Wolf = Endangered Species,... Again!

[coyote223]

Well said Jamie6.5,,,




Sounds like Malloy is pretty much one of the anti's himself. Sides with the Disney Wolf Lovers most of the time. As stated, lets introduce these wolves into the metro areas. Since they are the ones that seem to want them so badly,,,

 

[Ian1816]

The nerve of these dangerous animals to try to move into our land and take over. Maybe they should just go back to where they came from!

Oh wait........

 

[coyote223]

lol,,,




Except they wouldn't be moving back at all. If it wasn't for all the lies and mis-information, the special interests spoon-fed to our politicians. So that they would force the Wolves on us, and then not allow us to control their numbers.

 

[BigCat]

Yes, the wildlife is being forced upon you, not the other way around by any means.

 

[Ian1816]

Those wolves must have great lobbyists.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Yes, the wildlife is being forced upon you, not the other way around by any means.

Truer words were never spoken BC! Your sarcasm doesn't fly!
The settlers of the 1700 and 1800s knew the dangers of wolves to their survival and lively hoods. They didn't acquire that knowledge through biased articles, or hysterical writings.
They learned these things through experience. Their livestock was being slaughtered, Their lives, and the lives of their children were at stake.
Where wolves were more prevalent, game was less prevalent.
So they controlled wolf numbers. As a result, wolf numbers were reduced, and many migrated out of populated areas. As time went by some packs were eradicated, given that some of their numbers had moved on, which is normal for some maturing pups.

NO ONE is advocating for re-eradication. What we do want, is for the law, which was developed during the re-introduction process for these areas, to be followed.
A target number of breeding pairs was agreed upon, to establish adequate genetic diversity within the various packs.
This number has been exceeded, and the time has come to control wolf numbers for the sake of balance within the available wild space.
Without balance, nature's boom and bust cycles will ensue, wildlife herds will be decimated, and they (the wolves) will suffer starvation . When wildlife numbers are reduced sufficiently, the funds that hunters provide for habitat and wildlife management will fall. Hunters provide 90% of funds for these programs.
When wildlife numbers fall sufficiently, the wolves will turn to livestock for their primary food source, and eradication through the "shoot, shovel and shut up" method will be the norm.

Like it or not, humans, primarily agrarians, inhabit these area in greater numbers than ever before, and must be factored in, when the question of balance arises.
That is why the law of the land, where wildlife is concerned must trump nature's law of "boom and bust."

This judicial decision circumvents that law, and tosses out the biological guidelines outlined when the re-establishment plan was written.
This decision is detrimental to all local parties involved.
The ranchers.
The farmers.
Their children.
Their working dogs.
Their pets.
The hunters.
The habitat.
The deer.
The elk.
The bison.
The coyote.
And even small game.

Locals will only take it just so long before the wolf suffers as well.
All because one judge decided he knew better than the wildlife scientists that wrote the plan, and the guidelines laid down in the Endangered Species Act.

Lefties are all for following the law, until it upsets their "feel-good" ideas.

 

[Sawdust]

Truer words were never spoken BC! Your sarcasm doesn't fly!
The settlers of the 1700 and 1800s knew the dangers of wolves to their survival and lively hoods. They didn't acquire that knowledge through biased articles, or hysterical writings.
They learned these things through experience. Their livestock was being slaughtered, Their lives, and the lives of their children were at stake.
Where wolves were more prevalent, game was less prevalent.
So they controlled wolf numbers. As a result, wolf numbers were reduced, and many migrated out of populated areas. As time went by some packs were eradicated, given that some of their numbers had moved on, which is normal for some maturing pups.

NO ONE is advocating for re-eradication. What we do want, is for the law, which was developed during the re-introduction process for these areas, to be followed.
A target number of breeding pairs was agreed upon, to establish adequate genetic diversity within the various packs.
This number has been exceeded, and the time has come to control wolf numbers for the sake of balance within the available wild space.
Without balance, nature's boom and bust cycles will ensue, wildlife herds will be decimated, and they (the wolves) will suffer starvation . When wildlife numbers are reduced sufficiently, the funds that hunters provide for habitat and wildlife management will fall. Hunters provide 90% of funds for these programs.
When wildlife numbers fall sufficiently, the wolves will turn to livestock for their primary food source, and eradication through the "shoot, shovel and shut up" method will be the norm.

Like it or not, humans, primarily agrarians, inhabit these area in greater numbers than ever before, and must be factored in, when the question of balance arises.
That is why the law of the land, where wildlife is concerned must trump nature's law of "boom and bust."

This judicial decision circumvents that law, and tosses out the biological guidelines outlined when the re-establishment plan was written.
This decision is detrimental to all local parties involved.
The ranchers.
The farmers.
Their children.
Their working dogs.
Their pets.
The hunters.
The habitat.
The deer.
The elk.
The bison.
The coyote.
And even small game.

Locals will only take it just so long before the wolf suffers as well.
All because one judge decided he knew better than the wildlife scientists that wrote the plan, and the guidelines laid down in the Endangered Species Act.

Lefties are all for following the law, until it upsets their "feel-good" ideas.

:yes::yes:

Well said!

 

[CEF1959]

Jamie's given us a couple nice rants as to why she hates wolves. They have nothing to do with the details of the Endagered Species Act, of course, so they don't really contribute much other than her frustration. But Jamie does a nice rant. And as much as I disagree with Jamie on the issues, she's a straightshooter with me.

 

[coop44]

wolves are wolves, those who anthropomorphise them are truely idiots. Those who demonize them are also idiots. If you dangle live food in front of them they will probably go for it. They will do what they do, they have no malice or forethought. I have nothing against them and frankly, admire their adaptability. If I happen to see one in the wild I will count myself lucky, try and get a picture, and try not to act like food. just leave the poor bastards alone, all they are doing is what is in their nature.

just my 2 cents

btw jamie, how many documented wolf attacks have there been in the last 100 years?

 

[BigCat]

Truer words were never spoken BC! Your sarcasm doesn't fly!
The settlers of the 1700 and 1800s knew the dangers of wolves to their survival and lively hoods. They didn't acquire that knowledge through biased articles, or hysterical writings.
They learned these things through experience. Their livestock was being slaughtered, Their lives, and the lives of their children were at stake.
Where wolves were more prevalent, game was less prevalent.
So they controlled wolf numbers. As a result, wolf numbers were reduced, and many migrated out of populated areas. As time went by some packs were eradicated, given that some of their numbers had moved on, which is normal for some maturing pups.

NO ONE is advocating for re-eradication. What we do want, is for the law, which was developed during the re-introduction process for these areas, to be followed.
A target number of breeding pairs was agreed upon, to establish adequate genetic diversity within the various packs.
This number has been exceeded, and the time has come to control wolf numbers for the sake of balance within the available wild space.
Without balance, nature's boom and bust cycles will ensue, wildlife herds will be decimated, and they (the wolves) will suffer starvation . When wildlife numbers are reduced sufficiently, the funds that hunters provide for habitat and wildlife management will fall. Hunters provide 90% of funds for these programs.
When wildlife numbers fall sufficiently, the wolves will turn to livestock for their primary food source, and eradication through the "shoot, shovel and shut up" method will be the norm.

Like it or not, humans, primarily agrarians, inhabit these area in greater numbers than ever before, and must be factored in, when the question of balance arises.
That is why the law of the land, where wildlife is concerned must trump nature's law of "boom and bust."

This judicial decision circumvents that law, and tosses out the biological guidelines outlined when the re-establishment plan was written.
This decision is detrimental to all local parties involved.
The ranchers.
The farmers.
Their children.
Their working dogs.
Their pets.
The hunters.
The habitat.
The deer.
The elk.
The bison.
The coyote.
And even small game.

Locals will only take it just so long before the wolf suffers as well.
All because one judge decided he knew better than the wildlife scientists that wrote the plan, and the guidelines laid down in the Endangered Species Act.

Lefties are all for following the law, until it upsets their "feel-good" ideas.

That's funny, I could of sworn that wolves survived for many many years before humans came in and started "regulating" their population numbers. You're speaking as if humans have always been in control of animal populations, and without us they would all die.

I understand that wolves are a hazard to farmers and their livestock, but like I said in my first post, wolves are tight. My buddy has a 75% wolf, and it is one of the sweetest looking canines ever. But go ahead farmers, put your John Deere hat on, drop a dip in your lip, and grab the rifle. However, don't try and act like wolves need humans to regulate their populations if they want to stay in existence.

 

[Russianfist]

If I may chim in with an un bias question?

What are the numbers of the populatins are we talking here?

What I mean is, how many wolves against other preditors in the NW like cats, bears, etc.etc?

 

[Dave Workman]

If I may chim in with an un bias question?

What are the numbers of the populatins are we talking here?

What I mean is, how many wolves against other preditors in the NW like cats, bears, etc.etc?

There is no really good way to get a handle on that. In WA the cougar and bear populations have rapidly expanded in the wake of the hound hunting ban.
As for coyotes...there are lots of 'em around.

And wolves? I doubt you would ever get an honest estimate even from a biologist, but Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation seems to believe there are lots more than are being reported.

 

[coyote223]

wolves are wolves, those who anthropomorphise them are truely idiots. Those who demonize them are also idiots. If you dangle live food in front of them they will probably go for it. They will do what they do, they have no malice or forethought. I have nothing against them and frankly, admire their adaptability. If I happen to see one in the wild I will count myself lucky, try and get a picture, and try not to act like food. just leave the poor bastards alone, all they are doing is what is in their nature.

just my 2 cents

btw jamie, how many documented wolf attacks have there been in the last 100 years?

Not sure how many, I believe the most recent was that Teacher that was killed in Alaska.

If I may chim in with an un bias question?

What are the numbers of the populatins are we talking here?

What I mean is, how many wolves against other preditors in the NW like cats, bears, etc.etc?

If you count Canada and Alaska, well over 50,000 in North America. Hardly an endangered species,,, :huh:

 

[coyote223]

Those wolves must have great lobbyists.

Who needs lobbyists, when you have an anti-hunting organization with very deep pockets. One that suckers every bleeding heart animal lover, into giving them money, with cute cuddly little homeless kitten pictures. Then they turn around and use the money for wolf lawsuits. I'm sure you've heard of'em?




The Humane Society of the United States,,,

 

[Russianfist]

So, forgive my ignorance but why does everyone view Wolves as such a greater threat as opposed to Cats and Bears? Are we talking live stock attacks or threat to humans?

For the record: If a big cat or bear comes withen my comfort zone I'm dropping it so I hope nobody here thinks I'm advocating for the wolf.

I just found this:http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...on_wolf_in_wenaha_pack_gets_radio_collar.html

Sounds like less than 20 in the whole state. Doesn't seem like much to get your pantys bunched up on?

 

[coyote223]

My .02 cents,,, ^ ^ ^

It's a pretty complex issue. I think part of the reason is, wolves need to be controlled. Whether the wackos like it or not. If you read the comments at the bottom of a lot of the wolf news stories. A lot of these people value animal life way above human life. Sorry but something just ain't right with that,,,

Idaho was supposed to be able to control their population, after a specific number of wolves was reached. Years later, after they finally got the chance, a judge takes it away by re-listing the wolves. Because of lawsuits (Humane Society).

Wolves may or may not be needed, but they do have to be controlled. As long as they are listed as endangered, they can't be controlled. The same thing will happen to every state they are forced on. Either the goverment will not keep their word, or never ending "special interest group" cash supplies will keep them from being effectively controlled.

 

[009]

if property is being destroyed the land owner should have the right to protect it. sometimes we forget why animals wer put here.

 

[Russianfist]

if property is being destroyed the land owner should have the right to protect it. sometimes we forget why animals wer put here.

This is true and couldn't agree more but lets say a moose got tangled up and destroyed a section of fence on your ranch. Are you going to hunt it down and kill it for tearing up your fence? I seriously doubt it.

By the way, the moose population is more than double the wolf population in the state of Oregon.
Moose on the move in Oregon | MailTribune.com

 

[Cougfan2]

A moose once bit my sister!

 

[CEF1959]

A moose once bit my sister!

Mind you, moose bites can be pretty nasty.