Wolf-hating "hero" gets jail for poisoning pets

[Rev. Coyote]

I think this guy needs more than six days' jail time, but at least he's been convicted. The article says, "Sundles was considered a hero by wolf foes in Idaho." If that's the case, it shows what lowlife this movement is composed of. The guy poisoned peoples' pets, for gawd's sake.

LOSER -- another angry little bastard. I hope during his six days of incarceration he meets a nice boyfriend. Maybe that'll chill him out.
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Man Sentenced for Seeking To Poison Wolves

April 20, 2007

[nefarious]

The sentence seems light. I'm surprised he got off that easy. He deserved a much harsher sentence.

But, the "wolf hero" has a point about wolves. I can't understand the mindset that inspires reverence towards nature and especially dangerous predators. It made absolutely no sense to reintroduce wolves where they had previously been eradicated. Perhaps we could "reintroduce" saber-tooth cats into the homes of certain people who insist that wilderness areas be stocked with wolves, just to let them know how the Yellowstone bison feel about it if for no other reason.

Just the same, I'm not usually cool with people taking the law into their own hands. A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

[JP]

When a wolf loses the fear of humans is really the only time we would have a problem with it. As far as livestock, now that is a different story That's just easy pickings

[Rev. Coyote]

A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

This is a bit off the point you make, but...

Predation is a hazard of being in the livestock business. I think it's wrong for the government to provide any type of predator eradication service, as it does now. Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

[gonzo]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem. The keystone predator keeps the population of animals further down the food chain in check, and helps keep the ecosystem productive.

Over the past several years we've seen constant stories about the exploding deer population. The increase of deer hurts the ecosystem because they graze forests and grasslands beyond the productive capacity. This loss of habitat affects every other member of the ecosystem.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that number of deer in the wild increases when it's primary predator is removed from the environment. By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).

Okay, now that I've written a lecture for a 7th grade biology class, let the flaming begin.

[JP]

Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer

Oh no, more farting cattle

[Sombeech]

The only crime was that he killed species other than wolves.

Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

Enjoy that hamburger, hate the ranchers.

[Rev. Coyote]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem. The keystone predator keeps the population of animals further down the food chain in check, and helps keep the ecosystem productive.

Over the past several years we've seen constant stories about the exploding deer population. The increase of deer hurts the ecosystem because they graze forests and grasslands beyond the productive capacity. This loss of habitat affects every other member of the ecosystem.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that number of deer in the wild increases when it's primary predator is removed from the environment. By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).

Okay, now that I've written a lecture for a 7th grade biology class, let the flaming begin. :popcorn:

Very well said. Reminds me of Leopold's views in his Land Ethic.

We have the deer issue here in VA because we've got no predators, and hunting can't keep up with a reasonable cull.

[Rev. Coyote]

The only crime was that he killed species other than wolves.

Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

:roflol: Enjoy that hamburger, hate the ranchers.

Never said I hated ranchers. Plus, there's LOTS of beef raised on private land where the ranchers don't mooch off the public dole.

Just because I use a product (lumber, oil, beef) doesn't mean I can't hold the producers to some kind of a standard.

[Sombeech]

Just because I use a product (lumber, oil, beef) doesn't mean I can't hold the producers to some kind of a standard.

Man, this is a great burger! MMphhph can you um mmhphmm fence the cows in so the *gulp* wolves don't get to them? *scarf* If not, I will complain louder while buying your product.

[gonzo]

...Reminds me of Leopold's views in his Land Ethic.

I've never read Leopold before. I'll have to pick up his books next time I'm at the book store.

We have the deer issue here in VA because we've got no predators, and hunting can't keep up with a reasonable cull.

I found this quote from a 2007 Wyoming Game and Fish Department report interesting:

[quote=Wyoming Game and Fish Dept]
...in half of the [elk] herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can

[Rev. Coyote]

As for Sundles and his anger towards wolves, I just have this to say: if you're in the wilderness, it might be dangerous. If you can't accept that risk, go to Disneyland.

Hell yeah.

Listen, the Leopold book you want is called "Sand County Almanac." It's pretty heady, but lays a lot of the foundation for things Edward Abbey wrote years later.

[Death]

Wouldn't the fact that Wolves are an amazing and beautiful animal be enough to validate not killing them all off? I mean really why don't we go kill all the bears because sometimes they kill people, or maybe mountain lions because people want to live in the mountains? Honestly that kind of thinking is going to get us a world devoid of everything but Bambi and pretty bunnies.

[JP]

Wouldn't the fact that Wolves are an amazing and beautiful animal be enough to validate not killing them all off?

I'm sure they're pretty tasty along with some corn, broccoli, a sweet potato and then some Sam Adams White Ale to wash it all down

[nefarious]

A better solution would be for victims to sue the government for a few hundred thousand dollars whenever livestock or people are attacked by wolves.

This is a bit off the point you make, but...

Predation is a hazard of being in the livestock business.

I think it's wrong for the government to provide any type of predator eradication service, as it does now. Ranchers suck on some of the biggest welfare teats the government sow has to offer. Then there's the almost-free grazing services...

First of all, the specific type of predation was introduced by the government where it previously had not existed, hence my call to hold the government accountable.

Furthermore, you have yet to make your case relating to "welfare ranching." Therefore, I can't entertain your concept of "biggest welfare teats," it is not for me to tell you what your argument is. But even if I were to grant your first point for the sake of argument, we would still have to assume that wolves never venture onto private land to attack people or cattle.

Finally, it's obvious you have a major beef with ranchers (no pun intended).

[nefarious]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem.

I can understand that argument, but why should we form out such an important responsibility to wild animals?

By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

What does "natural" mean in this context, and why should we assume it is superior to intelligent intervention?

Ranchers, naturally, are concerned that the wolves will (and have) hunt their livestock. This is a legitimate concern, and could be addressed by the government offering reimbursement for stock animals killed by wolves. (Although, I personally feel that stock loss due to wolf predation would be part of the natural cost of doing business, and should be accounted for in the rancher's business plan).

Well sure. And pretty much every business should plan for the IRS to unjustly seize their assets, because that is also a natural cost of doing business. On second thought, maybe it would be better to hold the government accountable for it's screw-ups.

[nefarious]

I think this guy needs more than six days' jail time, but at least he's been convicted. The article says, "Sundles was considered a hero by wolf foes in Idaho." If that's the case, it shows what lowlife this movement is composed of. The guy poisoned peoples' pets, for gawd's sake.

The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

What strikes me as odd is the outrage people feel over the poisonings themselves. Sure, it was a cruel thing he did, and I would rather nobody treat animals like that. But the cruelity of a poisoning pales in comparison to what the government's wolves can deliver in Yellowstone.

A pack of wolves will often take more than an hour to kill a bison. It's impossible to imagine the sheer pain and terror a bison must suffer as it is taken down by wolves, but nobody has word one to say about that. I guess if something is "natural," some people assume that makes it good. I don't think that follows.

[gonzo]

The reintroduction (or preservation) of a keystone predator, such as the gray wolf, is always going to be good for an ecosystem.

I can understand that argument, but why should we form out such an important responsibility to wild animals?

By reintroducing the gray wolf we're helping to restore the natural deer population limits, and in turn restoring the natural habitat.

What does "natural" mean in this context, and why should we assume it is superior to intelligent intervention?

You must have missed my later post about the 26 year study done by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department where they found the number of elk had a greater reduction in herds that had wolf predation than in herds without wolves.

My definition of natural means restoring the habit to a productive level, where the forest (or grassland, or anywhere) isn't threatened by an over population of any one species. (Be it deer and elk, or prairie dogs). Humans haven't done a good job maintaining these natural balances, otherwise we wouldn't have seen such a drastic explosion of the deer population.

[Rev. Coyote]

Finally, it's obvious you have a major beef with ranchers (no pun intended).

I have a problem with any industry that receives major government subsidy, and have addressed this in other threads.

[Rev. Coyote]

The guy did not intend to poison anyones pet. Also, I think you're too quick to brand him a "lowlife," I think he's probably just misguided. Perhaps his is a reaction to a government wolf nearly killing him and his family.

That may not have been his intent, but not to realize the possibility would give him the intellect of a plastic soap dish. "Misguided" is giving this prick far too much credit.

And if a wolf tried to kill him or his kids (highly unlikely), they should have just been more careful. Bears and cougars and snakes and scorpions are a bigger risk. If the woodlands scare you, stay in town.