Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Dec 8, 2011 - 10:45am PT
|
LA Times 8 Dec
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The new war on wolves
As soon as federal protection ended, the slaughter began.
By J. William Gibson
December 8, 2011
Congress removed wolves in Montana and Idaho from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in April. And this fall, the killing began.
As of Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game reported that 154 of its estimated 750 wolves had been "harvested" this year. Legal hunting and trapping — with both snares to strangle and leg traps to capture — will continue through the spring. And if hunting fails to reduce the wolf population sufficiently — to less than 150 wolves — the state says it will use airborne shooters to eliminate more.
In Montana, hunters will be allowed to kill up to 220 wolves this season (or about 40% of the state's roughly 550 wolves). To date, hunters have taken only about 100 wolves, prompting the state to extend the hunting season until the end of January. David Allen, president of the powerful Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, has said he thinks hunters can't do the job, and he is urging the state to follow Idaho's lead and "prepare for more aggressive wolf control methods, perhaps as early as summer 2012."
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead recently concluded an agreement with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to save 100 to 150 wolves in lands near Yellowstone National Park. But in the remaining 80% of the state, wolves can be killed year-round because they are considered vermin. Roughly 60% of Wyoming's 350 wolves will become targeted for elimination.
What is happening to wolves now, and what is planned for them, doesn't really qualify as hunting. It is an outright war.
In the mid-1990s, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released 66 wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho, most of the U.S. celebrated. The magnificent wolf, an icon of wilderness that humans had driven to extinction in the United States, would now reoccupy part of its old range. But in the region where the wolves were introduced, the move was much more controversial.
Part of the reason was the increase, particularly in Idaho and Montana, in paramilitary militia advocates, with their masculine ideal of man as warrior who should fight the hated federal government, by armed force if necessary. They were outraged by what they saw as federal interference in the region spurred by environmentalists, and their ideas found a willing reception among ranchers, who view wolves as a threat to their livestock — even though they ranch on federal land — and hunters, who don't want the wolves reducing the big game population.
The factions have reinforced one another, and today a cultural mythology has emerged that demonizes the federal government, the environmental movement and the wolves themselves. Many false claims have been embraced as truth, including that the Fish and Wildlife Service stole $60 million from federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition to pay for bringing wolves back; that the introduced wolves carry horrible tapeworms that can be easily transmitted to dogs, and ultimately to humans; that the Canadian wolves that were brought in are an entirely different species from the gray wolves that once lived in the Rockies, and that these wolves will kill elk, deer, livestock — even humans — for sport.
The false claims may have had particular resonance because they built on a long tradition in Western culture. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that wolves belonged to the devil: Demons could take the shape of wolves, as could witches. Puritans brought similar ideas to America. Cotton Mather called New England before it was settled a "howling wilderness." Asked to investigate Salem's alleged witches, Mather concluded in his book, "On Witchcraft" (1692): "Evening wolves" (werewolves and witches) were but another of the devil's tests as New England passed from "wilderness" to the "promised land."
And that attitude has persisted. Gary Marbut, president of the influential Montana Shooting Sports Assn., wrote in 2003 that "one might reasonably view man's entire development and creation of civilization as a process of fortifying against wolves."
Politicians from both parties in Western states have been eager to help with the fortifications. In Idaho, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and the state's governor, Butch Otter, made removal of wolves from the Endangered Species Act a political priority. In Montana, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg has made delisting wolves central to his 2012 Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In April, Tester in turn persuaded fellow Democrats in the Senate to approve his inserting a rider in a budget bill that delisted wolves.
In early November, Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, made his own political contribution. Thrilled at the testing of a drone aircraft manufactured in Montana, Baucus declared: "Our troops rely on this type of technology every day, and there is an enormous future potential in border security, agriculture and wildlife and predator management." A manufacturer's representative claimed his company's drone "can tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote." Pilotless drone aircraft used by the CIA and the Air Force to target and kill alleged terrorists now appear to be real options to track and kill "enemy" wolves.
How far we have fallen since the mid-1990s, when we celebrated the wolves' reintroduction. During the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama declared: "Federal policy toward animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of the environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect."
The president now should make good on that promise.
J. William Gibson is a sociology professor at Cal State Long Beach and the author of "A Reenchanted World." http://www.jameswilliamgibson.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
The new war on wolves
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
So did they re-introduce them just to give lawyers and hunters more to do?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
So did they re-introduce them just to give lawyers and hunters more to do?
I doubt that was the original intent, but that is the final effect.
In the meantime, the West has not seen this much bloodletting since the extermination of the buffalo and Indians. Wolves have terrorized and wiped out hundreds of livestock and whole elk herds and now they too are going down as part of a blood bath.
So much death and so much suffering to what purpose? So the feds who sponsored the last great blood letting in the West can do it again? Or so the environmentalists who live in other states could experiment for their amusement at the expense of livestock, game and wolves?
If there is any substance to the Buddhist notions of hell for being cruel to animals, then both the Feds and the Environmentalists who pushed this expensive and bloody experiment will surely go there.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2011 - 11:04am PT
|
Well put, Jan.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Jan, you and I think a lot alike most of the time. I grew up and family is from the West Slope Colo. But I want to add that humans are still learning that the wolves do play an important part in the game. We need to be careful to tread lightly before the pull the irrevocable trigger.
For years biologists have wondered why the Aspen were dying out. Whole groves slowly just dying, shrinking and disappearing. "Global warming" was the prognosis. "Nothing could be done, the Aspen are on the way to extinction". Then someone noticed that suddenly new shoots were starting to regenerate in Yellowstone Aspen groves. It was a WTF??!!! moment. This wasn't seen in other groves in other states. Study soon indicated that what had been occurring is that the Elk (and deer to a lesser extent) had been gathering in areas where Aspen grew, and in just hanging out and chilling in a single place they were trampling the young shoots, which regenerate off of existing trees. Wolves showing up caused them to move, and not just hang out in one spot, allowing Aspen shoots to get a start.
Now, given that is fairly new info which the scientists are still examining, it causes us to ask ourselves other questions. Top of the heap are:
1st) How many other things are we missing here?
2nd) What other "services" besides wiping out newborn sheep herds, do wolves provide?
3rd) Is the Aspen-Wolf link real, and if so, do we have to chose between not having one or the other?
4th) If true, what will happen if we let the aspen die off and disappear?
There is a reason we hire biologists to work in the government, and this is a classic example. We need to step back and let them study this and do their jobs before our knee jerk reactions makes a final and wrong choice for all of us. I'm not saying that ranchers should pay the price for this either. If they need to shoot a few to protect their herds (and they will), so be it.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
We should build a wall on the border of Yellowstone.
Knee jerk reactions always work when applied to our ecosystems.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
Funny how those leave us alone manly independent types are so scared of the big bad wolf. Meanwhile, down in communist California, a huge population coexists with mountain lions and sharks, both of which, unlike wolves, actually do attack and kill humans.
|
|
TFPU
Sport climber
Idaho
|
|
F*#k Congress
|
|
TFPU
Sport climber
Idaho
|
|
I as wrong in saying F*#k Congress. I just read the article again and missed the spot where it says demons can turn into wolves and so can witches. Now I see.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
How about an open season on wolf hunters? Fair is fair & them's good eatin! The headmounts suck though...
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
Fort Collins, CO
|
|
It's only a symptom of the bigger issue: humankind's war on planet Earth.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Is that really surprising?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
I agree we need to study the issue of predators scientifically but that wasn't done here. Otherwise only one or two groups of wolves would have been introduced and studied for 15-20 years before adding more all over the northern mountain states.
And it may be that ranching is non productive compared to tourism just as tourism has replaced mining in Colorado. But are we really prepared to remove a couple million people from Idaho and Wyoming, giving them public assistance to be resettled so that tourists can enjoy pristine, wolf filled wilderness?
If you want to get rid of the ranchers, and restore the wilderness environment, why not just outlaw all people of European descent and give Idaho and Montana back to the buffalo and Native Americans? Of course it's doubtful that the latter would tolerate wolves raiding their horse herds.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
I'm not a biologist, nor do I play one on the internet. However, if that is directed to me, I don't know where you read I was favoring getting rid of ranchers and replacing them with tourists. Can you show me my words to that effect, cause I re-read it and still don't see it.
warm regards:
Bill
Jan said: "I agree we need to study the issue of predators scientifically but that wasn't done here. Otherwise only one or two groups of wolves would have been introduced and studied for 15-20 years before adding more all over the northern mountain states.
And it may be that ranching is non productive compared to tourism just as tourism has replaced mining in Colorado. But are we really prepared to remove a couple million people from Idaho and Wyoming, giving them public assistance to be resettled so that tourists can enjoy pristine, wolf filled wilderness?
If you want to get rid of the ranchers, why not outlaw all people of European descent and give Idaho and Montana back to the buffalo and Native Americans? Of course it's doubtful that the latter would tolerate wolves raiding their horse herds."
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Sorry for the confusion Couchmaster, my first paragraph was in reply to you and your
well argued defense of the need for scientific study of wildlife and ecosystems.
The last two were directed at posts after yours and the general anti-ranching attitude
that appears on all these wolf threads.
|
|
mike m
Trad climber
black hills
|
|
Seems to me the Grizzly Bears are the ones eating people and might need a season more.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
For our ecosystems to be healthy, the require predator and prey species, and the populations of those species need to be allowed to fluctuate as naturally as possible. This is going to mean that the predators are going to do sometimes eat more of the prey species that some of us also feed on. Nature has both a beautiful side, and an ugly side. You can't have one and not the other.
As to wolves being harmless to people, that is simply untrue. It is rare, but they do occasionally attack and even eat people. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/wolves-killed-alaska-teacher-2010-state-says
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
But are we really prepared to remove a couple million people from Idaho and Wyoming, giving them public assistance to be resettled so that tourists can enjoy pristine, wolf filled wilderness?
That doesn't seem to be the choice, although the anti-wolf zealots might like to frame it that way. The issue is how many wolves should be permitted in each state, and how they should be managed - although the antis' hidden agenda is undoubtedly extermination. There's lot of room for a reasonable number of wolves, as well as domestic livestock and humans. Management techniques might include culling those that behave unacceptably, as judged by competent, impartial observers, scientific study to see how ecosystems benefit from the reintroduction of wolves, more prudent management of range animals, and a fund to reimburse humans for livestock genuinely killed by wolves.
The statistics cited on Rokjox' giant anti-wolf thread indicated that in Idaho, wolves kill less than one head (sheep, cattle, etc) of domestic wildlife each per year, or several hundred total - whatever inflated claims may be made.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Ranching is highly destructive and grazing leases are artificially cheap. Our (commercially available) meat should be raised in feed lots.
Wolves contribute to a healthy and diverse ecology.
It is people that need to be controlled.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
It is people that need to be controlled.
Soyent Green, anybody?
And regarding this: Our (commercially available) meat should be raised in feed lots.
Personally, I don't think any meat should be raised in feedlots. That's a subject for a different (and really sick-making) thread though.
|
|
hoipolloi
climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
|
|
Our (commercially available) meat should be raised in feed lots.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....
And with rising rates of MRSA in CAFO meat, along with the billions of tortured animals they produce, huge doses of anti-biotics...and the list goes on... this sounds like a GREAT idea!
Yum. Just what I want to eat!
Edit: Sorry, that is another topic of conversation. A real blood-boiler.
And the wolves....barf...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!