MORE ON THE NEVERENDING STORY
Elk Foundation, Pro-Wolf Groups Need to Walk the Talk
Writing letters is easy. Now, let's do the hard part--get in the same room, actually talk to each other and work out a compromise on the wolf issue. This is not that hard to do.By Bill Schneider, 4-22-10
Courtesy photo, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
For about three years now, I’ve been wondering how something so easy to do just can’t to get done.
Pro-wolf and anti-wolf groups really aren’t that far apart on a compromise that could end the seemingly endless wolf debate and allow all of us to move forward. Yet, nobody, I guess, wants risk showing weakness by making the first move. So I will. I’m weak. I’m blinking. I’m saying let’s settle this now.
Last time I wrote about this issue (click here), I blamed the agencies for not getting together with the pro-wolf groups and working out a deal. That was two years ago, and they still haven’t done it, even though I thought I laid out some fairly simple numbers that could make both sides happy--and all of us who haven’t taken sides, too.
But clearly, the agencies aren’t going to do anything that seems like they’re giving in to pro-wolf groups. They will only do what their scientists tell them is the right thing to do, even if it means extending the wolf controversy into the 22th Century.
Now, we have another chance to work it out. Following this short commentary, I’ve posted two long letters. The first letter from two pro-wolf groups, Defenders of Wildlife and Western Wildlife Conservancy. I only posted it first because of the logical sequence of events. It was sent to David Allen, President of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, after RMEF sent out a fairly pointed press release in late February blasting pro-groups in general (and naming these two nonprofits) for “ disingenuous use of data” in claiming that wolf restoration has “somehow translated to growing elk herds in the northern Rockies.”
The second letter is Allen’s response.
In 2009, RMEF joined wildlife agencies in the big legal fight over wolf delisting from the protection of the Endangered Species Act,
“Remember,” Allen said in the press release, “pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they’ve built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That’s a myth.”
Is it or isn’t it? That is the question. It’s a lot of reading, but if you want to see how this debate has evolved, check out the following two letters. It’s sort of amazing to see how the two sides of the debate can use the same data to arrive at exactly opposite opinions about what’s happening.
In any regard, though, I sure hope these groups can actually get together and work out a deal. Both sides suggest a meeting to do exactly that, but such a meeting hasn’t happened yet, nor is it scheduled. I say, just do it--and ASAP.
I suspect the agencies would accept such a brokered settlement by these groups because it wouldn’t appear like they kowtowed to environmentalists. Instead, it’d look like they joined in a reasonable compromise to end wolf impasse.
March 30, 2010
Attention: David Allen
President and CEO
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
5705 Grant Creek Rd
Missoula, MT 59808
Dear Mr. Allen,
We are writing to respond to multiple erroneous and misleading statements you recently made to the news media regarding our organizations and our positions on wolves and elk. We would like to clarify our position and intent so as to avoid further confusion and dispute.
It is surprising and disappointing that you chose to air this misinformation without contacting us beforehand. Doing so has only served to further polarize this important conservation issue.
We are not misrepresenting data compiled by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). The data we have referenced from the RMEF are undeniable: region wide, elk continue to thrive in the presence of wolves. We celebrate that fact as fellow wildlife conservation organizations and highlight this wildlife success to counter misinformation on elk numbers that threatens another wildlife success, wolf restoration. We have provided links to some of the RMEF sources we relied upon, as well as a fact sheet on wolf-elk relationships.
The impact wolves have on specific elk herds certainly varies from case to case and depends on numerous environmental factors. Those impacts may also be exacerbated in human-dominated landscapes. Basic wildlife biology, however, teaches us that predators and prey co-exist over the long term and across the landscape and have been doing so for centuries. There are approximately 1,700 wolves in the region, compared to over 360,000 elk in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and many hundreds of thousands of deer. Habitat loss and fragmentation pose far greater threats to elk, as does disease spread by artificial feeding.
More fundamentally, wolves are native wildlife, and both the states and the federal government are obligated to maintain healthy populations. The first principle of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (featured on your website) is “fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens,” recognizing the legitimate federal role in ensuring that states manage wildlife in the best interests of all Americans. The other basic principle states that
wildlife “are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever,” understating how important it is that state plans are in place that guarantee the long-term viability of wolves.
You may disagree with our application of these principles to wolves, but you should not mischaracterize it. We fully support wolf delisting and state management so long as the terms ensure a healthy and sustainable regional wolf population over the long term. The current federal requirement of 100 to 150 wolves per state does not meet this threshold, particularly given the real possibility that states could try to manage wolves down to those numbers over time. There is much hostility voiced by a select few toward wolves in the Northern Rockies states including in state legislatures, by some governors’ offices, and even apparently from other conservation groups. Strong, balanced, science-based federal and state plans are necessary to overcome this opposition to wolf recovery.
We recognize that public hunting may eventually be a regular component of state wolf management. However, until plans ensuring regional wolf sustainability are in place public hunts could force populations down before they are secure.
Our position is not one of opposition to sustainable hunting practices or to the important role that hunting plays in conservation. Responsible hunters are some of the most knowledgeable wildlife conservationists, and we seek and find common ground with them regularly. It is unfortunate we have not been able to do so with RMEF recently but would like to work together in the future.
Through your publicity campaign against us, RMEF appears to be trying to benefit from increasing the conflict over wolves, even as you accuse us of the same. Our proposed solution, however, is not more conflict but more collaboration. We have called for a scientific review of wolf recovery criteria to incorporate the best available science, followed by a regional stakeholder process to guide development of state plans that meet wolves’ biological needs while addressing the legitimate concerns of affected people and communities. Polarization of the conflict has only resulted in more frustration and wasted resources for us all. Working together is preferable and we would hope RMEF would lend its considerable expertise to this process.
Wildlife conservation includes recovering all wildlife. Wolf recovery is the natural continuation of North American wildlife traditions developed with great leadership by hunters. Our groups share a vested interest in conserving wildlife in the West--both predator and prey. Some of us are avid elk hunters, and it has been disappointing to be attacked by RMEF for attempting to extend America’s wildlife conservation know-how and tools to wolves.
We would like to meet with you to discuss these issues. We can--and we must--have healthy populations of both elk and wolves, and we look forward to your response. Please contact Mike Leahy or Kirk Robinson at the below contact information if you would like to talk.
Sincerely,
Mike Leahy, Director, Rocky Mountain Region, Defenders of Wildlife
Kirk Robinson, PhD, JD, Executive Director, Western Wildlife Conservancy
Cc: RMEF Board of Directors
Enclosures
1. 2009 ELK HUNTING FORECAST: Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, according to Idaho Fish & Game by Jack Ballard, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation “Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close,” says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.”
2. “Wild elk populations in 23 states are higher now than 25 years ago when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) was launched to help conserve habitat for elk and other wildlife.” “Population highlights among top elk states: . . . Colorado, Montana and Utah herds are 50-70 percent larger. Oregon and Wyoming are up 20-40 percent.” www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsReleases/2009/ElkPopulations.htm
3. Elk Population Soaring: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation celebrates success on its 25th anniversary www.newwest.net/topic/article/elk_populations_soaring/C41/L41/
4. “Wolves By The Numbers” from RMEF’s Sept/Oct 2009 Bugle Magazine comparing elk numbers and elk hunter success to wolf numbers (enclosed).
April 8, 2010
Mike Leahy
Director, Rocky Mountain Region
Defenders of Wildlife
303 W Mendenhall, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
Kirk Robinson
Executive Director
Western Wildlife Conservancy
68 Main Street, Suite 4
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Dear Mr. Leahy & Mr. Robinson:
I am in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2010. I will address your points factually and straightforward.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss conservation issues and the destruction of specific herds of elk in North America. We believe; however, that your organizations and others are contributing greatly to perhaps one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th century. Until the lawsuit relative to re-listing the wolves is settled or until you withdraw your support for such, there really isn’t much need to meet as we continue to be at opposite ends of this issue.
Once again, I will state that elk are not flourishing where wolves are present. Contrary to what you have suggested many times to claim otherwise is disingenuous and “cherry picking” data. Elk populations are being exploited at a high rate by predators, primarily wolves and somewhat by grizzly bears. However, since the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into Yellowstone this exploitation has become worse for elk numbers in the same areas. Yet, you would have the public believe otherwise.
The numbers and facts do not lie and they are as follows:
The Northern Yellowstone herd, trend count has dropped from nearly 19,000 elk in 1995 before the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf to just over 6,000 elk in 2008. At the same time wolf numbers in this same area are on a steady increase. Nowhere can I find where a 60% reduction of this herd was a goal of the wolf introduction. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
The Moose population in Yellowstone National Park trend count shows a decrease to almost zero. (Source: 2009 Wolf-Ungulate Study Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
The Gallatin Canyon elk herd trend count between Bozeman and Big Sky has dropped from around 1,048 to 338 in 2008. (Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
The Madison Firehole elk herd trend count has dropped from 700 to 108 in 2008.(Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks)
The calf survival rate for those same elk herds mentioned above, where wolves (and bears) are present, is extremely low amounting to as little as 10% or less recruitment or survival rate. Nearly any wildlife professional will tell you this is an unacceptable recruitment or survival rate. Acceptable wildlife science tells us that a 25-40% survival rate is necessary for herd sustainability. Further, a recent MSU study shows those elk that remain in the Northern Yellowstone herd are in below standard health as they are not feeding where and how they normally do and the females are not getting pregnant as they should, due to hormonal imbalances. How and why did this behavior change? (See Montana State University Study by Professor Scott Creel in July 2009; funded by the National Science Foundation)
Wolf numbers have far exceeded what sportsmen, ranchers, wildlife conservationists and the public at-large were told was a desirable goal. Specifically, 30 breeding pairs and 300 total wolves was the goal line when wolves were released in 1995. The minimum number of wolves is now over 1,700 according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and a number of animal rights groups such as yours believe those numbers should be 2,000 to 5,000. This is the most disingenuous and deceiving issue relative to the entire Canadian gray wolf introduction, and your groups and others perpetuate this every chance you get. We call it, “keep moving the goal line” politics. It is doubtful even you believe that 2,000-5,000 wolves in this area is sustainable. However, this allows you to keep saying “We haven’t reached the goal line yet.” It is sad wildlife management has to come such political posturing.
Wolf population goals established at the introduction in 1995 have been surpassed by some 300-500%. Yet groups like yours continue to move the goal line and yes, continue to cherry pick your facts to push an agenda.
Studies show that each wolf kills up to 23 elk from November through April; that equates to up to 40,000 elk killed in six months. This number does not include those elk killed for food by wolves from May through October. While the number of elk killed per wolf from May through October is less than the number from November through April, it is still considerable; and that is just the elk killed for food. These numbers do not account for those elk simply killed by wolves (surplus killing) and yes, that does happen. Nowhere near the majority of these elk kills are simply the sick and the old.
The habitat loss that you cite in your letter is yet another critical reason why wolves must be properly managed and managed now. As elk ranges shrink and are encroached upon, the elk have less chance for survival in areas where wolves are concentrated. Elk become trapped with less habitat available. Your organization talks about elk and wolves coexisting on the same terms as if it were the Old West again. It clearly is not and that is why man must manage wildlife as we have for over a century.
Canadian gray wolves introduced in Yellowstone in 1995, simply are not endangered, it is quite the opposite. There are thousands of these wolves in North America. Remember this reintroduction was classified as an experimental, non-essential re-introduction in the first place. Your groups would have today’s public believe that it is essential. These wolves are not endangered.
You contradict yourself as you point out in your letter how there is a “legitimate federal role in ensuring states manage wildlife in the best interests of all Americans…,” yet you circumvent and disagree with the federal opinion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that the wolves are recovered. Further, you disagree that these wolves should not be listed as endangered and be managed by the states at this time.
You can’t have it both ways but you continue to try as long as you can get away with it. Do the federal authorities know what they are talking about or not?
It is likely that your groups have reaped large donations from your campaign to keep wolves on the endangered species list. This is a common tactic for animal rights groups. It is apparent that if the entire wolf controversy went away it would represent a considerable revenue loss for you.
I don’t see what your costs are relative to the wolf recovery program as it is likely you are getting federal funds to pay some or all of your legal fees under the Judgment Fund or EAJA funds. Could you confirm for us and the public at large if you are receiving such federal funds (taxpayer funds) to offset your legal fees? Frankly, I don’t believe most of the public know about or understand the Judgment Fund or EAJA but they should. It sheds light on potential motives and tactics.
Idaho’s elk numbers in units where wolves exist are far worse, with two units showing over 80% decline since wolves were introduced. If wildlife conservation was your true agenda you would not stand for such losses of any species. The facts are there--the numbers do not lie! Our elk herds cannot be sustained if wolf numbers continue to expand without proper management. What is happening now is not sound management, it is simply an assault. Re-listing wolves will worsen the issue dramatically.
Your letter states, “(Defenders) position is not one of opposition to sustainable hunting practices or to the important role that hunting plays in conservation. Responsible hunters are some of the most knowledgeable wildlife conservationists and we seek and find common ground with them regularly. It is unfortunate we have not been able to do so with RMEF recently but would like to work together in the future.” You have never sought common ground with us once that I recall.
Let’s consider those words a moment. We do not believe that your organizations subscribe to hunting as a viable conservation tool; in fact we believe you and other animal rights groups have an overriding agenda to decrease hunting until there is none. If you truly want to “work together” as your letter suggests, then you will step forward and show a sincere willingness to manage wildlife as they should be managed and not continue to promote a hidden agenda or continue to move the goal line.
In fact, I invite you to come to my office and let’s resolve this issue for the sake of those responsible hunters and those responsible non-hunters you reference. Enough of the legal maneuvering and posturing, let’s resolve this now.
Plain and simple, wolves are predators, nothing more and nothing less. They need to be managed like other predators by the folks who manage the rest of our wildlife, the state wildlife agencies. This wolf amnesty program is poor wildlife management. The American sportsmen deserve better respect for all they have contributed to wildlife while groups like yours play games with the system.
Your letter states you have called for a scientific review of the wolf recovery program. Who are your scientists conducting the review? We have never heard of this scientific review? We can find no announcement of such nor can we confirm it. Why isn’t the wildlife science of three of the leading western states (Wyoming, Montana and Idaho) and the USFWS credible? Is it that you are not getting the answers you are looking for? If so, that is not subscribing to science that is manipulating it to get a desired answer.
We live within the rules and game management policies of all the state agencies and when we have differences of opinion we go to them and work it out like adults. The United States has the best system of wildlife management in the world, yet you reject the system of states managing their wildlife. Among your tactics are filing lawsuits to stall and extend the process and then point fingers at others like RMEF and say we are polarizing the conflict!
Managing wildlife in court is a recipe for disaster. Again, you seem to contradict yourselves in your letter; on one hand you trumpet the success of the overall elk populations in these three states (which are managed by those states, I might add); and on the other hand you reject those same three states’ ability to manage wolves. That is a curious contradiction. Either these states know what they are doing or they don’t.
No one is promoting an annihilation of wolves, so let’s stop pretending such exists. However, there is a great need for sensible balance and the current wolf numbers have long since crossed over the tipping point. If your organizations do not begin to subscribe to sound wildlife management soon, this disaster will lay squarely on your hands for history and the public to judge. Feel free to use the data enclosed in this letter when talking to media and legislatures in the future. As I said at the beginning, the numbers and the facts do not lie.
Respectfully submitted,
M. David Allen, President & CEO, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I agree with Mr. Allen's statement: “pro-wolf groups make their living by prolonging this conflict. There is no real incentive for them to admit that wolves are overly recovered. Fundraising is their major motive and they’ve built a goldmine by filing lawsuits and preaching that nature will find its own equilibrium between predators and prey if man would just leave it alone. That’s a myth.”
I don't know how long he's been around, but surely Allen must know that about half of that N. Yellowstone herd he's talking about froze to death in winter of 96-97, following a rain-on-snow-then-hard-freeze weather event. Locals tell of finding the landscape littered with frozen elk carcasses when the snow thawed that spring. many of those would have been pregnant cows, resulting in a secondary herd population drop. Also, FWP knew the herd was WAY overpopulated, so they instituted late season cow tags during this same time frame. Even as late as 2 hunting seasons ago we were still getting elk season extensions in SW Montana.
Also, note how Allen refers to the "Canadian" wolf. he knows damn well there is no such species--the gray wolf living here now is the same gray wolf that lived here 1,000 years ago.
Yeah, hunting is harder with wolves on the landscape. Elk behave more like, well, wild elk and move around and hide a lot more. Quit your whining, sharpen your tracking skills, get out of your truck and go hike a bit. It won't kill you. Hunting isn't supposed to be easy.
Unfortunately, the RMEF is really tarnishing its reputation on the wolf issue. They should stick to habitat protection. That's the biggest threat to elk and all wildlife.
to leave the rest of your Daisey chain argument be for the moment and address just one lie you are telling, there was never any agreement for 300 wolves total by anyone any where. to say that is a damned lie.
We were supposed to have at least 300 wolves, we actually have 600% of that counted and probably more that are not counted, but that is not enough, now they want nearly 2000% of the originally requested 300 and that likely would not be enough.
Dr. David Mech and 9 of 10 other wolf biologists stated the Wyoming plan was biologically sound. Environmental groups figuratively spit in his eye and stated they knew better and found a judge (with ????? biological background) to rule against it.
I truly believe that the wolf groups have ruled the whole situation from the very beginning.
Again can you show us a single compromise made by wolf groups?
The biological curve is not a straight line. Predator populations grow to take advantage of prey populations. Predator populations continue to rise until the decline in prey population forces them to find other prey or to starve to death or otherwise decline in numbers. Other prey includes livestock, pets and people. The wolves in the Yellowstone area are declining due in part to poor nutrition. Elk numbers are greatly reduced in the area whether it is from weather or wolves.
The states have proved that they can manage wolf hunts. Hunters followed the rules and we had basically the same number of wolves counted this year as last. Hunting didn't make a dent in their population. It may help preserve some of their food supply. We now have wolve coming into towns and killing pets, hanging around bus stops, they are killing livestock on private property, not just National Forest grazing leases.
Game wasn't plentiful when the Lewis and Clark Expedition came through Idaho. They almost starved.
Isn't it time to allow the state agencies to manage wolves as a part of the total wildlife picture? They aren't going to try to manage their numbers down to zero. Wolves aren't and haven't been an endangered species. We can always bring in more for genetic diversity if it appears to be necessary.
Waiting too long may bring about the sort of backlash that led to removing most wolves from the lower 48 in the first place.
Unfortunately, even the comments posted here show that the unwillingness of folks on both sides of the issue to "get together and work out a deal" spreads far past group leadership. If this issue is to be resolved peacefully, a lot of people would have to abandon their tweaked data and talking points in order to really learn and accept the facts of wolf recovery and management. Sadly, there seems to be little incentive for people to do this, and if the people aren't going to change, the politicians they elect--the people in power-- will likely be hesitant to change also.
Now there are almost 100 packs in each state, 242 identified and counted, plus how knows how many missed. How much more do the states have to give?
It's not worth the marginal effort to reply to you directly. David Mech has, however, pointed out that Defenders' et al argument that genetic interchange is mandatory, and the only way for it to happen is through dispersal corridors, is flawed on both points.
He has fifty years with the Isle Royale isolate population to back him up.
So, google "L. David Mech" and you'll probably find what you don't want to believe.
I agree with Wyoming's plan. The upshot of the plan is to keep wolves in a certain area of the state, where they will become a part of the system, but not allow them to spread into other areas where they are not wanted.
you statement about 300 wolves being "the original stated desired numbers of wolves" is exactly why many wildlife conservation groups are nervous about delisting.
300 is mentioned in the recovery plan as the MINIMUM number of wolves for a recovered population in the N. Rockies, not the "desired number." Wolf advocates are concerned that states will interpret that just as you did: as a population ceiling, rather than a floor, and manage wolves right down to that minimum level of 100 a piece. (maybe FWP wouldn't do that, but certainly Wyo G&F;would, and likely Idaho F&G;). I don't think you'll find anybody who will agree that 300 members of any species constitutes a recovered population.
I agree. Examples of successful compromise in this type of situation are rare at best. But as I indicated when I first proposed such a deal a few years ago (linked in the above article), there is a number that would work. We have about 1,700 wolves right now. Even with management actions and hunting mortality, we're probably going to be close to 2,000 next year. So, pick a number.
If we could agree, for the sake of conversation, that 1,500--or 2,000 or whatever--was a number we could compromise on, then,we have a deal. That deal would be pro-wolfers dropping litigation and allowing delisting to happen and anti-wolfers not to managing the population below whatever the agreed-to number is. it doesn't seem that hard.
I actually think this could happen, but my point is, nobody will even have this conversation, so no chance of a deal.
Bill
Dr. David Mech estimated the population at 3000 last year or the year before, his opinion was dismissed and the lawsuits for more were filed. We all know they only count the wolves actually seen and it stands to reason that about half of the actual population is truly wild and not out where they can be counted, especially without collars.
The states agreed to 450 wolves early on as a means of compromise, that didn't even come close to demands of environmental groups. So the states have compromised, but again the environmental groups only demand ever more....after all it brings in doanations and costs them nothing. the states and the individual families pay the costs.
There is not even any number that they would agree not to increase when it is achieved.
Anyone who believes there cannot be too many wolves in an area need only look at the Yellowstone wolves, their health and decline. On top of that we have no idea how the echinococcus is going to ultimately affect all of the other wildlife in the GYE. Was it involved in the big horn deaths? Has anyone checked?
There's no use in trying to analyze and discuss what drives the unwashed extreme ends of this argument, the psychotic rednecks on the one hand and the neurotic twinkies on the other; however, for those of us who value biodiversity and both take this question seriously and can be taken seriously, there are two factors driving caution on this issue.
First, there is the question of how to secure a level of genetic diversity and interchange that will guarantee longterm species sustainability. Defining a population size that supports this goal is complicated for a number of reasons. The science behind determining required genetic population is evolving rather quickly. There is groundbreaking work being done at this very time on establishing the basis for genetic risk, the role of stochastic events under different conditions for different species, the protocols for determining the genetic population size within a given overall population, and on other factors, including the role of interconnectivity between breeding populations. The science is being advanced right now, in realtime, and being debated, in good faith, by reputable scientists. Again, I tend to think that 1500 to 2000 individuals might be sufficient under certain conditions. Those conditions might, MIGHT, include keeping corridors open to encourage mixing between populations as a means of ensuring that the population truly was 1500 to 2000 and not several smaller fragmented groups, maintaining an ongoing assessment of the health of the genetic population to ensure that it remained strong even within what might be agreed upon as a sufficient overall population size, and, if necessary, occasionally augmenting the genetic mix with new individuals from outside the Northern Rockies.
The second factor is trust. Those of us who value biodiversity and are neither psychotic rednecks on the one hand nor neurotic twinkies on the other have learned, from a long history of bad experience, that great caution is warranted when dealing with some elements of the western social or political scene. There are clearly some people with whom a compromise could be reached and who would, if it was up to them, keep that compromise; however, there are also elements who, as soon as the ink was dry on a 1500 to 2000 animal agreement with the right terms and conditions, would immediately move to abrogate that agreement and start poaching at top speed. We're already seeing that. Now we have psychotic rednecks blaming the decline in bighorn sheep populations on wolves with one side of their mouths while defending domestic sheep on public lands out of the other. Until this part of the spectrum is properly handled, the trust isn't going to be there.
Why do you suppose the wolf population has soared so fast if the "psychotic rednecks" who are losing thousands of dollars to the wolves were actually killing them hand over fist. So what is your explanation for the only loss in wolf numbers is....Yellowstone National Park! So who are the killers there?
You might want to take a look in the mirror when you start with accusations and name calling.
You can call me naive if you want to, but I actually believe pro-wolf groups would agree to a number, IF agencies and anti-wolf groups like RMEF would engage the opposition in such discussion, which, as far as I know, hasn't happened yet. There are many other key factors besides the number of wolves, but if we could land on that number, I think the rest would be much easier.
Bill
I personally do not believe they will "compromise" on anything short of ending all grazing leases.
The elk population isn't what it used to be and that will have some effect on a 250+ million dollar business in Montana.
If you want to hear a wolf howl, go to the zoo and spend the night.
like others i obsess on elk year round, but even more important to my spirit is a wild and healthy landscape, one that's complete with elk and elk habitat and yes even wolves. I'm sympathetic to DoW's vision of wolves, running in packs, being wild and frolicking and sport killing and doing awesome wolf stuff that shouldn't be looked upon in human terms. But also of course i'm all about RMEF's vision of more and better elk habitat, in more places.
we've seen the district where i've hunted elk the past 10 years go from zero wolves ever to seeing wolf tracks almost every time i go out. at the same time we see- and fwp confirms- many fewer elk. we still find them, we just have to work harder, and be willing to hunt alongside wolves. for me its amazing and paralleled. i'm too much of a wuss to hunt in griz country though.
anyway, i'm so with bill on this- 2,000 wolves i can live with, seems like a good number. and although i love wolves and their mystique, i am totally bummed that these groups are battling. DoW's rhetoric in a mailing i received about "mass killings "of wolves is totally offensive and inaccurate, but David Allen's tone of condescension is weird and unprofessional. very glad he invited them to come sit down in his office, hopefully that will happen.
anyway, yes its time to get management to the states, and let those who like to shoot dogs have their way with them. these wolves have proven to be excellent procreators and have quickly expanded to new areas. besides, after this infinite debacle, state wildlife managers would never allow protection to go back to the feds, no way.
thanks for your push forward on this bill, i do hope your pessimism on the probability of a resolution is misplaced!
I've written you privately two or three times about the ecological folly of basing wolf conservation upon numbers, but I don't seem to have gotten through to you. Let me try again in more detail.
The Endangered Species Act calls for the restoration of threatened and endangered species to a "significant" portion of their (historic) range. The word "historic" doesn't appear in the law but "historic" is logically and scientifically inseparable from "significant," for reasons I'll get to below.
When the Fish & Wildlife Service wrote its first implementing regulation for the ESA, it interpreted the law and congressional intent to require restoration to historic ranges. This interpretation remained in place for over thirty years until the Bush administration illegally tried to reinterpret "range" to mean only "currently occupied" range to limit the biologically necessary but politically volatile expansion of such species as the wolf or grizzly bear. However, this latter day interpretation violates the restorative intent of the ESA and the biological and ecological needs of previously wide ranging species such as the gray wolf or the grizzly bear.
In other words, the ESA does not envision the restoration of endangered and threatened species to geographical "zoos," especially with such historically wide-ranging species as the wolf. It envisions restoration of species to their historic habitat,not currently occupied habitat.
Wolves didn't evolve in geographic zoos; until their extermination began with the first American colonists in the 17th century they were spread all over North America. They are a North American species--not a Rocky Mountain or Great Plains or Upper Midwest or New England or Southern or Southwestern or Pacific Northwest or Canadian species. Wolves are a continental species.
This means that their genetic diversity and long term survival depended--and depends--upon local adaptations to many different environments as well as upon interchange with other populations on a landscape scale.
The intent of the ESA is to replicate, as much as is possible, these evolved, natural conditions of the species.
I don't want to get any more complicated with this discussion. It's complicated enough as it is. But it follows that what is most critical about wolf restoration and conservation is the distribution of and relationships among populations, not raw numbers of individuals. We're not talking about livestock here, with each isolated animal unit assigned such and such a price. We're talking about a wild species that has an evolutionary biology and ecology that depends upon its being in lots of places at low densities rather than presenting big numbers in a few places, which creates serious biological and ecological problems, such as we see with an extreme example of inbred wolves in Isle Royale National Park.
Animals like wolves at the top of the food chain are necessarily limited numerically in specific areas by their prey. That's how nature works--or is supposed to work. Lots of prey, few predators. (Unfortunately humans have been violating that ecological law for millennia, but that's another issue).
In short, that means what is natural for wolves is low densities in specific places but widespread distribution of interconnected populations throughout the continent. This is how genetic diversity, the critical path of species survival, is maintained. Low density wolf populations in many places. Restrict wolves to small places, or few places, you create genetic and other problems.
Environmental groups have gotten locked into the folly of the wolf numbers game primarily because anti-wolf groups have gotten locked into the numbers game--their false claim that the Feds and environmentalists agreed on a maximum of 300 wolves for the Yellowstone and central Idaho restoration area. No one agreed to any such thing nor did the FWS implement it as policy; it's fantasy. Such geographical restriction would also be biological and ecological disaster for the restored population of wolves and violate the ESA.
But at the same time, it's absurd biologically and ecologically to call for thousands of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, as some environmentalists are doing. The numbers game as it's being played is all rhetoric and bad science.
Five thousand wolves might be an appropriate number technically for genetic purposes but those five thousand wolves need to be spread across the landscape in stable packs at low densities, not crammed into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem or central Idaho.
Once again, you maintain genetic diversity by having small stable populations spread widely across the landscape with dispensers moving between and among populations. That's what the "metapopulation" argument is all about. It's about density and distribution and interconnectedness, not numbers.
It's certainly easier to talk about wolf numbers since it's far more complicated to talk about wolf ecology. You can't soundbite ecology. But it's a mistake because talking about numbers automatically forces us to ignore the distribution issue, which is the fundamental issue. However, I have found environmentalists curiously reluctant to talk publicly about distribution because it means talking about wolves in lots of places. Distribution seems to be a politically incorrect topic.
I don't see why it should be. Remember what I said above. The ESA requires, in effect, wolf restoration on a continent wide scale. To the species' historic range. And the evolution of predators and prey reflects this survival rule: few predators, lots of prey, in relational densities across the landscape appropriate to the biology of the respective species.
Black footed ferrets have vastly different biological and ecological requirements than wolves. But unfortunately wolves are being treated an awful lot like ferrets.
So let's treat wolves as wolves. As a species with its own evolutionary history. What this means for the gridlocked wolf "debate" is that with widespread populations, we don't need lots of wolves in specific places. What we do need in specific places are stable, well-functioning packs at low densities.
That's the trade-off. Any takers?
In closing, I would strongly recommend against anyone, especially environmentalists, "agreeing" to specific numbers of wolves. That's not wise wolf conservation. Instead, we need to apply the ESA as it was intended and restore wolves to a significant portion of their historic range in North America and allow wolf populations to set their own densities (through the establishment of stable packs) according to the biologically and ecologically suitable habitat and prey base. We should be doing the same with prey species, elk and bison (especially bison), while doing all we can to to protect, conserve, and expand habitat in general. But that's the next controversial topic.
RH
What is your mission , again ?
Thanks for the lengthy and extremely well worded comment. I hope a lot of people read it, especially the authors of the above-posted letters.
I agree it's not just a numbers game, but I view it as a start. We have to start somewhere or we keep going nowhere, and arriving at a number or a range (i.e. 1,500 to 2,000 or whatever) would be a real victory on which we can move forward to other ecological goals. I know it's a only a single or double, not a home run, but it sure seems better than what we have now, which seems like little more than years of litigation. What you propose is probably much better solution, but as you say, it's mighty complicated, and we probably need some strategy that's a little easier to achieve.
When you look at the players, well, I just don't see the type of real ecology-based agreement you describe realistically happening. I wish it could, but that would be like me trying to hit a 100 mph fast ball over the fence.
We agree on what's the ideal solution, but we might have to agree to disagree on what is the most reasonable approach.
Bill
One of the authors was the enforcement guy for the FWS...at the end of his career, he was given a Stud Muffin Of The Century award by the Animal Welfare Institute.
Basically, these four had an agenda, and they were successful in implementing it.
The ESA gives no real opt-out for troublesome species. The wolf was, and is, a pain to have around. Grizzlies are dangerous, too. There's a reason so many varmint species are now "endangered."
Congress never had the debate it should have had upon initial passage, whether or not certain species lack utility, or impose an undue and concentrated burden on the interests of certain segments of the population.
The sick fact of the matter is, once a species becomes endangered, and is KEPT listed, fish and game managers have their hands completely tied. The THREAT of the listing ties the system in knots, too. That was the point of the legislation in the first place.
What a load. I'll write back after I get done scooping the crap off my screen you just put there. I need to get a bigger shovel.
Someone short of a rocket science degree PLEASE answer?
That's what I figured.
Keep feeding your wolves the ie... your lawyers.
You say, "When you look at the players, well, I just don't see the type of real ecology-based agreement you describe realistically happening. I wish it could, but that would be like me trying to hit a 100 mph fast ball over the fence."
Well, when you look at the players, we can't even get to a game management-based agreement, can we? Nor are we likely to, since it's become standard political theater.
If neither a game management nor ecology approach is "possible," then at least let's talk about the most rational approach and see what happens.
RH
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2010/201004/20100419/article_434645.htm
Oh well, there are worse things than litigation and I tend to be comfortable doing what I do best. I welcome everyone's continued participation in my poker game; lotsa luck to ya.
It's called the "Predator-Prey" relationship...elk need wolves: wolves need elk . They co-evolved and were meant to co-exist. Wolves are not taking any of " your" elk, only their own elk. Because they were not your elk to start with. That is perhaps the greatest polarizing stumbling block to the whole wolf debate...that wolves have no place in the modern hunter's landscape , when in fact it's the hunter and the rancher (and subdivider) who have usurped the big game
Please do not cast aspersions at us " wolf lovers" if you don not personally know us or have knowledge of our efforts. This is precisely why the wolf debate is so polarized...the undue bias and bigotry clouding the common ground and the formative issues, such as your back to back comments just above .
Do you know the difference between a Concervationist and a Preservationist ? The Preserver spends 52 weeks of the year protecting a species and its habitat. The Conserver ( which you wrongly annoint as "sportsmen" ) spends 50 weeks of the year saving a species so he can spend the other two weeks killing it. That's my polarizing comment for the day
We all pay those excise taxes on sporting goods and outdoor equipment. But it should be noted that in Wyoming, of all the Big Game species hunted , only Pronghorn pays its way with license tags alone. The Wyoming G & F makes a little money on pronghorn , but all other species--including Elk---don't even come close to paying their way with license fees. ( Montana and Idaho sure did rake it in on Wolf tags, though, didn't they ? ). In Wyoming, YOUR elk hunts are majorly subsidized by tourists buying fishing licenses, and resident fisherman, whose revenue makes up the deficit in the hunting departments. Otherwise, your resident Elk tag would cost $ 200+ a year if the state had to pay it game agency solely on hunting revenues. Since hunter numbers are in decline, that would be a double whammy , wouldn't it?
It's extremely difficult for me to accept the line that the hunter/sportsman is doing all this great work and paying for big game conservation work and habitat improvement . We all are, but let's stay with that line and take a long look back at the history of hunting in the West . Where are the vast Bison herds ? Where are the Woodland Caribou that used to range from western Wyoming all the way to the northern California coast ? Same question about Wolverine, Lynx, Fisher, Plains Grizzly , Sonora Grizzly , Coast Grizzly ? All hunted or trapped out .
The waves of market hunting in the late 1800's came close to eliminating all the major game species, right alongside Passenger Pigeons. For what ?---to be replaced with Scottish cows and Spanish Moreno sheep ? And now that game herds have been fairly well restored , we have to allot them to the hunting public, and of that gaggle of hunters the trophy hunters and outfitters get first shot ? I don't think so....
Elk do not exist to provide revenue for outfitters and revenue for state game departments. Elk are not 24/7/365 Game animals...the are wildlife. Wolves are wildlife, too. That's the other huge polarizing stumbleblock in the wolf debate...the people who refuse to give the wolf ( or any predator, actually ) its full due as Wildlife, and all that goes with that. They're wildlife, not cash crops. Even the state agencies fail to realize that , let alone manage for it. Why else would they call themselves Wyoming Fish and GAME, or Idaho Fish and GAME. A game animal is money on four legs; wildlife is a resource and rightful resident. That's a critical difference.
By the way , you'll find that nearly 100 percent of " wolf lovers' support managed hunts of wolves ( and griz, when recovered and dispersed adequately). If they do not support wolf hunts, don't bother dealing with them, becasue I don't.
Your " wolf lover" is my " wildlife advocate". We're all on the same common ground here, but just can't or won;t see it because of those polarized glasses.
I'll leave you with this thought. Every " wolf lover " is by definition also an elk/deer/moose lover and a conservationist concerned with habitat and range. But that is a one way street , because the elk/deer/moose hunters and ranchers refuse to treat wolves and grizzlies the same as they demand we treat their stock and trade.
Bottom Line" There are plenty of elk for man and wolf. We just have to do a better job of managing both. Without wearing polarized glasses.
The feds spent 3.75 million on the wolf program last year. Individual ranch familes lost almost the same amount in uncompensated losses.
Got facts ?
That's off by a whole order of magnitude, or several. All of Wyoming only lost 40 cattle to wolves last year. Even with the 7X multiplier paid out to compensate for every known or probable kill, it still rings in at less than $ 200,000 max. By the way , Wyoming had 1,376,000 cows that were NOT affected by wolves last year. Over a million. Keep that in mind for some badly needed perspective. Losses due to grizzlies or wolves by Wyoming stockgrowers amounted to 0.02 percent....which is statistically closer to zero than anything meaningful.
The same cattle industry lost over 40,000 cows or calves to other causes besides predators... everything from lightning strikes to stupid animal tricks to diseases to birthing problems ...whatever...a lot of it generally due to nobody being around to tend them in times of duress. Where are all those cowboys, anyway ?
Facts, Todd. Facts.
Sportsmen like the ones who shoot picket pins you mean?
Not true.
Every county in Wyoming has a state funded county predator board and agents, that work right alongside or directly with USDA Wildlife Services, specifically to manage predators. The can't keep up. All Wyo G&F;manages is grizzly bears, for which they barely keep up. They dont touch wolves at all at least not till the lawsuit thing is settled. They did , briefly , from May till August 2008 but the three guys they hired got fired or relocated ..Mike Jimenez was briefly the Wyo Wolf manager, but is now back with Fish and Wildlife, doing the exact same job but drawing a different paycheck.
The predator boards and Wildlife Services do NOT do proactive nonlethal management. They pretty much only kill, not dissuade or relocate. Grizzlies at least are given a defacto Three Strikes before they are wasted, unless they really screw up the first two times. Some wolves are collared and / or relocated, but less and less so. I sincerely doubt Wyo G&F;would proactively manage, collar, , or relocate a single wolf if given full control. Only when threatened with RElisting due to managing down to a very low threshhold number would G&F;not kill wolves by any means.
Wolves make first kills of livestock in 2010
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials say wolves northwest of Pinedale killed a cow calf and one horse, and injured another horse, marking the first livestock deaths by wolves in 2010 in Wyoming.
Wolves from the Black Butte pack killed the cow calf at a ranch in mid-March. Agents with Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services subsequently killed three wolves from the group, a radio collared adult wolf, a pup and a yearling.
“We think there are probably two [wolves] left in this group,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wyoming wolf management project leader Mike Jimenez said. “We will go back in and take those out."
According to Jimenez, the Black Butte pack is the same pack that was responsible for killing roughly 37 sheep and one steer last summer. The area is prone to wolf attacks.
“In this ... area in Pinedale, there’s been a ton of work,” he said. “These ranchers have cleaned up their operations and they don’t leave dead livestock around. But, a lot of these ranchers have had repeated problems.
This aggressive management of wolves that chronically feed on domesticated animals is a tactic that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf managers said works to keep both livestock deaths and wolf removals down.
Jimenez said sheep killings by wolves are a different kind of problem, because the predators can kill large numbers of sheep in a relatively short period of time.
“You don’t want wolves showing up in places where there are sheep where they chronically cause problems year after year after year,” he said.
One final note about Wolf management. It has been recently documented on film that Wolves are now killing Grizzly Cubs. They are the top of the food chain. I would also like to add that I do not work for the state or related to anyone who does. I am a resident of this state who thinks that even though mistakes have been made in general the Wyoming Game and Fish do an excellent job and if GIVEN THE CHANCE would manage wolves better than the Feds or anyone else.
I consider cougars ( they are NOT lions! never were), both bears, and wolves to be carnivores who prey and are thereby managed as trophy animals. Or should be. We are talking about two different things here that are confused by the terminology .
What I do NOT want to see is wolves 'managed' like coyotes ; the shoot on sight thing in the 85 percent of Wyoming not adjacent to Yellowstone where they are trophy carnivores. The Dual Status thing, which is not ambiguous. Just stupid.
Agree to manage wolves like cougars statewide and I'll be right with you on that.
Wolves are as we speak are killed in this state when they get in trouble with pets and livestock I think about 70 of them were killed in Wyoming last year by Federal Agents. Wolves of all predators just can't help it when they get around them slow elk, so they get killed. The only place in the state where they encounter very few domestic animals is the north west corner of the state and that is where they should be.
When the Wolf was reintroduced into Yellowstone it was a "Non-essential Experimental Species" never to be state wide.
Let Wyoming Manage The Wolf
Are you really worried about the management of coyotes? Are there too few for your tastes? We saw two in different location just on the way to Billings this morning. I have to say coyote management is a poor example if you are complaining about not enough of a species.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/cleaning_up_the_bush_legacy/pdfs/Bruskotter_and_enzler_2009.pdf.
RH
1. The premise upon which a deal SHOULD be struck, and
2. The barriers of understanding expressed between two distinct cultures of people - those who identify most strongly with contemporary sport hunting practices, and those who identify most strongly with what I will call an 'Arcadian' state of existence for wild things and wild places.
THE PREMISE
Robert Hoskins has given us the best description of a reasoned ecological approach to wildlife management and made the case for not picking a number to fix the deal - that would be like picking the hat size all people have to wear.
The real operative decision that is being contested in the delisting lawsuit, and in this comment stream, is "What Management Philosophy?" Agreement on that point would establish the best starting point for moving forward into a future where the wolf is a healthy part of the biotic community.
There are three main premises offeredd as candidates:
1. Manage species, INCLUDING PREDATORS, as if they are forever endangered, as guided by case law of the ESA. This premise implies minimal human control of wildlife populations. This would be the philosophy advanced by a Preservative model.
2. Manage species, INCLUDING PREDATORS, as integral parts of an ecological whole with employment of human controls as needed to create a natural biotic community that continues through time in a sustainable relationship with human dominance of the landscape. This would be the management philosophy advanced by the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
The fight is really over these two contrasting philosophies of a human relationship with wild things and wild places. The second premise is the option offered by the state wildlife management agencies in Idaho and Montana. Wyoming is a bit different but still within the philosophical paradigm.
There is no rational population number predictable for either Model. You employ the strategy and see what the number turns out to be. And the number is always moving (see descriptions of elk numbers cited earlier).
Two contrasting management philosophies are resting on Judge Malloy's desk. One is an Arcadian ideal, the other a product of 150 years of evolving biological science and human ecology.
I forgot to cite the third premise which is the null hypothesis:
Don't change anything, keep doing what we've been doing which is to first manage predators badly, then hunt them excessively, then lash out at anybody who complains - this followed by weeping and wailing and over-reaction by all. Everybody is guilty of participating in the null hypothesis. Hunters and Huggers be not comforted.
Appreciate your comments, you sound genuine and yep I support good elk habitat ....... no shame but can you move to Canada or Alaska so I can shoot all these gangly dogs? Oh keep your eyes in your socket.
Do you really believe that the state of Montana made so much in wolf tags compared to lost elk, moose, deer, sheep tags?
I do like you preservationist, go preserve your yard or put up the money out of the court for good elk habitat.
Fight fire with gunfire! haha
But here's one little factoid for you. Very few mountain men in the Fur Trapping Era were literate enough to sign their own name, let alone leave written accounts. But one did. Osborne Russell, who traversed back and forth across the Rockies from 1834-1843 and kept a daily diary which fortunately is still in print, " Journal of a Trapper". Required reading.
Russell writes about his party killing an Elk for camp meat in the headwaters of the Gallatin River near the present day west boundary of Yellowstone. That bull had seven inches of fat on its rump , and 12 points on one antler and 14 on the other. It must've been physically huge, if only Russell had written down its shoulder height and guessed its weight.
This was before the rampant market hunting of the later 1800's , and pervasive trophy hunting of the 19th century which constantly hammers the biggest older best bulls year after year.
The largest bull elk taken around Cody in the last 35 years was a 7x8 migrating out of Yellowstone into Crandall ( Clarks Fork River) the year after the Yellowstone fires of '88.
FYI
Wolves have some pronounced impact on mature bulls, preying on them when they are weak from the rut in autumn, but generally engage in more selective culling of the overall elk herd gamut , yearround. It's Grizzlies that prey hard on elk calves in the first 30 days or so of life in my neck of the woods, unfortunately but naturally so.
Sen. Hinkle letter: Wolves as disease carriers
Clark Fork Chronicle
Friday, March 05 2010 @ 03:48 PM MST
Sen. Greg Hinkle submitted the following letter to be read at the March 2, 2010 meeting of the Environmental Quality Council.
Environmental Quality Council
Representative Chas Vincent, Chair
P.O. Box 201704
Helena, Mt. 59620-1704
Re: Wolf as disease carriers
Dear Representative Vincent and members of the Council,
I have reviewed the documents before this Council on the spread of Hydatid Disease via the wolf. In addition to this, I have reviewed information from the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and studies by renowned wildlife biologist Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary. You have seen his comments in an email dated February 28, 2010 titled, “EQC and wolves/wolf diseases”.
You have information indicating that almost two-thirds of the wolves in Montana are carriers of the Hydatid Tapeworm and are contaminating our landscape with the eggs of this worm. We have a much milder climate in Montana than in the Far North and it appears this will contribute to a more prevalent spread of the disease. You have read Dr. Geists comments on how easily humans can come in contact with the eggs through pets and wildlife where deer or elk are intermediate hosts contributing to the spread of the disease. The seriousness of this contamination of the landscape can not be understated or denied.
In a fact sheet published by the CDC on Echinococossis it is stated, in part, that a person can become infected “by directly ingesting food items contaminated with stool (or eggs) from foxes, coyotes (wolves). This might include grass, herbs, greens, or berries gathered in fields.” Considering the number of wolves in western Montana, to what extent is the probability of wild berries being contaminated?
I have a copy of a letter written to Ed Bangs, Wolf Specialist with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) dated October 3, 1993 from Will N. Graves (Gray Wolf EIS). In that letter, Mr. Graves pointed out the fact that wolves of the north were Hydatid carriers and should not be introduced into the United States by the USFWS. This dated letter was prior to the introduction program; therefore, was the warning ignored or disregarded by Mr. Bangs?
The Montana Constitution in Article IX, Section 1 guarantees every Montanan the unalienable right to a clean and healthy environment; that the legislature will administer and enforce this duty; and that “the legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”
The expansion of the wolf population enhanced by foreign wolves is virtually wiping out western Montana’s big game herds. I know that from personal observations and those of other outdoorsmen.
I would point out that in a US Supreme Court case; Printz v. United States, 95-1503; the Court referred to a previous case; New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); and they stated in Printz, “The Federal government”, we held, “may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”, Id., at188. This begs the question, in my mind; did the USFWS have the authority to contaminate our environment with diseased wolves?
Where do we go from here? I believe there are some options. First would be to request that the Attorney General of Montana fully investigate whether Mr. Bangs and the USFWS knew of the potential of bringing diseased wolves from a foreign country into the State. If this is found to be true, the State should sue USFWS for violating our Constitutional guarantee to a clean and healthful environment. Second, we should immediately begin to eradicate the source of the problem. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) should make available an unlimited number of wolf tags and open the season year round. They should educate all hunters on the potential hazard of handling a wolf (or coyote). The funds from the wolf tags should be divided up and all those who harvest a wolf at the end of each calendar year will receive a payment for each wolf harvested. Yes, it is called a bounty. Thirdly, due to deer and elk being intermediate hosts of the disease, FWP should immediately enforce the prohibition on the feeding of ungulates. Illegal feeding concentrates deer and elk creating a hazard for everyone. Other than that, what other sound options are there to hold the spread of this disease in check?
Sincerely,
Senator Greg Hinkle
###
Greg Hinkle represents Senate District 7, which includes western Missoula County and all of Mineral County.
Contact:
About 30 percent of Americans are hosting parasites in their bodies and probably don't even realize it. One in three. Maybe even you and Sen. Hinkle. All kinds of worms and such, just to bring it closer to home. How would you know? Many have few if any outward symptoms. I personally have treated several different worms in me in my life, due to my bad habit of running off to beaches, jungles and general hedonistic tropical destinations in lieu of Wyoming winters. It's one of those " comes with the territory" things. The fungus in my lungs is of more concern.
Closer to home, Hydatid cysts can be gotten from Cats, Dogs, Sheep, Horses, Pigs... and is also present in common predator/scavengers as Foxes , Skunks, Coyotes . There was once an 'outbreak' among lapdogs inside a gated retirement community in southern Utah... among the poodles and chihuahas , thanks to someone illegally dumping diseased sheep carcasses in a nearby dump. So whatever Hinkle suggests should be done to curtail Hydatid in wolves probably needs to equivocally be done to all the species that host it, including Grandma's poodle and that freeroaming German shephard down the street from you that occasionally snacks on roadkill.
The Center for Disease Control has a lot to say about Hydatid. Pages of stuff. “It is mostly associated as an occupational hazard of certain types of agriculture such as sheep, cattle, or in wildlife occupations,” . Darn..we better quarantine the farmers.
A researcher from Mesa College in Grand Junction CO who did extensive hydatid studies on Indian Reservations was quoted as saying Hydatid disease is in the area but officials stress there is no reason to panic. "Good hygiene and simple precautions will greatly reduce or even eliminate the risk to the hard-working families of Montana and Wyoming."
And frankly , Dr. Valeriius Geist , the Russian-Ukrainian immigrant, is EXTRAORDINARILY biased against wolves and IMHO is not a good source of discourse on the topic. His anti-wolf missives can be bought for pocket change. But he is the darling of the Right Wing flacks when it comes to wolves and scapegoating them any way at all. He is wholeheartedly endorsed by the hunting community and was given the Olaus Murie Award by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I wonder what O'Murie would've thought about that ....
Let's not scapegoat wolves.
What upsets me is the “lie” of not letting the truth be known when the wolves were brought into the U.S. It’s quite possible that the lie is still in the pot by not revealing what caused the Big Horn Sheep to die and they blame the domestic sheep to be the cause even though none are around to blame. It seems that our government has become a master of lies anymore.
No I am not a wolf lover; I have lived a long life of dealing with all kinds of wildlife. I don’t have the Walt Disney bleeding heart nor did I buy the lie that was told our children by the Disney films etc. Wolves kill for the fun of killing and can cause devastation to our game and ranchers. They also will take you if you are caught out where they are. This was proven by the woman who was jogging in Alaska this last year and that was close to civilization. They are good at adapting to people.
Check it out.
A few things stand out - Many comments are like the spit balls boys shoot in grade school. Some border on borderline poisonous.
One thing is clear - this is not really about the Wolf. It's about territory. Territory threatened by the idea of Wolf and the idea of some humans that they are and should be "in charge" of the world.
How many of this should there be and how many of that? How much money is at stake?
Any person looking beyond the end of his - insert a name here -
might realize that the picture is bigger than wolf vs. cow, rancher, farmer, sheep flock.
Humans can kill more living beings faster and with more devastation than any animal.
Dogs have maimed or severely hurt more children and adults than any wolf.
Dogs have killed chickens and run amok in a field of sheep.
Humans have engaged in genocide, rape, mutilation, devastation of the Earth more than any animal has, can, or will.
So what is the baseline here? Is it "I want my turf to be just the way I want it and to hell with anyone or anything else?" "I want control?"" I am more powerful than God or any other creator being and know more than anyone what is best for the Earth and all its creatures?"
I do believe that all sides should sit down together. That all sides need to learn to listen in person to each other. That some of the problem arises because some people just want to be heard. That some people are afraid they will have no money if 1. they can't guide killers into the woods to find a trophy 2. if they can't kill anything anytime because it might hurt "someone"
This is not about Wolf. This is about humans with all their strengths , fears, perceptions and beliefs guessing at what to do.
Try asking each side this - What is going to be the best solution for all we have all been given for FREE?
Are you people really arguing that wolves don't need to be managed and people need to get over it?? This isn't about killing anything, it's about good management. Having wolves decimate any animal population is NOT good management. Sadly, in order to manage wild or domestic animals, some have to die. If you have a better way then please, don't keep it a secret. You wolf lovers will never grasp reality. We understand that.
Their general (and usually unconcious) belief is that MAN is "Apart From" nature, not "A Part Of" nature, and any time Man interfaces with nature, he will destroy it, (excluding the individual in the Save It group, of course). You can not convince someone holding a belief system like that to find middle ground and come up with a practical, centrist view. It is the job of the radical right, and the radical left to bring something out of whack to the publics attention, but they will rarely come up with a compromised, workable solution.
The Fish and Game of EVERY state, needs to realize this, understand that it is they that must find a workable centrist plan, and realize they not only have the power to implement it, but a duty to do so.
Fact, the pro wolf side has no intention of being reasonable or settling for any compromise.
Fact, laws were violated in this right from the beginning, both state and federal.
Fact, Ed Bangs was informed about the tapeworm BEFORE introduction, he just chose to ignore it.
Fact, the original number was only intended to "get their foot in the door"
Fact, Idaho is experiencing sever decline in EVERY elk herd in the state, with one now being identified as unsustainable. And puleeeeez....don't even try to claim any other cause other than the wolf and intentional mismanagement from the agenda driven ID F&G;department.
Fact, ID F&G;intentionally inflated ungulate numbers before the introduction to fulfill their pro wolf agenda
Fact, the pro wolfer has no issue with dismissing ANY science that doesn't fit into their agenda.
Fact, the 'wolf experts' that are so heavily relied upon by the wolfies were WRONG on EVERY estimate they made. At what point to you lose your position as 'expert' with that kind of track record?
Fact, DoW was allowed to be put in charge of state programs concerning the wolves. That is essentially the same as letting a congressman oversee his own ethics hearings! And we wonder why we see skewed numbers....
Fact, state laws were broken when Conley signed an agreement to allow wolves to be brought to Idaho. He had no authority to agree to any such thing.
Fact, Robertson/Pittman monies were stolen and illegally funneled to the wolf program.
Fact, ID F&G;has hired a multitude of people directly tied to DoW.
Fact, ID F&G;is in violation of state laws from neglect in the management of Idaho's wildlife.
And this is a short list......the lies are going to be exposed. This isn't about wildlife, this is an extension of the progressive movement inside this country that is agenda driven to control the people to fit the progressive mind set. The time is upon us to dismantle this sham of an environmental scam and to dismantle the ID F&G;and bring back REAL wildlife management to this state.
The beginning is in Bozeman, Montana this coming Sunday. But, it is far from the end. We have gather a long list of whistle blowers that are finally willing to shed light on and provide evidence to the lies and deceit that have plagued this program from the beginning. The time to bring those responsible to justice is nearly at hand. It is far past time to fight fire, with fire. Anyone truly interested in the truth behind this issue is invited to Bozeman, you are going to be sick to your stomach when you realize whats been pulled off right under our noses.
Cindy, if you live in that close of a proximity to wolves, I really encourage you to read the letter written to the Montana Legislature’s Environmental Quality Council from Valerius Geist. This man is very informed on this problem, do not let the wolfies minimalize him, it isn't worth the risk to your family or your pets. Pay special attention to the bottom where he lists preventative measures. This blog (linked) is basically about the pro wolf crowds willingness to ignore any real science that doesn't fit their agenda. It is an unmoderated site, everyone is welcome to post their, unlike Ralph Maughan's site that half the people that posted here hide in. This is a very dangerous disease.
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/05/10/disregarding-sciencescientists-that-dont-fit-save-the-wolf-narrative/
May 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM
These folks on the Black Bear Blog seem to have some probblem about this web site.
I don’t want to have anything to do with them — not to argue or trade insults. It would be nasty, pointless, and only egg them on.
Their single-minded concern over one issue is hard to understand. Some people are just monomaniacs. They won’t like to hear that because it is one of those Ph. D-kind-of-words. They seem to have it out for those who got an education.
It is possible they operate out of some grudge from their past life. Please ignore them here.
Robert Hoskins Says:
May 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Ralph
While I appreciate and share your extreme distaste for these folks, let’s not forget that they’re the equivalent of stormtroopers or blackshirts. All their hate and bile need is competent leadership, and if that happens, things immediately get out of hand, or worse. We’re already seeing the degree to which Republican politicians are harnessing the wingnuts of all stripes to pursue policies that are at best civic crimes and at worst constitutional horrors. Have we already forgotten Republican congressmen legitimizing the guy who flew a plane into an IRS building as a form of anti-government protest? This is serious stuff.
Speaking as a soldier, and I’d hope that SB and others with a military background would agree with me, I think it’s imperative to know our enemies and be prepared to deal with them.
I’ve long believed that conservation is the moral equivalent of civil rights. I think we’re approaching a time when that’s not just a metaphor, but a reality.
RH
ROFL
Robert Hoskins Says:
May 13, 2010 at 7:33 AM
Jon
This is a self-interview, if you want to call it an interview. Ralph used the word monomania above–I’d expand the term to meglomania. One doesn’t need a PhD to understand that.
However, I wouldn’t laugh about this; I take these guys seriously. Look at their language and demeanor–they’re tied in with the worst of the far right: the racist militias and hate groups. (For example, spend some time looking through the Southern Poverty Law Center or Montana Human Rights Network websites). The sagebrush rebellion, or whatever it’s called these days, is deeply rooted in the larger right wing ideology. Perhaps it’s easier for me to recognize since I grew up with the KKK in the South during the civil rights era. These guys were my neighbors.
During my military career, especially at Fort Bragg, “home of the Airborne and Special Forces,” right wing infiltration of the military was a serious problem. The White Patriot Party and the Christian Militia were active around Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall, the site of SF field training, and were actively recruiting. I myself kicked two neo-Nazis out of SF.
I have long since realized that the real threat to what’s good about America comes from the far right, not the far left. The left is foreign to American values; the right is homegrown and perverts American values to the worst of what humans are and can be.
Did anyone see Rachel Maddow’s documentary on Timothy McVeigh three weeks ago? If not, do so: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/37120529#36650309. It’s based on four hours of taped interviews done with McVeigh in prison before his execution.
I make a point of this because conservation isn’t just about land and wildlife. The land community is inseparable from the survival of civil society; Aldo Leopold argued this when he presented the land ethic for our consideration.
The right despises civil society, community, and the rule of law. The right despises anything that is public space. The right despises anything that is “ours.” The right seeks to break down society into its individual parts, which are then easier to control. The right worships not democracy or even representative republican government, but totalitarianism.
I’m not making this up.
RH
Percy- do you have even the slightest idea at all at how the ESA makes constitutional muster?
Here is a clue, the ESA is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. It has no ability to stand under the commerce clause nor the general welfare clause nor any other powers inside Article 1 Section 8. It violates the 4th and 10th amendments. So Percy, show us your intelligence, inform me how it stands.
Who do you think really oversees it?
I hope that wasn't all Greek to you, as I would suspect that's more information than you have probably ever been asked about the COTUS. Surprise me..........
SR links to his blogs all the time, why don't you tell us something we don't know..
Enjoy Men, sorry girls, this ones a bit rough for ya..
http://candidconservatives.com/a-book-called-post-american-world-in-your-presidents-hand/
The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most vile anti-American organizations in existence, to reference them screams of someone with pure communist views. I would suggest you compare their views with the communist manifesto and see the parallels that are impossible to deny.
The KKK, was a left wing organization, not right. The left has always been the racist wing in this country, always. Whether you hold a person down through oppression or with social programs that makes it impossible for them to ever be productive, the outcome is the same. As does the lack of personal accountability that is so revered by the left.
Your 'collective' mentality reeks of the progressive movement that also parallels the manifesto. It is not uncommon for those who want to destroy freedom to label patriots as terrorist, King George did the same thing. As did Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin and the rest of their ilk.
The far right is no better, on that we agree. But, I stand fast on our constitution as written and as was intended. The people first, the state second, then the fed., and a very limited fed at that.
When that order gets reversed, you have tyranny, and if you have any understanding of our founders at all, you also know what their beliefs were about that issue. And unless you are completely asleep, you can see that reality in today's society, you may believe in it, but there are one hell of a lot of people that understand freedom and the COTUS and aren't going to sit by and watch them destroyed.
Perhaps you should turn off MSNBC and pick up a copy of the Federalists Papers.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most vile anti-American organizations in existence"
"The KKK, was a left wing organization"
Black is white, up is down, left is right....