste and other pollutants that can be harmful to the environment. Feedlot waste is likely to contain cleaning agents, silage leachate, chemicals used in livestock care, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, ammonia, heavy metals, and milkhouse waste.

>This waste is often stored for a while in waste storage pits or structures before disposal on farm fields. This is where feedlot waste enters surface water, contaminating it, causing water pollution. Runoff of feedlot waste into water streams can be detrimental to fish and other aquatic life and can cause “dead zones” in coastal areas. Feedlots also cause air pollution due to ammonia, particulate matter, odour, greenhouse gases, and volatile organic compounds emissions.

>>4935583
>And yet the herds were oversized.

No they weren't, dumbass. Not until the 1960s, when dopey political activists *caused the culls in Yellowstone to end* did problems with the elk population arise.

Watch the damn video.

>>4935585
>Feedlot cons: Cows are unhappy (dont give a shit) and there's pollution to manage (do it in the US so it's actually managed instead of in brazil, problem solved), muh cow farts
>Feedlot pros: More beef, cheaper beef, domestically produced, american jobs, american independence
Oh and you can have tourism dollars from normies looking at forests and wolves

Or shoot the wolves, keep ranching, and then bill gates and elon musk buy your land when you go out of business due to foreign beef being cheaper and more plentiful
https://cattlerange.com/articles/2024/08/u-s-beef-imports-have-more-than-doubled-since-2013/
then they put the wolves back, buy up the tourism industry, and grow corn and soi to sell to brazil and mexico so they can feed their cattle in inferior feedlots that pale in comparison to what a white man could build. All the money they make is never taxed, and they use it to import more cheap foreign labor and outsource more jobs so they can make even more money. Now that's CONSERVATISM! America loses, maybe 5 guys from america and a south african win, but you get to be a cowboy and that's what real winning is amirite? You have some 5 o clock shadow on your head so we can see your receding hairline, better go shave it again.

>>4935586
Don't give a fuck. Wolves are tourism money. Ranchers are a money black hole. Anything that is bad for ranchers, a bunch of larping welfare queens, is good for America.

>>4935590
>Wolves are tourism money.

No, they aren't. You can just go get a Siberian husky, who look just like smaller wolves but are much cuter.

>>4935589
>Anon doesn't realize how many White men are rocking the Joe Rogan dome these days

Soi latte liberal detected.

>>4935564
>Be sure to support the Republican politicians who oppose the disastrous wolf reintroduction policy
This is a false flag. Wolves are already on their way to Colorado through natural dispersal, so those with a vested interest in preventing wolves from being there initiated the first releases to make it so they were considered reintroduced and therefore allowed to be shot and a symbol of government overreach
>joe rogan
He literally had a wolf biologist on recently who put a nail through this shit. These people even suggest that wolves wipe out elk if left to their own devices and that the wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone were some kind of uber aggressive super wolves

>>4935604
>rewilded animals have high mortality
What else is new

>>4935566
Hunters contribute more than you do.

>Fewer elk would eventually mean fewer elk hunting licenses being sold, reducing the amount of conservation funding that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) receives from legal, regulated hunting.

>CPW actually weighed in against the wolf reintroduction, but Colorado voters overruled the agency by approving Proposition 114 in 2020. The approval was by less than 1% of the total vote. Of course, the vast majority of these voters were from urban and suburban locales and were never going to experience these re-intros firsthand. Of course, the animal rights types who pushed Prop 114 also made the plan sound easy and without any real consequences.

>As noted on this NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum website, the Prop 114 vote “was the first time in history that a state’s authority to decide whether to introduce a species was taken from the state wildlife agency, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, and given to voters who know nothing about science-based wildlife management.”

>A recent article in the Colorado Sun cited a University of Montana study on the Montana wolf relocations that “concluded that more relocated wolves died and survivors often killed livestock in their new locations. Of the 88 translocated wolves in the 2005 study, 58 died after the trapping and moving.”

>Once these wolves began killing livestock, officials trapped and moved the adult pack members. In some cases, this meant the younger wolves that were not caught eventually died as they didn’t yet know how to effectively hunt.

>Abandoning scientific wildlife management in favor of ballot box biology might seem like an exercise in democracy. Yet in reality, this practice voids the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which relies on the best available science and research to reach such important decisions. Emotional appeals and catch-phrases can sell ideas, but hard science is wildlife conservation’s best friend.

>>4935567
>nooo you need to prioritize my unproductive traditional hobby farm its one with nature
Protip:
The jew fears the indoor cow farmer.

The guys latest video on this issue is hilarious:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM_b2oEYYmo
Having waco/ruby ridge fantasies, crying about fences, crying about livestock guardian dogs and how they might bite his kids lmao. I didn't realise ranchers were such drama queens.

>>4935607
>OH NO, THE RANCHERS
1% of the cattle losses of 1% of the beef supply… lol who cares. Get a real farm.

>>4935614
He is literally a liberal. Republicans are bernie bros but racist and want open traditional agriculture and shrooms instead of UBI and HRT.

Not too familiar with the issue, but don’t you guys get deer wasting and other horrid disease shit because hunters don’t go after the sick frail ones like wolves do? That or they don’t go after them at the same volume or something.

We should just kill all mammals. Ecosystems can get by just fine without them.

>>4935621
Yeah, hunters go for the thick-necked, shiny fur healthy young bucks, they are not gonna go for the skinny doe with mange.

>>4935621
Coyotes take care of the weak and sick animals.

>>4935616
Wrong.

Being Pro-Wolf is a LIBERAL DEMONRAT stance. Because they live in the urban areas far away from where the wolves will be.

88% percent of Democrats, but only 33% of Republicans said continuing the wolf reintroduction was a good idea.

Pro-Wolf people are LIARS.

>>4935621
You’re correct. Also none of these people seem to care about the existence of coyotes, mountain lions, bears, etc eating elk and livestock. People only throw a hissy fit about wolves

>>4935648
>none of these people seem to care about the existence of coyotes, mountain lions, bears

??
The same people who oppose wolf reintroduction also hunt coyotes, mountain lions, and grizzly bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT3EnNJYO6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRQTtpxpga0

>ummm ummm uuh da blujoos is lyin'
>nuh UH da redchud's is lyin' even biglier!!
TOTAL
SHARTMUTT
ERADICATION

>>4935650
Yeah they hunt them, but they don’t cry all day and night about how the mountain lions are depleting the elk

>>4935662
Probably because mountain lions don't propagate themselves as quickly as wolves can.

>>4935725
Neither propagate fast enough to wipe out their main prey

Just put up a fence. That's it, wolves can't open doors yet so the cows you're starving will be fine.

>>4935558
I'm simply not going to believe anything that comes from a liberal any more

>>4935589
>you can have tourism dollars from normies looking at forests and wolves

How much tourist money do wolves bring?

>>4935628
No. You are a liberal. You want wolves gone to protect a traditional hobby. That is peak DEI.

>duh gubmint needs to do all the elk hunting and protect my traditional lifestyle choices from the wolves to safeguard this treasured piece of mexican culture, the american vaquero but white! think about the greenhouse gases!
>NO NO NO I AM NOT JUST A RACIST LIBERAL
Ranchers aren’t important. Wolves are. No one wants to spend money doing wolves jobs. We can just tell ranchers to go fuck themselves and get beef from farmers that actually do real work.

>>4935802
Ranchers pay taxes wolves don't

>>4935804
Ranchers pay fewer taxes and contribute less to the economy than the alternatives.
A feedlot operator conforming to environmental protection regulations would produce more food on the same land and pay many, many more taxes, generate more economic activity, and create more jobs.
A crop farmer would produce more food on the same land and pay more taxes, generate more economic activity, and create more jobs.

Ranchers are leeches on this country that sit on land that could make money slowly drawing closer to being a bunch of native americans. A lot of them are so small they contribute nothing except for the land tax and basically run a petting zoo.
>heya hoya heya hoya me carem for cow spirit
Wolves save us millions in paying government workers to just do one of the wolves natural job. Wolves also extirpate coyotes and feral dogs, which are two animals that kill 30-100x more livestock than wolves and are sly enough to get into livestock operations that actually matter (feedlots).

Ranchers playing around with distant pastures and shitting up public land? They don't matter. Ranchers are so fucking retarded they lead their herds to wolf dens.


>>4935802
Correct. Ranchers are not important.

wolves are ~1% of livestock losses and primarily affect incompetent, lower class ranchers that are not significant contributors and live near wolf territory because they're not a real business and can't afford anything else. the ranchers losing whole herds to cattle are small family operations with almost zero employees. they could just as easily stop ranching, sell the business to a more competent producer, drive over to work in a factory (the return of american manufacturing), and actually make more money

>government please save the poor minority they are doing their best to live traditionally pls
Yes, wolf culls are liberal.

>>4935818
>Wants to play government nanny to protect a poor minority's attempts to cling to a traditional lifestyle
If wolf reintroduction were forcing native americans to give up traditional buffalo hunting and go get real jobs, who would complain? liberals or "conservatives"?

Why does it stop being liberal because it's small time ranchers giving up their traditions? because the poor minority votes red? lol

If a rancher is too poor and small to deal with wolves they should be bought out by a superior business and go get a real job

>>4935820
>If a rancher is too poor and small to deal with wolves they should be bought out by a superior business

Why do you love big business so much?

>>4935822
>UGH, BIG BUSINESS? Why do you like america making more stuff and more money so much?
Gee I dunno bernie. Maybe because I'm not a wishy washy commie retard.

People who can't compete in the world don't need government protection. They need to get good at what they do or sell their assets to someone who isn't retarded and go do something else.

>>4935815
>>4935823
/thread

Wolf losses are disproportionately affecting small traditional farmers that dont even make enough money to buy better fencing, aka poor wypipo and hobby farms. Big deal. Wolf culls are just DEI for trailer trash. Real aryan entrepeneurs aren’t affected.

>>4935614
Based. He's prepared to take his stand.

>>4935830
The "majority" was a mere 51% and over 80% of them were shitlibs. That's who you're siding with.

The vast majority of Colorado conservatives OPPOSE wolf reintroduction.

>>4935827
>Wolves and Bears have lower casualties than vultures
pbpbpbpbp

>>4935607
>"Hunters contribute more than you do."
>"Fewer elk would eventually mean fewer elk hunting licenses being sold, reducing the amount of conservation funding that Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) receives from legal, regulated hunting."

Conservation funding from ANY kind of Hunting is a very small, small amount.

https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS_Trophy-Hunting-Economics-2020.pdf
The Humane society found that 94% of funding for US conservation is unrelated to any activity involving hunting. Trophy hunting of native carnivores is 0.14%, so basically next to nothing. The reason for this is likely that the funds from hunting go back into regulating it in the first place, which is not cheap.

I'm not even against hunting, it has its place and is a resource that humans have practiced for a long time. But this idea that hunters are the omniscient founders of all things Conservation is blatantly false.

Instead of wolves, how about focusing on eradicating a species that actually does considerable damage to America's agriculture?
>across the US, feral swine cause an estimated ~$2 billion in damage annually.
>threaten ALL forms of agriculture (forestry, row crops, livestock, and pasture)
>invasive
>Cover practically all of the deep south and California
>Still expanding

>you need to side with the lower income, lower IQ people because they voted for my favorite pro-israeli party
option C: who cares what democrats or republicans want, wolves and ecosystems that function without professional culls are based and ranchers that can't cope with them aren't important. wolves aren't a major concern to farmers that actually produce a significant amount of value because they can afford deterrents and better fencing.

99% of the time someone is complaining about wolves its a family ranch with two employees (the sons) and shitty fences made of rotting driftwood lol. like, just sell the cows, buy cars that aren't made of rust, and drive over to a real job producing something of value. or buy a computer and learn javascript to work from home and then you can continue never seeing another human face that isn't related to you. ranjeet can do it why can you?

>>4935834
Facts already established:
Wolves are less than 1% of cattle losses and primarily affect people who are lazy, stupid, and poor.
Hunters contribute less than 10% of conservation revenue.

Now for some more facts.

Wild boar are the main food source of the wolf. With wolves depressing boar populations, eradicating them ourselves would be significantly more possible.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311527435_What_does_the_wild_boar_mean_to_the_wolf
Wolves form a barrier to expanding coyote populations and remove coyotes wherever they are present
https://environment.uw.edu/news/2017/05/wolves-need-space-to-roam-to-control-expanding-coyote-populations/
https://www.pitchstonewaters.com/the-relentless-slaughter-of-wolves-paved-the-way-for-a-predator-that-refuses-to-die/

The sad fact:
Rightoids purposefully introduce and bait boar and coyotes so they can shoot them for fun. They are basically the black people they complain about.

>conservatives: adapt or die.
>conservatives: NOOO MY RANCH DOESNT MAKE ENOUGH TO BUY A FENCE KILL THE WOLVES
Lmao.

>>4935558
i don't give a shit
tearing down all of yellowstone and turning it into battery farms would probably be even more 'highly successful' and you could give a lot more food to even more minorities, but if that's what i was after then i wouldn't give a shit about national parks in the first place

>>4935827
>>4935834
>>4935837
>>4935839
>>4935843
/THREAD. get fucked you bald cucks!

>>4935564
I didn't know people opposed this at all and got so mad about it. get fucked retard.

>>4935861
You’d need more contact with "ranchers" that are really just one family trying to pretend to be pioneers rather than serious businessmen. That’s the group losing out here. A bunch of free range one with nature liberals that beg for coyote genocide and kill their neighbors dogs because they won’t even pen in some chickens.

>>4935558
>Joe Rogan
stopped reading there

>>4935558
The two baldies are correct. Sorry, wolfsuckers.

>The popular but incorrect narrative posits that the wolves caused the elk population to drop, which allowed willows to grow again and the ecosystem to revert to its prior condition. But that’s not what the researchers found.

>The popular idea that the return of wolves singlehandedly reduced elk herds and restored Yellowstone’s natural systems was “wishful thinking” backed by little comprehensive science, Hobbs and Cooper said.

>That narrative also ignored other factors at play. Human hunting, not wolves, was the primary cause of declining elk populations in the first 10 years after reintroduction, they said. Also, mountain lions hunt elk more effectively than wolves, and their population boomed simultaneously.

>“Claims of ecosystem restoration, resulting from a trophic cascade following the restoration of the gray wolf to Yellowstone, have been used to justify translocation of wolves to their unoccupied former range in many areas of the world,” the study states. “Careful scrutiny has revealed these claims to be exaggerated or false.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2024/02/08/wolves-impact-habitat-study-yellowstone-national-park-colorado-reintroduction/

>>4937572
Wolves primarily control coyotes, deer, and invasive species like boar. Wolves could actually make coyote eradication and restoring their original range possible. They certainly help control elk as well. Not primary doesn't mean not at all.

There is no reason NOT to reintroduce them.
>LIVESTOCK?
Owned by whom? Wolves are less than 1% of livestock losses. The people having serious problems are john dutton larpers driving small hobby herds across public land or ranching them on the edge of their forest-side cabin because they're too dumb and lazy to get a real job. These are also the exact same people that bitch about rewilded horses (because they compete with the cattle for forage, and they refuse to pay to feed shit on their own land) and even, yes, bison (because rancher mcretard refuses to fence anything in or stay on his own damn land, and bison spread brucellosis)

>>4937584
>Wolves could actually make coyote eradication and restoring their original range possible

Unless wolves are better than coyotes at reducing the outdoor cat population, why would anyone want this?

>>4937586
Coyotes are shit predators that needs to be controlled, they damage ungulate populations by being focused on killing the young.

>>4937600
You didn't answer my question. Are wolves better than coyotes at killing cats or not?

I don't care about ungulates.

>>4937601
Fuck your schizo obsession. Cats are not an issue anywhere outside of the Australian wild. Coyotes are a plague without wolves.

>>4937605
>Cats are not an issue anywhere outside of the Australian wild.

FUCKING LIAR

>Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals.

>Predation by domestic cats is the number-one direct, human-caused threat to birds in the United States and Canada.

>In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year. Although this number may seem unbelievable, it represents the combined impact of tens of millions of outdoor cats. Each outdoor cat plays a part.

>In total, cats are estimated to kill between 100 and 350 million birds per year in Canada (> 95% of estimates were in this range)


https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/#:~:text=Cats%20%231%20Threat%20to%20Birds,outdoor%20cat%20plays%20a%20part.

>>4937612
why are you raging about cats in the wolf thread?

>>4937614
Maybe try reading the exchange?

Wolfanon said wolves could eradicate coyotes.
Reply asked if wolves are better than coyotes at hunting feral cats.
Wolfanon spergs out about coyotes some more, ignores the invasive cat question
The question about cats gets repeated
Wolfanon then lies and claims invasive cats are not an issue outside of Australia (demonstrably false),spergs about coyotes some more.

>>4937618
you didn't answer the question. Is your life so pointless you have to rage at everyone on the internet about cats of all things?

>>4937618
I have to admit this is polarizing me against wolf re-introduction.

Wolf advocates make all these grand claims about the positive influence wolves have on the ecosystem (most of them exaggerated. see: >>4937572)

Yet invasive cats are a far more destructive presence in America and Canada's ecosystem than elk are (again, see: >>4937612).

So...why am I supposed to give a fuck about these wolves? Unless you can prove that they can more effectively tackle the bigger problem (feral cats), then let the coyotes have their old range.

>>4937619
I did answer the question. You just lack reading comprehension. Is the toxo in your brain acting up again?

Nothing funnier that watching cow farmers seethe about wolves. Bring them back, please.

>>4937624
the question was about you personally, not anyone else. Are you such a weak person you can only act in response to others?

>>4937626
Wgat kind of ecological damage di endangered lions cause? Because you live reposting images of wild endangered felines dying. You don't give a sit about conservation or nature. Wolves don't kill cats in significant numbers. And coyotes don't kill cats in the wilderness either because there aren't any. But are responsible of an estimated 60-80 percent of fawn mortality.

>>4937626
You're the one engaging in personal projection and taking offense to a legitimate discussion about ecology because - like all cat owners - you have an unhealthy attachment to your stupid pet.

>>4935558
In Sweden we have culled over 400 wolves in the last decade. The Bern Convention was revised recently to remove protections for the wolves so that the culls are expected to increase in coming years.

Anti-Wolf movements are growing throughout Europe's rightist parties and it has become a popular cause. These beasts are not welcome here!

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/OoeLVV/allt-fler-stora-rovdjur-dodas

>>4937586
>Unless wolves are better than coyotes at reducing the outdoor cat population, why would anyone want this?
Because coyotes kill vastly more small mammals and birds than wolves do. The bread and butter of a wolf's diet is ungulates - deer, elk, bison, caribou, etc. - while coyotes, being smaller, tend to focus on animals like rodents, birds (especially ground-nesting or low-nesting birds like waterfowl), riparian mammals, and mustelids. The explosive growth and dispersion of the coyote population over the last century or so has been a massive factor in the decline of bird and small mammal populations in north america. They also out-compete and/or prey on animals like skunks, opossums, raccoons and foxes and cause a decline in those animals as well.

If you hate cats because you care about rodents and birds then you should hate coyotes just as much.

>>4937653
>out-compete and/or prey on animals like skunks, opossums, raccoons and foxes

Every single one of these animals is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN and they are known to be plentiful both in the wilderness and near urban areas. Clearly the coyotes are not driving them to extinction or denting their numbers enough to make a big difference. Why are you trying to argue that coyotes are worse for ecology than invasive cats are? Why are you so dishonest?

>>4937641
>european (((ruling class))) replaces intelligent natives with genetically unintelligent immigrants to ensure more complacency
>europeans are now too stupid to properly contain and protect livestock, and borderline non-self aware, they perceive wolves as a threat with more fear and terror than a brain damaged, lead poisoned, malnourished medieval peasant swede
Yeah figures

>>4937664
This.

>>4937664
Sparrows and eurasian starlings which make up the majority of outdoor cat catches are not exactly endangered either.

>>4937671
Wolves were eradicated from most of Europe long before Third World immigration into the continent began. And the Third World immigrants tend to cluster in urban areas, not in the rural areas where the wolves are.

>>4937664
>Every single one of these animals is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN
Incorrect.

>and they are known to be plentiful both in the wilderness and near urban areas.
Not nearly as much as they were previously in areas outside of the historic range of the coyote. Prior to ~130 years ago coyotes were rarely found in regions where the climax vegetation was non-forested (prairies, desert, scrub, etc.) and apex predators (extirpated in part or in whole during the 19th and 20th centuries) also played a significant role in keeping coyotes in check.

>Clearly the coyotes are not driving them to extinction or denting their numbers enough to make a big difference.
They are. Smaller mammals in particular suffer the most.

>Why are you trying to argue that coyotes are worse for ecology than invasive cats are? Why are you so dishonest?
I literally am not, retard. In a huge swathe of North America coyotes are endemic and eat the same prey they've always eaten; however, the partial or total extirpation of apex predators as well as large ungulates from most of North America allowed coyotes to expand their range and massively increase their populations proportionally while also shifting their diet. You get more coyotes eating fawns and calves (or not eating them and just chowing down on smaller mammals in places where ungulate populations crashed) because of the lack of wolves and big cats and those well-fed coyotes also take a huge toll on small mammals and birds because there are many more coyotes than there would be if there were more apex predators present and ungulates were scarcer.

I actually like coyotes considerably more than I like feral cats because coyotes are native to the American west and like to eat outdoor cats but at the same time I can recognize the damage they've caused in the absence of ecological checks on their populations and behaviors.

>>4937726
>>Every single one of these animals is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN
>Incorrect.

Skunks, opossums, raccoons, and foxes are all super common in North America. They are not endangered or vulnerable in the slightest. You're just brazenly lying at this point.

>>4935558
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!

>Alaska is set to resume the aerial gunning of bears and wolves as a population control measure aimed at boosting caribou and moose herd numbers

>The renewed program would allow hunters to eliminate up to 80% of the animals on 20,000 acres (8,000 hectares) of state land.

>Alaska’s “intensive management” allows Alaskan game agents to kill any brown bear, black bear or wolf on some state lands.

>The latest program would allow aerial hunters to kill 80% of wolves (until the population is reduced to 35), 80% of black bears (until the population is reduced to 700) and 60% brown bears (until the population is reduced to 375).

MASSIVE wolf reduction incoming! It's open season, boys!

>>4937733
New reason to hate Orange Man and United Statesians

>>4937733
Ah yes the optimal managed population level, 35

>>4937734
Silence, shitlib. Trump is going to Make Hunting Great Again!

>>4937767
Optimal population level is 0, but 35 will suffice

>>4937733
Why do Trumpcucks hate nature?

>>4937584
Which Is funny because Coyotes are 10xtimes more harmful to cattle than Woolves are.

>>4937775
we don't hate nature, that's why we're protecting the caribou and the moose from the bears and the wolves

we rely on the caribou and the moose for our local economy

>>4937790
You're not protecting shit, since habitat loss s the main killer here and no one of you care about that. All it happens it's you go out to shoot some caribou and when you fail because of your skill issue you cry about wolves.

>>4937733
>keeping ten times more brown bears alive than wolves
Pretty retarded. Based on my experience, bears are far more likely to kill reindeer than wolves.
t. a professional reindeer herder

>>4935558
What we need to do is engaging in aggressive selective breeding, coupled with intense genetic engineering.
It is necessary to develop a new breed of wolves, bigger, faster, smarter and more powerful than the one we have now.
We will create an entirely new species that won't be able to interbreed with local dogs and wolves and release it in the wild.
An animal design to become the new superpredator of North America, a marvel of human ingenuity.
With this Superwolf well established in National Parks, the elk problem plaguing our beautiful country will be put to an end.
The superwolf will thrive and conquer its new domain in a matter of months.

To prevent the decline of the superwolf population, let me introduce you to the second phase of the plan: the supermoose.

>>4938102
I can see where this is going.

>>4937774
Trump is going to be impeached or shot before the year is over, possibly both who cares?

The left has been consistently more ready to exercise their second amendment rights than the "right"

>>4938132
Impeachment already failed during his first term and there were hardly any protestors at his inauguration

Sorry, but the wolves WILL be culled

>>4935566
>put their cattle in fences
I don’t understand how retarded you people are. Wolves can jump 6 feet vertically and are excellent at climbing as well as digging. You would have to build a 7 foot tall fence with an incline at the top or electric at the top to keep a wolf out, and this fencing would have to be made of 8 gauge welded wire.

Think about how hard it is for zoos and sanctuaries to keep wolves IN, now imagine keeping hungry wolves OUT…
Literally no farmer on planet earth can afford to fence in hundreds to thousands of acres like this. If you owned livestock and weren’t a cityfag you’d understand this.

>>4938142
>Hundreds of acres
>Cattle
I have managed 300 head and they were penned in 24/7. No ranging. No predators showed up because I was not a hobbyist with a forestside cabin.

>>4938139
He had to have a closed inauguration with a pre-selected audience lmao. Americans, you're either going to have a civil war, or a third world country that's <20% white. Pick one.

>Senile climate change denier announces massive wolf cull
What could go wrong lmao
>Ranches traditions matter
>Why do we live in a coyote and pig infested wasteland
>Drill baby drill
>What's with the droughts and heat waves
>Why is the tap water causing cancer
>What's with the inland hurricanes? Definitely chinese weather control
>*economic collapse*
>at least the stock market did well

>China: Geez, even WE aren't that stupid.

Oh well, I actually like coyotes more than wolves. I was originally for wolves specifically because deer, hogs and yotes are worse environmental fuckups and agricultural pests that people have repeatedly proven themselves to be incapable of exterminating. But I guess I'm team yotes and hogs now. GJ trump, and dont forget to look at the correlation between IQ and old age if you think he's playing 6d chess lolololol

>>4938147
>climate change denier
I stopped reading right there you fucking sun change denier. Take care of the pollution problem before trying to change the weather, you fear monger.
But I guess it's easier to protest in the streets than cleaning them.

>>4935558
WHAAAAT the Pro-Wolf fags in this thread told me this wasn't supposed to happen

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/caribou-herd-recovery-wolf-cull-bc-alberta-1.7182021

>Fresh research suggests Western Canada's once-dwindling caribou numbers are finally growing.

>But the same paper concludes the biggest reason for the rebound is the slaughter of hundreds of wolves, a policy that will likely have to continue for decades.

>"If we don't shoot wolves, given the state of the habitat that industry and government have allowed, we will lose caribou," said Clayton Lamb, one of 34 co-authors of a newly published study in the journal Ecological Applications.

>Between 1991 and 2023, caribou populations dropped by half. More than a third of the herds disappeared.

>The paper suggests caribou numbers have risen by 52 per cent since about 2020 compared with what would have occurred if nothing had been done. There are now 4,500 in the two provinces, about 1,500 more than there would have been.

>"Wolf reductions alone increased the growth rate of southern mountain caribou subpopulations by [about] 11 per cent," the report states.

>"Wolf reduction was the only recovery action that consistently increased population growth when applied in isolation," says the report.

>Wolves are killed by shooters in helicopters who use semi-automatic rifles with red-dot scopes to target areas that will result in a quick death, according to the documents, which added that followup shots are sometimes required.

>>4938162
>Fresh research suggests
>34 co-authors
>There are now 4,500 in the two provinces, about 1,500 more than there would have been.
>The paper suggests
They just don't know and are making numbers up. Round numbers at that.

>>4938162
Caribou numbers are being suppressed by logging and roads.

>>4938152
Anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
The earth is oblong and 4.5 billion years old.
The sun orbits it.
Life evolved on it beginning with electrochemical abiogenesis.

>>4938174
>Anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
No, but solar and volcanic activities are most probably part of real climate change.
>The earth is oblong and 4.5 billion years old.
No, it looks more like an almost perfect sphere (like the moon, you know, that thing in the sky) and may be way older.
>Life evolved on it beginning with electrochemical abiogenesis.
No, that is just the latest theory on the matter.

The fact that you talk about ongoing theories like they are absolute truth is the reason why you are not a real scientist.
Judging from your speech, it is more than likely that you are vomiting informations that you have learned by heart in a "Top10 science facts that will blow your mind" without trying to really understand or study the phenomena for yourself.
If you want to talk in absolute, get religion.
Now gtfo with your propaganda.

>>4938162
What do Wolf Burgers taste like?

>>4938182
Life arose on earth independent of external influence.

If life did come from earth from an external source, that life itself arose from chemical interactions, and was primitive when it arrived here.

there is no ultimate conscious creator that can exist outside of this. there is no god.

and humans did in fact cause climate change. it's not much geologically but your species can only exist in a narrow range. and you just moved most of the climate outside of it. now you have two choice: you can die out, or you can enact a sweeping genocide of the global south. i dont see the latter working so white people essentially just exterminated themselves.

deal with it, soon to be ex-nato member and loser of a massive trade war

>>4938162
Wolves and caribou have lived together forever. If prey I numbers are being depressed by a natural predator who’s own numbers are also low then something else is wrong