Montana: Wolf Hunts Are Banned in Area Bordering Yellowstone
Source: NY Times
Montana: Wolf Hunts Are Banned in Areas Bordering Yellowstone
By NATE SCHWEBER
Published: December 10, 2012
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Montana wildlife commissioners on Monday shut down all wolf hunts and prohibited trapping in areas of the state that border the northwest corner of Yellowstone National Park. The decision was made after the eighth Yellowstone wolf wearing a tracking collar for research was killed this season. Bob Ream, the chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, said the scientific study played a role in the decision.
Read more: Link to source
Thanx to all who called or e-mailed their disgust to MFWPc
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
patrice
(47,992 posts)
SemperEadem
(8,053 posts)
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)but it should be banned everywhere.
Response to Hayabusa (Reply #3)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)This thread is full of assholes who are intolerant of any who disagree. At least someone gave me a warm welcome.
notundecided
(196 posts)is the vicious image that so-called sportsman have of wolves. No wilderness is truly wild without apex predators such as wolves, grizzlies, ect.
life long demo
(1,113 posts)I counted to ten after reading the post you responded to. Then counted again, and again. I started caring about wolves when I was in elementry school. Had I ever seen a wolf in the wild, no didn't need to see one to know the wolf has a rightful place in the environment. But I still to this day do not understand the rabid hatred some have for the wolf. They don't just want to kill the wolf, they want to eliminate it from the face of the earth.
Botany
(70,566 posts).... be paid for his loss too. The importance of having wolves in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem
has been proven time and again. They benefit the bears, elk, bison, eagles, cut throat trout, meadows,
aspens, and so much more.
Response to Botany (Reply #9)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...not even REMOTELY close to being accurate..."their population is not threatened"....do you read what you write before hitting "enter"...
Botany
(70,566 posts)mangers / park people / and other professionals who gave information and data about all the
beneficial aspects to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem caused by the reintroduction of the
wolf to the area. The elk had become like large cows hanging out and eating the young aspen*
trees which I am sure you know are grown by clones off of their roots ..... once the elk learned
that "hanging out" by the creeks and rivers in the Aspen groves was not very good for their
health then the Aspens started to fill back in and these trees shaded the creeks and dropped
insects into the water which cooled and fed the native cutthroat trout which in turn fed the
grizzly bears which took the bears away from much human contact ....... and with the elk
now moving the grazing of the meadows clean of grasses and wildflowers allowed rabbits, mice,
voles, and insects to do well which in turn helped the hawks, owls, and eagles ...... the wolves
also preyed on sicker bison which helped the ranchers who were worried about brucellosis from the
bison getting their cattle sick. BTW the link between bison brucellosis and cows is ???????
I am sick to death of ranchers who graze their cattle on federal property trying to tell the rest of
the world what is best for their environment. Just like we have learned all those dams along our
rivers have very real ecological and environmental costs and many are now being removed we have
learned that nature (and man) need to have the wolf back as a functioning part of the environment.
"a good wolf is a dead wolf" meme is way outdated
* Thousand + year old stands of Aspen were dying off because of the elk's feeding.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just thank you.
Botany
(70,566 posts)n/t
Helen Reddy
(998 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)llmart
(15,550 posts)Do you even read what garbage you write? Based on what you wrote, we must all be protective of livestock, but not another animal species - wolves. Why? Does it make it more palatable (no pun intended) to you because WE slaughter livestock?
The same people who want to kill wolves are the ones who gripe about the overabundance of deer. Or rabbits. It's OK if WE kill them, but not if ole' Mother Nature takes it's rightful course.
Oy vey.
Redford
(373 posts)If the wolves get a taste of an easy kill they will just keep coming back for more. I would not hesitate to shoot a predator that was preying on my livelihood . Shoot, shovel, and shut-up is the law out west.
llmart
(15,550 posts)I keep forgetting that it rules above everything in our country.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)Are you stupid or just trying to make people here angry? The "fake, romantic image" of wolves is the viscous killer that you are trying to portray.
Wolves are only at approximately 1% of their historic population levels.
I doubt if you are a wilderness person or you wouldn't be trying to incite an emotional reaction by referring to "the carcasses".
I'd love to see a wolf in the wild, but haven't had the chance because of the rabid opposition based on cowardice of those that live in the areas where the wolves are.
If they are scared of wolves, property values on retirement villas in FL have dropped. If they don't value the wild for what it is then they can take up residence in Atlanta or Houston.
Personally, I'd love to see those farmers and ranchers go broke so we can replace them with some "city dwellers" who are less ignorant of how things work.
I am so SICK of the attitude in this country of celebrating the ignorant "salt of the earth" yahoo who knows next to nothing except how to pose as a "rancher" and pick up their government subsidy checks.
Fortunately since "farmers and ranchers" all vote republican and farms are becoming corporate entities, there will be far fewer of them to vote for this slaughter.
There are many ways for "farmers and ranchers" and wolves to coexist.
Personally, I won't touch beef and will fight against supporting it at gatherings at work, church, other places for this reason. I'm trying to get others to help me push Defenders of Wildlife to establish a "wildlife safe" label like the dolphin safe label for ranchers that use those methods.
Gray wolves are not longer a threatened species because farmers whine about "the livestock" when they don't do enough to adequately protect them, not to mention the fools that just want to kill them because they're there. As for a fake romantic image of wolves, I contend that there is a faker romantic image of the "Big game hunter" who used a rifle with a long range to "heroicly" kill predator. It's the same damn thing that's happening to tigers, lions and others around the world.
Response to Hayabusa (Reply #11)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
life long demo
(1,113 posts)The decision to de-list the wolf was political, not scientific.
randomtagger
(125 posts)Do you have any evidence to support this claim? I was talking about the international IUCN red list, not the US endangered species list.
Drale
(7,932 posts)Politicians removed Wolves protection status, not scientists. Learn something about what your talking about before you spout out your mouth.
Response to Drale (Reply #20)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)That would be grey wolves across the ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.
The Yellowstone population was REINTRODUCED to the area relatively recently, and by any rational criteria it is still very much endangered.
And yeah pollies pretty much have the final say on such lists. Just as they consistently ignore rational advice on fishing quotas, and set unsustainable limits year after year, even as fishery after fishery collapses under the strain.
randomtagger
(125 posts)Actually, it is on a global scale (which does further prove your point). Politicians do not control the IUCN, a scientific organization which is dedicated to preserving wildlife, free from external pressure, unlike the U.S. Endangered Species list. I do agree that fishery limits need to be reconsidered.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)I did not join this site to troll. I am a liberal, but I think independently and use my own judgement about what needs to be protected.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)So what do you base your "judgements" on? Because it doesn't sound like science.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I base my responses on my own opinions. If I was a complete idiot who disagreed with you, you would laugh it off. If someone with half a brain disagrees, you instantly call them a troll.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Disagree with me? You're a troll!
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)It was a person taking positions simply to stir people up for the sake of it, making up "facts" and stating that they are basing their positions on "judgements" they can't defend because it is all based on opinion, not even a different interpretation of the facts.
A reasonable disagreement would be what is a true "recovery" for an endangered species especially in light of the fact that global warming may make some of their last refuges untenable.
So report me.
randomtagger
(125 posts)You are going to great lengths to bully me. I am not a troll, and you would not call me one if I was a Sarah Palin wannabe Republican instead of a liberal. I even practically apologized for speaking my mind in the nicest way possible and I still get attacked. I honestly think this thread should be locked, and I will admit that I am mostly to blame despite not doing anything wrong.
P.S. Don't go after Kurtz for being nice. He doesn't need to be treated like shit like I am.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)Which I will offer free of charge since it's a weekday...
The Op is about wolves in Montana, in the US not Canada yet you start making reference to a different area and political environment than the topic everyone else is discussing... see the problem there?
Additionally, you seem to be equating your opinions with fact and there seem to be some of us who would prefer that you understand the difference between the two.
And politics in the US has more often than not trumped science... you referenced climate science, have you not been paying attention to the exposees about the research that has been paid for by opponents of reality lately? And most of those who conduct research might have noticed this too since acquiring funding for research usually comes from the corporate world as the government has waived off the advent of funding research in the past decade or two... thanks to our corporatized Congress.
If you are going to make reference to fact, please provide some evidence that might convince us that it might be considered factual and why... besides just being your point of view or opinion.
Thanks.
randomtagger
(125 posts)If politicians have so much sway over scientific opinion, than why do 98% of them believe in global warming? Are you suggesting that politicians convinced them to believe that? Why couldn't Big Oil and Coal's friends in Congress convince them to say global warming is a hoax? Do the 2% of scientists that believe global warming is a hoax seem like a majority to you?
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)The scientists who do get the climate change issue don't get much media time do they? And then there are those who will sell out like that toad in TX who provided bogus info that got all the media attention. And the politicians who oer beholden to the corporate interests will only use info that is handed to them by their benefactors.
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/new-low-shale-gas-industry-targets-college-campuses-k-12-schools
http://www.alternet.org/story/152000/outrage_erupts_after_energy_committee_evaluating_dangerous_gas_drilling_practice_is_stacked_with_%27experts%27_on_industry_payroll
http://www.alternet.org/story/150989/gas_drilling_companies_hold_data_needed_by_researchers_to_assess_risk_to_water_quality
Just to give a few examples of what I meant.
And then there are those dastardly Koch Brothers who pay our legislators via the TP crowd to say whatever they tell them to say along with their buddy Rupert who provides the cable mouthpiece for them.
So study up, sport. Seems you have a lot to learn. And if you're not from the US, you really need to study hard, cuz your lack of knowledge is showing like magic underwear with hot pants.
randomtagger
(125 posts)These oil-backed scientists for hire are a tiny fraction of the scientists talking about climate change. My point was that since an almost unanimous majority of scientists support the idea of climate change, most of them are not controlled by special interests.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)If you can't understand then I am sorry for you. I don't have time to give you an entire education on a public forum and especially for free.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I know funding research is expensive and the government is doing little to fund it, but this has no relevance to what I was saying. Trying to "educate" me is basically just an eloquent way of calling me a dumbass. 
The logic of my argument about 98% of researchers supporting global warming is still sound.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...but thanks for playing...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Yellowstone and the tremendous positive impact on other species and even plants. I think you are the one misinformed.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Can't say that I have, but you ought to see humans picking over the livestock carcasses at every grocery store in town. Skinned, gutted, chopped to bloody bits and shrink wrapped, too.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)perhaps you would be more concerned about the threat livestock has on the future of our planet, than the threat of wolves on the livestock population. The livestock industry is a major source of land degredation, a major contibutor to CO2 emissions--even more than cars, the largest threat to our ever-decreasing water resources, a major contributor to world hunger, and at the rate of population growth, completely unsustainable.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)they almost went extinct because ranchers decided to eliminate one member of God and or Nature's creation.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)who promoted and killed them off to lure the ranching community to come here to a less than favorable for cattle environment. without the government programs to remove all the indigenous peoples and the predator populations... wolves, bears, lions and others... there would have been no ranching in the Rockies. Now that the ranching folks have been here for about a century they claim it's a tradition and that we, the taxpayers, should continue to pay millions/year for the Dept. of AG (APHIS:Wildlife Services) hit squads to come and kill all the animals the ranchers say cause them problems, including on our public lands that they pay squat to defile with their cattle... instead of taking proactive measures to protect those precious cows and sheep. A very few livestock producers actually do their jobs of protecting their livestock. And more livestock die from disease, weather conditions and insect bites than large carnivores.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)besides, it is the cost of doing business. My view on hunting is simple: "you kill it, you eat it." That is what I was taught, and that is what I taught my kids. I have never seen wolf or mt. lion meat in anyone's freezer.
randomtagger
(125 posts)Wolves aren't a serious threat, my concerns were mostly hypothetical. Coyotes are much worse as far as killing livestock. I do believe that if you kill an animal it should be eaten or put to use. (unless the kill was to protect someone or something) but I do not wish to impose that view on other people.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)In other words, since your concerns are absolutely at odds with the evidence (and it has been previously explained to you in little words exactly where you are wrong), you rasied them to get a rise? Now what would you call such a practice again? Oh yeah 'trolling'.
Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #114)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)The reason the MTRFW$P made such a decision is that they got global bad press about it, period. What did they actually decide? That a couple acres around Gardiner would be off limits, now that the majority of the park wolves who would venture in that direction have already been killed off. There is NO provision for the 110 miles of park boundary along the western flank of the park in Gallatin County, MT.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/12/10/montana-puts-closure-around-yellowstone-park-for-the-rest-of-the-years-wolf-hunt-trap/#comment-206848
And, apparently there's a "Wolves in the Rockies" page on FB, I don't do FB, that has the decision statement and the map of the paltry "no quota zone" that is oh so temporary. Nothing's banned or anything of true significance, really.
And Wyoming has no intention of doing the same... where most of the bastards who sit outside the park boundary and "call" the wolves out to kill them are exhibiting their brave hunting prowess. Idaho is it's own ugly fucking problem and food for yet another long rant.
It's a sham and it should be called out for being just that. It's all about getting better PR for the MTFW$P... nothing more.
Botany
(70,566 posts)The wolves are just following the natural seasonal migration of their prey animals.
i hunt but killing a wolf for sport is sick.
Response to Botany (Reply #7)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)You are hunting for attention.
I am doing quite well if what you are saying is true.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)I am not trolling, do you expect me to get kicked off this site for disagreeing? I'm sure you would love to brand me as a southern conservative Christian when none of those words describe me.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)So go have your fun on the site while you can.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Because s/he disagrees with you? What a pile of crap. BTW, folks, it's against community standards to call people trolls here.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)How is that not trolling? Of course, I laughed right back.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)I will say that I have no double standard. I'm not terrified of wolves, bears or mountain lions. What I am afraid of, however, are the people that want to hunt predators to extinction just because they prove an inconvenience to farmers and ranchers that can't adequately protect their livestock.
God, I can't believe I wasted a milestone post on a troll...
randomtagger
(125 posts)I don't believe in extermination. If the gray wolf's population drops to "Near Threatened" on the IUCN Red List, all hunting should cease until the species recovers.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)That is why we have the ESA. The de-listing was a politically motivated rider on a spending bill.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)But it looks like you're seriously missing the point in a frantic attempt to defend your post. I want to educate you and I desparately want you to understand.
The ecosystem has its own balance, and we've thrown it off so badly that we have to manage the deer populations (who strip the land anyway that the ranchers would use to feed their cattle) with rifles and hunting licenses. And that really doesn't work very well in the first place. "Wildlife Management is a joke" as my environmental science program head is fond of saying. This isn't the 18th century. There is no real dire economic need whatsoever to hunt these animals - wolves or deer - if we just left the populations to sort it out themselves. As it is, we kill too many wolves, and the r-selected deer breed like mad. If we kill the deer, the wolves starve. If we kill both, we throw the whole thing out of whack.
If we had the kind of human population levels of even 50 years ago or still hunted with bows and arrows, I would say fine, have at it, but these ranchers have quotas to fill and mouths to feed and there are entirely too many mouths to feed right now. They need more and more land, more head of cattle, and now its gotten so they're hunting animals on FEDERALLY PROTECTED LAND or at least those animals that are wandering even slightly off. These ranchers had to have seen the collars on those animals and I think they ought to be fined and sued by the government and by the scientists who were doing the research.
Farmers and ranchers got along fine for thousands of years with wolves as their foe. I can't believe that with our technology that they cannot find a non-lethal way of dealing with these animals. We need to do what the French are doing and simply ban wolf hunting altogether. You'll see things go right then, ecologically speaking.
The fact is, they don't want to and they don't give a flip.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)But the funny thing is, most are low tech.
Donkeys are better than cattle or sheep at detecting wolves. I believe they are most commonly used with flocks of sheep.
Enclosing flocks or herds with fencing with red cloth flags deters wolves.
Defenders helps fund guard dogs that work great with cattle.
There is also research that recordings of howls of strange packs keeps wolves away.
Loss to wolves is only 1-2% far less than to coyotes, that wolves tend to drive away.
But the best method would be to turn the plains back over to the bison. Healthier meat, better for the environment, and don't require so much care because they are better suited to the environment than the wimpy cattle.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)I think I actually get a calender from them every year as I donated, but I've been so busy with school (and foolishly posting on this forum too much no doubt) to have seen that.
I really appreciate that.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)2naSalit
(86,765 posts)getting on the right track. DoW has actually been involved with developing numerous nonlethal techniques for keeping livestock and wolves apart. They have a nice pamphlet that is very informative. There are several other organizations advocating for wolves as well.
But I must say that the primary/preferred prey for wolves is elk, in the west. They will eat bison and then maybe moose and deer. In the Great Lakes they seem to like deer and moose and the occasional rabbit and smaller fare. On the whole, in the Great Lakes region, they haven't done much to bring down the deer population as was anticipated. The actual success rate of wolf hunting prey is one in nine attempts. And wolves can get their butts whipped while trying to get some food, elk fight back and bison fight back even harder. It's not unusual for a pack to lose a few members each year to their prey and the grizzly bears have learned to steal the carcasses. In some cases now, some packs and bears have learned to share.
Sadly, brutal (humans killing wolves) hunts are ongoing in both regions for all the wrong reasons, political.
I have lots of references if you would like them, you can PM me for that.
The bison should be allowed back on the plains... the argument on brucellosis is one of the biggest political piles of hooey to ever stink up the region. It has become well known that there is not one documented case of bison transmitting it to cattle, though they got it from cattle. It's the elk that carry it far and wide and transmit it to cattle. So now there are some in Montana who are considering killing more elk for the sake of the cattle industry making the case by way of brucellosis (mind you, MT is the only state that doesn't advocate vaccinating cattle for this). Pay attention to that, it also includes an excuse to kill even more wolves to protect the elk hunt opportunities.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)I'm fascinated. You've enlightened me with this post and I appreciate it. There's a term for the 1 in 9 attempts and its escaping me - its heavily factored in to the statistical analysis of pred-prey ratios but damned if I can remember it right now. I wish my eco prof were sitting next to me scratching his beard and slapping the back of my head.
I will be attentive to the brucellosis potential excuse.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)Great Lakes ecosystem and most are up around the lakes and CA border... than there are in the northern Rockies where there is far more habitat for them. They regulate their numbers on their own and is (without human interference) pretty much based on prey availability because wolves are territorial. They establish a "range" and stay within it unless there is some reason to compel them to leave it like ecosystem crash due to climate issues or human encroachment for instance. Wolves were still in the Great Lakes area but not many of them when they were placed on the ESA list as the first species listed, or was it the Grizzly bear? They were the first two species listed way back in 1973 and were on the list of species in trouble when it was first recognized by the government that they needed protection back in the 1960s (there was a protection Act prior to the ESA but the exact name escapes me at the moment).
In 2012, ID there were approximately 650 wolves prior to the hunt; Montana had about 899; Wyoming had (they claim) 600 or so, including the 80 in YNP and Teton NP. They aren't allowed to count whatever wolf population exists within the Wind River Indian Reservation which is about the same size as YNP. They have their own approved wolf management plan and the state is not allowed to mess with them as they are legally a sovereign nation. Not privy to their numbers and I am fine with that, they have far more respect for this animal so they are in a good place there. In all three states the general intent of the legislators is to remove all but 100 wolves or 15 breeding pairs in each state which is just plain criminal and not based on any kind of scientific knowledge whatsoever.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I do strongly agree with you on the bison idea. Bison are much better animals than cows and much better meat. Hunting is certainly not the best strategy for controlling wolf kills on livestock but it is effective. As long as wolves have some fear of humans they will leave people alone.
I agree that some ranchers have expanded too much and not allowed enough room for wildlife. If the wolves had more room attacks would certainly decrease. I just don't agree with a complete ban on all hunting.
Rhiannon12866
(205,839 posts)Killing these beautiful animals for no good reason sickens me. Welcome to DU, randomtagger! It's great to have you with us! Apparently, this is a controversial subject. 
randomtagger
(125 posts)I am still opposed to wolf hunting in general, but my reluctance to ban it entirely has angered some people quite a bit!
maxsolomon
(33,379 posts)stopping the kills outside the park at 9 is controlling the damage.
2naSalit
(86,765 posts)wolves rarely attack humans, bear ans lions, on the other hand, will. Ever been out in the wild where all three predators exist? I am not afraid of bears or lions but I am more wary about being in their habitat than I am with wolves simply because wolves will only bother you if you get too close to a den or a place where they have young pups, or if you are too close to a kill site where they are feeding, or if you are silly enough to take a dog into known wolf country when you go out. You just have to know how to behave in wild country. And except in the case of bringing dogs along, most encounters end well for both species.
Wolves aren't the problem, humans who think they are sepcialler than all other life forms on the planet are.
I live here and go out almost any time of year, except when the hunters are out shooting at anything that moves, and track wolves. They are beautiful as are all other wildlife, I cherish any encounter with any species... with the exception of most humans.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy; how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable side-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.
Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)Because after reading both, I couldn't believe we are still having the same arguments about protecting wildlife and banning dangerous chemicals.
Then I read an article that had excerpts of newspaper articles warning about the dangers of burning coal from the mid-1800's and that one still isn't completely won. I don't think we have 150 years to convince people about global warming.
Very distressing.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)and it changed my life. I was already majoring in Environmental Science (though he wanted me to change to Ecology), but I was just stunned by his views. Pleasantly stunned.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)I desparately wanted to, but kind of got pigeon-holed. Easy to do nowadays as nobody wants to retrain someone.
I did 7 years oil and chemical spill response for USCG, but wanted to get out of the emergency responses realm. Ended up working for ATSDR for a short time (for a crazy person), then a state environmental for water pollution inspections. But the state really isn't interested in prosecuting, and I ended up trying to protect one of my crew when my supervisor wanted to fire him about 7 months before his retirement. So I was the one forced out.
My wife doesn't want to move again, so since this was my third round of employment gap between environmental jobs, I'm using the GI bill to change fields to Physical Therapy, but really miss trying to do something to stop this insane slide to destruction.
I'll end up doing some volunteer work for Sierra Club once I graduate.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)I got my HAZWOPER 40 cert a couple of months ago and am finishing up my last class in Physics while working at a local title company (my former career). But the field seems pretty wide open (my specific field is Environmental Health Science, Planning and Management) especially for compliance and mitigation.
I graduated (walked - can do that at my univ if you have less than 6 hours) with two other people and they've both found jobs in the field - one at a water consulting firm which inspects municipal water facilities, etc., and another at a national consulting firm. Both jobs in Arkansas and I can tell you that those kind of jobs are not plentiful. I have high hopes - especially because I'm willing to relocate pretty much anywhere.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)The health and safety field is big. I work with someone (in the USCG) that has all the big certifications and he has no problem. I could work in that field with my degree, but couldn't get bites on my resume even though I oversaw spills (that included safety management) and worked on one of the safety plans for the DWH.
But anyway, I'm sure you'll do well. Best wishes.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Response to rwsanders (Reply #37)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)There are many other ways of preventing malaria if anyone really cared. We could provide the entire world with clean water, sanitary conditions and protection from malaria with what the world spends on war in 1 year (source the Cousteau Society).
The GM debate is too complex to get into here, but many of them are INCREASING the use of pesticides and sorry but I don't believe your contention on declining cancer rates.
The rest of your comment is really from left field and I wasn't even talking to you.
randomtagger
(125 posts)War is the real concern. GM crops are not. I was talking about how you implied that I was a nonbeliever in global warming.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)to mention DDT. I was honestly not anticipating this kind of reaction from people. I understand that it wouldn't be a popular stance, but I like a good debate so I said it anyway. I have not been vilified more by anyone than you and that other guy. I never said I supported Monsanto's plans to control the world's food supply or that I hated animals. I would probably get a warmer reception walking into a synagogue dressed as Hitler.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Sprayed on walls, or impregnated into mosquito netting, it presents minimal environmental hazard.
It is and was an extremely effective REPELLANT. It just happened to also be an insecticide if applied in sufficiently large quantities. And a bunch of stupid twats decided mosquito erradication was better than just keeping them elsewhere.
randomtagger
(125 posts)If DDT was used properly, a ban would not be necessary. If pesticides and herbicides were not as overused as they are, they would not pose any significant threat to wildlife.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)This is a complicated subject. I don't know if your background is scientific or - you tell me. Do you know what DDT actually does? Even China has banned it. We actually still manufacture the stuff and sell it to India. Africa continued to use it for years even after Stockholm
Even if you don't care about animal life, which forgive me for saying so, your posts strongly indicate (why do you think the bald eagle and california condor and a host of other mammals and arthropods nearly went extinct?) the human toxicity danger of DDT and DDE is WAAAAY beyond acceptable levels. Not only chronic but acute toxicity problems and its a known carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen of epic proportions.
I'm sorry millions of africans died. I truly am, but using a highly toxic and environmentally destructive chemical for that sort of thing is like fighting fire with gasoline.
Response to AldoLeopold (Reply #48)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)And it biotransforms to DDE - which is even worse in some ways. Its got a super long half life. You'd save millions to kill them later along with half their ecosystem.
You'd also mutate their children while you were at it.
randomtagger
(125 posts)But wouldn't they still be better off with some DDT spraying? Malaria would kill more people than the worst chemicals you could use.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Just read about it - take a couple of organic chemistry courses, a couple of inorganic courses, a toxicology course, and an epidemiology course and it will be clearer. Cost benefit analyses have been done on this already. You spare those children an early death and kill off a large portion of their cohort years down the line - or worse, mutate their sperm and ova creating birth defects for millions for generations.
Plus, and you just don't seem to give a crap about this and I admit its starting to annoy me - you would obliterate hundreds of avian species, untold mammalian species, arthropodic species, and leave a toxic chemical in the ecosystem for decades which WOULD and HAS bioaccumulated into their food and into the humans food and into the food of every living thing in the region. This neverending quest to preserve human life at any cost is jousting with windmills and it is ecologically and economically unsound.
Its not an option. That's why even China has banned the use of it and that's saying something. The don't give a wooden dollar about their people's chronic health problems due to industrial activity, etc., and I have the journal articles to prove it.
Plus, the liver and kidneys have no idea what to do with the stuff and its stored in your subcutaneous layers like a bad acid trip waiting to happen.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I know China doesn't give a damn about their people, no minimum wage and dirty coal filled air in many cities. I care about animals, but DDT as a limited, temporary measure could save an incredible number of lives. I could also argue that the neverending quest to save unfit and unadapted species is a waste of time and money when there are human beings that need food and clean water.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)You're on the wrong board. It doesn't fit you idealogically. You also read VERY poorly, by the way.
Do what you want, but this little idiotic conversation is over.
randomtagger
(125 posts)Populations of the bald eagle have rebounded dramatically. Are you actually trying to pressure me to leave this site because I disagree with some of your views?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)shame for the birds that DDT is on your list of goodies and birds are not.
fail.
Response to CreekDog (Reply #98)
randomtagger This message was self-deleted by its author.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Ban it here, let it be used in the places our stuff is made/grown.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I meant only in places where malaria kills millions. China has banned DDT and I agree that they do not need it. I am reconsidering my view on this because of the few rational people who have convinced me that it is unnecessary. But for every one of them, there are two guys telling me to get lost, threatening to get me banned, or calling me a troll.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)GM crops are suspected in CCD (colony collapse disorder) in bees. And Bt toxin (a GM addition to most corn and soybean) is now appearing in the bloodstream of most people including pregnant women. We may not know the fallout of that one for years as the company that produced the Bt corn was sure that the toxin would never go from the gut to the bloodstream in humans.
I'm sure others here have more information.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I don't like Monsanto's crops (and their oppressive treatment of poor farmers) but some genetic engineering is good. Improving crop yields could make hunger less of a problem in some areas.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)Additionally getting away from monocultures and crop rotations have been shown to reduce the need for pesticides far more than GM.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I do agree that normal breeding techniques are effective and less likely to cause potential problems down the road, I just don't want to ban all GM crops like the EU did.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Though the data is all over the place so my prof didn't approve - ended up studying cadmium toxicity from wastewater irrigation in developing countries.
DDE, as a side note, still can be found in honeycombs to this day in the western world. It, and other pesticides or GM crops containing these pesticide like substances, are weakening the immune systems of bees and allowing a type of parasite to kill em dead - and more recently discovered, of the queens which, I believe, are the key to the whole thing.
randomtagger
(125 posts)From what I heard, I thought the most likely cause was the Varroa mites destroying colonies of bees. A link to GM crops is far from being established. There was only one German study of Bt crops and CCD and it didn't seem too convincing.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)I'm not convinced about the GM crops link, but there are far more than that one german study.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I think that the Varroa mite is the main cause. GM crops are controlled anyway, because Monsanto is greedy the seeds can't spread.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)The mite is normally fought by the bee's/queen's immune systems, but those systems have hypothetically been compromised by pesticide residue in the hives.
randomtagger
(125 posts)That hypothesis makes sense but no one knows if it is true yet.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)And then when they do, Monsanto sues the poor bastard who owns the land where they sprouted. If he's lucky and detects the contamination early enough, he can plough it back into the ground. But if he tries to sell what he grew, He pays Monsanto's lisencing fee, no ifs, buts or maybes. He loses a season's income, or he pays court ordered extortion.
If the grower happens to be a certified organic farmer, he loses that certification and IIRC it's a seven year process to regain that certification.
randomtagger
(125 posts)but they do try to stop them from spreading. The lawsuits against farmers are evil but Monsanto has tried to make their crops sterile so they can't go to seed.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...buffer distances between GM and nonGM crops in order to prevent cross contamination. Unfortunately for Monsanto, this would have severely limited the market in which they could sell their product. One farmer refusing to use their product, meant that Monsanto could not sell to any of his neighbours, and possible none of their's either. So Monsanto lobbied, and the actual buffer distances set have proven, time and time again, to be absolutely worthless.
As for their "Terminator" (tm) technology, environmental concerns might make good marketing copy, but you can lay London to a housebrick that the decision was 100% financial. Eventually they will run into a judge who disagrees with the idea that an independent third party can be penalised because of the actions of Monsanto and/or one or more of their paying customers.
There is also the minor matter of creating captive markets, by making it impossible to save seed grain for the following year.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)It is still being used in other countries. It was banned worldwide at the Stockholm convention, but it is still being used in some places.
I really don't think you can tie the decline in rates of cancer to GMOs. If you do know of any studies that can show that correlation, it would be interesting reading.
If wolves are overpopulated in an area, yes, they should be culled, or re-located, to restore ecological balance. But also....I would want to find out WHY they became too numerous in an area in the first place. It usually means something somewhere is out of whack, and it's probably a people problem.
Welcome to DU, and thank you for your opinion on this matter. I think it's a discussion worth having, calmly and rationally.
Some people here are really fond of calling low count posters trolls, if they happen to have an opinion that differs from the "party line." I often wonder if their jaws hurt, 'cuz their knees jerk soooo high. They are making DU suck.
randomtagger
(125 posts)You are the first poster who has been friendly and welcoming. I firmly believe that DDT should remain banned in developed countries. You are trying to establish a calm, rational discussion and I thank you for that. You are exactly correct with your last statement, because I have a few beliefs that are atypical for a liberal, some of these posters are trying to call me a troll so they can be rid of people like me.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)except in the very limited situation I described. I'd prefer they be relocated, or other non-lethal methods of control: using dogs, donkeys or llamas to drive the wolves away.
I'm not a fan of DDT, Monsanto, or ranchers. Or anthropomorphism. Wolves are not vicious killers, neither are they just like our pet dogs. They are what they are.
I have a degree in Natural Areas Management, so I'm kind of fond of science in these matters.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I generally would have no reason to shoot a wolf. I don't even hunt. Wolves are wild animals, they are not inherently good or bad. Their only desire is to survive. People assign characteristics to animals because they think of them like people.
notundecided
(196 posts)samsingh
(17,600 posts)
UndahCovah
(125 posts)If they banned it on private property. If you own land next to the park, you can't shoot wolves if they threaten your livestock, but your neighbor on the other side of you can? How the fuck is that fair?
If they don't want the wolves shot, they need to find a way to keep them in the park. Its not fair to expect some minimum-wage ranch hand to risk his job, watching the cattle he's monitoring getting killed by wolves that have roamed outside of their protected area, because the only job he can get is on a ranch that happens to border yellowstone.
I agree that wolves are awesome creatures and need to be kept from extinction, but the numbers that are being hunted are not threatening the population.
randomtagger
(125 posts)You should be able to shoot nuisance and threatening animals on your property unless they are a seriously threatened species. I personally don't mind wolves, but a complete ban on shooting them is ridiculous.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts).."but the numbers that are being hunted are not threatening the population."
There is TONS of research available that shows that your talking point is complete and total hogwash...
randomtagger
(125 posts)Come on, post a link or two that is a serious, scientific study that agrees that typical hunting threatens the wolf population.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...you made the assertion that it doesn't impact the wolf population...please provide the link(s)
randomtagger
(125 posts)http://www.d.umn.edu/biology/courses/bio5865/documents/GrayWolfManagement.pdf
I'm sure you can't be bothered to actually read any of this before you start preaching again about how wolves are wonderful, beautiful, and completely flawless animals.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...and the other deals mostly with Minnesota...
Let's try something at least in the right neighbourhood, yes?
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sfallon/wolf_hunt_quotas_in_the_rocky.html
randomtagger
(125 posts)That is just their opinion. They tried to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service, they lost, and now they are bellyaching about it.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)I read them thoroughly and they are not actual research.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)He's a troll or I'm Margaret Thatcher. He repeated republican anti-environmental talking points in a previous post including letting "unfit" species die.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Thanks!
randomtagger
(125 posts)You are dead set on calling me a troll. I should not have to repeat time after time that I oppose the coal, oil, and natural gas industry and that I believe in global warming. I said I believe that playing God with endangered species (unless necessary for preservation of the ecosystem) is not worth our time and money when there are people who need food and clean water. I am not a Republican. You don't understand that a fellow liberal could disagree with you on certain points without being a troll or a conservative.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...humans come ahead of every other living species.
Given the evidence which has been presented to you, and the lack of evidence to support your position, the choices are: You are a troll. OR You're too bloody prideful to back down.
randomtagger
(125 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Which is semantically equivalent to: "Except in the case of ecosystem collapse, when humans and other species come into conflict, the other species should make way, even to the point of local population extinction."
Oh and I note that you are selfdeleting left right and center, which in my book is even more cowardly than simply abandoning an argument.
randomtagger
(125 posts)The "I believe" part makes it an opinion, not a fact. I am deleting my more controversial posts to stop people like you from pouring more and more fuel on the fire; I didn't expect you to attack me for trying to cool off this mess of a thread. I actually want this thread to get locked because only a few people are even talking about the wolves at this point. This has become an attack thread and nothing more.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)..."opinion" of your sexual habits? Of course bloody not.
If you express an opinion contrary to established fact, then be prepared to have it attacked. And if you persist in repeating that opinion WITHOUT sustaining argument (which is what you did), eventually people will stop questioning your arguments and start questioning your motivation.
randomtagger
(125 posts)I don't care what you think of my sexual habits, to be honest. You are the one that tries to interpret my opinions regarding endangered species as facts. It is simply my opinion that we should not play God with nature, you cannot prove my opinion right or wrong with evidence because it is just that, an opinion.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Every time we cut down a forest, clear a field, put up a new power plant, or just turn the key in the ignition.
Yes you may have any opinion you please, but if you wish to express that opinion, you also have to be prepared to defend either it, or your motivations. So far you have failed spectactularly on both counts.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Duppers
(28,125 posts)Thanks for posting. It is nice to know my efforts helped. 
Threads like this one helps me to weed out posters worth reading - one particular poster on this thread is going on my ignore list.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)randomtagger
(125 posts)This has veered off topic and is past the point of no return. (and it's my fault for starting a flamewar with a completely harmless post)
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Your repeated trolling in this thread alone (complete with self-deletes to avoid any further hidden
posts) has marked you out in very clear terms as a disruptor of this sad but important topic.
If you don't wish to see the thread any more, just trash it.
Don't go demanding that everyone else has to stop talking just because you've had your arse
handed to you on every single disrupting sub-thread that you've started.
