Conquer Club

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, 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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another greeney.

PS Greeney=Wyoming term for people from Colorado.

Would if I could, but I think that the people that abuse wolves, shouldn't have wolves in the first place.

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.

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.

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.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

only rich white ranchers want them dead

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'm pretty sure that the wolves are the originals, and dogs are the "non-original copy!"

karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead

I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!

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

Your efforts are laudable. However, I live far away and there are just too many more pressing local issues.
Think globally, act locally.

(I may be heading for the Gulf, but at this point, they need just people to wash and pick up tar, not restorationists).

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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).

CelticRose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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).

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?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

CelticRose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

Borderdawg wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

CelticRose wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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).

Often those that cannot be released are used for various educational purposes. Anything short of release into the wild is less than ideal, but sometimes a wild release is just not possible.

Some centers take "any" animal, though they often cannot deal with large predators like a wolf. Others take only certain creatures. Many are dedicated specifically to birds or to marine mammals, for example. Most are geared specifically toward an endangered species, but bird centers typically take in almost anything so that volunteers get the experience needed for when something endangered shows up. In each case, even to volunteer usually requires a lot of training and dedication. The commitment for keeping a bird alive, for example, can mean feeding it every 2 hours, 24 hours a day for a while.

Thank you Borderdawg and PLAYER57832, that is exactly what I'm taking about. The refuge is a permanent home. Wolves need to be taught by the other members of the pack how to hunt when they're young, without that, they can't survive, and certainly can't survive on their own. We also have a large number of wolf/dogs. Regardless, none of our animals are fit to be put into the wild (most never came from there to begin with). All our animals have had substantial contact with people prior to coming to us. We try our best to provide the animals with what they want.

We spay and neuter them to prevent more unwanted animals/pets, these aren't wild animals that we are going and sterilizing. Our theory is that we've rescued them once, we don't want to rescue them again. And seeing as there is a lack of funds to be creating more animals, and adopting out inst an option, they are spayed/neutered.

Greeney=Wyoming term for people from Colorado.

So is that like an inside joke between 12 people?

The Bison King wrote:

Greeney=Wyoming term for people from Colorado.

So is that like an inside joke between 12 people?

Not so much a joke as it is a deragotory name.

Am I still a greeney if I'm just here for college? I'm a Jersey girl....

CelticRose wrote:Am I still a greeney if I'm just here for college? I'm a Jersey girl....

Only if you have the Colorado license plate.

And it depends on which school.

Ranchers in the west are victim themselves to a very widely exaggerated rumor about wolves killing sheep and cows on their ranches. WHile it does happen the percentage of sheep killed by wolves vs. other sources of death is very low and the percentage of cows killed by wolves I believe is lower. May I also point out that out of all these cows, sheeps and other animals that wolves reportedly attack on ranches, that the wolves tend to go for the easier prey, the weaker animals in the group often even sick ones. basically ones that the rancher would net less money for anyways.

It's also shown that wolves are a very vital part of their eco-system affecting the populations of just about every animal that can be found in yellowstone from the over-populated elk to underpopulated grizzlies to beavers, fish, birds etc. In fact many of the species that the introduction of wolves have rebalanced are either over-populated like elk and coyote or threatened/endangered in the area.

Borderdawg wrote:

karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead

I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!

Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.

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?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Borderdawg wrote:

karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead

I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!

Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.

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?

Player, I agree, I was just being sarcastic at karel's racist jab!

Borderdawg wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Borderdawg wrote:

karel wrote:only rich white ranchers want them dead

I'd think anyone losing livestock to wolves would want them dead, regardless of race or financial status!

Only those who lack knowledge or who live in a situation where wolves have grossly exceeded available habitat.

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?

Player, I agree, I was just being sarcastic at karel's racist jab!

Oh, I see now.. sorry.

Wolves are awesome.

Too bad there aren't MOAR!1 wolves on that shirt.

Serbia wrote:Wolves are awesome.

Too bad there aren't MOAR!1 wolves on that shirt.

I couldn't agree more . If people just sent the website www.wolfwoodrefuge.org around to their friends it would help alot with wolf awareness and hopefully raise a little for the beautiful wolves.