Poll of the Day > Idaho passes laws to kill 90% of state's wolves

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw this on another board and am sad about it
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999084965/new-idaho-law-calls-for-killing-90-of-states-wolves

90%! When the state's population is less than 1,500 to begin with! And when they've only killed an estimated I think less than couple hundred cattle I believe of a population of like million and a half! (of cattle)

---

The article states that they're allowed night-vision goggle hunting and helicopter hunting of wolves.

They have NO F'ing chance.

---

Dude wtf, there is no situation which would justify the culling of 90% of the wolf population.

Did you know that wolves prevent soil erosion? It's true.

..it's a factor of deeping grazing deer/moose population down which when lacking food will eat river roots which keep the soil intact

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Dude wtf, there is no situation which would justify the culling of 90% of the wolf population.

What about a really big furcon

---

Hope they enjoy a huge wave of deer popping up all over their state and causing havoc in a couple years

---

SaltyAndSweet posted...

Hope they enjoy a huge wave of deer popping up all over their state and causing havoc in a couple years

Yah I spent some time adjusting single-vehicle claims for an insurance company called COUNTRY Financial and like 45% of our single-vehicle claims were deer-hits or something like that (and probably 30% hail at least during winter, rest Misc.)

---

Yea, I used to be an insurance adjuster for single-vehicle claims and something like at least 40% of our single-vehicle claims were deer-hits and I think Idaho had the most (+ driving through the state I saw a crazy amount of Deer Crossing signs)

(sorry for the repost, I changed my mind about naming the company I worked at)

---

*Posts image of wolves mating.*

---

I really hate that sensationalist, often outright false, headline posting is the norm for reporting on virtually all subjects.

Read the actual senate bill (Bill 1211), it's only 10 pages long, it won't take much time.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

What about a really big furcon

Those would be people.

Reigning_King posted...

I really hate that sensationalist, often outright false, headline posting is the norm for reporting on virtually all subjects.

Read the actual senate bill (Bill 1211), it's only 10 pages long, it won't take much time.

I read both the NPR article and this Nat Geo article
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/idaho-bill-90-percent-of-wolves-to-be-killed

If there's anything missing why not explain what that might be? I have hundreds of bookmarks and videos saved, so why do I need to read 10 pages of legislative text? NPR and National Geographic are professional and reputable news organizations.

Ok I reviewed the Bill here.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/S1211.pdf

I take it the issue is that there's no actual "90%" figure presented, making the headlines seem sensationalist to you?

You're right, but that isthe PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCSE of the Bill, because once it dips BELOW 150 wolves Federal Management kicks in, the Bill is actually technically WORSE because it really actually allows hunters and ranchers to kill ALL the wolves; the only reason that wouldn't actually be allowed is because of course Federal law supersedes State law.

I hate these small-d---ed hunters and ranchers. I have no problem hunting for food or hunting invasive species or population control, but trophy hunters, and punishing wolves for less than a couple hundred cattle killed out of millions, man F' all those guys. I hope Biden can somehow intervene...

---

MondoMan180 posted...

NPR and National Geographic are professional and reputable news organizations.

They are clearly biased on this subject (and many others), as you seem to be yourself. The NPR article you linked literally has the very first words as "Conservative Lawmakers" purely to stir up the base that they know uses their site. And before you try to get on me, I'm apolitical since I think both sides are full of morons.

MondoMan180 posted...

I take it the issue is that there's no actual "90%" figure presented, making the headlines seem sensationalist to you?

You're right, but that isthe PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCSE of the Bill, because once it dips BELOW 150 wolves Federal Management kicks in, the Bill is actually technically WORSE because it really actually allows hunters and ranchers to kill ALL the wolves; the only reason that wouldn't actually be allowed is because of course Federal law supersedes State law.

I hate these small-d---ed hunters and ranchers. I have no problem hunting for food or hunting invasive species or population control, but trophy hunters, and punishing wolves for less than a couple hundred cattle killed out of millions, man F' all those guys. I hope Biden can somehow intervene...

The 90% is extrapolated from the current wolf population compared to the minimum number considered acceptable, it's click baity for sure but technically not incorrect. What I'm taking issue with is the phasing that you and the article uses as if the hunting of these wolves is being mandated or is a goal the state wants the reach. The minimum number is just that, the minimum, and considering the restricting on hunting wolves were mostly eased for cases where there is a clear indication the wolf is harassing or trying to kill livestock and not the ones out minding their own business far away from people, the likelihood that 90% of the population will be culled is ridiculous. You also seemed to have missed the fact that any wolf killed in this way is the property of the state, no trophy hunters would waste their time stalking a wolf (which are relatively rare compared to the vast open spaces they inhabit as predators), waiting for it to attack another animal someone owns before killing it only to turn it over to the state. Sure a hunter might kill one illegally, but if that was the case they would have done so regardless of this legislation and clearly not many bothered with that either if the wolf population is so high currently. That's another thing you and the articles seem to be missing is the idea of perspective, killing up to 90% of an animal's population sounds bad on paper, but considering the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (yes the limit was put in place by Idaho itself, I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a federal limit stopping them from exterminating all of the wolves, as if any sane government would do that in the first place) did their home work years ago and crunched the numbers and successfully brought the wolf population back up so high, too high apparently, how do YOU know the population doesn't need culling? People itt are talking about ecological concerns from too few wolves, but you know there can be too many of them as well right? I won't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I highly doubt any of you getting upset over sensational headlines are either, maybe the people who wrote the laws aren't 100% right either, but considering they know much more about the situation in the area and can make amendments as needed to the law I see no reason to assume the absolute worst case scenario will happen (that worst case scenario STILL being within the bounds of what the wolf population could recover from).

So yeah, that's my issue.

jus mate them with domestic dogs and turn them into huskies

---

Reigning_King posted...

They are clearly biased on this subject (and many others), as you seem to be yourself. The NPR article you linked literally has the very first words as "Conservative Lawmakers" purely to stir up the base that they know uses their site. And before you try to get on me, I'm apolitical since I think both sides are full of morons.

The 90% is extrapolated from the current wolf population compared to the minimum number considered acceptable, it's click baity for sure but technically not incorrect. What I'm taking issue with is the phasing that you and the article uses as if the hunting of these wolves is being mandated or is a goal the state wants the reach. The minimum number is just that, the minimum, and considering the restricting on hunting wolves were mostly eased for cases where there is a clear indication the wolf is harassing or trying to kill livestock and not the ones out minding their own business far away from people, the likelihood that 90% of the population will be culled is ridiculous. You also seemed to have missed the fact that any wolf killed in this way is the property of the state, no trophy hunters would waste their time stalking a wolf (which are relatively rare compared to the vast open spaces they inhabit as predators), waiting for it to attack another animal someone owns before killing it only to turn it over to the state. Sure a hunter might kill one illegally, but if that was the case they would have done so regardless of this legislation and clearly not many bothered with that either if the wolf population is so high currently. That's another thing you and the articles seem to be missing is the idea of perspective, killing up to 90% of an animal's population sounds bad on paper, but considering the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (yes the limit was put in place by Idaho itself, I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a federal limit stopping them from exterminating all of the wolves, as if any sane government would do that in the first place) did their home work years ago and crunched the numbers and successfully brought the wolf population back up so high, too high apparently, how do YOU know the population doesn't need culling? People itt are talking about ecological concerns from too few wolves, but you know there can be too many of them as well right? I won't claim to be an expert on the topic, but I highly doubt any of you getting upset over sensational headlines are either, maybe the people who wrote the laws aren't 100% right either, but considering they know much more about the situation in the area and can make amendments as needed to the law I see no reason to assume the absolute worst case scenario will happen (that worst case scenario STILL being within the bounds of what the wolf population could recover from).

So yeah, that's my issue.

I admit you made some good points but how can 1,500 wolves be "too many?" There are like half a million deer and 150,000 elk in that state. And, as pointed out, only around 100-150 cattle killed from wolves. So, what is the justification for "too many?" The Idaho Fish and Game department itself opposed the bill and it was not consulted (which I learned from reading the Nat Geo article, and could not have learned from reading the bill itself making it in a way a superior font of information to the direct source itself) but the bill was rushed through at the end of session.

Also you wanna talk about bias, how about several of the congressmen/congresswomen being ranchers? Being spooked by wolves who've killed such a small percentage of their cattle population that my calculator can't even render it without resorting to scientific notation. It's not only inhumane but highly irrational/illogical to overreact to such a tiny percentage.

I think I have the ranchers figured out, but I don't know why the hunters have such a hate boner for wolves. I would say it's the competition to game, but again there's so much elk and deer already I don't see what the problem is. Are they scared of the wolves? I can only assume it's the same type of small pecker bloodlust we see from people who trophy hunt lions from helicopters and such.

---

MondoMan180 posted...

I read both the NPR article and this Nat Geo article
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/idaho-bill-90-percent-of-wolves-to-be-killed

If there's anything missing why not explain what that might be? I have hundreds of bookmarks and videos saved, so why do I need to read 10 pages of legislative text? NPR and National Geographic are professional and reputable news organizations.

Ok I reviewed the Bill here.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/S1211.pdf

I take it the issue is that there's no actual "90%" figure presented, making the headlines seem sensationalist to you?

You're right, but that isthe PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCSE of the Bill, because once it dips BELOW 150 wolves Federal Management kicks in, the Bill is actually technically WORSE because it really actually allows hunters and ranchers to kill ALL the wolves; the only reason that wouldn't actually be allowed is because of course Federal law supersedes State law.

I hate these small-d---ed hunters and ranchers. I have no problem hunting for food or hunting invasive species or population control, but trophy hunters, and punishing wolves for less than a couple hundred cattle killed out of millions, man F' all those guys. I hope Biden can somehow intervene...

Biden won't do anything about it. At most he'd be like Obama, who pledged to protect wild mustangs and then did nothing while his own Department of the Interior killed them by the thousands.

ranagrande posted...

Biden won't do anything about it. At most he'd be like Obama, who pledged to protect wild mustangs and then did nothing while his own Department of the Interior killed them by the thousands.

yes. When are y'all gunna learn that the presidency is a largely impotent position.

---

MondoMan180 posted... 90%! When the state's population is less than 1,500 to begin with! And when they've only killed a little over a hundred cattle of a population of millions!

As much as I like wolves, I don't believe that there's some magical number wolves that need to be in the state to ensure that the great spirits will guarantee prosperity.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Dude wtf, there is no situation which would justify the culling of 90% of the wolf population.

So you're arguing that if wolves started killing people, there would be no justification to cull them?

SaltyAndSweet posted...

Hope they enjoy a huge wave of deer popping up all over their state and causing havoc in a couple years

Don't worry, they'll just cull 90% of deer at that point.

Lokarin posted...

Did you know that wolves prevent soil erosion? It's true.

..it's a factor of deeping grazing deer/moose population down which when lacking food will eat river roots which keep the soil intact

Which can be solved by a cull there as well.

---

Zeus posted...

As much as I like wolves, I don't believe that there's some magical number wolves that need to be in the state to ensure that the great spirits will guarantee prosperity.

So you're arguing that if wolves started killing people, there would be no justification to cull them?

Don't worry, they'll just cull 90% of deer at that point.

Which can be solved by a cull there as well.

So your solutions are to just "kill everything" lol.

Even though you are agreeable enough in the way you present yourself and I've seen you post on Creative Writing (I'm also a writer, well too lazy to lately actually) I just really hate Libertarians, they have such ugly spirits, or no spirit at all really...You don't believe in sanctity of life and it would be more convenient for you if we were all just machines, or to kill off people who aren't "producing" adequately because it would be more efficient/less drain....so in movies like Soylent Green, or The Matrix you'd be the antagonist lol. Libertarians have the same mentality as a certain 1930's German party...

---

Zeus posted...

So you're arguing that if wolves started killing people, there would be no justification to cull them?

Then the wolves are just culling the excess human population. They should be supported in their task.

this is literally normal when the population of an animal reaches too high

there's too many wolves in idaho, so many that they're running the population of other animals down in a way that is not sustainable.


---

helIy posted...

this is literally normal when the population of an animal reaches too high

there's too many wolves in idaho, so many that they're running the population of other animals down in a way that is not sustainable.

you made that up, and your posts of food packages suck

Show me evidence of these other animal populations being run down. Where does that come from?

We've already mentioned several times that the wolf population is 1,500, that does not seem like an excessively large number.

I'm open-minded to hearing claims that 1,500 is too big since numbers by themselves I understand don't always tell the whole story, but nobody is giving any actual evidence. Where are these dEcImAtEd ElK pOpUlAtIoNs

---

helIy posted...

there's too many wolves in idaho, so many that they're running the population of other animals down in a way that is not sustainable.

...Wolves are not some invasive species introduced. They've been hunting elk here for thousands of years. You're saying that without the white man's interference the elk would become extinct or something? Not only are you wrong empirically (the elk population is stable and high) but you are wrong logically because your argument doesn't make sense.

---

what the fuck are you talking about

do you even know what wild animal population control is

moreover, this isn't even the first time idaho has done this. the last time was in 2016, 2013 before that, without even mentioning that idaho has always let people trap/hunt wolves in general, there was just a limit to the amount they could bag.

and no, wolves have not been "hunting elk here for thousands of years". they were slowly reintroducing themselves in the mid 1980s. they literally did not have any before that. but they were slow. so in 1995, they captured a bunch from canada and introduced around 30 of them in idaho.

as a matter of fact, here is idahos wolf management plan.

https://idfg.idaho.gov/old-web/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf

from 2002.

---

yeah so that means it's harder for them to live up north

if you don't see a problem with genociding a north american species than I don't want to talk to you

---

Why does TC only care about wolves lives but not cows lives

seems pretty specist tbh

---

Smarkil posted...

Why does TC only care about wolves lives but not cows lives

seems pretty specist tbh

Idaho has 1,500 wolves and 2,500,000 cattle.

MondoMan180 posted...

So your solutions are to just "kill everything" lol.

Animal population management is a thing in probably every country on the planet, and it's far from the first time that it's happened. America would never have developed without animal population management programs

MondoMan180 posted...

I just hate Libertarians, they have such ugly spirits / no spirit at all ...You don't believe in sanctity of life and it would be more convenient for you if we were all just machines, or to kill off people who aren't "producing" adequately because it would be more efficient/less drain....

...you're literally talking to the board's biggest opponent of the death penalty. And while I don't take a strong line against abortion, the idea that I "don't believe in the sanctity of life" when we're on a board where 90% supports abortion and probably close to that many actively want the death penalty in any number of criminal cases, that's a weird fucking claim to level.

And I certainly can't remember ever suggesting killing off people on entitlement programs, I've just suggested making appropriate changes to encourage them to actually work and produce. Reducing or eliminating programs that pay them not to work would do wonders in that regard.

But who the fuck are you anyway?

MondoMan180 posted...

We've already mentioned several times that the wolf population is 1,500, that does not seem like an excessively large number.

...based on what? Your feelings?

---

Me and my wolf brothers will eat all your cows if you try and wipe us out.

---

helIy posted...

this is literally normal when the population of an animal reaches too high
there's too many wolves in idaho, so many that they're running the population of other animals down in a way that is not sustainable.

I live in Idaho. All of you making excuses for this have no idea what you're talking about. This is going to undo decades of delicate, incomplete conservation work just because some assholes want to add a wolf pelt to their collection, and with the way genetics work, they may not be able to reverse the damage a second time.

---

Lokarin posted...

Did you know that wolves prevent soil erosion? It's true.

..it's a factor of deeping grazing deer/moose population down which when lacking food will eat river roots which keep the soil intact

It was proven at the yellow stone national park when they took them out

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

This is going to undo decades of delicate, incomplete conservation work just because some assholes want to add a wolf pelt to their collection

that's...not at all what it's going to do.

and no, no one is adding wolf pelts to their collection. they don't get to keep them. they have to give them over to the state.

not to mention that hunting wolves has been allowed there for decades regardless.


Gaawa_chan posted...

and with the way genetics work, they may not be able to reverse the damage a second time.

a second time? the wolves literally came to idaho themselves, naturally. then they, again,
helIy posted...

in 1995, they captured a bunch from canada and introduced around 30 of them in idaho.

it's not hard at all to reintroduce a wild animal somewhere. it happens all the time.




---

helIy posted...

and no, no one is adding wolf pelts to their collection. they don't get to keep them. they have to give them over to the state.

you think people are actually gonna do that?

---

if they want to keep their hunting license?

yes.

i'm sure some aren't, though, which doesn't really matter since, again
helIy posted...

hunting wolves has been allowed there for decades regardless.

also, i want a wolf pelt myself

https://www.glacierwear.com/animal-fur-pelts-hides-skins/wolf-fur-pelts.html

they aren't exactly hard to buy.

---

and obviously if you wipe out a large portion of animals, thats gonna be pretty devastating to their genepool and biodiversity

---

Disgusting

---

Fun fact: Communism in China would have succeeded if they didn't kill 90% of the sparrows

---

By some metrics communism in China has succeeded though

---

Lokarin posted...

Fun fact: Communism in China would have succeeded if they didn't kill 90% of the sparrows

doesnt mean it would have been successful necessarily, they just wouldnt have faced that disaster of a famine

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

I live in Idaho. All of you making excuses for this have no idea what you're talking about. This is going to undo decades of delicate, incomplete conservation work just because some assholes want to add a wolf pelt to their collection, and with the way genetics work, they may not be able to reverse the damage a second time.

"I live in Idaho" is perhaps the lamest fucking excuse you can have for trying to justify your position, even if that was actually true and this wasn't the first we're hearing of that. Living in a state doesn't magically make you an expert on all matters pertaining to that state, particularly given the knowledge involved. However, if you did have any expertise at all, you'd be making informed arguments rather than saying "I live in Idaho!"

And like Helly said, the trophy hunting claim is silly considering they can already hunt wolves. More so, the law includes a provision increasing the fund used to pay professional exterminators, so this doesn't seem to have much to do with hobbyists.

---

And this is why I hate misinformation so much. TC saw this posted on some other board, got incensed and posted it on this one which has gotten more people here incensed who will likely continue spreading it elsewhere. The person who posted it in the topic TC saw it in was probably just another link in the chain and who know how many were before that one.

I'm sure everyone has heard the saying "If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." right? That's pretty applicable in reverse too, when you hear something that sounds absurdly bad/negative/evil, there is a very good chance you aren't hearing the full story or are being manipulated in some other way. That isn't always the case, but one look at the way "journalism" operates these days (although to be fair it has always been common knowledge that playing to negative emotions is the best way to grab the attention of someone) should make you weary at least.

Why? Conservationists fairly recently got their numbers stabilized. What rednecks think this is a good idea?

---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Why? Conservationists fairly recently got their numbers stabilized. What rednecks think this is a good idea?

lolwut? Stabilized? The population has DOUBLED in the last 5-6 years.

https://www.mtexpress.com/news/environment/report-wolf-numbers-have-not-declined/article_c906d838-fb82-11e5-b921-57f5980c286a.html

Keep in mind that they were looking to maintain a population of roughly 150, and even back in 2002 the livestock deaths had exceeded projections.

---