Intelligent Discontent

18 Comments For This Post

1. no wolves Says:
   June 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

   I don’t get how people say that wolves are not affecting the big game populations. Has anybody taken a nature hike in the Scotts mountain area in Garden valley lately? There are dead elk all over the place from what I have been told. I am not talking about just remains, elk that looked like the wolves killed for sport. Wolves have also been sighted killing dogs in Horseshoe Bend.

   Am I wrong in believing that most of the people that want to get rid of the wolves are the people that have to live with them in their back yards? What about the ranchers? With oil prices so high they can’t afford to run their equipment, how do you think wolves killing 1% of their livestock is going to help their situation? Do you think they can afford to hire people to watch over the livestock? But I forget they are people that decided to make their living the same way there parents did so it’s there fault for not picking a different career and deciding to keep the family business going.

   Maybe everybody that has a problem with the wolves should just move to the city.
   http://www.nowolves.com

2. P J B Says:
   July 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

   Isn’t there a federal program to pay farmers & ranchers compensation when they lose livestock to natural predators? I thought tis was implemented to handle occassional predation by wildlife.

3. Rick Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 3:45 pm

   Excuse me but who was here first? The wolves or rude selfish people?

4. Gork Says:
   July 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm

   This sounds eerily like the same sort of attitude that nearly eradicated the North American Bison, the Sperm Whale, the Grizzly Bear, (previously) the Wolf, and many others. Some people will never accept that any form of predator has a right to exist as long as it interferes with what humans want to do, whether that is hunting or raising livestock. It is about the perception of total human control of the environment. What these types don’t realize is that in the end, humans must answer to the laws of nature-no matter how big our egos get.

5. Steve Says:
   July 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm

   Rick,

   What was here first Dinasours or rude selfish people. Lets bring them back so they can wipe out the human population. Think about your statement a little better.

   Pjb,

   Yes there is and they will do anything they can to blame it on dogs, bears, ect. to get out of paying. You have dealt with trying to get claims paid from insurance companies before havent you when it was clearly someone else at fault.

   Gork,
   In the end your comment makes no sense.Just exactly what are the laws of nature? So many things have been manipulated by humans we are in way to far to try singling out a reintroduction of one species. We are part of nature and we have overdeveloped it to the point where there are only a few sacred places left. So lets throw all the wolves there?? The fact that everyone else has ruined thier part of the world by overdeveloping it is not Idahos problem. Wolves were native to New york as well lets make sure we get a few hundred packs there if we want to do this right.

6. Ethan Says:
   July 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm

   Hey Rick,
   The wolf they reintroduced was never here in the first place. So people were here first! Shows how much fucking research you treehuggers do….

7. bobfunk Says:
   July 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm

   Could you clarify what you mean by “was never here”?

8. Pogie Says:
   July 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm

   Clearly, there were no wolves in the western United States until the first Earth Day.

9. carrie Says:
   July 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am

   I think that the people that want to kill out the wolves are nothing more than a bunch of arrogant neanderthols!!! The wolves have been a part of history and have lived here a lot longer than people have. Not only that they are a key aspect to the ecological portion of our earth. without preditor, deer and ELK overpopulate, grazing and killing the very much needed native trees that birds eat and live off of. Now that we have preditors in the region, the trees are recouperating leaving room for the native birds that belong here. Also, to you cattle ranchers that have an oh so important cry against these animals, are you aware that wolves are the reason for the death of less than 1 percent of cattle and sheep, and less than 10 percent of the death of wild animals such as deer and elk. why dont you cry out against the stupid people whom are inattentive drivers and kill deer all the time? So that said, in my opinion, the murderers of these wonderful creatures that are so needed in our world are nothing more than in the same category as those whom are racist against people over something that happened 200 years ago. Dont be one of those idiots, support wildlife!!!!!!

10. carrie Says:
    July 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am

    by the way ethan, here is some research for you, BUT AREN’T THEY “CANADIAN” WOLVES?
    MYTH: Wolves from Canada were used for reintroduction to central Idaho and Yellowstone so they aren’t native.
    REALITY: The wolves that currently inhabit Canada once historically inhabited the central and western United States, live in similar habitat and rely on the same food source. Since wolves were exterminated in the western region of the lower 48, capturing animals from Canada as a source population was actually
    the ideal match.
    .DETAILS: Reintroduced wolves are often incorrectly called “Canadian” wolves however, biological and genetic research provides evidence of only two subspecies of wolves inhabiting the central and western portions of the United States, both of which moved freely across the Canadian border. Other taxonomists reject the subspecies theory, believing that the same wolf species lived in both the western U.S. and Canada. When selecting wolves for release into central Idaho and Yellowstone, biologists chose wolves in Canada that were already preying on elk and living in habitat similar to that of Idaho and Wyoming. A few wolves have even made the trip on their own. In 1991, a GPS collared wolf traveled from Banff National Park, Alberta to British Columbia, down to Browning, Montana then southwest past Coeur d’Alene, Idaho into Washington state and back to her home territory traveling an area of about 40,000 square miles in less than three years. While this is an extreme example, several wolves have dispersed hundreds of miles in just a few weeks. Source: Lukens, Jim. Idaho, eleven years with wolves ­ what we’ve learned. News release, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, April 25, 2006. Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, editors. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology and conservation. University of Chicago Press. Wandering Wolf Inspires Project, 5/23/2006 New York Times.

    next time you want to make a comment like that… why dont you do your research. Not only that, but not all of us are what we call “treehuggers” we just believe in what is right! why dont you look at the damage that the deplition of the wolves have done to our ecosystem.

11. carrie Says:
    July 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    to no wolves,

    here is some research about the wildlife in idaho effected by the depopulation of the wolves

    MYTH: Wolves devastate elk herds leaving hunters with fewer elk to kill.
    REALITY: Elk and deer populations have been relatively unaffected by wolves.
    DETAILS: Wolves prey upon deer and elk as do other predators, but what has been the impact to our game herds? Despite rumors that wolves are depleting elk and deer for game hunting, data from Idaho Department of Fish and Game shows that as the wolf population has steadily increased since 2003, so has the hunter harvest success rate. According to IDFG statistics, hunter harvest numbers for elk go up and down from year to year, but the overall success rate has remained relatively consistent since before wolves were reintroduced. For example, data shows that in 2005, the most recent year we have statistics for, hunter harvest numbers are higher than they were in 1993, two years before the wolves were ever reintroduced. Most importantly, IDFG statistics verify that elk and deer populations are at ecologically sustainable numbers, and wolves account for less than 10 percent of all elk and deer deaths in Idaho. Source: Idaho Fish and Game PDF File.
    “At the time wolves were released into Idaho, the elk herd in the Salmon Region numbered approximately 28,000 animals. The current estimate gained by aerial surveys and hunter harvest information is approximately 25,000. While this estimate is lower, it is important to note several facts: the estimate still exceeds the Elk Plan objective by about 1,000 animals; all elk zones in the Region have generally been meeting plan objectives; and some high population units have deliberately been reduced through cow harvest to reach objectives. In addition, data gathered from a new radio collaring study initiated in 2005 shows 85 percent deer survival and 82 percent elk survival in the Salmon Region and Units 50 and 60A in the Upper Snake Region. Biologists consider 80 percent doe survival and 85 percent cow elk survival normal and sustainable. Elk mortality factors included hunter harvest (52 percent), mountain lions (30 percent), wolves (7 percent), malnutrition (7percent), and unknown predation (4percent). Deer mortality resulted from lions (32 percent), hunter harvest (18 percent), accidents (14 percent), unknown causes (14 percent), wolves (9 percent), roadkill (9 percent), and malnutrition (4 percent). In addition, deer numbers are limited in the region by habitat condition and weather both of which can significantly impact deer populations.” Source: Lukens, Jim. “Idaho, eleven years with wolves ­ what we’ve learned.” News release, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, April 25, 2006.
    Researchers have documented that wolves tend to prey on the most vulnerable elk and deer, which includes weak, diseased, injured, very young calves (that appears to be largely compensatory as overall elk calf survival has remained steady), and older adult cow elk that are beyond their reproductive prime. Hunters, on the other hand, tend to kill prime reproductive age elk when harvest includes adult cow elk.
    Source: Wright, Peterson, Smith and Lemke. August 2006. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70 (4).
    Article: “Wolves & Elk: The overriding issue in delisting” - Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman April 21, 2007.

    here is some information that can be helpful for you

12. Kill all the wolves Says:
    July 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Just what are wolves doing for the ecology. Nothing positive that’s for sure. All they do is kill, mostly deer and elk, that is there prime prey. One wolf is capable of eating 20 pounds of meat in a sitting, and they may not eat for another week or more. Deer have about 70 pounds of meat on them elk have about 300. Do the math, that’s over 1000 pounds of meat per a wolf per a year. There are at least 900 wolves in this state. Talk to the people who kill the problem ones for the Wildlife service and they will tell you they think it is more like 1500 to 200 wolves.
    Elk and Deer will not over populate the countryside and cause the little birdy to starve to death like you seem to think. That will be prevented by hunters, fish and game, and the ecological system in which they live.
    As for the books you continually cite, they are obviously required reading by the national bunny huggers association. Look at the titles, they were obviously written by a bunny hugger for a bunny hugger. Then all the bunny huggers go around spouting this crap. Do you really think that just because somebody actually printed that crap that it must be true and factual?
    What will one of you bunny huggers do if you are out in the back country and have a wolf attack your dog? I hope you don’t expect anybody to help you, after all allowing the wolf population to go unchecked was the intelligent thing to do.
    Prove which came first, the chicken or the egg. They will never know if the wolf was here before the first humans were. Nobody can know. What I do know is that I firmly believe in the three S’s. Shoot, Shovel and Shut up!

13. Pogie Says:
    July 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Really?

    Are you even a real person, or are you playing a role? I can’t actually imagine someone with this kind of argumentative strategy having the intellectual capacity to connect a computer to the Internet.

    Normally, I’d prefer to avoid the ad hom (that’s kind of like mean things I’m saying about you) attacks, but since there’s no substance, what’s left to do?

    Off to read some bunny huggin’ books…

14. carrie Says:
    July 31st, 2008 at 6:19 am

    to kill all the wolves
    maybe my “bunny hugging books” have more actual fact and proof than your racist unintellegent slurr. Maybe you should do more checking into actual fact, not a preassigned belief passed down to you by yet another arrogent father. Do the math, your an idiot.

15. Kill all the wolves Says:
    July 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Carrie, Let me get this straight, maybe your books have more fact… So you don’t know, but you will spout it off as if God himself came to you and said this. Go figure. That would be the norm when trying to talk to an egoistic person. As for checking into facts… maybe you need to learn what “racist unintelligent slurs” are. Bunny huggers are not a race of people. You might wanna check websters dictionary before you go making up sentences that sound wonderful but are full of words and terms which you obviously don’t know the meaning of. Do you really think that beliefs are preassigned? Obviously the can be passed down from generation to generation, but preassigned? How did you become a bunny hugger… what arrogant person passed that belief to you. Would the arrogant person be you or would it actually be somebody else? How arrogant of you to assume that this is a learned behavior from a father and not anyone else.
    Maybe you should try checking the facts yourself…. ones that come from websites and sources that are far more credible than yours, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, websites based on fact not emotion. Someone with your obvious level of intellectual superiority to the rest of us obviously need not look stuff like that up. Just what is it that you think wolves live off of? Oh… wait I know it’s magical fruit.
    Pogie, you are obviously a very close minded person if you cannot imagine these things. As for the comment about intellectual capacity to connect a computer to the internet, well you obviously have delusions of grandeur. No surprise there. Argumentative strategies are really only required for those that do not have the facts on their side and wish to convince someone that they are correct despite the evidence.
    The one thing that sticks out above all else in your responses… or lack thereof… is that you have not refuted any statements I have made. You have not argued any position. Instead you have surrendered and made a sad sad attempted to make me and my father look like fools. Well… my objective was accomplished!!!
    Here’s an argument for you that is not ad hominem (nice attempt of you to try to make me feel inferior… you failed). As usual your “facts” are wrong. If you go to the Idaho Fish and Game website and look under research reports for wildlife you will find that Elk numbers in the Salmon region were 31,289 according to the Idaho Fish and Game in 2003. The 2007 report shows that same region was holding only 27,702. Their reports do not go back further than 2003. If you take these numbers and adjust them to go all the way back to 1995 then that would be a reduction of 10,761 elk in the Salmon Region between 1995 and 2007, not 3000 as you claim. The Elk in that region are being reduced at a rate of 3,587 Elk per every 4 years… not 3000 per every 12 Years as you would like to have people believe. That regions makes up approximately 1/3 of the entire are that is inhabited by Elk. That would equate to the population seeing a decrease of around 30,000 elk in 12 years for the entire state. Obviously this is not all attributable to Wolves however since there is no data available to give precise number as to how many are attributable to wolves you are left wonder. The statement concerning how much wolves eat can be found on the USFWS website among other places. If one wolf were to consume 1000 lbs of meat in one year that would equate to 3.3 Elk per a year per a wolf. That would be approximately 3300 Elk killed by wolves each year. Since wolves also eat Deer the actual number will be somewhat lower to account for Deer being eaten in the place of Elk. However I am going with the conservative estimate of Wolf numbers, 1000 wolves. As I stated before from talking to the people who actually go out and kill the problem Wolves they think the number is more like 1500 to 2000 wolves. The Wolf population in this state is exploding and it’s time to put an end to that.
    Now you are probably going to say that if I were right the Elk population should decrease at a rate that is equal to the number of Elk killed by Wolves, that is incorrect. Do you know what the term elk recruitment rate means? That is how many elk each year make it from Calf to adult. That is slowing the decline of the Elk population, but it is not enough. Wolves are just one factor in the decline of Elk, but they are definately a major one.
    Another way the Wolf population is affecting the Elk population is that they are forcing them to abandon their traditional habitat in favor of habitat at higher more difficult to access locations. The net result of this is that forage and cover are not as plentiful as they were in traditional habitat. The new Locations which Elk inhabit cannot support as large a population as the traditional locations. This is just as effective at killing off Elk as a Wolf attacking it.
    By the way I see you support the democrats. It only makes sense that a democrat would be a bunny hugger, a republican bunny hugger would be an oxymoron.
    You still haven’t answered my question. Just what it is you think Wolves do for the Ecosystem… positive things that is.
    “Shoot, Shovel and Shut up”

16. Kill all the wolves Says:
    July 31st, 2008 at 11:36 am

    By the way the scary thing isn’t how they 35,000 signatures… it’s how could it be that they did not get more than 45,000 signatures. They obviously went to the wrong locations.
    Oh and if one Wolf reduces the Elk population by even one Elk then by definition they are harming the elk population. So you obviously do not acknowledge that Wolves eat Elk.(see article at the top of page). How can you people be so blind.

17. Lee Says:
    August 13th, 2008 at 11:57 am

    To Kill All the Wolves
    With reference to having about 35,000 signatures on the ballot - not even close.
    Quote from 7-29-08 Idaho Statesman
    (Headline): “Anti-wolf drive only had quarter of names needed to get on ballot.”
    “But Mayer has not used the bombastic rhetoric and “angry man” approach that was Gillett’s style. He told me last April that the group missed getting enough signatures by only about 10,000 names.”
    “However, officials at the Idaho Secretary of State’s office report that only 11,640 valid signatures were submitted to all 44 counties. With 45,893 signatures required, Mayer’s estimate was way off.”
    If one wolf kills one non-productive cow elk that is not going to survive the winter it is not harming the population. Probably helping by leaving more food for the healthy elk. More is not necessarily better. Why not have 1,000,000 elk in Idaho? Would that be helping the population? I think not.
    One positive effect has been the improvement in habitat by keeping elk from hanging out near streams. I sugggest you read some of the findings of William Ripple and Robert Beschta at Oregon State College of Forestry.
    Wolves have shaped elk into the great animals they are. Without the wolf elk will become like catle. Wyoming already treats them as such in the winter.

18. Kill all the Wolves Says:
    August 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am

    Do you even know what a valid signature is in the state of Idaho? They could have had 35,000 signatures, doesn’t mean they were all valid. For a signature to be valid the person has to be a registered voter in the state of Idaho. Do you always just blindly read stuff without asking yourself these kinds of questions?
    So wolves only kill cow elk? Apparently you missed the point. Wolves don’t kill one elk a year, they kill thousands a year. They are harming the elk population. Even if they kill one non productive cow elk they have harmed the population… they just reduced it by one…. What if that one “non productive” cow is a calf that is not old enough to breed yet…. It will be productive in a couple years. Even if they don’t kill any elk they have still harmed the population by forcing them into non-traditional habitat that cannot support the numbers traditional habitat could. No matter what spin you attempt to put on it they are still harming the elk population.
    I looked at the articles available from your “required reading sources”. Observation #1 their studies are done mostly in National Parks. National parks are controlled environment that do not reflect the problems of the real world…. Main one being that humans are not a threat, therefore they do not affect animal behavior the way they do in the “real world”. Observation #2 they are not involved in the kind of population studies that state fish and game immerse themselves in. Conclusion… you just threw some names around in a feeble attempt to sound intelligent. Try reading my post just before the one you commented on. Then you can see what is really happening to the elk herds in Idaho.
    1,000,000 elk? Do you really think the elk population could just explode like that? Do you really have no idea about ecosystems and the limitations that those naturally impose on how many animals can populate a given area? Elk don’t just “hang out” by streams as you seem to think. Where could you have possibly gotten this from? What improvement in habitat has this created? You obviously have no clue about wild animals.
    Wolves shaped elk into the great animals they are today? Until 1995 there were no wolves in the area. When did wolves in Idaho become extinct? Late 1800s or was it early 1900s? Either way elk were without wolves for several decades, perhaps even a century.
    Elk will be just like cattle if there are no wolves? You’re not serious. Where could you possibly get this idea? How is it that elk would be just like cattle. How does Wyoming treat elk like cattle in the winter? Are you talking about winter feeding plans? Are you even from this part of the country? Obviously you don’t know anything about elk management techniques used by various states…. can you say city slicker. States typically will feed elk that are wintering in areas with little or no food. This can be a result of harsh winters, wolves or people encroaching on what were once elk wintering grounds, this results in elk having to find new locations in which to winter. The result is that fish and game will feed these animals to help ensure enough survive the winter.
    “Shoot, Shovel and shut up”

Leave a Reply

• Popular
• Comments
• Featured

Latest Videos