|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visit our Sponsor!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Email comments to: dave@utahoutdoors.com. We'll publish them here. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Tracy, from Logan: I am voicing my comments on wolves. I know they should be able to return to Utah, when they come here on there own, and none should be able to say they can or can't come back to their native lands. And nobody, no matter what side they are on, should be threatened by others for their voice on this subject.
Ed L: As a matter of Fact, there are some wolves in Utah right now. Around December, 2002, while working as a snow maker at a ski resort in Park City, I found wolf prints in several ski runs, over the snow, they were like 6.5 by 4.5 inches, way wider than my hands with gloves. Let me tell you this was no coyote. I think they were from a young male traveling alone.
From Andreea: I don't think people realize how much wolves impact people as well as livestock! If you want the wolves in Utah put them in your backyard, not mine!!!!!! I don't want to go out one day and see a little defenseless calf, colt, or anything else being mutilated, and then left alive with half of their body missing. Sure wolves might have lived here before, but they don't belong here. Take them to Salt Lake or in your backyard. Leave the wolves out of mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cows are not what ruin public land that some people think should be their own. Cows are what keep the public land from being laden with fires. When the cows eat the grass and keep it down, then we don't have to worry about fires coming into our homes and communities. If the land is just left and there is nothing to graze it or mow the lawn, then there is grass left that is used for nothing. The grass is wasted. It just becomes a hazard. Wolves do not belong in Utah!
From Trent, who lives in Salt Lake City: I think it's great that wolves are making their way into Utah. The predator/prey interaction that wolves will bring to the ecosystem will harvest the weak, sick, and old members of the deer and elk herds. This is much better than the current system where the most healthy members are targeted and "harvested". That's one thing that I have a hard time listening to.... I hear "sprtsmen" cry out that we need to kill cougars, wolves, bears, coyotes, etc. because there are too many of them. I know they exist, but I've never seen one cougar, bear, or wolf in the wild in Utah. (I have seen one coyote during the deerhunt when I was a kid). I'll bet very few "sportsmen" have seen them either (except for those "sportsmen" who tree cougars with their dogs and then very sportingly "harvest" the all of those surplus cougars), or bait bears. You do hear of an attack or near attack every now and then, but the problem of these predators attacking humans or their livestock is probably more of an overabundance of another predator killing all the deer and elk. The one overly abundant predator in our current ecosystem seems to be sportsmen. I would like to see the DWR to come up with a plan to thin that herd out a little.
From Laurel, who lives in Randolph: In the rush to put the Wolf back "where it belongs" we are putting an entirely different variant of Wolf into areas where he never existed. The Wolf that's returning to Utah is much bigger than its predecessor. At the turn of the century here in northern Utah we had no elk and few deer but we did have Wolves. Is there a correlation? You be the judge. As long as we have people and needs we will have man, animal conflicts. If you believe animals are more important than man why not be a hero and be one of the first ones to opt out?
From Karen: YAHOOOO for the wolves. Now maybe i won't have to drive 5-6 hours to Yellowstone to see them. As for having an affect on the deer and elk, well of course they will, but I bet not nearly as much as the drought, over hunting, land loss from developement and over grazing and just plain bad management by fish and wildlife. They were here first, and they deserve to be here now. I would rather see or hear a pack of wolves on my camping trip then to see and hear and smell a stinking herd of 600+ cows or sheep as they trample my campsite. Anyone had that happen to them?
From Ralph Pectol: Yes, we should be wondering why the cattle men can destroy camp sites and trials with there cattle on public land. Speak up people, we all should get tired of some people making a profit on land that we should enjoy and share (free) with wild animals that need to fight for every mouth full of food with 600+ cattle or sheep. Get them off of public land! But, the cattle men are all Republican and so are YOU! So that will never happen...
From Joel Gray: I think it's great that wolves are coming back. That means their population must be up and the threat of extinction is decreasing. I also think that the wolf should remain a protected species for many years to come. I know ranchers, in general, don't like the return of the wolf for fear of the impact on livestock. I have several comments on this issue: Nobody should have the right to kill a wolf unless it is threatening attack on human life. Ranchers should be compensated for loss due to wolves. But, also the ranchers need to see that there are places that livestock just don't belong, such as deep in the forests and mountains, and keep the livestock out of these places and harms way.
From Bill Housley: Wolves are dangerous to livestock but they are also dangerous to the coyotes. Coyotes are a far worse hazard to livestock than the wolves are because wolves try to avoid man and coyotes do not. Studies have shown that having wolves in an area reduces coyote populations and livestock losses. Of course wolves hunt wild game, but maybe having a few wolves around will help stir the deer off of private land. I think that Utah is ready for the return of the wolf. However, the livestock owners need to be given proper consideration too. They should be allowed a reasonable ability to protect their livestock. Wolves are smart, and giving the livestock owners adequate freedom will provide the wolves with a deterrent and they will respond by killing less livestock.
From Kevin Noorda: We plan just don’t need them. They eat everything and how can people say that they are a balance to the environment. We have struggling deer herds as it is. And I really think they are a threat to humans–what predator isn’t. I love the outdoors and am an avid bow hunter. I DON'T want to run in to a wolf, and yes I have seen many bobcats, cougars and bears in the woods. I don’t want to see wolves to.
From Jared M: I personally am glad the wolves are back. It’ll be nice to have more of a wild history back and if they get a few of the millions of livestock to well, more food for the native deer and elk.
From Jeff George: I don't think they'll hurt anything. They might get a few cows and sheep but they love to eat elk and deer. But this means that we shouldn't issue quite as many tags. Coyotes eat more livestock than anything. I don't really care wolves are in Utah as long as they don't bother me.
Dear Editor:
The dichotomy of sentiments expressed in your July, 2002, issue was disturbing. You lamented the invasion of our “red-rock paradise” by teeming hordes of city kids while, at the same time, promoting further invasions.
“Solitude and unspoiled beauty are magic ingredients... harder to find,” you said, then had Mark Reece tell us how to trash them both, ploughing up Onion Creek in a shiny SUV with the stereo blasting (six SUVs, actually, for only 11 people and a dog)! How about an article on Desert Ethics 101?
Our impact on the fragile desert landscape is severe. Tracks across the cryptobiotic soil crust last decades and promote rapid soil erosion. Orange peels can remain for years. Driving up a rare desert stream can be devastating.
I chalk it up to selfish ignorance rather than malice. Kill a weed in your city garden and another replaces it soon. Kill a weed (?) in a crypto garden and it might be years before anything else grows in that spot. It’s that dry here.
If I took my 4X4 off-road in, say, American Fork, across the flowerbeds and up the courthouse steps or churning through the water hazards at the golf course, the visible impact would be healed in weeks. Down Moab way, those scars might last a lifetime.
Driving off-road is illegal EVERYWHERE in Grand County with the exception of some sand dunes and dry washes specifically set aside for that use. Stay on the roads. There are plenty of them, some tough enough to break a Rover.”
As for hiking in solitude amidst unspoiled beauty, if you’re a destination oriented hiker and your destination is a popular one, tough, you’re part of the horde. Consider non-destination oriented hiking. It’s easy and there are zillions of places you can do it.
Just pull over at a wide spot. Turn off your noisy stereo. Shut down that smelly engine. Get out into the fresh air and stroll up over the hill or down the wash. Listen to the silence. Careful where you put your feet. Don’t want to crush living things. (This can be an exciting challenge in itself.) Get naked if you want. Have some fun. Enjoy the freedom. Always remember where you parked. It’s your only destination.
I can’t help but agree with Golden Webb’s opinion (The Dark Side of Canyoneering) in that same issue regarding the massive incursion of outsiders to the backcountry, but I’ll be gentler. Attention Metropolitan Hordes!: It might be better if you just stayed home and sent us your money. No, really. We’ll be glad to send you the video.
Your rural buddy,
Randy Evans
Moab, Utah
Dear Editor:
As one of your long-time subscribers, and you've used some of my Dutch oven recipes in the earlier issues, I have really liked the "new" Utah Outdoors—until now. I don't appreciate seeing "a..h..." in your magazine and I don't feel I can now pass it on to my grandkids to read with such crud in it.
I hope you don't continue to feel that such crud is necessary in what has been a family magazine.
Best wishes,
Dick Michaud
Logan
Dear Editor:
Your juxtaposing the anti and pro fishing cancellation letters in the September issue was compelling. It points out the difficulty of providing a magazine that entirely satisfies such a diverse reader base. It seems to me there are enough Utahns who enjoy the outdoors to easily support a magazine. But they are divided into groups that possess alienating philosophies. If you try to make everyone happy by avoiding anything that might offend, you end up with a bland product which people find uninteresting.
Because of Utah's limited population, the mountain bikers can't have a local magazine without the fishermen, and the fishermen can't have a local magazine without the mountain bikers; everyone should try to live in tolerance or live without.
I've noticed that there is a large number of Utahns who simply haven't heard of the magazine. Perhaps your embracing controversy and diversity of opinion will alter that. I think you offer quite a bit for $20 per year.
Sincerely,
Jim Owens
Park City
