HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Federal Wildlife Agents S...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:34 PM

Federal Wildlife Agents Shoot 14 Wolves from Helicopters

Feb. 23, 2012

Lewiston, Idaho (AP) -- Federal wildlife agents shot 14 wolves from helicopters in northern Idaho as part of an effort to help increase the elk population in the Lolo zone.
The three-day operation earlier this month cost $22,500 and was carried out by the USDA Wildlife Services and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Through Wednesday, hunters and trappers had taken 22 wolves from the Lolo zone, while another six were shot from helicopters last spring, bringing the total known wolf kills to 42.

In recent years, wolves have been identified as the primary cause of death in female elk and calves over six months old.

Before the start of the hunting season, the Lolo zone wolf population was estimated at 75 to 100, with additional animals crossing back and forth between Idaho and Montana.

http://www.capitalpress.com/idaho/AP-ID-wolves-shot-022312

(At more than $1670 per wolf killed, wouldn't it have been cheaper to have
humanely trapped the 14 wolves and relocated them to areas where deer populations are too high?)

56 replies, 5370 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Federal Wildlife Agents Shoot 14 Wolves from Helicopters (Original post)
red dog 1 Feb 2012 OP
joeybee12 Feb 2012 #1
villager Feb 2012 #2
Boudica the Lyoness Mar 2012 #20
villager Mar 2012 #23
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #26
truebrit71 Mar 2012 #38
jsmirman Feb 2012 #5
joeybee12 Feb 2012 #6
jsmirman Feb 2012 #7
joeybee12 Feb 2012 #9
jsmirman Feb 2012 #11
RebelOne Feb 2012 #3
catbyte Feb 2012 #4
tyne Feb 2012 #8
BlueIris Feb 2012 #10
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #12
red dog 1 Feb 2012 #13
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #14
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #15
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #18
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #19
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #22
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #24
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #25
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #27
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #28
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #29
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #32
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #34
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #35
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #39
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #42
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #44
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #46
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #47
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #53
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #56
DeschutesRiver Mar 2012 #43
ellisonz Mar 2012 #16
red dog 1 Mar 2012 #31
ellisonz Mar 2012 #33
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #36
ellisonz Mar 2012 #37
Tyrs WolfDaemon Mar 2012 #17
Boudica the Lyoness Mar 2012 #21
a la izquierda Mar 2012 #30
Cleita Mar 2012 #40
flvegan Mar 2012 #41
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #49
flvegan Mar 2012 #50
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #51
flvegan Mar 2012 #52
Blue_In_AK Mar 2012 #45
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #48
Blue_In_AK Mar 2012 #54
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #55

Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:40 PM

1. In recent years, wolves have been identified...

What a load of shit...let's talk about human encroachment on the habitat, but that wouldn't keep the asshole hunters happy, would it? Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:42 PM

2. What fucking "change," Mr. Obama?

This is the same kowtowing to cattle ranchers and hunters that's been going on in the West for decades.

more appalling policy from this administration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 05:03 PM

20. He also has continued to allow the BLM's

abuse of wild horses. In fact he took it one step further and made horse meat okay for human consumption. This has always been taboo in the US.

I'm disgusted by him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 06:36 PM

23. When it comes to wildlife and wilderness, in particular, this administration is as abysmal

...as all those clueless, anthropocentric administrations that preceded it.

Zero "change" whatsoever...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 12:36 PM

26. Native Americans have always eaten horses when needed

Much more practical than the invaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:45 PM

38. Yup. This, to me, is one of his biggest failings..and yet it gets surprisingly little play...

...He just handed over the Interior to a rancher and let him loose...so much for 'careful stewardship' of the environment...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:52 PM

5. Thank you

joeybee, for your consistent stand on terrible crap like this.

I like you, even if do root for those damn Boston teams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:59 PM

6. You're welcome...and you should come over to the

Dark Side with me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

7. This

Giants/Yankees/Rangers/Knicks New Yorker???

Never!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsmirman (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:28 PM

9. So, you're on the DARKER Side!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 07:07 PM

11. The DARKEST side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:45 PM

3. Yeah, all the more elk for hunters to kill. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 04:49 PM

4. Bastards. Rat bastards. Does it make you feel like men?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catbyte (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:26 PM

8. I don't know

if it makes them feel like men, but, the elk sure taste like meat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 06:34 PM

10. I highly recommend the book, "Never Cry Wolf," by Farley Mowat.

It will tell you everything you need to know about the justification, or lack thereof, for wolf killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 11:00 PM

12. Apparently many here have not heard of subsistence hunting

Those that need to hunt to feed themselves. In rural states its quite common, especially during hard times. Not sure you can get more rural than Montana and Idaho, and its pretty clear that these are very rough times for many rural folk.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:44 AM

13. "Those that need to hunt to feed themselves"?..In a National Park?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 2, 2012, 01:18 PM

14. Neither the prey nor the predators restrict themselves to NPS boundaries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 02:52 AM

15. Obama could have prevented this wolf slaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #15)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 08:01 AM

18. A better question is whether or not it was appropriate

A knee jerk reaction either way from pols would not be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:23 PM

19. "A better reaction is whether or not it was appropriate"?

So, you're saying that if Obama had DENIED Idaho Fish and Game's request to have the wolves shot by Wildlife Services sharpshooters,.. from helicopters... in a National Forest, (saving the American taxpayers $22,500 in the process), might not have been "appropriate"?......Appropriate for whom, the hunters who want more elk to kill?

This is an on-going program by the USDA's Wildlife Services to shoot wolves from helicopters in order to make hunters happy; and Obama continues to allow this costly, inhumane wolf slaughter to take place in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and other states where hunters grumble about not having enough deer & elk to kill.

I have a "knee-jerk" reaction to your comments. and here it is.

You're not an animal lover, are you?

....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 06:22 PM

22. What do you have against subsistence hunting?

Those who eat what they take are the vast majority of hunters, especially in rural areas such as Idaho and Montana. It not trophy hunting territory and hunting is allowed on National Forest lands.

In response to your query, I am both an omnivore and an animal lover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 12:31 PM

24. Subsistence hunting is fine, but

what we have here, in the case of the Lolo wolves, is that there are plenty of deer, boar and other animals for "subsistence hunters" to kill and eat, but, since only the ELK population is down, the "trophy hunters' are pissed off at the wolves.

I'm aware of the fact that hunting is allowed in National Forests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 12:34 PM

25. Elk is much better eating that deer...that does not sound like trophy hunting to me

And the deer are also down...look how many deer or elk a small pack takes in a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 03:14 PM

27. "Elk is much better eating than deer", so you're not arguing for "subsistence hunting" anymore?

Subsistence Hunting: "The hunting and gathering for the SOLE PURPOSE of PROVIDING FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY.....HUNTING FOR SURVIVAL"
http://library.thinkquest.org/27518/subsistencehunting.htm

"Elk is much better eating than deer" doesn't sound like subsistence hunting to me, since one could easily "survive" by eating wild boar, deer, rabbits, wild turkeys and whatever other animals are available to kill for "survival".

"..the white-tailed deer has reached record populations in many states and will continue to grow. Densities may exceed 40 deer per square mile in some rural areas.."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/pages/deerpopulationfacts.aspx

If wolves were humanely trapped, instead of being shot from helicopters, and re-located to these areas, the elk hunters of northern Idaho and other areas would have more elk and deer to kill, and the wolves could help diminish the deer population in the areas of deer over-population, which could be considered a "win/win" solution to both problems.

By the way, since you appear to have no problem with the idea of shooting wolves from helicopters solely to benefit hunters, that means that you share the values of Sarah Palin and others who support this despicable means of "culling" wolf packs, doesn't it, "Professor"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 4, 2012, 11:01 PM

28. Your cited source is less than accurate...just ask any deer hunter in California.

I have not said anything about the methods or if even it was needed. What I have argued is that your assumption that hunters are in it just for trophies is ill informed at best.

Subsistence hunting is hunting to feed your family, and is not what most of us would consider survivalist. Elk provide much better meat and more of it than the other animals you brought up, including deer. Taste also matters, though less if you are starving. Have you ever eaten deer, elk or the other animals you brought up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 06:04 AM

29. "Your cited source is less than accurate...just ask any deer hunter in California"??

Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2012, 07:08 AM - Edit history (2)

You've made 7 replies to this thread, six to me, and one to Bouticia the Lioness, and you've not used one verifiable citation in any of the seven.

Instead you've stated nothing but your own absurd opinions:

"Native Americans have always eaten horses when needed"
"Apparently many here have not heard of subsistence hunting"
"Neither the prey nor the predator restrict themselves to NPS boundaries"
"A better question is whether or not it was appropriate - a kneejerk reaction either way from pols would not be" (would not be what?)
"What do you have against subsistence hunting?"
"Elk is much better eating that (sic) deer..."

and my favorite,
"Your cited source is less than accurate..just ask any deer hunter in California"

What, exactly, is "less than accurate" in my cited source?
and why the hell would I get a more accurate answer by "asking any deer hunter in California"?

Here are two more VERIFIABLE SOURCES. "Professor"
Both are from the Alaska Hunting Forum, December 21, 2005.

Posted by Michael Strahan on Dec 21, 2005
"My first reaction is to say that Subsistence hunting is different from sport hunting or hunting strictly for meat"...' and he goes on for several more paragraphs to elaborate....Why don't you read it in it's entirety, "Professor"?
http://www.outdoorsdirectory.com/akforum/akhunting/57831.html

Posted by bushrat on Dec. 21, 2005
"I'm a subsistence hunter.And I know a lot of subsistence hunters. Some live in the urban areas of Alaska, some in the villages, and a VERY few live, like me and my family, hundreds of miles beyond the villages. What we all have in common is that we hunt for food to feed ourselves and our families."........and, like Strahan above, he goes on for several more paragraphs, which I'm not going to copy just to reply to the likes of you....you can go read it in it's entirety if you care to.
also at http://www.outdoorsdirectory.com/akforum/akhunting/57831.html

The point is, "Professor", you have done nothing but blow smoke out your ___ with your ridiculous opinions and twisted logic.
NOT ONE SINGLE VERIFIABLE SOURCE, "Professor", NOT ONE...in SEVEN REPLIES!

I ask again,"Professor"...What part of my "cited source is less than accurate"?, and try for once to list a verifiable source for your answer this time, if you can manage that task.

By the way, you never responded to my pointing out the fact that, ("subsistence hunting" aside), "you and Sarah Palin apparently have absolutely no problem with the shooting of wolves from helicopters solely to benefit hunters', (I wonder how much more you and she have in common?)
Shooting defenseless animals from helicopters doesn't sound like something an animal lover would truly not be bothered about, or maybe you just don't like wolves.



















.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 11:25 PM

32. Your clear lack of knowledge is showing quite clearly

First of all using quality sources is basic...yours are weak in several ways. Citing 6-7 year old posts on a message board as authoritative is at best silly, and demanding citations when none is needed is even worse.

For example, my comment on horse meat is obviously true to anyone who knows American history. Then there is also Wikipedia (Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat scroll down about 80% to the US section). While not addressing the Indian Wars and prior, even then it is clear that it has been eaten with some regularity in the US. Of course someone knowledgeable in US history would have known that without discussion or demanding a citation.

Like many others, you seem to believe that deer are as plentiful in the western US as they are in the eastern US. A clear fallacy for any number of reasons. In the eastern US, deer over population is a serious problem. There are few if any natural predators for deer in places like Maryland or Vermont. They take out cars and motorcycles with some regularity. Its different out west where there are wolves, cougars, etc that do prey on deer. Deer are not nearly the nuisance that they are back east. Finally there is California where in 1990 Prop 117 banned the hunting of cougars. The result was a population growth in the big cats, who's primary prey is deer. Eventually Malthus caught up with them too, and we had a spate of attacks on humans. Things have balanced out somewhat since then, but the California deer herds have never recovered. My comment about asking any California deer hunter was sarcastic, since most go to Utah and elsewhere to hunt...the deer are that sparse here and plentiful over there. The data that supports the above is clearly available form the California Dept of Fish and Game. The page titled "Long Term Trends in California's Deer Population" is somewhat misleading, you need to dig to find the census data deeper down.

You can quibble all you want over the meaning of subsistence hunting. I am also quite sure I could find a web site that supports what follows, though the labels might vary: Subsistence hunters are those who are counting on taking at least one large game animal to be able to feed their household. That differentiates them from survival hunters (anything that is edible, often regardless of season), and meat hunters, who could afford to buy food, but prefer wild game. Those distinctions are fairly important, whether you understand the nuances or not.

Your fixations on citations is almost amusing. A good source needs to be credible, accurate, and current. Bill Gates once declared that no one need more than 640KB of memory...I doubt anyone would consider that valid today. As others have observed, 90% of the web is crap, and citing web content just invokes Gigo's law. It is also not required to cite that which is obvious and well known (like the consumption of horse meat in the US). Another way to phrase that is QED (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QED since you like citations, #3 and #4 are relevant here)

Finally you seem fixated on trying to tar me with a Sarah Palin smear. Sorry bubba, I won't play that game. Maybe some other sucker will fall for your trolling.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #32)


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:29 AM

35. Lets review the thread for what it actually posted

My original posts was in response to the overall tone of the thread that hunting was inherently evil. (Posts 1-4) For that reason I pointed out the subsistence hunting (previously defined) was common and that it was more common during hard times. (Post 12) Its a concept foreign to many and it is fair to point that out.

Boudica brought up horse consumption (post 20) and made an incorrect statement, which I corrected (post 26).

You brought up National Parks (post 13) I pointed out that neither the prey nor the predators remained within any particular boundaries. (Post 14)

You said Obama could have prevented the slaughter,(post 15) I pointed out it was better for pols to stay out of such things, (Post 18) with an interference that the wildlife pros should make those kind of decisions. I could have been clearer on that point, but I was running late for a lab.

A bit later, you then made false statements about deer populations, used some silly citations, and started demanding some from me (post 27, 29). I rebutted them.(posts 29,32)

Your attempts at personal attacks started in post 19 and are ongoing.


The facts on the ground on this issue are:

- Vast majority of people hunt for food, not trophies. In some cases it is required for adequate nutrition (subsistence hunting).

- State Fish & Game officials decided to cull wolves in an area. Presumptively they have adequate documentation for that decision. Federal officials concurred and supported it. I assume local and national wolf supporters were aware of this ahead of time but were unable to stop via the review process and the courts. I want to recall hearing something about this previously.

- The culling method is controversial. As a government agency they have a requirement to do things in the most cost effective manner possible. I assume that live trapping was considered and the reasons for not doing it are covered in the documentation mentioned earlier. Presumptively it was cost.

- Speaking of costs, I do not think they have enumerated the true costs for the helo based approach which I think are quite a bit higher. (incremental vs fully burdened/amortized). I also do not believe they could trap wolves for declared costs. The lowest cost way to cull the packs would be a tag system with bounties, but the negative reaction would be even higher.

The real key here is whether or not you agree with the State and Federal professionals when it comes to wildlife management. Given that wildlife are a common resources not sure what kind of choices there are here. If I was strongly concerned about this, I would start with the documentation and then look at the larger picture. Otherwise all you are doing is an emotional knee jerk reaction without facts, which pretty well describes your posts on this thread.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:27 PM

39. "You then made false statements about deer populations"........"I rebutted them"?

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:12 AM - Edit history (1)

How could you have "rebutted" anything, since the only citations YOU ever used on this thread were Wikipedia and Urbandictionary?.

Please provide verifiable proof that "I made false statements about deer populations, used some silly citations" (Post # 27)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:14 AM

42. One more thing, "Professor",... your statement in Post # 32 is inaccurate,

"Like many others, you seem to believe that deer are as plentiful in the western US as they are in the eastern US"..........WRONG!

I'm well aware of the fact that many of the eastern states have a severe over-population of deer, which is a problem that could be solved if Wildlife Services would stop shooting wolves from helicopters and instead, humanely trapping them and relocating them to the eastern states that have the most severe deer over-population.....Since this wolf kill cost more than $1670 per wolf, how much more would it cost to trap & relocate the wolves?
Since you are a "professor", perhaps you could answer this question?

As you yourself said in Post # 32, "In the eastern US, deer overpopulation is a serious problem."

As far as your slanderous remark about my making "false statements about deer populations." and "used some silly citations", The following is the ONLY citation I used in reference to deer populations..(Post # 27)

"..the white tail deer has reached record populations in many states and will continue to grow. Densities may exceed more than 40 deer per square mile in some rural areas."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/pages/deerpopulationfacts.aspx

Which part of this statement is false, Professor?

It was taken from Cornell University Cooperative Extension, far from being a
"silly citation". wouldn't you agree?, or would you prefer to slander me some more?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 01:26 AM

44. Citations are not always required, despite your fetish for them.

"..the white-tailed deer has reached record populations in many states and will continue to grow. Densities may exceed 40 deer per square mile in some rural areas.."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/pages/deerpopulationfacts.aspx


That citation you used in post 27 is a poor basis for discussion of deer herds in Idaho since the site clearly has an east coast focus. That does not make it wrong, but limits its applicability to the western states. What is accurate in New York about white tail deer populations is not true in Idaho and Montana. That is important since predators were being culled to preserve the game animal herds, while in the east, they could use some predators, not that the populace would go along with that.

In post 32 I pointed out the dramatic differences between the western and eastern US when it comes to deer herds, due to the lack of predators in the east. I also discussed in CA due to the ban of hunting cougars, the deer herds were even smaller.

Like many others, you seem to believe that deer are as plentiful in the western US as they are in the eastern US. A clear fallacy for any number of reasons. In the eastern US, deer over population is a serious problem. There are few if any natural predators for deer in places like Maryland or Vermont. They take out cars and motorcycles with some regularity. Its different out west where there are wolves, cougars, etc that do prey on deer. Deer are not nearly the nuisance that they are back east. Finally there is California where in 1990 Prop 117 banned the hunting of cougars. The result was a population growth in the big cats, who's primary prey is deer. Eventually Malthus caught up with them too, and we had a spate of attacks on humans. Things have balanced out somewhat since then, but the California deer herds have never recovered. My comment about asking any California deer hunter was sarcastic, since most go to Utah and elsewhere to hunt...the deer are that sparse here and plentiful over there. The data that supports the above is clearly available form the California Dept of Fish and Game. The page titled "Long Term Trends in California's Deer Population" is somewhat misleading, you need to dig to find the census data deeper down.


Everything I said could indeed have citations, but they are well known and obvious to anyone with knowledge in the field. . However if you want to argue against obvious facts, we might have a flat earth group around here somewhere on DU3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #44)


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 12:57 AM

47. All you have now are ad hominems...

From Post # 32
"Your fixation of citations is almost amusing"
From Post # 44...your reply title reads
"Citations are not always required, despite your fetish for them"

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Origin of FETISH

French & Portuguese; French: "fetiche", from Portuguese "fetigo".
from "fetigo" artificial, false.
from Latin "facticius facticious

You could have stuck with the word "fixation", or used the words "obsession" or "preoccupation", instead of "fetish", but I guess that was just a not so subtle "jab" at me, right?...no big deal!


I suggest you look at other definitions of fetish...

Fetˇish  
noun
1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
3. Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetish




In Posts # 27 and # 42, I quoted a verifiable source regarding the overpopulation
of white-tail deer in the eastern United States.


Except the area under discussion was the Western states

I NEVER "made false statements about deer populations",

The point I clearly made, (which you don't seem to get into your thick head), is that it is, indeed, in the EASTERN United States where there are serious problems with deer overpopulation, and it is in the eastern U.S. where introducing predators such as wolves might ameliorate the problem.


The event being discussed was in the Idaho. Citing analysis about the east cost is at best inapplicable and silly though given the shrill tone of your posts, I am now tending towards disingenuous.

The Lolo wolves that were shot from helicopters in Idaho could have instead been humanely trapped and relocated to areas of the EASTERN United States where deer overpopulation is a serious problem, (even if the cost of doing so would be a bit more than $1670 per wolf).


Suggesting something that could not have been done is poor rhetoric at best. There is no relocation program in place and there seems to be no popular support for starting one. If you think the ranchers and hunters are whining in Idaho, wait to see what happens when you go to release wolves in NY or NJ.

I think the cited cost of $1670/wolf was lowballed, and I previously stated why. However if you are going to claim that trapping them "would be a bit more than $1670 per wolf", I would like to see your cost analysis. Not asking for a citation, but something to support your assertion. You could look at the documents that were used to support the helo shootings as a place to start. There should have been some sort of cost analysis there.


Umbrage free, take all you want, its free and even untaxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 02:47 AM

53. "The event being discussed was in the Idaho." (sic)

"Citing analysis about the east coast is at best inapplicable and silly though given the shrill tone of your posts, I am now tending towards disingenuous."


I am now tending towards nausea...You make me sick!
What do you have against wolves anyway?
How can you defend the shooting of these beautiful animals from helicopters?
Even many hunters are opposed to shooting wolves from helicopters...do some research, find out for yourself.


You go on:
..."There is no relocation program n place and there seems to be no popular support for starting one."

"There seems to be no popular support for starting one"?


.How the hell would you know that?
Have you taken a poll on the subject?
Do you have any verifiable SOURCE for this "fact", or did you just pull it out of your ass like you've done with all your other "facts". ("Citations aren't always necessary")

Actually, the Campaign To Save American Wolves is working on such a plan, and other plans as well..
(www.savewolves.org)


"I think the cited cost of $1670/wolf was lowballed, and I previously stated why."



Actually, it turns out that the $1670/wolf was not "lowballed", just one more of your factual errors.
I made a math error and the actual figure per wolf killed was $1607 per wolf, not $1670...or $63 LESS than my original figure, so the original figure was, if anything "highballed", not "lowballed.

Feb 23, 2012
Lewiston, Idaho (AP) -- Federal Wildlife agents shot 14 wolves from helicopters in northern Idaho as part of an attempt to increase the elk population in the Lolo zone. The three-day operation earlier this month cost $22,500 and was carried out by the USDA Wildlife Services and the Idaho Department of Fish and game."

Unlike you, Einstein, I didn't pull the $22,500 figure out of my ass, but quoted it from the original article.....Remember the original article? The one which got 48 responses...Every single one of which was AGAINST the wolf slaughter .........except for your stupid, heartless replies.

In all my replies,, my only mistake was a slight mathematical one.

You, on the other hand, made countless grammatical errors, used insane, twisted logic throughout, and argued FOR the wolf slaughter...just like your pal Sarah Palin (Wanna' talk shrill?)

you're not a professor at all, are you?
You're just a sad little troll, trying to evoke emotional responses from the many wolf lovers who replied sincerely and honestly to the original thread.


I pity you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 10:27 AM

56. Yes it was

"Citing analysis about the east coast is at best inapplicable and silly though given the shrill tone of your posts, I am now tending towards disingenuous."

I am now tending towards nausea...You make me sick!
What do you have against wolves anyway?
How can you defend the shooting of these beautiful animals from helicopters?
Even many hunters are opposed to shooting wolves from helicopters...do some research, find out for yourself.

I have never said that I was anti wolf or pro culling from helos. You continue to make things up as you go. I have said that the state F&G and the Feds supported culling the packs and presumptively it was challenged by Defenders of Wildlife and other NGOs during the process and in the courts. I have also said that pols should stay out of that kind of decisions and leave them to the pros. Have you looked at any of the documents that supported the culling?

You go on:
..."There is no relocation program n place and there seems to be no popular support for starting one." "There seems to be no popular support for starting one"?

How the hell would you know that?
Have you taken a poll on the subject?
Do you have any verifiable SOURCE for this "fact", or did you just pull it out of your ass like you've done with all your other "facts". ("Citations aren't always necessary")

Actually, the Campaign To Save American Wolves is working on such a plan, and other plans as well..
(www.savewolves.org)

Save the Wolves is campaign of the Defenders of Wildlife, a niche NGO whose website is mostly cute pictures and requests for $$$. A quick Google search show no public agency is giving wolf relocation in the eastern US any serious consideration. Do you have any indication that any state in the east is giving serious consideration to a relocation program?

"I think the cited cost of $1670/wolf was lowballed, and I previously stated why."

Actually, it turns out that the $1670/wolf was not "lowballed", just one more of your factual errors.
I made a math error and the actual figure per wolf killed was $1607 per wolf, not $1670...or $63 LESS than my original figure, so the original figure was, if anything "highballed", not "lowballed.

Feb 23, 2012
Lewiston, Idaho (AP) -- Federal Wildlife agents shot 14 wolves from helicopters in northern Idaho as part of an attempt to increase the elk population in the Lolo zone. The three-day operation earlier this month cost $22,500 and was carried out by the USDA Wildlife Services and the Idaho Department of Fish and game."

I still believe it was, but it was not by you, but the Government. If you reread the post #35 where I said:

Speaking of costs, I do not think they have enumerated the true costs for the helo based approach which I think are quite a bit higher. (incremental vs fully burdened/amortized).

My take that the $1607/wolf was based on just the helo operating costs, not fully amortized and burdened, based on the known cost of operation a Bell 200 series helo. Admittedly, I have been unable to find out which helo(s) were used and who owned them, but a 212 would be typical.

Unlike you, Einstein, I didn't pull the $22,500 figure out of my ass, but quoted it from the original article.....Remember the original article? The one which got 48 responses...Every single one of which was AGAINST the wolf slaughter .........except for your stupid, heartless replies.

In all my replies,, my only mistake was a slight mathematical one.

Again your zeal for citations and unwillingness to understand what you have purportedly read hurts your arguments. I never said your figures were wrong, I said that I believed that the government low balled the cost.

I did notice that you have not produced one shred of analysis that trapping costs would have been "a bit higher". I even pointed you in a helpful direction.

As with the vast majority of you posts, your zeal exceeds your reasoning and reading comprehension. At this point your arguments are ad hominems ad nausem.

Umbrage:Take all you want, its free and its untaxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 12:59 AM

43. One of our Oregon wolves from NE Oregon was tracked from there into California and is now

almost back to NE Oregon. He is one of a few that have tracking devices.

NP boundaries are without meaning to wildlife.

They get around - we now have quite a few now in our area, and our neighbor ranchers have seen a couple in the valley adjacent to our land. Calf losses are on the upswing in this area and committees at the county and state levels are being formed to discuss how to deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 03:35 AM

16. The policy should be to trap and relocate even if more expensive. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 09:56 AM

31. This is a "No Brainer" for Obama. It keeps the hunters happy, and saves wolves lives as well/

"By changing hunting, land management policies, and human development practices, we can better control deer populations.
One of the measures that should be employed is to reintroduce natural predators such as wolves and mountain lions, where possible."
http://www.idausa.org/facts/deercontrol.html

Does President Obama really want to risk losing millions of animal lovers' votes this fall by continuing the barbarous practice of shooting these beautiful animals from helicopters, which does nothing to control the overpopulation of deer in parts of the country where they are overpopulated.

At $1670 per wolf shot, how much more could it cost to trap and relocate the wolves

It's a "Win/Win" proposition..

The hunters would have more elk and deer to kill, and the wolves could control the overpopulation of deer in those areas where necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 02:12 AM

33. President Obama is counting on...

...groups such as animal rights activists voting for him anyway because the alternative is so terrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:32 AM

36. You nailed it

There are captive constituencies, including teachers and labor in the eyes of many pols. People who have no where else to go, even with Arne Duncan at DOE.

However, if the repukes are unable to field a credible candidate, teachers and other may not come out nearly as much for Obama. It will not imperil the election, but it could teach pols not to take them for granted. What that would impact is local and state elections. This aspect of the next presidential election is something to watch carefully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 12:37 PM

37. So far indicators are good...

...as we're constantly reminded: 83% of liberal Democrats have approved of the President all along. That number will rise heading toward election day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:26 AM

17. I have no polite words for these people

Please keep good thoughts for my bretheren as they are hunted by these humans.


I pray that the ones that were/are killed can find their way across Brifrost to join the Wild Hunt.
As for the humans that hunt my brothers and sisters, may Odin's wolves Freki and Geri find them, and drag them out to be the prey in the Wild Hunt for the rest of eternity.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 05:10 PM

21. When I first came to this country

I was yelled at by hunters for not understanding the good they were doing. They insisted they were helping the deer, elk etc by keeping their numbers down so the deer etc wouldn't starve to death. I asked them then why did they just try to kill the biggest and the best.

Now the wolves are thinning out the herds these same so-called hunters are crying are complaining.

BTW; I have cattle and I am pro-wolf. My cows are not de-horned so they have a better chance of defending themselves and their calves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 07:41 AM

30. When I was a little girl...

I read The Wolf, by Dr. Michael Fox. I was probably 8 or 9. It's an amazing observation of a wolf family. The end is horrific. I remember thinking then how very, very wrong it was for humans to treat animals the way that they did.
This meddling in the natural order is disastrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:44 PM

40. How especially asshole of them.

They still are an endangered species. It's the ranchers, think big business here, because they are the ones calling the shots with the ranchers. No one is worried about the elk. It's the cows. I have been in the Lolo wilderness so I know it seems very wild. But, the logging interests and cattle interests are very much there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:48 PM

41. Humans shoot animals so that other animals can live to be shot by humans.

Stand up and take a bow, architect of this idea. You've just graduated to Stupid Phenom. Congrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 01:02 AM

49. Actually humans control other predators so there will be more prey for humans to consume

Its not always shooting since both prey and predators are taken in ways other than firearms.

It is about food. Deer are okay, but elk much more tasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 01:07 AM

50. So...like I said, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 01:19 AM

51. My point was it is not about the shooting, its about the consumption

And both deer and elk are pretty good eating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #51)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 01:29 AM

52. So, like I said. Goodie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to red dog 1 (Original post)

Wed Mar 7, 2012, 02:23 AM

45. If you want to get REALLY disgusted about predator control,

Google Alaska's Board of Game and their policies toward bears and wolves.

It's too long a story to go into, but they make these Idaho guys look like choirboys. The legacy of Sarah Palin continued and magnified by her successor Sean Parnell, SP v. 2.0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 12:59 AM

48. It started well before Palin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 03:13 AM

54. I would disagree with that,

having lived in Alaska since 1975. There was a time when Alaska's wildlife management was based on sound science, which certainly can't be said of the bunch of bozos running the Board of Game these days.

Read some of the articles at this link http://www.alaskadispatch.com/search/results/Rossi?solrsort= . Corey Rossi was a Palin appointee, carried over into the Parnell administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_In_AK (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 09:34 AM

55. I thought you were referring to the supression of predators

which has been going on for quite some time, and not just in Alaska.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread