16 ms·

Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

109 points by tima101 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago
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.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That would be wealth redistribution, which a critical mass of Americans are pathologically opposed to.
  - mtgx 6y ago
    In that case, I guess these people have nothing against the government taking away all of their farm subsidies, too. Better safe than "socialist".
  - neaden 6y ago
    The federal government gives farmers a lot of different subsidies already. If we can pay someone to not grow corn, we can pay them for a cow that got killed by a wolf.
    - smabie 6y ago
      Things like that have bad incentive structures and will be gamed
      - aejnsn 6y ago
        You have to understand farmers and farming. Do you think a true farmer is more dedicated to completing government paperwork or more dedicated to raising another head of livestock? For the gamers/hackers, this is why we fund judges, prosecutors, investigators, and the rest of the court system. You cannot make the case that 5% of those with bad intentions ruin it for the 95% of those with good intentions. Not saying the policy will ever be correct, but this is why you introduce thresholds, limitations, and requirements. For instance, using donkeys in the pasture to combat predators should be required. Promote smart farming, not just a pocketbook.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        I've never heard of co-pasturing donkeys to combat predators before. How does that work? That's neat.
        aejnsn 6y ago
        My grandparents did some (mostly subsistence) livestock farming when I was a tiny kid. Donkeys are extremely territorial, and snap into this fit of pissed off rage when an intruder threatens their territory or what they identify as 'their' herd. Usually a well-acclimated herd will understand the donkey as their protector. If being ran down by this raging anger-beast doesn't spook a predator enough, a donkey will stomp it bad enough to bring new meaning to the phrase 'ass-kicking'. I've never seen a pasture-mated donkey scared by much of anything other than loud noise, they're brave and loyal to a fault. Great Pyrenees dogs are amazing defenders as well. I've seen those put the brakes on some prowling coyotes and put a chase on them so hard that they defy physics to get over a fence. Exceptionally friendly to humans, and other dogs, outside their pastures. One of the good boys used to visit for pets and treats. :)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - pkulak 6y ago
    Everyone is fine when it's distributed to them; half the population will not tolerate it distributed elsewhere. Which means that the only kind of redistribution that's politically feasible is the kind that ends at about half the population. So this plan to pay farmers would likely have broad support.
  - dboreham 6y ago
    > which a critical mass of Americans are pathologically opposed to Presumably this is a joke?
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      it is not. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/february_2013/61_think_state_governments_should_give_out_jobs_not_welfare https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/job...
      - willturman 6y ago
        I'd take this with a massive grain of salt. Rasmussen has the highest right leaning bias of any major pollster accounted for in Five Thirty Eight's pollster ratings: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Beyond their biased election polls the site seems tailor made to provide links presenting cheap talking points as majority percentages. I won't bother linking anything else on their website.
      - StillBored 6y ago
        That link isn't directly about wealth distribution, more about how its distributed. And given my own biases, I'm not surprised about the results. The Works Progress Administration built a lot of infrastructure we still depend on today with unemployed people. Until we get to the point where all our roads, bridges, airports, etc are looking as good as the ones you find in other parts of the world, underpaying healthy people to run asphalt machines for 20 hours a week (or whatever), or provide childcare, gives us a return on the basic societal need to keep people from starving.
      - dboreham 6y ago
        Obviously nuts. Almost all Americans are beneficiaries of some sort of wealth distribution. Heck wealth distribution is at the core of western civilization. Pretending that a majority is against it is surely delusional.
  - StillBored 6y ago
    And weirdly enough, frequently ones that receive the largest proportion of it are the ones most against it. Both at the federal level, where generally the money is redistributed from the coasts to the "heartland", to at the local level where the cities heavily support the rural schools, roads, and general infrastructure. Even semi-private industries like telcom services are heavily funded through things like the universal service fund. In areas where there is less support, like healthcare, you see rural hospitals struggling to stay open and maintain staff. And this continues get worse, as noticed by the recent "trade war" where a large proportion of the returns from the increased tariffs were just given to farmers, while the main goal of increased domestic manufacturing were further collapsing.
    - chmod600 6y ago
      Let's assume that everything has a price, including one's adherance to a political philosophy. Then isn't is obvious that people with a political philosophy of limited government would demand a higher payout to abandon the idea of limited government? And that people who favor government involvement would go along with government involvement even if they end up footing the bill?
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      >And weirdly enough, frequently ones that receive the largest proportion of it are the ones most against it Why is it weird for someone to resent regulatory conditions that necessitate dependence on a handout?
  - jolux 6y ago
    This is actually not true, most Americans support higher taxes on corporations and people with high incomes, and a more even wealth distribution: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    Except they're not really there's all sorts of subsidies in the US economy propping up various industries; oil, farms, manufacturing, etc. It's the specific phrase and label of wealth redistribution/socialism that the US is allergic to the policies are generally individually pretty popular if they're broad based.
- adamnemecek 6y ago
  They would probably start killing their stock themselves.
  - imeron 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    Every killed sheep in The Netherlands is tested for wolf marks and DNA.
- gbrown 6y ago
  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 inability to run an environmentally compatible business
  - MikeKusold 6y ago
    Because the alternative is to say that ranchers need to protect their livestock from wildlife, and then wolves end up back on the ESL.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, my understanding is that there is no covenant on that land which protects the wolves, so the farmers have some right to shoot them. The states technically own all wildlife within their respective borders, but they’re reluctant to exercise that right against a large and influential lobby. It may also be that harm caused by a re-introduced species is a taking.
  - monkeybutton 6y ago
    If it's such a rare occurrence, is there an opportunity for insurance companies to provide solutions instead of the government?
    - allannienhuis 6y ago
      I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.
      - pvaldes 6y ago
- grumple 6y ago
  Wolves do relatively little predation of livestock. https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-Wolf-Livestock-6.Mar_.19Final.pdf https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-... I’ve also seen it said that wolf populations do two positive things for livestock: keep grazing wildlife to manageable levels (so that fields are replenished for livestock) and outcompete coyotes, who are more likely to prey on livestock than wolves.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    What effect do wolves have on wild hog population?
    - corty 6y ago
      In Germany, none. Domesticated animals are easier prey (fenced in, not used to predators), and hogs are breeding like a plague, it would take unacceptable amounts of wolves to make a noticable dent.
- dboreham 6y ago
  > why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed Ah ha. A HN thread close to home (I live within earshot of wolves in Montana). So...we do [1], [2]. Ranchers (generalizing, of course) just don't like wolves. It's a really deep cultural thing. So if you as president want to take some step that will cause a bunch of folks in ranching areas to high five, you'd delist wolves. That they may not in fact be impacted by wolf activity is moot. [1] https://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-makes-record-payments-for-livestock-killed-by-wolves/article_df2275cc-2a91-5831-b79e-84373526e0f9.html https://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-makes... [2] http://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board http://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Boar...
  - perbu 6y ago
    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.
    - Filligree 6y ago
      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 lives to avoid. 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. Though that's only a decent solution if you don't have problems with megafauna like elk.
      - peterwwillis 6y ago
        "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.
- jmpman 6y ago
  I agree. Reintroduce them to Times Square. Until then, why should rural residents have to fear for their children’s and pet’s safety?
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Do you understand that there is nothing in Times Square that is anything like natural wolf habitat?
    - jmpman 6y ago
      I’m sure a coyote can survive in Times Square. Make it illegal to shoot a wolf, and they’ll do fine in Times Square too.
      - spiderfarmer 6y ago
        The people downvoting you are hypocrites.
- nkurz 6y ago
  > I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? I think the answer is that while there is not currently a federal program, many states already do pay ranchers for animals killed by wolves. Searching for "wolf depredation reimbursement" pulls up many details. Here's a High Country News article on the topic: https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.12/wolves-when-cattle-go-missing-in-wolf-territory-who-should-pay-the-price https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.12/wolves-when-cattle-go-missi....
- brainzap 6y ago
  it more fun to hunt them with helicopter and night vision gear, than to pay for the losses.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed This path has been explored in Europe and is a mistake. 1) Killing a few wolves increases, not decreases damages (by altering the social structure of the pack). More paradoxical, killing all wolves in an area increases the attacks to small cattle in that area (even if there is not a single alive wolf anymore). Because wolf attacks are a very special case. There is not a single wolf in UK. Despite that, they still suffer 40.000 attacks to small cattle each year. By abandoned pet dogs, the same species as gray wolf. When government starts paying wolf attacks, suddenly, each stray dog attack (non paid) will be automatically assigned to wolves (paid) and will appear in the newspapers. This creates 'ghost wolves' and panic in the population, and increases the pressure against the environment (that is exactly the opposite that you are paying for). 2) Is an incentive for local corruption. People learn that if they cry wolf receive free money. They became insatiable and will try to game the system again and again. We had documented cases of the same cow "dying" two times, four times in four different places in Europe. By wolves that for some reason always start "eating the cattle tags". We had documented cases of cows dying by a natural accident and being blamed to scavenger wolves visiting the area four days later. 3) Is bad for the real farmers. Losing a cow is not a problem, destroying the cow market with a flood of easy money is. Meat prices are disbalanced by outsiders that release old or diseased cattle in a ranch to die at zero cost and then bill the state for wolf damages. At the end the real farmers figure out that letting the cows die is more efficient than producing meat. Or their activity is destroyed by the spread of new cattle diseases, and are replaced by fake farmers living in a big city. 4) It quickly turns into a sort of acquired right also. People gets upset if you try to stop it (and poison appears).
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    One of the most bizarre cases that I remember is a family trying to bill a wolf attack to the government showing the rests of a barbecue as a proof of the attack. Apparently the (very smart) wolves managed somehow to shoot the cow in the head with a firearm before to cook it. And this is a real history.
- corty 6y ago
  Simply paying for cattle that wolves have eaten isn't enough. Wolves induce panic in herds, causing them to go over cliffs or trample down fences and cross busy roads, causing accidents. In Germany this isn't currently paid for by the state, because the law doesn't say so, the causality is hard to prove (basically you need a piece of flesh with a wolve's dental pattern) and the farmer is often first in line and goes bancrupt, because damage to the vehicles was done by his sheep/cows/whatever, not the wolves directly. Also, grazing cattle outside is desirable for better land use (usually grassland isn't good for much else) and keeping the current state of ecosystems (without grazing, bushes and trees will take over). Also, regions where cattle is grazed are typically also tourist hotspots, but cattle frequently scared by wolves is much more aggresive towards hikers. So basically, wolves screw over a lot more than just the few cows they eat...
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    In The Netherlands people who "love" wolves say farmers should put up 3m high fences around their fields. Other people are telling farmers to get rid of all sorts of fences and just use ditches and hetches, because they like to see that on their Sunday stroll. The amount of criticism and conflicting opinions that farmers face is unbelievable.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    > Also, grazing cattle outside is desirable for better land use (usually grassland isn't good for much else) and keeping the current state of ecosystems (without grazing, bushes and trees will take over) This is complete nonsense. Cattle grazing has been devastating North American habitat for a couple of centuries, and current BLM practices just continue the same abuse. The Texas Hill country is badly damaged from overgrazing, this had led to loss of topsoil, massive loss of groundwater, and completely altered habitat for native species.
    - corty 6y ago
      well, yes, Germany used to be all forrests, around 1BCE. Since then, people changed all kinds of habitats, often in a very radical way (burning and razing down the forest, lots of towns ending in -roth because of that). Nowadays, conservation aims mostly for the status quo, not for 1BCE. It might be different in North America, it might not. I'm not really convinced that there should be much of a difference just because it happened over the last few centuries instead of millenia ago. Just preserve some small parts of the previous ecosystem, ignore the rest. The whole planet has been terraformed already anyways, undoing human presence is pointless to try...
- kylebarron 6y ago
  Reintroducing gray wolves to Colorado is a statewide referendum on the ballot this week [0]. Part of the ballot language requires paying ranchers for livestock killed: "...requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves". [0]: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_Reintroduction_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_...
- devwastaken 6y ago
  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.
- rmah 6y ago
  First, I think ranchers are paid. The US has around 18,000 wild wolves. And another 60,000 wolves in Canada. In comparison, all of Scandinavia has maybe 400 or so. IOW, US+Canada has 200x the wolf population in 17x the land area (human population density is roughly the same). While apx 80,000 wolves does not seem enough to be considered "thriving" IMO, they're in no danger of extinction anymore. So while some care should be taken to maintain populations, it seems reasonable to take them off the endangered list. There are also 10's of thousand mountain lions, 10's of thousand bears, and millions of alligators in the USA. The USA/Canada is not exactly lacking in dangerous apex predators.
Grakel 6y ago
Hope they continue to do well, and are added to a limited hunting season in my state, creating a balanced population and a new game animal.
- ainiriand 6y ago
  Why your first reaction to the recovery of this species (that your own hunter breed almost completely erased), is to think about them as moving targets? Can't you find something more productive to do than to shoot innocent animals?
  - 1-more 6y ago
    Eh, a hunter spends hours or days to kill one animal reasonably quickly. A farm slaughters thousands of animals after raising them in absolutely cruel conditions. If I had the goal to make animals suffer fewer creature-hours of pain then faced with the choice to either ban hunting or ban livestock, I'd go with livestock. However if you're vegetarian, vegan, or raise your own livestock then I salute you as having a consistent stance on the issue.
    - pcmaffey 6y ago
      Wolves are not livestock.
      - NewOrderNow 6y ago
        A human can eat any animal. A human can't eat any vegetation. What point are you trying to make exactly?
        pcmaffey 6y ago
        That people don't kill wolves to eat them. So it makes no sense to compare killing wolves for sport to killing livestock.
        6y ago
polytely 6y ago
For a really cool explainer about the human-wolf relationship in North America I highly recommend this video from The Brain Scoop, the YouTube channel of The Field Museum in Chicago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA-QINoEEwQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA-QINoEEwQ As detailed in the video, the endangered species act is built upon the idea that there is a clear line between species, but in the case of grey wolves there are a lot of coyote-wolf hybrids out there, which aren't well studied because the funding is mainly available for 'The grey wolf'. Nature is fuzzy while the law is less so.
alleycat5000 6y ago
Here in Colorado, we have a ballot measure on reintroducing them in the state: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_Reintroduction_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_...
Sunspark 6y ago
This is part of the Trump administration's agenda to remove or dismantle anything they can that the Obama administration implemented or put in place. It is the same with all the other environmental regulations and protections they are removing such as the prohibition on drilling for oil in the arctic wildlife refugee, etc. It's very unfortunate for Americans that this administration's policies are not based on rationalism. Please VOTE on November 3rd. Please make sure you are registered to VOTE.
- floren 6y ago
  The article clearly states that Obama also attempted to de-list the gray wolves. The wildlife biologists and managers out there consider them safely recovered, it is primarily people in distant cities with vague warm fuzzy feelings over pictures of wolves who consider them still somehow critically endangered.
  - anonAndOn 6y ago
    While there may be some packs up in the northern Rockies, when was the last time you saw a wild wolf in Texas? Admittedly I'm no wildlife expert, but I believe there's also a distinction between the northern (doing OK) and southern (non-existent) subspecies.[0] [0]https://www.wolfquest.org/wolfopedia/Wolves/Gray-Wolf-subspecies https://www.wolfquest.org/wolfopedia/Wolves/Gray-Wolf-subspe...
- frockington1 6y ago
  I mailed in my ballot, voting for the first time ever this year! Voted for President Trump! Would encourage everyone else to as well, it's a good feeling to exercise rights that many in the world unfortunately do not have.
  - Grakel 6y ago
    Thanks for voting! Edit: if you downvoted this comment, you're the problem.
    - 6y ago
jsnider3 6y ago
Yet another reason to vote Biden.
yupyup54133 6y ago
Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poorer northern half of the state that they must put up with the re-introduction of wolves. It would be much less of an issue if the wolves were also introduced into the county forests and state parks in the southern half of the state where the wealthy urbanites and suburbanites live. However, the southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population but do not want to actually have to deal with the risks and hardships that come with them.
- undersuit 6y ago
  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?
  - yupyup54133 6y ago
    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 wolf population on the northern half of the state.
    - question000 6y ago
      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!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ip26 6y ago
      Are they actually being human-introduced, or are they migrating south from Canada? It's not exactly shocking that migrating wolves would appear in the northern half first. Google seems to indicate they are simply migrating.
snowwrestler 6y ago
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 absolutely cannot get back when they are gone.
- yupyup54133 6y ago
  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.
  - hprotagonist 6y ago
    I'd be overjoyed, frankly. we have way too many deer in new england.
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    I live in a suburb in southern California and we don't have wolves, but there are mountain lions around here. They're planning on building a wildlife crossing near us so they can get across the 101 freeway to have a larger range. Which I think they should do.
  - deedub 6y ago
    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 a year. You can even get wolf bounties of up to $1,000 per wolf in some areas, $500 in any area! You do have to be a member of the foundation for wildlife management, though. Idaho Department of Fish and Game is partially funding these bounties. So, you have online folks (urbanites and suburbanites you mentioned, I assume) fighting to keep them on the endangered species list. All the while you have state government departments that 100% exist to manage wildlife paying hunters to harvest them. What a contrast.
kbutler 6y ago
Criteria for listing a species as endangered: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf What are the criteria for deciding whether to add a species to the list? A `species is added to the list when it is determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any of the following factors: * the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; * overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; * disease or predation; * the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; * other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival. Sounds like gray wolves no longer meet the criteria. In particular, states that lack sufficient current wolf populations can protect them within the state (California and the northeast come to mind). Personal bias: I'm glad they are part of the ecosystem. I'd like to see one sometime, but probably more comfortable while I'm in a car rather than a tent/hiking, though I understand they are still pretty wary of humans. I do miss seeing the Yellowstone elk herds that have become much more timid since the reintroduction.
linguistbreaker 6y ago
I've never understood why ranchers get so much clout in the US.
- snarf21 6y ago
  Mostly because we have 325 million people to feed on a daily basis. Not arguing right/wrong.
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    I think it has more to do with people believing disinformation campaigns stemming from ideologically motivated activism. Much like antivaxxers.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Because they make food. They are the first part of the supply chain; a chain that is a massive industry.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Sure, and teachers nourish the foundations of our next generation. And construction workers, aren't they literally the backbone of infrastructure? The farmhands in the fields, the masses of immigrants, aren't they also part of the foundations of food? Do these groups have lots of clout? What explains the variation in clout?
    - spiderfarmer 6y ago
      It think it's mostly because of disinformation campaigns rooted in ideologically motivated activism. Someone felt morally superior, convinced other people that they can be morally superior too and then it spread from there.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        I don’t really understand your context. Could you explain further?
arminiusreturns 6y ago
Copying from an old comment of mine: "As someone who grew up in a wolf reintro zone I have a few comments and opinions to help others have more productive conversations. First, not all wolf reintro's are the same. Each ecosystem is different and the scientific justifications need to be done for each, and the papers for one do not necessarily apply to the other. The Yellowstone program may have been a success, but other places are not Yellowstone, and it is a mistake to use it as a way to handwave away criticisms. Also, sometimes the justifications are pretty weak, and could easily be made up with by increase in hunting tags or adjustment of hunting time windows and area restrictions. Second, there are jurisdictional and public control issues at the heart of the matter. There are people who actually have to live in these areas and they are major changes. I strongly dislike the attitude of some that locals should have no say. The people in our area voted against the reintro program and it was done anyway, with the governor saying "I don't care what the people want, the reintro program is happening". That is a problem. I have also seen the effects of fresh Forest Department/BLM phd types ignore the locals wisdom and advice and pay the price for it, and the same "We know better than you back country bumpkin" condescension tends to be at play in the reintro programs. These things have real consequences. For example, as a kid my grampa who was a logger in the area in the 70's and many other loggers were saying the Forest Service needed to let the loggers thin the forests out and to do more control burns. I being young thought the old loggers were just old-fashioned and the PhD's knew what they were doing, until reality happened. The holier than though attitude of the credentialed people prevailed, then the pine beetle infestation hit, and within a decade we had two ~500,000 acre forest fires that the forests are still recovering from. Third, there are often claims that wolves never attack humans, and those claims are blatantly false or are using very carefully selected statistics (North America only, etc) to craft a narrative. Beyond that, it vastly changes the safety profile of being in the forests, in a way that discourages people from experiencing it. Many locals from my area have posited that this is an intentional side-effect. Even more so when the rumors of a grizzly reintro program started floating around (I don't know if these are just rumors, but who can blame the locals for being afraid of an unelected unaccountable bureaucracy who already ignores them from doing something else against their wishes). We used to be able to only have to worry about bears or mountain lions, who both have pretty easily avoided confrontational profiles, but now locals don't go anywhere without being armed. Fourth, the dismissal of the cattle ranchers is far overrated. Cattle ranching, especially in this day in age, is a science in itself, and in the forest is a vital part of forest maintenance. Silviopasture/agroforestry is also often studied by the kids of the old ranchers who then come back and apply that knowledge. Thoughts of the ranchers as dumb hicks is a foolish and insulting stereotype. Not only that, but often the forest service and BLM are underfunded and undermanned, and many of the ranchers who are paying public land leases do a good job assisting in maintaining the forest, and unlike the new kid who just got shipped in from across the country after getting a degree, they live there and have passed down local knowledge for decades if not longer. I know it's easy to see something like a wolf reintro program and assume it's a great thing and just jump on the bandwagon, but maybe a perspective from someone who grew up in one and have heard out the locals on the issues might help color your view on the topic a bit. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of locals that around the campfire say "It's all about the three S's... shoot, shovel, and shhhhh"."
WhompingWindows 6y ago
From NPR: "After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery," said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt And who is this Secretary judging biological metrics? A former coal and oil industry lobbyist and lawyer, no biological training. He was on the board at CESAR, which is a purportedly "scientific" organization that takes huge donations from fossil fuel and conservative interests. CESAR is known to have funded climate denialism, and they seem to be intent on filing lawsuits against environmental causes. Why is it that conservatives are so motivated to not conserve the nature they see around them?
- mbostleman 6y ago
  That's a pretty ad hominum argument. Do you have anything to offer regarding the facts? If you think the gray wolf has not exceeded all conservation goals for recovery, what are the reasons?
- will4274 6y ago
  FTA > In 2013, the Obama administration also proposed to delist gray wolves, saying that the species had rebounded to the point where they were no longer at risk of extinction and should be managed by state and tribal governments Do you have an attack to make against Obama's interior secretary too?
troutbum 6y ago
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.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  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 hunters and trappers have been historically portrayed in the media but I think we're at a turning point. For any readers that are interested in learning more about how hunting and trapping as a crucial component of conservation. Do read up on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.[2[ PS: Idaho is beautiful! [1] https://www.livingwithwolves.org/2020/03/03/wolf-hunting-rules-changed/ https://www.livingwithwolves.org/2020/03/03/wolf-hunting-rul... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildli...
  - troutbum 6y ago
    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-game-2019-2020-v2.pdf https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-big...
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  If Idaho can already do this now, how does that mesh with the argument for reducing federal protection of wolves? Seems like current regulations are not preventing Idaho from managing their population.
heelix 6y ago
Getting close to Deer season. I hunt in northern Minnesota, and have really seen the wolf population take off. Watched a big one walk under my stand a couple years back. The coyote population is gone and you can hear the howls all around you as they feed on the gut piles. Nice to see them make a come back. Seen them up in the BWCA area too - they are making a come back.

109 points by tima101 6y ago

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.

shadowgovt 6y ago
That would be wealth redistribution, which a critical mass of Americans are pathologically opposed to.
- mtgx 6y ago
  In that case, I guess these people have nothing against the government taking away all of their farm subsidies, too. Better safe than "socialist".
- neaden 6y ago
  The federal government gives farmers a lot of different subsidies already. If we can pay someone to not grow corn, we can pay them for a cow that got killed by a wolf.
  - smabie 6y ago
    Things like that have bad incentive structures and will be gamed
    - aejnsn 6y ago
      You have to understand farmers and farming. Do you think a true farmer is more dedicated to completing government paperwork or more dedicated to raising another head of livestock? For the gamers/hackers, this is why we fund judges, prosecutors, investigators, and the rest of the court system. You cannot make the case that 5% of those with bad intentions ruin it for the 95% of those with good intentions. Not saying the policy will ever be correct, but this is why you introduce thresholds, limitations, and requirements. For instance, using donkeys in the pasture to combat predators should be required. Promote smart farming, not just a pocketbook.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        I've never heard of co-pasturing donkeys to combat predators before. How does that work? That's neat.
        aejnsn 6y ago
        My grandparents did some (mostly subsistence) livestock farming when I was a tiny kid. Donkeys are extremely territorial, and snap into this fit of pissed off rage when an intruder threatens their territory or what they identify as 'their' herd. Usually a well-acclimated herd will understand the donkey as their protector. If being ran down by this raging anger-beast doesn't spook a predator enough, a donkey will stomp it bad enough to bring new meaning to the phrase 'ass-kicking'. I've never seen a pasture-mated donkey scared by much of anything other than loud noise, they're brave and loyal to a fault. Great Pyrenees dogs are amazing defenders as well. I've seen those put the brakes on some prowling coyotes and put a chase on them so hard that they defy physics to get over a fence. Exceptionally friendly to humans, and other dogs, outside their pastures. One of the good boys used to visit for pets and treats. :)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- pkulak 6y ago
  Everyone is fine when it's distributed to them; half the population will not tolerate it distributed elsewhere. Which means that the only kind of redistribution that's politically feasible is the kind that ends at about half the population. So this plan to pay farmers would likely have broad support.
- dboreham 6y ago
  > which a critical mass of Americans are pathologically opposed to Presumably this is a joke?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    it is not. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/february_2013/61_think_state_governments_should_give_out_jobs_not_welfare https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/job...
    - willturman 6y ago
      I'd take this with a massive grain of salt. Rasmussen has the highest right leaning bias of any major pollster accounted for in Five Thirty Eight's pollster ratings: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Beyond their biased election polls the site seems tailor made to provide links presenting cheap talking points as majority percentages. I won't bother linking anything else on their website.
    - StillBored 6y ago
      That link isn't directly about wealth distribution, more about how its distributed. And given my own biases, I'm not surprised about the results. The Works Progress Administration built a lot of infrastructure we still depend on today with unemployed people. Until we get to the point where all our roads, bridges, airports, etc are looking as good as the ones you find in other parts of the world, underpaying healthy people to run asphalt machines for 20 hours a week (or whatever), or provide childcare, gives us a return on the basic societal need to keep people from starving.
    - dboreham 6y ago
      Obviously nuts. Almost all Americans are beneficiaries of some sort of wealth distribution. Heck wealth distribution is at the core of western civilization. Pretending that a majority is against it is surely delusional.
- StillBored 6y ago
  And weirdly enough, frequently ones that receive the largest proportion of it are the ones most against it. Both at the federal level, where generally the money is redistributed from the coasts to the "heartland", to at the local level where the cities heavily support the rural schools, roads, and general infrastructure. Even semi-private industries like telcom services are heavily funded through things like the universal service fund. In areas where there is less support, like healthcare, you see rural hospitals struggling to stay open and maintain staff. And this continues get worse, as noticed by the recent "trade war" where a large proportion of the returns from the increased tariffs were just given to farmers, while the main goal of increased domestic manufacturing were further collapsing.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Let's assume that everything has a price, including one's adherance to a political philosophy. Then isn't is obvious that people with a political philosophy of limited government would demand a higher payout to abandon the idea of limited government? And that people who favor government involvement would go along with government involvement even if they end up footing the bill?
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    >And weirdly enough, frequently ones that receive the largest proportion of it are the ones most against it Why is it weird for someone to resent regulatory conditions that necessitate dependence on a handout?
- jolux 6y ago
  This is actually not true, most Americans support higher taxes on corporations and people with high incomes, and a more even wealth distribution: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Except they're not really there's all sorts of subsidies in the US economy propping up various industries; oil, farms, manufacturing, etc. It's the specific phrase and label of wealth redistribution/socialism that the US is allergic to the policies are generally individually pretty popular if they're broad based.
adamnemecek 6y ago
They would probably start killing their stock themselves.
- imeron 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  Every killed sheep in The Netherlands is tested for wolf marks and DNA.
gbrown 6y ago
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 inability to run an environmentally compatible business
- MikeKusold 6y ago
  Because the alternative is to say that ranchers need to protect their livestock from wildlife, and then wolves end up back on the ESL.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, my understanding is that there is no covenant on that land which protects the wolves, so the farmers have some right to shoot them. The states technically own all wildlife within their respective borders, but they’re reluctant to exercise that right against a large and influential lobby. It may also be that harm caused by a re-introduced species is a taking.
- monkeybutton 6y ago
  If it's such a rare occurrence, is there an opportunity for insurance companies to provide solutions instead of the government?
  - allannienhuis 6y ago
    I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
grumple 6y ago
Wolves do relatively little predation of livestock. https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-Wolf-Livestock-6.Mar_.19Final.pdf https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-... I’ve also seen it said that wolf populations do two positive things for livestock: keep grazing wildlife to manageable levels (so that fields are replenished for livestock) and outcompete coyotes, who are more likely to prey on livestock than wolves.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  What effect do wolves have on wild hog population?
  - corty 6y ago
    In Germany, none. Domesticated animals are easier prey (fenced in, not used to predators), and hogs are breeding like a plague, it would take unacceptable amounts of wolves to make a noticable dent.
dboreham 6y ago
> why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed Ah ha. A HN thread close to home (I live within earshot of wolves in Montana). So...we do [1], [2]. Ranchers (generalizing, of course) just don't like wolves. It's a really deep cultural thing. So if you as president want to take some step that will cause a bunch of folks in ranching areas to high five, you'd delist wolves. That they may not in fact be impacted by wolf activity is moot. [1] https://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-makes-record-payments-for-livestock-killed-by-wolves/article_df2275cc-2a91-5831-b79e-84373526e0f9.html https://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-makes... [2] http://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Board http://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Boar...
- perbu 6y ago
  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.
  - Filligree 6y ago
    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 lives to avoid. 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. Though that's only a decent solution if you don't have problems with megafauna like elk.
    - peterwwillis 6y ago
      "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.
jmpman 6y ago
I agree. Reintroduce them to Times Square. Until then, why should rural residents have to fear for their children’s and pet’s safety?
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Do you understand that there is nothing in Times Square that is anything like natural wolf habitat?
  - jmpman 6y ago
    I’m sure a coyote can survive in Times Square. Make it illegal to shoot a wolf, and they’ll do fine in Times Square too.
    - spiderfarmer 6y ago
      The people downvoting you are hypocrites.
nkurz 6y ago
> I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? I think the answer is that while there is not currently a federal program, many states already do pay ranchers for animals killed by wolves. Searching for "wolf depredation reimbursement" pulls up many details. Here's a High Country News article on the topic: https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.12/wolves-when-cattle-go-missing-in-wolf-territory-who-should-pay-the-price https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.12/wolves-when-cattle-go-missi....
brainzap 6y ago
it more fun to hunt them with helicopter and night vision gear, than to pay for the losses.
pvaldes 6y ago
> why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed This path has been explored in Europe and is a mistake. 1) Killing a few wolves increases, not decreases damages (by altering the social structure of the pack). More paradoxical, killing all wolves in an area increases the attacks to small cattle in that area (even if there is not a single alive wolf anymore). Because wolf attacks are a very special case. There is not a single wolf in UK. Despite that, they still suffer 40.000 attacks to small cattle each year. By abandoned pet dogs, the same species as gray wolf. When government starts paying wolf attacks, suddenly, each stray dog attack (non paid) will be automatically assigned to wolves (paid) and will appear in the newspapers. This creates 'ghost wolves' and panic in the population, and increases the pressure against the environment (that is exactly the opposite that you are paying for). 2) Is an incentive for local corruption. People learn that if they cry wolf receive free money. They became insatiable and will try to game the system again and again. We had documented cases of the same cow "dying" two times, four times in four different places in Europe. By wolves that for some reason always start "eating the cattle tags". We had documented cases of cows dying by a natural accident and being blamed to scavenger wolves visiting the area four days later. 3) Is bad for the real farmers. Losing a cow is not a problem, destroying the cow market with a flood of easy money is. Meat prices are disbalanced by outsiders that release old or diseased cattle in a ranch to die at zero cost and then bill the state for wolf damages. At the end the real farmers figure out that letting the cows die is more efficient than producing meat. Or their activity is destroyed by the spread of new cattle diseases, and are replaced by fake farmers living in a big city. 4) It quickly turns into a sort of acquired right also. People gets upset if you try to stop it (and poison appears).
- pvaldes 6y ago
  One of the most bizarre cases that I remember is a family trying to bill a wolf attack to the government showing the rests of a barbecue as a proof of the attack. Apparently the (very smart) wolves managed somehow to shoot the cow in the head with a firearm before to cook it. And this is a real history.
corty 6y ago
Simply paying for cattle that wolves have eaten isn't enough. Wolves induce panic in herds, causing them to go over cliffs or trample down fences and cross busy roads, causing accidents. In Germany this isn't currently paid for by the state, because the law doesn't say so, the causality is hard to prove (basically you need a piece of flesh with a wolve's dental pattern) and the farmer is often first in line and goes bancrupt, because damage to the vehicles was done by his sheep/cows/whatever, not the wolves directly. Also, grazing cattle outside is desirable for better land use (usually grassland isn't good for much else) and keeping the current state of ecosystems (without grazing, bushes and trees will take over). Also, regions where cattle is grazed are typically also tourist hotspots, but cattle frequently scared by wolves is much more aggresive towards hikers. So basically, wolves screw over a lot more than just the few cows they eat...
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  In The Netherlands people who "love" wolves say farmers should put up 3m high fences around their fields. Other people are telling farmers to get rid of all sorts of fences and just use ditches and hetches, because they like to see that on their Sunday stroll. The amount of criticism and conflicting opinions that farmers face is unbelievable.
- jhayward 6y ago
  > Also, grazing cattle outside is desirable for better land use (usually grassland isn't good for much else) and keeping the current state of ecosystems (without grazing, bushes and trees will take over) This is complete nonsense. Cattle grazing has been devastating North American habitat for a couple of centuries, and current BLM practices just continue the same abuse. The Texas Hill country is badly damaged from overgrazing, this had led to loss of topsoil, massive loss of groundwater, and completely altered habitat for native species.
  - corty 6y ago
    well, yes, Germany used to be all forrests, around 1BCE. Since then, people changed all kinds of habitats, often in a very radical way (burning and razing down the forest, lots of towns ending in -roth because of that). Nowadays, conservation aims mostly for the status quo, not for 1BCE. It might be different in North America, it might not. I'm not really convinced that there should be much of a difference just because it happened over the last few centuries instead of millenia ago. Just preserve some small parts of the previous ecosystem, ignore the rest. The whole planet has been terraformed already anyways, undoing human presence is pointless to try...
kylebarron 6y ago
Reintroducing gray wolves to Colorado is a statewide referendum on the ballot this week [0]. Part of the ballot language requires paying ranchers for livestock killed: "...requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves". [0]: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_Reintroduction_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_...
devwastaken 6y ago
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.
rmah 6y ago
First, I think ranchers are paid. The US has around 18,000 wild wolves. And another 60,000 wolves in Canada. In comparison, all of Scandinavia has maybe 400 or so. IOW, US+Canada has 200x the wolf population in 17x the land area (human population density is roughly the same). While apx 80,000 wolves does not seem enough to be considered "thriving" IMO, they're in no danger of extinction anymore. So while some care should be taken to maintain populations, it seems reasonable to take them off the endangered list. There are also 10's of thousand mountain lions, 10's of thousand bears, and millions of alligators in the USA. The USA/Canada is not exactly lacking in dangerous apex predators.

Grakel 6y ago

Hope they continue to do well, and are added to a limited hunting season in my state, creating a balanced population and a new game animal.

ainiriand 6y ago
Why your first reaction to the recovery of this species (that your own hunter breed almost completely erased), is to think about them as moving targets? Can't you find something more productive to do than to shoot innocent animals?
- 1-more 6y ago
  Eh, a hunter spends hours or days to kill one animal reasonably quickly. A farm slaughters thousands of animals after raising them in absolutely cruel conditions. If I had the goal to make animals suffer fewer creature-hours of pain then faced with the choice to either ban hunting or ban livestock, I'd go with livestock. However if you're vegetarian, vegan, or raise your own livestock then I salute you as having a consistent stance on the issue.
  - pcmaffey 6y ago
    Wolves are not livestock.
    - NewOrderNow 6y ago
      A human can eat any animal. A human can't eat any vegetation. What point are you trying to make exactly?
      - pcmaffey 6y ago
        That people don't kill wolves to eat them. So it makes no sense to compare killing wolves for sport to killing livestock.
        6y ago

polytely 6y ago

For a really cool explainer about the human-wolf relationship in North America I highly recommend this video from The Brain Scoop, the YouTube channel of The Field Museum in Chicago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA-QINoEEwQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA-QINoEEwQ As detailed in the video, the endangered species act is built upon the idea that there is a clear line between species, but in the case of grey wolves there are a lot of coyote-wolf hybrids out there, which aren't well studied because the funding is mainly available for 'The grey wolf'. Nature is fuzzy while the law is less so.

alleycat5000 6y ago

Here in Colorado, we have a ballot measure on reintroducing them in the state: https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_Reintroduction_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_114,_Gray_Wolf_...

Sunspark 6y ago

This is part of the Trump administration's agenda to remove or dismantle anything they can that the Obama administration implemented or put in place. It is the same with all the other environmental regulations and protections they are removing such as the prohibition on drilling for oil in the arctic wildlife refugee, etc. It's very unfortunate for Americans that this administration's policies are not based on rationalism. Please VOTE on November 3rd. Please make sure you are registered to VOTE.

floren 6y ago
The article clearly states that Obama also attempted to de-list the gray wolves. The wildlife biologists and managers out there consider them safely recovered, it is primarily people in distant cities with vague warm fuzzy feelings over pictures of wolves who consider them still somehow critically endangered.
- anonAndOn 6y ago
  While there may be some packs up in the northern Rockies, when was the last time you saw a wild wolf in Texas? Admittedly I'm no wildlife expert, but I believe there's also a distinction between the northern (doing OK) and southern (non-existent) subspecies.[0] [0]https://www.wolfquest.org/wolfopedia/Wolves/Gray-Wolf-subspecies https://www.wolfquest.org/wolfopedia/Wolves/Gray-Wolf-subspe...
frockington1 6y ago
I mailed in my ballot, voting for the first time ever this year! Voted for President Trump! Would encourage everyone else to as well, it's a good feeling to exercise rights that many in the world unfortunately do not have.
- Grakel 6y ago
  Thanks for voting! Edit: if you downvoted this comment, you're the problem.
  - 6y ago

jsnider3 6y ago

Yet another reason to vote Biden.

yupyup54133 6y ago

Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poorer northern half of the state that they must put up with the re-introduction of wolves. It would be much less of an issue if the wolves were also introduced into the county forests and state parks in the southern half of the state where the wealthy urbanites and suburbanites live. However, the southern Wisconsinites like the idea of having a wolf population but do not want to actually have to deal with the risks and hardships that come with them.

undersuit 6y ago
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?
- yupyup54133 6y ago
  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 wolf population on the northern half of the state.
  - question000 6y ago
    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!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ip26 6y ago
    Are they actually being human-introduced, or are they migrating south from Canada? It's not exactly shocking that migrating wolves would appear in the northern half first. Google seems to indicate they are simply migrating.

snowwrestler 6y ago

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 absolutely cannot get back when they are gone.

yupyup54133 6y ago
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.
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  I'd be overjoyed, frankly. we have way too many deer in new england.
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  I live in a suburb in southern California and we don't have wolves, but there are mountain lions around here. They're planning on building a wildlife crossing near us so they can get across the 101 freeway to have a larger range. Which I think they should do.
- deedub 6y ago
  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 a year. You can even get wolf bounties of up to $1,000 per wolf in some areas, $500 in any area! You do have to be a member of the foundation for wildlife management, though. Idaho Department of Fish and Game is partially funding these bounties. So, you have online folks (urbanites and suburbanites you mentioned, I assume) fighting to keep them on the endangered species list. All the while you have state government departments that 100% exist to manage wildlife paying hunters to harvest them. What a contrast.

kbutler 6y ago

Criteria for listing a species as endangered: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf What are the criteria for deciding whether to add a species to the list? A `species is added to the list when it is determined to be an endangered or threatened species because of any of the following factors: * the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; * overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; * disease or predation; * the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; * other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival. Sounds like gray wolves no longer meet the criteria. In particular, states that lack sufficient current wolf populations can protect them within the state (California and the northeast come to mind). Personal bias: I'm glad they are part of the ecosystem. I'd like to see one sometime, but probably more comfortable while I'm in a car rather than a tent/hiking, though I understand they are still pretty wary of humans. I do miss seeing the Yellowstone elk herds that have become much more timid since the reintroduction.

linguistbreaker 6y ago

I've never understood why ranchers get so much clout in the US.

snarf21 6y ago
Mostly because we have 325 million people to feed on a daily basis. Not arguing right/wrong.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  I think it has more to do with people believing disinformation campaigns stemming from ideologically motivated activism. Much like antivaxxers.
nemo44x 6y ago
Because they make food. They are the first part of the supply chain; a chain that is a massive industry.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Sure, and teachers nourish the foundations of our next generation. And construction workers, aren't they literally the backbone of infrastructure? The farmhands in the fields, the masses of immigrants, aren't they also part of the foundations of food? Do these groups have lots of clout? What explains the variation in clout?
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    It think it's mostly because of disinformation campaigns rooted in ideologically motivated activism. Someone felt morally superior, convinced other people that they can be morally superior too and then it spread from there.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      I don’t really understand your context. Could you explain further?

arminiusreturns 6y ago

Copying from an old comment of mine: "As someone who grew up in a wolf reintro zone I have a few comments and opinions to help others have more productive conversations. First, not all wolf reintro's are the same. Each ecosystem is different and the scientific justifications need to be done for each, and the papers for one do not necessarily apply to the other. The Yellowstone program may have been a success, but other places are not Yellowstone, and it is a mistake to use it as a way to handwave away criticisms. Also, sometimes the justifications are pretty weak, and could easily be made up with by increase in hunting tags or adjustment of hunting time windows and area restrictions. Second, there are jurisdictional and public control issues at the heart of the matter. There are people who actually have to live in these areas and they are major changes. I strongly dislike the attitude of some that locals should have no say. The people in our area voted against the reintro program and it was done anyway, with the governor saying "I don't care what the people want, the reintro program is happening". That is a problem. I have also seen the effects of fresh Forest Department/BLM phd types ignore the locals wisdom and advice and pay the price for it, and the same "We know better than you back country bumpkin" condescension tends to be at play in the reintro programs. These things have real consequences. For example, as a kid my grampa who was a logger in the area in the 70's and many other loggers were saying the Forest Service needed to let the loggers thin the forests out and to do more control burns. I being young thought the old loggers were just old-fashioned and the PhD's knew what they were doing, until reality happened. The holier than though attitude of the credentialed people prevailed, then the pine beetle infestation hit, and within a decade we had two ~500,000 acre forest fires that the forests are still recovering from. Third, there are often claims that wolves never attack humans, and those claims are blatantly false or are using very carefully selected statistics (North America only, etc) to craft a narrative. Beyond that, it vastly changes the safety profile of being in the forests, in a way that discourages people from experiencing it. Many locals from my area have posited that this is an intentional side-effect. Even more so when the rumors of a grizzly reintro program started floating around (I don't know if these are just rumors, but who can blame the locals for being afraid of an unelected unaccountable bureaucracy who already ignores them from doing something else against their wishes). We used to be able to only have to worry about bears or mountain lions, who both have pretty easily avoided confrontational profiles, but now locals don't go anywhere without being armed. Fourth, the dismissal of the cattle ranchers is far overrated. Cattle ranching, especially in this day in age, is a science in itself, and in the forest is a vital part of forest maintenance. Silviopasture/agroforestry is also often studied by the kids of the old ranchers who then come back and apply that knowledge. Thoughts of the ranchers as dumb hicks is a foolish and insulting stereotype. Not only that, but often the forest service and BLM are underfunded and undermanned, and many of the ranchers who are paying public land leases do a good job assisting in maintaining the forest, and unlike the new kid who just got shipped in from across the country after getting a degree, they live there and have passed down local knowledge for decades if not longer. I know it's easy to see something like a wolf reintro program and assume it's a great thing and just jump on the bandwagon, but maybe a perspective from someone who grew up in one and have heard out the locals on the issues might help color your view on the topic a bit. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of locals that around the campfire say "It's all about the three S's... shoot, shovel, and shhhhh"."

WhompingWindows 6y ago

From NPR: "After more than 45 years as a listed species, the gray wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery," said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt And who is this Secretary judging biological metrics? A former coal and oil industry lobbyist and lawyer, no biological training. He was on the board at CESAR, which is a purportedly "scientific" organization that takes huge donations from fossil fuel and conservative interests. CESAR is known to have funded climate denialism, and they seem to be intent on filing lawsuits against environmental causes. Why is it that conservatives are so motivated to not conserve the nature they see around them?

mbostleman 6y ago
That's a pretty ad hominum argument. Do you have anything to offer regarding the facts? If you think the gray wolf has not exceeded all conservation goals for recovery, what are the reasons?
will4274 6y ago
FTA > In 2013, the Obama administration also proposed to delist gray wolves, saying that the species had rebounded to the point where they were no longer at risk of extinction and should be managed by state and tribal governments Do you have an attack to make against Obama's interior secretary too?

troutbum 6y ago

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.

bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
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 hunters and trappers have been historically portrayed in the media but I think we're at a turning point. For any readers that are interested in learning more about how hunting and trapping as a crucial component of conservation. Do read up on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.[2[ PS: Idaho is beautiful! [1] https://www.livingwithwolves.org/2020/03/03/wolf-hunting-rules-changed/ https://www.livingwithwolves.org/2020/03/03/wolf-hunting-rul... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildlife_Conservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Model_of_Wildli...
- troutbum 6y ago
  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-game-2019-2020-v2.pdf https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-big...
snowwrestler 6y ago
If Idaho can already do this now, how does that mesh with the argument for reducing federal protection of wolves? Seems like current regulations are not preventing Idaho from managing their population.

heelix 6y ago

Getting close to Deer season. I hunt in northern Minnesota, and have really seen the wolf population take off. Watched a big one walk under my stand a couple years back. The coyote population is gone and you can hear the howls all around you as they feed on the gut piles. Nice to see them make a come back. Seen them up in the BWCA area too - they are making a come back.