Skip to main content

View Diary: Most famous wolf killed by hunter when pack ranged just outside Yellowstone (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The wolves were delisted this year by Salazaar (48+ / 0-)

    the rancher. It's now shoot on sight in states surrounding Yellowstone Park. All that was done by the US & Canada to protect this important species, to bring it back from near extinction, the US Federal government destroys with the stroke of a pen.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:22:37 PM PST

    •  Obama destroys with the stroke of a pen (14+ / 0-)

      he appointed Salazar and he tried to seriously reduce the effectiveness of the ESA by attempting to delist wolves in certain areas.

      but he's the best president of my lifetime, or some other such bullshit.

      this is not an environmentally friendly president.

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:15:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  FTR, only wolves in Wyoming were delisted this... (10+ / 0-)

      ...year. Wolves were delisted in Idaho and Montana in the first half of 2011.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:36:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think MI is going to do the same in the UP. (0+ / 0-)

        Or is it the linx?   I understand wildlife management - even though I don't like the idea killing/dying.   Then again, there's so much in life that isn't fair, makes no sense, I wish wasn't true I couldn't begin to list them.

        If money is speech, then speech must be money.

        by dkmich on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:03:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i don't understand it, it's always done with (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tyto Alba, atana, cany

          first concern for economic benefits not for the benefit of the ecosystem or wildlife. Think about the Fish & Wildlife leg hold traps they still use for so-called predators - those traps are killing many non predatory species.

          ❧To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:10:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't confuse "wildlife management" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cocinero, Meteor Blades, cany

            with conservation biology. Wildlife management is about maximizing benefits for humans, which means maximizing economic benefits. Conservation biology is about maintaining biological diversity, which requires healthy metapopulations of predators such as wolves.

            •  In Canada our Fish & Wildlife call themselves (0+ / 0-)

              conservation officers. Since hunting and trophy hunting are big business up here, if they don't conserve the species there will be no "economic benefits."

              ❧To thine ownself be true

              by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:44:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

              The DNR in my state "manages" the overpopulated deer herd to maximize hunter success (and license revenue). The overpopulation of deer is harmful to other wildlife -- ground nesting birds, forest floor plants, etc, as well as a significant hazard for motorists.

              •  Deer overpopulation is a result of the killing (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cocinero, atana, White Buffalo, kyril

                of their predators, like wolves and cougars. Really good management that.

                ❧To thine ownself be true

                by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:56:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I would refer to people being (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cocinero

                  able to hunt, instead of animals that kill pets and livestock as good management.

                •  That is partly true (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Agathena, cocinero, FrankRose

                  It's also true that deer, and certain other animals like squirrels, foxes, raccoons, crows, seagulls and others not just tolerate but actually thrive near human populations.

                  We plant millions of tasty shrubs in the suburbs to help deer overwinter.  We plant crops and a certain percent get left standing in fields.   Deer are animals that thrive in the margins between woods and fields, and we have created millions of acres of that habitat where it previously did not exist.  

                  Humans are not bad for all wildlife.  They are bad for wildlife that prefers old growth forests, needs thousands of acres to roam, etc.

                  Humans are good for deer; we create deer habitat in developments and farms all over the country.

                  •  Yes, I think clear cutting the forests gives the (0+ / 0-)

                    deer population a boost, they have all those new shoots that sprout when the sunlight hits the devastated landscape.

                    ❧To thine ownself be true

                    by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:21:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, they don't thrive in clear cut areas (0+ / 0-)

                      At least not whitetail deer.

                      They thrive in areas bordering forestland, again at least whitetail do.

                      Old growth forests are only hospitable to certain species, and in a natural setting patches of forest would routinely be cleared or thinned by fires.  

                      There is a move towards more responsible harvesting of forests for lumber, with spot-culling rather than clear-cutting.  

                •  There has been no natural ecosystem for deer (0+ / 0-)

                  in Iowa for more than 120 years. The ecosystem with deer, elk, and bison controlled by wolves and cougars disappeared in the 1800s. Deer were wiped out by 1898 when deer hunting season was finally closed. Deer returned very slowly. By 1936, there were still only about 600 deer in the state. Hunting was allowed again in 1953. The population has continued to increase in an ecosystem of corn and bean fields, farms, towns, and scattered wooded tracts. The "predators" controlling the population are hunters. The DNR decides how many licenses and tags to issue in order to control population size.

                  Deer are "wildlife" in the same sense as non-native species like ring-necked pheasants and starlings. Unlike starlings, deer and pheasants are good to eat and some people enjoy shooting them.

      •  And this was by Congressional act I beleive (0+ / 0-)

        Those delistings were legally quite complicated, and not under the normal section 4 delistin process

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:18:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yet another of Obama's brilliant hires (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      White Buffalo, Agathena, ammasdarling

      Oh when the history books are finally written...

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:43:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, Driver 8

      you are factually wrong. On all borders of Yellowstone it is not shoot on site.

      All areas bordering Yellowstone have strict harvest limits and once those limits are met that game management area is closed to further wolf hunting. Further no one can shoot a wolf on site anywhere, first they need a license, have passed a safety course.

      If you were to say go to an area bordering YNP and shoot a wolf  without licensure or if that unit is closed you'd be arrested if caught.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:10:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, not wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, White Buffalo
        CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The federal government is ending protections for wolves in Wyoming.

        The announcement Friday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endorses a plan that allows the wolves to be shot on sight in most parts of the state. It retains protections in certain areas.
        http://missoulian.com/...


        Wolves, shoot-on-sight in Wyoming

        ❧To thine ownself be true

        by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:29:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes wrong (0+ / 0-)

          shoot on site in Wyoming does not border yellowstone.

          Do some reading.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:38:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  stop trolling this diary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            White Buffalo, atana, zesty grapher

            With you insults and disrespect.
            Go find another diary to spam.

            We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

            by Christin on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:05:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  States bordering Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, (4+ / 0-)

            Montana, Idaho

            “We are outraged by the recent loss of wolves adjacent to Yellowstone National Park (YNP),” wrote Nathan Varley and Linda Thurston of The Wild Side, LLC on The National Wolfwatcher Coalition, LLC’s website, Wolfwatcher.  “We are asking officials to immediately close wolf hunting areas adjacent to YNP.”

            Wolf advocates believe that Yellowstone needs a buffer zone that would allow the wolves making their homes within the park to wander safely beyond its borders to a certain extent. This buffer zone would have strict wolf hunting and trapping regulations.
            Nov 29, 2012

            The wolves were shot by licensed hunters outside the national park during the legal wolf hunting season that opened this fall in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Seven of the wolves were wearing radio-collars that help scientists track the wolves. Two "were the only collared members of their packs," Smith says. "So, now we can't track those packs." In addition, two of the wolves had specialized GPS collars that collect data every 30 minutes, which has helped researchers better understand wolves' movements and predatory behaviors. Only one wolf in the study program is now left with such a collar.
            I agree that wolf management by the states today is mostly done for political reasons, but I think that is less true in Yellowstone Park because they rarely kill a wolf or move one there. If politics enters, it is most likely pressure to be quiet about Montana’s perhaps unintended threat to kill a fair number of Park wolf packs “accidentally” because their normal range includes wilderness lands directly north of the Park where the hunt is going on.
            Idaho
            Wolf mortality in Idaho, a final toll. 48 – 59 percent of Idaho wolves killed in one year. (UPDATED 5-8-12)All told, based on some estimates made using the data, under state management, 721 wolves, or 59% of the wolves, were killed in the year running from April, 2011 – April, 2012.

            ❧To thine ownself be true

            by Agathena on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:12:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The only state that has a shoot on site law is (0+ / 0-)

              wyoming, and none of the game management units in Wyoming that do allow shoot on site border yellowstone, so there is no shoot on site rule along the borders of yellowstone.

              You can purchase a license which allows a limited number of carcasses and hunt in states along the border, but you absolutely can not shoot on site.

              I've no idea where your cut and pastes are coming from but much of what is posted there is actually factually incorrect also, that's a polite way of saying it's malarky.

              Wolf advocacy web sites or newspaper articles are terrible with facts, long on emotion.

              If the percentages of wolves were being killed that they claim the entire populations would have been killed off years ago.

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:14:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site