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

[Kirk007]

the words wolf (cougar) (in most places but perhaps not everywhere bear) and management creates a bit of an oxymoron at least as "management" is typically used. Most apex predators very effectively self regulate their populations.

There is no state in the lower 48 where an apex predator is anywhere near its ecological capacity or even a level where it can actively fullfill it's niche as a regulator on other species. I think this is also true for most of Alaska where predators are agressively killed to prop up ungulate populations for hunters.

Consider the eastern U.S.: if state game officials really wanted to slow down the ecosystem destruction underway due to the overpopulation of deer they could and should be trying to actively reintroduce, at a miminum, cougars if not eastern timber wolves from Ontario (interestingly coy wolves - often a mix of timber wolf, coyote and dog are evolving into a larger canid species capable of taking down deer). Chronic wasting disease in ungulates, and spreading to domestic stock; the tick explosion and lyme disease - there's a whole laundry list of the bad unintended consequences of our historic "predator management" which treats anything we don't like to eat or that potentially interferes with the domestic production of cattle and ship gets "managed' as vermin.

You might argue that introducing cougars into the populous east coast would create a risk to human life, but cougars walk among all of us who use the outdoors in from the rocky mountains west to the Pacific ocean with very little human user/cougar conflict.

Our limbic systems retain eons old fear of predators from a different time; a time when man actually competed with other predators for food and probably did have more adverse interactions. But the current reality is far different.
But our agrarian focused approach to wildlife management still lingers on with far too strong a hold on state agencies.

Originally Posted by goonster

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?

[benb]

We don't have any wolves coming back here but the Coyotes have really moved in and the bears are moving back in too.

I don't hunt, I do like to fish. Fishing is kind of futile sometimes in that the fish are all full of Mercury. So far my view on the impact is just that the Coyotes are keeping the balance of deer way back towards normal and that's just fine.

My deer sightings are WAY down since I started sighting Coyotes locally. Hunters can't take deer in the suburban areas but Coyotes can. (There are blocks of land where you can hunt in my town FWIW but it's mostly too developed.)

I did see 10+ deer once this spring all in one sighting, that's the only time I've seen them this year. I used to see them almost every day I was out road cycling. It would be extremely rare to see less than 20 in a week all year round.

I don't see anything wrong with states allowing more lenient hunting techniques/equipment when a population is getting out of control. Hunting is nowhere near as popular as it used to be and it seems like even with relaxed rules and incentives sometimes there are not enough hunters to bring things back under control.

New Hampshire (I lived there for quite a while) has had an exploding Black Bear population to the point they are getting a little out of control and dangerous. No one has wanted to fund wildlife control and the state has basically kept having to lower the limits on what is allowed with respect to hunting and it just has not worked. The bears just keep outreproducing whatever the hunters manage to take. IIRC bear baiting and hunting with dogs has been legal for some time and hasn't helped. There's a lot of perspective that if the bears get too populous they're going to be far more obnoxious & dangerous than wolves.

This whole thing of running a business on the federal wild lands is very complicated.. one thing to keep in mind is most of us especially in the East do not live in states where the Feds "own" almost all the land.

[Wattvagen]

A very interesting OT thread!

I learned a few things I would not have know otherwise being a city slicker myself.

when i first thought about it, my initial question was: is it legal for a farm owner to shoot a wolf on his property if he perceives it is a threat to his livestock, but i never considered that the farmer may be using public land on a use lease to feed his animals, which certainly complicates the question.

anyway, good to hear different perspectives from different areas. enhances the conversation, and it is nice that is is mostly civil.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, I was going to stay out of this thread, which is rife with misinformation, anecdote, and bias, but Kirk007 speaks the truth. And yes, wolves in Montana and Wyoming are thought of the same way.

What's not often mentioned is that a lot of the land used by ranchers is actually owned by the federal government.

Too many deer? Worried about Lyme disease, your vegetables, your flowers, your car? Well, that's what you get for killing off the wolves, coyotes, cougars, etc., down to miniscule percentages of their historical populations. Other species are suffering the same fate - birds, frogs...

We return now to your regularly scheduled

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

the words wolf (cougar) (in most places but perhaps not everywhere bear) and management creates a bit of an oxymoron at least as "management" is typically used. Most apex predators very effectively self regulate their populations.

There is no state in the lower 48 where an apex predator is anywhere near its ecological capacity or even a level where it can actively fullfill it's niche as a regulator on other species. I think this is also true for most of Alaska where predators are agressively killed to prop up ungulate populations for hunters.

Consider the eastern U.S.: if state game officials really wanted to slow down the ecosystem destruction underway due to the overpopulation of deer they could and should be trying to actively reintroduce, at a miminum, cougars if not eastern timber wolves from Ontario (interestingly coy wolves - often a mix of timber wolf, coyote and dog are evolving into a larger canid species capable of taking down deer). Chronic wasting disease in ungulates, and spreading to domestic stock; the tick explosion and lyme disease - there's a whole laundry list of the bad unintended consequences of our historic "predator management" which treats anything we don't like to eat or that potentially interferes with the domestic production of cattle and ship gets "managed' as vermin.

You might argue that introducing cougars into the populous east coast would create a risk to human life, but cougars walk among all of us who use the outdoors in from the rocky mountains west to the Pacific ocean with very little human user/cougar conflict.

Our limbic systems retain eons old fear of predators from a different time; a time when man actually competed with other predators for food and probably did have more adverse interactions. But the current reality is far different.
But our agrarian focused approach to wildlife management still lingers on with far too strong a hold on state agencies.

Ecosystem destruction and fragmentation on the East Coast is a different magnitude from the Rockies or West Coast, but in general, I agree with you.
NJ: Population 8.9 million people, 8.7 thousand sq miles, ~1022 residents/sq mile (0 wild wolves, 0 wild wolves per sq mile)
ID: Population 1.8 million people, 83.6 thousand sq miles, ~21 residents/sq mile (1,556 wild wolves, 0.02 wolves per sq mile)

Fragmentation results from a number of factors, but the most deadly, perhaps in both states, is development: homes and highways.

Another problem is perception of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA only says when the population of animals is critically low to cause extinction. It does not say what a healthy population is or even if being delisted means that the population is healthy or sustainable.

Not only do apex predators control ungulates, but they require large areas and corridors so that there is a trickle-down effect in conservation. When the apex predators are protected, any other species that uses a part of that biome is benefitted.

[benb]

I mentioned being OK with relaxing hunting rules if things are out of control.

Note I was not implying Idaho is overflowing with wolves and they're out of control.

Who knows how many wolves it takes for it to get to the point hunters can't even hope to control their numbers with normal rules.. it doesn't seem any part of the US is anywhere near that.

1500 Wolves in Idaho seems like nothing... 1500 wolves in a state as big as Idaho seems like nothing. Our black bear density is 10x that in New England, but Wolves seem to have a reputation problem that bears maybe deserve and just don't seem to have.

edit: Regarding Lyme.. haven't seen a tick once since the Coyotes arrived either. I'm still super paranoid about them but they seem way down since the deer became scarce.

[Kirk007]

yep. In part why we are pushing a federal widlife corridors act (and state acts - passed in Virginia, resolution pending in Pa, passed. (twice in New Hampshire). This is my daily bread of policy work: https://wildlandsnetwork.org/policy/

Originally Posted by tctyres

Ecosystem destruction and fragmentation on the East Coast is a different magnitude from the Rockies or West Coast, but in general, I agree with you.
NJ: Population 8.9 million people, 8.7 thousand sq miles, ~1022 residents/sq mile (0 wild wolves, 0 wild wolves per sq mile)
ID: Population 1.8 million people, 83.6 thousand sq miles, ~21 residents/sq mile (1,556 wild wolves, 0.02 wolves per sq mile)

Fragmentation results from a number of factors, but the most deadly, perhaps in both states, is development: homes and highways.

Another problem is perception of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA only says when the population of animals is critically low to cause extinction. It does not say what a healthy population is or even if being delisted means that the population is healthy or sustainable.

Not only do apex predators control ungulates, but they require large areas and corridors so that there is a trickle-down effect in conservation. When the apex predators are protected, any other species that uses a part of that biome is benefitted.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

yep. In part why we are pushing a federal widlife corridors act (and state acts - passed in Virginia, resolution pending in Pa, passed. (twice in New Hampshire). This is my daily bread of policy work: https://wildlandsnetwork.org/policy/

This is great.
Thread drift ...

One of the things that is coming out of what has recently been labelled the climate crisis, is that the fastest way forward is to put a price on greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent units. For example, methane is many times more amplifying of climate warming than carbon dioxide, so its price would be a multiplier. The only place in the US that has put a price on carbon dioxide in the US is California through cap and trade. The advantage of doing this is that, immediately, banks can estimate risk and cost associated with climate change.

The European Central Bank has included the cost of biodiversity in its climate guidance, but a similar pricing scheme has not been developed

[thew]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

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.

This really gets at the core of what's going on here. Despite the rhetoric its not about private property rights, it's about how public lands are managed. There's a significant subset in the rural west who think federal lands should belong to them or, barring that, should be managed for the enrichment of a few rather than the greater ecological, social or even economic good. Think Cliven and Ammon Bundy.

Originally Posted by Kirk007

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."

These ecological benefits have economic value. Its estimated that wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone created ~$35 million/year in value (tourism) and cost ~$60,000/year in livestock depredation and ~2.9 million/year in impacts on hunting. (https://defenders.org/sites/default/...ellowstone.pdf) So opposition to wolves isn't even about their overall economic impact--it's about the ability of a few to control public lands for some very specific extractive uses.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by 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.....

Isn’t that always the case.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by 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.

It’s insights like this that make the “GD” part of this Forum so great.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by 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.

And this...

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by thew

There's a significant subset in the rural west who think federal lands should belong to them or, barring that, should be managed for the enrichment of a few rather than the greater ecological, social or even economic good.

.

Maybe that subset exist out here became the feds control so much more of the state lands out here.

The two ends of the spectrum:

Nev-85%
Utah-65%

New York-.03%
Iowa - .03%

Maybe, just maybe, people out west have a justified reason for feeling like they do?

[buddybikes]

Live in RI on a cove within Narragansett Bay. We have viewed coyotes within 30 feet of us (we behind fence) and the eaten leftovers of a Canadian goose in our driveway. Here is probably the guilty party And we live in densely populated area (as most of shoreline is).

IMG_4841.jpg

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

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

So take the "wild" out of wilderness....got it.

Seriously though, the wilderness is what it is...if you go there, be prepared and knowledgeable and you will be fine. More people die in the wilderness from getting lost or other stupidity (e.g. taking selfies at the Grand Canyon) than are eaten by animals.

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

Carry a gun when around dangerous predators.

I am around the most dangerous predators on the planet everyday....well, at least I was pre-COVID.....and I never feel the need to carry a gun.

Depending on where you are, I do not wholeheartedly disagree with this. Fishing remote rivers in Alaska or Montana, where surprising a grizzly could be bad news. A gun makes sense...see "be prepared" above.

With mountain lions though, if they are healthy, you never see them coming.

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

My point seemed obvious to me.

My bad....I was being snarky. Sorry.

Most animals (including grizzlies, black bear, cougar, wolves, etc) make a point of avoiding humans. Surprising them, getting between them and cubs or food is another matter. The reality is, animal attacks are humans are incredibly rare (What animals kill the most humans)


Wolves kill about 10 per year (#14). Grizzly, black bear and cougar don't even make the this list!