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.

(Digital Journal)   Step 1: Kill wolves to protect elk. Step 2: Kill elk to protect crops. Step 3: Fire Idaho Department of Fish and Game   (digitaljournal.com) divider line 141
    More: Silly, Department of Fish, wolves, Idaho, mooses, crops, Center for Biological Diversity  
•       •       •

7117 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2014 at 1:24 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-27 12:43:52 PM

redmid17: Jesus. I didn't even say rampage. You farkers keep moving my goalposts and I have to reset them


Mostly because their points are borne of complete ignorance or, in the case of cryingoutloud, an agenda.
 
2014-01-27 01:33:02 PM

sjcousins: It certainly doesn't justify shooting out a keystone species by the "animals are mean therefore environmentalism is stupid" crowd.

/ecologist
//environmentalist
///hates people a little bit more now.


You forgot 'straw man artist' in your list.  No one here is arguing for shooting out a keystone species.  In fact the state has very specific goals with respect to wolf populations and it is not zero.  In certain areas, they want the populations reduced,  In other areas they have quotas on the hunt to prevent over harvest.
 
2014-01-27 02:10:08 PM

mamoru: Tatterdemalian: it all amounts to a wasteful instinct to kill as much as they physically can until they're literally too tired to kill any more,

Really? Then why do most predators stop the moment they have taken down prey and start consuming them rather than continuing the hunt? Especially when looking at predators (like lions, for example) living and hunting in areas with relatively high prey density? Leaving downed prey to continue killing everything they can runs the risk of losing the downed prey to scavengers and other opportunists, turning it into wasted energy, which flies completely in the face of Optimal Foraging Theory.

Please provide specific examples that show that predatory behavior is a wasteful instinct to kill as much as possible instead of an evolutionarily optimized instinct to maximize energy return (food) for energy spent (hunting), because as a biologist, I find your bald assertion difficult to believe.


First off, Lions are lions, and wolves are wolves.

Second energy conservation: Just as your assertion means that wolves won't drag entire bodies out back to their dens, it also means that if the prey animals are penned, it won't take as much energy to kill the other animals who have stopped running.

If the animals are penned, there are also the problems of the wolves being able to gather as much high calorie items as will feed the pack, and being able to do so at their leisure (relatively speaking).
The alphas usually eat first and choicest cuts, but if there are more prey to take choicest cuts from, that means all can have their fill, which will be best for the pack in the long run.

Also missing from your example in a penned area, are the other predators who may take the downed prey. The wolves are there, both guarding the downed prey, and able to take more. No other carnivore, scavenger or otherwise can take the downed prey from the wolves, because they're still there.

Also, your pride of lions scenario? Yeah, if they can take down more than one, they will, because more food => better energy levels => higher survival rate.

For a biologist, you certainly don't watch a lot of nature shows. o_O
 
2014-01-27 02:17:36 PM

HeadLever: redmid17: Surplus killing by predators doesn't exclude wolves.

Wolves are usually the best at surplus killing.


Aside from humans, that is.
 
2014-01-27 02:28:40 PM
Some of the comments on that article have made me wonder how some people aren't too stupid to breathe. Yeah, the "ecosystem" is a liberal lie.
 
2014-01-27 02:29:33 PM
Serious question: At what point would it be problematic to introduce wolves to a humongous deer population, with large concentrations of humans?

Following population cycles starting with a huge deer population:
Huge Deer; Small wolves
Huge Deer; Bigger wolves, following a parabolic increase
Large Deer; Large wolves

Logically, this would keep going with the end result of the deer population becoming small enough to consider it questionable whether or not the wolf population can be maintained.

Now, what if you had starving wolves, close to human populaces, thereby encouraging them to learn to hunt humans? What should we do at that point? Could this point even be considered without whingeing and hingeing

I am not saying it's right to shoot wolves(especially in Idaho. Idiots.).
I like wolves... when there are not enough wolves for the above scenario to become a problem.

Luckily, my state believes in its DNR, who have thoroughly invested in this idea, and track the wolf population, etc.

/I don't like it when people rush headlong into things.
//Like Wolf season/ reintroduce them NOW, because its where the wolves BELONG!! Let them be free!!!
///Idiots.
 
2014-01-27 02:33:28 PM

tlars699: Aside from humans, that is.


True, but that allow the humans that don't want to kill the ability to get their meat in nice little plastic and styrofoam packages.
 
2014-01-27 02:44:33 PM

tlars699: Serious question: At what point would it be problematic to introduce wolves to a humongous deer population, with large concentrations of humans?

Following population cycles starting with a huge deer population:
Huge Deer; Small wolves
Huge Deer; Bigger wolves, following a parabolic increase
Large Deer; Large wolves


Generally, wolves do not do very well in an area with high human density.  They need room to roam.  Also don't forget that conflict will be part of the game.  Wolves know that sheep and cattle and fluffy are much easier to catch than a deer.  Here in the intermountain west and U.P., there is room for them.

Now, what if you had starving wolves, close to human populaces, thereby encouraging them to learn to hunt humans?

Mostly, the impact here would be to pets and livestock. Wolf attacks on humans are very rare.

I am not saying it's right to shoot wolves(especially in Idaho. Idiots.).
I like wolves... when there are not enough wolves for the above scenario to become a problem.


The issue of this area is not to few wolves.  This area is not adequate habitat for for wolves and will never be.  The wolf problem is real in Idaho, but only in certain places.  Not everywhere.
 
2014-01-27 02:46:04 PM

HeadLever: The wolf  people problem is real in Idaho,

 
2014-01-27 02:46:37 PM

HeadLever: The issue of this area is not too few wolves


FIFM
 
2014-01-27 02:49:51 PM

2wolves: The wolf  people problem is real in Idaho,


These are not mutually exclusive arguments.

In all seriousness, some areas do have a problem.  Some do not.  It is the job of the wildlife managers to do what they can to correct the imbalance for each area as it arises.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution as subby suggest.  Some areas are way above elk population goals while some are way below.
 
2014-01-27 03:17:38 PM

HeadLever: 2wolves: The wolf  people problem is real in Idaho,


OMG, werewolves in Idaho?!
 
2014-01-27 03:18:48 PM
How do they decide the "right" number of wolves and elk?
 
2014-01-27 03:28:42 PM

jigger: How do they decide the "right" number of wolves and elk?


Study the environment to see how each species impacts it for one. Another way to do it quick and dirty is to study the population levels over a few years. When too many wolves (or predators) exist, there will be fewer elk to go around and some of them will die off (in a vacuum anyway). When there are too many elk, the wolves are able to more easily prey on the weaker of the herd and increase their numbers over time. Obviously that doesn't work if there's a ton of outside interference or either number drops too far. If the elk are too few, the wolves go after other prey, which could include livestock.

Biologists have been studying Isle Royale for a long time to figure this kind of stuff out.
 
2014-01-27 03:34:29 PM

jigger: How do they decide the "right" number of wolves and elk?


That is the difficult part and nearly everyone has a stake in this discussion.  Ranchers and homeowners typically don't mind elk so long as they don't cause property damage (tear down fences, eat haystacks, etc) and cause range issues.  Hunters like the hunting opportunity.  Wildlife folks like to see them, but where they are healthy and not starving and also where they are not creating impacts on riparian habitat.

Wolf population goals were set by the state management plans before they could be delisted from the ESA and were scrutinized on the ability of wolves to continue to disperse to new areas.  For Idaho, the population goal was set for about 500 wolves and hunting seasons in many 'critical' areas have quotas where hunters cannot kill too many wolves.
 
2014-01-27 03:40:23 PM

redmid17: Biologists have been studying Isle Royale for a long time to figure this kind of stuff out.


Yeah for areas like Isle Royale, this is applicable.  However, the issues in most other places have many more stakeholders that move this dynamic from what nature typically does, to a man-made goal based upon what is 'best for all'.
 
2014-01-27 03:47:33 PM

HeadLever: redmid17: Biologists have been studying Isle Royale for a long time to figure this kind of stuff out.

Yeah for areas like Isle Royale, this is applicable.  However, the issues in most other places have many more stakeholders that move this dynamic from what nature typically does, to a man-made goal based upon what is 'best for all'.


Very true
 
2014-01-27 04:08:46 PM

HeadLever: You have been proven wrong on this multiple times, but still spout the lies. This tells me that your arguments are not in the context of any intellectual honesty, but are instead driven by an agenda.


Excellent marketing agenda by the rancher.
Receive a more than fair price without all the transportation bother.
 
2014-01-27 04:14:28 PM

wutchamacallem: Excellent marketing agenda by the rancher.
Receive a more than fair price without all the transportation bother.


Not that easy.  Back then, ranchers had to have these depredations confirmed by a National Wildlife Service Agent that was capable of proving it was a wolf depredation via a necropsy.

And they were not given more than 'fair price'.  Not sure were you are getting that talking point from.
 
2014-01-27 04:28:05 PM

HeadLever: And they were not given more than 'fair price'. Not sure were you are getting that talking point from.


I was in the business.
 
2014-01-27 04:42:34 PM

wutchamacallem: I was in the business.


Of giving ranchers more than fair market price for their livestock?  Do you have a business card?
 
2014-01-27 05:28:58 PM

HeadLever: Of giving ranchers more than fair market price for their livestock? Do you have a business card?


Most of the sheep I bought were from your our wolf territories. Maybe I bought some of yours.
 
2014-01-27 05:47:06 PM

wutchamacallem: Most of the sheep I bought were from your our wolf territories. Maybe I bought some of yours.


Not for above market price you did not.  The only compensation that I am aware of comes from the Defender's of Wildlife and they set prices at market value. Not above.

Although wolf depredation on livestock is infrequent, Defenders of Wildlife maintains a $100,000 Wolf Compensation Trust to reimburse ranchers at fair market value for losses of livestock verified as wolf-caused.

Assuming that you are involved with DoW, then you have been paying fair market value.  Also don't forget that not all wolf depredations can be confirmed with a necropsy.  When all that is left is some hide and a eartag, no one is going to be able to confirm that it was a wolf kill.
 
2014-01-27 06:00:11 PM

redmid17: . Also for your insurgency group, make sure you bring a lot of rifle cleaning supplies. Any ammo you're going to fire through the Mosin-Nagant is going to be incredibly corrosive.


I've seen recommendations for 10w-30 with detergent added. Would it work?
 
2014-01-27 06:00:58 PM

HeadLever: Assuming that you are involved with DoW, then you have been paying fair market value. Also don't forget that not all wolf depredations can be confirmed with a necropsy. When all that is left is some hide and a eartag, no one is going to be able to confirm that it was a wolf kill.


I only bought live animals. They were considered culls by the ranchers but in their new home in Illinois eating alfalfa and corn they were lamb rearing for a few more years.
 
2014-01-27 06:09:27 PM

wutchamacallem: I only bought live animals. They were considered culls by the ranchers but in their new home in Illinois eating alfalfa and corn they were lamb rearing for a few more years.


Ah, this was not compensation for the kills, but just buying the bum and cull sheep.  Gotcha now.
 
2014-01-27 06:24:15 PM

Poowaddins: Kentucky doesn't have anything on the redneck retards of Idaho.


YES WE DO!!!!

Right, Drew?
 
2014-01-27 06:40:21 PM

parahaps: They want more things to shoot.


How would I volunteer?

Jim_Callahan: Ten bloody goats dead from heart attacks.


That's what they want you to think.

Ishidan: once you're in hunt mode it's hard to stop. Just like a human at a buffet table for the first time.


Whaddaya mean, first time?

cherryl taggart: I thought elk were some kind of vector for a prion disease like mad cow.  If that's accurate, why would anyone want to hunt it?  Dang, now I have to go do actual research before my fifth coffee.


Prion disease might be fun for a while. You might wind up incompetent to stand trial if they don't catch you in time.

cryinoutloud: Wildlife management is not about trying to restore an ecosystem, or to keep any kind of balance, anymore. It probably never was. it's about managing the humans who want to use and look at the wildlife. And no matter what you do, somebody is not going to be happy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars


By the way, I was right: country ham bits & pieces does make a good substitute for lox, anchovies or pickled herring. Except it makes more sense to me to eat a bite and then down a shot: maybe Seagram's vodka beats what poor Russians have to settle for?

Поехали!
 
2014-01-27 06:56:29 PM

cryinoutloud: sjcousins:

Any biologist will tell you that predators only care about rendering as much mobile food non-mobile as they can. It's been called various names, "food caching," "scavenger feeding," but it all amounts to a wasteful instinct to kill as much as they physically can until they're literally too tired to kill any more, something environmentalists would rather shiat the bed and fling the poo than understand.

This biologist is telling you that you just made that up. Never heard of it.


Instead, that's typical HUMAN behavior. And then we waste the meat, either letting it rot, burying it or burning it up.


cryinoutloud: guard llamas


That really is a thing. I looked it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama


Ranching out west is not a big money-making business.

Hell, I'd do it for meat, fleece/hide and milk. And to give the dogs & llamas something to do.

Give me a pasture for goats and/or sheep (and dogs & llamas), a yard for chickens & turkeys, a sty for pigs, a garden for produce, and a mule to ride & pull the wagon.  booze by the barrel, a pot growing barn, a houseful of young hotties, and a few guns & lots of ammo to protect everything. Oh, and broadband, of course.
 
2014-01-27 07:04:12 PM

The One True TheDavid: That really is a thing. I looked it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama


Llamas work pretty well for coyotes.

With respect to wolves, llamas are llunch.
 
2014-01-27 08:11:29 PM

HeadLever: The One True TheDavid: That really is a thing. I looked it up:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_llama

Llamas work pretty well for coyotes.

With respect to wolves, llamas are llunch.


Obviously shepherds and cowboys would be the most effective predator deterrent when ranching sheep and cattle---how much would it raise the price of a pound of burger or sheared wool if the tasty domestic animals had human guard 24/7 instead of the unattended free-ranging style of husbandry?

/I wonder if Idaho Fish'n'Game could get a nice re-imbursement by trapping or tranqing offending livestock eating wolves and sold them off to zoos around the world.
//Probably not.
 
2014-01-27 08:25:36 PM
My God, what would nature do without mankind to step in and save it?
 
2014-01-27 08:32:00 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: My God, what would nature do without mankind to step in and save it?


Not feel guilty about the destruction of evolutionarily uncompetitive species, for starters.

/they probably also would never travel in space
 
2014-01-27 10:31:00 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: My God, what would nature do without mankind to step in and save it?


Probably go back to acting like it was in a vacuum and all the pain in the butt impacts that this would have.
 
2014-01-27 11:16:40 PM
Why not have a human guard or two, along with dogs & llamas? Just remember to keep them well fed: "al pastor" is pork for a reason.
 
2014-01-28 08:05:21 AM
~pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-01-28 08:47:31 AM

The One True TheDavid: Why not have a human guard or two, along with dogs & llamas?


Many ranchers do just that.  Dogs and llamas are great for coyotes but are not really effective against a pack of wolves and end up just as dead as the livestock.  Human guards are the best, but they cannot be everywhere at once.
 
2014-01-28 08:57:05 AM

HeadLever: The One True TheDavid: Why not have a human guard or two, along with dogs & llamas?

Many ranchers do just that.  Dogs and llamas are great for coyotes but are not really effective against a pack of wolves and end up just as dead as the livestock.  Human guards are the best, but they cannot be everywhere at once.


And, of course, you have to pay them, file taxes on them, fill out paperwork for the insurance companies and Social Security, etc. Having an apex predator minding your herd comes with a lot of unforeseen costs.

/unless you get illegal immigrants to do it
//they usually know more about wildlife than actual citizens, apparently including some biologists, and they won't go running to the police under any circumstances short of refusing to pay them a few dollars a month
///as long as you're flouting immigration law, might as well flout minimum wage laws too
 
2014-01-28 09:08:39 AM

Tatterdemalian: unless you get illegal immigrants to do it
//they usually know more about wildlife than actual citizens, apparently including some biologists, and they won't go running to the police under any circumstances short of refusing to pay them a few dollars a month
///as long as you're flouting immigration law, might as well flout minimum wage laws too


lol, some of them do that as well.
 
2014-01-28 09:15:13 AM

HeadLever: Human guards are the best, but they cannot be everywhere at once.


Of course they can if the rancher gets enough help. To choose not to is an economic decision by the rancher. To solve the problem by exterminating the wolves clearly does not invoke the sympathy of the majority who paid for the wolves and own most of this land.
You speak of agendas. We all have them including you.
 
2014-01-28 09:27:15 AM

wutchamacallem: Of course they can if the rancher gets enough help. To choose not to is an economic decision by the rancher. To solve the problem by exterminating the wolves clearly does not invoke the sympathy of the majority who paid for the wolves and own most of this land.


Very true.  The rancher can hire 80 folks to watch his ranch and all the cattle on the rangeland, but that cost is likely going to exceed the cost of losing a few cattle to wolves.  It does not make sense.

Regarding your 'extermination' point, that is a straw man.  Ranchers have the right to protect their livestock from attacking wolves, but that does not mean that they want to exterminate them.  Ranchers typically really don't have an issue with wolves all that much so long as they stay out of their livestock.   In fact, there are indications that the wolf hunting season is doing exactly that.  Since wolves have a newfound respect for human presence, they don't frequent the ranchers' pastures as much as they used to.  Also don't forget that wolves reduce elk numbers which can be a benefit to ranchers.
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report