A good article about the unacceptable ways that certain species of animals are being exploited

First it was the agrarian revolution, then the industrial revolution then the industrialization of agrarianism. Now we have a new, insidious, and very dangerous ‘revolution’ as we see the industrialization of the oldest formal method of survival- ‘hunting’. States’ rights to manage wildlife and their willingness to do so for a minority of their citizens, have led to the undesirable, even unethical, practice of ‘cultivating’ ungulate herds by putting pressure on carnivores. This has led to the misuse of the underlying foundation of ‘science.’ It is now used only to justify the ‘value’ of providing the political and financial opportunities that go hand-in-hand with the demands of ungulate hunters and the positive revenue they realize for the Agencies. The herds are yours and mine, yet they are being sold to the highest bidder and the predators whose job it is to contribute to the biodiversity of the natural world are being vilified and slaughtered.

The deer and elk ‘industry’ is not wildlife management. It is supply and demand to satisfy those with political clout. Our fellow predators are not the enemy of a free market niche of ungulate hunters. We need to say a resounding ‘NO’ to the slippery slope of policies that condone managing wild predatory species to provide for the demands of the human predator.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/were-letting-another-predator-go-down

Comment on Facebook

Again, I only see the use of dogs in going after a Rouge animal that has done serious wrong. Being hunted by a pack of dogs is so unfair and disrespectful to such an incredible animal. I think Ranchers should get double or even triple compensation if a Lion or Wolf takes down their livestock. One of one isn't enough. At least they will be happy and not be so hateful towards an Apex animal. I am from New England - we had the Eastern Mountain Lion subspecies. We killed them all off and they have been deemed extinct by Smithsonian. The last one was killed in Maine in 1938. This is why I have such an interest in them and am involved in their conservation. This will always be a hot topic - we shall see how it unfolds.

Just curious... I live in Colorado, and a common refrain you hear from opponents of this measure is that we should not be doing "ballot box biology", and that biology should be left to the biologists. I guess the problem I have with this argument is that all you have to do is read The Ninemile Wolves by Rick Bass or the chapter on "The Predatory Bear" in Dominion of Bears to see that wildlife agencies are frequently politicized, and they themselves have agendas that are not rooted in sound biology (CPW does actually have a decent reputation though). Utah's recent changes to their Mountain Lion hunting rules certainly weren't rooted in biology. When you dig deeper, it seems like a lot of the opposition to these measures has to do with protecting hunting and ranching interests. Ranchers don't want any depredations, and hunters want to be able to kill predators so there are more ungulates for hunters to kill (outfitters obviously have an economic stake in these decisions). I don't mean to demean either group of people... I have eaten plenty of beef in my life, and, while I don't hunt, I understand that it is a part of some people's way of life. But if I were sitting with a fellow Colorado resident who was telling me that the State should not be engaging in "ballot-box biology", what counterargument would you recommend that I make?