CBC poll on culling wolves- needs yes votes

Bulkley Mouse

Bulkley Mouse

Member
Rating - 100%
56   0   0
Might be here on CGN already but I could not find it....


Subject: Wolf Cull on CBC -


Time to vote on this one. Forward to your friends too. Miles behind on this pull right now


h ttp://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/02/should-wolves-be-culled-to-protect-the-woodland-caribou.html#pd_a_5969400
 
M12shooter said:
That's because most respondents are from metropolitan areas. Most would argue up and down that the coyote they saw once in their lives was indeed a huge wolf.
Click to expand...

No, thats not the reason. Its because the CBC used the "C" word. Nobody likes the term "cull". They see it as a slaughter.

A better written article would have been titled "Are changes to the Hunting Regulations needed to achieve a healthy balance between wolves and the endangered woodland caribou"

I think that would have achieved a better response from people who see all animals as cute fuzzy creatures.
 
So the mythical wolf is threatened once again.:rolleyes: I'm surprised that these things aren't Canada's national symbol or something.
 
mvarley84 said:
A better written article would have been titled "Are changes to the Hunting Regulations needed to achieve a healthy balance between wolves and the endangered woodland caribou"
Click to expand...

I completely agree, though we all know that logic and a rational response to a wildlife management issue are not part of most antis' thought processes.
 
mvarley84 said:
No, thats not the reason. Its because the CBC used the "C" word. Nobody likes the term "cull". They see it as a slaughter.

A better written article would have been titled "Are changes to the Hunting Regulations needed to achieve a healthy balance between wolves and the endangered woodland caribou"

I think that would have achieved a better response from people who see all animals as cute fuzzy creatures.
Click to expand...

exactly.
Voted this morning and I think it was around 37% in favour .
 
mvarley84 said:
No, thats not the reason. Its because the CBC used the "C" word. Nobody likes the term "cull". They see it as a slaughter.

A better written article would have been titled "Are changes to the Hunting Regulations needed to achieve a healthy balance between wolves and the endangered woodland caribou"

I think that would have achieved a better response from people who see all animals as cute fuzzy creatures.
Click to expand...

Rest assured the CBC has worded it like that intentionally. They have no interest in unbiased and balanced journalism.
 
The whole article has issues. Only an idiot would think the same solution (culling) would be appropriate when the animals in question are spread from Labrador to BC.

Predator/prey ratio imbalances, new range extensions due to development, hunting pressure (or lack thereof) for the species involved-- this is far from as simple a shooting a few wolves and celebrating a problem solved with a cold can of Lucky! :cool:
 
bearkilr said:
Rest assured the CBC has worded it like that intentionally. They have no interest in unbiased and balanced journalism.
Click to expand...

oh believe me, I know how it works...they determined the outcome by using that title. There are 3 groups of people who are going to read this article...those who want a cull, those who are completely against it, and the largest group; those who do not know enough information to make an informed decision. It is the latter group that is swayed by the wording of the title and the article.
 
With all due respect, what makes us all as hunters think that it is a good idea to cull wolves based on the fact that the tar sands have lowered the caribou numbers?.... I am not anti wolf hunting but fail to see where a "cull" is required.... it isn't as if what is causing them to outnumber the caribou is natural.... we brought this s**t on ourselves with the tar sands........ keep the regular hunt going and let nature take it's course for the rest...
 
Last edited:
The whole thing here is a wasted effort. I voted for a cull, but if cull only means loosening regulations for hunters, then it doesn't mean a thing. Hunters have not kept and can not keep wolves in check.
There was a bounty of $25 per wolf in BC, until about the end of the 1950s. A man working in the bush made about $10 a day at that time, so 25 dollars bounty would look pretty good. But the wolves in BC increased to the point where they caused a major loss to ranchers, as well as reducing game in general and decimating local populations of some types of game.
Early in the 1950s the BC launched a major wolf poisoning program, lasting for several years and greatly reducing the wolf population. This alowed game to make a major comeback.
That is what I call a cull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom