Posted on 02/07/2004 10:59:48 AM PST by Delphinium
Cage an animal and that's what you get. They don't do this when they're free.
You don’t need to mention the “bouncing ball effect”. When you claim that wolves will kill everything in site, wiping out herds completely etc, you are automatically denying the “bouncing ball effect” that D Rider said was “the natural cycle”. But it is easy enough for you to clear this up. Do you believe in the “bouncing ball effect”?
Fires are natural and they bring about positive results. We’ve been having fires for eons.
”If you were seeing what we are you might be too.”(hysterical)
No I wouldn’t. I think the hysteria comes with the extremism. Just as a lack of perspective so often comes with extremism.
”Sunsong , Its all in who you believe for your source.”
Sources matter. That’s why I have repeatedly asked you for info from reputable sources, specifically National Review and the Washington Times. You have never provided any. What you do provide is anti-wolf propaganda, from sources that I do not think are sound. For instance, your “sources” say that wolves kill for sport and leave carcasses laying around and at the same time your "sources" say that wolves eat every bit of their kill and so ranchers can’t get reimbursement money because nothing is left. Even 8th grade mediocre thinkers can see that something is amiss with that kind of reporting :-)
”I personally don’t trust left wing organizations like Ted Turner, or the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, or the Sierra Club, etc, etc,”
I have never provided any articles from any of those sources. It is you and dmzTahoe who presented articles that quoted from Ted Turner’s Endangered Species Fund. Are you saying now that the NRA article is not to be believed? :-) But perhaps, and I say only perhaps, you will now be more understanding of my lack of trust for your sources. The article I linked to was written by:
Douglas W. Smith
Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader
Yellowstone Center for Resources
P.O. Box 168
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
doug_smith@nps.gov
I think his views are relevant and his article looks factual. He provides his sources. What, specificlly, do you disagree with in his article? Or what, specifically, do you find untrustworthy?
”Do you realize that much of the money that they raise with the propaganda you are have fallin for goes to defeat the president, and other Republicans?
I find your continued assumptions about me revealing as to your character. You have no idea if I have ever read, heard, listened to or been told of any propaganda from the left wing sources you mentioned. You have absolutely no idea and yet you are spreading false accusations anyway. I saw a post of yours on a thread about Kerry having killed people in Nam and you made a point of saying that you would not spread that info until you knew whether it was true. It’s too bad that you don’t apply that principle more universally in your life. You sure have spread a lot of false info about me.
There is another agenda;
There are a lot of agendas. None of which bring me to a level of hysteria.
”As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, “wolf recovery is [only] a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change.” Even environmentalists have admitted that “on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. [Instead] it is about control of the west” (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmental-ists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and anti-hunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife.
I have already told you that I am not worried about this far left agenda. I find the extreme right’s hysteria with it to be a sign of paranoia.
”Why do agenda driven scientists zealously committed to ending ranching,hunting and Western private property rights dictate to Mt., Id.,& Wy. the ratio of wolves to prey that we are forced to live with?”
Government has the power to dictate. That’s reality. Why do legislatures dictate the speed that we can drive cars? Why do legislatures dictate to us what different areas of land are “zoned” as?
”The link to the "Wildlands Project" found below indicates that wolves are the biological weapon of choice used by extremists to convert social theory into political practice.”
But you have said that you personally don’t want wolves around. So for you, this is about wolves, right? Here’s a quote from you:
”We don't want grizzlies, and wolves here, and especially not under the endangered species act that is insane in the way it puts even rattle snakes above the private property rights of humans.”
”If these extremists are left unchecked the "Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor" found in the Wildlands project that they envision will become reality at the expense of Montanas',Wyomings' and Idahos' economies.”
I thought you said that it wasn’t about money?
”It is not about wolves. It is about clearing 18 million acres in the west of all signs of human habitation.It is called the Wildlands Project!.”
Now you say again that it isn’t about wolves. Is it about wolves or not?
I take it you are no longer "respectfully disagreeing" with me? That didn't last long :-)
It was you who said that you could co-exist with wolves, as long as their numbers were "controlled" and they were "controlled" by man.
As to sources and web sites, I think the article I posted was pretty good. What specifically in it do you disagree with?
And as to my statement that I have no problem with people shooting wolves that come onto their property. I was asked the question -- "what about a wolf coming onto to someone's private property?"And my answer is that I have no problem with someone shooting a wolf that comes onto their private property. It seems to me that it is the anti-wolf folks who think that wolves ought to be able to tell the difference between federal lands and private property. Am I wrong?
You don't eat wolves. They are carrnivores.
You are contradicting yourself from your last post in which you talked about the natural cycle and the bouncing ball effect. I don’t’ agree with what you have said here. Here’s why: wolves cannot clear out an area. It’s not physically possible for them. Once prey levels are reduced, wolves start to kill each other. Healthy elk (or whatever the prey is) are difficult for wolves to kill. They receive injuries -–sometimes fatal injuries and it is usually the alphas that are injured or incapacitated. So what happens is the wolves populations decrease – the herds begin to increase and the cycle repeats.
We have already established that wolves are to be managed and kept “in territory” so your scenario of them just “moving on” is not applicable. And your “stomp on them” – “extremely heavy hand” descriptions of what is required is not something I agree with either.
The UN has alot of agendas. I'm not paranoid about any of them. The UN wants to tax you, too, and take away your guns. The UN wants to do a lot of things. I'm not hysterical or lost in black helicopter, tinfoil hat paranoia about any of it. So the dreaded "Agenda 21" of the United Nations doesn't mean anything in this argument, imo.
You have never researched critical environmental study, have you? Moderation is not even a consideration to these people.
Well I'm sorry for her and her loved ones, but what does that have to do with humans co-existing with wolves?
Did you follow the story about the woman who was killed by dogs in San Francisco? Do you think that that means that humans can't co-exist with dogs? What about other humans? Humans have been viciously killed by other humans? Humans have been killed by cars, too -- and guns. Should we exterminate cars and guns?
Someone is going to control public lands whether you like them to or not,about the other charges you claim I'd like to see the quotes in question before I call them strawmen.
It's very hard for some people to grasp the concept that there are others with different views than they have and that that's ok.
Some views are not compatible with conservatism whatsoever. Nanny-state top-down "experimental" enviromentalism is one of those, your conviviality with JackRyanCIA notwithstanding.
I think that is a gross exaggeration. I'm posting a letter from Steve Nadeau of Idaho Fish and Game who contradicts your claims. As for your dreams for your progeny, you are free to buy up a bunch of land and do whatever you please with it. Here's the letter:
"Mr. Cyr,
"I will try to answer your questions for you, though you may obtain much of this info from our website.
"How many wolves are in Idaho - collard and un-collard - total? The tribe has estimated about 380 wolves so far this year in idaho.
"How many collard wolves are there in the state? They have about 22 known packs that are radio collared in Idaho.
"How many are females? See tribal website
"How many are males? See tribal website
"What are the numbers for the animals taken: elk, deer, lion, bear? Don't know. However, based on research in Idaho, MT and Yellowstone, wolves will eat approximately 14-18 elk/wolf/year. Mostly eat elk in the studies in Idaho, lots of deer in Montana. Probably depends upon the prey in the area they set up there pack.
"What impact has the wolf had on herds? To date we have been unable to determine any impact on our elk herds or deer populations. Where we have been monitoring our elk populations specifically looking for impacts of wolves in Unit 28, we have found that the fires and habitat conditions caused the elk calf ratios to change since 1995. The calf:cow ratios declined in there until last winter, 2 years following a major fire. The calf cow ratios increased to 36 calves:100 cows, right in the middle of wolf pack activity. This suggests that there is much that influences elk populations and wolves are only one of them, and not the biggest factor.
"Spring kill numbers (birthing)? Most of wolf predation on elk in the study around Salmon, and in Yellowstone, indicate that about 50% of their prey is young of year, and 35% is old, the rest is varying age and some of questionable health.
"Summer kill numbers (sport)? Wolves are required to kill to survive all year long. The late summer is the toughest time for them because game is in the best condition of the year, calves are now able to run with adults. At this time they tend to hunt alternate prey as well. Small mammals, beavers, even fish, and also tend to get into livestock problems. Pups are just learning to hunt but can't kill on their own. the adults have more mouths to feed. We have not been able to determine that wolves will kill for sport alone. The surplus killing reported usually involves animals having been scared off of carcasses. It is a very rare occurrence in the research areas. Every time a wolf tries to kill an animal as big as eg. elk or moose, many times larger than them, they put themselves at risk of being injured or killed. That is why they tend to figure out the easiest animal to kill, and if they can't find one they move on. Their home ranges in Idaho are about 350 square miles, and pack size is about 5 animals average. They have to travel alot to maintain their pack territories and find available and weakened game (Idaho avereages about 2 elk/square mile).
Fall kill numbers (sport) "Same answer, except that wolves can now find wounded elk and deer from hunter losses, which in Idaho is about 5-10% of legally taken elk and deer, or approximately 1-2,000 elk/year and about 5,000 deer per year that are wounded and not retreived, about what wolves would kill on their own if they couldn't find carcasses. For a couple months of the year anyway, they don't have to kill much at all. They can mostly just scavenge. "Winter kill numbers (survival)? late winter, early spring is the easiest time for wolves to kill elk and deer. They are in the poorest condition at that time. In yellowstone, March and April were the 2 highest predation months.
"Where are the wolf packs located? Wolves are now well distributed across Idaho. They have not established themselves very well on private land far from national forests, or out in the desert areas. However, they are most densely located in the Clearwater Region and McCall Subregion and around Salmon.
"The impacts of wolves on our big game populations has been greatly exagerated so far. Although approximately 3-400 wolves may currently live in Idaho, their combined impact on elk populations is approximately 4-5000 a year. Each year the elk population increases with a birthing pulse, and decreases dependent upon everything else. We have found that our elk populations in Idaho appear to be near their highest ever recorded. Our hunter success varies between 20-25% on average, and mostly dependent upon weather conditions. Wolves apparently have a very big impact on hunter attitudes, but they shouldn't be changing the number of elk available for harvest yet.
"We do hope to be able to start managing wolves as a big game animal once they are delisted. At that time, we hope to be able to implement sport hunting, and control some of the burgeoning populations where they may be impacting game herds. Simply put, when hunters see a wolf track on an elk track, or wolf tracks and no elk tracks, they immediately think the worse. Wolves may move elk into the timber, or elk may be using habitat a little differently. However, it is a grave mistake to think that elk are being eliminated by wolves. Unlike domesticated cattle and sheep, elk and deer know how to avoid getting eaten. All hunters have to do is start to figure out how to hunt when wolves are around, and they will be able to do as well as ever.... that still means that 75% of hunters will not kill an elk this year. I hope they don't all blame wolves. Thank you for your comments and questions."
Steve Nadeau
Staff Biologist
Idaho Dept. Fish and Game
600 S. Walnut, Box 25
Boise, ID 83707
Phone: 208-334-2920
So what if they are carnivors?
That someone is the federal government at the moment. If you are interested in looking up the quotes I'm sure you are capable of finding them.
It's very hard for some people to grasp the concept that there are others with different views than they have and that that's ok. And that includes (but is not limited to) that there really are people with conservative views who disagree. Not all conservatives believe exactly the same thing, thank goodness.
Nope. I hunt for the bloodlust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.