Judge refuses to halt wolf trapping in Idaho wilderness


#1

A district judge on Friday denied a request from conservationists to block Idaho’s efforts to trap and kill two wolf packs targeted for eradication in a federally protected wilderness area for preying on elk prized by hunters.
news.msn.com/us/judge-refuses-to-halt-wolf-trapping-in-idaho-wilderness


#2

Praying to St. Francis.


#3

well the good thing is, there are conservationists out there who do more than just petition and go to court over the matter.

People who argue they need to be trapped usually have weak arguments such as diseases or a threat to a local population or a threat to live stock; the same happens out west in regards to the wild buffalo they are still being hazed and targeted because they graze in cattle territory, so laws get created to protect the cattle farmers, and again diseases are the excuse to do really horrible things to wild creatures in our country.

though the one thing I cant argue against is for those who want to trap and keep wild creatures off their own physical property.

Lots of good local and national conservation groups out there to be apart of.


#4

That doesn’t sound like the sort of thing a conservationist would ask for given the situation out there. But then I don’t think anyone would confuse the defenders of wildlife with a conservation group.

Environmental Whacko’s is closer to the truth. :thumbsup:

Predators have to be controlled just like every other of Gods creatures.

ATB


#5

:rolleyes:


#6

And fyi Conservationists , and Conservation groups use a lot of methods to protect wildlife from inhumane acts.

Look into the types of traps that are used just google the topic an see how brutal it is.

get a good chuckle over " environmental whackos’ " it just shows you have no idea about the topic at all. The line I draw on the issue is when people put the welfare of the earth an animals above humanity .

I’ve already stated that farmers have the right to protect their own property from wolves, and so does any residential home owners. An again to complain to the state that they now should go into forests and start trapping is insane, and inhumane. What happens and who gets fined when a federally protected animal lands in that trap ? Or an animal out of season gets caught in the trap. Just a big oh well I suppose huh.

The people in Idaho who are complaining are too lazy to protect their own land and to do the work needed to keep their assets safe. The wolf population is not booming out of control and again using fear and diseases as an excuse is not a reason especially when wolves do not hunt people for starters, and the diseases are few an far in between of being spread.


#7

I am not persuaded of this. Cattle are subject to the same diseases to which Buffalo are subject. Ranchers vaccinate their cattle against those that one can vaccinate them against effectively. But there are some that are very difficult to fully control in that way. Some diseases and parasites common to both are waterborne. Some are left in the grass through fecal contamination. Some have insect vectors. Some are transmitted by contact. Some (like “mad cow disease” and anthrax) are deadly to humans and can exist in a wild herd without anyone even knowing it.

It is extremely difficult to protect a wild species against those diseases, and against carrying them. I know a fellow who had a “game ranch” who eventually got rid of his buffalo because, despite prodigious corrals, he couldn’t keep up a sufficient regimen to prevent their being diseased and a sink of contagion for his neighbors’ cattle.

Notwithstanding that most ranchers watch their cattle’s health closely, if there is a disease outbreak in somebody’s herd, he hears about it in a hurry from his neighbors. And rightly so. Ranchers try, through vaccination and treatment, to keep diseases and parasites out of the neighborhood. Wild cattle like buffalo can easily bring them back in.

The same is true of wild canids. You can’t control diseases or parasites among them.


#8

even still ridgerunner, it is a balancing act that most cattle ranchers do not even want to negotiate on, they have their grazing grounds and they do not want buffalo on those grounds. now I cant claim to know how much grazing grounds are state property, or private, but if wild buffalo are on grazing grounds that are public and or state land and not allocated to the cattle industry, then I do not see the point in hazing methods of deterring wild buffalo off of those grounds or not at least providing cattle owners with the chance to buy available land that is owned by the state if that is even an option.

And I would also argue that we have no idea what diseases cattle are already containing , we assume that farmers are vaccinating them , we also assume that the FDA has plenty of regulations on processing the meat and checking it for contaminates before being distributed out to the public. These things you mentioned are going to pop up from time to time regardless of how one divides cattle grazing land, and on matter how many times the cattle industry complains about the wild buffalo . Take the buffalo off the map completely and it will be something else that the industry will complain about infringing on their grazing grounds and causing diseases.

If buffalo where such a disease ridden mess like the rat I assume the government would have gone out of their way a long time ago to eradicate them. And even then we still can not eradicate the rat from urban cities especially major ones. And some how society manages to keep food clean.

I am more convinced that in the era we live in that there are more methods out in the world to keep our food supply safe, and maintain the wild life we have with out having to resort inhumane methods of hazing and or trapping. Under the guise that these animals are either infringing on property or are spreading disease.


#9

No they don’t need to be controlled. The predator/prey relationship takes care of itself. Nature doesn’t need us to keep itself going since God created it to be self sustaining. We are the only wildcard that messes up the balance (well except for natual disasters and such).

We are supposed to be stewards to nature, not masters.


#10

I don’t, for a moment, blame ranchers for not wanting buffalo on the cattle ranges. My impression is that there are ranges set aside for buffalo. One assumes they are reasonably adequate for the purpose, which is to preserve a bit of history for peoples’ enjoyment. And so, the government lets nature “take its course” in those areas; it being well understood that nature is a harsh mistress at best. While I could be wrong, it is my further impression that ranchers’ cattle are not allowed onto those wildlife preserves.

I would dispute with you the belief that ranchers don’t know what diseases their cattle have. Most ranchers know that full well, and further anticipate diseases they DON’T have in order to prevent them. A rancher who doesn’t do those things will not be in the business very long, because he cannot make any money unless his cattle are healthy. Meat inspection, by the way, does not preclude processing meat from diseased animals. it depends on the disease. So, for instance, if an inspector determines that an animal was infected with leptospirosis, (unlikely he would) he will pass the meat because the meat won’t pass the disease. But leptospirosis causes abortions in cattle, so a rancher who does not vaccinate against it will have an insufficient calf crop and go bust if there is any source of contagion around.

They don’t round up the buffalo in wildlife areas and vaccinate them all against “lepto”. Not all buffalo will be affected by it anyway. But while “lepto” vaccination is basically effective, it’s not entirely foolproof, and must be repeated at least annually. It’s commonly a waterborne disease, so an infected buffalo urinating in or near a stream will spread it to everything downstream.

So it is not unreasonable for ranchers to not want buffalo on the ranges they own or which are leased to them, anymore than it’s unreasonable for governments not wanting ranchers to drive their cattle onto wildlife preserve areas and eating all the grass.


#11

This is false thinking. If the world was completly wild and humans did not require it. Then the up and down cycles that result for un managed wildlide might do. But that is not the world we live in. Our world requires stability. This is why Nature is controlled. Ridgerunner mentioned diseases as they impact cattle herds. Brucellosis, being a major concern with Buffalo who wonder out of their protected area. For large predators like Grey Wolves, they have no natural checks for their population as we have learned through close study of predator-prey relationships. When wolves over hunt their terrain they move onward til you get what we are seeing in Our own Upper Penninsula. If you think it’s fun to see wolf tracks following you children to the School bus stop. Think again.

As for stewards as opposed to masters. symantics.


#12

Here’s a question…

In the case of predators that once had a bounty on them but are now “protected”, is it a sin to kill one in order to protect your livestock (or family)?

You know, the old “Shoot, shovel, shut up” method…


#13

It is impossible for me to accept that killing a predator that threatens livestock or people could possibly be a sin.

Whether it’s breaking the law or not would depend on the circumstances; specifically whether there was a reasonably demonstrable threat or not.

Personally, I absolutely hate it that some predators like bears and mountain lions are protected in populated areas, and I think it’s morally wrong to protect them in and near such places.


#14

yeah I don’t buy that killing a predatory animal to protect ones livestock or lively hood is a sin, but other things such as animal cruelty which in many states is a crime might fall into the sin category.


#15

I don’t know that it would be considered sinful.

ATB


#16

If I lived in an area that this was taking place, legal or not, I would be finding out who the hunters are and posting their names and what they like to do to animals all over the internet, or follow them around and disarm their traps, or scare the animals off, so they cant even get close to them.

Its truly sad some people like to kill so much, they feel the need to go after such a beautiful animal just because they have the legal right to do so.

I dont have a problem with hunting for food, but if hunters are buying their meat at a grocery store, as well as killing animals, then I do have a problem with that…IMO, that shows they just like to kill period and are not doing it for the food. Id like to see how they feel if a wolf was to sneak up to them, using camo to hide itself, and then strike out and kill…Id bet they would change their tune pretty quick.


#17

Good morning Mikekle, I feel your post has a disturbing under current to it. Exposing personal information of individuals because you don’t ,like what they are doing is not very honorable.

Further, your statements do not indicate that you have spent much time developing an informed opinion on the subject.

ATB


#18

Well, I feel people like this are dangerous, a person can buy all the food one needs from the store, there is no need to go out and kill wolves, people dont eat wolf anyway, these people just like to kill imo. and that makes them dangerous in my book.


#19

One thing to keep in mind is if the wolf is eating what you plan to eat or what you make your living on, killing it is okay and moral in my opinion. If you are talking strictly about trophy hunting then I agree 100%


#20

For a long time around here there was a “fox and wolf hunters’ association”, a bunch of country folk who raised these carefully bred hounds and liked to hear their calls while on the hunt. From that a subgroup developed of “mule jumpers”; hunters who would go chasing after the hounds on mules that were trained to jump fences.

In this part of the country, they were no doubt hunting red wolves, since there aren’t any timber wolves. Likely some coyotes and hybrids as well.

They did it for sport, but also to reduce the wild canid population. Since I always considered wolves and coyotes and feral hybrids a menace to livestock, I was never upset with them.

Some did it simply to get rid of livestock predators, and not just of livestock. Now and then a man would get treed by a pack of feral dogs or dog/coyote/wolf hybrids. And an attack would trigger a lot of hunting, with hounds and without.

In my mind, wild canids have no place in areas where there are heavy human populations and where people are trying to raise the more vulnerable livestock like sheep or goats. Canids multiply very rapidly, and have no natural enemies in this part of the country.

When I was a little kid I was confronted by a hybrid that seemed to have ill designs on my person. I was out picking blackberries at the time. Fortunately, my dog had tagged along and intervened. It was a very serious fight. Obviously, I thought a lot of that dog.

And if my dog was not a good fighter, what would have happened then?

I would kill every potential wild child killer in a populated area if it was up to me.

I absolutely hate it that mountain lions (now indisputably here) are protected. If somebody “shot, shoveled and shut up” about one of those, I would in no way blame him.

Is there some truly compelling reason why large predators should be protected among human populations, and humans not?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.