Ending endangered species protection could give hunters a shot at predators

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, NOW I Understand...

My point is, be interested enough in this subject to read just one single book on the history of human attitudes towards wolves. And then come back here and talk about it.

I'm willing to do the same, on any title anyone cares to list here.

Who's brave enough?

Thanks for clarifying what you meant in your previous post. And I'm glad to know that I can earn my bravery badge, by reading a book and debating about it online with someone I've never met.

IMHO, I don't think this post was started to discuss human attitudes about wolves. It was started to discuss the pros and cons about removing the protection from wildlife management that wolves currently enjoy in Idaho. I happen to support the ability of the FWS to use a variety of means, including hunting or shooting by farrmers and ranchers, to manage the wolf population.

I can't tell by your MN post, but I'm guessing that you don't support that - am I correct? Just FYI, comparing MN to ID is a pretty big stretch - MN is the land of ten thousand lakes and is fairly flat, and ID is much more mountainous. And saying that SOME of the people in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area seem to be okay with the wolves, has no bearing on what the people in ID might feel.

Michael
 
Maybe we're talking about the traditional desire of humans, to stomp out of existence all competing predators? I don't wanna get eaten by wolves, or a cougar, but would like to watch them go about their business, from a safe distance.

For those who keep sheep or cattle, and have some of them eaten by Government wolves and cougars, well, maybe they have a cause of action against the Government. I wouldn't mind being taxed for that, to help preserve some of our critters, though they be predators.
 
I can't help but note those opposed to hunting wolves rely on human emotion, feelings and give us websites with wolf cubs on the home page. Let Idaho manage Idaho game; they know Idaho far better than someone in sandals at a coffee shop in New York City.

However, in order to be fair, I am all for the idea proposed in Maryland--all those in favor of wolves should have a pack introduced in their city. New York City, Chicago, L.A. and D.C. should have multiple packs introduced even if no one is in favor of them.:cool:
 
I grew up in MN in wolf country, back when they still had a bounty. I've lived twice in AK. I've worked SAR dogs off leash in wolf country in both places. I've seen wolves in the wild in both places. I've regularly seen wolf tracks in both places. I've read everything I can find on the subject of wolves. And one of the things that was most enlightening to me over the years was reading Of Wolves and Men.

This thread is all about human attitudes toward wolves. Not recognizing that is irony of the highest order.

And yes, I know the difference between MN and ID. Minnesota grows better potatoes. ;) (And it's not a majority of metropolitan area residents that have grown to accept the presence of wolves, it's a majority of the state's population, just as I stated in my original post.)
 
OK, Thanks for Clarifying

Makes more sense now, thanks for the detail. Perhaps then you've read Alaska's Wolf Man, about the adventured of Frank Glaser in Alaska from 1915 - 1955?

My belief in hunting predators both as a means of management and to preserve their fear/respect of humans and civilization comes from a couple of sources -

1) Being born in Alaska, and to an Eskimo mother - most of my uncles feared wolves far more than bears when out alone hunting or trapping - a wolf pack is far more intelligent than a bear, and capable of concerted, group predation tactics. My Mom and her family (she grew up in Unalakleet in the 1930s and 1940s, and met Frank Glaser in person when he was trying to help them manage their reindeer herds and prevent excessive wolf predation) told me stories of female wolves coming to the edge of the village, luring loose dogs out in the wild, where they would be promptly killed and eaten by the rest of the pack.

2) General observations of the increased nuisance that predators can become when they are not managed (i.e., cougars killing people in California, black bears becoming a nuisance and danger to farm children here in western Maryland, etc).

Don't get me wrong, I like to hear wolves in the wild when I go hunting in Alaska, like bears they add to the feeling of really being in the wilderness. I also like having the freedom to hunt or shoot them if I choose, and if i was a rancher I would definitely want to be able to protect my livestock.

Michael
 
Now here's a shocker for those who might have thought that they could peg my position.

Having watched the rebound of wolves in the Lower 48, and having read all reliable accounts of the recent attacks on humans that I can find, I have revised my opinion this past year about the risks to humans from wolves. That's because:

1. Protection under the ESA has allowed the reemergence in the wolf gene pool of tendencies toward bolder behavior. As with bears and pilots, there are old wolves and bold wolves, but where there's hunting allowed there are relatively few old, bold wolves vis-a-vis humans. Until the 70s, bold wolves were at a disadvantage in the Lower 48 and less likely to reproduce. (And note that even in AK, the attack on that 6 year kid at Icy Bay a few years ago was so unusual as to cause a statewide hubbub.)

2. Lots of folks used to think that wolves needed "wilderness." The experience in MN has demonstrated that's a fallacy. With expansion into human-settled areas, wolves have pretty quickly become habituated to human ways and to associating food sources with humans. Anyone familiar with the history of bears at Yellowstone and Glacier can see where this is headed.

Until this year, I never gave a moment's concern to my safety around wolves. That's while traveling alone in deep woods, which I do 99% of the time I'm outdoors. But now I'm starting to think just a little more about the "what if?" scenario, if I were to find myself again in wolf country.
 
Orthonym, there are "sorta" programs for recompense to ranchers. A big problem is that it's up to the rancher to prove to the USF&WS that a wolf did the dastardly deed. Now, when a carcass is a week old, it's hard to prove, with proof being of the courtroom quality. Common sense isn't accepted, nor experience and judgement. So, the wolves kill and move on; the coyotes and ravens or buzzards come in, and the rancher's still sucking buttermilk, like anybody else who deals with a federal agency.

I've been reading Range Magazine for a couple of years now. I've yet to read anything that jangles my nerves as to validity, and I've got a pretty extensive background in farming and ranching, along with some four years of intensive work with wildlife biologists in "one of my other lives" before retirement. http://www.rangemagazine.com I recommend it.

Art
 
And as for "improving the land", the biggest irony there has to be what cattle producers in South America do...slashing and burning the rain forests that produce OUR FREAKING AIR, to make more short-lived grassland for their mooing masses to munch across, leaving dead scrub and little else behind.
This was posted earlier. I just felt like responding.

Rain forests are net users of oxygen as a whole. They do not produce "OUR FREAKING AIR". I thought I saw a report or two saying the forrests recover and reclaim cut areas pretty fast also. I remember being told that the forests were being cut at the rate of XX acres per year back in the 80's. If that was true, all of South America would be clear cut by now. There is more going on than the enviroweenies know about or will tell about.

Back when I was in elementary science class, I remembering being taught that the plankton and such in the oceans produce most of our oxygen. I don't see that mentioned anywhere anymore. Makes sense though due to larger surface area.
 
BTW, didn't wolves, cougars, and black bears used to live in all of what is now the eastern united states??? What are you doing to re-introduce those species in your home town? Why don't you tear down those multi-story beehives where all those bloated and farting city people live, and give it all back to the wildlife?
I wish we could, trust me! I'd rather have wolves and bears for neighbors (well, I DO have bears for neighbors, they show up on the yard every now and then and used to scare the crap out of my mom when she'd be leaving for work early in the morning) than some of the idiots that have been moving into my state (NH) over the past few years, and this is coming from a MA refugee (and I DO mean refugee, they're freaking TYRANTS there!) who moved here when he was 15. At least the wolves and the bears don't mind my wanting to have a gun, or my wanting to exercise my right to self defense!

Ah, an end to the bloated, farting city people... If only such a thing were possible.

Basically, I think the whole "environmental problem" is too many people. Maybe wolves and cougers and bears eating people isn't such a bad thing. It might even get some of the idiot grabbers to lighten up on the guns, but alas, it's nothing more than a dream.
 
The sad truth is profit and lifestyle of those creating the food for those in the ever growing cities and suburbs (which I agree want others to do as they say, not as they would be willing to do) will logicly justify the eventualy extinction of most things besides humans. Predators do diminish the populations of prey animals, but they catch what is easiest to catch. The easiest animals to catch are either young, old, lacking caution (which means they are 'sighted' more) or most importantly sick with things like wasting diseases etc that if left unchecked can adapt and evolve into epidemics that do effect humans and other animals, like the "mad cow diesease" or cattle killing "scrapie" which wasting disease is related to.

Eventualy our world will logicly be allowed to become cities and farms to feed them with little room for anythign else, at which time guns(as this board is about) and self reliant people will be even less understood or tolerated. Socialism will prevail and it will be all about numbers, and the management of the majority, not rights or freedoms of the individual. I hope to be dead by then.
One of the last remaining understood lifestyles even antis can understand is that of the person who enjoys the wilderness and is armed for protection against predators (or for hunting) that exist. When they don't exist (in animal form) and people are not at risk of being attacked then the means to protect from such attacks no longer is seen as necessary by antis. Yeah it would be nice if they understood the 'tyranical government' defense envisioned by our founding fathers, but they support increased management by the government, not less so even if that was logical to them they wouldn't acknowledge it.
It is hard not to acknowledge something that COULD eat you on a lil jog while wearing perfectly matching jogging attire, on the way to grab a moca latte grande. So even antis must admit the danger. It is easier for them to talk of police always being everywhere protecting them from every potential human threat who is just a misguided soul, and just needs some time as legal slave labor before they will be wonderful again, than to defend something they cannot relate to like a wild predator.

The places with the most freedom are those with the least people, the most land, and the most predators to make people self conscious of providing for thier own safety. Whether those predators are animals, native raiding parties, or criminals the atmosphere tends to lean towards the RKBA.

The places with some of the least freedom are crowded, with people with enough false sense of security (until victimized) to feel protected with thier pen and a lawyer from any threat they might encounter. These people can then dabble in managing others with said pens even to the extent of what they do behind closed doors, on thier property, or in general because immediate safety concerns don't limit them to the minimum governing/managing required to succeed while focusing on said threats. Suddenly everyone has an opinion on how everyone else should live thier lives even if it is out of sight, and only thier way or that decided by the majority is right. Well since the largest population densities are places like Chicago, LA, New York, DC etc, and such places are the majority, they should be deciding your lifestyle through legislation right?

Yes something as simple as having potentialy dangerous though ecologicly helpful and necessary animals can encourage freedom in RKBA and other things. This in turn makes it easier to have the tools available to protect from the more likely 2 legged threats that come your way. Self reliant lifestyles and attitudes all tie in together to support eachother, whether it is RKBA which is self reliance on security or other things. While more reliant on governing bodies centralized, elected by the masses lead to laws limiting self reliance as they think they can manage it better, and need to cull the competition. They make themselves necessary by insuring others cannot provide what they are seen as necessary to do, and security is a big item on that list. So when some antis tell you they know what is best for your arms, you can tell them about the wolves that prowl around where you live (even though they rarely bother people) eyeing your children. See the wolves are your friends, as is every other thing the antis living under the false illusion of security in a city cannot relate to.
 
Yes something as simple as having potentialy dangerous though ecologicly helpful and necessary animals can encourage freedom in RKBA and other things. This in turn makes it easier to have the tools available to protect from the more likely 2 legged threats that come your way. Self reliant lifestyles and attitudes all tie in together to support eachother, whether it is RKBA which is self reliance on security or other things. While more reliant on governing bodies centralized, elected by the masses lead to laws limiting self reliance as they think they can manage it better, and need to cull the competition. They make themselves necessary by insuring others cannot provide what they are seen as necessary to do, and security is a big item on that list. So when some antis tell you they know what is best for your arms, you can tell them about the wolves that prowl around where you live (even though they rarely bother people) eyeing your children.
Sure, all that we are asking for out here is the legal right to defend our property from predators if and when they appear. Or IOW, delisting and state management.

The converse of your statement is "why do you need guns?" when you can't legally shoot those bothersome predators (2 and 4 legged) ;)
 
Bullpucky "wolves are an essential part of the environment of the planet" Hogwash and so forth. You people make me sick! I own land. I bought it. I planted trees on it. I pay taxes on it. Since the trees have grown large over many many years, I am now told they are "old growth" and "home to protected species" and I can't cut them. Fortunately, there was a fire near here and I got busy and dropped as many of my trees as I could to "protect" the area. Now you folks want me to provide a home to cougar, wolves, coyotes and other worthless varmints. You come pay my taxes, you come do my work, you come buy the gol darn (you know what I mean) land and then you can decide how to manage it. Until then shut the hell up. Stay in your stinking environmental disaster cities and breath your own polluted excrement. Stay out of my life. I chose to work my ass off to get settled out of your way, now stay out of my way. Or Else!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top