Skip to main content

View Diary: Two years after hunting was legalized half the wolves are gone (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They've been trying to delist for 10 years (0+ / 0-)

    and populations are way way higher than is good for the people of the affected states.

    Next year there will be heavy attempts at population control in 7 states.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:46:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK now we are getting somewhere (3+ / 0-)

      De-listing wolves is not about assuring ecosystem health, or maintaining an apex predator in an ecosystem.

      It's about who gets to eat a steak.  

      And that's OK - but let's be upfront about it. Let's stop all the pseudo-scientific bullshit about state wildlife officials in GOP-dominated states giving a shit about ecosystem health, or even being "experts".  Let's recognize that this is about state economic interests - that people consider the elk their property and they want to eat them, not the wolves.

      The wolf population climbed in the northern Rockies because the elk population had artificially inflated due to lack of predation (and was squeezed into less territory because of human control over fires and vegetation succession).  The wolves that repopulated this area are not smarter or better hunters than wolves in the past. Their population increases to near the carrying capacity and the historical overpopulation of elk starts getting corrected... or maybe returning to an oscillation in which elk populations crash, then wolf populations, and over time some sort of stasis is reached.

      But since wolves are in some ways better hunters than humans, humans get fewer elk.  And that's a big frickin' deal.  People want their steaks.  The hunting industry has more money.  So wolves need to be eliminated.  

      It's not science.  It's hardly game management.  If you want game management, look at MN which is actually more rational about its wolf population. In every way, MN is handling this better than any western state - and yes, they do allow a wolf hunt.  If the Western states responded like MN - with a measured hunt and a policy intended to assure healthy intact wolf populations, then I wouldn't be so upset.  But you seem to deny that this is really about politics and not science, resentment and not logic, competition for some elk meat and not ecosystem management.  That's what bugs me.  Admit it, admit that you would rather have elk steaks in your freezer than intact wolf social units, and then maybe at least we will be talking honestly to each other.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 01:09:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democratic states, Uninted States Wildlife (0+ / 0-)

        Biologists.

        You seem to have read a story or something somewhere that you are repeating. I'd suggest government web sites or the International Wolf Center. Those advocacy groups get people all confused.

        There are no wolves where I hunt, no worry about steaks, or stew meat or liver.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 06:24:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who here is contesting that it's not about science (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos

        it's about interest groups with an economic stake (including food in the freezer): your Cattlemen's Association, Outfitters & Guides, hunters. Powerful lobbies with their thumbs on Republican legislators.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site