Idaho gov calls for wolf kill: Kill all but 100 grey wolves in state

[superconnected]

BOISE, Idaho - Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.

The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again be considered endangered.

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.


more....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/wolf_hunting
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is actually the reason I HATE repukes. Their mentality.

[ToolTex]

1. How about culling down Repuke governors to just one breeding pair?

And then keep them in separate cages.

[Ferret Annica]

2. A good example why we need an endangered species act

for animals and not political barbarians.

[Teaser]

3. Really, its about time...

Wolve have caused untold damage to humans down through the years.

They have initiated several world wars, and abduct our babies in order to perform evil wolf-human hybridization experiments. The manipulate our political system and have produced almost every Justin Timberlake album.

Leaving 100 wolves is leaving too many.

[goforit]

41. He must be a rethuglican!

[Coventina]

4. OMFG!!!!

:wtf:

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!?!?!

Something is seriously wrong with someone who just wants to kill things for the "joy" of killing.

I hope those fucktards end up shooting each other out there.

:puke:

[MemphisTiger]

5. It's not for the joy of killing...

it's to set the population straight so the wolves are not killing other live stock. This is why we have deer hunting seasons so you don't hit them with your car on the highway.

[Coventina]

6. Riiiight.

We have deer hunting seasons because their natural predators like WOLVES have been decimated.

And deer wander out onto highways because the highways have been built over their territories, where they have grazed for thousands of years.

[MemphisTiger]

28. Should we build roads only on bridges so

we don't trespass on the deers land? You're correct that roads are where they used to roam and continue to roam but we have a responsibility to keep the ecosystem in check by keeping deer and wolves at a safe level.

[Coventina]

34. I am willing to acknowledge that the deer population is a problem.

But it is a HUMAN created problem, and I feel it is irresponsible for the human response to be, "Well, I guess we should just kill them. Problem solved!"

The wolf population, howver is NOT a problem. The ecosystem needs MORE wolves, not less.

[piedmont]

96. If you don't manage the herd, deer STARVE...

and the forest doesn't regenerate properly because tree seedlings are browsed too intensely.
I agree that hunting the wolves down to the 100 limited by law is asinine.

[Coventina]

109. I didn't mean to imply that we should do nothing.

We created the problem, we need to take responsibility to fix it.

My point was that killing the deer only addresses the symptom of the problem, and in a brutal way at that.

The deer overpopulation needs to be addressed with more predators, a change in human management of the land, and attempts to reduce deer fertility.

[WillParkinson]

48. A responsibility to the ecosystem?

You mean the one that we trash on a constant basis? It seems funny that we're only concerned about it when it comes to killing animals. Never mind the fact that we can't give them room to live. Clean water to drink.

Yes, let's just kill them. Much easier than to actually be responsible.

[SemperEadem]

129. I dare say

that they had a pretty good handle on it when it was just the native, indigenous people there who didn't distrupt the ecosystem which was already in check. They didn't have a problem--perhaps because they understood the land and understood how to live in harmony with nature.

Humans have a choice to live where they do. Animals don't. There is no need to live in a region where humans have to cull the native wildlife who've been there for millenia just because it's inconvenient for them.

If you dont want to deal with wolves, deer and cougars, live in Chicago.

[NickB79]

30. To be fair, wolves refuse to migrate back to areas of highest deer population

That being the suburbs and rural areas ringing the suburbs of most major cities. Wolves are notoriously shy around humans, while deer that cause the most problems love to be close to humans for this very reason. Here in Minnesota, for example, we have over 3000 wolves, but all are located in the sparsely populated northern third of the state. This is despite the fact that there are far more deer in the southern two thirds of the state. In these areas, human hunting of deer is now the only option, as wolves can't be relied upon to migrate into these areas. Coyotes in some areas are filling the gap to a degree, but a single 40-lb coyote doesn't have nearly the same impact as a pack of 100-lb grey wolves on deer numbers.

[MemphisTiger]

32. Coyotes have cause a few problems around here

I guess some parts of the country have more than others. I don't think we are allowed to shoot coyotes yet they ruin livestock and hurt deer hunting during seasons for hunters. I don't think I've ever seen a wolf around here.

[janx]

40. What livestock do coyotes kill in your state?

I've never heard of a coyote or coyotes taking down a cow or even a calf. They DO like to slink around (in the West) during calving season, looking for afterbirth.

[MemphisTiger]

44. Goats and smaller live stock

if you have chickens you had better have a good fence.

If they get a bunch together they can attack in packs and if a cow is having a calve the afterbirth on it is like a radar to come and eat the new cow.

[janx]

47. Hmmm, yes, much like a fox!

Thanks for the reminder.

[havocmom]

74. Coyotes will avoid larger animals

but they LOVE babie sheep and all the trimmings of calving, your are right. We have seen them scrappin with family dogs for afterbirth.

And NEVER undersestimate team effort and invention. We have seen full grown, buck antelope worn down and killed by pairs of bald eagles. One bird will come screaming in, sink talons into the buck's back. When the buck runs, the great bird will spread those wings, creating a hell of a lot of resistance. When THAT bird gets tired, it lets go and is spelled by the other eagle. They take turns until the speed-goat drops from exhaustion and/or heart attack.

Of course, the eagles would much rather wait along the road for Bambi or Thumber to get hit by a truck. Much easier. There is a mountian lion that does the same thing about four miles out of town where I live. Cagey old cat.

Coyotes and all other big preditors are clever and adaptive. They watch and they learn. They practice economy or they don't survive. They will take the easy meal unless they are really desperate.

Sometimes ferral dogs and coyotes will team up. THAT is a dangerous combination. The dogs are not as leery of man so they can really get the coyotes in trouble.

The hawks and eagles in Yellowstone have done better since the wolves were reinteroduced and wiped out 1/3 of the coyotes. Amazing how the wolves went in and restored the balance there.

[janx]

88. Some of those guys made it into Colorado--this was a few years

ago, when I still lived there. A couple of them were found dead on the side of the highway in the northern part of the state.

Wolves have been reintroduced where I live now, in New Mexico, in an area that overlaps Arizona. These are Mexican wolves (another sub-species of the gray wolf). It was hoped that their population would have grown to 100 by this year, but ranchers have been very jumpy, and Fish and Wildlife have been a bit jumpy too; there are only 30-something surviving as of 2006.



The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project is a cooperative effort administered by six co-lead agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Wildlife Services, USDA Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies function as an Adaptive Management Oversight Committee (AMOC), chaired by Arizona Game and Fish. This management approach provides opportunities for participation by local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals from all segments of the public.

http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/es/wolf_reintroduction.shtml

Here's some more info from US F&W

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/


From "forwolves":

The Region 2 USFWS seems to be controlling this tiny wolf population in response to livestock problems with as much or more vigor than in the Idaho-Montana-Wyoming area where the wolf population of nearly a thousand exists from the successful reintroduction of the gray wolf in 1995-6. If recovery or even conservation of this tiny wolf population is really a government goal, control is excessive.

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/mexican-wolf-setback6-nantac-pack.htm

[havocmom]

98. Lived in Tucson when the Mexican Grays got reintroduced in the White Mountains

Mad as hell when some ranchers put a $10,000 bounty out for wolves BEFORE THEY WERE EVEN RELEASED. At least give them a chance, and only take down the compulsive problems.

Was stalked by a lion up in those mountains one fall. Out walking with a group of kids and realized we had tawney company across the meadow. Alone, it would have just thrilled me, but with several small people in tow, it certainly heightened my senses, I'll tell ya! LOL There was a stock pen with a few young steers in it, waiting for the trailer to take them to lower lands for winter. The lion wasn't dumb. Those steers in an enclosed space looked much easier than the elk in rut at the time. Me and the little people probably just annoyed the hell out of the cat. ;)

About wolves in MT, ID. Have to laugh about 'reintroduce'. I saw several wolves between Butte and Helena back in 78. Silly wolves had no idea they were extinct in the area. Sometimes the official numbers and reality just don't jive. Mostly, F&W, Tree Fuzz and others just keep quiet when they see something that allegedly doesn't exist in an area. Have been in offices where I have heard those unofficial orders issued. Hearing the orders and seeing critters is why I know the official census numbers are usually a tad, um, off. ;)

I did love hearing wolves calling out from high over our little valley back then. Very humbling sound. Sure shut the coyotes up.

And I get REALLY pissed when idiots take unleashed dogs up to wolf or bear territory and just let them run. Too often, some big critter gets into a tangle with ill mannered city dogs and ends up with a bullet. THAT is really a travesty. One thing if you have to deal with a stock killer. All together different sort of tragedy when an innocent predator is taken down because some twit can't keep a yappy dog under control in the predator's territory. That happened in the White Mountains shortly after the first of the Mexican Grays were set free. Some asshole with a terrier running loose... guy shot the wolf that was after his dog. Faced criminal charges, but got off by claiming the wolf was charging HIM (changed his story - at first he admitted the wolf was after the dog, not him) He shot the wolf in the SIDE, not the front, but he got off with the self defense shit anyway.

Then there was the short and polo shirt clad yuppie letting his two labs loose in Bear Wallow (above Tucson on Mt Lemmon)telling me the bears wouldn't be a problem cuz 'they're hibernating'. :eyes:Jesus! the man was comfortable in SHORTS and he figures the bears are all hibernating. Bears died because they went after yappy dogs that year too.

It's a complicated issue. Hope we get wise enough to find win/win solutions someday.

[arewenotdemo]

102. how about reducing state dog populations to 100?

THAT sounds like a win/win solution to me.

:hide:

[janx]

105. It's not about the dog population.

It's about the number of people who take their dogs off-leash where the dogs shouldn't go.

[Coventina]

110. If any population needs to be reduced to 100, it's the humans. n/t

[janx]

103. Tuscon is wild!

You were there for that?

I had to drive there from Albuquerque to get my son for the holidays. He came in from Alaska and unfortunately was routed through DENVER (ugh), so the closest he could get was Tuscon. I drove the seven hours there and was amazed to see the sun set in southeastern AZ.

YEAH--the dog owner behavior. There are some parks/national forests in the West that allow dogs off-leash in certain areas, but I know what you mean. Here around the Sandias, dogs aren't allowed off-leash at all on mountain trails. There are other places they can run (and they need to run), but there are still critters in the Sandias and the other mountains around here.

The guy in shorts--was he running, trying to conquer the mountain? There's a lot of that in the more populated areas of Colorado.

I had to laugh at a freeper thread I saw today on the Otter/wolf subject:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766601/posts

At least one of the posters in the thread is not an authentic freeper.

[ninkasi]

81. In rural areas of Southeast Texas

coyotes eat rabbits, field mice, and things like that. Before we moved from a rural area, I could heard the coyote packs at night calling to each other. I never heard of one taking down cattle, but they do help to keep the mouse and rabbit population down. You just have to be careful with your small dogs, since I imagine a pack could attack one of them.

The most invasive and destructive form of wildlife around were the feral hogs, who could be quite vicious, and tear up a couple of acres of pasture in a single night. They could also grow to be pretty large, and were quite capable of killing dogs, or humans, come to think of it.

[janx]

85. I wrote a story related to that once...

;-)

[ninkasi]

89. Any links to that?

I'd really love to read it. Strangely enough, in the winter, with the high winds there, about 38 miles northeast of Bryan, the sound of the coyotes talking to each other was beautiful to me. My husband and I woke up one night to the sound of the wild hogs rooting on the part of our property not fenced around the house...my husband went outside on the back porch, and when he opened the door, the hogs ran to the next place, which had only a barbed-wire, not a hog wire fence.

I loved that place, my husband hated it. I was born a 5th generation Texan, he came to Houston from NYC when he was around 5. I guess it wasn't in his blood. Really, though, I'd love to read your story.

[janx]

92. My story didn't take place in Texas, but that's OK.

Check your PM about it.

Dogs, foxes, coyotes, wolves--the sounds they make are beautiful, song-like. A fox makes a very distinct sound; I loved hearing them at night and in the early morning behind my house in Colorado. Last summer I camped on a glacier just outside of Skagway, AK. There were hundreds of Alaskan huskies there, and periodically they tuned up in the middle of the night.

Sorry about those pigs!

[ninkasi]

93. Oh, thank you!

It doesn't have to be Texas, it could be anywhere. We only had five acres, but still had an abundance of wildlife there. We never tried to get rid of, or kill, anything. We had a hog wire fence around our house, and the other 4 acres were left wild.

A huge, fallen oak tree was the home of many of our wildlife critters, from armadillos, to birds, to a den of foxes, to who knows what. We breed faster than they do, and we respected them. One reason I hated to leave, was that I knew that even our small place was a refuge for them.

Fortunately, the present owners are the same, and on five tiny acres, coyotes, armadillos, raccoons, possums, wolves, foxes, and other forms of life can live, perhaps threatened by each other, but never by humans. There were hundreds of birds, and one spring we saw a field of robins. We saw fireflies in late Spring. God, I miss it. I hope my husband appreciates how much I love him, to give that up to live in a soulless subdivision!

[janx]

95. Maybe you can plan to move somewhere with some breathing

room again someday. I'd feel exactly the same way.

[janx]

90. We have large dogs, and on the occasions when even a single

coyote was around I was always very careful. The dogs were larger than the coyotes, but an encounter would not have been pleasant nonetheless... ;-)

[alarimer]

107. Coyotes are not wolves

Their population is not in doubt at all.

There is considerable debate as to whether they hurt livestock at all in fact. I don't give a shit if coyotes or wolves kill deer. That is what they do. If there is proof that a wolf or coyote hurts livestock (and I mean being caught in the act or something), they should be removed. But wanton slaughter of animals just because (that the asshole in Idaho is advocating) is just sick.

[Coventina]

35. Once again, a human created problem.

We have created artificial environments friendly to deer, but not friendly to their predators.

Instead of pointing fingers at the deer, wolves, etc. we should be looking at OUR behavior, and making the changes to bring things back into balance.

[NickB79]

51. Agreed, but human behavior is a hard thing to change

Suburbs, for example, are one such behavior that would have to be eliminated. Yet you would have a hard time getting the average American to give up their dream of a McMansion on a 1-acre lot with a huge backyard.

[Coventina]

71. That's why stricter legislation is needed.

People need to start getting by with less, or all life on earth is doomed.

[krispos42]

57. We eliminated threats to our existance

Wolves preyed on us and our lifestock. Until recently, human society was mostly consisted of small farmers, herders, and fishermen with a few merchants, businessmen, artisans, and politicians mixed in for good measure. It traditionally has been about 90% of the people on the planet were involved in growing or gathering food. The food-generating process was difficult enough that it took 90% of the population to make food to feed everybody.

In those circumstances, the loss of livestock on a small farm that was only able to feed the family that worked it plus a little extra could be devestating. The loss to wolves of a critical breeding or food-generating stock could easily result in starvation or loss of the farm. And since wolves preyed on the critical livestock, they were hunted.

Now with modern technology and labor-saving devices, only about 2 or three percent of our population is involved in food production such as farming, fishing, or food processing.

However that does not mitigate the financial hardship caused to a family farm by the loss of a cow to wolves. It can cost the farm hundreds or even thousands of dollars per animal to come raise, and all of that is gone when the wolves come. The loss of several cows in a season could push a small farm into bankruptcy. Hence the hunting of wolves.

We did not create an environment friendly to deer on purpose, we created an environment friendly to our agricultural system. Millions of acres of corn, soybeans, wheat, and vegetables growing on the fertile prairies of America also turned out to be friendly to deer as well. And busy suburbs where hunting was not allowed gives safe haven even more deer.

Effective hunting policies brought the deer population back from the brink. A century ago the deer population was about a million as deer were hunted year-round. They were a source of food, and many farmers killed them to protect their crops as well. Once hunting seasons and licencing became law, and the agricultural system expanded, the population rebounded to today's level of over 20 million. When I deer hunted in South Dakota, many farmers were happy to have us come over and try to fill our tags on their property.

Effective hunting policies can keep the wolf population under control as well. If the 550 wolves in Idaho are causing problems with farmers, then maybe the number should be reduced and maintained to 400. Or 300.

Every year the Idaho Fish and Game Department could study the population and the hunting results from last year and issue, at auction, a set number of wolf tags. The price for the tags would almost certainly be the better part of a thousand dollars, which would raise money for wildlife management.

The difficulty with wolves is that their habits are not as resilient as other small predators such as the coyote. In South Dakota, any person with a deer tag, pheasant license, or a $5 varmit/predator license could shoot coyotes at any time day or night, year round, with any and all weapons, in unlimited numbers, because they were that plentiful and hard to hunt.

[Coventina]

69. There are reimbursements for loss of livestock due to wolves.

We have a whole social safety net now for all sorts of things, we don't have to act like it's still the 1100s.

It's time to acknowledge that there is a moral obligation to provide for all of the creatures on this planet, not just ourselves.

This article makes it very plain that the "fear" is loss of big game for hunters. Sorry, no sympathy from me on that issue.

[krispos42]

75. The hunters were gung-ho, that is true

Yet, if the wolves are over-hunting the elk population, well, what about the poor elk? Aren't you worried about the elk, another vital component of the regional ecosystem, becoming endangered due to over-predation by wolves?

The fact is that the ecosystem of predator vs. prey has yet to shake out and settle down. The wolves have been reproducing and are back from the brink. Regulated hunting is part of wildlife management to avoid the boom-and-bust cycle that can occur.

I'm not saying I support wolf hunting in Idaho simply because an elk or a cow died. I'm saying that, the governor's ranting aside, wolf hunting on a limited and regulated basis, evaluated year-to-year, will probably happen some time in the near future. It may only be a dozen or two a year as the population grows, but it will happen.

If the Idaho Game, Fish, and Parks decided to lower the wolf numbers, for example, to 400, they might issue 60 tags a year for ten years to reduce the populations gradually.

They recently started bear hunting again in New Jersey because the population was getting out of control, yet it was done carefully, with limited numbers of tags issued and a fairly modest percentage of tags filled. I think it was about 25% of tags were filled.

[Coventina]

111. I haven't seen anywhere that the elk population is in any danger.

I did a quick google & didn't find anything.

But if you could provide any links I'd like to read them.

[krispos42]

117. Preventive measure

The Idaho GFP knows how many elk are born per year and how many need to die to keep the population healthy and stable.

A poriton of that number is by recrational hunting, a portion by nature. With the wolves making a comeback the situtation must be monitored to insure that they (the wolves) are not hunting the elk too much. Keep in mind that as wolf numbers increase, so will attacks on elk and other wildlife. The expanding wolf population's hunting habits must be monitored to see what they are eating.

Frankly I hope they are eating more deer and less elk, because deer are far more common than elk. You can hunt deer almost anyplace, from North Dakota to Texas and from Maine to California. Elk, not so much.

If the wolves overhunt the elk, they we have to stop hunting elk and start hunting wolves to bring it back into balance. This is a cumbersome multiyear process, and it would be easier to just keep tabs on things in the first place.

[Coventina]

132. Can you post links to the studies that show the wolves are a threat?

Or is this just pro-hunting PR?

[krispos42]

133. Generalities with a pro-hunting viewpoint

You impressed me with your passion, so I actually looked up how many elk are taken (killed by people, if you wish) in Idaho in a given season.

In 2002, the latest year they had on the Idaho Fish and Game Department's website, I added up the data (they didn't have a total) and it seems that 11,742 elk tags were filled. The overall success rate for the hunters seemed to be in the low-to-mid teens, on average.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/hunt/elk/02zone_harv.cfm

The variable here is how many elk the wolves kill a year to stay alive. I would guess that, given the fact that wolves eat other animals than elk, the elk population is not in any type of serious threat from the current wolf population and that hunting them is not going to be needed for a couple of decades, at least. Sounds like the governor was grandstanding.

Most likely G&F will only issue limited permits for hunting wolves if they start showing up in towns and cities and such, and even then only in those areas where it happens.

[Coventina]

135. Thanks.

I'll look at the website after I get some sleep. I've been up most of the night due to an unrelated matter.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness and work in adding up those totals.

It seems that the wolf has been made the scapegoat again.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Wolves are preyed on us? Do you know how many people have been killed by wolves?

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/pdf/wh_are_wolves_dangerous.pdf (PDF)

Wolves are not the dangerous beasts they are made out to be. If you don't bother them the chances that they will bother you are extremely remote.

[Eugene]

8. Not in this case.

The 5th and 6th paragraphs of the article tell the story:

Otter wants to keep the local wolf poplation at the brink of extinction
so that there will be more elk for humans to hunt. Hunting is a multimillion
dollar industry in Idaho.

[janx]

43. This sounds reactionary to me.

How much have these wolves actually affected the elk population?

[sandnsea]

23. No, this is different

500 wolves is nothing in these wilderness areas, absolutely nothing. It's a sick hateful attitude towards environmentalists by a minority of people. Most ranchers won't personally be supporting slaughtering the entire wolf population. As long as they are paid if they lose livestock, they're fine. I never heard anybody be so sick about slaughtering wildlife when I lived in Montana, not anybody.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

7. To be fair - not always about joy of killing

Sometimes it is triggered by the dispare of seeing livestock, which is the livelyhood of many, ripped to shreds.

I am an advocate of the wolf, but I also see the damage they can do to stock animals. Wolves are smart. Sheep and calves are easier to catch for supper than trying to run down wild deer and elk.

It is a problem, finding ways to let the wolves have the huge areas they need to live and also keep them out of areas where there is ranching.

We had a wolf in our area which was likely placed here by authorities after being a stock killer in a more populated area. He is dead now. Breaks my heart, but so does the killing and maiming of scores of sheep this big guy was responsibil for.

Believe me, it is not so simple as writing it off as 'joy' of killing. Folks here, even the ones who lost a lot of income due to the wolf, have very mixed feelings. Most are damned sad the big wolf had to be brought down, but they see that sometimes it will have to happen.

Not so easy to dismiss it as 'joy of killing' when you live with the wolves, appreciate them AND see the damage when the wolf's interests and man's interests clash. It is a very complicated and heartbreaking issue, not made easier when various Fish & Game management agencies move problem animals and then lie about it when affected ranchers need accurate information.

Not so easy at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. These livestock...

are they grazing on federal property?

[Gato Moteado]

14. excellent question!

nt

[havocmom]

16. See my answer

There is private property, but wolves can't read the signs.

[havocmom]

15. Not the ones in our area. Sorry, but there IS private land out west too

One ranch family had their dogs attacked, within yards of their house - They were defending home and family (complete with young kids therein) against the wolf

Sometimes, it is more complicated than it might seem to those who do not live in the conditions of actually dealing with the problems that arise. Policy sometimes DOES have to reflect real world situations.

I cried about the wolf. I cried about the dog. I cried about the 60 maimed ewes (that had to be out down) in ONE pasture on ONE day that this wolf was responsible for. The wolf had been pulling raids like that every few weeks for nearly a year before the hunters finally got him. Oh, he was sly and he may have been mentally ill. Wolves do not normally kill wantonly.

Hate to break the news to you, but wolves do not stay on Federal Ground. They are very smart and will take the easy target when it is around.

And not all ranchers are abusers of Federal Lands.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Then maybe they should put up fencing?

[NickB79]

29. If feral dogs can get through barbed wire fence and electric wire on our farm

I don't know what would stop a determined wolf. You would have to make the fence at least 6 ft tall, electrified and barbed, and also buried 2-3 ft down to stop digging. That, over large acreages of pastureland, could bankrupt a family farmer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Obviously dogs/wolves can get through barbed wire and electric.

That kind of fencing is to keep cattle in, not predators out.

"That, over large acreages of pastureland, could bankrupt a family farmer."

Well then the "family farmer's" got to decide if he wants to put up adequate fencing, or lose an occasional animal to predation.

[MemphisTiger]

33. Or just shoot the wolf

there is an option C

[Coventina]

36. The bloodthirsty, irresponsible option. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Or arrest the farmer for poaching.

Option D.

[MemphisTiger]

42. If they are killing your livestock I think you are actually allowed

to shoot them. A farmer friend of mine was allowed to kill deer that were eating his crops out of season.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Yes.

But they don't want just kill the wolves that are killing the livestock. They want to just kill wolves.

[MemphisTiger]

46. Perhaps they are being proactive

I have no idea.

[Ferret Annica]

52. Almost all predators have been gutted from most

ecosystems. There are still allot of damn deer left.

Large mammals also need corridors to migrate to other isolated populations of the same species to protect their genetic diversity.

Simply put, the system of too much 'private property' and overpriced and demanding on resources eat animals has to be changed. Not enough of the land and habitat is dedicated to what is really important, the diversity and richness of life.

Humans need to control greed and numbers. The planet has too many people beyond the carrying load for them and tis has to be corrected.

If wolves are hunted against the spirit of the Endangered Species Act, then they invite retaliation.

[havocmom]

76. Not necessarily. In some areas yes. In others, special permission has to be granted

It was so in our area. Took long time before even the Government Predator Control hunter could get permission to pull the trigger. And he was DAMNED careful to get it in writing. He was up in a plane, spotted the wolf, could not reach the office with his cell phone. His call for permission got relayed. When he got the relayed call back to go ahead, (plane almost out of fuel by then) he balked. Reason? The response was relayed from the office to him via a land line then cell call by way of a local rancher. Hunter was worried the rancher may not have been completely honest.

Wolf lived to slaughter many more local critters before, months later, the hunter got another shot, with permission in writing in his hip pocket. ;)

Allowing land owners to shoot varies area to area and sometimes case by case.

Complicated issue.

[krispos42]

77. You should look up the arguments against putting a fence up to keep Mexicans out

One of the arguments is that it will inhibit migatory patterns of wildlife.

If all of the Texas ranchers began putting up such fences for the supposed purposes of keeping predators out, what would people say?

[havocmom]

39. LOL They DO!

Wolves are clever and manage to get through fences, over cattle guards and into front yards in some cases.

Come on out for a visit and see how others live. It is good to broaden one's understanding by actually spending time in different parts of the country and different types of geography.

Mind the mountain lions, out here where the prairie starts, they are doing well too. ;)

Edited to add: The days of the open range ended over 100 years ago in most places in Montana.

[Taoschick]

37. The way the law is written,

You can shoot a wolf if it is attacking your livestock, but you can't if it's attacking your dogs. To be honest, I'd have a hard time sitting back and "watching nature take it's course" in a case like that.

[Ferret Annica]

55. There needs to be ore wolves, more mountain lion

more bobcats, more grizzly and every other type of predator that is native to various biomes. And if animals and even people occasionally die or are maimed because of the natural give and take of an ecosystem, so be it.

I have zero sympathy for people who gut ecosystems to make the wild a human safe Disneyland.

[havocmom]

73. I agree. ALL should return to their ENTIRE native range

Move over, there are lions and bears coming to a road near you ;)

The Midwest and East would have less problem with those deer if there were more wolves and lions there, like there used to be. But I suppose some of the people might have complaints when the critters march into their yards...

The West isn't as populated, but we DO have people who have property here too. So, again, it is a rather complicated issue.

I love the big preditors, but it is a throny issue.

Was born in the Midwest, and THAT ecosystem has certainly been trashed the past couple hundred years. We can't just order everyone back to Europe, Asia, Africa though. (Some of my Native American friends might like the idea, but Grandfather points out his ancsetors came from Asia too, so what are ya gonna do?)

It is a very complicated issue, this getting along with other species with needs that conflict.

[janx]

61. I can understand the ranchers. They should be able to shoot

a wolf if it is threatening their livestock or their dogs. And you're right about that wolf. Something about it probably wasn't right.

[arikara]

84. I heard somewhere that the dog / wolf crosses

are the crazy ones. Pure wolves don't attack people, nor do they go on killing frenzies like that.

[havocmom]

99. Fish and game tried to pass our local killer off as a hybrid

I really figured that was the case because the attacks were SO WEIRD. DNA tests showed: Pure wolf. They know which pack from yellowstone he actually came from, which matched an eye witness account of seeing some chaps in green uniforms loading a tranquilized wolf into a trailer in the Bozeman area and admitting where they were taking him. This was a few months before the local problems started.

Hybrids are dangerous and mixed groups happen. I would rather face wolves than half feral dogs any day.

But, when they get video of elephants in Africa going berserk, and people keep putting territorial stress on all wild animals, one must entertain the notion that mankind is not the only species that can succumb to mental illness.

[Gato Moteado]

11. your points are well taken, but......

....let's look at this passage from the story:

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.

first of all, otter wants to kill the first wolf. sounds like he's blood thirsty. i bet he doesn't have any livestock to worry about. secondly, he was speaking at a rally to 300 hunters, not ranchers.

sounds to me like he's pandering to hunters. i think otter, and his 300 knuckle dragger friends should take their firearms and go to iraq if they want to shoot at something. cowards like them only want to shoot at stuff that can't defend itself.

anyway, i'll keep my mouth shut...last time i opened it in a hunting thread i was flamed and eventually my posts were deleted.

[havocmom]

21. He might be trying to make the best of a bad situation.

The wolves do well and expand. They can't read and really don't care to learn, so they don't care where they are if hunting is good. They are intelligent survivors and exemplarly parents.

BUT, people want to survive too and the ranchers ARE haveing some legigimate problems. So, officials do have to deal with the issue.

Hunting does bring in money to the very cash strapped states in the west. Hate that it is a consideration, and in a perfect world, it wouldn't be, but we live here and now.

When the wolves were released in the Yellowstone, they went in and killed off about 1/3 of the coyote population and have since kept the numbers stable. There was no big outcry to save the coyote from the wolf. How come?

Nature will cull any species from time to time. Sometimes man helps, sometimes man's policies go astray.

It is a complicated issue and there is no black and white. Don't want to flame you, just offer some perspective you and others probably haven't had the opportunity to experience first hand.

tree hugging, wolf advocate myself, I see that there are times a bit of balance needs to be restored.

And when dogs protecting hearth and home get mauled, well, it just isn't something slogans and black/white thinking will really help.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. ...

"There was no big outcry to save the coyote from the wolf. How come?"

Maybe because, as you say in your previous sentence, the numbers are stable?

:shrug:

[havocmom]

100. But, but, the coyotes belong there too...

;) Sorry, but I deal with a lot of misconceptions and have to duck from jerking knees so often I always wondered why the city people never raised hell about the coyotes being killed.

They are pretty stable in the middle of Tucson too. Those guys ADAPT. Has a couple families of them walk with me regularly... in central Tucson. They are, indeed stable, but boy some of the transplanted people sure howled for their blood when poodles would go missing ;)

[janx]

104. Coyotes are alive and well in Albuquerque, too.

Some were reported in our neighborhood recently, and we are in the city proper (such that it is). The people who let their cats run wild in the neighborhood warned each other about the coyotes. A dear friend of mine saw a coyote trotting under the 12th Street/I-40 bridge a couple of years ago at 10:00 a.m. with a black cat in its mouth.

I have not yet seen the coyotes in the neighborhood, but it would not surprise me. I've seen how well they can adapt.

[Coventina]

12. Well, you have your perspective and I have mine.

I do not eat any animals that wolves prey upon, domesticated or otherwise, so I really have no vested interest in your scenario.

Humans brought easy prey into what was the wolves' prior territory. Either humans must be willing to sacrifice a certain amount of these domesticated animals, or they must decide to eliminate the wolves. Or maybe one day there will be a more creative solution that eludes us right now.

In the meantime, we can count on human arrogance and greed to determine the outcome of the dilemma.

on edit: grammar

[Gato Moteado]

19. upon reading the article i saw this......

"Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during his comments."

nothing about wolves destroying farm animals. it's all about the hunting industry.

i say screw the hunting industry and feed otter and the orange cap wearing tards to the wolves!

[krispos42]

58. And what do wolves eat when elk get scarce?

livestock.

[havocmom]

78. They eat livestock sometimes when they realize how much easier they are to catch

They are rather smart. And winter survival means conserving as much energy as possible during a hunt.

Livestock gets easier for many packs.

[alarimer]

108. I would like to see the actual evidence that they are harming

the elk population. Elk in some states number in the millions. How can a few hundred wolves have such an extreme affect, especially when there are other things for them to eat that may be easier to kill?
Any evidence in reduced populations? Or is he (as I suspect) talking out of his ass? Fish and Game officials usually do some kind of wildlife census for major game animals so they would know. I think this is a case of "wolf=bad" as it has been for centuries.

Oh, I think wolves love to eat otter too.

This is a lot like blaming sea lions for the decline of salmon. Never mind the dams, etc. on all the rivers.

[Cleita]

10. They just reintroduced them back into the Sawtooths and

the cattle ranchers cried foul. It's a really vast wilderness there and I think some kind of environmental protection could be claimed. (Sierra Club, Greenpeace where are you). I think a better solution would be to buy out the cattle ranchers (not that many) and return that range to the wild. After that they could make a law that no cattle or sheep could be run in those wilderness areas. Horses and other livestock that can be kept in barns would be excepted.

I lived once in a part of Western Montana that had indigenous wolf packs. I would hear them at night. It was eerily beutiful. There is plenty of ranchland in the USA. They don't need to use up the last of our wilderness with cows and sheep.

[Gato Moteado]

13. hey good point.....these ranchers run their herds in wilderness areas....

...and public reserves and then want to have the wolves removed as well.

[Coventina]

17. What I want to know is, why aren't they considered "public cows"?

If they are ranging on public lands, shouldn't hunters be able to obtain permits to "hunt" them too?

Especially since cattle and sheep are so damaging to wilderness areas.

[TX-RAT]

50. they pay a leasing fee

[Ferret Annica]

53. Which is always set too low

giving away public assets free. They also often trample delicate riparian areas along streams and rivers. It is tie to stop leasing the land so easily and cheaply.

[depakid]

66. Which affects other resources like fisheries

Cattle ranching is probably the single most environmentally destructive practice that humans engage in.

Yet another of the 99 reasons why I don't eat beef.

[sandnsea]

20. They pay for livestock

There's already a solution in place for the ranchers. Most Montanans were willing to work towards a solution for both the wolves and the ranchers. Very few had the attitude of that Idaho governor. I think this is going to get ugly. Too many people have worked too many years to let a slaughter take place.

[Cleita]

25. That's good to hear. it's been eight years since I was in Idaho

and Montana. At that time it seemed the environmentalists were gaining ground and the locals were happy to go along as long as they could hunt for their yearly venison (deer and elk). It's the ranchers that need to be dealt with.

[yellowcanine]

18. Why does he hate Wolf Blitzer? Or is he to be spared? Maybe just neuter him.

[phusion]

26. Awful. n/t

:(

[superconnected]

54. So the answer is to drive wolfs to the point of very near extinction.

not tranqualize them and move them to protected areas.. hey maybe idaho has no protected areas like wa state has? I can see it now, assholes abound there but not protected lands for wildlife.

The gov himself wants to get his gun. What an asshole.

[janx]

60. It's PR for tourism.

He doesn't want hunters from out-of-state to be worried that they won't have any game left to shoot because of the evil wolves.

Just HOW he is going to determine if and when there are only 100 wolves left is another problem.

[sakabatou]

56. The hell?

[maxsolomon]

59. in WA state they shoot Bear out of season for

stripping the bark off conifers on commercial timberland to get at sap in the early spring. you don't even need to see them doing it.

when nature interferes with economics, nature loses.

governor dumbfuck won't get away with this.

[devilgrrl]

62. I'm not wasting my time reading this... Is there a reason this should be done?

Other than being a sadistic asshole that is?

[janx]

63. Certainly not to the extent that Butch Otter is proposing, no. n/t

[pookieblue]

64. sign the petition

"Don't Strip ESA Protections From Wolves in WY and ID"



http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/770149370

don't know if it will help. but it can't hurt.

[superconnected]

70. Thank you, added my name to the petition.

[depakid]

65. What an asshole

I'm just speechless.

This is NOT a person fit for office.

[YankeyMCC]

67. Learn more here

https://secure2.convio.net/dow/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=609&s_einterest=C3C4&JServSessionIdr012=d0rpyz30n1.app25a

[xchrom]

68. hmmmm -- lets see here --

In the spirit of learning from yesterday, it’s worth looking at some of the evidence that supports (or refutes) the fear of wild carnivores that grips Wyoming’s cowboy caucus. Particularly useful is data gathered by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) regarding livestock killed by various wild carnivores. For cattle, data from 2005 indicate that wild carnivores and dogs killed 0.18 percent of the nation’s cows, while 4 percent were lost to other causes including disease, birthing problems, weather and theft. Notably, of the cattle lost to wild carnivores in 2005, wolves killed only 0.02 percent.
http://sinapu.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/wolves-cowboys-and-the-truth/

Elk farms to be big issue in Idaho Legislature
Filed under: Elk — Ralph Maughan @ 11:06 am

After last year’s big breakout of elk at Rex Rammel’s elk shooter bull operation SW of Yellowstone Park last year, and lesser incidents, it is expected that up nine bills will appear in the Idaho legislature this year to better regulate the operations or maybe to abolish them.

Supporters of elk farms say that the analysis of the escaped elk that were shot after Governor Risch’s order showed no disease. That was true, but one elk seems to have actually been a red deer (a European species closely related to elk).

Montana and Wyoming governors have complained about the disease threat these Idaho farms pose to wild elk in the three state area. Sportsmen too seem highly concerned about the farms, especially the “shooter bull” operations, where make believe sportsmen shoot trophy elk up against a fence.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/tag/elk/


Reportedly, on June 20th, a man camped on private land in Idaho near New Meadows, ID encountered suspected ‘wolves’. He had reportedly seen 2 gray and 2 black adult wolves and a ‘smaller’ younger one the week before. He said he was cutting some firewood with a chainsaw and his dog was by him. A ‘wolf’ appeared out of nowhere and went for his dog. He grabbed the dog away and was bitten on the wrist. He shot at or near the wolf twice with his pistol and it ran off. He didn’t know if he hit it. He initially reported this as a ‘dog’ incident but later thought it was wolves. His wound was treated at the hospital, the dog was uninjured. Mack investigated on the 23rd, but didn’t see any wolf sign. However, the local sheriff said he just had a sighting of 4 wolves and a smaller wolf? not too far away, but again nothing was confirmed. At this point in time, nothing else has turned up, and it appears doubtful it could have been wild wolves, the press was contacted.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/WeeklyRpt05/wk07082005.htm

i think a lot of locals like to THINK they know a wolf when they see one -- but in fact don't.
but as one duer pointed out -- if we duers who don't live ther we must not know our ass from a hole in the ground.

there is in fact very little evidense that wolves ever come very close to humans -- or their dogs.

but i digress...


Overall, wolf predation on livestock in the U.S. has been remarkably low, although there is no doubt that some ranchers are hit harder than others.  The current ratio of wolf kills to known livestock deaths for the Northern Rockies 3-state recovery area, (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming): is (Bangs 2002):                     

3 in 10,000 cattle deaths (<0.1% of all cattle depredations)

134 in 10,000 sheep deaths (0.4% of all sheep depredations)




These numbers do not justify the current rhetoric that wolves “decimate livestock herds.”  Evidence shows that most livestock loss is the result of weather conditions and illness, not predation.  And besides, in the event that wolf depredation of livestock can be confirmed, ranchers are eligible for compensation.  The states, the federal government, and Defenders of Wildlife all have programs to compensate producers for the loss of livestock to wolves.  In the case of the 3-state recovery area total compensation payments from Defenders of Wildlife from 1987-2002 totaled $272,000 dollars.
http://www.utahwolf.net/utwolforum/SciencePg.html#livestock


Table 1.
Verified wolf depredation in the USA*
States

Years

Wolves

Cattle

Sheep

Dogs

Fowl

Arizona-New Mexico 1998 22 0 0 1 0
Idaho 1995-2001 261 56 170 10 0
Michigan 1991-1998 245 4 0 1 0
Minnesota 1979-2001 2445 1200 879 173 1251
Montana 1987-2001 84 91 68 10 0
Wisconsin 1976-1998 250 45 11 27 142
Wyoming 1995-2001 218 41 256 23 0
*source=www.wolftrust.org

Table 1 gives a solid comparison of wolf numbers and depredation of livestock. It clearly shows that the number of livestock wolves kill in the US is very low. The numbers do not support the assumption that the presence of wolves will inevitably lead to massive livestock losses. This leads to the next question. What is the statistical relationship between depredation and all other causes of death?

this culling of wolves is sponsered by elk farmers who allow hunting their lands -- that's whose behind this governors stupid call for vitually eliminating wolves from idaho.

[superconnected]

72. Thank you for bringing the facts forth! :)

[havocmom]

79. Not all numbers are accurate

Over 200 sheep in our one county alone last year.

Complicated issue, sadly made murkier by dishonest agency response in too many cases. Makes it hard to find solutions when parties involved fudge the truth. People in one agency have witnesses to the fact that another agency did bring the problem wolf into our area. The offednding agency still denies. Truth is not as easy to come by as you might hope.

And I would love to have you out to meet the families that lost the sheep and the family that had dogs attacked. There are pictures.

[superconnected]

80. Do you think that warrants killing all but 100 wolves?

Every now and then a bear kills someone. Maybe we should just kill all but 100 bears.
Perhaps we should kill all but 100. Cause you know, if it happened to a few people, oh wait. I'm in washington and we can handle knowing that sometimes natural predetaors of man and dogs, kill them. We don't decide to wipe whole species' to near extinction for it though. Instead we warn people that there is a danger and ask them to take precautions in dangerous areas.

[janx]

83. I don't think havocmom ever said she agreed with Otter.

:shrug:

[havocmom]

114. Thank you, janx. Havocmom disagrees with knees that jerk

without much consideration to the complexity of ANY issue ;)

Havocmom HAS mentioned she is a tree hugging wolf advocate, but most seem to have missed or dismissed that in order to pursue their pre-conceived notions.

Black and white vision, sadly is not limited to the Right.

[superconnected]

118. gee knee jerk inuendos from havoc mom...

:eyes:

Maybe you should go back and READ my post, while you're going on about how I took yours.

Don't worry. I know not ALL dems are critical thinkers.

To help you since I just know you won't be able to read it with out a college grads help:
I said, "Do you think" not, "You said".

and

"not All dems are critical thinkers" is a reference to your knee-jerk comment about republicans and knee-jerk reactions that was actually an adhominem attack on me. I suppose I also need to provide a definition of adhominem, but frankly, if you haven't got the point yet(it's look in the mirror at the knee-jerk reacter), I don't think providing the definition will help.

[havocmom]

119. I have not attacked any individuals here

Only the mindset that things can be solved easily.

Sorry you feel the need for personal attacks. Part of the problem with actual communication, I fear, is the tendency to internalize, and take as a personal attack, a position that is not in lock step with one's own.

As mentioned, I am a wolf advocate. But I see the harm in letting emotion and preconcieved notions get in the way of dealing with a whole lot of issues with an eye toward finding win/win solutions, or at least trying to avoid win/lose situations.

And, I will stand by "not all dems are critical thinkers". Sadly, human nature does create some obsticals to good and wise apprasial. We all fail to some degree. It is a point I have made FOR YEARS and on many many posts. Take it personally if you must, but you are in error to think it is an attack on you or any other individual here. It is simply a nudge to remind all of us that we need to watch the pitfalls of narrow vision.

Again, sorry you feel the need for personal attacks. But it does sorta illustrate the point that it is complicated.

[superconnected]

120. Excuse me

you're post pretty much took the stance of agreeing with the would be wolf killers.

You even said we should "see" the pictures of the familys and the damage.

I simply asked it you thought all but 100 bears in WA state should be killed.

You then posted an adhominem attack on me, comparing me to republicans with knee jerk reactions.

Gee, you really really need a critical thinking class.

My gawd, you really do.

Nothing warranted your adhominen attack. Perhaps you are just a rude person who knee jerks them all the time so can't see that you really need to look in the mirror. Apparently you CAN'T see your image yet.

[janx]

122. I'm calling BS on this:

"you post pretty much took the stance of agreeing with the would be wolf killers."


With all due respect, if you're going to make an assertion like this, then tell us HOW. Show us. Please. Anything less will create unnecessary flaming in this thread, and that would be a shame, since all of us can learn from the discussion.

;-)

[superconnected]

123. Can't Janx, you are correct.

We can't prove an intention, now can we. Nope.

So why should she be allowed to define one on my post?

She should not.

And her ad hominem attack was unwarranted:

"Black and white vision, sadly is not limited to the Right."

[janx]

125. It's easy to make assumptions on message boards.

I've done it often myself.The bears question was such an assumption. Let's step back and see how we might discuss this without flaming.

You think we're doing badly? Want to see something funny? Look at the freeper thread on the same subject. (Hint: one of the posters is not an authentic freeper, but it hardly matters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1766601/posts


:rofl:

[havocmom]

126. Take it personally if that is how you see the world

but my comments were meant as general. Frankly, I seldom take the time to post thoughts on particular individuals. If someone insists on personalizing what is general, they do so without any help from anyone else

You do seem hell bent on personal attacks though. Why is it you cannot see that others are entitled to think differently without it being some sort of personal affront?

[superconnected]

121. Gawd

:eyes:

I guess I did need to provide the definition of ad hominem...

[havocmom]

127. No,

LOL not at all. But disagreement is not the same, is it? Nor is showing evidence that some stands might be better made with a greater appreciation for the realities others live with.

But go on back to your conclusion jumping. Exercise is good.

[xchrom]

106. the point is these attacks are often NOT wolves.

and people misidentify wolves as the attackers.

SOME even have an agenda when they report these ''attacks''.

and i would love to see wolves wild and free and part of the landscape.

and as a citizen -- i have a say so in that as well -- not just you.

as a whole wolf predation on livestock is minuscule.

but ranchers and herders should think of this as part of the cost of doing business.
and the ranchers and herders have powerful allies called the forrest service that will make every effort to alleviate the problem.

[MGD]

82. I'd giggle like a little girl if a big bad wolf tagged Gov. Otter. What a fucking asshole.

[arikara]

87. They've had issues with the wolves in northern BC for years

up in a valley where there are is absolutely no livestock. Its all to do with the big dollars guiding outfits. I wrote about an experience that I had up there:

...I was really bothered by the whole scene, the dead wolves and all the waste of resources. I knew some of the pilots that ferried in the big shots. I'd take them around on walks to see the bones while they were waiting, and tell them of what I'd heard... the goings on with the wolf kill and the politics of the valley. Then all of a sudden the bones disappeared. I never found out who moved them. There was no doubt plenty more on the far side of the lake but I wasn't able to get over there.

I remember all the fuss over the wolf kill the year before. I remember how Greenpeace was trying to get in to the valley and stop it, and nobody would rent them a plane or fly them in. Some of them even attempted to walk in but if you've ever flown over that area you would see how futile that idea was. At any rate, they weren't able to stop it. I don't know how many wolves were slaughtered, but plenty were dumped into that lake.

more
http://antakharana.blogspot.com/search?q=wolves

[GoddessOfGuinness]

91. If 99 = endangered, how many = threatened?

What wreckless bullshit this is! What happens if some canine disease afflicts the remaining 100?

Bastard!

[The Stranger]

94. Words simply cannot describe . . .

[pookieblue]

97. what I don't understand...

is why kill so many, so that they are once again on the brink of being endangered??

what happens...if in that group of 100 wolves... an outbreak of some diease happens.

and most of those wolves die off.

What happens, if all the states do this... kill all but a small number of wolves?

What if there was no more wolf?

Think it's not a possible?

Think of how many animals are on the verge of being extinct or are gone forever, in "recent" years. in the 20/21st centuries we have lost 68 species of animals. 64 of them were between the years 1900-1960. Since then, 4 of them became extinct. and many more have been on the verge or are on the verge of being gone forever.

[Mojorabbit]

116. I saw a program

which made the point that they do not take into account the complicated family structure of a wolf pack and if too many members of a pack are killed the rest do not always survive.

[flvegan]

101. They aren't "hunters" no. They're animal killers.

Nothing more, nothing less. They shoot and kill beings that aren't playing the same "sportsman" game. Fuckwads.

Otter should bid on the first ticket to shoot the biggest fucking predator there. But then, that'd be suicide.

Fuck him. Run the animals down to being endangered. There realy should be a law against outright fucking stupidity.

[Bryn]

139. I am with you

"hunters" are nothing but murderers in reality. Those beautiful animals like wolves, deer, bear, etc. are our sisters and brothers. Humans like them are much much more dangerous. How sad.

[natrat]

112. kill killl kill kill kill killl kill kill kill kill kill blood kill kill

[MasonJar]

113. Idaho dems, what can be done to stop this madman? I suggest

that y'all invite Cheney out to hunt with him! Seriously, we have worked so hard to bring the wolves back and then the idiot in charge out there is afraid that the wolves will kill elks that men want to kill. Get rid of him; this affects all of us, not just Idaho. Why are some men so cruel and evil?

[RiverStone]

115. SIGN this PETITION to protect Idaho's wolves!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/664280276?ltl=1168712897

[The Stranger]

124. K&R

[WindRavenX]

128. That's sickening

How horrible :(

[Heywood J]

130. Nothing like creating an intentional

Founder Effect - keeping inbreeding at a high and watching the recessive and flawed traits come out of the woodwork.


Wait, maybe that's what happened with Otter's family...

[Buford Pusser]

131. Coyote roping

This wolf thing is horrific but not as bad as roping coyotes from snowmobiles, as they do in South Dakota.

No joke, though I wish it was.

They rope the coyote (no easy feat, thankfully) and follow him all over the prairie, with a taut line to tire him out--until the coyote absolutely gives up and lies down, not one ounce of energy left.

How tired? So tired that the roper can walk up to the coyote and cut his ears off with a knife and take pictures of him lying in the snow with no ears. Then they shoot him.

As bad, sometimes these snowmobilers will just run over the coyotes and break their backs. I once asked if the coyotes ever get away. "They'll give you a run for their money," the answer came. "But the thing is, they eventually tire. And the machine, it never tires."

Sick.

[MGD]

137. God Bless America.

:sarcasm:

[The Stranger]

140. These people need to be stopped -- who do we contact to do so?

[medeak]

134. fecking ranchers....it's all their whining that has caused this

jeeesush chreeest...what we go through just to bring in big horn sheep and antelope to "compete" with federal lands for grazing.

[Canuckistanian]

136. Do hunters run Idaho now?

I heard a CBC radio interview with an Idaho hunter who was trying to get a petition passed to hunt wolves. His first attempt failed.

But what I remember is the absolute hatred in his voice for wolves and how they were killing off "his" deer.

So now the Governor is supporting these "kill 'em all" nutcases?

[janx]

138. $$$$$$$$

is the governor's motivation.

Tourist $$$$$$$$$$

[Heywood J]

141. If you don't like this, give him a call and

tell him what you think of him and his plan. From the web site:
Office of the Governor | P.O. Box 83720 | Boise, Idaho 83720 | 208-334-2100

[pookieblue]

142. Culling or controling the Population is one thing

though I don't see 600 wolves as too many.

but this is not what "Butch" is calling for.

He calling for downright slaughter.

[DBJ]

143. SAVE THE WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHALL WE CALL HIM GOV. C.L."the BUTCHER" OTTER!!!! DON'T KILL THE WOLVES!!!

[tabasco]

144. Sickening. Makes me ashamed to be a human being.

I thought people were waking up in the 70's to the realities of environmental destruction but we continue in our stupidity. A few dozen livestock is no reason to annihilate an entire species but that is the republican way. The ignorant, short-sighted, and stupid way.