Sweden culls its resurgent wolves

[ccharles000]

Swedish hunters have begun culling wolves for the first time in 45 years after parliament ruled that numbers needed to be reduced again.

More than half the quota of 27 may have died on the first day alone with nine shot dead in Dalarna and up to nine killed in Varmland, Swedish radio says.

Hunters have until 15 February to complete the cull, which will leave Sweden with an estimated 210 wolves.

Some 10,000 hunters were reported to be planning to take part in the hunt.

Hunting in the county of Dalarna was halted as the county's individual quota was nine wolves.

Varmland's quota of nine "may also have been filled", the radio reported later on Saturday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8436670.stm

[msongs]

1. 10,000 gun toting killers versus only 14 wolves..how manly can ya get? nt

[Llewlladdwr]

2. Yeah, it'd be much better to let the wolves starve to death.

Or maybe wait until they get hungry enough to attack a person.

Loser.

[G_j]

3. will leave Sweden with an estimated 210 wolves.

that doesn't sound like many..

[MineralMan]

4. It's not many. How many would you like? How many, for

example, near your home? Or your children's school? Give us numbers.

[G_j]

6. I'm not afraid of wolves

I've worked with them. They are not a danger to people.

[MineralMan]

8. I see. Have you worked with wolf/dog hybrids, too.

There have been a number of cases of attacks on humans by these. But, hey, you're right...wolves are just big huggy-baby puppy dogs, fer shure.

[G_j]

9. yes I have

most of the danger comes from being abused or not being raised properly. They are not dogs.
IMO, the breeding of hybrids should be outlawed.

But we are not talking about hybrids here. Wolves are not a danger to humans.
Try to show me documentation of wolf attacks on humans.

[Mendocino]

10. 210 is about one per 828 square miles.

Add the cull number of 27 and it brings it to one in about 734. That would be like having 7 wolves in a state the size of Connecticut.

[G_j]

12. thanks for doing the math

really puts the number in perspective

[Mendocino]

20. Isle Royale in Michigan

is 210 square miles and supports about 20 wolves (1 per 10sm). Visitors rarely see wolves, nor are the wolves there starving. Isle Royale is comparable to Sweden in weather, topography, flora and fauna. Sweden is supporting roughly 70 less wolves per sm than I.R.

[Taitertots]

26. That presupposes that all of Sweden is available to them

How many square miles of Sweden are suitable for wolves to live on.?

[Mendocino]

34. I would estimate 108000 sm.

[LWolf]

5. Why is it okay to gun down other species in the name of

population control, but it's not okay to legislate safe population control for our own?

[MineralMan]

7. People have been killing other people for thousands of years.

Consider the genocide in Africa, for example. Consider the holocaust.

One might as well ask why is it OK to eat beef and chicken, but not humans.

[LWolf]

11. Not for the purpose of population reduction. nt

[MineralMan]

13. Really? So Hitler was not trying to reduce the population

of Jews? Are you sure about that? Are the genocidal wars in Africa not to reduce the population of particular tribal units? Are you sure about that?

Did we not work very hard in the USA to reduce the population of the indigenous population that was here when Europeans arrived. Are you sure about that.

All genocidal wars are designed to reduce specific populations. Read some history, then get back to me.

In the case of wolves, this culling is designed to reduce that population. Same as we have done so many times to humans we don't care for at that time.

So, which population of humans did you have in mind that needs to be reduced, and what's your plan to do that?

[LWolf]

16. Specific populations.

Genocide is a product of hate. It does not acknowledge the need for ALL humans to engage in responsible reproduction in order to prevent over-population.

You seem determined to miss the point, which is that it is hypocritical and unethical to kill to reduce the populations of other species when humanity isn't willing to control its own numbers.

Reproductive responsibility doesn't include genocide, or killing.

[MineralMan]

19. You were not particularly restrictive. You just said that humans

didn't cull their population in the way we cull wolves. I pointed out several instances where humans have done precisely that. I have missed no point. I am willing to control population numbers. To that end I have had no children, a decision I made in 1969. What have you done to control population?

Since you say ALL humans, I assume that you have a plan for controlling your own reproduction.

[G_j]

14. well the US health care system does some culling..

of course nobody calls it that.

[LWolf]

15. True.

Wars and the health care system do some.

Not that I want to "cull" people. I'd just like my species to use their advanced brains to ensure responsible reproduction.

A couple hundred wolves are too many, because there are how many people to sustain?

[MineralMan]

17. Oh, so you don't want to cull humans. That wasn't the impression

I got from your post. As for myself, I used my advanced brain to decide that I would not father any children. I decided that way back in 1969. I have not fathered any children. There are plenty of humans around, so I did something to limit population growth...the only thing I could do. I cannot compel others to make any reproductive decisions.

So, what's your plan for limiting human population?

[LWolf]

22. I'd like to convince most men to follow your example.

Seriously.

Women, as well.

I HAVE produced children. Two. After two, I convinced my then-husband, their father, to get a vasectomy. After I divorced him, I got a tubal ligation.

I was an only child. My mother was an only child. My two sons, both in their 30s, have, between them, produced one child, and have both determined that there will be no more children.

So, in the 103 years since my maternal grandmother was born, our line has not added any to the world's population, just replacing that one woman born in 1907.

If enough humans could make responsible reproductive choices, we wouldn't be overpopulating, and the reasons for war, for competition, for genocide would be reduced.

Not gone, since aggressive competition seems inherent in our species. But maybe we'd have the time to evolve out of it.

[MineralMan]

28. Maintaining the population at the same level does nothing to

reduce it. I hear many people who have had children complaining about population issues. When I explain my own refusal to add to the world's population, I most often get called "selfish," for some reason I do not understand.

It's fairly easy to encourage people to control their reproduction when you are an example of doing just that. It's somewhat more difficult to encourage others if you have added to the population yourself, I think.

You have made a reproductive choice, as have I. When you say you'd "like to encourage most men not to father children," I wonder just how you will manage to do that. Will you show them photos of your two children? Will that work, do you think?

The dangers of overpopulation have been known for a very long time. Some people, learning of this in their youth, decided to act to reduce human reproduction. Others decided that, while it was important to slow population growth, their children were somehow different or that they were somehow more suitable to add additional mouths to feed to the planet.

So, please forgive me if I tell you that your encouragement to others will not convince them. You are, effectively, encouraging others to do what you would not do. There are times when I wish I had children and, now, grandchildren. My decision deprives me of that, yet I made it freely and with reason, since my goal was to do what I could to slow population growth.

It's good that you understand the problem. Perhaps you were not aware of the problem when you bore your own children. I have no idea. But don't ask others to do what you were unwilling to do, OK? That'd be really good.

[LWolf]

32. I don't want to maintain it at the same level.

I want to reduce it.

Since it takes 2 for conception, if every person for the next generation restricted themselves to one child, the next generation would be cut in half.

In reality, if every person had only 2 offspring, the population would still reduce the population, due to disease, accident, war, etc.. It would just happen more slowly.

My point is not about me, though, as I'm sure you know. I realize that you've decided to target me for suggesting that people who won't control their own numbers shouldn't be deciding to cull the populations of other, much less populous species.

My point stands. The human species, unwilling to control their own population numbers, shouldn't be controlling the numbers of other species.

[MineralMan]

33. My point stands as well.

I'm not targeting anyone in particular. I told you about my decision and you responded by wishing that "most men" would do the same thing. I found that a little odd, given the fact that you did not do that. It's your decision, as it was mine. My decision reduced the population during my lifetime. I always find it interesting when people wish others to do what they have not done. Especially when it's "most men" who are the point of reference, with "women, too" added as an afterthought.

Words. They're important. Deeds, however, have more impact.

[G_j]

18. people here in WNC

are building homes on mountain ridges and ever expanding into the territory of black bears. Then we hear them complaining about the bears. It's typical, unfortunately.

[LWolf]

23. Yes.

Move into the territory of wild animals, and then feel threatened by them.

I like living rurally. That also means being aware that I share the area with cougars, bears, deer, elk, coyotes, and birds of prey that take my chickens. It's not that hard to learn to live peacefully with the neighbors.

[Taitertots]

21. Do you think we should?

Do I really need to explain why it is not happening?

[LWolf]

24. Of course not.

Just as I don't think we should be gunning down wolves to reduce their numbers.

[Taitertots]

25. Do you believe they are over populated? n/t

Are you qualified to make that decision?

[LWolf]

27. Humans? Yes.

Anyone who can find the population numbers, look at the growth of the population in the last century, follow the reduction in space, resources, and bio-diversity, while concurrently following the increase in planetary pollution of all kinds, can make those connections, and that decision.


At least as well, if not better, than those who determine that a couple of hundred wolves is too many.

[Taitertots]

29. I was talking about the wolves

"At least as well, if not better, than those who determine that a couple of hundred wolves is too many."

Do you have an advanced degree in a directly related field?
Have you ever been to Sweden?
How many years have you spent studying the ecology of Sweden?
How much work have you done in the field of animal carrying capacity?

[MineralMan]

30. Difficult questions, all of them, aren't they?

Asking difficult questions is important. Sometimes, it even makes people think for a minute or two. That's a good thing.

I figure I'll let the Swedes worry about the wolves in Sweden. Here in Minnesota, we have our own problem with wolves up in the Northern part of the state. They're beginning to cause serious losses to farmers here.

It's very likely that the population, which has been growing very quickly, will have to be limited by culling in the next few years. I suppose people who don't live here and who don't know anything about the state will immediately begin condemning Minnesota for controlling its wildlife populations.

And, so it goes...

[MineralMan]

31. And some of us have. Some of us, however, despite the general

knowledge of the overpopulation issue have not really done anything, personally, to help solve it. Odd, isn't it?