 |
|
|
| 6/17/2010 2:09:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article
Comment on this article | Letter: No 'wolf' in the Constitution
Editor:
"No vacancy" is an excellent term to use in response to the abusive entrance of the wolf to our community.
1. It is not our responsibility to keep the wolf corralled. Stock owners should not be burdened 24/7 with protecting their property and livestock.
2. Citizens should not be under constant threat of life, fines or prosecution.
3. Last time I looked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not contain the word, "wolf".
4. The belittling of our local citizens is an outrage.
Unlike the cougar or bear that kill in defense or for survival, the wolf kills to kill, the wolf decimates an area of its easier prey, then fans out, killing as it goes. We do not need a predator of this magnitude in Wallowa County.
Statistics show we were losing 48 to 61 percent of elk calves and deer fawns to predators prior to the wolves' entry into our area. When the wolf tires of American grass-fed beef (if it does), the remaining wildlife offspring will be a memory.
Our community has supported the introduction of the elk; in fact, many of our forefathers helped deliver them by wagon and other means to Billy Meadows in the early 1900s.
We have been supportive of men like Vie Coggins and his staff, who have spent a major portion of their lives trying to establish the bighorn sheep and other species not a danger to the ecosystem. Some of these new species are also being impacted by bear and cougar populations.
States like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have areas void of game. Facts about these states are available through their wildlife management teams, better yet through sportsmen's informational sites.
In the last century-plus, the wolf seems to have been an unmentioned burden in the history of this area along with the fact that if there were wolves here they would have been a substandard species to the Canadian variety.
I would enjoy walks with your pets, the horseback rides and the hikes while you can because when the game is gone from the wild, when the beef is gone from the wolves' reach, you're next.
Sportsmen, hikers, businessmen and ranchers need to come together and tell the government that works for us that enough is enough, remove your pet project and your unwilling cooperation from our lives.
Is this our country, our government? Then let's use our vote to rid our country of individuals regardless of party who choose to enslave us to their agenda.
Rod Miller
Enterprise
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, July 16, 2010
Article comment by:
Marty
If you have wolves everywhere, then the game wont leave if their numbers are maintained, but if you kill all the wolves off here, and there, then the animals will move out. They arent all dead, they have moved. If the wolves were everywhere, and were hunted and a certain number maintained, and if the rancher has the right to kill them when threatening their property or business, then that would go along way in maintaining those numbers. I truelly do not know what the best answer is, but total destruction, and total protection both sounds like bad ideas to me. Here in Wyoming our number of deer and antelope build up, then comes a bad winter, and I have seen the Antelope starve, coming into town to find food and chased down by pet dogs. We need to maintain the balance not go overboard either way.
Posted: Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Article comment by:
Leonard
Some 15 years ago we would hunt out of state and travel over to Idaho. The "Headquarters" area had elk on every ridge, in every draw and in every meadow. After moving over to the L/C valley for work reasons I have met several other locals who are hunters. "No one hunts that area any more." No game is left in that area, that includes deer, bear and cougar. Although Wallowa County has had only a few wolves trickle in from the Idaho side in the first few years I'm certain there are far more than you are aware of. Your game populations will suffer, then on to livestock, your dogs and cats, then you and your children. If anyone thinks they stand a chance of fighting of a wolve unarmed think again. It only took 10 years after the ban on hound hunting for all the bleeding hearts to see the light and that is only because these creatures that needed their saving showed up in "their back yard" Saveelk.com will give you a little more insight. Enjoy them while you can.
Posted: Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Article comment by:
Marty
It is amazing to me after reading some of these posts, that wildlife ever managed to survive for 1000s of years before the lord and master ranchers arrived to save them from the horrid wolves. LOLOLOL Maybe the Wolf should have hung a no vacancy sign when you ranchers showed up shooting Nez Perces horses. No, I am not a tree hugger. I think both sides go way overboard. Its just funny how a guy comes to a wilderness and says, "say, Ill raise me soime sheep", and believe their will be or should be no danger of losing some, and then when they do, they say, "Say, we need to rid the country of them damn things". If you want no risk, go sell auto tires. LOLOL
Posted: Thursday, June 17, 2010
Article comment by:
T
Rod,
You have some reasonable points about the impact the wolves may have, but you go way too far. Your statement- "Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have areas void of game" may be true but there is no factual evidence it is because of the wolves. Those states elk numbers are at or above the management objectives for elk. Show me differently if you can.
Your statement- "the fact that if there were wolves here they would have been a substandard species to the Canadian variety." is also completely false based on assumption not fact. "When the game is gone from the wild, when the beef is gone from the wolves' reach, you're next." This is also an extreme comment and not based on fact. The chances of wolves attacking a human are extremely rare. In Montana, Idaho and Wyoming the wolves have not killed all the cattle and wildlife and wolves have been there for more than ten years.
I hope this can all work itself out. I want private property owners to be able to protect their livestock on their property. I also would like to see all ranchers stay in business and I would like to see wolves in the wild of Oregon again.
My hope is that everyone will look at the true facts not just the assumptions that best serve one group. For example: The crap the pro-wolf activists throw out there that wolves only prey on the old and sick or wolves only kill what they need to eat. These statements are wrong- It is fact that wolves kill when they want to regardless if an animal is old or sick and wolves will kill out of instinct not just because they are hungry.
I just want the truth and am getting so sick of the assumptions and rhetoric from both the pro-wolf and anti-wolf activists. I also now hear that government agencies, like ODFW, are not being truthful. This all needs to stop.
The truth will lead to the best solution.
Hoping for the best,
T
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
