Hunters here need to get a life. For over a week now, I’ve been receiving comments about the wolf/coyote contest hunt addressed in the January 2nd article, “ID Gun Nuts Start New Year With Three-Day Mass Slaughter Of Wolves And Coyotes.”
I don’t know if it’s the insinuation that they might be “gun nuts” (I would think they’d gladly fess up to that) or what, but long after the derby has played itself out, they’re still trying to get their vitriolic comments approved. So far, over 500 of their 180,000+ viewers have left comments that will never see the light of day (except in the occasional post like this one, meant to expose just how malicious they really are).
And they really do all sound alike—believe me when I say you’d never want to sit through 500 of their repetitive statements, such as the ever-popular catch phrase:
“Smoke a pack a day!”
It wasn’t funny the day the first guy blurted it out and it just gets more tedious—and more carcinogenic—with each repeated use. However, it does point out their universal sentiment about doing away with wolves at every chance they get. With all the anti-wolf mawkishness it’s hard to imagine there are many wolves left in Idaho. Each licensed hunter there can legally kill up to five wolves per season and trap and an additional five individuals, so recovering wolves would conceivably have suffered considerable losses by now.
But these would-be commenters seem keenly concerned about controlling the wolves’ population (as if they need it) while at the same time, indifferent about their own. Here are some of their views on the subject of overpopulation:
“There is nothing wrong with the killing of these animals it’s a all in an order to control population.”
“Their numbers are unsustainable. Wolves will kill for the thrill and not just because they are hungry.”
“haha kill them all! Wolves are one of the biggest problems we have in Idaho, wyoming and Montana!”
“if we don’t thin out these packs it could turn bad for everyone they are already over populated…”
And yet, according to post-contest articles like, “Wolf Population Unaltered By Controversial Hunt,” “Nobody even saw a track. We had fresh snow, and we were just in shock,” Alder said. “No sightings, no tracks.” He noted that there was an increase in coyote captures this year—30, compared with 21 during last year’s derby.
Not to give them credit for achieving anything whatsoever, but it would seem wolf-killers have been proactive about gettin’‘er done well before the contest’s start date.
The article goes on to say, “One team of hunters killed 12 coyotes over three days and sold their pelts to a fur buyer who attended the event. The team walked away with a $1,000 cash prize for most coyotes killed.
“Thirty coyotes were killed during the three-day hunt, and—for the second consecutive year—zero wolves.”
The derby, organized by executive director of Idaho for Wildlife Steve Alder, was created to help curb predator populations.
Considering the burgeoning human population, Alder and his ilk would do well to look in the mirror before calling any kettles black. Are they blissfully ignorant of the fact that another human is born every eight seconds in this country alone? Meanwhile, 350,000 humans are born each and every day worldwide.
How many of them will grow up to be predator hunters? Talk about “unsustainable” numbers. This isn’t just about them or their rancher buddies. This is about a world-wide loss of biodiversity—their part in the sixth mass extinction. It’s really not something to be glib over or proud of.
Exposing the Big Game 
When I saw the title ““ID Gun Nuts Start New Year With Three-Day Mass Slaughter Of Wolves And Coyotes,” I initially thought that “ID” was an abbreviation for idiot. It then dawned on me that it was an abbreviation for Idaho. Oh well, I guess they are really one and the same.
This is how out there these people are – there will be no wolves left soon, and yet they’ll still go out lookin’ for ’em. The hate will go on….
I’ve had hunters show up on just about every piece I’ve written on hunting, but I don’t get the traffic you do, so I let the comments lie, and refute their points which is always pretty easy since they don’t have much of a foundation. I can’t imagine, though, the volume of emails you receive, all stuttering out the same illogical talking points. As you yourself have written here, nearly every logical fallacy is employed to sustain their ideology. I’ve spent so much time breaking down those arguments into the falsehoods they really are and, of course, the argument peters out when the hunter realizes he or she has no real ammo left in the reality-based world. But it’s an exhausting and futile enterprise to argue against a mindset that will never change in the face of facts and which believes in the sanctity of a violent life.
It is an addiction to the killing. Sickest addiction of all.
I’d like to read some of your back and forth arguments with the sanctity of violent life crowd. As you say, they’re exhausting, but they must be doing some good, right? The problem is, once you debunk one myth, a whole line of other commenters are waiting their turn to argue basically the same thing. Talk about inflexible, you’d be better off debating scripture with a T.V. evangelist.
Jim, I don’t know if it does any good, I’ve engaged less frequently in the past few months because of the time it takes. I don’t operate under any delusion that I can change a violent mindset which views animals as resources to exploit. What I do believe is that it’s important to have thoughtful, coherent responses to hunter talking points, on the record for *others* to read. That’s why what you do is so critical. Thank you. I comment mostly outside my own realm, when I see a pro-hunting article in a mainstream publication.
I wish I’d saved links to all those stories, I should have, but I might be able to dig some up. Hunters get away with persuading, as you know, because the talking points can sound legitimate on the surface. I do think it’s important for those of us who know the truth, to provide a measured, mature and cogent counterpoints which through logic and soundness, make their own case for the importance of non-violence.