Wolf!

[altivo]

Coyote hunter in Wisconsin shoots wolf by mistake.

Neighbor: "OMG, wolves! They'll eat our children."

'Tivo: "Only if you keep cranking them out like fast food."

(Disclaimer: This interaction is purely fictional but I'm sorely tempted to just say it instead of biting my tongue.)

Comments

[soanos.livejournal.com]

You mean, cranking out as in making them fat and full of lard? :D
Of course, leaving them outside with no surveillance or protection doesn't make them safer either. All that is missing is brown sauce, fries and plastic utensils for wolf buffet.

I may be wrong, but I think wolves just need to be in the receiving end of a big stick a few times and survive, so they will learn to avoid human settlements. But sometimes some wolves don't understand what is good for them, so they have to be put down.

And oh, yes, teach children they are not dogs, and not to be petted and that they will bite your head off, right after biting off the limbs if they don't keep their distance.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Probably ketchup is in order.

Yes, I was meaning that some people produce babies as if they were just packaging up McDonald's hamburgers as fast as they can make them. One every year or less. These same people are the ones who are inclined to dump the kids in the yard and ignore them for hours at a time, because they are "busy". If the wolves eat a few, well, there seem to be plenty more where those came from.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

dump the kids in the yard and ignore them for hours at a time

Though I do comprehend what you mean, I also wonder if that might wind up being the biggest favor ever done them. It's probably far less harmful than being the subjects of parental scripting in minutia.

---

I recall an article in a WI paper several years after the timber wolf was reintroduced. The change in people's reaction was noted. At first it was almost universally against the reintroduction. Then later it was "our wolves." So it's not as bad as many of the comments make it seem.

One comment did strike me. The one that "There are no wolves, like there are no cougars, according to the DNR." While the DNR does get a lot of abuse it doesn't deserve, it does deserve some. There is more than they are directly aware of, but unless the evidence comes up and bites them or such, it's just hearsay to them. I've seen things myself that "don't exist here" too often to consider their claims of what is and is not in an area to be at all worthwhile.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The article in our printed paper was longer and included statistics and population estimates. The official estimated wolf population for Wisconsin as of 2006 was 550. That's not the same as saying "There are no wolves" in my book. It is probably still low enough to justify a protected status, though.

Deer population all over the midwest is very high right now, and the number of road accidents involving deer has been rising. You'll note, though, that the comments also claimed that the wolves were "killing all the deer" in northern WI, which I find extremely unlikely. The wolf just gets a very bad treatment in the popular imagination, for whatever reason. Historic records from any period simply do not justify the pathological fear of wolves that so many people seem to have.

I agree that leaving kids on their own is better than micromanaging them, but only up to a point. Dumping the one year old and two year old out in the yard to be "watched" by the three year old doesn't provide much intellectual and linguistic stimulation at a time when it is really important, for instance. In an urban or suburban area, it also exposes the kids to human predation, something that ought to cause much more concern than the risk that a wolf, coyote, or cougar would carry them off.

My suspicion is that some of those illiterate comments came from people who were "left to their own devices" as kids, rather than receiving some appropriate guidance and stimulus.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

As for the idea of no wolves there, that was at best hyperbole but more likely ignorance or stupidity.

It is sadly amazing to see how much perception and reality differ. I've said that a person should think of something he or she knows and knows well and then recall how badly the last TV report or newspaper article about it was and realize that the media gets everything else just as wrong. But it's not just media, it's all too many people.

That is a too young for that. A bit older and then just enough watchfulness to prevent any real disasters would seem to be the ideal. With the amount of surveillance decreasing with time.

I also wonder how much is trolling and how much is parroting of nonsense. Not that there's all that much difference.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

I think I'll better not comment on that story.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm not happy that they're allowed to shoot at coyotes up there year round, either. But the stupid hysteria over the word "wolf" is really irritating. It takes only a little common sense to be safe from wolves even if they are around.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yeah - as far as large predators are concerned, wolves are probably among the most harmless you can encounter.

[jairus-greywolf.livejournal.com]

*laughs* That would have been a good reply!

What is sad though are the comments to that article :/

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Good reply yes, but wasted on the people who need to hear it most.

The lack of literacy in the comments just emphasizes the empty heads from which they are echoing. People are incredibly shallow and thoughtless, but that's not news at all. I'm bothered by the "open season" on coyotes even more than I am by the loss of a wolf or two. The idea that wolves are killing adult cattle in any number is just ludicrous. If they eat children of the gene stock that produced those comments, then I'm all for MORE wolves myself.

[farhoug.livejournal.com]

"Wolf eats coyote hunter, wolf comments: 'Sorry, same mistake' - Coyotes overjoyed."

[marzolan.livejournal.com]

Oh if only... And then when they sent another hunter to put the wolf down, I'd find said hunter and put him down.

[farhoug.livejournal.com]

"Tiger eats wolf hunter, commenting: 'Definitely undercooked, need more spices.'"

[marzolan.livejournal.com]

"Wisconsin residents forget about wolf and worry about recent tiger sightings. Tiger comments: 'They better worry.'"

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Most of them would give you indigestion I'm sure. Too much fat, no protein. Of course if you were collecting brains for a vol au vent you'd have to catch an awful lot of them in order to have enough brains...

[silver-kiden.livejournal.com]

do it. you know you want to. i would.

[saythename.livejournal.com]

I had this huge, HUGE, argument once with a sister
about hunting Deer.

"You'd prefer them hit by cars, or ripped apart by
wolves, instead of shot and dead fast?"

"Its cruel!"

*facepaws*

"Look, we killed off all the wolves, we are the top
predators now. Either they starve looking for tree
bark or we do it. Or should we reintroduce wolves
in the streets?"

"Yeah!"

*rolls his eyes*

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer to let the wolves eat them, yes. Deer hunting has enormous problems, from the madness of hunters shooting each other, sometimes deliberately as was happening around here just a couple of years ago, to the ones who shoot wildly at anything that moves, horses, cows, sheep, and dogs included. Wolves take down the old, the weak, and the sick, where hunters are after the best specimens that it would be most desirable to preserve.

I won't even get into the stupid culture of macho that is associated with deer hunting...