Wolves in Idaho

I agree with Clayton’s sentiment here about wolves.  He quotes from a reader:

Currently Federal Rule 10-J allows commercially licensed OUTFITTERS only to shoot wolves that attacking their horses, we non-outfitter licensed horsemen must simply sit and watch the wolves eat our horses.

On Thursday, July 19th at 6pm at the Boise Center on the Grove the US Fish & Wildlife Service will hold an open house on a proposed rule change to allow us peasants to defend our horses if they are attacked. The open house will be 6pm to 7pm and a public hearing from 7pm to 9pm will follow.

Then states:

I am generally prepared to let wolves be wolves, but if the choice is shooting a wolf, or letting it destroy a domesticated animal in the presence of a human being–I’m hard pressed to see why the wolf should have a higher priority than a horse or a dog.

This seems sensible to me.  Horses and other pets are like family members to those that own them.  I can tell you that were I out in the wilderness, and a pack of wolves threatened my pet, the feds can shove rule 10-J where the sun don’t shine; we will be practicing the three S’s (normally Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up, but in this case Shoot, Scoot, and Shut-up).

I’m generally in favor of the reintroduction of wolves into wilderness areas, but when they have encounters with people, the people ought to be allowed to win.  There’s a difference between actively going out and hunting down wolves and killing them, and defending yourself, your family, property and livelihood.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Club Magazine Limitations
  2. The .223 of Beer
  3. Banning Dog Training in Indiana

5 thoughts on “Wolves in Idaho”

  2. No point in reintroducing them into an artificially safe environment free from human predation either, that wouldn’t be natural! :-)

  3. Wolves are a sneaky, cowardly, weak impersonation of a dog. I have never understood the mystique surrounding them. They are extremely cowardly and weak. My cryin’ Christ they have to hunt rabbits in a pack. They can be useful in winnowing the game herds of unfit animals, thus keeping that particular gene pool stronger, but note, they are only worthy of eliminating the weak, halt, lame and unfit.

    I have no particular heartburn with wolves, but if one presents a threat to anydamnthingatall I care about, I will kill him. There is very little in this world I value less that a damn cowardly would-be dog if only it had better genes.

  4. Largely agreed–there really isn’t any reason that managing their populations should require wiping them all out, nor should it require that every wolf live an unfettered life or get to eat your poodle in your backyard.

    I used to think SA was a serious person, but I’m pretty sure that he’s a troll at this point–nobody really posts stuff that fucking stupid. The above post sounds like Kelli at the Brady Bunch saying we’re all nuts and evil bastards.

    Better genes? Too bad wolves and domestic dogs have essentially the same genes, knucklehead. DNA evidence shows that dogs and wolves are essentially interchangeable genetically–after all, domestic dogs and wolves can be interbred. The commonality of their genes is extremely close.

    But don’t let not knowing what the fuck you’re talking about stop you from foaming at the mouth, sweetcheeks.

    “The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence. In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

    In point of fact scientists find distinguishing dog and wolf DNA quite difficult. I’m almost positive SA is a troll–why else would he serve up such an easy pitch to knock out of the park?

    http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

Comments are closed.