Comments on: Trapping of wolverines continues in Montana

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:02:20 +0000

Ralph (Aug. 18 ) got it right regarding money and politics. I was int he Air Force for 26 years and know lots regarding the pork-barrel spending habits of certain pols. The trapping of wolverines has nothing to do with “wildlife management.”

By: Izabela

Izabela — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:01:34 +0000

Utah is not too far behind Idaho in thinking about predators.
And I hope wolves never show their pups to Utahns..they will dead.
One guy told my husband at work, grinning like a an idiot , that he killed female coyote and he thought she was pregnant.
He was so happy that my husband left his office to avoid hitting the guy in his stupid Utahn’s head.

But not all Utahns are bad.
Look at me…:) and my husband. Wel.. we are transplants.
Look at Ralph..part Utahn…:)

By: JB

JB — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:46:49 +0000

I attended what I believe was the first meeting they held on wolves in Brigham City. The room was boiling with barely contained hostility (I believe I have a video tape of the event). It was sad to see the few environmentalists among the sea camo. Like you, I learned a lot about how wildlife management decisions were made in Utah. I was not at all encouraged by what I learned.

By: john weis

john weis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:18:21 +0000

JB, well i DID volunteer. And it did open my eyes as to how organizations such as SFW work to manipulate the system to their own gain. Probably the most traumatic night was the one where we did the Utah wolf management plan. What a circus that was. I had no idea an animal like a wolf could bring out such hostility, ignorance and down right hatred for all of the wrong reasons. Shoot and shovel is still the mantra down here.

By: JB

JB — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:45:19 +0000

john,

Sorry to hear that you’ve had the misfortune of being on a RAC. My understanding is that those that sit in the environmental seat are usually ignored by the hunting and ranching interests that dominate the councils? In my view, the RACs allow hunting and ranching interests to completely dominate wildlife management under the auspices of “citizen oversight.” I sure do miss Utah! Well, the geography, anyways.

By: john weis

john weis — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:55:02 +0000

The genetics of inbreeding tends to confuse some people. This reminds me of a resolution about expanding the bison population on the Henry mountains in southern Utah. SFW wanted to increase the numbers of bison so they could sell more conservation tags and thus kill more beasts and make more money at the same time: usual story. But first they had to get the DWR to administer the deal, and kick off the excess cattle.

I was, at that time, on one of the regional advisory councils which is a buffer committee of “citizens” to take the guff from locals so the DWR does not have to. The story was that the bison had first come from the Yellowstone herd and had been inbreeding down on the Henry’s since. In expanding the numbers my question was how do they allow for genetic diversity such that the bison don’t bottleneck. The lead biologist’s answer was something akin to if the population is greater than 400 animals then there is enough diversity such that there would be no bottleneck, and besides, they were planning on getting some more Yellowstone bison every few years to pump diversity into the Henry’s even though that is where the bison came in the first place.

My question was that if you had a population of 40 or 400 or 4000 inbred animals (whether bison, wolverines or mice) how would the numbers of animals in the breeding population make any difference in the diversity of the genetics of the population of animals? He didn’t have much of an answer, but said he would look into it. The resolution passed.

By: JB

JB — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:55:42 +0000

“Meanwhile they spend hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions in fact, on social control measures and military adventures.”

So much for the Republican rallying cry of “small government.” Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:43:06 +0000

Calling it “tradition” doesn’t make it right.

By: jerry b

jerry b — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:29:03 +0000

Well at least David Gaillard from “Defenders” clarifies their position on trapping…”Defenders opposes trapping ONLY in cases where it’s harming rare wildlife or where it’s not done in a responsible and substainable way”.
This position does nothing to further the cause against indiscriminate trapping of our wildlife( ungulate fawns, calves etc) as well as other non-targeted species like our pets, coyotes, foxes, wolves, raptors etc.
It does everything to support the trapping associations as they can now say that “Defenders of Wildlife” supports trapping as long as it’s “responsible”.
Thanks, Defenders, for undermining all the progress that anti-trapping organizations realized here in Montana over the last 3 years. In my opinion, you’ve done a disservice to the entire anti-trapping community and to the wildlife that will die in traps as a result of the support Defenders has given to the trapping organizations.

By: Ralph Maughan

Ralph Maughan — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:54:52 +0000

JB,

As you do no doubt know, it has been a fundamental strategy of the Bush Administration, and “conservatives” back to the time of Ronald Reagan to sabotage government programs and then say, “see the government doesn’t work. We need to rely on corporations instead or just not do things like help the sick, poor, wildlife, the environment, etc.”

Meanwhile they spend hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions in fact, on social control measures and military adventures.