Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 835 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostFri May 07, 2021 1:26 pm 
"ranching on lands just because that is the way it always has been done". If the land is their private property they should be able to defend it against predators regardless. When the wolf population(in this case introduced CANADIAN wolves) has exceeded the agreed upon objectives then something needs to be done. That is what is happening in Idaho plane and simple.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri May 07, 2021 1:45 pm 
brineal wrote:
This article is not saying what you are presenting it as saying.

I didn't cite any articles, and I'm definitely not part of the anti-hunting crowd.
Maybe I'm not understanding your posts correctly - one of the unfortunate consequences of having the trolls on ignore, I guess.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 143 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostFri May 07, 2021 2:29 pm 
Ski wrote:
brineal wrote:
This article is not saying what you are presenting it as saying.

I didn't cite any articles, and I'm definitely not part of the anti-hunting crowd.
Maybe I'm not understanding your posts correctly - one of the unfortunate consequences of having the trolls on ignore, I guess.

I was referring to the article Sculpin posted in response to your post.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 143 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostFri May 07, 2021 2:39 pm 
altasnob wrote:
Questioning Idaho's wolf management plan does not mean you are anti-hunting. I have absolutely nothing against hunting. While I don't hunt (I fish) one of my best friends is a fishing guide in Montana and also a huge hunter. His viewpoints on this subject align with mine. Hunting should be allowed to the extent it doesn't have any long term effect on the natural wildlife population and ecosystems. I think what we disagree with is what is that natural wildlife population. I also think Americans need to eat less beef (primarily because of environmental efficiency reasons, not moral reasons) and that we should not allow ranching on lands just because that is the way it always has been done. I also think those ranchers should be financially compensated for loosing livestock to wolves and there should be financial incentives for them to give up ranching on lands that are better suited for wolf and wildlife habitat.

From what I read about Idaho's current plan, it is unlikely they will be able to put a major dent on the wolf population no matter how hard they try. Only time will tell.

I'd agree with the bulk of that.

Unfortunately much of the problems surrounding reintroduction and management of wolves, public hyperbole and ultimately legislation and litigation is the "wolf slaughter" crowd who I'd say are a majority anti-hunting constituency.

Management prescription should remain with the fish and game body, I honestly think the rhetoric is worse than the reality when activists point to "shooting from helicopters," "shooting from trucks," "wolf slaughter."  The majority don't have access to these things and a moving vehicle is not necessarily a benefit in hunting elusive predators.

Wolves will continue to proliferate, some will be killed with rifles, fewer with bows, a small percentage of individuals will participate and be successful in trapping.  As you said the population will endure even if the goal was "wolf slaughter."

The only way to actually eradicate is already known - via mass poisoning and no one I am aware of is advocating that level of nonsense.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1276 | TRs | Pics
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
Member
PostSun May 09, 2021 6:40 pm 
Well let's hope that it doesn't come to the point where eradication is needed especially during this day and age. Management of wolves should be done at the fish and game level. But When fish and game does a poor job of controlling the wolf population the cattlemen and hunters look to legislation. The same thing happens here when the overwhelmed eastern part of the state looked to move wolves to the west side of the state. This was to help speed along the chance for delisting and a open wolf hunting season. The pro wolf group play at the heart strings of their doners in order to get even more donations. A so called "slaughter" will never happen yet a decrease in the population is much needed.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
cdestroyer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 831 | TRs | Pics
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostFri May 14, 2021 6:03 pm 
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 835 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostMon May 17, 2021 5:33 am 
Of coarse these groups would do this. The wolves being delisted is their so called "Cash cow". In every email they send out they quote the imperiled wolves while asking for donations. The CBD is one of the most sue hungry groups out there.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 143 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostMon May 17, 2021 12:56 pm 
The idea that wolves, in general, are "endangered" is hilarious.

That was a literal puff piece editorial which could easily have been buttressed by facts derived from the "science" term they continually used.  I am actually disappointed they were unable to make any rigorously defended claim, I am sure the "science" is actually fairly interesting

Kudos given for lack of terminology "wolf slaughter."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu May 20, 2021 12:58 pm 
brineal wrote:
I was referring to the article Sculpin posted in response to your post.

As noted above, I don't see posts from many users, that one being among them.
I don't waste my time reading garbage published online by hacks like "Center for Biological Diversity" either.
Picking lint out of my navel or watching paint dry is a more constructive use of my time.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1276 | TRs | Pics
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
Member
PostFri May 21, 2021 5:54 am 
Ski wrote:
I don't waste my time reading garbage published online by hacks like "Center for Biological Diversity" either.

Total waste of time on a group that only has their hand out!!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 143 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostFri May 21, 2021 12:51 pm 
When reading the letter signed by all the caring experts, the real heart of the matter (dislike of wildlife, namely ungulates) becomes rather apparent.

Wolves fulfill their ecological functions, in large part, by limiting the adverse
consequences of overabundant prey, including disease transmission and the ecological and
economic damage to rangeland, forests, and agricultural lands.


Note this claim was without citation, and some of the footnotes are laughable.  In general, there may be an argument about carrying capacities but those should not be at the expense of other species.  Moreover, these types will use nearly any means to actively block any delisting and pursue relisting.

Wolves are not endangered.  Wolves do not recognize national boundaries, the species is in good standing.

Some people just do not want plentiful animals which the conservation model has provided.  Our animals are a natural resource we should be protecting and not be marginalized for the sake of senseless predation.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11804 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri May 21, 2021 4:34 pm 
brineal, quoting something from 'the caring experts'  wrote:
"...adverse consequences of overabundant prey, including disease transmission and the ecological and economic damage to rangeland, forests, and agricultural lands...."

What utter nonsense.

Do these people really expect to be taken seriously publishing that sort of crap?

Again, this all goes back to early papers by professors Beschta and Ripple from Oregon State University, and they've applied what occured on the Yellowstone River to every watershed and parcel of public land in the western U.S.

While the published papers of Beschta-Ripple are peer-reviewed, they are not universally accepted by the academic community - specifically wildlife biologists working for the National Park Service.

Unfortunately it is a masturbatory exercise in futility to try to argue facts with people who unable to think under their own power. They will continue, just as the Q-Anon idiots, to believe the propaganda, and keep sending in those checks.

Goebbels
Goebbels

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 918 | TRs | Pics
Sculpin
Member
PostSat May 22, 2021 7:27 am 
http://www.gilbertresearch.org/whitetailed-deer-behavior-and-crop-depredation

The best solution tried so far is for farmers to obtain trained dogs that essentially function like a pack of wolves.

There is currently a lot of research going on because the dollar value of the damage is so high and the obvious solutions don't work so well.

The problem is perhaps even more pronounced in Europe, you can read the depressing stats here  eek.gif :

https://wilderness-society.org/lets-worry-ungulates-not-wolves/

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
brineal
Snarky Master



Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 143 | TRs | Pics
brineal
Snarky Master
PostMon May 24, 2021 8:17 am 
Sculpin wrote:
http://www.gilbertresearch.org/whitetailed-deer-behavior-and-crop-depredation

The best solution tried so far is for farmers to obtain trained dogs that essentially function like a pack of wolves.

There is currently a lot of research going on because the dollar value of the damage is so high and the obvious solutions don't work so well.

The problem is perhaps even more pronounced in Europe, you can read the depressing stats here  eek.gif :

https://wilderness-society.org/lets-worry-ungulates-not-wolves/

The obvious solution is to locate the areas experiencing crop issues, increase bag limits, increase tag sales and see if the issue can be resolved through legal hunting to manage the species (with a net benefit of reducing impacts on crops and receiving dollars for fish and game management and conservation).  Landowner depredation tags are also a viable solution.

The first order solution is not releasing a predatory species into the interface.  I am not even against wolf reintroduction per se, it's the resultant knee jerk resistance to a management plan once objectives are achieved or near achievement that is the issue.  Emotion too easily overtakes reason and even facts.

Somehow the areas being proposed for wolf reintroduction don't quite line up with agriculture.  I lived in the Clearwater, it is mostly timberlands and working forests with the exception of the western borders rolling into the Idaho palouse.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 613 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostMon May 24, 2021 4:56 pm 
An Unorthodox Strategy to Stop Cars From Hitting Deer. Try wolves

Wolves tend to prowl along human-made corridors such as trails and roads. By killing deer near these areas, or simply intimidating them into staying away, wolves could keep the animals far from cars. By analyzing 22 years of data, Raynor and her colleagues found that Wisconsin’s wolves have reduced the frequency of deer-vehicle collisions by a quarter. They save the state $10.9 million in losses every year—a figure 63 times greater than the total compensation paid for the loss of livestock or pets.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/05/wolves-reduce-deer-vehicle-collisions/618978/

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
  Happy Birthday Steven, Grizzy, lovetowonder, Lakes&Summits!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy