Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
My god, this guys a complete idiot. Let's interfere with mother natures natural selction so we can support our camo wearing redneck buddies desire to kill animals with his big ole gun!
Idaho gov calls for wolf kill By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 11, 10:46 PM ET
Idaho's governor said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 of the state's gray wolves after the federal government strips them of protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told The Associated Press that he wants hunters to kill about 550 gray wolves. That would leave about 100 wolves, or 10 packs, according to a population estimate by state wildlife officials.
The 100 surviving wolves would be the minimum before the animals could again be considered endangered.
"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself," Otter said earlier Thursday during a rally of about 300 hunters.
Otter complained that wolves are rapidly killing elk and other animals essential to Idaho's multimillion-dollar hunting industry. The hunters, many wearing camouflage clothing and blaze-orange caps, applauded wildly during his comments.
Suzanne Stone, a spokeswoman for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife in Boise, said Otter's proposal would return wolves to the verge of eradication.
"Essentially he has confirmed our worst fears for the state of Idaho: That this would be a political rather than a biological management of the wolf population," Stone said. "There's no economic or ecological reason for maintaining such low numbers. It's simple persecution."
Wolves were reintroduced to the northern Rocky Mountains a decade ago after being hunted to near-extinction. More than 1,200 now live in the region.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to start removing federal protections from gray wolves in Montana and Idaho in the next few weeks.
A plan drafted by Idaho's wildlife agency calls for maintaining a minimum of 15 wolf packs — higher than Otter's proposal of 10 packs.
Jeff Allen, a policy adviser for the state Office of Species Conservation, said 15 wolf packs would allow "a cushion" between the surviving wolf population and the minimum number that federal biologists would allow before the animals are again considered endangered.
Allen said Otter and state wildlife officials agree on wolf strategy and will be able to reach a consensus on specific numbers.
"You don't want to be too close to 10 because all of a sudden when one (wolf) is hit by a car or taken in defense of property, you're back on the list," Allen said.
Post by trippindaisy on Jan 12, 2007 13:40:13 GMT -5
People like that just make me so angry
On the subject of wolves, have any of you guys been to Wolf Park in lafayette Indiana? It's an amazing place where they rescue wolves and foxes and keep them in a semi-wild environment. It's an awesome place. www.wolfpark.org/
while it dosent seem right to take them to 100 for the state and back to the endangered list they do need to be controlled. the populations rise because there is an abundance of prey. but when they kill it down they starve and die of disease. and then wed be falling below 100 and it wouldnt be manageable. why take chances with an uncontrolled population crash due to starvation and disease that is much more likely to lead to extinction then management through hunting? too many wolves and not enough food also drives them towards easy meals on farmer livestock which will be a sure death as opposed to a wild hunt for wolves which are rarely succesful. wolves are smart and elusive. not to mention that hunting and fishing license fees pay the millions neccesary for nearly all of the reintroduction programs that bring these species back from extinction. how much have you contributed? hunters play an important role. they arent just blood thirsty, redneck murderers. if it werent for hunters there would be alot more cars hitting wildlife. and thosands of animals would starve to death in the winter because of lack of food. and unless your a veagan you have no room to talk. id rather be a wild animal and be killed fairly cleanly and painlessly rather then being so pumped full of anti-biotics and steroids and fattening grains that my organs literally burst out of my body. and are then stuffed back in by ranch workers. no vet care at all. yes it happens. frequently. and being kept in a cage i cant move in, surrounded by filth and disease only to have my throat slit and choke on my own blood as it drains. i know its unpleasant but thats where your hamburgers and chicken sandwiches are coming from and those who eat them should accept it and leave hunters that are following thousands of years of tradition alone. its the people that sanction the mass farming by not hunting that are the problem. mass farmers and the companys that sell you your food have no respect for the land and animals at all. all of the hunters i know have a great respect for nature. in fact most hunters make more wildlife then they take by planting food plots or feeding animals in the winter when no food is available. that helps more animals lead a happy, healthy life. including many animals that are not hunted. and the fact is that if the wildlife wasnt killed quickly by a hunters bullet then it will starve, be hit by a car and drag itself to a long drawn out death in the woods, or get sick/old and be eaten alive by predators. we dont live in a world where everything is cute and fluffy. everything has to eat. and its not alway pleasant. but its a fact of life. wildlife dosent get to go to hospice to be protected and given morphine to ease suffering until they pass on. and one other thing. many times hunter gorups are forced to start with such a low number (in this case 100) of animals because they know that throughout the fight with the uneducated people who know little about the ways of nature other then animals are cute will cause that number to be raised greatly no matter where it starts. so they start low so that by the time the nut jobs are done fighting it maybe they get whats best for the animals. or maybe hes just trying to tell his voters what they want to hear. but it dosent really matter, in the end the governor dosent make these decisions. the wildlife experts do. and im sure the recommended 15 packs will be preserved. and the anti hunters will claim a small victory of going from 10 packs to 15. which was the original intent anyways. but now the anti-hunters can claim their imaginary victory, shut up, and leave. its a similar reason for the cheering and screaming and whatnot. the anti hunters are on the evening news screaming their propaganda. so the hunters have to get their word out in a similar manner. most of the anti hunters arent even residents of the state. they come in to run what amounts to a political campaign.
mother natures natural selection was messed up when we destroyed nature for our citys, fast food restaraunts, and mass farms. and to avoid the extincitons we all fear we have to manage populations. weve screwed nature too bad for it to do it without extincitons.
sorry about the rant. and i dont mean to seem confrontational. but it drives me nuts to hear hunter bashing from people eating a quarter pounder and wearing leather shoes. if your a vegan then you have room to talk. although most vegans i know have a much bigger problem with the mass farming practices then they do with hunters. what’ll really make you retch is the hearty serving of animal cruelty in every burger and chicken sandwich. on a typical factory farm, animals spend their entire lives confined to cramped stalls barely bigger than their own bodies; many go lame from lack of exercise or suffer from chronic respiratory diseases and bacterial infections. Most never see daylight or breathe fresh air until being shipped to the slaughterhouse—where animals are routinely trampled and dragged, hung up on chains, and dismembered—all while fully conscious.i guess id say look into a bit more. maybe its not for you personally, but to say its wrong and bash hunters, while it may be the popular thing to do, is wrong imo. and lets not forget that wolves are hunters.
and for the record i dont even own a gun ( a rarity in my neck of the woods) i went hunting several times while i was younger but was never successful. and i then found i was more interested in observing nature then shooting it. but if i ever have property i can hunt i will. its a source of drug free, lean, healthy meat right in our backyards. but im not gonna get shot by some moron trophy hunter in the public hunting areas. and i would use everything i killed. no killing an animal so i can hang its carcass on the wall for me. most hunters do not care for "trophy hunters"
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 9:13:43 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
On the subject of wolves, have any of you guys been to Wolf Park in lafayette Indiana? It's an amazing place where they rescue wolves and foxes and keep them in a semi-wild environment. It's an awesome place. www.wolfpark.org/
i have never heard of that. i normally dont visit "roadside zoos" but i like the semi natural rescue ones. that one looks nice. i go through indiana alot in the summer. and my son and i love wolves. we will have to check it out. we are going to yellowstone after 10,000 lakes so i hope we will get to see some wild wolves.
we went to one that rescues bears from the circus and roadside zoos and puts them in dozens of acres fenced in with other bears. it was called oswalds bear ranch. ive got pics of my son petting 2 bear cubs around somewhere. if your ever in the up of michigan its worth checking out.
Post by trippindaisy on Jan 13, 2007 7:57:20 GMT -5
My daughter has gone to many seminars there for kids where they get to stay there overnight and learn about the wolves and even get to see one of the more domesticated ones close up. It cost like $25 so it's well worth it depending on your son's age. The only reason they open it to the public is to pay for the upkeep for the wolves.
i challenge anyone that eats meat or consumes eggs or dairy products and also says hunting is cruel, wrong, or some redneck activity to make themselves feel big and bad with a gun to watch the videos on this website and tell me whether as an animal they would rather be treated as farm animals are or as hunted animals are. and as a human which would you rather eat? what is cruel and what isnt? warning it is not pleasant. and you certainly wont be running out to mcdonalds for lunch today after watching how they treat these animals. and the disgusting conditions they live and are processed in. i know im rethinking my diet. luckily i live where there are many small organic and amish farms that care about their animals. even if your buying organic or free range food at your walmart or kroger its coming from a factory farm and the same slaughter houses. no matter what there are cruelties in farming. but there are small farms that do care and make every effort to provide a good life and as peaceful a death as possible. and certainly having a small local butcher do the work is much more sanitary then the mass slaughterhouses which are filthy. www.goveg.com/undercoverinvestigations.asp
there are links to all of the animal videos if you scroll down a bit.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 12:37:26 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
The way I read is that the wolves are not causing population problems, or wiping out mass numbers of prey. They problem they are causing is that they are interfering with the hunting industry. INDUSTRY, did you even read the article?
The whole premis of what this guy is doiing is to protect, yes this is true, but it is the industry he is trying to protect, not animals or the environment.
One of these days man will realize that there is a delicate balance to our world, and we have been trying for years to fvck it up!
And as the other above poster said, I too am a bit creeped out by the idea of a group of people cheering when being given permission to kill.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 11:08:21 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
yes i did read the article. they must be preying on something if its affecting the hunting industry. its that industry that funds all the wildlife programs. and its a signifigant portion of the states economy. and the fact is that they will kill off the food supply. and then we will be left with fewer wolves and no hunting industry. who will pay to reintroduce the wolves after they die off and there are no hunters to fund the wildilife services? the fact is that wolves and hunters can exist together. there is a number of wolves that can be sustained on the land due to our destruction. the wolves dont have the ability to manage themselves. we screwed that up long ago. did you read the article? where did it mention that they want to "kill all of the wolves"? its these extreme comments from people who only think about fuzzy animals being shot that cause all of the problems. and that delicate balance was fvcked up years ago. if we hadnt reintroduced them there would be no wolves in the area.
do you eat meat? do you have leather shoes, jackets, wallets, belts, purses? educate your self. watch the videos on the links. then watch some hunting shows where and animal is dropped dead in its tracks or runs 4o yards and then dies. tell me whos crueler. hunters or the consumers that buy all of this mega farm food and in doing so fund and endorse the treatment of these animals. and like i said it has to be all cheers and camo or it wont make the evening news next to the californians protesting outside some government building.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 11:39:43 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
and when they do these reintroductions its almost always part of the plan for hunters to control the populations. its not a problem when the hunters are funding the reintroduction but hen it gets to the point that they are established and are starting to get too numerous they raise a stink about it. if we shouldnt manage our reintroductions then we shouldnt be doing them. we cant just reintroduce wolves to a food chain that hasnt had it around for decades and let them go crazy feeding on prey that has lost its natural defenses against wolves. its all about biology and science. and the environment the way it is today. but the animal rights people only see the cute and fuzzy animals being shot. maybe noone should hunt. and then when thousands of animals litter our roadways and raise our car insurance payments. or when herds starve to death in the winter we can ask the animal rights people how they like it. that would be much better then killing them quickly and relatively humanely and using them to sustain ourselves as opposed to rotting in fields and on the side of the roads. and without hunting for meat well hey, atleast we will get to buy more of those farm animals that are treated so well.
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 12:05:34 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
The wolves are not wiping out the entire elk poulation, they are only affecting the hunting industry. The wildlife in area that are not hunted is only affected by the natural selection of mother nature. Wolves are supposed to eat elk, that is natural.
I do eat meat and wear shoes and have a wallet, yes. AND, I also used to be big into hunting. I have blasted deer dead with the best of them.
As I have gotten older and more mature, it has become a personal feeling for me. I understand the difference between survival/feeding your family and recreational hunting. This whole thing appears to me to be a push to protect the recreational side of thier hunting industry.
I know the aricle did not say "all" the wolves. Of course I read it, I posted it! It was an exagerated figure of speach.
If you have read any of my posts you will see that I do abide by the "Type exactly what you mena and want to say rule for fear of someone jumping up and correcting you" rule.
I know it isn't all the wolves, its all but 100!
Last Edit: Jan 13, 2007 14:38:02 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
ok well then i guess i would say to speak about your personal feelings. dont exaggerate the topic of the article to draw attention to your point of view. and as a former hunter who decided to take another route it seems like you could have spoken about it in an intelligent way and not called hunters "camo wearing rednecks that want to kill all of the wolves with their big 'ole guns" dont make it out as hunters are maniacs who just want to kill. hunters love nature. and mega farms love money.
and as for the elk population it wouldnt be there either without hunter reintroduction program. just like the wolves. the elk population is in a fragile state also. 550 healthy reintroduced wolves are slaughtering all of the baby elk because they are new to the food chain is not right. should we wait for them to decimate the fragile elk herd, which has consequences beyond just hunting. i think its only right that we manage these reintroductions. no matter what you want to think they will be managed. if not by hunters then by starvation and disease. and lets not forget the reason wolves were wiped out in the area in the first place. farmers protecting their livestock. and it will happen again if they are not managed. i guess it will be an argument that goes on for ever. but as a former hunter it seems you would have a better understanding of what hunting is and how it is used to manage the wildlife populations in this crazy non natural environment we have created. sounds like one of the hunters that isnt out in the woods planting food plots and scouting. likely just one of those that gets the bug when the seasons excitement hits and then spend a couple of days drunk looking for that big 'ole buck to hang on their wall. thats not a hunter. thats a killer. and they dont go to hunting policy rallies/discussions.
oh well this argument will go on forever between hunters and the uninformed who have no clue about wildlife populations and what will happen if we dont manage them. but as someone who gives money to the farm industry i dont see how you have room to talk about hunters. people have been hunting for thousands of years. and mega frams have been being extraordinarily cruel to animals for 50 years in the name of our fast food and fashion. uneducated hipocrits bother me. everyone has a right to thier opinion but check and see if it is based on reality at all before you start throwing it out with exaggerations that are so popular and overused in the "animal rights groups" thats a joke. if your talkin about hunting and not mass farming then you dont give a fvck about animals. or atleast not the ugly dumb ones at the farm that are truly in desperate need of immediate help. to me its like stopping 2 boxers who want to be fighting eachoter because its violent when right on the other side of the room the nazis are waging the holocaust. what a joke. hunted animals are wild animals. they dont live to be old and die surrounded by grandchildren. it just dosent work like it does in the disney movies. a hunters bullet is the quickest and least painful way a wild animal can die. these farms are beyond cruel to animals. i mean it is literaly hell on earth for these animals. its so sad and disgusting. its the difference between if your dog is suffering and putting him down at a vet or letting him suffer and then picking him up by his rear legs and slamming his head into the ground. or maybe beating him to death with a metal rod. its really that bad for these animals. but hey if you want to support that and bash hunting thats on you. most hunters wont even argue this anymore. it takes years of being around nature in order to understand it, not just watching jack hannah and going to the zoo once a year. and the fuzzy wuzzy lovers from the city know nothing about it and want to cause ecological disasters as a result of their bold and false statments based solely on their emotions and opinions. no facts at all.
Last Edit: Jan 14, 2007 1:06:37 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
The wildlife in area that are not hunted is only affected by the natural selection of mother nature. Wolves are supposed to eat elk, that is natural.
humans are supposed to eat elk, deer and wolves. not obese, cancerous farm animals that are so pumped full of antibiotcs to make them grow that their legs cant support them and exist in condions that would otherwise kill them without all of the drugs to keep them alive. eating meat was a large step in our evoloution. and it was hunting wild game. not rasing diseased drug filled animals in the cruelest environment imaginable. its seriously scenes from hell. i sure hope none of us come back as a factory farm animal.
wolves are suppose to eat elk. but they are not supposed to be released upon introduced elk that have never dealt with wolves, and have lived without wolves in the environment for decades. you keep talking about mother natures balance. but all of our actions have eliminated that. thats the point. its science. fact. we should either manage our reintroductions ore we shouldnt do them. which would mean no wolves and no elk. oh well. luckily wildlife experts handle these things. not trophy hunters and anti-hunters.
Last Edit: Jan 14, 2007 2:07:56 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Post by jambandjohn on Jan 14, 2007 2:46:03 GMT -5
First off, let's try to put this in the right light. The governor's plan to kill off the majority of the wolves has nothing to do with wildlife management. You cull a population, you don't attempt to nearly swipe it out. The governor's plan is a political statement - "we don't want the federal government telling us what we can and cannot do, (even if it is the intelligent thing to do)". You can suck up to a lot of voters that way and it appears Otter is taking a page out from Chavez of Venezuela's play book.
All wild animal populations are cyclic, dependent mainly on food supply and disease. Adult wolves need a couple of pounds of meat a day and rarely eat every day. If the wolf numbers are up then there must be adequate numbers of prey. Elk, deer and bison are preferred, but they also eat buttloads of rodents and other small game. Yes, they will sometimes take livestock (easy pickin' in a nice deli layout...) and repeat offenders often wind up (legally) dead. There are programs in place to reimbruse farmers for their losses, both from government and from pro-wolf organizations. Sure they're going for the young elk, bet they're getting the old and sick ones as well. It's their job, what every top predator does in the process of natural selection.
Wolves usually have lifespans of seven or so years and in most years each wolf pack only raises a single litter of pups. Dropping the population down to only 100 individuals would ruin the genetic pool and greatly increase the chances of beening wiped out by disease. Remember wolves share all the same diseases as dogs (rabies, distemper, pravo, etc) but have no protection.
If left to their own devices the wolf population will stabilize into the usual boom and bust cycle. They in turn will help manage the populations of what they eat. When man must intervene let it be with trained naturalists and not clueless politicians.
I must agree with dmbfan - the governor is an idiot. My suggestion for an Idaho bumpersticker: "Wouldn't your truck look better with an Otter tied to the fender?"
note: I own a number of guns. I hunted for years, starting when I was about 8 or 9 (ended when I was tired of being shot at). My first job was with the NY Conservation Dept. I eat meat and wear leather (in my food pyramid cows are sh!t outta luck). Wildlife management is a necessity and legal hunting is a tool. Any hunter who eats what he shoots is okay by me. I have no use for trophy hunters, baiters and jacklighters.
well i eould also agree that he is an idiot. hes a politician. i am yet to meet an intelligent one. and while i disagree with you on a couple points im glad to haev an opinion without all of the bashing of hunters. but i beleive that the wolves would stabalize to a boom and bust. they will boom until they eat most of the small animals. and then when they eat most of the big game then they will bust. after they bust everything else. then they will move towards cities and farms to be shot or they will die of starvation and disease. and then the wolves will be bust, and the elk will be bust. the small animals will come back becasue of a massive reproduciton rate. it just seems that we could manage through hunting and avoid all of that. i agree that biologists need to make the calls and not politicians or anti-hunter (also politicians). luckily thats the way it works.
i also believe that cows and chickens are nuts outta luck. they are food. but that dosent mean that need to be tortured and abused. i am not some vegetarian peta extremeist. i just think it is apalling to treat these animals this way. and if your ok with the most horrifc treatment of animals that you can imagine for your food then thats sad. they deserve to be treated repectfuly in life and death. most people have no idea how mean and nasty it is. seriously please watch the videos and tell me that your ok with that type of treatment and your ok with giving money to these people. and if you just dont care about the torture of animals then atleast think about how unhealthy it is for us. and dont forget the starving children that could be fed with the 54 pounds of grain we feed cows for 1 pound of beef. not to mention the massive amount of fresh awater that live stock use. way more then crops. and then on top of that, there is the pollution of even more fresh water from these framing practices.
Last Edit: Jan 14, 2007 3:25:08 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
