Boise News

What science? Most of the minimum viable population science I am aware of requires at least 500 breeding adults, whether it's wolves or fruit flies. Then there's the connectivity issue. Can wolves actually exchange genes over the entire landscape, or are some groups incapable of interbreeding due to impaired habitat? Without connectivity, long-term viability even less likely. The frenzy before the post-Bush era.

That's what you guys always do, isn't it? Scream "Base your decisions on science!" until you don't like the science, and then move to tie everything up in the court system as long as you can. You wouldn't be so contemptible if you weren't so hypocritical.

Push for 5,000 and you get zero.
Lawsuits work both ways.
The 'service' turned D.P.S. on the wolf protectors by delisting in reintroduction states.
Was it not a contract /compact with the States of Montana Idaho and Wyoming when the U.S.F.W.S. requested permission from Congress and the courts to break the Endangered Species Act as per "The Wolf Implimentation Rules of November 18, 1994" and reintroduce 78 to 100 wolves into Yellowstone National Park ?

Does it not also hold true, that once the terms of that compact was broken, that every wolf outside the boundaries of YNP exist illegaly? How will you protect something that the courts rule is here illegally?

Does 'best science available' even matter when those who present it come before the courts with dirty hands ?

Which is precisely why FOTNYEH s' stated primary goal of litigation is to "first prove the USFWS broke the law in the administration and implementation of the wolf introduction program".

This issue is far from over, but it seems to me, in my unscientific point of view, that wolf populations are increasing and generally getting along pretty well. It also seems that Idaho is completely incapable of managing anything, and Wyoming isn't doing much better. Montana has some forward-thinking conservation vision, however.

Set my brother, the wolf, free!

Ahhhwwwooo!

Cool heads and thoughtful actions must prevail. Science tells us a lot of things, populations smaller than 1500 have persisted and thrived, and populations greater than that have declined and failed. Minimum population viability analyses are based on theoretical models and, like any model, they have quite a gradient of outcomes when applied to the real world. Science also tells us that wolves are quite resilient creatures and respond to moderate levels of mortality with increased litter sizes, resulting in population rebounds and even increases. Increases in numbers of pups per generation means increases in numbers of dispersers and thus (in this system) likely an increase in their range. I believe these are all goals of any pro-wolf agenda. Science shows that areas such as southeast Alaska where wolf harvests are as great as 30-40% annually, are healthy in numbers and genetic variation. The reason for wolves demise in the first place was federal bounty programs that encouraged aggressive trapping and poisoning regimes. These practices are not likely to ever be approved in the future.

Again, cool heads and thoughtful acts must prevail. Extreme pro-wolf folks would have no wolves killed, and extreme anti-wolf folks would have all wolves killed...well I hate to break it to them, but neither of these is a likely outcome. There will never be a Golden compromise that we all agree on, but the majority of intelligent and thoughtful people, on both sides can come to a compromise. Sometimes wolves may need to be taken out to protect livestock, that's a fact, but wolves are also a healthy and necessary component of the ecosystem, an ecosystem that provides for the enjoyment of all, pro and anti wolf alike. With appropriate management, 1500 wolves is enough. Perhaps there is a better way for Defenders and Sierra to spend the millions of dollars that their lawsuits will cost. How about instead they set up objective public education programs to help create a knowledgeable public and dispel the myths and rumors about wolves. An educated public makes educated voters which results in educated policy and management (hopefully).

Cool head. Yep. Thoughtful action...a Mauser 98 is thoughtfully designed, does that count?
The "scientists" that advocate for multi-thousand populations are coming from the perspective that all wildlife populations should be "naturally" self-regulating, free from any and all evil human influence. There will be a vastly-diminished or nonexistent pool of surplus game for hunting, which means see ya hunters. Never mind the impacts of depredation on livestock production efforts (see ya ranchers). That's a political outcome desired by a political movement. Period.
Madame Stone can huff and puff all she wants, here's hoping she doesn't blow the West down.

As a hunter and gun owner, you idiots with the "shoot, shovel, shut up" mentality embarass me. Your comments are more of a threat than PETA ever will be. You are trying to convince an a nation concerned with it's wild places that hunters are ignorant rednecks who just love to kill anything that moves. I am 100% for wolf restoration. They belong on the land. I am an omnivore,they are carnivores, and hunting and eating meat are natural for both of us. I love a successful hunt, but sometimes success means seeing a rare wild animal, even if I don't kill it.

Pendejo LMAO it fits him too

The rhetoric based on myths and rumors are rampant in recent comments. Mr. Skinner, if there is not enough game for humans to hunt than there is not enough game to sustain wolves at any population number. Healthy wolf populations do not mean the end of ranching and hunting. Certainly numbers could go down, but we've already proven as humans we're not very good at keeping ungulate populations at healthy levels. I know more than a couple farmers and ranchers who wouldn't mind at all there being a couple less deer and elk feeding off their fields and hay bales. Marion, the count of 1500 wolves, as you even said yourself, is an estimate based on those they actually saw. That's not to say they personally counted 1500 wolves, but rather they used the number they counted along with educated calculations based on natural wolf densities, to come up with an estimation. There very well may be more than 1500, but there could also be less. I would argue the exact number doesn't matter much, maybe there are 2000, maybe 3000, what matters more than this value is how are we going to manage them in a way that is sustainable to healthy ecosystems that INCLUDE human land use such as ranching and hunting. Now you can rant and rave about who's lying, who said what, and what have you, and I agree that people need to be held accountable for their words and their actions, but ranting and raving is not very constructive. Your energies and efforts would be better spent in thoughtful and civil commentary as to your concerns. No matter how much you hate wolves, they're here to stay. And no matter how much you love wolves, some are going to be shot and trapped. Some of you will continue with your witty, self-serving banter on either side, and, God bless you all, our freedom of speech allows any idiot with a keyboard to make a comment, heck maybe I'm an idiot too...But the only way this issue is going to be resolved is by level-headed and thoughtful efforts of both sides. I know that's asking a lot when any government is involved...But keep in mind, if your primary source of information is the newspaper or popular internet sites and magazines, then you are not well informed. If you really do care, and you really are concerned, educate yourself, go a step further. Remember that the majority (and the majority is not your friends and people you "know") is closer to the fence on this, and the emotional, uneducated, and ignorant rants that some of you make are just pushing them in the opposite direction, and that does no good for garnering support for your ideas.

Thank you to the cool rational heads making constructive comments above. There are two issues to be considered. One, what is a viable gene pool to ensure that the species is not completely inbred and has the problems associated with that, and two, if there needs to be some management of the numbers...reduction at some point, why not create a very expensive trophy hunting system so it is controled thoughtfully and the money generated can go towards conservation, habitat and research programs. Matt is absolutely correct when he says the yee-haw attitude expressed here is an embarrassment. I am personally not a hunter but believe it has its place both in wildlife management and our western culture.

Gotta maintain that culture, vag!
If there were Azteks still wishing to maintain theirs would you be so generous?

What Marion fails to mention, and always fails to mention, about the Northern Range Yellowstone herd, is that the 19,000 was an historical high. Never before was it that high. It was universally considered to be too high, and the State of Montana had a big role in bringing this herd down through the Gardiner late winter hunt, which was put in place for the one purpose of reducing the size of this herd. Also never mentioned is the fact that this herd was already dropping PRIOR to the introduction of wolves. A couple thousand animals died the winter BEFORE introduction (winter kill), and several thousand more in the next couple of winters before wolves were in sufficient numbers to have much of an effect. We often hear how 3,000 bison are too many for Yellowstone National Park to support. Can you imagine what 19,000 elk IN THE NORTHERN RANGE ALONE were doing to the range? They were starving to death before wolves were ever there. They were destroying valuable riparian habitat. Back in the fifties, 5,000 elk was considered by biologists to be the carrying capacity of the Northern Range, and elk above this number were shot by sharpshooters (just as they are planning to do in Rocky Mountain National Park now) to keep numbers down. This information is all available on the Yellowstone web site. In fact, one stated objective of biologists back then was to restore the willows, aspen and beaver to the Northern Range by reducing elk. Oddly, those objectives were not met (even with elk numbers lower than they are today) until wolves returned to keep elk moving around NATURALLY.
One more time: the 100/300 figures were MINIMUMS (the smallest possible number) to CONSIDER BEGINNING the de-listing process. The numbers were never MAXIMUMS, nor were they promises to anyone that this would be a limit. That's kind of like your kid comes to you and says, "Can I have some money?" You say, "How much?" They say, "I need AT LEAST ten dollars". Does that mean that's ALL they want? That's all they need? That's all they will ever want? Come on! I'm REALLY tired of hearing THAT one.
I have no problem with de-listing. What I do have a problem with are the "management" plans put in place by the states (especially Wyoming and Idaho). They do not insure a sustainable population, they do not insure the ability of wolves to disperse to available suitable habitat (Colorado, Oregon, Washington etc.), nor does it protect livestock interests (as older, more experienced wolves are killed in hunts, leaving pups and less experienced animals to seek easier prey, there will be more livestock loses, not less).
Minnesota, a state with less habitat, more cattle (than any one of the NRM states), and more people (than any one of the NRM states), has more wolves (than all three NRM states), has managed to come up with a very reasonable, well thought out management plan that protects all parties. Especially considering the amount of antiquated animosity expressed by public officials and others (like some posters to blogs such as this), it is vital that Montana, Wyoming and Idaho do the same.

Vagabond,

I agree that fees from trophy tags for wolves, once numbers are where they should be and stable,my be acceptable. Look at the African nations. The money made off of lion and leopard tags alone is incredible. It goes back into wildlife management and helps the local people make a living, as well as providing an incentive to preserve wild places.The anti wolf crowd is throwing much revenue to the wind with their irrational fear.

Frank, in the first place no one asked us to give them our money, they used the strong arm of a liberal congress and courts to give it to them.
Matt, just who are you to say that other people do not have the right to own and protect their own property because you want to be entertained by wolves mating and killing? I believe the livestock is the third largest industry in Montana, further down the line in Wyoming because of our minerals.
I am well aware of the winter kill of the elk just before or as the wolves were trucked in, I do not know a better example of letting nature control the population instead of bringing the bloody entertainment of wolves to the park. Just because people were too cheap and too lazy to go where the wolves truly ran wild.
Take another look at the video of the downer cows that has been in the news. There is not a beef cow there, they are dairy cows, probably got them for free or nearly so, is that the beef you want people to eat so you can take the cattle ranches for your pleasure? Look at some of the videos from other countries that we will be buying beef from, that's really what you want?
When you get rid of all of the beef ranches with cattle and wildlife grazing side by side and see instead gated communities and trophy properties fenced off, are you going to continue to pat yourselves on the back?
Why are you folks not putting up thousands of dollars of your own money like the rancher families are being forced to do? Because you feel they owe it to you to provide what you want? Adopt a ranch and help count the livestock and pay the difference in losses to the wolves of actual value and what DOW has paid, which I understand stops when the delisting is filed, even though it may never be allowed to take effect.
I know I get pretty radical, but I cannot understand the kind of selfishness that is willing to insist on a sacrifice what someone else owns for their own enjoyment.
By the way Frank, want to take bets on whether the elk will have dropped below 6000 this year....if they ever count?

Bruiser couldn't be more wrong about what my pseudo means. Clearly he/she has never been to Mexico. Seems he/she is the dumBass. That's right, there's a 'b' in dumb, you dumbass. Stop using wikipedia; you're showing complete ignorance. Wanna try again, without wikipedia? (Or you could simply ask).

Yo soy el pendejo. Nadie mi bato, puto.

Back to the subject:
My neighbors are all cattle ranchers, and we're surrounded by 8 FWP confirmed wolf packs. Guess what they complain most about? Not wolves, but water. The drought hurts worse than wolves ever will.
Again, I'm not following the science, but it seems the correctly re-introduced wolves (the gray kind) in the N. Rockies are doing pretty well. Why not de-list and eventually hunt? Although that's going to mean the ranchers shouldn't be able to shoot cattle predators, just like they can't shoot hay predators.

Matt, you are a little behind the times, we have recovered the grizzlies that were done in by NPS politically correct policies. Now the trick will be to keep enough food for them with the wolf population growing by leaps and bounds and taking the majority of it. The decline in elk numbers insdie of YNP is especially bad when one considers the dwindling white bark pines and cutthroat trout.
Cattle are grazed for a few weeks each year at most, the rest of the time they are being killed in their own home pastures, sometimes within sight of homes. Are you really entitled to make folks and their animals unsafe in their own homes?
I wrote to DOW last week requesting the information on how many of the payments were made for livestock on private land vs, on public land. To date they have not sent an answer.

The wolves from Canada is not the same sub-species that existed here originally they are EXOTIC to Montana.Wait until they get in the Missouri River breaks and bring down that elk herd.Those wolves are larger in size and have no problem bringing down a big game animal but a little more reluctant to take on bison. When they were brought here from Alberta and B.C. the NPS said "the wolves will stay in the pantry and not leave Yellowstone". But they did... WOW.. lot's of brain power there NPS!The bison population has been increasing. If you want to talk about range conditions in YNP the last people you ask is the NPS personnel.They haven't done any range studies in YNP for years. The last people qualified was Walter Kittams 1953-62 and Dr. Charles Kay later.YNP is a national disgrace.FWP hasn't even been doing winter elk surveys of the northern herd. As far as mule deer and wild sheep are concerned the killing machine wolves took care of them.Wolves have destroyed the diversity of wildlife in YNP including moose ,native coyotes and beaver. Are we going to use sportsmen's dollars for the Montana wolf program?FWP is yet to answer that question. FWP must justify protecting game herds not livestock and still they can't use PR money for wolves. Perhaps someone can tell me what a FWP wolf coordinator does. FWP has a room full of them what do they do? Send them out on a dog and pony show to promote hunting of the overpopulated wolf population killing and mauling our treasured big game animals. Now it's moose feeding killer wolves. FWP says "we don't have data"...hell, they never had any on wolves not even a literature search on what wolves feed on 'red meat' BIG GAME ANIMALS in the literature.Please get that dumb ad off of TV "Back from the Brink" with a FWP spokesperson FWP sounds like the national park service.Look at the Alaska F&G;site for information on wolves. Tell FWP to look there as well.

Okay Matt-

You can have the Griz on YOUR land, and you can have the Wolves on YOUR land. Now, that should make YOU responsible when they come onto MY land and kill MY dog on MY porch or kill MY cattle in MY pasture... both of which have happened. (Yes, the griz, too.)

You said, "As far as cattle on private land, I have not heard anyone say a rancher does not have the right to defend his own property." Well, you're hearing it now. We were told by wildlife officials that we were not allowed to even fire over the wolves heads in an effort to make them shy away from the ranch house, because that would be 'harrassment of wildlife.'

Marion- keep up the good fight. This thread has devolved, as it always does, it pure anti-rancher and farmer rhetoric. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

rkeith,

I'll accept responsibility for what wolves do on your land as soon as the anti wolf, anti environment,pro extractive industry crowd accepts responsibilty for the near elimination of the wolf, prarie dog, jaguar, bison, black footed ferret, and more species of native plants than I care to think about.

Matt this may come as a shock but budgets were increased and have been over the past 5 years. The Wildlife Management Institute reports on the budgets and you can recieve their newsletter free. Pres. Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act P.L. 110-161,Dec.26,2007. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service received 1.36 billion 30 million above 2007,National Wildlife Refuge System 434.1 million 40 million more than 2007, BLM 1 billion, National Forest System 1.47 billion 132.4 million for wildlife and fish habitat management and the list goes on .The NPS recieved increases as well. These budgets are considerably higher than the Clinton admin.The NPS doesn't have a clue on how to do range studies and allowed many range exclosures to fall down.They have no interest in range they are on this 'natural regulation' baloney. Problem is the federal agencies are mis-using this money.What is BLM doing with the wildlife budgets? They( MT. State Director) will not respond to my request even as a part of a freedom of information act request.The problem is the agencies are pooling wildlife/fisheries money and the manager spends the money as he or she sees fit in many cases their spending is detrimental to the wildlife resource.BLM for example wasting money on the Pumpkin Creek land exchange.So Pres. Bush has increased these budgets not cut the budgets.This is a matter of public record on budgets so I won't debate it here.The Wildlife Management Institute is a very reliable source and budgets have been on steady increase.Don't believe the agency when they say we don't have money and pin the rap on Bush.They probably have more money than they need. They are not accountable for this money and anyone mis-using this money should be fired!!!

Jack,

This is simply wrong. I know many who lost there jobs at the BIA, for example. Bush as increased funding for only one aspect of land management, forest management and wildland fire suppresion. Why? Because that is what the timber industry wants. Ask any NPS ranger (whom I choose to believe over Bush) and they will tell you of the outsourcing woes, cuts in programs, layoffs, and lack of funds for hiring that have happened over the last seven years.

quote: "you are a little behind on your natural history of this continent. Grizzlies once existed outside of Yellowstone.The ranged from Canada down to Mexico. From the California coast to the mountians of west Texas.What effort is being made to restore them? None. Too many humans consuming to much, and of course the politcal pressure from ranchers that stop any restoration effort in it's tracks. As far as cattle on private land, I have not heard anyone say a rancher does not have the right to defend his own property. But since the vast majority of ranching in the west in done on BLM and Forest Service land,what right do the ranchers have to tell me that I cannot restore wolves to land I pay for? end quote

I can answer about California, they are too busy making money, building huge houses, and telling Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho how California wants their states managed.
As for "endangered" predators on private land, no the rancher cannot kill or as someone else has pointed out even"harass them. Last fall (2006) 4 grizzlies were removed from a ranch just outside of Cody where they had joined cattle on the feedline (grain). Wyoming F&G;moved them to a wilderness area. Grizzlies in Wyoming have frequent flyer miles as they get moved from being too close to people to wilderness areas and then griz from that area that get to close are moved to another and so on. Two elementay schools in Park county, Wyoming have had to have grizzly detering fences built around the school yards to keep the griz out.
what more do you want, griz working as Wal-Mart greeters in Cody?

Bob,

what the hell does you owning land and being retired have to do with anyhthing? Is that supposed to impress me? Is this a mark of the intellegence you believe you have? It is not our world. To quote Chief Seattle "the Earth does not belong to us,we belong to the Earth". There you go. And you missed my point entirely. My point is that anti hunters love guys like you. You when people over for their side. Good job. Thanks for endangering my hobby.

Marion,

Those kids at those schools should be so greatful if they ever get to see a grizzly.Most kids in this overpopulated, over developed, over urbanized country never will.

Bob,

At least I have a family.I imagine you live a very lonely life in your trailer on your 300 acres. With your personality to keep you company, and your ego. enjoy!

Bob,

Your comments speak for themselves.You will never be taken seriously on this website again.You are a disgrace to Montana, but don't worry, I'll move there and smarten the place up a bit.

Bob,

Is Matt really correct that you have no family and retired very early just to live alone in a trailer on 300 acres in the woods? Is there more to your story? Do you have a drinking or other drug problem? Do you have a medical or mental issue that drove you to this end? Do you need help? I sense your pain. There must be a way to help. How can we help to release you from your obvious pain?

I really think it is time to taek wildlife management out of the hands of spongers and rich environmental lawyers and make each state responsible for the wildlife in it's own state. there is not a single state that did not have wolves, so worry about your own state and give up your habitat for wildlife instead of demanding that someone in another state give up theres to make you happy.
By the way Matt, I am eternally grateful I am a native of Wyoming and am thrilled that I can see griz so often, nonetheless when they start sharing lunch with the school kids that is too much of a good thing.
As for the wolves, why were they worth all of the money and heartache and grief to move them from their home in the wilderness of Canada to ranch country. I see no big thrill to them, they are wild dogs and a dog is a dog is a dog.

Bob, sweetie, you're the one living alone and still gay about it. Don't bother to send the pictures; I live relatively close, but in a much wilder and better area, and can take my own pictures. I also own a lot more than your scrawny 300 acres and sure don't need to live in a trailer with only my own handshake for company, if you get my drift. You arrogant loudmouthed ne'er-do-wells are all alike.

Bob,

Y-O-U-R is the the correct spelling of "yer". Go back and finish High School.

Marion,

A dog is a dog is a dog? There are hundreds of species of wild dogs around the world. Learn a little about wildlife and maybe you will appreciate the Earth's wonderful diversity, which it is our obligation to protect.

Idiots. Spouting Hate. Name calling. Great.........

Bob we have great sucess calling them with predotor calls and have got withen 100 yds of them and have a great collection of pictures to show for .I love watching them in the wild they are a great family type animal and are always goofing off ,and yes on my ranch which doesn't have a trailer on it ,just a small 7,000 sq ft log home we have 2 different packs that visit and yes they kill for fun they are like us ,we have lost cattle a dog and cats don't make it here ,we have seen many elk,deer and moose killed by wolves and what is funny they don't eat their kill....It will be just a matter of time before they start hanging out in the more populated areas through the Bitterroot valley and Jack the treehuggers will probably win ....but not on my property

70 miles from the zoo is perfect for me and jack that 300 will work good but a 17 hmr will do the trick they are just dogs remember and yes without braggen we have a big trophy room since hunting has been my love for 40 yrs and I have hunted all over the world...I love the smell of gun powder in the mornin

Uh.....so I don't mean to insinuate, but.... uh....braggarts of large guns and log cabins are sometimes compensating for the lack of large other things...... um. Sexual frustration, injured ego, and loneliness often manifest in overcompensation of possessions and abilities of largess. Somehow this discussion which could focus on the US policy of a special species has become a dating chat room for reclusive old dudes. Get a room?

its beyond me that people would actually be against managing ,..(killing to reduce pack size )the wolf , these animals are very efficient hunters and will distroy entire heards of deer elk antelope ,moose....ect ,... im one of the fortunate ones who sees them all the time in the sula area ,.... i love hearing them once in a while ,....i enjoy seeing them too ,..i also have caught them on film ,...but too many wolves are bad for everyone

bob ,.... true that !!!!.... the pepole that live with them every day bear the brunt of it all,... my dogs are scared shitless ,..my neighbors cattle and horses are in jeopardy especially the past 2 weeks ...all this sunshine has firmed up the snow and the wolves can run on top now while the moose and other heavy game still sink ,.....not much of a fighting chance any more ,.... there are 3 fresh wolf kills within 15 miles of my house i found today sledding

well 1 thing is for sure ,... now that its NOT a federal offense to kill them flea bitten mainge carrying bastards ....people wont hesitate to drop some lead behind their ears ,.... again ,... i am glad the wolf is here ,...just 1 more thing to shoot at ,.... and cabelas will be paying high dollars for them to put in their stores

oops ,...... posted twice .......my bad

If you can find a copy of the book "Animal Life of Yellowstone National Park" by Vernon Bailey,Chief Field Naturalist,1930 (I have a copy here) there is interesting information about wolves. "The large gray wolves at times have become abundant in the park and wrought great havoc among game animals. During the summers of 1914 and 1915,they were especially destructive in the park and were following the elk herds to the high pastures of Mirror Plateau,returning with them in winter to the valleys along the Lamar and Yellowstone rivers. They breed rapidly,constant care must be exercised to prevent serious damage to game." Park Naturalists were not unhappy to see the wolves reduced in large numbers by hunting and trapping. The wolves were very destructive to many forms of wildlife in those early accounts. Game populations increased following the wolf reduction program.The Naturalist referred to them as game species also intersting. So here we are in 2008 with similar problems we didn't learn from the mid 1900's.History repeats itself. Also, the bison in YNP originated from game farms and were treated like domestic livestock and fed hay at the buffalo Ranch inside YNP also in that book.

AJ that was the best post in here ! bottom line

Jack, thank you for that book referal, I am going to try to find a copy. I have posted ad nauseum about the actual number of wolves that were killed in Yellowstone to "extirpate" them. 14 were killed by the army during their 32 years of management. Another 122, 80 of which were pups were killed by NPS from 1916 thru 1926 when they quit killing them. There are more than that 42 year total running in Yellowstone today. And of course the only care taken is to keep them as healthy as possible and keep them breeding and feeding.
AJ, you are so right, unfortunately the hysteria and rage of some wolf supporters at any removal of wolves for any reason worries me that they may resort to vioolence if the wolves are ever hunted for sport.

I,m not ashamed of being a hunter or that I'd enjoy a backpack hunt for wolf in the montana wilderness.A few wolves taken per year in what would be a highly regulated hunt, to help manage a delicate ecosystem that we as a whole have heavily altered is the least of of the overall problems that we have on the wolf issue let alone the rest of the wildlife and environmental concerns.

lol HUH you have been Owned ya Noob......

http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/lochist/periodicals/wrv/V4/N2/w70e.htm
1864 Marion County, Arkansas. 3 dead
The scene where it occurred was sad to look upon by the one that made the discovery. The awful circumstances was in the shape of three human beings slain and eaten by wolves. It was supposed they reached near the base of the hill the first day, they stopped in the timber for the night and were attacked by a pack of wolves during the night and destroyed. Their awful doom and destruction can never be accurately described, but never let us imagine the heart rending shrieks and dying moans of the unfortunate family. This mixed with the noise made by the wolves snapping and snarling was certainly awful.
It was told by those who discovered their remains that the evidence on the ground showed that the woman made a desperate effort to defend herself and her children. She had fought the wolves over the space of half an acre. Stones, clubs and chunks of dead wood that she had used in resisting the atack lay scattered on the down-trodden grass. They were the only weapons of defence and she made desperate use of them to the finish.
Probably she had beaten them back and kept them at bay for some time before the ravenous beasts finally overcome her and gloated in the blood of the helpless human creatures. Their fate was simply awful. Who can imagine the consternation and terror of these poor beings when they were attacked by the vicious and hungry pack, and with loud screams and hard struggles were forced to yield their lives in such a horrible manner. Their destruction is sad to reflect upon.

Killing all the Native Americans was that done in hate,democracy or was that just being un-American....dont come in and whine because your site has been taken over by wealthy gun toten, liberals haten rednecks like me

dude you don't have a clue I never said anything about killing anyone thats in your dna you came in here and started bashing us for speaking our mind

It appears the LIES of the pro wolf side are exposed with truth.
Make sure you carefully read the true documented wolf attack that resulted in a woman and her 2 children death. Your precious wolves kill and eat people. ANOTHER PRO WOLF LIE EXPOSED.

That is probably not too much of a stretcj <:(((><.
I have become convinced over my lifetime that most Americans are fools; so it would follow that, if they were disarmed, they would simply become unmanned fools...

Environmentalists and animal lovers claim that wolves only kill the old and infirm. They claim that they kill only what they need for survival. The pictures and testimonies at natureswolves puts the lie to those claims.

These same folks claim that wolves never attack humans. That too is a lie.

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm

yeah and I know you are one of them if you have nothing to say then .....well my folks taut me manners and you have none

You're counting the skunks, then..?

Montana's D Senator, Jon Tester, has just praised the wolf delisting. See: http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7918667&nav=menu227_5

So an 1864 article, written at the height of anti predator hysteria, is cited as proof wolves kill people? First, this article is highly dubious considering the ignorant prejudice aimed at wolves back then (unfortunatley, some are stillmentally in the past). Second, forensic knowledge was not quite developed back then. Wolves probably just fed off of bodies killed by some other means. Third, so what if wolves do kill people? North America is not Disneyland. If you want to be safe and sound, stay out of the wilderness. Go to the mall instead.

I do not live in Disneyland, Ilive in North America, a continent woth wolves, as well it should have them. I'd rather have wolves than cattle any day. Wolves are wild canines, and beautiful ones at that.

As far as this argument that wolves don't eat all there kill, of course not. They don't have tupperware you idiots. The remaining carcass benefits a host of other animals like vultures, ravens, fox, insects etc.It is so important for the ecosystem, in fact, that some African countries require a hunter to leave a certain percentage of the carcass and meat in the field to benefit other animals.

yeah right! .....thats why they delisted them they are pack killers and you don't have in your lil disney neighborhood killing your pets and scaring your kids ....so matt go hug a cactus

Sheeesh. Again, there are few actual discussions going on here. I guess denying that wolves are part of a healthy ecosystem is inherent in the fear tactics, but that has not really been said by jack, bob, <:(((<<, or anybody. It just sounds like rather than talking about why we think wolves are important parts of our world or not, we are talking about getting ready to kill them.
Also, I guess that <:((<< guy lives way in the wilderness with internet access.....and you really think these guys raring to "hunt" wolves will actually get permits? yeah. I am thinking more and more that trollers are targeting these discussions to distract from actual debate. Pretty sad.

Folks, once again, this thread has gotten out of hand and several posts, which violate our terms of service, have been removed.

Name-calling, threats and the like will not be tolerated here so if that's the game you want to play, go elsewhere.

I would have to agree with on on that Courtney. I do aplogize if you think I am in that catagory. As you know the wolf issue is a very controversial subject.We should all stay on the subject however.The issue currently is if delisting will actually happen with a fully recovered population. Many wildlife species should not be subject to the impacts to wolves still not delisted and fully recovered that is of course a fact. Many of us are concerned about elk,moose,wild sheep and deer as well very important to Montana.Wolves are very effecient predators. We should all appreciate New West efforts to make public these important subjects I certainly do. New West did a superb job on the Cabella's issue.

In the interest of seeking to understand others, I'm just asking....
What is the hurry to de-list? I understand concerns about the sheep and cattle kills. But there are partnerships that try to alleviate this (dollars for losses, etc). There are problems beyond wolf kills that threaten wildlife herds (elk, deer, sheep, etc), so demonizing wolves for that seems less convincing. Also, losses of pets, etc seems to come with the territory of living in wild places. Does it come down to the desire to hunt something for the trophy? I mean no one eats dog, so the hunt defense seems to fall on either to protect animal herds (wild and domesticated) or to trophy hunt a rare species. I'm just looking for a more convincing reason for rolling back protection. Thank ya'll for trying to stay on topic.

ben ,.. why do we need a better reason than trophy hunting or management ?protection gets removed when a species can sustane its sellf ,... then they get managed through hunting and predation ,.. since there is no preditor to the wolf other than man ,..it stands to reason there needs to be a hunting season for them , a good friend of mine works in the forest service he told me the # of wolves stated was 417 ,.. he said thats just where they quit counting and they hadn't covered 1/2 the designated area yet ,... i personally think there are way more wolves and packs than they are telling us about ,.

did jedediah redman say something ....auh what!

I just wanna kill them legally

wait I would just rather wound them and then let them suffer like they have done to my cattle

if the animal is not delisted .. there will be no management plan the species MUST BE DELISTED before the state may take over management it the seperation between state and federal ,..remember reading in the news , "federal agents killed 2 wolves " ...for what ever reason ? ,.. also we didnt extirpate the gray wolf by having open season, we extripated the wolf in north america by way of bounty hunting when they were deemed a menace to the human way of life ,... people were paid to kill all of them ,..by the government ,.. the extinction of any species or sub species is a crime against nature in my opnion, but certain animals numbers need to be kept to a mininum the wolf is 1 of those , seriously , i see wolves on the east fork almost every time i go off the paved road ,..except last week when i saw 8 wolves running up the east fork road , i hear them by my house at night 4 nights out of 7 ,...ok yeah its cool ,. the hair on the back of my neck stands up when they howl ......but now its getting .....regular ,.. what im getting at is ,..wolves are supposto be some sort of mystical BIG MEDICINE kind of experience something to remember the rest of your life when you experience them ,.... NOT an every day ....."oh look there they are again".... sort of deal and it has gotten this way because ,... lets face it ...they are thriving here doing better than anyone has projected and expected ,...so its time to start managing

See, that is the kind of talk that does no good, bob. Thanks for the dialogue, sled. I appreciate hearing your thoughts.
I see what you mean, but I am still concerned with the delisting without states adding thoughtful input and brokering good plans. Also, it seems like open season on wolves, which it sounds like the plan for now in MT, ID, and WY, would harm chances of long-term sustainability or survival of the gray wolf. What do ya'll think a good plan would look like? Can I assume something between that desired by extreme right and extreme left would be optimal?

Folks, a few more comments have been removed from this thread, just fyi.

Bob Onit, if you can't help attacking others we're going to ban you. Just giving you a warning.

ben ,... i hate to say it but that would almost please me , honestly i dont see it happening . i think the longer we wait to control pack size and overall #'s , the more your concerns will fall into play ,.. for instance waiting longer to implement a hunting season will mean higher # of permits ,..and a higher # of hunters ...meaning more pressure , which will definatly lead to more animal stress for a longer period thus causing dispersing . or entire packs disappearing or combining with other packs ,..this is not good , so by the same science ,smaller total #'s mean lower amount of hunting permits and less overall pressure ,significantly lowering the chance of stress related problems . as far as genetics go. im sure your aware of the animal trade programs that all species participate in , we will end up trading breeding pairs or males with idaho and wyoming to keep the "family tree " from looking like a "family stick" this is common practice in every state with good management practices i know arizona and montana trade elk on a regular basis , saying that , ill say , ive spent some time in wyoming and i know the social agenda there ,... all i will say to that is ....if i was a wolf ,..and i lived in wyoming ... id move away QUICKLY,..... maybe down to a more liberal state like colorado

sled,....I think that you hit on some good points. As much as this is a wild species, with the amount of human development and impact of critical wolf habitat, it seems that there must be some sort of "management" in place. I have lived in Wyoming (love it) and Montana (really love it) - hell I even like Idaho, but I think what is most abrasive right now is the politicization of this issue. Dude, the feds sometimes step too far into the realm of dictating what states should do - they should work together. Even opposing players in this debate agree that wolf breeding has succeeded and we can look at this as a landmark in American environmental policy. The problem, I think, is that the public (on both sides) feels disenfranchised. The day Kempthorne was appointed, everyone knew what would happen. So environmental groups will fight this in court until at least November '08 to see if good policy agreements can be reached. Instead of working with a coalition of public interests and reaching a good policy, politics has, again placed two sides of the issue against each other. Won't we feel silly when we realize most of us agree, but public servants have not served us, rather tried to divide us? I think there CAN be a consensus agreement on wolf policy in the West.

exactally!!!!

oh brother. One problem is that tri-state "management" plans as they are now, allow killing if the wolf is a perceived threat. Many Americans "just don't have the total faith" that this "honor" system is sufficient. What is to stop someone from trapping, poisoning, killing in dens, etc? (See above posts about Cabellas buying pelts) I understand the stockman fears, and groups have tried to alleviate this with compensation, etc. But this is a keystone species - a predator that has ALWAYS lived here and is important to a healthy ecosystem. It's just not so simple. I think the Feds should listen more to the states, and the states should listen to the will of her people. We can't make everyone happy, but it seems like the scales just tip back and forth, pissing off one extreme,then the other. I think everyone deserves a good pat on the back for 13 years of recovery efforts, but this experiment was intended to "recover" wolves - not breed to a number so that they would be prized trophy hunts. We need to be able to find common ground, but the species needs to be able to sustain.

lmao

Well, I guess you tried to actually debate your points. See above comments and notice that when you try to articulate your ideas, they are listened to and others seek to understand you. But again, uninformed ugly sarcasm, condescension, and name calling does you no good - neither does spouting your hate while claiming enviros are hateful. Sorry,..that's where you lose credibility.

Ben I really think you may have a mental issue going on and should seek help,your creditability is very questionable since I see that you are not very Intelligent wolves have nothing to do with anything its the Idea that your kind would have us re-Introduce T-rex into the wild with no concern of actual impact of the environment

Well Ben i just laugh at guys like you ....you really have no clue its the same with all environmentalist they are no different in my eyes then al qaeda and I'm being and did not call you any names...and if I'm ignored why did you respond and I did make a point

they have a good start here in Montana and it will be just fine ,so ben we don't need your help

Ben, all of this has been posted before, but I will attempt to make it an easy to read check list for you.
The most compelling reason for delisting is honor and honesty. the agreed upon number was 300 for the 3 states. We have from 5 to 7 times that many because the residents acted honorably and honestly even as we saw our elk herds melting in heavily wolf infested areas. We also saw ranch families losing tremendous amounts of their own money because of the difficulty of "confirmation", and delays of several years for some payment after confirming. But we still held to our end of the bargain while FWS played with definitions of a pack and so on before they started the process of delisting.
The Yellowstone elk herd has been taken down by over 65%, and there is no end in sight. This has also shown up in some Idaho elk herds, the Sunlight herd in Wyoming, and elk herds close to Yellowstone in Montana. The calf to a 100 cow ratio has dropped to single to low teen ratios, 40-60 is needed to maintain a herd, and keep it healthy.
Ranch families are not only losing livestock but their animals are being run to the point calf and lamb counts drop again due to predation and lost pregnancies due to being run and chased. All of this money comes from individuals trying to make a living, cutting their income by thousands of dollars.
As the elk continue to decline and the winter killed wildlife is already consumed by wolves prior to the bears coming out of hibernation, the bears, grizzly in particular are going to be very negatively affected. Grizzlies in particular are few in number compared to the wolves. There are tens of thousands of wolves just north of us in Canada, where these wolves came from.
The only benefit of the wolves is the entertainment value of watching them go about their daily lives in full view of Yellowstone watchers. Probably ther is some research value too, we have learned that fidelisty of the alpha pair is a myth, the wolves breed all they can where they can, and are having multiple litters per pack.
Listing the wolves as an endangered species was a political decision, not a scientific one. In fact FWS had to come up wiht the 10j , experimental, non-essential designation in order to bring the wolves into a range outside of their own range, otherwise they would have been breaking the law.

Thanks Marion. But I really would like to see it simplified. It seems like you are saying you are in favor of delisting the gray wolf now because: 1. livestock threats 2. Ungulate threats and 3. no value in wolves except entertainment & maybe research
Is that correct? Also, I'd like to see reasons for opposing delisting now, which I assume, in similar fashion would be: 1. ecological and research value 2. the need for agreeable good management and 3. threats to species conservation/high kills=losing what was gained. Anyone willing to spell things out like that. Thanks.

Homo sapiens is like a green mold on the earth which is like a slice of white bread.
Green mold is not even important until it gets a foothold; but then it spreads to destroy the entire slice.
At this stage of the despoliation even environmentalists have made homo sapiens the central issue.
That will spell the end of everything in the not too distant future...

Anyone willing to put forth a simple, less wordy defense of one side or the other? It seems to me that the two extremes are pretty far apart, but most people are able to work with one another.

That recent Feb.14,2008 survey was 6,279 elk and most wintering north of YNP in the Dome Mountain area with fewer wolves there and better forage conditions. This figure represents an all time low. The future of elk is not looking good with the impacts of overpopulated wolves.

The problem is parkcamper, how can we compromise with people who keep moving the goal further and further. I have asked on several sites exactly what it is that they want, never once have a gotten a concrete answer. The answer is usually something to the effect that they will accept delisting when there are "enough" and the management plans are "acceptable". How can anyone compromise with that? How do you even achieve that, ceertainly the numbers that were laid out of 300 wolves were surpassed years ago, and over a thousand wolves ago, but it is not enough, even with the wolves growing at 34% per year.
Actually there were only 6200 elk counted and only a third or 2000 left inside of Yellowstone. Calf retention rates in the low teens will not bring that back up at all.

I'm donating money to launch a lawsuit which I hope will put the Feds back into the business of seeing that nobody shoots wolves or prairie dogs just for target practice...

I agree with Jed,so i will stop shootin them for target practice and jus do it for fun and for money send me some maybe I will stop or use the money for more ammo

I think I am going to purchase a wolf hunting permit, find out where the other wolf hunters are going, and make lots of noise so the wolves flee!!

To me, hunting these kinds of animals is like hunting large Huskies or German Shepherds!

Dear Hal:

You said: "I'm a hunter, but I won't be buying a wolf tag. I really have no deisre to go shoot a big dog -- or anything else I can't eat. I guess I'm old-school that way. Hunting merely for a trophy always seemed pointless and egotisical to me."

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! WE THANK YOU! THE WOLVES THANK YOU! You are one of the "normal" type of hunter who doesn't hunt animals out of HATRED.

That is what scares wolf supporters about hunting them. They have a history like no other species; it's not like delisting the sage grouse or something! The wolf is SPECIAL.

First of all, you guys seem to think you are so much smarter than other people, but let me tell you something you evidently do not know. We have been using fences out here in the boonies for over a hudred years. Not only are the ranches fenced, the different pastures are fences, and do you know what that means to a wolf....aboslutely nothing, except it gives them an advantage to kill when they get the animals run into corners, that way they can kill and tear up a number of animals at once.
Please try to learn a few facts before you start preaching.
All sorts of thing are tried to keep the wolves from goin thru or under or over the fences, such things as tying strips of material on the fences, putting noise makers on the fences, etc. All work for a little while until the wolves find out thsoe things are no danger to them and in they go.
No matter how much ranchers care they cannot stay up 24 hours a day indefinitely watching them. And I bet none of you are willing to volunteer are you?
When they get in and kill 30-50 sheep in a corral how long and much work do you think it is for the owner to have to dispose of the carcasses as fast as he can so they aren't attracted back? How many wolf lovers offer to help when it is -20 and the ground is frozen or 102 in the shade and no shade.
But you feel you are owed that by the animal owner because you love wolves. I think you hate people to do such an awful thing to them.
I bet it isn't even a month until one of you again posts that the ranchers should use fences....totally ignoring the fact that they have them.

Just think how many more wolf puppy's will be out there soon. Then more puppy's next year...then year after that..then year after that...etc..... etc. Will it ever stop? We will be up to our ears in wolves. Why go to Jellystone National Park? I can hardy wait to see the first 'neigborhood pack'. When will enough be enough for the bleeding hearts out there?

Hal9000, most of the residents of the area accepted the fact that city folk ooutnumber us and they want wolves..where we are, NOTwhere they are...and we stood by our word and let them continue to multiply like rabbits, rabbits without a predator, I might add. So what do we get for our sacrifices? Being called haters, killers, rednecks, selfish, greedy, etc, and the demand that we raise wolves by the thousands for them......and of course we pay the full cost ourselves. By the way no complaints or cying about the cost, they do not want to hear it. It is our duty to make them think it is 1800 again, what right do we have to our own property?
One rancher put out of business was mentioned in the articles that ran in the Casper paper. Early on another rancher from Riverton who ran cattle in the mountains could not stand the loss and sold out to that Stankey, remember him? I don't know what he did finally. Then there is Mr. Weber in Montana, who repeatedly lost his sheep in his own yard within sight of the house, he finally gave up when he didn't get the gate latched tight to the little chain link pen he was forced to use and the wolves pretty much finished him off. He didn't get paid becaue it "was his fault".
So pat yourselves on the back only a few humans way of life have been sacrificed for your wolves, but you'll surely get more as the numbers increase.
I love the argument that sheep & cattle ranching should be eliminated since it is not the 19th century anymore, but we who live here should live in a make believe 19th century with a full complement of dangerous predators.

Hal, the fact is those who wanted the wolves brought in felt no sacrifice was too great to make for the wolves....as long as it wasn't them making the sacrifice.
How can you say that ranchers are doing "just fine" in wolf country. No where else in this country has to have the vast acreages to raise livestock (even the privately owned land is vast), I don't know about Canada, but I think they are allowed to kill anything that gets into their stock, they have government trappers working to control them.
I fully understand that all business has to put up with problems, but this is a deliberately introduced problem done to suit wolf lovers, who certainly have no intention of making the sacrifices necessary to raise wolves themselves.
The fact is wolf lovers wanted 300 wolves, but they want no control even though there are many times that now. Some of these people are violent in their language even to Bangs and Carolyn Sime, and there is every chance that hatred will be directed at innocent people.
It really doesn't matter whether you call it a victim mentality or what, the fact remains, the folks who wanted wolves introduced are taking a free ride on the shoulders of the ranchers who tried to tell them that the wolvesw would breed like rabbits and cause all kinds of problems for privately owned animals.
Would you be playing the victim card if somebody decided your house was essential for the restoration of termite colonies?

Intellectuals like jack and marion are making this forum a real success...

I'll be watching for your credentials as far as the awarding of points...

A similar discussion -- albeight, more focused on the merits of the the northern Rockies wolf, and current news -- is ongoing on a new blog which is 100% devoted to this topic.

http://myyellowstonewolves.typepad.com

Marion, once again, you're falling back on gross over-generalization and appeals to emotion. Ranchers are ONE interest group in all of this. And if you want to play the "free ride" card, well, then it can be arugued that the ranching industry got a free pass to slaughter untold amounts of the public's wildlife for decades. And they have, and continue to, graze their cows on the public's land.
Furthermore, who do you think the rancher's main customer base are? Who buys most of their product? Well, that would be those "city slickers" you seem so quick to curse. Seems to me, the ranchers would do well to not tick off their customer base by slaughtering all the public's wildlife. Your arguments seem to hinge on the perception that ranchers live in a vaunted bubble, free of any dependancy upon or obligation to anybody or anything outside their direct interest. All Americans pay the taxes that fund the management of this country's wild lands and wildlife.
People are quickly getting wise to the fact that over-consumption of red meat isn't healthy for you anyway -- and the American diet will change accordingly. Compound that with a growing awareness of and disgust toward "factory style" stockyards and slaughterhouses, plus a growing sense of ownership of and concern over the country's Western Wildlands, Marion, and ranchers are NOT doing themselves any favors in the public eye by acting as if they have a God-given right to exterminate a species that many, many Americans place a high value on.
Look, if you ranch on the edge of some of this country's most valued wild country -- which belongs to all Americans... all of whom buy groceries and pay taxes -- then I think you're going to have to accept some loss to natural predators as a cost of doing business.
Once again, I think most reasonable people can recognize the very real plight of the few ranchers who really are suffering because of wolves and have no problem granting them reasonable means to protect themselves. But playing the "victim" card and saying completely ignorant things that make it sound like the effect on ranchers should be the only concern regarding the managment of the public's wildlife can, has and will backfire on the livestock industry.

Do the wolf loving, 'bleeding hearts' consider the gray wolf fully recovered or not? A simple yes or no, please.The USFWS own wolf recovery plan clearly shows they were fully recovered 6 years ago. Isn't that what this article is all about?The killer wolves are fully recovered admit it and be happy and lets get on with controlling a population fully out of control now and damaging our big game resource.To graze or not to graze livestock has nothing to do with anything and off the subject at hand. Recovered?YES or NO? It's a YES vote here.

Jack, I will vote YES (of course), but I'll bet you will not only not get a single enviro to vote yes, neither will they tell you how many are enough.
bearbait, the wolfers do not dare admit that cattle are beneficial to the land nor for food. To do so would be to admit they were willing to cause harm to good people, that didn't deserve to be harmed, with the help of the government those people help support.

Bearbait, great post. It’s refreshing to get a well-reasoned, factual reply. I’m also aware of the growing trend toward free-range, grass-fed cattle, and very happy to see it happening. The beef from those cows is far leaner and healthier to eat.
Thank you, also, for explaining that public lands grazing is often not the land-damaging “welfare ranching” some try to make it out to be.
I do think it’s ironic that you noted the poor shape of the Yellowstone land. Wolves are helping to solve that problem by thinning the elk out and scattering them across the landscape.
My overall point was public perception is very important. And ranchers and hunters can’t afford to go frothing at the mouth about wolves.
Sensible management of the wolf is needed, obviously. I think sport hunting – as proposed by all three states – can be part of that. Knee-jerk ranting and raving about wolves helps nobody, and other serves to fuel the perception among metropolitan Americans that we here out West can’t wait to kill anything that moves. The fact is, many people who are hardly radical environmentalists favor wolves – I count myself among them. I have no problem with a rancher shooting wolves when they pose a clear and present threat. But I also realize that this issue can’t be driven by one interest group or industry. As I said, wolves have a broad base of support... among people who vote, pay taxes and buy groceries. The cattle industry needs to be mindful of that.

THX Marion we have 2 votes we have enough. Guess everyone else is going to talk about cows and grazing. The subject is wolves.

Hal, the damage to Yellowstone is primarily being done by the buffalo, the elk herds are very dramatically decreased. Most of the fall rut only the big 7x7 was at Mammoth with about 30 cows and a couple of small bulls. One couple watching besided me, said they had expected a lot more elk there, but the ranger told them that the bulls stay in the mountains for the rut. I guess that would explain part of the low number of calves. There were 3 bulls along the Madison, one of which was only a 5x, probably 50 - 60 cows total. One crippled bull and 2 cows at Norris.
I don't know if you follow the northern herd elk counts. It was 19,000 the year before the wolves came, was not counted for 2 years, but has steadily dropped, was 6000 this year, about 2000 of which are inside the park itself.

Still only 2 votes that we have plenty of wolves and they should be delisted ASAP.Wolf people will never admit there is enough and should be controlled. That was all predicted before they brought the "killing machines" down from Canada.The Defenders of Wildlife led the charge to bring the killers down here and could care less about the welfare of other species. What a phony organization of nit-wits. Wolves destroyed the northern Yellowstone elk herd and are destroying the diversity of YNP.They will do the same outside of YNP. Wolf people have tunnel vision and will not face realty and the facts. I don't consider wolves a 'public trust' but a large predator and killer.

Ecology...... fairy tale time......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

whatever

Jack, the ignorance of ecology reflected in your posts is astounding. Everything I've read and every knowlegeble person I've talked to says wolves have contributed greatly to the biological diversity of the Park -- that their effect on the overall health of he ecosystem has been amazing. Bloated populations of elk and coyotes running willy nilly with basically nothing to fear isn't "biological diversity."

Hal, when was the last time you were in Yellowstone? You'll not see elk calves playing in the meadows at Norris any more. Go look for yourself, or do you consider any elk too many?
By the way, there are more coyotes than I ever saw before. The story on that is that they stay close to the road to avoid the wolves. Interestingly enough both coyotes and wolves are easily visible in the Lamar.

Natural regulation and the balance of nature is a myth.Research literature and books on the subject of ecology such as Odum and Weaver will verify that.The balance of nature and natural regulation is propaganda put out by the NPS.YNP is a perfect example of the worst management of public land in the nation.When you talk about cattle overgrazing go look at YNP in the Mammoth-Lamar area. Now the range is being devastated by too many bison. The NPS set idly by and watches the bison starve inch by inch day by day.The bison must leave the park to avoid starvation.Where is the balance of nature? As the soil erodes away the range capacity is lowered and fewer animals can occupy the range.The wolves have little impact on bison and that population is at an all time high. In the meantime a double barrel effect on elk. Wolves killing the elk and bison destroying the vegetation important for elk survival. Bring in FEMA to YNP the whole area is a national disgrace and disaster.Wolf people when you go to YNP to view the killer wolf look down at your feet at the devastated range,erosion and destruction of riparian areas.I have never seen a cattle grazing area deteriorated like YNP.Then we have that 'buffalo committee' who wants more bison.Want to see what bison can do to range?Go look at our public state land in the Ruby-Robb-Ledford area in SW Montana. Let me see who owns those bison a self proclaimed environmentalist???? DNRC sets by and watches that range deteriorate.... our land and it's bison ranching not cattle.Wolf re-introduction ,which was illegal and a lie ,remains the biggest mistake in the history of game management and management of YNP.

Hal...I am not pretending 1950 is here or should be. But I will tell you that there is an obligation for the "people" to provide for those whose livelihoods have been taken by the "people." I have seen none of that.

Government runs on taxes. Government land does not pay taxes, even though it is inside a state boundary. In much of the West, govt land is the elephant in room, and it is taxation on private property that keeps the elephant crap cleaned up, the elephant housed, the elephant accessible, and they now get nothing for that. Not a dime. No timber revenue, no family wage jobs, no energy, no respect. The Ranger Station is no longer staffed by 50 or 100. Twenty, maybe, or the Ranger Station is gone, melded into another and house in a town now far away. The mill or mills, the loggers, the supply and support business, is all gonel. It means the grocery store has become a gas station and convenience store, a real grocery now miles away on $3.50 gas. That in turn, has resulted in some pretty horrific human and social tolls. That gift keeps on giving. Periodically, a social worker or probation officer from far away comes to town for the day. A sheriff deputy comes by every other day. Kids now ride a bus miles to the open school running low on funds.

Now it is easy for someone from far away to say that all the economic dislocation was inevitable, but that was not the plan nor is it the case. The timber was being harvested, replanted, roaded, on a continuing basis for perpetuity. Long term harvest rotations, thinning, road maintenance, attention to wildlife details, road gating to allow only govt or periodic harvest traffic. And all that stopped. Away went capital, human effort, public and private infrastructure and declines in government services. Many, many rural communities got just plain hosed by an uncaring country, and by people who did not, do not, nor ever will, live with the consequences. Instead, today we just let this wonderful resource burn, burn, burn. If that destruction is not enough, now we have turned the wildlife part of it into a wolf feeding program and reproduction experiment that has no brakes, no plan, no legal justification.

So this is an election year. And the Democrat bedfellows of the enviro side of politics are being sucked up to by the candidates looking for money to garner votes, and you know that nothing has happened of consequence in Congress since the Senate flock of turkey baster fathers went campaigning a year ago, leaving the Senate undermanned and underwomaned. Now there are just three missing every day. There will be no answers on the legislative front for the next 4 years. Maybe never. We are at a legislative non-accomplishment time of rhetoric, posturing, strict partisan votes, and nothing of good has or will come of it. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The supplicants for status quo have the Congressional ear, and we are going to live with outdated law and administrative rule for the foreseeable future. Nothing is going to be changed, improved, modified to bring us to consensus on anything concerning the wildlands issues. No more wilderness, no ESA modifications to recognize the shortcomings and build a better process, no real fuel reduction program (unless you count burning it all up in conflagration which is a current USFS practice of fuel reduction accounting), no logging, no mining law revisions. Stalemate.

On the bright side of all this, though, is the very real prospect that the wolf thing will get bad enough that non-resident hunting will not be allowed in wolf states, which will anger folks across the country who have the money to indulge in that sport. The money not spent on trespass fees, licenses, and guides might well go to political causes to change the process. And again, out of state money will be calling the shots. Just a pipe dream, I imagine. But change has to happen. You can't land use zone whole states, creating protected open areas, without lowering the tax base over time. No PILT money from Congress added to reduced property taxes locally will not make the trains run on time. Nor will it educate children if there are going to be any. Service help for McMansions seasonally is not a sound foundation for family wage jobs and thriving children, and even less so when no non-resident hunting reduces the recreational season.

I know there are chi-chi places with new jobs, but those areas have become more urban than rural. Those jobs go to people from elsewhere who have come to smell the snow. Small towns have become large towns in a dozen places. And a thousand small towns have diminished. Growing Beverly Hills does not improve life in Compton, bring meaningful jobs to Watts.

If you really want to have a visual of what is happening to the West, go sit in Livingston and watch the trains go by for a day. I saw, after 9/11, two whole trains of military vehicles going east in one day. I told my buddies that Bush was going to war in the Mideast because I had not seen whole Army trains in 40 years. You can see unit trains of coal going to Boardman, Oregon, all with the little red rose painted on the side of the car. Going east, unit trains of containers, all carrying imported goods headed for Target and Walmart, Circuit City. Unit trains of lumber, 90% of Canadian origin, headed east. And unit trains of grain going west to the grain docks in Portland. Now and then cars of logs from the east go west. Logs from ranches as far away as the Dakotas going to western Montana mills. And whole trains of empty containers headed west, to be filled with hay, straw, slip loads of scrapped autos, aluminum, and someday, the statue of Sacajawewa in the Park, after the tweakers steal it for its metal content.

Instead of being a part of the jobs-in-America economy, the West has become the pass through state for trains, as well as airplanes, a place for dilettantes to dabble in a lovely landscape, spending money earned elsewhere to change a place long term residents' toil and treasure created. A job designing clothes for Americans to be made in China does not replace the missing logging and sawmilling jobs. Those jobs are in Canada cutting the Canadian forests, making lumber for export to America. How can they have enough wolves to export with all that logging, grazing and mining going on? We have to do better. There has to be a better way. And it all has to start in Congress, working on behalf of everyone, not just the special interests of the Green Lobby or for Big Timber, the megapulps, which are one and the same, making their secret deals with the NOGs of Green in Congressional halls. Like Spitzer's whores, the Big Green lobby provides a service for money, and they get it where it is available in quantity. The tax protected foundations and trusts of Big Timber are but one of those spigots of wealth, conveniently keeping competition suppressed and their bottom lines healthy. It is time for people to know that Big Timber is the beneficiary of no public land logging. It is they whose assets have vastly appreciated by having no competition from Federal timber sales. Big Timber is not asking for more logging. County commissioners and small town city councils who are trying hard to find ways to provide an equal level of government for their citizens want the timber harvest increased, and fuels reduced to dampen fire intensity and scope. After the fires go through, the recreational traffic goes away also. And incomes drop even further. Add rampaging wolves to the meager economy, and there is real economic danger to those people in their little part of the world. Wolves have a negative economic impact on the whole scope of rural living. And it is about the economy. It will always be about the economy.

If wolves are such a damned good deal, then they first should have been loosed on the Adirondacks and along the Applachians, on those public lands, to stray to eat those folks livestock unabated. If it works there, then bring them West. Putting them in the areas of low population and then demeaning the locals for not liking them is disengenuous and wrong. Go do it in places with many electoral votes, large representation in Congress. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming...gee...4 whole members in the House. Legislative bullying. Beating up on the little guys. It might be smart but that does not make it right. Creating the Emperor's Club for wolf faeries will never make it right. But, when wasn't stepping on the little people the right of the smart set?

bearbait,
I too lament the "yuppie-fication" of the West. After all, this is where I and generations of my family before me grew up. But much of that has little to do with environmental policy. Mainly, there's two things going on. First, technology has made it possible for many jobs to be done from a remote location.. there's not need to work in the central office for many. Secondly, as a result, many people were able to sell there homes or property for many times what they would be valued out West.. and then take all that money and move West.. buy up property, build a trophy home and keep working their jobs through technology that allows them to be productive without physically being at the company headquarters.
The first great influx of such people to the West started in the early 1990s, before the wolves ever came. I might not like it, you apparently do not either.. but things change. And if we want to be totally honest with ourselves than we have to admit that at least these newcomers to the West are being far kinder to us than our forebearers were to the Indians that they drove off the land so the legacy that made our lives could be built.
Also, I think you still fail to realize that land can and does have an intrinsic value all it's own. I see wild land as a birthright.. and I'd rather not have all of my birthright logged into below-cost timber sales "just because."
Furthermore, I think you attribute way too much power to both wolves and the "Big Green" groups. The livestock industry has plenty of dollars, lobbyists and lawyers too. It's hardly a David and Goliath battle in the halls of Congress in that regard.
And if wolves are so damned destructive, both Canada and Minnesota would have ceased to exist... except as playgrounds for the independantly wealthy looking for a way to bond with nature. Last I knew, there's plenty of salt-of-the-earth working people in both Canada and Minnesota.
And as far as hunting goes, it seems to me, plent of idle rich set of the hunting fraternity are still willing to pay big bucks to go to Canada or Alaska.. and there's significant wolf populations in both those places. And some of the snottiest guided hunt opportunites for the "once in a lifetime" trophy exist far outside anything that will ever be wolf habitat. Eastern Colorado and eastern Montana, for example. I lived in eastern Montana for a few years. Finding a place to hunt if you're not an outfitter with enough money to grease a landowner's palm into exclusive access rights can be quite the challenge. And I've heard it's even worse in eastern Colorado.
To say wolves will ruin hunting is just flat-out ignorant. They might CHANGE it in some places. But then again, the lazy-assed style of "hunting" that is encouraged by over-populated, half-tame elk herds is just the sort of thing that was rotting the sport form the inside out anyway.
I'm sorry, but I think much of what you're saying along those lines is hype.. not unlike the hype from those who say that any hunting or control of the wolves will make them go extinct here again.

By the way, there is a program on versus at 5 pm MDT about Wyoming dealing with the predators. It is 151 on Dish.

The Alaska governor is a woman, not a "himself." It's not just wolves by the expanding population of wolves, bears, and cats.

To say wolves will not damage hunting is ignorant.Remember the objective of wolf reintroduction was anti-hunting motivated especially by the Defenders an anti-hunting organization.There is little hunting left in most hunting districts surrounding YNP.The Gardner hunt was very popular,sporty and brought in much income to the area.We are losing elk,moose,deer and probably wild sheep as well from these killers now out of control.The NPS in Yellowstone had to trap and shoot wolves to protect elk back in the 1930's.We will continue to lose hunting opportunity with out of control wolves. How many wolves do you consider enough Hal?Are you a hunter Hal? Alaska is a good example. In Alaska they have to aerial gun,trap and hunt wolves to protect caribou and moose.These wolf people will never admit there are enough wolves. The killers were fully recovered 6 years ago. Get real bleeding hearts.Wolves will cost us much hunting opportunity and loss of wildlife valuable for other recreational uses as well.If I see a wolf I will probably get sick because I can't shoot it.

Bill.. you get sick seeing a wild animal because you can't shoot it? That's a pretty twisted point of veiw for a hunter to have. That's just the sort of thing anit-hunters love to hear and turn against us. (trust me, I engange strident anti-hunters and animal rights activists in fierce debates on other blogs.) Yes, I hunt. Since I was old enough to hold a .22 and follow my father around. But trust me, this wolf-hating hype I'm seeing from some other hunters is not doing us any favors in the public eye. And the perception of the sport of hunting is important and will grow even more vital as the population becomes increasinly urban or suburban and fewer people hunt. Again, Bill, crap like what you just posted does anti-hunter's P.R. work for them. It's just the sort of thing that turns non-hunters in to anti-hunters.
Wolves CHANGE hunting. They can make some animals, elk specifically, harder to hunt. So what? Are we hunters such a bunch of inept cry-babies that we can't improvise, adapt, overcome? Isn't that what hunting is all about.. a tradition of skill, meeting new challenges and being fit and smart enough to change tactics once an old tactic doesn't work any more? Or, have we really become such a bunch of wimps who are so depenant upon our ATVs and two-way radios that none of us have the gumption or skill to actually hunt any more?
Bill, I am all for wolf control. Though I don't plan on getting a wolf tag myself, I support the proposed wolf hunts. I think they are a great idea.
Overall, elk hunting in all three states is better than ever.. look at the numbers, Bill.. elk are at all-time highs in all three states! Yes, in some specific areas, wolves might have had too big an effect on the herds. Well, is throwing a hissy fit about wolves going to solve anything? No! Do what wildlife managers and hunters have always done. Don't hate the animals.. simply open up a season, hunt hard and with good ethics, and take a reasonable number of wolves out of those specific areas.

You said the situation might be different, but you also dismissed any discussion that there might be a problem. Wolves are not the problem, know everything people who actually have no knowledge and no problem with the cost and difficulties some have dealing with the wolves are what I object to. I also object to the lies, we were supposed to have 300 wolves, now enviros point out that was the minimum, they didn't specify the actual number necessary to get them delisted, nor is any number acceptable to them as enough.
Trophy hunting as a means of control is a joke, after the first shots are fired, it will be an accident if another license is filled. FWS has taken out hundreds, and still the numbers increase 20-30% per year.
They have professional hunters and trappers in Alaska and they still cannot keep them under control, even in the outskirts of anchorage for goodness sake.
I don't really appreciate increased taxes on my state to make city folks some entertainment and make them think "they are saving nature".

Last night on the program about Wyoming and predators, Bangs made the statement that bears are killing the elk calves and to emphasize that point they shwoed a clip of a griz taking an elk calf over and over seveeral times. He did not mention the fact that 40% of winter killed elk are calves.

I don't hate wolves either there ok in the Yukon,NWT,Alaska,Alberta, and B.C and they can be hunted there as well. It was just a bunch of dumb burearucrats that decided in Washington D.C. we needed them here for some dumb reason and brought them down illegally.The bureaucrats violated federal law but they are use to that. The wolves would have been happy where they came from B.C. and Alberta.

HAL...I don't like the specter of federal agents hauling some poor jaboney off to some far away federal lockup because he shot at a wolf that was trying to kill his horse or Labrador retreiver. The feds are pretty hard handed and the expense is huge. Just ask what a retainer now is for your having to be represented in federal court as opposed to local district or circuit court. Just accused by the Feds can result in bankruptcy.

I don't think all wolves should die. Or even most of them. All I believe is that there is a balance. There are way, way more people in the world that were ever here, and bad as that is in some ways, it is good in many others. Either that, or there is no need for the Peace Corps, or world AIDs relief, smallpox eradication. So there can only be as many wolves as there is wild habitat for them. That land is finite, and so should wolf numbers be.

No matter how you feel about ranchers, you have to know that they, and they alone, are the guardians of the last great expanses of open, undeveloped land. Make their economic venture not viable due to wolf predation without remedy, and the future of that land is in other uses, most likely with more human development. And, by barring the public from their lands, the wildlife there is not harrassed, the land not strewn with garbage, stuff shot up, dead whores dumped in the canyon, dope growers using the water and eating the wildlife, broken appliances and bags of garbage are not dumped hither and yon. There are areas that are without public access, and that is good for the whole of wildlife, and most ranches are providing that. And, in my opinion, ranch timber management, grass mangement, water management, all are better than the feds provide on their land outside of wilderness, and even some of that is suspect. Much more diversity. There was, after all, a great deal of human impacts on the land before whitey ever got here. Ranchers understand that way more than city kid urban enviros taught by academic zealots with not enough practical experience to get out of the rain.

I have a rancher friend who saw a wall of flame coming at his outfit, and he climbed on the cat, and lined ahead of it, and his neighbors and some buckaroos got the water wagon going and they stopped the fire before it climbed into the wilderness or burned all his fall range. For that he got a ticket for building fire line inside a wilderness study area. The fire was set by an environmental teacher and guide who was burning his just used toilet paper and the wind caught it and away went the flames. Of course, he did not get a ticket. The bad ass rancher got the ticket, had to travel hundreds of miles to defend himself. He was found not guilty due to an unsurveyed boundary that was no more than stakes in the ground. All because an idiot thought it environmentally sound to burn his ass wipe in range fuels, low humidity, and a twenty mile an hour wind. Coyotes like those turd tickets which flag a certain meal. Just let it blow in the wind. And in rocks, burying Mr. Grumpy is not an option.

I admire your being able to grow up in Butte and find your way in the world. I had business at the US Courthouse (USFS had an office there), and I drove by the High School, and the cheer girls were working out on weights along with the football boys. Tough place. One of the most telling acts of kindness I witnessed in a little greasy spoon lunch dive. The waitress saved the used coffee grounds for a couple of old guys with limited means. After they had left, and before our lunch was done, we listened as she called a social service agency and asked to advance food money to another down in his luck old timer. A working social service program of kindness in a place that was not the Ritz, directed to people who needed the help. I have never seen that kind of kindness from a waitress, which of course, meant I left a way too large tip. I have no idea what I ate, but I do know the experience will never leave me.

If you want to understand what is going on with the truth wolves order a copy of Undue Burden the real cost of living with wolves.
http://www.prosts.com/Documentary-Undue-Burden.htm

Every hunter, rancher, fisherman, hiker, wolf lovers must see this film to understand the terror children are living with.

bearbait.. Yes, I recognize the ranchers' value in forming a barrier to stop the developer's bulldozers and the pox of subdivisions on the land.

I've told greenies more than once -- If you think you don't like ranchers, then you really aren't going to like what happens when they are forced to sell off their land.

Be that as it may, the ranching industry as a whole seems to have this perception that their interests trump all others, and they should somehow be beyond reproach. I don't hate ranchers... far from it. But, they are but one interest group. Not THE interest group.

Despite the ranting and raving on the extremes, I think the reasonable middle from the hunting, environmental and ranching communities can, have and should continue to work together. I've seen it happen with my own eyes -- the Nature Conservancy, some sportsmens' groups and a few ranchers all getting together to set aside valuable elk habitat for permenant protection from any sort of sub-dividing or development. I see no reason why these groups can't work together on wolf managment.

Hal: Ranchers might not be THE interest group, but money talks and b.s. walks. Ranchers own their land, and tied to that land's viability is access to summer graze. They go hand in hand. It is an economic unit deal. A lesson in scale. Is a bale hand tractor cheaper to run for 100 head or 300 head? How many head does it take to pay the taxes? How many head to buy health insurance? How many before you can have an IRA?

If the public land graze goes away, and the economic unit is no longer there, the route becomes one to find the buyer who can pay the most for what you have left. That means you probably won't get rolled into another outfit, which no longer happens because the economics of winter range is so driven by amentiy property values. So amenity property it is. And when the amenity property gets sold, it will be to the next level which is ranchettes, your little piece of heaven. At that time, when the winter range is inhabited by dogs, cats, kids, llamas, horses, goats, sheep, what have you, and lots of cross fencing, the wildlife value is gone. The question becomes, then, was it really worth it to get rid of the rancher? Has there evolved a greater wildlife value in the empty grazing allotment? Who is keeping the water improvements going? Or are they? Who is pulling weeds, putting out salt and mineral blocks? And now that the fine fuels are not eaten, when the fire goes through, have you improved the wilderness or just burned it because some idiot told you that was good for it? Logged, eaten by cows, or burned, the resource is gone. Loggers never took it all nor did cows. Fire does. Sometimes it takes it all and then some.

And that out the gate access to range the ranch had is not an automatic. Public access goes away with many ranches losing their graze. So there really is lots to think about. No matter how you think ranchers are in the driver's seat, that they have driven the process, you do have to realize that they hold some cards, including trump. It might be one of those deals where when you win, you really lose, but get to say you won.

Bill, why spend all that money, when you can just get squirrel/chipmunk fur at your local city park and make a hood that's probably darn near as warm?

Bill: Persian or Siamese cat would work, and you could really do something positive for the environment. Sometime measure the length of the pet food aisle at the megamart, and then measure the baby food section....that is a social comment in and of itself.

Bill,

I hear that the most effective way to hunt wolves is to dress up like Little Red Riding Hood and head to Grandma's house.

Bill,

I don't know... are you saying wolves are suckers for the Angelia Jolie look?

Hal and Bill,

Have you guys ever tried hunting ignorant redneck hicks? You set a TV in the woods playing something like Pro wrestling or monster truck racing and use that as bait. Or you can drive them into a cage by chasing them with books. Scientific journals work best. They hate actual facts that challenge their version of reality. Books about evolution work well.

Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,Matt M is a FAGGOT ,

yeah bill i have hunted with some of yer type retarded beer drinkin libral hunter that love the outdoors but cant go out into the wild without be drunk ....hey bill i will join yer club but do you care if I use yer family for wolf bait ...ya got any lil ones work ...probaly not since yer retarded

I think i would like to rub sticks with ya bill ...you turn me on with all that fur talk and hay stack stuff....yeehaw ...squeal like a pig bill

Don't take this personal but we don't allow gay folks in our huntn' camps.

hey bill I like it all and im not gay but I thought a retarded dude like you would like it in the rear ...makes yer type of huntin camps more fun

well bill wolves and retards like you suit me jus fine ...you even laugh like a retard ....boy that really turns me on bill ....I will bet you like in the rear even with my ultra mag ...squeal lil pig boy

Matt, the best way to bait in Redneck Hicks is to play "classic" episodes of The Dukes of Hazard on a big-screen T.V., with a cooler of cheap beer nearby.

im really very UNCOMFTERABLE with all these guys who seem to have feelings like women ,....matt , i bet you never miss an episode of oprah ,. dont you understand that MEN have been hunting literly since the stone age who are you to take a stand against it , its human nature ,.. im sorry but your GUY CARD IS REVOKED ,.... go sit with the women ,.and dont forget your midol

Sledhead,

I am a hunter. Unlike you, I am an ehtical hunter that understands that wolves play a role in the ecosystem. I don't watch Oprah, just as you don't read much.

matt , matt, matt,
i think your confusing the subject matter here , ethical hunting practice ,..... and the delisting of the wolf , what really are you trying to say? the only thing ive seen you write is how to unethically hunt rednecks , i mean seriously mat ,... hunting us with big screen hdtv sporting wwf or monster trucks even dukes of hazzard is definatly UNFAIR ,...what about fair chase,... and the couch with the nearby tapped keg is way over the top people loose their hunting rights for doing such unfair things in an effort to bag their quarry i mean god knows just the low soothing hum of the generator is sure to draw us in from miles ,.
P.S. Matt I still think your a homosexual oprah watching liberal scumbag bent on distroying all FREEDOM to support your selfish agenda

Matt, not to worry. There are some members of our grand hunting fraternity who seem to think you can't be a "real" hunter if:

*You read anything besides Feild and Stream and use words with more than two syllables.
*You actually enjoy movies with dialouge and a plot.
*You are any more "liberal" than John Birch.
*You respect opinons different from your own.
*You look for qualities in a woman beyond a full set of teeth and big breasts.
*You really don't want to kill anything and everthing that moves.
*You are capable of functioning without an ATV, snowmobile or pickup without a 5-inch lift kit. (In other words, you're in shape and actually know how to use your legs.)
*You understand and appreciate complex things, like a fully-functioning ecosystem and the role of top-tier predators, like the wolf.

Yes, Matt... trust me, I know how annoying it is. But we hunters must do our best to nurture and gently guide our own problem children... lest they end up doing all of PETA's anti-hunting propoganda work for them.

Sorry Jack. I fell of the rails with that talk about Red RH wearing stilleto heels and injecting calligen into her lips. Apparent she has been busy catching another wolf: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/senators_husband_nabbed_in_hoo.html

Jack,
Yes, the topic at hand. Sorry to digress.

My take -- Montana's wolf plan is sensible. Idaho's... not so much, but we'll have to see. Wyoming's plan is two steps on the wrong side of stupid, and will continue to trash the state's already tarnished image regarding wildlife managment. I predict there will be a boycott of Wyoming tourism -- similar to what Alaska suffered when they decided it would be fun to just mow down their wolves and flip the finger to the rest of the world. That will put immense pressure on state officials when they figure out that tourism, not ranching, is actually the primary economic powerhouse in much of the state. That, coupled with the fact that too many wolves will probably be killed in Wyoming, will probably have wolves back under federal protection in Wyoming in the next year or two. And the state will either grow up and learn to play well with others, or continue to whine about "gubbamint oppression."

By the way Alaska is in pretty much the same place with minerals.

Hal, if everyone stayed home this summer, it would be the best thing in the world for the environment and the fuel consumption in the US. We could get by the oil/gas coming out of the ground in the good ol USA and not have to beg our enemies for more. I am quite happy to do my part and not travel more than 200 miles from home. I'm quite sure our state will do just fine.
I doubt if any of the three wolves killed in Wyoming were even counted, a lot aren't. We know 253 was thought to be dead long ago. One wolf was in cattle that are calving, that rancher will not be compensated for wolf kills from anyone, now if you personaly want to pay for the cattle killed, the rancher might be willing to let the wolves eat them, but I doubt it.

Jack,

I think it's quaint that you fancy yourself to know so much better than the numerous scientists who have said the wolves have done the ecology in Yellowstone loads of good. I can't speak directly to the situation in Alaksa.. but I must say, I'm dubious to these anectdocal claims I keep hearing that wolves vitrually wipe out any species in their area. How, pray tell.. did they or their pray species survive for millions of years if that really is the case? If that's really the case, the first White Men who landed in the New World would have found virtually no deer, elk or moose, lots of really mean wolves and a few starving, pissed off Indians.
As for Wyoming, Jack, the numbers don't lie. The elk numbers across Wyoming and Idaho and Montana are at all-time highs. And why, oh, why, Jack does the Wyoming Fish and Game continue to issue liberal cow/calf and general, over-the-counter elk tags in the wolf zones if they elk herds have been ruined? The FACT is, the Yellowstone herd was grossly overpopulated, way over-concentrated and doing horrendous damage to the land. The herd was not decimated.. it was brought in to balance. And people like wildlife biologists and range managment specialists have told me these things themselves or written about them. Are they all liars and part of some huge government conspsiracy?

My mistake Hal it's a wildlife wonderland!! When were you there last Hal? What scientists?? You mean with the Defenders and World Wildlife Fund? The scientists/biologists in this area also say a big mistake. Have you watched the hunting permits and success decline Hal? In Montana 1/2 what they were 5 years ago.When you go to YNP Hal take your little notebook and record the number of elk,mule deer,moose and wild sheep you see.

Right on Marion. Gibbon Meadows and Indian Creek was always one of the best areas to photograph elk in the rut.Go there now you are lucky to see three. Gardner-Mammoth and east of Gardiner Creek was always a great area for wildl sheep.I got some great wild sheep photos there before the wolves.Now you see few wild sheep.You can't find a mule deer and haven't seen a moose in YNP in 8 years. Also you see few coyotes. The gray wolf from Canada killed most all of them. Beaver have been severly reduced by wolves. Yes, you see bison but wolves have little impact on them they are too defensive. Now the bison population is at an all time high. The range conditions inside YNP have deteriorated due to high bison populations. Bison leave the park to avoid starvation. The NPS will have to shoot more or they will starve inside YNP.Forget about any balance it's a myth. Wolves have decimated the native wildlife in YNP. Interesting since the wolves are exotic from Canada and not the same wolf that even existed in YNP and larger in size,Bergmans Principle.Then the NPS itself. All that new development inside YNP. Houses,gas stations,power lines not underground. That development should have been outside the park.Better living quarters for park employees.YNP is a national disgrace.

Your wrong Hal. Hunting districts 313,316,317,301,310 and 314 shows a decline in elk and elk hravest as well. Elk harvest statewide is down.The either sex licenses you mentioned were unsuccessful.Moose permits in those hunting districts are nearly something of the past. Wolves are now distributed all over SW Montana and harassing elk off of winter ranges as well.We have only begun to see the problem with out of control large Canadian wolves.Most importantly however the reintroduction was illegal from the beginning.The Canadian wolf was dumped on top of the Rocky Mt. wolf already in the area.That wolf Canis lupus irremotus should have been allowed to recover under the ESA.The Canadian wolf is larger in size 90-160# while the Rocky Mt. wolf is 70-110#. In addition the gray wolf was fully recovered 11 years ago and increasing at alarming rate of 25-30% /yr and taking Montana big game animals in the process.How many wolves do you want Hal? Hal the wolf re-introduction was the best anti-hunting tool ever invented. The wolves were supposed to "stay in the YNP pantry" according to the NPS and USFWS. They left the "pantry" in large numbers.When did you elk hunt last Hal?The diversity of wildlife in YNP has been destroyed with the larger exotic Canadian wolf. Please don't give us the balance of nature- natural regulation myth. The range in YNP is being destroyed now with too many bison. Who was the USFS expert with all that wisdom? Maybe he should look at the scientific literature on the subject.When were you in YNP last Hal? what did you see? Did you see elk,moose,wild sheep and mule deer? Where ? Tell us. I want to see them to.

Hmmmm.. who am I to believe.. wildlife biologist, range specialist.. even some elk hunters themsevles, who generally have positive things to say about wolves... or a couple of vehement anti-wolf ranters on an internet blog? I'd be interested in the "scientific" literature that says wolves destroy everything. Who wrote it, SWF?

The best anti-hunting tool is some of the dumb-assed things I've been hearing from some hunters since this all started back in 1995.

The most reasonable, well-educated voices seem to be saying some measure of wolf control is needed, but overall, the program has been a resounding success and the entire Yellowstone ecosystem is reaping the benifit. I'm really, honestly sick and tired of hearing from some ranchers (let me stress, this is by no means ALL ranchers, just the bitchy ones who were probably failing anyway and needed something to blame it on) and some "hunters" who are now pissed because they can't just shoot elk out the window of their pickups. Face it, you guys lost the debate a long, long time ago. The facts just aren't on your side. These aren't "super wolves," they are not destroying the game herds and the ranching industry is doing as well as ever.

Yes, I know, no matter what I or anybody else says, you're going to continue thinking it's all a big government conspiracy or screw-up, that it's all because of those damn city-folk.. and end the end the last rancher and last elk hunter will be left sobbing over the remains of the last elk.. while the last steer drags itself, bawling in pain from missing hindquarters, across the biological wasteland.. and the granola-munching Earth freaks move in to turn it all into a gigantic marijuana plantation. All thanks to them dern gubbamint wolves.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be living -- with wolves and sensible wolf managment -- in reality.

Hal 9000, that last sentence shows where the problem is, you & the rest if the wolf lovers don't live with them and never will if you can help it.

The opposite of a wolf hater.

hal I live in the big hole and i doubt you can hang with me son I'm in my fitheis and mind my own business un like you and yer buddy's but I did have a tonka truck jus as my kids and my grand kids ya see son I still work a 1200 acres ranch in wolf country and I could care less what the law or wacko libs say about protection or management
if they threaten me or my family they die....but I too think they are good to have around ...but there is jus way to many

But Matt you are a vegetarian!!! Wolves are to they are grazers and browsers!

How much money do you make when a wolf kills a cow or calf?Your lucky no one pays us when wolves kill our big game animals.How many have you lost so far and how much did you make?

bill I get market price and matt all I can say is I don't play cowboy I have quads, but thanks for your money ..jus got a New Harley thanks to dummies like u

Yes bill and that is why i'm bummed about the feds desisting the wolves ...ya see now I will have to get a second job like trapping or become a Govt hunter again ....dang maybe that lib lawsuit will hold it up in court so I can continue my awesome lifestyle

Well Marion, you just sank your own battleship.
What’s formally known as the “false dilemma” is a whopper of a logical fallacy, in which it is falsely asserted that only two choices exist. When – in reality – there are at least three, and likely dozens upon dozens of choices, opinions and optiosn.

Are you saying one has to be either a wolf lover or wolf hater, Marion? Ha, classic false dilemma…. there is a wide continuum of choices and opinions between wanting all the wolves dead and wanting not a single hair touched upon any wolf’s head. And of course, there is the dead center middle… of really not giving a damn either way.

If you were to put “I want them all dead” on the far right of the continuum, and “harm not a single one” on the far left.. with “I don’t freaking care, what’s on Ophrah?” dead center in the middle.. . I would say I fall somewhat to the left. I don’t mind seeing some wolves killed, I just think it’s unwise and unhealthy for the environment to try looking for excuses to kill wolves at every turn.

If that makes me a “wolf lover” in your book, Marion, then so be it. Just give me a nice stuffed plush wolf doll that I can cuddle up with and sing a lullaby to every night. Heck, he’ll go great with my “hero rancher”, “drunken redneck hunter on a snowmobile” and “sniveling city slicker” action figures – plus my “gory, bleeding elk calf” toy.

Is there a good taxidermist in the Missoula area who could do my life size wolf mount after the hunt this year.Billy Jr. wants to get one to should be a nice family hunt.He wants a rug mount. I am hoping to get one year that is my goal.

The liberal Missoula paper will work just fine!!

This may come as a shock...but I would rather see cattle on the range any day before a wolf!!!!

Bill, I think there's a shop called "Big, Dead Things R Us" -- located right between the hippy coffee shop and the stripper bar in the heart of downtown Missoula.

bill try world class taxidermy in hamilton

I'll call that taxidermist. Once the general public wakes up and realizes how destructive cattle are to the landscape, we can open a season to rid the public lands of them. I'd like to get a bull, but I'll take a cow. What would make a better mount, Holstiens or Angus?

bill try world class taxidermy

just launched a new gay porn blog http://www.hornygaythumbs.info which has movies and pictures of gay porn.
its updated daily with quality adult gay porn content