Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Washington State, from USFWS website (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, divineorder
    The Service’s proposal [to delist the wolf from endangered] is supported by governors and state wildlife agency leadership in each of the states with current wolf populations, as well as those that will assume responsibility for managing wolves dispersing into their states, such as Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah and North Dakota.

    To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 01:40:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think you understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      badger

      the feds can delist. STates are still free to list. Wolves in WA are listed statewide and will remain so.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:01:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So all we have to do is teach the wolves (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, Agathena, divineorder

        how to respect state borders and not wander into Idaho. And the best way to do that is with a little deterrence.

        "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

        by dumpster on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:01:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is how all wildlife are managed now (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          badger

          I don't know if you realize it but all wildlife is managed by the states. Even endangered wildlife. Even under federal protection states are the ones that do the day to day managing.

          All states manage all delisted wildlife except within National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges and other unusual instances.

          Wildlife management and enforcement is paid for 100% by hunters, shooters, and fisherfolks.

          Just the way it is. You're welcome. Happy to foot the bill for all of you.

          Wolves will stick around and eat it, when they run out of meat they wander, or if they overpopulate.

          No state has ever taken wolves voluntarily. Not CA, not MA.

          Actually MA and NY have both stated categorically that they absolutely will not stand wolves. Why people in those states hate wolves so much I don't know. Adirondack Park is a heck of a lot bigger than Yellowstone. I think this has a heck of a lot to do with delisting if you read the proposal carefully. No links in this diary of course.

          If states wish to they can go to Idaho, trap wolves, and bring them back to their own states. There is a long standing offer from the governor to do so. Now why does no one take Idaho up on it's offer?

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:09:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wolves in Eastern 1/3 of WA were delisted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          they are only protected in 2/3 of the state. That info was on the Washington Fish & Wildlife page. Ban nock you should read it.

          The wolves will notice the difference.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:49:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's Federal protection (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Agathena, ban nock

            State protection extends statewide, so it's unlikely the wolves will notice. A  lot of the eastern 1/3 of WA (from Spokane south) is mostly wheat fields or channeled scabland (from the glacial Lake Missoula floods) and not wolf habitat anyway. It's mostly pheasant habitat.

            The NE corner (like Pend d'Oreille county) is forested, and I believe there was a wolf pack up there too.

            No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

            by badger on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:48:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can see how complicated it is to have (0+ / 0-)

              state by state protection with different rules for each state instead of one rule for the country. There's nothing to stop a hunter from poaching in one state where wolves are protected then moving their carcasses across the line into a state where it's shoot on sight for most of the year.

              The more complicated the rules are, the easier it is to break them and claim ignorance of the law. Which seems to be the intent. The agency charged with getting the statistics USFWS is the one making the rules. They can say there are 1,000 wolves in an area and base the bag limits (if any) on that figure. Who can dispute their figures?

              To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:49:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not complicated actually, only for people who (0+ / 0-)

                aren't familiar with wildlife management in America.

                Speculating about wildlife biologists lying about numbers is kinda out there, just sayin.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 05:11:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site