This is in Eastern Idaho, in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The wolves killed may or may not have wolves that usually inhabit Yellowstone Park.
Here is the Idaho wolf quota area map.
Nov. 3. E. Idaho wolf zone closed as hunters reach limit. Associated Press
by
Tags:
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan’s Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of “Hiking Idaho.” He also wrote “Beyond the Tetons” and “Backpacking Wyoming’s Teton and Washakie Wilderness.” He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.
Comments
Hunter or non-hunter, I just don’t like the term harvest for killing a social, intelligent animal like a wolf. Couldn’t it just say “Number of Wolves killed by zone in Idaho”, or is that to soothe the public with the word harvest? And, yes, I know that is done/said with most animals nationwide…
So this brings to question, even further, the wisdom-(?) in allowing wolf hunting near YNP as well as the intent of the hunters of wolves given that quotas in both states were reached in HU’s next to the park first. Think about what that implies concerning the ability to shoot wolves as they exit the park instead of, as management agencies in both states had claimed, wolves near livestock operations would be the focus of hunt/management objectives and hunting them as a “management tool”.
Given this development it seems that vendetta hunting is the mindset ~ one in which even those who have no history of depredation are subject to revenge ~ kind of like shooting someone from New Jersey in Idaho because the shooter had heard bad things about New Jersey. Makes about as much sense.
I get the feeling that the easiest to get were the first to be targeted. I wonder how quickly the quotas will be reached in more difficult conditions-wolves outside the park in more open spaces. Wolves in other areas are not so likely to be as easy to stalk or shoot, unless the hunters use their vehicles to run them down first then shoot.
As a disclaimer, I am not painting all hunters with this batch of tar but I suspect the majority of wolf hunters fit this model and I question their intentions given the importance of wolves in an ecosystem and the general ignorance of scientific evidence supporting “ecosystem importance” claims among wolf-hating hunters. Or perhaps a situation of “ignorance by choice” as in Gov. Butch’s case.
I just read an article in the Daily Interlake, that stated that during the first part of the general hunting season in Wolf Management Unit 1 which encompasses the NW Montana area, that 17 wolves have been taken out of a quota of 41.
So it seems the wolves have not been all that difficult to find even away from the parks.
Wolf Management Unit has yielded 11 out of a 22 animal quota as well.
fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/wolfStatus.html
JW,
The word “harvest” is overused, and that’s because it serves as a euphemism. To speak of a “harvest of wolves” is hardly the most egregious use of the term.
It is properly applied only to agriculture when some clearly renewable crop is gathered in.
Use of the word implies 1. an agricultural viewpoint, 2. renewability, and 3. use for the benefit of humans, at least some humans.
If it is applied to something non-renewable, non-living, or wild, use of “harvest” is improper. A distinction is often made, therefore, between mining something, which is by nature non-renewable; and cropping, which is renewable.
When they speak of “havesting timber” it makes sense if the rotation period is not too long. The rotation period is the time to the next crop. Harvesting timber every 50 years makes sense, but if an area barely supports trees and the next harvest is 400 years, then for practical purposes logging it is really timber mining.
Conversion of a forest that has never been logged to one that is now managed for timber is just that — conversion of a non-renewable part of nature to human dominated nature that can be cropped. That is why wilderness is not a crop.
When the word is applied to people, such as “harvesting the organs of a person who just died” it has strong implications that people are crops. It gives me the creeps to use the word that way.
Harvesting animals of any kind implies that they are livestock whether they are deer, elk or wolves that exist for the purpose of humans.
Current “organ harvest” of human organs is more like salvage. Why don’t they use the term “salvage” instead of “harvest?” Perhaps because the next step is use of organs in their prime.
There is some good common sense there Ralph.
Uh Ralph, I think my doppelgänger JW was simply meaning that using harvest instead of kill is a Fish and Game tactic to try to keep the non-hunting public from getting riled up about the killing fields of the fall hunts. It bugs me too which is why I try very hard to never use “harvest” to describe any activity involving killing game or fish. You take their life, fine, but own up to it, and don’t try to hide behind disingenuous language.
Thanks, Ralph… You worded out basically what I meant. Jdubya too.
JW,
You provided me with a welcome platform to say even more about the use of the word “harvest.” I had been thinking for a while that I didn’t like some of the ways the word was being used.