U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 01-26-2011, 05:07 PM
 
540 posts, read 1,063,055 times
Reputation: 545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
"...With his job positioning him at the forefront of wolf management in the state, Rachael said one of the most frequent myths he heard was that the wolves released in Idaho in 1995 and 1996 were the wrong species for the area.
"That's just pure silliness," he said to the 14 people seated in a backcountry yurt just south of Prairie Creek."
Idaho Mountain Express: State biologist clarifies wolf myths - April 7, 2010
Well, the question asked isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is subspecies, not species.

And those who sold the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program specifically targeted the wolf native to the region, canis lupus irremotus.

http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffic...overy_Plan.pdf

However, the subspecies actually introduced were canis lupus occidentalis (Mackenzie Valley Wolf) and canis lupus nubilus (Great plains wolf).

Mackenzie Valley Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are multiple sources for this across the internet.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2011, 06:48 PM
 
4,499 posts, read 6,151,126 times
Reputation: 4016
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartel2 View Post
Well, the question asked isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is subspecies, not species.

And those who sold the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program specifically targeted the wolf native to the region, canis lupus irremotus.

http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffic...overy_Plan.pdf

However, the subspecies actually introduced were canis lupus occidentalis (Mackenzie Valley Wolf) and canis lupus nubilus (Great plains wolf).

Mackenzie Valley Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are multiple sources for this across the internet.
HOWLColorado response to Mark French press release | HOWL Colorado - Giving wolves a voice
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2011, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Pueblo, CO
466 posts, read 880,738 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerider45 View Post
Kagicre, could you be any more negative towards humanity? Who is it that recently protected and stabilized wolf numbers? For me, you exemplify the liberal, enviro thinker whose thought processes apply heart logic rather than head logic. Most folks are good people with their hearts in the right place, but lack practical experience and knowledge of Mother Nature. What makes folks think wolves wonít kill people? Domestic dogs have killed people so why wouldnít wolves kill people? And although there arenít many, there are documented cases of wolves killing people. People use your head, not your hearts and think without bias when you consider the wolf. We humans are not as bad as you think...we're improving.


I have lived and worked in the mountains/forests everyday of my adult life. I see wolves on a monthly or semi-monthly basis both at work and at home where they have attacked my dog and livestock. I've had them on the edge of my campfire light all night trying to get at my pack stock. I have photographed them and watched them herding and feeding on deer & elk numerous times, and I have howled them in. I have had them follow me down trails just watching for an opportunity. My point is I have had some experience with them beginning back in 1968.

Yes, wolves are regal animals, and no they donít kill for fun. However, through natural selection, Mother Nature has made the best survivors of the predator world opportunistic killers and that sometimes means killing without necessity. They have very limited reasoning powers and they do not form conclusions, judgments, or inferences. They are for the most part an instinct driven wanton killer which is not a bad trait but a necessity of life to insure their survival. So, at times they kill simply because it was instinct driven when they see prey run from them and instinct kicks in. One definition of wanton is: wanton cruelty/killer, 1. deliberate and without motive or provocation. During rough winter months, wolves, or any predator, have to be opportunists. Because of evolution and deep seated instinct, wolves kill whenever they get chance/opportunity simply because opportunity isnít all that frequent, and at times, a kill may be unnecessary. I have witnessed situations where wolves have eaten only the most prime portions of their kills (often the paunch first) and left the rest to go on and kill again. I have seen wolves eating a live, yearling cow while she (too worn out and exhausted to get up) lifted her head to look back at them eating her own hind quarters. Without reasoning wolves canít/donít care about their victimsí comfort or situation. They have to get in there and consume as much as they need to insure their own survival. This is not saying anything bad about wolves, this is just how life pans out everywhere but the Disney Channel. Mother Nature is a cruel lady.

It's not the wolves I mind. To me they are the same as any other predator, and I like having them all in my world. What I do mind are the politics, the baggage that came with the wolves. In Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, the original goal or agreement was for ten breeding packs/pairs of wolves per state (not to mention we already had native wolves when the reintroduction program was started in Idaho). Also, Idaho's wolf reintroduction plan has been tremendously successful as Idaho now has about 100 breeding pairs. In my county alone, we have nine breeding packs. That is nearly the number of packs, in one county, that we originally agreed upon for the entire state of Idaho.

So, why is it environmentalists still insist on continued protection of wolves when we have already more than surpassed their own original dreams, goals they set to define what would be a successful wolf reintroduction program? Because, enviros think of their personal pets, wolves and all animals as possessing human characteristics and traits (too much Disney Channel). Enviros live in a dream world, and thatís why they repeatedly waste taxpayer money with stupid crusades and law suits. Crap, the wolves are safe...let's move on folks.
Thank you rangerider45 for your very interesting piece about wolves. For me it seems one is either for or against predators - but nobody realized that you would be also against humans, because we are the most vicious of them all. And no, I don't have anything against my own kind and I am not ignorant about predators in general and no, I don't watch the Disney Channel. And what do you mean than Enviros are living in a dream world? In what catogory are you putting yourself? And thank God, wolves don't have any negative human characteristics and traits, we do share some, like pack mentality, caring for family and off-spring, take whatever it takes to survive. And mother nature isn't cruel - you are giving her a human characteristic, mother nature just is. We humans put label on everything, and we don't even realize it, because that's how we see the world.
And who are against wolves.... the farmers, because of their livestock, the hunters, because of the competition and what else is in their mind, I am not a hunter and don't have a hunter mentality, and no, I don't have anything against decent hunters, I eat meat and I try not to be a hypocrite.
Yes, the wolves are save for now, but for how long?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 2,879,825 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartel2 View Post
However, the subspecies actually introduced were canis lupus occidentalis (Mackenzie Valley Wolf) and canis lupus nubilus (Great plains wolf).

Mackenzie Valley Wolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are multiple sources for this across the internet.
I'd like to see an unbiased source for this claim. Something other than Wikipedia.

If you want to go the whole "It's not a native species!" route, then the elk shouldn't be there either. They were introduced to northern Idaho.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 10:30 AM
 
540 posts, read 1,063,055 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesster View Post
I'd like to see an unbiased source for this claim. Something other than Wikipedia.

If you want to go the whole "It's not a native species!" route, then the elk shouldn't be there either. They were introduced to northern Idaho.
That's simply not correct. The Rocky Mountain elk is native to Idaho and for that matter the mountain west. Some were reintroduced into Idaho after their populations were depleted, but unless you're defining non-native going back tens of thousands of years...



Lewis & Clark detail numerous elk along the Lochsah River in 1804. Elk are frequently depicted in Native-American cave art that predates this by eons.

And no, frankly, I don't want to go entirely on "it's not the native species" route (though only in part). I want to go with the fact that they're destroying the giant herds of elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and the like that we spent millions of dollars in conservation efforts to preserve and who created a very viable local food source and source of income for the area. I also take it from the angle of a rancher, who essentially had his livelihood threatened by introducing an animal that, after destroying the native ungulate population, will no doubt begin targeting the ranches that built this region. It definitely sounds like a great idea to make ranching non-viable and sell off the plots as trophy homes or plots for tract homes.

It used to be that with the suppression of income in the region that others could feed themselves by hunting elk. No we're saying a predatory species that isn't endangered, occupies mass treks of uninhabited land in Canada and Alaska, and that no doubt has a negative economic impact on the area takes precedence over a family's ability to care for itself.

I look at that concept and call it nonsense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 11:35 AM
 
1,543 posts, read 2,552,942 times
Reputation: 1097
Hunting wolves should NOT be allowed. I got into this debate from just scrolling down and seeing this. I want to say one of the things that makes Idaho beautiful is the scenery and all the wildlife that is in it! Honestly Idaho may be rich in natural resources, buts its greatest resource are its wildlife. We have one too many states in the lower 48 that wish it could match Idaho's beauty. But can't because too overdeveloped and populated.

I don't know about you guys. But sure their "may" be 100,000 wolves in the wild. But if we were to allow for every big game hunter to hunt the wolves. The wolves population would be decimated in less than one hunting season. And yes, wolves are vicious animals. But they are not highly developed as us humans. So they will act all cruel but let it be. As long as they don't attack humans there is nothing we should be doing to them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,469,319 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80 View Post
Hunting wolves should NOT be allowed. I got into this debate from just scrolling down and seeing this. I want to say one of the things that makes Idaho beautiful is the scenery and all the wildlife that is in it! Honestly Idaho may be rich in natural resources, buts its greatest resource are its wildlife. We have one too many states in the lower 48 that wish it could match Idaho's beauty. But can't because too overdeveloped and populated.

I don't know about you guys. But sure their "may" be 100,000 wolves in the wild. But if we were to allow for every big game hunter to hunt the wolves. The wolves population would be decimated in less than one hunting season. And yes, wolves are vicious animals. But they are not highly developed as us humans. So they will act all cruel but let it be. As long as they don't attack humans there is nothing we should be doing to them.
I doubt you know anything about wildlife management. Wolves have been hunted and trapped in Alaska and they have not been wiped out. They're in fact overpopulated in parts of Alaska despite hunting and trapping. Wolves are no different than other predators and need to be managed the same, including allowing hunting and trapping when there's too many. The emotional arguments against hunting them are simply discrediting the Endangered Species Act and making it so other states don't want to re-introduce extirpated wildlife. Wolves elsewhere, martens and catamounts in states like Vermont, lynx throughout the Northern states...no one wants to touch re-introducing them with a ten foot pole now after the fiasco caused by animal rights activists with the wolves in the West. The bunny huggers have done far more damage than good. You've saved a few wolves temporarily that are overpopulated, and scared other states from saving multiple species...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Idahodean
21 posts, read 34,520 times
Reputation: 56
Default Wolves

Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80 View Post
Hunting wolves should NOT be allowed. I got into this debate from just scrolling down and seeing this. I want to say one of the things that makes Idaho beautiful is the scenery and all the wildlife that is in it! Honestly Idaho may be rich in natural resources, buts its greatest resource are its wildlife. We have one too many states in the lower 48 that wish it could match Idaho's beauty. But can't because too overdeveloped and populated.

I don't know about you guys. But sure their "may" be 100,000 wolves in the wild. But if we were to allow for every big game hunter to hunt the wolves. The wolves population would be decimated in less than one hunting season. And yes, wolves are vicious animals. But they are not highly developed as us humans. So they will act all cruel but let it be. As long as they don't attack humans there is nothing we should be doing to them.
The wolves were already hunted for one season in 2009 and the wolf harvest limit of 220 set by Idaho Department of Fish & Game wasn't even met. So much for your prediction of "The wolves population being decimated in less than one hunting season."

Also, when the environmentalists began to arrive in Idaho, during the environmental movement of the 1980s, Idaho already possessed an abundance of wildlife, including wolves, and had the largest preserved wilderness areas within the lower 48 states. We conservationists had managed it just fine prior to the environmentalists arrival. The failed liberal experiment in California and Idaho's great outdoors is what brought most of you to Idaho in the first place. Now you're working your tails off to make Idaho just like California. You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

BTW...
  • Conservationists are those who want to utilize and preserve our natural resources using the best natural science available.
  • Environmenatlists are those who want to lock up our natural resources using the best political science available.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2011, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Denver
1,788 posts, read 1,871,319 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMartel2 View Post
That's simply not correct. The Rocky Mountain elk is native to Idaho and for that matter the mountain west. Some were reintroduced into Idaho after their populations were depleted, but unless you're defining non-native going back tens of thousands of years...



Lewis & Clark detail numerous elk along the Lochsah River in 1804. Elk are frequently depicted in Native-American cave art that predates this by eons.

And no, frankly, I don't want to go entirely on "it's not the native species" route (though only in part). I want to go with the fact that they're destroying the giant herds of elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and the like that we spent millions of dollars in conservation efforts to preserve and who created a very viable local food source and source of income for the area. I also take it from the angle of a rancher, who essentially had his livelihood threatened by introducing an animal that, after destroying the native ungulate population, will no doubt begin targeting the ranches that built this region. It definitely sounds like a great idea to make ranching non-viable and sell off the plots as trophy homes or plots for tract homes.

It used to be that with the suppression of income in the region that others could feed themselves by hunting elk. No we're saying a predatory species that isn't endangered, occupies mass treks of uninhabited land in Canada and Alaska, and that no doubt has a negative economic impact on the area takes precedence over a family's ability to care for itself.

I look at that concept and call it nonsense.
Can anybody write without pushing an agenda? That picture makes it look like elk are just barely hanging in there. No elk in the entirety of the Colorado front range? C'mon. I'd say that elk are doing fine....in an area about twice as large as that depicted.

I am opposed to introducing wolves almost anywhere by the way.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2011, 12:10 AM
 
291 posts, read 555,925 times
Reputation: 115
You know they were eliminated back in the old days for a reason. They are one bad animal and will continue to be a thorn in rural inhabitants lives unless they are kept in check. And hunting is the most economically feasible way to do it.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top