I love when you give hunters who hate wolves a computer and access to the internet. Here are a few of my most recent favorites…
"We have a hunting and trapping season on them. Get over it cry babies."
"Well it’s just plain fun."
"After I skin them their rotting corpse make for a good meal for scavengers like coyotes and ravens."
"They make excellent trophies. Especially Yellowstone wolves with collars. Big smile."
"We be White Trash from Idassissippi and we Kill Wolves because we Hate Them and we Hate the U.N. Commies who brung them. And its a lot of Fun, Hating & Shooting & Killing."
"These wolves are not native here. Introducing them was a crime against nature. Everyone responsible for this crime should be rotting in prison. The only way to deal with these filthy vermin is with a bullet."
"To all you "Cute Cuddly" wolf Lovers: These animals are killing machines. They are going to wipe out the deer and elk population. Then what??? HUMANS!!! I’d like to see you scrawny little vegitarians and vegans fight a pack of wolves off. AINT HAPPENING! For all I care they can all just DIE!!! Take that into consideration you MORONS!”
"It is known, and not refuted by anyone from the governor through the state Legislature, that the latest bill to slaughter 60 percent of the wolves is bought but not paid for by the National Rifle Association. The people of this state are paying $400,000 to kill the wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness Area.
The bill was drafted by the NRA, and not for the good of all the people or national/state forest lands where wolves and other predator and non-predator animals are being at this moment shot, trapped and snared in the cruelest of ways.
Huge, ongoing efforts have been and are being made to inform people in this state that it is at this moment proven in the Wood River Valley and other areas of the state that predators can be and are being manage — something that other state Fish and Game organizations model. But not here.
Mr. Otter has stated that he is “not interested in managing wolves but in killing them.” I would like to bring to light some facts that the front-page article missed.
Thanks to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a new national bill has been introduced to help ensure, again, that state and national public lands remain free of hunting, snaring or trapping of any kind, including perimeter areas.
Since gray wolves were delisted in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho three years ago, the number of gray wolves has dropped 25 percent; in Yellowstone, 50 percent. Wolves don’t understand invisible park boundaries and are shot and killed outside park borders.
What your readers were not told is that poachers (killing illegally) take down wolves and other wildlife. They are snared or trapped and left alive in traps for weeks to suffer and die.
Hunting today is indiscriminate. A shot can take out one of breeding pairs or a pregnant mother. Why does this matter? When pairs can’t breed or take care of their own, they die off. What happens when natural predators are gone? The entire ecology of the area is negatively affected, and drastically. To personally witness this, see the Yellowstone Fish and Game video on the subject on YouTube called “Wolves of Yellowstone” or “How Wolves Change Rivers.”
Organizations all over the nation and the world have rallied to the cause of wolves — not the least of which includes retired Fish and Game employees, scientists from Brigham Young University, University of Montana, Perdue and many others and serious outdoor/wilderness activists on behalf of those who have no voice to lobby for themselves.
To the point of the cattle and sheep producers in the state — in the Wood River Valley and elsewhere in the state, large producers have worked with wildlife defenders to manage wolves and other natural predators and have met with high success, losing (without additional cost) far fewer animals than ever in the past.
Why weren’t the many large sheep and cattle producers in favor of wildlife management interviewed? There are many in the state the author could have talked with who would have provided a more balanced story.
Finally, the “wolf kill bill” recently passed through the Idaho Legislature and signed by Gov.r Otter, will cost at least the appropriated $400,000, and readers should know that prior to this term, the Idaho government approved professional hunters, provided and paid for their wilderness cabin, food, travel and more to take out wolves in our national parks and forest areas.
Imagine, Idahoans, what that money could have done for education in Idaho — now 50 out of 50 states in graduating seniors.”
"WASHINGTON — Charla Nash, horribly mauled by a friend’s pet chimpanzee five years ago, flew to Washington Thursday to become a convincing advocate to for a bill that would make it more difficult for someone to own a monkey as a pet.
"What happened to me must never happen to anyone again," Nash said at press conference in the U.S. Capitol organized by the Humane Society.
Animal rights advocates, and Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, want to amend a 100-year old law that bans interstate sales of some wild animals, including lions and tigers, to include sales of non-human primates like the chimp who viciously tore Nash’s face apart and ripped off both her hands.Travis, the chimp, was purchased in Missouri and transported to Connecticut where a friend of Nash’s in Stamford kept him as a pet. Since Nash’s attack, the state has become one of about 25 that ban the ownership of non-human primates as pets. But Blumenthal said Connecticut “remains vulnerable to primates that may be brought in from other states” and the nation needs a federal law to ban the commerce.
"Wildlife should be kept in the wild," he said.
Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said primates like Travis suffer when they are kept as pets. “They are highly intelligent and it is difficult to provide for their needs,” he said.
Blumenthal called Travis “a ticking time bomb” whose previous threatening actions had frightened the police.
Additionally, many owners of exotic pets abandon them after a time, leaving the expense of caring for them as “an unfunded mandate on the animal welfare community,” Pacelle said.
Bills similar to the “Captive Primates Safety Act” have passed the House of Representatives before, but were ignored by the Senate. This year, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and David Vitter, R-La., are trying to push the bill through the Senate with the help of co-sponsors like Blumenthal and Murphy, through the Senate.”
"Mexico has become the latest country to join the movement against marine mammals in captivity, with a proposal that would ban keeping marine mammals in captivity for entertainment or commercial breeding purposes.
The measure, proposed by Rep. Merilyn Gomez Wells, cites the psychological stress and physical harm that captivity can cause for dolphins, whales and other marine mammals.
"The dolphinariums appeared in our country in the 70s, since then this business has been protected by the absence of legal rules and currently benefiting from ineffective regulations in this area,” Rep. Gomez Wells told Noticias MVS.
If the measure goes through, Mexico won’t be alone — India became the largest country to ban the practice last May, following Costa Rica, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and Switzerland. Other countries like Greece and Belgium have banned performing animal shows, citing poor animal welfare standards in many of them. It’s worth mentioning that the U.S. hasn’t made any legal progress toward banning captive marine mammal shows — despite having one of the largest numbers of captive dolphins in the world.”
The Problem With Kendall Jones
I don’t condone the death threats or the derogatory and vile comments that have been made to her and her family this past week. However, I also have little respect for her supporters who have taken to belittling, generalizing and degrading thousands of people. Those individuals who live their lives as vegans or vegetarians, those who do their best to live a life free of products that were made from or tested on animals, or those that believe there are alternatives other than hunting to benefit a species.
For every hunting or affiliated group there is that supports Kendall, there are just as many who don’t and find no truth to their broad claims that there is a direct benefit and correlation between those animals and hunting. For every example she gives suggesting that hunting has benefited a species, there are twice as many examples to negate and counter those claims by showing a species that has rapidly declined and in turn created an unbalanced ecosystem. There are volunteers and workers who put their lives on the line to save the species of animals she pays to kill, and whether the animals she hunts are officially listed on the ESL or not does not mean they aren’t in need of protection.
Kendall maintains, or at least insinuates, that she cares about the welfare of the animals that she hunts, but the pictures of her smiling and boasting while holding up or sitting on top of the dead animals she just shot seem to show another side entirely. That, at the heart of it, is what people have a problem with. I may be presumptuous with how I perceive her, but I find it hard to believe such a young girl would fly to Africa to hunt an animal, the lion for example, to better the pride. A mercy killing, if you will. She did them a favor and fed a village; two birds with one stone. Frankly, the last thing that pride needed was her interference. The male vs. male conflict that she referenced to justify that hunt is a natural system of hierarchy and dominance that has been occurring in the wild for hundreds of years. The issue is not that new males are taking over prides or that young cubs are being killed by them; the issue is poaching, canned hunting, deforestation that leads to an increased number of animals vs. human conflict, a corrupt government, and an uninformed public that perpetuates the problem.
Whether it be that lion I mentioned earlier or any of the countless other animals she killed, the “welfare” of them was nothing but an after thought, one that Kendall needed to come up with to justify the smile on her face in those pictures. She finds pleasure in a very one-sided hunt and the pictures she gets to take after the fact. The biography that she has on Facebook seems to surmise that pretty well. Kendall’s intentions have never been anything other than selfish and her focus has always been to get her own personal “Big 5”. I read a response she left to a comment on her Facebook thread in which she stated that she shoots the animals twice, the second shot so that she may ease their suffering. I feel for her, and for those who support her, if that’s what she deems to be compassion and empathy for the animals she claims to care for…