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  
•       •       •

9326 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
 
2012-12-13 04:24:06 AM

HeadLever: 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.


Additional point: Wolves, by keeping their prey moving and from unnaturally congregating, prevent their parasites and diseases from being transmitted between those prey. They likely do much more to prevent most diseases than cull thoze actually infected. There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.
 
2012-12-13 08:48:20 AM

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


Not really. From what I know, about 250 wolves have been shot in MT/ID this hunting season and 8 of them had collars.
 
2012-12-13 08:56:07 AM

cuzsis: 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.


Again, the point of management is that wolf populations and big game populations never get out of whack and that you maintain a healthy population of both. Unfortunately, with the delayed delisting of wolves from the ESA due to environmentalist intervention, this never happened and the combined pressure of human hunting and wolf predation and a couple of tough winters drove some elk populations way down below target levels. From the wildlife manager standpoint, they could only change the human hunting variable and that was not enough for populations to recover (and pissed a pile of hunters off). Fortunately now, the state also has control over wolves so they have more ability to help some of these herds.

From the state standpoint, it is going to be nearly impossible to manage elk/deer populations when you cannot manage the population of an apex predator.
 
2012-12-13 09:04:08 AM

Befuddled: 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.


first, the wolves were reintroduced in 95 so most of the ranchers were 'there first'. secondly, from my post upthread; 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.

Ranchers will always have a right to protect their property from predators. That was one of the rights granted by the federal government as a condition for reintroduction. If you want to see these ranchers go out of business, be prepared to see these pastoral landscapes turn into ranchetts and subdivisions.
 
2012-12-13 09:07:26 AM

SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?


We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.
 
2012-12-13 09:10:09 AM

SwiftFox: There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.


Not sure about this. They have been doing exactly that when the wolves were removed from these areas. That is a time span of 40 to 50 years. Yes, there have been instances of certain diseases within this timeframe, but nothing that would endanger the entire population of these prey species.
 
2012-12-13 09:16:03 AM

cuzsis: 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.


I might try it if I were vacationing in the area but like I said, when I hunt it's for subsistence. Driving 30 hours to test my skills against more difficult prey seems like an arrogant indulgence.
 
2012-12-13 10:16:32 AM

HeadLever: Nature works well in a vacuum. When you have folks around (especially when those folks like to hunt), it does not work so well.


Nature has never existed in a vacuum, never will. Native Americans did just fine with wolves around.

The problem here are the "folks" who have refused to seek a balance, not nature.
 
2012-12-13 10:44:08 AM

HeadLever: SwiftFox: There is no reason to believe their prey animals are adapted to or can long withstand the additional disease transmission occurring without wolves' prevention.

Not sure about this. They have been doing exactly that when the wolves were removed from these areas. That is a time span of 40 to 50 years. Yes, there have been instances of certain diseases within this timeframe, but nothing that would endanger the entire population of these prey species.


HeadLever: SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?

We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.


Hmm. I suppose it depends on whether "I've got a gout feeling iyt mig

HeadLever: SwiftFox: A sport hunting season is not managing wolves, simply maximizing them. Hello?

We have had this discussion before and as we finally decided there - we will see. I am pretty optimistic that sport hunting can effectively manage these populations. The proof will be in the next few years. So far Idaho's overall wolf population is holding pretty steady over the last 3 years. So far, so good.


Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?

Michigan's state legislature decided yesterday to approve a wolf hunt apparently just for the heck of it and send i to the governor's desk, n the legislature's lame duck session - which is unlikely to end well WI and MN have dove hunting seasons. In Michigan a vote on a dove hunt lost over 2 to 1 (hunt: 31%) so there may be a voter's resolution foofurall, IIRC hunters in general got the blame for wasting the money on the dove election since their side lost, though it was the state legislature that passed it. I thought it was fun enough to watch at the time to be worth the money. It will be harder this time to argue against a resolution simply because the bill passed changes the law without requiring "sound scientific management" as voters required for all game back in 1996 (Proposal G) to simply "sound management including hunting". Not surprising since the sponsoring senator is also trying to pass a bill getting all mention of and consideration of "biological diversity" period removed from Michigan law and forbidding the DNR designating any land use for that purpose.

This time, though they seem to be betting the Upper Peninsula's deer herd on changing from the current ~7% growth rate of wolf population growth under their own population control (vs 10% growth in whitetail take there) to what hunt proponents say might require removing 50% of the wolves every season. They are openly planning to force quite an artificial increase in the wolf birth rate and pups when fawns are growing up, evidently. 7 times the current rate. Is that an experiment that should even be tried before it is determined what the outcome in Wisconsin may be?
 
2012-12-13 10:44:53 AM
Ouch. Pardon my stuttering.
 
2012-12-13 10:50:44 AM

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.


simpsonswiki.netsimpsonswiki.net

/First thing I thought of
 
2012-12-13 11:06:06 AM

Glitchwerks: Nature has never existed in a vacuum, never will. Native Americans did just fine with wolves around.


Sure it did several thousands of years ago.

And if you want to go back to the hunting and gathering lifetyle that was Pre-Columbian America go ahead. Just don't expect too many folks to follow your lead. Native Americans did fine with wolves because the entire population in North America at the time was about the same as New York City and thier standard of living not even comparable to what we see today. If you spend all of your time looking back and dreaming of how things were 500 years ago, you are going to set yourself up for failure in the future.

The problem here are the "folks" who have refused to seek a balance, not nature.

Natural cycles are not about a balance. The concept of balance is a current management construct. Natural cycles are mostly dominated by boom and crash cycles as the inverse relationship between predator/prey plays out. Predators don't eat prey by only considering prey populations and balance. They eat prey because if they don't, they die. Conversley, prey does not reproduce with current populations and balance in mind.

Balance is introduced into this system by outside forces that limits one or both of these mehcanisms. Typically, this is done with sport hunting that keeps populations in check. This balance is further complicated by the fact that human hunting is an important element in this management as well. If things are working correctly, you can balance these population swings by emplying hunters and, thus, kill two birds with one stone. That is why it was important to the state agencies to get control over wolf management. While they were listed under the ESA, these balance mechanisms were not avaliable.
 
2012-12-13 11:15:41 AM

SwiftFox: Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?


If you are not wrong, then we will likely have to update the management stratagy. Most of the biologist here seem to think that the current plan is the best option, but the next 4 or so years will tell us much more. No doubt about it, we are in uncharted territory with this. It will be a learning process for many.

The situation you describe for Michigan would seem to have a little bit more information avaliable as the situations there is similar to what some Canadian areas have had to deal with.
 
2012-12-13 11:32:26 AM

HeadLever: Sure it did several thousands of years ago.


You continue to talk about balance, but the fact is that the balance of nature was knocked out of whack when "folks" systematically killed millions of buffalo and wolves in what was basically an attempt at Native American genocide.

HeadLever: f you spend all of your time looking back and dreaming of how things were 500 years ago, you are going to set yourself up for failure in the future.


No one is suggesting living in the past, but instead moving forward and bringing a balance back that has long been missing from nature, correcting one of the most evil events in U.S. history.
 
2012-12-13 11:35:42 AM
fark hunters.
 
2012-12-13 11:49:13 AM

Glitchwerks: the balance of nature


Again, nature is not about balance. If you were to define nature accuratly, it would be more along the lines of chaotically dynamic. Balance has nearly nothing to do with it. Don't know why you keep hanging onto a talking point that was never (and still isn't) true. Again, balance is a current management construct.

Ultimately, lamenting the actions of our ancestors and waxing nostalgic about an idealistic past is not going to solve any wildlife issues we face today.
 
2012-12-13 12:33:52 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2012-12-13 01:23:50 PM

HeadLever: Ultimately, lamenting the actions of our ancestors and waxing nostalgic about an idealistic past is not going to solve any wildlife issues we face today.


The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem. What you seem to be arguing is one singular view, that of the hunters. You want "folks" to manage the wild life at the expense of everything else.

We're not going to find a common ground here, so I'm going to leave the discussion be. Whatever the case, we won't solve these problems when "folks" kills collared animals that are supposed to helping scientific study and progress.
 
2012-12-13 01:40:06 PM

HeadLever: SwiftFox: Ah, but if I am not wrong, what is the endgame going to be? Further reductions in the number of adult wolves, or trying to tell game hunters to be patient about not hunting and residents to endure extra depredation until the packs have rebuilt sizes and social structures, and their reproduction rate returns to normal?

If you are not wrong, then we will likely have to update the management stratagy. Most of the biologist here seem to think that the current plan is the best option, but the next 4 or so years will tell us much more. No doubt about it, we are in uncharted territory with this. It will be a learning process for many.

The situation you describe for Michigan would seem to have a little bit more information avaliable as the situations there is similar to what some Canadian areas have had to deal with.


But what does David Mech really imply when he says that Idaho can harvest 50% of the wolves and they will replace the ones removed? Obviously that the wolves can crank up their reproduction so that they will replace 50% of their number removed. Umm... You see a problem with this? He might be answering the question, but it reminds me of having to deal with a customer specifying exactly how things are to be done, and given no choice giving them exactly what they asked for. This is a very nasty way to correct that customer and usually only has to be done once. 

Things are weird in Michigan. They have a set of Senators, John Pappageorge, Arlan Meekhof, Judith Emmons, Thomas Casperson (mainly behind the wolf bill) and Patrick Colbeck who want to pass a law, SB1276, that will prevent local control of biodiversity areas and the state DNR maintaining and regulating them, instead of the federal government and its agreements with the UN.
 
2012-12-13 02:28:24 PM

SwiftFox: But what does David Mech really imply when he says that Idaho can harvest 50% of the wolves and they will replace the ones removed?


I think that you may be misreading his statment, "In that same declaration, he stated that to just stop the growth rate of depredation could mean eliminating upwards of 50-percent of all wolves in the Northern Rockies."

emphasis mine

Also, not sure if he took into account the nature of these areas where big games herds will winter in rancher's fields and will be somewhat protected as hunter density and access to these areas is much greater. Winter is historically when most of the depredation of elk takes place. Overall, wolves are not dumb. They tend to stay away from hunters and this will help better protect depredation.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:50 PM

Glitchwerks: The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem.


It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.

While you may be somewhat correct about the goals within Yellowstone, you have to realize that management objectives and land uses are quite different here than the remaining 85% of the public land.
 
2012-12-13 03:05:53 PM

HeadLever: It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.


Incorrect.

http://www.ypf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=WHAT_wildlife_wolf
 
2012-12-13 03:20:15 PM

HeadLever: Glitchwerks: The Yellowstone wolf restoration project has proved that wolves are necessary for a healthy and balanced ecosystem.

It was never the Yellowstone wolf restoration project. Yellowstone is only about 15% of the area where wolves inhabit these 3 states.

While you may be somewhat correct about the goals within Yellowstone, you have to realize that management objectives and land uses are quite different here than the remaining 85% of the public land.


Okay, we get it, humans are the best, we can do everything, fark the wolves and shoot them all.
 
2012-12-13 03:29:01 PM

Glitchwerks: Incorrect.


Do you think that the reintroduction into these three states was only in Yellowstone? You might want to check up on that because it is false.

I did check my 15% number and I was off on that, though. Yellowstone is only about 4% of the current wolf habitat in these three states.
 
2012-12-13 03:39:13 PM

HeadLever: Do you think that the reintroduction into these three states was only in Yellowstone? You might want to check up on that because it is false.


I am not referring to other reintroductions. I am referring specifically to the Yellowstone wolf restoration project that was led by Doug Smith.

I am referring to that study alone, please stop telling everyone else they are wrong and stop assuming.
 
2012-12-13 04:33:24 PM

Glitchwerks: I am referring to that study alone, please stop telling everyone else they are wrong and stop assuming.


Except for when you weren't.

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.

Not much hunting or ranching going on in Yellowstone.

Overall, there is little conflict about what goes on in the park. Nature is to be left to its own devices within those borders and managment is bascially 'hands-off'. I have no problem with that. The other 96% of the land that wolves inhabit in this reigon is a different story, however.
 
2012-12-13 04:37:16 PM

HeadLever: Except for when you weren't.


You're taking quotes completely out of context at this point. SMH.
 
2012-12-13 05:52:38 PM

Glitchwerks: HeadLever: Except for when you weren't.

You're taking quotes completely out of context at this point. SMH.


?

Maybe I am misreading your argument, but one second you are talking about the regional issues and the next you are only talking about one specific study in with respect to one small area?

You made mention of this to bolster your argument that I "seem to be arguing is one singular view, that of the hunters. You want "folks" to manage the wild life at the expense of everything else." This study has pretty much nothing to do with any of my arguments made beforehand since Yellowstone is bascially exempt from state wildlife management. Those rules don't apply here and your entire arguemnt is a non sequitur.
 
2012-12-13 11:31:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: fark the wolves and shoot them all.


Strawman argument. I never said that.
 
Displayed 29 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