wolves (again)

[Jeremy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re_us/us_wolf_nation

Found this article while looking at the news this morning.

[hayslope]

I read the article on MSNBC this morning.

It just makes me shake my head.  I guess there really are people in the federal government that truly live in a fantasy world.......and never listen to anyone!

[Ray_G]

Not only will there be loss of wildlife, livestock, pets and perhaps humans (a la Calif. lion pop. out of control), this is going to cost a lot of money if implemented.  I know a guy who was part of the early wolf introduction in Idaho and he told me of the millions that were spent on just the first batch in the mid-1990's.  There will be tons of studies, biologists, technicians, data personnel, etc.  In our current economic state in this country, this is a poor idea but we have seen an unconcerned Congress continue to add to our deficit.

The worst of it, will be the damage to wildlife and ecosystem imbalances until the populations learn that a big meat eater is among them again and they try to adapt to the new game plan.  Our elk (and deer to a lesser extent) have been dwindled.  I have no expectation to see a population recovery while I am still on the planet.

Our state legislature ordered our Fish & Game department to solicit 20(?) other states to take our overpopulation of wolves.  They found no takers - no surprise there.  The result is that an increase in wolf hunting permits is coming, trapping and bait allowed and electronic calls for wolf hunting will be allowed in an effort to get an out of control wolf population to a stable number in Idaho.  I hope that you guys don't have to experience a re-introduction.     :mad:

[chopx2]

I've heard that the Gray WOlf never lived in the east or South East, but rather that it was a different wolf...the Red Wolf if I remember correctly which no longer exists and was smaller and if I remember correctly more of a loner and less pack like (kind like a bigger coyote). I'll have to see if I can find where I read that and post it.

[Ragnarok Forge]

Not saying it is right, but I know a guy who "says" he is fixing the wolf problem on his own by shooting every last one he sees.  I know several ranchers in wolf states that practice the same policy.  You would think the Fed would have a clue and know not to put Canadian Wolves into a new environment and then try and call it reintroduction.  This is classic political idiots pandering to the greenies and anit hunters who will try and use lower game animal numbers to reduce hunting opportunity.

[Ray_G]

Chop Chop,

Exactly the same issue here in Idaho.  We had wolves that were smaller and were still here when the Canadian Gray's were imported.  What do you suppose happened to that small population of local wolves when packs of intolerant Gray's moved in?  (Not an argument - just rhetorical)  I guess it was OK to wipe out a threatened population for an agenda, like Clay mentions.

When the US Fish & Wildlife held public hearings in Idaho before they brought the Gray's, a poll by another source was taken and 90% of Idahoans were opposed to the introduction.  Many of us who go to the woods knew of the Idaho wolves that were here and roamed the mountains.  We had foreign wolves forced upon us, anyway.  If this new effort gets any traction, they will be sent to every place they deem will hold wolf populations.  Man, I fear for the elk herds being re-established East of the Rockies.

[Tsalagi]

I don't have a problem with wolves being introduced, provided hunting seasons for them are attached once their numbers climb to a given level. While a lot of ranchers get upset, many of them are grazing cattle on federal land (i.e. the peoples' property.) What I don't agree with is a "hands off" policy, like California has with mountain lions. In California, the cougars have gotten so bold, they will kill people as easy meals. They have no fear of humans. And we cannot have that with wolves, as we know from history how that ends up. So, introducing wolves? Fine. But without hunting seasons on them? Bad idea.

The thing that threatens wildlife more than wolves is development. People building their nice $5 million dollar McMansions smack dab in the middle of game routes and then putting up fences. Too many second and third homes go up right in the middle of the forest. There's a gated community here that sits right in the middle of the forest and the whole place is fenced. Game has to go miles around it, often across a major road.

Now, here in Northern Arizona, the elk herd itself is not native. The native elk here were wiped out long ago. These elk are introduced. So, is introducing wolves then a bad thing as they're not native? No, not since the elk themselves were introduced. But, without seasons on them, we run into problems.

[Bonebuster]

All we need added to the wolf equation, is common sense.

[Tsalagi]

What I find the most comical about the whole thing is the advocates of it in the anti-hunter community. It's like, let's see here. They don't want ME to kill a deer because killing a deer is wrong. But they're happy to bring in a wolf to do it. And funny how a lot of these people are into wolves and mountain lions (i.e. "They're sooooo cool!!!!") but they're vegetarians. Huh???    When's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?

What I find suspicious about the support for wolf reintroduction among the antis is I think it's a Trojan Horse. They realize that hunters are part of a state game and fish agency's "toolbox" for managing herd numbers. They can't get around that. So, if they have wolves in there, they'll say, "See! We fixed that! The wolves will manage the herds! Now we can ban hunting!"

My "nuts-n-bolts" of the matter concern is bringing in wolves to ecosystems that haven't sen wolves in nearly a century. They don't have the savvy to understand what wolves are. They might think it's someone's dog and they know dogs, so don't twig to the danger. I think bringing in wolves without a game plan on issuing hunting tags to, in turn, keep them under control, is asking for big problems. Once wolves lose fear of man, they learn modern man is a pretty easy-to-bring-down target of opportunity. Especially children. That's what happened in California with cougars.

Bringing in predators into an ecosystem is a dicey proposition that shouldn't be taken lightly. Peoples' free-roaming domestic cats kill more songbirds (including endangered ones) than just about any other thing. People build new housing developments on the cusp of national forests (like here in Flagstaff) and let their cats roam free in the woods, killing all kinds of birds that never saw a housecat before. These are also the people that whine the loudest about "Those hunters go through the woods behind my house---that should be against the law!" We've had letters to the paper here that say that very thing.

The point is, don't look for logic, reason, or consistancy in the wolf reintroduction programs. Especially those getting grant money. If we can't stop it, I say fine. Let's lobby for wolf season.

[mwmwmb]

When's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?  

That is where i seem. that is how they stay so goodlookin.  

[Ray_G]

Originally posted by mwmwmb:
 

When's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?  

That is where i seem. that is how they stay so goodlookin.      [/b]

 a good hunter that mwmwmb!  Goes where the food source is for the game!  Now on to the topic at hand:

The Federal judge in Missoula has once again, placed the wolves back on the protected list as of yesterday.  No seasons in Idaho or Montana this Fall!  He cited the US Fish & Wildlife decision to de-list in ID and MT but not Wyoming as political.  He says that if it doesn't apply to all three then it voids all three for hunting.  Wyoming is taking a state's rights stance on the issue of managing wolves inside their boundaries, which I believe in.  I wish we had the same attitude amongst our commission.  The US Fish & Wildlife could accept the WY position and the current positions of ID and MT, thus making the current ruling null.  Of course, the Defenders of Wildlife and the others would file another suit that WY wolves weren't being properly managed and we would be on the see-saw, yet again.  This needs to be resolved!

[Brian Krebs]

the thing is; that every time the hunting of the wolves is stopped; it interferes with the states right and duty to manage their wild game.

 In Idaho; the fish and game duty is to insure healthy herds of fish and game animals; and the USA making the decision to only allow wolves to thrive: is interfering with elk and deer; and bear and lion and moose and mt goat; and sheep and all matter of critters made of meat - proper management.

 You can never give some people enough credit for their stupidity. Defenders of Wildlife is leading well meaning people to defend one animal at the cost of all others.

 It is more than a pity- it is a reason to revolt.

The federal government does not want states to enforce immigration laws; so why should our fish and game officers enforce or assist the enforcement of the courts ruling- when it makes them violate the very thing they are there to do- to insure healthy herds of game animals.

 I live in wolf central; and our elk are being hammered by the wolves - and our fish and game and governor and state congressmen and senators know its hurting us financially.

 This is a huge case of big brother.

However - even though Wyoming has a point; and a good one- its actions could and are ruining hunting in Idaho; Montana; Utah; with Washington and Oregon only beginning to see the tip of this iceberg.

 It is wrong. Something HAS to change.

[Brian Krebs]

"I've heard that the Gray WOlf never lived in the east or South East, but rather that it was a different wolf...the Red Wolf if I remember correctly which no longer exists and was smaller and if I remember correctly more of a loner and less pack like (kind like a bigger coyote). I'll have to see if I can find where I read that and post it."
 
 Well: that would be nice; but the fish and game is sitting on that information and will not release it to the public.

 Even Lewis and Clark commented in their journals that the wolves in this area were smaller than the wolves they had seen in other areas.
 
 And fish and game here was monitoring existing populations of a different wolf that was put here.

 But they had an injunction against the fish and game speaking AT ALL about wolves; and the existence of wolves being here already - well it got swept away - and now denied; because they might just get their butts sued because of it.
 They had the evidence of the existing smaller wolves; and now its probably shredded- and their butts are free from their cowardice in protecting their jobs over their duty.

 Hunters are civil people. This whole wolf experiment proves it.

 To this point.....

[Ray_G]

Hey Brian.  I hope the bionic knee is doing well for you.

In a post from last year I talked about our resident wolves.  I wondered how the destruction of a small population of them squares with the Endangered Species Act?  Oh, that's right - I forget it is not about care of our wildlife or our state's legislated mandate that F&G perpetuate game animals for future generations.  It's a federalist agenda that reigns supreme.

Be well, my friend and keep up the good fight.

[Tsalagi]

Thw wolf being introduced here in Arizona is the Mexican Gray Wolf. They released them around Tucson area, but one ended up as road kill here in Northern Arizona one year. They get around. Two stepped in front of bullets down south and Game & Fish is investigating that. Probably felonies if they catch the shooters. Who knows.

Eventually, they'll attack and carry off a child, like mountain lions do fairly regularly in California. Though mountain lions in California made a small dent in the jogger population there. This is what happens with predators that lose fear of man. When I was living in Southern California, there were coyotes that would menace people living in the foothills. Nobody ever shot at them, they had no fear of people. Peoples pets would get eaten, not that I mind the free-roaming housecats disappearing. But sometimes kids would get attacked. And, of course, you know the authorities: "Let the professionals handle it, folks, don't get try to take the matter into your own hands..." No, how about people take a good longbow into their own hands? That'll stop the problem while the authorities do various time studies and written assessments (with footnotes) of the situation.

If a mountain lion shadows people in this state, people are getting up a hunting party the next day. But you can't say that for the wolves here. I think the procedure here is to file a written report or a complaint or something. I'm not sure how you get the wolf to file a report telling his side of the story.

[thorn242]

Funny thing.....they want to introduce the grey to Oregon.....and have even had a tracking of on of  the Idaho dogs in the NE corner.....I know of people who have shot wolves all over the state.....not sure of the breed, but definitely not a coyote. I read a story about a guy who lost all but two of his hunting pack to wolves because he was not allowed to shoot the wolves to defend his dogs. LAME!!!!   What ever happened to common sense?

[Tsalagi]

We had a guy here breeding wolf-dog hybrids to sell. They got out and killed a bunch of his neighbors' animals. Folks ended up having to get up a hunting party to kill the wolf-dogs. It's not bad enough introducing wolves with no checks-and-balances, but now we've got people breeding wolf hybrids---to sell as pets. Yeah, can't you see it? Someone's kid sees the doggie, goes to pet him, and gets an arm torn off. Great idea! Sorry, but half-wolf is still half-wild.

[Brian Krebs]

thorn242: Oregon already has at least one collared female wolf in a pack. They breed at 30% per year..

[Konrad]

If we were to follow the logic proposed by these state biologists, the entire continent should be returned to the animals. After all, even Native Americans intruded upon the original flora and fauna in North America. If they saw a survival advantage, they were notorious slaughterers and destroyers habitat.

This is a typical Leftist argument that sounds plausible at first blush and then appears foolish when examined more closely.

These are the same approaches used by the left on any number of issues.
Whatever is “wrong” with the world, it MUST be something white, civilized American males did. In fact, if they were absolutely honest, they would admit to their belief humans are a pestilence on the face of the Earth and should be regulated out of existence.

However, they always leave a little room for the continued habitation of the State Biologists…just to make sure things go “right”.

[Tsalagi]

"Whatever is “wrong” with the world, it MUST be something white, civilized American males did."

Um, "civilized"? My Tsalagi ancestors were civilized long before "white civilized" Europeans got here. Civilization isn't just tenements in 1880s New York City with a typhoid epidemic running amok, ya know. And, yes, got paternal ancestors that lived in those tenements, too.

Look, I'm not saying Native Americans were all saints. But we weren't sitting around waiting to be "civilized" by Europeans, either.