# 1300 Wolves revmoved from endangered species list



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

The Federal Government is removing 1300 Gray Wolves in the Northern Rockies from the Endangered Species List. ID & MT plan hunts in the fall, OR & WA haven't planned any, protection remains in effect in WY because of its shoot on site law for predators.
Wolves to come off endangered list within 60 days - CenturyLink


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

that makes me mad.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

And the reason for doing this is???????


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

robinhuerta said:


> And the reason for doing this is???????


 
any number of things. government doesnt think they need to continue spending the money to keep them on the endanged list (article i read day before yesterday) and they're also tired of livestock becoming dinner for the wolves.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Why do I fear history is going to repeat itself!!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Deer are not on any endangered species lists. They are neither endangered nor do people go out and shoot many each year. You have to have a deer tag, so many are sold, this number is one that is calculated by the population of deer, and then hunters must take only one or two depending on what the state law requires. 

Taking them off the list means that they will open a wolf season. They will probably charge for tags, and then so many can be harvested. Farmers may be able to protect their livestock rather reimbursing them for loss. 

There was once a herd of white deer in the Grand Canyon. It was a beautiful herd. And some people thought they were a national treasure. They must protect it. They did so by stopping all hunting of the deer. Within two seasons the herd was totally gone. They starved in the winter. 

Hunters make the best conservationists. 

I wish hunting deer in NE Ohio would mean less deer here. Unfortunately, we are overrun, not as bad as in the city, but bad anyway. The answer is NOT to reintroduce wolves.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I have nothing against hunting but there are so many people against the wolf. I just hope they can manage this and not make them endangered again.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I hate to say it, but I do not want them in my back yard. It is bad enough we have coyotes. If I had chickens, rabbits, sheep, goats, cows or horses, I would like it even less.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do not want packs of feral dogs running around either.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

vat said:


> I have nothing against hunting but there are so many people against the wolf.


Most people who are against wolves are people who make their living off livestock. Every calf or lamb that gets eaten by wolves in money down the drain. Your average cattle rancher or sheep farmer isn't rich to begin with.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I agree Selzer, I would not want either in my back yard.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Emoore said:


> Most people who are against wolves are people who make their living off livestock. Every calf or lamb that gets eaten by wolves in money down the drain. Your average cattle rancher or sheep farmer isn't rich to begin with.


I understand that for sure. But (I am sure this is going to raise some hackles) I do not understand how some ranchers can let their animals graze on public land and then grip about wolves? Someone enlighten me.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

vat said:


> I understand that for sure. But (I am sure this is going to raise some hackles) I do not understand how some ranchers can let their animals graze on public land and then grip about wolves? Someone enlighten me.


Probably the same way you drive on public roads and then gripe about speed traps and pot holes.


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

Emoore said:


> Probably the same way you drive on public roads and then gripe about speed traps and pot holes.


:rofl:


----------



## GSD_Xander (Nov 27, 2010)

I thought ranchers got reimbursed for livestock killed by wolves. Granted - I doubt it's much but...

Either way - it just p*sses me off that they're opening the wolf to hunting.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think there is more to it than that. I do not know about all public lands, but there used to be so much land for the schools, and farmers who were there first could use it for grazing, or could harvest the hay. Good for the schools and good for the farmers. 

This would make land that abuts public lands worth more money. So the farmers probably acquired it with the knowledge that they would have access to these lands. And it came to the point where they needed it. 

I would not be surprised if some of the grazing allowed on public lands is actually paid for grazing rights on the property. But I do not know that for certain. 

In any event, if you went to a public park and stayed on a hiking trail, and a mountain lion jumped out and attacked you or your child or your dog, you might gripe about it too. The farmers do not want to gripe, they want to get rid of the problem, animals eating their livestock. But if they are protected, the farmers have to just accept that a wolf has killed several sheep and a calf. That's serious money in the bank. The county or state might pay for a critter, but it is usually a small amount per animal. If that was a prize winning bull calf that you bred specifically, it is not going to pay for it.

Sheep and Calves are so much easier, slower, than deer and other wild game. Wolves are not going to stick to deer unless there are none of the other critters around.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I can't speak for all states, but here in Idaho the government does not reimburse for confirmed wolf predations on livestock. The cash comes from Defenders of Wildlife., with the amount based on the current meat prices being paid out.

Hunting in this state is a huge money maker. Deer are small potatoes here, where we have moose, elk, mountain goat, prong horn antelope, bear and mountain lion. They are all big game animals and the state runs a very lucrative hunting season on each and every one of these animals. The licenses are expensive, and the sport supports a ton of small businesses: guides, outfitters, pack stations, motels and lodges. We are talking millions of dollars in revenue here. Hunting is huge in this state. 

Rightly or wrongly, the wolf population here in Idaho has been blamed for a decrease in elk numbers and a corresponding drop in successful elk hunts. No rich, out of state hunter will continue to come in during hunting season year after year if they aren't successful. Taking a really close look at other, less touted reasons for the decline in elk is not in the interests of the politicians here. They don't want to talk about how zones have been over hunted by humans, or any of the other reasons scientists ALSO talk about for the decline (such as a healthy predator population has made for a smarter and harder to get prey population, making the prey animals harder to sight and shoot). The wolf is a popular target. The state talks about how the federal government came in and forced wolf reintroduction where it wasn't wanted. About half the cars here have the "Save an Elk, shoot a wolf" bumper sticker. The small print on that bumper sticker should read "...so a hunter will have a better chance of bagging one".

They are in my back yard, so to speak. The closest known pack is the Timberline pack that is located roughly east of Idaho City, which is is just 24 miles from my home. I don't worry about them coming this far south into such populated areas. I am not stupid, though. I don't take my dogs into the mountains, and I don't take them into the foothills. Personally, I love living in a state that has such a thriving and diverse population of wild animals. But given the current situation (economic and political) in the state, hunting wolves will happen again and it will continue to happen for a long, long time. That is just the reality.

I don't think that it is so much a case of the wolves preying on "easy targets" like sheep and calves. When you consider how many wolves are in this state and how many sheep and cows are grazing in close proximity, the amount of livestock lost is pretty small. A fraction of the overall number. 

Maybe at some point ecotourism will enter the public conscious here, and the wolves will bring in more money alive than they do dead. Then we'll see some changes in how they are managed. That would be ideal.
Sheilah


----------



## Anja1Blue (Feb 27, 2008)

KZoppa said:


> any number of things. government doesnt think they need to continue spending the money to keep them on the endanged list (article i read day before yesterday) and they're also tired of livestock becoming dinner for the wolves.


This assumes that large (and I mean LARGE) numbers of livestock are becoming "dinner", which is absurd. The truth of the matter is that ranchers have a lot of clout with the Federal govt. I believe they should be compensated for any loss, the way they are in Minnesota. In Europe, dogs were and are used as a deterent to predation - the Maremma sheepdog, the Akbash, the Anatolian. All are very large, and will aggressively defend a flock or herd against intrusion. In this trigger happy society of course it's just so much easier - and a lot more fun - to go out and shoot something. Wolves will now be killed by people who have NOTHING to do with ranching, but just want a trophy to hang in their LR.

And BTW selzer, I think it will be a very long time before wolves - or feral dogs - overrun Ohio. (You might get some protestors though.)
_______________________________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge :angel:


----------



## Heagler870 (Jun 27, 2009)

Emoor is right, most of the people that don't like wolves are the farmers. I watched a documentary on that once and they despise the wolves. I have a friend though whose dad has livestock. Her dad keeps about 3 mules in with the livestock. They have killed several coyotes and some kind of wild cat. Makes me wonder if mules would keep wolves at bay too.


----------



## Miikkas mom (Dec 21, 2009)

I used to work for an environmental consulting agency in New Mexico. We did an environmental assessment for the FWS on the gray wolf in southern NM a few years ago. 

One of the biggest problems we found was that regardless to what the law says, ranchers kill the wolves if they feel threatened in any way, Some were boasting about it, if fact. Unless law enforcement catches someone in the act of shooting a wolf, there is little that can be done….and the ranchers know it. We also found some ranchers even kill their own livestock and blamed it on a wolf. Then they collect money from the feds through a program that reimburses the rancher for lost livestock from wolf kills. :nono: Fortunately, a few ranchers were caught and heavily fined…but there are lots of others. 
 
From what I understand, the new law only affects a certain number of states in the northwest corner of the country. Interestingly enough, one of the states with the largest wolf population – Minnesota – is not one of those states.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

We have wolves in our backyard and its not such a great feeling. They pull down calves, colts, anything that they can run down. Believe me, they do not pull down animals just to eat, they pull them down because they can. Its all fine and dandy to say they are wonderful, but when you see them decimating herds of animals then its sad.
Had not been to yellowstone since they let the wolves loose, and went back spring. Used to be that you had to stop the cars to let the elk, moose and buffalo across the road, this year we saw about 3 elk, 5 buffalo and no moose at all. The population didn't disappear by itself, the wolves have multiplied so fast there is no control of them
We did see a huge pack of wolves eating on a dead kill, then the grizzly mom and babies showed up and they backed off.
They should have known that the wolves would not stay in the park, they went out, raised more wolves and kill whatever they want. I have seen wolves pulling down and eating an elk about 200yards from the hospital in Jackson Hole. I have seen wolves trotting along the roadside in the daylight Very scary to go riding around here, never know when the wolves will show up, they have killed horses in broad daylight.

The new saying around the states that won't allow hunting of wolves is the three S's.
Shoot, shovel and shut up... 

They need to be hunted or they will overrun everything and nothing will be left, either wild critters or beef..


----------



## Anja1Blue (Feb 27, 2008)

wyominggrandma said:


> We have wolves in our backyard and its not such a great feeling. They pull down calves, colts, anything that they can run down. Believe me, they do not pull down animals just to eat, they pull them down because they can. Its all fine and dandy to say they are wonderful, but when you see them decimating herds of animals then its sad.
> Had not been to yellowstone since they let the wolves loose, and went back spring. Used to be that you had to stop the cars to let the elk, moose and buffalo across the road, this year we saw about 3 elk, 5 buffalo and no moose at all. The population didn't disappear by itself, the wolves have multiplied so fast there is no control of them
> We did see a huge pack of wolves eating on a dead kill, then the grizzly mom and babies showed up and they backed off.
> They should have known that the wolves would not stay in the park, they went out, raised more wolves and kill whatever they want. I have seen wolves pulling down and eating an elk about 200yards from the hospital in Jackson Hole. I have seen wolves trotting along the roadside in the daylight Very scary to go riding around here, never know when the wolves will show up, they have killed horses in broad daylight.
> ...


Sorry, but this statement is so over the top. What constitutes a "huge" pack? What are the statistics to show how many horses have been killed in "broad daylight." (Any photos or newspaper articles to back it up?) As for them overrunning everything and "nothing will be left, either wild critters or beef" this is just ridiculous. Only people are good at that. What you are portraying here is the stereotyped wolf-as-boogie-man story that has been around for as long as people decided they didn't want any competition. People in Minnesota seem to deal with wolves in their backyard just fine - how is that I wonder?
_____________________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

excuse me for stating what I know LIVING in WYOMING... There were probably 10-15 wolves in the pack we watched, is that big enough to constitue huge? .
As far as the horses, two horses were attacked in a corral in idaho, one died, one lived. The live one was loaded in a trailer and delivered to the fish and game in idaho. 
I am not going to argue with you, I live where I live and I see, as do the hunters, farmers, and anyone who goes in the wilderness see the wolves. My husband hunted two years ago in the Jackson area and there was wolves walking alongside the herd of elk that were heading to the feedground.
When you learn this information from the fish and game and it is not published, then its not going to be found. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but even the fish and game wardens don't want to admit aboutwolves straying and being around so close to human habitat. You do not live here, nor do you deal with the wolves like we see around here . Calves are worth about $800 each and when the wolf packs attack and kill them, I don't blame the farmers for shooting the wolves. 
Not going to get into this discussion or arguement. I am not a humaniac and will never be one, ALL wild animals have to be controlled to keep the balance since things are not the same they were hundreds of years ago when predators kept other predators under control.


----------



## KLCecil (Jul 1, 2010)

selzer said:


> Deer are not on any endangered species lists. They are neither endangered nor do people go out and shoot many each year. You have to have a deer tag, so many are sold, this number is one that is calculated by the population of deer, and then hunters must take only one or two depending on what the state law requires.
> 
> Taking them off the list means that they will open a wolf season. They will probably charge for tags, and then so many can be harvested. Farmers may be able to protect their livestock rather reimbursing them for loss.
> 
> ...


This is very correct, my husband's father who hunts deer during the deer season had mentioned that there was a very high number of wolves and that he has "hunted" himself while out there. He was saying there were so many that they were pouring into other states including Idaho.


----------



## KLCecil (Jul 1, 2010)

wyominggrandma said:


> excuse me for stating what I know LIVING in WYOMING... There were probably 10-15 wolves in the pack we watched, is that big enough to constitue huge? .
> As far as the horses, two horses were attacked in a corral in idaho, one died, one lived. The live one was loaded in a trailer and delivered to the fish and game in idaho.
> I am not going to argue with you, I live where I live and I see, as do the hunters, farmers, and anyone who goes in the wilderness see the wolves. My husband hunted two years ago in the Jackson area and there was wolves walking alongside the herd of elk that were heading to the feedground.
> When you learn this information from the fish and game and it is not published, then its not going to be found. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but even the fish and game wardens don't want to admit aboutwolves straying and being around so close to human habitat. You do not live here, nor do you deal with the wolves like we see around here . Calves are worth about $800 each and when the wolf packs attack and kill them, I don't blame the farmers for shooting the wolves.
> Not going to get into this discussion or arguement. I am not a humaniac and will never be one, ALL wild animals have to be controlled to keep the balance since things are not the same they were hundreds of years ago when predators kept other predators under control.


:thumbup:


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

In MI I believe we only have wolves on Isle Royal and the far north (UP and possibly upper LP) so I am not familiar with them BUT in general I believe that when people (this is just in general) decide to overrun everything, take over all the land to build their cities and farms and subdivisions, we don't get to pick and chose what we control. We can't take all the land, which sets everything off balance, and not closely monitor and regulate the prey and predatory animals that used to live on that land. In MI the deer population is out of control because we humans have pushed back or killed off a lot of their natural predators. Like it or not, it's really *our* duty to keep the animal population in balance and under control and that is often done with closely regulated hunting. Farmers getting trigger happy is one thing, but the DNR is no joke and IMO at least around here does a very respectable job with the funds and resources they have.


----------



## RazinKain (Sep 13, 2010)

GSD_Xander said:


> I thought ranchers got reimbursed for livestock killed by wolves. Granted - I doubt it's much but...
> 
> *Either way - it just p*sses me off that they're opening the wolf to hunting*.


I would assume they've removed them from the endangered species list & opened a hunting season on them because the population is doing very well and can afford to have some of them culled from the pack. It's not like they have placed a bounty on them. I take this announcement as a testament to the wolf's success, certainly nothing to get po'd about.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

exactly....


----------



## jaggirl47 (Jul 18, 2009)

RazinKain said:


> I would assume they've removed them from the endangered species list & opened a hunting season on them because the population is doing very well and can afford to have some of them culled from the pack. It's not like they have placed a bounty on them. I take this announcement as a testament to the wolf's success, certainly nothing to get po'd about.


 
That is exactly the reports up here.
I know there is no hunting of wolves in Washington. There are only 2 confirmed packs in this state and they are in SE Washington. However, my hubby and I saw what looked like a wolf driving to work the other day. We are in South Puget Sound region. I am still trying to figure out if it is a wolf or coyote, but it looked more like a wolf.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

RazinKain said:


> I would assume they've removed them from the endangered species list & opened a hunting season on them because the population is doing very well and can afford to have some of them culled from the pack. It's not like they have placed a bounty on them. I take this announcement as a testament to the wolf's success, certainly nothing to get po'd about.


Precisely. As someone already explained, hunting is very controlled. The DNR does a lot of research. Things change season by season. Even for a species like whitetail deer that is basically a pest like a normal squirrel here, you have to have the correct tags that pertain to the gender of the animal, the type of weapon you're using, whether you are hunting on private or gov't land, etc. I believe this past fall we had some sort of "special" early season for private land. Also many avid hunters who are respectful of the animals set their own guidelines. Where my family hunts, they have their own rule about which bucks can be hunted. The young ones are left alone.

Again, I don't doubt that there are disgruntled farmers that shoot animals on their land but that's a different issue than people who hunt following all the guidelines set by the DNR.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

About deer. My sister lives in Seven Hills, Ohio. They are over-run by deer. Of course there is no hunting, and they are near a game reserve. The deer come in packs of 17-20, eat the bark of the trees, and everything green, leave droppings all over. Walk right up next to the houses. 

Last night at midnight, I tried to go to my vehicle, and the big buck with a broken leg was in the yard next door -- right next to my SUV. On the driver's side. I yelled at him. He looked at me. He was not going to move. My sister says he is sometimes aggressive. 

I tell you what, I was more afraid of him than if there was a German Shepherd in the yard there. And I kept on yelling at him to get him to move on, before going to my car. 

They have coyotes the size of GSDs there, they have seen them. And they are leaving Old Buck alone. Wolves would remedy the problem, BUT, then I would be seeing a couple of wolves hanging around my car at night -- uh, no, would not want to walk through them either.

When the wild animals, predators move in, they do not care what other predators, they will kill or cause to be displaced. That is called nature. Humans, are animals and predators. No one has does as much as humans to keep animals from becoming extinct. The animal planet and mutual of omaha tell a lie. The white man is NOT responsible for every single animal that has ever become extinct. 

And we should, like any other animal, be allowed to protect our own and provide for ourselves. 

We have many horse lovers here. And I can tell you from my customers, that people love them as much if not more in many cases as we do our dogs. People train and work with them, raise them from foals, love their personalities. If a wolf comes in and kills your new puppy you are not going to be very happy. The wolves with kill foals and anything else they can bring down. And there are few critters that can stand up to a pack of wolves. 

Wolves resemble our dogs and have some similar behaviors, but they are wild creatures, and should not be on an endagered species list if they are not in fact endangered.


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

It's only a few cows, sheep etc to those that have nothing invested. 

DFrost


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

There is nothing new about the "Three S's", that has been around for as long as the wolves have been protected.

Horses are the least likely prey animal to fall to a wolf. In talking with experts on both sides of the debate, most of the reported cases of wolf depredation on horses is, in fact, not wolf depredation on horses. A mountain lion is much more likely to go after a horse, simply because their hunting style is more suited to success (ambush hunting, as opposed to running them down). As a horse owner in a state with a truly diverse predator population, I worry more about mountain lions than I do about wolves going after my horse. 

Wolves are not pouring into Idaho. This state was one of the original re-introduction sights and the wolf has been very successful here. They might be pouring OUT of Idaho has more youngsters disperse in an effort to find their own territory, but we have so many established packs in this state that wolves coming in from out-of-state would get a very rude welcome.
Sheilah


----------



## southforsunshine (Mar 8, 2011)

selzer said:


> No one has does as much as humans to keep animals from becoming extinct. The animal planet and mutual of omaha tell a lie. The white man is NOT responsible for every single animal that has ever become extinct.


Care to expand on that? 

I contend that humans are the single most destructive force on this planet. Slash and burn deforestation for mono-crop agriculture alone likely does more damage than any of us could even fathom.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

I'm not an Eco-maniac, nor am I PETA, HSUS or any other radical groupie.....
BUT...southforsunshine...I have to admit, I agree with your comment.

JMO


----------



## Anja1Blue (Feb 27, 2008)

southforsunshine said:


> Care to expand on that?
> 
> I contend that humans are the single most destructive force on this planet. Slash and burn deforestation for mono-crop agriculture alone likely does more damage than any of us could even fathom.


That's exactly right - and expecting that "single most destructive force" to maintain "balance" in nature is whistling in the wind. Human beings spend a lot of time trying to conquer nature, not support it (with exceptions.) Perhaps they are doing it right in Michigan, it sounds like they might be - contrast this with what is happening in Idaho, where you have a Governor who, by his own admission, can't wait to start shooting, and where hunting is less about control and more - much more - about money. (See earlier post.)
_______________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge :angel:


----------



## rjThor (Mar 27, 2011)

WOW!!!!...thank you sit, stay for your message, I totally agree with your view, if we continue to take more land and move closer to wildlife, accidents are gonna happen, I live in a big city, so the closest i've come to seeing a wolf is in the zoo, or on t.v., they are beautiful animals, and sorry to say it, but history does tend to repeat itself..


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Don't we all have to eat or should we delve deeper into the import dependent country we are? As it is the bulk of our fruits are imported along with many vegetables, and fish. We kinda need our slash and burn farmers to keep up with our growing populations food demands. I don't disagree agriculture pollutes our planet and harms the ecosystems wild animals live in, but many of these practices are only a direct result of our demand for food. I personally don't want to go to the store and see no chicken or beef, and I would rather eat fruits and vegetables grown right here in the US. Blaming human's for the extinction of any species to me is a little beyond the point when we look at our actual need for what is grown right here. I also don't think any of us can properly hypothesize what species would and would not be here if not for man. Maybe the wolves would take over and we would have no deer, elk, or moose...maybe then the wolves themselves would die off as food supply ran short or be forced to live in climates that would be detrimental to their health as they traveled for food. The only thing I know is I like to eat and therefore I love our countries farmers If it's between me and a wolf getting a meal I'm all about me


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

wolves are very shy and tend to stay far from human habitation , one of the reasons that they have been in decline as our range of habitation sprawls. The coyote on the other hand enjoys the benefits of being close and can live on the outskirts of an urban area or in a suburb , Toronto Beaches battling with a wiley coyote that has been enjoying lap dogs -- . They are bold .
Put more vegetables on your plate , and you have the advantage over the wolf.
I think more hunters are killed by other hunters than any encounter with a wolf or coyote .
Pro wild spaces, Pro wild life .
Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Anja1Blue said:


> That's exactly right - and expecting that "single most destructive force" to maintain "balance" in nature is whistling in the wind. Human beings spend a lot of time trying to conquer nature, not support it (with exceptions.) Perhaps they are doing it right in Michigan, it sounds like they might be - contrast this with what is happening in Idaho, where you have a Governor who, by his own admission, can't wait to start shooting, and where hunting is less about control and more - much more - about money. (See earlier post.)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> ...





Exactly. And the reason you see wildlife wandering around your neighborhood is because humans continue to encroach upon their habitat to make room for the ever expanding human population. We continue to preach that we need to hunt wildlife to keep their numbers in control and prevent overpopulation of various species. Meanwhile our own species is wildly out of control and we continue to overpopulate the planet and lead it to its ruin. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Maybe we need a species above us higher on the food chain to start culling our numbers and hunting us, for our own good of course.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Species were evolving and procreating, populating, and dying out LONG before humans ever graced the scene. The good old Brontasourus did not care if all the vegetation it was eating would displace some wooly mamoths, if those two even lived in the same age. 

Species evolve, adapt, and then are wiped out when something else evolves or adapts to that area that feeds on the same type of food and takes out more of it. 

Humans are animals too, animals first. Some humans have found that they can live around Lions and Elephants. Others live in areas where there are tigers. Some live in areas with Crocodiles or hippos. All of these can and do kill people. Most of us would not want wild ones living near us. 

Mountain Lions, Wolves, Bear, and Alligators are bad enough. Yes, mostly they are shy and go the other way around people, unless you have total idiots out there getting themselves killed and putting other humans at risk on their so-called research, living amongst the bears or what have you.

Beavers do not care if they change the course of a river, displacing and affecting the ecosystem in that area. Elephants do not care if they strip and kill young trees. Cows do not care if their droppings increase the holes in the ozone. I wonder why elephant dropping don't but whatever. 

Humans like to think that we can help a species continue rather than die out, and in the mean time we cause all kinds of problems for other critters, by interfering.


----------



## southforsunshine (Mar 8, 2011)

selzer said:


> Beavers do not care if they change the course of a river, displacing and affecting the ecosystem in that area.


Beavers displace little, while creating entirely new ecosystems. We displace everything, and completely obliterate ecosystems. Go to a beaver pond and count the species it supports, but be warned, you might be there a while. Go to a monocrop farm and count the species IT supports and you'll be home for supper. The "beavers destroy the environment" myth is one created by man, in efforts to kill all of the beavers, too. They constantly try to do it to our local beaver population. 

Until you have beavers building ponds, planting non-native grasses and constantly mowing the edges, using nets three times the size of football fields to catch all the fish for market, setting up traps to catch the small mammals (read: pests), killing the reptiles and amphibians for no reason other than some story about evil snakes making virgins eat apples, poisoning the birds because they are pooping in the water, zapping the bugs because they are "infesting" their log home, and dumping massive amounts of poisonous herbicides and pesticides onto the ground for "better sapling production", you have no comparison.



selzer said:


> Elephants do not care if they strip and kill young trees. Cows do not care if their droppings increase the holes in the ozone. I wonder why elephant dropping don't but whatever.


The reason cow droppings pollute so much is because.. DING DING DING, us again! You could pack 1.5 billion cattle into unnaturally small spaces, force feed them and then blame the vast array of problems it causes on the cows themselves?

If you start a factory elephant farm, I guarantee you'll have the same problems.

I agree with much of what's been said. With our current/projected populations, I feel there is little that can be done. Human's are the biggest problem this planet has right now. Our "bigger is better" attitude is going to do us in. I realize there is no easy answer, and I'll most likely never see any of this change in my lifetime. BUT I refuse to sit here acting like we're some righteous species, like "noone has done more for the animals than us".. wha-wha-whaaat? Because we maintain an endangered species list or captive breed wolves after WE murdered them all? Get real.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Sorry, species have evolved and died out before we were ever on the scene. They will live in spite of us, they will die in spite of us.


----------



## southforsunshine (Mar 8, 2011)

selzer said:


> Sorry, species have evolved and died out before we were ever on the scene. They will live in spite of us, they will die in spite of us.


Not sure where that came from... Nowhere in my posts did I say species didn't die out before we came around.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

My original statement that you asked me to expand upon was that humans were not responsible for every animal that died out and became extinct. So my first statement on my post was about species coming and going before we existed. I am just sick and tired of humans being the ultimate bad thing, and all humans should be disgusted for being humans. No other animal gives a rats tail about whether or not another species falls off the face of the earth -- only humans do.


----------



## gsdmi (Apr 4, 2009)

Michigan does have a good size wolf population -- though they are in the Upper Penninsula. I know from family and friends that they see quite a few, and frequently, in the western portion of the state, as well as the mid-section of the UP. Allegedly, they migrated from Minnesota & Wisconsin. I haven't heard of any sitings in lower michigan. They also have a population of mountain lions, though not seen as frequently, my family has seen them.


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

selzer said:


> My original statement that you asked me to expand upon was that humans were not responsible for every animal that died out and became extinct. So my first statement on my post was about species coming and going before we existed. I am just sick and tired of humans being the ultimate bad thing, and all humans should be disgusted for being humans. No other animal gives a rats tail about whether or not another species falls off the face of the earth -- only humans do.


I don't think they mean EVERY species that have become extinct is due to humans, but in the last few decades, the impact that humans have on other species and the world has not been positive.


----------



## Anja1Blue (Feb 27, 2008)

selzer said:


> My original statement that you asked me to expand upon was that humans were not responsible for every animal that died out and became extinct. So my first statement on my post was about species coming and going before we existed. I am just sick and tired of humans being the ultimate bad thing, and all humans should be disgusted for being humans. No other animal gives a rats tail about whether or not another species falls off the face of the earth -- only humans do.


Only a very SMALL percentage of humans care - the rest don't give "a rat's tail" either. If they did, 27,000 species a year wouldn't be going extinct (that's about 3 an hour), we wouldn't have almost 1 billion people in the world who are starving (that's about 14%) and we wouldn't be fouling our own nest in ways unimaginable to the rest of the natural world. We ARE the ultimate bad thing, and what is really disgusting is that we have the ability to fix it. But it would take a massive world wide effort, based on cooperation: something human beings, for the most part, are no longer good at. We want control of everything, whether it makes sense or not, and to heck with the kind of world our descendants have to inherit. Let them worry about it! And in the meantime let wolves - and anything else which gets in our way - beat it.
________________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge :angel:


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

For some reason this thread makes me think of the song "Colors of the Wind" from Pocahontas. Not trying to be a tree hugger or anything.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Anja1Blue said:


> Only a very SMALL percentage of humans care - the rest don't give "a rat's tail" either. If they did, 27,000 species a year wouldn't be going extinct (that's about 3 an hour), we wouldn't have almost 1 billion people in the world who are starving (that's about 14%) and we wouldn't be fouling our own nest in ways unimaginable to the rest of the natural world. We ARE the ultimate bad thing, and what is really disgusting is that we have the ability to fix it. But it would take a massive world wide effort, based on cooperation: something human beings, for the most part, are no longer good at. We want control of everything, whether it makes sense or not, and to heck with the kind of world our descendants have to inherit. Let them worry about it! And in the meantime let wolves - and anything else which gets in our way - beat it.
> ________________________________________
> Susan
> 
> ...




So true. Human Beings are the supreme egotistical species. We consider only our human life precious (and some don't even consider that precious). We kill other living things for sport- we are the ONLY species that kill for fun and we don't care about the impact to the environment we cause as long as our needs are being met. Need another housing subdivision, feel free to destroy that forest and who cares how many animals are killed or displaced when you cut down those trees and burn that wilderness. Need farmland, then burn down the rain forests, no problem, who cares about what it does to the environment. Need oil, go ahead and drill and who cares if it destroys oceans or wilderness that thousands and thousands of animals call home. 

Humans destroy many more species of animals than nature alone does. Look at the lions in Africa. Conservationists say that they will probably be completely extinct in the wild by 2020. And that is because of man. When one male lion is killed the entire pride will die out. That doesn't stop the poachers from killing them off though. 

To make the argument that man is the only species that actively "saves" other species from extinction is ridiculous. You have only a handful of humans that are working to that end and they are only needed because of the careless, neglectful actions of OTHER MEN. 

Sometimes, I honestly wish that aliens would come to out planet and start hunting us the way we hunt the other creatures on this planet. Then maybe we could see how it feels and people would stop being so selfish.


----------



## RazinKain (Sep 13, 2010)

DharmasMom said:


> So true. Human Beings are the supreme egotistical species. We consider only our human life precious (and some don't even consider that precious). We kill other living things for sport- we are the ONLY species that kill for fun and we don't care about the impact to the environment we cause as long as our needs are being met. Need another housing subdivision, feel free to destroy that forest and who cares how many animals are killed or displaced when you cut down those trees and burn that wilderness. Need farmland, then burn down the rain forests, no problem, who cares about what it does to the environment. Need oil, go ahead and drill and who cares if it destroys oceans or wilderness that thousands and thousands of animals call home.
> 
> Humans destroy many more species of animals than nature alone does. Look at the lions in Africa. Conservationists say that they will probably be completely extinct in the wild by 2020. And that is because of man. When one male lion is killed the entire pride will die out. That doesn't stop the poachers from killing them off though.
> 
> ...


Well, if aliens come to my house looking for trouble, I hope they're dressed like a meter reader. They'll have a GSD to deal with before they can get to me.


----------



## RazinKain (Sep 13, 2010)

DharmasMom said:


> Exactly. And the reason you see wildlife wandering around your neighborhood is because humans continue to encroach upon their habitat to make room for the ever expanding human population. We continue to preach that we need to hunt wildlife to keep their numbers in control and prevent overpopulation of various species. Meanwhile our own species is wildly out of control and we continue to overpopulate the planet and lead it to its ruin. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. *Maybe we need a species above us higher on the food chain to start culling our numbers and hunting us, for our own good of course*.


We already have one. It's called a virus.


----------



## Caitydid255 (Aug 28, 2010)

selzer said:


> Hunters make the best conservationists.


I have to agree with this sentiment. Not too long ago Lions were an endangered species in Africa. They were considered a pest and were killed on sight. Not too long after some countries allowed hunting, their numbers began to climb. It was discovered that the economic incentive of the hunters coming around, increased the value of the animal in the eyes of the population. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened with the wolves.

Further, I have a friend who lives in Idaho and is an avid hunter. He said that before this project even began, there were wild wolves in Idaho. He saw them when he went hunting or when he had various excursions in the wild. The wolves that were imported for the project were a larger subspecies (Canadian timber wolves I believe), and not only killed off the native species of wolves, but they have also decimated the local herds of deer and elk. He has sent me pictures of multiple wolf kills where the animal only had its heart, liver etc eaten and the rest has been left to rot. My entire life I've been a supporter of the re-introduction of wolves. It wasn't until I talked to several hunters out west that I've changed my tune.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am glad that the wolves are doing so well after reintroduction. 

Usually when men stick their big fat noses into nature's business, they mess up big time. 

For example. These nasty orange pseudo lady bugs are one of the biggest pests around, and they were brought here to deal with something I never heard of. 

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly, I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a spider, it wiggled and wriggled, and tickled insider her, she swallowed the spider to catch the fly, I don't know why she swallowed a fly, perhaps she'll die.

There was an old lady who swallowed a bird, how absurd to swallow a bird, she swallowed the bird to catch the spider.....

Sometimes what we do in the name of protecting and conserving is just as crazy.


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

selzer said:


> Sometimes what we do in the name of protecting and conserving is just as crazy.


Sometimes introduced species can be effective, like the cactus moth in Australia.

But most of the time they're really destructive. See Australia's rabbit problem, though those were introduced to be hunted for sport...Which was a terrible idea.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Caitydid255 said:


> I have to agree with this sentiment. Not too long ago Lions were an endangered species in Africa. They were considered a pest and were killed on sight. Not too long after some countries allowed hunting, their numbers began to climb.  It was discovered that the economic incentive of the hunters coming around, increased the value of the animal in the eyes of the population. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened with the wolves.



Where on earth did you get this false information. The number of African lions have dropped DRASTICALLY in the last 30 years, some estimates say as much by half, maybe more and the continue to decline. And trophy hunting is one of the biggest problems. When you kill the male pride leader you end up killing the entire pride. National Geographic Channel did a documentary last year that said they could be extinct as soon as 2020 if their numbers continue to decrease at this rate.


Extinction Countdown: African lion may be added to U.S. endangered species list to curb American trophy hunters


----------



## Anja1Blue (Feb 27, 2008)

DharmasMom said:


> Where on earth did you get this false information. The number of African lions have dropped DRASTICALLY in the last 30 years, some estimates say as much by half, maybe more and the continue to decline. And trophy hunting is one of the biggest problems. When you kill the male pride leader you end up killing the entire pride. National Geographic Channel did a documentary last year that said they could be extinct as soon as 2020 if their numbers continue to decrease at this rate.
> 
> 
> Extinction Countdown: African lion may be added to U.S. endangered species list to curb American trophy hunters


Not only false, but dangerous. This is precisely the kind of delusional thinking which brings a species to extinction in the first place. ("There's plenty of them, shooting a few hundreds (or thousands) won't hurt.") And as for giving hunters credit for saving lions - or anything else on the endangered list for that matter - pul-EEZ! 
________________________________________
Susan

Anja SchH3 GSD
Conor GSD
Blue BH WH T1 GSD - waiting at the Bridge :angel:


----------

