Re: wolves
Look; I'm not interested in taking sides in a local dispute. I neither love nor hate wolves.
But even one of us clueless Easterners can find
references to wolves being native to Idaho within but a few minutes. Indicating that wolves may not be native to Idaho is misleading at best. These wolves aren't, I'll grant that with no dispute, but there's more to the question than your statement suggests.
While there can be no doubt that the wolves being introduced are not the original species, demanding that only such a species would be acceptable is specious at best. Those native wolves were exterminated to extinction with the last one being killed in Yellowstone in 1926. So these wolves couldn't have been there first, but wolves were in Idaho before there was even an Idaho. The <span style="font-style: italic">re</span>-introduction of wolves in Idaho is, of necessity, being done with a non-original species. They behave differently, of course; the only wolves who could behave as the old ones might are now ghosts, thanks to folks who decided, apparently like yourself, that Idaho's unregulated deer and elk populations didn't need wolves and other canine predators to help ensure their health and reasonable numbers. This tends to be the argument of folks who provide guides services, related recreational resources, etc.
Also, apparently, there's money to be made hunting wolves. If my research is accurate, as much a $25,000 per wolf. Wonder if this has anything to do with your objections to my post.
You will note, I never even mentioned Idaho in my initial comments.
Encroachment by wild canines predators in neighborhoods is something we have rather a significant bit of here in the East, in my own neighborhood, in fact. It is the leading source of missing small pets in our area. Such encroachment includes coyotes, coy-dogs, and yes, wolves; in this case, Canadian. Some of the coyotes killed are as large as 75lb.
If wolves are causing starvation in your neighborhood, well, my heart goes out to you. However, I doubt this, and suspect you may be belaboring a talking point in a local political dispute. Incidentally, as of the writing of the Wiki article I cite above, substantiated losses to ranchers had been monetarily compensated in excess of $1,000,000. So, please spare us your political gripes.
My initial point centers aound the effects of meddling with ecological checks and balances. Wolves were deliberately and systematically exterminated in the continental USA. The process was driven mostly by fear, ignorance, and financial imperatives related to grazing economics. To say the ecological consequences were disturbing would be an understatement of biblical proportion. The natural balance was screwed over royally. Human methods to regain balance have been ludicrously inadequate. To do the mission of the artificially deleted wolf, you need something a whole lot like a wolf. Perhaps the ecological balance needs to take a back seat to anthropmorphic judgements about whether the less pretty aspects of the acts of natural predation meet with this or that individual's approval. Wolves don't care what we think, nor do they need to.
This response represents already more involvement than I wished to have in such disputes, and I strongly resent being drawn by name into your chosen hot button issue. I further resent the insinuation that being an Easterner, I have neither a clue, nor any right, to comment on the subject. Pardon me, Sir, but your regional bigotry is showing. Please do me the courtesy of leaving me out of any further verbal fencing you and others may wish to continue in this thread. I am clearly, deeply sorry I elected to make comment on this issue. It was a mistake I have no intention of repeating.
Greg