04-22-2011, 03:21 PM
kj wrote:
Fwiw, even the people who are anti-wolf are peeved at otter for being such an idiot on this issue. A couple weeks ago I talked to a guy I know that works at Fish and Game, and he said they are in a difficult position, in that they are funded largely from people who recreate here, so they have to try to make people happy. But they want to do the right thing. One thing to be clear about here is that there is no question the population of wolves here is sustainable. They are not teetering on the edge. If we let them be here, they're going to proliferate. It's all a question of management/values.
At any rate, there's a whole lot of BS flying around on both sides of the argument. Wolves have to be managed. People have this idea that Idaho is nothing but wilderness, but the fact is there is almost no land here that is not used by people for something. Compromises have to be made. Fish and Game has limited resources, and if the population gets out of control, they're going to have problems to deal with.
It's easy for all you "city folk" to post cute pics of wolves and get all emotional, but I'm not sure you have the right to decide wolves get to live here. The people who live here have some say, and for the most part don't want them. Before you get on your conservationist high-horse, you might want to think about where your state's wilderness is. What's the status on your wilderness there cbelt? Same with most states. Idaho has more designated wilderness than any other state in the lower 48. The ranchers are protecting their livelihood, but man, compare that to corporate greed elsewhere. There's no comparison. How many wolves do you have over there in Washington State, Grace? What has your state done to re-establish wolves? Did you know a pack (probably from here) has already strayed over, and there are already management plans being made? Are you protesting those plans yet?
Btw, I spend a lot of time on trails, have hunted elk, etc., many of my friends are avid hunters, and they've never seen nor even heard of people throwing poisoned sausages all over the state. That's just ridiculous. I'm sure it happens, but it's deviant. At any rate, I'm all for reasonable debate on the issue, but stuff like this, "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.
kj
Yes, we have two confirmed wolf packs in southeastern Washington. It was always the hope that the gray wolf would re-establish here, and in anticipation of that a conservation and management plan was developed 6 or 7 years ago and is under constant review as the wolves re-establish and as federal law changes. The existence of a management plan doesn't mean an immediate plan to kill off wolves, it's a federal requirement to have such a plan in place where endangered species are involved. The same potential conflicts between ranchers and hunters and conservationists will play out here should the number of wolves grow, and hopefully they will.
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.
Idaho is 50% federal land, and wildlife conservation is not a "state limit" issue, it involves the entire ecosystem. It's ridiculous to claim that only people living inside your state can care about the wildlife and environment there, wolves aren't too familiar with state lines.
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."
Even so, wolves don't have to be separated from humans by great distances. They are the most adaptable of the big predators and only require a food supply and the ability to keep a moderately safe distance from human activity. They are not a safety threat to people, despite the propaganda from what you describe as "anti-wolf" people.
They do kill livestock. I favor a system of reimbursement to ranchers for wolf-predation losses, but they should not be allowed to kill wolves on site.
As for hunters, they should appreciate the wolf. Most antagonism against wolves is founded in ignorance and myth.
His presence improves the ecosystem and is good for big game populations. But because of his highly intelligent, social nature and the fact that we don't eat wolf, I would never support the shooting of wolves by private citizens unless in self-defense, and the chances for that are nil.
As I've said before, I'm a fan of Idaho and it's beautiful natural scenery and some of the most devoted naturalists and conservationists I know are from there, and that includes a few people who hunt, fish, and spend a lot of time in the outdoors. (Don't know any ranchers though.) This doesn't have to be so contentious if people would stick to fact and reason. At the current time your legislature and governor are not using reason.