this just makes me sick!!

baruchr

"The stage has been set for the largest massacre of wolves to occur in the lower 48 United States in decades. Unless we stop it, hundreds of wolves -- including mothers and pups -- could die." - Defenders of wildlife.org

We are almost there on actions!

http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_homepage

farfromglorified

Wolves are awesome.

PaperPlates

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e17/VadzPix/Wildlife/-D2HDeer-_0138web.jpg

sapperskunk

baruchr wrote:

"The stage has been set for the largest massacre of wolves to occur in the lower 48 United States in decades. Unless we stop it, hundreds of wolves -- including mothers and pups -- could die." - Defenders of wildlife.org

We are almost there on actions!

http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_homepage

You might have to fill us in on some more info here? Why are they killing these animals, population control etc? Why is aerial gunning bad? I thought de-listing was a good thing?

Convince me and I'll sign.

Answers_In_Playdoh

This proposal could allow the use of aerial gunning and other lethal control methods to kill as many as two-thirds of the wolves in Wyoming and as many as 54 of Idaho’s 65 wolf packs!

:eek: That's not nice :( But I don't understand why they're killing all these wolves...?

jlew24asu

Answers_In_Playdoh wrote:

This proposal could allow the use of aerial gunning and other lethal control methods to kill as many as two-thirds of the wolves in Wyoming and as many as 54 of Idaho’s 65 wolf packs!

:eek: That's not nice :( But I don't understand why they're killing all these wolves...?

yea I dont understand either. why???? why??

Scratchin a Letter

Answers_In_Playdoh wrote:

This proposal could allow the use of aerial gunning and other lethal control methods to kill as many as two-thirds of the wolves in Wyoming and as many as 54 of Idaho’s 65 wolf packs!

:eek: That's not nice :( But I don't understand why they're killing all these wolves...?

They're probably a threat to national security.

godpt3

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I dont understand either. why???? why??

because wolves like to munch on things like cattle and sheep

farfromglorified

godpt3 wrote:

because wolves like to munch on things like cattle and sheep

So do I.

jlew24asu

godpt3 wrote:

because wolves like to munch on things like cattle and sheep

hell so do I. I eat cattle 3 times a week. havent tried sheep though. I think I might

Solat13

Wolf rally draws a crowd
By Rocky Barker - Idaho Statesman

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter can't wait for the day when Idaho hunters can once again legally hunt wolves.

"I'm going to bid for the first ticket to shoot a wolf," Otter said.

His remark brought loud cheers from more than 300 hunters gathered Thursday at the Capitol to rally for more controls on the controversial predator. Like a long line of Idaho politicians before him, Otter criticized the federal government for reintroducing wolves in 1995 over the state's objections.

The hunters say wolves are killing all the elk and deer — an assertion Otter made Monday in his State of the State address. Otter and ranchers have complained for more than a decade that the skyrocketing wolf population has killed livestock and increased the cost of their business.

"We told them what would happen," Otter said.

Within weeks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to propose removing wolves from the endangered species list in Idaho and Montana.

When that happens, the state, not the federal government, will be responsible for managing the predators, and Otter and the Idaho Legislature, both on record as preferring the wolves be removed from the state, will no longer be able to blame the federal government when wolves cause problems.

Idaho leaders will have the job of balancing the interests of ranchers, hunters and wolf enthusiasts statewide and internationally. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, which often has been criticized by lawmakers and sportsmen, will handle the day-to-day management.

"I trust them more than the federal government," said Larry Goldie, a Boise telecommunications company owner and avid hunter.

Goldie and most of the hunters at the rally, which was sponsored by the statewide Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, say their hunting success has dropped since wolves were brought in from Canada in 1995 and 1996.

"We used to see several elk a day and hear a lot of elk bugling," Goldie said. "Last year, I did not see a single elk or hear a single elk bugle."

Despite similar stories from dozens of hunters, one of Idaho's top elk experts said Thursday the state's elk population is healthy. Where elk numbers have dropped, habitat quality has deteriorated, said Jim Peek a University of Idaho wildlife management professor emeritus.

"There is very little evidence that the presence of wolves in Idaho has caused a decline of elk anywhere, especially in Central Idaho and up in the Clearwater area," Peek said.

Peek was made available to reporters in a conference call sponsored by Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group that opposes delisting wolves.

Suzanne Stone, its Rocky Mountain representative in Boise, said she fears Idaho's leaders will try to dramatically cut the current population of 650 wolves in 70 packs back to near the 15-pack level set as the recovery goal by the state's plan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

But Peek said he doubted state officials could successfully reduce the wolf population that dramatically, even if they use helicopter gunners and saturation snare traps, the most effective tools. Such a campaign would be very expensive, he said.

And wolves become even more prolific in the face of heavy killing. "Wolves are very resilient once established," Peek said.

He favors delisting, as do most of the hunters at the rally and even some environmental groups like the Idaho Conservation League. So do livestock groups like the Idaho Cattle Association and the Idaho Woolgrowers, who seek even more liberal rules for killing wolves that harass and kill livestock.

But there remain people who don't want any wolves killed, and there are Idahoans who still want them eliminated.

Ron Gillett, a former Stanley outfitter, said earlier this month he would begin circulating petitions calling for the state to end all wolf recovery efforts and to remove "all wolves reintroduced into Idaho."

Ralph Maughan, a wolf advocate from Pocatello who is frustrated with the anti-wolf attitudes of Idaho leaders like Otter, wants Idahoans to vote on the issue even if it's Gillett's initiative.

"I'd be inclined to sign it and vote against it," Maughan said. "It would be an opportunity for Idahoans, rather than politicians, to decide the issue."

But if Gillett's initiative passes and becomes law, the federal government would likely return the wolf to threatened or endangered status, exactly what Maughan wants for now.

Peek predicted that many Idahoans would step forward to oppose helicopter gunning or similar measures. He hopes calmer voices prevail in the wolf management debate. "I think there is a measure of human arrogance on this whole thing," Peek said. "I think we have to understand there are natural forces out there that are controlling these things."

jlew24asu

thanks for the article. I dont live anyone near a wolf so I'll let them figure it out. but I do think wolves are cool.

onelongsong

baruchr wrote:

"The stage has been set for the largest massacre of wolves to occur in the lower 48 United States in decades. Unless we stop it, hundreds of wolves -- including mothers and pups -- could die." - Defenders of wildlife.org

We are almost there on actions!

http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_homepage

wolves are protected here. several states have been re-introducing wolves to wilderness areas to re-balance nature. sounds like another greanie scare tactic.

catefrances

so when the wolves are reintroduced and nature is 're-balanced' what is the criteria for maintaining a manageable wolf population. how many kids do they have to eat before it's decided repopulation of the wolves wasn't perhaps a good idea?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

wolves are protected here. several states have been re-introducing wolves to wilderness areas to re-balance nature. sounds like another greanie scare tactic.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, could you elaborate?

onelongsong

godpt3 wrote:

because wolves like to munch on things like cattle and sheep

that's part of doing business. you write it off as mortality and take the tax deduction. running cattle and sheep on the land uses the deer and elks natural food and without a preditor; the entire population will starve. this means more hunters are needed to thin the population.

DOSW

baruchr wrote:

"The stage has been set for the largest massacre of wolves to occur in the lower 48 United States in decades. Unless we stop it, hundreds of wolves -- including mothers and pups -- could die." - Defenders of wildlife.org

We are almost there on actions!

http://action.defenders.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_homepage

I'm in. If I can do anything to save (or at least prolong the life of) these wolves, I'll do it.

know1

godpt3 wrote:

because wolves like to munch on things like cattle and sheep

So it's OK to kill cattle and sheep, but not wolves?

Ahnimus

Every time someone tries to "balance" nature by introducing new species, they fuck shit up. The reality is animal populations oscillate and won't maintain a constant population.

onelongsong

know1 wrote:

So it's OK to kill cattle and sheep, but not wolves?

when you put cattle and sheep in the wolves habitat; yes; it's ok.

know1

onelongsong wrote:

when you put cattle and sheep in the wolves habitat; yes; it's ok.

So if people try to live in the wolves habitat, would it be OK to kill them (the people)?