US removes gray wolf from endangered list

May 04, 2011 by Kerry Sheridan
This photo courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service shows the Gray wolf (Canis lupus). The US government said Wednesday it is formally removing about 1,300 gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region from the endangered species list, acting on the orders of Congress last month.

The US government said Wednesday it is formally removing about 1,300 gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain region from the endangered species list, capping a legal battle that has dragged on for years.

The Interior Department will also seek to remove thousands more wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered list because they have recovered to "healthy levels," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters.

The issuing of the final rule follows an order of Congress last month and means that states will manage the animals and that hunting will resume in Idaho, Montana, and parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington.

Gray wolves in Wyoming will remain under federal protection until that state develops a suitable management plan, he said.

"The recovery of gray wolves in the US is a tremendous success story of the Endangered Species Act," said Salazar.

"From a biological perspective, gray wolves have recovered. It is now time to return their management to states that are prepared to ensure the long-term health of the species."

The move ends a long political and legal battle that dates back to 2008 when the Fish and Wildlife Service took steps to remove wolves from the endangered list, though lawsuits brought by environmental groups kept the change from taking effect.

Last month, an annex was added to the highly disputed budget bill, removing the wolves from federal protection, marking the first time Congress has ever been involved in the removing of an animal from the endangered species list.

The bill was approved and environmentalists had to admit defeat after years of fighting in court to preserve the endangered status of the gray wolves.

Wolves had all but disappeared in the mainland United States by 1974. In 1995, 66 gray wolves from Canada were released in Idaho and near Yellowstone national park in hopes that their numbers would multiply.

Their protected status has allowed them to reach a total population of 1,651 across the entire Rocky Mountain region, including Wyoming, which is not affected by Wednesday's decision, said the Sierra Club.

Those who oppose the move to delist the wolves say the population is genetically isolated and disconnected, and urge more time to allow their numbers to grow.

But ranchers say wolves are a nuisance to livestock and could even threaten humans if their population grows too large.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said it would accept public comments on its proposal to delist as many as 4,100 wolves in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin before acting further, likely by the end of the year.

It also considering a proposal to delist another type of wolf, known as the eastern timber wolf.

"To be sure, not everyone will be satisfied with today's announcement," Salazar said.

"Wolves have long been a highly charged issue but let us not lose sight of the fact that these delistings are possible because the species has recovered in these areas."

Explore further: Sheep flock to Eiffel Tower as French farmers cry wolf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Feds want wolves taken off endangered list

Feb 02, 2006

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was expected to issue a proposal Thursday removing gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the Endangered Species List.

Wolves might be cut from endangered list

Mar 16, 2006

A federal official released details of a plan Thursday to remove gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan from federal Endangered Species protection.

Wolf negotiations resume, but no consensus

Dec 03, 2010

(AP) -- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and governors from three Northern Rockies states resumed negotiations Thursday to remove the region's wolves from the endangered list, but reached no conclusions.

Montana governor says wolf deal dead

Dec 07, 2010

(AP) -- Negotiations to remove Northern Rockies gray wolves from the endangered species list hit an impasse Monday, after Wyoming and Idaho refused to go along with an Interior Department proposal on the issue, Montana Gov. ...

Lawsuits over wolf hunting filed in Mont., Wyo.

Jun 02, 2009

(AP) -- A pair of federal judges will decide which states in the Northern Rockies have enough gray wolves to allow public hunting, as the bitter debate over the region's wolves heads to courts in Wyoming and Montana.

Recommended for you

How can we avoid kelp beds turning into barren grounds?

7 hours ago

Urchins are marine invertebrates that mould the biological richness of marine grounds. However, an excessive proliferation of urchins may also have severe ecological consequences on marine grounds as they ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jmcanoy1860
2.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
In 2005, Salazar voted against increasing fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. In the same year, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies.[8]Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[9

Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.

In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the United States Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.[10]

Copied from Wiki. This guy is just another conservative who refuses to accept science. No wonder he took the wolves off of the endangered species list. 1500 is not a good breeding population.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
"But ranchers say wolves are a nuisance to livestock and could even threaten humans if their population grows too large."

"But Farmers say wolves are a godsend for hunting the large herbivores that eat their crops."

-i.e. Trade offs. Saying the negatives and not posting the positives is a bastardization of reality to meet an agenda. 1500, lol, they'll be back on the list soon enough.

J-n
4.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
If the republicans have their way they won't be on the endangered species list, they'll be on the "They are only alive in Zoo's" list, eventually to move to the "Extinct" list.

They had their time as a protected species, they continued to annoy the republicans, so they must be punished with annihilation.

That's what you get for just trying to exist!
Bigblumpkin36
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
Any of you guys from Montana i will shot to kill.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
You people haven't a clue...

How about you take them in your State if you want them so bad. They've decimated the Moose, and Elk populations in mine. Not to mention all the livestock.

They are vermin, and there is a reason we got rid of them. We compete directly with them for food. Only human beings would be stupid enough to re-introduce a species they compete with. Any "natural" predator would wash their hands and simply say good riddance.

Besides the GRAY wolf was never in my State until they were put here...
J-n
4.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
Here in wisconsin, we have not noticed a drop in Deer populations or livestock populations due to wolves.

Do you have moose or elk hunting in your state? If so, why do they allow hunting? To reduce the population to a sustainable level? Why not stop sport hunting (most hunters do not hunt for food) and allow the wolves to keep the population in check naturally?

Do you advocate that India, and other nations do that with their Tiger populations? How about Florida and the Jaguar Population?

Birds eat crops, should we kill all birds?

What percentage of all cattle are killed by wolves? I would bet that it's less than 1%.
emsquared
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
They are vermin...

Since you didn't say what state you're from, I can't speak specifically to that situation, but I can tell you that, like all apex predators, the grey wolf is a keystone species in it's native habitats. I'll leave it to you and google to figure out what happens when you lose a keystone species in an ecosystem.

And I'd be willing to bet that your area HAD an apex predator that HAS been all but erradicated, even if it wasn't the grey wolf. There have been studies at Yellow Stone that show what happens when you lose the apex predator, outbreaks of disease, greater instability of populations, massive defoliation, very bad things for any ecosystem you actually care about preserving.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
They are vermin...

Since you didn't say what state you're from, I can't speak specifically to that situation, but I can tell you that, like all apex predators, the grey wolf is a keystone species in it's native habitats. I'll leave it to you and google to figure out what happens when you lose a keystone species in an ecosystem.


NOTHING. We did fine without the wolf for years and years. Now that they're back everything has turned to hell. That's what your "keystone" species is worth.

As to hunting Elk and Moose yes we do have hunting of them, and I see no reason to have the wolf here so sportsmen can't enjoy themselves. Sorry I don't value the wolf, you do. If you do I suggest YOU take it and leave us that don't want it or value it alone.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011
I doubt your area of the world NEVER had an apex predator, It was likely either the wolf (dispite your claims to the opposite) the cougar, or the leopard.

In an area without natural control over ruminant populations grass and forest land becomes stripped of food, the ruminant population soars, disease and starvation kills most of them, and the natural areas become further degraded, over time resulting in massive losses in Elk and Moose populations.

CWD in Deer populations is a direct result of not having a true apex predator to keep populations within naturally sustainable conditions.

Again I ask, do you have any idea what sort of % of the Cattle population is killed by wolf?
emsquared
3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
NOTHING. We did fine without the wolf for years and years. Now that they're back everything has turned to hell. That's what your "keystone" species is worth.

You freaking hick, go educate yourself. This stuff is not diffcult to reason out and is certainly no secret.
http://www.livesc...pse.html
One can only hope a hunting accident prevents you from reproducing.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2011
I doubt your area of the world NEVER had an apex predator, It was likely either the wolf (dispite your claims to the opposite)


It was the wolf, I never said that. I said it wasn't the GRAY wolf, learn to read.

In an area without natural control over ruminant populations grass and forest land becomes stripped of food, the ruminant population soars, disease and starvation kills most of them, and the natural areas become further degraded, over time resulting in massive losses in Elk and Moose populations.]


They were controlled, we hunted them...we had NO issues.

Again I ask, do you have any idea what sort of % of the Cattle population is killed by wolf?


I don't care what percentage it is, if it's 1% it's too much I don't care to pay cattlemen for loss of stock out of tax money for a "problem" we created by "re-introducing" the species.

If you want it in your state put it up for a vote...you can have ours because we don't.
epsi00
3.9 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
It's simply ignorance to think that the wolf is not needed to control other wild animals ( deer, elk...). Wolves do not eat people for breakfast. But the wolves do not vote.
Farmers are compensated for every head of cattle that is killed by a wolf. I don't see why we are still talking about this issue, it is a non-issue.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
NOTHING. We did fine without the wolf for years and years. Now that they're back everything has turned to hell. That's what your "keystone" species is worth.

You freaking hick, go educate yourself. This stuff is not diffcult to reason out and is certainly no secret.
http://www.livesc...pse.html
One can only hope a hunting accident prevents you from reproducing.


I live here, you don't. We never had any problems BEFORE the "re-introduction" of a non-indigenous species...

We controlled the populations of Elk, Moose, and Deer just fine...
J-n
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
I can tell you the stats are much closer to .1% than 1%.

Here is an idea, stop paying the 'cattlemen' for the loss. Do you compensate them for losses due to disease? Weather? Etc?

What i don't understand is why you stand for your state paying these 'cattlemen' welfare to compensate for their "loss" due to a natural occurrence. Maybe they should just build better fences?
emsquared
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
learn to read.

Re-read my OP, you freaking yokel, I said explicitly I couldn't speak to your area'ssituation, only to the role of apex predators in an ecosystem, which you explicity took personally when I included language to explicitly avoid that, you said I was wrong. I expicitly proved how you were wrong and that you're an idiot. Now, take your own advice and learn to read, you back-water hick.

What geographic sector of the US do you live in, btw?? Please indulge us, because I'm pretty sure that anywhere, where moose are native, gray wolf are native.
http://en.wikiped...ray_wolf
... blithering idiot.
epsi00
4.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
I live here, you don't. We never had any problems BEFORE the "re-introduction" of a non-indigenous species...


really? so you came to america before the wolf?

.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
I live here, you don't.


You've still not mentioned WHERE you live. I have, and i DO live in one of the states mentioned in the article.

For all we know you live in Germany. We cannot verify the validity of ANYTHING you are saying in regards to what the situation is, in your state.

Sorry if we refuse to take your word for it.

We controlled the populations of Elk, Moose, and Deer just fine...


Rare is a state that has not had Disease issues with their ruminant populations as of late. Maybe it's statements like this that are the reason you are not willing to let us know what state in specific you are speaking of.
jmcanoy1860
3.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011


They are vermin


All 1500 of them? Apex predators result in healthier prey populations overall with the slightly lower numbers being the sick ones which are not used as trophies.

That brings up a nice point. Do you use deer primarily as a food source or are the pesky "vermin" just ruining your good time? If you do in fact eat the deer then you will prefer the better meat quality due to sick deer culling. Either way you are ill informed.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
I can tell you the stats are much closer to .1% than 1%.


As may be. 1 animal is too many for me.

q]Here is an idea, stop paying the 'cattlemen' for the loss. Do you compensate them for losses due to disease? Weather? Etc?

Oh OK let's stop government health insurance of people who get injured due to disease, weather...sound good?

See the difference here is that we're compensating them for some idiotic federal mandate to introduce a species that's never been in this area, and that's perfectly preventable.

Maybe they should just build better fences?


LMFAO...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...yeah you have no freaking idea what you're talking about. That's PAINFULLY obvious now.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
Rare is a state that has not had Disease issues with their ruminant populations as of late. Maybe it's statements like this that are the reason you are not willing to let us know what state in specific you are speaking of.


The wolves don't just kill the sick ones, I've been on a ranch that looked like it was a slaughter house. Since this is how ALL wolves behave the state I'm from is irrelevant. Besides I've seen one poster here in particular use personal information against people who post here. You're not getting anything like that out of me EVER.

As to you people calling this species endangered...they are ALL over Canada and Asia. They are listed as "least concerned" when taken in a global context. They are not in the slightest bit endangered.
J-n
4.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
The difference between protecting the health of people and protecting the bottom line of 'cattlemen' should be pretty obvious to anyone who has any care for their fellow man. If you are so callus to actually think for a moment that those two ideas are even anywhere near congruent, you should seek a spiritual advisor, or at least blame your parents for the inept job they did in bringing you up.

The idea of a fence may not need to be a literal fence, but if they're having problems with predation, maybe they should not let their stock become prey?

Whether you or those in your state understand the consequences of not having a balance ecosystem, does not change the FACT that your state is actually BETTER OFF having the wolves there.

With the several direct questions in regards to WHAT state you are speaking about, and your obvious refusal to provide this information, I can only deduce that your whole arguement stems from a lie, and it is you who really does not know what is going on.
emsquared
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
the state I'm from is irrelevant

The geographic area you're from is very relevant as you are making unsubstantiated claims about it. You know you're wrong and that's why you won't say what area you're from.

You want to know what's wrong with your Elk and Moose populations? Did you ever consider fragmentation and loss of habitat due to human endeavors (i.e. housing, industry, roads, farming, lumber harvesting, etc.)? Man, now I see why people are so angry on this site. There's idiots like you running around, mystic.
J-n
4.3 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
A slaughterhouse you say? Here are some numbers from one state that has re-introduced the grey wolf.

Here in Wisconsin, in 2010 wolves killed 47 calves, 16 adult cows. That is a total of 63 cows out of 1.2 million (just dairy, not even counting beef cattle) here in Wisconsin, far less than even .1%

We recently had 200 cows die due to some bad potatoes. That's more than 2x the amount that were killed by wolves.

Even if there were 10,000 kills of cows by wolves it still wouldn't even come close to denting the profits of those 'cattlemen' who here in the usa own approximately 100m head of cattle.

oh yes, and these poor 'cattlemen' of which you speak are mostly large corporations, I don't feel bad about their bottom line. I don't like the idea of an entire ecosystem being brought to disease, genome degradation, and famine because some 'cattlemen' can't stand the thought of a wolf killing a few of their cows.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
You want to know what's wrong with your Elk and Moose populations? Did you ever consider fragmentation and loss of habitat due to human endeavors (i.e. housing, industry, roads, farming, lumber harvesting, etc.)?


We had no problems with the Elk, Moose, and (to a lesser extent) Deer population BEFORE the introduction of the wolves. Once they started to leave the park we had nothing but problems. It has jack s*** to do with anything but the wolves.

J-n (it figures you're from Wisconsin btw) I could care less about the cattleman's bottom line, I don't want to pay him for his losses. What about that don't you get?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to the "health of people". We've never had any differences in the health of the herds OR the people irrespective if the wolves were here or not. That's at least one thing I can't blame on them because it hasn't changed at all...
elhbev
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
So they've "decimated" populations. Game populations have been well out of control for quite awhile now, to the point where if there weren't enough hunter kills, the government had to institute culls.

I'd also like to see all the figures on this "decimation" of ranch animals. I'm more than willing to bet it's so massively overstated to be absurd. Looks like Wisconsin wolves did less than 0.1%.

And finally the last point. What IS the purpose of sport hunting anyway? I understand the programs are still around because the states make good money from it, but barring that, why do people actually hunt for sport? I'd just like to know why pleasurably taking a life, even if it is just an animal, still exists.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet May 05, 2011
The 'Gay' Wolf is still endangered...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
The 'Gay' Wolf is still endangered...


No they aren't there are huge populations all around the world

http://www.defend...gray.php

Estimates are at 200,000 they are in no way shape or form endangered anyone who's done more than 5 minutes of actual research on the subject knows this...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
So they've "decimated" populations. Game populations have been well out of control for quite awhile now, to the point where if there weren't enough hunter kills, the government had to institute culls.


IOW we (humans) managed the herds well...thanks for re-stating my point.

And finally the last point. What IS the purpose of sport hunting anyway? I understand the programs are still around because the states make good money from it, but barring that, why do people actually hunt for sport? I'd just like to know why pleasurably taking a life, even if it is just an animal, still exists.


So does everyone on Earth have to agree with you? Is your point of view the only correct one? Do you allow for differences of opinion in your narrow, self righteous, sanctimonious, and bigoted worldview?

Oh and have you ever eaten a steak? A hamburger? A chicken? Fish? Where do you suppose that meat came from?
J-n
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
J-n (it figures you're from Wisconsin btw) I could care less about the cattleman's bottom line, I don't want to pay him for his losses. What about that don't you get?


If you don't want to pay the 'cattlemen' for their losses... then don't.. it's very simple. What I don't understand is why you insist that the wolves in 'your state' have to suffer because of that desire? Why not just stop the payments to the 'cattlemen'?

If there is something you wish to express about my personality, based on the state that i live in, i do invite you to express these thoughts. I'd love to see what someone like you could possibly come up with.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet May 05, 2011
RKS:
The 'Gay' Wolf is still endangered...

Modernmystic:
No they aren't there are huge populations all around the world

RKS:
But gay wolves leave no offspring...

...and I'm surprised that there are such huge populations ~ I thought gay animals were fairly rare...(apart from gay humans)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
If you don't want to pay the 'cattlemen' for their losses... then don't.. it's very simple.


Stop paying YOUR taxes and see what happens. It's not "very simple" believe me.

If there is something you wish to express about my personality, based on the state that i live in, i do invite you to express these thoughts. I'd love to see what someone like you could possibly come up with.


Not your personality, but it is my unfortunate experience running into quite a few hunters from Wisconsin in my state that...well...nearly all were idiots. Two of them even shot a "Moose" complete with horse shoes (they were sure proud of it)...my Dad and I still laugh about that one.
archan
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
Whats the point of arguing with somebody like Mystic when they aren't going to listen regardless of what statistical evidence one can provide? It's a waste of time.

The fact of the matter is that hunting an animal for food and hunting an animal only for sport are two completely different things. These wolves are native to the area, that's what it's called a RE-introduction, claiming they were never in your state is foolish unless you provide proof for this claim, especially since they are native to almost all of North America. The wolf population is directly affected by human expansion, as is the population of all animals, both predatory and game.

Please, provide the actual numbers for the decline in game animals as a result of wolves doing what they do to survive. Labeling them vermin for hunting how they've always hunted and surviving is silly. Until actual evidence is cited your argument has no validity.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Whats the point of arguing with somebody like Mystic when they aren't going to listen regardless of what statistical evidence one can provide? It's a waste of time.


Which statistics? That there are 200,000 Gray wolves on the planet and therefore they are not endangered and merit being taken off any such list?

Or did you mean I'm not going to listen to mealy mouthed pretentious BS from people who think it's a good idea to place predatory species in someone else's back yard? Because if THAT'S what you meant...you're right I'm never going to be swayed from my position based on emotional pleading.

These wolves are native to the area, that's what it's called a RE-introduction, claiming they were never in your state is foolish unless you provide proof for this claim, especially since they are native to almost all of North America.


Your part of it too then I assume? If so you take em, we don't want them...
Javinator
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Not your personality, but it is my unfortunate experience running into quite a few hunters from Wisconsin in my state that...well...nearly all were idiots.


That has nothing to do with J-n at all. The fact that you used that kind of ad hominem makes you look like an idiot.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Not your personality, but it is my unfortunate experience running into quite a few hunters from Wisconsin in my state that...well...nearly all were idiots.


That has nothing to do with J-n at all. The fact that you used that kind of ad hominem makes you look like an idiot.


Well as long as I only look like one...

Sorry I call them like I see them. I get to meet people from all over the States (all over the world actually), and honestly a lot people from Wisconsin are seriously lacking in common sense. I have friends who had Wisconsin hunters shoot over them while hunting...they're lucky they weren't prosecuted.

On Edit: Some other fun stories from Wisconsinites are;

"Do you still have trouble with the Indians?"
"Do horses eat meat?"
"How much do cattle guards make?"

It's honestly a running joke out here and I wouldn't have thought to mention it otherwise...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2011
.
Mesafina
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Modernmystic, your argument that we should wipe out apex preditors because they compete with us has some extremely obvious logical flaws. For instance, stupid conservatives like yourself compete with me for food, money, oxygen, etc. I don't advocate the murder of conservatives because of that. Now go ahead and start spewing your "humans are special therefor your argument is invalid, you human hating liberal commie" bull like I know you will.

I chronically give Modernmystic a 1 because he is chronically retarded.
Mesafina
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
I feel I should clarify that while my last post made it sound like I was calling all conservatives stupid, I was just calling MM stupid. I actually know plenty of intelligent, rational conservatives, as well as many idiotic liberals, and vice versa. It was not meant to be a partisan jab. It was very much meant to be a personal jab at MM's rational capabilities.
Javinator
4 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Sorry I call them like I see them.


No, you're calling them like you want to see them.

You're making assumptions about someone based on where that person lives based on some anecdotal evidence about some other people you've run into.

It's a joke.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Mesafina I'm not offended at all at your comments because your opinion means nothing to me. I do take issue at being called a conservative though...so just FTA for everyone else here I'm not.

Javinator, I'm sorry that I'm not a perfect human being. I never will be. I also will probably never meet someone from Wisconsin with a blank slate in my mind. That's just being human. Most people, if they're being honest, do make generalizations about other people. It's easy to tell within the first two minutes of a conversation if I've misjudged someone or not no matter where they're from and I self-correct.

That just hasn't been the case with J-n...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Also FTR I never made the argument we should wipe out apex predators, but I do make the argument that if they can't compete with us it's perfectly rational, reasonable, and NATURAL to allow them to go extinct.

If some people want to protect them, buy land and set them on it, or set aside tracts of public land for this I could care less. Just don't assume everyone agrees with your values and "should" believe like you do.
Mesafina
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
MM so what are your non-conservative views?
Mesafina
3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Also you very much are making the argument that we should wipe out apex preditors. By competing with them and allowing them to go extinct without taking any efforts to prevent it, we are wiping them out. Playing word games like some kind of politician, it's a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

As far as the people "agreeing" with your values or not, there are some values we as a culture hold people to regardless of if they agree. For example, we force people to accept the value that murder is wrong, as it is necessary for a healthy society. I would argue that preservation of environmental stability on which we all depend falls into that category of things where the societal need trumps individual liberty.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
MM so what are your non-conservative views?


We should de-criminalize drugs
We should have an open immigration policy
We should cut defense spending
We should have a less aggressive foreign policy
We should not have corporate welfare programs
I agree with net neutrality
I don't think creationism should be taught in schools
I don't have any kind of issue with gay marriage
I think abortion should remain legal with qualifiers

I dunno, I could go on...I'm not even sure why I responded because all I'm going to get back is bile and venom...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
Also you very much are making the argument that we should wipe out apex preditors. By competing with them and allowing them to go extinct without taking any efforts to prevent it, we are wiping them out.


Like every other animal on the planet does...I suppose. It's not intentional though.

As far as the people "agreeing" with your values or not, there are some values we as a culture hold people to regardless of if they agree.


This isn't one of them.
Javinator
3.5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Javinator, I'm sorry that I'm not a perfect human being.


You don't have to be a perfect human not to use ad hominem attacks in an argument.
Mesafina
not rated yet May 05, 2011
I am not going to chew you out for responding to my query. I was curious what your non-conservative views are and you responded and I commend you for that.

But I will chew you out for what I consider to be ill thought out views on how ecosystems function and the impacts that humans have on ecosystems by destroying apex predators. I think your views are very naive, but that's just me.

As far as the "this isn't one of them" comment, can you please explain why ecosystem stability and environmental health, something which affects the lives of every person on the planet, should not be a value we are all expected to respect?
emsquared
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
Yeah, I'd like to apologize for the ad hominems above... this is a forum where I come to learn, and inform when I can, I'll have to try harder to avoid such interactions in the future.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
Javinator, I'm sorry that I'm not a perfect human being.


You don't have to be a perfect human not to use ad hominem attacks in an argument.


No you don't but that's one of my flaws as a non-perfect human...feel free to strive for perfection in that area of your life if you want to. As for me I'll continue to be honest albeit imperfect.
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
No you don't but that's one of my flaws as a non-perfect human...feel free to strive for perfection in that area of your life if you want to. As for me I'll continue to be honest albeit imperfect.


And I'll carry on not being perfect, but will try not to purposely use logical fallacies as my arguments.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
So, you're trying to say that because you can't dispute the numbers i've put forth, that i must be lacking in common sense?

By saying "Don't pay the 'cattlemen'" I am suggesting that instead of changing the status of wolves and encouraging their being killed, you could advocate for the mystery state you are in to stop compensating your 'cattlemen' for their losses to nature. I apologize for not being as clear before, i had thought it pretty obvious from what i had said.

As for your attempt at insulting me by insulting people from my state, I do not doubt that there are some silly folks from Wisconsin. Your comments reveal more about yourself than you think, as were you to actually know anything about Wisconsin, you would understand that saying we don't possess "Common Sense" is like saying it never rains in Portland.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
As far as the "this isn't one of them" comment, can you please explain why ecosystem stability and environmental health, something which affects the lives of every person on the planet, should not be a value we are all expected to respect?


I don't accept the premise of your argument.

Imagine if someone said to you "In order to have environmental health we all agree that we need more plutonium in our water".

I don't agree that we need apex predators other than ourselves in our ecosystem for it to be healthy. There's likely little you can say to me to convince me otherwise. I accept this fact like I accept that the Earth is flat. I don't argue with people who think the world is flat. We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
By saying "Don't pay the 'cattlemen'" I am suggesting that instead of changing the status of wolves and encouraging their being killed, you could advocate for the mystery state you are in to stop compensating your 'cattlemen' for their losses to nature.


And I reject that position too. I'm a "people first" kind of guy. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my values like you do.

As for your attempt at insulting me by insulting people from my state,


Not exactly true I was pretty much insulting you on your own merits (or rather lack of) by some of the inane comments you made. The Wisconsin thing is just a funny coincidence to me.

you would understand that saying we don't possess "Common Sense" is like saying it never rains in Portland.


So you're saying that BECAUSE you're from Wisconsin you tend to have more common sense than other people? How is that principle different than the one I put forth?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
No you don't but that's one of my flaws as a non-perfect human...feel free to strive for perfection in that area of your life if you want to. As for me I'll continue to be honest albeit imperfect.


And I'll carry on not being perfect, but will try not to purposely use logical fallacies as my arguments.


Uh, yep, that's pretty much what I said...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
I accept this fact like I accept that the Earth is flat.


To keep someone from scoring a cheap shot this, of course, should read:

"I accept this fact like I accept that the Earth is not flat."

Thank you.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
Not exactly true I was pretty much insulting you on your own merits (or rather lack of) by some of the inane comments you made. The Wisconsin thing is just a funny coincidence to me.


I see, you disagree, have no way of expressing why and how you disagree so resort to insults. Understood.

So you're saying that BECAUSE you're from Wisconsin you tend to have more common sense than other people? How is that principle different than the one I put forth?


I never mentioned me, just said that your insult towards an entire group of people was, inaccurate.

I don't expect anyone else to pay for my values like you do.


Unfortunately because you refuse to 'believe' in science, and the facts of the situation, you will not understand the following, but I will still try to explain.

The economic health of your state depends on the health of it's ecosystem, no matter what you believe. Example: How would your state's economy do if all the moose and elk died out?
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
You see, without the wolves, it is inevatiable that the Elk and Moose populations in your state will experience genomic decline, disease, famine, and will start to degrade.

Were these animals start to decline in your state, tourisim will start to drop (Most states that have good hunting also have a good amount of hunting tourisim) this will affect several industries, increasing unemployment and putting a further strain on public resources. Most assuredly increasing the amount of money EVERYONE in the state would have to pay.

That is except for the large cattle farmers you are saying you are protecting by putting "people first".
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011
You see, without the wolves, it is inevatiable [sic] that the Elk and Moose populations in your state will experience genomic decline, disease, famine, and will start to degrade.


Those populations did fine without the wolf for decades. It's only now that they're strained. Contrary to popular belief the wolves don't "just kill the sick ones". They kill them all. Try again.

I never mentioned me, just said that your insult towards an entire group of people was, inaccurate.


I never mentioned you either, when I said you I meant the royal "you" as in everyone form your State. If you were trying to convey that my insult was inaccurate you should have said just that. Instead your comment implied that people in Wisconsin have more common sense than you're average Joe, just like Portland gets more rain that your average place.
J-n
not rated yet May 05, 2011
Not exactly true I was pretty much insulting you on your own merits (or rather lack of) by some of the inane comments you made. The Wisconsin thing is just a funny coincidence to me.[q/]

I never mentioned you either, when I said you I meant the royal "you" as in everyone form your State. If you were trying to convey that my insult was inaccurate you should have said just that. Instead your comment implied that people in Wisconsin have more common sense than you're average Joe, just like Portland gets more rain that your average place.


You actually DID mention me, and it was an attempt at a direct insult towards me, you just admitted that 30 min ago.

And yes, i am most certainly implying that Wisconsinites have more Common Sense than your average joe.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
And yes, i am most certainly implying that Wisconsinites have more Common Sense than your average joe.


Again, that's just as bigoted as saying they're slower...I ask again how this is different than the principle I was putting forth?

You actually DID mention me, and it was an attempt at a direct insult towards me, you just admitted that 30 min ago.


Uh yeah that was 30 minutes ago, not in your last comment that I was replying to...keep up Wisconsin boy.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
I would also add that Moose populations were steady until the 90's in most states in the USA, after this point there was a marked rise in most states.

The Elk populations of the USA have also been on a similar rise since the 90's those that did not have a raise in population numbers had significant Chronic Wasting Disease deaths.

CWD hits populations where there are an overabundance of deer, moose and elk.

Wolves kill whatever deer they can catch for food, so, no wolves don't just kill the sick and weak, but those are usually the ones they can catch for their kills.

But hey as you said, arguing with you on this is like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat. Some forms of ignorance are insurmountable.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2011
So what is fundamentally, SCIENTIFICALLY different from wolf teeth killing a Moose, Deer, or Elk and a bullet?
emsquared
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
http://www.defend...nd_a.pdf

A little reading material for you, mystic (pay special attention to items 4, 5 and 6). It details, among other things, how artificial boosting of moose populations (i.e. by indiscriminate killing of predator species) leads to habitat destruction and population crashes.

A little more reading for you: check out the "intraguild predation" wikipedia entry. It will detail for you how having two competing predators is actually beneficial to a prey species.

This is not the case however if one of those species is not actually competing for survival. If it is, say, only forcing out all other species due to it's complete dominance.

You believe man is above nature, and that may be the case - some day - that we won't have to worry about ecosystems to support us. But that day is not today. Nor any time in the near future. Get a clue, won't you?
elhbev
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
It's pretty obvious that MM is an astroturfer. They've found every way to argue little statements without actually addressing the facts put in front of them.

I like how I attempted to address the practice of sport hunting, but MM just resorted to personal attacks and ignored the middle part of my post asking for proof of their claims.

And steak, hamburger, chicken? That would be factory farms. I'm aware that cattle are raised on ranges for the first year (at least, can go up to 26 months) before being put in the feedlot. This is probably a good place to present the evidence of cattle predation and the "decimation" MM spoke of.
Mesafina
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
The reason I am trolling MM is not because he is ignorant on this issue, but because this particular form of ignorance is actually dangerous. This is the same line of logic that leads to massive deforestation, habitat loss, degradation of biodiversity, etc, that threatens the lives of every person on this planet. People who promote such views are actively working to harm other people, even if they don't realize it. While it would probably be wise of me to be more polite and less of a troll, I too have my flaws. But it's kind of hard to think well of a person who is essentially advocating that we humans are organized enough and understand enough to be able to micromanage the ecology of our planet. We clearly do a very poor job of that, and you need only look at how we treat the natural world to see that.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
It's pretty obvious that MM is an astroturfer. They've found every way to argue little statements without actually addressing the facts put in front of them.


Fact or fiction, is a Moose as dead if it's shot with a bullet or killed by a wolf?

I like how I attempted to address the practice of sport hunting, but MM just resorted to personal attacks and ignored the middle part of my post asking for proof of their claims.


The reason I didn't address it is because I DON'T CARE. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making. It's funny how YOU think I need to address something you think is important and if I don't think it is I'm somehow "ignoring the facts".

I simply don't care about cattlemen and their losses it's a side issue for me. GET IT?! I care about the destruction of tens of thousands of animals to satisfy someone's version of how nature "should" be...it's BS of the worst kind.

Mesafina, you are REALLY good a putting words in people's mouths...not much else though
emsquared
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
Fact or fiction, is a Moose as dead if it's shot with a bullet or killed by a wolf?

You're asking the wrong question.

Correct question: Are hunters who -exclusively- prefer/pursue the most fit and healthy of a "prey" species, performing only periodic, intense "predation" pressures, while indiscriminately eliminating all competition with impunity, with no ecofeeback system impacting them, performing the same ecosystemic function as a predator, or predator set, who by their nature prefer/pursue the young, old and infirm, put constant soft predation pressure, and do respond to ecofeeback loops?

The answer is an obvious, resounding and emphatic No.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
Correct question: Are hunters who -exclusively- prefer/pursue the most fit and healthy of a "prey" species, performing only periodic, intense "predation" pressures, while indiscriminately eliminating all competition with impunity, with no ecofeeback system impacting them, performing the same ecosystemic function as a predator, or predator set, who by their nature prefer/pursue the young, old and infirm, put constant soft predation pressure, and do respond to ecofeeback loops?

So where's the game and fish in this equation? You're obviously not ignorant enough to think that ONLY hunters could kill game.

It's really simple, humans can do ANYTHING to an elk, deer, or moose population that a wolf can, and we can do it infinitely better. THOSE are the facts.
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
Your emphatic response belies your defensiveness and thereby your own knowledge of our own fallacy.
So where's the game and fish in this equation?

LOL they are the ones that set hunting seasons and bag limits and yes, determine if a species (such as the grey wolf) should be re-introduced and/or protected in an area.

Thank you, sir, for finally putting your foot in your mouth and demonstrating you have absolutely no rational or debatable basis to your stance.

Your baseless insistence that humans do a better job managing nature, than nature, is just the next in line to you irrationalization to yourself that you are in the right, when infact even your own logic says you are not.

Good day. Thanks for playing. Try again, next time.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2011
LOL they are the ones that set hunting seasons and bag limits and yes, determine if a species (such as the grey wolf) should be re-introduced and/or protected in an area.


They could also be the ones doing the job that you think only the wolf can. In fact the DO that job sometimes already.

I don't know where or why you think you've won this argument but all you've demonstrated is your complete lack of common sense and idiocy. Humans can and do manage wildlife better than mindless predatory animals. Just like we can do everything better than animals do.

Tell me why human beings with guns can't do the exact same job wolves can in culling the weak, sick, WHATEVER it is you think wolves do that we can't and I'll tell you EXACTLY why we can...

In fact you've already lost this argument. Your ENTIRE argument is based on an emotional plea to have an animal in the wild you WANT to be there REGARDLESS of whether or not it HAS to be there. It simply doesn't.
Na_Reth
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
Just like we can do everything better than animals do.


Oh yes, we are so better at flying than birds!

I don't know where or why you think you've won this argument but all you've demonstrated is your complete lack of common sense and idiocy.


Obviously you are not the one who is lacking idiocy.
emsquared
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
I don't know where or why you think you've won this argument but all you've demonstrated is your complete lack of common sense and idiocy.

Look at you, so emotional, so emphatic, and you can't even follow your own logic to it's conclusion.
Your argument is humans can do it better and we should listen to them, well wake up, they are the ones that are saying the wolves should be where-ever you are saying they shouldn't be. You have successfully argued against yourself. Congratulations.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
We need wolves around to keep the coyote, which is in fact a wolf, from inhabiting the niche. Anybody say this yet? Wolves are prettier and make nicer coats.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
Oh yes, we are so better at flying than birds!


http://en.wikiped...lackbird

Obviously you are not the one who is lacking idiocy.


You're right I am lacking idiocy.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
I don't know where or why you think you've won this argument but all you've demonstrated is your complete lack of common sense and idiocy.

Look at you, so emotional, so emphatic, and you can't even follow your own logic to it's conclusion.
Your argument is humans can do it better and we should listen to them, well wake up, they are the ones that are saying the wolves should be where-ever you are saying they shouldn't be. You have successfully argued against yourself. Congratulations.


No I haven't argued against myself. I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question, you're evading showing that you can't answer it and have lost the argument by default.

There is simply no reason to have the wolf. We can and have done their job better than they can.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
Oh yes, we are so better at flying than birds!

http
://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/04/unidentified-men-dead-usama-bin-ladens-compound/
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
We need wolves around to keep the coyote, which is in fact a wolf, from inhabiting the niche. Anybody say this yet? Wolves are prettier and make nicer coats.


Best counter argument to mine I've heard yet. Yes coyotes can be a problem, but if we're allowed to den for them again we can keep them under control easily too.
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
No I haven't argued against myself. I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question, you're evading showing that you can't answer it and have lost the argument by default.

Wow, this is just getting sadder and sadder. I realize you need to keep denying that you're wrong to preserve your ego, but can't you do it in private where everyone doesn't have to witness it and pity you? I'm so embarrassed for you.

I did answer your question, btw, which I know you know, but again your question is self serving and invalid as an actual academic inquiry, you know this and that's why your being so irrational - you have to, to preserve your self-image. The actual question youre trying to ask is do wolves and humans serve the same ecosystemic role, by performing different pressures and humans not having a response to ecofeedback mechanism? THAT is an honest and complete question. And of course, the answer is no and this is backed by sources I've already sited. Again, thanks for playing.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
The actual question youre[sic] trying to ask is do wolves and humans serve the same ecosystemic role, by performing different pressures and humans not having a response to ecofeedback mechanism?


No that's not the question I'm asking, you can try again. All you have to do is read up thread it's asked at least three times...

You can't answer it though because it's a trap, if you do answer it honestly you'll be forced to admit we don't need wolves to manage game herds...which is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. I am talking about people with brains...
emsquared
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
Well, mystic, it's obvious that you're not capable of being honest, and I'm not going to engauge your dishonest question, so we're just going to have to accept that, knowing that you're the only one who believes what you say. I'm done with you. Spout whatever last words you want, I realize you need that so I'll give it to you. I'll go my way and you'll look like a fool to anyone who ever reads this article. My gift to you:
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
We need wolves around to keep the coyote, which is in fact a wolf, from inhabiting the niche. Anybody say this yet? Wolves are prettier and make nicer coats.


Best counter argument to mine I've heard yet. Yes coyotes can be a problem, but if we're allowed to den for them again we can keep them under control easily too.
Coyotes are already a problem and they are already hunting in packs to take down larger prey. Further they are moving into urban areas and have little fear of people. They are very clever and will eat your cat. Watch out.
emsquared
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2011
Anybody say this yet? ...
Best counter argument to mine I've heard yet.

Actually I did touch on that a few entries up, Arf, see: intraguild competition is healthy for an ecosystem.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
Well, mystic, it's obvious that you're not capable of being honest, and I'm not going to engauge [sic] your dishonest question,


That's because you know I'm right. Too bad you were too cowardly to have the introspective conviction to challenge your own views in the face of the obvious. Once you get out of your twenties this will become easier for you...trust me.

Javinator
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011
I don't think the point has been disputed yet that, by natural selection, the weak and sick will die first (as they won't be able to keep up/get away) whereas hunters will attempt to kill the strongest and healthiest members of the population.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2011
I don't think the point has been disputed yet that, by natural selection, the weak and sick will die first (as they won't be able to keep up/get away) whereas hunters will attempt to kill the strongest and healthiest members of the population.


Indeed I agree. Hence you could simply instruct game and fish management to cull the sick and weak from the herds. Again there is nothing a wolf can do naturally that a human can't with respect to this topic...nothing.

Or alternatively you could mandate that hunters cull one sick animal for every healthy animal they take, or you could make it every 5th license you give out have this mandate. The options are endless and endlessly adaptable...whereas the wolves are only so adaptable to any given situation.
elhbev
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2011
[quote] Or alternatively you could mandate that hunters cull one sick animal for every healthy animal they take, or you could make it every 5th license you give out have this mandate.[/quote]
Humans could follow such an order... but why would they? How could you viably prove in the field that an animal was sick once it's dead? It's judgment at that point. I suppose you can trust every hunter to do the right thing and pray they're culling healthy and the sick.

The point about Fish and Game culling is that it costs money for government hunters to go out and meticulously cull animals because there's far too many. I'll go out on a limb here and agree humans can manage approximately like wolves could. But what's the cheaper option? In these economic times, do you want manual costly control, or automated control? The impact of having wolves in the system is shown to be pretty low according to figures cited above.
epsi00
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2011
wolves culling is the natural way to go. it's more efficient and the wolves have been doing it for eons so they are the real expert here. Just let the wolves do their job. and hunters, I mean those who do not do it for survival, are a bunch of idiots.
elhbev
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2011
MM, you need to be a better astroturfer. I'll give you some hints. Don't contradict your own views later on in the thread (Cattlemen. Don't make a big deal about how they're affected to a huge degree by wolves and then leave them out to dry by later stating you don't care about them). Also, at least try to BS some data when you're bombarded with actual fact and figures. Locate your local doubt mongers so you can cite their evidence and make full use of "official" industry sponsored studies. Always remember economics. It's a double edged sword though, and in this case it works for wolves, but usually the economic argument can be pulled out to get something in your favor.

Finally, try not to make any statement that can just be circle jerked by logic. When you said, "I care about the destruction of tens of thousands of animals to satisfy someone's version of how nature "should" be," guess what? Your advocacy of government culls and wolf removal is the same thing. Pushing YOUR views.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2011
Humans could follow such an order... but why would they?


Why do they follow any orders? The fact is that most people do indeed follow the law. The wolves would be no better and they'd keep the herds at survival levels for them. There would be nothing left for hunters. Nice try.

The point about Fish and Game culling is that it costs money for government hunters to go out and meticulously cull animals because there's far too many.


BS. We did this kind of thing earlier in the century all the time. This is something people would do "on the side" when they're out walking around anyway. It worked before it would work again.

I'll go out on a limb here and agree humans can manage approximately like wolves could.


Of course we could.

But what's the cheaper option?


It costs 200,000 to 2 million per wolf. The cheaper option is to get rid of them...

http://en.wikiped...oduction
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 09, 2011
Cattlemen. Don't make a big deal about how they're affected to a huge degree by wolves and then leave them out to dry by later stating you don't care about them


I don't care about them, I care about the money I have to pay them because YOU want wolves. There is no contradiction. YOU want them, YOU pay for it then.

Also, at least try to BS some data when you're bombarded with actual fact and figures.


Which ones were relevant to the argument I was actually making? As opposed to the ones everyone THOUGHT I was making or I SHOULD have been making. Quit putting words and arguments on me I didn't say or never made.

Your advocacy of government culls and wolf removal is the same thing. Pushing YOUR views.


That's EXACTLY right! I'm pushing for MY values not some non-existent set nature is supposed to have. I never said otherwise. If you want to have an honest conversation about this then I suggest you quit assuming your premises into your argument.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.