Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Idaho Wolves


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#31    rob lester

rob lester

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2005

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:58 PM

Quote

Are you really that stupid?
Ranchers plan on losing part of their stock to weather.......what they don't plan on is wolves killing their stock.
Think again and respond accordingly please.



Calling someone stupid and posting that?.......Ranchers new the Wolves were being re-introduced long , long before they were.If they/you were "smart" they would have done research ( wich was out there , and given by fish and game) and "planned" on a couple losses from wolves also.A rancher I know in Oregon "plans" on the weather and has heated barns for his calves......Anyway , the Governemnt could give tax write offs for the few killed by wolves , they give write offs for very less important things anyway.This would be a "win win" situation.And as I said before electric fences do wonders,that could be a "write off" also.....By the way , the livestock being "killed are on PUBLIC LAND....

"Once hunted, trapped and poisoned to extinction in Idaho, wolves have made a remarkable recovery. An estimated 512 wolves, including 36 breeding packs, are a critical part of Idaho's ecosystems. And, contrary to anti-wolf extremists' claims, the wolves are not a significant threat to livestock or game populations."

"However, this spring, due to heavier snow conditions, the cattle have been moved earlier to these pastures. The wolves have four small pups at the den, only a month old, and we are using a nonlethal deterrent method known as "fladry" (a type of flagging barrier used to deter wolves) and alarm systems to discourage the wolves from coming too close to the cattle. Rick Williamson, Idaho wolf specialist for Wildlife Services and Defenders' April Wildlife Hero is guiding the project in cooperation with Defenders' Wolf Guardian Coordinator, Consuelo Blake. Together, they are working with local residents to install more than three miles of fladry between the cattle and the wolves' den site. Over the next month, volunteers and staff will diligently maintain the fladry and monitor wolf activity in the area. We will also increase the deterrents by installing a new type of fladry called "turbofladry," which utilizes electrified wire to discourage wolves from crossing into the livestock pastures."

"Washington, DC In 2005 Defenders of Wildlife compensation payments to ranchers for livestock lost to wolves totaled $97,009. The payments are made through The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust. Nearly 500 payments totaling more than $600,000 have been made through the fund to cattle and livestock owners in the northern Rockies. To date, the compensation fund has reimbursed 275 ranchers in the northern Rockies over $600,000 for livestock lost to wolves."

That is just a small amount of information.....And should be sufficient enough to show the ignorant that Wolves are not killing off livestock and peoples hobbies of trophy hunting...( I hunt ) ....SwampGator , if you were a true animal rights activist , you would know this information allready ,and more......

Here is the link for the "petition".....Please take the time to sign it , that is main reason i posted this thread....I will continue to put up more information if need be...Thanks , Rob

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/...?ltl=1168796889

Washington, DC On Friday, May 5, the National Agricultural Statistical Services released a report that shows that wolves are responsible for only 2.3 percent of predator-caused cattle deaths annually. Of the 190,000 cattle lost to predators in 2005, 4,400, or 2.3 percent, were killed by wolves. By comparison, vultures killed nearly twice as many cattle as wolves and dogs combined.

"These statistics clearly show that wolves kill very few cattle annually, especially compared to other causes of death," said Suzanne Asha Stone, Rocky Mountain Field Representative for Defenders of Wildlife. "Vultures and even dogs kill more cattle than wolves, to say nothing of coyotes, weather and disease."

Most cattle lost in 2005 were lost to other factors besides predators. Just more than four million cattle died last year nationwide, 95 percent of those died from disease, weather, and other non-predator related causes.

"Those opposed to wolf reintroduction often claim the toll wolves take on cattle is very high, but the true statistics tell a different story," said Stone. "With these numbers we see that wolves play a very small role in all cattle deaths.".


#32    Gatofeo

Gatofeo

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Remote Utah desert

  • "An ugly cat. Vast desert. Smoke and fire. Flying lead makes holes in parchment. The ugly cat is much amused." --- Gatodamus (1503-1566)

Posted 15 January 2007 - 05:45 AM

I was a reporter in northern Idaho for a number of years and am familiar with the issue.
In a little more than a decade, the population of wolves grew to 1,200, so the report says.
Doesn't that strike you as being a quick growth for a predator? Typically, the population of predators doesn't grow as quickly as their prey. There is always far more prey than predators.
Reducing the population to 15 packs hardly sounds like the extermination you folks are screaming about.
Wolves are not the loveable, cuddly, furry friends that Defenders of Wildlife would have you think.
In the wild, they are predators. They're sharks with fur. Forget what you see on TV, with humans cavorting with domesticated wolves. Not the same animal at all.
If the population has grown to 1,200 in a decade, what's it going to be in another decade? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? And when deer and elk are not as plentiful, people may become the next food source.
It's not so far-fetched.
Look at southern California, where bear and cougar hunting were banned altogether. And people are surprised that the bear and cougar populations rose dramatically. Folks enjoying the outdoors were stalked and attacked cougars; bear are not so prone to attack humans, unprovoked, and I am not aware of any such attacks in SoCal, but perhaps there have been some.

I don't support the total eradication of wolves but their numbers should be controlled just as other big game is: through modern game management methods.
Members of the canine and feline families kill for fun, as well as food. A wolf pack can devastate an elk herd, especially one with elk calves.
Yeah, it's a natural instinct of these predators to kill, for food and fun.
Don't believe me? How many of you have a well-fed housecat that still kills birds and mice and brings them home? The same with domestic dogs. I live in the remote Utah desert and have seen FAT coyotes catching mice for fun, then leaving them to rot. Predators kill for food and for fun, to keep their instincts honed.

Before you start blaming the hunters, ponder where nearly all of the funding for the Idaho Department of Fish & Game comes from: licenses and the payment of fines. It is NOT funded by the state budget. All of the IDFG budget comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, and the payment of game violation fines.
The federal government taxes all firearms and ammunition and has done so for decades, with the proceeds going to the states for their fish and wildlife programs. Every time you buy a firearm --- even a target rifle never intended for the hunting field --- part of its price goes to the feds for game conservation.
Habitat improvements, the salaries of fish and game personnel, the equipment they use --- all paid for by hunters or poachers caught in the act, or the federal tax on firearms and ammunition.
And the IDFG does more than ensure the longevity of elk and deer herds. I've personally accompanied them on the construction of fish breaks in the river, so trout could rest behind a rock away from the strong current. I helped IDFG personnel plant native flora around reclaimed mining ponds, so ducks, geese, chipmunks, squirrels and other residents of the forest had good habitat.
These projects benefit a wide range of animals, not just those hunted as game.
I have never once heard of any conservation organization donating one red cent to any fish and wildlife agency for wildlife projects. Not once. Just once I'd like to see Defenders of Wildlife or Sierra Club buy a new pickup for a game warden, or even fill their gas tank. These organizations can certainly afford it.

I must admit that I am bothered by the classic explanation of hunters, "There are no predators left, so we hunt deer and elk in their stead, to keep the herd healthy."
I don't believe that is a valid argument in this instance.
But let's face facts: hunters come from all over the world to hunt Idaho's elk. I know. I've met Germans, Frenchmen and even a Yugoslavian who did so.
Hunting is a business upon which many states rely upon for revenue. Game is a renewable resource. It's not like mining, where whatever's taken from the ground doesn't grow back.
Sure, you can decry this hunting revenue as "blood money" but you don't live in the many small towns in Idaho that are dependent on hunters for their revenue. Deer and elk are NOT slaughtered. You have to apply for a license. In some areas, where licenses are curtailed, you enter a drawing and only X-amount are awarded each year.
During hunting seaon, extra game wardens patrol the backwoods and man check stations along the state's highways, where hunters are required to stop and have their license and vehicle inspected. I haven't hunted in years, but I've been waved over to the side to have the back of my pickup inspected because I might have been a hunter. I don't mind; if it helps catch poachers I'm all for it.

Idaho's elk and deer are not endangered. Nor are its wolf packs. A population of 1,500 wolves is substantial --- considering that not all of Idaho is amenable habitat for wolves. In fact, I'd estimate that probably one-quarter of the state can support wolf packs, owing to geography and the proximity of cities and towns (wolves prefer remote areas and don't like to get close to towns or cities).
The lower half of Idaho is dry, forested areas or arid, treeless desert. They need heavy forest and the four-legged foods these areas support (mice, deer, elk, rabbits, squirrels, etc.).
Hunters and anglers bring tremendous amounts of money to Idaho, like it or not. That money puts food on the table, supports schools, funds hospitals, pays for law enforcement services, maintains forest fire fighting personnel and equipment and God knows what.

A Defenders of Wildlife spokesman accused Idaho of using politics instead of sound game management practices. I'd dispute that, based on what I have covered as a reporter (countless public meetings to announce changes in game management, and accompanying fish and game personnel in the field).
I trust the educated, knowledgeable wildlife biologists of Idaho Fish & Game to know their job.
I don't trust emotional outcries from various wildlife organizations who don't even stop to examine the issue before screaming for donations to fight any Fish & Game proposals. And I've seen this happen many times.
The wolves of Idaho will never be totally eradicated. They're too emplaced. Their population can be managed like any other animal if wildlife biologists see a trend toward overpopulation.
And that's undoubtedly what is happening. The wildlife biologists are curtailing the wolf population before it gets too large and endangers the population of deer, elk and possibly other wildlife.
Incidentally, I do know one thing: if you unlawfully shoot a wolf you're in for far more trouble than poaching a deer or elk. I know of one instance in which the shooter paid a fine of, if I recall correctly, nearly $10,000. For one wolf. This was some years ago when they were comparatively rare.
You can bet that, with this being a very sensitive issue, the game wardens will be out in force to ensure that hunters are abiding by all rules and regulations when it comes to shooting wolves. And you may also bet that those found in violation will pay. Heavily.

Say what you will about my opinion, but I'll say this much: I've been there. I've worked with these folks and been to their public meetings. I know how hard the wildlife biologists work in the field, to get good, solid data. They are professional scientists with degrees --- not some weepy, "armchair biologist" from another state with a video camera and a domesticated wolf that tearfully implores you to save the wolf from extinction.

My god! How that ghost makes me dread
My attempts to sleep at night, in my bed
All that moaning and groaning
Keep me awake until morning
Oh wait --- it's that couple next door, newly wed!

--- Copyright 2006 by Gatofeo

I support Rehabilitation through Reincarnation!

#33    rob lester

rob lester

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2005

Posted 15 January 2007 - 11:14 PM

Gatofeo ,



"Wolves are not the loveable, cuddly, furry friends that Defenders of Wildlife would have you think.In the wild, they are predators. They're sharks with fur. Forget what you see on TV, with humans cavorting with domesticated wolves. Not the same animal at all."


"Members of the canine and feline families kill for fun, as well as food. A wolf pack can devastate an elk herd, especially one with elk calves."


Gatofeo , you need to get your facts staright with these two quotes.You are about 90% off on both.Neither statement is fact , actually far from it.

And the point of this is , they do not need to be killed.There are way to many other options out there.I hate when people make it sound like "Wolves" are a deadly , ruthless predator.Far from it.The only true statement is "predator" , although they are more of a 'survivor".....

Anyway , anyone reading those 2 quotes , do some studying before you believe them.

Gatofeo , I worked with Wolves , occasionally still do , I have one also ( rescued , could not be re-introduced  ,or she would be)....You are educated on the subject of Idaho's fight with this issue , but not educated in Wolves habits by reading your post.









1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users