Wolves on killing trail in southern Norway

Mikkael

Padawan Learner
There was an article yesterday 7th of June in Norwegian newspaper VG which speaks about the series of recent assaults on sheeps caused by wolfs (according to Jon Petter Bersgrud from State Naturoppsyn who says it's classic pattern ) with total count of 87 killed sheep just in one week! It is in the area of Gran kommune which is perhaps some 50 km north of Oslo, and according to VG it is far from wolfs territory.

First of the series of attacks came on Tuesday 30th of May with 32 dead sheep in Hurdal, then on Thursday 1st of June with 18 sheep in Gran østås, then Sunday 4th of June with 19 dead and on Tuesday 6th of June again 18 dead in the same area of Gran. And right afterwards the following night to Wednesday there was yet another attack however with no available information of how many were hurt or killed at the time and I didn't see any follow up in today's press.

It appears from reporting that few of the animals were really eaten while most have been found with large bite marks on throat, legs, belly or head and many were badly torn and skinned of flesh with bowels out of bodies. No wonder that farmers who live there in the area are alarmed and shocked and are organizing hunt to kill the wolves.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/ulv/87-sauer-drept-av-ulv-paa-under-en-uke-en-tragedie/a/24022970/
 

Attachments

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Thanks for sharing the newsbit, Mikkael. That must've been an unpleasant sight. Do you know why it is a classic pattern according to Bersgrud? Do wolf packs usually go to that area this time of the year?

Mikkael said:
It appears from reporting that few of the animals were really eaten while most have been found with large bite marks on throat, legs, belly or head and many were badly torn and skinned of flesh with bowels out of bodies.
I read this bit here that could be related (apologies for the gory details):

Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.

"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)

"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system." (pg.124, emphasis added).
I also found this page with a bit more information on wolf behavior, where people write (a few here):

Under normal circumstances what would happen is that wolves would kill a significant number of animals and then would eat as much as they could, while caching some and potentially losing the rest to other predators (bears, big cats) as well as quite a bit to other carnivores and scavengers. [...]

Wolves do not kill for sport. There are various factors which are responsible for surplus killings by wolves:

1.) Only 6-8% of their attacks are successful as compared to other predators like lion, tigers (avg of 27-30%) which gives them a natural instinct to hunt more.

2.) Sometimes preys are not being eaten instantly. They may hide their prey for later use (generally works in very cold areas).

3.) Wolves are very specific in diet.. They only eat some specific organs which might be because of taste or nutritious value. For example it has been found that foxes have breached poultry farms sometimes killing hundreds of chicken and eating their heads only and leaving the rest of the chicken intact. [...]

Wolves aren't successful in every hunt, in fact they usually fail, so when they find a bunch of sheep they may kill more than they can eat. But they will return for the rest later, it's not as if they just kill the sheep for no reason.
However, if it is unusual for wolves to go to this particular region and to kill as many as they did, it may be a 'sign of the times'.
 

Mikkael

Padawan Learner
Thanks for additional info Oxajil and as I have read through the links you provided it became clearer that similar surplus killings are sometimes known to happen with wolves. I first thought it was so unusual with so many torn bodies eh, well it is unusual.

I live few hundred kilometres to the north from mentioned places and I wouldn't expect wolves in that area at all but reality is different (check the attached map) After I did some search for data I found this: (freely translated from Norwegian)
Original wolf descent in Scandinavia was exterminated throughout century of hunting and by 1960's it was totally wiped out. Today's wolf stock in Scandinavia descend from only three wolves of finnish-russian origin and became appearing in south of Scandinavia in 80's - 90's. Then a new wave appeared in 2006-2007 and 2013.

During the winter 2016-2017 it is calculated total stock of 430 wolves in Scandinavia. There are registered 46 family groups and 28 marked pairs (alpha pair who as a rule live together throughout their life). About 56 wolves live in Norway territory though wolves has been known wandering without passports over borders and majority of the wolves roaming free in Sweden.
So it looks that these wolves who did these attacks could come from Sweden and return back as it is not too far and indeed not far from their territory.

So let's see what will happen next
 

Attachments

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the info and the attached maps, Mikkael.

Mikkael said:
So it looks that these wolves who did these attacks could come from Sweden and return back as it is not too far and indeed not far from their territory.

So let's see what will happen next
Yeah, perhaps they came from Sweden. Do keep an eye on it and keep us updated if you can, and if you notice it is rather unusual, it could be an item for SOTT.

A little sidenote: Generally, wolves are afraid of humans and if they would see them, they would hide or run away, but attacks have happened, so do stay careful, too. Just in case:

If you happen to meet a wolf or bear alone in the wild, you should step away facing the animal and make noises like singing or talking. Don’t run: they are much, much faster than you and it might trigger their predatory instincts. If a wolf follows, make yourself seem large and dangerous, step towards rather than away from it. If it against all odds were to attack, fight back! If a bear moves towards you, however, drop some belongings and hopefully that will shift the attention away from you. If, again against all odds, you are attacked, lie down on the ground face down and protect your head and neck. - Source
More here: http://westernwildlife.org/gray-wolf-outreach-project/wolf-saftey/
 

HiThere

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Sadly, it is not uncommon for wolves to go on killing sprees like this, because modern sheep has been bred for centuries to become docile, with very little of their instincts intact.
When the sheeps' forebears were attacked in the wild, this triggered a flee response among the others.
Modern sheep often do not react to a neigbour being attacked, and just stays put.

This triggers the wolf to attack them, because not running away is a sign of disease in the wild - all healthy prey flee from attacks.
The wolves have instincts that make them hunt down sick and weak prey - it is their role in nature.

When they come across multiple sheep that are too stupid to flee, and in some cases are surrounded by fences, this ends with mass killings and hatred for wolves among people. :(
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A
Mikkael said:
[...]
Original wolf descent in Scandinavia was exterminated throughout century of hunting and by 1960's it was totally wiped out. Today's wolf stock in Scandinavia descend from only three wolves of finnish-russian origin and became appearing in south of Scandinavia in 80's - 90's. Then a new wave appeared in 2006-2007 and 2013.

During the winter 2016-2017 it is calculated total stock of 430 wolves in Scandinavia. There are registered 46 family groups and 28 marked pairs (alpha pair who as a rule live together throughout their life). About 56 wolves live in Norway territory though wolves has been known wandering without passports over borders and majority of the wolves roaming free in Sweden.
So it looks that these wolves who did these attacks could come from Sweden and return back as it is not too far and indeed not far from their territory.

So let's see what will happen next
430 wolves emerging from only three? If that is true, those wolves must be inbred. Almost as bad as Adam and Eve :) The inbreeding may have led to a deterioration of the stock and behaviour But as other have pointed out, surplus killing, excessive killing or the henhouse syndrom is real, and not only among wolves

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing said:
In late autumn, least weasels often surplus kill vole and then dig them up and eat them on winter days when it is too cold to hunt.[1] Surplus killing by wolves has mainly been observed when snow is unusually deep in late winter or early spring, and the wolves have frequently cached their prey for eating days or weeks later. On February 7, 1991, in Denali National Park, six wolves killed at least 17 caribou and left many untouched. By February 12, 30–95% of each carcass had been eaten or cached, and by April 16, several had been dug up and fed upon again.[10] In March 2016, a Wyoming wolf pack of 9 wolves were found to have slaughtered 19 Elk. John Lund from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, claimed to have never documented surplus killings to that extreme.[11]

In surplus killing, predators eat only the most-preferred animals and animal parts. Bears engaging in surplus killing of salmon are likelier to eat unspawned fish because of their higher muscle quality, and high-energy parts such as brains and eggs.[1] Surplus killing can deplete the overall food supply, waste predator energy and risk them being injured. Nonetheless, researchers say animals surplus kill whenever they can, in order to procure food for offspring and others, to gain valuable killing experience, and to create the opportunity to eat the carcass later when they are hungry again.[1][12]
With respect to wolves see also _https://www.outsideonline.com/2066881/truth-about-wolf-surplus-killing-survival-not-sport

There is a webpage that has an article that tries to bust some of the ideas about wolves, fx:

_http://oregonoutdoorcouncil.org/top-wolf-myths-busted-wolves-do-attack-people-do-impact-hunting-do-surplus-kill-et-al/ said:
Wolves only kill what they eat - BUSTED

Definition of Surplus Killing: a common behavior exhibited by predators, in which they kill more prey than they can immediately eat and then cache or abandon the remainder.

Early in calving when the wolves are hungry, they eat the entire calf they kill. As calves become more abundant, wolves shift to killing and only eat small portions of the calves. Finally, as the majority of calves have been birthed and wolves no longer need sustenance they begin to wound or kill large quantities of calves without eating any portion. - Pat Valkenburg, Alaska Fish and Game, June 2014

In June 2004, the nine wolves in the Cook pack, according to High Country News, killed 70 sheep, far more than they could eat.
In August 2009, according to the Missoulian, wolves killed 120 sheep near Dillon, Montana.
Sometime in 2009, according to multiple sources, wolves killed 105 sheep on a ranch in Idaho.
In February of 2011, the Canadian Journal of Zoology found 34 caribou calves killed by wolves.
In August of 2013, wolves killed 176 sheep near Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Examples From Michigan between 2006 - 2008, according to Michigan Live:
Forty 10-week-old Ring-necked pheasants were killed in August 2008 in Luce County.
Thirty-eight geese and 12 ducks were killed a month later in Ontonagon County.
Thirty-five chickens were killed in February 2006 in Alger County.

Renowned Alaskan biologist Pat Valkenburg has documented wolves surplus killing caribou calves in Alaskan calving grounds.
Wolves only kill the sick and old - BUSTED

Please refer to bullet point number two, "wolves only kill what they eat."
Wolves don't impact hunting - BUSTED

Gray wolves have played a dramatic role in a 20 percent reduction of Idaho's elk herds over the past 15 years -- and that could be an omen for eastern Oregon's 60,000 Rocky Mountain elk in the Blue Mountains. Idaho elk numbers have fallen from 125,000 to 103,000 since about 1997 to the dismay of hunters, professional big game outfitters and small businesses that depend on seasonal revenues from hunters. - Oregonian, February 2012

Elk numbers are currently well below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway Zones. Currently wolves, which were not present during the early portion of this elk decline, are a major mortality factor on older calves (≥ 6-month old) and cow elk (Zager et al. 2007b, Pauley et al. 2009). Lower cow and calf survival due to wolves is continuing to suppress the elk population (Pauley et al. 2009, Pauley and Zager 2011). - Idaho Fish and Game, December 2011

We predict the caribou herd will disappear, largely because of wolf predation. There are about 15 bulls left on the island and about 200 cows that are all over about 8 years old. Essentially no calves have been able to survive for about 8 years. - Pat Valkenburg, Alaska Fish and Game June 2014.
Maybe the sheep will disappear, but so far no Norwegians have been taken, but is that next?
_http://oregonoutdoorcouncil.org/top-wolf-myths-busted-wolves-do-attack-people-do-impact-hunting-do-surplus-kill-et-al/ said:
Wolves don't attack people - BUSTED

There are no known gray wolf attacks on humans in modern times in North America - USFW

The definition of "modern times" according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: the present or the immediate past. Considering most animal rights and environmental groups claim that the wolf has been nearly extinct since the early 1900s, it's obvious that there would be no documented attacks, so let's evaluate times when wolves were plentiful. Historically Documented Attacks, When Wolves Were Plentiful*:

France: Between 1580 and 1830, 3,069 people were killed by wolves
Italy: Between the 15th and 19th century 440 people were killed by wolves
Russia: Between 1943 and 1947, 60 people were killed by wolves, 46 were children
India & Pakistan: In 1875, 721 people were killed by wolves
Iran: In 2005 and 2008 two people were killed.

North America: Prior to the 1700s there were no records kept on wolf attacks. However, there is a lot of folklore from Native American culture which depicts wolf attacks. In 1807 during the Lewis and Clark Expedition camped on the shores of the Yellowstone River when a wolf came into camp and bit Private Richard Windsor.

Near the Ohio border in 1803, wolves attacked two men, killing one.
In 1833 a wolf attacked a trapper camp in Wyoming biting 13 people.
In 1881 an 18 year old female was attacked by a wolf in Colorado.
In the Canadian Arctic Expedition of 1913-1918 a wolf attacked the expedition, which is now on display in the National Museum in Ottawa.
In 1922 a trapper and two Indians sent to find the trapper were found killed by wolves.

Modern Times, When Wolves Are "Near Extinction"*:

In 1974-1975 wolves killed 165 dogs in Fairbanks, Alaska, which resulted in the killing of 13 wolves. After the wolves were culled, the attacks reportedly drastically dropped.
In 1996 five wolves attacked and killed 25 year old Patricia Wyman in Ontario.
In 2000 a 6 year old boy and 9 year old boy were attacked by a wolf in Icy Bay, Alaska.
In 2000, 23 year old Scott Langevin was attacked by a wolf while sleeping on Vargas Island in British Columbia.
In 2005, Kenton Carnegie was attacked and killed by wolves in northern Saskatchewan.
In 2005, Fred Desjarlais was attacked in Saskatchewan when returning home from Key Lake.
In 2006 six people were attacked by a wolf in Ontario.
In 2010, Candice Berner was jogging in Chignik Lake, Alaska when she was attacked and killed by wolves.
In 2013, a good samaritan driver Dawn Hepp was attacked by a wolf on the side of the road in Manitoba.
In 2013, a teenager was attacked while in his sleeping bag in Minnesota. He physically pried the wolf's jaw open to remove his head.

Many other "close calls" have been reported.
As I wrote this post, I thought about the fate of the Norwegian sheep, possibly killed by intruding wolves from across the border. It reminded me of NATO going on killing sprees, either on its own or through proxis every so often. Actually, on the forum there is a whole thread devoted to cases where "surplus killing" involved the death of numerous civilians https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,42757.0.html . As far as I recall, a few of the bodies of the blown up humans looked even more gory and dismembered than the surplus killed Norwegian sheep.

Btw wolves returned to Denmark in 2012-2014 while Anders Fogh Rasmussen was General Secretary of NATO and no kidding, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was replaced by Jens Stoltenberg, who is hmm... Norwegian. If there is a cause and effect, give Jens a call.
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Hithere said:
... this ends with mass killings and hatred for wolves among people. :(
Yes, unfortunately, wolves do have a bad name. In the end, they are carnivores, and they have to hunt and kill to get their meal, or do so out of instinct. Same with cats, dogs, and other carnivores. It's the way of nature. Of course, with regard to wolves, they can start eating the livestock of a community of people, so in a way it's understandable that people are not very happy with them! But they are quite amazing animals in other ways, for example the importance of social bonds between wolf members, and the way they look after their young as a team. YouTube has a few interesting documentaries on them.

thorbiorn said:
Btw wolves returned to Denmark in 2012-2014 while Anders Fogh Rasmussen was General Secretary of NATO and no kidding, Anders Fogh Rasmussen was replaced by Jens Stoltenberg, who is hmm... Norwegian. If there is a cause and effect, give Jens a call.
Surely, many NATO officials are 'wolves in sheep's clothing'!
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
thorbiorn said:
There is a webpage that has an article that tries to bust some of the ideas about wolves, fx:
Thanks thorbiorn for posting this - this seems to represent what most in the hunter community think, and they do have a point IMO.

The other day I talked to an older hunter who was really upset about the environmentalist/vegetarian crowd that wants to re-introduce the wolves here in Germany. He said he can't believe it - not too long ago, people were afraid for their children that when they walked from one village to the next, they might get attacked by wolves, and now these idiots want to reintroduce them? Also, more wolves obviously means less game for the hunters, thus less food for humans.

Of course, preserving species is a good thing, especially in terms of reducing unnecessary suffering for animals. But I do find it disturbing that many people on the left and in the mainstream nowadays seem to put animal rights before human rights! You know, "oh, poor little wolves", when wolves are dangerous predators and compete for food sources with humans.

While there are of course many cruel idiots among hunters, many have a very healthy and common sense outlook on nature: they love nature, they love wildlife and animals, do a lot to protect them and understand them, yet at the same time also understand that nature is about life and death, about predators and prey, about balance and so on. So they (rightly, IMO) find the idea ridiculous to worship wolves and re-populate a densely populated place like Germany with them, which often is fueled by an anti-hunter ideology, kind of like "if we have wolves to take out wild game, then we don't need hunters anymore!" It's really anti-human if you think about it.
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
luc said:
While there are of course many cruel idiots among hunters, many have a very healthy and common sense outlook on nature: they love nature, they love wildlife and animals, do a lot to protect them and understand them, yet at the same time also understand that nature is about life and death, about predators and prey, about balance and so on. So they (rightly, IMO) find the idea ridiculous to worship wolves and re-populate a densely populated place like Germany with them, which often is fueled by an anti-hunter ideology, kind of like "if we have wolves to take out wild game, then we don't need hunters anymore!" It's really anti-human if you think about it.
The outlook on nature you described sounds like a healthy and balanced way to look at it. Re-populating wolves in a populated area is indeed a dangerous idea. Children can be seen as 'prey' and attacked in such a situation. In the Netherlands, wolf sightings are quite rare, but the ones who have visited actually came from Germany. One of the wolves that was spotted (November, 2016) came from eastern Germany. That wolf sighting was the second sighting in about a 100 years.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Oxajil said:
luc said:
While there are of course many cruel idiots among hunters, many have a very healthy and common sense outlook on nature: they love nature, they love wildlife and animals, do a lot to protect them and understand them, yet at the same time also understand that nature is about life and death, about predators and prey, about balance and so on. So they (rightly, IMO) find the idea ridiculous to worship wolves and re-populate a densely populated place like Germany with them, which often is fueled by an anti-hunter ideology, kind of like "if we have wolves to take out wild game, then we don't need hunters anymore!" It's really anti-human if you think about it.
The outlook on nature you described sounds like a healthy and balanced way to look at it. Re-populating wolves in a populated area is indeed a dangerous idea. Children can be seen as 'prey' and attacked in such a situation. In the Netherlands, wolf sightings are quite rare, but the ones who have visited actually came from Germany. One of the wolves that was spotted (November, 2016) came from eastern Germany. That wolf sighting was the second sighting in about a 100 years.
In this paper, there is an account of attacks by wolves in different countries _http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/PppBasePdf/oppdragsmelding/731.pdf And as Oxajil indicated, it is children who are most at risk, according to the records.

It is true as the hunter says that wolfes may pose a danger to people on foot, wolves can be a travel hazard. The question is if these will not always exist. According to statitistics: _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate in Germany more than 4 out of 100,000 people get killed in road accidents every year, and that is very low in comparison with many other countries. Of course we do not wish pedestrians to die, so here is some advice from Russia if one meets a wolf in the wild: _https://sputniknews.com/world/201611071047152587-russia-wolves-kids-axe/

“Once our sons, aged 12 and 14, were on their way home when, all of a sudden, they saw a wolf running right at them,” the kids’ parents told local media.

Yevgeni Seberov, a local forester, said that when stumbling upon a wolf or any other dangerous predator one should never run off like the two boys did.
“They can jump you at night but hardly in broad daylight.”

Another former forestry serviceman said a slingshot might be much more effective. But both men agreed the most important thing was not to panic and not to show the animal fear.
Couold some of the children, women and men who died or were injured in the past, due to wolves have saved their lives if they had known not to panic? Probably not in all cases, what if the wolf was rabid? What if there were to many wolves like 400?:
_http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354445/Super-pack-400-wolves-kill-30-horses-just-days-remote-Russian-village.html
_http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-wolves-siberia-yakutia-wwf-423480
_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/wolf-attacks-lead-to-state-of-emergency-in-russias-siberia-regio/

400 is a lot, too many, but from the point of the environment, in areas where there are many deers even a single wolf will make a difference. This I know from observations made by an acquaintance who has seen a wolf twice. He said the deers in his forest changed behaviour when a wolf was around. Instead of roaming inside the forest, the deers assembled in more open areas and stayed together. In the above context it was interesting to listen to another acquaintance at one moment cursing the wolves, but also upset with the deers because they do much damage to his trees.

Wolves may be a problem to humans and so can deers be, since they tend to carry the ticks around, which in some cases get transferred to humans. If the ticks are infected, they transmit diseases: _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-borne_disease Therefore, it is true that wolfes can be dangerous for humans, but is this compensated if the tick bearing deers are kept better in control by wolfes? Because, if there were no antibiotices more people would suffer from ticks than from wolfes.

Then I looked at the population numbers of wolves:
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gray_wolf_populations_by_country It is remarkable that some areas that are not that big claim to carry quite a population. Lebanon has 50 wolves, Israel 150! Macedonia 1000? From Macedonia there is also an article with a video of one man who has three wolfes as pets: _https://sputniknews.com/europe/201702111050575839-macedonia-villager-wolves/ What amazed me is that some areas carry a lot of wolfes and no headlines, while others make world news based on even a single sighting.

Here is a page that wants not only wolves, but other large predator to be introduced in Europe. _http://www.wolvesandhumans.org/index.htm
One danger to wolfes, at least in western Europe, could be that they might interbreed with dogs: _http://www.consevol.org/pdf/Hindrikson_etal_2016_BiolRev.pdf

In conclusion, I agree with the hunter that wolfes can be a risk (just like some dogbreeds that have been prohibited in some countries), but I also think that many deers can be an indirect risk to human life and a problem if the goal is to grow trees for timber, furniture, and firewood. Deers when killed become meat on the table, and before that they were having a much freer life than the average consumer meat. If not culled properly by hunters then a few more wolves to keep the deer population down may be a good thing. What some of the environmentalist probably want, is to create a situation where hunting is limited to the max, as a result there is a "need" for reintroducing big predators.
 

Aeneas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
luc said:
Of course, preserving species is a good thing, especially in terms of reducing unnecessary suffering for animals. But I do find it disturbing that many people on the left and in the mainstream nowadays seem to put animal rights before human rights! You know, "oh, poor little wolves", when wolves are dangerous predators and compete for food sources with humans.

While there are of course many cruel idiots among hunters, many have a very healthy and common sense outlook on nature: they love nature, they love wildlife and animals, do a lot to protect them and understand them, yet at the same time also understand that nature is about life and death, about predators and prey, about balance and so on. So they (rightly, IMO) find the idea ridiculous to worship wolves and re-populate a densely populated place like Germany with them, which often is fueled by an anti-hunter ideology, kind of like "if we have wolves to take out wild game, then we don't need hunters anymore!" It's really anti-human if you think about it.
Interesting thread and I agree with the above. In Denmark there is a big movement, which now are running the show, who wants to let the forest go wild again. That implies no upkeep or only a minimum upkeep as the idea is to let it become forests like it 'used' to be. After the last storm last year, huge areas with trees that had fallen in the storm were left to just rot. The end result of this approach is that after a number of years, the CO2 balance in a forest remains at zero as the growth there is equalled to the decay. Otherwise a productive forest can add 12-18m3/hectar/year. And the irony is that the same people who wish for the forest to grow wild are the same people who wish to cut CO2 emissions.

In order not to get too far away from the subject of wolves, the same movement (very similar to the romantic movement in the 19th century) also introduces the fallow deer to nature a few years ago and without a hunting period. Needless to say, this created a big population, which is where the wolf comes into the picture as the wolf is seen as the ideal predator to keep the deer population down. So it can be seen as hegelian: problem, reaction, solution.

There are some who speak for letting big areas of Denmark go back to nature, which makes you wonder, where are people meant to live and from what exactly. As long as a country is rich, it can buy food and everything else outside, but this too will come to a natural end as resources run out. Another part of that equation is that it relies on exploiting other countries and their resources. One example here is woodchips, that Denmark uses a lot as it is scrapping coal fired powerstations and wishes to rely on wind, solar and woodchips. As this requires enormous amounts of woodchips, the power stations are placed near the water, where wood chips then can be delivered by ship from the Baltic states, South Africa and Ghana. The results are of course that it creates a problem in a very colonialist manner elsewhere. The woodchips come from huge plantations if not old forests.

_http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/who-says-its-green-to-burn-woodchips-1808994.html
The Global Forest Coalition said that, in South America, tree plantations have had devastating effects on people and the environment, and have nothing like the biodiversity or ecological function of natural forests, whether they are first or even second growth. These plantations, it said, are "green deserts" because of the amount of water they consume, and because of the lack of native wildlife.
So essentially anti-human: looking good in the eyes of ideologically driven 'green' people by raping the resources of other countries.
 

Mikkael

Padawan Learner
Thanks Thorbiorn for pointing me to the population numbers from Wikipedia.
What is interesting and unexpected how many wolves are calculated/estimated to live in western, southern, and central Europe, for example Spain has like ~3000 Uh!
I put the numbers of (Spain,France,Germany,Poland,Czech, Slovakia,Hungary,Slovenia,Macedonia,Romania,Bulgaria,Greece ) into calculator and number is quite surprising, 12 410 wolves and in many places they are thriving and stocks are growing (for better perspective the global population is close to 300 000)

It is of great importance for us to learn from mistakes we do, and especially now in these times of looming crisis. There are so many examples when we think we have find fix for a problem while creating so many other problems. Reintroducing wolves to areas within central Europe looks like lunatic proposal when it is top predator who is surviving in remoter areas quite alright.

Well after all I'm glad to learn that wolves are alive and on their trails. We just don't coexist very well. I didn't expect to learn about the wolves this much, thanks guys!
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Aeneas said:
luc said:
Of course, preserving species is a good thing, especially in terms of reducing unnecessary suffering for animals. But I do find it disturbing that many people on the left and in the mainstream nowadays seem to put animal rights before human rights! You know, "oh, poor little wolves", when wolves are dangerous predators and compete for food sources with humans.

While there are of course many cruel idiots among hunters, many have a very healthy and common sense outlook on nature: they love nature, they love wildlife and animals, do a lot to protect them and understand them, yet at the same time also understand that nature is about life and death, about predators and prey, about balance and so on. So they (rightly, IMO) find the idea ridiculous to worship wolves and re-populate a densely populated place like Germany with them, which often is fueled by an anti-hunter ideology, kind of like "if we have wolves to take out wild game, then we don't need hunters anymore!" It's really anti-human if you think about it.
Interesting thread and I agree with the above. In Denmark there is a big movement, which now are running the show, who wants to let the forest go wild again. That implies no upkeep or only a minimum upkeep as the idea is to let it become forests like it 'used' to be. After the last storm last year, huge areas with trees that had fallen in the storm were left to just rot. The end result of this approach is that after a number of years, the CO2 balance in a forest remains at zero as the growth there is equalled to the decay. Otherwise a productive forest can add 12-18m3/hectar/year. And the irony is that the same people who wish for the forest to grow wild are the same people who wish to cut CO2 emissions.

In order not to get too far away from the subject of wolves, the same movement (very similar to the romantic movement in the 19th century) also introduces the fallow deer to nature a few years ago and without a hunting period. Needless to say, this created a big population, which is where the wolf comes into the picture as the wolf is seen as the ideal predator to keep the deer population down. So it can be seen as hegelian: problem, reaction, solution.

There are some who speak for letting big areas of Denmark go back to nature, which makes you wonder, where are people meant to live and from what exactly. As long as a country is rich, it can buy food and everything else outside, but this too will come to a natural end as resources run out. Another part of that equation is that it relies on exploiting other countries and their resources. One example here is woodchips, that Denmark uses a lot as it is scrapping coal fired powerstations and wishes to rely on wind, solar and woodchips. As this requires enormous amounts of woodchips, the power stations are placed near the water, where wood chips then can be delivered by ship from the Baltic states, South Africa and Ghana. The results are of course that it creates a problem in a very colonialist manner elsewhere. The woodchips come from huge plantations if not old forests.

_http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/who-says-its-green-to-burn-woodchips-1808994.html
The Global Forest Coalition said that, in South America, tree plantations have had devastating effects on people and the environment, and have nothing like the biodiversity or ecological function of natural forests, whether they are first or even second growth. These plantations, it said, are "green deserts" because of the amount of water they consume, and because of the lack of native wildlife.
So essentially anti-human: looking good in the eyes of ideologically driven 'green' people by raping the resources of other countries.
Regarding Denmark, maybe these environmental policies and their apparent craziness can be taken as a sign of the times in the sense that the people in the country are preparing to move, preparing to hand over the territory to the next ice age. An analogy might be that when people move from one flat to the next, they are expected to clean up after themselves.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Aeneas said:
Interesting thread and I agree with the above. In Denmark there is a big movement, which now are running the show, who wants to let the forest go wild again. That implies no upkeep or only a minimum upkeep as the idea is to let it become forests like it 'used' to be. After the last storm last year, huge areas with trees that had fallen in the storm were left to just rot. The end result of this approach is that after a number of years, the CO2 balance in a forest remains at zero as the growth there is equalled to the decay. Otherwise a productive forest can add 12-18m3/hectar/year. And the irony is that the same people who wish for the forest to grow wild are the same people who wish to cut CO2 emissions.

In order not to get too far away from the subject of wolves, the same movement (very similar to the romantic movement in the 19th century) also introduces the fallow deer to nature a few years ago and without a hunting period. Needless to say, this created a big population, which is where the wolf comes into the picture as the wolf is seen as the ideal predator to keep the deer population down. So it can be seen as hegelian: problem, reaction, solution.

There are some who speak for letting big areas of Denmark go back to nature, which makes you wonder, where are people meant to live and from what exactly. As long as a country is rich, it can buy food and everything else outside, but this too will come to a natural end as resources run out. Another part of that equation is that it relies on exploiting other countries and their resources. One example here is woodchips, that Denmark uses a lot as it is scrapping coal fired powerstations and wishes to rely on wind, solar and woodchips. As this requires enormous amounts of woodchips, the power stations are placed near the water, where wood chips then can be delivered by ship from the Baltic states, South Africa and Ghana. The results are of course that it creates a problem in a very colonialist manner elsewhere. The woodchips come from huge plantations if not old forests.
Good points on the madness going on in 'environmental circles' I think.

It's a complicated issue, and of course there is something to be said about the destruction of nature and the entire planet by an irresponsible human race. In fact, my heart bleeds when I walk through the forest and see the devastation caused by harvesters and modern forestry. But then again, I don't think it's wrong per se to use nature for our human needs - it's natural and we are part of nature, not seperate. We play our role, and part of it involves using natural resources, animals etc.

I like the metaphor of a beautiful garden: it's not nature left to itself, but it's not mindless exploitation either. You combine the human spirit, sense of beauty and intelligence with the forces of nature to create something beautiful and useful. You tend the garden, you cut trees, mow the lawn, plant things, battle against weed and snakes etc. - you align with the beautiful and useful aspects of nature and you fight the chaotic and destructive aspects.

It's funny how the radical environmentalists or anti-hunter types think they are 'restoring balance' by prohibiting hunting and reintroducing wolves, when in fact they just force their ill ideology upon nature, which creates more chaos and imbalance.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
An update on the Norwegian case. A wolf, accused of killing hundreds of sheep was shot this morning, by a group of 10 hunters after it was observed chasing a flok of sheep. It had allegedly killed 87 sheep in one week and had a weight of 34 kg. _http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/ulv/ulv-skutt-i-oppland/a/24112489/ _http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/drapsulven-som-har-herja-pa-ostlandet-er-felt/68571053 The wolf is said to have come from Sweden.
 
Top Bottom