Not sure this is correct topic , but natural world seems fitting.

Below is a news article , and a link to write the Governor.Personally this makes me sick..Hope people take time to write him....




By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 11, 10:46 PM ET

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.

"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."

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.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.

A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a minimum of 15 wolf packs — higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.

Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species Conservation, said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the surviving wolf population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow before the animals are again considered endangered.

Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.

"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one (wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on the list," Allen said.

HERE IS LINK TO SPEAK UP http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html

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.

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!!!

I know it is sad isn't it.

This thread will become a huge flame war.

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!

Why? Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that this is a truely ridiculous idea. I am not opposed to hunting, but this is truely idiotic.

Double post

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?!

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.

WWW.defenders.org

www.savewolfs.org

These massacrs are also takeing place in Alaska
HELP SAVE THE WOLFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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 Iceland and whales.

There's no massacre going on in Alaska. They have a very healthy population of wolves there.

A much better idea would be to reduce the number of Elk hunted rather than increasing the number of wolves.

I could see killing some Wolves had they turned dangerous to humans, but a massive hunting effort so a few guys can get a trophy buck is pretty much ridiculous..

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.

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

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?

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.



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.



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.



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




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.



That's the problem padawan. Balance was not restored; predators now outweigh prey to the point where both are in danger.


I'm unclear at this point. Where is money spent on this issue that you wish deemed re-appropriated?


See above "over-compensation of man".

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

Such is the way of the human animal.

You didn't guess.

because I rather don't care to guess.

You are a smart cookie.

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?

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....

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!

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

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.

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?

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.".

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.

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.