• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Barb Adams

Many animal advocates — including me — are sickened by the news that Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are going to open up a trophy hunting season on wolves, a highly intelligent animal many people such as myself greatly admire and wish to protect (“Feds propose lifting wolves’ protection,” Jan. 30).

This is wrong and bad policy.

Wolves have been terribly and unfairly persecuted throughout their history — poisoned, hunted, used as scapegoats for livestock losses — out of fear and ignorance.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, domestic dogs, weather, diseases, birthing problems and other reasons play the largest roles in livestock losses, not wolves or other predators. Some in the cattle industry especially like to perpetuate this myth, which is why I will not eat beef.

Why are our state agencies protecting special interests over the interest of the public? It is a conflict of interest for a state wildlife agency that receives most of its revenue from hunters to be making major policy decisions that support its donors! If it were taken to a vote, there would probably be a ban on hunting wolves — period. No one eats wolf meat.

Some hunters and ranchers have an ingrained disdain for wolves and other predators and they cannot wait to go out there and shoot them out of pure hatred.

Why isn’t the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protecting our magnificent native predators — not special interests? These highly intelligent and sensitive animals belong to all of us — and deserve protection.

That said, some cattle ranchers use nonlethal ways to deal with predators, which is to be commended — see Predator Conservation Alliance, Range Riders program, out of Bozeman, Mont., and Defenders of Wildlife, which pays ranchers for losses due to predators. Also read Michael Robinson’s Predatory Bureaucracy, which chronicles the extermination of wolves by the U.S. government.

Barb Adams is a resident of Parker.

READER COMMENTS

Check out Defenders.org to help protect wolves.

Check out Defenders.org to help protect wolves.

I think that the wolf (and other large predators such as bears) intimidates insecure men (or women) like hunters, livestock owners, etc. Their sagging and insecure egos do not know how to react to such an incredibly intelligent animal. They feel they have to either dominate it, kill it, control it, "manage" it, etc. It simply never occurs to these type of men to LEAVE IT ALONE. All animals play an integral role in nature; some more than others. Predators such as wolves maintain the prey balance, keeping prey populations healthy and in balance to their surroundings.

Wolves should be permanently protected in light of their history, as special provisions have been made for Native Americans. There needs to be a law forever banning shooting these animals unless they pose a direct threat.

To Tom:

Wolves should not be "brought" anywhere artificially nor should not have been exterminated in the first place. As all predators, they should be allowed to roam freely and make their homes wherever it makes most sense -- that would be the few places left in the country with vast open spaces, forage, and plenty of elk. Wolves are a necessity to our ecosystem.

The "problem" is a myth. Wolves and other predators such as bears, lynx, etc. do not pose a significant problem as far as livestock losses or injuries to people. Domestic dogs are far more problematic to ranchers for livestock losses than wolves have ever been. Wolves belong to all of us -- not just those who would do away with them out of hatred. States such as Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho have historically been hostile to any predators. It would be irresponsible to leave "management" up to them. That's like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house!

hey, the Feds have managed the program since it began. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have had to jump through hoops to meet the critera set by the Feds for state management. give them a chance to make it work. yes, their programs include hunting as a management tool but only under stringent rules. if you want more wolves, then why don't you get on the band wagon and have the Feds brings some to Parker, CO.
wolves and grizzlies make for glamorous pictures for the environmental wackos during their fundraising efforts. it is easier to attach human emotions to saving them over a sand fly on an isolated beach in california or a three inch minnow in a Tennessee stream.
the wolves and ranchers are coexisting, albiet an uneasy truce. let the states handle the problem and let uncle sam worry about our borders and security, etc.

Giving these gun killing happy country boys the OK to start killing the wolf is totally wrong.
Speaking as a wildlife conservationist, I am telling you that the population is not large or strong enough to sustain any killing of its members at all.
The only reason these gun happy killers want the ban lifted is so they can brag to their friends that they have bagged a wild wolf. The current population is not large enough to cause any great or lasting damage to ranchers lifestock or livlihood.
This is totally the wrong thing to do. And all of the friends these good ol boys have in positions of decision making rules is the only reason this ban is going to be lifted.
Wake up people, the wild wolf does much more good than it does harm to anybody or any livestock.

POST A COMMENT

• Mayor's office has best of both worlds
• Protecting your lawn from the summer heat
• A need for trained technology workers
• Today’s Immigration
• Don't get optimistic about ending the war
• Thanks to those who protect the Capitol
• Respond to the needs of children
• Upholding CU's integrity