If anyone has been paying attention to recent laws in Congress being pushed by President Bush, one of them includes a bill to let aerial shooters to hunt wolves in Yellowstone National Park area. Over the last several weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been quietly moving forward with rule changes that would allow officials in Idaho and Wyoming to begin killing wolves even before gray wolves are removed from the list of federally protected threatened and endangered species.
This latest proposal would jump start plans to use fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and other means to kill hundreds of wolves in Idaho, leaving just over 200 wolves in the state. In fact, three-quarters of the wolves in the Lolo District of the Clearwater National Forest could be removed ... even before they are de-listed.
And hundreds of wolves in Wyoming could be shot and trapped under the new rules, whether wolves are removed from the endangered and threatened species list or not. Something needs to be done to stop this shooting from happening. The Bush/Cheney administration needs to be stopped before they kill one of the most beautiful animals.
Visit this site to sign the petition to stop this law from passing: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/366468936?z00m=12335056.
Stop this needless killing from happening. Those that are animal lovers should sign and help cause.
Are you a vegan?
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
No I'm not vegan. I'm interested in protecting the wolves.
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
What motivates you to skew the reality here so badly?
Here is a little background:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wst_wolf_management.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUnWXY4J-pP18TZwtX4D4Q0a0RDQD8U74KMO2
These wolves are not endangered in the states in question, and are in fact encroaching on humans, which is the motive for hunting them. Feb. 28 they come off the endangered list, they are trying to change these rules 30 days ahead of that because of anticipated lawsuits that will make it criminal for ranchers to protect their herds against the increasing wolf populations. How do you figure the rights of people and cattle are less important than the rights of predators?
"How do you figure the rights of people and cattle are less important than the rights of predators?"
They're equally as important. If you have nothing to keep the human and cattle population down then you have food shortages and if you don't keep predators down then you have food shortages. Everything has natural rights and they are all equal.
While I agree with leaving well enough alone, I do have to admit that the author of this blog either made this widely bigger than it should be, or they read information so biased that it isn't even funny.
so you support hunting humans and wouldn't mind if another human sat on top of a building and shot you, then took you home and mounted your head on the wall for the sake of not letting the world have 'too many' humans?
I'm a big fan of hunting because it does keep a form of population control, however, to suggest that some wolf has more of a right to my cow than I do is silly.
If I own a ranch and I see a wolf stalking my cows, I ought to be able to shoot the wolf rather than having to call Animal control, wait an hour or so for them to show up (if they'll show up at all) for them to tranq the wolf as it is eating my cow (I don't think I'll be able to ask it to wait before eating my cow), then release it in the wild.
meanwhile, I'm down 1 cow.
No, a wolf gives up its 'right' to live when it enters my property to stalk and eat one of my cows.
Does a bald eagle give up its right to live if it enters onto your property and decides he'll take a chicken? Go for it.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
Ahh, but 'wolf' is not an endangered species.
There are some wolf species that are, and the one specifc to this discussion is, in about a month, coming off of the list of endangered species.
Also, it is important to note that the wolf is not this nation's chosen symbol, whereas the bald eagle is.
Bald eagles aren't endangered either.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
But they are our national symbolic bird.
As such, there are specific laws protecting them.
If our national symbolic animal was the wolf, your comparison might be valid.
Who cares about a symbolic bird? I'll remember that the next time I might accidentally step on a rose.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
The United States of Amerca seems to care, so much so that a law was specifically written to protect them for all time.
However, are you suggesting that there is no difference between plants and animals?
How about animals and humans?
Would you also support a 'human hunting' season, and would you volunteer to be the prey?
The rose is a national symbol as well; that's why I mentioned it. Having the tag of a national symbol doesn't mean very much to me. How did you come to believe I may support hunting humans? And you're a animal too.
"Harder than ya'll cause I'm smarter than ya'll
I know that deep down it's got to be bothering ya'll
Pay attention, watch fly gon get larger than ya'll
Put your pride on the rocks, make you swallow it all"
I didn't come to believe that you support hunting humans, just wondering if you did, if we're 'just an animal'
However, my point was that plants and animals are not the same, so why would you bring up the rose in a discussion about your comparison between the bald eagle and a wolf being killed for being a predatory menace?
Opening a hunting season on an animal is different from flying around in planes and helicopters and shooting them from 500 or more feet in the air. The airplane thing is worse than fishing from a barrel of trout.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Not really. But in the wild animals don't usually kill their own kind, it's counterproductive. The only time it normally happens is to young animals
I'm a big fan of hunting as well. I just believe that if a bear kills you, then we shouldn't kill it because you have just as much right as the bear had and you encroached on it's territory. It might be your territory, but before you and your cow were there it was the wolf's territory. Now territory changes so it is your territory now and the cows, so you have a right to protect it. But if you go off your territory and the animal kills you, well it has the right to protect its territory.
I agree, just like if another human is stalking me or my family and they get on my property, then I have the right to kill them. That is what you're implying isn't it? Animals will kill other animals for encroching on their territory no matter what type of animal it is. I also don't believe that humans are above animals like I assume you do because you're a Christian and that makes humans somehow more special in God's eyes.
And a human gives up its right to live when it enters my property to do me or my property harm.
Now I am not a PETA fuck, I just believe that since humans are homo sapiens which is an animal, then animals including us are the same. PETA can go play in the woods and see how grateful the animals are when they eat them.
Do you believe that killing the wolf pups is right? They plan on killing the wolf pups as well as the adults. How would you like it if someone came around started killing your calves of your cow herd?
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
"They plan on killing the wolf pups"
The only thing on your link that implies that is a cute wolf pup picture. Can you provide any evidence other than something written by an activist that even implies there will be open hunting of wolves? It appears by everything I can find that only nusiance animals will be destroyed.
Perhaps you are not TRYING to lie, but repeating lies without even trying to verify the facts might be even worse.
There is nothing like a 'Wolf Season' for recreational hunting even being proposed, let alone some kind of Wolf Cub killing legislation. Check your facts.
Here is the exact email for the petition that I received. If you want the email for yourself let me know and I'll have it forwarded to your email.
care2 petitionsite actionAlert
Wolf Emergency: Protest Plan to Kill Yellowstone Area Wolves Now
wolf pup
Take Action!
Under Idaho's lax wolf plan, even pups could be killed.
Forward to a friend >>
Read the petition >>
Hi _____, (my name has been removed to protect my privacy)
While most Americans have been celebrating the holidays, officials in the Bush/Cheney Administration have been working behind the scenes to pave the way for the killing of hundreds of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.
Don't let them get away with it! Urge U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to abandon his efforts to allow states to start killing wolves and stop promoting the premature de-listing of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Over the last several weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been quietly moving forward with rule changes that would allow officials in Idaho and Wyoming to begin killing wolves even before gray wolves are removed from the list of federally protected threatened and endangered species.
This latest proposal would jump start plans to use fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and other means to kill hundreds of wolves in Idaho, leaving just over 200 wolves in the state. In fact, three-quarters of the wolves in the Lolo District of the Clearwater National Forest could be removed ... even before they are de-listed.
And hundreds of wolves in Wyoming could be shot and trapped under the new rules, whether wolves are removed from the endangered and threatened species list or not.
A decision on this devastating proposal is expected in the next few weeks. Take a stand now. Please email Secretary Kempthorne right now and let him know that you oppose any proposal that would threaten the long-term future of wolves in the Northern Rockies and Greater Yellowstone Region.
Our partners at Defenders of Wildlife are mustering their resources to fight these terrible proposals in the weeks ahead. But right now, we need you to speak out for wolves with your message.
Thank you for acting today to save wolves!
Rebecca Young,
Care2 and ThePetitionSite Team
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
Right, but do you have a link to the actual bill where it says that pups could be killed?
This might suprise you, but emails calling for things like that sometimes aren't truthful..... they insert language that isn't true in order to tug at your heartstrings to support their cause.
While I don't have the time to find "the exact bill" for each state, I do have an article from the New York Times, a reliable news source, I believe. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22wolves.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gray+wo...
Please direct your attention to the following quote from it: "State management plans allow for wolf hunting, or outright eradication in some places — including most of Wyoming — with a target population of 150 in each of the three states.
Biologists cited by the environmental and wildlife groups say that target population is too small, and suggest instead that 2,000 to 3,000 animals are the minimum needed."
In my humble opinion, only allowing 150 wolves in an entire STATE isn't simply protecting ranchers, especially since many of those wolves have never ventured out of the national parks. While I do agree that if a wolf tries to kill a rancher's cattle, they have the right to protect that cattle, but that was legal even while the wolves were listed. Furthermore, during reintroduction, wolves are highly monitored and any that go even close to populated areas are captured and returned as soon as possible.
Aerial hunting of wolves that are still in the national parks on the off chance that they MIGHT travel toward the ranches is NOT legal unless the states say it is. I believe making it legal is wrong. Wolves that have never done anything to anyone shouldn't be punished just because they have the potential to eat something that makes us money. Humans have a right to protect their "territory" but wolves have a right to live in theirs without interference from us.
The link the author of this blog provides doesn't look very reputable, but if you'd like a more established environmental group's petition, the National Resource Defense Council has been around for many years and are currently at the forefront of a lawsuit against the delisting of gray wolves. Their campaign is here: http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/campaigns/wildlife/save-endangered-gray-wo...
------------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
NYT is probably OK for many things, but only a sumary of more direct sources.
"The delisting means that state officials and Native American tribes will soon manage their own wolf populations to sustain numbers at a healthy level while reducing conflicts with humans.
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have each committed to maintaining at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
Actual state management plans call for total wolf numbers of around 900 to 1,250 animals in mid-winter, Bangs said."
From the National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080221-wolf-endangered.h...
So they are 'committed' to 450 wolves, and plan at least double that number. That seems reasonable to me. There is only so much range suitable to these wolves, and over populating them serves no one.
Removing them from the endangered list just allows local regulation to replace federal. I think that people in the states in question are more in touch with the realities than anyone in Washinton DC or New York City.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
There's already 1300 wolves in those states who have been living side by side with the human populations, so why do they need to kill off more than 80% of the population and then plan for the current numbers. They're not overpopulated. Biologists wouldn't have allowed them to populate to the numbers they are at now if they were overpopulated.
Furthermore, if you'll read the NYT article, it states that the people in Wyoming in particular are opposed to the current state plans of "managing" the wolves. If you believe that the people in the state are more in touch, then shouldn't we be following the actual people's views rather than the legislature's?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
"why do they need to kill off more than 80% of the population"
You either don't read, or can't do math.
150 X 3 states = 450.
"Actual state management plans call for total wolf numbers of around 900 to 1,250 animals in mid-winter, Bangs said."
---
"shouldn't we be following the actual people's views rather than the legislature's?"
LOL. Are the legislature made up of people? Does it occur to you that different views among 'the actual people' exist? The states in question are represented by elected people in their legislatures. If the people of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho decide they need an extra thousand or two wolves they are well able to let their representatives know. I live in Florida, you live out of state, and the federal judge lives elsewhere as well. Why should we stick our noses in if the wolves are no longer endangered?
I think you should also consider that the full range extends into Canada.
"Currently an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 wolves inhabit Canada,"
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/canadian_wolves.html
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
And yet somehow your numbers don't match up either since 450 does not equal 950 and STILL requires a SIGNIFICANT killing of the current population of 1300. And according to the site I read, in one of those states bringing numbers down to 150 would kill 80% of the wolves in Yellowstone Park. You STILL don't think that's a little bit extreme, especially for states who claim to want the numbers much higher than that in the "future"? Oh, but the government has never backed out on an environmental commitment before. That's unheard of.
Plus, what is the point of killing wolves off to 150 in one state only to bring it back up? It's taken YEARS to get them up to 1300 in all three states, so if they take them down to 450, how long will it take to get them back up, especially with licenses to hunt them being given out and an obvious lack of commitment on the part of the states?
And yes, the legislature is made up of people of the states: people who get money from big businesses who don't want to be hindered by protections on wolves. Businesses who could afford to lose a bit of revenue but just don't want to. I believe that if there are town hall meetings on the issue and there are regular people speaking out against this issue, then obviously it is not as black and white as you're trying to make it out to be.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
Many times, they can't afford the loss. If wolves are around, terrorizing the cattle, and as a result, each cow weighs 50 lbs less at the end of the summer, and there are, say, 100 cattle in the herd, and each pound is worth, say, $8... That's $40,000 in losses. And the ranchers responsible for fattening the cows up lose money, when many of them cannot afford to lose that revenue. Yes, perhaps the owner of the cattle can afford to lose that much, but the ranchers certainly can't.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
As a previous commenter pointed out: there are between 50,000 and 60,000 wolves in Canada currently. How do they make any profit in their cattle industry? How do they even HAVE a cattle industry with that many wolves?
And there is VERY little possibility that a wolf would last long enough terrorizing cattle to make them lose any weight at all. It's completely legal and encouraged for wolves to be shot if seen near cattle. The Fish and Wildlife Service will even come out and do it for you! As a matter of fact, 39 wolves were killed in Idaho in 2006 due to that very reason. Why do we have to kill such large numbers of the population as a whole in order to deal with this? I'm all for keeping the population down with hunting, but how about they propose some more reasonable numbers?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
The Fish and Wildlife Service will even come out and do it for you! As a matter of fact, 39 wolves were killed in Idaho in 2006 due to that very reason.
Partially because there was so much loss in the previous years because of the wolves. Oh, and they had to do a whole lot of non-lethal things first, because they were still on the endangered species list.
I was responding specifically to your claim: Businesses who could afford to lose a bit of revenue but just don't want to. My point was that many of these businesses CAN'T afford to lose the revenue. I never said that the wolf population should be cut as dramatically as you seem to think it will be, but I certainly don't think it should be illegal to kill the wolves.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It USED to be that you had to use non-lethal means, but they revised the rule so that that isn't so: "Under the revised 10(j) rule,
livestock operators were given the option to kill wolves harassing livestock (previously, lethal removal was only allowed when wolves were observed actually attacking livestock)." (1) This is a perfectly reasonable measure to me, and I have NEVER said that I was against killing ANY wolves. I'm against the unreasonable numbers specifically listed in the Idaho plan: 15 breeding pairs down from 42 and only 150 wolves altogether from 673 in Idaho alone. So, it seems that we are in agreement.
(1) Idaho Proposed Wolf Management Plan Draft
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
"STILL requires a SIGNIFICANT killing of the current population of 1300."
Require?
Where do you get that?
Minimum, not maximum. Are you still only going by the NYT for that? The state with most of the wolves is Idaho. Here is their plan.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/draft_plan/WolfPo...
You need to look at the actual plan.
Wyoming is the only state of the three that wanted to reduce the population to a set number, and they did not get that plan approved.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Requires was the wrong word, I admit, but if the Idaho legislature allows that many to be killed, and builds their management plan around that minimum AND if they decide to allow aerial hunting which makes it MUCH easier to kill whole packs, do you really think that that minimum is never going to be reached? They're illegally killing wolves now as it is! If it's legal, there's going to be tons more people out there hunting, not to mention the people who are killing wolves simply to protect their livelihood added into the those numbers, which I warrant will not be calculated into the hunting season bag limits.
So, though it's really just a wording difference. We'll LET hunters kill over 50% of the population or we'll TELL hunters to kill over 50% of the population.
And of COURSE I read the Idaho plan. I understand now why you keep ignoring key points of my argument. I quote the thing in my response.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
Where do you get off saying that I made this bigger than it should be? The rights of animals are important. Read the link. I stated all the information that is on there. ***
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
***edited for possible TOS violation. mvenus929, Jan 18, 2008.
You are an animal. You do make it bigger than it should be, and by putting yourself above animals you put yourself above your fellow humans. Animal rights are our rights just as well. Your link is awfully biased and as chillbill said, it slaughtered the truth. It seems you don't read everything, just what you only want to see.
What about the rights of the animals? You sound like a cattle rancher yourself which would probably be why you are completely for shooting the wolves.
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
Heh. I'm not a cattle rancher and I have no problem shooting wolves.
It is MUCH more humane than how the eskimos do it.
Basically you believe in hunting for sport. If people hunt for food to live that's fine, but personally I'd go vegan if I had to hunt. I don't believe in hanging animal heads just to show off who can get the largest animal or fur skin blankets or rugs. They kill to survive unlike humans who kill for sport.
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie
Thanks for telling me what I believe in. I thought I had a good handle of what I believe in.
No, I don't believe in hunting for sport. Ranchers, Farmers and the hunters that they employ do not kill the wolves for the sake of killing something. They are killing animals that prey upon the farmer or rancher's livestock.
Don't let your apparent dislike for people who hunt skew you from why these people wish to kill these wolves.
Apparently you are slightly misinformed. These ranchers are NOT killing these animals for preying on their livestock. They're implementing state plans that will allow systematic eradication of wolves that live in national parks and probably will never travel out of those parks. It's not a matter of protecting their livestock, it's a matter of not liking them around because they have the potential to kill livestock.
In Arizona currently there are only about 30 Mexican Gray Wolves (one of the most endangered mammal in the world, a separate species from the Gray Wolves they're delisting) total in the entire state and people are so against them being there that they've put out anonymous "bounties" for wolf parts to prove that you killed one. People are illegally traveling INTO national forests to hunt these wolves for MONEY, not because the poor ranchers are losing their livelihood because of a handful of wolves that are barely hanging on as it is.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
They have moved out of the National Park... and every single inch of Yellowstone is claimed by a wolf pack, so any further packs HAVE to move out of the Park. And they move onto the land owned by ranchers and farmers. Now, not all the wolves are attacking the livestock... and they're working on finding ways to train the wolves not to attack, but to protect the livestock (since other wolves would be invading their territory.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
But in order to implement the plan, it would require a killing of a HUGE number of wolves, especially relative to their population. In my opinion, the number is RIDICULOUSLY large and far more than is actually needed. In one account close to 80% of the Yellowstone population would be allowed to be slaughtered. For a species that just got off the endangered species list, is that really a reasoned approach or even a necessary one? Shouldn't they be setting more reasonable numbers?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
I am against slaughtering the truth.
There is a controvercial subject here. Nothing wrong with taking a reasoned position on either side.
I love Dogs and have nothing against Wolves. If the Wolves were coming onto my property to kill my pets I would not ask my Federal masters or a bunch of Eccology activists for permission to protect my freinds and property.
Under current law I would have to hide my actions or go to jail. Now THAT would be tax money well spent.
---
"What about the rights of the animals?"
Which ones? The Wolves, or the animals they are killing?
Is there any level of agression by deadly predators that you think should be stopped?
That's just not true. If wolves came onto your property and threatened your pets, your livestock, or yourself, you are completely within your rights to kill that animal. There is no law against that, just as there is no law against killing bears if they threaten you. National Forest Workers in Alaska travel with shotguns in case of bear attacks and though it is illegal to hunt them, they are allowed to kill them if threatened.
It IS illegal if you skinned that killed wolf and tried to sell the pelt. It is ALSO illegal to go on national forest land and actively hunt them. It wouldn't be difficult to prove that the wolf came onto your land, though, as all reintroduced wolves wear radio collars for tracking purposes.
-------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
"It wouldn't be difficult to prove that the wolf came onto your land, though, as all reintroduced wolves wear radio collars for tracking purposes."
Most of the population are not wearing collars because they are descendents of those reintroduced.
If the wolves are attacking live stock herds it is far less likely that a rancher could catch them in the act, and more likely he would have to hunt or trap the perpetrators.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
So would that hunter get in a plane in order to find that wolf? And trapping is completely legal as well as long as they're on your land, not in national parks. You're ignoring my main point which is that the wolves that are killed are in national forests, not on ranching land and probably have never gone near humans or killed any livestock. Should we kill wolves who have never hurt any livestock?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
"Should we kill wolves who have never hurt any livestock?"
Wolves do not become 'livestock eaters' like Tigers become 'man eaters' they just kill the weakest easiest prey availiable. That does not make them evil, any more than a human hunter is evil. They are just following their nature. That nature, and the impact it had on ranchers led to the wolves being nearly eradicated.
Now that we have succeeded in creating a thriving population that population will either grow until it becomes a problem, or it will kept at a managable level so that humans and wolves can coexist.
I can understand that you do not want ANY wolves killed, but I think you fail to grasp the situation. The only question is how big a population can be sustained by the availiable wild country. Soft hearted friends of nature that live in cities and eat meat from supermarkets and McDonalds think 3 or 4 times the present 1500 should be allowed, but in reality if they get that they will still object to killing wolves. On the other side fish and game officers from the states involved have set a goal for a slightly smaller (900-1250) population than presently (1500) exists.
Who do you think knows the situation better?
How much meat can 1500 wolves eat in a month?
How many kills does it take to feed them?
---
"So would that hunter get in a plane in order to find that wolf?"
I am thinking you may have never seen a Montana prarie. Yes if the wolves were harming herds in a certain area a plane could be the most efficient way to hunt them. These ranchers work hard to make it. They cannot ride horses across miles of range looking for elusive wolves for weeks at a time. They have to feed their families.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Wolves can become "livestock eaters" if they find that the prey is easy to get at and available. That is why in the early stages of reintroduction, wolves that strayed too close to populated areas were captured and returned to protected lands, in order to teach them that going toward THAT meat is bad. Just like a dog trained by shock collar to stay away from a certain area of a yard learns, so do wolves. The process is not always perfect, but it's kept the vast majority of wolves in national forests.
And once again you're misunderstanding my argument. If the states were proposing to follow the FWS plan of 900-1250 wolves, that would be fine and dandy with me. That's only a small fraction of the current population killed in order to keep them from running out of habitat and prey. Those are completely reasonable numbers.
And I have no issues with keeping the population down by hunting or killing wolves, nor have I ever said that. As a matter of fact, I have gone out of my way to say that ranchers have a right to protect their territory even if it means killing wolves. MY issue is with state plans to cull populations down to 150 wolves per state. That means killing over 80% of the wolf population. Those are ridiculous numbers that push the wolves back to the brink of extinction. Both the NYT article I cited and the Nat Geo article YOU cited said that states had that plan and you have yet to address those crucial numbers, instead focusing on what the federal agency SUGGESTS.
You're also right on the count that we can't know which wolves have killed livestock, but going to national forests and protected land in order to indiscriminately shoot at wolves because one or two might have taken one or two cattle is a complete over reaction to the problem. How about instead implementing state programs to educate ranchers on how to keep their livestock safe from wolves, or subsidies for those living near wolf territory in case of losses. Or states could provide them with both and ranchers could protect their own land instead of expecting to solve the problem with needless killing of a delicate species crucial to our ecosystem.
Furthermore, I don't agree that the population should grow past the numbers it's currently at now if those numbers are sufficient to take the wolves off the list. However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that putting wolves back on the list after states have culled numbers so far as to endanger them again is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer dollars to redo a conservation effort that was already done once.
Finally, let me tell you a story. In Idaho, there was a push from the federal government for wolf reintroduction in that state. The Idaho legislature said that they didn't want wolves in THEIR backyard, but the Nez Perce Indians disagreed. They decided to take up the cause upon themselves and put the wolves on their reservation, much smaller than an actual state, as you can imagine. They also have a thriving ranching and cattle business, as well as being a poor area, especially before funding from the conservation efforts set in. And yet, they managed to not only live with the wolves, in a closer area, with few funds to increase "wolf-proofing" cattle farms, and a smaller staff than a state-run effort and all while creating probably THE most successful wolf rehabilitation effort in the country.
Now my question is: if they can do it with such handicaps, why the hell can't states do the same with huge budgets and resources at their disposal?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
Each STATE has a FWS as well as the US. They are the ones targeting the larger number, and committed to AT LEAST the smaller number.
Here is a good fact sheet with plenty of links
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
And this is the Idaho plan in detail (Pg34 has control goals and criteria).
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/draft_plan/WolfPo...
The NYT is a fine newspaper for many subjects, but in this case the author in a large northeastern city writing for a global audience has a built-in incentive to stir up a controversy, rather than merely inform.
The rules and intent here is NOTHING like the NYT article alleges. The environmental groups had input in public hearings, but they were not the only affected parties. Those groups exist by soliciting donations. Think for a moment if facts or hysteria serve their financial interests. The answer is obvious. What are those groups going to tell the NYT when Elk or Moose populations dwindle? My guess is they won't take credit for their role if they were to get their way and allow an overpopulation of the preditor responsible.
Why do you suppose the NYT didn't interview hunters or ranchers? At least the NatGeo article atleast interviewed management officials. I don't think we disagree as far as goals, but we perceive the various players here diferently. Check out the Idaho plan. Do you see any problem with it specificaly?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
I know that each state has an FWS and I know what it stands for. But it's ridiculous to assume that the numbers cited (900-1250) are for one state. They must be for all three. So then the question remains what the STATE is asking for. Your citation, the Nat Geo article states that each state is focusing on getting 150 wolves in each state as well.
"Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have each committed to maintaining at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves."
Are you saying they're lying, too?
And my problem with the Idaho plan is still the numbers and the methods being allowed for hunting. Even without legal hunting in place, "Of 59 mortalities attributed to
humans, 39 were killed by WS because of livestock depredations, 8 were illegally taken, 6 were from other human causes, and 6 were legally taken by landowners protecting livestock." If people are already illegally killing wolves and hunting them without a license, what do you think is going to happen if they're allowed to kill wolves.
The Idaho plan states that there are 42 breeding pairs in the state currently, and they say that they will stop allowing annual hunting seasons when the breeding pairs drop to 20. That means that they'll allow hunting of over half of the total population. For an animal that JUST got off the endangered species list, you STILL don't think that's extreme? And that's just the breeding pairs!
If we run with the two sources' quoting of 150 as a minimum, since I don't have time to read all 98 pages right now, in Idaho alone, that would mean they would allow the killing of 523 wolves, before stopping annual hunting, which also is ridiculously high. THAT is the problem I have with the Idaho plan.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
Management is the key word. The Idaho plan takes into account the other affected animal populations. Does the environmental lobby?
All I've seen of their plan is hyperbole. The way they represent the facts here seems like a fundraiser. Do they have any reference to specific guidelines that they would aprove of?
A limit on hunting does not guarantee that a maximum will be reached. Holding the population stable at the current size requires about 400 fatalities in the state of Idaho. Management officials who will constantly monitor the population will make decisions based on the population, and the related herds. An ecosystem is self balancing. Man and guns ruin that, but management needs to address balance, not just one species.
Is any arbitrary number the correct way to properly sustain all wildlife?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Studies have shown that wolves introduced into an ecosystem help restore habitats hurt by over-populated elk. This in turn keeps other populations such as foxes, golden eagles, and ravens up. Justification for killing wolves is based upon certain areas where elk herds have declined below desired amounts for HUNTING, not for ecological health of the area. Not to mention, these areas are few and far between. Most areas, the elk populations are doing just fine even taking into account future desire for human hunting.
And I do not speak for the environmental lobby and I have already said that I want more reasonable minimum numbers and I'd also like to see their actual plans for bag limits and hunting methods. The fact that the Idaho governor being so gung ho for wolf hunting is extremely discouraging for their survival as well. Here is an NPR article to support that: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6854157.
However, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) says that they want similar things: "The Bush Administration should continue protecting wolves under the Endangered Species Act until the states have plans in place to ensure that wolf populations will flourish in the future. They should make certain that connections are maintained between the three populations in the Northern Rockies so that these populations remain genetically healthy. These ecological bridges are increasingly important as rural sprawl and industrial development continue to fragment wolf habitat throughout the region." http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/campaigns/wildlife/save-endangered-gray-wo...
And bag limits and management plans will be set based on the minimum number, not on the good numbers. That's why they set minimum limits for deer and elk that are also sustainable numbers, because they expect them to be reached.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
I've spent time looking. I don't see anything in any official document stating that the wolf pups could be killed by hunters.
Given that I can't think of ANY type of hunting in which the young animals can be taken by hunters, I see no reason to believe that this bill by Idaho is any different.
That people who oppose hunting suggest otherwise is not sufficient proof. (it isn't any kind of proof. Anti-hunting groups are known to lie and twist facts in order to turn people against hunters.)
I think that you have been had by an email designed to make you oppose hunting and you believed it. Unless you can provide actual evidence that this hunting bill for wolves includes pups, I hold that you are incorrect and are spreading propaganda. (not necessarily wilfully, I do believe that you believe what you are saying is true.)
More than likely, the author was misinformed on this point. I haven't found anything that would support the claim that they're killing wolf pups. The only way that would happen is if they shot a mother wolf in their aerial shooting campaigns, which is highly possible as mothers don't stay in their dens with their pups the whole time.
Other than that, I don't think any legislature would be stupid enough to pass a law that would allow the killing of baby wolves. No one in any state would support that, I think. There are people in the affected states who don't even support the proposed aerial hunting measures.
-------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
While I don't necessarily agree with the petition (they've been trying them for a year now with little to no success), some of the plans these states, especially Idaho, have put forth since delisting became a topic of discussion do alarm me.
Idaho has consistently put forth plans that make little to no sense to me. At one point, they wanted to cull 550 of the estimated 650 grey wolves (actual count was believed to be 673 at the time) in the state. The plan currently in draft in Idaho only calls for 15 breeding pairs to be maintained in the state.
Now, I have no problem delisting an animal given adequate plans to ensure they do not land back on the list within a few short years, but I would greatly hesitate to say that killing over 80% of the population is a great way to ensure they don't need to be placed back on the list in a few years. Maintaining more than the bare minimum makes more sense to me, especially given that no one can predict exactly how hunting is going to affect the population since so many of the wolves were never collared.
On another note, in most of those states, it is already legal for ranchers to kill wolves in order to protect themselves and their livestock. As a matter of fact, 152 wolves were killed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for just such a reason in 2006. So, all the cries that they don't currently have that option that have been bounced around since the delisting debate began sound like just so much hot air to me. The problem isn't that they don't have the option, it's that it's not the option that is wanted. On a similar note, there has been a lot of fuss about the wolves damaging other wildlife populations, but as has been pointed out, good has come from that as well. Wolves culled the elk population which is attributed to a revival of willow habitat and a further reaching cascade effect that has benefited several species (see link).
Give me a plan that makes sense and is straightforward, and I'll roll with it, but after researching this one for ages now, I still come away feeling more than a little leery of the entire plan. It's too much too fast with no guarantees to ensure that the population remains stable. How much of a plan is it when "the plan" doesn't even require assesment of "the plan" until wolves fall below the bare minimum 15 pairs?
-----
Soar high and laugh on the wind
~Fallon~
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."- Thoreau
-----
Predators like Wolves and Mountain Lions kill the weakest members of the herds they prey on (unlike humans that prefer to kill the strongest) and thus improve the strength of the Elk, Deer and Antelope herds.
1) The actual change in the federal rules is actually pretty minor.
As the 10(j) rule now exists, states must prove that wolves are having an unacceptable impact on ungulate populations—which include deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, antelope and bison—to be allowed to remove them by lethal means. In the 2005 rule, unacceptable impact is defined as a "decline in a wild ungulate population or herd, primarily caused by wolf predation." Under the new rule the Fish and Wildlife Service is set to release, unacceptable impact would be redefined to be an "impact to a wild ungulate population or herd, with wolves as one of the major causes of the population or herd not meeting established state or tribal population or herd management goals." (LINK)
2) Please don't send people to sign online petitions. There is no less effective way of making an actual impact in a cause than signing an online petition. By far, the more effective way to influence a vote in your state or the federal legislature is to send a neat, concise hand-written letter to your district's representatives.
Check out SNOPES: Internet Petitions.
It is admirable that you are concerned about wildlife preservation, but the effective conservation of wildlife is often a bit more complex than your emotional appeal would suggest. Sometimes you have to cull the herd (or in this case, the pack), in order to ensure the health of the environment.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Though the actual wording change in the bill is very small, it opens the door for a great deal of change. Not to mention, the problem isn't with the federal law changes, it's with the state responses to that change. I agree that sometimes it is for the benefit of the species to keep the numbers down with controlled hunting, but in this case, that's not what is being proposed. Out of 1300 wolves in all three states, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, only 130 in each state are going to be left. That is not merely "culling the herd," that's eradicating a huge portion of the population.
-----------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi