Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
rob lester

Idaho Wolves

33 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I know it is sad isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will become a huge flame war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'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! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread will become a huge flame war.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.defenders.org

www.savewolfs.org

These massacrs are also takeing place in Alaska

HELP SAVE THE WOLFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Wsiabtwcnbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :hmm:

See Iceland and whales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such is the way of the human animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because I rather don't care to guess. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a smart cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.