Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 11:15:50 GMT -8
I find these kind of events despicable. I absolutely agree. A spokesman for the killing derbies said the following about camping one night with his son and hearing a wolf howl: It sounds hypocritical because it IS hypocritical. And to call such killing contests "hunting" is a disgrace to hunting. Hunters who participate in those killing orgies need to make up their minds whether they want hunting to be a part of wildlife conservation or not. Killing contests of this sort are not.
|
|
|
Post by Lamebeaver on Nov 19, 2015 14:21:03 GMT -8
It all depends on your perspective.
Do you think of wolves as beautiful animals that serve as a critical part of our ecosystem?
or
Do you think of them as varmints that kill livestock and game animals?
Not saying I agree with the second worldview, but I understand it. Less than 100 years ago, people made a living hunting wolves for their hides and bounty.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Nov 19, 2015 17:44:53 GMT -8
There's a flyer up at work for a "No Rules Coyote Derby". Prizes for biggest, most, first, last and so on. Extra points for foxes, badgers, virtually anything else except skunks. The person who posted it doesn't understand why I find such events very distasteful.
Shooting something harassing or killing your stock or posing a threat to people is one thing; wholesale killing for prizes "because it's fun!"?
bleh....
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 19, 2015 18:14:30 GMT -8
"Environmental groups filed lawsuits Tuesday in Idaho and Washington, D.C."
Great follow up to the discussion the other day in regards to finding a judge somewhere in the US that will rule in favor of the Environmental groups. I am assuming the suit was filed in DC to get the same judge that put wolves back on the endangered list.
That being said wolves are a critical part of our ecosystem. However when you let their numbers climb well beyond target goals because they are protected this is the end result. You end up with whackos out there that think they need to take issues into their own hands. I still for the life of me do not understand why states are not allowed to manage and control their numbers for the sake of the betterment of the entire ecosystem. I am sure many of the states out there have a great deal of money invested into research and holding capacities of whatever given animal they research. Some judge in DC does not have anything invested into their well being other than his/her opinion.
As for the rest of the article regarding killing derbies. Nothing but a bad thing in my opinion. I would actually have to agree with Travis on this one and say it is a disgrace to hunters out there to participate in something like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 18:55:17 GMT -8
That being said wolves are a critical part of our ecosystem. However when you let their numbers climb well beyond target goals because they are protected this is the end result. You end up with whackos out there that think they need to take issues into their own hands. I still for the life of me do not understand why states are not allowed to manage and control their numbers for the sake of the betterment of the entire ecosystem. You have voiced several misconceptions above. Delisting in the Northern Rockies was never in any plan or agreement to be determined by numbers as the "target goals." Delisting was always contingent upon several factors such as: 1) proven genetic exchange among sub-populations and to larger populations. 2) Each and every state plan committing to maintaining minimum population numbers and minimum pack numbers 3) no state designating wolves as "predators" but rather "trophy game" animals, and 4) all states passing the required plans and commitments into their own state laws — before wolves were delisted in any state where those wolves roamed. Listing was never done according to state boundaries and delisting was never planned according to state boundaries. Listing was by Distinct Population Segments (DPS), of which there were three in the Northern Rockies. In fact, sub-populations never followed state boundaries in any wolf population. And delisting goals never included delisting by state boundaries. Legal action resulted because the US Fish & Wildlife Service did not follow its own rules nor its own science. Nowhere has the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC) determined that wildlife is owned by the states. That is especially true of wildlife on Federal Public Land, such as in the Northern Rockies. The NAMWC has stated that no one owns wildlife and that it is held in trust for ALL the people — not just for the ranchers, hunters, or residents of a particular state. Every citizen of the United States has a bona fide and legitimate interest and voice in how wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or Oregon are treated. Nowhere does the NAMWC allow a vote in Wyoming to be more important than a vote in New York City or Boston. State management of public wildlife is actually a new concept with very little historical footing. The NAMWC does not require it. Federal management gives the entire country a voice in the treatment of wildlife held in trust by all the people through the representatives of the entire US citizenship. State management dominated by the voices of ranchers and hunting-oriented wildlife agencies does not follow the NAMWC. Management of wildlife does not require hunting or selective extermination of so-called "surplus" populations. There is no surplus population of wolves. There never has been. The numbers you have heard of were never the sole "target goal" of the listing of wolves as endangered species. You've evidently trusted too much gossip from wolf-hunting advocates — most of whom have never read the listing documents. NAMWC requires management by best available science, and that is categorically not the path being pursued in Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana. And these killing derbies are just one more piece of evidence of how true that is. The states do not have any numbers of wolves. The nation and the citizens of this continent "have" wild wolves, and no state owns any of them. State management is management by special-interest groups because states are in fact special-interest groups. The conservation of wildlife has made so-called "outside" interest groups necessary to counter the special-interest groups that the states have become. No so-called "outside" conservation group is responsible for the poaching of animals. The blame for that falls upon the poacher himself and anyone who encourages or attempts to justify him.
|
|
|
Post by 1camper on Nov 19, 2015 20:06:15 GMT -8
I find these kind of events despicable. I absolutely agree. A spokesman for the killing derbies said the following about camping one night with his son and hearing a wolf howl: It sounds hypocritical because it IS hypocritical. And to call such killing contests "hunting" is a disgrace to hunting. Hunters who participate in those killing orgies need to make up their minds whether they want hunting to be a part of wildlife conservation or not. Killing contests of this sort are not. Even more despicable is his using the term "harvesting"..really? Are you eating the wolf? If not, its not harvesting. So this dumb ass doesn't know the definition of harvesting or hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 19, 2015 20:22:52 GMT -8
All I can say is Wisconsin has a surplus population. They have more than recovered in this state. Each year they are expanding their territories and moving in closer and closer to habituated areas in search of food. It has almost become common to see wolves.
Sooner or later something is going to have to give. I guess it is going to take someone getting mauled before change happens.
As for Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. It is somewhat hard to understand how there could be a wolf problem when those given states have far more "open" (BLM, state and national land) for wolves to roam freely. They also have far less wolves than Wisconsin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 20:37:31 GMT -8
All I can say is Wisconsin has a surplus population. Says who? You are one voice among millions, and that does not give you any special privilege to make that decision. Sooner or later something is going to have to give. I guess it is going to take someone getting mauled before change happens. How often have wolves "mauled" a human being? (Not counting far-fetched Hollywood movies.)
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 19, 2015 20:42:10 GMT -8
Says who? You are one voice among millions, and that does not give you any special privilege to make that decision. Who are you to say that we do not have a surplus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 20:46:16 GMT -8
Says who? You are one voice among millions, and that does not give you any special privilege to make that decision. Who are you to say that we do not have a surplus. I say, let the ecosystem decide. "Surplus" is a human concept. But humans are just one species in the ecosystem. Besides that, I know a whole lot more about wolves than you evidently do.
|
|
|
Post by 1camper on Nov 19, 2015 21:02:17 GMT -8
You want to see a surplus? Go to your local pound and count the pitbulls, maybe suggest setting them free then shooting them down, let us know how it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by Outdoor Union on Nov 19, 2015 21:55:40 GMT -8
Besides that, I know a whole lot more about wolves than you evidently do. Wow Send me your kindergarten report card that reads "Does not play well with others" and I will frame both and send them to you. Says who? You are one voice among millions, and that does not give you any special privilege to make that decision. My voice does not count but yet your voice does count? I am not advocating for removing wolves for the simple fact of being able to hunt them. I am advocating for the fact that wolves have more than recovered from numbers 20-30 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 22:34:23 GMT -8
Hey, Outdoor Union. You entered a thread about treatment of wolves in the Northern Rockies. And like every other thread about wolves in the Northern Rockies, you have tried to divert the discussion to Wisconsin when the conversation got well over your head. Since when did Wisconsin get placed in the Northern Rockies?
Go back and read my long post above. Do you even know what the term "recovered" means? Every time you speak of a number you prove that you don't have the foggiest notion what recovery means — especially in the Northern Rockies.
OutdoorUnion wrote:Please drop that nonsense. I'm well over twice your age and I'm not playing a game here.
Outdoor Union wrote:I did not say any such thing? I said your voice is "one voice among millions." If you want your voice to count, try taking the time to know what you are talking about before you speak.
Outdoor Union wrote:As I demonstrated in my long post above, the wolf population in the Northern Rockies never reached recovery goals partly because the relevant states as a whole refused to meet all the conditions of delisting. And that is why legal action repeatedly overturned any hasty attempt to delist those populations.
"Recovery" never has been defined solely as a number in any of the listing documents. Not even the state management plans attempted to foist that myth upon the USFWS. In this and previous threads you have repeatedly spoken of a magic number that never existed in any of the documents detailing the process for eventual delisting. That magic number does not exist. It's nothing more than bar-room blabber and the myth of an anti-wolf crowd that never knew what recovery was — and never cared.
If you want your voice to count, quit listening to bar-room blabber about some magic number for delisting and get yourself an education. Such a number never existed.
Incidentally, wolf population numbers currently amount to less than 1% of pre-settlement numbers. You apparently take a lot of satisfaction in such a low number.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Nov 20, 2015 4:03:05 GMT -8
All I can say is Wisconsin has a surplus population. They have more than recovered in this state. WI has less than 1000 wolves when historically it had as many as 5000. So that begs the (very much rhetorical) question.... is "recovery" what humans say it is or is it when wolves reach historical levels?
|
|
|
Post by JRinGeorgia on Nov 20, 2015 11:15:46 GMT -8
According to the state of Wisconsin, there were about 800 wolves in 2011. The state comprises 65,556 square miles. That's one wolf per every 82 square miles. By comparison, the largest city in the state, Milwaukee, is 96.8 square miles.
|
|