OT: why does Idaho want to kill its wolf population?

[nighthawk]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Really makes a compelling argument. One thing that caught my eye: why are two senators from largely urban Northeast states leading the charge on an issue largely pertaining to sparsely populated Western states?

“A group of 21 U.S. senators led by Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, and Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan, recently wrote to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland urging an emergency relisting of the wolf on the federal threatened and endangered species list. Mr. Booker said that the policies “in states like Idaho and Montana, if continued unabated, will result in the deaths of hundreds of gray wolves and pose a significant risk to the species’ survival.”

While I can’t answer the question as to why they are leading the charge, I don’t have issue with it as the survival of wolf species and the perpetuation of a healthier ecosystem (with wolves allowed to fill their niche) are not state specific issues. Historic species ranges and ecological impacts aren’t limited to state boundaries. Those making state legislation and policy around the species are likely weighing local economic factors more heavily than the bigger picture and more long term effects of these policies. I’m not against hunting (I am a hunter) but sustainable yield seems to be a forgotten term for these policy makers.

And FWIW, the Northeast (of which Michigan is not)… has some pretty remarkable natural areas. It’s not one big paved parking lot.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by nighthawk

While I can’t answer the question as to why they are leading the charge, I don’t have issue with it as the survival of wolf species and the perpetuation of a healthier ecosystem (with wolves allowed to fill their niche) are not state specific issues. Historic species ranges and ecological impacts aren’t limited to state boundaries. Those making state legislation and policy around the species are likely weighing local economic factors more heavily than the bigger picture and more long term effects of these policies. I’m not against hunting but sustainable yield seems to be a forgotten term for these policy makers.

And FWIW, the Northeast (of which Michigan is not)… has some pretty remarkable natural areas. It’s not one big paved parking lot.

So isn't it hypocrisy (Sp?) then? How many predator species back east have been eliminated over the years by man? Do they still have wolves in their backyards killing off cattle and such? Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Just playing Devil's Advocate...

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

So isn't it hypocrisy (Sp?) then? How many predator species back east have been eliminated over the years by man? Do they still have wolves in their backyards killing off cattle and such? Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Just playing Devil's Advocate...

From the op-ed:

"Wolf depredation on livestock has been minimal. In 2015, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had 1,602,100 cattle in counties where both cattle and wolves were present; there were 1,904 wolves. They killed 148 cattle: about 0.01 percent, or approximately one out of every 10,000 cows. All three states compensate livestock owners for proven losses to wolves."

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by nighthawk

While I can’t answer the question as to why they are leading the charge, I don’t have issue with it as the survival of wolf species and the perpetuation of a healthier ecosystem (with wolves allowed to fill their niche) are not state specific issues. Historic species ranges and ecological impacts aren’t limited to state boundaries. Those making state legislation and policy around the species are likely weighing local economic factors more heavily than the bigger picture and more long term effects of these policies. I’m not against hunting (I am a hunter) but sustainable yield seems to be a forgotten term for these policy makers.

And FWIW, the Northeast (of which Michigan is not)… has some pretty remarkable natural areas. It’s not one big paved parking lot.

Good response. Obviously, my geography is lacking.

[nighthawk]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Good response. Obviously, my geography is lacking.

Wasn’t judging your geographical knowledge, just (poorly) making the point that the request to emergency list the species came from politicians representing a greater slice of the country than just the Northeast. I get your point though that it has the appearance of one region trying to make decisions that affect another region. My opinion is that the policies affect us all and are poorly developed and short sighted.

[verticaldoug]

I think Idaho, Montana, Wyoming are being singled out here, when even in Wisonsin, they like to massacre wolves.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-conservation

https://wausaupilotandreview.com/202...reward-offers/

I'd think conservationists in Idaho, Wyoming should follow the Wisconsin Conservationists lead and see if they can tie up the wolf kill in court,
At this point, probably the most effective way forward in the short term.

Minnesota has a comprehensive plan going back to the 1970's when the state tried to protect the gray wolf in the arrowhead region.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wolves/index.html

There is a lot of talk on the thread about coyotes. Coyotes are a much bigger problem because they are so much more versatile around humans.
There is also a hybrid now call the Coywolf.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66uOL60edYs


Finally, there is a group of people who just like to kill things. I don't understand the mindset of someone like the Minnesota dentist that killed Cecil the Lion a few years ago.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

From the op-ed:

"Wolf depredation on livestock has been minimal. In 2015, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming had 1,602,100 cattle in counties where both cattle and wolves were present; there were 1,904 wolves. They killed 148 cattle: about 0.01 percent, or approximately one out of every 10,000 cows. All three states compensate livestock owners for proven losses to wolves."

LOL, you're missing the point. How many livestock were killed back east over the years by the large predators to call for their elimination back there? Why are they not being reintroduced back their also?

Always two sides to everything.

https://idrange.org/range-stories/no...lves-in-idaho/

[ripvanrando]

Farmers in the East kill predators like coyotes and fox. They just do it quietly.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

LOL, you're missing the point. How many livestock were killed back east over the years by the large predators to call for their elimination back there? Why are they not being reintroduced back their also?

Always two sides to everything.

https://idrange.org/range-stories/no...lves-in-idaho/

Wolves have already been natural reintroduced into Wisconsin and Michigan from the original Minnesota population. The same subspecies- Canis Lupis Lycoan also roams the northern side of the border in Canada. Wolves have been shot in the Adirondacks recently, and there is discussion to reintroduce the Minnesota Gray. The Wyoming, Idaho and Montana wolves are a different subspecies - the wolves were brought down from Jasper and are larger than the wolves around the great lakes.

There is a lot of variation in the wolf genome, and all wolves are not created equal.

https://mountainjournal.org/montana-...the-crosshairs

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Farmers in the East kill predators like coyotes and fox. They just do it quietly.

Yep, happens everywhere including out here. Between growth and the ranchers I now have a hard time finding active fox dens out here in the spring. Years ago I could usually figure on being able to work 3 or 4 different dens for several weeks in spring. No more.....

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

Wolves have already been natural reintroduced into Wisconsin and Michigan from the original Minnesota population. The same subspecies- Canis Lupis Lycoan also roams the northern side of the border in Canada. Wolves have been shot in the Adirondacks recently, and there is discussion to reintroduce the Minnesota Gray. The Wyoming, Idaho and Montana wolves are a different subspecies - the wolves were brought down from Jasper and are larger than the wolves around the great lakes.

There is a lot of variation in the wolf genome, and all wolves are not created equal.

And yet.....no one answers my guestion.....LOL! When's ol' Corey gonna reintroduce Wolves and mountain lions into N.J.?

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

And yet.....no one answers my guestion.....LOL! When's ol' Corey gonna reintroduce Wolves and mountain lions into N.J.?

We have a huge population of Cougars down the Shore.

[Toddtwenty2]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

And yet.....no one answers my guestion.....LOL! When's ol' Corey gonna reintroduce Wolves and mountain lions into N.J.?

Gary Peters introduced the legislation to introduce more wolves into Isle Royale National Park in Michigan, and was also part of the group that stopped the addition of a rider to remove their federally protected status in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Wyoming.

The wolves in Michigan were largely killed off well before his tenure in office, and he has been a relatively consistent and reasonable senator, imho. I see you're taking the easier pot shot with Booker there...

[Toddtwenty2]

To be fair, I do get your point. It's a bit like the US pushing to retain the rainforest because we already cut down and financially exploited all of our old growth forests...

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

And yet.....no one answers my guestion.....LOL! When's ol' Corey gonna reintroduce Wolves and mountain lions into N.J.?

There is only one state park large enough to hold a wolf territory and that's Wawayanda and it could probably only hold one or two packs. That is not enough to create a viable population.

Adirondacks and Green Mountains upstate NY, Vermont into NH and then Maine could actually be a large enough corridor to hold a viable population. You need room for wolves to be able to roam to form new packs and keep the population viable.