This wolf was apparently legally killed near Cambridge Idaho.
Click for larger view. More photos below :
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, May 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm and is filed under Grazing, Livestock, wolves.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
On 4/9, a WS employee was performing non-wolf related duties at a private ranch near Cambridge when he spotted a pair of wolves in a group of cattle. The WS employee shot one of the wolves, an adult, gray female. While investigating, he found a freshly killed calf carcass that he confirmed as a wolf depredation. Control efforts are concluded unless another depredation is confirmed.
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn’t translate to our wolf brethren as she was shot before they confirmed any depredation. Also, the guy in the first photo, I assume the rancher, has a grin that just does not fit with the slaughter of such a majestic beast.
We seem to have accepted more the force of so called ‘men’ as granted while forgetting to realise that ‘men’s inhumanity to men begins with men’s inhumanity to animals’ for as long as ‘men’ does not have a alternative to conserve the appropriate wolf environment than the gun will continue in remaining bigger than the balls.
The grits who pull these stunts are despicable, pathetic, inadequate little men. They should prove what kind of real men they are by pulling a Hemingway…
Sickens me, these so-called men. you got it, they’ve got guns instead of balls. i’d love to see them face a wolf with just what God put them on earth. They’d be running the other way fast.
These assholes probably go to church and think that makes them “good.” They don’t get that God, in his wisdom, made these creatures for reasons beyond their puny understanding.
Why is it churches and most “religious” folk are those that have the hardest time respecting God’s creation? The environment they were so generously given to share? Share is the key word here. they just don’t get it, do they, these jackasses?
It’s like this.. we destroy all the big animals, all the predators at the top of the food chain; all we will be left with are animals that will become more and more tolerant to all the poisons we can throw at them - rats, mice, cockroaches, etc.. and, we, ourselves, the humans - will reproduce like a cancer on this Earth (6, 7, 12, 15 billion….) - until just like deer or rabbit who overpopulate their natural habitat, there will be a big die-off due to some disease or famine that no scientist will be able to save you from.. your children and grandchildren are thanking you already.. you’re leaving them a beautiful world…. killing wolves from a four-wheeler with a rifle - how sick can you be??? Are you going to eat that wolf? Is there a ‘little’ unfair advantage of predator over prey here?
this is the ‘custom & culture’ in Idaho - Livestock tear up the earth, the wildlife habitat, everything - on public land - then they kill anything that gets in their way.
The US taxpayer is subsidizing this.
Cattle ranching, as we know it, needs to end; not just to make room for the wolf but also to help us learn how to live better on this planet. The wild is something that needs to expand as we retreat with our thoughtless waste to learn a little efficiency. Americans would become much greener quickly if we converted our malls from high priced overseas bullshit to efficient meat and energy production factories. We can use these archaic facilities to trap and process the farts and feces currently screwing up our entire world, cutting back on greenhouse gases, and helping with our own energy independence at the same time.
Those scum who think they have a god given right to kill those magnificent wolves WILL get what’s coming to them. They probably think they are safe because they have guns and dogs - we are going to enjoy dealing with them.
If cow was on private fenced land then OK; but if upon leased or open range public lands then no way, dead cow or not.
The same should go for any wild animal found upon public lands.
If there is a hunting season for a designated animal fine.
If an animal is proven dangerous to humans and their livestock, not dogs or cats, upon their own private lands then OK.
Domestic animals sharing public lands face same rules of survival as do the wild. If a farmer or beef rancher cannot withstand the losses due to wild animals upon public lands then let him move or get out of buisness.
A farmer that overgrazes or lacks suffecient lands for his herds and wants to lease public then those lands should be managed so as no ecological damage, such as overgrazing, is done by the domestic animals or their owners.
There is no way we can turn our domestic animals loose in nature and not harm our biota. There are no boundaries in nature. Boundaries are man’s delusion and a very big part of the problem. If we want to help the earth recover from our excesses we had better learn to appreciate the wild while we start responsibly owning our own pathologies and the messy consequences of our avarice.
unfortunately, those livestock are subsidized to be out there on public lands - to the tune of hundreds of millions. then the wildlife eradication. “pathology” is the right word - these guys need to let go and learn to live with the natural world, rather than live against it. the best way to teach that is to remove it’s public finance and all of our contribution to allowing this incompatible activity to tear up every facet of sustainable ‘value’ on our public land. these systems provide services, including water purification, recreation, biodiversity, water storage, carbon sink, etc. etc. etc. far more valuable to us when vibrant than when denuded. wolves stand at the apex and among the communities of wildlife so critical to our future ability to living with, rather than against, the natural world.
unfortunately, this is among the few issues that enjoy public salience - there are so many other ways that this activity demonstrates egregious inefficiency, thoughtless death, and corruption.
end the subsidized destruction of the american west - no more livestock on public lands.
The dead calf and the cows and the WOLF were on private land…the landowner could have legally WHACKED them but DIDNT….Government employee shot the wolf….not sure where the “APPARENTLY legally killed” line came from in the subtitle……
Because the elk in that area are LOW due to wolf predation….and he didnt get to finish the calf…..do you have a picture of a fat wolf…i know they eat pretty regular…BUT…the ones i see all look pretty skinny….maybe they just dont show like you do after a big meal>>>?
There are werewolves, and we are coming to Idaho. We’ll see who grins when the party’s over. I know the way to Priest River, I lived there in 1974. Those yokels were mighty scared back then, owing to an interesting incident on the road to Sandpoint…
Uh, public lands? Read the US Constitution. The federal government is not allowed to hold any land other than for forts and Washington, DC. Public land, by law, is supposed to be put into private citizen’s hands as quickly as possible, not to be forever “managed” by an outlaw federal government. That’s the law. If you are against that you are outlaw. If you want it otherwise there are ways to change the law but as long as that’s the law you are obligated to obey it and so is the federal government. But we live in a country where the government is the biggest outlaw so why the hell should the people give a damn about any statutes that don’t adhere to the constitution - or to any federal law breaker, for that matter?
thanx for saying what so many real men think. you might not be too schooled on the consitution or our nation’s history but you sure understand ownership. i am an outlaw not an owner but am still hoping and working for a good government in this land that might be able to act responsibly for man and nature. i doubt if we can change those who fear and hate, but they sure could change themselves if they were brave enough to give a damn about something other than what they think they own.
Indeed; not just a comment:-
‘Shooting at animals that howl seems to be much easier than howling at animals that shoot!’
No matter how much of a fact of life it may be.
Howling to animals that shoot would be.
The term ‘legally killed’ is to my best knowledge used in tragedies of war, self defence, crime of passion and may even justify it’s meaning in euthanasia.
By ‘legally killing’ an animal in its own nature is no more or less than jumping the gun.
“in its own nature”?????
Gadello….The ranch that this CANADIAN wolf was shot on was established long before you were born…And definitely before the new land sharks were introduced in 1995…..when wolves are in your back yard threatening your job and liveliehood….then come back and comment…
‘Legally killing’ predators to protect domestic animals and livestock is the law….Most agree with the rationale behind it…..The fact that you think its jumping the gun has very little to do with reality…..
the question about whether or not whoever is responsible for this wolf’s death will go to jail or not for what happened is a sidenote. the photographs illustrate a grin - click it, get a larger look - that is a telling on a deeper level. it’s about this “custom & culture’s” regard for wild life. about whether a “livelihood” that is inherently destructive to wild animals, wildlife habitat, the public’s wallet, etc. is really on par with the cowboy myth that has maintains predominance in the media and in too many folks’ minds. the myth is a lie - this pathology is still at war with wildlife - in competition, rather than in harmony. if a man’s ‘livelihood’ is in such conflict with the laws of the natural world - with the wild - to the point of extermination of species critical to the system’s healthy survival, we need to ask ourselves whether it is wise to dump tax-payer dollars and public lands’/wildlife habitat into the perpetuation of said conflict - or whether it’s time to take a new look at the tax-payer’s relationship to the natural world.
should all of us be paying for this man’s grin ? we are
WOW BE…you read a lot into that GRIN…could it be possible he is a nice guy and smiles for all his pictures…if he had a frown…im sure there would be some commentary about that too……your right we shouldn’t have spent money to reintroduce a non native species…Idaho was better off without them!!!!!
I am an Idaho resident, and I have to say I resent the manner in which the yahoos of the state have taken it upon themselves to massacre the few wolves we have. As usual, it’s the ignorant loud mouthed blustery hicks who manage to bully their way into positions of power and force their narrow interests upon the rest of the population. XGoodWolfX: wolves actually are native to this area, I don’t know where you get your information but evidently you need a refresher course. And the elk population has not been “decimated” by the wolves, give me a break. I’d like to know just what makes the “hunters” more entitled to the elk than the animals that nature intended feed on them?
EASY tiger…lets back up a bit….first define “massacre”…..Idaho Fish and Game has established that 328 wolves need to be harvested this year….the season hasn’t even STARTED…talk about ignorant…wyoming is slaughtering them and its a massacre here in Idaho…LOL….And where did i use the word “decimated”……I said elk populations are LOW due to wolf depredation…i have video tape if you would like to take a look…..AND dont even try to say the pop is declining from harsh winters, loss of habitat etc….this area has had many harsh winters…their range has not changed and there hasn’t been human encroachment in this area….so what does that leave…thats right IGMO…WOLVES……Hunters are funding the Fish and Game who in turn manage wolves, elk, deer, black bear…You get the idea….GOD put animals on earth for humans to manage…not the other way around..
hmm. now I get it XGoodWolfX. Sorry I didn’t understand that you are an agent of your God and just doing the dominion thing he blessed you with, a faithful servant. I do think it is possible you misinterpreted those words though. Dominion might mean responsibility as much as dominating. And did God also make up the boundary between Canada and US, if so this is just another aspect of homeland security eh?
Wolves dont recognize borders either….so why transplant them….if it is “Natural”…then let them expand from Canada without the use of cages and planes…..
here’s a kicker - it was a western republican senator who advocated for the re-introduction as opposed to the recolonization ! the livestock industry knew that if wolves were to be restored by recolonizing from canada, the wolves would enjoy the full protection of the ESA rather than that “experimental population” designation and the 10 (j) rule allowing livestock producers to kill wolves.
the “anti-wolf” livestock reps in congress are as responsible for re-introduction as anyone else ~
leave the wolves alone - livestock don’t belong on public land.
Yeah leave the wolves alone….elk don’t belong on public land, moose don’t belong on public land, deer dont belong on public land…Uncontrolled wolf numbers is not the answer….The only consolation for me is the wolf lovers are in the minority….If you dont like seeing these pictures Be, you may want to turn off your computer for the next couple years….
There are just a FEW more people who eat beef than those who don’t….Until that changes….Cows will be fattened up for the consumer wherever it is cheapest…..Right now that is public land……
From March 28 through April 24 officials recorded 17 wolf mortalities: nine kills authorized in livestock depredations, two illegal takes, three killed under state law, two vehicle collisions, and one natural death.
Meanwhile, 12 conservation groups Monday, April 28, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over delisting the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
The groups are asking the U.S. District Court in Missoula to suspend state management of wolves until the case is resolved.
i have a question. Why is it so much cheaper to fatten up the cows on public land and degrade our water when that is so far away from the mouths of our poor starving consumers. I thought feed lots were for that. Now those smell like a good idea too. Over course it would be better to have them under a roof, over pavenment and within walls so we can capture their essence for our energy. There will be plenty of vacant buildings after these guys are done screwing our economy…
Maybe we can offer a deal to the big ranchers and get their land and leases in trade for real commercial property closer to their market.
Answer : it’s not cheaper - it’s vastly more expensive both in financial terms and in non-consumptive value. All of us are paying (more than) the difference in taxes and in lost ecological service potential and in the lost value of the wild. they’re not creative with how they value the world.
public lands forage (you and i might refer to it as “wildlife habitat”) constitutes around 3% of forage in the US - it’s too insignificant to affect the price of beef. but that 3% goes for $1.35/AUM as opposed to fair market more around $13/AUM. Direct cost to taxpayers $120 million annual - indirect costs (road maintenance, fence, water developments, weed abatement, etc.) is between $500 million and a billion annually. You think that difference in AUM price finds its way to relieve the cost of beef thus to the relief of the consumer ? No. There’s really no economic argument for keeping stock on our public land.
this is ultimately a “cultural” question - a socio-pathological ‘last call’. There is a visceral need to find something to blame the failure of this cultural identity to perpetuate itself on — in grasping for that - they blame iconic species of the wild - and those activists who advocate for re-wilding. all the while the political opportunists behind (or in front of) it continue to consolidate control over our public land and water - think Simplot, 16 percent of all permittees control 76.2 percent of the public forage - and continue its privatization via resource extraction (oil, cattle, even game species and ‘trophy’ wildlife is increasingly regarded as a right on par with the right of private property instead of regarded/appreciated as a privilege bounty of the common).
God put animals on the Earth for humans to manage??
Are we still in the Dark Ages here?
Who were supposed to manage the dinosaurs and the other million species that showed up long before man???
There’s nothing illegal here, but the photos are a good insight into Idaho’s ranching culture (a small and highly overrated part of the state’s economy).
Pepe, you’ve got it right. That’s the way a lot of these ranchers see it.
Ernest Thompson Seton’s account of how he hunted a cattle-killing wolf became a pivotal part of American history, helping to change the way people see wolves and the wilderness. In his efforts to find, capture, and kill Lobo, Seton came to understand the animal’s intelligence, loyalty and warmth. Although he finally succeeded in his task, he never killed a wolf again.
And furthermore, God all of a sudden has decided to allow man to live to be 70, 80, 90, 100 - as doctors do every technological possible thing to keep the elderly alive - and also does everything to save newborns who would have died had they been born 100 years ago (without the technology) - God is pleased that man has polluted the waters, the air, killed off hundreds and hundreds of species of ‘His other beings’ - and then, this Omnipotent, all-Good Being’s sole concern is if you say you believe in Him or not???
Please don’t bring God in this discussion.. use a little common sense..
Man… Is a tame or civilized animal;
never the less, he requires proper instruction
and a fortunate nature,
and then, of all the animals,
he becomes the most divine and most civilized;
but if he is insufficiently or ill-educated
he is the most savage of earthly creatures.
that is a great shot of the wolf we need more of the same,keep up the good work renchers and do not forget all outdoorsmen remember the 3 SSS do your part in the control of wolves before some sweet little hiker gets eaten by a pack of wolves hey that would not be to bad…
Well I suppose we can all fantasize within the Da Vinci theory just as much as we can add lines to a blog while sitting on the pot.
If there is any sustainability within depends on how big of an asshole one can be…
May 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Shoot first ask questions later.
This is from the Wolf Weekly: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wklyReport/2008/april11.pdf
On 4/9, a WS employee was performing non-wolf related duties at a private ranch near Cambridge when he spotted a pair of wolves in a group of cattle. The WS employee shot one of the wolves, an adult, gray female. While investigating, he found a freshly killed calf carcass that he confirmed as a wolf depredation. Control efforts are concluded unless another depredation is confirmed.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
[…] WWPblog has posted these photos of a wolf apparently legally killed near Cambridge Idaho. Posted in Uncategorized. […]
May 13th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn’t translate to our wolf brethren as she was shot before they confirmed any depredation. Also, the guy in the first photo, I assume the rancher, has a grin that just does not fit with the slaughter of such a majestic beast.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
He has a grin….that wolf won’t be killing any more calves….your point>>?
May 14th, 2008 at 12:41 am
The rancher isn’t the only Idahoan smiling at these pictures
= ^))))))))))))))))))))))))
May 14th, 2008 at 3:13 am
We seem to have accepted more the force of so called ‘men’ as granted while forgetting to realise that ‘men’s inhumanity to men begins with men’s inhumanity to animals’ for as long as ‘men’ does not have a alternative to conserve the appropriate wolf environment than the gun will continue in remaining bigger than the balls.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I’ll bet seeing these pictures make some people’s little pee-pees hard
May 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Yes,
And manifest destiny is still the preferred rule of law in the west in the 21st century.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The grits who pull these stunts are despicable, pathetic, inadequate little men. They should prove what kind of real men they are by pulling a Hemingway…
May 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Sickens me, these so-called men. you got it, they’ve got guns instead of balls. i’d love to see them face a wolf with just what God put them on earth. They’d be running the other way fast.
These assholes probably go to church and think that makes them “good.” They don’t get that God, in his wisdom, made these creatures for reasons beyond their puny understanding.
Why is it churches and most “religious” folk are those that have the hardest time respecting God’s creation? The environment they were so generously given to share? Share is the key word here. they just don’t get it, do they, these jackasses?
May 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It’s like this.. we destroy all the big animals, all the predators at the top of the food chain; all we will be left with are animals that will become more and more tolerant to all the poisons we can throw at them - rats, mice, cockroaches, etc.. and, we, ourselves, the humans - will reproduce like a cancer on this Earth (6, 7, 12, 15 billion….) - until just like deer or rabbit who overpopulate their natural habitat, there will be a big die-off due to some disease or famine that no scientist will be able to save you from.. your children and grandchildren are thanking you already.. you’re leaving them a beautiful world…. killing wolves from a four-wheeler with a rifle - how sick can you be??? Are you going to eat that wolf? Is there a ‘little’ unfair advantage of predator over prey here?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Sad little men, powerless and pathetic, colons full of carcinogenic beef.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
this is the ‘custom & culture’ in Idaho - Livestock tear up the earth, the wildlife habitat, everything - on public land - then they kill anything that gets in their way.
The US taxpayer is subsidizing this.
More info on wolves in particular
May 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Reason enough to tell the Idaho Department of tourism that I won’t be visiting their state.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Cattle ranching, as we know it, needs to end; not just to make room for the wolf but also to help us learn how to live better on this planet. The wild is something that needs to expand as we retreat with our thoughtless waste to learn a little efficiency. Americans would become much greener quickly if we converted our malls from high priced overseas bullshit to efficient meat and energy production factories. We can use these archaic facilities to trap and process the farts and feces currently screwing up our entire world, cutting back on greenhouse gases, and helping with our own energy independence at the same time.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Shooting at animals that howl seems to be much easier than howling at animals that shoot!
May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Those scum who think they have a god given right to kill those magnificent wolves WILL get what’s coming to them. They probably think they are safe because they have guns and dogs - we are going to enjoy dealing with them.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
If cow was on private fenced land then OK; but if upon leased or open range public lands then no way, dead cow or not.
The same should go for any wild animal found upon public lands.
If there is a hunting season for a designated animal fine.
If an animal is proven dangerous to humans and their livestock, not dogs or cats, upon their own private lands then OK.
Domestic animals sharing public lands face same rules of survival as do the wild. If a farmer or beef rancher cannot withstand the losses due to wild animals upon public lands then let him move or get out of buisness.
A farmer that overgrazes or lacks suffecient lands for his herds and wants to lease public then those lands should be managed so as no ecological damage, such as overgrazing, is done by the domestic animals or their owners.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
There is no way we can turn our domestic animals loose in nature and not harm our biota. There are no boundaries in nature. Boundaries are man’s delusion and a very big part of the problem. If we want to help the earth recover from our excesses we had better learn to appreciate the wild while we start responsibly owning our own pathologies and the messy consequences of our avarice.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
unfortunately, those livestock are subsidized to be out there on public lands - to the tune of hundreds of millions. then the wildlife eradication. “pathology” is the right word - these guys need to let go and learn to live with the natural world, rather than live against it. the best way to teach that is to remove it’s public finance and all of our contribution to allowing this incompatible activity to tear up every facet of sustainable ‘value’ on our public land. these systems provide services, including water purification, recreation, biodiversity, water storage, carbon sink, etc. etc. etc. far more valuable to us when vibrant than when denuded. wolves stand at the apex and among the communities of wildlife so critical to our future ability to living with, rather than against, the natural world.
unfortunately, this is among the few issues that enjoy public salience - there are so many other ways that this activity demonstrates egregious inefficiency, thoughtless death, and corruption.
end the subsidized destruction of the american west - no more livestock on public lands.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The dead calf and the cows and the WOLF were on private land…the landowner could have legally WHACKED them but DIDNT….Government employee shot the wolf….not sure where the “APPARENTLY legally killed” line came from in the subtitle……
May 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
XGoodWolfX,
why isn’t the wolf’s belly full ?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Because the elk in that area are LOW due to wolf predation….and he didnt get to finish the calf…..do you have a picture of a fat wolf…i know they eat pretty regular…BUT…the ones i see all look pretty skinny….maybe they just dont show like you do after a big meal>>>?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
When you see skinny elk and deer you claim populations are too high….wonder why the same doesn’t hold true for scraggly wolf mutts>>?
May 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
What a man, each is.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
There are werewolves, and we are coming to Idaho. We’ll see who grins when the party’s over. I know the way to Priest River, I lived there in 1974. Those yokels were mighty scared back then, owing to an interesting incident on the road to Sandpoint…
May 17th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Uh, public lands? Read the US Constitution. The federal government is not allowed to hold any land other than for forts and Washington, DC. Public land, by law, is supposed to be put into private citizen’s hands as quickly as possible, not to be forever “managed” by an outlaw federal government. That’s the law. If you are against that you are outlaw. If you want it otherwise there are ways to change the law but as long as that’s the law you are obligated to obey it and so is the federal government. But we live in a country where the government is the biggest outlaw so why the hell should the people give a damn about any statutes that don’t adhere to the constitution - or to any federal law breaker, for that matter?
May 17th, 2008 at 7:16 am
tony b,
thanx for saying what so many real men think. you might not be too schooled on the consitution or our nation’s history but you sure understand ownership. i am an outlaw not an owner but am still hoping and working for a good government in this land that might be able to act responsibly for man and nature. i doubt if we can change those who fear and hate, but they sure could change themselves if they were brave enough to give a damn about something other than what they think they own.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Indeed; not just a comment:-
‘Shooting at animals that howl seems to be much easier than howling at animals that shoot!’
No matter how much of a fact of life it may be.
Howling to animals that shoot would be.
The term ‘legally killed’ is to my best knowledge used in tragedies of war, self defence, crime of passion and may even justify it’s meaning in euthanasia.
By ‘legally killing’ an animal in its own nature is no more or less than jumping the gun.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“in its own nature”?????
Gadello….The ranch that this CANADIAN wolf was shot on was established long before you were born…And definitely before the new land sharks were introduced in 1995…..when wolves are in your back yard threatening your job and liveliehood….then come back and comment…
‘Legally killing’ predators to protect domestic animals and livestock is the law….Most agree with the rationale behind it…..The fact that you think its jumping the gun has very little to do with reality…..
May 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
XGoodWolfX,
the question about whether or not whoever is responsible for this wolf’s death will go to jail or not for what happened is a sidenote. the photographs illustrate a grin - click it, get a larger look - that is a telling on a deeper level. it’s about this “custom & culture’s” regard for wild life. about whether a “livelihood” that is inherently destructive to wild animals, wildlife habitat, the public’s wallet, etc. is really on par with the cowboy myth that has maintains predominance in the media and in too many folks’ minds. the myth is a lie - this pathology is still at war with wildlife - in competition, rather than in harmony. if a man’s ‘livelihood’ is in such conflict with the laws of the natural world - with the wild - to the point of extermination of species critical to the system’s healthy survival, we need to ask ourselves whether it is wise to dump tax-payer dollars and public lands’/wildlife habitat into the perpetuation of said conflict - or whether it’s time to take a new look at the tax-payer’s relationship to the natural world.
should all of us be paying for this man’s grin ? we are
May 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
No disrespect to those who work and want to protect their livestock.
You have countries with much less resources like Romania.
The bears come to seek food within apartment blocks for hours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-LPRpo2nSs
Yes; some times they are shoot, with a tranquiliser and taken to the local zoo.
http://www-research.ge.ucl.ac.uk/BEAR/htm/brs/tampa.html
Cheeked, feed and released to their possible habitat.
I believe similar solutions exist with polar bear prisons for bears who steal food.
This is also a reality.
May 18th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
WOW BE…you read a lot into that GRIN…could it be possible he is a nice guy and smiles for all his pictures…if he had a frown…im sure there would be some commentary about that too……your right we shouldn’t have spent money to reintroduce a non native species…Idaho was better off without them!!!!!
May 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I am an Idaho resident, and I have to say I resent the manner in which the yahoos of the state have taken it upon themselves to massacre the few wolves we have. As usual, it’s the ignorant loud mouthed blustery hicks who manage to bully their way into positions of power and force their narrow interests upon the rest of the population. XGoodWolfX: wolves actually are native to this area, I don’t know where you get your information but evidently you need a refresher course. And the elk population has not been “decimated” by the wolves, give me a break. I’d like to know just what makes the “hunters” more entitled to the elk than the animals that nature intended feed on them?
May 19th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
EASY tiger…lets back up a bit….first define “massacre”…..Idaho Fish and Game has established that 328 wolves need to be harvested this year….the season hasn’t even STARTED…talk about ignorant…wyoming is slaughtering them and its a massacre here in Idaho…LOL….And where did i use the word “decimated”……I said elk populations are LOW due to wolf depredation…i have video tape if you would like to take a look…..AND dont even try to say the pop is declining from harsh winters, loss of habitat etc….this area has had many harsh winters…their range has not changed and there hasn’t been human encroachment in this area….so what does that leave…thats right IGMO…WOLVES……Hunters are funding the Fish and Game who in turn manage wolves, elk, deer, black bear…You get the idea….GOD put animals on earth for humans to manage…not the other way around..
May 20th, 2008 at 9:03 am
hmm. now I get it XGoodWolfX. Sorry I didn’t understand that you are an agent of your God and just doing the dominion thing he blessed you with, a faithful servant. I do think it is possible you misinterpreted those words though. Dominion might mean responsibility as much as dominating. And did God also make up the boundary between Canada and US, if so this is just another aspect of homeland security eh?
you don’t have an arrogance issue do you?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Bucky I have a wolf issue…but thanks for asking….i stand by my post…
May 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Wolves dont recognize borders either….so why transplant them….if it is “Natural”…then let them expand from Canada without the use of cages and planes…..
May 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
XGoodWolfX,
here’s a kicker - it was a western republican senator who advocated for the re-introduction as opposed to the recolonization ! the livestock industry knew that if wolves were to be restored by recolonizing from canada, the wolves would enjoy the full protection of the ESA rather than that “experimental population” designation and the 10 (j) rule allowing livestock producers to kill wolves.
the “anti-wolf” livestock reps in congress are as responsible for re-introduction as anyone else ~
leave the wolves alone - livestock don’t belong on public land.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Yeah leave the wolves alone….elk don’t belong on public land, moose don’t belong on public land, deer dont belong on public land…Uncontrolled wolf numbers is not the answer….The only consolation for me is the wolf lovers are in the minority….If you dont like seeing these pictures Be, you may want to turn off your computer for the next couple years….
There are just a FEW more people who eat beef than those who don’t….Until that changes….Cows will be fattened up for the consumer wherever it is cheapest…..Right now that is public land……
May 21st, 2008 at 12:36 am
From March 28 through April 24 officials recorded 17 wolf mortalities: nine kills authorized in livestock depredations, two illegal takes, three killed under state law, two vehicle collisions, and one natural death.
Meanwhile, 12 conservation groups Monday, April 28, sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over delisting the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
The groups are asking the U.S. District Court in Missoula to suspend state management of wolves until the case is resolved.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
i have a question. Why is it so much cheaper to fatten up the cows on public land and degrade our water when that is so far away from the mouths of our poor starving consumers. I thought feed lots were for that. Now those smell like a good idea too. Over course it would be better to have them under a roof, over pavenment and within walls so we can capture their essence for our energy. There will be plenty of vacant buildings after these guys are done screwing our economy…
Maybe we can offer a deal to the big ranchers and get their land and leases in trade for real commercial property closer to their market.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Answer : it’s not cheaper - it’s vastly more expensive both in financial terms and in non-consumptive value. All of us are paying (more than) the difference in taxes and in lost ecological service potential and in the lost value of the wild. they’re not creative with how they value the world.
public lands forage (you and i might refer to it as “wildlife habitat”) constitutes around 3% of forage in the US - it’s too insignificant to affect the price of beef. but that 3% goes for $1.35/AUM as opposed to fair market more around $13/AUM. Direct cost to taxpayers $120 million annual - indirect costs (road maintenance, fence, water developments, weed abatement, etc.) is between $500 million and a billion annually. You think that difference in AUM price finds its way to relieve the cost of beef thus to the relief of the consumer ? No. There’s really no economic argument for keeping stock on our public land.
this is ultimately a “cultural” question - a socio-pathological ‘last call’. There is a visceral need to find something to blame the failure of this cultural identity to perpetuate itself on — in grasping for that - they blame iconic species of the wild - and those activists who advocate for re-wilding. all the while the political opportunists behind (or in front of) it continue to consolidate control over our public land and water - think Simplot, 16 percent of all permittees control 76.2 percent of the public forage - and continue its privatization via resource extraction (oil, cattle, even game species and ‘trophy’ wildlife is increasingly regarded as a right on par with the right of private property instead of regarded/appreciated as a privilege bounty of the common).
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
God put animals on the Earth for humans to manage??
Are we still in the Dark Ages here?
Who were supposed to manage the dinosaurs and the other million species that showed up long before man???
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
There’s nothing illegal here, but the photos are a good insight into Idaho’s ranching culture (a small and highly overrated part of the state’s economy).
Pepe, you’ve got it right. That’s the way a lot of these ranchers see it.
Ralph Maughan
Pocatello, ID
May 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
H I S T O R Y
A combination of wildlife and history
Ernest Thompson Seton’s account of how he hunted a cattle-killing wolf became a pivotal part of American history, helping to change the way people see wolves and the wilderness. In his efforts to find, capture, and kill Lobo, Seton came to understand the animal’s intelligence, loyalty and warmth. Although he finally succeeded in his task, he never killed a wolf again.
http://www.etsetoninstitute.org/chronology/
May 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
And furthermore, God all of a sudden has decided to allow man to live to be 70, 80, 90, 100 - as doctors do every technological possible thing to keep the elderly alive - and also does everything to save newborns who would have died had they been born 100 years ago (without the technology) - God is pleased that man has polluted the waters, the air, killed off hundreds and hundreds of species of ‘His other beings’ - and then, this Omnipotent, all-Good Being’s sole concern is if you say you believe in Him or not???
Please don’t bring God in this discussion.. use a little common sense..
May 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Man… Is a tame or civilized animal;
never the less, he requires proper instruction
and a fortunate nature,
and then, of all the animals,
he becomes the most divine and most civilized;
but if he is insufficiently or ill-educated
he is the most savage of earthly creatures.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
that is a great shot of the wolf we need more of the same,keep up the good work renchers and do not forget all outdoorsmen remember the 3 SSS do your part in the control of wolves before some sweet little hiker gets eaten by a pack of wolves hey that would not be to bad…
July 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Well I suppose we can all fantasize within the Da Vinci theory just as much as we can add lines to a blog while sitting on the pot.
If there is any sustainability within depends on how big of an asshole one can be…