Skip to main content

This has to stop.

Yellowstone National Park’s best-known wolf, beloved by many tourists and valued by scientists who tracked its movements, was shot and killed on Thursday outside the park’s boundaries, Wyoming wildlife officials reported.
Read the heartbreaking New York Times article. Unfortunately it's not an isolated incident, it's just the latest of many such, fruit of a policy that loosened the protection of wolf packs. Now they're doing so much better, so yay, let's shoot some!

Scientists and tourists alike are appalled. After all the great work to bring wolf populations back from near extinction, now we let creeps with guns pick them off when they cross an invisible park boundary. Why are we doing this? To please who, exactly?

What's next, open season on dogs? Because, you know, they're not in danger of extinction, they're actually pretty well protected, so isn't it time we 'balanced' that by killing some?

The mind cringes at the behavior we sanction as a society. Not just guns, but what people actually want to do with them. When you think about the mind-set of someone who would shoot a wolf, the most intelligent and social of canines, it reminds you of what our species is capable of, and all its holocausts.

Originally posted to samizdat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:49 PM PST.

Also republished by Park Avenue and Public Lands.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (236+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thousandwatts, moose67, jbob, Dreaming of Better Days, mollyd, machka, Shippo1776, cany, Farugia, La Gitane, Massconfusion, Mostel26, Keone Michaels, blueoasis, Chaoslillith, Free Jazz at High Noon, rb608, NYFM, Wolf10, Agathena, Mathazar, prettygirlxoxoxo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassandra Waites, Mr Robert, Rosaura, cosette, ZenTrainer, exterris, Cory Bantic, Regina in a Sears Kit House, fumie, verdeo, geebeebee, radical simplicity, Leap Year, Assaf, tiggers thotful spot, NoMoreLies, begone, chuckvw, Lost and Found, petulans, chimene, squarewheel, tardis10, WheninRome, mythatsme, WisVoter, Kitsap River, shesaid, Eileen B, GeorgeXVIII, YaNevaNo, greycat, kaliope, Meteor Blades, Actbriniel, atana, progdog, Charles CurtisStanley, melfunction, Simplify, KenBee, Habitat Vic, Miss Jones, dear occupant, Pam from Calif, catullus, Chaddiwicker, limpidglass, ciganka, yoduuuh do or do not, kurt, Pat K California, Creosote, Rashaverak, Nulwee, Burned, carpunder, Simul Iustus et Peccator, sngmama, ChemBob, FloridaSNMOM, flowerfarmer, dance you monster, blue91, CherryTheTart, Desert Rose, sb, dle2GA, samddobermann, Missys Brother, Velocity, freerad, DRo, AnnetteK, tgypsy, Azubia, Onomastic, shortgirl, anodnhajo, Dobber, UFOH1, jnhobbs, DuzT, zerone, coppercelt, FrY10cK, Lopez99, White Buffalo, cybersaur, bluicebank, Leftcandid, Polly Syllabic, swampyankee, marleycat, kestrel9000, Loonesta, Sprinkles, Hayate Yagami, Melanie in IA, copymark, BachFan, Witgren, xynz, zerelda, mconvente, IndieGuy, tofumagoo, craigkg, forgore, US Blues, annan, Christin, Tyto Alba, poliwrangler, Lily O Lady, Johnny Nucleo, bythesea, Aquarius40, LarisaW, kmoore61, carolyn urban, Timothy J, martini, ratzo, lcrp, cherie clark, old wobbly, MrBigDaddy, djMikulec, BlueDragon, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Joy of Fishes, Thunder Dreamer, rja, PeterHug, Nica24, Amber6541, OIL GUY, Glacial Erratic, twcollier, RMliberal, emmasnacker, Frameshift, RLMiller, DixieDishrag, ccasas, susans, SanFernandoValleyMom, deha, marina, splashy, janmtairy, psnyder, madgranny, Mr Stagger Lee, Ice Blue, ladybug53, Texnance, Damnit Janet, Empower Ink, KayCeSF, One Pissed Off Liberal, Robynhood too, a2nite, Barbara Marquardt, Ellinorianne, akmk, chira2, Loudoun County Dem, pat bunny, Egalitare, roses, stormicats, nomandates, chantedor, Ocelopotamus, BeadLady, skyounkin, IL clb, barbwires, dlemex, sethtriggs, louisprandtl, Lady Libertine, RebeccaG, SteelerGrrl, kyril, bluesheep, Jim R, BYw, PhilJD, DouglasH, beth meacham, zesty grapher, skybluewater, wordwraith, Lefty Ladig, DvCM, tytalus, eeff, Steveningen, CTLiberal, Port City Moon, leeleedee, Fishgrease, cv lurking gf, cacamp, noblindeye, susakinovember, WakeUpNeo, Joieau, dwayne, ivorybill

    "The universe is a sphere whose center is wherever there is intelligence." -Thoreau

    by samizdat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:49:43 PM PST

  •  It breaks my heart that so many ignorant (55+ / 0-)

    humans don't understand the value of this marvelous predator in a well-balanced ecosystem.  It is indeed sad.

    Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Einstein

    by moose67 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:57:05 PM PST

    •  Heartbreaking picture (20+ / 0-)

      from the  American Scientist article linked by the Times: http://www.americanscientist.org/...

      There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

      by NYFM on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:06:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no balance of nature (12+ / 0-)

      I think you mean a temporary equilibrium, and that is exactly why we have wildlife management including the harvest of wolves.

      I do go slow however on calling people ignorant. Just because they don't understand the very basics of wildlife management is no reason for me to cast aspersions on their limited knowledge rather I assume them to be misinformed.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:19:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they ARE "ignorant" (9+ / 0-)

        because the don't "understand".  I think it's fair to call people who don't understand something ignorant.

        •  yes but I can't come onto a wolf outrage diary (5+ / 0-)

          and start calling people ignorant just because they have no idea what they are talking about. Instead I try to be polite and factual. Most of these wolf huggers are just urban pet owners and basically nice well intentioned people. They look at things from an emotional perspective and if I go calling them ignorant they will just be emotionally apposed to even listening to what I have to say.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:42:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your word choice reveals an emotional perspective (11+ / 0-)

            of your own: "wolf outrage diary" "wolf huggers".

            And no, conservation biology does not require "harvesting wolves".

            •  I'm not sure that conservation biology is science (2+ / 0-)

              More a political movement as anything. Kind of like astrology isn't astronomy.

              Game Management  often requires the harvest of inedible species, and it has ever since that fella at the link wrote his book.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:39:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In practice game management is a political process (9+ / 0-)

                and not always a scientific one.

                Conservation biology is what most scientists would refer to as science.

                There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

                by Frameshift on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:55:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, and I have had the pleasure of knowing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, moose67

                  some conservation biologists. People in the field are often selfless and dedicated, as it is not a high paying field. The sad thing is, they sometimes are the targets of those of the right wing fringe (uh, I should say 'main stream', not 'fringe'), much like climate scientists are.

              •  Nature Conservation is a science, actually. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana, Agathena, kyril, zesty grapher, gene s

                Incredibly diverse and, unfortunately, no where near as comprehensive as we would hope it would be the world over - because with thousands of species of plants and animals coexisting even on just one small acre it is hard to cover them all - but that doesn't mean that we lack very good and comprehensive scientific documentation and studies of some of these ecosystems.  Yellowstone is one of the ecosystems where there has been quite a bit of scientific study and documentation of the plant, animal and geological players.

              •  It certainly is a science, often ignored. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril, atana, wordwraith

                In this case it is the politics of cattle ranchers and sportsmen over good ecosystem science. Don't think for moment because the BLM or states gives permitting a thumbs up there is any science behind it.

                You see the same with barrier island land use politics, science says let them be, commerce says keep them static.

                Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

                by the fan man on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:02:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  is this suppose to be funny (7+ / 0-)

            because again you've said 'that you can't call somebody ignorant' because they have no idea what they are talking about? (A famous George Carlin routine comes to mind...) However,  I agree with @atana and would go further and say  your resort to button hitting labels reveals your objectives. One does not need great emotional depth or above average intelligence to see that.

            •  Only funny if you are in on the joke (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kenevan McConnon

              others might read and get all twisted up in knots, start getting angry etc. "but but but he's laughing at me".

              Off to get a load of wood in preparation for tomorrow and maybe buy some goodies for the kids, it's Christmas.

              Oh, lastly a link. This is in a magazine I read about issues ecological in the West. One of their writers is on a wolf hunt in the area I believe where this wolf was shot!!

              High Country News Gone Hunting Wolves

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:46:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes this is emtional (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zesty grapher, wordwraith, gene s

                which is just fine, better than fine.

                we need an emotional connection to our planet and creatures if we are ever to save ourselves.

                and dissing people in the cities and suburbs with pets is just dumb.  i think having pets is a very good thing because it puts us humans in the cities and suburbs into connection with the natural world we are otherwise isolated from.

                they are a tiny slice of how other life on this planet lives and breathes and we need that.

                i generalize from my kitty to the natural world just fine and that is the way it should be.  she stands in for all that life that i otherwise have little to no experience of and reminds me of the differences.  and when she catches mice, she reminds me that much further of the realities out there, which are not all that awful, i just don't  experience them enough.

                Donate to Occupy Wall Street here: http://nycga.cc/donate/

                by BlueDragon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:58:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's fine, but consider the fact (5+ / 0-)

                  that Elk are also "living creatures" and many people love them, even non-hunters like myself. Fifteen years ago there were twice as many of them in Idaho and they are growing more and more scarce as the wolf population grows. Calf survival is down to thirty percent in areas where the wolf packs are strongest. I don't hunt, but I've accepted the fact that people actually kill these majestic hooved creatures. And I've accepted the fact that killing (I'll spare people the PC term "harvesting") a few wolves protects the greater elk herd. I don't relish the fact that we kill both bear and mountain lion in Idaho, but we have for a long time. Preservation of the greater elk herd has a lot to do with this.

                  I was an advocate for wolf re-introduction in Idaho but if I could take it back I would. Politically democrats need hunters on their side in Idaho and Montana, and they have been on our side due to our advocacy for wilderness preservation. But wolf protection is turning more and more hunters away from democrats. Wolf protection in Idaho is political poison in the same way that gun control is poison everywhere else. I wish it weren't so, but that's essentially how it is, and that's essentially why there are some out west who are willing to consider compromise on this issue.

                  There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

                  by frankzappatista on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:37:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Without wolf protections (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    atana, Agathena, kyril, zesty grapher, moose67

                    ...there would be no wolves, period, and the rest of the ecosystem suffers because there are no predators for animals such as elk.  

                    Native Americans long understood that one can still respect nature and its balances, and still be hunters sharing the natural bounty with other predators such as wolves.  Any hunter today who doesn't see that needs a serious education in ecology before getting a hunting license.  

                    •  Elk and other hooved mammals (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ban nock, Agathena

                      already have a predator: people.

                      I have never heard of an ecosystem in Idaho or the west in general that was threatened by elk. Their primary food is red osier dogwood which dominates fire-scarred areas, and the elk don't really compete with any other animals for this food.

                      There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

                      by frankzappatista on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:29:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not true, at least in microcosm. (4+ / 0-)

                        In 1995 and 1996, 21 wolves from British Columbia were captured and reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, where they had been extirpated by 1926, eliminated by government predator control programs.

                        Without its apex predator, the ecological balance of the park had run out of control, with elk and coyote populations exploding to the detriment of many other species of flora and fauna. Since the wolves have become reestablished, decreased pressure from elk and coyotes has resulted in the populations of beavers, foxes and many smaller plant and animal species bouncing back. Habitat has begun to restore itself to normal as young willow, cottonwood and aspen trees have started to thrive again, no longer stripped bare by huge populations of desperate wintering elk.

                        It has been estimated that Yellowstone can only support about 5,000 elk, yet their population was 15,000 when the wolves were reintroduced. Elk numbers have gradually reverted back to normal levels since the wolves' reintroduction. Isn't it better to allow the system to naturally regulate itself, rather than resort to wholesale extermination in order (as described at the link above) to control populations that no longer have any natural predators?

                        You can find out more in the linked article below.

                        CNN.com: "Wolves eat elk, make Yellowstone a better place, researchers say," 1/15/12
                        Predatory wolves are helping restore the ecosystem in Yellowstone National Park more than 15 years after their reintroduction to America's oldest national park, researchers report.

                        The wolves eat elk, which mean the elk aren't eating young trees, and in turn there are more mature trees creating better living conditions for animals from fish to birds to beavers to bears, according to the report from researchers at Oregon State University.

                        ...

                        "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

                        by commanda on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:12:35 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're talking about a population (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ban nock, Kenevan McConnon

                          where hunting was not allowed, so it's kind of apples and oranges compared to the populations I'm talking about in Idaho and Montana. When you ask "isn't it better", well, in Yellowstone, yes. In Idaho, better is a relative term. It's definitely not better for hunters, and the situation as a whole is not better for democrats who insist on an inflexible hunting ban.

                          I'm not a hunter, but I enjoy having elk in the Idaho forests. Whether I see elk or wolves in the wild makes little difference to me. I've seen them both. But we have lost tens of thousands of elk in Idaho while gaining roughly 500 wolves. Seeing an elk or hearing a bugling bull is becoming more and more uncommon.

                          It's time for people to realize that our populations of elk, bison, bear, and mountain lion are artificial and regulated by hunting and have been for decades. Populations of all species have been managed. If you let one predator species go unmanaged then you have what you have now -- wholesale destruction of the elk herd. This is why people are suggesting that wolves become part of the management mix.

                          There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

                          by frankzappatista on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:57:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  most of what you say above is non science (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          frankzappatista

                          for instance apex predator and balance and all that, you might as well be speaking of fairy dust. Oregon University is home to the most discredited laughed at disproven group of wolf advocates to ever call themselves scientists. They've even disproven their own studies! All the willow trees and beaver and re watering is no longer mentioned in polite conversation.

                          The international Wolf Center keeps a file called "Wolves Save the World" it's huge. The CNN link is in it for sure. Truly, they laugh at this stuff.

                          I'll probably post about it next week, a review of all the false disproven wolf memes that still exist in the popular media.

                          Don't be sucked in by propaganda, if it sounds too magical to be true there's a good chance it is.

                          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:13:04 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I hope you do post something about this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kenevan McConnon

                            I was a huge advocate for wolf reintroduction in the eighties, and debated many a hunter over this issue. In the last five years I've had to agree they were right and I was dead wrong. I know of several hunters who tell me they see literally NO SIGN of elk in areas where they have always hunted for them, and I have no reason to disbelieve them when they return from camp without any meat. As I mentioned above, while we have gained 500 wolves in Idaho we have lost 20-30 thousand elk, which to me seems like a ridiculous tradeoff; meanwhile people seem to be aiming their spite at a handful of outspoken ranchers when this issue has nothing to do with ranchers.

                            There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

                            by frankzappatista on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:54:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  There are too many hunters now (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite, Agathena, gene s, moose67

                      Native Americans had sustainable population levels. We don't.

                      We are the species (or rather culture) that needs to be managed.

                      •  Native American hunters had no "hunting season" (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kyril, lostboyjim, Mathazar

                        They hunted year round.  They didn't choose males over females...they hunted what was within shot.  Modern hunters are diminishing in numbers, and seasons are for short periods of time, with strict rules about size, age, sex of the game.

                        The problem isn't hunters, it is an ecosystem devoid of predators.  When the first Europeans set foot on Plymouth Rock, there were about 10 deer per square mile of forest land.

                        Today, without the wolf or cougar, and with Suburbanites breaking out in hives at the thought of culling herds, there are many, many areas in this country with deer populations exceeding 200 per sq mile.

                        That is not healthy.  Not for the deer, and certainly not for the woodlands.  We need MORE hunters, not less...especially since it looks like the wolf will never regain its footing.

                        Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

                        by Keith930 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:56:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Giving up something like wolf protections (0+ / 0-)

                    to try and get the vote is selling out the party's soul. And for what? Is allowing the destruction of these beautiful animals really worth it?
                    If these hunter/voters are that bent on destruction of other creatures so they can make more money or protect their property--I don't really see them as genuine supporters of Democrats anyway.

                    "Religion is the smile on a dog." Edie Brickell

                    by zesty grapher on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:37:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I do (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kenevan McConnon

                      not have much information on this subject. But FYI "wolf "protections" are very definitely not part of the democratic parties "soul" .

                      This a fringe concern at best.

                    •  actually hunters wish to protect all species (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kenevan McConnon, happy camper

                      it's what we do.

                      And the only people footing the bill is us. We pay for all wildlife management, hunted or not. We've been managing wildlife very successfully for almost 100 years. We can manage wolves, bears, deer, peregrines, jumping mice, bald eagles or just about any species. But we need to be left to do our job. If someone would like to help pay that would be great.

                      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:18:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Domestic cats that run loose (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ban nock, gosoxataboy

                  are a threat to wild birds. House cats kept indoors are no problem.

              •  gross-out link warning! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zesty grapher

                Heh! Thanx for the laugh. Nothing is more hysterical than reading about people who justify their sadistic pleasure in killing animals by claiming it has something to do with "the ecology". If anyone want's to be completely horrified and/or needs any confirmation how twisted the pro-wolf hunting characters are, check out the link he provided.

                Have fun and good look on your Holiday shopping. Luckily for you, unlike the wolves, you won't have the misfortune of returning home to find the rest of your family hanging from meat hooks.

          •  Maybe if Walt Disney had made a wolf movie... (0+ / 0-)

            Most of this country's wildlife management decisions a5re based upon rank emotion, a bureaucratic abhorence of conflict or controversy, and pure economics.  Biology and ecosystem science are at the back of a very long train.

            It's shit like this that drives most debates over wildlife management in this country...
            http://youtu.be/...

            Oregon: Sure...it's cold. But it's a damp cold.

            by Keith930 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:49:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You haven't offered anything to counter (0+ / 0-)

            the diarist's assessment. Condescension doesn't actually count as argumentation.

          •  Interesting factoid.... (5+ / 0-)

            Apparently this is not the first wolf from Yellowstone packs shot "just outside the boundary," and even more interesting, I am given to understand that the majority of wolves thus shot, just happened to be wearing GPS tracking collars used by researchers to learn more about their habits and their range.

            Gee....ya think somebody is lying in wait outside the Park boundries with GPS trackers.....waiting to bag a "kill"?

            About as sporting as setting up feed stations in the woods to get deer acclimated to coming to a set area....and then bagging them.

            Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

            by dweb8231 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:43:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  God, you're arrogant. And, woefully uninformed. (0+ / 0-)

        Obviously, you are either in "game management" (an oxymoron, if there ever was one), or some other related field that disregards science and ecological common sense.  

        Yes, there is a "balance of nature" that doesn't require human intervention...and that is in Alaska and Canada.  Reintroduction of wolves in Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho was done, in part, so that "game management" of the big deer species (elk, moose, etc.) would start to resemble that of wild stock, and require less human "management", ie, kills--since wolves are a keystone species that preys on sick animals and keeps populations down.  

        But, that is just froufrou to you.  Bubkus.

        Republicans...What a nice club...of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. Der Spiegel -6.62, -6.92

        by CanyonWren on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:42:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  are hunters using the tracking collars? (14+ / 0-)

    or are farmers/ ranchers shooting wolves that wonder onto their land?

    in either case so sad..

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:07:00 PM PST

  •  This galls me to no end! (28+ / 0-)

    My son and I had a visit to Wolf Hollow here in MA two weeks ago for their program on their pack...a teaching group who keeps wolves and lectures to the public, they are a great group. My boy loved their omega male named Arrow! I was also a contributor to the SawTooth Pack back in the 90s. Do these guys use scopes? Can they see the tracking collars? I consider wolves good friends of humans and of mine...heartbreaking!

  •  YMMV, but I don't think "holocaust" should be used (11+ / 0-)

    so lightly.  No, not even not capitalized.

    © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:38:15 PM PST

  •  What disgusts me is that THERE IS (40+ / 0-)

    MORE THAN ENOUGH DATA that wolves do NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO LIVESTOCK!!

    However ranchers could care less.

    FUCKING ASSHOLES!!

    Redneck, ignorant, macho hunters just get their jollies off on killing things and I JUST BET YOU they were thrilled to get one of the research wolves. After all those "damn scientists just get in the way of a man's right to do what God intended. "

    I hate people

  •  The wolves were delisted this year by Salazaar (48+ / 0-)

    the rancher. It's now shoot on sight in states surrounding Yellowstone Park. All that was done by the US & Canada to protect this important species, to bring it back from near extinction, the US Federal government destroys with the stroke of a pen.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:22:37 PM PST

    •  Obama destroys with the stroke of a pen (14+ / 0-)

      he appointed Salazar and he tried to seriously reduce the effectiveness of the ESA by attempting to delist wolves in certain areas.

      but he's the best president of my lifetime, or some other such bullshit.

      this is not an environmentally friendly president.

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:15:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  FTR, only wolves in Wyoming were delisted this... (10+ / 0-)

      ...year. Wolves were delisted in Idaho and Montana in the first half of 2011.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:36:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think MI is going to do the same in the UP. (0+ / 0-)

        Or is it the linx?   I understand wildlife management - even though I don't like the idea killing/dying.   Then again, there's so much in life that isn't fair, makes no sense, I wish wasn't true I couldn't begin to list them.

        If money is speech, then speech must be money.

        by dkmich on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:03:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't understand it, it's always done with (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tyto Alba, atana, cany

          first concern for economic benefits not for the benefit of the ecosystem or wildlife. Think about the Fish & Wildlife leg hold traps they still use for so-called predators - those traps are killing many non predatory species.

          ❧To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:10:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't confuse "wildlife management" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cocinero, Meteor Blades, cany

            with conservation biology. Wildlife management is about maximizing benefits for humans, which means maximizing economic benefits. Conservation biology is about maintaining biological diversity, which requires healthy metapopulations of predators such as wolves.

            •  In Canada our Fish & Wildlife call themselves (0+ / 0-)

              conservation officers. Since hunting and trophy hunting are big business up here, if they don't conserve the species there will be no "economic benefits."

              ❧To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:44:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

              The DNR in my state "manages" the overpopulated deer herd to maximize hunter success (and license revenue). The overpopulation of deer is harmful to other wildlife -- ground nesting birds, forest floor plants, etc, as well as a significant hazard for motorists.

              •  Deer overpopulation is a result of the killing (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cocinero, atana, White Buffalo, kyril

                of their predators, like wolves and cougars. Really good management that.

                ❧To thine ownself be true

                by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:56:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I would refer to people being (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cocinero

                  able to hunt, instead of animals that kill pets and livestock as good management.

                •  That is partly true (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Agathena, cocinero, FrankRose

                  It's also true that deer, and certain other animals like squirrels, foxes, raccoons, crows, seagulls and others not just tolerate but actually thrive near human populations.

                  We plant millions of tasty shrubs in the suburbs to help deer overwinter.  We plant crops and a certain percent get left standing in fields.   Deer are animals that thrive in the margins between woods and fields, and we have created millions of acres of that habitat where it previously did not exist.  

                  Humans are not bad for all wildlife.  They are bad for wildlife that prefers old growth forests, needs thousands of acres to roam, etc.

                  Humans are good for deer; we create deer habitat in developments and farms all over the country.

                  •  Yes, I think clear cutting the forests gives the (0+ / 0-)

                    deer population a boost, they have all those new shoots that sprout when the sunlight hits the devastated landscape.

                    ❧To thine ownself be true

                    by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:21:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, they don't thrive in clear cut areas (0+ / 0-)

                      At least not whitetail deer.

                      They thrive in areas bordering forestland, again at least whitetail do.

                      Old growth forests are only hospitable to certain species, and in a natural setting patches of forest would routinely be cleared or thinned by fires.  

                      There is a move towards more responsible harvesting of forests for lumber, with spot-culling rather than clear-cutting.  

                •  There has been no natural ecosystem for deer (0+ / 0-)

                  in Iowa for more than 120 years. The ecosystem with deer, elk, and bison controlled by wolves and cougars disappeared in the 1800s. Deer were wiped out by 1898 when deer hunting season was finally closed. Deer returned very slowly. By 1936, there were still only about 600 deer in the state. Hunting was allowed again in 1953. The population has continued to increase in an ecosystem of corn and bean fields, farms, towns, and scattered wooded tracts. The "predators" controlling the population are hunters. The DNR decides how many licenses and tags to issue in order to control population size.

                  Deer are "wildlife" in the same sense as non-native species like ring-necked pheasants and starlings. Unlike starlings, deer and pheasants are good to eat and some people enjoy shooting them.

      •  And this was by Congressional act I beleive (0+ / 0-)

        Those delistings were legally quite complicated, and not under the normal section 4 delistin process

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:18:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yet another of Obama's brilliant hires (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      White Buffalo, Agathena, ammasdarling

      Oh when the history books are finally written...

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:43:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, Driver 8

      you are factually wrong. On all borders of Yellowstone it is not shoot on site.

      All areas bordering Yellowstone have strict harvest limits and once those limits are met that game management area is closed to further wolf hunting. Further no one can shoot a wolf on site anywhere, first they need a license, have passed a safety course.

      If you were to say go to an area bordering YNP and shoot a wolf  without licensure or if that unit is closed you'd be arrested if caught.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:10:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, not wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, White Buffalo
        CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The federal government is ending protections for wolves in Wyoming.

        The announcement Friday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endorses a plan that allows the wolves to be shot on sight in most parts of the state. It retains protections in certain areas.
        http://missoulian.com/...


        Wolves, shoot-on-sight in Wyoming

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:29:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes wrong (0+ / 0-)

          shoot on site in Wyoming does not border yellowstone.

          Do some reading.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:38:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  stop trolling this diary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            White Buffalo, atana, zesty grapher

            With you insults and disrespect.
            Go find another diary to spam.

            We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

            by Christin on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:05:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  States bordering Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, (4+ / 0-)

            Montana, Idaho

            “We are outraged by the recent loss of wolves adjacent to Yellowstone National Park (YNP),” wrote Nathan Varley and Linda Thurston of The Wild Side, LLC on The National Wolfwatcher Coalition, LLC’s website, Wolfwatcher.  “We are asking officials to immediately close wolf hunting areas adjacent to YNP.”

            Wolf advocates believe that Yellowstone needs a buffer zone that would allow the wolves making their homes within the park to wander safely beyond its borders to a certain extent. This buffer zone would have strict wolf hunting and trapping regulations.
            Nov 29, 2012

            The wolves were shot by licensed hunters outside the national park during the legal wolf hunting season that opened this fall in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Seven of the wolves were wearing radio-collars that help scientists track the wolves. Two "were the only collared members of their packs," Smith says. "So, now we can't track those packs." In addition, two of the wolves had specialized GPS collars that collect data every 30 minutes, which has helped researchers better understand wolves' movements and predatory behaviors. Only one wolf in the study program is now left with such a collar.
            I agree that wolf management by the states today is mostly done for political reasons, but I think that is less true in Yellowstone Park because they rarely kill a wolf or move one there. If politics enters, it is most likely pressure to be quiet about Montana’s perhaps unintended threat to kill a fair number of Park wolf packs “accidentally” because their normal range includes wilderness lands directly north of the Park where the hunt is going on.
            Idaho
            Wolf mortality in Idaho, a final toll. 48 – 59 percent of Idaho wolves killed in one year. (UPDATED 5-8-12)All told, based on some estimates made using the data, under state management, 721 wolves, or 59% of the wolves, were killed in the year running from April, 2011 – April, 2012.

            ❧To thine ownself be true

            by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:12:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The only state that has a shoot on site law is (0+ / 0-)

              wyoming, and none of the game management units in Wyoming that do allow shoot on site border yellowstone, so there is no shoot on site rule along the borders of yellowstone.

              You can purchase a license which allows a limited number of carcasses and hunt in states along the border, but you absolutely can not shoot on site.

              I've no idea where your cut and pastes are coming from but much of what is posted there is actually factually incorrect also, that's a polite way of saying it's malarky.

              Wolf advocacy web sites or newspaper articles are terrible with facts, long on emotion.

              If the percentages of wolves were being killed that they claim the entire populations would have been killed off years ago.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:14:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  BTW, change the word "holocausts" (8+ / 0-)

    to something else like mass murders or something otherwise your diary will be derailed into a discussion of the etymology of that word.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:27:50 PM PST

    •  The word dates to well before the events of WW11.. (11+ / 0-)

      and does not belong exclusively to it...

      Origin:
      1200–50; Middle English  < Late Latin holocaustum  (Vulgate) < Greek holókauston  (Septuagint), neuter of holókaustos  burnt whole. See holo-, caustic

      holocaust

      hol·o·caust
      [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-] Show IPA
      noun
      1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire.
      2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
      3.  ( usually initial capital letter  ) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually preceded by the  ).
      4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

      If the hunting of the wolves was reckless, then the diarist is within his/her rights to use the word. But I'm not a landholder near Yellowstone so I can't judge.

      BTW 'mass murders' when referring to animals being slaughtered would be more degrading to the memory of the victims of The Holocaust, than the diarist's usage (in the plural).

      So, there you go. A self-fulfilling prediction...

      :)

      'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

      by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:02:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In Wisconsin, the elimination of 20% of the (32+ / 0-)
    timberwolf population has already taken place in the last two months.

    This is the state that spawned Aldo Leopold...there are no excuses.

    “We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”

    •  That's a beautiful paragraph, thank you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, exterris

      I had a hunter relate a similar experience when he looked into the eyes of a deer he just shot. He quit hunting.

      The message is clear.

      ❧To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:24:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thinking Like a Mountain (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Mathazar, exterris

      ... is the name of the essay the quote's from, published in 1949 in Aldo Leopold's Sand County Almanac.  It is, IMO, one of the best essays ever.  The whole thing can be read here.  My favorite paragraph:

      I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.
      The whole business probably now needs reworking in light or the rampant advance of global warming/climate change.

      "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..." (Isaac Asimov)

      by Land of Enchantment on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:06:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The linked story is truely heartbreaking (25+ / 0-)

    She was the alpha female of her pack, and considered a "rock star" for her popularity. Perhaps the most famous wolf in the world.

    According to the record of movements from her tracking collar, her pack rarely went outside the park, and only for brief periods.

    I hope the fool who killed her actually has some remorse that's eating him up.

    you don't believe in evolution, you understand it. you believe in the FSM.

    by Mathazar on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:06:26 PM PST

  •  I'm surprised they are getting the collars back (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Nulwee, sb, UFOH1, atana, DBoon, PhilJD, kyril, Mathazar

    Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up is the credo out there.

    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    by boriscleto on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:43:20 PM PST

  •  Tipped & recced by someone who loves dogs (23+ / 0-)

    and wolves.

    And anyone who kills either in my presence should know fear, because I will not let this go. I know who to contact and they'll see the killer prosecuted. They have money, lawyers, and experience.

    Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

    Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

    by Kitsap River on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:14:44 AM PST

  •  Nobody should be allowed to kill these animals (8+ / 0-)

    Not for any reason. Ever.

    Humans are smart enough to protect ourselves from wolves without violence. Wolves are not smart enough to protect themselves from humans. They don't even know what a park boundary is...

    "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

    by progdog on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:56:05 AM PST

    •  Disagree with this (4+ / 0-)

      If a big IF an individual wolf is known to be diseased [rabies or distemper] or in horrible pain [hit by a car] then yes that wolf should be killed.

      •  Also, a wolf attacking you or someone else (4+ / 0-)

        Which I understand is extremely rare and something out of Grimm, but also a legitimate reason, in addition to these. Otherwise, nuh uh.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:47:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Also if there are enough wolves that shooting one (0+ / 0-)

          won't negatively affect the species, and you want to.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:15:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When the population gets anywhere near that level (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, Christin, kyril

            We can talk in another fifteen years time

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:22:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  passed it ten years ago according to US Fish and (0+ / 0-)

              Wildlife Service.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:37:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hardly (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana, BlueDragon, Agathena, kyril, wordwraith

                the species is still listed throughout the west  The wyoming popluation was delisted based on politics, not science.  Again, we have more lies put out by the pro-death lobby.  However, your claim is largely disproved by your own claim that the population growth rate is 30% unchekced, which is a fairly strong indication that the species is not at carrying capacity, particular since elk populations have not crashed as would happen in an overshoot.

                So, in a word, get your facts straight.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:02:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, not even if you want to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            schnecke21, PhilJD, kyril

            Only if you HAVE to. People don't eat wolves, unlike deer, ducks, possum and even squirrels. And we don't lack for better kinds of fur.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:39:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wildlife managers don't determine game laws (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kenevan McConnon

              based on eating of meat or use of fur, though it's well known that the guard hairs of canine's winter coats will keep frost from accumulating on the parka hood around your face and are used for just that reason. Managers make game quotas based on population objectives or goals. In a large part of Wyoming they don't want any wolves, so they have shoot on site regulations. In areas surrounding Yellowstone in accommodating the interests of animal rights sorts of people they set different population objectives so to maintain a minimum number of wolves.

              In Montana and Idaho they have different population objectives.

              They can either pay Wildlife Services to cull from aircraft of do as they usually do and ask hunters to help.

              There is also the knowledge that some people will like hunting wolves, indeed many do, and there will be an advocacy group of hunters who want to maintain populations so they'll have animals to hunt.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:00:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which has what to do with what's best for wolves (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana, Christin, White Buffalo, wordwraith

                who were here before these ranchers and their bovines and their stupid NRA? The law is whatever we say it is, and should reflect the interests of nature over the interests of some idiots who enjoy shooting wild things that don't bother anyone. If the price of beef goes up by a nickel, I'm ok with that. We eat too much of it as it is, and herds could probably stand to benefit from their own natural culling.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:09:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  the question itself its wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  The question is and always should be what is best for mankind.

                  I have no idea what the correct balance is here but arguing that our main consideration should be what is best for the wolves and that the wolves have ownership of the land because "they were here first"  is simply crazy talk that all but the most unreasonably extreme leftists will consider the ramblings of nutjobs.

          •  How very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very (0+ / 0-)

            very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very American of you.

            "And you want to."

            the ultimate expression of the American ethic.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:54:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Okay, that makes sense... (0+ / 0-)

        I guess I should have said murder.

        "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

        by progdog on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:06:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And if one ate your dog? (4+ / 0-)

      Or got a taste for veal?  

      I don't know of any prominent conservation biologists who say we should not kill any wolves, anywhere, for any reason.  

      Predators kill other predators, and humans are the apex predator in every niche they occupy.  Wolves kill coyotes, coyotes kill foxes, lions kill cheetahs.  Not for food, but because they seen them as competition.

      If wolves are to be protected from extinction, they will be controlled and not allowed to reach large populations, AND certain wolves who develop habits which put personal property in harms way will be killed.

      Bears who wander into cities are first relocated and if they keep coming back (as they frequently do) they are culled, because you can't have bears coming into people's back yards.  Coyotes and foxes are trapped and have been for time out of mind.  

      In order to maintain balanced ecosystems, we should have large predators but they will be controlled.

      Or, as I have put it before, it's easy for me in my warm safe living room to be appalled at people killing tigers.  But then, a tiger never ate my sister.  So there's that.

  •  Cheap, really cheap fed lease grazing lands (21+ / 0-)

    that western ranchers use and abuse by killing wolves and anything else they can get away with.

    This is a farm/ranch/rich western landholder subsidy and should be done away with or priced accordingly.

    Another scam by repub grifters is the ranch and range groups always being told 'the dems and environmentalists are gonna get you, send money.''...some truth in that, but it's tinfoil grift at it's best.

    and then they do this shit...

    fundraising letters on the way to both sides....

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:27:16 AM PST

    •  grazing on BLM land (9+ / 0-)

      There's a lot of federal land outside the park borders used for grazing. Are they allowed to kill wolves on this land? Perhaps cattle loss from wolves should be considered the price of grazing on federal land. If the cost is too high, then don't use the land.

      It sounds pretty simple to people who live on the coast, but those who live in the rockies know its more complicated.

    •  Actually ranchers are a small minority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      It's the human population of the 3 states surrounding Yellowstone that support the legal hunting of wolves. The Wyoming legislature for instance voted something like fifty to one on their plan.

      It's also not a Dem/Repub issue as all the Democrats in these states that are in elective office strongly support reducing wolf populations which might well take a lot more than hunting.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:19:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  good point, the too high repub population (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        White Buffalo, wordwraith

        like to reduce that..oh, wait..

        yes , lots of support beyond the ranchers but that's cause the ranchers are the biggest voices there and the way of life stuff translates to those around them, red state fashion.

        'I know some ranchers and they are really nice...etc.'

        and yes dems have to cope/deal with that..Dennis Kucinich noted not from Wyoming.

          but really, the take of cattle by wolves? significant in reality or significant in bullshit?

        and are the ranchers still compensated for claimed losses?...often on their too cheap leased federal lands, that would be my land and your land and our wolves.

        And of course they will blame wolves for any loss for all the worth they can get from lies and exaggerations.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:24:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not anti-hunting. (11+ / 0-)

    I believe for us meat eaters, hunting is the most ecologically sound and most humane way to get meat.  But hunting wolves is just plain wrong.   Besides the rare case of a problem wolf, the only reason to hunt wolves is because you like to kill things.  That is sick.

    "The opposite of faith is not doubt. It's certainty."

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:45:52 AM PST

    •  This ignores the fact (0+ / 0-)

      that people are predators, and predators kill other predators.  Us killing large predators IS a natural part of things.

      The extent to which we've done it is wrong, but many predators also kill other predators, to reduce competition, protect territory, protect their young and their food supplies.

      The coyote population in Yellowstone dropped when the wolves came back.  

      http://www.nps.gov/...

  •  You can't exaggerate loathing for wolves felt... (22+ / 0-)

    by many rural residents. It's irrational, it's nuts, it's immature and medieval...but there it is. Just mention the world 'wolf' and you immediately get the snarling lip curl, the reflex bilious muttered "varmints" and "should kill 'em all".

    I don't know whether it's the result of generations listening to Peter and the Wolf, or thoughtless hunter/gun culture that sees wolves as competitors, or simply lack of education. And I don't even know where to begin with this.

    When I just start discussing the return of coyotes here in the east, I am repeatedly deluged with the same bullshit rumors that "the State Department of Environmental Conservation is bringing them in from out west and releasing them at 2 am". It's mind-boggling to me, precisely the same kind of paranoid lunacy that supports the UN/One World Government/black helicopters craziness.

    •  Hmm, gee, gotta wonder where that came from (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tyto Alba, atana, DBoon, zesty grapher

      These are likely descendants of people who said the same thing about native peoples when they arrived in the west, that they were "varmints" who had to be "exterminated". And yet we're supposed to celebrate their "all American" culture.

      Obviously, not all, or even most westerners are like this. But clearly, some are. And it's not just about wolves, but anyone and anything they don't like, be it Latinos, liberals, outsiders, big guvmint (except when it's handing out those subsidy checks, renewing those dirt cheap leases and providing cooperative extension aid), etc. Yet another insular subculture reinforced by its own myths and paranoid fears. I bet they're all lining up to see the new Red Dawn.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:54:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's easy to explain... (0+ / 0-)

      People don't want some outsider coming in and telling them what's what. It's really that simple.

      You could give them the most sensible advice in the world, but if it contradicts what they've been doing for generations, they'll tell you to pound sand.

      This isn't to pick on western ranchers. Most people throughout the world are exactly the same.

      Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

      by walk2live on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:30:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It starts young with stories like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      "Three Little Pigs" and "Red Riding Hood" which are still being published. My grandson had them.

      ❧To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:35:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Salazar and Obama for this (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    sb, White Buffalo, Agathena, PhilJD
    Hidden by:
    Aquarius40

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:56:10 AM PST

    •  Aquarius40: You a rancher, wolf-hater (0+ / 0-)

      or just a cowardly hit and run HR person who just can't stand that Obama did something terrible in appointing an anti-environment stooge in his admin?

      NOW SHOWING
      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:48:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The story didn't name the killer. Why? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueDragon, PhilJD

    I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me.

    by plankbob on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:13:09 AM PST

    •  animal rights people are often homicidal (0+ / 0-)

      maniacs that make death threats against people and their families. State divisions of wildlife are very familiar with lefty wackos.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:21:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Often? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, BlueDragon, schnecke21, PhilJD, kyril

        Would you care to give us a quantitative estimate of the proportion of animal rights advocates who are prone to homicidal behavior?

        There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

        by Frameshift on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:42:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be hard to quantify. First you'd have to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          have numbers for who you think are animal rights advocates. Then you'd have to figure out how many wish to kill fellow humans but don't say so. I do know that with the anonymity of the internet they can go bizerk.

          I did cull the comments from one DK diary that went something like this.

          "I'd sentence the top level perps to death by elephant.  Squish!  Start with their heads to make it relatively humane.  Squoosh!  Then squish the rest of them slowly to make it dramatic.  Squash!"

          I care about the wildlife, I support shooting poachers and poisoning their customers, and I'm not ashamed of that.

          At the risk of losing my liberal badge, I have to say: kill them all.

          Take these humans and cut off their noses while they are alive. It means nothing to me.

           poachers are eco-terrorists (29+ / 0-)
          harming the diversity of life on the planet.shoot on site.  imho.  

          This raging pacificist agrees: (15+ / 0-)Shoot on site.

          I'm still beside myself at having had to be the one to decide to end the life of my own beloved Xxxxx a few days ago. .....I have no mercy for those who lawlessly choose to kill endangered animals for profit. No mercy."

           "Poachers that are captured should have their hands,feet,nose,eyelids and ears cut off and then taken home and set free."

          Shoot on sight is fine with me I've mellowed out a lot on the animal right front since I was in college, but with stuff like this and whaling, there's a line that has to be drawn.

          Bloodthirsty bunch in general. Those are only from half the comments, I got sick of collecting them. The parts with mutilation are downright weird.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:58:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  heh. (0+ / 0-)

            yeah.

            there's been a regular bloodbath of hunters and their families slain by crazed bloodthirsty anti-hunter types. poor baby fwightened hunters with their big bang-bang sticks and twophies on their walls.

            what a clown.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:07:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  troll (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        White Buffalo, gene s

        You're an ass and a jerk  in this diary.
        You won't stop spamming your bullshit twisted defense of this.
        And you constantly insult people..
        Eff off with your lefty whacko bullshit moron.

        We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

        by Christin on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:14:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know you just broke site rules don't you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          I think there are very specific rules regarding accusing someone of being a troll.

          I could care less about turning you in, but you might consider why we have such rules.

          Diaries about wolves and hunting evoke strong feelings, if you can't manage your emotions like an adult you should consider staying away from subjects that upset you.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:23:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I believe in animal welfare... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, zesty grapher

        ...but I don't believe more killing is the answer to it.

        Yes, people do say things out of anger, but that doesn't make them "homicidal".  Please, do learn the difference before making a further ass of yourself.

  •  Any rancher who kills wolves (13+ / 0-)

    should lose their grazing privileges on BLM land.

    Period.

    Just knowing that this has happened makes me feel sick- i cannot bring myself to look at the article.

    I also have the same issue with the murder of coyotes in New England.
    They are hunted at night, with spotlights, which is illegal, until the entire pack is gone.

    No amount of reasonable discussion will ever convince some yahoo with bloodlust that it is the most ignorant act to kill a top tier predator.

    •  Why are they shooting coyotes. (4+ / 0-)

      We live WITH them in the west.  

      Research Shows Poverty Creates the Biggest Achievement Gap.

      by Desert Rose on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:37:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is open season on coyotes (24+ / 0-)

        They kill them because they can.

        As a farmer, i was thrilled to live beside them.
        They kept my fields free of woodchucks, helped themselves to drop apples and old veggies from my compost pile, ate voles in the orchard and never gave me or my dog one speck of trouble.

        And, as a bonus, they sang to me at night.

        I wish all of my neighbors had been so admirable.

        •  You bet. I love the night songs (6+ / 0-)

          and they keep our packrat population down.  My dad would ask, "So what do you think of the Human Species?"

          Research Shows Poverty Creates the Biggest Achievement Gap.

          by Desert Rose on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:50:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When i lived in the Tucson Mts (8+ / 0-)

            i would walk my dog early- 7:30 am before the big heat set in.
            Almost every day we would intersect with the coyotes, still on the move from their nocturnal adventures.

            Often, it would be 30 feet or so between us.
            Alpha parent would stop, turn, check us out ...my dog, using good sense , would just stand there and not go all barking she-devil... and when they saw we were harmless, would just lead the family across the road.

            I loved to see this pair- i am sure they recognized us- and was so sad when one of the pups died, probably of snake bite.

            If people would just stop and observe the nature around them, whether it be a tree full of cedar waxwings or a pack of coyotes, they might begin to see the necessary connection between us all.

        •  But coyotes will kill a dog (0+ / 0-)

          That is not to say that one should be allowed to shoot them for any old reason, but the fact that YOUR dog was never harmed is an anecdote, not a statistic.  

          I have no problem with coyotes and we have them where I live, but they are trapped and there is a season on them, and coyotes that have lost their fear of people can sometimes become dangerous.  

          There are documented cases of them attacking leashed dogs in cities.

          This is one of many:

          http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...

          •  The coyotes i saw every day (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            were wild animals but we understood each other in the space where we came together.

            I have had coyotes take a number of my cats but i would never set out to kill them for it.
            Their death was on me- i didn't provide  the proper protection for them and they paid for it.

            The problem with coyotes wandering into cities is caused by habitat loss and encroachment into the coyotes territory.
            Animal families do not wander but tend to stay, generation after generation, in the same location. Unless they are forced out of their territory by agressive hunting or development.

            We are the intruders.
            We should learn to live with them and be observant of the natural world.

            They have much to teach us about family and loyalty.

            •  The reason (0+ / 0-)

              coyotes wander into urban parks and suburbs is because those areas provide good habitat for them, not necessarily because they've been pushed out of their own habitat.

              We don't have squirrels, chickadees, raccoons, and skunks in cities because we destroyed their habitat.  We have them because cities ARE good habitat for them.

              Pigeons proliferate inland on flat land in a way they never could were it not for buildings to roost on.

              "Urban coyotes survive far longer than their rural cousins. A coyote living in urban Chicago has a 60-percent chance of surviving for one year, while a rural coyote has a 30 percent chance of living for another year."

              http://researchnews.osu.edu/...

              Coyotes have joined the list of animals that thrive in human populations.   They are here because this is good habitat for them (better than rural habitat), not because they have nowhere else to go.

              I live in a densely populated area surrounded by thousands of acres of forest, in an urban footprint that hasn't grown much in decades, yet you can find coyotes in large parks and waste areas throughout the urban areas.

      •  Don't know, but in FL coyotes do in fact pick (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DBoon, sethtriggs

        off livestock and are often a real problem for farmers. My favorite solution I've seen so far:  include a donkey or two on your farm.  They don't like coyotes, and the coyotes know it, and often stay away.

        Coyotes have been hell on the Florida fox, but I don't want to kill coyotes wholesale, regardless.

        There are some things that are unforgivable. Your willingness to play political games while people suffer and die is one of them--Onomastic

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:14:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can also go back to having (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          stock-guarding dogs.  A Great Pyr is a deterrent to a coyote, but the practice of using dogs on livestock was never a strong tradition here.  It got left in the old world, for some reason.  I for one would like to see it gain favor.  It's a more humane solution to human/wildlife conflict, and I think it's good for dogs to breed some of them for actual jobs instead of almost exclusively as pets.

      •  We also shoot them on site in any part of the west (0+ / 0-)

        I've lived in. Of course I only spent a couple days in San Francisco and I don't know if western CA is actually part of the west anymore.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:24:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no "WE" don't (0+ / 0-)

          I might shoot a coyote if it stalks my pets a number of times but generally I find them to be harmless and have no reason to kill them. I've lived in may parts of the west and find that most people are very tolerant of coyotes. But I do know some more bloodthirsty types who would shoot coyotes on sight if they can. I pity them too.

          btw, the three words... cite, site and sight have different meanings.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:08:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  "if only the wolf had had a handgun to protect (9+ / 0-)

    himself, this wouldn't have happened." wayne la pierre

    ;^I

  •  Eminent Domain an additional 200 mile radius... (6+ / 0-)

    ... around the park as a buffer zone, since people can't handle the wildlife of the park, they need to be moved farther away.

    See if the neighbors like THAT proposal. ;P

  •  I just saw a documentary about Lobo, an alpha male (7+ / 0-)

    wolf who was famous (and feared) in a part of New Mexico in the late 1800's for leading a wolf pack that would regularly take down cows belonging to ranchers, that no one was able to hunt down and kill until they brought in an outside hunter, Ernest Thompson Seton. After months of failure, he finally succeeded, but it ended up transforming him from a hunter to a preservationist, and he ended up being a leading preservationist and environmentalist in the 20th century, helping to found the US Boy Scouts among other things.

    Wolves are obviously special. All modern dogs are descended from them. I don't know what kind of person kills a wolf intentionally except when they or someone else is in immediate danger, which wasn't the case here. How does that person feel after they've pulled the trigger, having just protected the world's beef supply, in such dire shortage? Why is this even legal? Why are not ranchers instead compensated for the loss of each cow taken down by a wolf pack? How many cows are we talking about? Several dozen a year? Several hundred? We can't afford that and yet we can afford drones that kill innocent people abroad?

    Wyoming. Figures. Cheneyland. Home to people who shoot their friends in the face and get away with it, and to elderly Gangnam Style-dancing hacks who want to kill grandma because their taxes are too high. Yeah. Marlboro Country.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:40:35 AM PST

  •  Back in 1914 (8+ / 0-)

    Congress appropriated funding to basically kill all remaining predators in the lower 48, critters like wolves, mountain lions, etc.  The government did a great job, and wiped out most of them out.  Back then, even the biologists who studied wolves had a hatred for them, it was an ingrained passion from the "conquer the frontier" mindset of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  

    In 1929, Olaus J Murie, a biologist with the US Biological Survey, penned a memo to the Chief of the Survey, asking if there could be some scientific justification for killing wolves, rather than just saying they were "evil vermin".  Murie was mocked and sanctioned for his sincere words, but it was memos like that, and the work of Aldo Leopold that got the ball rolling again for predators--an understanding that they are integral to any healthy ecosystem.  The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone in the 90s was a big move forward, but only a step, not a paradigm shift.

    To say that killing wolves protects game species is nonsense.  And there are programs out there that reimburse ranchers for any lost cattle, so there's no financial issue.  Statement against wolves are indicators of that "conquer the frontier" felling that is still ingrained in many in the West today.  The hatred is real, and the political operators on the right recognize this and use it to their full advantage.  They will continue to do so as long as there are idiots and rubes out there that believe everything they are told.

    Killing this wolf with its collar on is reprehensible to me (hell, killing any wolf is); but those who love wolves and understand their role in nature, should put sentimentality aside and take this event as a wake up call that we still have a long ways to go to change the pioneer mindset and cool the hatred.  There is work to do.

    A postscript: lets not indict hunting in this issue.  I know many hunters who love wolves and want to protect wild places.  Slob hunters can burn in hell.  
     

    •  Cool the hatred of wolves? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueDragon

      Not easy, because it part of a system of linked hatreds -- racism, fundamentalism, misogyny, homophobia... the whole "rugged masculinity" psychosis of the far right. Wolves are hated because they are inferior beings (God says so) who are free and display no fear of humans. So they need to be exterminated, just like Injuns and libruls.

      •  I agree, not easy... (0+ / 0-)

        but at the start of the 20th century, everybody hated wolves.  We've come a long way from that point.  Read Rod Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind and Don Worster's Nature's Economy for more depth into the issue.

      •  Curious. Are you a psychologist? (0+ / 0-)

        Because you seem to have the exact reasons why people hate wolves.

        I sort of thought that people instinctively fear animals that might harm them (snakes, bees, mountain lions, wolves) and they allow their instinctive fears to take over without much logical thought.  

        I didn't know they were hated because they were inferior and God said so.  

        Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

    •  It goes beyond hatred, unfortunately. (0+ / 0-)

      Guys like "ban nock" kill wolves just because they want to. And they want to just because they can.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:11:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The environmental argument against states' rights (3+ / 0-)

    is perhaps the best & most important one.  Corrupt state government & management can devastate, in short order, the local natural resources for profit.

    Those aren't Wyoming's wolves; those are US wolves living in Wyoming.  There must be state-level management authority for those rare cases when predators do cause damage to commercial herds, but there must be a scientifically determined, federally enforced floor below which a state cannot go, & criminal penalties for those who do.  

    And to pre-empt the obvious argument, yes I believe strongly in protected predator reintroduction across the Midwest, South, & Eastern US, too.  Not the "wolves in Central Park" argument of the most anti-biodiversity set, but a national policy to acquire land in economically dying rural areas, recreate wild habitat, & reintroduce all extirpated species.   Tear up the roads & post the National Guard if necessary to keep people out except by permit.  Say what you want about the odds of that happening, but it's what we ought to do, if we are ever able to regain our senses in addition to regaining democratic control of our nation.

     

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:06:13 AM PST

    •  Almost everything was dead by 1900 (0+ / 0-)

      Market hunting had wiped out nearly every game species in the Rocky Mountain region by 1900.  Without Teddy Roosevelt and modern wildlife management, we wouldn't have what we have.

      Hunters have wanted hikers to pitch in with money for years but the recreational camping industry refuses to match the money that hunters spend every year to directly manage game populations, pay for game damage, and study the results of the wolf re-introduction around Yellowstone.

      Most of the numbers being thrown around are produced by each states Department of Wildlife and those numbers are paid for by hunters and fishermen.  

      You can by habitat stamp from the Colorado DOW if you don't want to hunt, but almost no hikers/campers do that.

  •  So what? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kenevan McConnon, walk2live

    There are long and extensive wolf seasons in 6 states. The wolf was reintroduced to be a game species, that means shot. Certainly ok to not like it but that's just the way it is and the way it will be, forever.

    The 3 northern rocky mountain states all have right to hunt laws.

    You can get all worked up, or move on to something else. I suggest to most folks that they enjoy their pets and worry don't worry about wildlife if they don't understand the issues.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:32:11 AM PST

    •  Really irritating diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock, high uintas

      Who spends time in the woods? I had about 45 days under the stars last year. I spent time with 22 species and tracked elk, deer, bobcat, and coyote. I only killed one animal and I ate it.  My kill was far more humane than any wolf pack.

      I have a hard time with this diary for the simple reason that it betrays an understanding of nature as art or a really big zoo. If a wolf had tried to steal my turkey, I would have killed it. If a a wolf pack wanders into another pack's territory, they fight and the victors get the new hunting grounds.

      The wolves will learn their range and occasionally animals will wander, but the refuge provided by Yellowstone will allow a population to flourish. Nobody who actually lives and play in the Rocky Mountains wants wolf packs all over the place. Coyotes are already enough of a problem.

      •  Nature is neither, but you won't have much (3+ / 0-)

        nature left if it's not managed correctly. I believe that, once you cut through the emotion/sentiment of this piece, that what's really being said is that diarist disagrees with Obama/Salazar in their management of our wild populations.

        And yeah, I'd love it if we didn't have to "manage" wild populations at all, but could just interact with them as competing predators, which is the natural way. But there's too goddamned many of us on this planet to make that feasible. There's 7 billion of us, many armed with much more than our hands and teeth.  Other predators can't compete with us, unless you're counting bacteria and viruses as predators.  we can either introduce some zoo-like behaviors on our part--judicious management--or we can inhabit a wasteland.

        Or, I don't know, we could finally grow up and control our reproduction.  But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

        There are some things that are unforgivable. Your willingness to play political games while people suffer and die is one of them--Onomastic

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:24:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The reasons we manage wildlife is even more (3+ / 0-)

          complex. Left to it's own wildlife doesn't maintain stability but is usually in a state of flux with brief periods of equilibrium. We want as many large charismatic species to thrive as possible, so we manage them.

          Also virtually all the funding for wildlife comes from hunters, and hunters want edible big game. Elk, moose, deer, pronghorn, maybe bear. We manage for ungulate numbers as well as diversity.

          Most peoples worldwide are starting to control our own reproduction. Climate is what worries me.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:34:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  climate is what worries me too (0+ / 0-)

            but overpopulation is the elephant in the room.
            Controlling reproduction as I meant it would mean making sure you have no more than 2 children, and preferably 1.
            Most people experience that demand as an unbearable invasion of their basic human rights. I understand that, but the numbers are what they are. The planet can't sustain this many people, and water is what's going to give out first.

            There are some things that are unforgivable. Your willingness to play political games while people suffer and die is one of them--Onomastic

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:00:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The reason YOUR side manages wildlife is because (0+ / 0-)

            they like killing things -- and they especially like killing "wild" things, though of course in a pinch they'll kill pretty much anything at all, under any conditions.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:14:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not hunting is strange (0+ / 0-)

              Humans hunted for all of their meat up until about 7,500 years ago. Hunting is a natural human activity. Not hunting strikes me as contrived and strange. I think it is a response to overpopulation. We need to drop human populations by about 98% to return to a more harmonious balance with the planet. Too bad someone isn't managing our numbers; we sure as hell have screwed it up.

              About a hundred years ago, nearly all of the wildlife in the United States was exterminated by market hunting. Professional hunters would kill game animals and bring them to market and had decimated the populations of virtual every big game animal in the West. Recreational hunters turned things around.  Teddy Roosevelt was the driving political force and many naturalists lent their expertise and support. Populations have been improving since in areas that continued to manage their wildlife effectively. Hunters and anglers have supported these efforts with dollars for the last hundred years; everyone else not so much.

              I have taken 27 animals (including squirrels and rabbits) in the last six years and every ounce of meat was consumed. What I am doing is natural if somewhat anachronistic.  I like to imagine that we are in balance and harmony with nature the way we were 10,000 years ago when I hunt. It's a fantasy but it allows me to connect with my ancestors and when I am alone in the woods for the six or seventh day life is good and I imagine a better world.

              Managing wildlife through hunting makes sense and is natural. Would you ask the wolf to stop hunting. No, that would be stupid.  What you should really object to is fucking.

              •  overpopulation is a bitch (0+ / 0-)

                I wish to God we could do something about it, but the only thing that really works takes too long.

                Educate women.  It's the only thing that across cultures, across eras, across pretty much everything, reduces women's fertility.

                Educate them. Educate them. Educate them.

                Unfortunately, that takes a long time and a lot of delicate cultural negotiation, and it's likely we no longer have the time.

                There are some things that are unforgivable. Your willingness to play political games while people suffer and die is one of them--Onomastic

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:13:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  yes, civilization IS contrived. (0+ / 0-)

                just as going out into the wilderness with enough technological assistance that one can joyfully kill apex predators with neither risk nor discomfort is contrived. and what is really contrived is the suggestion that doing the latter is somehow in keeping with some romantic conception of essential human nature. it rather reminds me of some guy complaining that if he is not allowed to cut down every last old growth tree using a gigantic fucking machine that allows him to haul the things down by the acre without breaking a sweat, he is being deprived of "a way of life" -- like he's paul fucking bunyan out there with a jacksaw, eating flapjacks and sleeping in a bunkhouse 200 miles and 10 days' travel from the nearest woman, nevermind the obvious fact that whatever he fears being deprived of will be gone within a decade either way.

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:20:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I bow hunt on foot in wilderness areas (0+ / 0-)

                  I wear wool. I'm really trying. Your sanctimonious anger is misplaced. Hate fucking, not hunters. It birthing babies that is the problem. Hate farmers; without farming there would be a lot fewer humans cause there wouldn't be enough food.  Hate miners, cause without metal we would have to use stone tools and there would be even fewer humans to fuck up the planet. Direct your anger in the right direction. Water treatment, sewers, all of it allows humans to thrive hastening the destruction of the planet.

                  •  Keep defending yourself, as if you are (0+ / 0-)

                    representative of that which has angered people here. That will certainly put everyone on the fast track to peace, love and misunderstanding.

                    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                    by UntimelyRippd on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:49:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  dude, I'm not a hunter (0+ / 0-)

              and you'll usually find me being pretty fierce in cases of animal cruelty--but this is a pretty extreme view of hunting/hunters.

              There are some things that are unforgivable. Your willingness to play political games while people suffer and die is one of them--Onomastic

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:10:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Wel for those of us (9+ / 0-)

        With even a tiny shred of ecological understanding, allowing hunting of what is still a recovering keystone species is unconscionable.  There are species that would be reasonable to hunt.   The wolf is not among them.   I will refrain from saying what I really think

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:27:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          I don't understand your comment. I probably don't understand ecology, but I tell you what I do know. I know Rocky Mountain flora and fauna from years in the backcountry and hunting makes sense when used as a tool to manage wildlife. Wolves included.

          If you don't like the Wyoming DOW's position concerning wolf populations go to a stakeholders meeting this Spring when they are figuring out 2013 seasons and quotas.  The wildlife needs to be managed; the details are worked out each by each states DOW.

          •  Actually, wildlife DOESN'T need to be managed (6+ / 0-)

            hunting, but rather through protection at this point.  (hunters on the other hand do need managing, though).  Wildlife only needs to be managed when something is largely out of balance.  Here, the wolf was largely exterminated as of 1900, leaving much of the rest of the ecosystem in a rather unbalanced state.  Here, the rest of the ecosystem will not be recovered until there on the order of tens if not hundreds of thousads of wolves across the west (my understanding is that the US wolf population had been on the order of a million wolves pre-contact).  When we reach the point where the elk and other ungulate popluations are being effectively regulated by a recovered wolf population, then we might talk reasonably about allowing limited hunting.  

            I think rather I'd work to have the Endangered Species Act reinstated in these area, and have federal public lands managed under sscientific principles, rather than in response to the local Wyoming political ones.  I'm afraid Wyoming doesn't have the best record or particular reason to be trusted with this management task.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:07:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice opinion (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              high uintas, ban nock

              I doubt the wildlife biologists that actually manage populations in the Rocky Mountains agree with you, but you are welcome to voice your opinions at the public meetings that are happening continuously all over the region.  If you have data bring it, I know that the Colorado DOW will bury you in numbers to justify their decisions. The Wyoming DOW will also want you to have numbers to back your opinions.

              Until the human population drops by a few hundred million in North America, we will have to manage our wildlife. It is a complex job and thank goodness for responsible hunters and anglers that actually PAY to keep populations strong.

              •  Well, (6+ / 0-)

                as a PhD ecologist who can read the scientific literature, I'm pretty much confident that I'm on pretty firm grounds here.  The wolf population is nowhere near in need of culling, as you can tell from the status of their prey populations.  

                And the US FWS actually has the species listed throughout most of the west, so yes, the people with the responsibilty for that management do in fact agree with me.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:35:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You need to do some field work (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ban nock

                  The feds are the last one you should reference regarding wildlife management. Every big park or monument they actual manage is badly out of balance from both a flora and fauna standpoint.  They manage them as zoos. Rocky Mountain National Park uses snipers with night scopes to manage the elk herd and high fences to manage their movement. Ethical and based on sound science no doubt.

                  •  ok (4+ / 0-)

                    so we go with the political appointees in state FW departments.  Riiiight.  But I notice that the hunting lobby is almost tobacco industry class when it comes to putting out false information.

                    I work with the FWS pretty regularly and their scientific expertise is quite good on many endangered species issues (where they have the resources).  And your characterization of the parks is pretty far removed from reality.  Yellowstone is in considerably better shape than most of the surrounding area, the traffic on it notwithstanding.

                    and interesting they'd have to cull elk.  That suggests taht there aren't enough wolves to do the job, evidently.

                    Which brings me to the original point.  The wolf populations are nowhere near ecological recovery.  The original recovery numbers were ten breeding pairs in three distinct areas.  We are not there yet, overall in the NRM.  And that's for delisting, which is still a population at very low numbers ecologically-speaking.

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:50:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  DOW in Colorado is lifetime civil servants (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ban nock

                      The structure is similar in Wyoming. I am actually involved in some of the meetings in my area of Colorado and I don't think you know what you are talking about. I am intimately familiar with Rocky Mountain National Park the idiot that runs it. Either his staff is great and he ignores them or he is a reflection of dysfunctional government in action. Come to Rocky Mountain National Park. It has the most out of whack ecosystem in the Rockies. It's a joke and you betray your geographical ignorance when you suggest wolves are an option.

                      •  ah (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        White Buffalo

                        so you don't like one guy in one park whose management methods you criticize, even though you don't have a background in population or ecosystem ecology.  Do I have that right?

                        And since the historical range of the grey wolf includes most of the continental US, I think we're safe to say that wolves played an important role in that ecosystem as well.

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:43:36 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Maybe K M is talking about (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kenevan McConnon, ban nock

                          an ecosystem that he is intimately familiar with and a manager who manages in accordance with his degrees but not with reality. I have seen this before.

                          Nature isn't natural anymore and it won't be for as long as we haven't been reduced to roving bands of hunter gatherers. We have altered nature drastically in the contiguous US and will continue to. Population dictates that.

                          I was on the fence about the reintroduction of wolves, not because I hate them but because I feared that this kind of stuff would happen as they moved out of protected space. I hate them being hunted and know that they have to be in certain circumstances.

                          It isn't just some rancher right next to a National Park, wolves range.

                          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                          by high uintas on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:08:08 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What KM is talking about (4+ / 0-)

                            is an ecosystem he thinks he knows in an unsystematic and non data based way.  Ecology is a far more subtle science than one can grasp by merely walking around (although that's a piece of it).  In fact, without the rigorous analysis involved in ecological study, it is extremely difficult to understand what is at work (and even with that data).   Whether it is "out of whack" and how would involve understanding the historical dynamics of the ecosystem, which are essentially impossible to have information on by merely being "intimately familiar" with an area, unless one is a couple of hundred years old.

                             So, yes, I am more inclined to trust the professional scientists who are a) trained in that kind of analysis and b) have access to the actual data (typcially the folks with the degrees have a much better handle on actual dynamics than the arm chair crowd, especially ones with agendas, as wel see here).   Arm chair folks can have useful insights, but at the end of the day the science has to carry the day.

                            But yes, nature isn't natural anymore, as exemplified by the general lack of wolves, for example.  Many ecosystems have been dramatically altered and damaged through human actions, and restoring these ecosystems requires primarily managing human activities that caused the damage, rather than trying to manipulate natural ecosystems to fit with around the random, destructive human actions.  As another great example, right now a large part of the justification for killing wolves prematurely here is the effort to manage elk populations at too high a level to make hunters happy and out of prejudice, unsupported by data, on the part of ranchers.

                            There does need to be some management, but it needs to be done in a fashion that first allows ecosystems to recover.  Killing wolves when the species is barely into recovery isn't a good plan.  Furthermore, it is a terrible idea to reintroduce the exact threat that caused the decline in the first place.  I don't think anyone is taking the recovery of the Bald Eagle as a reason to reintroduce DDT for example or the recovery of the condor to reintroduce lead shot into California.  Once those threats to species are reduced, they need to stay reduced.

                            As I said previously, when the populations are fully recovered, and not merely just back from the brink (which is the standard of delisting), then we can talk about culling as a management method, but not before

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:31:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The ecosystems recovered because (4+ / 0-)

                            of hunters and anglers not in spite of them. Market hunting reduced populations to zero around 1900; the North American Management model has restored many fauna to levels that can co-exist with human populations.  Hunters and anglers back their love of the woods with dollars. Everyone else has enjoyed the benefits for the last 100 years.

                            Study some history to go along with your opinions. If your going to play an expert, do more than insult. This is a reality based community. Enough with the unicorns.

                          •  That's absurd (4+ / 0-)

                            We're in the midst of a recovery of the condor now that has required actions fought tooth and nail by the hunting community.  (Try floating a ban on lead shot and see what reaction you get).   Today, we're seeing an attack on the wolf largely based on efforts to maintain high elk populations for sport hunters, not based in any ecological analysis.  Hunters make an effort to preserve wild spaces for the purposes of their own amusement and not efor ecological restoration goals, which I'm afraid the hunting community has a spotty record in supporting (taht is, there are examples of hunters supporting ecological restoration and others where they've opposed it).  We see regular stocking of non-native fish for anglers, and opposition to efforts to eradicate invasives from sporting communities often enough.  I am familiar enough with the history of hunting in the US to understand its role in the destruction of a number of species in the US.  Things have changed somewhat mroe recently.  Much, if not most of the real restoration work occuring today is supported mostly by the scientific and environmental communities, and, yes, sometimes the sporting community is supportive.  But to pretend that hunters and anglers are somehow benign environmental stewards does not reflect what has occurrred and is continuing to occur today.  

                            As I mentioned, I have a PhD in ecology and more than a passing familiarity with the scientific literature here.  I am sorry if I am a little testy with the self-serving arm chair speculation that spends its time looking down its nose at the people with the real training and expertise to address these issues.  I don't stand for it from creationists or climate change deniers either.  I apologize if I've let my testiness get too sharp, but at the end of the day, the science has to carry the day.  

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:58:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You use a lot of words (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Notreadytobenice, FrankRose

                            to say very little.

                          •  Mindful Nature does have a point (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Agathena

                            about the introduction of non-native species. That pisses me off big time when it comes to my fellow anglers. What has been done is pretty much done, but dammit! they can quit now.

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:47:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I respect your reply (0+ / 0-)

                            I think that my problem is with the idea of restoring ecosystems in areas where there is a constant conflict with the dominant species, us. We tend to fight it, screw with it and do our best to change the rules until we get our way. That's why I was ambivalent about reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone.

                            Call me a pessimist, but I'm afraid that all we fight to hold onto is ultimately doomed if we survive and continue to reproduce at the current rate. Yellowstone isn't natural, it's a vision of what might have been. The areas around it haven't been natural for over a hundred years.

                            There are areas in the SW desert, The Grand Staircase of The Escalante for example, that are so remote that the ecosystems can be maintained, not restored. Just getting to them requires days or a helicopter. Unless unobtainium is discovered there I don't see mankind working too hard to screw them up. But, the area around YNP and RMNP is so beautiful and easy to get to and they will come.

                            Your overarching point about wolves and when we can or should de-list them IMO is right on point. But, I'm afraid that train has left the station.

                            On scientists and ecosystems vs hunter/naturalist ect. Sometimes I think that the later is ignored too often. Those people who spend time in nature are often the first to see problems that ultimately become widely known. I'm including rangers who spend their time out there but are often ignored. I know that cus I've spoken with them.

                            Just ruminating on a Sunday morning.

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:04:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's a mixed bag (0+ / 0-)

                            Actaully, the escalante is significantly degraded due to grazing, and there have been efforts recently to retire the grazing permits there, with significant litigation.

                            Yes, the conflicts between natural areas and human habitation require some careful thinking, but that isn't to say that these cannot be managed or improved, even in areas of dense popluation.  However, there has to be a willingness to do so.

                            It may well be that naturalists are ignored too often, although a lot of natural history is part of the mix and informs the scientific thinking when so presented.  The issue of course being that unsystematic observation is not always a reliable approach in that the conclusions are not necessarily supported by the actual observations.  Those observations are useful, and certainly better than having no data whatsoever, but in turn they are also not as valuable as systematic data.  Also, it isn't the kind of data that's typcially useful for getting a handle on longer term trends.  Certainly, there are some cultural barriers that could be reduced, but to suggest that unsystematic observations by naturalists are superior to scientific study should at most raise some serious eyebrows.

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:20:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Grazing on the edges (0+ / 0-)

                            there are miles and miles of it that are virtually without access. The Sagebrush Rebellion dead enders are are always fighting for the little bit they can fuck with and they only serve to prove my point.

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:44:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  The Colorado Fish and Game commission (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Agathena

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:09:20 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You missed the other four pages and description. (0+ / 0-)

                          The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is a citizen board, appointed by the Governor, which sets regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs.

                          The 11 voting members of the commission include three members who are sportsmen or sportswomen, one of whom must be an outfitter; three agricultural producers; three recreationalists, including one from a non-profit, non-consumptive wildlife organization; two at-large members. Members are expected to represent all parks and wildlife related issues, regardless of their affiliation. A minimum of four commissioners must be from west of the Continental Divide.

                          The Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Agriculture also serve on the commission as ex-officio members.

                          The science is done by the employees of the department. The commission is a citizen board by design. Citizen scientists are welcome. They just have to get appointed by the governor. Also, remember who pays. I am sure if hikers started contributing some funds they would have a seat at the table.

                          •  you mean (0+ / 0-)

                            like through taxes and park access fees?

                            However, as noted the policies for hunting are set ultimately by nonscientist hunters, largely, as it is in most states.

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:55:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In addtion to taxes and park access fees (0+ / 0-)

                            Just like hunters and anglers. Millions are spent annually on licenses and habitat stamps and conservationists contribute nothing except opinions.

                            You're misinformed and kind of a jerk. Later.

                          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm a scientist, and therefore to be dismissed.  Sorry the facts don't back you up.  I tell you the truth and you think it's hell.

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:36:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you sound like cartman (0+ / 0-)

                            Respect my authoritea!!! No links and when you do link, you misrepresent the information.

                          •  Just noticed (0+ / 0-)

                            an actual advocate of pay to play!  yay.

                            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:37:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Get Your Agency Missions Straight (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Agathena

                    I have done field work; and it's easy to point to specific incidents, like what you describe at RMNP, that have zero bearing on wildlife policy as a whole.  

                    There are a number of agencies that manage wildlife on federal lands--there are more than just "big parks and monuments" (NPS).  The NPS has a different mission, as does BLM, and the Forest Service.

                    There are more than 150 million acres of land/water in the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuge System.  The people that work on those refuges are the most committed wildlife professionals in the world; and they work every day with scarce resources (way less than NPS); face huge ecological challenges; and deal with changing political landscapes and multiple stakeholders, many not supportive.  They do the best they can.  

                    I'll go with a FWS wildlife manager and/or biologist any day.

                    PS-- the term "sound science" was made popular by Frank Luntz, GOP propagandist.  It is code for "no science is good enough for us".  I never use that term.  

        •  If you're implying what I suspect you're implying (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Olson, Wildthumb

          then while I understand the sentiment, I disagree with it. Every the most horrible people alive have a right to stay alive, just like non-human animals like wolves. I'm not saying that all hunting is wrong, just the kind that targets species that pose no serious threat to anyone and whose numbers are still well below what is healthy for their genetic well-being and survival. A wolf is not a duck.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:16:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I must have expresed myself badly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie
            I'm not saying that all hunting is wrong, just the kind that targets species that pose no serious threat to anyone and whose numbers are still well below what is healthy for their genetic well-being and survival. A wolf is not a duck.
            this is more or less what I was suggesting

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:36:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  ban nock - your comment is really condescending (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena, White Buffalo, wordwraith

      Anyone opposed to large-scale wolf-hunting just doesn't "understand the issues" and should just "enjoy their pets", right?

      I admit that wildlife population dynamics is not my specialization, but as a biologist I appreciate the critical value of keystone predators in preventing overgrazing of native vegetation by their ungulate prey.  I also recognize that no natural predator would be responsible for a 20% annual mortality of adult wolves, as we now see in Wisconsin for example, which limits any ecological argument for wolf hunts on the scale we see now.  

      Given that wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone under the Endangered Species Act, I am also skeptical of your claim that the goal was to provide hunters with a new target.  The NPS page on the Yellowstone reintroduction makes no mention of hunting as a goal.

      There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

      by Frameshift on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:34:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please Elaborate, with Citations/References (4+ / 0-)

      on your contention that

      The wolf was reintroduced to be a game species, that means shot
      That would help us all understand where you are really coming from on this issue.
    •  The wolf was reintroduced to be a game species? (0+ / 0-)

      Hmm.
      News to me.
      But then, to folks like you, the only species that aren't game species are the ones that some asshole liberal won't let you shoot for some inexplicable sentimental reason.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:13:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hate people who kill for fun. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueDragon, Wildthumb

    So there you have it.

  •  All about the welfare ranchers (5+ / 0-)

    ..most of them big corporations, grazing on public land.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:15:27 AM PST

    •  As despicable as these guys are (5+ / 0-)

      There isn't much of a ranching business argument for this.    This is about a bunch of yahoos trying to show how manly they are.  

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:28:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reason shooting wolves is not a crime (0+ / 0-)

        ..is because of the welfare ranching. The reason these yahoos aren't afraid that they'd get the penalty they'd get for shooting a condor or a bald eagle is about the welfare ranchers and their hysterical rhetoric.

        If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

        by rhetoricus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:16:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So, what do you recommend? (4+ / 0-)

    Let the wolves expand their range with no restrictions? And when they kill and eat livestock (as they indeed do) just shrug your shoulders?

    I don't like to see wolves killed either, but to complain about it, and offer no reasonable alternative isn't helpful.

    Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

    by walk2live on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:34:58 AM PST

    •  Yes, so long as they don't move into residential (4+ / 0-)

      areas, in which case they can be safely captured and relocated elsewhere. You really think a few cows taken down by wolf packs pose a serious threat to anyone? Ranching is a business, and like all it comes with its risks. If you don't want wolves eating your overfed fat cows who've lost the instinct to defend themselves and maybe could benefit from some culling too, then don't build your ranch next to wolf country. These people are all rich. We're supposed to feel sorry for them? Let the price of beef go up. We eat too much of it anyway.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:20:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are millions of cattle throughout the west (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock

        You might not like it. I don't either, but that's how things are.

        Wolves need to eat meat. If you're a wolf, would you rather chase-down a tough elk? or go get an easy meal by taking-out a cow? It's not rocket science. Once wolves learn they can survive by eating cows, that's all they'll eat. And if you just let them go, they'll just keep doing it, keep multiplying, and keep expanding. Pretty soon, "wolf country" will be the entire west. Then what?

        There is no "elsewhere" to relocate wolves... or at least, we're quickly running out of such places. Just look at a map - tell me, where exactly are you going to put them? Who is going to pay to track, trap, and move them?

        It would be nice if we could change our culture to eat less beef, and change how many ranches are run. But trying to change that culture by letting wolves run everywhere is counter-productive. It just breeds resentment, anger, and dead animals.

        Also, I think painting ranchers as "all rich" is not based on reality. Some are rich, but many are not.

        Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

        by walk2live on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:09:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The west is HUGE, including wilderness areas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          They can be relocated hundreds of miles away to another protected area where there's little to no chance that they'd know how to get back to where they were founding killing cattle. That should cut down on lots of cattle deaths. What about fences to keep wolves in parks or out of ranches? Expensive, perhaps, but it could be split between the government and ranchers as the cost of doing business near wilderness. As for the west being overrun by wolves and reverting to being "wolf country", as someone else has said here, get back to me in a few decades when that becomes imaginable, because right now that's just silly.

          Ranching where cattle have no history of existing before white men arrived will always be risky, like farming on former natural grasslands on the plains. Nature favors certain activities, and certain levels of those activities, in different places, and at a certain point you have to respect that. Perhaps we need to rethink our approach to ranching in certain areas? And I'm guessing that the highest levels of direct and indirect federal subsidies to ranchers are in such places. If so, then you're basically saying that we should not only allow ranchers in such areas to kill wolves that kill a few cows, but subsidize the operations that necessitate this.

          How does this make sense?

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:57:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Having spent a lot of time in the wilderness... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie

            I can tell you, there isn't as much of it as you  might think. A good percentage of it is "rocks and snow" or other highlands that aren't good wolf habitat - at least not year-round. Those big blank spaces on the map? All ranchland - some multi-use and public (BLM, forest service), some private.

            By some definitions, no land has a history of farming & ranching, depending on how far back you look. I mean, everything was once wild... Wolves once roamed across Europe. Should they be re-introduced there too?

            What I think is that yes, a mix of fences, tracking, and some killing of wolves is the only way to keep everyone happy. I really wish there was a swath of wild land cutting through the west, where large animals could live their lives as Nature intended. But, that ship has mostly sailed for the lower 48 states. We're left with just a few places - like Yellowstone - where that kind of thing can happen... too few places, and too small, IMHO.

            At the end of the day, sad as it might be, some wolves are going to be killed. It's just a fact that I've learned to live with. Millions of intelligent animals are killed every day throughout this planet. I know people are more emotional about wolves, but there needs to be some perspective.

            Also, wolves that kill livestock, "just kill a few" at the start, but it's such easy game, once they start, there's little you can do to stop them.

            btw, we're having a similar problem with Sea Lions eating a lot of salmon in the Columbia River, especially where they back-up at the first big dam. Unfortunately, not much you can do there either but kill the sea lions.  Again, not something I'd like to see happen, but the species is nowhere near in danger of being wiped out.

            Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

            by walk2live on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:22:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are other very large wilderness areas (0+ / 0-)

              that are contiguous enough and have the right sorts of natural features to host wolves. E.g. Glacier NP, Wind River Range, Rocky Mountain NP, tons of national forests and BLM lands that can be "re-purposed" back from being practically given away to ranching, logging and mining interests. I don't believe this is a nature issue, but rather a political one. Why are we giving away all this natural bounty to rich people and big corporations for peanuts in return? Obviously, we're talking decades of political and legal efforts to make that happen, but I think it needs to happen, for us and nature. Today's land use is simply unsustainable.

              And btw, I'm no expert, but I've driven across and spent time in such areas a number of times. One of the things that struck me was that there are almost no public roads in the west that aren't fenced in on either side. It always made me wonder who owns that land, and what would happen if I parked my car on the side of the road and walked across it. Common sense told me that I'd probably get arrested, cited, mauled, bitten or shot, so I never tried it. But, and sorry to sound cheesy, but it doesn't feel like the Woody Guthrie song when you drive across this land. More like the John Steinbeck book.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:23:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  much of the fenced land is public, get a good map (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kovie

                and learn to read it carefully. Private land need not be marked, and trespassing is a real big deal out here, but that public land belongs to us, ask any ranger, you are welcome to camp and hike or fish or hunt or many places bike ride or whatever, even drive. But check the rules very carefully.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:28:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What maps do you recommend? (0+ / 0-)

                  Is it a region by region thing? BLM? There were many times when I wanted to go camping off the highway, off on a dirt road leading from it, but wasn't sure if it was allowed, and I had no idea how to tell. Official camp sites tend to fill up in summer and they're not cheap, and sometimes you just want to go where there aren't many people and don't care if the scenery isn't national park quality. I did this several times (including once, memorably, not far from the Mount Wilson observatory east of LA), but was nervous that I'd be woken up by a trooper (or worse, angry rancher) in the middle of the night and told to leave.

                  Understandably, locals are probably not keen on sharing such things with outsiders.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:04:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  HunterGPS has the best info (0+ / 0-)

                    This works on any computer as well as Garmin GPS units. It costs $99.00 a state. It gives you ownership/management by tract as well as private landowners names. I use it to scout. Changes the way you look at fences. Cross referenced with local land records and phone directories, you can usually find a landowner in a day, and about half will let you cross their land and about 10% will let you hunt it.

                  •  I too use Kenevan's Hunter GPS but with the GPS (0+ / 0-)

                    it'self it was quite an investment.

                    I used to buy BLM maps at a local map store that had them for the whole state, there are also large scale forest service maps. Both should show boundaries. The rule is leave all gates as you found them. Also look to see if they allow "dispersed camping" often they will say "camping at designated sites only" in some places and "dispersed" in others.

                    I've made mistakes, and ranchers have always been very polite. Forest Service people are understanding to a fault.

                    Oh, if you have a dog keep that thing close. Chasing wildlife or cows is way frowned upon.

                    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                    by ban nock on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:04:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Rocky Mountain National Park (0+ / 0-)

                will not work. The elk winter IN the town of Estes Park. I'm LOL as I picture a wolf stalking an elk past the brewery with a bunch of drunks watching.

            •  Also, while we're on the topic (0+ / 0-)

              I just have to get this off my chest so you know where I'm coming from. I grew up in the 70's, in NYC, with barely any wilderness experience. It was basically a month in sleepaway camp in the Catskills, an afternoon every few summers in Bear Mountain, and a weekend in a cabin in the Catskills. So I always had this yearning to spend a lot more time in wild areas. And back then the conservative movement hadn't yet taken over or become as pervasive and oppressive as it's been since Reagan. You could still "breath" and feel hopeful about the future. There were all these "back to nature" movements, movies and sentiments.

              So people like me, with minimal wilderness experience, grew up hoping that the 60's ethos would carry us forward and restore the country to a more natural state with engandered species like the bison, bald eagle and wolf restored to the natural habitats. And then that psychopath Reagan came along with James Watt and all those conservative fake rancher friends of his and set us back decades. So while I might not be an expert, this is something I've been hoping for for decades. This is something a lot of people my age and older have been hoping for.

              I want to get us back to the path we were on back then, and leave this terrible and stupid conservative detour we've been on since the 80's. It's about more than just wolves, of course. It's about restoring nature to a more, well, natural state, and scaling back overdevelopment, places that humans aren't meant to have a permanent presence or despoil. It's finally happening. They're blowing up dams in the west and restoring salmon runs. I've seen bison and grizzlies in national parks, when I lived in Seattle I'd regularly see bald eagles flying above, and I'm pretty sure I even saw a wolf in Yellowstone once. And so taking it easy on wolves just seems right to me, even if some ranchers are inconvenienced a bit.

              I thought that that's part of the appeal of living in the west, that's it's tough and challenging and not always predictable and controllable. I.e. it's natural.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:38:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Fences do sound like a good solution (0+ / 0-)

            for just a portion of the park, then people could go look at them and take pictures and stuff. Little kids love puppies.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:25:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Killing problem wolves was already permitted (7+ / 0-)

      There was already a program to compensate ranchers for any livestock lost, and wolves that went after livestock could be killed.

      What has changed recently, with delisting, is that states have allowed the hunting of large numbers of wolves, for no particular reason.  That is, wolves that don't live near livestock or have not developed problem behaviors, are now considered fair game.

      Wolves originally ranged throughout the lower 48, and their absence has led to out-of-control deer populations (threatening many native plants, for example).  We absolutely should let the wolves expand their range into more wilderness areas, while culling them only as needed to protect livestock.

      There are thousands hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. -Thoreau

      by Frameshift on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:25:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are no out of control deer populations in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kenevan McConnon

        the west where there is hunting. You are thinking of the east or places with unnatural limitations on humans.

        Wolves are most definitely hunted for a reason, to reduce populations. Wolves have been in too high populations for over ten years, their destruction isn't so important on cattle but on the entire ecosystems of the Rocky Mountain West. I'd suggest reading the web sites of the state divisions of wildlife for the states affected.

        The people of the states are the ones who make these decisions, they live with the problems every day, they have decided what they want to do. If you want wolves in your state talk to your representatives.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:34:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wolves are not the problem; it's cows. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena, Wildthumb, Mathazar


    •  Exactly. The management and water use and grazing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero

      and pollution that livestock need or produce has driven much of the west's environmental destruction. That's why for years I've never used beef or pork. And I don't miss them.

      "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan." --Joel McCrea as "Sully," in "Sullivan's Travels."

      by Wildthumb on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:11:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So sorry. These beloved wolves are essential to (3+ / 0-)

    the health of their pack.  They lead the hunts and when those hunts take them outside of Park boundaries, they are so vulnerable.

    Buffer zones around parks are the solution to this.

    Dealing with the same issue Denali National Park.

  •  WTF?! (3+ / 0-)

    Are there just hunters laying in wait immediately outside the border to shoot anyting that crosses?!

    Thats what it sounds like! Ugh.  Rather than upset myself, I'm going to let Katara state this better than I could.

    "I always wondered what kind of person could do such a thing. But now that I see you, I think I understand. There’s just nothing inside you. Nothing at all. You’re pathetic and sad and empty."

    The only Bug-type Pokemon that can learn the move Fly - Volcarona and Genesect - Are not Flying types.

    by kamrom on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:13:08 PM PST

  •  National Wildlife Federation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kenevan McConnon

    has been working for decades on improving conditions for quite a few species that occasionally or frequently wander out of protected parkland, including wolves.  They were one of the original groups to work on wolf reintroduction.

    They have several functions:  they directly work with local people in the area to try to arrive at solutions, they try to arrange things like land trades or retirement of grazing permits while compensating ranchers, and they utilize the court system where appropriate.

    If you want to really make a difference, you could do worse than looking into that particular group.   One thing I like about them is that they work with hunting groups such as Ducks Unlimited and tend to avoid some of the more extreme approaches that increase conflict between groups.

    Never forget that hunters and fisherman spend a large part of their own money for habitat restoration; the duck stamp program is one of the biggest environmental successes in the past century and is largely funded by hunters who wanted to restore the decimated populations of ducks.

    Farmers and ranchers work closely with wildlife biologists to create and restore wetlands on their properties, restore hedgerows, leave some standing crops and all manner of other things to create and improve habitat.

    I'd rather build bridges than burn them.  This wolf should have been protected immediately outside of the park.  However, we should not ignore the very real concerns of people who live in areas where wolves have come back either.

  •  This has me so upset and it breaks my heart. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb

    I remember when wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone, it was such a wonderful hopeful time.

    I cannot begin to find words to describe the depth of anger and hatred I feel for this hunter---and for any person who thinks and behaves that way.

    "Religion is the smile on a dog." Edie Brickell

    by zesty grapher on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:30:11 PM PST

  •  Fuck the wolf hunts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb, Fishgrease

    I don't care WHAT the reason is for them, it's just disgusting.

    Living is easy with eyes closed...

    by skybluewater on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:54:04 PM PST

    •  I'm glad that there is a growing revulsion for (0+ / 0-)

      hunting in this country, especially among women and the young. I'm not a vegan (I eat mostly non-meat foods)
      but I like that there's a growing vegan movement.

      "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan." --Joel McCrea as "Sully," in "Sullivan's Travels."

      by Wildthumb on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:13:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  As a resident of Wyoming, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mathazar, Cassandra Waites, cacamp

    this makes me sick to my stomach. I mean literally. Makes me very angry as well.

    Because this is sickness. This is just sickness.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:29:13 PM PST

  •  What You Hate Elk? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock

    As a Montanan, I pretty much agree with both Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg. Wolves are big, aggressive, kill lots of livestock, deer and elk and need to be managed like any other aggressive and potentially ecologically overwhelming species. Sorry your favorite wolf got killed. Did I mention he killed my favorite elk by ripping out his throat and then then tearing hunks of flesh off his still quivering body?

  •  A world without any of the great predators (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gene s

    or indeed any of the iconic wildlife we grew up with in our picture books--wolves, lions, tigers, elephants, polar bears, rhinos, the great apes, pandas--every day it seems another is cited in some small barely-noticed article.  This is the "natural world" that awaits our grandchildren.  These animals will exist, if at all, only in small, controlled environments--"managed," "culled," "harvested," squeezed out of all of their places on the earth, by loss of habitat to the meat industry, to climate change, or by their value or lack thereof to the human "market," and to the predations of certain human beings who cannot bear the existence of anything wild and free and outside of their control.  

    Every small, hopeful bit of news -- http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/... --is balanced with a dozen heartbreaking events like the one above.  Even if 95 percent of people on earth wanted to find ways to save them, to share the planet with them, how is that possible?  We can't be there to physically protect them from the 5 percent who are shooting, trapping, driving them from their homes.  Most of the time, in this country anyway, it's perfectly legal.  It is not necessary to anthropomorphise these animals to love them and want them to live, simply wanting them to be there somewhere in the world, in a place where they belong, even if we personally will never see them in the wild.  Indeed, it is only awe, love and respect for their "otherness" that can save them from the ultimate predator before whom they are all defenseless. It's not a hopeful scenario, I'm afraid.  Bill Hicks was right, our species is "a virus with shoes."  

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, Pat K California, Velocity, paradox, oofer, lowkell, copymark, BigOkie, PeterHug, Sprinkles, Debby, Charles CurtisStanley, LynnS, eeff, willyr, xynz, Creosote, susans, susakinovember, whenwego, djMikulec, twcollier, Agathena, chuckvw, barath, Aquarius40, roses, sngmama, mollyd, splashy, Cedwyn, Quege, Farugia, Miss Jones, pat bunny, White Buffalo, cosette, Damnit Janet, NYFM, Steven Payne, hoof32, RebeccaG, Timbuk3, wordwraith, zerelda, glattonfolly, Kitsap River, KayCeSF, eve, sb, Desert Rose, NoMoreLies, UFOH1, LarisaW, JanetT in MD, chimene, ccasas, Simplify, craigkg, ChemBob, YucatanMan, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, Chaoslillith, Pam from Calif, Burned, machka, Ice Blue, kaliope, Cory Bantic, peacestpete, mrchips46, Jim R, begone, martini, BachFan, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, cybersaur, BeadLady, kestrel9000, KenBee, Loonesta, rhetoricus, zesty grapher, blueoasis, Rosaura, CTLiberal, IL clb, CA Nana, Persiflage, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dreaming of Better Days, kurt, bstotts, dochackenbush, Friend of the court, Nulwee, ZenTrainer, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, FoundingFatherDAR, bluicebank, Habitat Vic, Loudoun County Dem, tgypsy, Deadicated Marxist, glescagal, Magster, DvCM, Thunder Dreamer, mommyof3, US Blues, jnhobbs, carpunder, OIL GUY, Azubia, Assaf, Mark Wallace, Empower Ink, mconvente, Port City Moon, chakadog, limpidglass, bythesea, moose67, tofumagoo, Ocelopotamus, Cassandra Waites, Missys Brother, Gemina13, petulans, DixieDishrag, Nica24, Ellinorianne, squarewheel, forgore, Fiddlegirl, prettygirlxoxoxo, Glacial Erratic, carolyn urban, CanyonWren, janmtairy, Zotz, WakeUpNeo, geebeebee, Lopez99, papahaha, ayjaymay, nancat357, boatwright, Leftcandid, Lefty Ladig, Amber6541, awcomeon, The Jester, eXtina, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, samanthab, Lady Libertine, dlemex, melfunction, rja, ericlewis0, progdog, cany, Actbriniel, FarmerG, verdeo, ciganka, Onomastic, Barbara Marquardt, La Gitane, marleycat, Wolf10, dle2GA, akmk, slooterdam, CherryTheTart, chira2, Tyto Alba, PhilJD, poliwrangler, Deathtongue, SteelerGrrl, RLMiller, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Mathazar, BlueDragon, YaNevaNo, AnnetteK, stormicats, anodnhajo, IndieGuy, dance you monster, Mostel26, a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, cherie clark, Mr Robert, tytalus, Kayjay, exterris, Robynhood too, mythatsme, madcitysailor, MarkW53, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, atana, jusjtim35, MrBigDaddy, SanFernandoValleyMom, dear occupant, georgelshea, Demeter Rising, blue91

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site