It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama ended the protection of gray wolves

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:06 PM
Rivergoddess, I will cry and pray with you, my anger has been strong today and I knew a few days ago it had begun. This makes me so sad.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:11 PM
I thought he was a liar, then I knew it today during his speech to the kids.

He said the founding fathers were sitting in school like they were and one day soon went on to lead a revolution.

Ha. Founding fathers were homeschooled.

He says protect the environment, protect the animals....

he keeps saying ONE thing...

but he does another.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by antar
They issued out 100,000 licences to kill 5,000 Wolves and their Pups.
We lost in this most heinous crime.

Once the limit of wolves in each of these few states is reached the licenses don't matter. Killing a wolf after the limit is reached is a crime. The number of licenses don't matter. Only so many wolves will be killed. Well under 1000 total.

You guys are neglecting the fact that we (humans) already tipped the balance long ago and the Endangered Species Act is working to bring that back into balance.

I live in New Mexico where the gray wolf population has all but disappeared. But now they are coming back and the refuges are helping them rebuild their numbers. There has to be a balance...

You're just seeing one side of this equation.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:49 AM
I have to star you on that one BH because what your saying is 100% correct.

None the less I'd say 5,000 is still a far cry from anything remotely out of balance. I believe in hunters rights and that there is a certain human right of passage, but if they had to cut back a bit on deer and Elk hunting to make rom for more wolves i'd say go for it, or perhaps limit hunting to a Bow.

I've never gone out with a gun honestly, I personally think that hunting with a gun for sport is no sport at all, so perhaps the solution is limiting gun hunting and making it an actual sport with some actual danger involved for the participants and much lower success rate for most.

More Deer and Elk = More capacity for Wolves and less risk to livestock.

But Wolves, they are a higher species, I rank them with Whales, Apes and other Animals that have life long bonds and or a high degree of emotion and Intelligence.

They shouldn't be just allowed to exist, they should be allowed to thrive.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:59 AM
on one hand it's good news but on the other hand it's sad that they have been removed from the list while they still have such low numbers, 5600 wolves doesn't seem enough.

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:41 PM
Someone sent me an Email today telling me to boycott all Idaho Potatoes to punish Idaho for allowing the wolves to be 'culled'..........
I dont eat that many potatos anyway. I do not see how an Email 'boycott' would truly help in the matter....

I wonder why they could not just relocate related groups of wolves to places they are yet to be back up to good numbers again.......??
Why kill them?
I guess its much cheaper to sell a death ticket to a hunter and let them be shot than to go to ALL THAT TROUBLE of relocating family groups ect....
Dont think I am against hunters who EAT what they hunt as I am all for that......but I doubt these hunters will be BBQing up some wolf ribs.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by theRiverGoddess]

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:50 PM
As usual BH is right on.

Licenses issued doesn't mean the number killed. I know in shooting deer only 1 out of 3 hunters are successful, it may even be far less for the wolves.

They will allow so many to get the balance and then it will stop.

This doesn't include the state where they are still on the endangered list.

If a population explosion happens, that also has huge ramifications.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:23 PM
No, it's not like that at all. Yes, some Americans do sport hunt, and yes, some Americans do hunt to protect their property but I wouldn't say, by any means that Americans kill anything that moves. It's all in perspective. I bet I could find animals that are hunted in your country too. Unfortunately.

Imonlyhuman- yes we cull our kangaroos even- but we don't have women in politics that act like Neandathals like Palin- we just don't have the gun culture you do- so people lining up, ready and waiting to kill the wolves spins me out.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:34 PM
I posted a thread about this 2 weeks ago and it didn't get much attention. I guess that's because I didn't falsely accuse Obama of ending the protection.

Truth is that the USFWS decided, based upon data collected during the Bush Administration, that the Gray Wolf population was sufficient to allow hunting. Now, was that Bush's fault? NO! And it's not Obama's either.

I personally think that the courts should intervene until we get better scientific data to support the notion that the population is stable enough to allow hunting of these wolves.

Just my 2-cents

BTW, Here is a link to my thread:

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Aggie Man]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in