WILL STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS WORK?
Coming Soon to a State Near You, Giant German Shepherd Hunting
By Bill Schneider, 2-28-08
 |
|
 | |
|
This week, thirteen years since reintroduction into the northern Rockies, the federal government says the Big Dog, the wolf, is no longer an endangered species, which means the state wildlife agencies take over wolf management. The state agencies are already in the starting blocks to give us something we've never, ever had here in the New West, regulated sport hunting for wolves.
Regardless of the agency readiness, though, wolf managers expect delays as conservation groups drag delisting through the court system. But regardless when seasons open, will sport hunting accomplish the goal of reducing wolf numbers to target levels?
The lawsuits will say politics not science has dictated wolf delisting, and I'd hate to be the guy who had to convince us that politics wasn't a driving force behind it. New West politicians all want the wolf quickly delisted, in not eradicated again, but there's another, and powerful, political dynamic out there. For conservationists everywhere, the cover story is scientific integrity and biodiversity, but let's be honest. Many, many people simply can't stomach the idea of hunters shooting majestic dog-like creatures.
| |
| Most hunters don't want to hunt things they don't eat, especially things that look like the neighbor's best friend | |
|
When we get to that point, even those who hate the thought of a single wolf being killed probably will sign on to sport hunting as the preferred method. Look at the alternatives--trapping, poisoning, aerial gunning, smoking pups out of dens and clubbing them to death, or more of the status quo--expensive "management actions," which usually involve shooting wolves from helicopters or trapping and euthanizing "problem wolves."
Under state management plans, wolves will be "trophy animals," which means hunters aren't required to eat the meat but are required to take the trophy, in this case, the pelt. But here's the rub. Most hunters don't want to hunt things they don't eat, especially things that look like the neighbor's best friend. Ask yourself how many avid hunters you know who don't own a dog.
To help answer this question, I called up my friend Ed Bangs, who has been coordinating wolf recovery for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since his agency let the Big Dogs out of their boxes down in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. He agrees that the majority of hunters won't be interested in wolf hunting, but he has confidence that enough will to accomplish state management goals.
"I think hunting will be very effective here in the northern Rockies," Bangs believes. "In areas that are accessible and in open country, wolves are very vulnerable."
In fact, he predicts, hunters could kill them all if that's want we wanted.
Bangs reminds us that we're already "harvesting" wolves. Illegal shooting, management actions, road kills, and other mortality already take out 26 percent of the northern Rockies wolf population every year. This means we already have a lot of control on wolf numbers in contrast to the common belief among wolf haters that the population is growing exponentially.
But will hunters want to do hunt wolves? I did my little survey at the coffee shop and saloon, and none of my hunting friends have any interest in wolf hunting.
Bangs concedes that not many hunters will go out specifically after wolves. "Wolf hunting is almost always associated with hunting something else, like elk. Very few hunters go out just for wolves."
And will it be hunting or killing? Right or wrong, there's a lot of anger among the hunting community over wolves. Some hunters will want to kill one just to have one fewer wolf left on earth--and probably consider it a public service, not sport hunting.
"Some will just want to kill wolves," Bangs concedes, "but some will want the hunting experience. I sure hope hunters will want to hunt wolves because it's a challenging hunting experience."
I hope so, too, but because I'm not sure what I'll think about Plan B if regulated sport hunting doesn't work.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The sad thing about all this is the tax payers dollars that are going to be spent in court to fight the suits by the groups aiming to protect these animals. Let the FWP do there job! There good at it!
Excellent article Wild Bill!
Scientifically speaking, wolves do a pretty good job of controlling themselves, in conjunction with the ups and downs of the prey base. It just doesn't happen fast enough for the impatient, the greedy, and the ecological knowledge-challenged. That's the nature of wolf control up North.
Historically, few recreational hunters have hunted, or do hunt, wolves specifically to hunt wolves; it's somewhat difficult,and wolves, although not as smart as coyotes, aren't stupid. Up North, a wolf tag was thrown in along with the ungulate tags, if a wolf tag was thrown in at all, just to encourage the hunter to take a wolf if a wolf in the serfice of natural selection presented itself.
Also up North, the primary (sustainable) take of wolves was trapping; bullet holes in pelts tend to lower the value of the pelt, as anyone who knows anything about the fur trade knows. Hunting wolves for the pelt just isn't very smart. On the other hand, trapping wolves takes lots of skill. I don't see that kind of skill-oriented discipline in today's ATV bound hunters; they aren't going to take up trapping. Running wolves to ground in exhaustion and then assassinating them is more their style.
What really controls wolves, as we all know, is throwing on Judas collars and tracking wolves down in aircraft and blasting them with a double ought 12 gauge. Not at all sporting, and it offends the Big Wolf in the sky. Thing is, the Big Wolf is friends with the Big Bear in the Sky, and you really, really don't want an unhappy Big Bear tromping through your dreams, or maybe into your camp, looking to balance the scales.
In other words, it's the predator control mentality, a mentality that is fundamentally immoral, because rooted in selfishness and greed and contempt for the natural world, that really controls wolves, and that's the Big Problem. There's no limit to it, and Big Bear's patience is limited.
In short, the predator control mentality is what principled hunters such as myself--who also happens to have a bit of experience with wolves--object to.
Well, the drama has moved to the courts. It's better than the Sopranos.
RH
I use every part of everything I kill or trap. As for street corner peddling, you would be better to ask your wife about that.
(Let's get off the mother's, cause I just got off yours).
Oldy, but goody.
I hunt every year in wolf and grizzly infested country. I will not hunt wolves.
I don't need to scrounge around and trade what little morality I have left for "hundreds of dollars" worth of wolf parts. I ain't that broke.
Trappers are the slime of today's earth. Get a clue.
I've spent a lot of time Elk hunting in an area with a significant number of wolves (The Big Hole), and have seen tons of sign, but have never actually seen a wolf, much less been in a position to shoot one. And neither have my friends that I hunt with. So, I've got to believe it will be no easy task for the average hunter to actually get a wolf in public land areas.
Also, like many of the hunters you talked with, I'm generally not interested in shooting a critter I don't intend to eat. So given those two facts, I would not be inclined to put in for a wolf license.
Much has been written lately about declining opportunities for average hunters on private lands and deteriorating relations between land owners and hunters.
So, what if a hunter such as myself did put in and get a wolf license. I already know I'm not going to have much of a shot in areas that I normally hunt Elk. But who does regularly see them AND have a vested interest in having them removed? The landowners (aka ranchers) of course. So, could a hunter like me use a wolf tag as a tool to establish relations with a rancher or two? Basically, as a way of getting your foot in the door by saying, hey, I'll remove a wolf from your place if you don't mind me also bagging an Elk. Once the relationship has been established and assuming the hunter treated the landowner with respect, it might be much easier to come back the next year (without a wolf tag) and hunt again.
Now for that, I'd be willing to put in for, and pay for, a wolf tag. What do you think, wolf tags as a tool for hunter access?
In the interests of all wildlife, not just wolves, this agency needs to be terminated.
Whomever wishes to comment on this please do not try to tell us that you need the money from killing wolves to feed your family. The cost of your hunting rifles, camo clothes, scent lock suits, bows, arrows, gas money to get to where you are going to hunt, etc. would buy a lot more groceries than you can legally kill.
Miles City.... you realize you will not get to (legally) kill them all, do you not?
In the big Waremart store I shop at, maybe 10 linear feet of shelf space, six or eight high is devoted to baby food. A whole aisle, both sides, half the length of the store is devoted to pet food, primarily cats. The peer reviewed science says that domestic cats, kept and feral, are killing at the LEAST, one billion or more birds per year in North America out of an estimated yearly peak season population of perhaps 14 billion. Some studies suggest maybe the take is as high as 3 BILLION birds per year. So who gives damn? Nobody. Cat people pay money to the wolf worshippers, share their love. And they are millions of votes in every election. No politician will kick that crusted over cowpie. It is a third rail issue. Which leads me to say extirpation of neo tropical song birds, and many of the year long residents, is not far off.
This was the quietest winter of my life, the paucity of birds apparent. The Audubon winter and summer backyard counts will tell us more. Habitat loss to subdivision is a factor, but wolf faeries don't care that they hasten the process as every chance. As I write this, I am occasionally watching an Anna's hummingbird fighting off chickadees and building a nest. Tough little bugger to winter out here.
Unbounded predation will kill the last critter. A look at bird extirpation and extinctions on islands after cat, rat or sailor introductions, or foxes in the Aleutians, shows the hard evidence. There is no limit to predation. Predators will kill the last prey, and then both will be gone or the predator moves on. Whatever benign coexistence folks think wolves once had in the Rockies left with those wolves, and the new kids in town are not constrained by prior environmental modifications that might have been present as to how local wolves once acted. That is apparent by the mantras of wolf self regulation we have heard, and the evidence on the ground that multiple litters in packs has become the norm. It is probably a result of abundant food supplies, and when the prey begins to run out, the wolves will either move or breed less, and have more territorial disputes and fratricide.
It is rather dismaying to see the USFWS aerial shooting mangey wolves. That is playing God, and none in that Agency has those trappings to my knowledge. Having USFWS being the "deciders" should send a shudder through us all. Paid assassins in the employ of government getting lots of practice is troubling.
The Will Graves book on the Russian wolf experience dramatically illustrates that having to depend upon government to control wolves is not always a good deal for the people on the ground being harmed by excessive wolf presence. Governments can be stopped by people who have "no dog in the fight" as it were, as happened after the Mowat book came out and was read by many. Or government can be busy elsewhere, or out of money, or the people being harmed are ethinically or culturally not desireable to the majority, and thus wolf control is carried out with discrimination as a driver. I can see that in the New West as ranchers are demeaned on an hourly basis by wolf defenders. It is an old tactic, the one of demeaning your victim before you smash them. I heard enough "beer swilling rapists of the forest" name calling directed towards loggers to last a lifetime. One person has been backhanded in my life for calling me a rapist, and the same will happen to any other who calls me that to my face, even though it would now probably kill me in my dotage. That anger has not dried up, gotten old, even though my body has.
Rhetoric won't control wolves, and neither will serendipitous hunting contacts. It has to be done with a plan, which each of three states has, only the obdurate wolf lovers won't have any part of it. Lawyers love our way of life. Their prey base expands with every meeting of legislators, and they can expand their territory and numbers and flourish.
Take a look at the Earthjustice commondreams website. It says Taking Back America. I want to know exactly who are they taking it from and who are they planning to "have" it?
Hunting will not control the wolves, the predator status in Wyoming will not control the wolves. Sooner or later enough people are going to have to figure out that protecting a major, rapidly reproducing predator like the wolf above other animals is a recipe for disaster. A big part of the problem is the fact the majority of the country lives in big cities and has no clue as to reality. They certainly would not want wolves in their yards, but that is "different", someone has to "sacrifice".
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0227-10.htm
Kidding aside, you MUST acknowledge the rape of our forests if you expect to impart any credibility. You may be a logger... one of the good ones perhaps... but there are also far too many who will not be happy until the last old growth stand is gone if for no other reason than to stick it to the "environmentalists". If you cannot acknowledge this then you are completely full of it.
And what about the owls that have taken a cat or two of mine away? Aren't they just being owls? Do I blame them for being themselves? Do I go out and post that all owls should be forever banished because they ate my cat? Golden eagles also imbibe.
Maybe you meant songbirds, and not the all inclusive bird category.
Predators will not kill the last prey, and then both are gone. That's not the way nature works, dude. Are you serious with that? Do you proofread any of those uncontrolled, long-winded ramblings you constantly post? Or do you just shoot from the hip?
I went through the list of new litigants and have to laugh. Defenders is there, so much for being cooperative. NRDC. Sierra. CBD. HSUS. JHCA. FoCL. AWR. OrWILD. CWP. And last but not best, John Marvel's WWP. Two of these are the biggest eco-litigants on the planet. And EJ is the home plate for the lawyers. Usual suspects, same old garbage.
This isn't about science, nor is it about justice. It's about people who would and should otherwise be irrelevant maintaining a political power base upon the foundation of a fundamentally inept act of a fundamentally inept and cowardly Congress.
Pshht.
Those of us in the southwest are being saddled with the pen-raised hybrid variety wolf. These habituated wolves have no fear of humans or human scent and are inherently dangerous.
Marion's read on the Earthjustice commondreams is just what it says. They want to "Take Back America" (Federally managed lands) from all ranchers, loggers, miners, hunters and all consumptive users on the Federally managed lands. They have a lot of support and help. The Biological Diversity Center and WildEarth (formerly Forest Guardians and Sinapu) are the two big eco freak groups here and they are working very hard to rid the forests of consumptive users, mainly the rancher and the hunters.
These same groups will keep state wolf management tied up in the courts for along time to come. I don't think any of us will be hunting wolves anytime soon.
The spotted owl got the logger and now they are using the wolf to get rid of those damed old welfare ranchers (pun intended) and those blood thirsty hunters.
Wake up folks and get on the right side of the fight. Some of you are part way there.
Do YOU want to cut the old growth forests? I assume that you do by your response. Shame.
Ben, I wish we could dismiss a lot of the environmental nonesense, but the fact is there is nothing too radical to get thru if they put it before the right judge.
Read how Jon Marvel uses one specific judge:
http://rangemagazine.com/features/spring-08/sp08-oz.pdf
Man cannot be trusted to handle this "right" responsibly. I hear all the idiots talking where I live in Idaho and I already know that the general public hunting of wolves is a HUGE mistake. I don't know what the answer is, but it is not let every Tom, Dick and Harry go out for a killing.
Wolves have a delicate pack system that we do not fully understand - (especially Tom and Dick mentioned above) - so when the pregnant female gets taken out and the alpha male gets killed, what becomes of the pack? Most likely more rogue hunters out of the pack without the direction of its leaders...more "problem" wolves.
And the fact that sheep and cattle ranchers want to cry about their losses all the time - I say you graze on public land virtually for free so cut your losses or quit grazing where the sheep and cattle don't belong to begin with! I see what they do to "our" streams here in Idaho - a true disgrace.
And the elk population - try factoring in every single element that is leading to their decline in number and I am willing to bet you all the wolf is not at the top of that list.
Typical Tom and Dick (and George)...find an enemy, kill the enemy, find out the enemy wasn't really an enemy after all...oh well. Can we find someone else to blame? "Maybe it was them cougars after all.....hmmmm"
Diseased trees are indeed a huge problem. Why do you think we have so many diseased trees? Historical fire suppression resulting in overcrowding coupled with global warming and drought means disaster for the forests... very ripe for insect infestation. I would agree that disease needs to be controlled aggressively. However, the fact is that so many unscrupulous resource extractors want to use disease as an excuse to cut down the healthy trees too. You know it is true. Everybody is chasing the dollar and big, fat healthy trees are green in more ways than one.
Lastly, range magazine is the most despicable source of misinformation I have EVER encountered. If you are reading that filth you might look elsewhere for a more balanced view of the world.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5814/960?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT;=&fulltext=elk+wolf&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
I know, that's one awful url; hopefully you can get it to work.
From an interview of Scott Creel, MSU Ecology scientist:
"Most people assume that low numbers of calves were due to direct predation. The paper says in large part it's because of the effect on pregnancy rates," said Scott Creel…In the Gallatin Canyon herd, there were just eight calves per 100 cows. Generally, 30 calves per 100 cows is considered a solid ratio to sustain a herd.
Carefully read that study, and then tell me that wolves are not "at the top of the list", as you state.
Also the old tired saw that welfare ranchers and their livestock are the ruination of the west, only further professes your lack of knowledge. You might try and research the studies done by New Mexico State University and their Range Improvement Task Force and what they have found. It is more expensive to graze on Federal lands than it is on private lands and by a rather large margin.
Elfman, you show your true colors by bad mouthing Range Magazine, evidently the truth hurts. It is right on, and it is hard for the other side to accept what really is going on, in the West. The "New West" needs a dose of common sense.
By the way, I was not responding to the particular article that was referenced above. Frankly, I did not even look at it because I saw "Range Magazine" and I know from experience they cannot be trusted regardless of the truths that may or may not have been present in the article referenced above.
In one case years ago I was even witness to a particularly sick individual who, after killing his first elk, got down on the ground on top of the animal and pretended to be humping the animal like a dog in a sex act. This was all to show his manhood and domination I suppose. These are not exceptions to the rule. I have seen this kind of thing time and time again though, fortunately, there are some respectable hunters out there. Non hunters have difficulty seeing the difference, however.
Repeat after me:
A wolf is a house payment
a coyote is a tank of gas
2 beaver is a pair of boots
a deer hide is a pair gloves
By the way, you must drive a prius if a coyote is worth tank of gas. Not what I pictured you driving.
The politics behind the state-sponsored hunts for the wolf, is that the Federal Government sunk a lot of money into the wolf recovery program and the states are just trying to capitalize on that little venture, just like every other conservation effort in this country. It's always in terms of dollars and never in terms of our future.
I only wish to point out that all wildlife has value. F&G;has a price for every game animal. Don't be such cry babies, reread McGuane if you have to. Ortega maybe.
I have respectfuly killed my own meat my entire life. I imploy a hunting method none of the above could master on their best day.
But enough about me, I prefer to bait new west lattie rabble.
I do want to give you some credit though, as I've posted this study in 3 different wolf discussions, and you're the first person to make any kind of comment.
One of the things I like about this study is it demonstrates that wolf-elk dynamics are more complicated than simply looking at how many elk the wolves are killing.
I know I will regret this but I must ask... what is this 'hunting method" that you have so masterfully perfected? Do you throw rocks out of trees, use an Atlatl? Perhaps a Rambo knife?
You were taken to task because you suggested that wolves (and other critters) have an economic value benefiting those who hunt. The pure economic value that critters have is found in the defrayment of all the fun and games expenses that comes with hunting. The "feed and clothe" my family argument is crap.
I won't reveal my hunting method because you would think better of me and I don't need your approval or respect.
I suspect we will see the bears in particular getting pushed further and further out from the park as the food source dries up. I won't hazzard a guess about the lions.
Wolves are coming from all over the place that are unknown and breeding like rabbits under the adoring eyes of the wolfers.
This is not about ranchers, except your desire to destroy them, this is about a little common sense.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/kathie-lynch-reports-on-the-wolf-dating-scene-in-yellowstone-park/
Twister - My nerves are immune to trollers like you so don't flatter yourself. This is pure fun and recreation for me. So, on to the point. YOU were the one who suggested you were scraping for lunch money by saying that a "coyote = a tank of gas", etc which is, of course, ridiculous given how much your average hunter spends on toys. You presented hunting as a livelihood issue which it is not unless you are on the north slope of the Brooks Range killing a moose every fall to get you and your dog team through the winter. Also, generally speaking, too many hunters ARE, in fact, "dead elk humping animals"! I have seen this type of behavior all too often. You probably have too and just do not want to admit it. Do you not understand that I too am a devout hunter and that I am simply making an honest observation as to the slovenly nature of so many hunters. I will reiterate there are fortunately exceptions to this rule and many of them so it is a same hunting gets the bad press that it does without making the distinction. As for your hunting method, I would imagine you think that the skill you have purported to achieve with a particular weapon (let's say it is a sharp pointy stick) makes you more of a man than a guy who uses a more technologically advanced weapon. I disagree but, regardless, good for you. You go out there into the world, beat your chest and prove yourself to be a man. Let us know when we are supposed to "Oooooh" and "Aaaaaaah"!
Oh yeah... the city argument. I almost forgot. Do you know me or where I am from? Do you know where I grew up? This is just an incredibly stupid and assumptive point you try to make with this. Even if I was born and raised in NYC (which I was not) it does not mean that I would not be capable of understanding the fallacy of the "economics" of hunting. I kill an elk almost every year and have meat in the freezer but I am not stupid enough to believe that the pure economic value to me of that meat is operating in the black! On the contrary, hunting puts almost all of us at a net financial loss. The other gains, however, are substantial or most of us would not be doing it.
There was also the time that a hunter in Alabama sitting in a tree stand along an old logging road early one foggy morning pulled the trigger on the second of two deer that crossed that logging road. The deer went down and, curiously, the deer that first crossed the road came back to "check out" the other deer. Despite the fact that Alabama has a very generous limit (1 buck or doe per day) this guy shot the other deer too which then fell on top of the other where they both lay dead or dying. Then, the man got out of his tree stand, walked over to the two dead deer only to discover that it was actually two men dressed in hunter orange from head to toe. The flat light of the fog made it difficult to see and apparently he didn't notice they were standing on two legs. True story. Believe it or not.
Oh, and then, of course, there is the exemplary Dick Cheney.
Jim,
Thanks for the forward - I did read - understand that ONE particular study on this very broad issue. That is the problem isn't it? One scientific way of viewing the issue versus another...how can so many people view things so differently? I guess it depends on what data supports your cause. Which brings me to...
T. Klumker,
Nowhere in my post did I claim to be an expert or to have done any research myself about my claims. My thoughts above are just that, thoughts. I was making a point about the inability of most men/women (especially the ones I have been talking to or overhearing) to see this possible hunt as anything but revenge on an animal they do not understand. Not one of these persons has been personally or adversely affected by the wolves. Oh, that's right, "their" elk they wanted to shoot (and kill) next fall might instead fall victim to a real predator - not their bullet. By the way, I don't have anything against ethical and proper hunting (leave your 4-wheeler at home)- so don't label me anti-hunter.
I don't live in a fairy tale, I live in a true state in which I can speak my mind and don't have to back it up with other people's words or research. I was not trying to prove a scientific fact - nor am I now. Also, you and your research did not address how the "cuddly" grazing sheep and "fuzzy-wuzzy" cattle are destroying riparian areas with no consequence to the rancher. It seems as though Fish and Game and Forest Service have only one eye sometimes. I don't need other people's research; I have seen this and the effects first hand. And you want to know something else, I love the fish too! Oh the humanity!
And to Craig,
Thank you for the back up. Mr. Klunker didn't really hurt my feelings - just gave me a good laugh. He doesn't know how to just shoot the sh*t! I know I am not coming to this blog with other people's research and facts and I cannot drop really important names and numbers, but I don't have to. As for all you liberal hating, right wingin', elk lovin', wolf bashin' folks know really well, THIS IS AMERICA and I can indeed speak my mind. Thanks folks!
Nice story about the boy killed by the deer. Here's another, a few years back my nephew tripped and discharged his shotgun and blew his head off. Want to move on to war stories now hero or just let it go?
Make no mistake main value of the wolves is entertainment. They are not even benefitting the wildlife, the YNP elk herds are being trashed. The northern herd si the only one they actually count, and they count into Montana becaue part of that herd winters there. A population of 19,000 was touted as a big reason we needed wolves, they jsut counted 6200 left and only about 2000 of those inside the park. The wolves are breeding like rabbits, and the elk cannot stand much more overall, moose are very scarce now. When the ungulates go, the wolves will too. Now I understand the wolves in Yellowstone cannot be controlled no matter what happens, but those outside definitely need to be.
The biggest benefit outside of entertainment is the trees are growning and that is probably as much from the loss of moose as elk.
Sadly there does not seem to be a firm number that wolf proponents will settle for, certainly the near 2000 now are not enough, what is enough? Can you tell me? There is no natural control of them, they breed way too fast.
The residents of the three states kept their word and did not SSS for the most part even as the numbers soared way beyond what was supposed to be. Now they use fear that we won't provide enough protection as an excuse to break their word.
I think I have never before seen it stated quite so succinctly...
Lands stripped of trees became farms, towns, cities. The "skid road" was bastardized into "skid row" by linguistic illiterates of the media, but no matter, it was a road on which logs were dragged by oxen or horses on skids to the water where they could be "boomed" to mills. Along those skid roads were boarding houses, bars, merchants of vice, merchants of hard goods and groceries. Those roads went through the heart of the city in the beginning. All built on the land "raped" of its trees.
Now that there are 300 millions people living in these United States, we have to know that many live in housing built on once timbered acres across our once forested lands.
Out here in Oregon, there is more timber on the land than ever before. Trees grow on lands logged over. First, it is the law that replanting follows logging, and a minimum number of trees per acre is always present. There are some who say the tree goal is artificial, and is at the heart of growing forest fire intensity and scope. We have too many trees, and not enough meadows, prairies, fens, wet grass lands, and savannahs.
So, Elfman, in my view, logging removed trees that existed because of centuries of Indian burning, landscape management by set fire, and those trees have been replaced by younger, smaller trees. If that Indian burn maintained forest is what people think we should restore, and I think that is a good goal for public lands, we have a lot of work to do.
First, we have to fight wildfire vigorously. Then we have to remove all the excess fuel, and follow that with controlled underburns. And then get on a schedule of regular underburning at pretty frequent intervals. The whole of that is called management. It involves cutting and removing a lot of trees to get there. My bet is that we cannot get there from here, and in the end, following the True Believers of "Let it Burn" will be our fate, and all those unlogged, and "protected" forests of heritage trees left from Pre-Eurpean contact will be nothing more than a giant snag patch on scorched earth.
So, Elfman, I don't think the forest was raped as much as it is now being raped by neglect and management roadblocks thrown up and litigated on every USFS and BLM decision on a daily basis. There are acts of commission, and acts of omission, but both can be a path to ruin. You end up at the same place. Doing nothing did not save one Serb, Jew, Gypsy, handicapped person from the Holocaust. Doing nothing is not going to save our heritage forests, the balance in animals the majority wants from public lands, or save one head of livestock, pet or endangered animal. Have the wolves killed the less than 20 woodland caribou in Idaho yet? I see no census reports, no annual media reports, no NGO activity, and because I see none, the more certain I am they are probably gone.
So, here we are, a thousand or more wolves breeding like flies, expanding like Zebra mussels, all the wolf sociology rules being broken by the out of compliance wolves throughout their rapidly expanding range, and control of the wolf population is nowhere in sight or near. Nor will it ever be. The game animals lost are primarily on public land, all public property, so if there are none left to hunt, that is the public's business. The majority shall prevail, I would hope.
However, the public's wolves have no right to private livestock.
At some point, growing livestock losses will bring about less support for an unbounded population of wolves. Better the wolf population issue be addressed now than later, because wolves are going to die. There will be blood. Less now than later.
How about private livestock have no right to the public's lands?
Cattle devestate ecosystems. Ranchers stand in the way of wolf recovery, grizzley recovery, native grass recovery,prarie dog recovery, bison recovery,etc.Of all the things ranchers love to hate, the thing that belongs to the land the least is the cattle.
Just to make you feel good, here is an example of some of that devastation from grazing. I took the photo last spring.
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/81217276
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/89180030
Do I get to decide? I ask do you? Why do you get to decide that teh American people cannot retore this badly damaged ecosystem? Why do you get to decide that a destructive industry continues at the expense of all the living things on the land? The native animals have lived on native grass for thousands of years. Don't try and convince me that bighorns are more damageing than cattle. Ranchers have allowed over grazing for so long, that many native grasses have almost been erdicated. Many non native species have taken over,intentionally put there by ranchers. The reason prarie dogs are legal to shoot with no limit, despite the fact that many biologists are alarmed at their declining rates, is because the wildlife "managers" have pressure put on them by the ranching industry. Cattle cause far more damage than they are worth economically, especially as America wakes up to the health effects of beef and switches to turkey and chicken.
Or do you prefer to ignore actual facts, and make up your own to match your desires?
Every single activity has an effect on the earth, including yours, I seriously doubt you walk on air.
Here are the facts.
Many native grasses have been eradicated from over grazing and competeition with intentionally planted non native grasses.
The plains and other grass lands were historically taller, providing more cover for newborn herd animals. This is why wolf and elk co existed for thousands of years without "help" from humans. This is why herds elk and antelope were able to survive in sustainable numbers along with wolves for thousands of years. The new grasslands have shorter grasses and provide less cover, thus wolves have more of an impact than they would otherwise.
Attempts to restore bison to their former range have been met with resistance because they compete with cattle for grasses, and ranchers have a fear of brucelosis.
Prairie dogs have long been considered "vermain" because they too compete with cattle for food resources, and ranchers complain cattle break their legs stepping in burrows. Bison never had this problem,nor did they overgraze.
The disappearance of the black footed ferret can be directly linked to the reduction of the prairie dog,which again,is directly linked to rancher politics.
The spread of the coyote,also considered a villian by ranchers and other nature haters, can be directly attributed to the eradication of wolves,which hisotircally kept coyote populations in check.
Is that enough facts for you? The North American ecosystems have been damaged to acomodate cattle. The American public is waking up to the facts and the tide is turning.We are not going back to 1850 no matter how bad you want to stay there.A new attitude towards nature is here to stay.Sorry. You'll have to cope.
Why not just shoot your mother for the right price, or your German Shepherd, for that matter, if MONEY is all that matters to you?
If you seriously think "Range Magazine" has any credibility, think twice!
It's a magazine full of NOTHING BUT PROPOGANDA and SCARE TACTICS designed to preserve the lifestyle of the rancher at the COST of our native predators.
Their view of predators is (add in the requisite hand wringing) "Oh, those scary dangerous animals! They're "eating" all our livestock and we're going broke!"
Hmmm... what would you expect leaving your livestock out UNATTENDED in open spaces for months? Do you REALLY think predators are not going to go after it? Livestock owners who do this are INVITING AND BAITING PREDATORS!
Here's some facts to consider: Predators do not understand that certain animals are "owned" and others are not! Animals do not understand property boundaries, i.e., --those who are killing bison who are "straying" (i.e., LIVING) outside Yellowstone. I guess the bison forgot their maps?
Use some common sense!
*************
If that is "true," which I seriously doubt (more propaganda), consider that the wolves need MORE range to hunt.
Currently, they are "confined" to "certain geographic areas." That is NOT how Mother Nature works!
Until man can accept wild predators without having to "control" or "manage" "dominate" (KILL) them, this fight will go on and on and on....
I, for one, will continue to protect magnificent predatory animals such as wolves, coyotes, etc. LONG BEFORE I'd protect arrogant Western ranchers who think they own the freaking West running their cattle all over the place and displacing OUR NATIVE WILDLIFE! (and using our tax dollars to do so!)
Leave our predators alone!
They seem incapable of receiving someone else's thoughts.
Our civilization has been wholly sublimated by the various aspects of our economic culture. To tell a rancher his beef would be better raised in a feed-lot is to remove from him his raison d etre'.
The same applies to Cheyenne cowboys wherever they may live...
This is beginning to sound like the Mafia!
"Those damn predators-- who do they think they are going after my livestock? If I even see one near my ranch (whether it's on my property or not), I'm going to shoot the damn thing or call "Wildlife Services -- they'll take care of it for me. Good thing I don't have to pay for it!"
Well, who do the predators think they are?
They don't think they are anyone but a wild animal trying to survive. It sees a delicious steak dinner left completely unattended.
And these ranchers are BLAMING the PREDATORS (as if it has the sense to be "devious") for their "problem."
Hey, some advice: Put up a fence if you don't want predators going after your livestock! If you can't afford it, get out of the business. Don't kill OUR PREDATORS due to your lack of responsibility!
It isn't the wolves breeding like "flies." It's the wolf and coyote haters who are breeding like rabbits.
Perhaps we can figure out a way to legally dart all of you with contraceptives so you stop breeding!
Can someone please explain the hatred of the human haters? Even the folks that have been impacted the most almost never use the vile name calling that the imposers seem to feel they have to use. Is that the only way you can justify what you are doing to the lives and property of other people?
Justify what? "Doing what" exactly to the "lives and property of other people?" Trying to protect our native predators who have been harrassed, shot, poisoned, snared, trapped to "protect" the livestock industry? Just who do YOU think YOU are?
Those animals "belong" to all of us --
You expect to let your livestock roam wide and free on OPEN LANDS "without interference" from natural predators. You and your Mafia organization, Wildlife Servicees, want the countryside SANITIZED of any animal you do not find conducive to doing that.
That is the most ridiculous part of it.
If you're the same "marion" who has posted on other sites, I've seen enough of your extremist postings!
You are not capable of caring about native predators -- as far as you're concerned, they are only a "nuisance" in the way of you earning a profit.
So, just like any facist thinks, if something is in the way, if you can't dominate it, kill it.
And that is exactly what Wildlife Services is doing yearly to our animals. They are killing over 1.5 million of them (100,000 predators) to keep livestock owners happy.
What a crock as are "Open Range" laws!
It is high time to ABOLISH "Open Range" laws in the West.
One doesn't need to live in or even experience an area to understand the problems. Do you need to live in the inner city of Detroit to understand its problems? There is plenty of research and information available for anyone who wishes to educate themselves.
The REASON wolves were on the endangered species list is not because of "loss of habitat," but DIRECTLY due to persecution!
We owe it to the wolf to permanently protect it from those in states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho (especially) from those who just hold a deep seated "hatred" for this magnificent animal.
I truly feel sorry for people who "hate" wolves and other predatory animals. How could anyone who is educated "hate" certain animals? It just shows their ignorance.
Studies have shown, too, that the more educated one is, the higher likelihood they support wolf protection.
That isn't propaganda - those are the facts.
The livestock owners see wolf supporters as 'ruining their way of life.'
It's a silly and very dangerous way to think, of course, as the alternative is "sanitizing" the countryside of predatory animals for the benefit of a few livestock owners, many of whom are actually rich large corporations such as Simplot's spread (whom incidentally is one of our famous Welfare Ranchers).
I don't think anyone in their right mind would support that idea. But guess what -- our taxes are paying for that exact idea right now through "Wildlife Services."
They are "servicing" 1.6 million animals per year (killing them) with OUR tax money.
The wolves attack and kill animals in their own yards, please understand that. I know you want to believe that they only chase and kill livestock and dogs, horse, sheep, etc on leased land, but that is not the case. When they were first brought in, they killed two dogs of a ranch family at Dubois, the lady who owned them was walking the last dog to the barn to lock it in for the night where wolves couldn't get to it and a wolf attacked it while she was walking with it. Do you really feel you have the right to use the wolves to invade someones home and peace of mind like that?
We don't hate wolves, we hate what they do to our animals, and our peace of mind. Why do you hate people so much that you want, no demand the right to put them thru this? And please don't come up with the wolves were here first bull, they were hauled in to try to chase folks out of their homes. Why don't you have every animal that once lived where you do in your yard?
Second, I don't "hate" people but I vehemently disagree with those who held a hatred for predators such as wolves.
No one is "using" wolves to do anything. They have a right to be in their native habitat.
If they go onto your property, I believe you can legally shoot them now that the wolf haters will have their way with delisting them.
Of course shooting would be your FIRST line of defense of course, not your last?
I assume you are not interested in non-lethal methods?
You keep saying "brought in." Wolves weren't brought "in," they were brought BACK.
You should read the story of the extermination of the wolf courtesy of the U.S. government and livestock interests, and then engage in this discussion.
I can certainly understand why you'd "hate what they do to your animals;" but what about what the SLAUGHTERHOUSE does to your animals? That's not real pretty either!
Oh, sorry, you get paid then. $$$
No, I didn't like when our animals went to be sold, but the fact remains that is where your food, shoes, glue, and a host of other things you consider vital to your life comes from.
Predators, like anything else have to be controlled, that is why they were eliminated from "habitat" where bunches of people congregated (cities) first. They were eliminated back east hundreds of years before there were ranches out here, or anything but the natives who lived here.
I think you need to understand how wolves and other predators were eliminated from coast to coast. That really illustrates the old saying when you point your finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you.
a) we breed to damn much. 300 million in the USA. Isn't that enough?
b) we consume too much. Do we really need all the crap we have?
c) we are spoiled rotten. We want comfort, cheap goods, and we want it now. We want to get anywhere is a matter of hours. If something is in the way, kill it, blow it up,dam it, pave it over.
Or take it away form someone else or make them give it to us. Sounds like a lib plan to me.
What is it, greenie queer day on the old wolf battlefield? Get ahold of yourselves folks!
It sounds like you are for "predator extermination."
Is that correct?
As far as your comment "it doesn't matter how much land you have..." It doesn't?!
Sure it does! How could 1/4 acre support wolf packs?
Are you for real?
Who is "taking what away from you?" Are people "taking" your land?
A few questions:
1. Do you know what a fence is?
2. Can you afford one?
3. Just tell me a bit about yourself -- did you finish high school? Do you have any education or have you just raised animals for your livelihood your entire life? I am interested in finding out.
They also used restraint with producing more Indian babies -- unlike "settled" people who breed like rabbits.
Indians did not kill buffalo out of trains for the "fun of it."
So, who's really smarter-- white man, who "drinks from the pond in which he lives" or the red man, who co-exists in harmony?
Red men had no diseases until white man brought them here from filty Europe.
Now those old-thinking European immigrants are succeeding in ruining North America with too many babies, pollution, etc..... treating animals as if they are a "commodity" or "merchandise" without feelings -- corporations stuff animals in dark pens where they live their lives. Baby pigs and calves are taken from their mothers early in life until they are sent to slaughter. Factory Farming is one of the worst evils there is today.
Raising animals on open spaces SEEMS a lot 'nicer.' The fact is, it has COST OUR NATIVE PREDATORS THE ULTIMATE PRICE -- THEIR LIVES.
"Marion" (if she is for real) perfectly exemplifies the hysteria by some livestock owners (not all --some are effectively using non-lethal techniques to control predation) where they think "Oh my God-- the wolves (it's coyotes really --96% of depredation is from coyotes, not wolves) are eating ALL our animals! We're going out of business! Quick -- call in Wildlife "Services" (the feds) to KILL THEM ALL!"
That is not very intelligent, Marion.
You also refuse to answer Marque's question about FENCING.
Why is that?
Do you not think you have a responsibility to fence in your animals from natural predation?
It is no different than if your dog went after a rabbit.
IT'S NATURAL.
I see no reason why you guys that want wolves cannot sacrifice for them, instead of designating others to do it for you. Talk about an entitlement mentality.
Interestingly enough, it was so called wolf lovers who insisted on taking wolves out of their wilderness homes, and bringing them to live on ranches and among people where they could only get into trouble, and get killed. Isn't it most interesting that those who were most insistant on having wolves planted among people just happened to live where they don't have enough land to allow wolves to impact them?
The follks that had the wolves pushed off on them didn't want to , but they agreed to the 300 originally agreed upon, now many times that is not enough, in fact I can get no one to say what they consider enough. Our word is good, the wolf lovers word is no good, they are liars and cheaters.
The livestock is inside of fenced property, even on grazing leases.
The wolf kills on private property are happening in fenced pastures and some inside of smaller fenced pens. Some of these pens have had fladry, rags, and some are electrified.......to no avail. They only keep the wolves out until they realize there is no danger from those things.
We need to go beyond ranchers are bad so they deserve bad things happening to them.
When the wolves were imported it was with full knowledge that some would have to be killed by FWS. It was also with the agreement that the states had to raise 300 of them.
PS: Re: Grazing leases -- that kind of subsidy is going to end in the future -- hopefully the NEAR future. Cattle do not belong on public lands. They are displacing our native wildlife in the offensive way.
With wild animals, Marion, they do not understand "private" vs. "public" vs. anything else as far as land territories go. They are just animals.
We have coyotes in our area; they don't bother anyone, yet the town wants to kill them because they have eaten some small dogs (it's prey to them) and has asked for a license to do so. It's ridiculous.
No one seems to be telling the pet owners to be responsible for their pets.
Co-existing with wildlife is not a novel idea-- the Native Americans did it for years and there were 10's of thousands of wolves then.
White man killed all the buffalo and brought in cattle; which is non-native and cannot effectively fend off predators very well.
You're asking for something that's not natural (predators to "know" to leave your animals alone).
You are talking in vague generalities; please tell us more about YOUR particular situation -- not others. What kind of animals do you have -- what kind of fencing do you have?
If I was rich enough to afford acreage, I would buy vast amounts of it -- not to raise livestock -- but to give native predatory animals and other wildlife a much needed respite and home from the constant harrassment and killing by Wildlife "Services" on behalf of the AG community. :) My reward would be watching these incredible animals fro a distance acting naturally.
That community is a collection of people, close neighbors and remote neighbors. They send their kids to a common school, many go to a common church. They shop, trade, and work with each other. People like Marion hurt when anyone in their community hurts. I know that does not address any synapses you are familiar with, but it is real.
Some people have the time to comment on a space like this. Most are too damned busy trying to keep all the pieces working to be able to be witty and wise on the internet. A retired person who cares about her community, like Marion, has the time. She talks for her neighbors, her friends, her community. She listens to what they are saying. She is a messenger. You should listen.
Wolves are predators, and are a part of the workings of a wild ecology. They do not belong on ranches. Until the government builds a wolf proof fence around their wildlands, with a half mile fuel free zone inside it, wolves and wildfire that come from your wildlands will negatively impact the people who live like you, on private land. Their precious estate. Not the king's. That is why this is America and England. You evidently think that you are royalty, or part of a soviet commune, something that gives you the right to impose your communal wolf on a private rancher. That is wrong. It also cannot be defended in court. There is a line between the State and the People. In time, perhaps by the wolf conflicts, there will be a case heard at the Supreme Court about who has sovereignty over wolves off the public estate. And, a revisit of ESA in terms of private property impacts without compensation.
The blind, total commitment to the wolf and nothing else, in a community of humans, will not serve either the wolf or the humans in the long term. Never is the social order perfect or truly balanced. Just last week, an Oregon State U. grad student working on a pine marten project in the Northern Sierras found her motion/heat operated cameras had taken a photo of a wolverine, and no wolverine has been documented in CA since the 1920's.
The wolf deal was a political ploy for Green Votes by the Clintons, and a payoff for campaign help. An artificial speed up of getting wolves to Yellowstone. You know it. I know it. And they did not do it in Ohio, Texas, California, but in Republican public land heavy states with few electoral votes. Wolves, like the wolverine in California, will make their way to protected habitat over time, if the habitat is sufficient to support them. Importing the largest subspecies of timber wolf from way north in Canada is biologically flawed, and hurtful to the local livestock economy. All the shibboleths about self limiting population growth, alpha only breeding, have been proven wrong.
It is too early to know the full extent of how wolves will impact game animals, which are important to rural economies. The issue of non-resident hunting is that large fees bring money to rural areas. If that game is going to be mostly missing to feed wolves, that part of the local economy and those who used to come from out of state will feel the loss. It will also detract from the ranching bottom line for hunting leases and guiding fees.
The urban American need for energy, food, fiber, and mineral resources far beyond what livestock grazers require, is being mitigated by taking even more from the least powerful and least numerous, the rural population. It makes those cement and steel greedy, energy hogs feel good about their impact on the world when they can make someone else suffer for their greed. In time, importing our daily needs will prove to be a disaster for America.
So no matter how you justify introduction of exotic wolf dna into the rural communities, those people have to live with it, don't like some of the regulation, and they are the ones that suffer economically. You don't need to beat up on people who express their feelings about how they are being treated. You can't hear your own whining and until you do, you shouldn't denigrate those who differ with you. Argue, but do not demean them personally. And Elfman, didn't your parents tell you it was wrong to beat up on girls, to show them no respect?
Bearbait: You have said that wolves do not belong on ranches. Just curious... where do they belong, in your opinion?
I was not offering you my respect so your sentiments work just fine between us. However, it is amusing to me that you would assume that I do not understand the concept of caring about others. On what information do you base this? Do you know me? Have you ever spent any time with me? You think just because someone appreciates wolves means they couldn't possibly care about others?! Strange logic you have there.
I too am very busy. I have three children, a household to manage, and a full time job. I have no cleaning services, etc.
However, the way our natural predators have been treated by livestock owners and Wildlife Services with my tax money is infuriating.
They, TOO, have a RIGHT TO EXIST AND BE HERE. You make it sound as if they don't -- as if you'd be glad if they were all "exterminated" again.
You are in the minority of public opinion, Bearbait.
What the heck does "bearbait" mean -- that you "bait" bears in order to kill them? That's immoral and shows a lack of respect for God's creatures.
Why do you think ranchers or livestock owners (small ones) are the ONLY ones economically affected by things outside of their control? I appreciate your sympathies with them, but what about other industries where people are having a hard time? I wonder if you have compassion for them too.
Many people I know have been laid off in recent and not so recent months -- are they whining how it's "so unfair?" Are they asking the government to do something for them (besides unemployment?) No. The "market" will determine if their jobs are viable.
Your type seems to want to force your ways down OUR throats. I appreciate that some want to raise livestock.
But it is simply unrealistic and foolish to expect that animals will be "fine" left unattended.
Walmart has 24 hour security. What about ranchers? No, they want the predators to "pay the price," or Defenders of Wildlife, or Wildlife Services, or anyone but themselves.
That's certainly how it looks at least.
I agree.
Generally, wilderness areas abutt large ranches. That's just reality.
Writer wrote: "The old west mentality unfortunately still runs rampant in these parts—his land, his right to shoot, bang bang. Sadly, the deer was also found dead in the river, yet whether the dogs or a bullet killed the deer has not been determined. As an animal lover, of course the pursuit and the death of the deer saddens me. This was a horrible incident on all ends, and my dog was indeed guilty of being at large. Is that, though, worthy of death? I find the shooter’s motive in protecting the deer very difficult to swallow. What kind of animal lover shoots at dogs with a .22? According to his report, he immediately grabbed his gun out of his truck, and he was not even aware that he had also shot one of my landlord’s dogs. How can a man who so hastily shoots at dogs, and drives around with a gun in January, truly be that genuinely concerned about the safety of one deer? Additionally, Argus’ body was found more than 200 yards away. Argus, interestingly, was not a swimmer. He often cried when his friends would cross without him when we played on our property. With his beautiful white body and amazing grace, I’m sure that he made a challenging target, on shore, for the gunman. A challenging target who was like a child to me. Nice shot!
As far as the shooter is concerned, obviously there are two sides to every story. I am all for a pluralistic society. But in the 21st century, how can such blatant violence be so acceptable to public officials who are supposedly working in the best interest of all citizens? If the Animal Control Officer and Division of Wildlife employee had broadened their perspectives on this case, they would have learned that while Argus was guilty of chasing wildlife, he was also a Canine Good Citizen, certified therapy dog, and agility dog. If these people had opened up their minds just a bit further they would have learned that they were lecturing a person who has rescued many dogs over the years, and a person who actually arranges her entire work schedule around her dogs, to ensure that they get enough exercise and that they are not left alone too long.
I realize what my dog did was illegal, but I struggle in this case over what is legal, and what is right. I struggle in this case over what is neighborly, and what is blatantly cruel. I struggle in this case over the intentions of public officials supposedly upholding missions in the best interest citizens, wildlife, and domestic animals.
Since January I have learned of several other dog shootings in and around Durango. Similar to my case, the dog owners seem to have very little voice against these violent actions. Chapter 10, section 35, of the La Plata County Code of Ordinances outlines the laws established for “Destruction of dogs threatening humans, livestock, wildlife or property.��? This ordinance states that:
- Any peace officer or any other person is hereby authorized to take appropriate measures, which may include destruction of the dog involved, to prevent death, injury or damage to persons or property under the following circumstances […]The dog is harassing or endangering livestock or wildlife.
- Destruction of the dog is authorized under this section only when no other means can reasonably be employed to prevent death, injury or damage to the persons, livestock, wildlife or property.
(Res. No. 1997-46, § 8.2, 7-14-1997)
At the Humane Society, and later in the La Plata County Courthouse, no one questioned my neighbor’s immediate decision to shoot the dogs. I understand that he viewed a horrible sight that morning, but I do not understand why no other measure was taken to stop the dogs. I do not understand why this neighbor, this “fellow human being��? (Oxford Dictionary) would see it fit to resort to such violence. In his report, he says nothing about attempting to yell at the dogs, throw something, or even misfire, before killing Argus.
It saddens me that violence of this nature is so acceptable to public officials. The Animal Control Officer, supposedly upholding the Humane Society’s mission of “prevention of cruelty to animals, the relief of suffering among animals, and the extension of humane education��? continued to support the shooter’s decision to fire at the dogs, while berating me for my negligence.
The Division of Wildlife employee, supposedly upholding a professional role in the community, called me at home after 8 pm, three weeks after Argus’ death. At first I thought she had somehow softened, and perhaps wanted to offer me condolences for my loss, or maybe her investigation had uncovered the negligence of the shooter, which is still so very apparent to me. I was moved back to hysterics when this so called customer service oriented person stone cold informed me that the reason for her call was to issue another citation.
In most cases, if a dog attacks a human, the dog is put in quarantine, not killed. If a bear is in someone’s yard, tranquilizers are used. It is acceptable in our society for humans to hunt and kill deer for sport. Drivers are not fined for accidentally killing deer on highways. Argus and his friends were not sporting or driving. They were following a natural instinct--one that is illegal, yet is it so wrong to warrant death? The execution of someone’s pet--a family member?
Unfortunately, I believe that the attitudes I discovered throughout this tragedy extend way beyond dogs. Is the violence part of the old frontier, where property owners used rifles to ward off danger? Evidently, perceived dangers in the new west and old west are decidedly different. While ancestral roots are important, we are not living in that world anymore. Are public officials working to establish and uphold commonalities, or are they marching right behind those unfortunate national leaders who value such dominance over tolerance.....?"
The wolf kills are not natural, they are not market related, they are a deliberate attempt to harm people that you hate, and for your own entertainment. Maybe it gives you a sense of power to know that you can cause so much harm to families and still be perfectly legal.
Let me put it another way. If you cannot be there without permission, why would a wolf be allowed to be there without permission. Nobody is stopping people who want wolves on their land from having them. It is the people who don't want wolves on their land that object, and they have every right to object.
I think I am called Bearbait because I stink. If I stand up wind, bears will come from miles away to see what that smell is all about. And it is easier to spell than Carrion. Why are you called Barb? Do you cause pain? Or are you famous for painful remarks? Once you get your hooks into something, it can't escape because of your "Barb" nature?"
Nope. I don't bait bears. I do chum for suckers, though. Use a barbless hook called the Spitzer Special. It is a good hooker hooker. With certain resignation, the Spitzer model is going to be so yesterday. I am hoping Martha Stewart will come out with a replacement. It's a good thing.
Are you aware that less than 15% of the total beef production is from Western States?!
It's negligible -- it's a financially UNIMPORTANT industry in the West!
You could get rid of every single cattle operation and it wouldn't make any difference in the price of beef.
Of course that would upset the are wealthy individuals such as Ted Turner or millionaire Simplot and of course the smaller livestock owners (which are few).
108 and counting, the richest country on earth and we self absorbed nitwits can't stop fighting over wolfes for christs sakes! Help us get a life. Take our food. Take our cars. Make us go to some third world rat hole and get some perspective! HELP!!! WE SUCK!!!
How much chum
Could a chum sucker suck
If a chum sucker
Could suck chum?
Now if the chum sucker
Happily sucking chum
By the sheep
Who howled rather than peeped
Hadn't been been intently chum sucking
Would that happy chum sucker
Prevented the howls from the wolves pretending to be sheep?
Barbait: You said: "Where is "here?" In your backyard? Or mine? Wolves do have a right to be on the public land, the unclaimed public domain and the forest reserves. But they don't have a right to be on private land eating private property."
OK, Bearbait, do you shoot birds, squirrels and other animals who come onto your property 'without permission?'
How exactly should wild animals "ask for your permission?" LOL! Should they get a note from their moms?
Do you think wild animals are capable of "knowing" what's public and private land? You give them too much credit.
People are capable of knowing the difference between public and private property. Your comments are downright SILLY comparing people and animals "trespassing!"
You said wolves "have a right" to be on public lands. Really? Then get the cattle off because if they "have a right" then Wildlife Services would not be shooting them on our public lands as they are doing. This agency kills 100,000 mammal predators per year using our tax money when these animals are on public land. And millionaires such as Simplot are using OUR public lands to graze their cattle. They have no right to be there! Can I open up a boutique on public lands then?
Why hunt it if you do not eat it? Seems very wasteful and arrogant; kind of like what the Safari Club does. They hunt exotic animals such as giraffes, etc. and call it 'conservation' because they pay big $$ to do it. I guess it's a perverted type of 'conservation.' -- designed to ensure there is enough "stock" to hunt. Yuck.
If they really wanted to "conserve" they would make sure the animals had appropriate habitat and left them alone.
What an outright lie by this Eisenberg Public Relations lobbyist at Wildlife Services.
....(from carnivoreprotectionblogspot) .... "But many in the livestock sector say ranchers shouldn't rely on lethal controls.
"I happen to believe it's a privilege to be ranching, and it's our responsibility to ranch with out killing the native species," rancher Becky Weed of Montana said. She says her farm, 13 Mile Lamb and Wool, has respected predator populations for over ten years. "In many cases, it's possible to ranch without killing native species. I feel like the wildlife play an important role in the landscape, and I don't feel like I have a right to exterminate it, even if I wanted to."
Weed has adopted a "predator friendly" label for all of her products. While she says using non-lethal controls can be a challenge, she advocates a combination of strategies, including lamas, guard dogs, and fences. She also employs safer animal husbandry practices such as corralling livestock at night.
A handful of other farms and ranches share Weed's respect for local predators.
"We promote agriculture that protects and restores wild nature, and native predators are a part of nature," said Jo Ann Baumgartner of the Wild Farm Alliance, which promotes sustainable farming.
"It requires a real commitment," Weed said. "Sometimes it seems easiest to go out and shoot something, because then you feel like you've done something."
Weed, however, said she hasn't seen a commitment from Wildlife Services to adopt more non-lethal controls. "While there's lots and lots of grassroots activity of people finding alternative methods," she said, "I think the big squeaky wheel – senators, county commissioners and the subset of the ranching community – has been successful at keeping dollars flowing for lethal control."
The comment by Bang "Some will just want to kill wolves," Bangs concedes, "but some will want the hunting experience. I sure hope hunters will want to hunt wolves because it's a challenging hunting experience." is dead on. I have heard from quite literally hundreds of hunters that would love the opportunity to hunt a VERY intelligent animal. For those of you who have hunted coyotes, Wolves are much more cunning and intelligent.
For many hunters trying to figure out what a wolf is going to do is the challenge, many hunters may never even be given the opportunity to fire a single shot. For me personally, the "Hunt" is not always about firing a shot at all, merely tracking, hopefully getting close to the animal is the challenge, heck I can shoot all day if I so choose, I cannot however track wolves as readily.
The people who I have spoken to that are against a Wolf hunting season, for the most part think t hat it is simply about shooting wolves. I do not think they see most hunters any more than wild eyed trigger pullers. While I will admit there are sloppy hunters that are no more than trigger pullers, they vast majority in my experience are out for fair chase.
Given that here has not been a wolf season for MANY years, there may well be some sloppy hunters out there out for the pelt and "bragging rights" (those hunters flat piss me off). it is incumbant on the "Good Hunters" to regulate our peers.
I thoroughly agree. Well actually you can sort of...TipMont, while having been abused, it is a good method of stopping sloppy hunting
Time for me to load up and go practice the oldest and most diffecult field sport while trying to catch the toughest quarry. The hawk and hound are restless. Ta Ta.
So it's just a "sport," eh? Just a lot of "fun" to put a bullet into something that's intelligent huh? Why not hunt apes then? They're even smarter than wolves. In fact, why not hunt humans while you're at it?
How can it be a "sport" unless the animal is armed too? It's nothing but a slaughter for FUN.
How disgusting. I truly do think those who hunt for "pure fun" are sick individuals.
How many people hunt with cameras( My wife for one)?
Wow, I am a sick person? Let's see, I hunt for my food (Elk,Deer), I hunt for my food, and what I do not keep I give to groups like hunters for hunger...yet I am sick. I hunt a HIGLY intelligent animal and most likely will not fire a shot...yet I am sick.
The sick hunters are the ones that hunt for trophy and leave the carcass to rot. Let's see...MAJORITY of african safaris end up that way.
Hmmmmm...seems to me If I recall correctly ( I could be incorrect) that green peace got in some hot water for anomously setting up seal hunts and dolphin slaughter so they could get pictures of it for advertising. Let's see...how about people who spike trees and INNOCENT workers get MAIMED while harvesting wood for homes...but that is another issue...hey wait wasn't the Earth Liberation Front listed as a Terrorist Organization? talk about hunting people.
As for hunting humans...if there was a season for hunting violent felons or pedophiles, I am SURE there would be sell outs of licenses.
Seriously Barb, you sure paint with a broad brush. I may be sick but I try to not hunt things that have opposable thumbs.
In this day and age where people take things just a LITTLE too seriously, lighten up. READ ALL the post before nitpicking.
I may be wrong and your mileage may vary. Have a nice day.
Oh by the way...Barb, what are your shoes made out of? Leather? Does that make you a killer? Crocs are made from petroleoum products...does that make you a plunderer of mother earth?
I agree -- that is sick, wasteful and arrogant as The Safari Club members have to be if that hunt exotic animals for the "trophy" of it.
I don't fault people for hunting things they eat. But you said you DO want to hunt a "highly intelligent animal." Whether or not you actually get it is besides the point. :)
The title of this article is actually kinda funny.... kinda funny, sad but true "Giant German Shepherd Hunting." It seems so ridiculous. Which it is!
I'm sorry but I've never heard that expression "mileage may vary...." ??
I think that many people confuse hunting with shooting. Hunting and shooting are not always synonomous. I often take my rifle for a walk and never fire a single round.
And as obvious as it may seem...higly is indeed a typo.
I get your question even though evidently it's human nature to miss the point. I probably won't buy a wolf tag. I don't hunt what I don't eat, period. However, I consider that a personal decision and will NOT impose my values and decisions on others who may choose to shoot gophers, or hunt coyotes, wolves or anything else within the confines of the law. I see elements within this discussion who INSIST on imposing their "personal" beliefs on others, and I object to that imposition. I trapped in high school and muskrat pelts helped buy my first shotgun, but do not any longer, as I don't eat muskrat. Glocker's post are closest to my philosophy; Barb's, Marion's and Bearbait's are way outa whack and display a total lack of understanding another person's viewpoint, including each others. Common folks, some mutual respect would go a long way towards resolving our problems with the imbalance of wolf numbers out there... it just takes som decent conversations.
our native predators are constantly being displaced because of livestock.... they need people "on their side" for a change!
That's just my view!
Do you have a suggestion how this might be solved? The attitude is the same whether livestock is killed in someone's yard, pen, or on a grazing allotment, it had no right to be there. You may think I'm unreasonable & out of whack, but is there ever going to be a semblance of normality for those of us who have to live with the situation?
Barb, How do you propose to end the slaughter of cattle by wolves? Ask them nicely to stop? How do you tell a wolf to STOP at the Forest/Public land boundary?
Can I open a boutique on private lands? Livestock owners are keeping their "wares" (poor cattle) on public domain. That should not be allowed and if WWS has their way it will end in the next 20 years....
Regardless, the animals cannot and do not know property boundaries. That's why they're called "animals."
If the livestock owner does not have some kind of protection service 24/7, that's the risk they take.
Any responsible business protects its merchandise 24/7 -- night and day.
Check out: keystoneconservation.us
Thanks for not screaming ... hopefully we can have a civil discussion.... Marion, I can see your point of view but it's more complicated when you raising livestock in open lands.... there are natural conflicts that will occur.... are you not willing to accept ANY LOSSES?
Can I please put it another way:
What percentage % of losses are you WILLING to accept (from predators). For example, if you have 100 cows, how many are you willing to lose due to natural predation? And it IS natural predation.
If you say "None" that is totally unreasonable.
The thing is there is nothing natural about this whole thing, the wolves were brought in from another country to do what wolves do. There were wolves in Yellowstoen (documented), Montana, also acknowledged, and reported in Idaho. There were not "enough" for wolf proponents....and still aren't. We do not even have an idea how many the various environmental groups will accept, do you know? We do have one thing assured though, we get to pay the bills from now on......all half million of us in Wyoming, less people than the cities that voted to bring them here to be taken care of.
Larry, do you go to Yellowstone, if so when was the last time you were there? The elk herds are very sad. I talk to photogs in the fall who come every 2-3 years and they are shocked at the lack of elk.
By the way the elk calf study only reports the spring numbers. I think I saw fall numbers once, but they have never been reported again, maybe they quit checking, I'm not sure, but we all know the bears go to bed for the winter. On average I believe the wolf killed elk in winter are 40% calves, the calf retention rate is averaging low teens for several years, that will not sustain a herd, even if not being preyed upon. What will Yellowstone be without elk? And how long will the wolves stay? No I am not saying every elk will be gone from Yellowstone, some will always migrate back, but how many?
According to this years count approximatly 2000 of the 6000 counted in the nothern herd this year are in Yellowstoen, the rest are north of the park in Montana, they have always gone north, but not so drastically. This is the herd that was 19,000 prior to bringing the wolves in.
I am not suggesting anything be done about Yellowstone, except perhaps learn that modern NPS people paying God in Yellowstone are doing no better than those in earlier days. It will be interesting to see what the next 10 years bring to Yellowstone, and of course to the folks who have spent a lifetime living around her, especially those who provided our beef and sheep products.
But here's the thing. We will be in court for the next ten years anyway. Bangs called it right 3 weeks ago, Sierra Club, WS, NRDC, et al through their lawyers (Earth Justice) win the day through litigation spanning years. You win Barb.
Marion, seriously, will you accept ANY LOSSES due to predatory animals? Please answer. I'm very interested in what you say.
Do you graze animals on public or /and private property?
I do believe there is a big difference. If predators are going after your animals on your own property (not leased) you have a right to control them. Of course we "predatory animal supporters" WISH you'd use non-lethal methods.
If your livestock is on public property (belongs to all taxpayers), the wildlife should ALWAYS get precedence. That is THEIR home -- if not, then where can they live? We are running out of space for wild animals especially large predators.
No one has transplanted wolves on anyone's private property.
But wild animals are not capable of distinquishing boundaries.
Expecting them to is unrealistic.
And it is natural for them to be here in this country.
What WASN'T natural is when they were exterminated by Wildlife Services on behalf of the livestock industry to "santize" the West of anything that might "interfere" in their business undertakings.
That in my opinion is a crime against nature.
Because of this past, it makes people like me very nervous when they start talking about hunting wolves as it was nothing short of an extermination using tax payer money.
Just explaining why I feel as I do.....
I had heard that some wolves were still here even after the horrid extermination.... in Minnesota, etc.
I believe those wolves should have been "transplanted" instead of Canadian wolves. I don't agree that we should have gone to Canada.
But it's been done now.
Either way, there is no way the public will tolerate the extermination of any species anymore..... it isn't a contemporary view of wildlife.....
The livestock industry had a "blank check" for many years; that is going away. There will be less and less people who will support killing native predators to appease a proift driven industry. It's just the way it is.
I'm sure the Cattlemen's Club, etc. is putting all their efforts into public relations and lobbying to do what they can to keep predatory animals off the land. Try as they might, and they might have some wins, they will lose in the long run. Their thinking is not in step with today.
That's just the way it is. People want to live closer to nature-- they WANT to see and live near wild animals for the sheer pleasure of it.
That is very different than people raising livestock in the open country for a living who see predatory animals as "bad."
We see it completely the opposite -- as highly desireable, and the cattle on public lands especially is the "nuisance." Not that I hold anything against cattle; I feel sorry for the way they've been used.....
I didn't live in Nazi Germany when the Jews were being exterminated. Do I have no right to have a say so in that either? Did I have to physically see children being gassed to say that isn't right? It's the same concept.
You are saying that you are completely unwilling to assume ANY loss from predation.
That isn't reasonable and I wonder about your business sense. Every business owner assumes a certain amount of risk for their investment.
NO BUSINESS IS FREE FROM RISK. NO BUSINESS.
You want to live in some kind of fantasy world, where it's "Disney-like" outside with only "nice" animals like deer, elk, etc.
That's not real life, Marion!
You are obviously used to doing your business in a "sanitized" West. THAT is what is not normal.
Really, people with your ideas are truly going to have to change your mindset about that. Predatory animals are here to stay.....
To compare taking over what folks can do on thier own property and with it to gassing the children in Germany diminishes any credibility or sensibility you might be credited with.
You keep avoiding my question:
Do you raise livestock (or did you) on public lands?
I really should have known that you were going to try to divert the questions again -- (!) so I shouldn't have mentioned Germany.
Can you just answer these questions:
1. Are you willing to accept ANY business losses or risk?
2. What % of livestock is an acceptable annual loss?
Again, there is NO business in the world that doesn't have some risk associated with it! That's why there is insurance. I guess the livestock industry doesn't have "insurance" against losses???
Walmart assumes a certain amount of theft and destruction will occur every day.
Why do you think your industry should be immune to risk? That isn't real life.
I am really beginning to doubt that you are even a livestock owner. I think you may be one of those TROLLS who simply hates wolves and those who protect them.
Coyotes, not wolves, are responsible for the majority of losses when it is about predation from other animals; the majority of death comes from natural causes.
If you are TRULY a livestock owner (or were) I'm all ears! Tell me your particular side of the story instead of talking in such grand generalities.
If you're just a troll, which I am beginning to think, please find another forum to vent.
He or She is not for real!
If you watched the program on Wyoming and the predators tonight on the versus chanel, you would have seen Albert Sommers from the Pinedale area, he is one of the educated ranchers that enviro would like to believe do not exist, but he has kept careful statistics on his losses for years, they were averaging 1.5% loss prior to the increased growth and spread of grizzlies, that has now climbed above 6% with the importing of the wolves. He presented that at a Farm Bureau meeting I attended too.
What are you willing to invest in the wolf population, $100/month, 1000? You are demanding that others invest their money to please you, so it seems fair to ask how much you are willing to invest of your personal household money.
Do you go to Yellowstone? Have you noticed any difference in the elk herds?
Take Levi Strauss for example. They had the market corned on blue jeans for many many years. Then other companies started taking their market share by creating new, more innovative styles and marketing tactics.
The point is, and you are unwillingly stubborn and can't seem to accept this reality, is that businesses must change and adapt to new circumstances. with the times. Those that can't don't survive.
I'm not "demanding" anyone "invest their money." That is your mantra. I don't profit from the livestock industry so why would I invest in it? I don't even eat much red meat anyway and am aiming to become completely vegetarian soon.
To me, it's irrelevant what happens to the Western livestock industry. Mildly put, I don't care. Why should I care? It's your livelihood, not mine. Do you care about my profit sheet? I doubt it!
I doubt if you care about my business either, right? Why not invest $100 in MY business then too? Again, you have this sense of entitlement. Why? Where does that come from?
Yes I have gone to Yellowstone only once about 4 years ago. I am not a scientist so I would have no idea about quantities of elk herds. Yellowstone has scientists who monitor that kind of thing; "noticing differences" (policy cannot be developed on anecdotal evidence) is not as accurate as scientists studying it.
BTW, I am a member of Defenders of Wildlife and one of the programs I DISAGREE with is giving ranchers $$ for their livestock losses to encourage them not to shoot wolves. I do not feel this is anyone's responsibility but their own.
If someone wishes to raise livestock in open grazing where there are natural predators, that is simply the business risk they take.
Why should the livestock industry be immune from risk? No other business is!
Again, "old fashioned" thinking livestock producers such as yourself are stubbornly CLINGING to the PAST.
They are used to a "sanitized West." That is what is "not natural" -- not the fact that there are now natural predators. Livestock owners were pampered and spoiled. Now they face reality. For those who can't afford 24/7 security, may go out of business as they are unwilling to do what is necessary to survive. That's how business works. What do you not understand about that?
You are not going to see anyone's way but your own so this conversation is probably futile.
By the way didn't you post the letter bemoaning the dog being killed jsut because it chased a deer to it's death? And you love wildlife or you just think prey species are for canines to kill?
In the 80's I worked for a large computer company. It was the "hey day" of big computer systems. Smaller, leaner companies started taking over the market of the larger systems. Many people including me were laid off. I had to find another job -- ADAPT. I didn't whine that 'big computers' HAD to stay.
You need to learn a very basic lesson:
In business, as in life, In business you have two choices:
1. Adapt to changing circumstances
2. Die
That kind of thinking is exactly why our natural predators such as wolves were exterminated in the first place. Very dangerous thinking.
Or, rather, our native predators have paid the ultimate price -- with their lives -- so you can raise your cattle without "interference."
Well, Marion, thankfully that attitude is changing and you'd better get used to it.
Please send me a check for $100 immediately. I had a theft from my store last night!
The growing environmental threat of reproducing pythons in Florida, hanta virus pockets in rodents, introduced exotic pests of both plant and animal species, all are outlined in easily accessible APHIS information on the Web. Following your logic only leads to pandemics and human suffering, and loss of native species..when you keep score, make sure those scores are of the players being talked about. And, if all wildlife, native or exotic, is the property of govt., then who better than govt. to kill the pests, the exotics, the threats to human health and welfare? I would guess the taxpayers are getting full measure for their dollars.
100,000 are mammals. Most are coyotes, not wolves (currently).
Wildlife "Services" (Let me service you - BAM!) still uses ARCHAIC, BARBARIC, CRUEL and INHUMANE methods to kill these mammals such as NECK SNARES, POISONS, STEEL JAW TRAPS, etc.
When they go back to "take care of" the "nuisance animal" such as a coyote, their method of "euthanizing" is shooting it.
Nice huh?
And MY tax dollars are paying for that to protect an industry I despise?
Before you belly ache too much about how much it is costing the taxpayeer to "control" the wolves, remember that is why you took them from their wilderness home and brought them here.
No one is complaining about natural risk, but enviros had to go to another country to import something to destroy private property.
Todd, on March 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am Said:
Yes, Marion — all backcountry travelers are on welfare. When I heard you say this stuff five years ago I thought you were just ignorant, but now I know that you know the facts and choose to be offensive. You can’t find a community to start a thoughtful discussion (i.e. Rene) so you choose instead to offend, bait and flame others trying to have substantive discussions. This is actually why Ralph (and others) have banned you. It is not because you bring a different viewpoint, it is because your purpose is never to explain or understand, it is solely to irritate and inflame. Your hateful rhetoric is so detached from reality that you are left with a set number of rants that are equally funny and sad.
And your shtick never changes — you just move from blog to blog with same, tired, uninformed rants to find a new group of people to offend. I can dig out your post at Yellowstone.net from years ago that are nearly verbatim as these. Do you just cut and paste this stuff? Isn’t there anything better to do in your urban neighborhood than this?
Enjoy your day,
Todd
Second, in two seperate posts, Bill (you know, the guy who wrote the article you're supposed to be commenting on) politely asked you guys to stop insulting each other, and stay on topic. I'm sure if you try a little harder, you can morph the discussion to gun control or abortion.
Use your real name when posting please instead of "interesting."
Isn't that where all this really started thirty years ago?
It won't be "normal" type of hunting -- like hunting elk or deer for the meat. There's will be a vicious, angry, vindictive type of hunt, which is just one reason I am against it. I only pray the wolves will sense these idiots are out looking for them and hide.
Some will also hunt wolves to "get back" at environmentalists and wolf supporters. Disgusting.
May I suggest a book for you to read: Predatory Bureaucracy: The extermination of the wolf by Michael Robinson.
It's just that the eco-marxists envision depopulating the rural West and "rewilding" the land. They'd love nothing more than to drive all the ranchers out of business along with anyone else who makes a living from renewable natural resources. Of course they are trying to stop the delisting of wolves despite the fact that wolf populations reached target levels years ago. They see wolves as an excellent tool to make ranching unviable and probably hunting as well. Actually, my family's ranch has supported four generations to this point, and I intend for that to continue if I have anything to do with it despite some "greenie's" insistinence that my livelihood is "economically unimportant".
White man destroyed all the buffalo to get rid of the native Americans despite them being here for many more than 4 generations! I guess paybacks are hell?
Who "needs" beef anyway? They can raise it in the Midwest and East anyway. There is no point to using Western lands to do it.
Wolves are an "easy target" (and excuse for not knowing how to run their business properly) for many ranchers who choose to use lethal methods of "controlling" them.
"Greenies" (such as myself) are not willing to accept a "sanitized" West any longer for ranchers private interests at the cost of destroying 100,000 native mammals per year!
If you were serious about wildlife protection, you would do something about house cats and feral cats. Put a bounty on them. Expand the cat autopsy program in school boy anatomy classes. Maybe they could become bait for some trap fishery, or zoo feed. But this deal of cats killing a billion or more birds a year in the US is not a laughing matter. Except, of course, to the PETA babes and the arsonists of ELF and ALF. Their money vein extends deep into cat lover land. We know the excuses of those in cat lover land, but nevertheless, the cats keep on killing their billiion or more birds every year.
As long as the wolfie deal hogs the headlines, the birds keep on dying, the money flows, and people get to buy their green conscience, bathe themselves in green lotions, paint their public persona green.
Range cattle are cow and calf pairs, the mother cow nursing a calf to weaning size, and then the calf is shipped to where the feedlots, meat packing plants, the grains are located. And that is where they are accounted for in the misdirection of locallity that the PETA babes keep harping on. Or should I call them PETA Harpies?
APHIS will continue, I hope, to rid this place of exotics and disease vector animals and plants, even if their numbers become cannon fodder for the PETA Harpies. And I hope that states might soon be in control of their wolves, within their boundaries. Then the PETA Harpies can direct their angst against state and local interests, and no longer have a national stage. As to beating on ranchers, day after day, there has to be a realization, sooner or later, that the West with ranchers is the future, if open space is to be maintained on other than public lands. What the Harpies will never understand is that private lands, with access limited, provide much more refuge and security cover than public lands with overloaded trails and roads, too many hunters too close to the road. Security cover and refuge is an important part of habitat, and it cannot be a part of public lands if the lands are to continue to be public. When the public is kept out, all hell will break lose. And should.
The issue with wolves impacting private land will be short. The wolves will be controlled or the land use will change, and wolves will not be an issue except for pet and child safety. The food source will be gone, or the wolves will be gone, and if the PETA Harpies have their way, both will be gone.
You are so concerned about keeping wolves off private land? How about keeping cattle off public land?
Check your facts. In fact, look at the USDA's own website. Coyotes are absolutely the major depredation factor as far as native predators to livestock.
No one is advocating wolves be placed on "private property." However, since wolves cannot distinquish, it's only reasonable to assume they will cross boundaries if you don't have any fences up. What would you expect? Them to ask permission? You're inviting them to a nice steak dinner!
On the other hand, radical elements in the environmental movement are adamant about blocking delisting no matter how numerous wolves become. Their tranparent objective is to not only lock up public land, but also to control private land and deny landowners the reasonable use of their land to make a living for themselves and their families. They demand that ranchers donate a substantial portion of their incomes so that the disneyesque goal of unlimited numbers of wolves roaming completely unmolested throughout the west is attained. It's easy, of course, to sit in your "sanitized" suburban setting and demand that others bear the burden to fulfill your fanciful notions.
I don't know where you get your statistics about coyotes being responsible for 96% of the predation on cattle. Does that apply to the Rocky Mountain region that is inhabited by wolves or the entire U.S? Actually, coyotes are not a significant threat to cattle other than situations where very young calves are untended by their mothers and unwatched by their owners. I've never lost an animal to a coyote that I know of. By contrast, unlimited populations of uncontrolled wolves that green extremists envision undeniably pose an unacceptable threat to livestock in the region no matter how closely their owners watch them. I noticed that you depored the killing of a dog whose owner irresponsibly allowed loose to chase wildlife. Would you have the same degree of sympathy for the rural resident in an adjoining county whose dogs were ripped apart by wolves before his very eyes in his own backyard?
I "got" my statistics about coyotes DIRECTLY FROM THE USDA Wildlife Services website.
"Fanciful notions" are expecting to run livestock free on the "open range" without predator interference. How can that be done exactly???
That is the "fanciful notion!"
It never ceases to amaze me when livestock owners are "concerned" about animals being "ripped apart" by other animals. At least that's more natural!
What do you think they do to them in slaughter? Now that is NOT natural -- a bullet or electric collar!
I really don't care about the livestock industry -- whether it fails or succeeds. If they succeed, I hope it's not at the cost of our native predatory animals with taxpayer money. In fact, I would shed no tears if the Western cattle industry went completely under.
Why should I?
Is the livestock industry concerned about MY livelihood? I doubt it!
I didn't address your "question" about wolf delisting.
Wolves, unlike other animals who were or are endangered, suffer undeserved prejudice and hatred stemming from ignorance and myths from some like no other species.
To delist them is not like "delisting any animal." It makes them fair game to hateful, foaming at the mouth wolf haters who will shoot them for pure fun.
That is the truth and why I am opposed to EVER de-listing the wolf. Ever. It needs to be permanently protected.
Lethal methods don't work in the long run anyway (to protect livestock). It doesn't "teach" the others to stay away. Animals do not think like humans.
Why not "delist" them too?
Wrong. It is the ranchers who are DEMANDING that the West be "sanitized" of all predatory animals so they can let their cattle roam completely unmolested!!! That is the most "Disneyesque" thing I can imagine!
Sure it would be hard to do, just like it is for us out here, but the difference is YOU want them. You should be making whatever sacrifices are necessary instead of forcing others to sacrifice for you.
Coyotes eat sheep, not cows, unless they are unable to fight back.
Is some agency asking for your property???
Despite your emotionalism, delisting is about controlling wolf populations at a level where the threat to livestock on private land is limited somewhat and big game populations are not decimated. Those were the assurances made by the environmental organizations which had a hand in reintroducing the wolf. If wolf populations dropped below a threshold level, they would be put back on the endangered species list. Anyway,it's doubtful that allowing ranchers to protect their livestock and establishing a limited hunting season would ever reduce wolf populations to such levels.
NO ONE wants wholesale slaughter of wolves despite what Barb et all wants you to believe.
The inevitable impact on the early cattle herds was significant to say the least. It is no wonder given the situation greed created. Naturally, back then it was nobody's fault but the wolf and he paid dearly for it. White people (and I am white) seem to destroy, consume and exploit everywhere they have gone throughout history and then wish to blame others for the unwelcome consequences... even a simple wolf (the direct ancestors of the animal we enjoy as man's best friend), created by God, has been turned into an evil soldier from hell through the willful ignorance of human nature.
I really try to not get into the attack thing ,but..If you know of ranchers who wor kthe 3s rule...why do you not report them? Wolves have not been delisted i nthe past for some time, has the 3s you know of been going on and you knew about it but did nothing?
This whole list/delist debate is not that fascinating to me. If States take over then it will become quickly or eventually obvious IF they mismanage the populations and the feds can take the reigns again. If they manage them satisfactorily all is good. If too many wolves die under the mismanagement they will repopulate quickly as we have seen. The thing that truly fascinates me in these debates, however, is the absolute hatred that some have for this animal in the midst of the other predatory threats to cattle. I suppose it all goes back to the days of the plague in Europe when people were laying dead in the streets and there was nobody to carry away the dead bodies. The wolves wandered into town and dragged the bodies off. All kinds of myths developed about them forever branding them with the proverbial "big, bad wolf" label. If you read this and you HATE wolves I challenge you to learn more about them and their sociology. In fact, you should view this as an opportunity to learn more about your enemy which is, after all, the "Art of War". It is my belief that anyone with a soul who learns more about the wolf will develop a deep respect for them even if they are in the livestock industry and have to deal with the occasional negative cash flow impact they bring.
I personally don't think predators should be "game" animals. It doesn't make sense. People do not eat coyotes, wolves, etc. in general! It's like eating your next door neighbor's dog!
And no, I am not a member of PETA. Although I do agree with a lot of what they say, I am a member of the more focused on predator protection organizations. And I'm not a veg, but I eat very little red meat. Mainly fish, chicken, turkey, etc. No one "needs" beef.
Conservatives belly ached when the government bailed out the auto companies. Why is it that livestock owners want handouts all the time -- i.e., grazing permits on our public land, tax payers to pay for losses, etc. If it's your business, you should assume the risk. If you are unwilling or cannot, then you probably don't belong in the business in the first place.
That said, I do believe there are more and more ranchers willing to use NON lethal methods to "control" predatory animals. This is 2008 -- not 1908.
By the way, you can buy free range (not stuffed in cages) chicken and eggs if you pay attention to the packaging and you do not mind paying a little more.
Check out: http://www.keystoneconservation.us
"..... they kill animals with stunning 'efficiency.....'