What this idiot fails to comprehend is that wolves occupy a specific niche in the food chain. And essentially eradicating them from face of the earth has consequences. This guy is an unadulterated:
Posted on 01/12/2007 10:34:05 AM PST by Lorianne
BOISE, Idaho - Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.
The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again be considered endangered.
"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.
Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during his comments.
Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.
"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."
Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.
A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a minimum of 15 wolf packs — higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.
Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species Conservation, said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the surviving wolf population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow before the animals are again considered endangered.
Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.
"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one (wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on the list," Allen said
If you're not going to eat them, don't hunt them.
According to Little Big Man: "Dog ain't bad, neither. Greasy, I'll admit,... ...but you'd be surprised how delicate the flavor is,... ...especially when you're starving."
Exactly. What kind of @$$hole thinks up crap like this? The only reasons they should be doing this are : if they threaten humans (unlikely) or livestock. This is just sick and stupid.
And he was right.
I've had dog, and it ain't half bad.
As far as killing what you eat, I am essentially for that. There is something to be said, though, for selective predator harvesting.
I enjoy it myself. It keeps the predator population in check, thereby allowing game species: rabbit, squirrel, deer, etc, to thrive. More can be said for ornamental species as well, such as migratory birds like robins.
Not to mention, predator hunting keeps your game hunting skills sharp. Picking off a coyote at 200 yards in the wide open takes some serious skill.
While wolves may not be tasty, I think the rabbits, deer and other herbivores they take out are much better table fare, so I can see selectively harvesting predators.
I guess harvesting a species to the edge of endangered makes sense? I agree that keeping control of a predator population is healthy but how much pressure is 650 wolves actually placing on 83,574 sq mi of prey? Thats one wolf for each 129 square miles.
Great minds think alike.
I must have had the other half...
The Gov is right. These reintroduced wolves play the devil with ranchers. Hopefully they can hem in some at Glacier National Park (International Peace Park Biosphere for you PETA/Sierra Club jackasses) and cut the #s waaaay down everywhere else. But the habitat in the extreme north of the state will probably not well support ten packs. The lower elevation areas--home to ranches--provide much more food.
Easy for you to say that when you aren't losing livestock or watching the elk, deer and moose herds being killed. Idaho once had a native population of wolves that weighed about 40 lbs. The idiots that wanted to being wolves "back" decided to put big Canadian wolves...120 lbs each...into Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. It was a stupid idea, but it was "sold" with the provision that they would never be more than 10 wolf packs. It's gone completely out of control. The wolves DO threaten people, pets, livestock and wildlife (deer, elk, moose). The wolf packs kill for SPORT and leave carcasses all over the place.
I have to agree with you. Killing wolves is not the best thing to do, pretty moronic if you ask me. Wouldn't be easier if we just killed child rapists, murderers, etc., you get the picture.
As for those that think dog is such a wonderful delicacy, I hope you choke.
ROFLOL! You've missed your calling as a real journalist!
And as for improving the gene pool, the last resort of the outmatched is to hurl insults.
Do you mean predators like yourself?
I had a pet hen once. Tasted like chicken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.