What is it with Idaho and wolves, anyway? Their wildlife officials shoot them from the air. Their corporations sponsor hunting derbies to see who can kill the most. And now they’re trying to pass a bill that would require the Idaho Department of Fish and Game “to use any means to reduce wolf numbers to those designated for recovery of the species.”
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “recovery of the species” imply fostering increasing numbers of animals, not reducing them to barely sustainable levels?
Ah, but there are reasons for the proposed genocide:
“Wolf packs have moved into densely populated areas and unnecessarily large numbers of wolves constitute a threat … ” (Wolves these days are opting for city life?)
“Time and costs expended in an effort to protect livestock against wolf attacks is never compensated.” (You choose to move to the country and raise steak-on-the-hoof in the midst of hungry wild animals, and you think someone should compensate you for your choices?)
“People living in most rural parts of the state are threatened by wolves and must change their habits and lose the safe use of, and travel upon, their own property.” (If you don’t like country living, move to the city!)
“Unchecked numbers of wolves are destroying the culture and heritage of rural Idahoans including, but not limited to, their use of real estate, their use of hounds for legal hunting of big game, their livelihood in professional hunting, such as outfitting and guiding, and their choice of type and location of livestock animals for food production and recreation … ” (Wait a minute, whose “heritage” is being destroyed? Weren’t the wolves there first?)
“Excessive numbers of wolves are hindering recovery of elk populations in parts of the state, are reducing the big game populations available to hunters in the state, and are preventing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game from exercising its mandate to manage big game for the benefit of hunters (emphasis mine) …” (Yeah, life sucks when there aren’t enough animals out there to shoot. Maybe if you didn’t shoot so many …)
So Idaho doesn’t want wolves in its suburbs, because they threaten the local populace. Or in the rural areas, because they kill livestock. Or in the wild, because they’re killing the elk the hunters want to kill. Idaho sounds a lot like Utah. They just don’t want wolves anywhere, period.
Isn’t it amazing that wolves were taken off the endangered species list just a year ago, and in that brief time their numbers have increased so rapidly that they’re about to destroy life as we know it in Idaho?