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

[Burning Pines]

Yeah I mean there have been "save a deer, smoke a pack a day" billboards and bumper stickers in Montana for decades. Just aggressively ignorant and violent imo.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by goonster

...

It's not just an accounting exercise when your livestock is torn up, and you are prevented from doing anything about it. Protecting your flock is pretty primal stuff, actually.

I get that...but say 200 cattle killed in the whole state....how many ranchers? Google says there about 24,000 farms. Not sure how many are "ranches" raising cattle.

But losing a couple cattle every 2-3 years? I get that you don't have to like it, but in the end you don't really suffer a loss.

Sort of like your car getting hit while you are in the grocery store...you are pissed, but your insurance covers it and after the repair you move on...you dream about catching the hit-and-run driver and pounding them to a pulp, but rational people don't really do that.

Also, are the kills mostly on "ranches" or where the cattle are grazing on public lands? Seems to me, the public lands are for all animals, and come with an inherent risk...just saying.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Burning Pines

Yeah I mean there have been "save a deer, smoke a pack a day" billboards and bumper stickers in Montana for decades. Just aggressively ignorant and violent imo.

i've seen those when travelling in the rural west myself. agree, pretty ugly for sure.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by jamesdak

Well as an old redneck farm boy comments like this just make me laugh and feel sorry for you at the same time.

If only things were so simple......

Not that I necessarily agree with just killing off the wolves but I do respect farmers rights too and know there has to be a balance.

Where I do wholeheartedly agree with a lot of folks from Idaho is the whole "please stay in California" thing. We're fighting the same sickness here in northern Utah.

Thanks for your thoughtful response which is obviously based on a lifetime of real perspective and experience something which seems so lacking in many people these days.

[jamesdak]

What we had happening here two years ago was sort of the same thing only mountain lions. For quite awhile all the social noise was, "leave the cats alone", "they were here first", "we're in their living room". That changed overnight when a local posted a video of one of the mountain lions with someone's white cat in their mouth. Then it was all, "hunt them down", "they're killers", "why won't DWR do something", "protect our kids", etc......

So funny watching people's take on these issues especially when it doesn't affect them directly. But the minute it does, boy do they change.....

[ripvanrando]

Wolves don't just kill cattle, they kill sheep, domestic dogs, and others in much larger numbers than cattle.

There is a farm near me that requires you to shoot any fox or coyote that you see as privilege of hunting their property. I can't agree to that. Others do.

If the State wants to manage wildlife numbers, they should do it themselves.

Selling outrageously expensive permits to hunters (speaking of NJ) to effect a wildlife policy seems wrong to me, especially if the State gives extraordinary advantage to the so-called hunter, such as the use of night vision, ability to hunt at night, any rifle, use of motor vehicles, etc. This is not fair chase and not fair to the animal. It is just state sponsored killing. That is my objection and it has nothing to do with politics, religious, or one's choice of protein.

[Kirk007]

Some wolves would help keep your coyotes in check....

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

I suppose they would rebut.....stay in California.

In my area, Coyote population has exploded. Many birds (pheasant, turkey, quail, etc.) are pretty much gone. It makes me a little nervous when I see coyotes in the Hedgegrow not far from the neighbor's little daughter.

Your nasty comment about Christianity is offensive.

[Dead Man]

land ownership is a weird concept to me, and ive owned land.

thinking about it from a humanistic approach - basically, because i happen to have the good fortune of abundant resource i can plop a stack of papers that represent calories burned by mostly other people, which i have gained directly or indirectly from exploitation (being an "employer" or working for one), for a piece of land i pay property tax on and a well paid and provisioned group of heavily armed people will help me keep people with significantly less resource off the piece of land ive staked claim to.

the whole thing rubs me wrong. always has - even when i was a somewhat more traditionalist/conservative type, and especially as a literalist bible-studying christian. i always found the character of christ in total opposition to the values most of his contemporary follows espoused. and it eventually got me excommunicated from the church! go figure.

these days, id probably take the position o something like this: land ownership is a construct. but humans are no more "stewards" of the land/earth than bacteria are stewards of our organs. we do possess a level of consciousness and conscience that rather demands- strictly for our own pleasure and survival- that we do what we must to preserve this environment for ourselves, at least for as long as it takes to make the next evolutionary jump to fully synthetic consciousness. the duration of time we are having any notable large scale affect on the environment is a geologic blink of an eye. the planet doesnt care that were here, even if it possessed a consciousness and sensory perception... countless other biological occurrences have changed the atmosphere and surface of the earth WAY beyond anything weve done over the billions of years of its existence. when we have either blown ourselves to extinction or transcended "natural" biology .... in any way, no longer having an effect on the ecosystem ... life and geologic change will go on for hundreds of millions or maybe billions of years yet, likely spawning a number of species that drastically alter things time and time again.

so when i remember all that, i conclude, on the topic of "stewardship," that we need to behave in a way that maintains health and comfort for our species... and in so doing, most of the other species will be impacted less for it. our focus should NOT be on putting ourselves aside for the benefit of other species, rather creating an environment that is in as good o equilibrium as possible, because WE will last longest, happiest that way

seems like when you run predators out, varmint and game explode.. when any population explodes, so do diseases. bovine wasting disease is something that would never exist in an environment with game predators, for instance. kill off smaller predators, like coyotes for another instance, and now you've got little outbreaks of PLAGUE and hantavirus and others.

i let spiders roam free in my home because they eat things that like to **** on my food/countertops and bite me.

just makes logical sense to let nature's soap clean itself.

[ripvanrando]

I know a hiker who was stalked by a mountain lion on the Pacific Crest Trail in California. She ultimately was not attacked but it spooked her so much that she left the trail, ending her Triple Crown quest.

I wouldn't backpack the Bitterroot solo and probably wouldn't do it unarmed although I have no idea if wolves will attack a human. Grizzlies certainly will

[Kirk007]

I am an expert in this sh*t. Been studying and working in wolf ecology/conservation since 1988.

The Idaho bill is pure Western idealogical hate driven, anti-science bullsh*t mostly along political lines where wolves are proxies for the federal government. There is a population segment in the West that simply hates and resents that the federal govenrnment owns and manages so much property and that they can override state fish and game agencies on occasion through the Endangered Species Act (and by the way this bill and similar measures in Montana and Idaho are now driving a scientist lead effort to relist the gray wolf as threatened and endangered - that old law of physics for every action there's a reaction).

Wolves kill very few livestock and those that are killed are as often a result of poor animal husbandry as anything. Some ranchers refuse compensation on political and philosophical grounds. And most of that predation occurs on federal lands - youi know, the ones that everyone has a stake in but locals get to lease for pennies on market value to support their otherwise uneconomically sustainable lifestyles.

Wolves do not, on balance drive down game herds. They may have a localized effect that results in some hunters being pissed off. They do make elk and deer more situationally alert, move them out of riparian areas and perhaps make hunting more difficult - more pissed off hunters.

Wolves do have a general positive impact on ecosytem health as do all large carnivores. One of the reasons we have so many coyotes everywhere is the relative absence of wolves and cougars. If you want to know more on this phenomena google "mesopredator release."

Ecologically, the Idaho bill is caveman stuff which will harm ecosystem resilience throughout the state and make it more difficult for wolves to continue to reclaim habitat in other states from which they were exterpated decades ago. Even the Idaho Fish & Game Dept is against the bill. It allows wolves to be literally run over with ATVs and snowmobiles and killed by any means, at any time of the year. It is mindblowingly stupid and cruel.

In case you can't tell, this stuff makes my blood boil. I will not spend a dollar in Idaho or knowingly doing business with any company in Idaho until they change their policies. The same with Montana and Wyoming (except Dave Kirk since he's a friend). I used to go to Bozeman/Yellowstone area every year. Haven't for the past 7. Their wildlife management policies are abominations and getting worse. My own personal protest to which I've communicated to their agencies and Governor, not that they care what some out of state non-trump supporter thinks.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

I know a hiker who was stalked by a mountain lion on the Pacific Crest Trail in California. She ultimately was not attacked but it spooked her so much that she left the trail, ending her Triple Crown quest.

I wouldn't backpack the Bitterroot solo and probably wouldn't do it unarmed although I have no idea if wolves will attack a human. Grizzlies certainly will

What is your point? Kill all predators in the offhand chance you might go hiking?

A mountain biker was killed not far from where I live a couple years ago by a mountain lion. The animal was sick and starving (for whatever reason) and was probably desperate for easy prey....it was the first human killed by a cougar in the state in 94 years! I thought it was sad and bad luck.

My points: Animal attacks on humans are pretty rare, and wilderness can be dangerous.

[ojingoh]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

In my area, Coyote population has exploded. Many birds (pheasant, turkey, quail, etc.) are pretty much gone. It makes me a little nervous when I see coyotes in the Hedgegrow not far from the neighbor's little daughter.

All of those birds are ground nesters. Destruction of suitable natural habitat (farms, suburbs) is causing their demise. Climate change in particular, but so are invasive species are upending their ecology. Then there's domestic cats and glass windows, #1 and #2 causes of bird mortality in the USA.

Not knowing where you live, but knowing coyotes, they're just filling an ecological niche - one often abandoned when we started executing their competitors, including wolves.

If you're concerned with little kids encountering coyotes, and it's a real fear, they are dangerous and sneaky as hell, it would seem to me you'd be in support of the natural apex predator. Coyotes are the invasive species.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by Ozz

What is your point? Kill all predators in the offhand chance you might go hiking?

A mountain biker was killed not far from where I live a couple years ago by a mountain lion. The animal was sick and starving (for whatever reason) and was probably desperate for easy prey....it was the first human killed by a cougar in the state in 94 years! I thought it was sad and bad luck.

My points: Animal attacks on humans are pretty rare, and wilderness can be dangerous.

i don't accept that wilderness has to be as dangerous as it is in some states.

Carry a gun when around dangerous predators.

My point seemed obvious to me.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by ojingoh

All of those birds are ground nesters. Destruction of suitable natural habitat (farms, suburbs) is causing their demise. Climate change in particular, but so are invasive species are upending their ecology. Then there's domestic cats and glass windows, #1 and #2 causes of bird mortality in the USA.

Not knowing where you live, but knowing coyotes, they're just filling an ecological niche - one often abandoned when we started executing their competitors, including wolves.

If you're concerned with little kids encountering coyotes, and it's a real fear, they are dangerous and sneaky as hell, it would seem to me you'd be in support of the natural apex predator. Coyotes are the invasive species.

I don't know for sure but suspect over population of deer are more responsible than farming, which has been on a wane for a few generations in Western NJ. If anything, we have preserved more land in the last generation than in the past several.

I do support the apex predator, Man.

I do not support the wanton killing of wolves as an agent of the State. I can't imagine why you think I do not support wolves. It is a question of how wildlife is managed. I do not claim to know that answer other than I detest hunters being used to effect state policy, especially when the hunters are given the right to slaughter in a non-fair chase manner. To me, that is not right. Personally, I only would hunt something that would be eaten and I ain't eating wolf.

[goonster]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

If the State wants to manage wildlife numbers, they should do it themselves.

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

This is not fair chase and not fair to the animal. It is just state sponsored killing.

Sorry, I'm not the most sophisticated of men, but that seems like one heckuva contradiction.

How do you think the State is going to manage the numbers? Encourage them to emigrate?