Searching \ for '[OT] Extermination of wolves in Montana and Wyomin' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=extermination+wolves
Search entire site for: 'Extermination of wolves in Montana and Wyomin'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Extermination of wolves in Montana and Wyomin'
2007\09\24@185126 by Al Shinn

picon face
I know that some on this list more or less hate tree huggers and etc. so
those of you can just skip this message - you wouldn't like it!
Is discussion of environmental issues Religion, Politics, Both, or Neither.
Anyway, I'll chance censure.
I was just forwarded a message warning about an impending action on the
part of the present US administration allowing the States of  Montana
and Wyoming to start killing off their wolf populations.

Go here, it has a petition to sign to stop the slaughter.
http://www.nrdconline.org/ct/odAu6k61nck0/
speak out now.


--

Looking forward,
Al Shinn



2007\09\26@075237 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
As a person who is closer to the tree hugger end of the spectrum than
not, but who tries to understand all points of view in any situation,
I can't imagine that any "reasonable" [tm] person would mind
discussion on this topic. There's room for opinions on both sides of
the issue, and understanding what the USF&WS are trying to achieve
can't hurt, regardless of whether you approve of their methods. .

Here's the official position on this FWIW as it relates to central
Idaho and Yellowstone. Also much related stuff here.

       http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/e7-17823.pdf

Note that they are asking for official submissions up until October
11, 2007 and will ignore all subsequent input. A petition MAY be an
effective way to address this but all the tree huggers here may
achieve better results by reasoned submissions via the official
process. There's probably not much point in my doing anything at this
remove. Do note that their approach is a reasoned one - whether it is
reasonable as well depends on your perspective - and whether or not
you are an ungulate :-)


       Russell

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) have prepared
a draft environmental assessment (EA)
of our proposal to revise the 2005
special rule for the central Idaho and
Yellowstone area nonessential
experimental populations of the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) in the northern
Rocky Mountains.

and

We specifically ask for comments
regarding whether our draft EA
accurately analyzes impacts and
alternatives. We are also specifically
requesting comments addressing
whether the proposed rule
modifications would: (1) Reasonably
address conflicts between wolves and
domestic animals or wild ungulate
populations; (2) provide sufficient
safeguards to prevent misuse of the
modified rule; (3) provide an
appropriate and transparent public
process that ensures decisions are
science-based; and (4) provide adequate
guarantees that wolf recovery will not
be compromised.
_________________________________________________

{Quote hidden}

2007\09\26@163638 by alan smith

picon face
crux of the problem is....when your hugging the tree because the over populated wolf is looking for food....and found you.  The real problem is the natural order of things are out of balance, and to try and get things back...they reintroduced the wolf but its predators are not in abundance...the population grows out of control.  Thats why we have hunting, and thats why they issue tags based on the population of bucks or does (in the case of deer).  People think it may be cruel to hunt down coyotes or wolves, but if they are all starving because of no food...whats more cruel..?  I know its watched close because there are cases of people being prosecuted for shooting these animals when there isnt a control issue going on.  Same thing for the wild mustangs in Nevada...huge herds roam but they become a burden on the range, it just can't support the number of animals.

I'm not a hunter myself, but I am not against it.  I'm sure Bob knows about coyotes coming into the city...and a hungry animal...isnt a good thing to have around.

<flame suite on...cooling system operational>

Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote: As a person who is closer to the tree hugger end of the spectrum than
not, but who tries to understand all points of view in any situation,
I can't imagine that any "reasonable" [tm] person would mind
discussion on this topic. There's room for opinions on both sides of
the issue, and understanding what the USF&WS are trying to achieve
can't hurt, regardless of whether you approve of their methods. .

Here's the official position on this FWIW as it relates to central
Idaho and Yellowstone. Also much related stuff here.

       http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/e7-17823.pdf

Note that they are asking for official submissions up until October
11, 2007 and will ignore all subsequent input. A petition MAY be an
effective way to address this but all the tree huggers here may
achieve better results by reasoned submissions via the official
process. There's probably not much point in my doing anything at this
remove. Do note that their approach is a reasoned one - whether it is
reasonable as well depends on your perspective - and whether or not
you are an ungulate :-)


       Russell

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) have prepared
a draft environmental assessment (EA)
of our proposal to revise the 2005
special rule for the central Idaho and
Yellowstone area nonessential
experimental populations of the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) in the northern
Rocky Mountains.

and

We specifically ask for comments
regarding whether our draft EA
accurately analyzes impacts and
alternatives. We are also specifically
requesting comments addressing
whether the proposed rule
modifications would: (1) Reasonably
address conflicts between wolves and
domestic animals or wild ungulate
populations; (2) provide sufficient
safeguards to prevent misuse of the
modified rule; (3) provide an
appropriate and transparent public
process that ensures decisions are
science-based; and (4) provide adequate
guarantees that wolf recovery will not
be compromised.
_________________________________________________

{Quote hidden}

2007\09\26@165603 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
alan smith wrote:
> crux of the problem is....when your hugging the tree because the over populated wolf is looking for food....and found you.  The real problem is the natural order of things are out of balance, and to try and get things back...they reintroduced the wolf but its predators are not in abundance...the population grows out of control.  Thats why we have hunting, and thats why they issue tags based on the population of bucks or does (in the case of deer).  People think it may be cruel to hunt down coyotes or wolves, but if they are all starving because of no food...whats more cruel..?  I know its watched close because there are cases of people being prosecuted for shooting these animals when there isnt a control issue going on.  Same thing for the wild mustangs in Nevada...huge herds roam but they become a burden on the range, it just can't support the number of animals.
>
> I'm not a hunter myself, but I am not against it.  I'm sure Bob knows about coyotes coming into the city...and a hungry animal...isnt a good thing to have around.
>
> <flame suite on...cooling system operational>
>
>  
Down here in Southern Arizona we have myriad families of  wild pigs,
call Javelina. They are protected by law, so they have grown plentiful
in the desert.

The problem is that now they are a feared menace, because they try to
break down your gates or fences to get to water or food. Weighing as much as
200 lbs, these animals rip out fencing as fast as it can be put up. I
wanted a fountain, so I installed one, but at night, a family of
javelinas used the fountain as a source of water
and sometimes they bathe in it. After fighting this problem for a few
weeks, I finally removed the fountain, and the neighbors breathed a sigh
of relief. I now
need to replace the gate with an iron gate, cause they want to break in
and eat the dogs' food. One neighbor said that one night he counted 15
javelinas
drinking from the fountain at one time...

Texas doesn't protect the javelina, and therefore the population is kept
down by shooting when they try to break in.


--Bob Axtell

2007\09\26@212301 by Richard Prosser

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Makes my past experences with (also protected) penguins seem pretty
minor! Although it was a pain at the time.

RP

2007\09\27@102335 by John Ferrell

face picon face
The Government wildlife  folks introduced coyotes to North Carolina in an
effort to control the deer population I am told. Now we coyotes that were
never native here. The feral cat population is way down, it seems the
coyotes prefer them. At this point I am not seeing them but they sure are
noisy at night. Given that we already have a rabies problem things are not
looking good. The deer hazards are worse at this time though. The published
auto accident stats indicate nearly 20% of the auto accidents involve deer.
It is not unknown for the deer to attack people.

I have upgraded my walking stick to a .45 Colt but I am considering going up
to a rifle.

Tree hugger? The bucks are destroying a lot of saplings...


John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message -----
From: "alan smith" <.....micro_eng2KILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Extermination of wolves in Montana and Wyoming


> crux of the problem is....when your hugging the tree because the over
> populated wolf is looking for food....and found you.  The real problem is
> the natural order of things are out of balance,


2007\09\27@162330 by David VanHorn

picon face
I read somewhere that deer are more dangerous to humans than spiders,
snakes, sharks, bears, and lightning combined.

2007\09\27@164228 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>I read somewhere that deer are more dangerous to humans than spiders,
>snakes, sharks, bears, and lightning combined.
>--

As someone who has been in automobile accidents with deer twice, I
would agree with that. And in both cases, the deer were uninsured!

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\09\27@181720 by alan smith

picon face
ahhhh..but fresh meat.... (hit about 5....killed 2 or 3)

Chris Smolinski <.....csmolinskiKILLspamspam.....blackcatsystems.com> wrote: >I read somewhere that deer are more dangerous to humans than spiders,
>snakes, sharks, bears, and lightning combined.
>--

As someone who has been in automobile accidents with deer twice, I
would agree with that. And in both cases, the deer were uninsured!

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\09\27@195039 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> As someone who has been in automobile accidents with deer twice, I
>> would agree with that. And in both cases, the deer were uninsured!

> ahhhh..but fresh meat.... (hit about 5....killed 2 or 3)

Watch "Long kiss goodnight" for pointers on how to bring that up to
100%.

It also demonstrates that even carrying 3 handguns including one
strapped to you upper inner leg still won't save you in all cases -
but may save somebody else. But, that's another story.

       Russell

2007\09\29@155327 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Dave,

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:23:28 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:

> I read somewhere that deer are more dangerous to humans than spiders,
> snakes, sharks, bears, and lightning combined.

None of them are as dangerous as humans, though!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...