You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Come on, we're talking about choosing which animals live and die.
Bravo...a very well written rebuttal! Emotions are heavy on both sides of this hunt. It is NOT just a one-sided argument as Ms. Callahan tries to depict it as being.
This "rebuttal" makes very little sense, a domesticated breed of dog, and a wolf are not the same animal. Pretty sure if you work in the field of wildlife conservation, you are likely to have some form of emotion/passion about animals. As far as your dog problem, tell your neighbor to keep their dog on a leash, maybe? Or if you are really mad about it, call animal control.
Its easy to pontificate when it is not your ox being gored Mr Scott.
Well, I think this counterpoing pretty much hits the nail on the head. I looked at Ms Callhan's wildlife center. If it's simply about science, why not take some of the money you collect to educate about wolves, bring in a school group and trap, shoot and skin one of your resident wolves right there. Educate them on how much better pelts are in the winter and how wolves nor people should use emotions about anything. Start with your captive wolves, because frankly, that's obviously the only ones that Wildlife Science Center cares about.
Also, if too much emotion is being used, Ms. Callahan should look at her own website, using pictures of mother wolves and pups, even their own mission statement about "inspiring relationships with wildlife" and using children to promote their quest. All well know marketing advertisement schemes to evoke emotion in people to donate money. Everything is emotional.
Thank you Mr. Scott. Very well said.
"Emotions are at the root of all of our decisions, good or bad. If you want to diminish their legitimacy in defense of your own biases, that's fine, but then I get to go take out Sammy" You can take out Sammy any time you like, Mr. Scott, but there will be consequences for you if you do. We supposedly live in a nation of law, and should you decide to kill your neighbor's annoying pet, depending on how you do it, you could be fined and/or imprisoned - regardless of your emotional state. The same rule of law applies to wolves. Right now, wolves are fair game under DNR management. So are deer, grouse, pheasant, dove, turkey, etc.; the difference being wolves are legal game for the first time in a long time, and those opposed to this state of affairs have, in some cases, reacted rather hysterically to the change. We saw a smaller burst of this same kind of reaction to the re-introduction of dove as legal game. Nothing like the reaction garnered by the change in status of the wolf; more people must identify in some way with wolves than doves I guess. So I think you can cut Ms Callahan some slack, Mr Scott. The law, not emotion, differentiates between what we can hunt and what we can't - and when. If you grant that emotion has a part in forming law, then you should not be surprised at emotion coming out in reaction to law.
Mr. Scott, you are so restrained in your response. There is no more irrational and emotional faction interested in this issue than hunters. When I first brought up the subject of wolves in front of a group of deer hunters 6 years ago I was stunned by the ignorance and behavior of every one of them. Most had shot at or killed wolves in the wild just because they competed with them for deer. They were obsessed with finding wolf kills of deer and seeking revenge on the animal that left so much meat. Their understanding of wolf behavior was simply based on a centuries old hysteria. This does not apply to all hunters but is present in most. The blunt fact is that the DNR disregarded all of the research, advice and history of delisting endangered species by rushing to set up a wolf hunting and trapping season. Thier bias and emotion runs high led by the Commissioner who has shown a blatant disregard for Native Americans while shoveing this hunt down the throats of 75% of the public that doesn't want it. From late September to December it is not safe for non-hunters to enter the woods. Certainly if you are planning a fall hike the first order for a parent is to determine the hunting season and the hunting allowed near your hiking area. The best plan, don't hike. I'll be back in the woods in January, looking for wolves, cougar and moose to photograph or simply see what they're up to, and enjoying the solitude and silence. Hope to not see you there.
I have a lot of respect for Ms Callahan, but she only told part of the science story. Wolves are top predators. First, it makes no sense from an ecological perspective to kill top predators. Their number one job is to make sure that the population of their prey doesn't explode. I'd rather have deer killed by their natural predators--both wolves and humans--than by cars! If NE MN has an abundance of wolves, then relocate some to areas in the lower 48 where they have been eradicated. Easier said than done, given the anti-predator bias among some. But from an ecological standpoint, it makes more sense than killing top predators. The second big point is ethics--not emotions--but ethics. Use what you kill. If wolf hunters aren't eating the wolves they bag, then we have to ask is it really valid ethically to kill an endangered top predator so you can have a trophy in your living room? So they're not endangered in NE MN, but as noted above, we could be relocating wolves to areas where we previously exterminated them.
Very well put, Mr. Scott. Thank you!!! And BTW, burchard, domesticated dogs and wolves ARE virtually the same animal.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks