White House May Lift Some Wolf Protections

effin' psychotic earth-hating bastards...

White House May Lift Some Wolf Protections

By JOHN FLESHER, Associated Press

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - The Bush administration Thursday proposed removing gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list, saying they have recovered to the point that federal protection is no longer needed.

The proposal covers Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, where roughly 3,800 wolves live, and a half-dozen neighboring states that have no wolves but could as packs expand their territory.

Under the federal proposal, state and tribal governments would take responsibility for ensuring that wolf populations remain healthy. All three states have drawn up wolf management plans that have won approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_sc/gray_wolves

The first plan drafted was to kill wolves who could harm domestic livestock. Great management.

Under the signature of Dirk Kempthorne, nominee for the head of the Interior.

There's slaughtering under the guise of good management and then there's good management. I hope the two will not be confused.

I contacted him and said otherwise.

Now which guise do you think slaughtering wolves will be under?

In the history on N. America there has never been an unprovoked attack
of a wolf on human. White Tail Deer populations are exploding .... impacting ...
the ecology, people, and farms. Wolves are great top predators and nature and we need em.

wolf management plans = how many can we shoot

BTW I hunt (deer & small game) and have a background in ecology .... this admin
is just awful on everything. They hate science.


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/usfw-list/images/wolf.jp

objections of the populace. The same fuckers who hunt caged animals bring this to you.

I was in Ontario and a bush pilot was telling me about the money he made
and the fun he had taking rich people up to shoot wolves from planes in winter
on the frozen lakes ..... i was really creeped ......... a 30:06 from a plane w/
a scope and the wolves on ice ...... why?
BTW in those states Minn, Wisconsin, and Michigan you can't get moose populations
in most areas because of the deer .... they carry a brain worm ... which kills the moose.

Canned hunts .... get em cowboy .... although on really large ranches in the plains and out west ....
sustainable and natural populations of elk, bison, and deer can be hunted in decent manner ....
but the Dick Cheney shooting 75 pheasants in a morning .... :puke:

Back in the "Old West" days, rich people from the US, Canada, and Europe would go onto the trains and shoot Bison with bigassed guns FROM the damned trains, killing millions of them. Occasionally they would stop the trains at certain points to get a head or two, even if, on a single "hunt" they killed hundreds of them. Disgusting practice.

n/t

This shows a little of my age, but he said that its only fair to hunt an animal on equal footing. He said, if you want to hunt a bear, a 6 inch knife should suffice, so you at least have a sporting chance. :)

about the need for wolves, but one of the main reasons for the lack of attacks is that wolves were all but driven out of the lower 48. Where they remained there were very few people. Unlike bears, wolves are more prone to run away from an unfamiliar thing than attack it, so as long as humans weren't familiar to wolves then they would be unlikely to attack. I think it's possible we will see some wolf attacks in the future as wolves move closer to large centers of populations.

I really have no intention of being rude, but your post hits all my buttons. You may be an animal attack expert, a Ph.D. havin' genius, but your post sounds like you know nothing about wild animals. My contrary information is deeply anecdotal and personal, with very little scientific value, so it's not like I am here to distribute the real truth, but still. If I get you wrong and you really are an expert, please respond and correct me, but right now I am under the impression that you are allowing some strange fear to overcome your rationality, and talking when you shouIdn't.

So, all that aside, here goes:

"Unlike bears"? Have you ever seen a bear? Statistically, bears run away and want nothing to do with humans. Of the 12 bears I have personally encountered in the wild, including 4 sets of the alleged most dangerous of all, the mother and cubs, all have hightailed it away from my scrawny ass.
Yet I agree that wolves are even MORE likely to get the hell away from humans. And I agree that due to the increasing density of the human population that we may see human-wolf interactions come out badly for humans in the future, but I think the chance of the humans getting the short end of the stick is about 1,000,000 times less likely than the other way around. Why would you say such a thing? I'm serious, here. Do you have some real reason to worry, or is this just some scaredy-cat misinformation couched in intelligent terms?

My main guess for the lack of wolf attacks on humans is that wolves don't attack humans. I'd say my guess is better than yours because even right wing hunting advocates
http://www.usa4id.com/Documents/Documented%20Human%20Wolf%20Attacks.htm
can't cite more than a handful of historical accounts of wolf attacks. However, that doesn't make my guess more likely, because they're both stupid guesses!
Sorry I got so riled, but I had to respond. Ignorant fear of anything does no one any good, and loud mouthed ignorance really cheeses me off, even when the ignorant really, truly has a good heart and means no harm.
Tell me I'm wrong, if I am, but my response right now is if you don't know what your talking about, you probably should keep your piehole shut.

but I recently did some research for an essay I was writing for a course I'm taking (about the possibilty of re-introducing wolves in Scotland). My main source was called 'Beyond Wolves, the Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management' which related primarily to wolf recovery programs in the US. Like I said, I think we need wolves, but I am not going to keep my eyes shut to the truth of what predators can and will do in various circumstances.Wolves kill many many children in India, for example more than 50 in 1996 from about 50 villages in Utter Pradesh. Obviously they live much differently there with children often responsible for protecting livestock, and much more fequent contact with wolves. Those are mainly predatory attacks. In North America most attacks been have been rabid, which has declined greatly in the wolf population. However, there have been a number of on-rabid, non-fatal attacks. The point I was trying to make is that as wolves expand into more populated areas, it is unrealistic to expect that there will be no conflict between man and wolves - and by the way, I'm not talking about farmers and ranchers who want to run their stock unprotected. Wolf management in and of itself is not a bad thing, it depends entirely on the context and the details. One of the most respected wolf expert/advocates (David Mech) contends that if people would more readily accept the need for control then there could be more wolves in more places.

Bears tend to have a fear response leading them to attack whereas wolves have a fear response leading them to run away. As bears become used to humans they are less likely to attack but wolves are more likely to as they are less afraid. This is what I've read, like I said I don't know from personal experience, but it sounds like the bears you bumped into were used to humans and thus not afraid of you.

I suggest you read up on the subject if you are interested, there are good websites by the Wolf Trust amongst others, and it's a pretty fascinating subject.

ps I didn't know by stating an opinion in a rather restrained manner I was being 'loud-mouthed' but there you go.

it was an opinion, not facts.

I just get my back up when people look at the very small negatives about something I consider very positive.

I still disagree about bears. Some I have seen, in California, Washington, and Oregon, obviously knew people well, so they ran away. In the Brooks Range of Alaska, I doubt they had much familiarity, yet they did the same (although one mama did come running back to make sure we were leaving after she hid her cubs). The 'fear response' you speak of, as far as the text I read, seemed to be a charge and check out thing, somewhat like dogs. The study suggested that if you stay still and don't make eye contact, these charges often don't lead to attacks. If, however, you stare at the bear or run, attacks always occur. That is beside the point, however.

My point is: why do we always turn to the miniscule downside when considering something like wolves? Why do you feel the need to share that opinion when there are so many other obstacles to wolf reintroduction? I just don't comprehend that urge to say something negative about wolves, something which is really terribly unlikely to occur (even the odds in Uttar Pradesh, I'll wager, are pretty damn slim of a kid getting eaten - I'm sure a ton more are killed by their parents in UP than by wolves), when our species has done so much that is really terrible to our neighbors on this planet and we are discussing another terrible thing we're doing? I just don't get it.

We nearly destroy the wolf species on this continent. We nearly destroy every large mammal we coexist with. We produce toxics that are turning polar bears into hermaphrodites, plus we're destroying their habitat through global warming. We are probably directly responsible for the largest wave of extinctions in I don't know how many millions of years. The permafrost is melting, the pacific fish stocks are crashing, salmon are nearly gone in the NW from dams and habitat destruction, and here you are, a good liberal on a liberal website, complaining about a few potential, yet relatively extremely unlikely animal attacks! What am I to do? Am I getting through? You're welcome to be worried about the incredibly small chance of those attacks, but don't expect people with the ability to see the forest for the trees to not respond.

Frankly, it reminds me of: well, them damn terrorists killed 3000 Americans! Why shore we oughta waste a trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American lives, destroy civil liberties, drag the good name of America through the mud. Oh and never mind that 10 times that many Americans are killed every year on US roads.

And if I complain about that bit of logic, then most Americans call me a traitor. Go figure.

but maybe I wasn't clear. I am totally in favour of wolf recovery in lots of places in the US, but the statement that wolves have never killed anyone in North America I think does more damage than recognising the realities. The first time one does attack, then the whole basis of allowing wolves to recover is put in question, if the recovery is undertaken on the erroneous assumption that wolves will never attack people. I would much rather people have a healthy respect for or even fear of wolves as it is much better for wolves in the long run.

I am not concerned about that particular point, because I don't think it will really affect much of anything. If wolves get reintroduced, and then attack someone, I don't believe they will automatically all be slaughtered. Perhaps they will, but I'd rather deal with that issue when it comes up. I'm just tired of the tendency of humans to bring up negatives like that, which I think will negatively affect the movement to bring back wolves, thereby short-circuiting your worry that we don't recognize the realities of wolves, which makes you worry about some theoretical time down the road.

It seems like: you're arguing that people having misconceptions about wolves will make it dangerous for wolves when they are reintroduced.
But my argument is: by putting forth the picture that people are likely to be attacked by wolves if they are reintroduced, you are limiting the possibility that they will be reintroduced.
And I think the chance of wolf attacks on humans is far less likely than the chance that humans succesfully reintroducde wolves on any sort of large scale.

I'm also arguing with many people other than you on this one. It's not fair of me, of course, but that was the point of my rant about 9/11. I am weary of listening to people in general argue off topic, and that is what I think you are doing. Hence I respond to you with more vehemence than the situation demands.

It doesn't really matter, I think. If wolves do end up coming back in force, then they kill some child and we embark on a national slaughtering campaign, I'll owe ya. But I doubt it.

That is something I say a lot that is not nearly as harsh out loud as it is in internet form, and I shouldn't have included it.

Plus thanks for responding, because responding to your response really helped me to clarify my thinking on this.

*edited for grammar, as hard as that may be to believe*

I don't have a point, I was just having a happy thought.

I find this canned hunt bs so sick. It's nice to think of the odds reversed. Cheney,Scalia,and the rest of them would decide hunting wasn't for them.

done well is manage fish and wildlife. The states have done a far far better job and in fact most of the time the federal government has been a hindrance. There should be some federal baselines but the states should do the managing. IMO

when it keeps to keeping necessary large predators alive in ecosystems...

And don't get me started on Montana and bison...

The wolves are pretty much all in the UP. The timber wolves on Isle Royal, I presume, would remain protected.

We have a serious coyote problem in parts of lower Michigan. They have a pack on Grosse Isle, which is about 15 miles south of Detroit. They've spotted them in the suburbs around Detroit and Grand Rapids. Either their population has exploded recently, or they were always there and urban sprawl is taking away their hiding places.

Karma has a way of biting ya in the ass. :+

"Death Eaters," in Harry Potter parlance...