Announcement

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by jubaji

I reckon some form of mutual coexistence can and will be found for the long-term. I don't see a demon on either side of that particular issue.

Well then you haven't done your research, have you?

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by treelizard

Well then you haven't done your research, have you?

Why would that indicate that I haven't? What is it in my comments that you cannot accept?

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by jubaji

Why would that indicate that I haven't? What is it in my comments that you cannot accept?

What I quoted.

Hint: Look up canis lupus baileyi.

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by treelizard

What I quoted..

So, you don't believe there will be any long-term coexistence, or you do believe that there are demons involved?

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by jubaji

So, you don't believe there will be any long-term coexistence, or you do believe that there are demons involved?

I don't believe there will be long-term coexistence because the wolves are being systemically wiped out, especially the Mexican gray wolves. And after driving to Safford and all over to go to public comment meetings, while I wouldn't use the word "demon" I don't think it's too far off.

USFWS just killed 10 more Mexican grey wolves, including six pups. Wanna take a guess how many are left?

In June 2001, independent scientists who were hired to write the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mexican Wolf Three-Year Review warned that the control program was removing too many wolves and would prevent the population from reaching its goals unless critical reforms were instituted immediately. The Fish and Wildlife Service pledged to take action but has failed to do so.

Those recommendations included 1) requiring ranchers to remove carcasses of cattle and horses that die of non-wolf causes in order to prevent the habituation of wolves into regarding livestock as prey and 2)allow wolves to roam outside the arbitrary boundaries of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, just like all other endangered species are allowed (Mexican wolves are currently trapped if they go onto the “wrong” national forest)...

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by treelizard

I don't believe there will be long-term coexistence )...

http://www.redwolves.com/about_recovery/spring_2006_report.html

400 Error: Bad Request

http://www.wolfhaven.org/red_wolves.htm

Page Not Found

http://www.defenders.org/pubs/pfw03.html

We are looking all ove

404 | Page Not Found | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/

Page Not Found

http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2005/pr020105bc.html

We are looking all ove

404: Page Not Found

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/NorthAmerica/Conservation/MexicanWolves/default.cfm

Couldn't find anything

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 07:48 PM

mex-wolf-HCN-MR

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/mexwolf/wolf_wars.html

CBD - Letterhead

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/wolf7-22-05.html

CBD - Press Release

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/wolves-06-08-2006.html

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 07:53 PM

Gray Wolf

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/alaska.html

The gray wolf is an icon of wilderness, captivating imaginations and inspiring stories, legends and folklore. Unfortunately, however, people nearly hunted wolves to extinction in the lower 48 states, which required gray wolves to be placed under Endangered Species Act protections in 1974. Since then, gray wolves’ numbers have rebounded in the Great Lakes, Northern Rockies, Colorado, California and the Pacific Northwest thanks to dedicated conservation and coexistence work by advocates and groups like Defenders. But just as the U.S. was making progress for gray wolves, some federal protections were eliminated. In 2011, Congress removed protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, and in 2020 the Trump administration stripped them of their critical ESA protections across the rest of the country. Defenders went to court over the ruling, and won at the district court, but anti-wolf legislators and extremists have been on the offensive ever since.Wolves play a key role in keeping ecosystems balanced. They help keep deer and elk populations healthy—typically choosing older or sick individuals as prey—which can in turn benefit many other plant and animal species. The carcasses of their prey also help to redistribute nutrients and provide food for other wildlife species, like grizzly bears and other scavengers. Scientists are just beginning to fully understand the positive ripple effects wolves have on ecosystems.The Trump administration’s premature decision to strip gray wolves of their federal ESA protections was nothing less than a betrayal of wildlife and of the advocates who spent decades helping to bring wolves back from the brink of extinction.Though a judge invalidated this action in 2022, in 2024 the FWS filed its brief in the appeal of that decision, renewing its defense of the of ESA protections. Gray wolves have made monumental progress toward recovery but have yet to re-establish sustainable populations in much of the available habitat across the contiguous United States.Wolves in the Northern Rockies states—Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming—have been exempted from the ongoing federal ESA listing battle in the rest of the lower 48. These states steadfastly display their intolerance toward gray wolves, underscoring why federal protections need to be restored in the region. Montana and Idaho have 1,096 and 1,550 gray wolves respectively, while Wyoming has an estimated 352 wolves, roughly half of which reside in Yellowstone National Park and are protected when inside park boundaries. In 2023, Idaho issued a wolf management plan that calls for a reduction of its population to about 500, while Montana’s draft wolf management plan seeks to reduce the current population by as much as 60%. Read a full history of gray wolf protections in the U.S.Help secure full protections for gray wolves: support our efforts to protect this icon of wilderness!

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 08:27 PM

I just got through your propoganda links, and they are NOT indicative of what's going on in the field!!

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 09:24 PM

I guess what's "propaganda" is pretty heavily dependent upon the bias you bring to the issue.

It seems that the one kind of wolf that you have become obsessed with is endangered and a lot of people are aware of this and working on its behalf. You have chosen to take a fatalistic view of the situation. If you really think its hopeless, why would you be so concerned? If its hopeless, its hopeless, right?

**Tant01** · 06-13-2006, 09:34 PM

What hope for the world?

How sad.... Too bad it's illegal to kill people....

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 09:35 PM

My "bias" comes from years of research on this issue, including proofreading the book I linked to.

I can prove that the so-called "facts" on the pages you linked to are not only misleading, but inaccurate.

Attempts at coexistence between ranchers and Mexican grey wolves (which were discussed in half of the links you posted), in addition to public meetings, scientific research (such as the Paquet report) and nonscientific attempts at wolf reintroduction have led to LESS grey wolves in the wild than there were originally.

How much time have you spent around the wolves? Is any of your information from the field, or are you just failing to read between the lines of the links you find to figure out what's really going on?

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by treelizard

My "bias" comes from years of research on this issue, including proofreading the book I linked to.

I can prove that the so-called "facts" on the pages you linked to are not only misleading, but inaccurate.

Attempts at coexistence between ranchers and Mexican grey wolves (which were discussed in half of the links you posted), in addition to public meetings, scientific research (such as the Paquet report) and nonscientific attempts at wolf reintroduction have led to LESS grey wolves in the wild than there were originally.

How much time have you spent around the wolves? Is any of your information from the field, or are you just failing to read between the lines of the links you find to figure out what's really going on?

I think you know that what you think you can disprove begins and ends with your subjective take on the situation. But I'll help you out. I'm more than happy to concede that you have more direct experience with this issue than I (assuming you realize the limitations inherent therein). But now you need to answer my question. If you really think its just hopeless (which you have indicated several times now), why worry about it? Are you hoping to accomplish something or just pulling a boarspear?

**treelizard** · 06-13-2006, 10:09 PM

Actually, the NUMBER of wolves that are still alive compared to the number that were alive before is definitely both objective and verifiable. So is the fact that none of the suggestions in the Paquet report were actually acted upon.

Just because it looks like the coexistence of wolves and ranchers is highly unlikely, doesn't mean that people shouldn't worry about it. Especially wolf-lovers.

**jubaji** · 06-13-2006, 10:15 PM

pessimism is pointless.......don't be a boarspear

Originally posted by treelizard

Just because it looks like the coexistence of wolves and ranchers is highly unlikely, doesn't mean that people shouldn't worry about it. Especially wolf-lovers.

So tell me, do you think its hopeless? I notice you just used the word "unlikely" there for the first time. Looking for room to renegotiate your position? If there is no hope, move on to the next issue, maybe one that has a chance to succeed. Why waste your time and energy?

Announcement

Truth about American Pitbull terriers

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment