Killing them because they’re there

It’s not enough that Idaho and Montana seem hellbent on killing all the wolves within their borders before a lawsuit (now in progress) can get them back on the endangered species list. These are the folks that are letting their state wildlife officials shoot wolves from helicopters. These are the folks running predator derbies (co-sponsored by Nikon and Cabelas, among others), where the goal is to see who can shoot the most wolves, coyotes, bobcats or foxes (wolves were just added this year, and hunters get more points for them than for the other species)– not because they’ve been killing sheep or cattle or people, not because they hurt the environment, not because they’re overrunning the neighborhood, but just because they are there. Slaughter for the sake of slaughter. (How’d you like to have one of these “sportsmen” living next door?)

Now Utah is getting into the act. Or trying to avoid getting into the act. No, wolves have not been reintroduced there. Wolves are not a threat there. But there is a chance, just a chance, that a wolf from an adjoining state might wander into Utah. Says Utah State Senator Allen Christensen of a bill likely to be voted on this week:

This bill simply says any wolf within Utah will be captured and killed. We don’t want any of them here.

Oh, well, that makes it all right. So much for logic and open-mindedness. So much for environmentalism, wildlife management, and endangered species. Just kill ’em. They’re wolves, aren’t they?

I’m glad I’m not a hunter trying to defend this wanton slaughter of a species as either justifiable or a sport. Because it is neither. It’s a thinly disguised excuse to freely indulge one of man’s basest instincts without fear of legal retribution. Disgusting.

More about wolves on Pied Type:

10 thoughts on “Killing them because they’re there

  1. This is so stupid, you are 100% right (again). Coming from the state with the largest wolf population in the lower 48 I can tell you this is paranoia. Wolves in Minnesota have never killed a person that I’ve ever heard off, do very little livestock predation.. There’s just no reason for it. I’ve never even seen one here, I had to go to Michigan to see my first wild wolf. And we have 2500 and 3000 animals here. Interestingly enough the Minnesota wolves have repopulated Wisconsin where they’re managed and tagged.
    You lucky dog. I was thinking as I added the picture to this post that I’d give a lot to see a wolf in the wild, just once.

    I take it there are no massive state-sponsored wolf hunts or predator derbies in Minnesota, despite your high wolf population. These damn cowboys out here seem to think it’s their sacred duty and inherent right to shoot wolves on sight. Bunch of ignorant yahoos.

  2. Actually, I’d love to have one of those “sportsmen” living next door. Oh yes, preciousssssss…
    LOL. Yesssssss, I bet you would! And I’d love to be a fly on the wall when it happens.

  3. Sport-hunting seems a little… flawed in this day and age doesn’t it? I mean, if you’re starving to death and you want to feed your family, then it’s subsistence hunting, but to kill an animal because it’s “fun” seems more like a psychological problem than a “sport.”

    Besides, it’s not “sporting” at all to kill an animal at a distance. They animal has no chance. If they’re really going to call it sport hunting, then they should make it sporting. Wolf hunting, for instance, should be limited to clubs. Yes, if you’re stupid enough to take on a pack of wolves with a club, then you deserve the pelt. Although, in this case, it might better be considered subsistence hunting for the wolf, since you’re more likely to be eaten. But, hey, maybe you’re really good with a club.

    For bear hunting, which is a little harder, I think they should at least allow a bowie knife.
    You said it well in your first paragraph. Killing animals purely for “fun” or “sport” seems like a psychological problem of some kind. I have no problem with subsistence hunting. But I have issues with hunting just for the thrill (?) of killling something. Maybe they need to devise something similar to catch-and-release. Issue paintballs instead of bullets. Then you can have the entire “wilderness experience,” short of putting your hands on an animal you just killed. And if that’s your only motivation, you get no sympathy from me.

    1. They harbor a serious prejudice, one that’s decades out of date. Conservation groups actually fund reparations to them for any livestock lost to wolves … and still they keep killing. But don’t get me started. Just check all my posts on wolves.

      1. I will as I agree with you and these are creatures I believe we need to protect. I have written on wolves, wild horses and praries dogs too! I love these animals…and many more dear PT.
        It is a passion of mine too! I get rather angry about, much to my Rancher Step Dad’s frustration LOL

... and that's my two cents