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

[Kirk007]

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?
[/I]

Because most Western Senators care more about their own hides politically than anything that pertains to biology, humanity, ethics, science, long-term human survival, etc., etc.

[Kirk007]

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...

Nope. The laws don't allow reitntroduction; wovles kill much less than 1% of total livestock deaths; this ain't about predation on livestock it's much more visceral, power-driven, hate the feds, hate science, manifest destiny and any ole other motto that folks want to hang their hates on to kill wolves.

The east needs carnivores but good luck getting them back. People shoot the red wolf in North Carolina, the few that are there and they don't eat livestock at all. So why kill. 'em? Pissed of that a federal court banned nighttime spotlight shooting of coyotes cause too many wolves (highly endangered and therefore protected) were being poached. Yep, let's not interfere with yahoos taking all the sport out of hunting by freezing an animal in a spotlight, shooting it and leaving it in the field to rot.

The biggest hope for culling the ridiculous size of the white tail deer herd that's decimating eastern forests is a coywolf (coyote/eastern timber wolf hybrid) that could more easily take deer, and the recovery of cougars - but they need to come from the Dakotas and can't get through the killing fields of those states, Nebraska, Iowa etc where every cougar sited is run up a tree and shot to prevent the defenseless human children in the state from being eaten. Humans are f*cked up.

[Kirk007]

Come on, predators were eliminated from almost the entire country by a manifest destiny mentality in the 1800s that has no place here today.
They aren't being reintroduced in the east because those opposed to the purpose of the ESA have effectively eviscerated the statute to where it is largely a paper tiger. Moreover human density is a huge problem particulalry as the most abundant prey base, whitetail deer, prefer fields and even folks back yards where the food is abundant. They've overbrowsed the forests so bad that the food supply even in places like Great Smoky NP is minimal of ungulate species. So deer in suburaban back yards, what do you think follows? Coyotes are already there and considered a problem.

You can't compare today's situation to one hundreds of years ago and say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Westerners already drove most predators to regional extinction once; but nature is remarkable and they're coming back.

The question is whether we will let them. Please tell me one good reason why we should deny them their existence in natural habitat that they. can occupy with minimal impact to humans?

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/

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by bigbill

Maybe it's been discussed. Introducing wolves into an area dominated by ranching is far different than doing so in other parts of the country. Ranchers developed their methods of producing cattle and sheep to send to market and that is all upset by the introduction of wolves. Wolves look to be beneficial in Yellowstone, but you can't put a game fence around a National Park.

I have fly fished a few times in Yellowstone's Lamar Valley. Across the river there is typically a herd of buffalo, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. On the hillside above the buffalo there are usually wolves looking for opportunities on the edges of the herd. I would rather wolves take down buffalo than force the park into a cull because of overpopulation, but the wolves get out and hunt domestic livestock because they're an easier prey.

But the world is changing. PRivate ranching in the West provides a pittance of the percentage of beef in this country. It's a lifestyle more than an industry. And, the wolves were there first until they were extirpated. MY opinion - if you get to subsidize your industry with virtually free food from public lands, then you take those public lands. with. the encumbrances favored by all Americans as we own. them. And the vast. majority. of Americans favor wolves presence.

[Kirk007]

Bookers not so bad. At. least he gives a **** about wildlife even if. it. is politically expedient. And by the way the State of New Jersey is doing some very good things with wildlife crossings, corridors, species protection - it's not all the Superfund parody that we make it out to be.

[zmudshark]

All the likes I have to give to Kirk007.

[pbarry]

In no way an expert here but the northeast, outside of Maine, (large tracts of privately-timber co owned land), and a few areas in way upstate NY, there’s nowhere that could support a pack.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by pbarry

In no way an expert here but the northeast, outside of Maine, (large tracts of privately-timber co owned land), and a few areas in way upstate NY, there’s nowhere that could support a pack.

How many acres would a typical pack need?

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

Come on, predators were eliminated from almost the entire country by a manifest destiny mentality in the 1800s that has no place here today.
They aren't being reintroduced in the east because those opposed to the purpose of the ESA have effectively eviscerated the statute to where it is largely a paper tiger. Moreover human density is a huge problem particulalry as the most abundant prey base, whitetail deer, prefer fields and even folks back yards where the food is abundant. They've overbrowsed the forests so bad that the food supply even in places like Great Smoky NP is minimal of ungulate species. So deer in suburaban back yards, what do you think follows? Coyotes are already there and considered a problem.

You can't compare today's situation to one hundreds of years ago and say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Westerners already drove most predators to regional extinction once; but nature is remarkable and they're coming back.

The question is whether we will let them. Please tell me one good reason why we should deny them their existence in natural habitat that they. can occupy with minimal impact to humans?

LOL, if you're going rag on me read all my comments at least. Oh and this country is all about taking what happened 100 years ago and trying to apply it to today when it serves certain groups agenda. So why should this be any different? LOL!

[rallizes]

why do i open these threads

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by Louis

How many acres would a typical pack need?

Depends on prey base density and pack size so kinda hard to say in the east but I think Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario would be comparable. And by the way, wolf management in Wisconsin has gone off the deep end just like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

The only reason there's a tenable effort to relist under the ESA is the political structure of state wildlife management where in most states the professionals (the agency) is dictated to by a politically appointed Commission which historically are dominated by hunting, fishing and agricultural interests. In politically divisive timesike these the commissions can be "taken over" by the loudest andost politically driven constituents which is what has happened in Idaho, Montana and Wisconsin. The new Idao and Montana laws are contrary to the state game agency's own recommendations.

Predator control, wolves in particular is largely divorced from science, indeed from reality.

Livestock predation can be managed through compensation and proved animal husbandry. Some ranchers have adopted such practices and market their beef as wolf friendly. Is it more work for ranchers than it was in the 1950s and 1960s - absolutely. But there seems to be a mentality in some segments of the ranching community that they have a multigenerational, lifetime entitlement to the way things were rather than the way things are.

But the ranchers for the most part aren't the problem. It's the anti-government, anti-science crowd driving this train (not that a lot of ranchers and hunters aren't happy to tag along).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

LOL, if you're going rag on me read all my comments at least. Oh and this country is all about taking what happened 100 years ago and trying to apply it to today when it serves certain groups agenda. So why should this be any different? LOL!

Hey I'm with you - bring 'em back east, and to the Midwest, but first place them in protected status everywhere so it's a level playing field and bring back the appropriate species - expand the red wolf reintroduction program - they may do best although not great deer predators. More cougars - the four legged kind. I know cougars aren't too popular with some folks in Utah - could probably get some donated from your home state. .

Maybe give the Eastern timberwolf a shot in the NE - they're not real popular in Ontario and Quebec - I bet the provinces would be happy to let us have some.

I'm trying to keep up - Just that I was responding in sequence and the posts were so fast and furious.....



Ya know years ago Ted Turner released some cougars in Georgia. Didn't go well. But I have friends who often talk about this strategy and not just in jest. One's a former Navy Seal who used to do covert "extractions" - he swears he's up for it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

Livestock predation can be managed through compensation and proved animal husbandry.

Can you explain that second part?

[thwart]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

And by the way, wolf management in Wisconsin has gone off the deep end just like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

Sad but true.

[fa63]

...