If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Idaho legislature declares a "disaster emergency" over: a) a late season blizzard? b) a massive series of tornadoes? c) The fact that there are wolves in their state and they are eating their natural and intended prey   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 184
    More: Asinine, Idaho Legislature, Idaho, one-party state, conservation movement, police powers, disaster emergency, emergency  
•       •       •

5928 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2011 at 4:02 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-06 06:00:09 PM

D3_WR: Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: They left a fresh, uneaten elk kill to chase after another animal.

The kill was never eaten by the wolves.

It's nature, Excen. Pumas do this shiat too.

as do humans - plenty of big game are shot but not retrieved every year, not to mention the guys out trophy hunting and not interested in the meat


But, as I have stated earlier, The Mackenzie Valley Wolf is a non-native invasive species. It is throwing off the balance of ecosystems state-wide through overpredation of native species, evidenced by both state and federal studies. Hunting losses are OK, as long as they are sustainable.
 
2011-04-06 06:00:29 PM

Excen: Here is a list of facts for you uniformed idiots:


You have two guys who live within 20 miles of each other, who appear to be in the sports tourism and crappy website business, neither of whom seem to be associated with professional ecology, forrestry, or biology of any kind. In fact the BEST document you have for your position reduces to "be a better rancher/hunter" on around page 14, and notes a cascade effect improving habbitats (and scavanging opportunities) for a "wide range of species" which are directly attributed to changes in Elk behavior presumed to be due to wolf predation on page 15.

So you've got ignorant invested opinion, ignorant possibly related invested opinion, contradicting documented opinion from a somewhat hostile government with citations.

If I had to guess; if these guys, Bob and Dale, spent as much time busting their ass selling the wolves and their activities as they did whining about Elk, they'd probably more than make up the lost income they feel that the wolves have cost them. As other people have no doubt noted Elk and Deer suck ass, destroy property, while wolves are cool. You don't see three elk shirts getting anyone laid in Wal-Mart parking lots.
 
2011-04-06 06:02:17 PM

Whatthefark: there is plenty of info and studies contradicting what the environmentalists and the government tell you.


The Idaho Legislature isn't?
 
2011-04-06 06:02:30 PM
Hunters should be glad the wolves are thinning the elk herds. Wolves kill the weak. Humans kill the healthy. We have already seen what happens if a population's only predator is hunters -- it becomes sickly. Let the wolves do their job and the elk herd will become stronger in the long run.

Also, wolves don't just eat big game. They also eat rodents.

People would be much happier in a world with wolves. But many are too ignorant to realize it.
 
2011-04-06 06:02:51 PM

Excen: My point was that even state authorities admit the feds' experiment has run amok. Shouldn't the issue be decided by people who are actually directly affected by the issue? I was making a point that the issue is a fundamental question of the tenth amendment as it applies to the delegation of federal powers.


Fair enough and perhaps it should be. I've followed the whole wolf thing very closely since reintroduction began quite a while ago.

The charts in your link do not provide sufficient detail of population numbers prior to reintroduction to be able to draw any reasonable conclusion here. Do you disagree?
 
2011-04-06 06:02:54 PM
Excen

PS: any idaho agency is not a reliable source, they have political taint to tell you what you want to hear.

you're spewing a load of bullshiat about wolves, plain and simple.
 
2011-04-06 06:05:25 PM

Mr Rusty Shackleford: As for the kill sites, wolves and other creatures will frequently return to kill sites to feed for quite some time - especially winter kills. For anyone who knows this, it's very difficult to take most of their slide show seriously.


Yeah. I had a hard time believing the "they only eat the babies and leave the carcass" part of the slide-show. It reminded me of the stories out of Iraq about the Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti newborns prior to the first Gulf War. It's gets people worked up, but it all turns out to be a completely different story in the end.
 
2011-04-06 06:06:26 PM

Mr Rusty Shackleford: It comes down to this: the wolves and elk will achieve a balance. Unfortunately, this natural balance will likely not afford opportunities to sustain a hunting tourism industry.


Not true. His pdf from the government indicated that people would travel and pay a median of $100 to see wolves; hunters and non-hunters alike. This is no doubt because wolves are cool. Which also doesn't address the attendent hard to quantify overall ecological benefit that was observed.
 
2011-04-06 06:06:48 PM

House of Tards: tiamet4: "If we don't take care of this problem soon, we won't have any wildlife to hunt or to look at," Denney said.

Yes, because prior to humans arriving to control the population, the entire area was a desolate wasteland empty of all life except wolves.

Well, it would have been if we hadn't have thoughtfully blasted all the game animals to hell during manifest destiny. It would have been vampires and wolves everywhere. And not the sensitive, emo type ones in Ann Rice and tween novels, either.


If they were the emo type, I'd totally support an open season on them.
 
2011-04-06 06:10:57 PM

Andulamb: Let the wolves do their job and the elk herd will become stronger in the long run.


The don't just become stronger; they become shy. Shy animals are much harder to hunt than naive animals.
 
2011-04-06 06:11:10 PM

Whatthefark: Yeah. I had a hard time believing the "they only eat the babies and leave the carcass" part of the slide-show. It reminded me of the stories out of Iraq about the Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti newborns prior to the first Gulf War. It's gets people worked up, but it all turns out to be a completely different story in the end.


Also consider that if wolves are indeed using elk disproportionate to their availability, then wolf numbers will crash as this food source declines, which is of course the premise of this whole conundrum. Or they will refocus largely on domestic animals, which seems unlikely.
 
2011-04-06 06:11:27 PM

Kazan: Excen

PS: any idaho agency is not a reliable source, they have political taint to tell you what you want to hear.

you're spewing a load of bullshiat about wolves, plain and simple.


And yet the studies I'm linking would have a pro-wolf slant, based on political agenda.

Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: My point was that even state authorities admit the feds' experiment has run amok. Shouldn't the issue be decided by people who are actually directly affected by the issue? I was making a point that the issue is a fundamental question of the tenth amendment as it applies to the delegation of federal powers.

Fair enough and perhaps it should be. I've followed the whole wolf thing very closely since reintroduction began quite a while ago.

The charts in your link do not provide sufficient detail of population numbers prior to reintroduction to be able to draw any reasonable conclusion here. Do you disagree?


I'm sure there is a bunch of pre-2005 data, but when numbers go from metric-shiatload to where'd-all-the-animals-go, actual numbers get buried in the political debate. I don't have the time to search for them at present, but Idaho elk populations were stable and in many areas growing prior to the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.
 
2011-04-06 06:15:32 PM

Tickle Mittens: Mr Rusty Shackleford: It comes down to this: the wolves and elk will achieve a balance. Unfortunately, this natural balance will likely not afford opportunities to sustain a hunting tourism industry.

Not true. His pdf from the government indicated that people would travel and pay a median of $100 to see wolves; hunters and non-hunters alike. This is no doubt because wolves are cool. Which also doesn't address the attendent hard to quantify overall ecological benefit that was observed.


It should be pointed out that an Idaho Nonresident Hunting License is $154.75 and an Elk Tag is $416.25, in addition to ancillary expenses (like gear, guiding fees, etc.) associated with Elk hunting.
 
2011-04-06 06:17:23 PM

Tickle Mittens: Excen: Here is a list of facts for you uniformed idiots:

*blah-blah, I can't refute the fact so I'll attack the source*


But is their information inaccurate? No. Go smoke a bong and listen to Phish, hippie.
 
2011-04-06 06:18:00 PM

Excen: And yet the studies I'm linking would have a pro-wolf slant, based on political agenda.


right because the Idaho state government is so hell bent on doing the ecologically right thing. *snicker*

if you didn't come into this thread and spew 100% unscientific BS you'd have some credibility with me, but you don't.

if i want to have an intelligent discussion about wolf management with someone i disagree with i'll play the Summon HeadlLever card.
 
2011-04-06 06:18:43 PM

Excen: I'm sure there is a bunch of pre-2005 data, but when numbers go from metric-shiatload to where'd-all-the-animals-go, actual numbers get buried in the political debate. I don't have the time to search for them at present, but Idaho elk populations were stable and in many areas growing prior to the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.


Well, the numbers in your chart start in 1989 - six years prior to reintroduction. From 1989 until reintroduction, population declined by 20% or so - a large number. It continued afterward by very similar large numbers. The sciencey type in me knows the data prior to 1989 is really critical here if we're to be deriving anything from this chart at all for purposes of this discussion.

Personally, I definitely think they should allow the wolf hunts.
 
2011-04-06 06:23:23 PM

Excen: D3_WR: Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: They left a fresh, uneaten elk kill to chase after another animal.

The kill was never eaten by the wolves.

It's nature, Excen. Pumas do this shiat too.

as do humans - plenty of big game are shot but not retrieved every year, not to mention the guys out trophy hunting and not interested in the meat

But, as I have stated earlier, The Mackenzie Valley Wolf is a non-native invasive species. It is throwing off the balance of ecosystems state-wide through overpredation of native species, evidenced by both state and federal studies. Hunting losses are OK, as long as they are sustainable.


what a canard. they fill the same exact ecological role, the only difference is they get a couple pounds bigger. using the "they're an invasive species we should get rid of them" is just a laughable argument


i find it amusing that you state they are screwing with the balance of ecosystems, when in fact wolves are shown to positively impact ecosystems.

the "overpredation" and "out of balance" is purely in human terms. we have a socially desirable population level (high, for hunting) for elk, and it can't sustain both heavy hunting and wolf predation.

ecological health versus social health are two different things, it is disingenuous to use ecological arguments for justifying high elk populations, which is an inherently human goal rather than a biological goal

there's no doubt that wolves are recovered throughout the intended range. If the entire state of Wyoming hadn't been total assholes and actually come up with an acceptable management plan, then we wouldn't be in this position, because the wolves would have been delisted there as well as Idaho and Montana, who actually had good management plans.
 
2011-04-06 06:23:23 PM
you guys are slacking.

iriox.com

/hot
 
2011-04-06 06:25:23 PM

Mr Rusty Shackleford: Personally, I definitely think they should allow the wolf hunts.


I'm ok with them as long as the population is stable and healthy. and i want SCIENCE to determine those parameters.
 
2011-04-06 06:26:18 PM

Kazan: Excen: And yet the studies I'm linking would have a pro-wolf slant, based on political agenda.

right because the Idaho state government is so hell bent on doing the ecologically right thing. *snicker*

if you didn't come into this thread and spew 100% unscientific BS you'd have some credibility with me, but you don't.

if i want to have an intelligent discussion about wolf management with someone i disagree with i'll play the Summon HeadlLever card.


Unscientific? What's unscientific about aerial sampling? (click-pop)

Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: I'm sure there is a bunch of pre-2005 data, but when numbers go from metric-shiatload to where'd-all-the-animals-go, actual numbers get buried in the political debate. I don't have the time to search for them at present, but Idaho elk populations were stable and in many areas growing prior to the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf.

Well, the numbers in your chart start in 1989 - six years prior to reintroduction. From 1989 until reintroduction, population declined by 20% or so - a large number. It continued afterward by very similar large numbers. The sciencey type in me knows the data prior to 1989 is really critical here if we're to be deriving anything from this chart at all for purposes of this discussion.

Personally, I definitely think they should allow the wolf hunts.


Yeah, but if you separate the graph into pre- and post-introduction segments, there's a definite stable range which dramatically declines upon introduction of the invasive species in 1995. My guess would be that there will be a stable, somewhat logarithmic fluctuation in the population around a baseline of, call it, 2800 in the Lolo.
 
2011-04-06 06:27:00 PM
Also, as I'm sure you recall from the whole reintro debacle in the courts, a major factor was determining to what extent native wolves still occupied Idaho to any appreciable extent.

It seems to me, and I certainly don't claim to have any field experience studying the matter, that moreso than the specific type of wolf reintroduced the problems can largely be attributed to the fact that elk had become accustomed to this lack of predator in terms of behavior and longevity. Both of those factors would support a boom in wolf population but not necessarily be bad for elk in the long term.
 
2011-04-06 06:27:35 PM

Excen: D3_WR: Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: They left a fresh, uneaten elk kill to chase after another animal.

The kill was never eaten by the wolves.

It's nature, Excen. Pumas do this shiat too.

as do humans - plenty of big game are shot but not retrieved every year, not to mention the guys out trophy hunting and not interested in the meat

But, as I have stated earlier, The Mackenzie Valley Wolf is a non-native invasive species. It is throwing off the balance of ecosystems state-wide through overpredation of native species, evidenced by both state and federal studies. Hunting losses are OK, as long as they are sustainable.


You guys need more grizzlies
 
2011-04-06 06:31:21 PM

Excen: Yeah, but if you separate the graph into pre- and post-introduction segments, there's a definite stable range which dramatically declines upon introduction of the invasive species in 1995. My guess would be that there will be a stable, somewhat logarithmic fluctuation in the population around a baseline of, call it, 2800 in the Lolo.


Sure, but they seem to have sampled it more. On the left (10 year period), there is 8 samples, on the right (15 year period) only 4. However, both represent substantial declines from beginning to end.
 
2011-04-06 06:32:34 PM

D3_WR:
what a canard. they fill the same exact ecological role, the only difference is they get a couple pounds bigger. using the "they're an invasive species we should get rid of them" is just a laughable argument


So you're cool with Snakeheads replacing Walleye and Pike in the Great Lakes?

i find it amusing that you state they are screwing with the balance of ecosystems, when in fact wolves are shown to positively impact ecosystems.

the "overpredation" and "out of balance" is purely in human terms. we have a socially desirable population level (high, for hunting) for elk, and it can't sustain both heavy hunting and wolf predation.


Did you read my previous links? They're slowly eliminating elk populations in the state! Elk reproduction is now so low that it can't sustain the numbers!

ecological health versus social health are two different things, it is disingenuous to use ecological arguments for justifying high elk populations, which is an inherently human goal rather than a biological goal

there's no doubt that wolves are recovered throughout the intended range. If the entire state of Wyoming hadn't been total assholes and actually come up with an acceptable management plan, then we wouldn't be in this position, because the wolves would have been delisted there as well as Idaho and Montana, who actually had good management plans.


The only acceptable management plan for a non-native invasive species is complete and total extermination. There is nothing disingenuous about arguing to prevent the extinction of a native species because of a non-native species.
 
2011-04-06 06:32:35 PM

Excen: Tickle Mittens: Mr Rusty Shackleford: It comes down to this: the wolves and elk will achieve a balance. Unfortunately, this natural balance will likely not afford opportunities to sustain a hunting tourism industry.

Not true. His pdf from the government indicated that people would travel and pay a median of $100 to see wolves; hunters and non-hunters alike. This is no doubt because wolves are cool. Which also doesn't address the attendent hard to quantify overall ecological benefit that was observed.

It should be pointed out that an Idaho Nonresident Hunting License is $154.75 and an Elk Tag is $416.25, in addition to ancillary expenses (like gear, guiding fees, etc.) associated with Elk hunting.


how much would people pay to SEE an elk, idiot. I can understand why people would pay more to see a dead elk, they suck. I for instance don't even need to see a dead deer or elk, just knowing that one has died is enough.

and:

Excen: Tickle Mittens: Excen: Here is a list of facts for you uniformed idiots:

*blah-blah, I can't refute the fact so I'll attack the source*

But is their information inaccurate? No. Go smoke a bong and listen to Phish, hippie.


We don't know if their opinion is anything but opinion. We know that they're not professional. We know that they live 20 miles apart. We know their websites kinda suck. We know their opinion is contradicted by the impact summary composed by a hostile government. We know the contradictory, professional, government backed opinion is built upon collected data, and where that data comes from. So we have a hostile, but professional something contradicting two nothings of suspicious origin. Naturally, your Weeners is to link all three, and go with the nothings of suspicious origin, and claim they all agree.

/For the record, I neither smoke blunts nor listen to Phish.
//Stuff that in your shiatty nazi potato and smoke it.
 
2011-04-06 06:33:02 PM
Asinine?

I take it subby has never been outside and knows nothing about maintaining wildlife and livestock together?

Just listen to those Hollywood liberals - be a good little sheep!

Wake up, tools!
 
2011-04-06 06:36:45 PM

Mr Rusty Shackleford: Excen: Yeah, but if you separate the graph into pre- and post-introduction segments, there's a definite stable range which dramatically declines upon introduction of the invasive species in 1995. My guess would be that there will be a stable, somewhat logarithmic fluctuation in the population around a baseline of, call it, 2800 in the Lolo.

Sure, but they seem to have sampled it more. On the left (10 year period), there is 8 samples, on the right (15 year period) only 4. However, both represent substantial declines from beginning to end.


I guess the only way to resolve the pre-introduction disagreement is through the acquisition of more data (which I don't have time to do, unfortunately), but we can both agree in an academic sense that the introduction of wolves has caused statistically significant declines in the sampled population.
 
2011-04-06 06:43:11 PM

tiamet4: "If we don't take care of this problem soon, we won't have any wildlife to hunt or to look at," Denney said.

Yes, because prior to humans arriving to control the population, the entire area was a desolate wasteland empty of all life except wolves.


*snert*

Living in Wyoming, moving to Idaho. What the heck am I thinking????
 
2011-04-06 06:44:29 PM

Excen: So you're cool with Snakeheads replacing Walleye and Pike in the Great Lakes?


he's asserting that you calling them an invasive species is ridiculous.

because it is.
 
2011-04-06 06:47:49 PM

Tickle Mittens: how much would people pay to SEE an elk, idiot. I can understand why people would pay more to see a dead elk, they suck. I for instance don't even need to see a dead deer or elk, just knowing that one has died is enough.


At least five and a half times more than what they would pay to see a wolf.

And scientifically inaccurate policy is preventing that, which is the point.

and:
Excen: Tickle Mittens: Excen: Here is a list of facts for you uniformed idiots:

*blah-blah, I can't refute the fact so I'll attack the source*

But is their information inaccurate? No. Go smoke a bong and listen to Phish, hippie.

We don't know if their opinion is anything but opinion. We know that they're not professional. We know that they live 20 miles apart. We know their websites kinda suck. We know their opinion is contradicted by the impact summary composed by a hostile government. We know the contradictory, professional, government backed opinion is built upon collected data, and where that data comes from. So we have a hostile, but professional something contradicting two nothings of suspicious origin. Naturally, your Weeners is to link all three, and go with the nothings of suspicious origin, and claim they all agree.

/For the record, I neither smoke blunts nor listen to Phish.
//Stuff that in your shiatty nazi potato and smoke it.


My first link was to a public organization comprised of those directly affected by the policy, living in the region, discussing data obtained from studies utilizing the most scientifically-rigorous methods available.

My second link was to the official state regulatory agency's findings and position.

My third link was to a press release by the head of said state regulatory agency.

Nowhere have you even touched on the first three points.
 
2011-04-06 06:52:04 PM

Excen: D3_WR:
what a canard. they fill the same exact ecological role, the only difference is they get a couple pounds bigger. using the "they're an invasive species we should get rid of them" is just a laughable argument

So you're cool with Snakeheads replacing Walleye and Pike in the Great Lakes?

i find it amusing that you state they are screwing with the balance of ecosystems, when in fact wolves are shown to positively impact ecosystems.

the "overpredation" and "out of balance" is purely in human terms. we have a socially desirable population level (high, for hunting) for elk, and it can't sustain both heavy hunting and wolf predation.

Did you read my previous links? They're slowly eliminating elk populations in the state! Elk reproduction is now so low that it can't sustain the numbers!

ecological health versus social health are two different things, it is disingenuous to use ecological arguments for justifying high elk populations, which is an inherently human goal rather than a biological goal

there's no doubt that wolves are recovered throughout the intended range. If the entire state of Wyoming hadn't been total assholes and actually come up with an acceptable management plan, then we wouldn't be in this position, because the wolves would have been delisted there as well as Idaho and Montana, who actually had good management plans.

The only acceptable management plan for a non-native invasive species is complete and total extermination. There is nothing disingenuous about arguing to prevent the extinction of a native species because of a non-native species.


hahah WOW. the mark. you missed it. snakeheads have a completely different effect than walleyes or northern pike, first of all. secondly, to fit with your analogy of wolves being invasive when they are actually native, it'd be like taking a substrain of walleye not native to the great lakes, not a completely different species such as the snakehead. and yes, if they were extirpated i'd be fine with a somewhat different strain of the SAME SPECIES being restocked.


according to your reasoning though, we should also get rid of pheasants, along with half of the economically important recreational and commercial fisheries for (among others, depending on the part of the country) northern pike, smallmouth bass, walleyes, flathead catfish, blue catfish, great lakes salmon, and everything else that's been introduced for sport fisheries

we should also burn down all the forests that have encroached on prairies, and get rid of all of the corn crop

heck why stop there? lets eradicate all the non native Americans in the United States. sure, we're all Homo sapiens, but most of us are of a different subspecies than is native to North America
 
2011-04-06 06:55:28 PM

Kazan: Excen: So you're cool with Snakeheads replacing Walleye and Pike in the Great Lakes?

he's asserting that you calling them an invasive species is ridiculous.

because it is.


Even Colorado hippies admit the feds introduced the wrong subspecies to Idaho. (click-pop)
 
2011-04-06 06:57:58 PM

D3_WR:
according to your reasoning though, we should also get rid of pheasants, along with half of the economically important recreational and commercial fisheries for (among others, depending on the part of the country) northern pike, smallmouth bass, walleyes, flathead catfish, blue catfish, great lakes salmon, and everything else that's been introduced for sport fisheries

we should also burn down all the forests that have encroached on prairies, and get rid of all of the corn crop

heck why stop there? lets eradicate all the non native Americans in the United States. sure, we're all Homo sapiens, but most of us are of a different subspecies than is native to North America


But there's a big freaking difference between a Blue Heeler and an English Mastiff.
 
2011-04-06 06:58:14 PM

Excen: I guess the only way to resolve the pre-introduction disagreement is through the acquisition of more data (which I don't have time to do, unfortunately), but we can both agree in an academic sense that the introduction of wolves has caused statistically significant declines in the sampled population.


True enough. However, this does all seem quite sensationalized. BC, for instances, deals with all the species we're talking about here in substantial numbers quite successfully. In fact, that was one of the models of healthier ecology that the reintroduction plan sought to achieve.

Spent a bit more time searching, and I've found nothing indicating the
occidentalis subspecies never existed in Idaho. As is, they're sighted as far south as Northern California.
 
2011-04-06 07:05:34 PM

Excen: Tickle Mittens: Excen: Here is a list of facts for you uniformed idiots:

*blah-blah, I can't refute the fact so I'll attack the source*

But is their information inaccurate? No. Go smoke a bong and listen to Phish, hippie.


As a sometimes-phish-listening hippie, I take dreadful exception to your comment. Two summers ago I was doing just what you suggest while working on a cattle ranch in Montana ~70 hours a week. But unlike your hypothetical hippie, I was keeping a rifle in the truck at all times with strict shoot-shovel-and shut up orders on all things predatory.
so there.

http://www.perc.org/articles/article319.php (covers livestock kills)

no real insight on hunters vs. hippies problem. as a member of both camps, it seems to me to demand a compromise by both sides. population control of wolves is necessary if we desire a huntable population of elk, but turning loose with planes and ar-15s is not the real solution. Elk and wolves can both be responsibly managed, but neither side is going to get exactly what they want. The hunters need to get over the slightly lower elk populations and be willing to work harder. the hippies need to get over their butthurt from knowing that someone, somewhere, might be harming a poor little wolfie.
 
2011-04-06 07:10:36 PM

Magorn: I think I speak for the rest of humanity when I say : fark you hunting tourism industry, either switch to wolf-watching or actually go out an get a real farking Job. To listen to Idahoans talk you;d think they were these real rugged self-sufficent types, not the whiny wlfare queens they really are, utterly dependent on federal largess to survive. You since we do cut you such a break on the grazing, logging and timber fees on federal land, maybe you could all not whine so much about us wanting to use some of that land for OUR purposes too?


its the stupid, lazy hunting anyway. barely a step above the dick cheney style "hunt"
 
2011-04-06 07:14:31 PM

Excen: Kazan: Carousel Beast: xanadian: Eight HUNDRED wolves!?? Oh, the humanity. :-/

/seriously, wtf

You've obviously never seen the kind of havoc a small (less than a dozen member) pack of coyotes can do to herds of cattle. Wolves are bigger, stronger, smarter - I imagine they can cause quite a stir.

I'm guessing you're urban, not rural.

there are 5000
yes FIVE THOUSANDS
wolves in JUST the arrowhead of minnesota (fully shaded area)

5000 wolves over 10,635.26 sq mi = .47 wolves per sq mile

on the other hand..
800 wolves in Idaho

800 over 83,570 sq mi = 0.0095 wolves per sq mile

That's comparing apples to oranges.

The wolves in Minnesota are Prairie Wolves, Canis lupus nubilus. They are about the size of a Lab or Golden Retriever. The "800" wolves introduced to the Idaho ecosystem (and there are definitely more than that, based on observed pack growth differing from reported pack growth) are Mackenzie Valley Wolves, Canis lupus occidentalis. Mackenzie Valley Wolves are huge, with alpha males weighing as much as a man. They also kill healthy adult prey animals for pleasure, seemingly for sport rather than food, further decimating deer, elk, and domesticated animal populations.

Idaho Fish and Game introduced the incorrect subspecies of apex predator to the state of Idaho and it is a legitimate threat to both commerce and sport in the state. Because wildlife biologists cannot prove the Mackenzie Valley Wolf existed historically in the areas it was introduced to in the state of Idaho, it should be hunted down and exterminated like the invasive species it is.

/I have personally observed the havoc the Mackenzie Valley Wolf is wreaking on the state


Are you seriously arguing that wolves kill "for Pleasure" (an anthropomorphic way of saying they take more than a bare subsistence level of elk) and that therefore they should be eliminated because that's cutting into the action for guys who fly in from out of state to use a scoped rifle to blast the hell out of a few elk with minimal effort, saw the heads off and leave the meat to rot? (guarantee you that none of these mighty weekend hunters are paying the extra baggage fees to cart home a few hundred pounds of freshly felled elk)

Idaho was more densely populated with both wolves and humans before the settlers came, and even with elk being a major staple of the Indian diet there seemed to be plenty for everyone.
 
2011-04-06 07:24:58 PM

tiamet4: "If we don't take care of this problem soon, we won't have any wildlife to hunt or to look at," Denney said.
Yes, because prior to humans arriving to control the population, the entire area was a desolate wasteland empty of all life except wolves.


The people who like to look at wildlife are perfectly fine with the wolves. Yellowstone had a measurable upswing in visitation after the wolves were introduced, just from people who came out hoping to see a wolf (and they often did, because there was a pack of them in a viewer-friendly spot in the park for years). This is JUST about hunters.

exley: no real insight on hunters vs. hippies problem. as a member of both camps, it seems to me to demand a compromise by both sides. population control of wolves is necessary if we desire a huntable population of elk, but turning loose with planes and ar-15s is not the real solution. Elk and wolves can both be responsibly managed, but neither side is going to get exactly what they want. The hunters need to get over the slightly lower elk populations and be willing to work harder. the hippies need to get over their butthurt from knowing that someone, somewhere, might be harming a poor little wolfie.


and you just said that you were practicing the 3 S rule. You think you're the only one? Those wolves are being culled left and right already, legal or not. Since our esteemed Democratic governor just told everybody in Montana to go ahead and blow them away, laws be damned, there's probably a few people out there putting their weekends to good use, as they see it.

Luckily wolves are damn smart and they'll have about as much chance of wiping them out as they have the coyotes.
 
2011-04-06 07:34:11 PM

Sgygus: Won't anyone think of the children?


As soon as the elk get scarce, the wolves will. Then the libs will want to start a dialog with them, or try to get them to become vegetarians.
 
2011-04-06 07:37:19 PM
Humans are such pieces of shiat.
 
2011-04-06 07:40:43 PM

whither_apophis: I can think of at least six breeds of dog designed to do nothing but guard cattle. The 12th Century Idaho, welcome to it.

/been to Idaho, the 12th century is a step up


Really? That can take on a hungry pack of wolves? Bull-farking-shiat you do. You have no concept of what you are talking about. Fine though, lets say you have a clue. Just how many dogs would each person have to keep to guard a thousand head of cattle? And what are they going to eat? O, ya, that never crossed your mind did it? And what are the dogs going to do? Start a dialog? No, they are going to viciously attack them. So then why not just shoot the farking wolf and cut out the middle man? This is why libs can't be trusted to make decisions on issues like this.
 
2011-04-06 07:48:53 PM

whither_apophis: All they got to do is bark up a shiat storm and rancher comes a running.


And?

What then?

Better yet, go find a pack of wolves, and see how yelling and at them works, right before they tear you to pieces. They have no fear of humans and you don't run nearly as fast or fight as hard as an elk can.
 
2011-04-06 07:49:35 PM
Don't see the problem here... Just need to issue wolf tags like other big game, manage them the same way.

And whoever made the comment about using dogs to protect the livestock has no idea of the scale of property involved...you're talking 5-10,000 acre spreads in central Idaho. You'd need about 250 dogs to patrol your spread, and then you'd go broke feeding and caring for them all... Good luck with that business model, genius.
 
2011-04-06 07:54:27 PM

Hoopido: Better yet, go find a pack of wolves, and see how yelling and at them works, right before they tear you to pieces. They have no fear of humans and you don't run nearly as fast or fight as hard as an elk can.


While you're right on about dogs being a stupid and impractical solution, the notion that a wolf pack is going to eat you is laughable.
 
2011-04-06 08:04:47 PM

Hoopido:
Better yet, go find a pack of wolves, and see how yelling and at them works, right before they tear you to pieces. They have no fear of humans and you don't run nearly as fast or fight as hard as an elk can.


How many human deaths due to wolves in the last decade?
One.

Did you know most known wolf attacks involve rabid animals?

You're such an idiot. Really. Stop talking. Wolves actually are wary around us. All the ones that weren't in the past? We killed.

Seriously. So dumb. Herding dogs can and do frighten wolves off. They don't engage in savage death-matches at the edge of the pasture.

Where do you get this stuff?
 
2011-04-06 08:07:18 PM

Excen: Kazan: Excen: So you're cool with Snakeheads replacing Walleye and Pike in the Great Lakes?

he's asserting that you calling them an invasive species is ridiculous.

because it is.

Even Colorado hippies admit the feds introduced the wrong subspecies to Idaho. (click-pop)


So is linking to evidence that directly contradicts your claims the new en-vogue troll?
 
2011-04-06 08:16:20 PM

Yulian: Hoopido:
Better yet, go find a pack of wolves, and see how yelling and at them works, right before they tear you to pieces. They have no fear of humans and you don't run nearly as fast or fight as hard as an elk can.

How many human deaths due to wolves in the last decade?
One.

Did you know most known wolf attacks involve rabid animals?

You're such an idiot. Really. Stop talking. Wolves actually are wary around us. All the ones that weren't in the past? We killed.

Seriously. So dumb. Herding dogs can and do frighten wolves off. They don't engage in savage death-matches at the edge of the pasture.

Where do you get this stuff?


He uses "lib" as a diminutive slur thinking it encompasses a cohesive ideology; he's probably throwing out any random pro-hunting BS that he can think of, as he's decided that's what "side" he's on because his political ideology functions in the same manner as affiliation with a highschool football team.

/or just another troll; but who really cares?
 
2011-04-06 08:36:46 PM
Link (new window)

800 wolves are decimating herds of 100,000+ ???

bulllllll crap.
 
2011-04-06 09:39:07 PM

Charlie Chingas: Excen: Magorn: Carousel Beast: xanadian: Eight HUNDRED wolves!?? Oh, the humanity. :-/

/seriously, wtf

You've obviously never seen the kind of havoc a small (less than a dozen member) pack of coyotes can do to herds of cattle. Wolves are bigger, stronger, smarter - I imagine they can cause quite a stir.

I'm guessing you're urban, not rural.

If Coyote are taking cattle, then the farmer needs to invest in a few decent sized sheep dogs or a Llama or 5 problem solved. Protecting cattle from wolves might be more difficult and might involve that age-old job creating solution of hiring an actual shepherd (why do you think that King David was such a crack shot with that sling?). Not to mention that ranchers are completely indemnified for any livestock taken by wolves by both the Sierra Club and the Federal government.

The real complaint here seems to be that they are thinning the elk herds (the job they were bred to do by millions of years of evolution) and the humans in Idaho seem to believe they've got a God-given right to hunt them instead.

They didn't thin the elk herds, they completely wiped them out. Central Idaho used to be prime trophy elk hunting territory, and after the introduction of the Mackenzie Valley Wolf to the Bitterroot National Forest, there are for all practical purposes no elk left. Even the idiots in Washington DC that introduced them admit they're overpopulated. (click-pop), and the story is the same all over the state. That 800 listed is the minimum estimated population in the state, and doesn't take into account the transitory populations moving in and out of Washington, Montana, Wyoming and Utah.

^THAT. Hunting should be for getting meat, not trophies. Big man, I shot a prize elk. Look at me. White men rule. Pfft.


Exactly. And if the hunters would actually hunt for meat and leave the trophy animals alone, they would continue passing along superb genetics for better, healthier animals.
Who's the real useless predator?
 
2011-04-06 10:06:38 PM

Kazan: the stupidity of and lame attempts to circumvent federal laws by the idaho legislature have reached a state of emergency. i propose with arrest all these idiots and feed them to wolves.


Your assuming the wolves have no taste then?
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report