‘Your’ wolves are killing other peoples cows and because they are on public lands then this is acceptable. Do you pay for their cows being killed? Does that mean if I feel hungry and find a stray cow on public lands then I can kill and eat it, too? If the rancher who owned the cow was there could he stop me from doing this? Could he stop the wolf? Strange world you live in, it seems, where wolf rights trump human rights.
I’m glad to see you’ve grasped the key point…as its PUBLIC land, it is acceptable. Don’t want your cows to die? Graze them on your own damn land. 
In essence “I” am paying for the cows to EXIST. Why should I pay for them when they are killed? They are eating “my” grass after all…
Well…thats kind of the point I was making, ehe? Since you obviously can’t go out an kill one of the millions of cows roaming around on BLM land, why should you be able to go out and kill one of the 1200 odd wolves there? Fair is fair, isn’t it?
Where exactly did the wolves trump human rights again? I thought we were talking about cows! Strange world you live in, when you can leap off on a tangent like this…
/aside
BTW, sorry for the hijack…please continue with the whole tigers in Canada thingy…
/end aside
-XT
Amur tigers haven’t always had such a restricted range. It’s only human pressure over the last century that’s driven them into such a small zone. Their Mongolian range, in particular, covered much harsher climates than Canadian boreal forests represent.
Thanks, but it’s Blake’s baby really. 
There you go - send the tigers to Australia, with instructions to chow down on toads. Some few will no doubt branch out into kangaroos, wallabies & such, but surely there are plenty of those, too.
Hey! And tigers like to swim, so they could work on the sharks too!
Sounds like a winning idea, except…
The toads are poisonous and release powerful, fatal toxins when severely stressed. That would be the last chomp the tiger would take.
the popular wievpoint that bears and wolves are cute and harmless animals often comes from Londoners and New Yorkers
people who lives on the countryside are the one who actually have to live with these wild anmals around
I’m neither. I don’t exactly consider either species ‘harmless’ (though I think they are ‘cute’ ), but then again…people aren’t exactly ‘harmless’ either. All things considered, the probability is much greater that you will be killed or injured by a fellow human (on purpose or accident) than you will by either a wolf or a bear…even if you live in a wilderness park where both species are in relative abundance.
:dubious: I note your location is in Europe. Tell me…exactly how many bear or wolf attacks are there in your neck of the woods per year? Compared to, say, how many people die in car accidents…or are murdered?
-XT
In my country, people who lives in rural areas have had an increasing problem with the the increasing amount of wolf and bears. It’s become impossible in certain regions to keep sheeps.
Most people in rural areas mean that there shoud be a smaller amount og wolves while people in large cities mean that there should be more
I have the impression that Londoners, New Yorkers (and other people who lives in large cities) see upon all animals as some sort of harmless pets
:dubious: So cite the extent of the problem in your neck of the woods. Exactly what are we talking about in terms of the number of actual sheep lost to wolf and bear predation? Compared to the number of actual sheep. I mean, if people absolutely can’t keep sheep at all in a region, then there must be hundreds or thousands of attacks a day going on…or we are talking about only a few hundred sheep.
I think this statement paints with too broad a brush. I think most people in rural areas who raise livestock feel that they are threatened by wolves and bears…and I feel that their fear is out of proportion to the actual amount of attacks. Feel free to show some evidence this is wrong of course…I know that here, in the US, it most certainly is, if we look at the number of actual livestock killed and relate it to the total number of livestock in the region.
While I have no doubt that there are some people sufficiently devoid of reality who would think that bears and wolves are ‘some sort of harmless pets’, I doubt this attitude is a majority view. What most people feel (including me), is that these animals have a right to exist too…and that realistically the amount of harm they are causing to ranchers and farmers is pretty minor, all things considered.
-XT
I agree, they have a right to exist. The question is the amount
how many wolves can live in a certain region. Will the amount affect pesant who keep sheep a lot.
The real question is…DO these wolves affect ‘pesant who kee sheep a lot’. Is there any indication that its having a major impact on your European peasants (we don’t have peasants over here in the states so I can’t answer that for us )? If so, to what extent?
-XT
I live in the boreal forest under discussion, where there are bears and wolves. They are cute and harmless provided that one does not do something hugely stupid. I have skied for half an hour with a curious wolf at my side. I have bumped into a bear while jogging on a beaver dam, and frequently have had a bear wander through my yard or through my camp. Seeing wolves and bears is common, and seeing wolf or bear tracks is frequent. Attacks by wolves or bears on humans in this province are exceedingly rare.
Do you live in a forest where there are nymerous bears and wolves, or are you just putting forth an opinion that is not based on your own experience?
WildfireMM**, just what is it that you are doing with all those sheep? Nothing that is not natural I trust.
Methinks you exaggerate slightly… “hundreds of thousands of attacks a day” would process millions of sheep a week; you only have to kill a sheep once, you know.
Of COURSE I was exaggerating. And in point of fact, I don’t need to kill any sheep at all…not even a single time. I let other do my killing for me…
-XT
I would suggest it is all natural. Now if you said disturbing, I’d agree.
WildfireMM** has strong opinions as to what is and what is not natural, as set out in his now closed thread on homosexuality. Given the importance of sheep to him in this thread, I couldn’t help but wonder what he considers natural.
Up here we don’t have sheep, bears are too big, deer are to fast, and moose are just plain ugly, so it’s hard to tell what is natural or not, thus the need for guidance from WildfireMM** with his experience with sheep.
(Come to think of it, I have a couple of friends who where chased along the length of Quetico’s Pickeral Lake by a horny moose for a day. What was natural for the moose was extremely disturbing for my friends. Fortunately, they were very strong paddlers so they were able to keep ahead of it.)
Cougars are pretty scarce in most of the boreal forest. If tigers could survive in the climate (a very big if – frankly I doubt if they could), I wonder if the same pressures that have driven out the cougars might also be detrimental to tigers.