wolf essay
[email protected]
There is one state in which the grey wolf population has stayed very healthy,
that is Alaska.
A few years ago, there was an overpopulation and there were problems with
them killing too many caribou and other wildlife. So in the interest of
preserving the wild herds and keeping the wolves in balance they decided that
there would have to be the killing of many of them from helicopters by the
state.
While the thought of killing many grey wolves from the air sickened me, I
also knew that they'd soon be starving to death once they had de-populated
the herds and their numbers would naturally dwindle. Starving to death does
not sound better than being shot in my opinion.
Anyhoo, there were environmentalists in other states that found out the plan
and understandably raised hell.
Alaska said they'd be happy to ship the grey wolves elswhere, who wanted
some?
Couldn't get a single state to take any. They ended up shooting some.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
that is Alaska.
A few years ago, there was an overpopulation and there were problems with
them killing too many caribou and other wildlife. So in the interest of
preserving the wild herds and keeping the wolves in balance they decided that
there would have to be the killing of many of them from helicopters by the
state.
While the thought of killing many grey wolves from the air sickened me, I
also knew that they'd soon be starving to death once they had de-populated
the herds and their numbers would naturally dwindle. Starving to death does
not sound better than being shot in my opinion.
Anyhoo, there were environmentalists in other states that found out the plan
and understandably raised hell.
Alaska said they'd be happy to ship the grey wolves elswhere, who wanted
some?
Couldn't get a single state to take any. They ended up shooting some.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
Deborah Lewis
Yes, over the years Alaska has had a very aggressive wolf management
policy. I lived there during the very controversial air hunt and shoot
days when wolves and packs were chased and nearly run to death and then
shot from the air when they couldn't run any more.
Alaska has had and maintains a stable wolf population because the wolf
prey population is healthy. It's healthy because of wolves, not in
spite of them.
Mostly the controversial air hunts have ended but the state Game Board
allowed hunting wolves from snow machines two years ago and there was
recently new legislation proposed that would expand the area currently
open to moving snow machine hunts. The current area is 27,500 square
miles and the limit of wolf kills is 10 per day per licensed hunter. I
believe the proposal to expand the area has failed.
The worries about declining wolf prey populations by some accounts are
without merit. Although the Delta caribou populations have decreased
steadily since about 1989, some estimate the decline between 1,000 and
4,000 animals, which is significant, biologist report naturally
declining wolf numbers in the area already. Wolves respond to declining
prey populations by slowing their reproductive rate. And the overall
caribou and moose populations throughout the state are stable and even
increasing, despite the Delta herd decline. There are several biologist
expressing their opinion that the caribou decline at Delta is due to
changing weather patterns and decreasing food supply as much as
predation.
There is a recent proposal to kill wolves in a game management area near
Anchorage. There is an estimated 120 wolves in the area in 13 packs.
I haven't heard yet about the plan or the numbers. They will of course
have to kill bears too, because decreased wolf population could directly
result in increased bear encounters as bears will take up the slack in
the predation of local moose.
The very, very bottom line is Alaska can and does make huge amounts of
money in these areas, Delta game management area south of Fairbanks and
Game management area 16B near Anchorage,(across Cook Inlet, north and
west of Anchorage) from local and out of state big game hunters.
Declining moose and caribou numbers means declining revenue to the State
and to local outfitters. Alaska estimates 15% of it's population are
hunters, that's enormously more than any other state. Politically,
hunters in Alaska have a lot of clout, like ranchers in Montana.
There is very little evidence to suggest wolves would starve themselves
by killing too many prey animals. They have a very well defined social
structure and manage their own numbers reproductively. No one on the
State Game board, primarily hunters and trappers, is concerned with wolf
welfare. They are not worried about wolves starving to death. They are
worried about the revenue of big game hunting and wolves are in direct
competition with humans in that area.
I was reading a book my brother has called Game Management in Montana.
It's from 1971 and it says, "Records from 1875 to 1877 show about 30,000
wolf skins were shipped out of Fort Benton annually." Four pages later
it says, "The disappearance of the wolf from the State was due to the
wolf's inability to adjust to civilization and not necessarily to control
efforts."
Deb L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
policy. I lived there during the very controversial air hunt and shoot
days when wolves and packs were chased and nearly run to death and then
shot from the air when they couldn't run any more.
Alaska has had and maintains a stable wolf population because the wolf
prey population is healthy. It's healthy because of wolves, not in
spite of them.
Mostly the controversial air hunts have ended but the state Game Board
allowed hunting wolves from snow machines two years ago and there was
recently new legislation proposed that would expand the area currently
open to moving snow machine hunts. The current area is 27,500 square
miles and the limit of wolf kills is 10 per day per licensed hunter. I
believe the proposal to expand the area has failed.
The worries about declining wolf prey populations by some accounts are
without merit. Although the Delta caribou populations have decreased
steadily since about 1989, some estimate the decline between 1,000 and
4,000 animals, which is significant, biologist report naturally
declining wolf numbers in the area already. Wolves respond to declining
prey populations by slowing their reproductive rate. And the overall
caribou and moose populations throughout the state are stable and even
increasing, despite the Delta herd decline. There are several biologist
expressing their opinion that the caribou decline at Delta is due to
changing weather patterns and decreasing food supply as much as
predation.
There is a recent proposal to kill wolves in a game management area near
Anchorage. There is an estimated 120 wolves in the area in 13 packs.
I haven't heard yet about the plan or the numbers. They will of course
have to kill bears too, because decreased wolf population could directly
result in increased bear encounters as bears will take up the slack in
the predation of local moose.
The very, very bottom line is Alaska can and does make huge amounts of
money in these areas, Delta game management area south of Fairbanks and
Game management area 16B near Anchorage,(across Cook Inlet, north and
west of Anchorage) from local and out of state big game hunters.
Declining moose and caribou numbers means declining revenue to the State
and to local outfitters. Alaska estimates 15% of it's population are
hunters, that's enormously more than any other state. Politically,
hunters in Alaska have a lot of clout, like ranchers in Montana.
There is very little evidence to suggest wolves would starve themselves
by killing too many prey animals. They have a very well defined social
structure and manage their own numbers reproductively. No one on the
State Game board, primarily hunters and trappers, is concerned with wolf
welfare. They are not worried about wolves starving to death. They are
worried about the revenue of big game hunting and wolves are in direct
competition with humans in that area.
I was reading a book my brother has called Game Management in Montana.
It's from 1971 and it says, "Records from 1875 to 1877 show about 30,000
wolf skins were shipped out of Fort Benton annually." Four pages later
it says, "The disappearance of the wolf from the State was due to the
wolf's inability to adjust to civilization and not necessarily to control
efforts."
Deb L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/5/02 9:20:23 AM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< There is very little evidence to suggest wolves would starve themselves
by killing too many prey animals. >>
<<I was reading a book my brother has called Game Management in Montana.
It's from 1971 and it says, "Records from 1875 to 1877 show about 30,000
wolf skins were shipped out of Fort Benton annually." Four pages later
it says, "The disappearance of the wolf from the State was due to the
wolf's inability to adjust to civilization and not necessarily to control
efforts." >>
My point was rhetoric used to skew things in such a way to suggest that
wolves had never REALLY killed sheep or calves, and that they were honest,
hardworking, moral animals who had been unjustly accused.
If a political point can be made in a neutral way, that's the way it should
be made, not by word-witchery to tug the heartstrings of people who live in
cities and never will know anyone who owns stock or lives where any kind of
wild canines will take the babies.
Sandra
<< There is very little evidence to suggest wolves would starve themselves
by killing too many prey animals. >>
<<I was reading a book my brother has called Game Management in Montana.
It's from 1971 and it says, "Records from 1875 to 1877 show about 30,000
wolf skins were shipped out of Fort Benton annually." Four pages later
it says, "The disappearance of the wolf from the State was due to the
wolf's inability to adjust to civilization and not necessarily to control
efforts." >>
My point was rhetoric used to skew things in such a way to suggest that
wolves had never REALLY killed sheep or calves, and that they were honest,
hardworking, moral animals who had been unjustly accused.
If a political point can be made in a neutral way, that's the way it should
be made, not by word-witchery to tug the heartstrings of people who live in
cities and never will know anyone who owns stock or lives where any kind of
wild canines will take the babies.
Sandra
Deborah Lewis
***My point was rhetoric used to skew things in such a way to suggest
that
wolves had never REALLY killed sheep or calves, and that they were
honest,
hardworking, moral animals who had been unjustly accused.
If a political point can be made in a neutral way, that's the way it
should
be made, not by word-witchery to tug the heartstrings of people who live
in
cities and never will know anyone who owns stock or lives where any kind
of
wild canines will take the babies.***
I agree with you. It think SO many environmental causes have been hurt
by this kind of thing. By the exaggeration of numbers, by the creative
use of language, when the REAL honest truth is really enough.
I hate that. And maybe it's easier to cutesify a wolf because the pups
really ARE cute and they look like our own beloved pet dogs. It's harder
to put the cuddly spin on a Bison. ( although the calves are cute)
I hope knowing the truth about wolves does tug at heartstrings. And I
hope those with heartstrings also understand ranchers raising animals for
slaughter aren't home crying because five deeply loved, cute, pet calves
were killed or maimed to die later by wolves. They're crying because a
mature market animal is valuable, and those calves won't reach maturity.
I have seen calves killed by wolves. The rancher here who lost calves is
a friend of my husbands, and I was at the vets by accident when he was
called out to confirm it was wolves, so I got to go. One wasn't dead yet
and was shot and killed by the rancher after we arrived. It happened in
the forest on public land. Wolves didn't come sneaking in to his
picturesque barn like marauders in the night. It's ugly, but it's not
worse than what your car will do to a deer and it's not worse than what
happens at the slaughter house and no one is actively working to put an
end to Fords or steaks. Not every hunter has a clean kill every time
either. Death is ugly.
Not in my area, but in the state, someone recently lost llama's to
wolves. They were her pets, but she had staked the poor things out like
sacrificial lambs and it could have been avoided. Education could play
a role in understanding if anyone actually cared to understand.
It comes down to money. And maybe a little bit that WE want to be the
only predators left here.
Deb L
that
wolves had never REALLY killed sheep or calves, and that they were
honest,
hardworking, moral animals who had been unjustly accused.
If a political point can be made in a neutral way, that's the way it
should
be made, not by word-witchery to tug the heartstrings of people who live
in
cities and never will know anyone who owns stock or lives where any kind
of
wild canines will take the babies.***
I agree with you. It think SO many environmental causes have been hurt
by this kind of thing. By the exaggeration of numbers, by the creative
use of language, when the REAL honest truth is really enough.
I hate that. And maybe it's easier to cutesify a wolf because the pups
really ARE cute and they look like our own beloved pet dogs. It's harder
to put the cuddly spin on a Bison. ( although the calves are cute)
I hope knowing the truth about wolves does tug at heartstrings. And I
hope those with heartstrings also understand ranchers raising animals for
slaughter aren't home crying because five deeply loved, cute, pet calves
were killed or maimed to die later by wolves. They're crying because a
mature market animal is valuable, and those calves won't reach maturity.
I have seen calves killed by wolves. The rancher here who lost calves is
a friend of my husbands, and I was at the vets by accident when he was
called out to confirm it was wolves, so I got to go. One wasn't dead yet
and was shot and killed by the rancher after we arrived. It happened in
the forest on public land. Wolves didn't come sneaking in to his
picturesque barn like marauders in the night. It's ugly, but it's not
worse than what your car will do to a deer and it's not worse than what
happens at the slaughter house and no one is actively working to put an
end to Fords or steaks. Not every hunter has a clean kill every time
either. Death is ugly.
Not in my area, but in the state, someone recently lost llama's to
wolves. They were her pets, but she had staked the poor things out like
sacrificial lambs and it could have been avoided. Education could play
a role in understanding if anyone actually cared to understand.
It comes down to money. And maybe a little bit that WE want to be the
only predators left here.
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/02 6:24:56 AM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Game management area 16B near Anchorage,(across Cook Inlet, north and
west of Anchorage) from local and out of state big game hunters.
Declining moose and caribou numbers means declining revenue to the State
and to local outfitters. Alaska estimates 15% of it's population are
hunters, that's enormously more than any other state. Politically,
hunters in Alaska have a lot of clout, like ranchers in Montana. >>
Thanks for these statistics Deb. That was my ongoing theory, without proof,
the last few years when we discussed this in the family.
I pointed to hunters as the real issue, not a true need for wildlife
management.
Seems these things always come down to money, how sad.
I did find it ironic that no one would take any grey wolves when they offered
to ship them.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
[email protected] writes:
<< Game management area 16B near Anchorage,(across Cook Inlet, north and
west of Anchorage) from local and out of state big game hunters.
Declining moose and caribou numbers means declining revenue to the State
and to local outfitters. Alaska estimates 15% of it's population are
hunters, that's enormously more than any other state. Politically,
hunters in Alaska have a lot of clout, like ranchers in Montana. >>
Thanks for these statistics Deb. That was my ongoing theory, without proof,
the last few years when we discussed this in the family.
I pointed to hunters as the real issue, not a true need for wildlife
management.
Seems these things always come down to money, how sad.
I did find it ironic that no one would take any grey wolves when they offered
to ship them.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
Deborah Lewis
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:56:35 EST starsuncloud@... writes:
reintroduction they would have taken the wolves offered by the state of
Alaska. It was instead left to the politicians and you know what
happens.
Three states were initially chosen for wolf reintroduction and they were
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
The politics that resulted in the import of wolves from Canada are
complex, but these states have had to fight a long and enduring battle
with their ranchers over the issue. All three states have had political
power shifts recently over the last years and none are actively seeking
to maintain a wolf program. In fact the current administration in
Montana is working to have wolves de listed, so our ranchers can shoot
them.
I think Idaho and Wyoming are as well.
No one imagines wildlife populations can "manage" themselves, as they
surely did without us for millions of years. They must be managed by
humans and they're managed to our financial benefit.
Deb L
> I did find it ironic that no one would take any grey wolves whenIf it had been left to the folks who are concerned with wolf
> they offered
> to ship them.
reintroduction they would have taken the wolves offered by the state of
Alaska. It was instead left to the politicians and you know what
happens.
Three states were initially chosen for wolf reintroduction and they were
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.
The politics that resulted in the import of wolves from Canada are
complex, but these states have had to fight a long and enduring battle
with their ranchers over the issue. All three states have had political
power shifts recently over the last years and none are actively seeking
to maintain a wolf program. In fact the current administration in
Montana is working to have wolves de listed, so our ranchers can shoot
them.
I think Idaho and Wyoming are as well.
No one imagines wildlife populations can "manage" themselves, as they
surely did without us for millions of years. They must be managed by
humans and they're managed to our financial benefit.
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/02 7:57:47 AM, starsuncloud@... writes:
<< I did find it ironic that no one would take any grey wolves when they
offered
to ship them.
AND against social services for unwed mothers
AND against taking unwanted babies in themselves.
Lots of people want to tell other people what to do from a distance.
Sandra
<< I did find it ironic that no one would take any grey wolves when they
offered
to ship them.
>>It's the same old thing as people being entirely against abortion
AND against social services for unwed mothers
AND against taking unwanted babies in themselves.
Lots of people want to tell other people what to do from a distance.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/02 9:20:15 AM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< No one imagines wildlife populations can "manage" themselves, as they
surely did without us for millions of years. They must be managed by
humans and they're managed to our financial benefit. >>
When a rattlesnake bites a kid, do you really think the parents are only
thinking of the cost of treatment or the price of a funeral and attendant
therapy?
When a family decides to farm or ranch, as millions have done in the past and
many still do, they are not "managing" wolves by shooting them. They are
protecting their livelihood.
If ranchers were to budget in some extra animals to feed the wolves, that
wouldn't "appease" them, it would increase their population.
Humans aren't even willing to manage their own population. Not even a little
bit. China's the closest, and they're considered barbaric by those same
population-control advocates who complained about China's biological
world-threat thirty-five years ago.
I don't think it's just financial. I think it's philosophical and has much
to do with human rights.
Sandra
<< No one imagines wildlife populations can "manage" themselves, as they
surely did without us for millions of years. They must be managed by
humans and they're managed to our financial benefit. >>
When a rattlesnake bites a kid, do you really think the parents are only
thinking of the cost of treatment or the price of a funeral and attendant
therapy?
When a family decides to farm or ranch, as millions have done in the past and
many still do, they are not "managing" wolves by shooting them. They are
protecting their livelihood.
If ranchers were to budget in some extra animals to feed the wolves, that
wouldn't "appease" them, it would increase their population.
Humans aren't even willing to manage their own population. Not even a little
bit. China's the closest, and they're considered barbaric by those same
population-control advocates who complained about China's biological
world-threat thirty-five years ago.
I don't think it's just financial. I think it's philosophical and has much
to do with human rights.
Sandra
Deborah Lewis
***When a rattlesnake bites a kid, do you really think the parents are
only
thinking of the cost of treatment or the price of a funeral and attendant
therapy?***
<G> Well, not "only".
***When a family decides to farm or ranch, as millions have done in the
past and
many still do, they are not "managing" wolves by shooting them. They are
protecting their livelihood.***
***If ranchers were to budget in some extra animals to feed the wolves,
that
wouldn't "appease" them, it would increase their population. ***
When an animal is killed in defense of life or property that's not
wildlife management.
When the government decides only certain numbers of wildlife are
economically beneficial, sets up bounty's on the pelts, sells tags, or
organizes mass killings, that is.
Sheep and Cattle ranchers moved into the west in a hurry, fencing huge
tracts of land and displacing large healthy deer and elk populations.
Because there were large healthy deer and elk populations there were
large numbers of wolves. When deer and elk were killed off because they
were competition for grazing lands, or displaced, wolves found other
prey, the easy pickings of sheep and cattle. We all know what happened
to the buffalo. When the wolves natural food supply was gone they found
another. They were protecting their livelihood. <g> Some of us get to
and some of us don't.
Ranchers don't need to budget for wolves because you and I pay them if
they loose an animal to a predator.
Deer and Elk and Bison populations is Montana are now affected with
disease brought to them by domestic cattle. The Bison being killed
under the guise of management of a disease were infected with the disease
in the first place by cattle.
Not a problem with an easy solution.
Deb L
only
thinking of the cost of treatment or the price of a funeral and attendant
therapy?***
<G> Well, not "only".
***When a family decides to farm or ranch, as millions have done in the
past and
many still do, they are not "managing" wolves by shooting them. They are
protecting their livelihood.***
***If ranchers were to budget in some extra animals to feed the wolves,
that
wouldn't "appease" them, it would increase their population. ***
When an animal is killed in defense of life or property that's not
wildlife management.
When the government decides only certain numbers of wildlife are
economically beneficial, sets up bounty's on the pelts, sells tags, or
organizes mass killings, that is.
Sheep and Cattle ranchers moved into the west in a hurry, fencing huge
tracts of land and displacing large healthy deer and elk populations.
Because there were large healthy deer and elk populations there were
large numbers of wolves. When deer and elk were killed off because they
were competition for grazing lands, or displaced, wolves found other
prey, the easy pickings of sheep and cattle. We all know what happened
to the buffalo. When the wolves natural food supply was gone they found
another. They were protecting their livelihood. <g> Some of us get to
and some of us don't.
Ranchers don't need to budget for wolves because you and I pay them if
they loose an animal to a predator.
Deer and Elk and Bison populations is Montana are now affected with
disease brought to them by domestic cattle. The Bison being killed
under the guise of management of a disease were infected with the disease
in the first place by cattle.
Not a problem with an easy solution.
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/7/02 5:56:46 AM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Lots of people want to tell other people what to do from a distance. >>
This happens with Alaska a lot.
Most people have no idea of the culture of the state, nor how large it really
is.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
[email protected] writes:
<< Lots of people want to tell other people what to do from a distance. >>
This happens with Alaska a lot.
Most people have no idea of the culture of the state, nor how large it really
is.
Ren
"The answers aren't important really...
What's important, is knowing all the questions."
-Zilpha Keatley Snyder
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com