In what has to be the one of the most bloodthirsty post-Christmas festivities yet, Idaho’s announced a wolf and coyote slaughter contest for all the family.
And it really does mean “all the family” – children as young as ten can enter the competition being held on the weekend of 28-29 December.
In this celebration of tastelessness and death, prizes will be awarded for such “achievements” as most female coyotes killed, biggest wolf and so on.
Both wolves and coyotes play essential roles in the ecosystem – they are not pests. Wolves actually need increased protection. Even if numbers did need to be reduced, which they don’t, shooting these beautiful animals should only ever be done by professionals. Treating it as family entertainment is ridiculous.
We invite you to vote whether the wolf hunting contest in Idaho be stopped. Please vote and also leave your comments at the bottom of this page.
Should the wolf hunting contest in Idaho be stopped?
- Yes
- No
- Don’t Know
http://focusingonwildlife.com/news/poll-should-the-wolf-hunting-contest-in-idaho-be-stopped/
Exposing the Big Game 
Fire the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS, Interior, state agencies, USDA Wildlife Services, BLM)
The US government has long been in the wildlife killing business. It offered bounties on predators, poisoned and gassed prairie dogs, allowed the near extinction of bison, prairie dogs, black footed ferret, the wolf (wolf bounties), wolverine, and marginalized the grizzly, lion, and many others. The war on coyotes has been unrelenting. Hunters and ranchers, bedfellows of the wildlife agencies nearly wiped out most wildlife. With the advent of wildlife agency hunting regulations, the hunter has been somewhat contained; and now even count themselves as “conservationists” because they have essentially farmed game sport (recreational killing opportunities) animals and marginalized predators on the erroneous rationale of less predators to share game with the more game (recreational killing opportunities). Instead of an emphasis on wilderness and wildlife ecology, USDA Wildlife Services kills nearly 4 million animals a year and state agencies millions more in recreational killing opportunities and “management”. State wildlife agencies use hunters to “manage” “sporting” game and predators. Ranchers may tolerate big bird and other sport game birds, elk, bison and deer and antelope; but are very hostile to predators. Ranchers and farmers destroy wildlife habitat with the plow and grazing not only on private land but ever more and more on public land facilitated by the US government in leased grazing, leased farming and leases to extraction industries avenues. Encroachers on public land often, in turn, adding insult added to injury, asks the federal government, such as Wildlife Service, to kill animals that are convincing their encroachment. Conservation efforts and new agencies such as ESA and EPA and private conservation agencies have and are battling for balanced ecologies, the predators, and many animals of no concern to sportsmen, ranchers and farmers, and extraction industries and development interests. Agencies, like the USFWS often cave into ranchers hunters, state wildlife agencies, conservative state legislatures, a government tradition of really prioritizing those interests. The arguments that threatens remaining wilderness and wildlife is as old as civilization, making a buck by the traditional enemies of wildlife. What is not appreciated enough is what little is left: In the US roughly 2.6 % in the lower 48 and another 2.5 % in Alaska; and this is under continuing and unremitting pressure from, guess what, the traditional enemies of wilderness and wildlife, still too often facilitated by the wildlife agencies. Private conservation agencies often find themselves in conflict with wildlife agencies who should be on their side and the side of preserving wilderness, balanced wildlife ecology, and the predators who are essential to the balanced wildlife ecology. The wildlife agencies, state and federal, need firing and revamping to emphasize wildlife preservation, wildlife viewing, and a heritage of wilderness and wildlife in what is left of the available habitat. There is something terribly wrong when we see wildlife agencies aligning with ranchers, farmers, “sportsmen”, conservative state legislatures. It is time for major upheavals of them, their agendas, their heads and replacing them with priorities on preserving, recovering, protecting what is left of wilderness and wildlife, not siding with the traditional enemies of wildlife and wilderness (ranching, hunters, conservative state legislatures and populace, extraction industries, and development and such parochial ilk that echoes their sentiments)
wilderness and is a violation of the trust put in state and federal wildlife agencies to protect the natural balance of wild places, which is basically to leave them alone and protect them from humans. Wildlife viewing is usually much more remunerative than wildlife killing. The American public pays for wilderness, wildlife, preserves and national parks much more than hunters and trappers. Nationally, hunters only represent 6% of the population and fishermen 15%. It may be higher in Alaska, as it is in a couple of western states, but not that much higher. Wolf viewing alone in Yellowstone brings in $35 million to the states surrounding Yellowstone. It is my understanding that the Denali wolf packs have already been diminished by hunters outside the park, indicating that there should be a buffer zone around Denali as there should be around Yellowstone, Glacier and other national parks, game preserves, and sanctuaries. We are losing wildlife to encroachment on a large scale. Hunting is a form of encroachment. People come to states that still have significant wilderness to see wilderness and the wildlife that should not be diminished by an unholy alliance between hunters, trappers, their fees and sports game targets and wildlife agencies. The role of wildlife agencies: wilderness.
How much proof does USFWS need to prove that wolves should not be delisted? Wyoming had them classified as varmints in 80% of the state. Montana’s new rules allow ranchers to shoot any wolf they see as “threatening”, which means any wolf they see year around, on top of extended trapping and hunting seasons. Idaho was having wolf and coyote killing contests for cash and hired a hunter to kill a couple of packs arguing that it is in defense of elk herds, and proposes wolf baiting to kill more wolves for sportsmen and elk farming in the wilderness. Wisconsin is using dogs. MT-WY-ID-WI are obviously marginalizing this apex predator which is not good ecology for trophic cascade effects; yet hunters (sports killers) and ranchers and these state wildlife agencies have unhealthy effects on ecology. We are rapidly getting back to the 1800’s with wolf massacring states. Wolf management–they do not need general management, should not be by states. The states mentioned are too hostile, biased. colloquial in attitudes and controlled by historic hostile elements. They are promoting wolf hate myths despite contrary evidence: For instance, wolves do not kill too many elk and their impact on cattle is less than 0.002%. These states are run by rancher and hunter folklore, myths and lies and their ilk in the state wildlife agencies and legislatures, with so far the only exceptions being OR and WA and CA. OR and WA are the the model wolf management states, and the state of CA which has already enacted wolf protections anticipating their arrival. Wolf conservation states allow the killing of only chronic offenders, not general wolf killing, and require that nonlethal management be in place and tried. The throwback (1800’s) wolf massacre states are mismanaging wolves and like in WY should wolves should be relisted until there is a conservation plan in place that allows for more than a marginal population.
Reblogged this on "OUR WORLD".
The poll is absolutely off the charts in favor of cancelling this thing. Why doesn’t anybody listen to the public comments?
I think that the need to kill is a remnant in our brains left over from our hunter/gatherer days that is more apparent in some than others (the less evolved). Killing for food and survival is no longer needed in our modern world, and all that is left is the killing (for sport, that says it all). Our biology has not kept up with our technology.
Or perhaps vestige is a better word:
Vestige noun
: the last small part that remains of something that existed before
: the smallest possible amount of something
1a (1) : a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2) : the smallest quantity or trace
b : footprint 1
2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms
“Degenerate” being the operative word. This definition could apply to a lot of things: brains, male organs, etc.
And leave it to the BLM to always be on the wrong side of history. What are they doing about Mr. Bundy?