Half of Idaho's wolves gone in a year, thanks to Obama's Sect'y of the Interior

[villager]

thought this recent letter from Defenders of Wildlife was worth posting, as a reminder that this administration is every bit as lousy at "protecting" wildlife as all its predecessors:

Dear Villager,

It was one year ago tomorrow: the day that the fate of wolves in Idaho was handed over to state officials.

It was a deal endorsed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar -- and has resulted in the elimination of almost half of Idaho's wolves.

Take action now: Write to Interior Secretary Salazar urging him to immediately hold Idaho officials accountable for their extreme anti-wolf policies.

When Secretary Salazar brokered a deal with Congress last year to strip federal protections from wolves, he did so with assurances from Idaho officials that they would manage these animals at numbers between 518 and 732 wolves.

But even before Congress handed wolf management back to the state, Governor Otter and his Idaho Fish and Game Commission broke that promise -- moving forward with a plan to manage wolves down to a minimum population of just 150.

It is clear that as a result of delisting, Idaho is pursuing a race to the bottom in wolf management. In just one year, 400 wolves have been killed in the state -- and state officials have already moved forward on making it easier to kill even more wolves.

If this trend continues, Idaho officials will be unraveling one of our nation's greatest conservation success stories: the restoration of Western wolves.

Take action now: Write to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and urge him to hold Idaho officials to their original promise to manage wolves as wildlife -- not vermin to be eliminated.

The fateful delisting by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Congress has already had dire consequences for wolves in Idaho -- and officials want to make it even easier to kill more wolves in the state.

But these extreme wolf-killing policies will have lasting effects on the recovery of wolves across the West, if the state's war on wolves is allowed to continue unabated. If wolf populations in Idaho fall to dangerously low levels, it will jeopardize wolf recovery in states like Oregon, Washington, California, Utah and Colorado.

Urge Interior Secretary Salazar to stand up for the recovery of wolves in the American West and hold Idaho officials accountable for their extreme anti-wolf policies.

One year ago, Idaho finally got its chance to manage its wolves.

Since then, they have failed to manage these animals as the ecologically important wildlife that they are. Instead, state officials have pulled a bait-and-switch on wolf management planning. By abandoning their original commitments to the Service and pandering to anti-wolf extremists -- Idaho officials appear to be pursuing the ultimate goal of near decimation of wolves in the state.

We can't allow this to continue. Please take action today and help us reach our goal of sending 50,000 messages to Secretary Salazar.

Jamie Rappaport Clark

Sincerely,

Jamie Rappaport Clark
President

[postulater]

1. Hard to imagine that there isn't room for more than 150 wolves in Idaho.

That's sad.

[jmowreader]

11. So long as there's one teabagger in Idaho, there won't be room for even one wolf here

And you're right, it is sad.

Check this shit out, though: We have had two major infusions of species in the last thirty years or so. One is the wolf, the other the northern pike and the lake trout. Wolves you hear all the bad news about. The two fish, which are piscivorous to the extreme, are the worse problem because they deplete the native fish species through predation. (Lake Chatcolet used to be full of bluebacks, rainbow trout, perch, sunfish and bullheads; now, it contains lake trout and pike--period.) But the people who were too conservative for California think this is great because pike are fun to catch, if they don't eat you when you finally land one.

[bhikkhu]

2. The west is full of wolf-haters, regardless of Obama or the Interior Secretary

Thinking otherwise doesn't change the facts; I can say that even the rumor of a wolf in my area has hundreds of hunters swearing they'd shoot it on sight, whatever the law said. To a large extent, the back-tracking of the administration is to gain some traction and compliance out here.

As in many things, the older people are, the more likely they are to be on the hating side of the issue. The younger generation seems more tolerant, and I think the longer wolf populations are maintained and adapted to, the better chance they have going forward.

[villager]

14. All the more reason not to have cut a deal with them.

Sadly, this administration has been slow learning that lesson.

[bhikkhu]

18. You miss the point. No deal=no wolves

If you lived where I live, you'd understand. If you can't get some kind of compromise that at least gains people's grudging compliance, the wolves are finished in a few years. They aren't hard to hunt and kill, as was well proved in the past century.

Its easy to say you'll just ramp up game enforcement and so forth, but again, if you lived where I live and talked to the people I know, that doesn't help the wolves. Unless the laws are seen as at least partially or arguably just, they aren't going to be followed.

[villager]

94. Damn, we'd better get rid of all environmental laws, then, lest we piss off the destroyers!

n/t

[bhikkhu]

97. Compromise is how you get opponents to meet you halfway

Last edited Mon May 7, 2012, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

which is how the whole program to reintroduce wolves (which had and has extreme opponents) got done, and how it has made it this far. The administration is taking the most pragmatic path available, and, again, the best hope for the wolves in the long term is a little tolerance of a bad situation now.

on edit - its easy to make absolute (and often irresponsibly destructive) pronouncements from one's gut instincts, but that is very often the opposite of good governance. Consider the consequences of advice, and imagine the course you might have to chart if you were in a position of responsibility, and not holding dictatorial power.

[G_j]

102. It was Salazar's decision to remove Endangered Species Act protection for wolves

The decision to adopt the Bush administration's plan to remove Endangered Species Act protection for wolves in the Northern Rockies was the sort of "compromise" that was unnecessary, but it was certainly political.

[bhikkhu]

135. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not one guy

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

[life long demo]

3. I also received the info from Defenders of Wildlife

But I brought back the anger I had with Pres. Obama who allowed the wolf to be removed from ESA because it was supposed to help Tester in a hard election battle. I was so mad I sent him an e-mail, and I sent my Representative in Washington a e-mail saying that I was not going to support Pres. Obama for re-election in 2012. I was so angry because I (we all) knew what was going to happen to the magnificent wolf. And it has, those "outdoors men" couldn't wait to get their bullseyes on the wolf. And here I am with no alternative but to vote for Pres. Obama (whom I campaigned for the first time he was elected). And the wolf is still in the bullseye. And I am so sad.

[villager]

16. for me, it was the selection of Salazar-the-rancher for Interior that signaled "business as usual"

...for this administration. It would take a true visionary to truly defend wilderness and wild nature, from the Oval Office.

Obama isn't one.

[burrowowl]

19. Ditto!

[truebrit71]

110. Yup.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Are any of these top-level officials ever held accountable?

[Ron Obvious]

5. Tragic...

The ranchers and farmers are fully compensated for any unlikely losses due to wolves and yet they still want to see them eradicated. Sad...

[LAGC]

6. I'm sorry, but wolves ARE a predatory species.

Their devastation to live-stock and wild game populations cannot be understated.

Native Idahoan here, why some folks feel the need to go out of their way to defend these predators is really beyond me.

***NEWSFLASH*** Hundreds of species go extinct every single year. Yet life still manages to soldier on somehow...

I'm sure we'll find a way to survive even if wolves completely die off. Might just have to hand out more hunting permits to keep the deer and elk populations in check.

It's really no different than other invasive species, like kudzu in the southeast or beavers in Tierra del Fuego. Nothing but trouble.

I credit President Obama for listening to overwhelming sentiment here out West, from Republicans and Democrats alike, that these animals need to be put down like the feral creatures that they are.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

8. You're the invasive species.

Wolves have been there, you're the one who encroached on their territory. And now you want them all wiped out, even though they have a small population and there are few attacks on people or livestock. You and your fellows are cowards through and through. You want to sterilize the planet to make yourself feel safe. Humanity would be better off if you started with yourself.

[LAGC]

10. Look, I appreciate that you think all life is sacred...

But the fact of the matter is, nature just doesn't give a damn. Some life on this planet exists solely to torment other life-forms and make their lives miserable before being snuffed out of existence itself.

Granted, humanity may not be all that different in that regard, but we are sentient beings at least and do have dominion over the earth, for better or for worse.

Now if it were dolphins they were slaughtering, I might be more concerned. But wolves? Cry me a river... I just can't work myself up to give a damn.

Sorry.

[tomp]

41. wow! i strongly urge some serious soul searching.

you are clearly troubled.

[IDemo]

43. "dominion over the earth"?

You're really giving away your perspective with biblical phrasing like that.

And - "Some life on this planet exists solely to torment other life-forms and make their lives miserable before being snuffed out of existence itself." I hope you haven't offered that bit of wisdom to an actual wildlife biologist - the howling you'll elicit might even sound a bit wolf-like.

My great-great grandparents settled the Meadows Valley and were among the founders of McCall, and you absolutely do not speak for me.

[MineralMan]

45. Humans do not have "dominion" over anything.

We're part of the very nature we seem to want to destroy. That "Dominion" thing is a biblical concept, and has nothing to do with the reality of nature and our planet. If we destroy the planet, we destroy ourselves, since we are entirely dependent on that planet.

[sabrina 1]

53. Why don't we just wipe out all wild life? This way human profiteers would not have anything more

worry about. Polar Bears, Tigers, Lions, Wolves, let's rid the earth of all these predatory creatures and make it safe for Republicans.

[LAGC]

58. I wasn't aware that Polar Bears or Tigers or Lions were a nuissance to anyone.

They all seem to mind their own business in their respective regions of the world.

It's not like Polar Bears are coming down from the Arctic and stealing all the fish from our ponds and lakes. LOL.

[sabrina 1]

59. You haven't been paying attention.

Polar Bears are a huge nuisance to Climate Change deniers. It makes it hard for them to deny Climate Change when the natural habitat of Polar Bears is melting away. But to save them would require cutting some of those profits which we all know take first place in the neanderthal minds of the Right.

They are a stark reminder of what all this profiteering without responsibility is doing to this planet. Big nuisance to Climate Change deniers.

[LAGC]

61. Well, you're absolutely right about that.

We really do need to get serious about fighting climate change, or far more species will die off than any mankind can kill with a gun.

With all the extreme weather conditions lately, its amazing that so many people can still keep their heads in the sand.

[geek tragedy]

65. Tigers and lions kill many more people in one year

than wolves have in the past century.

[LAGC]

68. I'm sure if local ranchers had as big of problem with tigers and lions...

..they'd petition the Obama Administration about the need to reign them in as well. But they don't.

We're the ones stuck with the wolves running rampant loose in our backyards, so its easy for others to preach about what needs to be done when its not their problem.

I, for one, don't fault Democrats in our western rural states for telling the Federal government to back off and let us handle the issue ourselves when overwhelming popular opinion is behind them. Not everything needs to be micro-managed from Washington.

[ellisonz]

95. Are you opposed to the Endangered Species Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species_act

[uppityperson]

66. You didn't know polar bears, tigers, lions are a nuisance to anyone?

Yes, they are nuisances to people where they live. They all kill people and their herd animals. You seriously didn't know that? Seriously?

[Marr]

98. You can't possibly be serious.

You'd be concerned about dolphins, but not wolves, because wolves are... mean? Do you have any idea how ridiculous and juvenile that sounds?

Something tells me this isn't so much about wolves for you, but defending Obama.

[4th law of robotics]

150. I assume you're a hunter gatherer

messaging this via smoke signals or drums.

Otherwise you are just as guilty of being an invasive species as anyone else.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

164. I'm not sure where I said I wasn't.

Just pointing out the illogic in a member of a species that is invasive calling for the extermination of a species that is not invasive because it is "just like" an invasive species.

[_ed_]

12. You don't speak for people who live in the west

Don't pretend to.

Some of us want to preserve the Wild West. I guess you want everything safe and secure against these "feral creatures."

It sounds like you'd be much more comfortable in New York City where nature has all been eradicated and you'll be safe and secure against all the wild animals. Idaho sounds way too wild and dangerous for people who think like you.

You seriously make me sick.

[LAGC]

13. The hell I don't.

Your views are in the extreme minority out here, out West.

You won't even find many Democrats jumping on the "save the wolves" bandwagon, as the OP pointed out in regards to the DEMOCRATS from Montana.

[panader0]

77. I live in the west and I find your views very disturbing

I think wolves are magnificent creatures. Lots of coyotes and javelina around here (I live in the country), but wolves are very scarce now thanks to the people who think like you.

[LAGC]

78. Yes, wolves are magnificent creatures.

They belong in a zoo.

This whole back-and-forth reminds me of so many of the Pitbull debates here on DU over the years.

People who act so shocked when a Pitbull reverts to its base nature and attacks and kills a defenseless child who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Lots of bleeding-hearts saying the poor, misunderstood Pitbulls need to be coddled and forgiven. "Oh, they were so calm and friendly..." ...until they suddenly snapped.

Sometimes you can't fix nature. You just have to recognize it for what it is and deal with it.

[RetroLounge]

79. They belong in a zoo?

Wow, how sad to be you.

RL

[LAGC]

80. Hey, if you want them in your backyard...

Come here to Idaho and trap one.

I'm sure it would make a great pet.



Meanwhile, please don't preach to us how to do handle them in our backyards.

We're managing just fine by ourselves. Thanks.

[truebrit71]

111. By slaughtering them?

Wow, that is BEYOND fucked in the head...

Any farmer/rancher that suffers losses as a result of wolves gets compensated. So why kill them if you get paid for their "damage"?

[RetroLounge]

166. Wow, DU is filled with idiots, isn't it?

Asshat

RL

[_ed_]

139. A fucking zoo?

You make me sick as a westerner. Like I've said several times, you belong in some big city somewhere where you can interact with nature behind big metal fences in zoos. Utter cowardice.

What else can the government do for you to make nature safer? Install guardrails on mountains? Kill all the bears, too?

Like I said, you're no real westerner. Real westerners engage with nature on her terms.

[LAGC]

140. Oh, we're engaging nature on her terms, alright. Predator vs. Predator.

Don't you worry about that.

You must think we shouldn't have tried to eradicate malaria either, huh?

"Leave poor nature alone!"

[Rittermeister]

83. Conflicted on this

I certainly don't want to see any species go extinct. But, on the other hand, I understand why people want to shoot them.

Wolves are very smart predators, and they occasionally, for whatever reason, indulge in surplus killing - getting in among a herd and killing until there's nothing left. Humans, too, are very smart predators, and we're not too keen on competition.

I'm guessing few, if any of you, have a background in hand-to-mouth agriculture. Where losing twenty or thirty head of breeding stock in a year can mean you get foreclosed on by the bank and end up working at Wal-Mart and living in a trailer. That's the situation for small ranchers. It's easy to throw stones when you're in a suburb of LA or Denver and work in an office.

[Johnny Rico]

85. +1

[truebrit71]

112. Ranchers get compensated for any wolf-losses.

This has nothing to do with hand-to-mouth agriculture and more to do with backward-ass fucktards that don't like wolves..

[Rittermeister]

132. Because they kill their property

Seems pretty simple to me. We. Don't. Like. Competition. This is an issue that's never going to be resolved. It's the same reason why we can't establish a viable population of red wolves in eastern NC - they kill cats, dogs, cattle, etc, so people shoot them and bury the bodies. It's an issue you really can't legislate against. Rural people are going to kill predatory animals whenever they can.

[_ed_]

138. Utter nonsense

I own a small business and I don't expect anyone to make my business successful artificially for me. Wolves are a cost of doing the ranching business. Most small businesses fail. That's the free market.

Wolves are a part of western life. Deal with it or get out of the west.

[_ed_]

137. Bullshit

Again, if you're so scared of real nature, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a place where nature has been eradicated for your comfort and safety. Try one of our major metro areas.

Leave the wild west for those of us who want it to actually be the wild west. Take your cowardly values and get the hell out of Idaho.

[G_j]

15. I feel literally sick

nice to know you don't give a shit if the last wolf (or other species for that matter) vanished from the face of the earth. I have NEVER heard a liberal say such a thing..

[Judi Lynn]

24. You probably never WILL hear a liberal person say something like that, either.

Liberals aren't people who imagine themselves lord and master of the universe, liberals are not acquisitive, and certainly not self-important enough to dream they are more important than the planet they call their home.

I'm sick, too, like you. Absolutely wildly repulsed, disgusted, and quite sure we will never hear a liberal claiming those "values."

[villager]

17. What a disgusting, horrific post. Welfare ranchers with invasive cow species are destroying

...the west, not the wolves that belong there.

And you, my friend, belong to the most invasive species of all.

[ileus]

81. next up coyotes...

But don't expect as good results...

[LAGC]

86. Hey, ileus! Glad to see you posting outside of the Gungeon!

[villager]

93. actually, one reason coyote populations have expanded is because we killed off the wolves

But arrogant homo sapiens who think that all evolution was designed to maximize, say, the profits of their welfare-subsidized ranching operations, or who think all life can be "managed" for their "benefit," are incapable of understanding cause and effect in the natural -- which is to say real -- world.

[ellisonz]

21. Dude...

...the wolves were there first! You are the feral creature.

[LAGC]

35. See post #31. (n/t)

[UnrepentantLiberal]

22. This is the worst thing I've read on DU.

[Jamastiene]

27. The reason kudzu is considered an invasive species is because it did not originally come

from here. Wolves did originate here in America. They are NOT an invasive species.

[LAGC]

31. Wolves were artificially REINTRODUCED into Idaho.

They had all died off naturally before we came along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction

[Kaleva]

34. i may be missing something but I don't see where it's said they died off naturally.

"Officially, 1926 was the year the last wolves were killed within Yellowstone’s boundaries.."

[LAGC]

37. Yet we somehow managed without them for 70 years before they were artificially brought back?

How did we ever get by without them if they were so critical to the ecosystem?

[Kaleva]

40. Humans can do fine without the wolves but other species of animals and plants suffered.

I still don't see where it says they all died off naturally.

[IDemo]

38. Please don't leave out that elk arrived here by train as well

I can't believe the number of elk hunters here I've advised of the fact that they're hunting a non-native species that were brought here in the early 1900's.

[LAGC]

39. Very true.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Kaleva]

42. Didn't large wildfires in the early 1900's create a suitable habitat for elk to move into.

From what I read, the elk population peaked in the 1950's and has been declining since as the habitat reverts back to how it was before the wildfires.

[IDemo]

44. Whether the habitat was altered by fire or not, the elk herd was introduced by man

[Kaleva]

47. Can you provide links to sites that support your claim?

It appears to me that the Great Fire of 1910 allowed the native Rocky Mountain elk population to explode.

[IDemo]

49. Correction - the elk population at that time was in the panhandle and the eastern part of the state

So you're correct about the effects of the fire in that area. It was the central mountain region where the elk were introduced.

[Kaleva]

50. Okay. Thanks!

[ellisonz]

52. Wrong.

They were reintroduced, but they did not die off naturally:

In 1872, when Yellowstone National Park was created, there was yet no legal protection for wildlife in the park. In the early years of the park, administrators, poachers and tourists were essentially free to kill any game or predator they came across. The Gray Wolf was especially vulnerable to this wanton killing because it was generally considered an undesirable predator and was being willingly extirpated throughout its North American range. In January 1883, the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations prohibiting hunting of most park animals, but the regulations did not apply to Wolves, Coyotes, Bears, Mountain Lions and other small predators.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone#Extirpation_.281872.E2.80.931926.29

You're misreading your own link, and what I have provided is much more detailed and provides the correct interpretation. You should probably just concede your error.

[LAGC]

57. I concede, you are correct.

But my point still stands. We survived for nearly 70 years after they were extirpated before they were artificially brought back and reintroduced. We got along just fine without them.

So I just don't see the pressing need to bend-over backwards to save them all now.

I just don't see why the survival of the wolves is more important than quality of life for us humans.

Just like with the beavers. I know, they're just "doing their thing" and building dams everywhere, but they fuck with the water-ways and disrupt irrigation for farming, I have no problem if farmers shoot them on sight as well if they are being pests. I've shot a few myself up at my uncle's cabin in rural Idaho, when they were flooding the place.

Some of these "animal rights" extremists truly baffle me.

[ellisonz]

62. It's not about us...

...it's about preserving the ecosystem so that the children of your children can experience the beauty of nature. If you can't understand why that is important to many of us I feel really sorry that you are so self-centered. Also, if you want to talk about "extremists" you are way off target. I'm no supporter of the Earth Liberation Front, but I don't believe we should be putting economic interest so far ahead of environmental conservation that the latter is obliterated.

In short: Do you really want to live in a world without Bald Eagles? How about the California Condor? Or the Grizzly Bear?

There is a difference between what can be a pest and is completely un-endangered to my knowledge like the beaver, and an apex predator like the gray wolf that was almost hunted to extermination in the Continental U.S.

[uppityperson]

67. They died off "naturally" by getting in the way of bullets?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Kaleva]

72. Homicide rate in US would plummet if all victims were listed as dieing of natural causes.

[redqueen]

29. Wolves are not the invasive species in this situation. nt

[LAGC]

32. See post #31. (n/t)

[redqueen]

33. Where is the evidence that they died off naturally? nt

[truebrit71]

114. They didn't. He "mis-spoke"..

[joeybee12]

46. What a load of shit...wolves are native to that area...not invasive...

And the damage to livestock is all in your mind...no studies, no facts bear out what you claim, just a knee-jerk reaction to what you think might happen if wolves are free to roam where they have always roamed.

[Vanje]

48. I am an Idahoan

We're not all like this poster.

[LAGC]

51. You've got to admit though that most Idahoans aren't that sympathetic to the wolf problem.

That's part of the reason Republicans keep cleaning house here in Idaho, too many Democrats sign on to wing-nut agendas like defending wild-life predators and pushing for more gun control. It just doesn't fly in the rural areas, and loses us elections every time.

At least Montana realizes what needs to be done to elect Democrats in rural areas.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see politicians elected whom I agree with 75% of the time than those I don't agree with hardly at all. Call them "Blue Dogs" or whatever, but its the only way we're going to see progress in our state.

[Vanje]

73. Is your name.....

Walt Minnick?

[LAGC]

75. I actually thought Walt was a pretty decent guy.

I know, he was more conservative on economic issues, but he was pretty damn good on social issues, about as good as we can expect from conservative Idaho.

Do you honestly not think he was a hell of a lot better than that teabagging Raul Labrador creep we've got now??

[Marr]

99. That's what I thought. This is about party politics for you, and that's all. /nt

[flvegan]

55. Yeah, fuck those wolves for killing animals the we want to kill.

Nothing shocks me around this place anymore.

[Rob H.]

60. "It's really no different than other invasive species..."

As was pointed out above, wolves are native to the West.

I credit President Obama for listening to overwhelming sentiment here out West, from Republicans and Democrats alike, that these animals need to be put down like the feral creatures that they are.

I know plenty of lifelong Idahoans (and my father was born and raised in Montana), and they don't share your views. Please don't pretend to speak for everyone who lives there.

[Rob H.]

63. "Their devastation to live-stock and wild game populations cannot be understated."

This is from an article I found about wolf populations in northwestern Montana (not Idaho, unfortunately) and the numbers re: wolves' threat to livestock don't even come close to supporting your conclusion:

The Truth About Montana Wolves Is Hard To Find
By Christina Nealson / Writers on the Range on Wed, Apr 25, 2012

I spent this winter in northwestern Montana close to the border of Idaho’s Panhandle, a place well known for its dense population of wolves. To hear hunters tell it, I should have seen a deer or elk skeleton every few feet on the forest floor and a lurking wolf behind every tree. Game numbers have plummeted, they claim, as they affix stickers that say “SSS” – which stands for “Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up” – on pickups, and don baseball caps that urge, “Smoke a Pack a Day.” And they’re not talking about cigarettes.

(snip)

Yet it took three months before I spotted wolf tracks and scat. It was in November, the final week of rifle season. Three months later, I saw my first wolf. Wolf signs did not become common until late-winter mating season, when scat and blood-laced urine appeared twice in one week in the high country along creek drainages.

What I saw on the ground never matched the stories I heard or read about in the newspapers, which blamed wolves for killing off the game. My experience came closer to the claim of Kent Laudon, a wolf biologist with Fish, Wildlife and Parks, who estimates that there’s one wolf for every 39 square miles of game terrain in the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ Region One in northwestern Montana. He estimates the average pack size at 6.7 animals.

...Yet the figures show that only 97 cows were killed by wolves in Montana in 2009. During that year, government statistics showed that 2.6 million cattle, including calves, lived in the state; therefore, the percentage of cattle killed by wolves was only 0.004 percent. (emphasis added)

(snip)

By its own admission, Montana’s wildlife agency has oversold doe tags in the past. Laudon confirms that while a few deer herds are down in numbers, other herds are stable or increasing. A predation study is currently under way at the University of Montana. Early reports point to mountain lions, which are three times more numerous than wolves, according to Laudon, as the primary cause of elk calf deaths. Meanwhile, the state uses anecdotal sightings to help it determine wolf counts. (emphasis added)

Maybe I shouldn't point out that bit about mountain lions--wouldn't want to give anyone any ideas about wiping them out, too.

[Smilo]

70. Thanks for posting.

If some hunters had they way - there would be no mountain lions, wolves or bears.

[Bryn]

104. Well Said!

If only more idiots would read and understand more about wildlife balance. Wolves take what they need, they don't overdo it. When I moved to Arkansas from native Florida I learned that Red wolves had gone extinct. Red wolves were natives to Arkansas. So were the panthers. Those, too, were killed off. What a shame. I am happy that panthers in South Florida are well protected...in the Everglades.

Coyotes are growing in a vacuum where those red wolves left off. I have seen several of them around here. My neighbor recently saw a pack of 4 of them nearby. I don't dislike them, only to let you know that it didn't do any good to kill off red wolves like that and I would very much rather to see wolves.

[Bryn]

101. I don't want to see majestic wolves to die off

I'd be sick to see nothing but humans, humans ... without wildlife to appreciate and to respect and to admire. That would be sad. Humans move into wildlife habitats, then scream to kill them ALL. My goodness. Just move to a city where there's no wildlife.

I am so happy to see that most DUers don't agree with you.

[tabasco]

136. Good lord.

You are part of the problem.

Get educated, please.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

167. Your post looks as horrible now as it did then.

[LAGC]

168. Thanks for your concern. (n/t)

[MadHound]

7. Another sad tragedy,

And frankly, quite stupid as well. We need wolves to keep the deer population in check. We have far too many deer, deer that spread diseases(via ticks) that pose a real threat to humans. Not to mention the damage deer do to cars, crops and humans.

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. Exactly as predicted. K&R n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. Obama is a liberal.

I read it here.

[Kaleva]

23. Where I live in Upper Michigan, people shoot wolves on sight.

[Judi Lynn]

25. It's a filthy shame they aren't more decent than that. n/t

[Kaleva]

26. Even Dems in local office argue for the state to control the wolf population.

[redqueen]

30. Are they bordering endangered or so numerous they simply must be culled?

It can't be both.

[Kaleva]

36. What defines "endangered" is a matter of contention.

[sabrina 1]

54. Do they shoot them from the air, like Sarah Palin?

Funny how she was castigated by the left for her position on wolves before the last election. Was she right after all?

[truebrit71]

115. No. Sarah Palin has NEVER been right about anything unless it was a mistake.

And her aerial slaughter of wolves is one of the WORST of her policies..

[sabrina 1]

125. Well, that was my point. The 'left' was totally for protection of wolves

not so long ago, but now, like so many other issues, I am seeing some on the left deciding that maybe we were wrong, on Bush policies, on environmental issues etc. It's been interesting to watch.

[flvegan]

56. My condolences to the decent folks in upper Michigan.

Has to suck living with folks like that.

[truebrit71]

116. No shit...

[xchrom]

28. Du rec. Nt

[Cerridwen]

64. Perhaps you could explain why the 2000 de-listing of the wolf

and the subsequent regulations that were almost forced on the DOI back when shrub was leaving office and the subsequent congressional legislation and court rulings are due to this administration.


Here's another article I found, from 2009:

<snip>

On January 14, in what conservationists view as a last-ditch effort by the Bush administration to undermine environmental protections, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the Northern Rockies gray wolf will be taken off the Endangered Species List.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, said, "This blatantly political maneuver is hardly surprising. The Bush administration has been trying to strip Endangered Species Act protections from the Northern Rockies wolf since the day it took office - no matter the dire consequences of delisting wolves prematurely and without adequate state protections in place."

Two previous attempts to remove protections from the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have been struck down by federal courts.

"The Bush administration is forcing the future of wolves in the region to play out in the courts by finalizing a delisting rule in its last hours in office," Schlickeisen said. "We intend to challenge this poorly constructed decision in court as soon as the law allows. It is outrageous that the Bush administration has chosen to create this unnecessary legal problem for the new Obama administration to deal with as it takes office."

<snip>Obama Freezes Pending Federal Rules, Wolves May Benefit

Wiki has some interesting links on the history of this particular listing/de-listing if you'd care to look.

I'd also like to know what "deal" Secretary Salazar made that handed federal regulation oversight to the states. Oh yeah, and how does the fact that the state is the one doing this boomerang to the feds?

Does anyone else remember back in, oh, '08 or so we were discussing the "landmines" the next (hopefully Democratic/democratic) administration would have to un-earth before it could clear away the destruction caused by 8 years of the shrub/cheney horror show? Any idea if this is part of that?

Finally, I'd like to ask those replying to this thread about how this is about helping ranchers and protecting livestock at the expense of the wolves, have you stopped eating beef and buying products made of cattle parts? Can you list the collection of laws, regulations, and policies under which the DOI operates? Do you even live out here "where the deer and the antelope (and the wolves and the coyotes) play"? Have you made an effort to not add to the population that is moving into the territories in which "deer and antelope" play and from which the human population is driving them?

Wouldn't it be grand if things were as simplistic as they appear on the surface? They aren't; this isn't.

Wolves are beautiful animals. They're also predators and almost as dangerous as humans.

[G_j]

71. wolves are almost as dangerous as humans!

that is not even funny. ..just very, very sad...

[Cerridwen]

82. I think I was going for cynical...maybe bitter...

Yes, it is sad.

Sad we've moved into their territory and didn't care when we did. "We" in this case being more generic than all inclusive.

Sad that doing what wolves do impinges on what we want. Sad that doing what we want impinges on what wolves do.

How do we walk it back? How do we undo...nevermind. It's really all just rhetorical musings.

[Johnny Rico]

84. It's "sad" that we've moved into the territory of wolves?

Was it sad when Native Americans moved into the North American territory of wolves 18,000 years ago?

Was it sad when Homo Erectus moved into the territory of wolves 1 million years ago?

[Cerridwen]

88. Some species are able to co-exist.

Others use high-powered rifles from helicopters to cull the packs/herds we first eliminated then helped restore then must manage back to...manageable.

There was this wonderful logic puzzle we played when we were children. It was called 'one of these things is not like the others.'

[Johnny Rico]

89. We don't need high-powered rifles from helicopters. Spears and bows & arrows are quite sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event#North_America

These two things (modern day humans and Native Americans ca. 16,000 BCE) are actually quite like the other in this respect.

Humans are the most efficient predators to ever evolve on this planet. Having said that, we're certainly able to co-exist with other species with proper management and policies.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

69. Obama and Salazar are bad news

not just for wolves, but the mustangs...and horses in general.

Soon as Obama picked Salazar, I knew where Obama was coming from.

[Johnny Rico]

74. Wolves...like any wild animals...are renewable resources which need to be managed.

I certainly don't want to see them (or any other animal) go extinct, but mawkish sentimentality over the death of a few hundred animals doesn't lead to a productive debate over the proper ratio of predators vs. prey.

[Kaleva]

76. Letting nature take it's course could be brutal.

[G_j]

90. I didn't read the letter as "mawkish sentimentality"

Where in the Defenders of Wildlife letter did you see this?

[Johnny Rico]

91. I'm speaking of some of the posts in this thread, not the letter in the OP.

[ellisonz]

96. The only "mawkish sentimentality" I see in this thread...

...is from the pro-wolf kill camp blabbering about not permitting wolf kills causing small ranchers to "get foreclosed on by the bank and end up working at Wal-Mart and living in a trailer."

[Johnny Rico]

113. Here ya go.

(we all) knew what was going to happen to the magnificent wolf.
Wolves have been there, you're the one who encroached on their territory.
We're part of the very nature we seem to want to destroy.
wolves are magnificent creatures.
Wolves take what they need, they don't overdo it

And then there's this picture...used twice already in this thread:



Hm...I wonder why they didn't use one like this instead:



Born free...as free as the wind blows...

[ellisonz]

128. Are you claiming that's photoshopped?

Those statements seem pretty reasonable to me...but then again I'm someone who thinks we have an obligation to conserve all species, even predators. Are you advocating the extermination of lions, tigers, and leopards just because they're predators?

You do realize that wolves form family-like packs?

I'm sorry that nature so offends you!

[Johnny Rico]

142. I never made any such claim. I will assert that it's cherry-picked to make wolves look adorable.

Just as I cherry-picked a snarling wolf as a counter-point. Disagree?

Are you advocating the extermination of lions, tigers, and leopards just because they're predators?

Don't be absurd. Nowhere have I advocated any such thing.

You do realize that wolves form family-like packs?

Certainly. So what?

I'm sorry that nature so offends you!

On the contrary, it fascinates me...which is why I'm such a fan of science.

[villager]

92. No -- not every other species on earth is a "renewable" "resource" for Lord God Man.

That's precisely the attitude that brings to the precipice of killing off the biosphere.

[Johnny Rico]

105. The entire biosphere itself is about to die? Really?

That's a bit melodramatic, yes?

[ellisonz]

107. ...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/overfishing/

[truebrit71]

118. Please don't introduce facts...it disturbs the denial hyperbole..

...

[ellisonz]

120. I'm sure our canned hunt fan understands just how much we've lost and what it is still at risk.

I think the reality here is that he just doesn't care. Ask him about his love of science fiction! Seems to run parallel to his hatred of science!



To the dustbins of history...

[Johnny Rico]

124. I love science. Best tool ever invented to investigate and utilize the universe.

And by the way, what have I ever posted that would indicate a "hatred" of science? I don't suppose you could document it...?

[ellisonz]

127. You're putting economic interest above science in supporting wolf-kills.

Because you believe "choice" is more important than "social responsibility," am I incorrect?

Find me a single scientist who says wolf-kills are the scientifically responsible action if the goal is conservation of the North American Gray Wolf. I bet you can't.

[Johnny Rico]

141. Yes. You're incorrect.

Please note that I haven't advocated actually killing Idaho wolves anywhere in this thread. I have stated that animals are renewable resources which need to be managed, and that being overly sentimental about them doesn't lead to productive debate. I'll stand by those statements. But in specific, regarding the specific number of wolves that would be desirable in Idaho? I've taken no position. Maybe 150 is appropriate; perhaps 550 (last year's population) would be better. Honestly, I don't know.

Find me a single scientist who says wolf-kills are the scientifically responsible action if the goal is conservation of the North American Gray Wolf. I bet you can't.

Since I haven't taken that position, what's the point?

[ellisonz]

146. You're doing an incredible job of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You believe wolves are a "resource" that should be "managed" but you in a thread about wolf-kills in which the government is "managing" the "resource" you won't take a stand either way.

[Johnny Rico]

151. On the contrary.

You believe wolves are a "resource" that should be "managed"

This is true.

but you in a thread about wolf-kills in which the government is "managing" the "resource" you won't take a stand either way.

I don't know what the proper number of wolves in Idaho should be, that's true; it's not as if this is a subject of particular interest to me, barring my participation in this thread. I also believe that trees are a renewable resource that should be managed, but I don't have a particular take on exactly how many there should be in Idaho...do you?

That having been said, I certainly have no moral objection to culling wolves.

[Johnny Rico]

123. How will overfishing sterilize the entire planet? Please elaborate.

[Johnny Rico]

122. Isn't it funny how the term "fully exploited" is used instead of "fully utilized".

Oh, those poor fish...they're being exploited!

Fish are a resource. Should they be overfished? Of course not...but to present overfishing as an argument that the entire biosphere is about to be destroyed is absurd. The biosphere is every living creature on earth, right down to the viruses. Overfishing isn't going to sterilize the entire planet...

[ellisonz]

126. You have a very simplistic view.

"Overfishing isn't going to sterilize the entire planet..." - It's just going to produce a food crisis that will increase demand on the remainder of the environment. I think we have two different understandings of the word "destroyed," you take it to mean eliminated, I take it to mean permanently altered. So-called "dead zones" and red tide is destroyed, but whatever keep defending the system that is producing the overfishing outcome. Not everything is about choice, many things are about survival!

[Johnny Rico]

143. I prefer to use the actual definitions of words.

I think we have two different understandings of the word "destroyed," you take it to mean eliminated, I take it to mean permanently altered.

So if I knock a chip out of a statue, thus permanently altering it, I've destroyed it? That's just silly.

The assertion was made that we're on the precipice of destroying the biosphere. Short of a collision with a body at least 100 km in diameter or the sun going nova, that's simply not going to happen anytime soon.

"Soon" in this case being when the sun gets hot enough to turn the Earth into another Venus, shortly before it becomes a red giant. Call it a few billion years from now.

[ellisonz]

147. Except the Earth isn't a statue...

...and your use of that metaphor shows my assessment that you do not understand science, but rather science fiction, has been proven correct.

You can't glue pieces of Earth back together!

de·stroy
verb \di-ˈstrȯi, dē-\
Definition of DESTROY
transitive verb
1
: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2
a : to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse> b : neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c : annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed — W. L. Shirer>

[Johnny Rico]

152. The assertion was made the the biosphere was on the verge of destruction.

The biosphere is by definition the global sum of all ecosystems. As evidence of this coming destruction, you talked of overfishing. Let's assume you're right, and that overfishing some species will destroy the biosphere.

Now suppose that a number of species go extinct in the Amazonian rain forest. Hm...I guess we've destroyed the biosphere for a second time.

Now suppose that climate change wipes out some species in the Arctic. We've now destroyed the biosphere for a third time.

How many times can global sum of all ecosystems on Earth be destroyed?

[ellisonz]

154. The Earth is not an inanimate object!

[Johnny Rico]

157. I agree. The biosphere is animate. So what?

I repeat my question: How many times can global sum of all ecosystems on Earth be destroyed?

[ellisonz]

158. You can't compare an orange and a stone.

Your question is reflective of your asinine world-view as shown below. We've already discussed, destroyed does not just simply mean obliterated, it means permanently altered from the present state. That you cannot appreciate such nuance and that you finally have admitted you support culling above after a nice little tap dance is good enough for me, I really must question how much you actually get outdoors and how much you know about this issue.

[Johnny Rico]

159. Given that *millions* of species have gone extinct in the last 4 billion years,

that would mean that by your definition, the biosphere has been "destroyed" millions of times.

you finally have admitted you support culling

If by "finally have admitted" you mean "asserted in your first post of the thread", then yes. Post #74. Unless, of course, you don't think that when I said "managed" I didn't support killing them under some circumstances.

I really must question how much you actually get outdoors and how much you know about this issue.

Must you? Because heaven knows that absolutely no one who ever actually gets outdoors ever supports controlling predator populations...

[ellisonz]

161. And that would be correct...

They don't call them extinction events for nothing...

Once you give the green light to cull, it won't stop. Give an inch, and a mile will be taken. It's just the way nature works.

I love how you gunnerhood members always fall back on that clip.

[villager]

131. The one that supports the middle-class, Heinlein-reading lifestyle to which you are accustomed

...is being relentlessly assaulted.

Denial and apologetics are traditional mechanisms often deployed at such times, but they won't actually solve anything.

Nor will adopting the same utilitarian view of Earth's dispensibility as a religious fundamentalist.

[Rittermeister]

133. Well, why don't you show us how it's done

And be the first to live in a thatch-roofed hut while subsisting off of five acres of rye a year. Or better yet, adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the savannas of Africa. I'm sure the predators there won't try and compete you out of existence.

[villager]

134. I'm already eating less meat, and buying less new stuff than you. Match that, instead of

...just snarking, and we'll talk about ratcheting down to the next step.

Meanwhile, do you imagine that attacking people online will actually slow down the rate of ecological destruction, or its consequences?

[Johnny Rico]

145. +1

[villager]

148. ?

Though I guess this takes care of even the illusion of meaningful conversation, which -- given the snark smilies, etc. -- wasn't really there to begin with.

[Johnny Rico]

144. When did I assert that the Earth was dispensable?

I simply stated that animals are a renewable resource. Do you disagree?

The only way the Earth itself could be dispensable would be if we expanded into the rest of the galaxy, and that's not going to happen anytime soon, if at all. Even if we did, I wouldn't dispose of the Earth.

If nothing else, it would still have sentimental value, after all.

(and you say "middle-class, Heinlein-reading lifestyle" like it's a bad thing...what's up with that?)

[villager]

149. I profoundly disagree.

Animals are not merely a "resource," and treating them that way -- along with treating the rest of the earth like an object -- leads to all kinds of trouble.

Like, say, the present set of calamities we're dealing with now.

The problem with Heinlein -- my fondness for "Stranger in a Strange Land" notwithstanding -- is that he embraced that kind of faux Libertarianism so prevalent in certain strains of sf (I say this as a published writer of sf, by the way). The imagining of one as a complete island, cut off from anything else.

The reality is, middle class lifestyles aren't the result of atomized individuals, but of collective (gasp!)/societal decisions that benefit everyone. Burning through the "resources" that (briefly) sustained us won't keep us in copies of Podkayne of Mars. Let alone enough available food, shelter, and fresh water to keep a society stable.

In any case, at least I can retract the statement above about not engaging in conversation. Thanks for choosing a non-snarky smilie.

[Johnny Rico]

153. (incomplete post, please disregard)

[Johnny Rico]

155. We'll have to agree to profoundly disagree.

Animals are not merely a "resource," and treating them that way -- along with treating the rest of the earth like an object -- leads to all kinds of trouble.

How should we treat (for instance) cows and chickens then?

The problem with Heinlein -- my fondness for "Stranger in a Strange Land" notwithstanding

Hm..."Stranger" is one of my least favorite Heinlein novels. I'm more of a "Tunnel in the Sky" and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" kind of guy. I'm shocked...shocked!...that we disagree on this!

-- is that he embraced that kind of faux Libertarianism so prevalent in certain strains of sf (I say this as a published writer of sf, by the way). The imagining of one as a complete island, cut off from anything else.

I think you're reading him very selectively. While there's no doubt that a certain strain of Libertarianism/individualism pervades his work, look at "Space Cadet", "Starman Jones", "Starship Troopers"...hardly examples of an individual shunning the collective. Heck, in "Tunnel in the Sky", when the asked what the greatest invention in the history of mankind is, the consensus is "the government"!

The reality is, middle class lifestyles aren't the result of atomized individuals, but of collective (gasp!)/societal decisions that benefit everyone. Burning through the "resources" that (briefly) sustained us won't keep us in copies of Podkayne of Mars. Let alone enough available food, shelter, and fresh water to keep a society stable.

All the more reason to get more resources. Fusion power, asteroid mining...

I'm not holding my breath on either one, though. Maybe in another century.

[villager]

160. we should quit industrializing cows and chickens, for one thing, and viewing them as "products"

...which leads to drugs in food, brutalization of the animals (and hence, of us), unchecked pollution in our waters (plus unchecked antibiotics), et al.

In long term, bad business and ultimately, bad "resource" management, from a planetary perspective.

You want that asteroid mining, you're gonna have to get busy redirecting military resources here on earth, my friend. Paradigm shift after all....

Glad to see some actual conversation here, though...

cheers....

[Marrah_G]

87. It makes me really sad to know they are killing the wolves.

[Bryn]

100. Signed the petition

to protect majestic wolves. A member of defenders of wildlife here.

[G_j]

103. Here is the link

Help Stop Idaho's War on Wolves
Write to Interior Secretary Salazar urging him to immediately hold Idaho officials accountable for their extreme anti-wolf policies.

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2437&s_src=3WDE1208A5T22&s_subsrc=050412_block_take-action

[truebrit71]

109. Same here...Signed and shared...

...Just one more thing where the difference between Lil' Boots and Obama is precisely zero.

[truebrit71]

106. The appointment of Ken Salazar to interior has been worse than James Watt..

...and the administration's handling of Wolf "recovery" has been laughable if it weren't so damned near criminal...

[Scout]

108. all those chicken shits that want to live out in nature, in the wild....

but then proceed to kill all the wild.

i know a lot of westerners, and that is exactly what they want.

they can't be bothered to keep their dogs in at night, so when their chained up in the yard with no protection dog gets killed by wolves, they blame the wolf. or, if the dog isn't chained but not otherwise protected, then they blame the wolves for "luring" the dog out of the yard and killing it.

[truebrit71]

117. Very useful thread....

...for pointing out "liberals" that need to be on my ignore list...

[Zorra]

119. It would be better if they spent their energy eradicating wolves from K Street.

The forked tongued wolves that thrive on K Street threaten human beings everywhere, and are a billion times more dangerous and destructive than the 4 legged kind in Idaho.

[redqueen]

121. Hear, hear! nt

[Bryn]

129. Echoing Hear, Hear!

[woo me with science]

130. DU Rec. nt

[fascisthunter]

156. wow.. what a f*cked Up Eye-Opener of a Thread

[ellisonz]

162. Your "mawkish sentimentality" is noted!

[fascisthunter]

163. lol...

[sarisataka]

165. Drill baby drill

Is now Shoot baby shoot?

Ah, what the hell, it's only one species we are talking about making extinct for economic reasons. And just cause a Dem does it I doubt a Repub would use that as a precedent in the future to knock off another species or two.
if you couldn't tell