Skip to main content

View Diary: Wolves: "Mission Accomplished" (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Am I understanding the numbers correctly (6+ / 0-)

    In 2012 there were 1674 wolves in five northern states and beginning in 2011 there have been 1100 of them killed in three of those states?

    I'm not pure on this issue - I'm very nervous when protecting my dogs within the Denver city limits from the coyote pack that lives across the street, but in the national forests and national parks (and other public lands) at least these animals should be protected.  The coyotes in Denver are better protected than the wolves are in areas designated as "wilderness".

    •  1674 is the number for 5 states (16+ / 0-)

      given by Fish & Wildlife. I think that 1,100 killed figure would be for 5 states too.

      This number does not count the number of wolves killed for attacking livestock.

      There are only 100 wolves in Yellowstone right now and if they go beyond the buffer zone around the park, they will be killed. It's in the nature of the animal to wander, migrate and colonize in another area.

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:02:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fear is highly inbred in those northern mountain (11+ / 0-)

        states.  It doesn't matter either whether it's the majority view in the state or not.  A few determined hunters can wipe the species out given today's technology (see what's happening to Africa's elephants, who are being slaughtered with automatic weapons, night vision and aerial assaults).  I do not want those few determined hunters to remove a species from the earth - they have no right to do so.

        •  you have no reason to fear hunters (0+ / 0-)

          you say you are scared but you have absolutely no reason to be. Hunters are law abiding conservationists.

          Just as an FYI an AK is not a real great gun to go shoot an elephant with, it's all they have. I know it sounds cool to say automatic weapon and aerial assaults but there is no beach head, no apocalypse now.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:11:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hunters have driven many species to extinction (7+ / 0-)

            Why wouldn't we fear them, since too many have no sense of ecology and why different species exist?

            In the area where I live, they drove deer, bear, elk, and some other species to extinction. They had to reintroduce them, at least the ones that existed in other places.

            The Elk they decimated are gone forever. Larger elk from the Rockies have been introduced, but they are more destructive than the original species was because they are larger and more aggressive.

            Unregulated hunting = extinction of species, or at least a tendency to only take the healthiest, leaving genetically deficient and diseased animals to reproduce.

            Regulated hunting can lead to the animals being afraid of humans, which makes them less likely to be a problem, which is good. But, it has to be regulated, because many hunters just don't care about preserving species. Not all, but enough to be a problem.

            Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:20:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those were subsistance hunters prior to modern (0+ / 0-)

              game management. All state agencies follow the basic blueprint laid out by Aldo Leopold in his seminal book Game Management.

              In modern times hunters are the only ones that protect and conserve species. Who do you think pays for wolves?

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:27:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No they weren't. Bison were driven (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ColoTim, Tonedevil, Agathena, divineorder

                to near extinction both for sport and for the skins. The meat was left to rot in the prairies.

                Big "sporting" adventures were organized to shoot rounded up bison for fun.  People bragged back home how many they'd killed.

                It simply is not the case that all extinctions are driven by subsistence hunters.

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:44:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  A lot was also done to take food away from (5+ / 0-)

                  the Native Americans so they would be restricted to reservations.

                  Over-hunting has led to the extinction of many animals.  Passenger Pigeons are another of North America's great extinctions caused not by a need to eat them, but more for sport and because nobody could conceive of the extinction of such an abundant species.

                  •  what? You and Yucatan can't read? (0+ / 0-)
                    Those were subsistance hunters prior to modern
                    game management. All state agencies follow the basic blueprint laid out by Aldo Leopold in his seminal book Game Management.

                    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                    by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:25:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We were both taking issue with your implication (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Agathena

                      that the extinction of species was totally driven by subsistence hunting.  We were pointing out other reasons extinctions happened that had no connection with subsistence or even game management, but were from other reasons - wanton slaughter without any relation to management for sustainability and political calculations that extinction was a good outcome.  I take issue with your implication that modern management is taking place wrt wolves - they had it and then politicians overruled wildlife biologists and the slaughter has resumed.

                      •  interesting theory but conjecture means not much (0+ / 0-)

                        you might want to find an instance of politicians over ruling wildlife biologists or modern hunters leading to extinction.

                        I mean you can't just make things up. oh, yes you can.

                        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                        by ban nock on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Modern game management is what we're trying (6+ / 0-)

                to have in the areas where the wolves live, but that's not what a return to open season on wolves leads to.  That leads back to the extinction of the wolves which leads to overpopulation of deer and elk (amongst many) which then leads to over-browsing of trees, increased soil erosion, warmer streams because trees don't shadow them anymore leading to changes in fish species, not to mention more diseases from the increased crowding of the species that would be hunted and thinned by the wolves.

                In Colorado, the fees for helping manage fish and game come from the hunting and fishing licenses.  Very little revenue comes from access fees to state parks, boating licenses and the like.  There's a series of commercials where hikers are walking up to hunters and fishermen to "hug a hunter" and thank them for helping to preserve Colorado's land not just for the wildlife but for hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts.  That's the reality in Colorado.  

                Changes to hunting in the northern Rockies, however, back to the earlier "kill 'em all" is not based on modern game management - it's purely political based on local politics where what feels good - killing the wolves so you're no longer afraid (and this goes to bears as well, though bears don't roam in packs and let their howls be heard for miles across the night) is so anti-science and anti-animal health that it should continue to be criminal.

                •  There is no "kill em all" in the Northern Rockies (0+ / 0-)

                  go to the web sites of the fish and wildlife divisions of the states involved. Those policies are designed by wildlife biologists, and they are very good at managing all species. Look at the wolf populations so far.

                  The over browsing myth is myth.
                  Science is self correcting on wolves

                  You can't become informed if you stick to advocacy sources. Howling For The Heck Of It is not interested in educating you.

                  How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                  by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:32:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "kill em all" is closer to the truth than the idea (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Agathena

                    that the wolf population is managed for sustainability.  No, the wildlife managers aren't doing it, but the hunters and ranchers seem to be freely killing wolves.

                  •  Well, I'm sticking with my BS and MS in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Agathena

                    natural resources and outdoor recreation management where I took numerous courses in wildlife biology, wildlife management and such.  But I guess my studies were hopelessly biased.

                    •  did they teach you that having a hunch of a (0+ / 0-)

                      feeling trumps facts? If you took wildlife management in University why are you making obviously false claims about the wildlife management plans of the northern rockies. Shouldn't you base statements about wildlife management on facts? Oh, maybe not, where did you go to school? Santa Cruz?

                      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                      by ban nock on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 05:19:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, and they drove a lot of things extinct (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil, Agathena

                lol

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:35:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Hunters can be good, they can be evil. (4+ / 0-)

            The ones who are hunting the wolves (elephants and other species) to extinction are what worry me.  My reference to fear is why those who hunt wolves are motivated to do what they do.  I believe many are doing it because they're afraid of any of a number of reasons and their way to deal with their fear is to try and exterminate wolves.  Some reasons I'll posit for their fears:

            They're afraid of wolves - all the stories they heard as they were growing up of wolves attacking and eating people have sunk in at a very core level.  They kill wolves so they don't have to worry about having themselves, their family or their property attacked by wolves.

            They're afraid of government - government has told them the wolves are off-limits and they're afraid enough of the big, bad government that they'll strike back at wolves.  Kinda like the Spotted Owls so many decades ago - if the wolves are all dead, then there won't be restrictions placed on the planned use of the forest, whether that be some fantasy of unlimited elk and deer herds or their desire to cut down forests or otherwise despoil the land.  If there's an endangered species so the land must be protected for them, then the land would be off limits as well.  But if all the wolves are dead, then they can clear-cut, strip mine or do whatever the hell they want.

            They're afraid of being told what to do by outsiders - not just government, but academics, tourists who are out to see the wolves and others who might, just might, have a difference of opinion as to what makes the land valuable.  They don't want to entertain the idea that their traditional uses of the land aren't the most healthy for it.

            They're afraid of change - they moved to those areas or grew up in those areas and the wolves had been killed by their predecessors.  Now that wolves are coming back, they're reminders that the whole world is changing.  If they can kill the wolves, maybe they can get "their" forests back.

            •  Maybe it's martian robots too (0+ / 0-)

              How can you speculate on the motivations of others? Seriously, that's laughable. Have you ever talked to someone north of 104th St?

              You should at least quote someone, even if they aren't representative.

              Go look at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation web site and come back with some kind of motivation.

              I assumed you'd get it when I turned the "fear" thing back at you.

              Should I speculate on the motives of people who live in cities?

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:18:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's obvious you've got your agenda and you're (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Agathena

                not open to hearing others' experiences.  I live and work with people who hunt here in Colorado.  I have worked for various federal land management agencies.  I have been responsible for issuing some licenses for fishing, as well as various non-hunting/fishing activities like backcountry camping.  But of course I couldn't possibly have ever stepped foot outside of a city.  

                You've totally invalidated any sympathy I might have for your cause by your totally bigoted holier-than-thou attitude.

          •  hahahahaha! Meanwhile, back in the real world... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, divineorder, Agathena

            tell that to my friend whose grad student was murdered by irresponsible hunters.

            meanwhile, back in the real world, hunters are as a group pretty irresponsible when it comes to preserving wildlife. Look at all the furor over the lead ban.  This comment is a joke bit of propaganda.

            Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

            by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:34:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow! what a terrible story (0+ / 0-)

              Dk is just chalk a block full of people getting shot stories. Glad I live someplace safe.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:19:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                divineorder, ColoTim, Agathena

                She was a plant ecology grad student at VPSU doing research out in western viriginia and got mistaken for a deer.  I worked with her advisor a few years after that.  I myself used to find piles of spend shells and vodka bottles out where I was doing my research.  Bears are bad, but hunters are worse.

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:24:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  we are invaded by hunters every season (0+ / 0-)

              I have a friend who works in a hotel-just off the thruway-in upstate NY. She dreads hunting season. Every hunting season, swarms of hunters invade her place of work. Not only is she subjected too daily sexist comments, they leave the rooms a mess and strewn with empty bottles and cans and porn zines. I am so sure these people are paragons of environmentalism when they are in the woods.

              Sorry to hear about the incident you describe.  

      •  There is no buffer zone, that rule was resinded (0+ / 0-)

        as soon as it was made.

        Don't mean to get all technical on you. Just figured I'd mention it.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's hard to keep up with all the rule changing (0+ / 0-)

          The New York Times updated their article with the info that wolves were protected in the areas adjacent to YNP. That was because it looked like hunters deliberately set out to kill wolves as they leave the park. They may even be tracking the research wolves by their collars, since 8 - 10 of them were killed right after wolves were delisted.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:04:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The NYT has never been very good at tracking (0+ / 0-)

            what is happening with wildlife. I read everything they publish on wolves. Park wolves were significantly more susceptible to hunters as they were no longer fully wild. Yellowstone is a zoo, people feed them sandwiches for photos.

            Ten miles outside is hardly just outside. Much of the wildlife in Yellowstone has been eaten, the wolves get hungry. Other than making wolves easier to see collars aren't able to be tracked plus the pelt is no good. I'd say most of the thousands of hunters buy a license to reduce populations though, they dont' care about pelts.

            There has been so much ill will generated that the state legislature made a law that the division of Wildlife can never stop wolf hunting beyond the park's borders.

            You reap what you sow.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:37:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Coyotes are so interesting, (11+ / 0-)

      the more we kill them and harass them, the larger their litters. They increase breeding to make up for lost numbers. Their ability to adapt is outstanding too.

      The City of Vancouver stopped trying to get rid of them and started a "Living with Wildlife" program for the urban dwellers. I don't know if it is still in existence.

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was watching four of them last night on the (6+ / 0-)

        little hill across the street from my house.  They were singing along to a siren, but they stopped singing when I shone my large flashlight at them.  They stayed on the hill and looked back - it's spooky to see the multiple pairs of eyes looking at me.  I might think it's neat except I have seen one stalking one of my dogs while I was walking him on a leash at the park, seen others hunting a stray dog and I keep hearing of missing dogs and cats in the neighborhood, including one of my neighbors who had a coyote jump a fence into their yard and then make off with one of their little dogs before they could react.  I did see one in my backyard that had cleared a near-6' fence and fortunately I was able to shut my dogs inside before they realized what was up.  I chased the coyote out of the yard but he knew I really posed no threat to him.

        Wolves in wilderness - yes.  Coyotes in open space - I guess.  Coyotes in my yard or stalking my dogs?  Not without consequences.  The laws for the wolves made sense if they had enforced them - they could be killed if they were in the act of attacking people (no incidents, IIRC) or livestock.  Sadly, they were often the victims of shoot and shovel and shut-up, but with that level of predation they still were able to grow their ranges.  This wholesale slaughter serves to hurt all wildlife, the health of forests and it only benefits the bloodthirsty predatory hunters who see their purpose in life as to kill as many wolves as possible.  There's no reasoning with them, there's no accommodation that can be reached with them, and with current weapon technology, there's no balance that can be reached between them and wolves.

        •  And with guns allowed in National Parks, wolves (7+ / 0-)

          are more likely to be poached. There's no way to control vast areas of wilderness.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 01:13:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are key differences (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, Agathena, divineorder, ColoTim

          between the two species, that allow coyotes to thrive in contact with humans even under harsh hunting pressure. The same pressures exist on Eurasian wolves - which is why wolves in Romania are small, nocturnal, elusive and look one hell of a lot like coyotes. Canids are very evolutionarily plastic - populations sometimes change a lot over short periods of time. The grey wolf we're talking about is a highly social predator of large animals, with easily predictable travel patterns. All you need to do is set up where they routinely pass on patrol, and blast them into oblivion. It's not sport, it's cruelty. The grey wolves in the northern Rockies are/were more impressive animals than the little scrawny relict population in Romania. The Northern Rocky population unfortunately won't have 1000 years to adapt to heavy hunting pressure.  

          Coyotes?  Probably there needs to be some control on them in urban areas, though in Chicago they seem to be adapting pretty well.  It is interesting that coyotes in Quebec, where there used to be wolves and where there's less current hunting pressure, are starting to get bigger.  I wonder if something more like a wolf will evolve given enough time.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:25:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For something so easy the best hunters in the US (0+ / 0-)

            seem to have a very hard time shooting them. (Montana, Idaho)

            Success rate is around 1%. Lowest of any species I'm aware of.

            I posted a diary a long time ago on gene testing of wolves and coyotes across NA. Most show some genes of the other and even dog.

            Red wolf is a lot of dog. Eastern coyote is a lot wolf, not 50% but quite a bit. Canines can successfully cross breed with dingos and African wolves and just about anything.

            They say the most pure are the ones in out west here. Mexican wolves most different.

            Yesterday the tests on a canine shot in Massachusetts came back wolf. I think there are going to be a lot of mixing of genes.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:27:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I can't get my "recc'er" to work, so I'll say it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        "out loud": Comment recc'ed, and: I'm a great admirer of Canis latrans.

        "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

        by Wildthumb on Sat Jun 15, 2013 at 07:01:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Then the quote above in the diary is wrong (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Tonedevil, Agathena

      It's not 7% of the wolves killed, it's 70% of the wolves killed.

      The hunters will come around and talk about how this is proper management, and the fact that the fees they pay allows wildlife to continue.  We've heard it before.  If the mortality rate was 10% or so, even 20% that might be right.  >1000 out of 1600 wolves is not wildlife management.

      When you kill 70% of a population, year after year, you are applying extremely harsh selective pressure on that species.  What you will end up with is wolves that resemble coyotes - smaller, less predicable, in smaller or ever-changing social groups, operating at the margins and switching their prey patterns.  There's a reason why coyotes are common and wolves are not - coyotes are adapted to heavy human hunting pressure and wolves, being apex predators of big game, are not.

      The idea of hunters helping reintroduce and protect wolves in the Northern Rockies, under current circumstances, is ludicrous.  Wolves compete with hunters for elk, and that's the bottom line.  When wolves no longer eat elk, hunters and Western states will permit their continued existence.  Until then, they will shoot them back on to the endangered species list and turn them into an anti-environmental political issue. It's about who gets the elk.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:13:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can eat some elk, bears and cats already eat (0+ / 0-)

        lots and we tolerate them. People don't like to hunt carnivores, too much work. 200 wolves per state equal 4,000 less elk, per state. They will never be relisted and they will never disappear unless we change the laws. That too is an option if it's too difficult due to constant litigation. Under current law we can get rid of them all below I-90. All it would take is for USFWS to say so. It's in the 10 j rule. But we don't want to do that, we like them.

        and yes it is 7%. Wolves double every two to four years if they have food. They have scientists who do this kind of stuff, and they've been doing it a long time. All numbers are minimum numbers.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:34:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "7% in the Rocky Mountain area" (0+ / 0-)

        the 1100 figure includes wolves killed in all the states that were delisted up till  August 2012.

        To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:07:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site