BUT ARE WOLVES “NATIVE"?
By Jim Beers
Forget all these “grey”, “red”, “Mexican”, “timber” , etc. modifiers for wolf.
Wolves, from large (150 #’s and up) Dire wolves that greeted the first cavemen from Asia arriving in North America as glaciers were receding, to the modern North American wolves (larger as you go N to the Arctic Circle and smaller as you go S to Mexico) have all at one time or another inhabited what we now call Colorado.
Dire wolves went extinct millenniums ago. Their descendants (wolves/coyotes/dogs) have come and gone many times from various areas because of food scarcities or human (cave dwellers/Indians/Europeans) interventions that goes from Maine to Washington and Florida (although early Spanish expeditions reported no wolves in Florida pre-European-Settlement) to S. California.
You must understand what is meant by the very non-scientific term “Native” and “Non-Native.
No plant or animal has always been wherever. They come and go with weather (temperatures, moisture, food supplies, fires, etc.).
What is meant today when you are asked about the “Native” bona fides of any plant or animal is were they “here” or “there” when evil Europeans arrived and raped “the environment” while destroying the “Native” population, society and ecosystem. It is really a term signaling intent to right what is recognized (by some) as a monumental wrong: thus the almost religious goal of “re-establishing’ “native” species to assuage guilt.
So despite the fact that wolves, free-roaming buffalo, grizzly bears, et al no more belong or can be thought to belong in the 21st century Lower 48 States, the government on behalf of rich ideologues spends millions and oppresses millions of rural Americans with these destructive and often deadly “native” animals.
I won’t get into all the other hidden agendas like land control; eliminating grazing, logging, hunting, etc.; vacating rural lands and communities; and simple bureaucrat/politician benefits. Is the pheasant or brown trout to be killed off because we “introduced” them over a century ago and have since proved to be great additions to rural America?
The term “injurious” or “invasive” covers harmful newly arrived (whether by ships like Zebra Mussels or by federal government perfidy like Asian carp, pythons, and constrictors) animals, terms that denote a desire to exterminate them.
“Native” and “Non-Native”, while intended to denote such hostility are simply a propaganda term of art like the “Newspeak” described by Orwell in some dystopian novel.
Q. So, were there wolves in Colorado in 1492 or 1776? A. YES.
Q. Were there wolves in what is now Colorado in 1200 or 32 AD? A. Probably but no one really knows for sure.
Q. Were there wolves in Colorado in 1806 when Zebulon Pike was arrested by Spanish Conquistadors or in 1876 when the Territory became a State? A. YES.
Q. Do wolves belong in Colorado today? A. NO.
1. Biologically, the answer is simply an expression of opinion. The “ecosystem” is neither better nor worse with or without wolves; only different.
2. The governmental assertions of wolves being “good” or “endangered/threatened” is simply an all too often heard lie constructed for political/bureaucratic benefit.
3. The imaginary fantasies of teachers, children and others in large urban areas (whose votes control State and federal lawmakers) are a symptom of me having the luxury of telling you what to do (be a vegan, drive electric cars, stop using air conditioners, etc.) when it makes me feel good, costs me little, does not harm me or my dear ones, and importunes rural people for whom I have no empathy.
4. As a matter of fact>>
A. Wolves kill livestock and big game in large numbers and will eventually make each (along with producers and hunters) very rare.
B. Wolves kill all manner of dogs unless they interbreed opportunistically with the thereby creating a growing number of wolf/dog/coyote mongrels.
C. Wolves are very efficient vectors spreading more than 30 deadly diseases, infections and maladies from rabies, chronic wasting disease and Mad Cow to Foot-and-Mouth, anthrax, rabies and deadly fevers like Bourbon and Powassan.
Simply put, WOLVES DO NOT BELONG IN SETTLED LANDSCAPES from Asia and Europe to the USA and Canada.
No matter how many or how much land is declared “wilderness” the wolves multiply and wander over vast distances and frequent where there is food and they avoid harassment. That means the “settled landscapes”. Wolves are omnivorous and be it calves sheep, cows, moose, elk, hunting/watchdogs, garbage, whatever they will eat it just like your pampered dogs. Especially when they are habituated around humans or hungry as in winter or when feeding pups (Siberia and Russia have extensive records here) they will attack and eat children and elderly persons along with joggers and college age students.
The factual information pro or con wolves in settled landscapes is 100 to 1 against wolves wherever possible: the Ancestry/DNA test results on the imaginary “native” status notwithstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment