Wolves May Be Hunted Into Virtual Extinction

[X]

First off, credit this to a friend of mine from another forum. He gave me the inspiration to post this here, so all regards to EOTL from the OHMB. It needed to be brought up here as well.

In March, Obama's Interior Department approved a Bush Administration plan (previously overturned by a federal court) to remove Endangered Species Act protection for wolves in the Northern Rockies. This week, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game began selling an estimated 70,000 permits to hunt and kill wolves in Idaho. With a wolf population of 1,000, that's 70 hunters for each wolf in the state.

Idaho will allow 220 wolves to be killed this year, in the first ever state-regulated hunt of grey wolves in the continental U.S. Over the next two years, the state hopes to eliminate more than HALF of their wolf population through hunting and other means. Idaho hosts the core of the Northern Rockies wolf population, with approximately 1,000 wolves. By wiping out at least 220 wolves - and that's just this year - the state will cripple the regional wolf population by isolating wolves (pack animals by nature) into disconnected subgroups incapable of genetic or ecological sustainability. In other words, even those not hunted and killed may not be able to survive.

To make matters worse, Idaho's announcement follows fast on the heels of Montana's plan to hunt 75 wolves starting in October. No other endangered species has EVER been de-listed at such a low population level, and then immediately HUNTED to even lower, unsustainable levels. This is not wolf management. It's wolf eradication.

Idaho's wolf hunt begins September 1, 2009. If anyone is interested, please sign this petition, urging Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to reinstate protection for Northern Rockies wolves.

This pisses me off so much. Wolves have just as much of a right to live here on this Earth as human beings. Disgusting.

PLEASE sign the petition.

Anyone else as disgusted as I am right now?

SIGN THE PETITION!​

 

[jmt225]

What the fuck? Why haven't I heard anything about this? Not one news station is covering this. I guess it's just another case where no one wants to make our perfect president look bad, including Fox News since you know those redneck favorable morons are for this as well.

But no X, this pisses me off as well. I seriously do not see the point in this. If we start killing off animals who have the possibility of hurting someone, then shit let's get rid of Pitbulls and Rottweilers while we're at it. Let's kill every big fish in the ocean that have teeth, too.

Honestly, this is fucking ridiculous and someone should put a stop to it. I signed that petition, and while it's better than nothing, I don't think that is what will solve the situation. Someone with power needs to step up and speak out, but unfortunately, if hardly anyone is covering it on television, then not many people will find out about this.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

This is absolutely disgusting, I admit I voted for Obama, but never did I think he would do something this pathetic, disgusting, vile and unforgivable. It makes me sick to think I helped him get into office. I apologize if my vote helped him get into office.

Now onto the wolves... they are beautiful, wonderful creatures of nature who need our protection, just because their numbers are up a little bit, is no excuse to remove them from the Endagered Species List, and then turn around and have them hunted. This is in no way going to benefit the wolves our nature. They are a vital part in the food chain and to remove them once again, would off balance many things in the natural life cycle of these animals and those they prey on.

We need to protect them, not eradicat them. This pisses me off and I will signing the petition without question. I just hope we can do enough to protect these goregous animals and get them back onto the list.

 

[Dexter]

I'm seeing a lot of very compelling statistics here but nothing supporting them. And I'm not one of those "omg you have to prove every miniscule fact because I disagree with you and that's my only defense" assholes, so I'm not taking it to that level or anything, I'm just very aware of the fact that statistics regarding anything ecologically related (animals, carbon emissions, deforestation, etc) are almost ALWAYS distorted by whoever is presenting them.

So quite frankly, I'm not buying this. There's more to this story, and I just made the effort to find out what it is but hilariously enough, the first 10 results in Google were from tree-hugging hippie rags (I'm not being sarcastic here, one of the sites actually WAS treehugger.com), and the 11th was from an LA Times article that, predictably, presented only one side of the argument because journalism is fail. I started to detect a pattern and just quit looking at that point. The one useful fact the LA Times article did provide, however, was that the removal from the federal Endangered Species Act doesn't automatically mean "shoot on sight". It just means the federal government isn't interfering anymore, they're leaving it to the individual states to decide. States rights ftw.

So I'm not saying you're wrong here, X, I'm just saying I don't trust your information until both sides are presented, and the other side, as usual, just isn't being represented at all. Until we hear that other side of the story, it's pointless to even debate it. We aren't educated.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

everything has the right to live no matter what, but i have to agree with Dexter here something does not add up, if this where the case and this situation does unfold wouldn't an animal rights group be hot on the heels of Obama?.

I mean they go nuts every time someone famous is wearing fur or killing a certain type of endangered species, what makes this situation any different?.

also i cannot understand why this story has not been picked up by the news outlets, wouldn't they be picking apart the obama regime with a juicy story and this seems like the juiciest.

as i stated i will sign the petition X but something here doesn't add up, and it seems like either this is well hidden or someone is pulling your leg on this matter.

 

[X]

I'm seeing a lot of very compelling statistics here but nothing supporting them.

All right heres a random link I pulled up from Google in about 5 seconds, that shows this story from the point of view of three different sides:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/articl...s_fight_for_the_right_to_kill_wolves/C41/L41/

Just the very fact that Idaho is selling that many licenses to hunt wolves, is fucking disgusting.

And I'm not one of those "omg you have to prove every miniscule fact because I disagree with you and that's my only defense" assholes, so I'm not taking it to that level or anything, I'm just very aware of the fact that statistics regarding anything ecologically related (animals, carbon emissions, deforestation, etc) are almost ALWAYS distorted by whoever is presenting them.

There's nothing to distort here. Did you read my original post?

So quite frankly, I'm not buying this. There's more to this story, and I just made the effort to find out what it is but hilariously enough, the first 10 results in Google were from tree-hugging hippie rags (I'm not being sarcastic here, one of the sites actually WAS treehugger.com), and the 11th was from an LA Times article that, predictably, presented only one side of the argument because journalism is fail. I started to detect a pattern and just quit looking at that point. The one useful fact the LA Times article did provide, however, was that the removal from the federal Endangered Species Act doesn't automatically mean "shoot on sight". It just means the federal government isn't interfering anymore, they're leaving it to the individual states to decide. States rights ftw.[/quoe]

States rights become irrelevant if the rights they're fighting for are wrong. Would you have supported the southern states for keeping the Jim Crow laws, saying "State rights FTW" then?

There's no way to distort this news. Removing an animal from the Endangered Species list and then immediately selling THOUSANDS of hunting licenses to kill them isn't right, from any angle you look at it. Anyone who thinks that is "okay" is a sick and twisted piece of shit.

So I'm not saying you're wrong here, X, I'm just saying I don't trust your information until both sides are presented, and the other side, as usual, just isn't being represented at all. Until we hear that other side of the story, it's pointless to even debate it. We aren't educated.

...What do you mean about this sides nonsense? It is a FACT that the wolves were removed from the endangered species list and it is a FACT that they are selling thousands of hunting licenses to kill a species that's already struggling. There is no way to twist something as black and white as this, go to any news site and look up Idaho and Wolves Hunting Licenses, go to TreeHuggingPussies.com or GunLovingRednecks.com, and it'll say the same thing---thousands of these licenses are being sold. Add to that the fact that this is an article critical about Obama's role in this, so you can hardly say it's a left-wing hack job if the first thing reported is that Obama is the one who allowed this to happen.

I appreciate your attempt to bring another view into the fold here Dexter, but this is absolutely abhorrent, and simply leaves me sighing over just how disgusting the human race can be sometimes.

Sorry, but anyone who supports this is a heartless bastard.

SIGN THE PETITION!​

 

[X]

everything has the right to live no matter what, but i have to agree with Dexter here something does not add up, if this where the case and this situation does unfold wouldn't an animal rights group be hot on the heels of Obama?.

They are. Since when do animal rights issues make the news though? Do you guys watch the news? They don't give a flying fuck about animal rights or issues, never have.

Thirteen environmental groups that have sued to overturn the federal delisting will get a hearing next Monday - one day before Idaho's hunt would begin - where U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula will hear their arguments on why a wolf hunt should be halted.

also i cannot understand why this story has not been picked up by the news outlets, wouldn't they be picking apart the obama regime with a juicy story and this seems like the juiciest.

Yeah right, you think an animal rights issues is juicy? The general public doesn't give two fucks about animal rights or issues, and consider groups like PETA to be "Crazy dirty hippies". Not sure what news world you guys are living in.

as i stated i will sign the petition X but something here doesn't add up, and it seems like either this is well hidden or someone is pulling your leg on this matter.

Pulling my leg? Did you even read the post? The petition? Google it, right now. No one is pulling my leg, this is factual news. This is directly from the Associated Press:

BOISE, Idaho -- It was the first day Idaho wolf tags went on sale for a hunt slated to start next Tuesday. By mid-afternoon, the state was reporting about 4,000 tags sold, as hunters motivated by curiosity, novelty - and in some cases frustration with predators' impact on wildlife and livestock - shelled out $11.50 for a wolf tag.

A federal judge has set a hearing for next Monday on environmentalists' effort to end the hunts before they start.

Idaho officials have estimated as many as 70,000 wolf tags might eventually be sold for the hunt that in some areas runs through next March 31. The figure represents about half the roughly 140,000 tags sold annually for deer and elk.

Sorry guys, but you should probably actually take a minute to look up the issue before proclaiming it's bogus when it's being carried by the AP.

This is wrong, and disgusting. Anyone with a shred of decency can recognize this.

SIGN THE PETITION!​

 

[Dexter]

All right heres a random link I pulled up from Google in about 5 seconds, that shows this story from the point of view of three different sides:

http://www.newwest.net/topic/articl...s_fight_for_the_right_to_kill_wolves/C41/L41/

Did you read this article you linked? No one in their right mind would be fooled by that. They have some random redneck they pulled off the street as the sole advocate for wolf hunting with absolutely no research done on the subject whatsoever, and then two people on the opposite side with a whole slew of pretty numbers. Seriously, X, you're better at critical thinking than this. Stop trusting everything you read on the internet and think for yourself.

Just the very fact that Idaho is selling that many licenses to hunt wolves, is fucking disgusting.

Not at all. There's a lot of scenarios in which hunting a particular species is a necessary, compassionate act. I don't know if this is one of those cases, and neither do you, because we don't have enough information to make the judgement.

There's nothing to distort here. Did you read my original post?

No, X, I didn't. I glanced briefly at the subject line and then went back to *********ing to midget amputee porn. WTF, man, of course I read it. What's that supposed to mean?

States rights become irrelevant if the rights they're fighting for are wrong. Would you have supported the southern states for keeping the Jim Crow laws, saying "State rights FTW" then?

This is just low. Even for you. I'm not even touching this one, you know better than this.

There's no way to distort this news. Removing an animal from the Endangered Species list and then immediately selling THOUSANDS of hunting licenses to kill them isn't right, from any angle you look at it. Anyone who thinks that is "okay" is a sick and twisted piece of shit.

See, and this is just typical "LALALALAI'MRIGHTYOU'REWRONGLALALALA" rhetoric. Nothing is that simple, X, and there's at least two sides to everything. There's a lot of reasons why this could all be a lot of bullshit, but we've got no way of knowing because the other side isn't being fairly and accurately represented, and that really sucks.

...What do you mean about this sides nonsense? It is a FACT that the wolves were removed from the endangered species list and it is a FACT that they are selling thousands of hunting licenses to kill a species that's already struggling. There is no way to twist something as black and white as this, go to any news site and look up Idaho and Wolves Hunting Licenses, go to TreeHuggingPussies.com or GunLovingRednecks.com, and it'll say the same thing---thousands of these licenses are being sold. Add to that the fact that this is an article critical about Obama's role in this, so you can hardly say it's a left-wing hack job if the first thing reported is that Obama is the one who allowed this to happen.

Maybe this is just the difference between us. I learned a long time ago that things are just never this simple. There's ALWAYS more to it than is presented by the special interest groups and mainstream media. If it's a subject you really care about, you do the diligence and take it upon yourself to find all the information. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be available here, and I'm going to remain skeptical about it until it is, and you should too.

Keep in mind, it's also a FACT that responsible hunting has always, and will always be an integral part of responsible conservation. The fact that people are shooting animals isn't always a bad thing, regardless of what those hot naked PETA chicks with the "Meat Is Murder" sandwich boards would have you believe.

 

[jmt225]

Not at all. There's a lot of scenarios in which hunting a particular species is a necessary, compassionate act. I don't know if this is one of those cases, and neither do you, because we don't have enough information to make the judgement.

Dexter, you can't say something like this and then not elaborate on what the fuck it is you're talking about.

Seriously, give me ONE example where it's okay to hunt an endangered species? There isn't one, man. The ONLY time it's acceptable to kill a mammal is when you're getting attacked by one, but that's it. However, most animals like deer and wolves who get hunt down, is only because stupid fucking rednecks find a thrill in shooting them. That's it. There's no other reason, and I guarantee you will not find one.

 

[Dexter]

Dexter, you can't say something like this and then not elaborate on what the fuck it is you're talking about.

Seriously, give me ONE example where it's okay to hunt an endangered species? There isn't one, man. The ONLY time it's acceptable to kill a mammal is when you're getting attacked by one, but that's it. However, most animals like deer and wolves who get hunt down, is only because stupid fucking rednecks find a thrill in shooting them. That's it. There's no other reason, and I guarantee you will not find one.

Suppose I should have clarified that but I didn't think anyone would argue the point. I assumed it was just common knowledge.

Hunting is a means by which we can keep species in balance. If one particular species is becoming too numerous for their food supply to support their population, they'll begin to starve to death. Hunting is a more humane way to correct the imbalance than letting the animals starve.

Hunting can also keep a predatory species from annihilating another species it preys upon. This is along the same lines as the first example, but more specific to carnivorous animals that might actually wipe out another species that's becoming endangered. That's what I think might be going on here with this whole wolf situation, but as I've stated, I don't know and neither does anyone else because we aren't being offered enough information to know for certain.

There's other examples of when hunting is a necessary, compassionate act (becoming numerous enough to expand out of previous boundaries and threatening the food supply of other predatory animals, or threatening a human-populated area, etc), but I think you get the point.

 

[X]

Dexter, you can't say something like this and then not elaborate on what the fuck it is you're talking about.

Seriously, give me ONE example where it's okay to hunt an endangered species? There isn't one, man. The ONLY time it's acceptable to kill a mammal is when you're getting attacked by one, but that's it. However, most animals like deer and wolves who get hunt down, is only because stupid fucking rednecks find a thrill in shooting them. That's it. There's no other reason, and I guarantee you will not find one.

JMT hit the nail on the head here Dexter.

You're right, in some cases, it is our responsibility to control the numbers of certain species. Guess what? Wolves aren't one of them. They've literally just come off the endangered species list (which itself was ridiculous).

Dexter, you keep telling me to go find facts, and that everyone is biased...where do you want me to go man? Don't pull the "They print anything on the interwebz!" argument here, you're better than that. You know damn well the internet is the most reliable source of information on the planet. I DO know what I'm talking about here man.

Wolves were literally eradicated from the Rockies during the 1920's. As in, not a single one left alive. There are currently around 150-250 wolves in the Idaho/Montana/Rocky Mountains region. Does that sound like a species that we need to give out THOUSANDS of licenses for people to go hunt? Looks like the 20s were only a precursor for us humans, no, maybe next we'll just kill every wolf!

I don't understand how someone can defend this. I really don't. Wolves pose no danger to humans right now, they're still basically an endangered species, and we're just going to let people go out and kill a large chunk of them, damning many more wolves to die with their packs split up?

I know what I'm talking about here Dexter. This is wrong. If you disagree with that, well, more power to you I guess. Nevertheless, I urge everyone to sign the petition.

 

[Dexter]

There are currently around 150-250 wolves in the Idaho/Montana/Rocky Mountains region.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. 150-250? You said it was 1,000 in the OP. Which is it? You have NO idea, do you? I'm not criticizing you for that, I don't know either. That's the point. You're making a very passionate argument based on information you JUST. DON'T. HAVE! I'm pretty sure it's based on some notion of "hunting = bad", and that's what I'm arguing against. It's NOT always bad.

And no, like I said when I first replied to you, I'm not pulling that douchebag "you have to prove everything you say" bullshit. But I DO think you have to have some basic understanding of the situation to make an argument, and I think you lack that just as much as I do.

 

[X]

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. 150-250? You said it was 1,000 in the OP. Which is it? You have NO idea, do you? I'm not criticizing you for that, I don't know either. That's the point. You're making a very passionate argument based on information you JUST. DON'T. HAVE! I'm pretty sure it's based on some notion of "hunting = bad", and that's what I'm arguing against. It's NOT always bad.

My mistake, I was looking at the number 220 from from the number of wolves that will be allowed to be killed this year. Typo on my end there.

And no, like I said when I first replied to you, I'm not pulling that douchebag "you have to prove everything you say" bullshit. But I DO think you have to have some basic understanding of the situation to make an argument, and I think you lack that just as much as I do.

What am I not understanding here Dexter? You keep saying both you and I don't understand this issue. Okay, than who exactly does? Everyone is just biased and out to lie to us than?

 

[Dexter]

What am I not understanding here Dexter? You keep saying both you and I don't understand this issue. Okay, than who exactly does? Everyone is just biased and out to lie to us than?

Well... yeah. That's just how it is with any issue people argue passionately. They're going to latch on to the information they like, disregard the information they dislike, and make a persuasive argument based on that. I don't need to explain this to you, I know you know this.

I know this sucks as a debate because I'm not giving you anything to grab hold of to argue against, but that's just how it goes, I guess. We can sit here and argue the ethics of sport hunting and conservation hunting all you like, I'm sure we both have good points to make on that subject and I'd love to have that debate. But as for the issue of these particular wolves and the impact hunting might have on them, from a factual standpoint? It's just not something we can argue without all the information..