U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
 [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 02-20-2015, 06:12 PM
 
1,690 posts, read 3,338,978 times
Reputation: 1033

Advertisements




Gray Wolf Officially Back on Endangered and Threatened List
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2015, 07:17 AM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,539 posts, read 5,072,680 times
Reputation: 6538
Can't have science determine how to best manage cute, furry animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2015, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Duluth, MN
515 posts, read 931,355 times
Reputation: 838
They've been back on the list since late December, actually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2015, 05:00 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,539 posts, read 5,072,680 times
Reputation: 6538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenaroundabit View Post
They've been back on the list since late December, actually.
Not sure why the timing is relevant anyway, but it was the court ruling was in December. The rule putting them back on the list was just published Friday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2015, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Duluth, MN
515 posts, read 931,355 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Not sure why the timing is relevant anyway, but it was the court ruling was in December. The rule putting them back on the list was just published Friday.
I thought it relevant to mention because the first line of the story seems misleading.

It states "Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region are protected by federal law once more...," as if that protected status came with the publishing of the rule on Friday. It didn't. Endangered Species Act protections were in effect as soon as the judge made her decision on (I believe) December 19th.

I should have clarified that.

Last edited by Beenaroundabit; 02-22-2015 at 07:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2015, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 6,853,394 times
Reputation: 37347
Here is Judge Howell's order, if anyone wishes to actually read it before complaining about it:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0186-52

Personally, I have little use for the hunting of apex predators.

Populations of apex predators are best controlled by limited their prey species - in the case of the wolf in Minnesota, that is primarily deer. But more to the point, deer are a far greater problem in Minnesota than wolves.

1 in 88 Minnesota driver's will hit a deer this year. The average collision claim per deer-vehicle collision? $3,888. Multiple that times 37,549 (State Farm's estimate of the number of 2014 deer-vehicle collisions in the state) and you get a cool $146 million. That doesn't include other costs, such as lost productivity by those with damaged vehicles, injuries to drivers. It also doesn't account for deaths - which average about 6 per year in Minnesota due to collisions with deer. And the reality is that in a state full of deep ditches (the plowed snow has to go somewhere) and heavy brush and tree cover everywhere (even farmland has plots of trees, especially around streams) and the tendency of deer to suddenly bolt out of that cover and into the road, the more deer, the more deer-vehicle collisions will occur.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_26539204/your-odds-hitting-deer-road-1-88-state
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/deer-vehicle-safety/Pages/default.aspx

What's the point? The point is that more wolves means fewer deer. Happily, the state's deer population has been falling of late. This is not a problem - the population is vibrant and healthy and its numbers far exceed the viability threshold. The species is not remotely threatened. The population is kept higher than necessary to cater to hunters. And wolves check the population, at least within their range, better than hunters - by targetting the sick, weak, old and young, rather than healthy adults (as opposed to hunters, who will target large bucks, the cream of the gene pool - they get large in part because they're genetically-superior specimens, and so should be left to keep contributing to the gene pool, rather than be removed from it).

It's unfortunate that wolves take stock, but farmers should build fences. That's called insurance - which is what I have, so that when I hit deer with my car, I'm covered. Unlike with farmers who lose sheep to predation because they didn't secure their flock, there's no state program running to compensate me when I hit a deer.

I'll take the wolves, thanks. Their net benefit far exceeds their net cost.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > Minnesota
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