While I can't argue with your quite accurate critique of the majority of editorials in the leader, I must ask you:Originally posted by T-Hawk Yooper:
With all due respect and sympathy to Mr. Daenicke and his dog Packer... Your claims that wolves will somehow develop a "healthy fear of humans" is without basis or supporting evidence. It is absurd to believe that firing a gun over a wolf's head will change its natural instincts, it is a "wild" animal. Quite possibly, the editor would rather have the average wolf hating citizen put a bullet in the animal (rather than over it's head) and send it down the river, as has happened to many of these much maligned animals. I understand that such biased claims are quite typical of many editorials written in this paper, but even so, making wild claims about the biological nature of wolves does little to help solve the problem. Suggesting that "young children" are somehow at risk does little more than stir the pot of hysteria that characterizes many citizens attitudes towards the wolf. Let's leave biological facts to the biologists, it's what they do.
I can't lie.. if anything validates a serious ecological conversation for me, it's Bonanza!!Originally posted by Catfish:
I believe the solution to this situation of wolves running at large on my eighty acres warrants, as Brian and Old Scout agree, to carry a pistol for protection. While the concealed carry law was shot down, we still can carry a weapon, not concealed, on our hip while walking in the woods. I really don't care if the animal is on the endangered list at all if it is attacking me, my wife, my kids, or my dog. Without hestation I will shoot to protect me and mine. If you watch Bonanza you see all of the citizen men carrying guns on their hip. They didn't play politics while walking in the woods.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests