Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#51

Post by Dylan16807 »

kqr wrote: post #42
Dylan16807 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

78 wolves in Norway and 340 in Sweden? If you as a farmer can't handle one wolf per 28 thousand humans, I feel bad for you, but the lives of those wolves are more important than a slight increase in farming profits. This is not wolf life vs. human life.

It's not that they "can't be handled". It's that locals "handle" wolves by killing them. Authorities fear all wolves will get killed eventually, unless they are killed systematically and in an organised fashion.

I mean handling the losses.

The way I see it, it's morally equivalent to poaching. Sure, kill that animal if this is really the only way you can eat. Otherwise expect a big fine. And in a western industrialized country, it's generally the latter case.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#52

Post by labster »

dang wrote: post #49
labster wrote: post #2

Who made Anders Brevik the environment minister? That population would be below the level necessary to maintain genetic diversity. At least in NZ, the Kiwis have the decency to say that they want a species eliminated outright. And before you downvote, ask yourself: Senseless violence to stop outsiders who are just trying to survive: is it really any less bad when the outsiders are animals?

> Who made Anders Brevik the environment minister? Whoa, you can't comment like that here. Even without that horrid bit, your comment is problematic for HN: we don't want overheated rants, and comments shouldn't go on about downvotes. The kernel of a civil, substantive comment is detectable in what you posted. When commenting here, please develop that part and edit out all the rest. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsg…

Just for the record, I commented about the downvotes before receiving any downvotes. Mainly because I knew that people have trouble understanding that outrage is a part of civilized discussion -- and that making villains out of animals and humans relies on the same logical fallacies.

The only bit in the policy that you linked to is "Avoid gratuitous negativity." Is that the bit that applied here?

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#53

Post by weberc2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #25
krona wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should be trapping them and redistributing them European wolves routinely travel 60-80km a day for food, and since they are very social (pack oriented) hunters, a lone wolf (forced away from the pack, for what ever reason) can travel many hundreds of kilometers per week in search of other packs, new hunting grounds etc. Meanwhile, Norway is full of hill farming in areas suitable for wolves. I can talk about the…

78 wolves in Norway and 340 in Sweden? If you as a farmer can't handle one wolf per 28 thousand humans, I feel bad for you, but the lives of those wolves are more important than a slight increase in farming profits. This is not wolf life vs. human life.

Yes, and elsewhere governments have had some success with subsidizing farmers for predation losses. There seem to be lots of mitigation measures that could be taken before culling.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#54

Post by lobster_johnson »

ObeyTheGuts wrote: post #29
2trill2spill wrote: post #14

It's amazing how low the wolf population is in Norway, 68 wolfs in the entire country! While here in Minnesota we have nearly 2,300 wolfs across 439 wolf packs mid winter 2016[1]. But that puts them only at 3.2 wolves per 100 km2 of occupied range[2]. That must make the wolf density and total range in Norway absurdly low, why would they "cull" the wolfs when there are so few. Plus the wolfs are not really a problem h…

dude norway has no forests, land is all steap mountains fragmented by fjords, only in southeast there is little suitable wolf land, nothing compared to minnesota.

38% of Norway (146,364 km2, or 56,509 square miles) is covered by forest and woodland.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#55

Post by dang »

labster wrote: post #52
dang wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who made Anders Brevik the environment minister? Whoa, you can't comment like that here. Even without that horrid bit, your comment is problematic for HN: we don't want overheated rants, and comments shouldn't go on about downvotes. The kernel of a civil, substantive comment is detectable in what you posted. When commenting here, please develop that part and edit out all the rest. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsg…

Just for the record, I commented about the downvotes before receiving any downvotes. Mainly because I knew that people have trouble understanding that outrage is a part of civilized discussion -- and that making villains out of animals and humans relies on the same logical fallacies. The only bit in the policy that you linked to is "Avoid gratuitous negativity." Is that the bit that applied here?

> Is that the bit that applied here?

That and "please be civil". Naming the environment minister after the country's worst mass murderer is so uncivil that I'm surprised we have to have this conversation.

We're not interested in political rants on HN, so please refrain from practicing that genre on this site.

> I commented about the downvotes before receiving any downvotes

"Before you downvote, " is just another variation of downvote-baiting, which the site guidelines ask you not to do. Going on about downvotes is in general a reliable marker of a bad comment. As the guidelines say, it does no good and makes boring reading.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#56

Post by labster »

dang wrote: post #55
labster wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for the record, I commented about the downvotes before receiving any downvotes. Mainly because I knew that people have trouble understanding that outrage is a part of civilized discussion -- and that making villains out of animals and humans relies on the same logical fallacies. The only bit in the policy that you linked to is "Avoid gratuitous negativity." Is that the bit that applied here?

> Is that the bit that applied here? That and "please be civil". Naming the environment minister after the country's worst mass murderer is so uncivil that I'm surprised we have to have this conversation. We're not interested in political rants on HN, so please refrain from practicing that genre on this site. > I commented about the downvotes before receiving any downvotes "Before you downvote, " is just another vari…

Fair enough. I don't agree with any of the logic in the first part of your reply, but it's your website. The second point is right on the nose, though.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#57

Post by ObeyTheGuts »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #54
ObeyTheGuts wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dude norway has no forests, land is all steap mountains fragmented by fjords, only in southeast there is little suitable wolf land, nothing compared to minnesota.

38% of Norway (146,364 km2, or 56,509 square miles) is covered by forest and woodland.

typical nerd, taking statistics and not real life. "forest/woodland" is not same thing everywhere - http://www.borealforest.org/world/images/norway_wilderness_l...

wolf relevant forest is tiny tiny tiny

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#58

Post by tn13 »

kiiski wrote: post #23
tn13 wrote: post #16

Why not allow people to buy these wolves to be kept in private forests ?

I'm not familiar with the details of Norway, but the Nordic countries have so called "everyman's rights" which among other things say that owners of forests can't restrict people from roaming in their (uncultivated) land. Building a fence around your forest would most likely not be allowed.

Bad for the wolves. But I think the wolves can at least be sold to the keepers of exotic animals or even sent to other countries which might be interested.

We need an international market (legal) for exotic animals.

Re: Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

#59

Post by marrington »

icantdrive55 wrote: post #22
refurb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolves can easily get over a 6 ft fence. How would you contain them in a "private forest"?

10 ft fence.

They can easily dig under a fence. Fences can't (at reasonable expense) keep coyotes or wolves out of any large area.
Post reply on HN