Support NeoGAF

[Mental Atrophy]

extermination isn't a solution. at all. what happens if all wolf packs attack rancher's cows then? the representation is one sided as Fish and Wildlife seems to lean more towards ranchers instead of coming up with more thought out and creative solutions than "well, guess we gotta kill 'em 'cause the rancher said so" I mean, who's in charge here?

this is equal to that dumb Australian program of culling sharks after seven people got attacked in three years. seven. and it didn't make a difference in the end. prevention and avoidance is the better option. there's a wealth of non-lethal that they aren't willing to pursue because it's hard and they are in the pockets of big ranchers anyway. it's a damn shame.
as for your last point, animal attacks have and always will be rare (unless you went back 50,000 years) mostly because we aren't on most animals menu. however, more dumb human actions get more wildlife killed than the other way around.

To start off with, in my extremely limited assessment of the situation, I don't think extermination is a solution at all and disagree with the actions Washington has authorized. But I also don't have the information to say WDFW is in the pockets of ranchers--nor do you. Also, you can't just factor attacks on humans themselves, but also on human interests and property. The notion that these ranchers settled in wolf territory is also ludicrous, because the ranchers were there first. It's only recently that the wolf population has started rebounding, so the wolf risk factor isn't the ranchers' fault and they need to have some governing body to petition when they're legally (and rightfully) restricted from solving it themselves.

 

[cdyhybrid]

To start off with, in my extremely limited assessment of the situation, I don't think extermination is a solution at all and disagree with the actions Washington has authorized. But I also don't have the information to say WDFW is in the pockets of ranchers--nor do you. Also, you can't just factor attacks on humans themselves, but also on human interests and property. The notion that these ranchers settled in wolf territory is also ludicrous, because the ranchers were there first. It's only recently that the wolf population has started rebounding, so the wolf risk factor isn't the ranchers' fault and they need to have some governing body to petition when they're legally (and rightfully) restricted from solving it themselves.

Yep =\ Quoting a passage from Htown's link for emphasis:

Two gray wolves were captured in north-central Washington state in July 2008, one of which was a nursing female. This is the first evidence of reproducing wolves in the state since the 1930s. As of the end of 2014, Washington has at least 68 wolves in 16 packs with 5 breeding pairs.

Yes, it would be preferable to not have to kill them. But when you consider all the politics, etc. that are involved with this, sometimes you have to take a step back to keep moving forward.

 

[phaonaut]

I get why some are a bit troubled by this, but whats the benefit of reintroducing wolves if they get in the habit of making domesticated animals their primary food source. If you have to remove a pack to keep the reintroduction on track then why not.

 

[Raitosaito]

I get why some are a bit troubled by this, but whats the benefit of reintroducing wolves if they get in the habit of making domesticated animals their primary food source. If you have to remove a pack to keep the reintroduction on track then why not.

The attacks still seem rare in nature. I don't see how if offered the opportunity the wolves wouldn't feed on their natural food source. But let's just kill them.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I don't think you understand why the government is intervening here. It's not to save the ranchers from the wolves; it's to save at least some wolves from the ranchers. That's why there are so few wolves in the first place: people killed almost all of them to for their own self interest. The only way wolves can make a comeback is if we can get people to agree to not just kill them as a matter of course. Part of that involves assuaging ranchers so they don't take matters into their own hands.

but if every time this happens the recourse is to kill wolves then they're just doing the bidding of the ranchers. all ranchers have to do is lobby their local congressman/senator , put the heat on him come election and suddenly we're back to shooting wolves from helicopters for "conservation" efforts.

Who gives a damn about some wolves. If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also. Why risk that possibility, it's better to get rid of them.

and yet they don't.

They're wolves. They cover an insane amount of territory. They will always be near people and livestock.

This is always going to be a tough issue for our society to deal with, because people want wolves to come back, but the people who live where the wolves live don't want their livestock, their pets, or themselves killed or maimed by wolves. Where's the room for compromise?

Not in my backyard! The situation is more complicated than some are making it out to be. Most of the current generation of ranchers were there before the wolves started repopulating the area again. How many of you would give up your property to let whatever wildlife native to your area reclaim its land? Its sad but at least the population is still rising and the program is working.

but again, where are the stats that say this in an epidemic (of wolves attacking humans specifically?) maybe as a person living on the outside and not near wilderness I can offer a different perspective and say "hey, you're being shortsighted" I don't believe that when it comes to wildlife that only the people that live close to them should have the only say. I would gladly give up land if it meant or guaranteed a further population growth. but we all know how lobbying works in this country. grease the right hands and all of a sudden we lose all progress.

 

[darscot]

From wiki:

I should have said southern US, 1800 they should be fucking protected. Can the US not afford to cover a few cows. Only 68 in Washington and they are going to kill a pack WTF.

 

[Chichikov]

but if every time this happens the recourse is to kill wolves then they're just doing the bidding of the ranchers. all ranchers have to do is lobby their local congressman/senator , put the heat on him come election and suddenly we're back to shooting wolves from helicopters for "conservation" efforts.

Those are serious accusations, you need to provide some evidence to support those assertions.
Washington state official policy is to grow the wolf population and to have a sustainable relationship between wolves and humans.
That policy has been a success.
You can disagree with their decisions (and some people do by the way, and having a debate about it is a good thing) but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence that they're in the pockets of ranchers or just doing their bidding.
It would be extremely easy to exterminate the wolves once again from Washington state if that's what they wanted to do.

And honestly, American conservationists as a whole have done some amazing things, and in many regards the conservation movement in the US is the envy of the world. It's not perfect, and sure, mistakes were made and most likely will be made in the future. But we're talking about generally good people who dedicate their lives to the preservation of nature and endangered species. It's easy to take an absolutist stance on the internet, and again, it's fine to disagree with them (though I think you should ask yourself to what degree do you really understand the issue here) but I think doubting their intentions and putting scare quotes are conservation is uncalled for.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

To start off with, in my extremely limited assessment of the situation, I don't think extermination is a solution at all and disagree with the actions Washington has authorized. But I also don't have the information to say WDFW is in the pockets of ranchers--nor do you. Also, you can't just factor attacks on humans themselves, but also on human interests and property. The notion that these ranchers settled in wolf territory is also ludicrous, because the ranchers were there first. It's only recently that the wolf population has started rebounding, so the wolf risk factor isn't the ranchers' fault and they need to have some governing body to petition when they're legally (and rightfully) restricted from solving it themselves.

this is anecdotal and you don't have to believe it but I've had conversations with more than a few people who worked in Fish and Wildlife and there was graft going on for many years in places like Arizona and Nevada. exchanges of gifts and favors such that could be seen as corruption. again, anecdotes, conversations but no, I have no solid hard evidence I'm not an investigator obviously. however, the people I did speak with, dedicated professionals did try to speak out but where ignored and/or fired.

and can we really make the argument that ranchers were there "first" when there wolf populations as late as the 30s and were there for hundreds of years prior?
and the reason they were nearly wiped was again, rancher interests and human expansion?
as I see it, the ranchers are in the minority opinion and should be the ones learning to adapt, and that has to include fish and wildlife coming up with better solutions than "let's kill this wolf pack because then ranchers will be mad at us and kill the wolves themselves"

[/Those are serious accusations, you need to provide some evidence to support those assertions.
Washington state official policy is to grow the wolf population and to have a sustainable relationship between wolves and humans.
That policy has been a success.
You can disagree with their decisions (and some people do by the way, and having a debate about it is a good thing) but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence that they're in the pockets of ranchers or just doing their bidding.
It would be extremely easy to exterminate the wolves once again from Washington state if that's what they wanted to do.

And honestly, American conservationists as a whole have done some amazing things, and in many regards the conservation movement in the US is the envy of the world. It's not perfect, and sure, mistakes were made and most likely will be made in the future. But we're talking about generally good people who dedicate their lives to the preservation of nature and endangered species. It's easy to take an absolutist stance on the internet, and again, it's fine to disagree with them (though I think you should ask yourself to what degree do you really understand the issue here) but I think doubting their intentions and putting scare quotes are conservation is uncalled for. QUOTE]

EDIT:
again, this is my personal experiences dealing with a few people who worked at fish and wildlife who told me these things.
there are plenty of hits on google it's something that's been going on. I'll retract the statement for now since like I said, it was just conversations I had with long time employees.

 

[AxelFoley]

Gotta remind those wolves who the real apex predator is.

MAN IS KING!

/Samuel L. Jackson

 

[Geist-]

From wiki:

Thanks for this, I'm glad to hear that the US has done a fairly good job at bringing back wolf populations. This story is sad, but predatory conservation is a difficult job, and they are probably doing this for practical reasons.

 

[KC Denton]

I implore people to help donate to causes that can help push towards peaceful coexistence with wolves such as the International Wolf Center: http://www.wolf.org/support/donate-options/

Wolves are essential for the environment. This situation is terrible but with things being the way they are with wolf conservation at the moment, it is a necessary evil to allow other wolves to live. Donating to wolf conservation organizations helps to further studies on issues like ranchers being able to peacefully coexist with wolves. For example, the California Wolf Center
has been making efforts to create solutions that help people and wolves share the land in addition to education about wolves and research on wolves.

Also if there's a wolf sanctuary you can visit, I would highly recommend visiting one of those. Seeing wolves in person (in a safe environment, of course) is an amazing experience.

 

[Chichikov]

Also if there's a wolf sanctuary you can visit, I would highly recommend visiting one of those. Seeing wolves in person (in a safe environment, of course) is an amazing experience.

It's actually reasonably easy to watch wolves in the wild in Yellowstone park, I did it a few years ago and I highly recommend it.
There is some luck to it, but if you do your research and/or get a guide you have pretty good chance to be able to see a pack. And it's amazing.

 

[Teletraan1]

The Warden of the Northwest should give one to each of his children and even a bastard.

 

[harSon]

 

[AxelFoley]

The Warden of the Northwest should give one to each of his children and even a bastard.

And we're done here, folks.

 

[Dankul]

but again, where are the stats that say this in an epidemic (of wolves attacking humans specifically?) maybe as a person living on the outside and not near wilderness I can offer a different perspective and say "hey, you're being shortsighted" I don't believe that when it comes to wildlife that only the people that live close to them should have the only say. I would gladly give up land if it meant or guaranteed a further population growth. but we all know how lobbying works in this country. grease the right hands and all of a sudden we lose all progress.

It isn't an epidemic. This is about a one wolf pack and one rancher and/or grazing area. They killed this specific pack as it started to rely on cattle for food. Similarly, bears in national parks get killed when they become too comfortable around humans.

 

[Debirudog]

Can't problematic wolves be relocated to some place far away from humans?

That's what I was thinking...

 

[Maximus.]

Who gives a damn about some wolves. If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also. Why risk that possibility, it's better to get rid of them.

No it's not. It's not better to make a species extinct because we are a selfish species. That's the issue with this world, this train of thought. Me me me me. Fuck that. We have destroyed this world and are continuing to do so. It's not fair to wipe out a species because it's costing some farmers money.

 

[Laieon]

No it's not. It's not better to make a species extinct because we are a selfish species. That's the issue with this world, this train of thought. Me me me me. Fuck that. We have destroyed this world and are continuing to do so. It's not fair to wipe out a species because it's costing some farmers money.

I'm struggling to think of a species that isn't selfish.

 

[Tigress]

You know, it's easy to say the ranchers can just lose the cows or it's just a few cows. But when it's your livlihood it's not as easy (especially if you are pretty tight on what your budget allows).

And... well, ranchers just don't have a good image of wolves anyways (saw a bumper sticker in montana saying something like "Keep your wolves we'll keep our guns" or something like that.. basically it was a bumper sticker specifically to retort to people telling him the wolves were important. Also, was at some museum where they had a kids section with kids talking about wolves and their importance and you could see that many of them had been taught wolves = evil and must be exterminated). Yeah it's ignorant but at the same time when their experience with wolves is that they keep causing them problems, it's not going to endear them to the animal.

If you want the ranchers to get along with the wolves, you have to find a way to also address their problems as well. It's been shown to work. I know in Africa they found ways to keep cheetahs from hunting farmers livestock and they found farmers got a lot more interested in helping preserve the cheetahs. When the animal isn't threatening their livlyhood they are a lot more open to preserving them. And that will go a lot farther than trying to force them to be ok with wolves or else (that's when they just get sneaky about it instead). People who want to preserve an animal are less likely to just kill it in secret (and good luck catching enough people who do this to stop it from causing issues with the population).

 

[KC Denton]

You know, it's easy to say the ranchers can just lose the cows or it's just a few cows. But when it's your livlihood it's not as easy (especially if you are pretty tight on what your budget allows).

And... well, ranchers just don't have a good image of wolves anyways (saw a bumper sticker in montana saying something like "Keep your wolves we'll keep our guns" or something like that.. basically it was a bumper sticker specifically to retort to people telling him the wolves were important. Also, was at some museum where they had a kids section with kids talking about wolves and their importance and you could see that many of them had been taught wolves = evil and must be exterminated). Yeah it's ignorant but at the same time when their experience with wolves is that they keep causing them problems, it's not going to endear them to the animal.

If you want the ranchers to get along with the wolves, you have to find a way to also address their problems as well. It's been shown to work. I know in Africa they found ways to keep cheetahs from hunting farmers livestock and they found farmers got a lot more interested in helping preserve the cheetahs. When the animal isn't threatening their livlyhood they are a lot more open to preserving them. And that will go a lot farther than trying to force them to be ok with wolves or else (that's when they just get sneaky about it instead). People who want to preserve an animal are less likely to just kill it in secret (and good luck catching enough people who do this to stop it from causing issues with the population).

This is why it is important that people keep contributing to organizations like the International Wolf Center and the California Wolf Center that are constantly researching and developing sensible solutions for coexistence between people and wolves. Ultimately reintroduction of wolves will always be a slow process, and the rise of people like Trump and movies like The Grey are definitely somewhat of a concern for wolf conservation, but the people in these organizations do great work for everyone that is affected by wolves, from ranchers to conservationists.

 

[Ardenyal]

It has to be done when the pack gets like this. They could attack a jogger or a kid on their way to school next.

 

[Maximus.]

I'm struggling to think of a species that isn't selfish.

Well no other species has the ability to think like us and literally change the world. You are right, technically every species thinks of self survival. Our intelligence should let us see beyond that basic instinct.

 

[KC Denton]

It has to be done when the pack gets like this. They could attack a jogger or a kid on their way to school next.

That's a rather extreme assumption to make. It is far more likely they would keep going after cows, not humans. Relocation would be a far superior solution but ultimately in order to keep wolves around and continue wolf conservation efforts, this has to be done to appease people who hate wolves. I would not go so far as to make fear-mongering statements like that.

 

[disappeared]

That's one hell of a thread title

Like a band name.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Don't kill the wolves. Tell the ranchers they should to hire Donald Trump to build a taller fence around the property to keep the wolves from hopping it

 

[Littlefang]

I don't really know enough about wolves to argue whether this is justified or not, but isn't the biggest issue here the habituation of wolves towards people? I mean the biggest issue where I live is that there are frequent coyote attacks on livestock and pets. And people get involved and potentially injured because they get in between the coyote and what they're attacking. Coyotes frequently approach our yard in broad daylight to try and attack my dog when I've been out in the yard with him. And the scary part is that they aren't afraid of me.

 

[Qvoth]

Wolves da best
Probably my favorite mammal together with dogs

 

[StayDead]

Why dont the ranchers build fencee to keep the wolves away from their livestock?

 

[NCR Redslayer]

Hire liam neeson to do it. Leave them uncontrolled and it will be 31 days of night eventually.

Why dont the ranchers build fencee to keep the wolves away from their livestock?

Herds of cattle have to be driven to areas with fresh grass im assuming. So they cant always bring a fence.

 

[Nirolak]

We have like 2500+ wolves in Minnesota. I'm sure we'd be fine with them shipping them here instead.

 

[Braag]

Can't problematic wolves be relocated to some place far away from humans?

I was thinking the same thing. Seems a bit drastic to just kill the entire pack :/

 

[DR2K]

Nope I refuse to let the meat and dairy industry further fuck up the ecosystem and species of animal just so they can keep, torture, and inhumanely slaughter the cattle for profit gain.

There is no excuse out of this one guys

Will you pledge to stop eating meat and dairy products that require said animals?

 

[thehypocrite]

Who gives a damn about some wolves. If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also. Why risk that possibility, it's better to get rid of them.

Yeah, let's show them who is the Apex Predator. Who cares that wolves have a positive environment impact.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Is there a such thing as livestock insurance? Like my dad runs a business, and if a tree falls on it he gets a healthy sum of money due to an act of nature. Can a rancher not also benefit when his business is stricken by nature?

Edit: There is in fact livestock insurance

https://www.nationwide.com/livestock-insurance.jsp

What livestock insurance covers
Livestock insurance covers broad causes of loss protection, including:

Accidental shootings
Attacks by dogs or wild animals (except to sheep)
[...]

Wonder why sheep aren't cover. Also how is accidentally shooting your livestock covered.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Sad but if they aren't proactive the farmers are eventually gonna kill many more that a pack.

We just welcomed our first wolf pack in a century back to our country.

 

[Zantetsuken]

Wolves gotta eat too.

 

[entremet]

Nope I refuse to let the meat and dairy industry further fuck up the ecosystem and species of animal just so they can keep, torture, and inhumanely slaughter the cattle for profit gain.

There is no excuse out of this one guys

Apex predators tend to have it hard in human dominated locales. We usually tend to kill them of for safety reasons.

There used be lions in England, before it was called that.

It's sad. I wish we could live in harmony. They're very important to the Earth.

Google Wolves rivers to catch a video of this.

 

[injurai]

Dicks out for wolf pack?

 

[SliceSabre]

So they're going to kill 10% of the wolf population? Fuck off with that. If they are using the livelihood argument then couldn't they just say "Let us kill every single wolf in the state because the very existence of even one wolf is a threat to someone's livelihood!"

 

[half a moon]

Can they be relocated?

 

[bengraven]

Oh THAT Washington.

I was expecting the "So you have problems with Trump's kids killing a single elephant but Obama can kill an entire pack of wolves and that's okay?"

 

[Grover Cleveland]

So they're going to kill 10% of the wolf population? Fuck off with that. If they are using the livelihood argument then couldn't they just say "Let us kill every single wolf in the state because the very existence of even one wolf is a threat to someone's livelihood!"

If the conservationists didn't step in here, the ranchers very well might just take it in their own hands and kill every single wolf they see.

This is about keeping the conservation movement as a whole going, which only can work if the livestock industry in the area is assauged.

Reducing the wolf population from 90 to 81 is whole lot better than reducing it from 90 to 0 which is probably what ranchers would do if they were given free reign.


And its not as simple as relocating them because well...they're wolves. Packs can cover huge amounts of land area so no matter where you put them they will be interfacing with humans in some capacity.

 

[duckroll]

Who gives a damn about some wolves. If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also. Why risk that possibility, it's better to get rid of them.

We have like 2500+ wolves in Minnesota. I'm sure we'd be fine with them shipping them here instead.

 

[btrboyev]

Who gives a damn about some wolves. If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also. Why risk that possibility, it's better to get rid of them.

What? Dude, cattle are natural prey to a wolf. Humans aren't.

Humans will always have some sort of risk of getting attacked by wild animals if they live near them, but it's incredibly rare.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

If they are attacking cattle, they could attack people also.

That's an absolutely absurd statement. Wolves don't attack things that have thousands of years history killing them. Dogs and cats are more prone to attacking humans than wolves.

 

[Alexlf]

Think of how the whole thing would look from the ranchers perspective if the government decided to just leave the wolves alone.

"Ya, you're not allowed to make enough money to live anymore, so you can either sell everything you own for way below real value and move away from the family home that's been in your family for 6 generations, or you can just become poorer and poorer until you end up on the streets and everything you own is repossessed. Oh, and if you try to protect you property and livelihood by shooting the wolves we'll fine you/send you to prison. Have a nice day!"

So you'll just get a massive backlash from the entire farming community in the area, and a whole bunch of wolves will just mysteriously go "missing".

This appeases the ranchers while still allowing for the conservation efforts to go ahead unhindered. It's probably the best course of action.

 

[andythinkpad]

Winter is coming.

 

[Rest]

I'm a bit mixed on this one since I worry that this continues and worse escalates because a couple ranchers lose some calves. Most of them barely seem to tolerate wolves despite the huge multitude of positives they provide the natural world from existing. Most places need an apex predator that the wolf packs provide, quite literally changes the landscape from them being around.

Hell I kind of wish they'd reintroduce them in the North East with the serious dear overpopulation problems.

The average rancher has only a few dozen cows, many have less than 20. Losing some calves might mean losing a few months worth of meals.

 

[Quixzlizx]

In certain states all you really need are two.

Spoiler

;>

I understand the need to remove the wolves but I hope there is a good reason why relocation isn't possible.

Sounds like we need the wisdom of a Wisewolf.