Quote:

---

No offence taken - All I meant was that I wouldn't want to see wolves extinct. But it seems that there were already wolves in Idaho before the introduction of the Canadian wolves. I take it that Canadian wolves are bigger and not the same as the native Idaho type? If so, it begs the questions - were there too few Idaho wolves, and why were a non-native strain introduced, rather than efforts made to increase the breeding success of the existing population?

Jabali, great discussion, as you are hitting all the big points! In speaking to Id Fish and Game, I am told the species are the same. However, similar to introducing large Albertan whitetails to Florida, though, the size is much bigger. I really do not know why more efforts weren't put into encouragement of indigenous Idaho wolves. I am not suggesting that such an effort would be prferable, maybe not, as it may have resulted in draconian laws preventing hunting in order to build those packs. The point is; DO WE WANT WOLVES IN IDAHO AT ALL?? Idahoans were not asked.

On a different point though, and not wishing to upset any Idahoans, I didn't want to get into a debate about wilderness,

Indeed, though, the whole issue revolves around that very debate. The issue of wolf recovery and the debate about wilderness are intimitely intertwined.

but if there is no space for wilderness in a place like this

Quote:

---

Idaho is a big state, about 1/2 the size of Sweden with 1/7 the population with many different climates and terrains.

---

then I guess that sets a worrying precedent for conserving habitat for lions and other dangerous game in Africa. I guess you could argue that with villages everywhere, there is no wilderness there either

---

In fact, you are raising very good points. Personally, I do not believe there IS much wilderness left in the world and I stand firmly with the say, Indian farmer who defends his goats with a load of birdshot against the marauding tiger. If governments are going to impose the existence of predators on local populations then governments should make them profitable to local populations, and indeed, assuming the predator in-question doesn't already exist in the area, the locals should be asked if they want them at all. I probably differ with many on this forum who desire to see expanding "wilderness". I don't, because I simply do not believe it is possible in the absence of intense injustice.

Sorry, but except for VERY FEW places, wilderness {my definition; an area where human impact does not exist or is very difficult to detect} in the world does not exist. Many hunters want to go to Africa because they believe "Africa" is wilderness. Not by my definition. not even close, and I have travelled in a good chunk of it. VERY FEW places in Africa are anything like wilderness. There are SOME fairly vast regions, but by definition, you shouldn't be hunting there, right...? Or does everybody want "wilderness" limitations to be imposed on the other guy, while they themselves get to benefit by the impositions...?

I suspect that many urbanites would view where I live as total wilderness. That is the problem because it leads to the imposition of problematic land management schemes on us, "because nobody lives there...".

Our game department did a very fine job encouraging the growth of huntable species. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves are a serious threat to that success.