PDA

View Full Version : American Wolves on the Hunt List



BlessedGoddess
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 06:05 AM
Now...
18 Wolves Killed in Idaho
6 Killed in Montana.

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/idaho-wolf-slaughterhunt-opens-august-30-2011-2/

"Tuesday, August 30, 2011
And so it begins. The slaughter and persecution of Idahoís wolves. Their families will be torn apart, their babies killed. History repeating itself. This is a dark, dark day. The hunt runs for seven long months in most zones from August 30 to March 31. In the Lolo and Selway it last 10 months, August 30 to June 30. It runs through wolf breeding and denning season. This is a wolf holocaust."

There is NO QUOTA in these zones (so itís kill em all)

http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/hunting-wolves-in-montana-wheres-the-data-by-jay-mallonee/


http://www.predatordefense.org/wolves.htm#States

In Idaho, which has the largest population of 1,000 wolves

In Montana the killing began in early September with tags selling for $19 and a quota of 220 dead wolves out of a total population of 566.




Say good bye to our beloved wolves.:~(

Blackened_Might
Wednesday, September 21st, 2011, 06:28 AM
http://i377.photobucket.com/albums/oo215/The-Rook/hunters.jpg

Gerulf
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 03:50 AM
Wildlife biologists closely monitor the populations of animals that are hunted. They take into account things like habitat carrying capacity and the overall health of the animal populations. No animal in the United States has ever been legally hunted to extinction or even to the point of being endangered since hunting has been regulated in this country.

Hesse
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 03:51 AM
And so it begins. The slaughter and persecution of Idaho’s wolves. Their families will be torn apart, their babies killed.

There is no justification for that. What have the wolves done to deserve this?

In addition wolves keep other animal populations in check by hunting other animals, so killing off the wolves will not resolve any overpopulation issues but only lead to the increasing population of certain other species. Then what will happen next is these certain other species will also end up on the hunt list

Gerulf
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 04:05 AM
There is no justification for that. What have the wolves done to deserve this?

In addition wolves keep other animal populations in check by hunting other animals, so killing off the wolves will not resolve any overpopulation issues but only lead to the increasing population of certain other species. Then what will happen next is these certain other species will also end up on the hunt list

They do keep other animal populations in check, and if wolves overpopulate the available habitat, it is a danger to the populations of the animals they hunt.

That's what anti-hunters fail to grasp. If you remove human beings from the equation, certain species will overpopulate the available habitat. That results in destruction of that habitat, which leads to starvation and disease of all species living there.

Elessar
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 04:05 AM
Absurd.
Seems like I can't go anywhere without seeing this on the back of some redneck's truck
http://www.nowolves.com/images/Smoke_a_pack_500.jpg

Gerulf
Thursday, September 22nd, 2011, 04:31 AM
There is NO QUOTA in these zones (so itís kill em all)(

Flat out lie. Both Idaho and Montana have quotas and limits.

BlessedGoddess
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 03:55 AM
Flat out lie. Both Idaho and Montana have quotas and limits.

Where's your proof that there is?
Only Montana does. NOT Idaho.

Blackened_Might
Friday, September 23rd, 2011, 06:01 AM
They do keep other animal populations in check, and if wolves overpopulate the available habitat, it is a danger to the populations of the animals they hunt.

That's what anti-hunters fail to grasp. If you remove human beings from the equation, certain species will overpopulate the available habitat. That results in destruction of that habitat, which leads to starvation and disease of all species living there.

Without humans, animals would exist harmoniously and their populations would naturally balance themselves out. There is a reason as to why hunting was initially a survival necessity. The sporting aspect came around when it was all too convenient and we could afford to buy these animal carcasses in local grocery stores. You won't be hunting for sport when the sh*t hits the fan. I can tell you that. Anyway, it is us who mass produce cattle to feed the expendable overpopulation of this world and for sport and genocide other animals simply for the sake of sport. We are the ones disrupting the natural state of the animal kingdom's equilibrium with all of our greed and capitolism and we're the only ones decimating whatever is left of our only inhabitable world, so think this matter through before you articulate any other assumptions based on the typical redneck's mentality.

Gerulf
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 12:29 AM
Without humans, animals would exist harmoniously and their populations would naturally balance themselves out.
Taking any animal, including humans, completely out of the picture would have a drastic impact on all species that share the habitat. Take the whitetail deer for example. If we weren't allowed to hunt them, they would overpopulate the habitat, which would lead to starvation and disease, which would impact every animal within that habitat. I don't really care if you disagree with that or not, because it's proven fact. Unless of course you believe wildlife biologists are all wrong.


Anyway, it is us who mass produce cattle to feed the expendable overpopulation of this world and for sport and genocide other animals simply for the sake of sport.
It's not simply for the sake of sport. It's for food. Food from animals that reproduce and replenish their numbers every year.


We are the ones disrupting the natural state of the animal kingdom's equilibrium with all of our greed and capitolism and we're the only ones decimating whatever is left of our only inhabitable world,
We are not disrupting the animal kingdom's equilibrium by hunting, we are part of it.


so think this matter through before you articulate any other assumptions based on the typical redneck's mentality.
I have thought it through, and researched it, as has everyone else that is actually informed on the subject, and doesn't base their opinion purely on emotion.

Another "redneck" reference, as well. It's a sad day when whites attempt to insult other whites by using the tactics of liberals.

BlessedGoddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 06:16 AM
In Idaho= 1,000 wolves(with no quota)

In Montana = a quota of 220 dead wolves out of a total population of 566.

Not very many wolves to start with.
And their numbers will keep going down. Because even pups are fair game.

I don't know why someone here will deem this to be a good action.

There was a 10,000 plus population of wolves in the pass.
Everything was fine.
No over population any where. A good natural system.

Think about the numbers.
Think about the pups who lost their mothers and will die..Alone.
Think about all the dens ransacked.
Think about it.


Take note of all this.
We will be walking in their footsteps soon.

Gerulf
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 08:11 AM
Think about the numbers.
Think about the pups who lost their mothers and will die..Alone.
Think about all the dens ransacked.
Think about it.


Take note of all this.
We will be walking in their footsteps soon.

Wolves travel and live in packs. All wolves in the pack take care of pups. Maybe you should have a clue what you're talking about before making ridiculous statements. Both Idaho and Montana have wolf management plans. They are required to have these plans and the plans were approved before hunting was made legal. No animal in the U.S. has become extinct do to hunting since it has become regulated, and wolves aren't going to be the first.

SpearBrave
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 11:57 AM
Actually wolves are on the increase in some areas. Also if wolf populations are not kept in check they devastate other areas of wildlife. They breed very rapidly and also carry a number of diseases.

Taking a few wolves out of the population could also act as a good thing for them.

In the US the 'save the wolf' lobby has been very successful and breeding programs have been started in many areas where wolves were extinct. Given that though the 'save the wolf' people can go overboard with their 'facts and figures' really you should read the biological studies the states do before making judgment on whether it is a good thing to cull the packs or not. Most states and even the federal government have done a great job at managing wildlife populations with a increase in healthy populations of many game and non-game species.

I know I tend to bash the our federal government a lot, but I do actually see with my own eyes on how well of a job they have done with wildlife populations across the country.

BlessedGoddess
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Again. Look at the numbers. And..Again..Not many wolves at all.
Killing them will solve nothing.
And the cattle farmers and over live stock farmers cry over; what..a tiny number of wolf killings???
I'm sorry- but when you put massive amounts of live stock together; your just "crusin' for a brusin'".
As in; it's like a buffet for wolves.

They have done non killing ways to keep wolves away from live stock.
As in; using a recording of wolves howling who are claiming their ground.
When other packs hear it; they won't come near the area where the sound is coming from.
They did this in New Zealand with a great success rate.

http://youtu.be/jzCDs0Klu9o
This man lived with wolves and came up with this non killing method.

http://youtu.be/i_MXskJ568o Part 1 of "A Man Among Wolves"

Ocko
Sunday, September 25th, 2011, 12:08 AM
I like to see Wolves in the wild, they belong there.

But on the other hand nature is not nature anymore when humans are coming on the plane. It is 'managed'.

One cannot argue 'nature' when it is managed anyway and it has to as humans encroach on nature. (Unless you want to end this).

Yes, one can argue whether it is the right time to kill and how much, but managed they will have to be.

As it was said before, they will not go extinct.

Here in NorCal there are plenty of coyotes, there is open season all year long and they are still not extinct but the opposite.

Wolves and coyotes do not go together, usually wolves replace the coyotes.

Wolves have no more natural enemies, they procreate on an astonishing rate. when many survive you have an explosion . The only chance to control is, when it is in the early stage.

Wolves so far had a positive effect in Yellowstone Park, they keep the elks down who have been overgrazing there to the detriment of many trees and plants.

Wolves are good but not in unlimited numbers.

SpearBrave
Monday, September 26th, 2011, 11:28 AM
Just the facts ma'am, please just the facts. ;)

http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/wildlife_otterwolf_05

BlessedGoddess
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 03:59 AM
Yet- Oregon ranchers lost 51,200 cattle in 2010 to non-predation yet nobody is talking about that.


And now two sit in jail because their state decided to take it out on wolves.
http://www.kptv.com/story/15563955/two-arrested-during-wolf-killing-protest

Want to play with charts?
I got some too.

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/PressReleases/feature/wolves/moosewolf

http://forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/graphics/nr-wolfpop-growth-table05.gif Take note how it's only 1,000

http://www.smithlifescience.com/SciWolfMooseGraph.jpg

http://bruskotter.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/slide11.gif?w=630&h=472
Still only in the one thousands.

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/Outdoorsman_ApJu2009_1.jpg

I'm aware some are old.



So, you enjoy images like these?? What happens if we change it up and place Germanic folk as the hunted with non whites looming over the bodies with a proud grin?
How would you feel then???
It's just a matter of time till that really happens.

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2010/1/2/CNG.227e6a4e11ba39c08630e5729d693330.a81/photo_1262466385960-1-1.jpg

http://www.treehugger.com/endangered%20wolf-hunt.JPG


Unlike the rest of you here; who appear very cold towards the matter, I am pro-wolf.

You can all bicker and try to change me. But I honestly; like to wish you luck with that.

Wolf trusted man. Man trusted wolf. Then we created dog.
Is this the right way to treat the ancestors of our four legged friends??
No.

Blackened_Might
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 03:59 AM
By this logic, whites make up the majority in the entire western world. Does this mean that we ought to allow the Jews to continue attempting to wipe us out with their pawns despite being nearly extinct yet it still doesn't seem so? Throw me a bone.. and they deleted my examples of rich Southron culture too, aww.

Gerulf
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 04:18 AM
By this logic, whites make up the majority in the entire western world. Does this mean that we ought to allow the Jews to continue attempting to wipe us out with their pawns despite being nearly extinct yet it still doesn't seem so? Throw me a bone.. and they deleted my examples of rich Southron culture too, aww.

I see you like to use fallacies instead of facts. "By this logic...." Comparing hunting to what's happening to our people? Please. Grow up.

You're posts about trailer parks in Bithlo Florida was probably deleted because it was completely off topic, and full of childish insults.

Gerulf
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 04:25 AM
Unlike the rest of you here; who appear very cold towards the matter, I am pro-wolf.

You can all bicker and try to change me. But I honestly; like to wish you luck with that.

Wolf trusted man. Man trusted wolf. Then we created dog.
Is this the right way to treat the ancestors of our four legged friends??
No.

Typical of anti-hunters. Deny everything said by wildlife biologists and people who are actually informed on the subject, and attempt to appeal to peoples' emotions. All of your charts show wolf populations increasing, so I really don't know what you're trying to prove with those.

Nobody is trying to change you, by the way. It can't be done with anti-hunters. They are some of the most stubborn and uninformed people on the planet.

SpearBrave
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 07:31 AM
Want to play with charts?
I got some too.


I'm aware some are old.

Unlike the rest of you here; who appear very cold towards the matter, I am pro-wolf.



Your charts all still show a overall increase in wolf populations.

I don't appear cold about the matter I like to take a look at the overall picture of things. Far too long have I seen anti-hunter groups lie about the facts. Also I know there is a lot of money being made by anti-hunter groups via donations and 'administrative cost', same goes for pro hunter groups . Most tree hugging anti-hunter save the planet types buy into propaganda about wildlife populations and tend to not have a realistic approach.

I like to see a increase in any wildlife populations, but too much all at once is not a good thing. I'm glad wolves are returning to their native ranges, just as long as those native ranges are not also threatened by wolves returning too fast.

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is a prime example of wolves returning to quickly. The Michigan DNR was trying to get moose re-established first, but no the wolf lobby just could not wait for that. Instead they released them anyway. This almost destroyed the budding moose population, and did great damage to the deer population. Yes, I think wolves should be there, but just make sure they have plenty of natural food in the area, before you re-introduce them. If these wolf lobby groups would have waited until the moose herd had been fully established then the wolves would have had a better environment to get started in.

If you are really pro wolf than you should want to learn all the facts about everything from all sides. In my life one thing I have very much noticed is that hunters for the most part really care about nature and animals more than the anti-hunters do. They look at things in a realistic manner and the fact they pay for most of the habit restoration via licenses and fees, and taxes applied to associated goods. Sure the anti-hunter groups like to take a few examples and blow then out of proportion to make hunters look bad, that is how they get donations for their 'administrative cost'.

Personally, I never thought of killing a wolf. However if I lived in a area where wolves were overpopulated and destroying my livestock, I would protect my herd by whatever means was best for both.

OutlawsnUnderdogs
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011, 05:39 PM
I live in Idaho and we have wolves around here. I am on both sides of the fence on this one..

I like woves, we still had some around when I was a child and they never were really a problem to anyone. I think they are magnificent creatures.

The wolves that they have bred in captivity and released into the wild are hybrid crosses, they are not the wolves that used to be here. There was a solitary wolf running around these parts for several years that had been reintroduced, the animal was over 3 feet at the shoulder, it's paws were notably wider than my hands and wieghed in at over 185 pounds. This animal killed anything and everything, I lost two dogs to it, there are at least a dozen hunters that lost their entire pack of hunting dogs to him. This animal was a great danger to everything, he was finally killed year before last after about 5 years of roaming the area.

I have the greatest respect for the natural wolves, but these animals are not the natural wolves that were originally here, the hybridising of them has screwed them up and these things are dangerous in a way the original wolves were not.

Personally I am for hunting down and removing all of them that cause any kind of trouble, with selective removal of trouble animals we could possibly return them to what they should be.

Personally I have no interest in eating a wolf so the only reason I would hunt one is to remove a problem.

As I said I am kind of on both sides of the fence on this one.

BlessedGoddess
Friday, September 30th, 2011, 12:35 AM
http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/index.sjs?action_KEY=8315

Help save the wolves in OR.

"The Imnaha Pack is one of only two reproducing wolf packs in Oregon. Killing two surviving members, including the alpha male, will make life even harder for the two wolves in the pack who are left -- and make them more likely to resort to preying on livestock."

BlessedGoddess
Friday, September 30th, 2011, 12:49 AM
This animal killed anything and everything, I lost two dogs to it, there are at least a dozen hunters that lost their entire pack of hunting dogs to him. This animal was a great danger to everything, he was finally killed year before last after about 5 years of roaming the area.



Personally I am for hunting down and removing all of them that cause any kind of trouble, with selective removal of trouble animals we could possibly return them to what they should be.

Personally I have no interest in eating a wolf so the only reason I would hunt one is to remove a problem.



Don't leave your dogs outside at night or near sun down/ sun rise. Wolves are more active in these times of day.
I understand it must of been beyond upsetting losing them- but it was your own fault on this one.

You are doing the wolf no honour for killing them for fun. Which is pretty much what you are stating.
They have souls-mind you. They talk though grunting, growling, howling, and showing teeth. Which you won't under stand.


Wolves were HUGE many years ago. You may call it "bad mixing" I call it more "pure".
Wolves used to be taller than a 6 foot man when on their hind legs.

Wolves still remain at a low pop. number.
I feel like a broken record here.
Think of us at a 1,000 pop. number.
Again- THINK PEOPLE!

I'm done replying to all this junk.

May the gods and goddesses protect the wolves.

Todesritter
Friday, September 30th, 2011, 07:20 AM
The wolf in American politics has become a political football like 'global warming' between alleged 'conservatives' & alleged 'liberals'...

SOURCE --> PHYS ORG http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-doctrine-wildlife-politics.html (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-doctrine-wildlife-politics.html)


Apply public trust doctrine to 'rescue' wildlife from politics, researchers say
September 29, 2011 by Emily Caldwell

When a species recovers enough to be removed from the federal endangered species list, the public trust doctrine – the principle that government must conserve natural resources for the public good – should guide state management of wildlife, scientists say.

In the Sept. 30 issue of the journal Science, the researchers note that the public trust doctrine holds that certain natural resources, including wildlife, have no owners and therefore belong to all citizens. So, they add, when federal statutory law no longer offers protection to a species, the public trust doctrine imposes upon states an obligation to conserve the species for their citizens.

The researchers cite the case of the gray wolf, which lost federal protection in the northern Rocky Mountains last spring under a rare Congressional legislative rider. This rider was passed after courts had reversed three previous U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempts to delist the wolf in the region, which includes Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

The merits of protecting gray wolves have been hotly debated for years in the northern Rocky Mountains, where public opinion varies considerably among livestock owners, hunters and wildlife advocates. Idaho and Montana have launched public hunts aimed at reducing wolf populations since federal protections were lifted. Wolf advocates fear that heavy-handed “lethal management” of wolves could deplete the population so rapidly that the species will require federal protections again. Under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government monitors a species for at least five years after it is delisted, but state wildlife agencies take over management.

Lost in these bitter arguments is any attempt to clarify state agencies’ obligation to their citizens, said Jeremy Bruskotter, assistant professor in Ohio State University’s School of Environment and Natural Resources and lead author of the Science paper.

The wildlife trust doctrine, a branch of the public trust doctrine, defines that obligation, the paper’s authors argue. The public trust doctrine has roots in ancient Roman and English common law, but its application to wildlife in the United States dates to the late 19th century. In an 1896 case, Geer vs. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the wildlife trust doctrine imposed on states a duty “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.”

“If you recognize a wildlife trust doctrine, and that the state has the obligation to maintain these populations in perpetuity not just for current residents but for future residents, then there is a degree of protection for species in the absence of the statutory protection,” Bruskotter said.
The researchers note that natural resource agency professionals are likely to be aware that all wildlife are communally owned by each state, but western politicians’ open hostility toward this formerly protected species raises the question: What are states actually going to do?

“Some of the rhetoric about the killing of wolves might be political showmanship. But when they make exaggerated claims – for example, comparing wolf restoration to the resurrection of the T. rex, which was done in Utah – that adds layers of ambiguity and fear. Conservationists wonder if they will try to eliminate wolves and wonder if they can do it,” Bruskotter said. “But the public trust doctrine holds that if state politicians were to intervene to try to prevent the maintenance of a viable wolf population, they could be taken to court. There is a legal mechanism to prevent that type of action.”

Traditionally, the conservation and management of wildlife resources in the United States has been driven by state governments, which established agencies to monitor wildlife populations and regulate activities like hunting and trapping. However, the federal government began to take an interest in imperiled species in the 1960s, culminating with the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

“This is where the conflict turns. Until then, the impetus for wildlife management had come primarily from the states. Then the feds came in and said, ‘We’re taking over the protection and, hopefully, the recovery,’” Bruskotter said.

The federally led reintroduction of gray wolves to western states didn’t sit well with many of those states’ officials, who characterized the action as an unwanted federal intervention. When the wolf population was deemed to have met federal recovery goals in the region in 2002, state politicians began “clamoring for management authority,” Bruskotter said.

To date, wildlife advocates haven’t had to rely on the wildlife trust doctrine to guide their management because states generally show a strong desire to conserve species. The case of gray wolves in the northern Rockies has been unusual, with western legislatures continually expressing the desire to minimize or even remove wolf populations altogether.

While case law exists to define the reach of the public trust doctrine, additional case law would be beneficial to firmly establish states’ obligations in the management of species no longer covered by federal protection, the authors contend.

“If this obligation is going to be more than just understood, there will need to be case law established, which is going to require somebody to take things to court to see what those obligations are,” said Sherry Enzler, a co-author of the paper and a public trust scholar at the University of Minnesota.

The authors note that this argument for the application of the wildlife trust doctrine should not be construed as an appeal on behalf of the gray wolf.
“It’s not about protecting any particular species. It’s about how we ensure we have adequate protection for all imperiled species under state-led management. Not all species are a perfect fit for federal protection, so this is a better long-term solution,” Bruskotter said.

“There is a middle ground here, and there is a legal process for defining this middle ground. States have an obligation to maintain, at minimum, a viable population of a species that has been removed from the endangered species list.”

Better clarity about state management could also apply to the case of the grizzly bear, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stands ready to delist in the greater Yellowstone region. As part of a recent plan to remove protection, federal officials asked states to agree to certain management practices under a series of memoranda of understanding. A federal court rejected the plan because the memoranda were not legally binding – states could not be compelled to conserve.

“This court-made law could be that regulatory mechanism,” Bruskotter said, noting that this represents how the wildlife trust doctrine’s application could support delisting a previously threatened species. “This common law could have been used to help remove grizzly bears from protection because it could have provided the regulatory mechanism the court sought in that case.”

Provided by The Ohio State University

OutlawsnUnderdogs
Friday, September 30th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Don't leave your dogs outside at night or near sun down/ sun rise. Wolves are more active in these times of day.
I understand it must of been beyond upsetting losing them- but it was your own fault on this one.

You are doing the wolf no honour for killing them for fun. Which is pretty much what you are stating.
They have souls-mind you. They talk though grunting, growling, howling, and showing teeth. Which you won't under stand.


Wolves were HUGE many years ago. You may call it "bad mixing" I call it more "pure".
Wolves used to be taller than a 6 foot man when on their hind legs.

Wolves still remain at a low pop. number.
I feel like a broken record here.
Think of us at a 1,000 pop. number.
Again- THINK PEOPLE!

I'm done replying to all this junk.

May the gods and goddesses protect the wolves.


My dogs are out there to protect my livestock from wolves and coyotes... and wolves don't just come at night, they can show up at any time during the day. It was around 11am when my dogs ran into this wolf who was just a ways out into my field, I had 4 dogs got into with him, two did not survive and the other two were torn up pretty good but were not seriously injured. The four of them managed to chase him off though.

My livelyhood is livestock, I cannot afford to be losing my main source of income.

As I said I like wolves, heck, all of my dogs are descended from an Alaskan grey wolf I had years ago, (Gizmo) after four generations they are now only about 1/8 wolf mostly golden lab now with some black mouth curr.

I suppose unless you live out in the wilderness you would never have a real understanding of it.