US removes gray wolf from endangered list
May 4, 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."
(c) 2011 AFP
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
What would stain as translucent on light-coloured fabric?
13 hours ago
-
How do I identify different bacteria on culture plates?
23 hours ago
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
May 25, 2012
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
12 hours ago |
3.5 / 5 (11) |
30
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
22 hours ago |
4.8 / 5 (4) |
7
More plant species responding to global warming than previously thought
(Phys.org) -- Far more wild plant species may be responding to global warming than previous large-scale estimates have suggested.
May 22, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (14) |
18
|
For monogamous sparrows, it doesn't pay to stray (but they do it anyway)
It's quite common for a female song sparrow to stray from her breeding partner and mate with the male next door, but a new study shows that sleeping around can be costly.
May 22, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
7
|
Study uncovers secret to speedy burrowing by razor clams
(Phys.org) -- If you look at a razor burrowing clam sitting in a bucket, you’d never guess that it could burrow itself down into the soil, much less do it with any speed. Razor clams look like fat straws, ...
May 25, 2012 |
1 / 5 (1) |
3
|
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
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!
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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...
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
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%.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
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?
May 04, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
It was the wolf, I never said that. I said it wasn't the GRAY wolf, learn to read.
They were controlled, we hunted them...we had NO issues.
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
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...
May 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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?
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
really? so you came to america before the wolf?
.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
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.
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (4)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
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.
LMFAO...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...yeah you have no freaking idea what you're talking about. That's PAINFULLY obvious now.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (5)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
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.
May 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
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...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
IOW we (humans) managed the herds well...thanks for re-stating my point.
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?
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Modernmystic:
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)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Stop paying YOUR taxes and see what happens. It's not "very simple" believe me.
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
Your part of it too then I assume? If so you take em, we don't want them...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I chronically give Modernmystic a 1 because he is chronically retarded.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (2)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Like every other animal on the planet does...I suppose. It's not intentional though.
This isn't one of them.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (2)
You don't have to be a perfect human not to use ad hominem attacks in an argument.
May 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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?
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
And I'll carry on not being perfect, but will try not to purposely use logical fallacies as my arguments.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
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.
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.
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?
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Uh, yep, that's pretty much what I said...
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I see, you disagree, have no way of expressing why and how you disagree so resort to insults. Understood.
I never mentioned me, just said that your insult towards an entire group of people was, inaccurate.
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?
May 05, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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".
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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 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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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?
Uh yeah that was 30 minutes ago, not in your last comment that I was replying to...keep up Wisconsin boy.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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.
May 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
May 05, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
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?
May 06, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Fact or fiction, is a Moose as dead if it's shot with a bullet or killed by a wolf?
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
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Oh yes, we are so better at flying than birds!
Obviously you are not the one who is lacking idiocy.
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
http://en.wikiped...lackbird
You're right I am lacking idiocy.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
http
://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/04/unidentified-men-dead-usama-bin-ladens-compound/
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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...
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 06, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Actually I did touch on that a few entries up, Arf, see: intraguild competition is healthy for an ecosystem.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 06, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 06, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
May 07, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
May 09, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
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.
Of course we could.
It costs 200,000 to 2 million per wolf. The cheaper option is to get rid of them...
http://en.wikiped...oduction
May 09, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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.
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.
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.