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

#16    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 03:20 AM

The OP has pasted one report of many articles and is obviously one-sided in said opinion.
Don't get me wrong ....I am very much for wolves regaining their original territories in viable numbers.
I spent an hour reading articles about these wolves in Idaho from the point of reintroduction until the present.
The facts are that the numbers have very much exceeded the target number.
Actually they labeled the Southern Idaho population South of I90 as ....and I quote...."an experimental non-essential population". You decide what a non-essential population means....I'm not here to preach.
The U.S.F.W.D. "United States Fish and Wildlife Department" will still oversee what the Idaho department does.
The population of wolves increased 20% last year "estimated".   176 new pups were born and 68 confirmed wolves killed for the year.
Predators must be managed....mountain lions....coyotes...wolves etc. to allow a viable population but also allow livestock farmers the ability to put food not only in their mouths but also in ours.
In 2006, agents confirmed wolves in Idaho killed 27 cattle, 195 sheep.
I'll post a very interesting link when I figure out how to post a "source".

I'm not trying to rag on you OP....only trying to show the other side....there is always 2 sides.



"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#17    rob lester

rob lester

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 14 January 2007 - 03:40 AM

Swamp , not arguing that the population may be swaying.The fact is , there are other ways to control it before having to kill.


#18    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 04:46 AM

I am interested in your "other ways'.
How do you trap wild wolves?
Enlighten me on how to trap them and transport them within your rules.
Who will accept excess wolves?
The objective was to re-introduce them and now they are taking the livelyhood from people.
How would you control it?

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#19    girty1600

girty1600

    MRS. FALCO

  • Member
  • 6,654 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Falcon's nest

  • "Just because I don't care...... doesn't mean I don't understand!"

Posted 14 January 2007 - 04:51 AM

Even as I speak as an animal rights activist readers of this post are not going to like what I'm about to say...

Lets start with this.

QUOTE(rob lester(op))
Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.


10 years is quite a short time for such a population explosion.  And it is an explosion.  Man brought the grey wolf back to the region thus toppling an ecosystem already precariously balanced; perhaps if that endeavor was handled more carefully the game census wouldn't be in so much danger.

Man, via various influences, has the amazing capacity to overcompensate for every man-made disaster that's occured in the past 200 years in the matter of decades.  A "quick fix" usually results in new problem in cases such as this.

For instance. An animal population that increases by 120% in less that ten years is bound to inflict economic repercussions. Consider the fact that species of animal has no natural enemies besides man and can double its population yearly under favorable conditions.

If all the game is gone the predators will die of disease and famine by default. So ask yourself what's worse, numbers dropping off due to hunting or these so called natural causes that aren't natural at all?

Some people would be inclined to think that becoming a hunter's trophy is more humane than a pack snacking on itself out of necessity.

QUOTE(SG Wolf 222)
You know, removing federal protection will mean people will just shoot wolves whenever they feel like it. They'll be extinct in the US soon, mark my words.


Consider your words marked as words fueled by emotion and not analytical and informed thought.  No one wants to see pictures of slaughtered wolf pups but I would bet that's what you pictured in your mind while writing the above post.

An ecosystem is an intricate balance of 1,000's of species keeping it healthy on a year-to-year basis.  Wolves are pretty  but science sees through beauty and sometimes turns it ugly.

QUOTE(SG Wolf 222)
WTF!! IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE!! IS THAT ALL THEY DO SHOOT WHAT EVER THE HECK THAT MOVES ooooo!! i wanna shoot them see how they like
it!!!


Run North at a decent trot;  I won't even use a scope.


QUOTE(Jjbreen)
I'm curious why KILLING is always the first "answer"?? I mean - what about capture and take to other natural wild-life reserves or into Alaska wildnerness and such? There are other answers besides KILL FIRST - come up with ideas later - umm, when it's too late!


Not a bad idea as long as the endeavor is researched BEFORE HAND and not carried out on a whim with support from PETA and their wealth of knowledge.

QUOTE(MR_MOE)
Most people, including myself, hunt to keep down the deer and elk population because the predator populations were driving to near extinction. But here is a place were the balance is restored between predator and prey, and they want to ruin it all over again?!


That's the problem padawan.  Balance was not restored; predators now outweigh prey to the point where both are in danger.
QUOTE(MR_MOE)
And I used to have so much respect of Idaho, now I see it cares far more about a few extra dollars than the enviroment.


I'm unclear at this point.  Where is money spent on this issue that you wish deemed re-appropriated?
QUOTE(MR_MOE)
Lets not turn this to "don't kill wolves cause they are cool", but does anyone else really see the irony in this situation? Once they got the predator population back up, they go off and kill them again


See above "over-compensation of man".







#20    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:01 AM

I am an animal rights activist and guess what I do and spend MONEY on for animals.....guess

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#21    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,873 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:17 AM

Such is the way of the human animal.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#22    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:19 AM

You didn't guess.

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#23    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,873 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:29 AM

because I rather don't care to guess. wink2.gif

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#24    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:32 AM

You are a smart cookie.

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#25    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,873 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:40 AM

More like a cynical and apathetic feline.

I know humans are deplorible in many ways. This is just another case of it.  But I also know that no matter what other people do to try and stop these mental midgits from hunting the wolves back into endangerment, they're just going to do it anyways.  *shrugs*

It's like with the whole enviromental global warming human pollution crap fest.  People are either going to believe, or not believe.. do something, or just not care enough to.  *shrugs*  If others don't care.. then why should I waste energy to as well?

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#26    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:54 AM

This is not deplorable as you state...the wolves are very populated and attacking livestock.
Would you care as much if you had a farm and a mountain lion was killing your stock?
Do you know what a ranch is? I doubt it.
As I said.......a viable population is good....

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#27    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,873 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 06:27 AM

OH GOOD GOLLY GEE WIZ!  Let's play the "I bet you haven't seen..." GAME!

You lose!

I grew up in an area that had farms and ranches GALOR!  And people would piss and moan about coyotes, wolves, bobcats and cougars killing their livestocks.  So the council did a study of five years.. give or take.  And you know what they found out?  More livestock was lost due to weather conditions and disease! Not wild animals.  It came to something like 2% lost to wild animals.

It's only hyped up because farmers need to blame something that's "controable" in their eyes. And shooting wolves back into near extinction to save their livestock (when it's really diseases and weather conditions that are the main reasons for such losses... and you can't control the weather) is "controlable".

You know what?  This is a good one...  You know what's killing more cattle *RIGHT* this very moment and all through this month more then wolves or cougars have in the past ohh maybe 10 years? Give or take.  You know what it is?  THE WEATHER!  Yep. The Colorado ranchers have lost more cattle, cows and unborn calves this month alone due to the weather conditiosn then they have to wild animals.  Oh shoot... you can't kill Jack Frost, now can you?  Better round up the nearest wolf pack! The rancher's whipping boy!



Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#28    Conspiracy

Conspiracy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,074 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario

  • "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

Posted 14 January 2007 - 06:37 AM

its true, weather does kill more livestock then wild animals, farmers/ranchers just want something more controllable to blame it on so they blame the wild animals so they can kill them

Posted Image

#29    SwampGator

SwampGator

    Skeptical Skeptic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a swamp near you!!

  • It seems common sense is not that common.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 06:45 AM

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.

"The ones who look so far outside the box they lose the box completely = Blind Believer"   Chaoszerg

#30    Ravinar

Ravinar

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,102 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:some where between the majesty of creation and the void of oblivion

  • A truly powerful being needs not destroy.

Posted 14 January 2007 - 04:02 PM

couldn't they just increase the amount of wolves taken yearly instead of going for a mass killing? why not reduce their population in moderation? wouldn't they make more money in the long run that way through tag sales and lodging and tourism? hmm.gif

the human race is at an end and and my soul grows weary. the one thing that could revive it is almost gone and is in no condition to heal me. yet i shall not despair for the light of hope shines even in the greatest darkness. i shall continue to hope.... hope for the days of green and ever lasting love of all things. for those whom think them selfs better shall realize they are not all that is. nor are they in any way better for all life is equal.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users