What the hell is up, I thought that there was enough trouble with wolves in areas they were re-introduced that people would know better. look at this

introduce more wolves across country

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to hunt wolves, but I don't think that introducing them to more areas of the US is a good idea.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
What the hell is up, I thought that there was enough trouble with wolves in areas they were re-introduced that people would know better. look at this

introduce more wolves across country

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to hunt wolves, but I don't think that introducing them to more areas of the US is a good idea.

Red

Red,

You just don’t understand. We need wolf packs throughout the USA. I do believe however that it is time for the population centers of the East and West Coast need to share in this grand endeavor.

I think before any more additional wolfs are introduced into the mountain states in the Western USA that at least half of the current wolf population must be moved immediately to the wolf supporting metropolitan population centers immediately.

First up would be every major metropolitan city within the USA first with a population of 350,000 or more; call this the tier one group of cities. Of course there should be five initial trial locations to assure that wolfs successfully propagate in the metro-city area so multiple breeding pairs must be simultaneously introduced into Washington, DC as well as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit. And while being established within these metropolitan city areas they should be protected from being killed…they can only be relocated from city park areas to another city park area within the same city.

And obviously once there are multiple successful breeding pairs and packs freely roaming within the initial population centers then wolf breeding pairs and packs must be introduced into the remaining tier one cities. Then we’ll move to the tier two grouping of cities…those metropolitan cities with populations greater than 250,000 human inhabitants.

Once all metropolitan cities with populations greater than 100,000 have been exhausted then the additional wolf breeding pairs and packs can be introduced into the uninhabited areas of the country.

Anyway, that’s my 2₵ on the subject.

We gotum! Everyone should haveum!

If I'm 6' 260lbs, how many pelts would i need for a jacket, say B3 bomber style but with wolf hair inside versus the shearling?

Red

I don't think wolves can co-exist over most of America. These fools never have had wolves around home and yet they see themselves as knowing better, unreal.

Our wolves travel big circles, 100 miles; and never hang around much longer than a week or so in any specific area. Maybe it's different back east but I figure it would be hard to snare & trap wolves where people live. Then wait until they start dragging young kids out of their yards into the woods; they are clueless.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...re_us/us_wolf_nation

The sick slobs want more wolf destruction.
These creeps are mentally ill, wanting to add more wolves to the habitat so the can destroy more domestic and game animals.
We need a bounty on these people, and the wolves.
Don

Petition seeks to have wolves howl across US

By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer Matthew Brown, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 20, 8:58 pm ET
BILLINGS, Mont. – Tens of thousands of gray wolves would be returned to the woods of New England, the mountains of California, the wide open Great Plains and the desert West under a scientific petition filed Tuesday with the federal government.
The predators were poisoned and trapped to near-extermination in the United States last century, but have since clawed their way back to some of the most remote wilderness in the lower 48 states.
That recovery was boosted in the 1990s by the reintroduction of 66 wolves in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Yet as those first packs have flourished, increased livestock killings and declining big game herds have drawn sharp backlash from ranchers, hunters and officials in the Northern Rockies.
But biologists with the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity want to expand that recovery across the country. A few isolated pockets of wolves, they say, are not enough.
"If the gray wolf is listed as endangered, it should be recovered in all significant portions of its range, not just fragments," said Michael Robinson, who authored the petition. Robinson said the animals occupy less than 5 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states.
The federal Administrative Procedure Act allows outside parties to petition the government to act when species are in peril. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson, whose agency received the petition, said there was no deadline by which the agency must respond to the one filed Tuesday, which was signed by Robinson and another biologist, Noah Greenwald.
Tollefson also said an internal review was under way to figure out where wolves once lived and where they might be returned.
"We need to look at what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be," Tollefson said.
The review will be completed by late 2010 or early 2011 and will contain recommendations but no final decision on whether to create new wolf populations, Tollefson said.
About 6,000 wolves live in the U.S. outside Alaska, with most of those in the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies, with only a few dozen in Arizona and New Mexico. They are listed as endangered except in Alaska, Idaho and Montana.
In early 2008, a similar petition was lodged by the Natural Resources Defense Council. In its rejection of that petition, the Fish and Wildlife Service said the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies programs had succeeded and any additional recovery efforts would be "discretionary."
The Fish and Wildlife Service faces no deadline to respond to such petitions
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has pushed to end federal protections for wolves and return control over the animals to the states.
But both administrations have been rebuffed in the courts. Federal judges have ruled repeatedly that the government failed to prove existing wolf numbers will ensure the population's long-term survival.
Last year, the Interior Department relented to pressure from environmentalists in the Great Lakes. The agency agreed to put wolves back on the endangered list at least temporarily — just months after they had been removed for the second time in recent years.
Wolves are notorious predators with a hunger for livestock, and experts say they could survive in most of the country if they were allowed.
Young adult wolves sometimes travel hundreds of miles when looking to establish a new territory. In the last several years, packs have gained a toehold in parts of Oregon and Washington. Others have been spotted in Colorado, Utah and northern New England.
But with wolves, more than just biology is at play. Politics serves the deciding role in where wolves are allowed, said David Mech, a wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
"In the areas where they are not acceptable, they will be killed out — illegally if nothing else, Mech said.

The Northern Rockies population has stirred the most rancor, largely because of sheep and cattle killings and wolves preying on big game herds that had swelled when the predators were absent.

Idaho and Montana initiated public wolf hunts last year, and both intend to increase their quotas on the animals this fall. The states want to put a dent in the animal's population growth rate, which has been as high as 30 percent annually.

Wyoming, which has about 525 wolves, was blocked in its efforts to start a hunt after federal officials said state law was too hostile to wolves to ensure their survival. That ruling has been challenged in federal court.

Wyoming House Speaker Colin Simpson said Tuesday it should serve as a warning for other states that are asked to take wolves.

"Be careful," Simpson said. "We don't need more of that in the West."

(This version corrects name of federal law that allows for outside party petitioning to Administrative Procedure Act, not Endangered Species Act.)

Thru-out history man has tried to eradicate wolves. Now some idiots wants to bring them back.

Joe A.

From the RMEF:

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMed...leases/2010/Sued.htm

Attention All States: Prepare to be Sued Over Wolves

MISSOULA, Mont.—With their latest petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights activists are preparing to sue for federally mandated release of wolves in every state, warn officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, says animal rights groups have learned that introducing wolves translates to major fundraising, and activists have found a way to exploit the Endangered Species Act—as well as taxpayer-funded programs that cover lawyer fees—to push their agenda and build revenue through the courts.

“There are now about 100,000 gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada, and over the past few years in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, activists discovered that every wolf is also a cash cow,” said Allen. “If we don’t get some reform in federal laws very soon, we’re all going to be living in Jurassic Park. This is not about saving a lost species. It’s about money and special interest agendas.”

“Americans need to wake up,” he added, “because when you respond to those fundraising letters with photos of cute little wolf pups, you’re writing a check that our country’s rural and traditional lifestyles can’t cash. You’re eroding the fundamentals of America’s model for wildlife conservation.”

Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species—especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

“How do animal rights groups who claim to defend wildlife justify elk calf survival rates below 10 percent? Clearly they have another agenda,” said Allen.

Participation in hunting and the funding it generates for conservation also are being negatively affected, as are local economies, livestock production and potentially even human safety.

Continuous lawsuits by activists have setback wolf control and management efforts, compounding problems and costs for states.

“Now imagine bringing these kinds of impacts to more populated states elsewhere in the U.S., and I think we’re looking at an unprecedented wildlife management disaster,” said Allen.

RMEF has helped to successfully restore elk populations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and other states where habitat is suitable and citizens support the effort. Elk restoration is being considered currently in Virginia and Missouri using these same criteria.

“There are two proven ways to restore a species,” said Allen. “Our way is offering to help with funding and expertise so long as the local public wants the species and the state can manage them. The other way is using lawsuits and loopholes to shove a project down people’s throats.”

Animal rights groups filed a petition July 20 complaining that wolves now inhabit just 5 percent of their former range in the U.S., and that wolf populations should be recovered in all significant portions of that range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded by saying that it is reviewing “what is realistic and where the suitable habitat would be.” The agency’s review could be complete by late 2010 or early 2011.

“We urge USFWS to be very cautious in this evaluation and reject the rhetoric of the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups. Wolf re-introduction in the greater Yellowstone region was a classic example of ‘let’s get our foot in the door and then move the goal line,’ and should be warning enough. This is a fundraising strategy with anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-gun impacts, and the public needs to understand and see it for it is,” added Allen.

Wolves ain't the problem. The ESA is the problem. Contact everyone you can to repeal this regulation.

more opportunity to S,S,S.

Wolves SUCK! Thats all there is to it.

Capoward:

Our local NYC newspapers and TV have been covering some coyote invasions about 25-30 miles outside of NY City. Your idea about introducing wolves to NYC is appalling! We want wolves in your backyard -not ours! We love wolves and after all, if they have to kill anything, it should be western cattle and big game - what do you want? -that they should eat a cute French poodle who never hurt anybody? It's typical of you Westerners that you want to push your problems off on us Easterners who just want you to be environmentally correct and take care of all of God's creatures. What's that you say? Who pays for the dead cows? You have some nerve to ask that question! I mean, considering what beef prices are! No, I don't see where the wolves have anything to do with that. Those cute cuddly pups I see in the "documentaries" look as if they couldn't harm a kitten. (Yes, we Easterners love cats,very small cats. I understand that you Western types even kill big cats like a puma. Tsk,tsk. All they want is a beef steak or two)) Try and adopt a better attitude about wolves and mountain lions. You'll feel better - but,of course, the joggers in the parks in California will feel better if someone would start shooting those damn mountain lions!

I took it as Capo joking. I'm constantly amazed at how gullible the public is and at the government/elected officials unwillingness to do what is right versus bowing to pressure of a minority of individuals that have a misguided, misinformed and emotionally charged agenda.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
Allen said undermanaged wolf populations in the northern Rockies are compromising the health of other wildlife species—especially elk and other prey. In areas of Montana and Idaho where wolves share habitat with elk, calf survival rates now are too low to sustain herds for the future.

Weren't elk originally found mostly on the plains? Maybe mountains with wolves aren't the best environment for elk, and we should displace some plains cities to make room for them on their original habitat.

Idaho wolves have crossed the Snake into Oregon and are now getting established here. I'm not terribly concerned about wolves, but I am concerned about another shoe dropping: forced reintroduction of grizzlies. I'm sure the busybodies who make a living exploiting the ESA and NEPA will get around to this, too.

we can't manage game from "where they lived 200 yrs ago"


and Bill pray for grizzlies
the wolf is a far more destructive predator
grizzlies are just scary to run into,but after living amongst them the last 35 yrs and suffering the wolf the past 15.
i'll take the griz any day.
the griz keeps you alert and on your toes in the back country.
the wolf destroys viable healthy game populations and economic ways of life.

I myself am very happy that there are wolves roaming around on our mother earth.

I don't think they do anymore destruction to our earth than man himself does. In fact, I am sure of it.

I doubt very seriously that they kill more game than is killed by motorists on the highways, and by the pollution that man puts into lakes and steams, and by the habitat destruction than man causes.

As a sort of follow up to my last post (which I hasten to assure anyone without a sense of humor was meant as satire) -Just this morning on local NY TV there was a feature showing some clown raising wolf pups on his suburban property - I didn't catch the dimensions but I am q1uite sure it wasn't a section! The wolf pups were quite cute. (I grew up with German Shepherds) I only wonder how long it will be before they eat the household cat for starters.Unfortunately, the local TV will probably never hear of that.

22WRF

I am with you and your sentiments but unfortunately, Westerners have to live with the fact that wolves can wipe out livestock and sheep -as the most efficient predator we have. I really don't care about protecting elk,moose or caribou or any other wild game from wolves.(a lot of the screams come from outfitters for sport hunters - but wolves have discovered that it is a lot easier to take down a Hereford or merino than to go chasing over hell's half acre after an elk or moose. It's the farmers,ranchers and sheep herders that I want to listen to as an Easterner - Like you, I love wolves and the sound of them. I often heard them in Ontario (Nipissing District)and certainly, I don't want them to disappear. But what do we wolf lovers do about those wolves who are destroying people's livlihoods? I am obliged to defer to "the man on the ground" as to what to do with them. "Shoot 'em on sight" id an old rule in our American history -and I will not blame Westerners for using the rule on wolves

Sir

We all make choices in life that come with consequences. I didn't choose a bad economy that has caused me to lose 90 percent of business for the past two years.

Because of that, I certainly understand what it is like to lose, and to lose big time. But I made the choice, and I have to accept the consequences of my choice.

If one chooses to ranch, or farm, and one doesn't want to lose lifestock to wolves, then steps need to be taken to protect the livestock without killing the wolves.

If I don't like deer feeding on my alfalpha crop I cannot go out there and shoot them all.
If I see a bald eagle on the shore of the river where I own land and that bald eagle has a gamefish in his mouth should I shoot him.
Should we build superhighways through game rich vallyes and mountains? Should we put chemicals into our lakes and streams.

fellas
in order to have wolves
you must manage wolves by killing them
the fed's and game depts of the mt. states kill 150-200 wolves a yr per livestock predation.
and the remaining wolf population grows by 20%
anually.
were it not for the hunting seasons in mt and idaho, there would be in the range of
2000-2500 wolves in the mt west.
the habitat and wildlife populations cannot sustain that many.
thats why we are seeing crashing populations of moose and elk, and elk calf numbers that won't sustain the the herds.
you can love them all you want
but in order to have them you MUST kill them.

I just got an email yesterday from one of the big game organizations. There is a survey on KSL in Utah asking if we want wolves introduced in UT. A. with no restrictions, B. With the only shooting permitted to save livestock, or No Wolves Under any Condition. If I can find the link I will post it but have not been able to find it tonight. Please Vote NO if you find it before I post the link. DW

22WRF

Please don't forget that the wolf is the most efficient predator we have. (Some figures say {although I freely concede I don't know how the figures are computed}that a wolf is suceesful in one out of three kills -by comparison a lion only kills about one in ten times) You mention some pictures (an eagle taking a salmon) and we all want to see that -but where mankind's livelihood is being threatened - mankind always responds - (Genesis said that the Lord gave us dominion over the "beasts of the field and the birds of the air" -and while I agree that didn't mean we could kill them off as we pleased (Any lawyer woul;d say it was a delegation of authority by a principal to an agent)He surely did mean that we could make use of them as needed. I,most definitely, do not want the wolf to disappear - but in the American West -where he has free opportunity right up against man I wantn him kept under control.

Gerry

I think man is the most efficient predator that man has to worry about. Again, lets take a look at the number of animals man kills per year, both directly and indirectly, and compare that to what the wolves kill.

Is this whole argument about wolves killing livestock, or is this whole argument about wolves killing free ranging wild elk and deer.

I don't see them as related arguments.

I come from northern Minnesota. It made my heart happy everytime that I heard one or saw a track in winter, and the few times I saw them in the wild. And for those few years when I didn't shoot a deer I was glad that the wolves got it before I did.

Are wolves a carrier of rabies? If so, what kind of vaccination program do they have for them?

22WRF

You made a very telling point. I have never been able to figure out whether the vehement anti -wolf comments come from ranchers,farmers and sheepherders -or whether the complaints about wolves are coming from outfitters catering to out of state big game hunters. (Of course, the latter also supports a local economy and I'm not downplaying it -it's important in any state's economy - but now it's an argument between two predators - man and the wolf for the same game - I'm sentimental enough to want the wolf to win -but, of course, as you have noted, man is the most efficient of predators. (I do think that we have tried to level the playing field - game laws, game limits, kinds of hunting methods employed,etc. and I hope the right balance can be struck)

Allowing wolves back into their old habitat to pressure their traditional prey species may result in short-term disruptions of human uses, such as recreational hunting. In the long term, however, wolf pressure will improve the gene pool of the prey species.

More Wolves... All I need to know is which way to shoot...

Send them to south Louisiana! The Chinese resturants down here could use the meat!

It just amazes me that all the people that love and want more wolves in my back yard don't have to live and deal with them. Now a federal judge even tells us that we can't effectively manage them. And What he knows about wildlife management, would fit in a thimble. Wolves are a very good money maker for the enviro groups, so they want to keep it going, but not in their back yard. Just in mine. Daryl.

Bill/Oregon

A thoughtful post by you. The problem with many of the vehement posts on this thread is that Western posters never identify just what they do for a living. (The latest example is DIs from Montana) My own suspicion is that the loudest howls come from outfitters who want to sell out of state hunters on getting a "trophy" - and efficient wolves would see to it that only the smartest and hardiest of the prey species will survive - making successful hunting by "sport" hunters that much harder -including casual once a year hunters who live in the area. (My cynical nature tells me that wolves are being blamed for human failings. BTW, I thought that enviros were offering to compensate ranchers,farmers and sheepherders for proven wolf kills. How's that working out? I don't hear anything about it on these wolf threads. Is it so successful that the ranchers,farmers and sheepherders don't have any real complaints?

quote:

Originally posted by DIs:
It just amazes me that all the people that love and want more wolves in my back yard don't have to live and deal with them. Now a federal judge even tells us that we can't effectively manage them. And What he knows about wildlife management, would fit in a thimble. Wolves are a very good money maker for the enviro groups, so they want to keep it going, but not in their back yard. Just in mine. Daryl.

With all due respect, that "not in my backyard" argument doesn't cut it anymore. Each and every one of us uses and abuses the environment from everyone elses backyard. We all demand oil that turns into gasoline that runs our cars and trucks. Louisiana could say, "not in my backyard". So could Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Alaska, each who have had either environmental problems or political problems because of hungry demand from humans!!!!!!!

We use wood cut from precious rain forests that are in somebody elses backyard. And the list goes on and on into the night.

and here in a few years you'll be able to say to your kid "there used to be elk in the mountain west,and the last one had a
improved gene pool"

oh and the rest of us have decided you need a gang living at the end of your street
you know, just to keep up the cultural ethnic
diversity.
now you get to stand by the wayside without
a voice without a opinion, while they
grafetti your streets and steal your car and sell drugs to the nieghbor kids and impregnate your daughter.
and the rest of the nations opinion is what determines when all that will change.
and we really like cultural ethnic diversity.
and we want it to stay that way till the gangs cover the country.
get the idea?

Gerrypeters375, I happen to manage a small ranch north of Livingston MT. I literally have wolves in my back yard. They don't bother me much now, but without some management options, I am looking at problems in a year or two. I don't go anywhere with the dog in the back country without a rifle. Wolves absolutely hate dogs and will not tolerate them. So maybe you see my frustrations when some liberal judge changes the rules that were set in place when the wolves were reintroduced. The wolf numbers are way over objective in the 3 states, so why can't Wy, ID, and MT manage them the way we want and need to. Don't worry, we as ranchers have always dealt with our problems head on and probably can and well deal with problem wolves if we have too. Oh by the way, The compensation money paid by enviro groups is a joke. How do you prove if livestock has been killed by wolves if there is nothing left when found. Also how do you get compensated for the lost weight of your calves due to stress caused by wolves running them around. I have always thought that Wolves and grizzly bears ought to be introduced into Central Park. Daryl

Personally I think we should reintroduce Grizz into California, throughout its "historic" range. I'd like to see them in Pt. Reyes, the East Bay Hills, the Los Angeles national forest and throughout the Sierra's. Hell, it's on our flag. My alma mater's mascot is the Golden Bears, UCLA's is the bruins. I think then many of these tree hugging jerks that send money to these groups that support the wolf would then "rethink" their position.

I just returned from the Church in Idaho where we have an inholding. I took several long hikes well there with my 2 year old golden retriever, but none without a firearm. Wolves hate dogs and I've had them approach us on three occasions. The elk population is cratering, the moose population (which is almost now endangered itself due to wolf predation) has tanked and wolves have now been documented as severely impacting other predators by running cats off their kills and pulling bears from their dens in the winter and killing the cubs and sometimes adults.

I used to think that wolf "introduction" was a good idea, but no more after seeing the effect that the wolves have had in this ecosystem. It's been documented that to the extent wolves existed in the Church historically (they were never totally eradicated btw), they were a subspieces more akin to the smaller Mexican wolf then the larger Candadian Gray.

These wolves which have been increasing by 20% a year need to be controlled. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game which has said that in light of the Judge's ruling will now manage the population by other means to the level agreed upon when introduction occured which was I believe 15 breeding pairs and not more than 300 wolves in Idaho.

What is now happening is that folks in the West, even those, like myself who were originally tolerant and even enthusiastic about the wolves, now will see them as simply out of control and I can assure you folks have lost their patience with the ESA, the Feds and the radical enviros who see the wolves as a means to their own economic ends and are going to take matters into their own hands. It's too bad it has come to this, but I don't think that most folks in those states are going to stand by and let their game herds and other spieces be decimated by these predators.

quote:

Originally posted by EB:
Personally I think we should reintroduce Grizz into California, throughout its "historic" range. I'd like to see them in Pt. Reyes, the East Bay Hills, the Los Angeles national forest and throughout the Sierra's. Hell, it's on our flag. My alma mater's mascot is the Golden Bears, UCLA's is the bruins. I think then many of these tree hugging jerks that send money to these groups that support the wolf would then "rethink" their position.

I just returned from the Church in Idaho where we have an inholding. I took several long hikes well there with my 2 year old golden retriever, but none without a firearm. Wolves hate dogs and I've had them approach us on three occasions. The elk population is cratering, the moose population (which is almost now endangered itself due to wolf predation) has tanked and wolves have now been documented as severely impacting other predators by running cats off their kills and pulling bears from their dens in the winter and killing the cubs and sometimes adults.

I used to think that wolf "introduction" was a good idea, but no more after seeing the effect that the wolves have had in this ecosystem. It's been documented that to the extent wolves existed in the Church historically (they were never totally eradicated btw), they were a subspieces more akin to the smaller Mexican wolf then the larger Candadian Gray.

These wolves which have been increasing by 20% a year need to be controlled. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game which has said that in light of the Judge's ruling will now manage the population by other means to the level agreed upon when introduction occured which was I believe 15 breeding pairs and not more than 300 wolves in Idaho.

What is now happening is that folks in the West, even those, like myself who were originally tolerant and even enthusiastic about the wolves, now will see them as simply out of control and I can assure you folks have lost their patience with the ESA, the Feds and the radical enviros who see the wolves as a means to their own economic ends and are going to take matters into their own hands. It's too bad it has come to this, but I don't think that most folks in those states are going to stand by and let their game herds and other spieces be decimated by these predators.

Very good post!

Wow, I guess I should not be surprised by some of this, yet I still am.

I don't think you can separate the damage to wild game versus the damage to domestic though. My understanding is the presence of domestic animals is what allows the population increases in the wolves higher than historical (when they should be starving they feed on domestic animals). Many fish and game departments have a problem with these forced introductions as well and many biologists hold to the opinion that without management it is detrimental to wildlife as a whole. I'm not in an area where we have Elk and Moose, but do believe they could do damage to our deer numbers. More than that I don't think that since man initially imbalanced nature the concept of letting it all go back to "normal" is practical.

22wrf your "points" or arguments or whatever you want to call them on a quick read by a slow mind might sound logical, but they're twisted.

Of course man is the most destructive force on earth, does that mean that humans should be introduced to every area of the planet and given no restrictions or controls to what they do there? Because that's the only way you could tie that to introducing wolves everywhere and not putting methods in place to control them. The one does not justify the other. Isn't it illegal for humans to kill other humans (under most circumstances) and the killing of most non-human animals is regulated in most countries? Restrictions are in place for our destructiveness, and there are penalties.

The argument about picking your business and living with the consequences doesn't hold water either. for one, the majority of ranchers now have never killed a wolf and there were no wolves where they are ranching when they got there. I noticed you chose cute or majestic animals for the "examples". what about gophers? no rule against killing them just for messing up my pretty lawn, and I don't think I've ever met anybody that didn't kill one just because they thought "well, it was my decision to put my lawn there..." Your statement doesn't account for who/what was there first. So how about a rare owl or type of field mouse is reintroduced where YOU live, and they decide that your house is encroaching on it's hunting and foraging space and you have to move and your house be removed, without compensation. is that then OK with you because you chose to live there?

"should we build superhighways through game rich valleys and and mountains? should we put chemicals into our lakes and streams?"

Really? that is somehow supposed to tie together? The answer to those is no, but they're oranges not apples. If you'd asked it blanket, like you're making the wolf argument sound: "wolves should be introduced with no provision for their management (which is what you are saying when you say ranchers shouldn't protect their livestock by killing them)= Should we build superhighways and dispose of chemicals? That's apples to apples. because the building of highways takes into account many things and environmentalists are always there to block anything they think is harmful to the environment and the dumping of chemicals is regulated and there are guidelines as well.

It's very easy to say from a different profession that if your livelihood was affected by a pretty animal you wouldn't want to do something about it. what makes wolves so special that they can't be controlled and hunted like any other game animal, or nuisance animal? They're SO pretty that they shouldn't be hunted like deer, antelope, goat, sheep etc. etc.?

For me personally I'm just as opposed to the idea of people that don't live here forcing us to do things. I believe the federal government should exist to facilitate trade and protect the nation. States should trump federal on most things. I have a HUGE problem with the idea of somebody from another state coming in and affecting the laws of my state, or me being able to do that to somebody else. Things like this should be decided on a state by state basis, not dictated from above.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
Wow, I guess I should not be surprised by some of this, yet I still am.

I don't think you can separate the damage to wild game versus the damage to domestic though. My understanding is the presence of domestic animals is what allows the population increases in the wolves higher than historical (when they should be starving they feed on domestic animals). Many fish and game departments have a problem with these forced introductions as well and many biologists hold to the opinion that without management it is detrimental to wildlife as a whole. I'm not in an area where we have Elk and Moose, but do believe they could do damage to our deer numbers. More than that I don't think that since man initially imbalanced nature the concept of letting it all go back to "normal" is practical.

22wrf your "points" or arguments or whatever you want to call them on a quick read by a slow mind might sound logical, but they're twisted.

Of course man is the most destructive force on earth, does that mean that humans should be introduced to every area of the planet and given no restrictions or controls to what they do there? Because that's the only way you could tie that to introducing wolves everywhere and not putting methods in place to control them. The one does not justify the other. Isn't it illegal for humans to kill other humans (under most circumstances) and the killing of most non-human animals is regulated in most countries? Restrictions are in place for our destructiveness, and there are penalties.

The argument about picking your business and living with the consequences doesn't hold water either. for one, the majority of ranchers now have never killed a wolf and there were no wolves where they are ranching when they got there. I noticed you chose cute or majestic animals for the "examples". what about gophers? no rule against killing them just for messing up my pretty lawn, and I don't think I've ever met anybody that didn't kill one just because they thought "well, it was my decision to put my lawn there..." Your statement doesn't account for who/what was there first. So how about a rare owl or type of field mouse is reintroduced where YOU live, and they decide that your house is encroaching on it's hunting and foraging space and you have to move and your house be removed, without compensation. is that then OK with you because you chose to live there?

"should we build superhighways through game rich valleys and and mountains? should we put chemicals into our lakes and streams?"

Really? that is somehow supposed to tie together? The answer to those is no, but they're oranges not apples. If you'd asked it blanket, like you're making the wolf argument sound: "wolves should be introduced with no provision for their management (which is what you are saying when you say ranchers shouldn't protect their livestock by killing them)= Should we build superhighways and dispose of chemicals? That's apples to apples. because the building of highways takes into account many things and environmentalists are always there to block anything they think is harmful to the environment and the dumping of chemicals is regulated and there are guidelines as well.

It's very easy to say from a different profession that if your livelihood was affected by a pretty animal you wouldn't want to do something about it. what makes wolves so special that they can't be controlled and hunted like any other game animal, or nuisance animal? They're SO pretty that they shouldn't be hunted like deer, antelope, goat, sheep etc. etc.?

For me personally I'm just as opposed to the idea of people that don't live here forcing us to do things. I believe the federal government should exist to facilitate trade and protect the nation. States should trump federal on most things. I have a HUGE problem with the idea of somebody from another state coming in and affecting the laws of my state, or me being able to do that to somebody else. Things like this should be decided on a state by state basis, not dictated from above.

Red

Very nicely put.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Sir

We all make choices in life that come with consequences. I didn't choose a bad economy that has caused me to lose 90 percent of business for the past two years.

Because of that, I certainly understand what it is like to lose, and to lose big time. But I made the choice, and I have to accept the consequences of my choice.

If one chooses to ranch, or farm, and one doesn't want to lose lifestock to wolves, then steps need to be taken to protect the livestock without killing the wolves.

If I don't like deer feeding on my alfalpha crop I cannot go out there and shoot them all.
If I see a bald eagle on the shore of the river where I own land and that bald eagle has a gamefish in his mouth should I shoot him.
Should we build superhighways through game rich vallyes and mountains? Should we put chemicals into our lakes and streams.

That kind of business sense is what has reduced your business or income by 90% not the economy.

If a businessman chooses to ranch or farm, ofcourse he eliminates competing weeds, bugs, predators or deer. Depradation hunts are exactly about killing herbavores feeding on your crops. Predator control, whether pusued by the Department of Agriculture or the individual is exclusively about eliminating predators preying on herds. Certainly you know it is common to kill normally protected birds predating on fish farms, and even geese on golf courses of all things.

22, you operate on a higher playing field than a traditional hunter gatherer because yours and my kind have operated predator elimination campaigns. The toast your going to butter in the morning only exists because of active and sucessful predator control programs.

Oh, the super highways already built thru game rich valleys helped too.

The beef on your barbecue and the pork on your plate are because a wolf got poisoned or shot.

Daryl:

Once again I have been shamed into silence by hearing from "the man on the ground"!

I owe you a deep apology for shooting my mouth off -and out of aheer ignorance because I don't live with wolves. (BTW, I was surprised to read in your post that wolves hated dogs - What happened to all those movies about wolves luring dogs out to the wild again?)

The "wolf problem" is going to be in dispute between people who live with wolves -and those who don't. I was a very experienced bear hunters in Ontario and of course, often saw wolves and heard them. I want them preserved. (They are the ancestor of all our dogs, to begin with)Yet I have to recognize that they are a very efficient predator - so good that he has tough Westerners up in arms about a critter that doesn't weigh all that much. Yeah, I like wolves -and I want people who live with them (like Westerners) to be able to work it out -without outside interference. Hopefully, it can be done.

(I laughed at your idea about having some Western critters in our NY Central Park. The local press and TV media have been in hysterics about a coyote ranging in a NY suburb (recently caught and killed) Of course, you should see the TV hysterical commentary about black bears in NJ suburbs - some weighing almost as much as 125 lbs!