First of all, I count myself as a wolf lover. I think we need a few good wolves in the ecosystem. They play a vital role.
I may have seen a wolf in my own neighborhood, actually closer to the big city than where I live. It wasn't a coyote and did not look like any dog I've every seen, but it had crossed the highway and was heading toward town. Other than that my only experience with them was when I heard some howling after spending a dry camp up on a ridge last year in Idaho. I checked with the wolf foundation office in Lewiston, and they are known to exist in the area I cited.
Bottom line: they are spreading from a number of transplants, and that's a good thing. The same situation exists with grizzlies.
Some people I know and respect live in an area where both wolves and grizzlies occur, and they are trying to set up voluntary programs whereby landowners can be compensated for what's called conservation easements -- they give up certain rights to subdivide (or whatever) and are compensated for that because the value of their land is then diminished. This is good for wild animals like wolves and grizzlies, and for wildlife in general. It's good for people because it's voluntary and compensated.
That said, we need a few good wolves and a few good grizzlies, but we do not need to have them shoved down our throats by ignorant government mandates or demagogues with an agenda.
We do not need a bunch of laws that penalize people for legitimate takings or killings of these animals. They can be dangerous, and I can assure you that I and the people that I mentioned above carry firearms when we think we might encounter them. That doesn't mean we would kill one except in defense of life, as unlikely as that may be.
There is a self-sustaining level that, once attained, should release the species from unreasonable and thoughtless protections that cost too much and have too many unforeseen consequences. That's the trouble with these endangered species programs. They develop a life and constituency of their own, quite apart from the needs of the species.
I could go on and on. I want to keep functioning ecosystems in place as much as anybody, but I don't want to be held hostage to them nor pay unreasonably for them. I want to be able to hunt, trap, fish, and view wildlife, and just know that they are out there. Without wildlife, I can't do that. With stupid ill-thought rules in place, I can't do it either.
This is damn good advice:
caution in killing wolves unnecessarily, to avoid inflaming emotions that could haunt the legal process later on.
The following is probably true, but it is not universal. Some conservation and conservationists make sense. Not all:
“My opinion is that they don’t really care about the number of wolves — they care about the political advantage,” Mr. Bair said, referring to the environmental groups. “The wolf is their silver bullet to do away with ranching and sport-hunting, which they oppose. That’s what this is about.” |
