Moderator: Community Team
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
Ahh...my fault. excuse me for being a bit out of it. And yes you're right that they shouldn't have wolves as pets. they are wild animals.muy_thaiguy wrote:My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
???? I'm pretty sure that the wolves are the originals, and dogs are the "non-original copy!"nietzsche wrote:wolves are disgusting really.. so many animals around and someone idealizes wolves, seriously, what a boring, disgusting, grey, non-original (copy from dogs) pseudo-animal.
I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead
Your efforts are laudable. However, I live far away and there are just too many more pressing local issues.CelticRose wrote:Hey guys,
Some of you might have seen me around, I joined a couple weeks ago. But since none of my games are moving, I'm going to plug my main form of time consumption, http://www.wolfwoodrefuge.org. I've volunteered with Wolfwood for almost 3 years now and we work with wolves who have had contact with people (often in the form of abuse) and give them a permanent home. We're totally non-profit. So yeah, If anyone is in the CO area and interested in volunteering or anywhere else in the globe and would like to be involved some how, let me know.
-CelticRose
muy_thaiguy wrote:My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
You don't believe in letting wolves reproduce by having them spayed and neutered, yet you claim that they are not pets. Hmmm. Tell me, what is wrong with this scenario?CelticRose wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
We don't believe in them being pets either. They all live outside in enclosures in their own mini packs. They came to us because people didn't know how to handle them after getting them as pets and can no longer go back in the wild. All of them are spayed/neutered. We don't believe in breeding them.
All of that said, we rescue them from certain death most of the time. Most places that get one of these animals in usually go right to euthanasia. Its not their fault they were born what they were in the wrong place, thus, we rescue them.
Side note, if any one read National Geographic a couple months ago, there was a chart in it about sheep deaths. Less than 1% was due to wolves. The rest was due to illness, freezing, coyotes, mountain lion, bear, etc... (the government will also compensate for livestock killed by wolves).
Muy, I think what CR means is the rescued animals (most of which were probably already spayed/neutered before rescue) are unfit for release and unable to survive on their own in the wild, and that letting them reproduce in captivity would be perpetuating a wrong.muy_thaiguy wrote:You don't believe in letting wolves reproduce by having them spayed and neutered, yet you claim that they are not pets. Hmmm. Tell me, what is wrong with this scenario?CelticRose wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
We don't believe in them being pets either. They all live outside in enclosures in their own mini packs. They came to us because people didn't know how to handle them after getting them as pets and can no longer go back in the wild. All of them are spayed/neutered. We don't believe in breeding them.
All of that said, we rescue them from certain death most of the time. Most places that get one of these animals in usually go right to euthanasia. Its not their fault they were born what they were in the wrong place, thus, we rescue them.
Side note, if any one read National Geographic a couple months ago, there was a chart in it about sheep deaths. Less than 1% was due to wolves. The rest was due to illness, freezing, coyotes, mountain lion, bear, etc... (the government will also compensate for livestock killed by wolves).
I don't this exact operation, but I know of the type. Centers to rehabilitate various types of wildlife exist all over the country. Their goal primary goal is to get as many as possible fit to return to the wild. Sadly, many either come too old to learn to survive on their own or are too weak/injured to survive on their own or, in the case of something like a wolf, might be too habitutated to human beings. (meaning they would seek out humans and become a nuisance) If they cannot be released, they might be spayed (in the case of wolves, in some other cases they may get birth control medication or, in a few cases could be part of an artificial breeding program aimed at building wild populations).Borderdawg wrote:Muy, I think what CR means is the rescued animals (most of which were probably already spayed/neutered before rescue) are unfit for release and unable to survive on their own in the wild, and that letting them reproduce in captivity would be perpetuating a wrong.muy_thaiguy wrote:You don't believe in letting wolves reproduce by having them spayed and neutered, yet you claim that they are not pets. Hmmm. Tell me, what is wrong with this scenario?CelticRose wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:My misunderstandings? I was just saying that people should not have wolves as pets. Or half-breeds for that matter (going by the OP's comment). After that, I am at a cross-roads when it comes to wolves.strike wolf wrote:As a fellow wolf supported I'd love to help out but I'm broke, have limited time and live in Georgia. Right now I focus mainly on trying to put up with Muy's misunderstandings about wolves.
We don't believe in them being pets either. They all live outside in enclosures in their own mini packs. They came to us because people didn't know how to handle them after getting them as pets and can no longer go back in the wild. All of them are spayed/neutered. We don't believe in breeding them.
All of that said, we rescue them from certain death most of the time. Most places that get one of these animals in usually go right to euthanasia. Its not their fault they were born what they were in the wrong place, thus, we rescue them.
Side note, if any one read National Geographic a couple months ago, there was a chart in it about sheep deaths. Less than 1% was due to wolves. The rest was due to illness, freezing, coyotes, mountain lion, bear, etc... (the government will also compensate for livestock killed by wolves).
So is that like an inside joke between 12 people?Greeney=Wyoming term for people from Colorado.
Not so much a joke as it is a deragotory name.The Bison King wrote:So is that like an inside joke between 12 people?Greeney=Wyoming term for people from Colorado.
Only if you have the Colorado license plate.CelticRose wrote:Am I still a greeney if I'm just here for college? I'm a Jersey girl....
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.Borderdawg wrote:I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead
Player, I agree, I was just being sarcastic at karel's racist jab!PLAYER57832 wrote:Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.Borderdawg wrote:I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead
Predators often get blamed for damage they did not really cause. In the case of wolves, there are places where they cause problems, but even then, the damage is often highly exaggerated (not necessarily by the ranchers themselves). It gets complicated, but the basic question is how much land should be left for wild animals.
At some point, we have to ask whether raising a few more cattle (I DO mean "a few") is really and truly worth the loss of a species?
Oh, I see now.. sorry.Borderdawg wrote:Player, I agree, I was just being sarcastic at karel's racist jab!PLAYER57832 wrote:Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.Borderdawg wrote:I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead
Predators often get blamed for damage they did not really cause. In the case of wolves, there are places where they cause problems, but even then, the damage is often highly exaggerated (not necessarily by the ranchers themselves). It gets complicated, but the basic question is how much land should be left for wild animals.
At some point, we have to ask whether raising a few more cattle (I DO mean "a few") is really and truly worth the loss of a species?

saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
I couldn't agree moreSerbia wrote:Wolves are awesome.
Too bad there aren't MOAR!1 wolves on that shirt.