04-22-2011, 11:36 PM
>>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.
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.