[Delphinium]

Animal rights activists often don't realize that mother nature can be so cruel and unforgiving and that land can only support so much. Sometimes it's better to have a few die with a bullet than to have whole packs slowly starve to death over the course of a winter because there are too many for the food supplies to support. Such conditions can create more than just a nuisance, but can also increase dangers of fatal altercations with humans.

The animal rights nuts I have been dealing with thinks it okay for them to kill everything off because eventually it will come back. Thats how they feel about fire too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073500/posts?page=225

[lockjaw02]

Yes, prey populations would come back long after the wolves decimate it and start dying out themselves due to starvation. It's a vicious cycle.

You should just tell these folks to they should also consider reintroducing wolves to the Appalachians, Catskills, and Berkshires to help control deer populations there with natural predators and see how they feel once their family pets and people get on the menu.

I didn't see any comments on fires and I don't know your specific position, but fires are a different matter. Smaller controlled fires help burn off underbrush and excess fuel, which helps protect against bigger fires burning out of control and ravaging larger areas of land. Controlled logging helps do the same, but the eco-nuts are irrationally against everything with a human touch. In the east we typically sell off trees off properties periodically to loggers, cut roads, and clear underbrush. To let it all go wild is inviting large scale disaster.