Skip to main content

View Diary: Wolves: "Mission Accomplished" (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you should probably have linked to the USFWS (0+ / 0-)

    statement right off the bat. I mean that is what you are talking about, wouldn't it be good to have their statement for people to look at? It's very readable. News Release re: delisting USFWS
    Their FAQs regarding the delisting might answer many questions, the most important being why they are being delisted now when wolves don't occupy their historic range.
    FAQ USFWS Wold delisting
    and lastly what states are saying about the proposal.
    http://www.fws.gov/...

    The wolf is one of the most studied species of large mammal in N America. Wouldn't it have been good to have a statement by a wolf researcher?

    I know you feel strongly about the subject, it's obvious by your writing, but it would probably help to take a step back and read from the original sources, or even the scientific journals. Strong feelings inevitably lead to more wolves being killed. Imagine if delisting had occurred in 02 as it should have. Thousands less dead wolves.

    Probably this is going to be litigated. The wolf is a huge cash cow for too many people. Jamie Rappaport herself might be looking to retire without the wolf controversy. I could easily see Wild Earth Guardians, The Center for Biologic Diversity, and the NRDC losing as much as half of their donations. Those orgs thrive on intense hate and a sense of persecution. They are the Tea Party of the ecologic world.

    But in the end the USFWS will win in court, as they always do, on science. The people who hate westerners have never won a court case on science, only procedural issues, and at the end of the day, science trumps all else.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 01:59:50 PM PDT

    •  The proposal is not based on science (5+ / 0-)

      from the scientists that I have read.

      I linked to the USFWS statement in an article from whence I got my title, Feds say mission accomplished.
      http://www.sltrib.com/...

      I posted a link to a letter by 16 scientists.
      I posted a link from Scientific American

      Your insinuation that this diary is based on emotion vs science is a cliché.

      There are plenty of wolf researchers in the videos I posted.

      I actually had another video of a lecture by a wolf researcher but when he got to the point of bragging about shooting wolves from helicopters, it turned me off. He had a lot of information about wolves but he laughed about the male wolves being too slow to outrun his helicopter. A good researcher shouldn't put himself in a god-like position over the animal he is studying. He should have respect for living creatures.

      To thine ownself be true

      by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 02:51:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I already looked when they first sent that letter (0+ / 0-)

        Not one wolf researcher.

        There are wolf researchers that are extremely pro wolf, at Oregon and also working at Isle Royale. None of them have commented that I know of yet.

        I do recognize J B. I read Jeremy Bruskotter's blog comments often he goes by JB, he's an assistant professor of whatever in ohio. His last project was trying to prove the media is anti wolf. Doubt he makes full professor.

        What researcher shot wolves? You mean darted? They like to pose with the drugged wolf. Scientist trophy hunting. You know a lot of the original introduced wolves were caught in leg hold traps. Safe and non injurious.

        The Salt Lake article of course only had quotes. You boxed a good one. You went through the motions of objectivity. Why not go ahead and read what the folks at USFWS have to say?

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:50:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's JB's comment from a few minutes ago (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.thewildlifenews.com/...

          Where did you read that Dave Mech says that wolves were restored to 80% of the habitat that they could occupy? I’d like to see that article.
          JB is so informed he is clueless as to what the world most renowned wolf researcher has to say on the de listing.

          I laugh and laugh. So many people only talk to the like minded and then when reality rears it's ugly head.. oops. Like that poster upthread that thought no one had ever been eaten by a wolf in North America. Good Grief.

          Although wolves roam only a small portion of their historical range, it's about 80 per cent of the area they realistically could be expected to occupy today, said David Mech, a leading wolf expert and senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Paul, Minnesota.

          Even without federal protection, wolves are likely to migrate into several Western states, Mech said. The primary barrier to expansion isn't lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance, he said.

          http://www.ottawacitizen.com/...
          "The primary barrier to expansion (in the remaining 20% available) isn't lack of habitat or prey, but human intolerance" Are you working towards greater tolerance or exacerbating divisions?

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:19:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In the videos: there are wolf researchers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          Your opinions are entrenched and never vary from supporting the government.

          I read what USFWS has to say and did not choose to repeat their propaganda in my diary. Write your own diary.

          To thine ownself be true

          by Agathena on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:25:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I probably will but later after some dust has (0+ / 0-)

            settled.

            I like government. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" Love that stuff. The government as bad as it is, is the most knowledgeable honest broker in the deal. I'm a Democrat, I believe in government.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:39:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  it absolutely should NOT have been delisting (4+ / 0-)

      in fact, delisting even today is likely to be illegal.

      First, to make a delisting the secretary must consider the following factors and determine that these factors are no longer a threat.

      (1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) of this section determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
      (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
      (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
      (C) disease or predation;
      (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
      (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
      If 1100 wolves are slaughtered in two years under state "regulations" pretty clearly the threats that drove the species to the brink are still in full force.  As long as hunters and ranchers want to shoot the shit out of any thing that moves, clearly delisting is illegal.  It will be challenged in court, and it will go down in flames.  

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:20:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site