GUARDIAN READER COMMENT by Blazing Saddle
I don’t know what this country is coming to.
We had it right when the gummit chased the Indians away and stole their land so we could raise cattle.
We had it right when the gummit killed off the bison, coyotes, rabbits, and everything else that competes with cattle.
We had it right when the gummit bought out my dairy herd and sold it back to me for half price.
We still have it right that the feds and the state both lease me land to graze my cattle on for about 10 cents on the dollar. And, it is especially handy that they keep claiming everyone else has mad cow so I don’t have to compete with them.
So, what I would like to know, does the gummit think they are doing bringing back the dag nab wolf for? Holy toast! And they didn’t just bring back any ol wolf, they brought back the Canadian Six Legged Two Headed Black Wolf. It’s bigger than a box car and meaner than a binge drinking Rumsfeld at an Abu Graib water boarding party.
Why, they’re so fearsome the fart from one of them is enough to dry up a prize heifer. Two of em, in one afternoon, rolled my atv, drank my last bottle of Jack, left my wife pregnant with twins, and killed 60 head of my angus. (Actually, my pit bull ran the angus off a cliff, but the wolf would have done it if it had got there first. And besides, you can’t get the compensation payments if you tell em your dog did the killing.)
Anyway, like I was saying, the gummit has gone and screwed it all up agin.
The pesky Feds should stay in Washington where they belong, and send more money.
To insure more advertising-free Boise Guardian news, please consider financial support.
Feb 13, 2007, 2:36 am
Dagnabit, Blaze. You sure do got a burr under yer Saddle!
Yep, you sure are right about all that there stuff, and I wuz with ya all the way, until you come up with that male bovine excrement about yer dawg a chasin’ them thar cow critters of the cliff.
Why, I’d bet a dozen doughnuts and a pregnant heifer that ya done kilt and butchered them there critters yer own self, and stuffed the steaks in yer freezer, and then hauled all the skins and guts out to the bottom of the cliff sos ya cud blame the wulfs and the poor ol’ dog.
But ain’t nobody gonna believe thu wulf done it. Everybody with half a brain know them thar two-headed wulfs woulda jest et the whole danged herd, hooves an’ all, and not run ’em off no cliff.
Yep, just like all them there lambs that the “coyotes” et whenever the sheepherder gets hungry, eh?
Besides that, ya sound like that there feller that the guy in Boise Weekly keeps interviewin, mixed in with just a tiny bit of Molly Ivins.
What really ticks me about them thar wulfs, though, is when you meet one, ya gotta shoot ‘im in both heads, or the other one’ll eat ya!
So keep up the war again ’em, pard.
Feb 13, 2007, 7:50 am
Here it is again, if you want to learn the truth about wolves in Idaho visit: http://www.idahowolves.org
It is a good site that will debunk the many fabrications that the anti-wolf groups have come up with. But hey, why let facts and science get in the way of ignorance.
By the way, the Boise State University department of Public Policy and Adminstration did a survey a few years back to determine how Idahoans felt about wolf reintroduction; 68% of those polled favored reintroduction, the rest were either undecided or against. I know, I know, polls don’t mean anything, especially if the results counter your own perceptions.
Feb 13, 2007, 8:34 am
I’m not sure if I’m madder ’bout wuffs or all them other “gummit programs” that Mister Saddle is talkin’ ’bout.
Yep, the cattleman has got the raw deal.
Speakin’ of cattlemen, have you heard the cattleman’s version of “This Land is Your Land”? It goes like this:
This land is my land,
This land is my land,
This land is my land,
This land is my land… and so on.
Dunno what the answer is on them there wuffs. Some of the pro-wuff people saw too many Walt Disney nature movies when they were kids. But… I s’pose Idaho is a better state if we’ve got a few of them varmints. I’m sure Butch’ll do the right thing.
(I’d like to see the wuffs get closer to civilization, and start dragging off a few cats, poodles, kids and old folks now ‘n then… so we could get the word out about the wuff danger. Mebbe slow down the influx a bit.) (I’m being sarcastic.)
Feb 13, 2007, 4:39 pm
Blazing Saddle, you are HILARIOUS! And thanks, RiverCity, for your web link. I learned a ton from it. I encourage every reader to have a look.
Feb 13, 2007, 11:50 pm
All ya’ll belong down at the Funny Bone, not on a blog. Very funny. Would be a lot funnier if it weren’t quite so sad. There is an excellent argument to maintain a wolf presence, but an equally logical argument that the population be controlled.
Feb 14, 2007, 12:00 pm
Cyclops, I know the argument supporting a “wolf presence,” but the argument in favor of “controlling” (i.e. shooting) wolves hasn’t made it to my in-box yet. What is it?
My understanding from biology classes many moons ago is that predator/prey cycles tend to parallel each other, with prey populations (mice/rabbits/deer/etc) increasing, followed by predator populations increasing until the predators outgrow their prey base. Then predators die off a bit and the prey base increases unabated again for awhile.
In this way, the prey don’t significantly outgrow their forage base and the predators don’t significantly outgrow their prey base. Where is the human “control” needed in this?
Feb 14, 2007, 3:42 pm
The Pirate seems to be overlooking a major point of the original post… the depredation of livestock.
Or did (s)he mean mice/rabbits/deer/cattle/sheep/etc.?
When the mice, rabbits, and deer become scarce, the wolves start ignoring long-standing livestock ownership rights, don’t they? In fact, it’s probably safe to say they’d prefer beef to mouse. (Or so I’ve heard… I’m not an expert on wolves, like everybody else debating the issue.)
Feb 14, 2007, 4:56 pm
. CYCLOPS said:
“All ya’ll belong down at the Funny Bone, not on a blog. Very funny. Would be a lot funnier if it weren’t quite so sad. There is an excellent argument to maintain a wolf presence, but an equally logical argument that the population be controlled.”
The Funny Bone? Heck, most folks say we belong on the funny FARM.
As for the argument to maintain or control the wuf population: Yep, I agree — and we got the same problem with the human population. Need ’em to provide jobs and goods and services, but when they overrun the place, they wipe out the food supply (farms turn into subdivisions), get overcrowed and begin attacking things they shouldn’t, etc.
How can we control the two-legged wufs?
And, Pirate: yep, the eaters and eatees long kept a cyclical balance, but the humans came along, turned winter feeding grounds into cities, shopping centers and subdivisions, thus cutting down on the prey critters. But the humans also brought in new prey critters — cows, sheep, cats, small dogs, etc. — and then get upset because the predators eat ’em.
Basically, as with so many things in the environment, the increase of bipeds upset the blance for the quadripeds; so, we feel like we broke it, so we gotta fix it. Only problem is, we really have no idea how to fix it.
We killed all the wufs, then brought some new ones in. We nearly wiped out the buffalo, so now we try to raise them. We cut down way too many trees in some areas, so now we’re busy planting them, meanwhile fighting about how many more to cut down.
So what’s the answer? Keep trying even though we don’t know what we’re doing, or just give up and let whatever happens happen?
Feb 15, 2007, 8:12 am
Those who still think, despite the science, that wolves are having an adverse effect on deer/elk populations are likely the same who still think that humans have no impact on climate change.
We also know that, despite the scary stories from the anti-wolf people, that wolves are not dangerous to humans.
So we are left with the issue of livestock, and we do know that less than 1% of livestock are killed by wolves, and those that are proven to be killed by wolves are compensated at market value for their loss.
So, with all this I think the advantages of having wolves back into the ecological system by far out weigh any real or perceived disadvantages. And in that I’ll take the word of professional biologists over a few disgruntled hunters who are having a tough time finding an elk to kill.
Feb 15, 2007, 2:22 pm
Seem to me the guv and his boys are the wolves currently. Why are we discussing this when final okay has not be given. While I agree with state management for these critters, I do not agree we should be stalking them before opening morning. Let the Feds give up control, then figure out fees, lottery and management numbers.
While Butch is out being a loud mouth, Sen. Brad Little says it best on the state management of wolves: “Silence is Golden.”
Feb 15, 2007, 3:11 pm
Even though Gordon may well be the most sardonic person to ever sit in fromt of a keyboard, he is right on with this issue. The biggest problem I have with the pro-wolf bunch is that they seem to want every thing to return to 1800.
We all would like to watch the “natural” process take place, but the “reality” is that we have impacted the process. More importantly, we will continue to impact the process. Therefore, being at the top of the food chain requires that we, in good stewardship, make the effort to maintain the balance of appreciation of what used to be with the reality of what is.
That means controlled impact,which include US,on Ma Nature, while maintaining a position that insures our existence.
EDITOR NOTE– For you non-library types. “SARDONIC: grimly mocking or cynbical.” Yes, that is Gordon and he will take that as a compliment.
Feb 15, 2007, 3:39 pm
O.K.,I admit it … with all the gripin’ I do bout the gummit, they do ,very seldom, make some wise ,sage -like decisions. One is to challenge that Paleolithic urge to kill all of Natures most beautiful creatures with your semi-auto 30/30 and call it “hunting.” I’m 60 yrs. old and macho I am not, but wolves ,bears,buffalo,etc. have always added to my life.
The lawyers,doctors and politicians who thrive here sure have’nt added to anyone’s life. Most of ’em would have to look up the meaning of “Personal integrity” in Websters. I’ve got some sage advice for Idaho’s so-called professionals…stay in idaho,you’ll be laughed out of town anywhere else!
EDITOR NOTE–For you non-library types, PALEOLITHIC is simply “stone age” and it lasted 2.5 million years with no government or taxes.
Feb 15, 2007, 7:31 pm
Now that someone again has mentioned Guv. Butch and his wannabe-wolf-killer buddies, I’d like to add a comment on that subject, too:
I’ve got no objection to Butch killing a wolf — as long as he eats it.
I’ve been hanging around on this planet for a long time, and I’ve killed many times — occasionally in self-defense or defense of property, but generally when I and my family were near broke and getting hungry. I reckon God intended for us to be able to eat animals — that’s why he gave us, but not them, trigger fingers. And he intended some animals to eat other animals, which is why he gave some speed, strength, claws and fangs.
Or, if you prefer, we evolved to the point where we could make spears, then bows and arrows, then fireams, and they didn’t.
And some animals evolved with claws, fangs, etc., and others didn’t (well, we didn’t either, come to think of it).
So, we’re all into the kill-to-eat bit, though some prefer to kill only carrots and onions and such like, which is OK, too.
But anyone who kills just for the “thrill” of killing is, to my mind, just plain sick, sick, sick.
Heck, I don’t even like to kill a tree, but I’ve chopped down a few when I needed logs, firewood or whatever.
So I’ll amend “kill only to eat, or in defense” to “kill only to eat, or in defense, or to satisify other needs,” but if the only “need” one is fullfilling is the “need” to kill just to kill or perhaps to try to prove you’re macho …
Whew! I hope I don’t happen to run into you when you can’t find a wolf or some other creature to kill.
Feb 15, 2007, 11:53 pm
All in all Gordon I continue to agree with you. (Yikes!) In the process of controlling a wolf population, I see no need to issue permits to sportsmen. Rather, if “thinning” is required, it should be done by F&G people.
Feb 16, 2007, 12:18 am
The hunting of wolves should not be for fun or other manly aspects. The hunting of wolves should be managed by the IDFG for the health of all game populations. Current regulations already make it illegal to kill for sport on all game animals.
My understanding is wolves would be considered predators such as coyotes,cougars and under different rules already in place.
By the way, onions are already dead when the taking occurs.
Feb 16, 2007, 7:47 am
This is all very interesting on people’s thoughts on the Wolve’s. Here’s a story for you and its a very true story since I lived it myself.
I spent 3.5 years up in Alaska. One winter was spent in Fairbanks. Don’t quite remember just which year it was 1972 or 73. It was one of those years with very deep snow and the temp’s were in the -40s. The wolve’s being very hungry were coming into town eating what ever they could find mostly the local dogs that were let out in the mornings to do there duty. Everyone was afraid to let the kids out of the house for almost a month. Driving to work in the mornings you would spot them lurking in the tree lines looking for that easy meal.
That spring there were very few dogs left and not the usual Moose roaming around. Got to admit it was nice not hearing all the dogs barking and dog poop all over the place.
Feb 16, 2007, 7:57 am
I also agree with Gordon, and Cyclops on this. And I agree that killing simply for the pleasure of killing something is pretty twisted. But unfortunately good ole Butch is leading the way on this.
Feb 16, 2007, 9:24 am
Humans tend to want to kill off anything they fear and don’t understand. The man (I don’t remember his name right off) who made the movie “Jaws” recently said that he regretted making the movie because it established myths and falsehoods about sharks, which has effectively put many species of shark, especially the Great White, in threatened condition. Some scientists are now saying that the shark, which has survived millions of years of evolutionary processes may be soon gone because of human activities. What repercussions will that have on our oceans eco-system?
Feb 16, 2007, 9:34 am
Yes indeed, wolves do kill dogs because they see them as competitors in their territory. But there has never been a documented case of wolves attacking humans. However, cougars will kill dogs and have been known to attack humans. Alaskan Brown bears are also very dangerous, especially after an long, hard winter. And, of course, long, hard winters would be difficult on the moose population as well.
Feb 16, 2007, 12:47 pm
I don’t believe the ecosystem will balance out. The problem with introducing wolves and expecting things to balance out is that humans have occupied most of the elk and deer wintering grounds since wolves existed in great numbers. This is why IDFG has winter feeding stations setup.
The wolf population will have to be controlled in order to maintain the ungulate populations, unless of course everyone moves into high rise condos downtown and gives the valleys and foothills back to the deer and elk for wintering. There is about as much a chance of that happening as there is of the wolves being eradicated again.
IDFG needs to sell tags and let hunters control the populations in order to make money to continue supporting the wolves. Hunters in this state are very eager to get a chance to hunt wolves and they will sell a lot of tags. This does not mean a lot of wolves will be killed. I am an avid hunter and spent over 20 days in the woods hunting this last year and never seen a wolf close enough to kill.
I seen lots of tracks, but these animals are smart and once they start getting hunted they will become even smarter.
Personally I don’t think that they should have reintroduced them in the first place, but that is a completely different argument now that we have them.
Feb 19, 2007, 1:39 am
Clancy said: “By the way, onions are already dead when the taking occurs.”
I don’t think so. Of course, I was thinking for green onions rather than the “dry” bulb types. Of course, they’re not really dry, except for that thin outer paper-type layer. And if you leave one in your refrigerator too long, the green will grow again, so it obviously wasn’t clear dead.
Carrots, radishes, lettuce etc. are harvested while they’re definitely still alive and growing.
I don’t think shooting them would do much good, so we just eat ’em alive (ugh, cruel us); at least we kill most of the animals we eat before we eat them — though I don’t think dropping live lobsters into boiling water is very nice (I bet they don’t either).
But face it; we’re predators and prey, as are many species.
And Robert, yep, wolves get hungry enough, they’ll eat ‘most anything, even people. Wouldn’t you?
Besides, if I had to be in Fairbanks in a hard winter, I think I’d rather be eaten by a wolf!
If any of you see wolfman Butch, please tell him I want to know if he eats everything he kills, or just enjoys destroying life. Thanks. — gp
Feb 22, 2007, 12:16 pm
Gordon says: “If any of you see wolfman Butch, please tell him I want to know if he eats everything he kills, or just enjoys destroying life.”
I believe it’s the latter. Watch what he’s doing with the other dealings/devolvings around the statehouse. He’s a smiling, tight-jeaned wuff in disguise. (Does the story Little Red Riding Hood come to mind?)
By my account, he wants to be the first to shoot his own kind.
Feb 22, 2007, 10:51 pm
No Cyclops I think it is the Guardian that would like to see everything go back to 1800, when growth was not an issue. As for me, sign me up, I want to get me a wuf!