lawsuits assured
Northern Rockies Gray Wolf Delisted
By Peter Metcalf, 2-21-08
 |
|
 | |
| A female wolf from Yellowstone National Park's Druid pack. Photo by Jim Peaco, courtesy YNP. | |
|
The Department of the Interior officially announced this morning the removal of the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the Endangered Species List.
“The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goals and continues to expand its size and range,” Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett said in a statement.
The latest population counts show more than 1,500 wolves and 100 breeding pairs in the tri-state region, well above the established recovery minimums of 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs.
The announcement affects only wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, including all of the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, a piece of north-central Utah and the eastern third of Oregon and Washington. Outside of this area and the Midwest, where wolves were delisted in 2007, gray wolves will remain endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
The delisting decision will not take effect until 30 days after the rule is formally published in the Federal Register, expected before the end of the month. Assuming there are no court challenges—and there will be—the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming will then assume full management for the wolves in their states.
A number of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, announced their intent to file suit after the rule is published in an effort to stop the delisting.
“The Sierra Club is opposed to the delisting of the gray wolf right now and we do plan to file suit,” said Melanie Stein, associate representative of the Sierra Club in Wyoming.
Environmental groups around the region called the announcement premature and says it threatens to undo the decades of work and millions of dollars poured into wolf recovery efforts.
“We have spent a lot of time and money and it would be a real shame to see wolf numbers decline due to a premature delisting,” Stein said.
The Defenders of Wildlife spokeswoman Suzanne Stone agreed it was too early to turn wolf management over to the states and said the decision was based on politics, not on science.
“Three hundred wolves in the region is not a viable population period,” said Stone, citing the federal minimum.
Both environmental groups believe the federally approved state management plans are not sufficient to ensure the long term survival of the wolf in the region, and are particularly critical of Idaho and Wyoming’s plans.
“The wolf population will be significantly reduced and that is a step backward,” said Stone.
Conservationists argue current wolf populations are still too low to be considered genetically sustainable. The wolf population in Yellowstone also remains genetically isolated from the wolves in Idaho and the rest of Montana. Some scientists argue that the federal recovery minimum of 300 wolves is insufficient to maintain a healthy population across the region. They say 2,000 to 3,000 wolves are required across the region to maintain long-term genetic viability.
But not all reaction was negative. Jay Bodner, natural resource director for The Montana Stockgrowers Association, said he was encouraged by the federal government’s decision.
“We’ve met recovery goals for four or five years,” he said. “They looked at the science, they based it on science, not on emotion, and we support it 100 percent.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
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".
If the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc etc etc, were so worried that the recover goals were too low, they should have been filing suit years ago to address that, rather than trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. But then, I honestly believe these groups would be filing suit no matter what. If they were to get their way, then when the numbers reached 3000, they'd still find a reason to keep them on the endangered list.
Set my brother, the wolf, free!
Ahhhwwwooo!
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).
and Hey Bob Onit- 10-4 to that, more power to you!
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.
Remember the 1567 is an estimate based on actual wolves seen, there are probably a total of 2000+ if they ever saw all of them. FWS can lose a 22pack for nearly a year on the elk refuge with collars remember? So it is ludicrous to believe they all have been counted. As for the connectivity, remember the wolf that killed all of the livestock and was a mixture, including Canadian and Great Lakes, well of course that was not one of "your" wolves so the ranchers forced to protect it for a year lost close to 100,000 worth of livestock, that came from their own pockets.
Environmentalists have no intention of having wolves controlled as long as there is a ranch left, 100/300 was a lie.
pendejo is a spanish slang word for idiot,stupid or dumass.
El es un pendejo.
He is a dumass.
I would assume that is the science at work here.
Of course you totally ignore the cost to the families living here long before folks too lazy to go to Canada to see the wolves in the wild insisted on bringing them in where they could have beef and mutton and of course a few dogs, horses, etc. These families have paid thousands oout of their own pockets for the livestock eaten by wolves. DOW compensation is nothing more than a fund raising ploy. Even FWS admits they only pay aout 10% of the actual losses, that ranch families pay the rest. Wolfers pay absolutley nothing unless they donate a few buck to various enviro groups to file more lawsuits against us.
The wolves were present on the east coast and eliminated there, long before the Rockies became a part of the US, that is where the big introduction should have started. But of course thsoe who want them cannot be expected to put up with the problems, that is for the half million people in Wyoming to carry the burden for their entertainment.
We obviously honored the agreement we didn't want and let the wolves reproduce like mice and instead fo 100/300 in 10 years we have nearly 1600 counted, and probably at least 2000 total, but the wolfers lied and have no intention of honoring the numbers they put in place in the beginning. If the locals burdened by this whole thing had been even slightly as dishonest as the wolfers they would have actually SSS, instead fo jsut ventilating about it. As a result there is no number enough to the various enviro groups as long as ranch families still live and survive here. There is no end to their greed.
If there were Azteks still wishing to maintain theirs would you be so generous?
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.
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.
It is time to quit the phony rancher economics green shibboleths, the personal attacks on any who do not agree with wolf reintroduction. The whole of this deal was based on an emotional virus of compassion for wolves in order to gain control of land and raise money for the green agenda. It worked. It was a grand success. The beef deal is that ranchers are going to get rich raising grass fed beef on less land, because the animal feed industry has moved to making biofuels so greens can motor around with self serving, congratulatory bumper stickers, a moving mini billboard as it were, as they speed down the interstate to the next cause. And if wolves make ranching unprofitable, the land values will make a sale to an amenity buyer or subdivider a forgone conclusion. So long habitat. Hello conflict.
The corn belt beef feeders will abandon beef to farm for the fuel tank until market pressures make animal feed once again profitable. That, of course, will depend upon how Congress subsidizes the mega farms. Subsidies and tax breaks will determine if Farmer Brown or Farmer Ltd. will grow corn or switch grass. The rancher with little arable land and only graze from undependable rainfall will harvest that growth with cows or sheep, and you and I will buy "range fed" meat at a huge premium. So the pressure to graze more is now on because the farm feedlot fuel is now going into cars and trucks in the form of biodiesel or E10 or E85 or whatever your state calls it. My only complaint is that I pay the same now, for fuel that drives my car 20% fewer miles per gallon. You know about politics being local? That one is about to take a big bite out of the left and their green supporters. Less for more does not garner votes.
The greens got the change they demanded. Now there are the unintended consequences to deal with. We have wolves a plenty, in sustainable numbers, and with it, greater pressure on Western graze. The conflict issues will be with us for a long time.
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?
When you think about the wolves in Russia, keep in mind that these villagers are unarmed,have no ability to obtain poisons,and their very limited ability to trap has little no affect on the overall population of the wolve pacts. The wolve has no natural preditore to control its conduct or population. Therefore , it is a fact, that when the wolve population grows and their food requirements change they WILL be in town.
Mr. Graves was consulted prior to the reintroduction of the wolves into YNP by the FWP. His body of work was completly ignored, AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. And the product of that can be seen in the big game herds in YNP and in the Gardner, Mt. area migration,or lack there of.
It seems to me that we as conservationists should concider sharing our wealth. Live trap several hundred wolves and re-introduce them into Central Park in New York City, the Addarondacs in up state New York, the Pocanos of PA. and last but not least, Golden Gate Park, in the middle of downtown San Francisco.
It seem only fitting that we share the wealth of our good fortune.
And every chance we get we should thank the FWP for standing tall in the face of what they knew was a wrong minded idea and protected at all cost, the big game herds, the ranchers, the herds of live stock. But these are the natural resoures of Montana and the property of the people of Montana, things they have taken an oath,and sworn to protect. By their actions it is obvious that they owe a greater debt to the will of the environmentalist groups than they do to the PEOPLE OF MONTANA .
Those interested in obtaining a copy of WOLVES IN RUSSIA,can go to http://www.willgraves.com or http://www.wolvesinrussia.com
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.
Rights. Protect their own property? They are grazing cattle on our land. Land owned by all taxpayers, and most of us want the wolves! As far as going to canada, why should I have too? The wolves belong right here in the USA. Today we restore the wolf, tomorrow the griz, and then the jaguar in the southwest. We owe that to the children of this country.
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.
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?
It'snot YNPs fault they have not done studies. They can't afford to do studies.Nor can any National Park for that matter. Bush has slashed the land management budges so severly for his war, that the NFS, NPS, and BLM can't do squat!
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!
And you guys that go on about wolves killing everything and being killing machines. Come on, lets use some common sense. Wolves have been on the landscape in North America (according to fossil records) for almost half a million years...and if you don't believe in an old world and adhere to the literal interpretation of the bible, that is still thousands of years. Regardless of your scientific acceptance, wolves have been around a long time...my point being, if they killed everything and breed like mice then why are there still millions of big game around? According to your assertions, before wolves were extirpated from the lower 48 states in the last century they would have had plenty of time to kill and eat everything. How about where wolves have persisted without reductions in numbers, as in places in Canada? Why haven't they bred themselves into the millions and eaten every last moose, caribou, elk, muskox, and deer in sight?
Some of you make some very valid points, but then when you spout off asinine comments like wolves as killing machines eating everything, I just stop listening, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. When you talk about putting wolves in San Francisco and New York City you just sound like an idiot. Its people like that who create wolf supporters out of people who are on the fence, or who would otherwise not care either way. Your comments are neither original (we've been hearing the same not-so-witty comments for ten years) or relevant to a constructive discussion.
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.
PETA, HSUS, and all the other anti hunting factions thank you for your comment. You make hunters look bad and do their work for them.People who have been sitting on the fence regarding the hunting issue now see myself and ethical hunters as dumb redneck hicks.
Our world? We have only been here 100,000 years Bob. Humans have only been in North America 15,000 years. The humans who decided they could not co exist with wolves have only been here 500 years (amazing how the Indians co-existed with wolves for so long, when you can't seem to), so how the hell is this "our" world. But if it is our world,many of us have decided we want to share it with wolves rather than being greedy parasites that live in fear of anything that we don't understand.Bush's days in office are numbered. The wolves will be re-listed eventually.
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.
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?
Bottom Line here boys and girls ....come Huntin season I will be one of the many who get to kill a Wolf and then after the full body mount is done you are all welcome to come see the wiley ole DEAD wolf in my Trophy room Thank You FWP for allowing US the Freedom to Hunt this Creature which does not belong in OUR world
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.
Bottom Line here boys and girls ....come Huntin season I will be one of the many who get to kill a Wolf
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!
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.
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 love the way you city slickers think of us rednecks ...its jus too bad you will never get a chance to live in a place like me,and now as the rescission nears it will be even farther from your eyes....its sad that more treehuggers like your self wont get to enjoy the Back country because of money ...but I can send pictures
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.
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.
Ahhhwwwooo!
and chaka dear you need to use spell check or get off the drugs so you can think right
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.
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.
So long as these fools are permitted to buy and use weapons, civilization is threatened more by them than by imperialists like Dick Cheney...
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.
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...
These same folks claim that wolves never attack humans. That too is a lie.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm
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.
Prairie dogs should listed as endangered species. Scientists know this. They are a critical part of the plains ecosystem. Cattle should not be allowed to graze in their habitat.
Cattle keep my wolves well fed. Thank you ranchers.
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.
Name-calling, threats and the like will not be tolerated here so if that's the game you want to play, go elsewhere.
If you follow the contracted helicopters, you will see that mange infected wolves are being taken out of the population as soon as they are discovered. Those are wolves that are being shot, killed, culled, by the government that brought them to you. Ed Bangs self prophesy of spending a few years getting wolves established and the rest of his career killing them has come true. Is there a Healthy Wolf Protection Act I don't know about? Wildlife ethnic cleansing of the unfit, disabled, handicapped? I would supppose wolf aid stations will be established at intervals soon. A place to get their health check- ups, innoculations. You know, after hunting them is allowed, some will be wounded, have a need to seek the aid station. Maybe get a state of the art prosthetic leg, psychological help, whatever is needed for being victims of the war against them.
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.
Also, they are important pieces of a healthy ecosystem, not just prey, right? I mean shouldn't states devise approved management plans before the Feds delist?
It seems like wolf de-listing as is, would categorize them into either a)trophy hunt or b)predators, which would mean state's management plans would either be a)let the rich from anywhere come in and hunt -or b)a free-for all hunt that could wipe out important and expensive progress made.
If MT, WY, and ID don't have plans in place, then it seems troubling to me to just delist the gray wolf and invite open season,
They have done better than we thought in 1995 - which is interesting - but open season could wipe out the species progress.
Also, science seems to say that wolves are not wiping out undulates, so why this fear? Because wolves are scary images?
Ahhhwwwooo!
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?
Bob Onit, if you can't help attacking others we're going to ban you. Just giving you a warning.
This is not the hunting of wolves for a bounty, with traps, coursing hounds, den dynamite, poison, baited traps in a time of paucity of game, the way it was 50 or more years ago.
A hunting permit is for one animal in a specific time period. Wolfers went at it day and night, all year. It was their job. It was their consuming passion. It took a hard person with few or no other prospects to be a wolfer. Those people, that commercial pay out at the end, is not here today. There is to be no commercial hunting of wolves, unless, of course, you count the Feds and their culling of problem and sick animals. The state regulated hunts are not going to be from airplanes or helicopters over wilderness and roadless areas. People will have a wolf tag and try to call them to shoot one. And while calling, old Grizz might show up unless the regulators only allow wolf hunting while Silvertip is denned up for the winter.
I just don't have the total faith that mankind will ever be able, under today's sensibilities and rules, to kill enough wolves to keep their numbers in control. I would think that the real problem is to keep the wolf population controlled enough that it does not present a problem to humans on a regular basis.
The fear of wolves is not without merit. These United States have never been inhabited by an unarmed and subjected populace so as to have wolves be a negative factor in every day peasant life. People came west with arms, and the determination not to experience in America the suffering their people had endured under Tsars, Emirs, Emperors and the like. If a wolf killed your only horse, the puller of your plough, and you did not have the means to replace that horse or ox, you went without enough food. That happened very little in America because we are free, with the right to keep and bear arms. It is very hard for us to understand the historical, cumulative effects of wolves in the manner experienced in Asia and Europe. But the fear is here, ingrained, because oral history lives in rural areas. If your total family experience is urban, that same mind set is not there. You have no idea how deep the need to protect livestock goes in rural folks, and how deep the fear of real predators is. But killing wolves to extirpation, no. Will never happen, or even come close to happening. The wolf is a predator that will be very difficult to keep its numbers under control. The later that process begins, the tougher it will be on wolves, game management people, livestock, and interest groups. My guess is that they will go about controlling wolf numbers about like government regulates forest thinning---take too little too late, with catastrophe taking too many in the end.
To disregard the well-being of any part of the environment is idiocy.
To designate any species as an enemy is moronic...
community in which it lives”. This emphasizes whole ecosystem conservation. I appreciate everyone on this blog that has opined thoughtfully. It is supremely important, I think, to present a complete picture - not just feelings of citizens, not just science, but compiling everything we can to find common ground. It is fortunate to have a venue like NewWest for people of all opinions to speak with each other - Thanks NW!
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.
Hope it is some help Ben.
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.
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...
http://www.parkcamper.com/
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.
What if they shoot them to prairie dog fur coats or prairie dog soup? Anyhow, back to being serious... Prairie dog shooting is fine in some places, harmful to the species in others. It just depends. A universal ban on it would not be fair or wise.
And Bob, you said: "Wait I would just rather wound them and then let them suffer like they have done to my cattle."
How about when you're sending them to the slaughterhouse? I'm sure it's not a pleasant experience for "your" animals. Oh, sorry, you "sold" them-- I guess profits trump compassion, eh?
Someone else said that environmentalists claim that wolves ONLY go after the sick and weak; that person is wrong; predators will FIRST go after the weakest and easiest prey. If they are none around, they'll go after anything they can eat -- that would be the cattle that are hanging around like BAIT. That's normal behavior for any predator. It would be just like your DOG chasing rabbits.
Would you shoot your dog for chasing and attacking a rabbit?
If not, why would you shoot a coyote for going after your cattl