Skip to main content

Papers across the world have reported the killing of Yellowstone's most photographed wolf.

“She is was the most famous wolf in the world,” said Jimmy Jones, a wildlife photographer who lives in Los Angeles and whose portrait of 832F appears in the current issue of the magazine American Scientist….New York Times
What hasn't been reported widely is the massive slaughter and widespread damage to ecosystems in the lower 48 states that has been going on since September 1 when open season was declared on wolves. 616 wolves have been killed to date.
World's most photographed wolf, Yellowstone wolf Lamar Canyon Pack Alpha Female_832F and her mate Wolf 754 were killed.
Across much of North America, first Americans, bison and wolves and the land evolved towards a steady state, as the glaciers receded and the climate stabilized. The arrival of humans in north America initially led to the extinction of many large mammals, but humans integrated with north American ecosystems over thousands of years. Predation by wolves, humans, bears and mountain lions kept large ungulates under control, protecting plants and smaller species.

Wolves have been feared, hated, and persecuted for hundreds of years in North America. Before the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans incorporated wolves into their legends and rituals, portraying them as ferocious warriors in some traditions and thieving spirits in others. European Americans, however, simply despised wolves. Many, including celebrated painter and naturalist John James Audubon, believed wolves ought to be eradicated for the threat they posed to valuable livestock. This attitude enabled a centuries-long extermination campaign that nearly wiped out the gray wolf in the continental United States by 1950.
The extermination of the wolf the western states of the U.S. led to overgrazing by ungulates and loss of biodiversity in western ecosystems. For example, damage to aspen from overgrazing led to a large decline in the birds population in Glacier National Park, Montana. Without wolf predation, out of control elk populations devoured all the aspen sprouts.There were no new trees for 60 years until the wolf was brought back to the habitat.  The decline of aspen led to a decline of songbirds and a plague of insects..
"It is," she said, "clear and profound. The wolves leave an indelible mark on the entire ecosystem."

Eisenberg's work shows that before wolves were killed out, about one in every six aspen trees grew to reach the canopy. When wolves were absent, perhaps one in 300 made it.

Aspen ecosystems are considered some of the finest and richest songbird habitat on the continent, second only to river-bottom riparian zones. Remove the wolf, and you remove the songbirds. Remove the songbirds, and the bugs move in. Everything changes, top to bottom, right down to the dirt.

Eisenberg calls it a "trophic cascade," and it forms the core of her scientific research. Her insights could very well change the way biologists manage predators, and likewise could change the way society counts an endangered species as "recovered."

The return of the wolf to Yellowstone has led to a near miraculous recovery of the ecosystem. More young trees mean that birds and beavers are thriving now. More beavers mean more dams and better habitat for fish. More birds mean fewer bugs. The return of the apex predator has brought balance to Yellowstone's ecosystem.

Detailed research on the effects of wolf return to the Yellowstone ecosystem have shown rapid recovery of biodiversity.
•  Since their reintroduction in 1995-96, the wolf population generally increased until 2003, forcing changes in both elk numbers and behavior due to what researchers call the “ecology of fear.”

• The northern range elk populations decreased from more than 15,000 individuals in the early 1990s to about 6,000 last year, and remaining elk now have different patterns of movement, vigilance, and other traits.

• By 2006, some aspen trees had grown tall enough they were no longer susceptible to browsing by elk, and cottonwood and willow were also beginning to return in places.
Improved willow growth is providing habitat that allows for a greater diversity and abundance of songbirds such as the common yellowthroat, warbling vireo and song sparrow.

• The number of beaver colonies in the same area increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, with positive impacts on fish habitat.

• Increases in beaver populations have strong implications for riparian hydrology and biodiversity – Wyoming streams with beaver ponds have been found to have 75 times more abundant waterfowl than those without.

• The coyote population decreased with the increase in wolf numbers, allowing more small mammals that provide food for other avian and mammalian predators, such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles.

Since the grey wolf was removed from the endangered species list the federal government has passed wolf management back to the states. Because the states with wolves are controlled by tea party Republicans, right wing libertarians and conservative Democrats, they have rapidly passed new laws and regulations encouraging the hunting, trapping and extermination of wolves. There is no intention to manage the wolf population by scientific means. Western states are exterminating wolves outside of Yellowstone and Glacier national parks.

I can hardly believe the numbers. 605 wolves have been slaughtered in the combined hunts since August 30, 2012.  In 102 days or a little over three months, hundreds of wolves have been wiped out. Images of their mangled, bloodied bodies litter FB and hunting forums. The smiling, grinning wolf killers are gloating in their blood bath. AND this is only December. Montana opens wolf trapping season on December 15.  The Colville Tribes in Washington state are  hunting wolves on their reservation.

Seven collared wolves from Yellowstone National Park have been killed.

Killed late October: 824M of the Mollies pack.

Early November: 829F of the Blacktail Plateau pack.

November 10th in WY: 754M of the Lamar Canyon pack.

November 13th in MT: 823F of the Junction Butte pack (sole collar).

Date/location unknown: 762M and 763F of the Madison pack.

Date unknown, killed in WY: 793(?) of the Snake River pack.

December 6th: 832F. Iconic Alpha Female of  the Lamar Canyon pack.

Wolves are being gut shot, tortured, trapped, strangled in choking snares, arrowed and god only knows what they’re doing to them in Wyoming’s  predator zone, any method of killing is allowed, including poison.  Wisconsin wants to hunt wolves with dogs. A temporary injunction stopped it for now BUT  the issue is being revisited on December 20, 2012.

This is the state of “wolf management” as of December 9, 2012.

We can thank the Obama administration and its Interior Secretary Ken Salazar,  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-N, for allowing the Northern Rockies wolf delisting rider to remain in the budget bill, Senator Jon Tester D-MT, for slipping the wolf rider into the Senate budget bill and the majority of  Senate Democrats who voted for it, USFWS for delisting wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes and the state game agencies of  Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Minnesota for allowing the hunts to take place. Everyone who is responsible for the massacre should hang their heads in shame but it’s fairly obvious they’re not ashamed. This will continue until wolf advocates come together and put pressure on the politicians and feds to stop to this insanity. Wolves must be relisted!!


Since wolves have been delisted from the endangered species list, Republican controlled western states have declared war on them
Reports by the High Country News confirm the devastating wolf kill reported by activist groups.
Hunters in Montana have harvested 84 wolves as of Thursday afternoon, out of a population of at least 650 statewide. Different this year compared to the last is that there is no statewide wolf harvest limit. In 2011, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks set a harvest quota of 220 wolves, but even though hunters had a 46-day extension, they only killed 166 wolves by the end of the season in mid-February. Another difference: This 2012 season allows trapping in Montana for the first time since wolves were delisted. From December 15 through February 28, trappers will be able to snatch three pelts apiece.

Idaho doesn’t have a state bag limit either, and their season starts earlier and ends later. Last year, with a population estimated around 746 wolves, hunters and trappers killed a combined 349. Trappers are typically more successful than hunters, but there are fewer of them, as Jason Husseman, regional wildlife biologist for Idaho Department of Fish and Game told me.  Roughly 1,000 trappers took the state's mandatory trapper license course this year, compared with over 100,000 hunters that head out into the woods, many of them looking for wolves. So while trapping may be an easier way to kill a wolf, there just aren’t as many people doing it … so far.

(warning graphic images of sadistic cruelty and extreme human stupidity.)

NRDC Act to Stop the Slaughter of Wyoming's Wolves.

Sign on petition to stop the wolf slaughter.

Sign on Petition to Relist Wolves.

Call the White House, your congressman and your senator. Enough is enough. And support organizations that fight to protect our ecosystems and apex predators.

Originally posted to FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:01 AM PST.

Also republished by Public Lands, Park Avenue, and DK GreenRoots.

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

  •  I watched Mike Coots take off his prothesis (170+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, Iberian, teknohed, jfromga, corvo, Khun David, Pinto Pony, Brahman Colorado, middleagedhousewife, Polly Syllabic, exterris, dance you monster, poliwrangler, One Pissed Off Liberal, dear occupant, samanthab, katasstrophy, Rileycat, imagiste, scarvegas, wyvern, louisev, Methinks They Lie, Involuntary Exile, tonyahky, zerone, Guadalupe59, J M F, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, certainot, JekyllnHyde, blueoregon, Texas Lefty, Cory Bantic, newpioneer, Leftcandid, eeff, jbob, Norm in Chicago, Lady Libertine, envwq, marleycat, BlueDragon, StateofEuphoria, ZenTrainer, Words In Action, gof, Mother Mags, squarewheel, lostinamerica, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Habitat Vic, Ellinorianne, BRog, RebeccaG, radical simplicity, Milly Watt, blackjackal, wader, oldmanriver, Nulwee, YucatanMan, luckydog, FrY10cK, old wobbly, petulans, Lost and Found, leonard145b, pat bunny, fiercefilms, roses, CT yanqui, Hayate Yagami, Christin, Meteor Blades, djMikulec, dotsright, JesseCW, tmay, missLotus, scamperdo, OllieGarkey, LamontCranston, Jakkalbessie, kyril, SallyCat, Lefty Coaster, wordwraith, icebergslim, Yo Bubba, joanneleon, realwischeese, LinSea, Simplify, joe shikspack, Fabienne, Miss Jones, Lily O Lady, KenBee, dradams, mr crabby, asterkitty, vahana, ColoTim, Dumas EagerSeton, Wood Dragon, Jim R, akmk, Lisa Lockwood, Piren, madgranny, CA ridebalanced, zerelda, uciguy30, addisnana, stormicats, Assaf, bear83, zmom, orlbucfan, War on Error, surfbird007, mrkvica, EthrDemon, Kay Observer2, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, Marihilda, Chaddiwicker, sb, erratic, TexDem, Alumbrados, northsylvania, alrdouglas, Magnifico, emidesu, JayDean, mikeconwell, Lujane, blue91, MelKnee, shesaid, Frameshift, chuckvw, BlueJessamine, skybluewater, White Buffalo, psnyder, shaharazade, Loonesta, D minor, PrometheusUnbound, bgblcklab1, Dreaming of Better Days, Mathazar, PeterHug, Texnance, Burned, where4art, Trotskyrepublican, Wildthumb, melo, maggiejean, too many people, CanyonWren, mythatsme, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Creosote, divineorder, OjaiValleyCali

    many times and go surf on Kauai after he lost his lower leg to a shark attack. He went out at many of the same spots I did on the west side of Kauai.

    He saved himself by punching the shark in the nose. Now he is fighting courageously for shark protection.

    He understands that apex predators are necessary for healthy ecosystems.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:40:39 AM PST

  •  Again, this frenzy to kill (81+ / 0-)

    everything that might be a danger to industries, ranchers using federal lands for a pittance,  tours for hunters, etc., means that real science is defeated by minimal profits, all taken at the public's expense.

    The only ongoing, automatic draft out of my checking account for a charity is to a group that brings suits against the government, etc. to defend these animals.  I sent extra this year to fund a suit to stop the killing when wolves were delisted.

    It is time we come to realize we need to cede habitat to predators as well as other species that are necessary to a healthy environment. We , people, are not beneficial to the ecosystem and we may like to think we are apex predators, but we have managed to use technology to become parasites instead.  How the mighty are fallen.

  •  But ... like ... those people who killed those (12+ / 0-)

    wolves, wanted to!

    Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want?

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

    by UntimelyRippd on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:31:53 AM PST

    •  There's a reason why some animals (16+ / 0-)

      are't allowed to be hunted, because they are endangered. We need wolves just as much as condors and eagles.....

      "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

      by blueoregon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:10:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some legal background on the wolf under the ESA (28+ / 0-)

        As a lawyer who works on endangered species issues, I thought I should prepare a little primer for this diary:

        Under the Endangered Species Act, being endangered is like being in the ICU with a marginal chance of survival.  The next most serious listing is being "threatened" which means that the species isn't on the edge of extinction, but that current trends and threats make it likely that it will become endangered unless the species is protected.  Among the factors that are considered as threats are "overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;" "the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms" and "other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. "  16 USC 1533.

        Notice also that the term "species" is a bit oddly defined under the ESA, because legally the term includes also distinct populations of the species as well, which means that a particular species may be endangered in some places if its close to being wiped out in a significant portion of its range, even while being healthy elsewhere.

        Typically, when a species is listed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the USFWS also prepares a recovery plan that lays out what the management actions should be and also establishes what the target is to downlist (from endangered to threatened) or delist the species.  However, under the law, delisting doesn't just require hitting the numerical targets, it also requires a finding that the threats to the species that led to the species being endangered have been reduced such that delisting would not cause the species to become endangered all over again, because of the lack of legal protections, overutilization, or other factors.

         Finally, biologically delisting only means is that the species is out of the ICU, but not that it is near its carrying capacity or has returned to sufficient numbers to have ecological impacts.  For example, the ecological consequences noted above from wolves are not likely to happen unless there are adequate numbers to affect ungulate populations significantly, which is most certainly a higher level.

        Finally, the wolf in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho was not delisted on biological grounds, but rather through a budget rider that removed the protections of the ESA from the wolf in those states.  This rider was sponsored by Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Jon Tester (D-Montana).   Note: The wolf had not been delisted under the scientific bases under the normal means under the ESA, but rather for political purposes to kowtow to monied interests.  Biologically, delisting was inappropriate for the simple reasons that even though numerically the wolf had reached the delisting thresholds,  the threats that nearly wiped it out previously still exist.  That is to say, without the protections of the ESA "existing regulatory mechanisms" would be inadequate to keep it from being pushed to endangered status again.  Indeed, we are seeing precisely this happening now from the vast overhunting of wolves in these states.  This is the point of some of the lawsuits that are ongoing in these matters.

        So, as a legal matter, what we are seeing is what happens when you put monied interests ahead of environmental protection.  As if we didn't already know that.

        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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:41:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It takes a certain sort of man (36+ / 0-)

      to get off on shooting a wolf, or any apex predator.  An insecure coward. They deserve the greatest contempt possible.  

      I am OK with hunting of common species like deer or canada geese, or hunting invasives like feral hogs.  In fact, the latter is almost a duty.  But an honorable person eats the animal s/he shoots, and s/he doesn't get a weird psychosexual rush out of blasting a metal slug through the internal organs of any creature, especially one as intelligent as a wolf (or mountain lion).

      Lots of folks will probably show up to debate wolf ecology and whether it is sustainable to "harvest" this many.  I am well aware of the literature and support a much smaller kill number than what happened this last year.  I also know that many favor hunting wolves because they hunt elk and don't like the competition.  I would be open to arguments about wolf population health and whether there may need eventually to be some more modest controls on the number, although I think what happened this last fall was nothing more than slaughter.

      But I have a different argument to offer about this sad spectacle.  It is deeply, fundamentally human to have the experience of searching for and tracking an animal as intelligent and alert as a wolf.  In my 20s out west, I spent as much time in wilderness as I could and I do understand everything about this up to the point of killing. More people should have the experience of being totally alert and tracking an organism even more alert than you are.  

      The question is what sort of payoff does one get in the end? What poison of the soul drives a person to track an amazing creature like a wolf, mt lion or other rare animal and then feel this desire to kill it and possess its body?  To prove that he was able? To feel control over the animal?  To brag?  To reaffirm his mistaken belief that he is somehow corageous or virtuous?  There's an acquisitiveness here that seems downright pathological to me.  When all the arguments are said and done, what sticks in my mind is the utter contempt I feel for anyone who enjoys this killing. We tend to avoid morality when it comes to wildlife "management", but what happened this fall is something deeply shameful.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:12:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately we cant have a season on (14+ / 0-)

    mouth breathing shitheads. Theres way too many of them roaming loose in the hinterlands.

    •  Almost impossible to get 'em before they breed, (7+ / 0-)

      so tough to control pops that way

    •  It skates too close to the line for comfort (7+ / 0-)

      but sometimes I wish that these cowards feel what it is like to be potential prey, to have their little power dynamic turned on its head.  If I could, I'd transport them to Kunar Province Afghanistan and see if they get off on being hunted, instead of vice versa.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:18:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hide rated then removed it, there's a good diary (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, duckhunter, shaharazade

      about killing people today by Tom P. I don't understand the hate mindset. Perhaps take a long look in the mirror.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:22:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  OMFG! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This laugh made my day.  

    •  It is called hunting limits (10+ / 0-)

      The notion that there are no bag limits or that limits are set at 50% of the population is proof there is no effort at scientific management here.  This is about extermination

      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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:49:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Over the Counter (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock

        Is the most common type of Elk license sold in Colorado. Doesn't mean they are trying to exterminate the elk. The number of and type of licenses issued varies depending on the data collected and the goals of the DOW. Your comment is emotional hyperbole.

        •  Elk aren't threatened (4+ / 0-)

          Here, there is a species that is just off the endagnered species lists, as has been amply described.   Clearly, this population cannot tolerate hunting without limit.  Elk are biologically entirely different.  And, as you yourself note even those over the counter licenses are granted with some kind of limit at work.  

          Look, I understand that you like shooting critters to pieces, but please try to stay within the realm of science here.

          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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:11:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are limits to the over-the-counter sales (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DrTerwilliker, ivorybill

          so your comment is incorrect.  The limits may seem high, but there's nothing like a 50% kill rate for elk herds the way there's that much killing in just a couple of months for the wolves.

          •  You are mistaken (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kenevan McConnon, ColoTim

            No limit on over the counter sales.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:08:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No Limits on OTC licenses in Colorado (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock, ColoTim

            Any Colorado Resident with $41 and any out of state resident with $576 can by an elk license for an OTC unit.  No caps. I've seen a couple of OTC units become limited and vice versa over the years.  The DOW changes the rules to hit the targets. Season Sates and Fees

            You might be thinking of bear licenses. They are over the counter with caps in Colorado.

            Idaho has the wolf hunt divided between limited licenses and unlimited OTC with harvest quotas. We don't have that type of license in Colorado.

            •  There are also limited draw bear tags (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kenevan McConnon, ColoTim

              Some units are over run with bears and I notice large numbers of tags many years and only a medium sized unit. That's why outlawing dogs was a bad idea. When they really need a dent put in populations it's hard to get people to hunt them. I know people that get tags in hopes of scoring off a gut pile but the thought of ambushing or stalking a bear is too much for many to contemplate. What has happened and this has happened to cats in CA is the divisions of wildlife end up shooting a lot of bear. I've talked to some F+G officers who really don't enjoy doing a hit on a bear, but it's become a routine part of their job.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:18:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hadn't thought of it like that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ColoTim, ban nock

                I've noticed the same thing. I don't like bear meat, so I've never considered hunting them, but it makes a lotta sense with the way they issue tags now.

                •  I've heard some is good, especially spring bear, (0+ / 0-)

                  foodies prize the grease for pie crusts. I'm not a big fan of hunting things I don't eat, just because I don't want to waste time. I'd try it if I knew where one was, I have friends that love any unusual meat incase I didn't like it.

                  How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                  by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:19:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Elk is eaten as meat (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is it not? Wolf's are not killed to be eaten. They are being hunted now because people like killing this species as it is wild, and smart, a predator an animal that gives them a thrill to kill. Wolves have been the scary villains of fairy tales, a symbol of nature that pits our run amok killing instincts against a worthy opponent. Who hangs their kills like the pictures shown? Trophy killing with no regard for life in all it's glorious forms.

          Cowardly killing blood sport in it's worst form. Nothing to do with data all the data in the world cannot make this and most of our insane killing justifiable, right or even necessary. Killing life is not something that can or should be calculated by data that does not recognize the sacred nature of all forms of life.

          I'm not religious, but I recognize the truths that exist and cannot be measured by numbers and licenses to kill. Respect of creatures great and small and their place in the whole isn't emotional it's pragmatic for survival and demands respect. Dominion over nature is imbalance and nature doesn't really fuck with imbalances, it tends to shake them off. After all the damage done to life it is stronger then the ill will of puny humans regardless of their data and their sick motivation.

  •  Voicing the need for a healthy timberwolf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moose67, ban nock

    population to ubanites is like explaining Aldo Leopold to Scott Walker.  Both activities will merely bring a vacant vacant stare from their befuddlement

    •  Sorry. I'm an 'urbanite' and understand it ... (21+ / 0-)

      quite nicely thanks. Meanwhile, it's not generally the 'urbanites' who are killing the wolves.

      I really must find a good sig line!

      by Rileycat on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:43:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I would argue the opposite. And I'm not (23+ / 0-)

      an urbanite. Try convincing a rancher out here in the rural parts I'm from that wolves need to be here. Or try going to the Blue Mountains of Oregon and see what ranchers there say about wolves. Or Eastern Washington....Or Colorado, or Wyoming.....Or Idaho....

      I think you get my point. It seems by FAR the biggest supporter (and funder) of groups trying to protect wolves are actually, well, urbanites.

      •  It's true. Anti-predator sentiment persists in (5+ / 0-)

        areas where there's some chance of encountering them.

        It's hard to say localities should have no recourse to predator interaction; of course they should have some, but the problem is drawing that sharp line, & putting offenders in prison for crossing it without upsetting the comnunities.  

        This will likely never happen, but in my ideal world, wolves & other species would get armed forces protection similar to the National Guard enforcing school integration in the South. Of course, millions would be instantly upset about "equating" wolves with humans, without taking a second to think about the historical & current extreme prejudice against wolves for existing at all.  On the plus side, the Millenials & upcoming generation are more pro-species than any previously, but will there be any species left for them to protect, & will any of them live in the small ranching towns to make a difference there, or will they all be in cities & larger towns, away from the action?

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

        by Leftcandid on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:23:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've been wondering where to insert my comment (4+ / 0-)

          so I'll just pick after your post here.

          Last week my small dog was stalked by a coyote within the boundaries of the city of Denver.  We were in a city park walking with my dogs on a leash.  I don't know how close the coyote was to attacking, but he was only about 20 feet away so I think he was within seconds of doing so.  On the same evening a coyote jumped into a fenced yard and carried off a neighbor's small dog; for all I know it was the same one though there are a couple of packs close by with maybe 8 or more coyotes.  I've been thinking ever since about lethal and non-lethal means to protect my family members (and yes, that's how I consider my dogs) from a sudden, terrifying end.  

          I support wolves in the natural areas, but when it comes to coyotes inside town, preying off pets, I've been getting rather up-in-arms about eradication.

          It's a hard thing to get my mind around, having worked for the NPS, USFS and having two natural resource degrees.  For all that, I believe I'd be willing to use lethal force to get rid of this threat to my family.

          •  I think you're comparing apples (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stormicats, Kay Observer2, Leftcandid

            to oranges. You have every right to protect your family including 4-legged members from immediate danger. But, killing wolves on federal land which is rented out to ranchers? Where's the immediate danger to them? It's not their property either; it belongs to the US taxpayer. We sure don't get our money's worth off the rental fees. This has been going on for decades.

            Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

            by orlbucfan on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:16:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have to be careful about where they're (0+ / 0-)

              encountered, since I walk them along public streets and in a public park.  I do believe I can have the right to defend them in my yard, but what are my rights in public areas?  I think I might write a diary asking for further opinions.

          •  Coyotes are so adaptable that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, ColoTim, Leftcandid

            eradication, even inside cities, may not be possible. We have them in Washington, DC, now, though during the day they mostly stay down in the big park that runs through part of the city.  They've killed at least one dog that was being walked off leash near their den, but if they're not yet preying on cats & small dogs I'm sure they they soon will be.  

            They generally back down from humans. If one  stalked a dog I was walking I would warn it off in canine language -- turn my body to face it squarely with an upright, military posture, give it a hard stare, and say something like, "back off." in a deep, confident voice.  If necessary I would take a few steps towards it.  If they get that bold around here I will probably carry a billy club -- the telescoping metal kind, if I can get one -- in case one was bold enough to attack my dog in spite of my warning. Though, come to think of it, I might try pepper spray first, to teach them to keep their distance.  Sadly, in areas where they are that common, any cat or small dog left outside unsupervised  is at risk, especially at night.  We would have done better not to wipe out wolves.  They keep coyotes in check, and are much to shy to hunt in our backyards.

            Pe'Sla isn't safe until the loan is paid off. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe could use some help with that.

            by Kay Observer2 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:34:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why should we care about what ranchers think? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, orlbucfan, matx, happymisanthropy

        Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about their ability to make a living given that it means stripping hundred of thousands of square miles of any trace of predator so their precious cattle is safe.

        They don't like it? Well they can go ahead and try buy the hundred of thousands of square miles in question. Their ranching practices are going to become really expensive.

        I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

        by Farugia on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:35:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't patronize me (10+ / 0-)

      Don't you even think about it. I can read the scientific literature with a critical eye just fine, thank you.  If you want to debate studies, then put up. I may live in a city now, but I'm no stranger to wilderness, nor am I ignorant of population biology, and I know very well the political dynamics of ranching interests, hunting interests and libertarianism in the West.

      Don't drag Aldo Leopold into this either.  I've read him, and I've read John Muir as well; both exemplify an understanding of wilderness in all its complexity and meaning. Go ahead and tell me with a straight face that the drunk shithead cracker posing with those two dead wolves has anything at all to do with Aldo Leopold. I am open to a rational discussion of land use and wolf populations and realize that with 300,000,000 people in the United States, wilderness is impacted constantly by humans and that there are no truly wild places left.  For completely rational reasons, I oppose killing such a high percentage of any predator.  For rational reasons, I prefer that wolf ranges expand.  For rational reasons, I'd like to see the percentages of elk "harvested" by hunters versus wolves balanced slightly in favor of the wolves.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:33:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, this isn't about wolves (2+ / 0-)
        I've read him, and I've read John Muir as well; both exemplify an understanding of wilderness in all its complexity and meaning. Go ahead and tell me with a straight face that the drunk shithead cracker posing with those two dead wolves has anything at all to do with Aldo Leopold.
        for everyone involved.

        For some, it's just about finding excuses to give voice to truly disgusting bigotries in a forum where they won't be criticized.

        This place needs a PVP server.

        by JesseCW on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wolves don't coexist well with humans. (4+ / 0-)

    Not necessarily because they attack humans (very rare) but because they aren't compatible with human land use, herding, or pets.

    It's no coincidence pretty much everywhere there's significant populations of humans, there aren't wolves.

    There's really just no public support for extending their range beyond protected lands.  Thus, the shooting and trapping you see here.

    •  Neither do Coyotes or feral dogs (23+ / 0-)

      which are by far more significant killers of livestock and pets.

      However, if you want to run cattle where there are wolves, you have to understand you are going to have some losses, especially on public lands.

      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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:51:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are some major differences (16+ / 0-)

        Coyotes do well because they are supremely adaptable, are non-specialist carnivores (wolves mostly focus on big ungulates like elk), and are totally unpredictable in terms of their movement.  Wolves patrol regular hunting circuits at regular times, so hunting them is easy. All you need to do is camp out where they pass and wait for a chance to shoot. Feral dogs are probably the most dangerous of all to wildlife.

        What will probably happen with wolves, provided the assholes don't eventually exterminate them, is that hunting selection will eventually result in a wolf population more like the wolves in Romania - something intermediate between a timber wolf and a coyote, a smaller animal running in smaller gruops, behaviorally more like coyotes.  

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

        by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:43:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A very astute comment! (n/t) (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill, Kay Observer2, chuckvw

          "I come close to despair because so many of the pieces of the country are broken, and when you see that, you have two choices: You can give up, or you can do something about it." Elizabeth Warren

          by Ed in Montana on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:37:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thats what we have in the east (9+ / 0-)

          The coyotes here in the northeast are a hybrid between a coyotes and a wolf subspecies that is native to the Quebec area.  They are a little bigger than their western cousins.

          I do a lot of hiking and backcountry skiing in this area and come across them, bobcats, bear, fisher cats, and once cougar tracks you might have heard the news about it when it was hit by a car a few years ago.  I have gotten into territorial pissing matches with them lol.  You have better luck finding them on a moonlit night but if you get to know your woods finding them is not a problem.  Last night I heard them howling calling the pack together, probably just made a kill, while I was letting my dogs out to do their thing.  I have had the pleasure of watching 2 of them flank down a deer on a frozen pond, it was amazing. When I go skiing I usually do it at night and the coyotes have become habitualized to me and use my tracts for easier travel and I suspect are looking for any animals I may stir up.

          My point to all of this is that these predators are here in a suburban environment that not many people are even aware of.  I interact with them quite frequently (btw sometimes with my dogs but usually by myself).  I have never once been remotely threaten by them.  In fact they usually run off and hide at the first hint of my presence.  All they need is some space and just left alone.  With enough natural prey the average suburbanite would be lucky just to see one once.

          •  You're lucky. Here in my neighborhood in Denver (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivorybill, KenBee, Kay Observer2

            they've been going over fences and attacking dogs on leashes being walked by owners.  I spotted one stalking my small dog and it was close enough I believe it was getting ready to charge.  

            As I posted up above, I don't treat them lightly and I would respond with lethal force if I felt my family (and my dogs are my family) is threatened by them.

            •   (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, orlbucfan, Kay Observer2

              I don't doubt you and wouldn't blame you or anyone defending themselves, a loved one, or a cherished pet.

              I do know the coyotes are a little different out here and have interbreed to a degree with wolves and maybe are more skittish.  I don’t know for sure and I have no personal knowege about the western ones.

              btw I have lost a cat to a bobcat.  I was able to track it and my cat gave a fight before he went down and scraped some tuffs of hair off the bobcat.  I am not Pollyannaish about predators.  My dogs are medium sized and no doubt would probably loose in a fight if it came to it but its been my experience that they rather run than fight.

        •  I lived for a while in a very rural part (0+ / 0-)

          of Western New York. Feral dogs in the area had formed a pack and they were quite formidable predators, taking down full grown deer.

          I saw the pack resting in a field near my cabin one snowy, moonlit night. I could discern several breeds, large and small. Some of the dogs wore collars and had evidently been abandoned by their owners... The old drive in the country...

          Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

          by chuckvw on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:37:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, here's the thing. (4+ / 0-)

        The ranchers get to vote on the whole wolf issue, and they're not precisely big fans.

    •  Mind if I reverse that opening sentence a bit? (13+ / 0-)

      Humans don't coexist with well with wolves.

      The onus is on us (pun intended). Not them.

      Just wanted to make that point.


    •  Wolves & humans coexisted for thousands of years (23+ / 0-)

      Europeans hated wolves and came to America with that hate. It was European settlers who killed the bison, the wolf and the people who coexisted with them. Those settlers' imported livestock overgrazed the land and badly damaged ecosystems in ways bison never did.

      This isn't a problem with humans.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:10:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but it is a problem with 'our' culture (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica, orlbucfan, Kay Observer2

        as i said below, we have a sick, sick culture which produces more sociopaths than average.

        and any number of sociopaths can do a tremendous amount of damage, wildly disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

        this is just one other thing that bothers me about obama.

        Donate to Occupy Wall Street here:

        by BlueDragon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:37:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Only 'cause we couldn't kill the effectively. (5+ / 0-)

        As I linked in the map, anywhere were people could kill wolves off, they promptly did.

        American Indians didn't keep much in the way of livestock, so killing wolves for anything but their fur would be largely a waste of their time.

      •  Hunters & gatherers are good for the environment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        frankzappatista, ban nock

        Agrarian societies destroy it. Cut world population by about 90% and we might have a chance at balanced ecosystems. Otherwise we have to manage what we have.

        The wolves will feast on the zoo/park elk in Yellowstone until the easy meals disappear, then they will expand their territory and get shot. If the wolves rarely leave the park how are so many of them getting shot outside the park?

        There is a reason that Defenders of Wildlife suspended their rancher compensation fund. It cost too much money and was based on a lie, i.e. wolves don't do that much damage to livestock. The wolves are going to start moving and everyone knows it. They've eaten the easy meals; time to find new territory.

    •  The best argument for expanding protected lands (7+ / 0-)

      & keeping humans out.  A reversal of Manifist Destiny, if one will, is called for.  Cut off a million roads, dissolve a million towns... but of course this is imposible until at least another generation passes with its prejudices.

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

      by Leftcandid on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:26:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can't make a protected area big enough (12+ / 0-)

        Wolves range, they can and do cover huge amounts of land. Look at this map, that's the range of one wolf. It would be impossible to do what you suggest even if it wasn't an incredibly silly idea.

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

        by high uintas on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:03:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is correct (7+ / 0-)

          but this is also why we need wildlife corridors, a tolerance for a certain amount of predation on pets and livestock (with reimbursement for ranchers) and why species recovery for apex predators like wolves can't depend upon them restricting their activities to within artificial boundaries of national parks, etc.  If wolves and humans are to co-exist, there is going to be some killing of wolves but not such a high percentage, and there will have to be accommodations for some of the economic losses wolves bring.  It's a price worth paying, in my judgement.

          A few weeks ago in southern Arizona, a FWS camera trap snapped a photo of the tail end a new jaguar.  There have been probably less than half a dozen jaguars crossing the border from Sonora, so far all males, and the species has not yet re-established itself.  If it does, the recovery plan will not be able to depend upon huge ranges off-limits to ranching or other activities.  Rather, it will depend upon dual use areas, agreement not to shoot these spectacular animals backed up by law enforcement, and compensation for any livestock the jaguars kill.   I hope this comes to pass and regret that large predator recovery always becomes a tea party culture war issue rather than something we simply have to do and pay for.

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

          by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:45:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't necessarily disagree (5+ / 0-)

            IMO, we can do a better job at protecting what we have left of our species.

            When I read these diaries it makes me think about something, why do we romanticize our apex predators. And by we, I include myself. Even tho' I live in a rural area and am in the wild a lot I have never seen a mountain lion in the wild.

            I have plenty of friends who have and it's something I yearn to see (just not while I'm alone stream fishing). When my daughter worked in the Tetons for two summers I became fascinated with bears and terrified as a mother. She was ten feet tall and bullet proof as all young people are and I was a fretting mom, but still the sight of one bear sent me into a swoon.

            Is it because we need something to frighten us, something that is more powerful than we are? I guarantee that if anyone here ran into a a wolf/bear/lion in the wild they would have an underwear accident. I walked up on a momma moose w/a calf and my blood pressure still goes up thinking about it.

            What is it about our deepest lizard brains that both fear and worship these animals? Just thinkin...

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

            by high uintas on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:56:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  our wild species-first line (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              screwed up.

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

              by high uintas on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:57:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Read David Quammen (7+ / 0-)

              Monster of God, a book about human interaction with animals that can actually eat us (tigers, saltwater crocodiles, Eurasian brown bears).  A truly great nature writer.  Here's a review:

              I think there is definitely something to be said about true wilderness containing animals that are capable of killing and eating us.  But I would also say that wolves, big cats, etc have a certain degree of intelligence and behavioral complexity that is very compelling, more so than most of the species they prey upon.  There's also a fair amount of evidence that the earth is green because of a lot of red blood being shed - apex predators have a cascade effect in terms of modifying not just herbivore populations but behavior.  When you have predators, you have more biodiversity especially of plants.

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

              by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  True; that's just part of the equation. The other (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, high uintas

          part is being OK with problematic interactions on occasion, without retaliation on our part.  And, we must implement nonlethal, cohabitation-enabling countermeasures--for instance, outlaw ranching as practiced, except of grazing in delinated, high-fenced areas to minimize predation.   The battle, as usual, is primarily a cultural one, in which we use both the science of biodiversity and a more inclusive web-of-life morality to overcome the Genesis-twisted Fill The Earth and Wipe Out Everyone Who Doesn't Serve concept.

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

          by Leftcandid on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:13:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Lots of rural towns are drying up and dying (5+ / 0-)

        already.  Population declines will see a lot of rural villages disappear on their own in another 30-40 years.  

        I just saw it myself on a little nostalgia tour of mine through the plains states.  All the little towns I used to know as a kid have substantially lower populations and very few sources of income.

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

        by YucatanMan on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:43:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  re: Keeping humans out (5+ / 0-)

        Wolves have re-established naturally at 3 or 4 locations in E WA. Each of those locations is in National Forest, accessible to all kinds of human activities, many of which you'd probably disapprove of. They're not in wilderness, even though we have substantial wilderness acreage as well.

        I would bet that if you took a hike on a nearby wilderness trail, you'd have a 50-50 chance or less of coming across something like deer or elk tracks. It snowed here last night and there were fresh deer tracks of varying size all along the route of my walk this morning - down my driveway and along the private road we share with neighbors. I saw elk tracks and scat last winter. Quite often I have to go out a different door than my first choice for starting my walk so my dog won't see the deer grazing (he's old and more scared of them than they are of him, although he tries to be brave).

        Wolves can't eat the dense brush and insect-killed trees that characterizes a lot of wilderness here, and big ungulates, which wolves do like to eat, don't like dense forest either. Wolves and their prey were selected to thrive in human mediated ecosystems, and selected as a result of human mediation. There haven't been ecosystems in the western hemisphere that weren't largely created and populated by humans since the glaciers receded.

        In Soviet Russia, you rob bank. In America, bank robs you.

        by badger on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:07:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  excellent observations as always..nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:49:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I hadn't thought of that, but is that also true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          for bears & lions?  

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

          by Leftcandid on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:03:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Cougar follow deer, so probably works for them. I don't know enough about bear behavior generally, and there's more variation between black bears, grizzly and polar bears than, say between mule deer, white tail deer, and elk.

            I think bears tend to favor areas with a little denser vegetation, although food sources like berries usually need more sunlight and less competition.

            I should clarify that in the comment above, I wasn't referring to things like dumps or garbage cans or bird feeders, or the occasional pile of apples we leave for deer, but just the way more "natural" or undeveloped areas, like forest or grassland are managed. Although developed artifacts like gardens or corn fields are wild life food sources, too.

            Land use decisions - open forest, wilderness, agriculture, etc. - are also decisions that affect wild life populations and the species mix. And while I'm a big fan of wilderness set asides in a lot of respects, just the fact of a wilderness designation isn't always an improvement to an area or especially to particular species. I'd really like to see us develop the science, attitudes and philosophies to do more holistic management on a landscape-wide scale.

            In Soviet Russia, you rob bank. In America, bank robs you.

            by badger on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:34:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Science should drive wilderness designations, not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              to mention the others.  But the best thing about the designation is (because other species can indeed thrive in other settings as long as we decide to allow it) the successful application of the philosophy that we as the top species don't deserve access to every square mile of land just because we can, & that we have an obligation to leave some of it (I'd prefer leaving a LOT of it; about half) for Nature to be itself, for all reasons: scientific, spiritual, moral, cultural.  

              Wilderness "cores" surrounded by restricted-use land, surrounded in turn by higher-use public land, would create a human-animal interaction gradient where all involved could press forward or retreat as they wished.  Of course this would require tremendeous redistribution of land & moving a lot of people, & I'm not saying it's generally feasible.  But it could be feasible in one or two places at first, & then might pick up steam elsewhere in the more distant future, IF we successfully spread the "Leave Some Land Alone" philosophy across the national culture.  The science involved will gain no popular foothold until after this occurs.

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

              by Leftcandid on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  au contraire (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CA wildwoman, Nulwee, kyril

      there is no public support in rural areas.

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:46:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Screw the Obama administration (28+ / 0-)

    Salazar and his pro-ranching cronies were been pushing to delist wolves from day 1 of the Obama administration.  After their first attempts were blocked by lawsuits, delisting happened because Obama signed a bill that included a rider to force it.  I blame this squarely on Obama and Salazar.

    This disaster could've been avoided if we had an administration that gave a damn about the environment.

    Fashion is the idea that you can express your individuality by dressing the same as everyone else.

    by Scott in NAZ on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:45:27 AM PST

  •  Minnesota and Wisconsin also allow wolf hunting (27+ / 0-)

    MN and Wi wolf hunting numbers are here.

    The Yellowstone wolves deserve all the attention  they are getting but they are not the only wolves being hunted and trapped.  

    I am a camp host on the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness 5  months of the year. I love the nights when the wolves howl. Most campers also appreciate  being lucky enough to hear them but at least one camper will come to my site asking if they are in danger. Damn.... I have a little wolf education speech for them and sometimes it works.

  •  As a hunter and conservationist (32+ / 0-)

    I do not understand or have any desire to shoot wolves.  I eat everything I kill and it's the only reason I hunt.  I despise trophy hunting and predator hunting.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:53:56 AM PST

  •  I don't get it... (12+ / 0-) reading your diary, it is clear our federal, state & local governments have decided the wolf should be hunted into extinction.

    Anybody know why our federal, state and local governments are so eager to see the wolf hunted into extinction?

    I get pandering to a bunch of blood-thirsty rednecks who creep about the forest assassinating wolves.  They all vote Republican, of course.  

    But I don't get the end game.

    The end game, as mentioned, seems to be hunting wolves into extinction.


    "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

    by wyvern on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:57:28 AM PST

    •  Rancher's lobby (16+ / 0-)

      "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

      by blueoregon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:14:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's just that another species can't be allowed to (5+ / 0-)

      upset the taking of the economy as hostage.  The wolves are the hostages our side is allowing the Republicans to kill without interference, believing that will make them more likely to concede on what the average person values more.  And unfortunately, average adults don't give a damn about wolves unless their children make them.

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

      by Leftcandid on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:29:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Part of it (6+ / 0-)

      regrettably, is our disastrous culture war.  It's the same reason why people think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.  They fear the future, feel as if they will become strangers in their own land, fear the immigrant hordes, fear the fact that their children can't find work and leave rural areas for the cities. They have to blame someone, and they blame the city liberals and the elites, and the black people and "Mexicans".   Wolves are a symbol of elite urbanites who think the land is theirs (well, technically, federal land belongs to us all, including urban liberals), and who look down with contempt at rural people.  You even see some of that here.

      I think there are those in the West who do want wolves driven extinct.  Probably a slight plurality do not.  But politicians like John Tester have to produce big elk populations for hunters, and they have to feed into the whole culture war myth, and they have to pander to those who see killing wolves as a way of hitting back at hippies, minorities, urban elites, etc.  So we get a totally unbalanced wolf hunt where we kill off 25 or 30% of the population, and rational people keep their heads down and hope the fever passes.  In the meantime the slaughter continues.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:15:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Has the killer of 832F been revealed? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobdevo, YucatanMan, roycej

    Or at least uncovered by internet sleuths?

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

    by The Dead Man on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:07:22 AM PST

  •  death satisfies their irrational need for certaint (7+ / 0-)

    y, and eases their fear.

    goddamit they suck.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:07:43 AM PST

  •  Peasants need SOMETHING to fear. (4+ / 0-)

    Might as well go back to fearing the "Wolf".  

    You know, the evil creature that stalks and kills the unwary and requires everyone to kowtow to the all wise leader who shelters us from the horrors of the night.

    Or am I giving the Anti-Environmentalists too much credit for forward thinking?

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:10:17 AM PST

  •  "The unspeakable in full pursuit of the inedible" (17+ / 0-)

    Oscar Wilde's description of British fox hunting.

    Yellowstone's 2.2 million acres can support only about 200 wolves, 3000 bison and a few hundred grizzly and black bears. Yellowstone can, for a portion of the year, support tens of thousands of elk because they are allowed to migrate out during the winter. In winter they are actually fed by humans on that fragment of their original southern range in Grand Teton. Hunters support this for obvious reasons.

    Yellowstone park is simply too small and unproductive to support viable long term populations of top predators. Protected wildlife easements and corridors contiguous with existing preserves need to be established.

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:12:06 AM PST

  •  i can't even read all of this (4+ / 0-)

    it is just too horrible.

    wolves are the ancestors of our best friends.  this slaughter tells us what we are.

    we live in a sick, sick society.

    with a disproportionate number of sociopaths.

    my local pbs shows hunters a young as 12 years old.

    i will never give them another penny, ever, but it i par for what i have come to know about this area.  

    Donate to Occupy Wall Street here:

    by BlueDragon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:32:28 AM PST

  •  Most importantly, (13+ / 0-)

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:49:19 AM PST

    •  thanx for posting this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      I had the pleasure of speaking to an activist who pretty much has dedicated her life to wolf issues, especially in the field of rehabilitation. According to her, the death of this wolf has become a huge rallying cry. Although some knuckle-dragger from a Cheney-State is having his lol's about hurting the treehuggers now, his thoughtless and cruel act has made this wonderful animal a martyr for the cause.

  •  So I did some research population #'s. (4+ / 0-)

    Your link up top cites the number killed covers both Rocky Mountains states and great lakes states.

    As you can see here, the total grey wolf population ( i do not know if there are other huntable wolves included in that kill #) was right at 6,000 in those areas at the end of 2011.

    So, assuming NO pop growth before the 2012 hunting season, that kill # is at just over 10% of the total population.

    In order to be upset, me and other people who don't think 'no animals should be killed ever' need to see scientists agree that 10% is too many, or that any of those states' populations in particular have been over-culled and are threatening the projected healthy population numbers.

    States and counties do take actions depending on the size of the populations...every year in VA the number of Does vs. Bucks takeable changes, certain #'s can only be taken in certain counties, and in PA the allowances on what deer can be taken have dropped precipitously since the population there has been struggling (which in part is because coyotes have moved in).

    I dont see any of the above in this diary.

    •  Except in the 2011 season (14+ / 0-)

      the percentage killed in MT was 25% and the percentage killed in Idaho was 47%.  Limits have been further reduced this year.  I know of no rationale for killing nearly half of a species that has relatively low reproduction and a long life expectancy.  It's pretty clear that a 47% kill rate is driven by politics and resentment, not any sort of rational wildlife management.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:23:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed that 47% SEEMS like too much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and I would be right on this soapbox with the rest of 'em if they were overculled due to irresponsible game management, but if the Idaho population was also double what was projected, then it's a different perception.

      •  Assuming those #'s are correct, above. nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  Sure, and you are right to ask (8+ / 0-)

          for links / citations.

          Here's a link:

          2011 season: 379 kills
          2012-13 season so far: 123 (trapping season just started; trapping in 2011 included >100 kills)

          Total wolf population in Idaho: 705

          So based on this population number, more than half were killed in 2011.  The numbers killed by hunters decreased this year and are less than 50% of the 255 killed by shooters last year... probably reflecting the fact that wolf populations are far smaller.  

          Either way, killing a third to a half of any species annually, unless you are talking about really fast reproducing species like feral hogs or squid, is not sustainable.   Before the hunting started, wolf populations were starting to level off as they reached optimum population density.  There was already some wolf control prior to the reopening of hunting - with 200 shot in 2010 for livestock predation in the Rocky Mountain states.  

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

          by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:24:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  one of your links to 2008 just as an fyi (0+ / 0-)

            population actually increased in MT last year. If I were from the CBD or similar I'd claim that shows how great hunting is for wolves.

            The numbers in ID aren't too important until they get them down close to where they want them. I think they're probably aiming for more than a hundred but not too much more. Idaho Fish and Game won't give a number.

            They'll have to keep numbers very low for a few years in some areas until game recovers. By not allowing management for the ten years since wolves have recovered things got messed up. They figure Lolo is a predator pit and they'll need to reduce bear and cat too.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:40:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  we're all connected, critters, plants people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, YucatanMan, KenBee

    thanks for writing this up.

    btw, you got email!

    "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:55:54 AM PST

  •  one of my favorite films (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, Christin

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:03:18 AM PST

  •  The Greater Yellowstone Coalition (9+ / 0-)

    has been working for years to protect habitat and wildlife corridors throughout the ecosystem that includes, but is far larger than Yellowstone National Park.

    It's a good group. Check it out  Here

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:13:04 AM PST

    •  Thanks for the link and something positive to DO (4+ / 0-)

      The wolf kills saddens me and arguing about "Never Cry Wolf" does nothing to protect the wolves from further killing.

      I hope each and every person that has posted here has also  written to their Senator, Sec. Salazar, and The White House to bring back protection to wolves.  

      Another thought:   Contact the tourist agencies in those states with particularly egregious wolf hunting policies(particularly Wyoming and Montana).  Tell them your tourist dollars will NOT be spent there until wolves are protected again.  

      If Liberals Hated America, We'd Vote Republican

      by QuarterHorseDem on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:01:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  GYC & Jon Tester (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samanthab, orlbucfan, White Buffalo, Mrs M

      It's been posted on other blogs, but the sad truth is that the Greater Yellowstone Coalition went along with Tester's wolf delisting rider willingly for one reason - to get Tester re-elected this year.  Their Executive Director, Mike Clark, even got told on conference calls with other conservation groups that he had to quit talking about Tester's re-election because 501(c)3 groups can't take part in political campaigns or they risk losing their non-profit status.  GYC traded environmental advocacy for political access and that's the bottom line here.  Anything else is simply trying to cover up their complicity in the destruction.

      Furthermore, the idea that somehow wolf delisting was the work of Republicans is completely off-base.  It was Democrat Jon Tester, in a Democrat majority Senate, with a Democrat President Obama and his Democrat Secretary of the Interior Salazar all bowing to the hunting and livestock lobby.  Instead of following the science of how wolves are organized socially, how hunting and trapping are indiscriminate "solutions" and how killing wolves may actually increase "problem wolves" when that social order is destroyed.

      In the meantime, Montana's DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR BRIAN SCHWEITZER went right along with wolf destruction, as did the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission he appointed.  Ironically, the Commission Chair is Bob Ream, a former University of Montana professor and wolf expert -- but also a former chair of the Montana Democratic Party --- who approved the heinous methods of wolf extirpation now being used in Montana.

      Schweitzer has national political ambitions, so keep that name, and his part in this sad episode in mind the next time you hear him try to paint himself as some kind of protector of wildlife or the environment.  He's neither.  As an aside, more Yellowstone bison have been slaughtered during Schweitzer's tenure in the governor's office than at any time since they were nearly wiped out a century and a half ago.  

      These are Democrats, folks, not Republicans.  And they're cheerfully selling out their constituents to further their own political careers.  

      It's also worth nothing that Tester also has a bill in the Senate (Forest Jobs and Recreation Act) that would mandate logging levels on national forests, that gets rid of existing Wilderness Study Areas and creates permanent motorized wreckreation areas.  All terrible precedents and all coming from Tester the Democrat.  That he heads the Senate "Sportsmans' Caucus" is both a farce and a tragedy.

      Montana's governor elect, Steve Bullock, is also a Democrat --and shows not a hint of changing anything about the wolf slaughter.

      So pards, while it's fine to bash Republicans, in this instance -- and especially in Montana where I live -- the Democrats are 100% responsible for the wolf slaughter.  More's the pity.  


  •  "We'll have to kill thousands of wolves" (9+ / 0-)

    Canada's Minister of the Environment on a plan to save the boreal Caribou that is being killed by loss of habitat and pollution from tar sands development.

    Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, a bureau of the provincial government of Alberta. Yes, he acknowledged, the province does kill wolves, usually in response to attacks on livestock, and they do use “toxics.” They are also using aerial hunting to aid the caribou in the west-central area of the province, where other oil and gas developments (not the tar sands) have negatively affected the caribou.
    Canada responds to caribou decline with plan to kill wolves
    and this:

    Oil-sands wolf cull plan ripped apart on U.S. show

    One more reason to stop that XL pipeline. Tar Sands oil kills wolves, caribou and a multitude of other flora and fauna.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:50:39 AM PST

  •  Excellent diary F.O.W. thank you for posting it (8+ / 0-)

    I read once, when there was an official announcement that trapping would be allowed. 300 people sign up the next day. What kind of people want to trap a wolf?

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 09:53:38 AM PST

  •  Biodiversity, in the view of way too many... (14+ / 0-)

    ...humans, should be found solely at zoos. Too sad and infuriating that wolf "encroachment" gets the gun while human encroachment gets the thumbs-up. The photo of the dead wolves hanging from a downed tree is chilling, not least because clearly one member of the younger generation is learning a terrible lesson.

    Terrific diary, FOoW.

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

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:15:30 AM PST

  •  For the sake of accuracy and whatever else, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kenevan McConnon

    corrolating the Yellowstone ecosystem with ecosystems outside the park (like Idaho) is apples and oranges. Naturally, the reason the ecosystem argument holds true in Yellowstone is because large ungulates were not hunted, so yes, lack of predation will naturally affect the ecosystem. In Idaho, however, these animals are hunted and the population is carefully managed by fish and game. It would be much more convincing if there was evidence to show that elk are creating a ecological disaster outside of Yellowstone, but I don't think any such evidence exists.

    You can call me "anti-wolf" or whatever for saying this. I consider myself pro-elk. Not a hunter myself, I just think elk are every bit as awesome as wolves. I'm ok with wolves, but not in populations that are seriously harmful to elk. Sorry. But as far as this argument goes, pro-wolf, no-kill advocates will need to go beyond preaching to the choir. The ecosystem argument is not going to fly because people in Idaho know that the elk population is declining (it was already declining before wolves were introduced, but has accelerated rapidly in the last 5 years now that the wolf population has fanned throughout the state). Herd numbers have been tracked for a long time and are published in local papers. People follow this stuff.

    Bottom line, if the ecosystem argument is the best argument out there it's just not going to gain traction in the west unless convincing non-Yellowstone evidence is submitted. Just sayin'.

    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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 10:41:34 AM PST

    •  National Parks/Zoos (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frankzappatista, Kay Observer2

      are seriously out of balance. They Park Service needs some help from State DOWs. Our DOW has been trying to get the Park Service to clean up their act in Rocky Mountain National Park for years to no avail. The forest is sick, the herds are sick and their solution is snipers with night vision.

      •  Elk numbers are where they want them now in (0+ / 0-)

        RMNP. I've helped with that herd. There was no need of a cull last year and I don't think there will be one this year either. The forest is kind of overgrown, don't know what to do, can't burn it.

        Park Service did finally get help from our State Division of Wildlife. They ended up working together well.

        Park service is typically kind of people orientated. STate Fish and Wildlife is, well, wildlife.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:06:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Total baloney (6+ / 0-)

      Montana, Idaho and Wyoming all have statewide elk numbers above their population targets.

      You stated that you are not an elk hunter and I believe that.  If you were an elk hunter, you'd know that the reality of elk hunting in Montana and the Northern Rockies is global warming, which hasn't given us good early snowfalls in many years.  Consequently, elk being the wily creatures they are, there's no reason for them to walk down into the lowlands only to be shot by road hunters on ATVs.

      If you want to see elk, you're gonna have to go up to higher elevations nowadays during hunting season.  When the snows finally fill the highlands, you'll find them down on the fields again...but not until the snow depth pushes them down.  

      If you're really worried about elk, you should be keeping a close eye on Secretary of Ag's plan to increase logging by 20% next year on national forests.  No hiding cover is a much greater threat to elk populations than wolves -- no question about it.  After all, elk and wolves evolved together for eons.  We're the new factor -- and a deadly and increasingly stupid one at that.

      •'re claiming the elk populations (0+ / 0-)

        in Idaho are going UP???

        If you were an elk hunter, you'd know that the reality of elk hunting in Montana and the Northern Rockies is global warming, which hasn't given us good early snowfalls in many years.  Consequently, elk being the wily creatures they are, there's no reason for them to walk down into the lowlands only to be shot by road hunters on ATVs.
        Hunting season begins in early October, before heavy snows hit the high country. But whatever, like I said above, if you want to preach to the choir that elk population is going up well you're welcome to do so. But that doesn't mean the reality based community is going to listen.

        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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:17:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Populations down by Soda maybe (0+ / 0-)

        but up in the panhandle some places are such a mess they'll take a long time to clean up.

        Idaho Fish and game has been very specific about the problems they face and they are substantial. A lot of damage has been done.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:10:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'll admit to some nuance (3+ / 0-)

      Wolf populations increased to close to the carrying capacity in parts of Idaho and NW Montana until about 2008 and then started leveling off.  The wolf packs certainly decreased the number of elk - and left fewer for hunters.  But there's simply not a scientific or land use rationale for killing >50% of all the wolves in Idaho, as happened in 2011.  

      Yellowstone elk populations were ridiculously large and the wolves controlled that. I'll grant that there is not as strong an ecological argument for wolves in Idaho as overgrazing and elk overpopulation was not as big an issue. But intensive hunting places selective pressure on species too. Blast away 50% of all the wolves as they did in Idaho in 2011 and over time you will select for smaller, secretive wolves in small fragmented packs that start looking and acting a lot like coyotes.  Wolves kill some pregnant elk and some healthy elk, but they also cull unhealthy elk. Humans shoot the biggest healthiest males, and that in itself exerts selective pressure on the species.  Wolves keep elk looking and acting like elk, and not the degenerate little deer that survived 6000 years of intensive human hunting pressure in Europe.  

      Elk herds should be managed to allow for some hunting, but also to allow for healthy predator populations. The elk are not going to go extinct because of wolves or managed hunting by humans - but we have to get the percentages right.  In some ways, this is a political battle over whether humans or wolves eat the elk.  BLM and National Forest land belongs to us as much as it belongs to hunters or ranchers in Idaho, and we have a right to insist that a fair percentage of the game species end up in the stomachs of wolves and not exclusively people.  I recognize that this will require at some point some controls over the ultimate wolf population size, but what is going on now is unjustifiable.  

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:12:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with most of what you're saying and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, Kenevan McConnon

        for the sake of Idaho politics I'd much rather see rational arguments like yours put forth than what appears to be the defacto emotional arguments that have been dominating diaries of late. Right now it seems this whole argument is  costing democrats in the northern Rockies like the gun control issue everywhere else. Hunters who once supported us for defending wilderness (in direct opposition with the NRA who wanted more roads) are peeling away and it will be hard to get them back if we don't negotiate this issue rationally...

        Maybe the answer is more culling of the bear population (somewhere around 20,000 in Idaho I believe) in exchange for more wolves. It might be a start...

        And maybe there should be more regulation of how we hunt. If it were up to me all elk hunting would be bowhunting only, which requires infinitely more skill than killing an animal from 400 yards with a scope. And I think the next generation would thank us for promoting this skill.

        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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:08:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Saddened that my own people are doing this too (7+ / 0-)
    Colville Tribes Holding Wolf Hunts On Their Reservation…

    The Colvillle Tribes,  in eastern Washington, are holding a wolf hunt on their 1.4 million acre reservation, which is larger than Glacier National Park in Montana.  There are at least 2 wolf packs  living on the reservation, maybe three.  Many wildlife advocates were shocked by this turn of events.

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:19:54 AM PST

    •  for money, permits to non tribal members? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kay Observer2, Lefty Coaster

      not clear from the link, but other comments sound like they are seriously damaged, they sound almost as horrid as surrounding white rancher/sport hunting culture.

      other links show the other tribes are not permitting wolf hunting on their reservations such as the Ojibway in Minn iirc that right :>, and good for them.

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:21:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a problem with this... (3+ / 0-)
    Because the states with wolves are controlled by tea party Republicans, right wing libertarians and conservative Democrats, they have rapidly passed new laws and regulations encouraging the hunting, trapping and extermination of wolves. There is no intention to manage the wolf population by scientific means.
    Primarily because it is inaccurate.

    The largest population of wolves in the lower 48 exists in Minnesota.  While the arguments pertaining to hunting and trapping presented in the diary and comments are certainly valid, the statement above grossly misrepresents this state's approach to wolf management.

    From the link above:

    Minnesotans clearly value wolves. Public opinion surveys and attitudes demonstrated during development of the state's wolf management plan show people view the animal as ecologically important, scientifically fascinating, aesthetically attractive, recreationally appealing and significant for future generations. Only a small minority fear and dislike wolves or believe Minnesota would be a more desirable place without this apex predator.

    DNR's commitment to a responsible, conservative and science-based management strategy that ensures the long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota recognizes the animal's legacy and Minnesotans' collective interest in and concern for this northwoods icon.

    IMHO, this doesn't sound much like a bunch of tea party Republicans, right wing libertarians and conservative Democrats passing new laws and regulations encouraging the hunting, trapping and extermination of wolves.
    •  MN never had a wolf recovery effort; (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, happymisanthropy

      the Rocky Mountains did. And  MN wolves are protected; those near Yellowstone are not. You're throwing in an apple to discuss oranges.

      •  I think you missed my point... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kenevan McConnon

        Which is that the diarist is mixing the apples and oranges in one basket.  

        Specifics matter.  Minnesota is a "state with wolves", is it not?

        If the diarist is only talking about wolves in Yellowstone, then I guess I would suggest they narrow down the "states with wolves" part to the subset of states to which they are referring.

    •  MN has a far larger wolf population (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, White Buffalo, CalNM

      about 2000 in MN alone; that's more than all the wolves in the northern Rockies.  While I'm not thrilled about wolf hunting in Minnesota, the hunt does not significantly affect the population.  The hunting in MT, ID, WY results in a far greater percentage of wolves being shot, from a far smaller and more vulnerable population.  

      It's just not the same thing.  The wolf slaughter in the Rocky Mountains - as opposed to limited wolf hunting in MN - is very much driven by politics and special interests.  This explains why the most teabagger state in the whole area, Idaho, saw the biggest slaughter of wolves - the Idaho population is being decimated (half killed in 2011, probably another half of the remaining wolves will be killed this year).

      This doesn't happen in MN - different politics.

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:18:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think we are in disagreement... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Although the population is closer to 3000 by state estimates.  From that population, over 200 wolves have been killed and registered so far during the state hunt (the target limit for the year is 400).   This number is included in the diarists "628".   So I stand by my original comment.  You and I may agree, but the diarist makes no obvious effort to differentiate.  From the link "616 Wolves have been killed to date." the first thing you see is this:

        639 Fallen Wolves Idaho-Montana-Wyoming-Wisconsin-Minnesota Wolf/Witch Hunts 2012/2013
        I agree, there is no comparison between what is happening out west and what is happening in Minnesota.  But I don't think the diarist agrees with us.
  •  Just finished reading Idaho's Management Plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For wolves in the Lolo and Selway Elk zones

    Wolf removal rates of 30-35% or less typically do not cause any long-term changes in wolf abundance, while sustained removals of 40% or more may cause long-term reductions (Gasaway et al. 1983, Keith 1983, Peterson et al. 1984, Peterson and Page 1988). However, wolf populations have sustained human-caused mortality rates of 30 to 50% without experiencing declines in abundance (Keith 1983, Fuller et al. 2003). Gasaway et al. (1983) found wolf abundance was unchanged with 16-24% harvest, but declined 20-25% after harvests of 42-61%. Wolf populations tend to compensate for low removal rates and return to pre-removal levels rapidly, potentially within a year. Once removals end, the wolf population would be expected to return to pre-removal levels rapidly (National Research Council 1997: Table 3.1). Consequently, once a wolf population is reduced to a desired level, it is necessary to remove wolves during subsequent years to maintain reduced wolf abundance.
    I don't think the wolf hunt is what is being represented here. Scroll to the bottom of the page if you want to download the .pdf and decide for yourself.
    •  Questions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, orlbucfan, Kay Observer2

      What is the long-term effect of continuously removing >25% of a species?  What kind of selective pressures are being applied to wolves?  Maybe for some number of generations you can do that, but when do you end up with an animal that is neither behaviorally nor even morphologically still a wolf?

      Also Idaho shot out 50% of its wolves in 2011 and is on track to repeat that shameful performance this year.  Even according to this report, that is totally unsustainable.  Even if one grants the premise that hunting an intelligent animal that is part of a complex social group simply for sport can be defended in any way.

      I don't grant that last premise.  

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

      by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 02:23:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They change the rules to hit the population target (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I just spent two hours trying to decipher the Idaho and Montana rules and targets. I ended up calling their offices. It appears that this will be the last OTC with caps year and that limited licenses are going to be the norm next year unless they have major disruptions of the elk herds again.

        •  Well that's a good thing (0+ / 0-)

          Careful conservative management for the long term. We can all probably get behind that.  And we environmentalists need to remember that there should be room for hunters who eat what they hunt.  Both sides should be careful of the stereotypes so that we don't perpetuate or exacerbate political battles we don't need... which leads me to point out that there's a stereotype of hikers and various urban types sticking to the trails and taking snapshots at scenic overlooks and looking down their noses at hunters.   It's pretty clear that not all hunters are dangerous yahoos, although a certain percentage are.  Likewise, one should be careful about the stereotypes of tree-huggers and non-hunting bird watchers and assorted nature lovers.  Some of us, miles off the trail, have sat and watched hunters noisily pass by completely unaware of our presence.  It goes both ways.

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

          by ivorybill on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 04:15:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The biggest roadblock is the lack of funds (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock, ivorybill

            from the non-hunting conservationists. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act has provided billions to state department of wildlife's around the country since the late 30s. Basically all gun sales are taxed at 10% or so and then the Department of Interior distributes the money to the State DOWs. Any state that takes the funds have to dedicate all of the funds and ALL hunter license funds to wildlife and habitat conservation.

            If a similar tax could be set up on camping gear, ATVs, etc. and sent to the states it would go a long way to having more voices at the table instead of fewer.  The framework has restore our wild places over the last 80 years and more money for wildlife is always a good thing.

            Environmental groups have been playing with chump change will hunters and anglers have restored the herds.. A recreational equipment tax would change everything.

      •  First wildlife biologists don't set harvest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kenevan McConnon

        goals for sport. Until you understand why scientists manage wildlife you won't be able to understand how. Game commissioners could care less about why hunters or trappers do what they do, all they care about is the population goals.

        No one knows how many wolves are anywhere, they are all guesses, if they have exact numbers that's because that's exactly what they counted. Double that. The ESA looks at whole groups of states, not individual states. (Thank you environmentalists for that deal. held up delisting for another 18 months but changed the rules not in their favor) They are trying to reduce populations, and they are fully able to do so, legally, scientifically, and politically. If anything those game commissioners are scared of losing their jobs when the new governors are inaugurated because they have taken too few wolves.

        Posts like this, publicity like the shooting of 06 in WY and all the stink it made, just piss off the people in those states more. All they have to do is keep populations high enough so the feds don't relist. And here is the kicker. The feds will never ever ever  relist, not in my lifetime.

        Instead of saying what kind of hunters are ok with you maybe poke around your own state, because unless you are a resident of WY, MT, or ID those wolves don't belong to you.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:08:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  On federal land (0+ / 0-)

          The wildlife belongs as much to me as much as to any other american.  

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

          by ivorybill on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:39:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually not (0+ / 0-)

            by law it belongs to the people of the state in which it resides. Same goes for wildlife on private land in the states.

            When a hunter shoots an animal the carcass then become his or her legal property.

            There is so much misunderstanding about wildlife and how and why it is managed the way it is, sometimes I feel there is way much more education than I could ever do by posting a few diaries.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:52:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The state ownership doctrine (0+ / 0-)

              is not hard and fast.  Federal ownership, or at least control over wildlife is more complicated than you allege, and those of us not in a particular state do have some standing over discussions of wildlife policy:


              We are going to agree on some things - your right to your weapons and to hunt species you can eat, including elk -  I am well aware you are an elk hunter and this is not at issue.

              We're going to disagree on other things, such as the morality of hunting certain species.

              I do wish you would not assume that the people with whom you are corresponding know nothing.  

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

              by ivorybill on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:21:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well I don't mean to be condescending but it seems (0+ / 0-)

                that things which are common knowledge, you are unaware of. if nothing else you are learning a little by your google searches.

                I have no weapons nor any right to hunt. Hunting is a privilege in my state and this country. I hunt with a firearm but it's not for self defense or anything, I don't call it a weapon being a peace-nick.

                You're certainly welcome to have notions about hunting, as am I, but as long as I act within the laws of my state and the ethics of my community of fellow hunters I don't lose much sleep.

                I still recommend Game Management by Leopold, as good a place to start as any.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:42:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps, oh mighty "Ban Nock" (0+ / 0-)

              you could educate us on what makes killing things so personally enjoyable to you.  You know, actually let us inside the mind of a great hunter.  That might be interesting.

              •  It's to become more fully human and to become (0+ / 0-)

                closer to the natural world. Killing is only one part of the hunt.

                Notice I answer straight despite the tone of the question.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:55:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Does that (7+ / 0-)

    idiot think he looks tougher because he had a picture taken of himself with the dead bodies of two wolves?

    I don't understand it.

    And as for shooting tagged research wolves, shouldn't the killers of those wolves be held accountable? Is it a violation of some sort?  How much research can now no longer continue with those animals?

    Sometimes I wonder if secession might not be a good idea.

    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 11:29:43 AM PST

  •  Thank you for this diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Kay Observer2, shaharazade
  •  I am very sad and horrified by the wolf killings. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Kay Observer2

    Please stop it!

    Do not kill off the wolves again. This is cruel and unnecessary.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18:35 PM PST

  •  Have spent hundreds of hours watching wolves and (6+ / 0-)

    their behavior in Denali National Park.

    Watched how the young pups grow up and catch food for the following year's litter.

    Watched aunties and uncles babysit the new brood so alpha mom can go out and stretch her legs a bit to feed herself.

    Watched young wolves caretake older, weaker wolves and travel for miles to hold all pieces of a dispersed pack together.

    Alaska has thoughtlessly abandoned significant buffer zones around Denali, zones that were designed to protect the park packs in winter.

    Watched park wolves get shot and trapped in these now unprotected buffer zones.  Watched park pack numbers seriously decline.

    Across the state the wolf slaughter continues.  Some humans are so self-centered, so inhumane, so stupid, so short-sighted, on this issue and so much else.

  •  Legalizing wolf hunting has given poaching (4+ / 0-)

    the green light. Nearly every hunter I know has an extremely negative view of wolves. Some have told me that farmers are giving hunting privileges in exchange for an agreement to poach any wolf they see. Farmers say they will bury them in their land. I asked the hunters that I know if this had happened before wolf hunting, and not one of them said it had happened before.

    "Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others" Robert F. Kennedy

    by realwischeese on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 01:34:12 PM PST

  •  Great diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kay Observer2

    Thank you for posting.

  •  I wonder who is really the smarter of (0+ / 0-)

    of the two lifeforms? Man or wolf? T and R!!

    Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

    by orlbucfan on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:00:30 PM PST

  •  Farmers/ranchers need to accept that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, shaharazade

    predation prevention costs are part of the costs of running cattle/sheep. Europeans have developed a number of breeds of dog for the sole purpose of protecting livestock from wolves. Perhaps some cultural exchange programs should be considered, with Europeans teaching Americans how to work with such dogs, how many are needed vs size of herd, etc.

    Pe'Sla isn't safe until the loan is paid off. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe could use some help with that.

    by Kay Observer2 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:54:16 PM PST

    •  Yea they are using Great Pyrenees in Colorado (0+ / 0-)

      The dogs have a taste for mountain bikers....Not a panacea.

      •  They need to get them as pups and (0+ / 0-)

        teach them to ignore mountain bikes, skiers, snowmobiles, etc.  They CAN teach older dogs, but it's harder.  Guarding breeds have to be taught what NOT to guard against.  It's a form of socialization, which is why age matters.  You can easily teach an adult dog new behaviors, but teaching them what to accept as normal is best  done before 4 months old.

        Pe'Sla isn't safe until the loan is paid off. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe could use some help with that.

        by Kay Observer2 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:06:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  there are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wordwraith, Agathena

        No panaceas to keeping the wild world of nature from encroaching on the concept of human dominion over nature. The world, our planet does not exist so that bikers are safe to ride the wilds without danger. How insane to say that bike riding without confrontation from either wolves or dogs breed to ward off wolves is more important then finding a balance that sustains life.

        Every creature on earth has a taste for what they sense is food.  They also are being used here to exploit the human agenda which uses their nature as herders and protectors. How strange to say that they have a taste for bikers after breeding and training them to ward of attacks. Do you think they have the capacity to distinguish who is friend to human interests and who is just a recreational biker? We are not the be all of nature were just part of a whole.  

        So human life on earth a precious balance and dance should consider recreational hunting, biking  fishing or any encroachment and destruction of nature  more important then the purpose of life itself? On the dwindling land left intact it seems to me that recreational biking as well as hunting as a sport doesn't mitigate the damage done. The creatures we share this planet with are as important as our recreation or our own sick view that nature is ours to fuck with.                  

  •  Wolves (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you for this diary and bringing this tragic issue to DailyKos. I live in Wyoming - near Yellowstone - and have spent the last several years observing and enjoying the wolves since their re-introduction. It is with a very heavy heart that I read these comments - I have been very depressed about the ignorance about and hatred of wolves by most of the people in my community. It is hard to believe people can have such disregard for the lives of predators and for the role they play in nature. I appreciate the well thought out comments by Indy Green in this discussion. I fear that this intolerance for wolves, coyotes and other predators will result in their complete destruction. One day when it is too late, they will realize how wrong they were.

  •  Great diary. Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    "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 Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 06:43:54 PM PST

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, northsylvania, Aeolus, lowkell, melo, Christin, PeterHug, surfbird007, Fabienne, Pescadero Bill, LuvSet, eeff, willyr, SallyCat, Creosote, Heart of the Rockies, Scott in NAZ, missLotus, whenwego, djMikulec, CalNM, chuckvw, roses, Iberian, Cedwyn, wader, psnyder, minorityusa, TexDem, mrkvica, Miss Jones, pat bunny, QuarterHorseDem, White Buffalo, RebeccaG, wordwraith, zerelda, ybruti, JayDean, Longwing, sb, Dirk McQuigley, joanneleon, humphrey, NoMoreLies, yuriwho, Roadbed Guy, tandrews, corvo, Simplify, craigkg, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, where4art, Burned, ivorybill, Cecile, Rydra Wrong, Lisa Lockwood, Cory Bantic, Gallatin, Jim R, alrdouglas, Mother Mags, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Milly Watt, tonyahky, mr crabby, Gorette, KenBee, Loonesta, Magnifico, EthrDemon, Lefty Coaster, oldmanriver, erratic, joe shikspack, middleagedhousewife, suspiciousmind, Dreaming of Better Days, blueoregon, katasstrophy, shaharazade, Little, Nulwee, ZenTrainer, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, bear83, Habitat Vic, ColoTim, yowsta, certainot, DWG, newpioneer, jayden, US Blues, gchaucer2, carpunder, uciguy30, leonard145b, Brahman Colorado, madgranny, gene s, Assaf, roycej, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, wyvern, fuzzyguy, zerone, Sixty Something, Involuntary Exile, mikeconwell, moose67, Lujane, icebergslim, bluesheep, envwq, petulans, Piren, doppler effect, emidesu, Guadalupe59, Ellinorianne, squarewheel, maggiejean, J M F, zmom, divineorder, lostinamerica, LinSea, The Dead Man, carolyn urban, CanyonWren, Norm in Chicago, Methinks They Lie, FinchJ, JesseCW, Lopez99, KenInCO, realwischeese, louisev, jfromga, Leftcandid, Words In Action, tdub901, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, MelKnee, samanthab, tb mare, Lady Libertine, addisnana, Texnance, DrTerwilliker, fiercefilms, verdeo, Mac in Maine, coquiero, StateofEuphoria, bgblcklab1, henrythefifth, vahana, BlueJessamine, asterkitty, Texas Lefty, marleycat, Wolf10, poliwrangler, Wood Dragon, Frameshift, Marihilda, teknohed, cailloux, Hayate Yagami, blackjackal, too many people, RLMiller, dradams, Regina in a Sears Kit House, PrometheusUnbound, Mathazar, BlueDragon, imagiste, Pinto Pony, sparkysmom, stormicats, IndieGuy, Jakkalbessie, dance you monster, Trotskyrepublican, CA ridebalanced, radical simplicity, BRog, OllieGarkey, Noddy, Victim of Circumstance, FrY10cK, George3, Kayjay, exterris, mythatsme, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, MrBigDaddy, jbob, dear occupant, Rileycat, Yo Bubba, D minor, OjaiValleyCali, blue91, Kay Observer2, Sonders, richholtzin, CA wildwoman

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site