News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Postulating that members of a species should be shot because they otherwise destroy the environment is thin fucking ice as a human lol
I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
Ecological Impacts of High Deer Densities
And in a simpler form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_management
Whats the ecological impact of high human density?
Less than low density
"Postulate": suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
I do not postulate that overpopulation of deer will destroy entire environments. It's a cold hard fact which you wish to ignore.
Its not whataboutism. If you want to apply "killing is good against individuals of a species responsible for environmental destruction" then you should apply it to the biggest offender. Or be a hypocrite I guess. Your choice.
There's nothing hypocritical about it.
Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't your mommy ever teach you that?
That is literally whataboutism.
Deer population has to be managed, or entire environments will die. You won't get out of that being a fact by going "well but what about corporate pollution?!1?"
If you were accused of murder and asked to provide an alibi, you wouldn't get off by saying "well what about Jeffrey Dahmer?"
You seem to purposefully miss the point. Have fun with that I guess 🤷
You are quite literally purposefully ignoring the actual argument that you engaged with yourself.
No-one postulated anything.
It's an irrefutable fact that deer population control saves human and animal lives. You can't even acknowledge that.
You missed the joke they were making. It's not questioning if deer have an ecological impact, it's about what to do with species that have a negative ecological impact. The thin ice being that if we apply that logic to deer then what if it's applied to us.
I did not miss it.
I explicitly addressed it, and trying to get out of having said something moronic by "b-b-but humans have negative effects so deer overpopulation isn't actually a real thing" isn't a joke, it's a bad attempt at evading the topic.
That part makes it sound like you missed it because they were not questioning if deer have an ecological impact.
No, they're IGNORING it, like I said.
Which is why I'm reiterating it.
Then why stress the use of postulate?
Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread. They wrote:
To which I replied that they don't understand the meaning of the word "postulate", as no-one has postulated anything. They don't argue that, because they can't argue the facts I linked, so they get pissy and start whatabouting about completely irrelevant things, which you then defend as "a joke", which it was not.
I think you are still not getting their meaning. Given a species that has a negative impact on ecology the postulate is that the appropriate response is to cull that species. A pragmatic stance. But when generalized instead of specifying deer and when taking into consideration the negative impact that large populations of humans have we get to the "thin ice". Yes it's still deflecting from addressing your point but they were not denying the damage that deer can do and a postulate was made.
No, he's saying that I am POSTULATING things that are actually facts.
which is in contradiction with your pseudobabble:
No-one has talked about culling at any point. They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.
Isn't shooting deer to manage their population culling?
You accidentally ignored the more important part.
#They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.
So it is culling?
Just like he's avoiding the mistake, so now are you.
I did not postulate anything, nor did they postulate anything. They were wrong in saying I "postulated" something and you were wrong in thinking they postulated something. No-one postulated anything. I stated a fact.
It seems like you are avoiding acknowledging that shooting deer for population management is culling. So someone did at some point talk about it. Right?
There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management.
Kids these days, smh. You think you have some sort of semantic gotcha. You don't. Population management and culling are two different things, just like propagating a plant and harvesting it are. Propagation also involves harvesting, as where would you keep the seeds otherwise? Thus population control indeed includes but isn't limited to culling.
And all of that is completely irrelevant. "BUT WHAT ABOUT"
but what about if you actually talked about the argument at hand?
There is no postulate. They are saying that I postulated a thing. I did not. I stated a fact. "Postulate" connotates that something has been theorised, but not proven. I didn't suggest or assume the existence of something, I stated it. Deer population control is necessary for the continued survival of the ecology where the deer and us humans live.
It's an irrefutable fact, and something which happens to piss off vegans.
So what is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?
I did talk about the argument at hand.
"There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management."
Deer population control is necessary but shooting deer is not the only way to achieve it. I think it's the only practical way but it's not the only way. The postulate, or premise of a train of reasoning, that you proposed was hunting deer and commendably not wasting what could be harvested from them. Go with the denotation.
Kids these days indeed.
I linked a wikipedia article title "DEER MANAGEMENT", not "deer hunting." Are these terms confusing for you? Having trouble with categories?
There is no postulate. There is a statement of fact. The fact is that without deer management (which yes, includes the hunters who cull the population if necessary, but also nurture it with feeding places and most of all, observe), the populations go haywire, causing severe ecological disturbance affecting dozens if not hundreds of species of plants and animals and reducing traffic safety for people due to increased risk of collisions with deer.
Those are facts. Verifiable, irrefutable, facts. The people who originally started those theories may have postulated things. I did not. I relayed facts.
You know for some that seems to get pretty upset about people ignoring major points or conversations you do it a lot.
What is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?
Shooting deer, ya know? LIke you were talking about before you linked deer management.
The capital of Montana is Helena. That's a fact. Verifiable, irrefutable, fact. Thought I'd mention that since you keep stating facts that no one is trying to refute.
I have at no point said hunting deer as a means of population control as a part of deer management doesn't constitute culling. Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension? As I said, you're having problems with categories.
The reason I tried not engaging with your childish semantic argument is that it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that, you said:
Which it isn't, because I have at no point postulated that. I have stated the well supported fact that deer management (which includes culling) is crucial, and above all, it's more moral than any other alternative, and it helps saves lives, both animal and human, by preserving the ecological balance of a given environment.
You're just trying to make this into childish semantic bullshittery, because you made a mistake and can't admit to it.
You also said this:
But you won't be able to name another way to achieve it. Weird, huh? Almost like you were pulling these things out of your arse, huh?
Cool so shooting deer, like you where originally mentioning, does count as culling. And the type of population management that you started the conversation with is shooting deer. So when you said that no one was talking about culling that was nonsense wasn't it? Because you were talking about culling.
Culling is an option for population management, one that you brought up and the one that the joke was referencing, but as you said yourself culling isn't the only option of population management. Strange that you didn't mention any other methods to manage population. Was that because you were pulling it out of your ass too?
Now you still seem confused. I'm not saying that deer management is not necessary. I'm not saying that culling is the only method. I did say that it is the most practical but I don't think your reading skills caught that. Since you think offering an alternative method is important for some reason then how about sterilization? Wildly impractical but that would do the trick.
You are making the case that because it's a fact that deer must be managed and that shooting them is the major practical method to achieve that goal, that it's a good thing or at least a necessary thing to shoot deer. Shooting deer to manage the population. That's a postulate. The line of reasoning that takes you from acknowledging a problem to selecting a solution. The hypothesis advanced as a premise of a train of thought.
Would you like to keep cranking up the hostility?
"No-one is talking about it" as in "you're doing some pitiful semantic bullshit, because you 'took sides' in a random internet thread and found yourself on the losing side, and she's not talking about it because she's trying to change the subject to some pitiful whataboutist argument.
As I said, you really need to brush up on your reading practice.
Our "debate" seems to be over the fact that I presented facts and didn't postulate a thing. Which is to say — offtopic.
Weird how you still haven't managed to give a single example of those "other ways" there are to do it? Might it be because you're a frustrated contrarian who doesn't understand the subject he inserted himself into?
It isn't a postulate. It's an observation of facts I haven't found myself. Presentation, if you will. I am not suggesting or assuming anything, which is the definition of "postulate."
You on other hand have postulated that "there are other ways of population control besides hunting", but weirdly, can't present a single one. Triple-weirdly, I've now had to repeat this for several comments repeated that question, but you seem to avoid it on purpose. Is it perchance because there aren't other ways, because you just made that up to sound good, which is why you added "hunting may be the most practical way" as a disclaimer so you can eat your words when you get called out on your BS?
"No-one has talked about culling at any point." As in you literally said that.
If I took a side it was the side that culling is the practical method of managing deer. You assumed that I was disagreeing with you when I was just pointing out that you misunderstood that person.
Work on your reading skills because I did give you an example of an "other way". Additionally work on your reasoning skills because me providing another way is off topic. And you already said yourself that culling was not the only way to manage deer population. You are contradicting yourself. You have to pick if you acknowledge that there are other ways, like you said previously or if you think that you have made some great point now about how there is no other conceivable way.
The postulate is that shooting deer is the practical acceptable solution to managing deer population. The necessity of deer management being a fact is closely related but distinct from making the connection to a method.
Read. I did give an alternative.
You thought I was disagreeing with you when I wasn't. I've said from the start that deer culling is the practical way to manage deer population and that harvesting their meet is the commendable thing to do along with it. Calm down. Read. Learn to behave in a civil manner, especially if you want to go about implying other people are acting like kids.
Well, reintroducing predators would be a good way too. Most of Europe has no wild wolves.
BTW, I really like those movies about Chernobyl area, where they show how it has turned into one big natural reserve. Plenty of animals, plenty of plants. I know it was a catastrophe, but I really like wolves. Especially wild wolves living in such heaven that they don't fear the cameraman and behave like very smart and independent dogs.
"Reintroducing predators" I always find this equally ridiculous. Like first off. Why? In your weird value world, why does it matter if a hunter or a wolf kills the animal? Who does it make it better for? Certainly not the deer or the deer population, because wolves are notoriously bad at doing statistical analysis that the felling amounts are based on. Even if the wolves had their own researchers, they probably wouldn't understand "felling quotas", would they?
Okay, humour me: if you were sentenced to death, which of the following would you choose?
Being shot at some random time you won't even be aware about (in this hypothetical you agree to the execution and then get mindwiped so you won't know it's coming), with a single bullet that kills you instantly
A pack of wolves runs after you and tears you to shreds and eats you while you're alive.
Personally, I'm pretty sure that option number 2 is closer to torture than option number one.
"Most of Europe has no wild wolves. Do you think those areas don't have deer browsing them? Because they do, and those populations have to be controlled, and have been, by people, for centuries.
"They don't fear the cameraman and behave like very smart and inpendendent dogs"
No, they don't. They do not do that. Sigh. This is frustratingly naive of you. Betrays a deep lack of understanding of the difference between wolves and dogs, and even if they behaved like "smart and independent dogs", you'd actually allow them in population centres in Europe, and all because you feel like it's immoral that the deer are being shot instead of violently mauled to death?
Wolves eat too many deers, become hungry and die, then there are more deers, wolves have more food, there are more wolves.
I'm talking about human effect on nature, you're talking about cruelty.
Cmon, so serious. I just like wolves.
Anyway, a wolf usually won't attack humans. If it's hungry and irritated - yeah.
I don't think it's immoral, I just think it's ideologically dirtier for humans to perform the function of wolves.
Why did you skip the part where I ask how and who is it better for if there are wolves instead of hunters?
What sort of mental knot have you tied yourself into? Do you not have empathy? We're talking about the experience of dying. Which is more cruel to inflict on ANY creature; being shot dead with a single shot without you even realising it, or being torn to bits by wolves?
You have no idea how wolves behave, which is evident from your ridiculously naive take: >Wolves eat too many deers, become hungry and die, then there are more deers, wolves have more food, there are more wolves.
That's just, incredibly ignorant. The science of populations studies in animals is incredibly complex, and the wolves won't care about the ecology of the area where they're hunting. They could hunt a deer population out and then move to another area. These are known as wolf packs and there's a reason humans have historically avoided living in an area with a large, HUNGRY pack of wolves. Can you guess what it is?
Or do you think that when the deer of a certain area are finished, the wolves will just stay there and starve to death instead of eating other things?
Again, you don't understand how wolves behave. They don't behave like they do in your animu-shows or documents from tame wolves. If you saw a pack of wolves while standing on a field, and they saw you and happened to be somewhat close, and you started running, there's a pretty good propability they'd start chasing you down and tearing you to pieces. If you just stand your ground though, not a high chance. Reading this, you'll disagree, even though you have no basis to, and then you'll wonder why I even wrote that, and then you'll open this and learn about what coursing predators are.
They aren't aggressive to people, but to say that "a wolf won't usually attack humans" is clearly indicative you don't think they're dangerous. So you would literally unleash packs of coursing predators to central European areas, and think it would somehow be morally and otherwise better than hunting. And you can't even say why it's better to be torn to bits by canine teeth than it is to be shot, but you are saying it is better.
Same as with dogs.
Should have left me a choice, LOL.
Wolves aren't dogs just like a kitty-cat isn't a lion. There's fundamentally different behaviours ingrained within them. If you had hounds and made someone run away from you, yeah, they would catch that person up, but unlike wolves, they wouldn't necssarily tear it to pieces (unless commanded), because those dogs have been conditioned for thousands and thousands of years by humans, changing their very nature. Canis familiaris has 5-10 times better ability to digest starch than canis lupus, although I don't expect you to understand the implication.
So explain to me how it is more moral to cause more suffering to animals by making them die by being ripped to shreds instead of being shot or not dying at all? Because that is causing the deer more suffering.
Tell me, why do you think the wolves will "starve and die" once the deers are eaten, instead of roaming to population centers and causing problems for people? They're just so polite, that they think "no we don't want to disturb the people, we'll rather just die" (because that's how you like to think of wolves as, and you clearly disregard any reality)? Or is it that you think wolves physically can't eat anything other than deer? Because they wouldn't attack people, right? Hungry wolf packs in central europe wouldn't do that, why would they, wolves are always just looking for scratchies obviously.
You might like for wolves to be cutesy little puppies that you can give hugs to. They're not. I've been into wolves since I was a kid, but I'm not delusional, unlike some people.
I meant - same as with groups of homeless dogs.
There the same species FFS.
Not significantly. Mostly dogs behave differently because they are trained and don't when they are not. Of course a smaller and weaker dog will behave differently.
They totally would if they're hungry homeless dogs.
Canis lupus familiaris from wild kinds of canis lupus, you mean? They are the same species.
You are right, I don't understand your implication, but races of homo sapiens also have such differences with lactose and chitin and maybe something else.
It rids us of moral ambiguity in evaluating people who hunt for fun, for example. Yep, it is more painful for the deer, but we won't live in the same society with that deer and we will with the hunter.
(It's not an attack, just one variant of answering your question.)
I don't, they will, unless they live behind a fence. And if there are protected forested areas, putting that fence there seems to not be such a bad idea.
You just seem to imagine this to be something very scary.
One brown bear is scarier than a pack of wolves.
Eh, no, in that stage I liked tigers and lions and snow leopards more, ha-ha.
They are cutesy little puppies. Naturally with their own instincts, and they are carnivores, and pack animals, and so on.
They're* and no, they're not.
A wolf is a wolf. A dog is dog. They are separate species, every definitively. And no, being able to have wolf/dog hybrids doesn't mean they're the same species, even though I'm sure you think that's how species are defined.
Canis familiaris is a dog. A canis lupus is a wolf, not a dog.
This has been my point the whole time; you think wild wolves are the same as pet dogs, and refuse to accept reality.
Typing errors happen.
Yes, they are. Why are you arguing with something which can be checked instantaneously?
There's no such thing as canis familiaris, it's called canis lupus familiaris, familiaris is subspecies.
Other subspecies are various wolves.
By classification they literally are.
Also I have a big dog, a person lives in the same building who has a big dog which is in fact such a hybrid (or maybe just a wolf). They, eh, have more experience than most dog owners, but the difference between a dog and a wolf is not qualitative.
Also could you stop with that tone? You don't seem smart arguing truisms if that's not clear.
Most ironic thing I've read in weeks.
Yes, some consider it a subspecies of the wolf, and it is named as such, but it is not the same species and you won't find anyone credible to argue they are.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700398
Dogs are literally hypersociable canids that can eat starch (and the genes for that function 28x better than in gray wolves, to amend the earlier 5-10x estimate. and no, being able to digest starch is nowhere near the same as being sensitive to lactose in adulthood).
They literally aren't.
They share a common ancestor. That's it. A very close common ancestor, but both of which they evolved from. Saying they're the same species is like saying Neanderthals are the same species as homo sapiens sapiens. I wrote sapiens twice, because you seem to try to be anal with linnaean nomenclature, thinking it'll compensate for your overt ignorance on the subject. It doesn't. Linnaean taxonomy isn't always prescriptive, as names can be given before we have a complete understanding of something. Yes, it is "canis lupus familiaris", but the animal the dog evolved from is properly "canis lupus" and the gray wolf we refer to as "canis lupus" is actually a subspecies of canis lupus, yet to be distinctly named.
Why are you arguing with something which can be checked instantaneously?
https://biologyofbehavior.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/are-dogs-and-wolves-the-same-species/
And again, you propose to introduce packs of wolves into POPULATION CENTERS, saying it's gonna be better for everything and everyone and most of all, more moral. That ignores the fact that unlike you think, they aren't hypersociable, and unlike you think, they won't limit themselves to deer and then die off. Dogs work better together than dogs do, and they're highly intelligent. Why on Earth would you make an inane argument such as "wolves eat deer out, wolves die of hunger", which first of all, supposes that the wolves get rid of the entire population of deer, which wouldn't be healthy (which is why it's called "deer population management", not "deer extermination"), and secondly that wolves wouldn't attempt to find a secondary source of food or that an entire population of deer didn't grow the numbers of wolf packs and that wolf packs are never dangerous to people.
You must have lead such a sheltered life. Too bad, I bet you could understand a bit of what I'm saying if that weren't so. I'm against hunting wolves, and single wolves aren't a threat to people. But large wolf packs are. It'd be beyond childish to pretend they're like a litter of puppies, like you're doing. It's beyond ridiculous.
This is what you're proposing to do in Central-European population centres, because you personally feel icky thinking about the fact that death is a natural part of life.
You're even a self-proclaimed meat-eater. I don't eat industrially farmed meat. I'm a flexitarian, but I have morals. You don't. You stuff your face with burgers without thinking a second about the what the cow went through to get that beef. Yet you DARE criticise the morality of people who actually care for nature and conserve it's ecology?
That was another person.
I've looked at your links, as far as I could understand what they are about, they don't contradict me.
However, this is not important since you are talking to yourself, hence I'm leaving this thread.
So that's a "I can't say I don't eat meat, because I do"?
And... still won't be able to answer these "other ways" of managing deer besides hunting?
Not to mention skipping how silly it is to claim dogs are the same as wolves.
And to top it off
Got it.
##Why are you arguing with something which can be checked instantaneously? :D
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700398
https://biologyofbehavior.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/are-dogs-and-wolves-the-same-species/
Why do you feel the the need to lie on an online forum? You didn't read the links. Hell you didn't even read the sentence I linked.
#The story is very romantic: man and wolf, hunting and foraging together. Unfortunately there is simply no evidence; and if I’m being charitable, the probability that dogs evolved directly from grey wolves is extremely unlikely. While many similarities are perceived to exist between dog and wolf, upon closer examination, the similarities are almost impossible to find.
This](https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-wolf-pack) is what you're proposing to do in Central-European population centres, because you personally feel icky thinking about the fact that death is a natural part of life.
Dogs didn't even evolve from the gray wolf and definitely aren't the same species and there are no "other ways" of managing deer, mister I-cant-stand-behind-my-words
It isn’t.
That’s like saying a group of feral cats is “the same” as a pride of lions. It’s. Just. Not. The. Same. I don’t think you understand how large wolves are compared to dogs. I mean… you clearly don’t.
You just don’t understand the difference. You pretend wolves are dogs. They’re not. I don’t think you’d consider a tiger as safe as a housecat, even if the tiger was fed, would you? Why not? “They’re the exact same!”
So you think it’s more moral for you to unleash dangerous wild beasts into population centers than it is to hunt animals in those population centers? What the fuck are you smoking, because I want some too. You think you’re somehow absolved of responsibility of killing someone if you set an animal on them? What the fuck is the matter with you? Why is alright for the deer to die scared, panicking, alone, hobbling on one leg, while being eaten alive, but it’s not right for the deer to die completely unaware of impeding death? Why do you pretend dying in panic and blood gurgles is more moral than being executed cleanly?
You don’t have any idea how prevalent deer are, because you’re so far removed from nature and hunting that you don’t understand what population control actually entails. Deer are commonplace in POPULATION CENTERS. You need wolves in the places where those deer are that you're supposing that they would hunt. So you are proposing that popping uncontrollable populations of apex predators into population centers — completely ignoring the fact that they haven't lived here in thousands of years and don't belong here and humans are the natural apex predators the ecology is used to — and think they will control the population in a way that will be better for everything in that environment?
You're being ridiculous.
I have no fear of wolves, because I've actually hung out with some. I'm just not delusional or poorly educated, so I understand the reality, which is that "reintroducing apex predators" is about as realistic as thinking storks bring babies. Why do you pretend to understand wolves when you've demonstrated ignorance about their behaviour, size, biology and a million other things?
Deer have to be hunted and there's NOTHING immoral about hunting deer for population control just because you're afraid of the most natural thing there is; death.
No, I am talking about dogs and wolves, and this you've made up.
A group of maine coons gone feral compared to a group of forest cats may be a better comparison, if cats are what you are thinking about.
Anyway, I'm not advocating for keeping wolves as pets. Just for limited restoration of ecosystems including them.
I don't think you understand there are, first of all, different subspecies of wolves, which makes this point not worth arguing really.
I don't. You seem to really like arguing with yourself.
Some day someone may open your eyes to the fact that every part of the world is different.
No, I don't. You are imagining things where you like them and then complain that what I say doesn't fit. It won't and it shouldn't.
I mean, I didn't have a chance to demonstrate anything between your walls of text consisting of you imagining what others think and condemning that as if anybody could care.
I also don't think I'm more ignorant than you on frankly anything.
So? This doesn't have anything to do with anything I've said.
"Limited restoration of ecosystems including them"
No, you aren't. You're literally proposing that we use wolves for deer population management in places where population management is needed. That's been the topic the entire time. Hunting isn't immoral.
So you plan to introduce wolves into places where they've never been naturally occuring? That doesn't sound like "restoration" of any sort, does it? Or is it your ignorance about wolves again? You don't know where they live and where deer live, do you? You don't know much they overlap, do you? :)
And no, it's not the same as comparing feral maine coons to forest cats. That's you being ignorant again, because you just don't have any idea how ignorant you are about the subject. It's paradoxical, I understand, it must be confusing. The difference is much closer to tiger vs a house cat. Not physically as different, but behaviourally, yes. Which you would know if you ever read anything except some tumblr posts. You didn't even open the actual science I linked.
The difference you're imagining is much closer to the difference between a dog and a dingo, not a dog and a wolf. You have no idea how different wolves are. No idea. And you seem to be willfully ignoring anything that might contradict your thoughts. Not a very constructive way of thinking, I'm afraid.
"between the walls of text" = "I'm having a hard time concentrating for the entire 1min 30s it takes the average reader to read a half a page of text, but I don't want to admit that or stop replying, because I don't want to admit how silly I was being"
Okay buddy.
Oh doesn't it?
"ideologically dirtier"
You think it's "cleaner" to have someone go and rip someone to shreds and eat them alive, because you don't want to "feel dirty"? And it wouldn't even be you doing the shooting, since you'd never make a hunter with that understanding of nature. There is not a single benefit to reintroducing wolves and SEVERAL MASSIVE downsides to "reintroducing predators" to central Europe.
You definitely didn't even open the links, so I'm just gonna have to read them for you, sigh...
https://biologyofbehavior.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/are-dogs-and-wolves-the-same-species/ (it's a wordpress link, but it's an actual study which references the sources)