Rule change eases restrictions on wolf kills in northern Rockies 16

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   caniscandida Posted 6:03 am
   24 Jan 2008

   KPAXIn case anyone thought Missoula was a liberal-leaning, enlightened college town, just see how this article was written, with unnuanced use of "wolf control" and "threatened" populations of deer and elk.
   So far as the deer and elk go, I would be very surprised if they were actually in danger of being eliminated anywhere, even if wolves have an effect on their movements and distribution.  Of course the anti-wolf interests here are not full-heartedly pro-deer and pro-elk; they just want to make sure that when they go hunting, they do not have to do too much work looking for something they want to shoot and kill.

   Permalink

2. 

   rong Posted 6:25 am
   24 Jan 2008

   BoomI guess we're going back to the days when ranchers would bait traps loaded with dynamite and think that that was some sort of really macho thing to do.  
   We're supposed to be the intelligent life on this planet.  Why is it that we, especially in the U.S., think that the solution to anything we don't like is to kill it?  I guess the answer is that it's worked so well for us in the past.  

   Permalink

3. 

   rwelborn Posted 7:20 am
   24 Jan 2008

   Cool.Then we can spend money raising a bunch of them in a few years and try to re-release them into the wild and make a tv special about it.
   How about you put your rifles down and quit taking all of these species natural homes away from them.
   Impossible! How would hundreds of thousands of beef loving people eat?

   Permalink

4. 

   javaearth Posted 8:09 am
   24 Jan 2008

   how is the decision made?People disappoint me! - just because an animal is not on the endangered list, does not mean we have a free killing spree!
   How does the US fish and Wildlife make these decisions?
   
   Do they survey the land?  
   
   Do farmers complain about a wolfs?
   
   Do hunters give the UFWM a big bonus for extra deer for hunting season?

   Permalink

5. 

   cwistomoweina Posted 2:50 pm
   24 Jan 2008

   manipulated population growth and declineThe deer and elk populations are probably declining due to being over hunted. Now the hunters want something new to shoot.

   Permalink

6. 

   Matt Posted 11:18 pm
   24 Jan 2008

   Stupid is as stupid does!Wildlife managers have been commenting that a more likely cause of deer and elk decline has been the drought that much of the region is suffering from. So let's combine the conditions of weak prey and hungry wolves; it only stands to reason that wolves are rapacious killers bent on destroying America. I'm amazed that they haven't been put on the Terror Watch List yet.
   Aye, let's shoot more wolves and allow more sick and diseased creatures to roam and reproduce! Good idea!
   In case you're wondering, I couldn't find anywhere a set of hard data indicating that deer or elk herds were at dangerously low numbers... just lower than they had been in a few regions.

   Permalink

7. 

   skpalodichuk Posted 3:44 am
   25 Jan 2008

   UnbelievableWhat kind of cold-hearted idiots are running the fish and wildlife service?
   
   There are too many caribou and deer!
   
   The populations for deer and caribou far out number the wolf populations.
   
   Great now every stupid rancher that sees a wolf will bait and kill it just so some idiot can eat his 1000 calorie Big Mac.
   
   As if the slaughter going on in Alaska is not enough!
   
   To the man that made this decision: karma is a bitch.
   What happened to people that venerated the wolf? Oh yeah, we stole their land
   
   

   Permalink

8. 

   NelleR Posted 8:23 am
   27 Jan 2008

   wolvesWhen someone's livestock or family pet is injured or killed, it always seems to get much more attention than when a very endanged species is killed.  People eventually will kill some of these cows, sheep, chickens, etc. for food but when a wolf kills any of these animals as their instinct compels them to, some people jump for their guns to protect "their livelihood".  Obviously farm animals are not in danger of extinction!  I realize that people have to eat but I believe that unless human lives are in immediate danger from wolves and other dangerous wild animals, livestock and pets are just another casualty in the food chain.  Can't these people claim a loss on their insurance policy?  It's always sad to lose a family pet, but when someone hits a pet with their car, do people go out and impound the offending vehicle and crush it and/or shot the driver?  It's only common sense to save these endangered animals.  The real problem is that there are tooooo many people in this world.  But that's not a problem easily solved, except through common sense. (which is in short supply these days!)

   Permalink

9. 

   caniscandida Posted 10:16 am
   27 Jan 2008

   dogs outdoorsGood points, NelleR.
   Of course, it is sad when dogs and cats get into mortal trouble, at the hands of coyotes, fishers, other dogs, raptors, etc. -- very very rarely wolves.
   But the owners of dogs, cats and other animals must realize, they have a grave responsibility to take good care of them, and to keep them safe.  And that means, they should not let them run free out of doors.
   Also, in Western ranch country, loose dogs form loose packs, and kill cattle.  They are responsible for many more deaths of cattle than wolves.  And yet, because necropsies can only identify the alleged killer of a cow as a "canid," ruling out a cougar or a bear, wolves unjustly get the blame.
   Dogs and cats must not be allowed to roam free.

   Permalink

10. 

    kimberleywoelich Posted 2:04 pm
    27 Jan 2008

    when does this stop?really when do humans learn this is not their world alone and that they to learn to share!

    Permalink

11. 

    elamps Posted 11:39 pm
    28 Jan 2008

    HelpYou can contribute to NRDC, as they're looking to run an ad in the New York Times in regards to this nonsense...and reach out those nationwide who don't realize this may happen.

    Permalink

12. 

    caniscandida Posted 11:58 pm
    28 Jan 2008

    the NRDCRight, Elamps.  They have been leaders in the legal defense of wolves (and cetaceans), along with Defenders of Wildlife.
    It is curious, though, that many in the Grist community mistrust them, no doubt for other reasons.

    Permalink

13. 

    cmello Posted 3:20 am
    29 Jan 2008

    another misnamed government agencyJust as the EPA should really be called the Environmental Pollution Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been making lame wildlife decisions like this one concerning elk, deer and wolves for years. Every time I read about them in the news lately, it seems like they are doing something else stupid.
    Besides bashing the federal government, we should also be addressing the policies of certain states that don't appear to care about anything (the environment, their wildlife, the future condition of land in their states) except making money.

    Permalink

14. 

    caseyreagan Posted 2:06 pm
    29 Jan 2008

    wholesale cynicismI too am saddened by the decision of FWS and am confused about why they would take these steps prior to de-listing the wolf and turning its management over to the states. However, what I am more concerned about is the degree of uninformed slander that I see in the responses to the article. From bashing Missoula, to "stupid ranchers", hunters and even entire states. This is the kind of polemical fodder that people who truly care about environmental justice and human rights need to get over. Besides being reactionary and uninformed, it feeds the cycle of cynical resignation that inclines people to complain about everything and do nothing to change it.

    Permalink

15. 

    caniscandida Posted 5:36 am
    30 Jan 2008

    "bashing"?Being suspicious in the face of a terrific abuse of power is not "bashing."
    I am sure that there are all kinds of people in the Northern Rockies who are happy that wolves have been reintroduced, and who want to see them protected, and are displeased that protections for wolves are being removed.
    And so now, we are waiting to hear from them.
    KPAX is not speaking for them.  The Governor of Idaho is not speaking for them.
    I want very much to be told that yes indeed, there are people in positions of power and influence, heads of government, leaders of communities, news editors with newspapers and TV and radio stations, who are standing up and speaking out in defense of wolves.

    Permalink

16. 

    wiscidea Posted 5:57 am
    30 Jan 2008

    public land, property rights, grazing rightsSpeculation:
    Most of the wolves live on Federal land. This is collectively owned by ALL citizens of the United States. Through our representatives, the vast majority of Americans have decided they want to preserve endangered species like wolves. Conservatives -- probably including a large number of ranchers -- are all about property rights. So... ranchers -- out of respect for freedom, democracy, and property rights -- should respect the decision of the citizens of the United States of America to not permit killing of wolves on OUR property. They are free to let their cattle roam in such areas, but should accept that wolves might kill a few. They are free to hunt deer and elk, but should accept others will be hunting as well. It is the cost of doing business. Surely they don't want to rely on government welfare programs for survival, which is exactly what permission to kill wolves is. It is special treatment to facilitate operation of a business that cannot otherwise compete in a free market.
    Why do western ranchers hate America, freedom, democracy, and property rights?
    By the way, humans are really obligated to protect their dogs and other pets from large predators. We've benefited so much from dogs. Only the most ungrateful human beings alive would allow them to roam unsupervised and subject to such harsh natural forces.

    Permalink