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.
Maybe you should also really consider where it is you are moving. You're moving to a state that is approximately 70% federal land. This is a state with some of the largest and most pristine wilderness in the US and perhaps the world. This is a state that respects its wild nature - and everything contained therein.
You also make a stink about natural processes and wolves no longer being part of an ecosystem and human management of that ecosystem, while at the same moaning about elk and other species that are also human managed that aren't even native to Idaho and wouldn't be here without human introduction, and then moan more about wolves posing a threat to your lifestyle here.
My god. It's all pretty nonsensical. Also, odds are you'll never see or experience a wolf in your lifetime. More importantly, we as humans better well begin to realize what endangered species really mean, especially species that are indicator species of other problems.
And, if you think wolves are a problem, wait until sage grouse get listed in the next few years. While that will probably have little effect on those up in NID, it will completely change the character of the Western United States. Completely.
As it's been said, if you don't like it go move to somewhere without potentially dangerous wildlife.
I didn't complain about Elk.
Sorry that I do not care about endangered species. The Earth has witnessed the extinction of 99% of all species that have ever existed. I am against any human involvement in the natural order(other than humans own involvement in a species natural involvement in the Earths ecosystem - which might mean killing off threats). Be it wolf or elk or whatever - even humanity will one day become extinct.
By what right do we have to ensure that no species go extinct? Is it because any species that is endangerd is endangered because of human activity? I am sure many species throughout Earth's long history have gone extinct due to another species existence - why work so hard to maintain an un-natural order?
I will move to Idaho regardless. I understand that dealing with God-sized egos will be part of the territory.
You are right about one thing, I likely will never see a wolf - just like I have never seen a mountain lion in 26 years of living in California. They exist, I know, but they are not a bother.
I do think you underestimate the wolves ability to breed. In another 10 years, government will likely be trying to figure out ways to reduce the wolf population. Such is the law of unintended consequences.
PS HUMAN INVOLVMENT is part of the natural order! Jesus. Why does human activity have to be seen as distruptive to the natural order? WE ARE PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER!!!!!!!! That is the kind of attitude that drives me crazy. We have a right to exist...in any ecosystem we can adapt too.
Sure, but what makes you special? I don't like the idea of humans forcing other humans to endure the eradication of other other animal species. You don't want to get eaten don't go to those places, stay all cudged up with those humans you love so much.
Honestly, the primary reason I carry a weapon is human animals. Well ok, and feral pigs if I'm in a state that has them. Disclaimer I am not in Idaho but am from Michigan which has similar issues and debates.
Then build a wildlife preserve - so you don't have to ensure the eradictation of other species.
I also carry a weapon primarily due to the human animal - which is the most dangerous animal on Earth...
The reason for wolves attacking dogs and eating them is because they regard them similar to wolves...therefore strange wolves are attacked and driven off their property. So they're just doing what their instincts tell them. Does that make it any worse or better? Not really. Just that it's a matter of fact thing to them.
Do I care about wolves? No. The fact is that wolves do not attack people similar to what mountain lions do...the lions attack the most compared to wolves.
Ya know SacTown, if you'd been here instead of California, you would have had an opportunity to air your views in all the multiple public hearings held around the state prior to re-introduction of wolves. You'll probably be disappointed to hear that wolves enjoyed wide and majority support at every single meeting held in Idaho.
No doubt. It's not the wolves I have a problem with. It's the anti-human sentiment.
As long as people have the right to eradicate threatening wild animals, it's all good.
Misty is right though - I'm causing a big ruckus over nothing. Mainly I'm just annoyed at certain views and being as opinionated as I am, I can't keep my mouth(fingers) shut.
Apparently you didn't see the point behind the meaning. What does calling someone "Bubba" mean to you? Have another beer, Bubba. I know exactly what it means.
My own brother got that nickname during the 11 months we lived in Texas. Some 3 yr old called him Bubba(he was a newborn) and it stuck ever since.
Is he an inbred yokle that drinks beer and acts like a dumb hillybilly red neck? No, he is a police officer in a town on along the northern coast of California.
My point was, don't insinuate that someone is an inbred hillbilly redneck ingnoramous. That's a personal attack.
I have a question regarding the article posted by Mistyriverranch, FTA: bolding mine "While the predators have surely had a hand in thinning herds, Rachael said, many people have ignored a number of other significant factors, including the state's history of wildfire suppression. Fewer wildfires have resulted in denser forests, inhibiting the ability of elk and deer to find food."
In a state where 70% of it is federally controlled, what is the reason for suppression? Doesn't suppression leave the forest floor a tinderbox and the populace in jeopardy from a devastating fire? Is this a problem for all of you?
Ok. I have no idea what mentality that would be. I don't live by labeling people I don't agree with. Otherwise, I'd be out here calling people Latte Liberals or Pinko Commies or any other right-wing insults.
I'm not a right-winger, so I try not to label people as I hate it when I am labeled.
Sometimes my angst with any type of regulation or government program can be my downfall, but what kind of Anarchist would I be if I didn't remain consistent in my irrational-seeming behavior? There is always a method to my madness.
My fierce individualism was born out of the socialist failed state of California ya know. Id' hate to see Idaho go down the same road, but I admit I have made a mountain out of this mole hill and hopefully I can slowly back out of this conversation with what little grace I have left.
Hence DOMESTIC. How many more hours are spent around DOMESTIC animals? Wolves are not domestic and threaten human livlihoods, but in your perverted view of the world - humans are the problem.
Ok, how about this: you are far more likley to be attacked by a deer than by a wolf. And mosquitoes are even mmore deadly than deer.
Quote:
I suppose we should institute population control on ourselves, since we are obviously disturbing the natural habitat of indigenous creatures. Oh wait, these wolves were never part of the wild before some dumbass environmentalists convinced some equally dumbass politicians to "introduce" them.
Sorry, but I live in live in the real world.
Really? Because what I am hearing from you about wolves is straight out of some fairy tale. Idaho is not crawling with wolves; I've never seen one, or a grizzly bear. Saw a black bear in the woods once and he and I looked at one another in horror and mutually ran away. Wild animals are not something to be terrified of as long as you use basic common sense.
Many of the casualties to wildlife (in terms of livestock and domestic animals) are caused by stupid humans who think they can put out suet feeders, dog food, salt licks, and let their animals roam free without suffering any repercussions or habituating the wildlife to humans. Unfortunately, when this happens, the wild animal, not the human, gets shot.
People who can't handle living in an area with wild animals should live where there aren't any.
I have a question regarding the article posted by Mistyriverranch, FTA: bolding mine "While the predators have surely had a hand in thinning herds, Rachael said, many people have ignored a number of other significant factors, including the state's history of wildfire suppression. Fewer wildfires have resulted in denser forests, inhibiting the ability of elk and deer to find food."
In a state where 70% of it is federally controlled, what is the reason for suppression? Doesn't suppression leave the forest floor a tinderbox and the populace in jeopardy from a devastating fire? Is this a problem for all of you?
Yes, this is a problem. The reason there aren't more controlled burns is because it is unpopular with the public and many people have athsma or respiratory problems. Also, when people live in a forest with trees coming right up to their house, it's hard to do a controlled burn without risking property damage.
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 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.
Id' hate to see Idaho go down the same road, but I admit I have made a mountain out of this mole hill and hopefully I can slowly back out of this conversation with what little grace I have left. 
