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.

(LA Times)   Most popular Wolf in Yellowstone killed by hunter. Where is your Red Riding Hood now?   (latimes.com) divider line 279
    More: Sad, Little Red Riding Hood, Yellowstone, animal liberation movement, hunters, contiguous United States  
•       •       •

9325 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 2:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 05:34:12 PM

Egalitarian: \\likes funny wolf shirts


I have a Three Wolf Moon tshirt packaged in a box shaped like a Three Wolf Moon tshirt. It's awesome².
 
2012-12-12 05:39:12 PM

santadog: HeadLever: Keizer_Ghidorah: Not really. Nature did an excellent job of it before humans ever appeared, and had been for a couple billion years. "Manage" means "keeping them where humans desire so we can exploit them as needed".

Nature no longer exists in a vacuum here in the lower 48. Every state has management agencies that manage differing populations with respect to stated goals. in places where there is little development this is easy as it is more of a predator/prey/hunter population balance equation. In areas where you have greater development, wildlife conflict also becomes a major player as well as teh fact that hunting cannot be utilized in the same form for population control.

It is not really exploitation. It is managing populations for the greater good of the entire (including humans) system.

That works until the managers are told to stop. Our DOW (Dept. of Wildlife) Guy that comes to Estes Park is stationed in Longmont.. about a 45min drive. We had bears like crazy this summer. I live on the property of the Elkhorn Lodge. For WEEKS we had numerous bears on the property at any given time or day. We were told by him, that Bear Relocations are no longer an option because of budget cuts. Now, the guy who's suppose to be the Liaison between the bears and the humans.. keep the peace, as it were, has been instructed to kill ANY and ALL nuisance bears.
And here's what you get: Dead Bears
There was a 2nd Bear on the Elkhorn Property. It's not been reported. It was DOW that took him down.. but the "Town" would be more up in arms if they found out there was another death.

No bear proof dumpsters for the Town..they don't want to spend the money, so there bears will keep coming and dying.

That's the management plan.


Fascinating, thanks
 
2012-12-12 05:42:57 PM
Not a single reference to Pluie? FOR SHAME.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:46 PM

Egoy3k: amindtat: Maggie_Luna: I never understand the whole "we need to hunt them to control their population' argument.

What confuses me are my fellow hunters (in PA) who believe you should never, ever shoot doe because "they make the bucks" (not to mention the Game Commision's introduction of the "3 points on a side" rule for bucks) yet they still tell the public they hunt for "population control." Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers

.....you can't possibly be as stupid as this post makes you seem.

3 points per side gives the hunter some idea of the maturity and health of the animal. Admittedly not a very good one but it's not like you can check it's teeth before shooting it is it?

Not shooting does avoids killing an animal that may be carrying or caring for an adolescent deer that will one day grow into an adult which can be harvested for food.


None of which does anything to control population. But yet I'm the stupid one.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:48 PM

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


Smaller people?
 
2012-12-12 05:46:42 PM

santadog: That's the management plan.


Yeah, I am not going to say that all management plans are great as greed and politics can definatly find their way in. Especially when much of the population is as ignorant on these wildlife issues as they are.
 
2012-12-12 05:48:15 PM

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.
The damage to livestock is much lower than other sources.

FACT: In Yellowstone, when the wolves were reintroduced, the Elk population dropped (because they took out all the sickly Elk and Deer for that matter). When the Elk population dropped, species of flora that was thought to be extinct from the area came back. When the Flora came back, a species of bird not seen in the park for almost 100 years suddenly came back.

I'll say it again. Come look at the Elk herd here at Rocky Mountain National Park where there are no wolves.. and compare them to the herds in Yellowstone. RMNP Elk are scraggly, sickly, visible tumors, limping along, and the herds are far to large. In Yellowstone, the Elk have gorgeous fur, smaller herds that look healthy.
Our herds here are so big, and destructive, that we have night time sharp shooters culling the herds so vacationers don't notice.
 
2012-12-12 05:51:19 PM
Example of what a popular wolf may look like:

i470.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-12 05:52:59 PM

Egoy3k: amindtat: Bullshiat, you're in it for the trophy.

/can't eat the antlers

I already responded to this but I just thought of another point

You must not know many hunters. I don't hunt myself since I never had anyone to teach me as a kid, don't particularly like the taste of deer, moose licenses are rare (picked in a 'lottery' around here) and I don't have the equipment to handle a moose carcass in any event but I know a lot of hunters. Hey I gotta get my moose meat somehow. Anyway none of the hunters I know has any antlers or heads on display even at their hunting camps. This is mostly because taxidermy is expensive (in the case of heads)and they shoot the first buck they see in the interest of ensuring their food supply, and getting out of the usually miserable Nova Scotian weather as soon as possible.


Since you live in Canada, I'm guessing you don't know many PA hunters, as I clearly said I was talking about in my OP. First you call me stupid, and then you talk like all hunters are just like Canadian hunters. That would be like saying all Americans are just like Canadians. You should probably stop now, you're really making yourself look foolish.
 
2012-12-12 05:54:31 PM

Magnanimous_J: I think we should kill them all. They ravage livestock, are a danger to pets and smaller people, and devastate population of slower maturing animals like elk. We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back. Ridiculous.


Fail troll is fail.
 
2012-12-12 06:12:58 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.


In that case I hope you paid for college yourself. I'd hate to think that taxpayer dollars went to your failing to learn while getting educated.
 
2012-12-12 06:14:50 PM

HeadLever: While you are mostly correct, there was a pack of wolves in Montana that took out over 100 buck rams in one night. Livestock predations by wolves do happen relatively frequently, but yeah, they are not ever night.


I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.

Even the so-called super wolf pack of something like 400 wolves in Russia only killed around 30 horses, and that was supposedly because of an especially cold winter killed off their natural prey.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:42 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Keizer_Ghidorah: Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.

I can't even think of a response to something this stupid.

In that case I hope you paid for college yourself. I'd hate to think that taxpayer dollars went to your failing to learn while getting educated.


That's funny, coming from someone who lies and trolls in every thread he's in. Especially when it comes to things that are easily and quickly refuted with a simple internet search.

Your original statement reads like something from both fairy tales and attitudes back in the 1700's.
 
2012-12-12 06:16:43 PM

Glitchwerks: HeadLever: While you are mostly correct, there was a pack of wolves in Montana that took out over 100 buck rams in one night. Livestock predations by wolves do happen relatively frequently, but yeah, they are not ever night.

I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.

Even the so-called super wolf pack of something like 400 wolves in Russia only killed around 30 horses, and that was supposedly because of an especially cold winter killed off their natural prey.


Might have been hybrid wolf-dogs. They're the ones who are dangerous, as they have the domestic dog's lack of fear of man.
 
2012-12-12 06:19:32 PM

Magnanimous_J: We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back.


Yeah, and do you know why? Because they were killing buffalo herds and wolf packs by the millions in attempt to destroy the livelihood of Native Americans.
 
2012-12-12 06:26:26 PM

meat0918: On one hand, this sucks.

On the other hand, you get less legitimacy for poachers (screwed up, I know) if there is a legal avenue for them to hunt.

//Wanted to smack a hunter that said there is an unwritten law in Oregon that if you see a wolf, you shoot it and never saw a word. What an asshole.


There is a better unwritten law if you are private property owner and see and endangered species on your land you shoot it, shovel it (bury it) and shut up about it.
If you want the Feds to effectively take control of your property without them having to go through that whole annoying 5th Amendment takings clause thing just tell them you have an endangered species living on your land.

They then place so many restrictions on your land use that about the only thing you can do with it is pay the property taxes You certainly cannot sell it as nobody is going not buy property they cannot develop.
 
2012-12-12 06:28:07 PM

Glitchwerks: I looked that up, and that's a curious event if I ever heard of one. The fact that they say three wolves alone did it seems even more curious.


Yeah, that was an extreme example. Wolves will joy-kill and sheep are always looking for a way to die. Combine the two and it is a bad recipe

Keizer_Ghidorah: Might have been hybrid wolf-dogs.


Nope, just plain wolves. Multiple killings of sheep happen quite frequently with packs of wolves. This magnitude is on the extreme side, though.
 
2012-12-12 06:35:09 PM

santadog: The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.


I dont think that his point was so much the extinction of elk, but more the impact on local populations. Here in Idaho we had several hunting units completely closed to elk hunting in an attempt to bolster elk populations, only to be able to do nothing about the primary cause when the enviros kept tying up any and all delisting attempt in court.

Now that they are finally delisted, we will see if managment can bring some sort of a balance back. I am pretty optimistic that it can.
 
2012-12-12 06:35:33 PM

HeadLever: Wolves will joy-kill and sheep are always looking for a way to die.


Surplus killing is the term and while it does happen, it's usually when they are teaching the young to hunt or for other reasons.

Like you said, it's an extreme example, and I'm surprised I couldn't find any results of investigations into the matter. They also didn't seem to find two of the wolves either.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:03 PM
This is bad news for the second most popular wolf in Yellowstone.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:55 PM

mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid


Disagree with the "hunting is stupid" but hunting animals that are still massively diminished "IS" stupid.
 
2012-12-12 07:07:00 PM
So long as the species is not endangered or is a threat to livestock or humans, there's nothing wrong with hunting them. Wildlife agencies are in charge of monitoring their numbers and deciding on whether bag limits should be set. Don't blame the hunters ... they're managing wildlife populations, and they do it for free. Asshats that make blanket statements against hunters/hunting because they're closeted p*ssies who eat meat from the grocery store, but don't have the awareness to recognize it's the same thing as going out and killing something in nature: they're the real a**holes.
 
2012-12-12 07:17:03 PM

Glitchwerks: Magnanimous_J: We almost completely wiped them out, deliberately, and a hundred years later some moon headed pollyannas decided that we need them back.

Yeah, and do you know why? Because they were killing buffalo herds and wolf packs by the millions in attempt to destroy the livelihood of Native Americans.


OMG... This. Wiped them out deliberately, to wipe out the Indians deliberately.
 
2012-12-12 07:17:24 PM

Kazrath: mochunk: The article headline says "in Yellowstone". Which is false. As per the NPR story yesterday, the pack had wandered out of Yellowstone and into a legal hunting area.

At least the article could get that fact straight.

/hunting is stupid

Disagree with the "hunting is stupid" but hunting animals that are still massively diminished "IS" stupid.


Wolf populations are currently very healthy. They are not diminished here in the least. From a management persepctive, it is best to keep a moderate, but healthy population of wolves around. Especially when you consider the fact that if populations drop too much, they will be relisted under the ESA.
 
2012-12-12 07:26:12 PM

HeadLever: santadog: The Elk are not in danger of dying out. Not even close. Stop exaggerating.

I dont think that his point was so much the extinction of elk, but more the impact on local populations. Here in Idaho we had several hunting units completely closed to elk hunting in an attempt to bolster elk populations, only to be able to do nothing about the primary cause when the enviros kept tying up any and all delisting attempt in court.

Now that they are finally delisted, we will see if managment can bring some sort of a balance back. I am pretty optimistic that it can.


Right, and in my post, I gave 2 examples of local herds and their conditions because of the wolves. (I spend a lot of time at the Park Headquarters here at RMNP, and have seen more than one expert speaker on the wolf population in Yellowstone) I can also talk to you about the symbiotic relationship between Badgers and Coyotes.. but that's another thread...
Do you live in a more Urban area? Rocky Mountain National Park is right *points with finger* over there. Our population in Estes Park is only 6,000 or so. Very small touristy town, next to the National Park. We are also surrounded by National Forest, so our herds flourish in numbers, but not in health without the natural predators.
I suspect you live more urban..not a city.. but not a super small town, because if you lived in the middle of nowhere like I do.. you wouldn't have a problem with too few Elk. At least, that's my guess.
I've been wrong before.
 
2012-12-12 07:46:35 PM
static.tvguide.com

Loves me some Little Red Riding Hood.
 
2012-12-12 07:49:09 PM
Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. But.. there's gotta be SOMETHING to shoot. Hey remember wolves? Yeah, those bastards ate the food we delivered to them. Let's go back to shooting them.

Look at it this way. You're in the kitchen chasing around a plate of food that won't sit still. I walk in and put down a plate of food that barely moves. You start to eat it, I shoot you. I blame you for taking the easy meal that I put right in front of you.

TL;DR - Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it. Technology and knowledge of wildlife and it's animals have evolved a LOT since the 'kill em all' days. Use it. Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit, your cows will be fine and the wolves will be more interested in moving on after their natural prey. Education, not eradication.
 
2012-12-12 08:41:18 PM

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


A long time ago some wolves started hanging around with humans and became man's best friend, others didn't and we've hated them ever since. I stole that from somewhere but I don't remember where.
 
2012-12-12 09:04:51 PM
I see how the services put a tracking collar on her and then published the tracks on line. I guess that's how the hunters were able to track her down. They go on line and know where to go to get her. They could have even waited until she left the sanctuary area and then knew they could get here legally. I wonder if they will stop publishing that tracking data now as it can result in a kill of the ones they are studying.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:12 PM

JohnNS: Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. But..there's gotta be SOMETHING to shoot. Hey remember wolves? Yeah, those bastards ate the food we delivered to them. Let's go back to shooting them.

Look at it this way. You're in the kitchen chasing around a plate of food that won't sit still. I walk in and put down a plate of food that barely moves. You start to eat it, I shoot you. I blame you for taking the easy meal that I put right in front of you.

TL;DR - Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it. Technology and knowledge of wildlife and it's animals have evolved a LOT since the 'kill em all' days. Use it. Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit, your cows will be fine and the wolves will be more interested in moving on after their natural prey. Education, not eradication.


I don't disagree with anything you said until the last bold part. Yeah, we took the land from the wolves, and now we make money/food using it. WHY do we have to essentially give it back so that wolves can exist again? Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves. It's really easy to say, "hey Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas" when it's not money coming out of your pocket.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:03 PM

spiderpaz: JohnNS: Wolves are apex predators, everyone knows that. Not enough know what it means. It means when they are around things are regulated. They affect everything, they keep wildlife population in check. Deer, elk, rabbit, fox, coyote, you name it. Because of that everything THOSE animals eat are regulated.

Here's kinda how I see hunting, wolves, elk, ranchers history happening:

Humans settle an area. They notice the various herds grazing in some really nice pasture and think hey, my animals could do great there!

So they move their animals in.

"Problem" is, that's the breeding ground for wolves. Wolves when they breed and have cubs select one area to camp out and raise their young for a bit. Know what's a really good spot? Prime grazing lands for herds. Awesome, we now have a kitchen!

So the ranchers shoot a bunch of grass eating animals to keep 'their' grazing land. The wolves are all like "Cool, they replaced those hard to catch risky to kill animals with these dumb ones that barely run..." You've invented "fast food" for wolves.

Ranchers are all "wtf, wolves are killing all our animals!" and they shoot em all.

Nature's balacing act gets all messed up. Now you have a crapload of plant eaters... eating plants. This messes up the ecosystem in pretty big ways (loss of habitat for other animals, run off from lack of plants to help hold ground/absorb water, etc) Well there's too many plant eaters, so lets... shoot them!

Hunters get used to hunting these animals. Some label it a sport because the animals are clearly faster than bullets, are armed, and they even know they're playing a sport.

These herds get fat, lazy and unhealthy because hey, we don't even have to move around anymore, just let a few of us get picked off to make the hunters happy. Diseases, etc. Yadda yadda.

Wolves eventually get reintroduced in an attempt to restore balance, which they do. Herb populations get thinned of the fat and diseases, forced to move around again, plant life comes back. ...


The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.
Hunters want prime. Prime meat. Prime Trophy.
 
2012-12-12 09:37:29 PM

spiderpaz: Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves.


Re-read some of his finer points and visit some items that other Farkers posted. Notably about the health of wildlife where there are wolves and where there are no wolves.

Even check out the post that comes after yours.

santadog: The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.
Hunters want prime. Prime meat. Prime Trophy.


Everyone benefits by wolves coming back, including hunters. The only people who don't are ranchers, and mostly it's because they don't want to bother taking the precautions to protect their herds.

IIRC, earlier this year, 8 wolves were put down because they had eaten 17 cattle in the past months. However, wildlife services said the attacks could have been completely avoided if the rancher had followed proper precautions to protect his cattle.
 
2012-12-12 09:56:46 PM

spiderpaz: I don't disagree with anything you said until the last bold part. Yeah, we took the land from the wolves, and now we make money/food using it. WHY do we have to essentially give it back so that wolves can exist again? Why do we need wolves when we can already easily manage deer/elk populations precisely by modifying bag limits and tag costs? Life is better without the wolves. It's really easy to say, "hey Offset your grazing in prime breeding areas" when it's not money coming out of your pocket.


Partially untrue. It is money out of my pocket if I choose to support the ranchers that work with nature in terms of higher prices just as I do by supporting local farmers that grass feed their livestock instead of supporting industrial. Nothing saying we have to give the land back either, but we can modify how we use it and when. It's not an all or nothing thing, it's co-existing. Of course farmers lose a lot more to coyotes when there's no wolves around.

As for managing the elk/deer/plant eater population 'easily'. Yes and no. We can shoot them and all that but we can't manage the trickle down economi.. err.. trickle down effects of what nature's put in place as effectively. Unless you want to get out there and chase herds around while shooting everything - which is what got us here in the first place.

Life is not better without wolves. Nor would it be better without other top level predators. Some aspects are easier, it seems, but not better. There might be less to hunt is all.

There's only one apex predator that could be removed from the system that would be to it's benefit and that's humans.

Think of the natural world as a game of Jenga. You can pull pieces out and have it balance for a while but eventually you yank the wrong piece.

(Also re-reading what I said, I should have said "Off set the TIMING of your grazing in prime breeding areas by a little bit.." Let the wolves breed, let them eat the wandering plant eaters, let them move on, then bring your heards in. That's what I meant by them moving on after their natural prey)
 
2012-12-12 10:12:50 PM
Vegan Meat Popsicle: / I'm just pissy because some fat, illiterate drunk was hunting in off-limits property behind my house a few years ago and put a bullet in my deck

Maybe he went to City Hall and got a Permit for a deck...
 
2012-12-12 10:48:25 PM

powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?


I'd like to see a Venn Diagram on those who hate wolves and also hate gay marriage, abortion, unions, the ACLU, the UN, Muslims and PP.
 
2012-12-12 11:16:11 PM
Yeah.. 1700 wolves are a serious threat to our livestock, there's just too many of them! One bad virus, and they're extinct. Strange how it's the very people who are so concerned about maintaining balance, who are so content to keep species on the brink of extinction.
 
2012-12-12 11:21:22 PM

santadog: Do you live in a more Urban area?


I do now, but I was born and raised and still all of my family lives in a very rural area with a population sign that is lower than the speed limit. Rural enough that you drove an hour to the nearest town big enough to have a high school. Rural enough where you had more deer and elk scat in your yard during the winter than dog.

So yeah, I know about living with elk. You bring up RMNP and Yellowstone as most of your examples and those models work pretty well for those areas. However, there is no sport hunting used as a population control device within these boundaries.

The reason I don't want low elk populations is because these hunting seasons is boons for the small rural towns like the one that I grew up in. Many places depend upon the outdoorsmen/women for their continued survival. From the sporting good stores, hotels, outfitters, gas stations, restaurants, and the list goes on. Plus I am a hunter. More elk means better chances to get one and fill the freezer. Lastly, don't forget the impact this has on state revenues from these licenses and tags that typically go to wildlife conservation programs. Idaho has had to cut thousands of tags per year and a study conducted back in the mid 2000s estimated that the state lost about $24 Million per year due to wolves and the impact on big game herds.

I agree that you don't want elk populations like RMNP, but again, you don't want elk populations like we have in Central Idaho either. Somewhere in between would suit most folks.
 
2012-12-12 11:24:23 PM

JohnNS: Nature is much better at balance than we are. Learn to work with it.


Want to know how I know that you have no idea of current wildlife management?

Nature works well in a vacuum. When you have folks around (especially when those folks like to hunt), it does not work so well.
 
2012-12-12 11:32:14 PM

santadog: The reality is that Wolves take care of the weaklings, the sick, the old, the doomed.


point of clarification;
Actually, during the winter when the deep snow get's a little crust on it, wolves has their choice of any animal they want. Old, young, fast, healthy, it really does not matter. The talking point that wolves only take the sick and old is a myth. During the part of the year where big game is not encumbered by snow, wolves will typically take the slowest in the herds, but individual animals (no matter how healthy) don't stand much of a chance against a hungry pack of wolves.
 
2012-12-12 11:40:50 PM

Glitchwerks: Everyone benefits by wolves coming back, including hunters. The only people who don't are ranchers, and mostly it's because they don't want to bother taking the precautions to protect their herds.


Actually, many hunters don't benefit as elk populations have crashed in certain areas where there is no more hunting season. How does this benefit hunters?

Ranchers can't protect thier herds out here 100% of the time. Many ranchers graze public lands where you can't fence and if you keep your herds in bunches the Forest Service/BLM gets cranky when an area gets stomped flat. This usage is best when the herds are scattered. Even on private land, this protection cost is huge and many ranchers cannot simply afford it. Sure, they could post snipers 24/7 behind every tree, but they are not going to be staying in business very long doing that.

However, wildlife services said the attacks could have been completely avoided if the rancher had followed proper precautions to protect his cattle.

This is a good point as there are things that ranchers can do to limit some depredations. Things like removing any dead animals and, if there are collared wolves in the pack, install RAG boxes to haze them away. These are not foolproof, but they can help. The fact remains that some ranchers are good about it and some are just lazy. However, when wolves start eating into your profit margin $1500 at a time, most will wake up pretty quickly.
 
2012-12-12 11:43:48 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: One bad virus, and they're extinct.


one bad virus is going to wipe out 70,000 wolves in North America? You trollin' or just stupid?

1700 is only the population that lives within 3 states.
 
2012-12-12 11:57:25 PM

JohnNS: Education, not eradication.


Also, this point is just flat out dumb. The states have vested interest in keeping populations within the goals set by their respective Wolf Management Plans. Trying to eradicate wolves will just lead to a relisting under the ESA by the federal government which will remove all ability for any further management. States cannot afford to let this happen again as they had such a hard time to get them delisted the first time. Attempting this a second time would be nearly impossible.

/amazed at the quality of arguments from the basement dwelling biologist in this thread.
 
2012-12-13 12:16:34 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Of course, if we'd stop carving up the land into small chunks of land where wildlife is forced to be crowded into, maybe we wouldn't have to slaughter the predators.


Since most of the area you are describing here is federally owned land, there really is none of this carving of which you speak. One does not simply build a homestead on BLM or Forest Service land. Again, many of the counties where this is an issue are over 90% federally owned. And if you want to keep the small percentage of private land that does make up the rest of this rural area pastoral, you may want to keep trying to bankrupt the ranchers. When ranchers go bankrupt, private pasture and hay land gets subdivided.

www.apeconmyth.com
 
2012-12-13 12:44:31 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: was the eighth wolf fitted with a GPS collar to be shot
Those collars are great trophies.


Also easy to track.

Bet their "hunting" success goes down once the collared ones are done...

/totally okay with wolves being hunted legally with scientific backing to the numbers, it's how we manage all of our big game animals (and they benefit tremendously from it as a species).
//but wolf-hate groups can suck it because they are a bunch of cowards.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:29 AM

Smeggy Smurf: powtard: I still don't understand this hatred for wolves. Seriously, can someone please explain this to me?

You must live in the big city. Wolves decimate livestock populations as well as deer, elk and other wildlife. They also kill pets and will attack people if you are acting like prey. Most people are prey.


Yes, they decimate wildlife so bad that my hunting gathering ancestors could never get any meat except...well, nearly all the time. The elk, deer and whatnot have been without wolves for a while. They are readjusting, eventually they will balance back out. Now, I do think that wolves should be reintroduced slowly to prevent large population swings, but to imply that the wolves will hunt everything into near extinction and that we'll never have good hunting again is fear mongering nonsense completely contradicted by thousands of years of evidence.

As for livestock, they have been bred to be stupid, you don't get to exterminate an entire species because of it. Find another way to protect your investment. (Most of the meat in the stores now is crap anyway and not worth eating even if it was free.)

/lives in the mountains
 
2012-12-13 01:01:28 AM

HeadLever: JohnNS: Education, not eradication.

Also, this point is just flat out dumb. The states have vested interest in keeping populations within the goals set by their respective Wolf Management Plans. Trying to eradicate wolves will just lead to a relisting under the ESA by the federal government which will remove all ability for any further management. States cannot afford to let this happen again as they had such a hard time to get them delisted the first time. Attempting this a second time would be nearly impossible.

/amazed at the quality of arguments from the basement dwelling biologist in this thread.


Pot, kettle, black. Assumptions r us? I'm sure your degree is wonderful though.
 
2012-12-13 01:04:07 AM

sp86: firefly212: Easy meat and easy bread make easy fat and easy dead.

That's cute and all, but you have to admit deer hunting is pretty easy.

Granted you won't see a 400 lb dude dragging a bambi out on his all terrain rascal any time soon ... I forgot where I was going with that but that mental image is hilarious.


Come hunt the grey ghost of the Cascades. ;)

/blacktails are notoriously hard to hunt
//whitetails...not so much.
 
2012-12-13 01:12:25 AM
FTA: Ranchers say hunting is necessary to keep wolves from raiding domestic livestock

I don't get this. If their livestock is being harmed by wolves, then the ranchers should find a way to protect their livestock in a way that doesn't involve killing the predators who are just doing what predators do. The ranchers are making the problem by bringing in easy prey and dangling it in front of the existing predators. If they can't find a way to protect their livestock in a way other than killing the predators, then they should get out of the business of ranching.

/hunting predators is wrong
 
2012-12-13 02:27:55 AM
Yeah. Bob and Eddie were using the IR-50 Recon by Bushcomber. It's got a sixteen-inch microgrooved barrel with 30-30 mags, side-scope mount, wire- cutter sheath, quick-release bolt, mag catches and a three pound trigger. So I figured we must be going after a pretty dangerous duck. We shot a deer. (pause) In the woods near Lake Mattatuck on the second day. There was a special vest they had me wear so that they could distinguish me from things they wanted to shoot, and I was pretty grateful for that. Almost the whole day had gone by, we hadn't gotten anything. Eddie was getting frustrated and Bob Shoemaker was getting embarrassed. My camera guy needed to re-load so I told everybody to take a ten minute break. There was a stream nearby and I walked over with this care-package Natalie made me. I sat down and when I looked up I saw three of them; small, bigger, biggest. Recognizable to any species on the face of the planet as a child, a mother and a father. Now, the trick in shooting deer is you gotta get 'em out in the open. And it's tough with deer, 'cause these are clever, cagey animals with an intuitive sense of danger. You know what you have to do to get a deer out in the open? You hold out a twinkie. (pause) That animal clopped up to me like we were at a party. She seemed to be pretty interested in the twinkie, so I gave it to her. Looking back, she'd have been better off if I'd given her the damn vest. And Bob kind of screamed at me in whisper, "Move away!" The camera had been re-loaded and it looked like the day wasn't gonna be a washout after all. So I backed away, a couple of steps at a time, and closed my eyes when I heard the shot. Look, I know these are animals, and they don't play bridge and go to the prom, but you can't tell me that the little one didn't know who his mother was. (pause) That's gotta mean something. And later, at the hospital, Bob Shoemaker was telling me about the nobility and tradition of hunting and how it related to the native American Indians. And I nodded and I said that was interesting while I was thinking about what a load of crap it was. Hunting was part of Indian culture. It was food and it was clothes and it was shelter. They sang and danced and offered prayers to the gods for a successful hunt so that they could survive just one more unimaginably brutal winter. The things they had to kill held the highest place of respect for them, and to kill for fun was a sin. (pause) And they knew the gods wouldn't be so generous next time. What we did wasn't food and it wasn't shelter and it sure wasn't sports. It was just mean.
 
2012-12-13 04:15:19 AM
Randomly reducing the sizes of all wolf packs by this kind of sport hunt destroys the wolves' own ability as an apex predator to control their own numbers by growing their packs with nonbreeding members and the corresponding territory they exclude other wolves from. It fact, it runs it backwards to force wolf breeding.

A moment's thought and you can realize how reducing a large wolf pack by just two can free territory they no longer use for a pair to found a new pack. Doubling the reproduction rate per adult wolf over what is now the territory of two packs, as well as increasing the original pack's reproduction rate from 1 litter per N wolves to 1 litter per N-2 adult wolves. Enough disruption and you end up with many single pairs of wolves having litters.

Game animals are evolved to take normal predation during the time wolf pups and their fawns or whatever are growing up. Either that or they are really really not evolved to have the number of wolf pups born artificially maximized.

A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report