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

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Can you explain that second part?

Wolves hate human conflict and presence. Having a range Rider with a herd will do much to dissuade a wolf. As will the right type of dog, "Flannery" which is plastic flagging surrounding a herd at night, helping cattle relearn herding behavior - think of the pictures of Muskox arranged in a circle facing a predator. Problems arise when ranchers let their cattle free range without human presence particularly in habitat where it is hard to keep a herd together - thick forests, rugged country like NE Washington state - great for wolves to pick off an easy stray. Some ranchers release their Cattle onto the range underweight - small animal is less able to defend itself.

So why don't ranchers just do these things? $$$. Any of these operations would go under without federal assistance. They live close to the margin. I had one rancher in New Mexico tell that if she lost one cow to a wolf she'd be bankrupt. Well, this demonstrate s to me two things - truly marginal economics plus many take predation personally which I get - but at the same time they can't or won't spend the money to properly protect their animals. One sheep rancher let his flock range over a 300 mile area in Idaho, unattended to, and then was pissed when he lost a bunch - which he of course blamed on wolves. Strange entitlement thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kirk007]

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. LOL![/QUOTE]

Well that's true. When I attended the University of Virginia in the 1980s I quickly learned that "the war of Northern aggression" was still being fought. Fast forward to MLK day in 2022 and it's clear that battle has never ended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by zmudshark

All the likes I have to give to Kirk007.

+1

Also, NJ has black bears in every county except maybe Hudson, and NJ probably has coyotes in every county. Neither of these are packs of wolves, and only the northern border areas with NY could possibly support a pack.

That said, there is a lot of effort to preserve both woodlands and farmlands from further development in NJ.

If western senators abdicate their duty to provide oversight to government lands, I see no problem with eastern senators stepping in.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by 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.

How bout you keep your Washington state politics where it belongs?

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by tctyres

+1

Also, NJ has black bears in every county except maybe Hudson, and NJ probably has coyotes in every county. Neither of these are packs of wolves, and only the northern border areas with NY could possibly support a pack.

That said, there is a lot of effort to preserve both woodlands and farmlands from further development in NJ.

If western senators abdicate their duty to provide oversight to government lands, I see no problem with eastern senators stepping in.

We have an abundance of coyotes in NJ. Ask any hunter.

And you are correct, there are massive private and public efforts to preserve land in NJ but the 100-500 acre farms that are preserved cannot support larger predators. My town buys a lot of land and there are conservation groups also buying land. The deer herds have been cut back over the past decade although in the urban areas (such as Union, Essex, Middlesex counties), that is not the case.

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

How bout you keep your Washington state politics where it belongs?

Refer to post #161.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

Refer to post #161.

I wouldn't read the NYT or vote for Booker if you paid me.

This is a state's rights issue.

If NJ continues to want black bears in urban areas, that is our right. Or, when the powers to be determine more hunting permits are needed to cull the bear population, that is also NJ's right. Personally, I don't like seeing yotes around little kids, which probably why the state of NJ has very lenient hunting rules on coyotes. I would not want wolves or cougars introduced in NJ. Similarly, western states should manage their own critters.

[.RJ]

In another 200 years, Idaho will look like New Jersey anyways and it wont matter

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

I wouldn't read the NYT or vote for Booker if you paid me.

This is a state's rights issue.

If NJ continues to want black bears in urban areas, that is our right. Or, when the powers to be determine more hunting permits are needed to cull the bear population, that is also NJ's right. Personally, I don't like seeing yotes around little kids, which probably why the state of NJ has very lenient hunting rules on coyotes. I would not want wolves or cougars introduced in NJ. Similarly, western states should manage their own critters.

State rights? I see.....

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

I wouldn't read the NYT or vote for Booker if you paid me.

This is a state's rights issue.

If NJ continues to want black bears in urban areas, that is our right. Or, when the powers to be determine more hunting permits are needed to cull the bear population, that is also NJ's right. Personally, I don't like seeing yotes around little kids, which probably why the state of NJ has very lenient hunting rules on coyotes. I would not want wolves or cougars introduced in NJ. Similarly, western states should manage their own critters.

What about the Yotes who live and vote in NY but Summer in NJ and hunt in Pennsylvania?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

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

Such an absolute pleasure to read your posts throughout this thread. Really insightful and well-written. Thanks.

[AngryScientist]

i think this one is wrapped up.