Should the wolf be killed, don t paste other people s answers!!!!!!

The wolf should not be killed, of course, if it is in danger of human life, but not indiscriminately. Because wolves are a member of the food chain, if wolves become extinct, then sheep have no natural predators, so the grassland will be desertified, and the same level of carnivorous consumers who are higher than wolves will have fewer choices, although this will not affect them, but it will affect consumers of the same level as wolves, and they will be extinct one day. None of nature's creatures can be killed at will.

It shouldn't be killed, because it's also a living thing.

From the point of view of ecological balance, it is better not to kill. There are many related examples, such as the fact that the old beauty of Yellowstone Park killed all the wolves, resulting in the deer there having no natural predators, degraded physique, weakened resistance, and finally had to reintroduce wolves; There are no large mammalian carnivores in Australia, which leads to the overbreeding of kangaroos and hares there, which endangers agriculture and animal husbandry, and finally has to be ordered to be hunted and killed. Whatever exists, that is, is reasonable, this sentence still makes sense.

If it hadn't flooded, or had not been killed, or in the end, there would have been only humans on the planet.

No, it's all gone, and if you want to know more about wolves in the future, you can only read it in books.

Besides, the song "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" doesn't exist anymore.

No, if you kill all the wolves, the sheep will have no natural enemies, the sheep will eat up the grass, and the beautiful grassland will become Shamo!

Kill the same, the less, the same. Evolution has come over thousands of years.

But now the rate of extinction is much faster than the rate of evolution, and it will continue like this.

Anyway, my point of view is that don't kill any animal, including ants or something, it's all a life, and don't think that if you are a human, you can deprive other animals of their right to live at will

Kill and eat meat, the weak eat the strong! It doesn't matter, the wolves are going extinct, and you're gone.

Mad dogs should be killed.,It's better not to kill the others.。。。

After all, it is the most loyal friend of mankind...

In order to maintain ecological balance, all animals have the right and necessity to live.

Wolves are better than hypocritical humans in many ways, dance with wolves!

The wolf is also an animal, and should also have the right to live, and the wolf should not be blamed for the benefit of people. The main cause of conflict between humans and wolves is in humans, and it is humans who encroach on the territory of wolves. That's why conflicts and contradictions arise.

I think this question should be related to you and think about whether you live or whether you live as a wolf Any kind of creature is selfish and will not destroy itself for other creatures, and the same is true for people, and your own position must be clear, you are a human being, not God, and God should decide, so you don't have to think about it.

Since mankind dominated the world, the original natural harmony has gradually been wantonly destroyed by human desires. Excessive deforestation and the massive loss of vegetation cover not only bring plants and animals to the brink of extinction and extinction; Dysbiosis of the ecological chain, global warming, soil erosion, floods, droughts, and climate disorders have led to viral plagues. Just in conflict with the great appetite of humans, it is necessary to exterminate the wolves, insects, tigers and leopards that also belong to the same mammals; In the face of rats, cockroaches, bed bugs, and fleas, they are helpless; The anthropogenic destruction of the ecological chain and the deformation of avian influenza and AIDS have only just begun. It is the duty of the ruler of the earth to be kind to nature and all the members of the earth's home.

Although the wolf is an internationally endangered protected species and is listed as a second-class protected animal by our country, the "wolf fighting plan" is still included in the formal proceedings by the first-class **. In fact, before this plan was made public, in recent years, some "organized and undisciplined" wolf fighting operations had been quietly going on in the grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Now, the demand for "wolf fighting" is made public, and Inner Mongolia is once again facing a new contradiction of "protecting the wolf or protecting the sheep".

A relevant expert said that the mood is understandable, but the opening for hunting wolves must not be opened. Who can keep the purpose of "fighting wolves to protect sheep" from going astray? Who will master the amount of "appropriate killing"?

Besides, can you protect the sheep by beating the wolf? The expert went on to say that the ecological balance is inseparable from the wolf. First of all, the arrival of the wolf indicates the restoration of grassland vegetation, the restoration and formation of the food chain on the grassland.

For example, the rampant rodent infestation on the grassland every year may be curbed by the increase in wolf populations.

Of course, you can't do without wolves, but too many wolves will not only harm humans, but will also have the opposite effect. Wolves are not the only animals that can protect the environment. Like leopards, hippos, wild boars and many more.

Wolves may be beneficial to humans in special circumstances, but in most cases, the more important elements are not taken into account. Actually, wolves don't need that much. Some wolves can be killed.

Kill the wolf, break the wolf and kill the wolf.

Don't kill a good wolf haha.

The wolf is very spiritual, and he can't figure out how people can bear to kill it.

Humans are really hateful now, and they are pushing wolves and other animals to the point of defeat.

Killing is a sin.

Why do you want to kill a wolf?

Should animals be killed or not, the Buddhist network uses facts to warn the world, and I have to understand.

Damn it. It is bad for people and harmful to other living things.

It shouldn't be killed. It is also a living being, and it does not belong to humans.

Humanity has no right to kill it.

It's two sides.

No! The wolf can maintain the ecological balance, and the wolf eats only the old, weak, sick and disabled animals, which can make the animal more robust. If there are no wolves, the merged animals will infect themselves and other animals.

The mass reproduction of small animals will also have an impact on the environment, for example, sheep and deer are herbivores, and if they eat vegetation, the environment will be destroyed, and the ecology will be unbalanced.

Since ancient times, people have only seen the wolf's **, viciousness, and cunning, but they can't see the role of its existence, and human understanding is only one-sided!

Ever heard the story of Grandma Wolf? Kill to be safe.

Don't kill, maintaining ecological balance is the key!

Protect the environment, and when there is a surplus of wolves, it is natural to deal with them.

No! Ecological balance should be maintained. Because of the cycle of biological chains.

Protect the wolf pull, of course!

So as not to upset the ecological balance!

The wolves are dead, and the sheep are multiplied;

There are more sheep, and the grass is gradually decreasing;

If there is less grass, the sheep will starve to death;

In the blink of an eye, sheep, grass, and wolves all disappeared from ——— world

When wolves threaten the ecological balance, killing some may help the balance, but when there are too few wolves, there will be terrible consequences. There is an example, you can refer to some of them.

Colorado, USA, on the edge of a canyon, has a Cape Prairie, and there are many deer on the grassland. Although the water and grass here are fertile, the number of wild deer is always around 4,000, and no matter how well the grass grows, it does not increase much. It was found that the number of deer in the grasslands could not be increased due to the presence of natural predators of deer——— wolves and mountain lions.

So, from 1907, people began to fight to exterminate wolves and mountain lions. After 10 years of hard work, wolves and mountain lions have been beaten to the ground, and wild deer are increasing year by year. By 1942, it had reached 100,000 heads.

In the following two winters, the number of wild deer decreased dramatically. This is because the number of deer heads continued to decrease, and by the 40s, only about 10,000 remained. At this time, people were surprised to find that although there were fewer deer, the grass was still not enough to eat, because the development of deer in the 20s brought devastating and destructive damage to the grassland vegetation, and grass could not grow in many places.

After many years, the grassland did not recover.

In the grassland ecosystem, the deer eat the grass, the wolf eats the deer, and after the wolf dies, after the decomposition of microorganisms, its carcass becomes fertilizer and is absorbed by the grass. In this way, a food chain is formed. In the past, how much grass grew on the grassland, how many deer were supported by these grasses, and how many wolves were raised by these deer, all had a certain range, maintaining relative stability and balance.

However, after the wolf was eliminated, the balance was upset, and the entire grassland changed dramatically. And once this change occurs, there should be a chain reaction that cannot be reversed in a short period of time.

In the ecosystem, each organism occupies its own place and plays a certain role, which no one can replace the other.

What you said is too general, and you need to analyze specific problems in detail. From an ecological point of view, all living things have their own value of existence, and the natural world is also following such a value, and organisms restrain each other in the form of food chains, so as to achieve ecological balance.

As a higher animal, people have dominated the whole earth, and the destruction of the natural world by human beings is a fact there, when many creatures are on the verge of extinction, people realize that protecting them is also protecting themselves, so people should be good at taking them, and they should also be good at taking themselves.

But when the survival of wolves threatens the survival of humans and other creatures, humans should take measures to maintain the ecological balance of nature.

Therefore, whether the wolf is hunted or not depends on the situation.

No, animals and humans live on the same earth, and we humans have no right to kill animals. Nature is also a biological chain, and it is impossible to do without any of them.

Whether to kill wolves depends on whether the wolves cause harm to the surroundings and the extent of the harm.

Now it's not a problem of too many wolves, but a problem of wolves killing too many people, and they need to be merciful by human men.

Balance is best. Since ancient times, China has emphasized a question of "degree". The extremes of things must be reversed, and it is too much.

In terms of the environmental imbalance caused by the current position of human power, protection is better than hunting.

No, every living thing has a necessary reason for its existence.

Protect wolves and maintain ecological balance

It shouldn't upset the ecological balance!

Protect the wolf pull, of course!

So as not to upset the ecological balance!

The wolves are dead, and the sheep are multiplied;

There are more sheep, and the grass is gradually decreasing;

In order to solve the problem of less grass, let's go eat sheep!

Since then, the wolves are gone, but the sheep and grass are still alive.

No, we need to get along with the wolf!

There is no question of what should or should not be, only whether it is good or not.

For people who live in cities or places where they are not threatened by wolves, it is a morality not to hunt.

But when wolves threaten people, hunting is an instinct.

In short, avoid killing while protecting yourself.

Positive: For thousands of years, the existence of wolves has had a great impact on humans. Wolves not only make people fearful, but also make people's lives not as perfect and happy as they should be.

It will only make people's lives more fearful. Although some wolves have done some similar things to humans, on the whole, wolves have seriously affected humans, and the survival of wolves has also caused some terrible problems for some creatures in the biosphere. So the wolf as a whole is a creature to be destroyed.

Against: Wolves are of great significance in the entire biosphere, and if they were hunted, it would greatly disrupt the peace of the biosphere, (i.e., the good of wolves and the importance of wolves can be debated a lot).

Positive: It shouldn't be killed, it will destroy the biological chain!! Are you from a school 091?

Wolves are also life, people should not think of themselves, and kill other creatures, such immorality!

Oppo: (I shouldn't have killed him).

Shouldn't! Wolves also have life, and to protect wolves is to protect the ecological balance!

Wolves shouldn't be killed, reason-

In the past, wolves were believed to be greedy and ferocious by nature, stealing livestock and attacking people, all of which were determined to kill them.

In fact, as an important link in the biological chain, the wolf plays a very large role in nature. For example, it attacks the deer and eats the old, weak, sick and sick in the herd (which seems cruel), but it can make the deer herd healthier and stronger. In addition, in areas where there are many deer herds (hares, etc.), if they are left uncontrolled by wolves, herbivores such as deer and hares will destroy pastures and forests, and as a result, they will die in droves.

Yellowstone Park in the United States has experienced something like this.

Of course, when we say "protect the wolf", its real meaning is to maintain the ecological balance of nature, and not to destroy the ecological balance of nature because of our misunderstanding.

It should be viewed dialectically. In philosophical terms, it means to look at things in two ways. Support for killing wolves because if wolves are allowed to reproduce, it will disrupt the order of the biosphere, and a butterfly waving its wings will cause a tsunami, not to mention the ** wolf?

Moreover, in terms of human compassion, people always tend to favor the weak. It is not supported because the biosphere also has its own laws, just like the market economy, there is an invisible control. Excessive wolf killing will also complete the ecological imbalance.

He shouldn't be killed, he maintains the ecological balance.

The wolf is a cunning animal, and it's brutal.

Our teacher also let us debate.

Hehe. I'm looking for it now.

The wolf, an intelligent, united mammal, why kill it and eat sheep for it? But people still eat sheep for it? But haven't people killed wolves yet? Please don't kill the wolf, please