It’s The End Of The Road For The Gray Wolf

there are going to a lot of us filing lawsuits keeping the delisting tied up until “man”…can stop feeling this need to destroy everything he comes in contact with. I’d buy every wolf I could if it meant keeping them safe. Might just try and do that..
debi

Tom, your question is rehtorical to Debu and Mark because, they don’t have an answer with any facts or science to back their stance. They only have a “wet shirt sleeve” and that should not be enough to stop “sound management” from being used. Wolves are far beyond the recovery goal, and promises made by DOW to pay for wolf predations on their livestock aren’t being kept. Go figure on that one.

Bea should come camping in the Luna pack territory in NM. She might learn a thing or two about wolves besides the dogma that passes for fact on the pro wolf websites.

Yep wolf losses are a small percentage of all livestock deaths but you have to count the whole entire country to get that number rather than just the areas where wolves actually are. In wolf country the percentage of livestock deaths is a lot higher than the talking points used on pro-wolf talking points lists and PR. What does it matter to the whole United States if 2 percent of livestock are lost to wolves? It doesn’t matter. But it certainly matters to a rancher with 3 kids, 2 at home and tuition to pay for one of them, plus all the maintenence for providing range and waters and often supplemental feed for other wildlife. It really matters when his wolf losses tally upwards of 7 to 15 percent. It matters more when his weaned calves loose 70 pounds due to wolves chasing them all night for three months rather than gaining the hundred pounds they are supposed to. Then we are talking financial devestation.
This is all so Bea can (what? support wolves?) that is what she said isn’t it.
Well ma’am, you aren’t supporting wolves! Writing a check to defenders of wildlife once a year isn’t wolf support.

The rural landowner and ranchers and small county government is supporting wolves. Taxpayers who want them should take the responsibility for the impacts to those who are feeding them. As long as they are not allowed to protect their livestock and livlihood under federal regulation to supposedly protect the taxpayers interest in wolves taxpayers should be taxed for it. Too bad that isn’t happening.

Wow, you’re on a roll today, Reggie- wake up on the wrong side of the yacht today? So I suppose those who feel for rancher’s losses to predators should pay the rancher… those who insisted on bringing the predators in should be praised?? Yikes! Losses are a part of doing business only to an extent. Calling the very viable and successful livestock industry inefficient is absolutely absurd. This is a democracy last time I checked…

Reginold. Get a clue, I don’t give money to the ranchers becuase I am FEEDING your wolves!

Actually, myself and others like us are working on a reimbursement plan and are looking for private contributions but we can’t seem to get them becuase folks who want wolves don’t want to pay for the damage they cause.

This is a government sponsored program. When a thief breaks into your home and whacks you around the cops come, the cops are paid for by the taxpayer. What is the difference?

I didn’t realize that URLs got filtered – my sources were the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Fish & wildlife service, and the National Park Service websites. Maybe Tom Remington can post the links?

Has anyone read “Predatory Bureacracy” by Michael Robinson?

Here are some of his comments on the wolf de-listing:

February 24, 2008 — Ralph Maughan
Michael Robinson certainly knows about Wildlife Services. His book, Predatory Bureaucracy, gives the history of this agency’s war on wolves and other wildlife from the greatest to the least on behalf of the livestock history.

After you read this book and see how this agency has managed to survive under various names to go on and kill and kill, you can hardly feel good when you hear them announce they have killed some more wolves, but the wolves needed to be dead.

Robinson’s Opinion.

- – - – -

Around eighty-five percent of the vast region of the northern Rocky Mountains and adjoining grasslands in which gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list — comprising all of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana plus parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington — has no wolves in it. Wolves periodically show up in these areas, which include national forests and other public lands, but because most of these regions are severely grazed by livestock — so much so that deer and elk don’t find enough to eat and are very rare — the wolves end up killing stock and the federal government traps and kills them or shoots them from the air.

The purpose of the delisting is to kill as many wolves as the livestock-industry can get away with to ensure that fewer wolves enter these severely grazed regions, fewer show up anywhere where stock are pastured, and, on a broader scale, that no wolves survive to disperse outside of the “recovered” zone and establish themselves in states such as Colorado where they would enjoy full legal protection; they will be killed en route.

Some history from my book, “Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West” (University Press of Colorado, 2005), may be germane to the future wolves and other wildlife face if the delisting is not reversed. During the teen years and 1920s, the U.S. government systematically poisoned, trapped and excavated the dens of most wolves in the West. With wolves largely gone, the government focused on killing coyotes but still pursued the few wolves that persisted and those that migrated in from Canada and Mexico. Five years after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service killed what may have been the last native wolf in the U.S. West in 1945 (in southern Colorado), the agency began sending its custom-produced poisons and expert personnel to Mexico, and shortly thereafter to Canada, to persuade and then aid governments there to exterminate their wolves. (They came very close to success in Mexico, but Canada was too vast and undeveloped.) From the 1950s until February 8, 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon banned the government from poisoning wildlife (a ban undone by Presidents Ford and Reagan), the Fish and Wildlife Service ringed the national parks with poison baits (and directly poisoned almost all other public lands) to kill all coyotes that left the parks. The poisoning was greatly limited, finally, after passage of the Endangered Species Act and conservationist litigation about the effects of poisoning on endangered species, inluding wolves.

Since wolves (and grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem) are off the endangered species list, expect proposals to utilize poisoning in the same way again; since poison is indiscrimate, wolves and coyotes won’t be the only victims. But even before the lengthy permiting process for expanding poison use is completed, aerial gunning will be ramped up. My prediction: More wolves will be killed through government predator control than through permitted hunting by members of the public.

The good news? The Center for Biological Diversity and our allied organizations will be going to court to reverse this delisting and forestall the slaughter. We stopped Fish and Wildlife Service’s April 1, 2003 wolf downlisting attempt (as a prelude then to delisting) through litigation, and we’ll do it again.

Some history from my book, “Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West” (University Press of Colorado, 2005), may be germane to the future wolves and other wildlife face if the delisting is not reversed. During the teen years and 1920s, the U.S. government systematically poisoned, trapped and excavated the dens of most wolves in the West. With wolves largely gone, the government focused on killing coyotes but still pursued the few wolves that persisted and those that migrated in from Canada and Mexico. Five years after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service killed what may have been the last native wolf in the U.S. West in 1945 (in southern Colorado), the agency began sending its custom-produced poisons and expert personnel to Mexico, and shortly thereafter to Canada, to persuade and then aid governments there to exterminate their wolves. (They came very close to success in Mexico, but Canada was too vast and undeveloped.) From the 1950s until February 8, 1972, when President Richard M. Nixon banned the government from poisoning wildlife (a ban undone by Presidents Ford and Reagan), the Fish and Wildlife Service ringed the national parks with poison baits (and directly poisoned almost all other public lands) to kill all coyotes that left the parks. The poisoning was greatly limited, finally, after passage of the Endangered Species Act and conservationist litigation about the effects of poisoning on endangered species, inluding wolves.

Since wolves (and grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem) are off the endangered species list, expect proposals to utilize poisoning in the same way again; since poison is indiscrimate, wolves and coyotes won’t be the only victims. But even before the lengthy permiting process for expanding poison use is completed, aerial gunning will be ramped up. My prediction: More wolves will be killed through government predator control than through permitted hunting by members of the public.

The good news? The Center for Biological Diversity and our allied organizations will be going to court to reverse this delisting and forestall the slaughter. We stopped Fish and Wildlife Service’s April 1, 2003 wolf downlisting attempt (as a prelude then to delisting) through litigation, and we’ll do it again.

You talk about special interest, these ranchers are a special interest group.

“Actually, myself and others like us are working on a reimbursement plan and are looking for private contributions but we can’t seem to get them because folks who want wolves don’t want to pay for the damage they cause.”

How much money have you put up to help these people? Why are you trying to solicit from those who like wolves if, as you claim, there are so many of you guys opposed to wolves.

Brian Dodge gets it and has facts to support his argument, why is that you are continuing to argue for an asinine policy when the facts are so obvious? Could it be that the animal activists you so decry, you too have an agenda?

As for comparing this to a robbery and the police being paid by the tax payers, the two are nothing alike. We have “police” for the livestock losses, they are game and wildlife officers. Second, this is not a robbery, an animal can not steal since it has no legal status. If it can steal, it can be robbed and you don’t want to go down that road.

“You cry about a Nanny state but you obviously approve of the government having control over your business. Talk about me having both ways.”

Please cite where I said I approved of government regulation of my business. You have made a baseless accusation.

Re: Ralph Maughan –

http://wolves.wordpress.com/about/

(I will personally continue to protect persecuted predatory animals such as wolves, coyotes, and others as long as there are those who wish to do them harm just for the sake of it. Predatory animals deserve to be treated with respect, and mostly left alone.

God doesn’t make mistakes when he puts a certain number of animals anywhere — who is man to say there are “too many” elk, etc? Native Americans did not overpopulate; “frogs do not drink up the pond in which they live.”

If we go that route, then we can easily say there are “too many” people on this planet! (which there are) People, by their very nature are evil, cause pollution, destruction, etc. Animals are not and cannot be evil and do not cause destruction unless we invade their territory, which we are doing daily, encroaching more and more and more and more……

You said: Who cares that there are comparatively few wolf kills in the entire United States. Those that are occuring are destroying individual family’s and individual ranchers.

Because good policy is not based on anecdotal evidence.

But if wolves are delisted, then ranchers can protect their livestock from them with deadly force. I think that’s outrageous as other non-lethal methods work better in the long run –

I always understood that livestock owners can protect their “property” from endangered species too. Is that not correct?

Still, either way, there are 100,000 predators killed JUST BY WILDLIFE SERVICES each year. That doesn’t include all the other hundreds of thousands of individual killings.

That is just TOO MUCH KILLING — coyotes are the most persecuted — hey, they’re just trying to earn a living too.

If animals are left in open grazing, I mean, really, what would anyone expect a wild animal to do?

Bea – The civil discourse is something that I hope continues but I can’t guarantee.

Look, you have stated your believes and believe it or not, I do respect that. Some people just have issues with killing of any kind.

The difficulties in any of these debates comes from “facts” that get tossed around and non supported information to embellish stories etc.

For the most part Bea, I think most people are not interested in killing every predator that roams the earth. I think what is being asked is that this ESA ruling be dropped and allow property owners more flexibility to be able to protect their property without fear of lawsuits.

Wolf advocates claim that wolves want to be left alone and that they are a loner kind of animal that we seldom see. When they find easy prey in our neighbors pasture, this can’t be tolerated just for the sake of saving a wolf or too.

Is that really asking that much? There are millions of acres of forested land where wolves and other large predators can roam. Just not in my lamb pen.

Very well stated Jane, thank you too for the info on what happens down where you are- I’ve herd of the wolf problems in the southwest but nothing detailed at all, your personal account is very helpful.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/6159/C94/L94/#comments

Sorry, my computer keeps “submitting” before I’m ready… I may be hitting something accidentally….

Jane, I do appreciate hearing your candid thoughts — coming directly from someone who deals with predators in your business.

However, you said:

However, I don’t like to see my calves or my mother cows brutilized or other prey species left maimed and suffering by wolf packs,

What about people who don’t believe in killing animals at all? Don’t you think they see animals going into slaughterhouses (those you’ve raised) as brutal killing? And you can’t tell me that those animals are not accidentally “maimed,” and “brutalized,” frequently, especially with the speed at which this country “processes” animals?

It’s all a matter of perspective.

I would suggest those who raise animals for food please read Matthew Scully’s “Dominion.”

I’m not saying you are the one guilty of what is in the book because I don’t think the smaller ranches are; but still, “your animals” are being maimed and tortured once you send them off to slaughter!

Either you “care” about animals or you don’t. You only seem to “care” about them as far as profits go. I’m truly not trying to start an argument though; just telling it as I see it.

Thanks for that break in the action George and I agree. As Dr. Geist put it in the article that Tom put up, ‘this is a clash between deeply held value systems.’ It’s fun and agonizing to debate these issues with the antis, but their philosophies are different than ours. For instance, I could tell Bea “In a YNP (Yellowstone National Park) Science article entitled “The Ecological Role of Coyotes on Yellowstone’s Northern Range,” biologists Crabtree and Sheldon detail how coyotes have survived in the Park since wolves were introduced in 1995. Prior to that time coyotes were the major elk predator, killing an estimated 1,276 elk annually.” (The Outdoorsman Bulletin #9) and this would have zero effect on her, because as she puts it “they just want to eat and survive – like you”. She has no concept about or desire to have “biologically sound managment”. IT goes against her “grain”. We can’t use the excuse that we are “encroaching on their space (animals)”, as the place where you live, Bea was once the home of a mouse, deer, elk, coyote, squirrel, moose, rabbit, assorted birds and don’t forget the thousands of bugs and parisites. Every human on this planet, shares a space that was at one time or another living creatures space. Please Bea, for the sake of keeping true to your cause, the next time you get sick, I beg of you, not to partake in the “evil” plot to kill that poor parisite that’s “just trying to get a meal.” It sounds a little absurd, doesn’t it? But it is using the same principals, as not controlling predators uses.

The wolf population, has far exceeded the recovery goals, that were set in the beginning of this “experiment.” The numbers of confirmed wolf kills of 295 cows and 432 sheep kill are, as you insinuate, a joke, right? what they don’t tell you, is that, in order for it to be substantiated as a wolf kill, it must be reported within 24 hours of kill or it is considered an unkown cause of death. Wolves were just scavanging about and as luck would have, there’s nice big dead cow and so they partake of the bounty that “nature” has provided for them. BS, there are etimates, that for every 1 animal confirmed to be a wolf kill, there are 7 more that go undetected.
This is not just about the livestock industry. Wild game, is a billion dollar business and our billion dollar business that “we the hunting public pay for”, not just to our fish and game dep. but also with the Pittman and Robertson federal excise taxes on all hunting equipment as well. We are the ones who have payed the “lions” share for the wildlife restoration for the last century and now a handful of powerful “extremist” groups, are trying to destroy, what has taken a century to build. It is arrogant “elitism” at its worst. This is analogous to “the child ruling over the parent and not the parent ruling over the child”. We are not the minority in our philosophy here and yet they keep winning these battles. Why?

Thanks Paul D

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZM7CX?open OK got a better address here! This web page seems to be less hysterical and more informative that some of the others covering compound 1080

Tom said: Are you at all familiar with ranching whether in the west, the south, east or where ever? Ranchers whether small little micro ranchers or spreads of several thousand acres cannot feasibly bring their livestock in at night to protect them. It’s really a silly notion.

Tom, the “silly notion” is leaving livestock in the OPEN expecting it to be perfectly safe when the ranch set up shop in the predators back yard!

That’s silly!

If we required ranchers to do this in order to save a handful of predators, that piece of filet mignon at your, oops sorry, my favorite restaurant would cast around $150.00 a pound.

Tom said: Are you a vegetarian who never uses any products or consumes anything that is used by exploiting animals?

I try very hard not to use animal products; I am not a “true” vegetarian; I eat mainly chicken and seafood. I don’t like to eat animals with fur.

But I RESPECT animals; (I’m not talking about insects though I respect all of God’s creatures). I think it’s outrageous when idiots like Ted Nugent try to gain attention by saying they’re going to kill an animal every time PETA does something. That is not respecting God’s creatures and is an insult to humanity.

Factory farming is a cruel, crude way that society operates now. Animals are shoved in tiny little pens, babies taken from their mothers early, it’s a miserable existence. These animals HAVE FEELINGS, but that would not sit well with those that exploit them becuase if they acknowledge their feelings, they would be contradicting themselves with their actions.

I actually think hunting is the lesser of the two evils between that and factory farming as the animal at least gets to live it’s life “free” until a human decides to kill it.

Wildlife Services actually kills coyotes in ADVANCE of calving season.

How ridiculous is that? It’s an abuse of our tax dollars and our native wildlife.

People generally see animals as something to exploit or protect. I see them as something to protect and treasure, particularly the persecuted ones — wolves, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, foxes…. they’re beautiful animals.. I’d rather see them alive than dead.

I also think there’s a big difference in killing elk for food and a wolf because someone doesn’t like it or what it’s doing naturally….. that seems like killing a German Shepherd to me!

We can easily live without eating meat from mammals — we don’t “need” leather.

Cave men “needed” animals to exist. We don’t “need” them to exist unless someone CHOOSES to live in a very remote area and depends on elk, etc.

Oh yea buy the way, that sheep killing dog I shot was a GERMAN SHEPPARD

“Animals do not reason as humans do. They survive on basic instincts. When people are taught to believe that animals are of equal intelligence, feelings, etc. as people, it is teaching a lie.”

Once again your expansive knowledge on all topics related to the animal kingdom impresses me. A wildlife biologist, animal behaviorist, what will new persona will you take on next?

Surely a man as articulate and knowledgeable as you would be an asset to any institution of higher learning, your skills must really be in demand.

Let us not forget, that for thousands of years, livestock have been raised in pastoral open large grazing settings and predators have been controlled so raising livestock will be possible.

Even the bible talks about large swaths of grazing lands and shepards (David in particular)killing predators, lion bear and wolves, and that is considered good fair and required of mankind.
What is the difference between then and now from a purely historical perspective? Because if you don’t like commercial farming, then open pasture grazing, ranching, is the opposite of the commercial farm where damage to animals and cruelty are more likely to occur although is avoidable through proper education and training.

Human beings have needs to say we don’t need we don’t need, we don’t need, is ridiculous. I need to make a living, I need to butcher a beef, I need leather products to survive. I even need to get a permit an elk or two a year to feed my family, Nobody does this for me nor do I make a six figure salary to buy everything I need. I don’t have the luxury of using the word see, as an adjective, it is a verb to me. To look at to witness reality.

Let me tell you something folks, those of you who were upset by the california film of cattle being pushed around. We never come close to abusing or upsetting our cattle that way.

Yet we are required by law, on threat of arrest and subject to federal prosecution, to stand there and watch as 5 wolves hold one 500 pound 8 month old calf (yeah lets talk fair now) it screams and screams as it is held upright standing while ten pounds of flesh is eaten of its hindquarters. Litterally eaten alive and terrorized the entire time until it finally dies of shock and bloodloss. It takes about an hour maybe more maybe it lives until you have to shoot it yourself.

So for those of you who use see, as a way to say I feel, we SEE this stuff.

It makes me not want to take a grass fed thousand pound beef and kill him humanely becuase I just feel like I have seen too much suffering and torture. Is this not animal torture? Where is PETA? Where is the Humane Society? Oh yeah I forgot, it doesn’t matter if wolves are doing it. Even if it is 5 times as brutal. Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

It makes me not want to let my kids play outside in a place that used to be wholesome to raise them in. It makes me feel abject pitty for mother elk that have lost nearly all of their baby calves.

How do you expect me to understand your feelings if you can’t give credibility to my experience? Ideaism must be tempered by reality not the other way around.

Jane,

The Bible also talks about stoning people to death and “sacrificing lambs.”

There are a lot of things in the Bible that don’t make sense in today’s world.

I stand by my comments: If you leave animals out in open pastures, which is the home of predatory animals, what do you really expect?

When they see a delicious steak dinner and go for it, you shoot it!

Sorry, that isn’t much justice or fair game chase to me.

Hunting is one thing; except for baiting, which should be OUTLAWED, the animal has at least a fair chance of getting away.

Raising animals in open pastures is a totally different thing.

And Bea, could you answer the questions: What area do you reside in? And have you spent any amount of time in the north or south west looking into this issue or just in articles and blogs? Honestly, I would like to know these things.

And Tom, could you answer the questions: What area do you reside in? And have you spent any amount of time in the north or south west looking into this issue or just in articles and blogs? Honestly, I would like to know these things.

And Erin (Iaho) do you have a degree in wildlife biology? Are an employee of the Wildlife department? If not, on what authority are you making claims? Before you go attack others credibility, why don’t you share your credentials with all of us so we can properly asses the value of observations and opinions. Frankly I don’t think you are better qualified than anyone else here.

Grew up in Maine, live in Florida, have lived in California, Virginia and new hampshire. Grew up in the country and spent many years on my uncles farm. Have traveled extensively and spent many hours visiting and talking directly with ranchers is parts of west, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah.

Not only have I personally been to these places to get information and talk to the people, I have spent hours communicating with specialists in many of these fields learning and getting information. Never to old to keep learning and gathering information.

I will just have to repeat myself I guess, “HISTORICALLY” why is now any different than then and I mean pastorally rather than biblically in case you didn’t understand that. But of course certain folks hate mention of the bible even in a historic sense.

Hundreds of thousands maybe even millions of people in the world make their livings as pastoralists and sometimes have to kill something to keep things rolling along. What would you have in place of these people, where would you have these people go? Why do you think that all of them slaughter animals discriminately?

“You seem to be missing the point. The point is livestock producers must learn to share the land with the animals that naturally inhabit it. Do you not agree with that? You seem to be missing the point. The point is livestock producers must learn to share the land with the animals that naturally inhabit it. Do you not agree with that?

How the heck have I missed the point, Didn’t you see my response from yesterday? We Do share the land with other animals.. Why can’t you understand that? The garbage you are reading on that link you posted is dogma and propaganda.

Choose to believe what you want but you just lost my respect looking at your so called sources. But believe me the Sinapu bunch are more than happy to think about bringing stoning back and they certainly don’t mind sacrificing entire populations of prey species just so they can worship predators. Apparently so are a lot of the others on it.

“If you are choosing to have animals unattended in fields for months on end, it is a BUSINESS RISK that you are taking that natural predators are going to come in and “do their jobs.””

It is not a business risk when these animals are brought back into our pastures against our wishes and we are not allowed to manage them as we need to to keep balance between our businesses and their populations. That is like saying it is a business risk to have your store in an area where the gangs are and the cops don’t do anything to help you because they have been bought off.

It is not punishment to control manage predatory animals or other wildlife. Studies have long shown that even if 90% of coyotes are controlled every year for three years straight, the next year their numbers would be right back at what they were.

These animals are not your children. They do not need, want or appreciate your fake protection to live. While we are discussing fair, how about a little fairness for the people?

Jane you said:

It is not a business risk when these animals are brought back into our pastures against our wishes and we are not allowed to manage them as we need to to keep balance between our businesses and their populations. That is like saying it is a business risk to have your store in an area where the gangs are and the cops don’t do anything to help you because they have been bought off.

“Brought back” is the key. Again, this was and “is” their home. You are unwilling to accept that.

Leaving livestock in open pastures is a business risk and this is why I think so:

It’s like:

1. Leaving WalMart doors open all night with NO employees and lots of merchandise.

2. People come in, take the merchandise, then get shot and killed for doing so.

You compared predators to “gangs” and “criminals.” They’re not criminals or ‘rogue,’ they’re just animals!! Your statement proves how you see predatory animals — with contempt and hatred.

Why hate animals for doing what they do naturally?

Of course I wouldn’t be happy if a wild animal attacked my livestock (if I had livestock). But it would be something that wouldn’t surprise me in the least and I would consider it the cost of doing business in open lands.

Again, as much as I love all animals, hunting is much more “natural” than raising animals for a living. Yes I know it’s been done for 1,000′s of years, but it’s in conflict with nature’s predators.

Wolves compete wlth hunters. They also compete with ranchers who have supplied the meat your families were raised on. Your very existance probably hinged on the fact they made your ancestors healthy enough to procreate. Yes, we wiped out the wolf population,and it wasn’t easy. We also wiped out the screwworm flies that killed as many livestock as the wolves. Maybe you want to bring back the screwworm flies, too. You are probably too young to remember why or even what the screwworm fly is, or the reasons we don’t need wolves in the numbers that we have gotton to today.
Don’t get me wrong. I admire the wolf. He does a better job that I do, wirhout a gun, and as I appreciate any wild animal, he lives a life out where you or I cannot live without protection from the elements. I admire his hunting ability, his beauty, but I was glad he was gone, the same way your ancestors were glad the “original Americans” were gone. Maybe you should give your home back to a American who was here before you. Or your food to the wolf who wants it.
Believe it or not, you bleeding heart liberals have no interest in what your forefathers fought for. You just want to take away from others what you want for yourselves. Give the wolf to Canada. If you want to see them, go to Canada or Alaska. Or watch a movie. Wolves deserve no protection, they take away my deer, my cattle, my elk, and probably your kid, if he is left without a guard! Or maybe not, you probably don’t live anywhere near wolf country, so you wouldn’t know what to make of anything, except what some psudo-biologist tells you.

jes Says:
I admire his hunting ability, his beauty, but I was glad he was gone, the same way your ancestors were glad the “original Americans” were gone.

You sir are a racist and a promoter of genocide. And you call your self a Christian! You make me sick.

Any critter protected under the endangered species act is exactly that. Protected. I can not even have the feathers of off a road killed Red Tailed Hawk! If any part of an endangered species is found in my possession Big Fines, Property confiscated on and on. Killing one and getting caught, That’s big time felony.

Another site supporting Home Land security concerns!http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/nsn/nsn-050525.htm

Jane,

I do appreciate your concerns and I hate to keep harping on this, but policy can only be based on numbers and statistics:

Only a negligible percentage of American cattle was lost to wildlife predation in 2005, according to new U.S. Department of Agricultural figures released today by two environmental groups, Sinapu and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Yet, taxpayers and ranchers are spending an estimated $300 million per year on lethal and non-lethal predator control, more than three times the estimated cattle losses caused by wildlife.

The new cattle production and losses numbers were compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), an arm of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In 2005, cattle production was higher than the year before in virtually all categories. Predator-caused losses from all species, including dogs, amounted to only 0.18% of total cattle production over the year:

Poor weather caused substantially more cattle deaths (45% more) than all forms of wildlife predation;
Dogs kill more livestock than any other species except coyotes. Dog-caused cattle deaths equaled the totals for the more storied predators (cougars, wolves, bobcats and bears), combined; and
Coyotes were responsible for more than half of all recorded cattle losses. At the same time, the number of coyotes killed by federal eradication agents is on a par with cattle killed with by coyotes (90,000 versus 97,000, respectively).
The cattle inventory for 2005 ran to 104.5 million head. Disease, illness, weather, theft, calving complications and other non-wildlife causes accounted for losses of 3.86 million cattle during the year, while predators of all types killed 190,000 cattle. The number of predation losses was actually greater than in 2004 (190,000 versus 147,000) but, with booming cattle production, the percentage of losses stayed roughly the same.

Nothing random about your agenda, “All animals above human beings” I just wanted you to show your true colors is all. And I truly believe you ment to be sarcastic!

Geaorge, you are a F***ing moron. You admit that facts, which are truths, won’t sway your opinion. You speak pejoratively about online information, and yet here you are on an illresaerched blog. I have seen a lot of talk about “Christian” values, and yet you feel that killing God’s creation for pure hedonistic entertainment is acceptable. I never remember Jesus saying kill all the wolves. Member of Wildlife Forever!! I guess wolves are not wildlife? Your walnut sized skull is filled with excrement.
You yell and yell, and never even once rebut facts. You do not wish to be civil? No one else will be civil with you. You’re a childish imbecile and want to continue to participate in the sport of hunting no matter the cost.

I also, have to notice bea that you have pretty much been dominating this thread with no break since it began. I have to assume you are independently wealthy and very board or someone is paying you to be here.
So excuse me while I am out with cattle dealing with all those things you seem to know more about than I do. But then I have already conceeded. You win.

Some of these blogs are easy to figure. you Jerome, or whichever name you seem to adapt for the moment, simply want to ridicule, berate, cause dissention, and any other mood swing the devil may have, to interrupt the reasoning arguments which someone who is ill informed could learn from.
Maybe you had an abusive father who hunted, and you really want to get back at him…Get over it. And quit nit picking people who would have put any abuser in a grave, or a jail where they belong.

Wow, all the hatred and anger here — I think someone might try to shoot me were this an in-person discussion!

Tom seems to be one of the few rational ones here who can carry on a civil conversation.

I never said animals are “above” humans. I simply advocate respect and humane treatment for them. I also have never said I “advocate” to get rid of hunting.

In fact, I believe several times I’ve said hunting is “better” (more humane) than factory farming!

George, the condescending is really unnecessary and insulting (“pity you”). Why in the world would you “pity” me?

Jes, what exactly do you want to “teach” me? I’m all ears.

I only wish I were independently wealthy! I feel that animals such as predators need all the protection we can afford them> I think I’ve proven my point.

Sorry, meant to include this in my last post:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_cows_v_wildlife.htm

These statistics cannot be disputed.

The main issue close to my heart is using non-lethal means to “control” predators and don’t do it with my tax money.

Bea

We are gonna get it when you stop believing all the lies about that nasty illegal dog running around unchecked in the woods. Bad dog – no bone!

Your spotted owl spotted your mind from the liars of the endangered species (sad) act. That dog is an illegal illegal introduction and there are just reasons for keeping the filthy dog out of the woods. Nasty minded animal worshipers have your priorities fudged up, too.

The criminal dog program goes. Anyone still promoting it should be held liable for damages, deaths, injuries and thus prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Your uncle was lied to like you have been lied to. No spotted owl was “endangered”. A criminal fairy tale you believe and the entire ESA is garbage; rotten and stinking garbage. Made up of lie; just like this dog program no one wants or voted on.

DISBAN THE USFWS for criminal acts against the United States citizenry.