10.26.2010

Group 3: Justin R., Paul V., Cassandra L., Korie D., Stephen B.

Your article is entitled: "Protecting Wolves."
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50509273-82/wolves-federal-humans-congress.html.csp

11 comments:

  1. More information on the plight of wolves (copy and paste link into your browser's address bar):
    http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/wolf,_gray.php#

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi my name is Justin R. I am currently majoring in eduaction. I read the article Protecting wolves and I just want to know why does the people want to protect wolves and the rangers do not. I think the rangers want the wolves to stop hunting the deer and elk but the wolves rarely eat deer or elk. And why does the politics get to choose if plants and animals get to receive protection under the federal endangered species act.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey my name is Paul Vincent I’m a freshman at Jefferson community & Technical school I am undecided on my major at this point in time. I want to know why the ranchers complain about the wolves because I don’t think they kill their live stock like the article said “But dogs and coyotes kill many more livestock than do wolves, but are not targeted as their wild brothers are”. The question I have is they are talking about of bad the wolves are but they say dogs and coyotes kill more live stock then the wolves so why aren’t they trying to keep tabs on them. So I think that instead of worrying about the wolves so much they should turn their attention to other animals in the wild and do something about them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great job so far, guys! Good questions and good points. Justin asked about the politics behind wolf protection, and both of you - Paul and Justin - pointed out that wolves aren't the main source of livestock disruption (cf. dogs and coyotes) and that deer and elk aren't their preferred source of food. Paul even suggests that other animals in the wild pose more of threat than wolves, so wolves should be the least of people's worries.

    So what can be done? As Justin noted, politics are involved. While there are an estimated 1,700 wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, Idaho and Montana, this past August, tried to get the Federal Court to allow "conservation hunting" of wolves in order to thin out the population which is said to be threatening livestock. But there's a deeper issue here - why are wolves going after livestock? Human interruption - human encroachment on wolf habitats means that wolves, who, in their mind, are in their natural habitat, come across a cow (which is less likely to run than an elk) and decide to make that cow dinner. But what seems natural for the wolf is not welcomed by the human population. So how can ranchers co-exist with the wolves? What is being done, currently, about the relationship with workers and wolves? What are wolves like, as a species? Are they naturally aggressive toward humans, or are they more of a *shy* species? Where else in the world do wolves live and how do wolves fare, in terms of their population, in other countries?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey my name is Korie Duncan & I'm a current freshmen at Jefferson Community & Technical school, my major is Nursing. I want to know why they are just targeting Wolves, when many more animals besides the Wolves kill livestock or for that matter harm livestock.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the ranch should put their cattle in the barn so the rancher could see that the wolves are not killing their cattle but the dogs and coyotes are. But why do the politics get to tell if the wolves need protection. But the wolves are mad that the humans are on their territories. So I think the wolves are sending a message to the humans by killing their cattle when they are hunting for food. To answer Erin wolves also live in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why does the politics get to choose if plants and animals get to receive protection under the federal endangered species act?" The answer to the previous question has many answers to it. Reading more into an article on http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Conservation/Understanding-Wildlife-Conservation/Endangered-Species-Act.aspx, I've come to learn that the people who make that final decision are The National Marine Fisheries Service. When deciding whether a species should be added to the Endangered Species List, there are many different critera that is observed. Some of the few things are: Has a large percentage of the species vital habitat been degraded or destroyed? Has the species been over-consumed by commercial, recreational, scientific or educational uses? Is the species threatened by disease or predation? Do current regulations or legislations inadequately protect the species? Are there other manmade factors that threaten the long-term survival of the species? Each decison they make is very important, next time you think they aren't adding a certain animal you feel like should be protected just realize that there is alot of critera as well as choices. Is this Ok Mrs. McCoy? Korie Duncan

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think they just targeted the wovles becasue they want to plase the blame on someone or something other then themselves like most people do. Its more there faults then the wolves becasue they are just trying to survive the ranch owner should put their cattle up or set traps to capture the wolves

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/petition_to_prepare_a_recovery_plan_for_the_gray_wolf.pdf . I think this link will help the wolves by protection them form all the rancher then think they are killing there cattle. The link is a petition that tells u how to protection them and what you need to do to sign up.and I was the postthe said I think that the ranch should put their cattle in the barn so the rancher could see that the wolves are not killing their cattle but the dogs and coyotes are. Justin R.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wolves-dropped-from-endangered-spec-2009-05-08I think this article makes some good points. They say that the wovles population needs to be controled but the human population is way bigger then the wovles population so what do we need to control the huamn population to. The ranchers want to shot the wovles which I don’t see a problem if they are attacking their live stock or attacking them but just for no reason I don’t agree with that I havent heard of any wolves attacking no human on the news anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are Wolves really dangerous to Humans? For that matter many people say yes due to the fact that for years Wolves have been created in an image of fear for many years. Reading an article on http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/wolves_humans/pdf/wh_are_wolves_dangerous.pdf, I've come to realize that maybe Wolves aren't the cause of lots of deaths as they claim. A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in
    Alaska and Canada, by Mark McNay, documents 80 cases of wolf-human interactions (aggressive
    and nonaggressive) that have occurred in the past 60 years: 36 in Alaska, 41 in Canada and 3 in
    Minnesota. Of the 80 cases described, none was fatal, and only 25 involved unprovoked aggression by healthy wolves (of these 25 cases, only 13 involved injury to humans). The other 55 cases consisted of interactions where wolves acted in self-defense (14), were known or suspected to have rabies (12) or showed interest but no aggression (29). Currently, there are an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 wolves in Europe, 60,000 in the former Soviet Union, and 60,000 in North America. From the small number
    of documented attacks, it can be concluded that the vast majority of wolves do not pose any threat to human safety. A person in wolf country has a greater chance of being killed by a dog, lightning, a bee sting or a car collision with a deer than being injured by a wolf.

    Korie Duncan

    ReplyDelete