It wasn’t my claim…I was just provisionally giving it a pass until more data came out. Thanks for that data. I’ll look it over tonight (I don’t have a PDF viewer where I am atm).
-XT
Well, since no one else has stepped up with a cite, I found this in a google search. I’m unsure of how reliable it is, but its something we can at least look at and discuss. There is another cite I found (here if anyone is interested), but the data only goes to 2001 unfortunately.
(ed. Bolding and emphasis mine btw)
So, again I have to ask…just how big a problem is all this? I mean, according to the blurb above, of the 80,000-90,000 cattle/sheep lost A YEAR (in Montana), a vanishingly small percentage of them were killed by wolves…looks like less than 100 to me from this cite and other (100 might be generous in fact). I’m willing to be shown why this interperetation is incorrect…lets see some hard figures. Convince me that this is a major problem and that wolves are the cause…and thus there is a real need to curb them. Because frankly, I’m not seeing it. It looks to ME, considering what I’m looking at (which, admittedly could be wrong), that the ‘problem’ is one of prejudice and perception…INCORRECT perception.
As I said earlier, this looks suspiciously like people who are worried about all the wrong things…worried about getting on that airplane while blithely driving about with no seat belt on and drunk to boot! Worried about some obscure disease killing them while eating that 3rd Big Mac with extra fat and a supersized portion of fries…but with a diet coke to make it all right.
-XT
As far as the livestock problem, I’ll concede it’s not a huge one. However, for those affected it is a problem. If a wolf kills your cow (or more likely your calf), that’s money out of your pocket. This is also a problem when you consider that it’s not a “natural” one. Wolves did not exist there for 80 years or so. The feds imposed them on this area.
And I’m not so sure that public opinion poll is really relevant. One, it’s from 2003, not from when wolves were introduced. Living there at the time, I can’t recall anyone suggesting that this was a popular move within the state. Most, if not all, statewide elected officials were against it (across party lines) and the legislature tried to stop it. As you can see with the current story, most (if not all) statewide elected officials are still anti-wolf. Two, it polls the entire state. Most of the state was unaffected by wolves. There were no wolves introduced in Boise. There were no wolves introduced in Coeur d’Alene or Pocatello. Poll the people of the area affected. You’ll still see that today this was a highly unpopular position.
Perhaps I am a little biased because I dealt, in a minor way, with this issue while working in the Senate. I read letters from these people. I talked to them. They hate wolves. They hate even more the fact that the federal government imposed them on the area without any consent from the locals. That, more than anything, is the real sticking point of the issue. The locals felt completely powerless to fend off what they viewed as a directive coming from Easterners with no idea of their local economy or their wishes.
I’m fairly certain that the gov’t and wildlife groups recoup the cost of any animal killed by a wolf in Idaho (I know thats the case in most states where the animals have been reintroduced anyways). So it’s not money out of the pockets of Idaho ranchers, indeed I imagine that that is pretty much the only source livestock mortality that a rancher is reimbursed for with no strings attached. I’ll see if I can dig up a cite tomorrow.
page 30 of this survey (warning, PDF) from '95 gives the same types of numbers as the '03 survey. Indeed approval for wolves in Idaho was slightly higher back then.
Again, from the evidence presented in this thread, I’d have to conclude that all of the state is more or less unaffected, whether rancher or “cityfolk”. But I don’t know anything about ranching, so I’ll join xtisme in waiting to see if anyone can scrape up evidence for any sort of signifigant economic damage by wolves.
So based on one cowboy Governor and some dweeb who wants any excuse to carry a gun, people think this is a real problem? This is Northern Idaho - shouldn’t Mr Happy McCrazy be carrying a gun to fend off the black helicopters of the World Government come to take him off to the concentration camps in Central Iowa?
Anyhow, isn’t this a bit of a tempest in a teapot? Doesn’t the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service set endangered status?
As for popularity, popularity (or lack of same) doesn’t mean it should be done - laws and policy don’t work by show of hands.
One, it’s not North Idaho. It’s central Idaho. Two, the Black Helicopter thing is around ten years old, so you may want to update your not-so-original insults. Three, Butch (and other politicians who oppose this) are representing the state. Regardless of what opinion polls may claim, opposition to wolf reintroduction has always been a winning issue for any politician. The Governor, the two Senators, the two Representatives, and the legislature all vigorously opposed it and all were re-elected by large margins.
Yes, but when a species is delisted, the state takes over its management.
Indirectly, yes they do. People vote for representatives. These representatives usually approve popular policies and reject unpopular policies.
Talking to these ranchers, they say the conditions put on the reimbursements make it difficult to get money for all the livestock killed by wolves. Of course, this could also mean that the ranchers merely think more livestock is being killed than is atually being killed. For me, though, the economic damage isn’t of primary importance. It’s the fact that the feds imposed them on the area regardless of the opposition of locals.
Per the Montana Government Website
Not uncommon.
The chain of evidence is difficult to preserve when the predator’s tracks become deformed by snowfall or stampeding; when corpse depredation occurs via scavengers hungry for their next meal; when the cattle are so thoroughly eviscerated as to destroy any evidence of wolf predation.
And even if the ranchers are reimbursed for their loss (a loss they feel they shouldn’t be forced to suffer in the first place), they’re reimbursed for the cost of the meat. They don’t recoup the $8,500 dollars dollars they paid for a well-bred bull.
Or the cost of a pregnant heifer.
Or the cost of posting men at all hours of the night to protect the herd from the wolves themselves.
Etc, etc.
Another misunderstanding I’ve seen in this thread is that wolves permeate the state equally. They don’t.
The wolf problem is very much localized.
What stops a rancher with a weatherby in the back of his truck from shooting a wolf on sight? Especially if it is on his property?
I would think, nothing at all.
Well, there is the law that forbids it, unless the wolf is attacking his livestock.
Otherwise, there is something that is known as “shoot, shovel, and shut up.”
And yet, seemingly thousands of cattle (and sheep) die every year from non-wolf related causes…in fact, it SEEMS that a hell of a lot more cattle/sheep are dieing from causes other than wolf’s than are dieing FROM wolves. And I’m fairly certain that the gubberment isn’t paying anything for these deaths…so, I’d say something is better than nothing.
You (and others on your side of the debate) have STILL not shown anything other than anecdotal evidence that its a problem. I’ve not seen any hard numbers (or soft numbers for that matter) on the scope of the problem. Seemingly, if you wanted to take wolves off the endangered list and allow hunting, such numbers should be available so we could decide for ourselves what the scope of this problem is…and yet, I’ve not seen any. Aproximately how many cattle/sheep are killed a year by wolves? In a given area if you like since you seem to think its a localized problem. Compared to how many sheep/cattle die from other causes? This should be simple enough to get this info I’d think…since decisions are being made about it, you’d think there would be some firm data to back up the supposition that wolves are indeed a problem and that they need to be culled back.
So…lets see this data guys. Not anecdotes, not handwaving…lets see how big this problem really is. How can we debate this subject based on anything but emotion otherwise? I’ve provided a few brief cites…and frankly looking at that data I can’t see how anyone could believe that wolves are even a minor problem…even locally…compared to the numbers of cattle and sheep that die every year from disease, malnutrition, misadventure (falling off cliffs and such I assume), mountain lions or black helicopters and aliens for all I know.
-XT
Delisting the wolves has nothing to do with the cattle issue. Delisting the wolves is based on the fact that there are enough breeding pairs to allow the wolves to thrive without federal protection. The feds have essentially determined this is the case, so they are likely to be delisted. The management of the wolves then moves to the Idaho Fish and Game Department, which will determine whether or not to allow limited hunting of them. The hunting is for management purposes, not to stop their predation on cattle. Currently ranchers can already kill wolves that they catch in the act.
:dubious: Delisting the wolves has everything to do with the cattle issue…as its special interest groups funded by the cattle folks who apply pressure to get this stuff done. If no one was applying pressure, then no one would even bother to delist them…as no one would care.
-XT
No, it’s not. These wolves have been hated by the cattle folks since 1995. There was no move to delist the wolves then. There is a move now that the wolves are at a level that no longer requires federal protection. The ESA has criteria for delisting species and wolves meet those criteria. They should be delisted for that reason and their management should be given to the state.
>>hijack<< Is this true?
Can wolves not be domesticated, not even when taken as pups?