Idaho, Montana wolf hunts back on
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, September 9, 2011 02:41
VIEWED: 2234
PAGE 1 of 3
Quote:
A federal appeals court on Thursday denied a request by environmental groups to halt wolf hunts that are scheduled to begin next week in Idaho and Montana.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and other groups. The groups were seeking to cancel the hunts while the court considers a challenge to congressional action in April that stripped wolves of federal protections in Montana and Idaho, and in parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula reluctantly upheld a budget rider that was inserted by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. It marked the first time since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 that Congress forcibly removed protections from a plant or animal.
Molloy ruled that the way Congress went about removing endangered species protections from the Northern Rockies gray wolf undermined the rule of law but did not violate the Constitution. Meanwhile, the environmental groups argued Congress' actions were unconstitutional because they violated the principle of separation of powers.
“We lost the injunction, we have not lost the case,” Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said of Thursday's court ruling. “We will continue to fight to protect the wolves and enforce the separation of powers doctrine in the U.S. Constitution.”
Meanwhile, John Horning, executive director for WildEarth Guardians, one of the groups involved in the case, said, “We are discouraged we didn't win a stay of execution for wolves, but we are cautiously optimistic that we will win our lawsuit to protect wolves from future persecution.”
Wolf hunts are scheduled to begin Aug. 30 in Idaho and Sept. 3 in Montana. Hunters in Montana will be allowed to shoot as many as 220 gray wolves, reducing the predators' Montana population by about 25 percent to a minimum of 425 wolves.
In Idaho, where an estimated 1,000 wolves roam, state wildlife managers have declined to name a target for kills for the seven-month hunting season. They say the state will manage wolves so their population remains above 150 animals and 15 breeding pairs, the point where Idaho could attract federal scrutiny for a possible re-listing under the Endangered Species Act. http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/aug/25/bid-block-idaho-monta
na-wolf-hunts-rejected/ damn them to hell. I wish this sort of thing could be taken to the Supreme Court...but then we know what the result would be. Any court that thinks corporations are people obviously has no concept of what "people" are, much less "endangered species"!
I wish, I wish, I wish I could be there and take some pot shots at them...not to kill, mind, just to wing 'em... 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
1000 wolves doesn't seem like a lot to me. What's the rationale for thinning them out?
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ranchers. They want NO wolves, because of course wolves kill "so many" of their sheep and cattle. It's always a battle to reintroduce wolves back to their natural habitat because of political pressure from ranchers. They got money for lobbyists; wolves don't.
Best I not get started on the patent falsity of their claims, it wouldn't be a G-rated discussion....
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's always been interesting to me how rabidly and pathologically people (especially ranchers) view wolves. And the conservation groups have even been indemnifying them for losses (and, of course, every loss of a cow or sheep must be wolves, not poor husbandry). Mountain lions share the Rockies with wolves, and also eat cows and sheep - and here in California, the occasional mountain biker - but they get none of the vitriol and hatred. Well, some of the vitriol, but not the hatred. It's utterly irrational.
And Anthony, 1000 wolves truly isn't very many. Most conservation biologists (including myself) think that 1000 is a minimally acceptable number for long-term viability. 5000 would be much better.
The irony is that the Yellowstone reintro has been a major ecological success. They have moved the elk away from streamside corridors, allowing vegetation to regrow and keeping streams much cooler. This has increased aquatic productivity and biodiversity. The elk are more dispersed and harder to hunt (by wolves), and compete less with deer and other large herbivores. The Park and the surrounding ecosystem,, is much healthier. Plus, they are a major tourist attraction and contribute millions to park revenues.
Yeeesh.
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ranchers. They want NO wolves, because of course wolves kill "so many" of their sheep and cattle. It's always a battle to reintroduce wolves back to their natural habitat because of political pressure from ranchers. They got money for lobbyists; wolves don't.
Best I not get started on the patent falsity of their claims, it wouldn't be a G-rated discussion....
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, Perfesser, it's so great to hear from someone else who understands the situation, AND, obviously, has been following the re=intro in Yellowstone. Isn't it wonderful? And wasn't it a battle?--well, isn't it STILL? Makes me sick when I hear the yapping by ranchers...they have some valid points, but the rhetoric sometimes comes across just like politicians, it's so overblown.
I think mythology has a lot to do with the hatred of wolves, same as snakes. I used to take my snakes to classrooms for teachers, and there was little or no fear from the kids, the younger they were, the less predjudice. Same with wolves; I went to classes with people who brought wolves, too, and the kids would howl and get the wolves to howl right along with them. But seemingly once we're adults, we're more indoctrinated into fearing/hating certain species.
It doesn't help that current entertainment persists with the prejudices. I see made-for-tv sci fi where they use completely docile species of snakes, like common boas, as "deadly", and both the use of wolves as bad guys and the persistence of the werewolf myth only perpetuate the problem.
Of course, the situation in Yellowstone beautifully illustrates how our own prejudices and our attempts to change nature to fit OUR convenience by eliminating predators besides ourselves is assinine, but few pay attention.
I'm not sure what will happen when wolves get down here...they are headed this way, and given conservation efforts and the attitudes in Washington and Oregon, they may well make it in my lifetime. It's true that cougars don't get the same bad rap here; people are scared and a few have been attacked in the East Bay, and we see them now and again these days on our watershed lands, but it doesn't cause the stir the appearance of a wolf would, by far! Marin is very environmentally sensitive and animal friendly, so aside from warning signs, there's never been conflict between our big cats and us (also helps that we're not permitted to keep developing into their habitat). I wonder what will happen when the wolves arrive?
Actually, the coyotes only arrived a few years ago, and they've been no problem, come to think of it. We hear them a lot, and see them up on the divide where people hike, bike and walk their dogs (Tashi even wandered over and sniffed noses with a couple last year). They lost some pets up there at first when they let their cats out at night, etc., but seem to have adapted to having them around pretty well. Keeps the deer population down, as does having the big cats back. Cougars were almost completely wiped out in California decades ago (as you obviously know), their re-intro has been noticeably less contentious than Yellowstones re-intro of wolves (tho' there have definitely been movements to hunt them again).
People are funny. The more I know them, the better I like animals.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's worse is these damn dimwits seem to have no clue whatsoever of how nature works...
I mean, you want the wolves to leave your herd alone, well then raise a few skunks with em - them wolves *WILL* leave your herd alone, getting shot at doesn't much occur to them and they've little instinctive aversion to it, but they KNOW what them stripes mean, and will seek out easier prey, duh.
Of course, not yet having ever met a rancher that wasn't a complete dick.. my sympathies are quite limited anyway.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Entertainingly true and close to home! Malcolm Reynolds IS kind of a jerk.
Though I always thought he might go against the grain and have a little bit of admiration for the animal in spite of himself and his former life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
What happened to the old days, when people had shepherds watching their flock? If the losses aren't worth a few minimum wage security positions, they can't be that bad.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One can't eat a wolf, well I guess in China one can, but people here don't eat canine meat, plus animals who are predators don't taste as good as animals who eat plants or fish (yeah predators eat fish but you know what I mean). Do they just want to hunt the wolves for their pelts?
It surprises me that people find wolves scarier than cougars, cougars do kill people sometimes, but wolves don't really do that, I never hear about wolf maulings even in Alaska or other places that have more wolves. So why is there such an ingrained hatred for wolves? I can understand being frustrated about sheep loss, but even people who don't have sheep seem to find wolves scarier than cougars.
And a thousand doesn't seem like that many to me either.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually I hear bear meat is pretty good provided you get it when the bears aren't eating too much fish. And humans supposedly taste like pork. Both of them eat other animals at times.
Meat is basically made of the same components whether you're talking a carnivore, omnivore, or herbivore, the only differences that might relate to taste is fat, leanness, tenderness, and any temporary chemicals from diet that might linger in the tissue. I'm not sure there's much difference in the food quality of predators versus prey animals.
The only reason people don't normally eat dogs in the western culture is a taboo against it tracing back to Judea. The same is true for horses, though we came around to pigs and shellfish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME