Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 07:45pm PT
|
Typically, or at least for the last 40 years of Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, it was believed that any animal that attacked a human was the hapless victim of a mind altering disease or chronic illness or just sorely (and soon to be fatally) mistaken in their choice of meal.
All of the smart animals had learned that munching on Homo Sapiens was a No-No.
And for the most part, one could say that these former dreaded predators had stuck to the script and relegated their alpha hunter doings to the non-human part of the food chain.
Perhaps, one could suggest that "they" accepted "us" as more alpha than themselves.
Which leads to the suggestion that "they" no longer see us as alpha. Do these hunters sense a developing societal shift amongst the human herd that suggests a lessening of threat, a vulnerability in spirit, an opportunity to feed?
Are we becoming the hackneyed "weak, sick and feeble" that the nature shows tell us are the only ones that get eaten?
Has someone taught animals to read the Mayan Calendar and they just can't wait for another year?
One must often wonder...
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Hagerman, ID
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 08:30pm PT
|
RickyD: I will try to answer some of your question. I am only going to use Idaho history in my answer, but it might apply to the western US as well.
Which leads to the suggestion that "they" no longer see us as alpha. Do these hunters sense a developing societal shift amongst the human herd that suggests a lessening of threat, a vulnerability in spirit, an opportunity to feed?
Wolves, cougars, and to a lesser extent bears: were hunted nearly to extinction in Idaho.
I grew up with the mounted head of the "last wolf killed in Idaho" hanging on our basement wall. It had been killed in the 1920's and my grandfather bought the snarling head mount at an estate auction in the 1950's.
There was a bounty on cougars up until the 1950's in Idaho.
Grizzly bears were also extincted here.
Until I was in my 40's: the only black bears I saw in Idaho, were running away as hard as possible. When I was 11: I watched my mother make a great heart shot on one.
We ate it of course. Growing up as "Idaho trash" we hunted for food, not fun. I haven't hunted big game since college days----I was totally burned out on eating wild meat. (not to mention dealing with with converting a large mammal to small pieces of wrapped food.)
So---------much of that hunting predators to extinction crap stopped in the 1960's, although Idaho continues to have cougar and bear hunting by permit.
The bears and cougars, for the most part, lived in fear of humans--for a few more years.
By 20 years ago the cougars were on the rebound and black bears were a major problem.
As we know: the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service decided to introduce Canadian wolves. This was done in spite of evidence that Idaho had a small population of native wolves. (In the early 1980's a grad student in wildlife biology, at the U of Idaho, assured me that there was still a small wolf population in the Idaho Wilderness.)
We now have enough wolves and not nearly as many deer and elk.
Yep! Humans are slow, stupid, and taste yummy! (from the point of view of a wolf, cougar, or bear).
Volunteers are welcome, if you would like to help feed our predators.
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Big Wall climber
leading the away team, but not in a red shirt!
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 08:47pm PT
|
If a predator eats you, then you had it coming.
|
|
Ricky D
Trad climber
Sierra Westside
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
|
I wonder if there is some slow simmering animal plot developing against us humans.
If you look back over recent years, you will notice that prominent animal experts who spent years closely watching animals have recently been killed by the same. A couple that come to immediate mind without bothering to Google are Steve Irwin - poked by a sting ray and Tim Treadwell - eaten by his grizzly friends.
Why are the animals beginning to kill the watchers?
What do they not want us to see?
What are these fur covered terrorist trying to hide?
Beware - be very aware.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 11:04pm PT
|
I wonder if there is some slow simmering animal plot developing against us humans.
Forget wolves and cougars. It's the ants and termites that you should be having nightmares about.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
|
Tim Treadwell was a nutjob fore sure, but he wasn't killed by a Grizzly friend. The bear that got him, he didn't like, and apparently, the feeling was mutual.
Do we want the wolves, grizzlies, and lions around? Talk to your die hard wilderness fan in Yosemite. No one seriously considers bringing back the Grizzly, yet all want to "restore" the habitat.
On the other hand, lions are on the rebound. How much extra rebound do they get because there is no grizzly? Wolves are a subject of debate in California when it comes to how numerous they were, what if they came back? What would that do to the lion population?
How about the deer/elk population that we know and recognize is based on the absence of predators? Shouldn't the numbers drop as the number of predators increases?
The west has always been a tough place to make a living. Wolf numbers, sheep numbers, lion numbers, grizzly numbers, even trout numbers... the point is that these things are now our choice.
For better or worse, we control these numbers.
The question is what do we want?
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 11:33pm PT
|
No, but one of my friends does research on the lions here on the Eastside. My information is based on drunken late night conversations, so take it for what it is.
They were having issues with lions taking too many sierra bighorns, which are in decline. It's a tough thing to try and balance, and what is that balance anyway?
My point is, we could eradicate the lions if we want to, or allow their numbers to grow. The situation is artificial in the big picture.
I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying, we have a major say in what goes on out there in our "nature" here in the US.
Crowley- if you are interested, watch the video "counting sheep." I bet we could find it somewhere on netflix or you tube.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2010 - 11:47pm PT
|
Wolf numbers, sheep numbers, lion numbers, grizzly numbers, even trout numbers... the point is that these things are now our choice.
For better or worse, we control these numbers.
The question is what do we want?
Check out the photos on this website if you have the stomach for it. Mutilated cows, dead guard dogs, a little lamb lying beside its mother who is lying in a pool of blood with her head torn off. Then ask yourself again, is this what you want?
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Missoulianwolfad%20(3).pdf
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:00am PT
|
I'm pretty sure (by the news articles) that Montana will be the first/lone state to be void of Federal wolf "regulations"...
..time will tell, but wolves don't really have a place in the "wild" West anymore--their re-introduction has proved disastrous for livestock and ranching that are in the immediate area of Federal lands.
All the "enviros" that have never had to deal with dead livestock killed by wolves are sipping lattes and "preaching" to the rest on how much the wolf is needed in the modern ecosystem--meh!
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:06am PT
|
Not that I'm a super wolf friend, but what is really wrong with dead livestock?
That's the end result for them anyway- tri-tip and other parts.
Back east, you know, where it rains and stuff, they can raise way more cows per acre than we can do in the west. If the feds pay for the dead calf, who cares if some go down to feed the wolves. It would have been buffalo back in the day, but those aren't around anymore.
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:12am PT
|
Tom, a torn-apart Angus that has been left to rot never makes it market.
Crowley--why do you think that only sheep that are attacked?
Try living in wolf country and have that opinion...
|
|
pc
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:12am PT
|
Jan,
It would be interesting to see an equally biased view of how the Idaho ranchers cause death and destruction. I find it unbelievably hypocritical to show a few cows and sheep mangled by an encounter with nature, when a million times that many cows, pigs, sheep, calfs, goats, chickens, etc etc are being slaughtered by these very ranchers for McFood.
Show me how much money they're losing and that these natural encounters are driving them out of business. That's the real "beef". Not some "clubbed seal wannabe photos" trying to grab some sympathy.
Rant off,
pc
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:13am PT
|
Forget wolves and cougars. It's the ants and termites that you should be having nightmares about.
bingo
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:17am PT
|
pc, tell that to the rancher in Dillon, MT that lost 123 sheep in ONE night to wolves--you're point is moot.
edit: http://www.mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_27283168-eafa-11df-826a-001cc4c03286.html
MISSOULA - Montana's gray wolves already face opponents in federal court and Congress. Soon, the state Legislature may enter the fray as well.
State Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, plans to reintroduce a wolf management bill he fielded in 2009. It would declare that the United States government "lacks authority to impose wolves on Montana," cancel any existing partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage wolves, and demand that "the United States agree in writing to unfettered state management of wolves with no further assertion of federal authority."
"The wolf issue is decided in court all the time anyway," Balyeat said in a telephone interview on Friday. "The animal rights people are taking it to court with the judge of their choosing and the issues of their choosing. We're giving away the home-court advantage. Why not do it on an issue of our choosing and a judge of our choosing? The state's rights issue is the most winnable issue we have on wolves."
*
In a nutshell, the bill claims Montana's right to manage wolves trumps the federal government's authority under the Endangered Species Act. Missoula firearms and hunting advocate Gary Marbut helped draft the legislation.
"It's still a 10th Amendment exercise to wrest control of wolves out of the hands of the federal government," Marbut said. "It has been the traditional function of state police power to manage and regulate wildlife within the state. Only in recent times has there been construed authority for the feds to manage wildlife. When the Endangered Species Act has been argued in court, the claim for authority the feds make is the commerce clause. But how many wild wolves have you seen sold across state lines? The answer is zero."
The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states." The 10th Amendment reserves to the states any powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Marbut believes wildlife management is one of the powers the Constitution left to the states.
*
Balyeat's bill made it to second reading in the 2009 Legislature before dying in a standing committee. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks legal counsel Bob Lane said he warned then the bill could have the opposite effect it intended.
"We'd make Wyoming look moderate, if not liberal, if that passed," Lane said from Helena. "That would have totally tied the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's hands in terms of ever qualifying Montana to manage wolves on its own. It was difficult for us to see any scenario where we would regain management authority until that bill was repealed."
Wyoming's Legislature passed a wolf management plan that made it a big-game animal in a small part of the state and a shoot-on-sight pest almost everywhere else. The plan was so different from those approved by Montana and Idaho that the Fish and Wildlife Service kept control over Wyoming's wolves when it delisted them in the other two states in 2009.
That division formed the heart of a lawsuit by 13 environmental groups that sued the federal government last year. They argued wolves can't be managed according to state boundaries. U.S. District Judge Don Molloy agreed and returned Montana and Idaho wolves to Endangered Species Act protection in August.
The states are challenging that ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, several members of Congress have drafted bills to remove the wolf from federal oversight.
*
Balyeat's state bill has several other measures that raised eyebrows among constitutional experts. It would make anyone "responsible for inflicting wolves on Montana or preventing state management of wolves" liable for damages to anyone injured or killed by a wolf, including anyone "party to a lawsuit with the purpose of preventing or delaying the implementation of state management of wolves."
"It's overstepping the Legislature's authority to target a specific group, and it would fall flat under equal protection in a heartbeat," said Jack Tuholske, a visiting professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Montana. "It would also conflict with the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance. But that's why we have a court system in our constitutional democracy. Legislatures do foolish things and courts declare them unconstitutional. That's how the system works and it's been working pretty well for 230 years."
Marbut said the legislation followed other "loser pays" provisions.
"There are people who introduced wolves and prevented delisting, who have twisted the truth and fact in order to have their way with the people of Montana," Marbut said. "That bunch of people is complicit in damaging Montana's lifestyle and economy and culture. Those people who are responsible and complicit need to have some consequences."
The bill also includes consequences for wolves. It states if a person is injured or killed by a wolf, "the wolf or wolves involved in the attack are considered likely to be infected with rabies (and) any person may kill any wolf by any means within 100 miles of the alleged attack."
Mike Meloy, a Helena attorney specializing in constitutional law, said wording like that just weakens the bill.
"I don't think they have to engage in those kinds of fairy tales to permit somebody to shoot a wolf within 100 miles of a death," Meloy said. "I don't think they need to diagnose rabies. All they need to say is the Legislature controls how the wolf is hunted in Montana. The way it is, I don't understand how they could get to first base in court if someone decided to challenge it."
But getting to first base could be the least of the legislation's problems.
Ryan Benson, legal counsel for the multi-state Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said Congress is a faster way to reach a wolf solution.
"Going through the Legislature will essentially require some kind of a lawsuit, and that's kind of a long pass," Benson said. "If Congress says the wolf is delisted, it's effective immediately. And that could happen as soon as next year, where in a court case, you're looking at several years to get it through the system."
|
|
pc
climber
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:32am PT
|
Edejom, Your arguement is much better. That's a crazy number of sheep in a short amount of time and I imagine that would hit the bottom line. Though it sounds like the rancher/s in question had insurance.
I just don't like ranchers trying to play the sympathy card. Poor sheep and cows... That's pure hypocrisy.
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:46am PT
|
No insurance--can't by purchased for "an act of God" intrusion.
The state and Fed offered up some chump change for each head--that would hardly cover replacing each one, let alone the time, energy, and dollars to raise them to adult status.
Granted, this case was extraordinary, but clearly not out of the realm of possibility when dealing with a killing machine animal...
I like looking at roaming lobos as much as the next person, but "regulating" and "controlling" them is simply preposterous. If they roam (which they do, up to 200 mi. per day) then they will kill, period, it is their purpose. Why can't non-wolf country folk see this?
edit: ...and they KILL the easiest, most convenient prey without prejudice or discretion.
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:57am PT
|
Matt, I don't understand your question (what is loscust?) and how it pertains to this matter...
I'm no expert, and don't claim to be even close to one--I see the local stories on wolf kills, then relate how I would feel in that position.
Personally, I have seen wolves in the wild, and have a rancher friend/acquaintance that has killed 5 wolves (that I know of) whilst munching on Angus calves. The Fed authorities don't even ask him questions anymore, they just issue him a "kill on-sight" permit and tell him to call them when he kills one. (off the radar kind of stuff)
edit: BTW: my friend lives 40 North of YNP and lives in a valley that the Fed claimed was "wolf-free", that is until they were photographed and killed there.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 12:59am PT
|
where is rocjox? i bet he would be having a rabies, foaming at the mouth attack at this thread!
on a side note, i spend a great deal of time in the far back woods, not like a climbing area trail head and i have seen wolves and heard them in WA state. beautiful and gorgeous. but i was glad to have my .357 too.
frankly, the wolves do not need our protecting, they are very good at protecting themselves up here. on the other side i enjoy the fact they are here, but i dont rely on farm animals for my income so i can understand pissed off ranchers as well.
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2010 - 01:01am PT
|
Your opinion, AC--I got no problem with that, for you don't live in wolf country and don't really matter in the scheme of things.
edit: Crowley--if the Fed introduced an endangered species of termites to your locale, and they ate your foundation, it would be hard to believe that YOU would not be seeking compensation.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!