Wolves are not an endangered species

[cowiz]

Wolves are fucking ace, and so are dogs. All other species can

[Gallstones]

Zill, are you trying to make a point to the simple--those who can only read picture books?

[maiforpeace]

Interesting read, and position as a former rancher, Seth. Good job getting published in your local paper. I don't agree with a lot of what you have written, and if I wasn't so tired I would pen a few counterpoints to some you have made, but I can't be arsed at the moment.

Zilla, I would be very interested to hear your views on this subject, which I expect you have a few.

[Atheist-Lite]

A snarling ferocious beast that belongs in a museum, and then there's the wolf to consider?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The grey wolves we take care of started from a total population of FIVE breeding animals. That's endangered. The red wolf, which once ranged from St. Louis to Miami, had a breeding population FOURTEEN animals. That's endangered. Whether one likes wolves or not does not change the fact that if an ecology can't support the top predators, that ecology is in trouble. Ranchers need to make a living, wolves need a place to live. Once we work out an arrangement that works we might have a chance to get a natural balance back. Those who want to kill wolves on sight are working from generations of urban legends and mythology. The folklore of wolves is based on brief, chance encounters mixed with guesses and assumptions. Human bigotry takes over from there.

[Gallstones]

A snarling ferocious beast that belongs in a museum, and then there's the wolf to consider?

I don't believe you mean any of this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rBRLcLx ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[JimC]

A snarling ferocious beast that belongs in a museum, and then there's the wolf to consider?

I don't believe you mean any of this.

He means humans, and I think he means it...

[maiforpeace]

If I understand the OP ED correctly, are ranchers wanting the right to kill any wolves that threaten their cattle that graze on public land?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I understand the OP ED correctly, are ranchers wanting the right to kill any wolves that threaten their cattle that graze on public land?

The lovely part of that is "threaten". Some folks will claim that a wolf in the area is a threat to their cattle. Area being defined as "west of the Mississippi", of course.

[egbert]

If I understand the OP ED correctly, are ranchers wanting the right to kill any wolves that threaten their cattle that graze on public land?

The lovely part of that is "threaten". Some folks will claim that a wolf in the area is a threat to their cattle. Area being defined as "west of the Mississippi", of course.

Of course. A man's got a right to protect his property. That includes shooting sick children who knock on your door expecting help. Just ask Seth.

[devogue]

Mick McCarthy has done a great job with them.

[cowiz]

Mick McCarthy has done a great job with them.

Mick McCarthy must be the most relegated manager in the history of the game.

[FBM]

I don't get the ranchers' position. If I raised cattle, I'd just factor in the loss to the wolves as part of the natural cost of operation. I'd be proud of feeding them, as a matter of fact. If my cattle ranching wasn't profitable enough to keep me fed, I'd raise rabbits on the side and release them to keep the wolves off my herd. The ranchers are just lazy, greedy, dimwitted, narrow-minded, unimaginative fucks, IMO. We need every kind of animal that nature has produced if we're to maintain the ecological balance that has nurtured our own existence. If something goes extinct without it being the result of our own desire to own ever-bigger and louder pick-up trucks, so be it. But when our greed means wiping another species out of existence, then we're the problem, not them.

[Seth]

So in some states wolf conservation has worked ...So let's shoot them .
a classic Seth a true classic .

Clearly you fail to understand the process of species conservation, which differs from protecting every individual fuzzy critter.

Management of wolves in the northern Rockies ecosystem does not mean a return to extermination policies of the past, and under the 2008 F&WS rule, states must continue to manage wolf population to meet minimum federal recovery goals. At the same time, it frees ranchers to shoot wolves that are attacking their livestock and to haze wolves to prevent them from predating on livestock using non-lethal methods, something that they were not permitted to do under full ESA protection.

The point, of course, is that management and conservation of a species often involves controlling populations to keep them healthy and in balance with the ecosystem in which they live, which ecosystem happens to include human beings, domestic livestock, commerce and private property.

In my case, only by killing prairie dogs on my property am I able to maintain a healthy, stable population of prairie dogs. Left to their own devices, as is the case in other parts of the county that are publicly owned open space, the numbnut ecoloons who don't understand the meaning of "conservation and management" insist that prairie dogs not be killed to keep populations stable within the space and amount of forage available for them, which leads to ever-expanding colonies that eventually eat themselves out of food, which results in mass die-offs when they become weakened and susceptible to disease outbreaks, particularly when colonies merge.

As a subject matter expert in constrained habitat prairie dog management, I understand that because they live in close proximity to human activity, and because their habitat is not the endless Great Plains, it's up to me to cull the colonies as necessary to maintain and conserve the species.

Exactly the same rationale applies to wolves. It is not possible for an unlimited number of wolves to reside without conflict in constrained habitat occupied by humans and their commercial livestock activities. Humans have every right to engage in such activities, and wolves must be managed so as to not infringe on the rights of ranchers to ply their trade, which means that wolves must be killed when specific wolves begin predating on domestic livestock, or wolf populations burgeon to the point where their prey species, which also live in limited habitat, become depleted. That's all part of rational wildlife management policies.

Some wolf advocates, and I suspect you are likely among them, would prefer to "re-wild" the western half of the country and eliminate human presence in order to turn it all over to the animals.

Not gonna happen.