I’m blogging from the Border’s on King Street(or shall I say Mayhem Sprawl Street?) in Billings. It’s a beautiful and humid-less 80 degrees with a nice breeze. Quite a relief from the awful humidity of the midwest.
I’m blogging from the road because I’m elated over the new wolf ruling which put the animals back on the endangered list.
Driving the night of the fifth, I did not get to my campsite in the Chippewa National Forest (Minnesota) until five in the morning. When I pulled into the site, a group of ravens were cawing and loon song echoed across the lake. I knew something was in the air and it turned out to be this great ruling which temporarily puts a stop to the overdone wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana. What was a fairly innocent hunting season had begun to turn into a demented and bizarre blood lust, and Molloy was right for putting them back on.
I drove through a wicked storm last night on the way to Billings, only to find out later this storm smashed a few houses and telephone poles. Quite the interesting drive.
Today I am headed to Big Timber and the Gallatin National Forest where I will be holed up for a week doing a bit of fishing and photography. I have no chance of seeing a wolf, but I know they are there.
Time to hit the highway, the Beartooths are calling.
This ruling was based on a technical interpretation of certain specific language in the ESA and has nothing to with honest tax paying hunters helping the states involved with a little predator management which is needed to protect a resource hunters paid for, as well as a resource all predators need to sustain their own populations, including these wolves which are a non endangered species on the North American Continent. At least Idaho has more wolves than Illinois does, what are you going to do about the state you are from which is far more screwed up than my home state is when it comes to wild life..
http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/08/07/molloy-relists-wolves/
It’s interesting because a federal ranger there abouts I just talked to while on vacation indicated to me that some land owners were warming up to the idea even, if federal protections were in place, because there primary fear was losing their land to developers. It seems as though federal protection on a species can afford them refuge–just like it can a predator that people are hell bent on destroying!
As a land owner in Idaho you will have a totally different perspective than those that don’t live there. Your views have validity also. But so do those wishing to preserve predators existence. The wildlife managmenet policies practiced during this era seem to either be crafted by those who are totally on the preservationist side, or those who wish to decimate a species altogether. How about policies that compromise on rancher/hunter/preservationist strategies?