Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 255 posts

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#161

Post by question000 »

yupyup54133 wrote: post #76
undersuit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wolves are naturally moving into open territory as their numbers grow in Wisconsin at least. Why do you think this is a class issue?

False, they are being introduced into forests in the northern half of the state but are not being introduced into the forests in the southern half of the state. Also, when wolves are found close to the suburbs they are relocated to the north. This is a class issue because most of the state's wealth is located in the southern half of the state and it is mostly the southern half of the state that is forcing an unwanted…

It's just weird how Republicans find the dumbest shit to feel oppressed over, this and motorcycle helmets...

Oops I said Republicans I mean conservative marginalized people!

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#162

Post by supercheetah »

Filligree wrote: post #109
perbu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway we pay ranchers for sheep which are taken by wolves. They still really hate wolves. More sheep are taken by wolverines, lynx and bears yet the ranches are still keen on full extermination of the wolf population.

It's not unreasonable. Wolves are among the few predators that can and will attack humans . That the wolves, themselves, now have a deep-set fear of humanity and would only dare to do so if they're desperate and starving... is a distant second to that same deep-set cultural fear of wolves. Unpopular Opinion Time: The ecosystem damage from not having apex predators is large enough that it might be worth a few human li…

> Unpopular Opinion Time the Second: But there are other apex predators, such as the lynx, which can take much the same role without being nearly as dangerous to megafauna like humans.

They're usually more specialized than wolves, especially in terms of prey, and so the populations of species they don't prey upon are left unchecked.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#163

Post by devwastaken »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

Most wolf attacks are not reported. Wolves don't just attack once and leave. They come back.

Sometimes it's not livestock. Many have horses or donkeys, or goats and sheep that they don't turn into meat.

Also it's about the rights of your own land. If wolves kill the lives you take care of, they cannot be allowed to continue. The fact they are killing your animals means they're not finding other prey and are overpopulated at that location.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#164

Post by devwastaken »

jefftk wrote: post #103
BurningFrog wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone was killing my pets, while paying me reasonable compensation, I would also be pissed off at the arrangement. Some things money can't buy.

Cattle, not pets

Many people have animals they have as pets or otherwise are not selling as meat. If you think farms are simply cows you are incorrect.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#165

Post by troutbum »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #158
troutbum wrote: post #151

There is a large population of wolves where I live, in Idaho. Wolves are a controversial subject amongst hunters, who believe that they are a reason for the decline in big game (elk/deer) in the state, especially in remote locations. To assist in the management of the gray wolf population in the state, the IDFG allows any hunter with a wolf tag to harvest, by both hunting and trapping, 15 wolves per year.

Looks like the number is now 30.[1] As I discovered, they also allow the thousands of out of state hunters that come in with OTC elk/deer tags to harvest a wolf (or black bear or mountain lion) instead. Predation of big game is a planned for event and IDFG in Idaho and equivalent agencies in other states work to find a balance because at the end of the day - conservation is the goal. This isn't necessarily how hunter…

Re-reading the IDFG big game regulations[1] on page 78, a wolf hunting tag has a limit of 15, and a wolf trapping tag also has a limit of 15.

[1] https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-big...

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#166

Post by pcmaffey »

hiimtroymclure wrote: post #145
pcmaffey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't fathom how people enjoy killing for sport (for food, sure, but solely for pleasure?). That must be some kind of pathology?

Ive been hunting my whole life. I've still yet to encounter someone who did it for the 'killing'. It's about fresh food, cultural traditions, and conservation. The modern hunter does more for the environment than most who sit behind a computer all day. You should take a intro course on hunting and understanding the carrying capacity of an environment impacts how tags are issued. Sidenote => I also love to fish. I fin…

> It's about fresh food, cultural traditions, and conservation.

You don't eat wolves. No one you know grew up hunting them. Killing a (still) endangered species is not about conservation, in fact, it's closer to the opposite based on everything we know.

I'm talking about killing for sport, which is what wolf hunting is all about on an individual level (on a government level, it's about the political showmanship of protecting rancher interests).

And as a sidenote, I live in Montana; I am very familiar with hunting. To generalize hunting without considering the animal being hunted is disingenuous and entirely self-serving. Should we talk about hunting horses and dogs in the same breath?

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#167

Post by spiderfarmer »

gbrown wrote: post #11
Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

Why should we even pay? There's no constitutional right to be able to leave your livestock basically unprotected on vast tracts of land where they're vulnerable to predators. I mean, if it makes it more palatable it's probably worth it to pay farmers... but I viscerally dislike the idea that any industry has the right to: 1. Destroy the environment for their convenience 2. Be indemnified by the government for their i…

Just say you hate farmers man, I mean it's very obvious.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#168

Post by abfan1127 »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #148
peterwwillis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Solutions" like this are how we destroyed Yellowstone the first time, and why deer now run rampant all over the US, literally eroding forests from excessive grazing. A naive assumption about a complex system has knock-on effects that destroy the entire ecosystem.

You're making a naive assumption based on one popular Facebook video. The wolves didn't make any difference to the deer population.

do you have information to back that claim up?

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#169

Post by hiimtroymclure »

deedub wrote: post #147
yupyup54133 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are for the reintroduction of wolves where you live your opinion on this is selfish. Too many wealthy urbanites and subutbanites have a not-in-my-backyard mentality about wolves.

I know you're being downvoted, but I agree with you. People from other areas seem have very strong opinions but have never actually seen wolves in the wild and will most likely never have wolves in their areas. Honestly, it is also is becoming the same discussion with brown bears where I live. I question how educated they are in wild life management. In Idaho a wolf tag is 11.50 and you can legally harvest 15 wolves…

That is the hilarious part of the urbanites. They clamor for more legislation and regulation when they've A) never gone through the process of applying for a tag and B) tons of regulation already exists

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#170

Post by snowwrestler »

yupyup54133 wrote: post #60
snowwrestler wrote: post #56

It's arguable that, based on continuously declining trends in wild species, wild areas, and biodiversity, we should reverse our 19th-century policy default and apply blanket protection to all wild species. If we find compelling reasons they should be culled or impacted, then that can be done with specific regulation or legislation. We've gone so far down in wild species and areas, and these are things that we absolut…

Unless you are for the reintroduction of wolves where you live your opinion on this is selfish. Too many wealthy urbanites and subutbanites have a not-in-my-backyard mentality about wolves.

I would be fine with wolves living my area, but the wolves would not, so it's a moot question. We do have a growing population of coyotes nearby, and it's fine.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone but ranchers would object to having wolves around at all. They don't prey on people.

Post reply on HN