May 1, 2012 -- 1:00PM, vra wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Yes, I understand there have been recent efforts to re-introduce elk to parts of the Midwest and Great Plains. Many people think of them as a "mountain" animal, but forget, there were also at one time vast herds of them on the plains -- along with Bison, bears and, of course wolves.

I respect your beliefs. According to my religion (Baha'i Faith), I may hunt, but only in the strictest ethical manner and in accordance with all relevant local, state and national laws and regulations. Hunting "to excess" is discouraged, and my faith also strictly forbids wanton cruelty to animals. 

I guess I get miffed at the constant stereotype that hunters lack any compassion or respect for animals, and kill only for sick fun. Yes, I do know people like that. But overall, I think you will actually find a high degree of empathy and respect for animals among hunters.

There is no "nice" way for a deer or elk to die in nature. There are numerous slow, painful ways -- such as freezing, starvation or disease. Many older animals simply wear their teeth down to the point where they can no longer forage. 

Wolves don't tend to kill very mercifully either -- they usually attack the animal from the rear, drag it down, and start feeding on it while it is still alive. I don't see that as bad or evil -- that's just nature.

Still, I caution against the over-use of the argument," well, deer and ek are going to die unpleasantly anyway, so we might as well gun them down and make it quick and relatively painless."

There is some truth to that, but it can also be taken to the point of just being an excuse to shoot animals. 

Thanks for the above, and I agree.  BTW, I got yelled at by a park ranger in Yellowstone because I got pretty close to some grazing elk.  However, I knew I could run faster than the older lady near me.  ;)

Just a brief explanation: the reasons why hunting is disallowed falls in two areas especially, with one being that it's considered too inhumane (kosher slaughter involves a swift slice to the neck with a razor-sharp knife whereas it's believed that the animal feels no pain).  Another reason is that we are told that we shouldn't be killing for pleasure. 

By all means, give all wildlife a wide berth. People might not normally think of deer and elk as "dangerous" animals -- but they certainly can be. Moose most certainly are nothing to mess with.

The reasoning behind your faith forbidding hunting seems sound to me. 

May 1, 2012 -- 10:16AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I don't care if some people think hunting is "morally wrong." I don't care if some people can't stand ranchers. There are specific hunters and ranchers I'm not particularly thrilled about either. But that's irrelevant. 

Just as I don't care that some other people think wolves are bad and evil, and never should have been reintroduced in the first place.

I know you don't care.  The fact that you don't care comes across LOUD and clear.  That, and your condescension, is why you and I can't discuss this subject.

May 1, 2012 -- 10:16AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You seem to keep forgeting, I live here. I had to listen to  those people bitch about wolves even being here for 15 years before "Howling For Justice" showed up and started bitching about wolves being shot. You ever stop to think maybe I'm simply fed up with bitching?

Howling for Justice, Defenders of Wildlife, etc has been there the whole time.   They didn't show up "late" to the party.  They do not have the political power that ranchers and pro-hunting lobbies have with Congressmembers in their pocket, and they lost the fight when these Congressman put a rider on an appropriations bill to end the protections of wolves, without even any debate by the whole Congress.

May 1, 2012 -- 10:16AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Ironically, the wolf-haters also cried that "special interests" were responsible for bringing in the wolves, and whined that Ed Bangs and his staff were serving "special interests" by trying to establish a permanent population of wolves here.

For the last time, those debates have already been had, and the extreme views, both of which did not like Ed Bangs and his program -- both lost. 

Those issues are settled. There are wolves here now. There always will be. And a certain number of them will be hunted.

Now, we're getting down to brass tacks of specifics. The "300" number was the benchmark for the entire ecosystem, not just one state. 

Perhaps Idaho's number is low. I can't say for sure. However, that's the absolute bare minumum, and the state will no doubt want to maintain a "buffer" number, probably well above 150. You also have to bear in mind, wolf hunter success rates are bound to be very low, once wolves get savvy to being hunted.

Also, one of my pet peeves is this repeating of the statement "for the entire state." Have you been to Idaho at all, and specifically, the areas in question? Of for that matter, Wyoming and Montana? 

The thing of it is, and this is important, please pay attention: Anwhere in those states that is going to be suitable wolf habitat, is already by now occupied by wolves. There is no "entire state" for them to go to, outside of zones that include vast tracts of Yellowstone National Park, wilderness areas or surrounding National Forest. Nearly all of the rest of all three states, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, simply isn't suitable for wolves, and never will be again.

So, at the end of it all, in that section of Idaho that is suitable for wolves, 150 could very well be plenty. I don't know. My contacts in Idaho are a little rusty, but I do intend to ask, and find out more. 

Sheer numbers aren't nearly as imporant as wolves' ability to travel throughout the ecosystem, mingle and mix the gene pool.

As for the overall population -- I'm with Ed Bangs. I think about 1,200 is the number we will end up with, in the long term.

Also, bear in mind, despite everything else, wolves are already moving into areas outside the recovery zone. They are known to be/thought to be, now in parts of Utah, Colorado, Washington and Oregon. And even if those states refuse to adopt any protections at all for wolves and keep a "shoot on sight, no restrictions, no bag limits" policy, some of those wolves are still bound to survive. 

Wolves are a very hardy, robust and resourseful species. They have a high reproductive rate, and can recover quickly from any over-killing that might happen. They are also plenty clever enough to evade your average garden variety "redneck A-holes with guns." 

Once the game is really on, only the most skilled, tenacious, patient and focused wolf hunters will regularly bag wolves. Trust me, most "redneck A-holes with guns" are too out of shape, unskilled or just plain lazy to ever pull it off, once the wolves get wise to being hunted. 

The Rocky Mountain wolves simply are not in danger of being wiped out. 

I can see that you continue to ignore the perspective that one dead or one tortured to death wolf is too many, particular after the attempts that were made to "save" the wolves in their native habitat.   "Saved" just to become somebody's rug or wall hanging.  Ugh.

"Howling for Justice, Defenders of Wildlife, etc has been there the whole time.   They didn't show up "late" to the party.  They do not have the political power that ranchers and pro-hunting lobbies have with Congressmembers in their pocket, and they lost the fight when these Congressman put a rider on an appropriations bill to end the protections of wolves, without even any debate by the whole Congress."

The Congressional budget rider was last year.

The discussion over whether/how to re-introduce wolves began in the late 70s-early 80s. The program actually began, with the first few re-introduced wolves being set loose, in 1995-1996.

Now, if ranchers and hunters who want as many deer and elk as possible to shoot at are as powerful as you imagine them to be (and they were far more powerful back in the 1970s) -- the wolves never would have been brought in the first place. The entire idea would have died, circa 1978.

As it was, those anti-wolf extremists tried everything they could to stop the reintroduction program. And, obviously, they failed. Over their protests, wolves were brought back in and set loose, in 1995-1996.

Therefore, your premise -- that only special intersts groups with a dim view of wolves have run the show --  fails. The wolf program has always been driven by a broad spectrum. 

May 1, 2012 -- 1:45PM, vra wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

By all means, give all wildlife a wide berth. People might not normally think of deer and elk as "dangerous" animals -- but they certainly can be. Moose most certainly are nothing to mess with.

The reasoning behind your faith forbidding hunting seems sound to me. 

I also got yelled at by police just outside of Yellowstone by getting to close to a moose and a calf, although I did have a plan of escape (for what it's worth, I made certain I never got between them).  Two years ago, three moose (one cow & two calves) were in our town, and the police had to put two of them down because there were people nearby who got between them.  I wasn't there for that one.  BTW, I also hand fed a wild fox near Yellowstone, and I helped two of my grandkids feed them as well, but not until I told them how to think "fox" first. 

I don't listen well.  ;)

Getting too close to wildlife is never a good idea. Not just because of human safety, but because it can habituate the animals to easy hand-outs. Habituated animals can lose thier ability to survive on their own. Or, they can lose their fear of people, and eventually attack somebody. When that happens, the animal is almost always destroyed. 

I know your intentions were good -- but it's not a good practice to get into.

That said, hope you get to make more trips to Yellowstone. I cruise through there sometimes during the summer too. Just look for the scruffy guy with a passle of kids and a wife who is too cute for him in a beat-up rig with Wyoming plates on it.  

May 1, 2012 -- 5:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Getting too close to wildlife is never a good idea. Not just because of human safety, but because it can habituate the animals to easy hand-outs. Habituated animals can lose thier ability to survive on their own. Or, they can lose their fear of people, and eventually attack somebody. When that happens, the animal is almost always destroyed. 

I know your intentions were good -- but it's not a good practice to get into.

That said, hope you get to make more trips to Yellowstone. I cruise through there sometimes during the summer too. Just look for the scruffy guy with a passle of kids and a wife who is too cute for him in a beat-up rig with Wyoming plates on it.  

Normally I would never feed wildlife as such, but the hands that worked where we stayed would feed the fox as well.  I actually got the fox, btw, to actually put his front paws on my lap as I fed him, and that certainly was a rush.  Fortunately, I have a way with animals, which is probably due to the fact that they know they're smarter than I.  However, I would never rely fully on that, and I always think defensively.  As a life-long camper, I've been around many wild critters over the years, and I love both it and them-- except no-see-ums and mosquitoes.

I've been in Yellowstone three times with the last being about 5 years ago, and we always stayed at Pahaska just outside of the East Gate.  My daughter's in-laws lived in Billings, so we typically would come down through Red Lodge, which is a neat drive.  I also have spent some time on the Shoshone/Arapaho Res-- gotta get my fix of fry-bread.  Actually, I'm a retired anthropologist who is a Me'tis, although I wasn't brought up in the tradition of the elders.

Anyhow, I wish we could get out there again, and it would be great if we could meet, but I have my doubts we'll make it there as my wife has a lot of health problems.

Take care.