Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
I don't think anyone is pushing to re-introduce wolves into urban areas, relax. Our nation barely tolerates them in the wilderness.
But at least be honest about why you have too many deer there: lack of predators.
Who do you think develops wildlife management policy? The group in Washington state includes biologists, conservationists, hunters, ranchers, and politicians. In other words, the people most impacted by the policies have a strong voice. And these policies take years of study to develop, are open to public comment and review, and are constantly changed and updated.
Have a great weekend all.
G.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=kj]"What a great place to bring up a family!" is (again) ridiculous. There's no _better_ place in the country to bring up a family. Wolves belong here, but they have very little to do with "raising a family". kj.
...But poisoning hundreds of dogs, coyotes, birds and other scavengers on the off chance that your poison might kill a protected wolf is true family values.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Well of course that's bad. But show me a place you can live where you couldn't point out someone there who's done as bad or worse things. You _obviously_ can't judge a whole state by a few people (you know this). If anyone in my state does something wrong, I'm taking my family elsewhere! kj.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
>>I don't think anyone is pushing to re-introduce wolves into urban areas, relax. Our nation barely tolerates them in the wilderness.
That's just it. You don't have to re-introduce them to the urban areas. They get there by themselves. A radio collared wolf near boise recently turned up in Wyoming, I believe.
>>But at least be honest about why you have too many deer there: lack of predators.
In the interest of fairness, there are a lot of other factors too, such as food availability (e.g. when the trees were huge, there was less underbrush and less food, etc.).
>>Idaho officials have killed around 300 wolves since re-introduction and have allowed private citizens to hunt wolves. With a current population of 700, that cannot be described as sustainable. The current goal in Idaho to reduce the population to 150 is obscene. The state has been reducing the population around 10% each year, numbers higher than that definitely threaten the continued success of this re-introduction in the state. Half the Northern Rockies gray wolf population, through no fault of it's own, is living in Idaho.
You really need to read the document Bill posted. If you look at the graphs of wolf population in Idaho, I think you'll see a basic trend, if you look really hard. Population has rapidly increased since reintroduction, so I don't see what you mean when you say the population has been reduced by 10% every year. Since 2007 (the last numbers in this reference), populations have been well over 1000 at times. If you read the reviewers comments in this document:
http://www.fws.gov/idaho/graywolves/PeerReview/IDFGPeerreviewresponse.pdf.pdf
I think you'll see that the consulted scientists paint a different picture than you. Even if the numbers are reduced to the minimum of 200, the population will increase again. I also think a reasonable person will see that the issue of management is more complicated than most realize.
>>>Idaho also does have a huge percentage of wilderness, along with Washington, Arizona, and California, which doesn't square with your comment that "people are everywhere."
I didn't say "people are everywhere". What I said is that people are using pretty much all the land here in Idaho for something. The idea that wolves can just "run and be free" here is naive. There are a lot of legitimate interests that need to be considered. As far as hunting of wolves go, there are seasons for bear, mt. lion, etc., and I see no reason at all there shouldn't be a season for wolves. If you read the links provided, you'll see that scientists agree hunting and trapping are unlikely to be sufficient for population control, which makes it hard for me to see how one could make a case hunting is incompatible with a sustainable population. At any rate, I agree that 150 seems too small a number (I'd be surprised if that happens), although I disagree that if people were rational, they would do what you propose. A lot of it comes down to values, not reason. kj.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
State Fish & Wildlife services are not a friend to wolves, they are the friends of hunters. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have made no commitment to sustain a wolf population. In fact state leaders are openly hostile to maintaining a gray wolf population at all.
Conservationists are about the only friends wolves have left, so I'll do my part. I agree that it's about values, people who care about the health of the entire ecosystem v. those who care only about what humans want. It's pretty clear-cut.
Here is Idaho's record, and it's nothing to be proud of:
Idaho:
• The final delisting rule states that Idaho is currently home to 788 wolves. According to Idaho’s
Wolf Population Management Plan (Oct. 2007), which sets forth specific population targets for
Idaho wolf packs, the “minimum number of wolves objective” statewide is 104. See Idaho Fish
and Game Department, Draft Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012, at 31 (October
2007). Nothing in the Idaho plan or state law commits Idaho to maintaining numbers above this
“minimum number.”
• On January 11, 2007, Idaho’s governor Butch Otter announced his support for a “gray wolf kill,”
in which all but 100 of Idaho’s wolves would be eradicated after delisting. At the rally with about
300 hunters, Otter said, “I’m prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself.” See
Associated Press, Idaho governor calls for gray wolf kill (Jan. 12, 2007)
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12019; Brad Knickerbocker, Gray wolves may lose US
protected status, The Christian Science Monitor (Feb. 1, 2007).
• Idaho’s wolf management plan makes clear that the state’s official position is that wolves should
be managed according to House Joint Memorial No. 5, which resolved that “wolves be removed
[from Idaho] by whatever means necessary.” See House Joint Memorial No. 5 (2001), at
http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2001/HJM005.html; Idaho Plan at 4.
And here are the numbers for 2010 on wolves legally killed: (9% of Idaho's population)
Agency Control of Problem Wolves- Lethal control of problem wolves (includes by agencies and legal take by private citizens in defense of private property) in 2010 (260) was 4% lower than 2009 (272) levels. Agency control in Montana removed the largest and Idaho the smallest proportion of their wolf population in 2010. For strictly comparative purposes we estimated the absolute minimum number of wolves alive in 2010 by combining the at least 1,651 wolves alive on Dec 31, and by adding all known wolf mortality (260 by agency control, 48 by hunting, and 86 by all other known causes (illegal, accidental, and natural which are all obviously under-reported and do not include mortality of young pups). This absolute minimum estimated population of 2,045 wolves at some point during 2010 [MT (746), ID (849), WY (412), WA (16), OR (21), UT (1)] was only used to compare the relative rates of wolf removal between states and by cause. A total of 259 wolves (13% of the minimum NRM DPS population) were removed by agency control in 2010 (141 in Montana, 40 in Wyoming, 78 in Idaho) (Table 5b). In 2010 agency authorized control (which included legal take by private citizens in defense of their private property- 16 in MT, 13 in ID, and 0 in WY- Table 1) removed 18% of the estimated minimum wolf population in MT; 10% in WY; 9% in ID.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/spec...3_9_11.pdf
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
>>I agree that it's about values, people who care about the health of the entire ecosystem v. those who care only about what humans want. It's pretty clear-cut.
Not a fair representation of the diverse views that exist. So no, it's not that clear-cut.
9% of the population? Not a big deal. Don't say again that the population is barely viable, because PhD biologists don't agree with you (and neither does the population trend).
One issue that is accepted without question is that predators "cull the weak". Consider that a large percentage of the weak are young animals. They are weak in physical strength, but not genetically. Same with the older animals (physically weak, but not genetically weak). When the older animals no longer breed, they may take some of the resources that could be used by breeding animals, etc., but the effect is not at all devastating. Not to mention that most prey (like the ungulates) are so devoid of genetic variability (genetically homogenous), I'm not sure there is tons of poor genetics to cull.
At any rate, the ecosystem is such a mess, adding the wolf may be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it's not a significant step. The damage already done (and being done) completely overshadows it, which I believe makes it more of a symbolic issue than a real one. Development is by far the most serious threat to what remains of our "wilderness". kj.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
You know, it's hard for me to argue with stuff like that, because like I said, I think the wolf should be here, and I don't think 150 is enough. But at the same time, what a crock of crap. If I'm going to criticize Butch Otter and his idiocy, I also have to point out that using the big "E" word is just as disingenuous. The Northern Rocky Wolf was "extinct" in 1994. Now, it is not, I guess. Wtf? It's just a word meant to evoke strong emotion. I also would like to see some citations of real scientific studies. The Idaho Fish and Game documents meticulously cite real published studies. The article you posted makes a lot of claims, for example, "Hunting wolves for sport, ideology, or livestock protection can prevent single male and female wolves from finding each other", that are not substantiated, and in fact, are refuted elsewhere. I think we'd all be better off if the lies, half-truths, exaggerations ended on both sides. I have a hard time endorsing lies whether those telling them are on my side or not. kj.
|
