News | New West Network

Bill

As usual, you've hit the nail on the head the first time. We know from scientific attitude surveys that date back to wolf reintroduction in the mid-90s that the vast majority of citizens in our states are far more moderate about wolves than the vocal anti-wolf troglodytes claim. I'm not sure at what point this moderation will make itself felt, since the same citizens keep electing loud-mouth anti-wolf politicians like Butch Otter and Dave Freudenthal, who are in fact in thrall to the troglodytes instead of the citizenry. Maybe the populace likes political theater more than rational wildlife policies, because that's precisely what it is--slapstick, Three Stooges comedy now, potentially tragedy if the troglodytes get their way.

Freudenthal admitted in a press conference yesterday in Cheyenne that yes, it IS true that western Wyoming's elk haven't been decimated by wolves and that elk herd objectives are still being exceeded, something we've known all along, so now he's switching his tune to the claim that hunters ought to be taking those excess elk instead of wolves. Well, gee, that's what those reduced-price, late season cow-calf "Type 6" tags are for, and the State's hunters, myself included, have been taking advantage of those tags for over a decade. The fact is, hunters simply can't take any more elk--how much saturation of the field does Gov Dave think hunters can stand, especially in November and December?

Might wolves actually be performing an important management service by helping take out some of those excess elk?

Heaven forbid that wolves might actually be good for something! So Freudenthal is also complaining that maybe the herd objectives aren't calculated correctly; he thinks they ought to be lower. Well, so does the livestock industry, which is why herd objectives are as low as they are. We'd have a lot more elk out there if it weren't for all the AUMs allotted to cattle.

In any case, I have long been on record as supporting trophy game status for wolves in Wyoming, but it has to be trophy game status throughout the State, not just in northwestern Wyoming, as the State demands. Predatory animal status for wolves in 2/3 of the State--what is called for in the current wolf plan and is what the State is suing the feds over--is unacceptable biologically, legally, and quite frankly, morally. It's about time that the people of the West acknowledge that wolves have a critical part to play in western ecology, and that they should be treated as any other wild animal.

Keep up the good work.

Robert

Allow me to bore you with what I said on this topic on Ralph Maughan's site. The postings on that site were all gloom and doom and calling for action; but, I believe your implied point about the political ineptitude of Otter and his lunatic fringe friends being a brake on the damage they can cause is right (again, no pun intended) on...

"I say that we should all calm down and just stay politely on track for a while. My experience has been that the rightwingers always overreach and always hang themselves in short order once they gain any power at all. The record is pretty clear; power tends to corrupt us all, but not nearly like it gets to them. They always just go right (no pun intended) off the deep end. Their hungers are insatiable; their perversions always so much more twisted; and their hypocrisy neverending. They can never be satisfied and always end up eating even their own young. Over in Montana, one bunch of them are claiming that the wolves have killed all the elk and, twenty miles away and well within the range of the very same wolf packs, another bunch is clamoring to open up more forest roads to enable them to kill the “tremendous surplus” of elk. They are self-destructive trash; just keep harrassing them a bit to keep them moving, let them pull out enough of the rope they need, and they will hang themselves as surely as the neocons hanged themselves with their twisted foreign policy. By the time these buffoons get through, conservativism will be the dirtiest word in the dictionary. Unfortunately, on the global front, the only ones that this pack of morons will have made stronger or safer will be our enemies."

Wolves are tough; we can find a way to keep them in play. As for Otter and people like them, I honestly believe that we need to make sure that they have enough opportunity to expose themselves for the fools that they are. Even the people of Idaho will slowly but surely come to feel humiliated by them and repudiate them. Time is on our side; I hope...

It would be more constructive if we could refrain from calling people morons and fools and trash. In fact, though I am a fan of wolves, I resemble those remarks about Governor Otter. He is none of those things, even though his remarks on the Statehouse steps were extreme. There's no use being extreme in return. It erases any credibility your remarks may have.

We try to keep discussions civilized at New West because we are civilized people. Let us discuss the wolf issue as an issue.

I find it most interesting that most of the name calling is by pro wolfers refering to the folks who are feeling overwhelmed by the wolves.
For those who enjoy watching the wolves, their introduction is pure benefit. There is no loss, monetary or pets, no downside at all.
On the other hand ranchers, outfitters, hunters, etc only have downside and a sometimes very heavy cost supporting the wolves. In other words they are paying the entire cost mentally and financially for the wolves, and gaining no benefit.
I do not see anyway to level this out, but calling the victims bad names doesn't seem helpful, remember they are paying the cost of your entertainment.

Dear Jill

Pete Simpson, brother of former Wyoming Senator Al Simpson, is best known for this perceptive remark: "In Wyoming, everything is political except politics. Politics is personal."

The more experience one has with politics, the more one becomes aware that who people are--their moral standards, their motivations, their allegiances, their flaws--are what politics is about. It is inescapable. Your comment that we are civililzed people indicates that you lack experience with people and don't know history. People are not civilized--people are barbarians, savages, naked apes. Nor are they rational.

Until the Enlightenment's enshrinement of Reason, people who wrote and thought about politics understood this fact. Can you read history and then come back and tell me that we are a civilized people? No. Civilization is far more barbaric than so-called primitive societies. No purpose is served by denying it.

We are far better off being honest about the nature of politics and the nature of the people we are dealing with than attempting to apply an absurdly idealistic desire that we all get along.

Sincerely,
Robert Hoskins

Well, you managed to demonstrate that politics is personal, all right. I'll respond once, but if you get accusatory again, I'll stop. I don't engage with people who cannot keep it absolutely civilized.

My degree is in the liberal arts, I eat books for lunch, and love history. And not only do I have experience with people - ask anyone who knows me - I spent over a decade working directly in politics and with politicians. Currently I'm in my second year in the Idaho Statehouse writing about the legislature. I understand politics far better than the average bear. And I couldn't disagree more that people are barbarians. It's a cynical, negative way to view the world, and it's self-defeating. I've worked with politicians whose views I so strongly disagree with that I've been appalled, but only a few of them have qualified as barbarians.

When I said "people" I was being literal. I meant New Westies try to be civilized. Having said that, however, I do ascribe that trait beyond, to the wider world.

Taking historical cycles into account, I could agree with you that all civilizations have acted with barbarism at times. But don't forget the people who did not support their governments and armies - just as some of us do not support ours right now for what we see as barbarism. You can tell me that a subgroup of Americans are acting with barbarism right now, but include me out.

I don't have an idealistic desire that we all GET ALONG, only that we address each other politely. It's interesting that you argue that people are not rational, yet what I'm advocating is exactly that - that we argue with ration, reason and heart - but not slings and arrows. And for the record, I'm very outspoken and generally have a hard time respecting people who aren't- and I LOVE a good argument with someone who can argue rationally - I do not advocate nicey-niceness in the simpering sense. Just plain civility.

There is no evidence that wolves have caused the decline in hunter harvest, although I wouldn't be surprised if wolf predation was a factor in the decline. But I'm one who would like to wait for the facts, not give into the emotion of the moment. Instead of letting science rule the day, wolf-haters go out, don't see an elk, and automatically assume wolves ate all of them. Let's have some objective science to decide the cause of the decline. In the meantime, let's manage wolves, not push them back onto the trapdoor of extinction.

Very emotional stereotype of hunters.....they hunt surplus elk and yes the elk numbers have drastically declined.....ask the people who live in elk country and see fewer and fewer elk every year on winter range.....or the hard core hunters who spend more time afield than you do at work.....i have never heard a hunter say there is no more elk....that is as drastic as saying wolves haven't impacted calf and cow (ELK) populations in Idaho....

I would like to commend Otter on his decision....He is representing the MAJORITY in Idaho....Keep up the good work!!!!!!!

LOL wild bill wrote-Last Thursday, the so-called Idaho Sportsman's Day, was a sad day for hunters--

Not sure what hunters you've been talking to since Thursday. I belong to several hunting organizations throughout Idaho. EVERYBODY i have talked to is ECSTATIC.

The only sad thing is they are only eliminating 500 wolves.

The title of this piece and some of the subsequent replies have confirmed a suspicion I have had all along. The wolf introduction has nothing to do with "keystone species", "balance of nature", or any of those high blown statements. It had and has to do with punishing hunters and ranchers, and trying to drive them out because they are perceived as "bad" by some people.
Each state was supposed to have 10/100 wolves, Idaho has many times that as do all three states, now they "don't deserve" delisting? Since when is deserve supposed to be a part of it?

Dear Ms. Kuraitis

It appears that your involvement in "rational" argument is to demonstrate to the rest of us what a wonderful and intelligent person you are.

Truly, your feelings about yourself have nothing to do with the "issue."

A word of advice. If you aspire to write, it will be necessary to see the world, and people, as they are, concretely, not as you want them to be. Otherwise, nothing you write will be worth a damn.

As for wolves, their introduction had everything to do with restoring an ecological function that had been absent for too long. The opposition to wolf reintroduction came (and comes) from people who had no understanding of the land's workings or its wildlife and had spent over a century trying to ruin them.

"Selfishness" is the word that describes opposition to wolves.

And I suppose, Marion, that you can point to a specific page in the EIS for wolf reintroduction where a cap of 10 breeding pairs for each state was established? I know you can't find it, because it's not there. That number was intended--as I have stated often in the past, mostly because it's the truth and wolf opponents aren't interested in the truth, so it must be repeated time and time again--as a trigger for delisting. It was openly recognized back then and that wolf recovery depended upon widespread distribution of wolves throughout their former habitat. That's also a requirement of the ESA.

This claim about wolf minimums is just another lie that wolf opponents have come up with. It's as much a lie as the claim that wolves are wiping out elk herds in the Greater Yellowstone, or the claim that "the feds promised wolves would never leave Yellowstone National Park."

Interestingly, even Wyoming's Gov Dave has now had to admit in public that wolves haven't wiped out the elk herds.

I'm now waiting for the next round of lies from people for whom lying is a cultural imperative.

In closing, I find it interesting, Ms. Kuraitis, that we have unimpeachable evidence of deliberate and cynical lies about wolves from politicians and bureaucrats, etc., not to mention the usual intimidation and retaliation that always accompanies western politics, but, according to your morals, we should not call their claims "lies" or their purveyors "liars."

Along this line of reasoning, pehaps we should refer to Shakespeare's Iago as merely "a hapless product of poor upbringing?"

Yours truly,
Robert Hoskins

Politically out-of-touch re the USFWS Otter may be (although with Dirk at the top he may be closer to political reality than I wish) but locally, he's stacking the deck. Otter appointed the vice chair of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Marv Hagedorn, to the open Idaho House seat made vacant by the chain of appointments/vacancies initiated by Sali's hiring ID Sen. Gerry Sweet for his DC staff.

The Legislature just became an even more anti-wolf venue.

Robert, no of course I cannot point to any maximum numbers in the EIS, mostly because there was never any intention of stopping short of obliteration of ranchers first and foremost, and decreasing wildlife below numbers adequate for hunting. It had been much easier for people to believe what they were told, rather than try to slog thru a legal document.
Please outline the improved ecological function that the wolves have wrought.
As for the Yellowstone elk, when was the last time you were there? It is shocking to even those of us going every year, folks who come every couple of years were stunned to see how few cows there were even during the rut in just a two year absence.
Please remember last year on March 24, FWS stated in their weekly report that they were unable to conduct a winter count of the elk. A few weeks later, Montana F&G;released the numbers of the count they did on March 23 WITH FWS, that was 3649 in a "partial count"; how partial was not explained. Do you know? Why did they deny counting? Hoping for a bad winter to blame it on? Actually they started letting out word of bad winter kill to some of their supporters in wolf groups. About the same time F&G;in both Wyoming and Idaho warned folks to be careful of bears coming out of hibernation because they were hungry and there was little winter kill for them to eat.
In late May I attended a Farm Bureau meeting in Riverton, where they were discussing the wolf problem. I mentioned this count at that meeting, afterward, Mr. King asked me for a link to that info, I gave him the printout. Evidently he didn't know about the partial count either. A couple of weeks later the weekly wolf report added that information.
Once more, please explain the scientific rational for increasing wolf numbers to punish a state.

Otter made a big mistake by showing his true colors, not that I never knew how false he was. I am convinced that in my area, ranching, and hunting is one of the factors leading to the destruction of native species of animals, and plants. Ranching has also been one of the factors leading to the destruction of the environment. I’ve personally seen Owls and Hawks shot dead by rifles. Where they a threat to livestock?

I’d rather be eaten by a carnivore than shot dead by a drunken, irresponsible hunter and yes I know we have many of those here. People who enjoy killing for sport and leaving the carcasses out to rot.
I know that not every rancher and hunter is irresponsible. But, I side with Nature and yes, I love seeing animals in the wild. And I don’t mean somebody’s cattle.
All Otter has done is attract attention that I’m sure he did not want. He has caused Idahoans like myself who love nature and our state to begin to organize.

Marion,

there is an abundance of evidence that tells of the importance of conserving top predators because of their cascading effects on lower tropic levels. Please do some research and do not ignore that which fails to support your social and emotional biases. I imagine Robert may well-articulate an ecology lesson here to follow. I will predict though, it will have little impact on your mind. That lack of openness has been manifested by your response to the comments of others on this site through and through.

Yes, with the land-use patterns of today and tomorrow's western US, wolf populations must be kept in check. However, it is completely irresponsible to allow a state management when the governor makes such an outrageous comment. I think perhaps, there are interests in Idaho and Wyoming that do not want management responsibility, for it is quite an expensive proposition, and thus make efforts to continue the controversy. For the time being, wolf populations will increase and the land will reap the benefits at the expense of a small percentage of the population's hardship.
regards,
- Phil

Can you articulate some of the benefits of all of the wolves we now have? The "trophic cascade" is used ad nauseam, but details are not forth coming. They sure have not helped the Yellowstone elk or moose. They do seem to have helped the coyote population to increase. Supposedly they are making the trees grow (all of that weeing on the trees?), but that claim was being made almost as soon as they unloaded the crates. The swans are gone because "predators" got them last winter.
It may be your opinion that the food producers (ranchers) are harming the ecosystem, there are a lot of folks in the world with barely enough to eat, who are grateful for every bite they get from this country.
Are you totally self sustaining so that you use nothing grown by a farmer or rancher? If so where do you get it? Or is that the problem you want to feel superior to those who do feed you?
Management responsiblity should include the ability to make decisions, not jsut pay the costs. How much are you yourselves willing to pay individually to "manage" the wolves?

Sure seems that there are two different groups of 'hunters/sportsmen,' as the 'hunters' pro-wolfers talk to like wolves, and those that every-day folks talk to aren't happy with the situation regarding Idaho wolves. There are also two kinds of 'hunters' in the elk issue, as the 'hunters' anti-game farm folks talk to don't like game farms, but those others talk with don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. It's either hunters attacking hunters and/or a successfull attempt to divide the hunting public on such issues for political purposes. HSUS and other anti-hunting groups are loving this. Marion: I agree with your points, I've always thought your points in discussions are very good ones and legitimate at that, which is rare (legitimacy) in these issues.

Thank you Erin. I have to say the whole idea of Idaho having to "deserve" delisting when they are many times the goal set makes me very nervous. Does that mean the three states chosen to introduce the wolves were chosen to punish them for being politically incorrect?
Is that why the opinions of 10 expert wolf biologists were ignored in Wyoming? We didn't "deserve" to be considered despite also having several times the population goal?
Who are these people to decide what other people "deserve"? Whole states of people in fact?

The handbook on propaganda warfare says the first thing you do is denigrate the opponent. Call them names. Associate them with crimes against women and children, with drunkeness and drug use, and for sure, impugn their intellect. Villify any who do not share your values. Make ranchers and hunters into an Evil Empire non-believers of all things environmental.

Large ranches are the only hope for species survival outside public lands. Ruin ranching, and you will lose the best preserved and protected habitat left for megafauna in the West. When livestock no longer works, then subdivisions growing cul-de-sacs for a growing population fleeing urban insanity is the logical next use for that land.

Guided hunting, for a fee, is part of many ranch incomes. Wolves can impact that economic viability by bringing the megafauna into "balance" with the land. If wild game no longer is enough to feed growing predator populations, then domestic animals are next on the menu. Cul-de-sacs will not be far behind, and then you lose more than you gained by not limiting wolf numbers.

I am, at this moment watching the Chargers and Patriots, and reading "Twilight of the Mammoths: and the rewilding of America" by Paul S. Martin (2005--U of Cal Press), and I just now came across two citations of wolf "surplus killing", one where wolves ate only half of the newborn caribou they killed in NW Terr. Canada, and one about Minnesota wolves killing more deer than they could eat in deep snow conditions. Personally, I have watched one wolf kill a cow elk it ran into a snow drift, and then leave it without taking a bite. It was still there the next day. But all I have ever heard is that wolves only kill what they need, and only kill the old, the weak, the infirm. I now know that I have only been told what would bolster the case for more wolves. Eco-dishonesty. I does happen.

Call me names, but I was only quoting peer reviewed science, and one personal observation.

Bearbait's comments would be relevant, except:

1) Two examples of excess killing, or three, or 10, or 100, when you consider the number of animals wolves do in fact kill, doesn't strike me as statistically significant for a claim about dominant behavior. The wolf, as a highly sophisticated and complex animal, somewhat like humans, will show variable and complex behavior throughout its lifetime. Wolves, as I learned from my three winters in the Yukon studying wolf control, will also rip open caribou and eat while the animal is still alive. Are we to assign some moral status to this behavior? Last time I checked, wolves weren't issued rifles to assist in the hunt for making a clean kill, as I have available to me with my .308 Model 70. Predation is messy, and is not always efficient--although most of the time, it is efficient enough. By far, either from personal experience, if you have it, or from studying the literature, it is quite clear that wolves can little afford to engage in killing more than they can eat on a regular basis, either from the standpoint of energy expenditure or energy gain. Wolves, like humans, are fundamentally lazy and will not work more than they have to to make a living. Especially when that way of making living is so dangerous. (Quite frankly, in my observations of wolves, I don't think I've seen a lazier carnivore than wolves, except for male African lions. I've spent a lot of time watching wolves sleep).

A more important statistic I learned from my time from up North that I find interesting is that with moose, only 1 in 7 attacks by wolves is successful. Quite frequently, wolves are found dead from having been killed by moose, or with broken bones that very clearly resulted from having been caught on the business end of a moose. If any one has ever seen a moose go after dogs with its front hooves, that person would to agree that the moose is a pretty ferocious swordmaster and far more dangerous than a grizzly bear.

2) As a hunter and a wrangler who's worked for outfitters, I don't in theory object to ranchers running their own hunting programs but the claim that ranchers need to operate hunting programs to stay afloat these days is a bit anachronistic, dating back to days half a century ago and more, as the vast majority of large ranches with which I am familiar, at least in Wyoming, are owned by very, very wealthy people who don't need the income, and instead run hunting programs as the expression of a feudal mentality that all wildlife are private property to be done with as the owners will. As a matter of fact, I personally don't know any small-time ranchers who have the time any more to run ranch hunting programs. What usually happens in this case is that outfitters "block up" ranches with a lease and do the commercial hunting.

I would point out, as I'm sure Bearbait is aware, that it's only the large ranches that have the acreage to encompass transitional ranges of big game animals, so that the landowner, or the outfitter who has leased the land, can control the hunt and keep the game from the local yokals, which is how these wealthy landowners think about resident hunters.

Thus, with a few exceptions, it's only the very large, wealthy ranches that can afford to run ranch hunting programs. It's simply not true, by and large, that ranch hunting programs are necessary to keep the ranch going.

I might also point out that in some cases, wolves are causing a redistribution of herds onto private lands, which surely benefits the landowner. It saves the landowner from having to haze big game animals onto private land (a few times with helicoters) away from public lands hunters. I hope Bearbait doesn't deny that this illegal activity (herding of big game animals onto private land) happens.

3) Regarding tolerance of ranchers for big game animals on private or public land, it never ceases to amaze me that ranchers don't perceive the hypocrisy or contradiction in complaining about wolves' alleged negative impact on big game herds on the one hand while continually pushing state wildlife agencies to keep big game herds as small as possible through late season cow-calf/doe-fawn hunts or depredation hunts to keep big game from eating forage "dedicated" to cattle. Limiting big game populations to meet the demands of ranchers for fewer animals competing on the range for forage is a major if not well-publicized function of state wildlife agencies. Does Bearbait deny this?

For example, I've seen any number of crocodile tears shed about low cow-calf ratios in the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd, which is the herd in Wyoming I hunt. The State of Wyoming made the Wiggins Fork Herd the "poster elk herd" in its Petition to Delist Wolves to the Fish & Wildlife Service a couple of years ago, making the claim that low cow-calf ratios were attributable to wolves, which set up shop in this country in 1998. (We now have two packs of wolves in the watershed, with possibly one or two others, although the latter haven't bred yet). What the State left out of its Petition was that the Wyoming G&F;Dept. had run an extensive herd reduction program from 1998-2003 on the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd to reduce numbers to meet landowner complaints about "too many elk."

G&F;has never published the numbers taken in this hunt, because the numbers are controversial, but I estimate from the annual herd unit reports that over 1000 cows and calves were removed from the herd over that 5-year period. Now, if that intensive a hunt doesn't lower cow-calf ratios, I don't know what would. Wolves had nothing to do with it.

On top of that, this intensive reduction of the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd took place in the face of an on-again, off-again drought that began in the early 90s. As a matter of fact, according to the official herd unit reports, that's when the cow-calf ratios began to decline--in the early 90s, not the late 90s after wolves had moved into the watershed.

I also find it interesting to hear that big game is welcome on private land--that's why we need to keep ranches working. Well, here in Wyoming, the State operates 22 elk feedgrounds with the express purpose of interdicting elk migration to traditional winter ranges on both public and private land. As a consequence of those feedgrounds, which we have solely because the livestock industry and local ranchers demand them, we have a serious disease problem, with brucellosis endemic to feedground elk and Chronic Wasting Disease on the way. (The disease problem comes from the unnaturally high densities of animals on the feedgrounds; I call the feedgrounds "elk ghettos"). Despite the disease problem, which has seen local cattle herds infected with brucellosis by elk and which has caused the State to lose its brucellosis free status (it's happened in Idaho too, because of feeding elk), ranchers have made a conscious decision to keep the feedgrounds because because grass is more important than the risk of brucellosis to cattle. The State of Wyoming, which operates the feedgrounds as a subsidy to the livestock industry, using hunters' license fees to pay for them at the tune of approximately $1.5 million a year, refuses to consider closing the feedgrounds, even though we can expect a 50% mortality rate, minimum, among feedground elk when CWD becomes full-blown. Including elk that are fed on the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, over 20,000 elk are fed on feedgrounds each year in Wyoming. Do the math; what's 50% of 20,000?

In short, even though we are watching a disease fatal to elk--CWD, the cervid equivalent of Mad Cow Disease--come closer and closer to the elk feedgrounds, ranchers are more than willing to sacrifice those elk to protect access to grass. This is tolerance for big game animals?

I would agree with you, I assume, since you didn't state an opinion on it, that the rewilding concept as laid out in Paul Martin's book is pure nonsense. The great megafauna of the North American Pleistocene went extinct largely as a consequence of the end of the Ice Age (that is, climate change), with drastic changes in the ecology of North America; there is precious little archaeological evidence, despite the claims of Martin and others, that humans had anything to do with those extinctions except perhaps to hurry them along at the end.

We would be far better off returning bison to the Great Plains, for example, rather than trying to recreate the savannahs of East Africa with elephants and such.

Robert, I don't think that I or probably anyone else is assigning good or bad to wolves eating animals alive. I do have to wonder at folks who insist hunters are somehow less than human, but exalt in watching wolves kill.
I will agree with you that the feed grounds are going to have to go sooner or later, but the hunters are the ones who will suffer as those animals starve to death. The irony is going to be if enviros keep messing with mother nature, game farms may be all that is left to hunt.
Elk numbers inside Yellowstone have plummeted much more dramatically than in the Tetons, I suspect because of the moose in the Tetons, which have now dropped by half or better. I know, I know, that one scientist for the environmental group has done the study that shows they just stand around and drop dead. Despite being in an area loaded with predators, they are starving to death to hear him tell it. I think WYG&F;is now doing a serious study.
Robert, your view of rich ranchers guiding hunters may be colored by being able to live in the rich part fo the state. My uncle and aunt were far from rich and they helped buy their ranch and keep it going in lean times by guiding hunters in the Big Horns for a number of years. They formed lifetime friendships with some of them too.
I think it was a big mistake to use the wolves to control hated ranchers and hunters, and I think it is a big mistake to use CWD to try to force certain policies on people. There simply is not enough known about the disease to speak with any confidence whether wolves will control it, have no effect whatsoever, or make it much. much worse. Remember it was the biologists in Colorado that turned it loose on us to begin with. Considering the number of lions in the area where it was loosed, and the fact that lions prey heavily on deer, it does seem if predation was the answer, things would be improving, not getting worse.
There is a study where they tried collaring cats and tracking them to study their predation. They had a lot of problems with the collaring and tracking, but they still documented not one kill of an infected animal. I cannot find a single case of an infected animal being predated upon. Can you?
Whether wildlife is welcome on private ground or not they go there and they are tolerated. Your part of the state is a little different simply because of the prevalence of brucellosis. An infected herd costs the rancher much more than a few stacks of hay.
Again, I reiterate, if the wolves were brought in to punish the residents of the three states and if they must "earn" their way to delisting, not by just a lot more wolves than were agreed upon, but by being subservient to the enviros, something has gone way wrong in our country.

As usual Marion, you're spouting nonsense. However, I cannot allow your comments about moose to stand, since they are false. The moose study you refer to so contemptuously was conducted by Dr. Joel Berger of the Wildlife Conservation Society. He is one of the most widely respected wildlife scientists in North America and has published extensively on a number of biological and ecological topics surrounding both ungulates and carnivores.

Rather than trying to take several pages here to explain Dr. Berger's moose study, and its primary finding that moose in Jackson Hole have been starving to death, people who are interested in the science can contact me at and I can send you a copy of his report to the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission two years ago.

I will say that one of the primary factors in moose decline in Jackson Hole has been the presence of elk feedgrounds in Jackson Hole and the Gros Ventre River Valley. These feedgrounds have so concentrated elk in riparian areas that they have devasted willow communities upon which moose depend, particularly in winter. This negative consequence of feeding elk--destruction of habitat in the vicinity of feedgrounds, especially moose habitat, was first recognized in the early 20s, about a decade after the creation of the Ntional Elk Refuge, and was later fully documented by the first scientist assigned to the Refuge, the great biologist Olaus Murie. Murie discusses the impact of feeding in his book The Elk of North America (1951), in the chapters on Elk Habitat and Elk Management. It has been a continuing major concern over the decades. See Bruce Smith, Erik Cole, and David Dobkin, Imperfect Pasture: A Century of Change at the National Elk Refuge, Grand Teton Natural History Association, Moose, Wyoming, 2004. Dr. Bruce Smith is another highly respected North American wildlife scientist and served as senior scientist on the Refuge for two decades. He has done some of the most important scientific work on elk in the late 20th century.

As for the G&F;moose study Marion refers to, I provide below an news article written by Whitney Royster from the Casper Star-Tribune, published this summer:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/07/02/news/top_story/52e50f92379687d58725719e0071ffc8.txt


Where art thou, moose?

By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter Sunday, July 02, 2006

*

JACKSON -- Here's a tip: When tracking moose with Scott Becker, wear pants.

Wear sneakers or hiking boots, of course, but for Pete's sake, don't try to impress Becker by wearing a skirt. Your calves, shins and knees will look like someone's taken at you with a switch.

Following Becker through fields of sage and bitter brush with a backdrop of the Tetons, it's hard not to envy his work. He held an H-shaped antenna above his head and picked up faint blips of a signal.

"She's in those trees," he said, pointing down a meandering creek on the prairie fronting Grand Teton National Park. It was the first time he hadn't referred to the moose as "my gal."

Becker, a University of Wyoming graduate student, is the go-to man these days for moose studies.

Becker is in the second of a three-year study to help identify the cause of moose decline in northwest Wyoming. Since the early 1990s, moose numbers have been dwindling, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials have been scratching their heads. So, the department has created a moose study team, and has hired Becker and others to study the animals.

Not all of Wyoming's moose population is struggling. For example, moose have recently expanded into the mountain ranges of south-central Wyoming from an introduced herd in northern Colorado, and those animals are doing well, Game and Fish officials say.

But Wyoming's largest moose populations are in the west and northwest, and the latter are struggling. The Jackson moose herd, for example, has dropped from an estimated 4,000 animals in 1995 to under 3,000 today.

Statewide, Game and Fish estimates there are about 11,066 moose. The agency has a statewide population objective of 14,530 moose.

No clear answer

Becker's study in part takes off where a previous study, headed by Joel Berger and the Wildlife Conservation Society, left off. Berger concentrated on the effects of predation on moose; Becker's study seeks to explain what habitat moose are using most. Is that habitat dwindling and affecting moose populations?

Becker is also looking at survival rates of adults, and when he can, calves, to see what segment of the population is limiting overall moose numbers.

It's a tricky business. Survival rates for adults Becker has been watching are normal -- in the mid to high 80 percent range. Pregnancy rates are normal, too. But calf survival rates are low.

The cause? That's unclear. Becker's study is not concentrating on calf survival rates -- he's not collaring young moose as he does adults -- so gleaning that information is a challenge. By the time researchers get to a calf carcass, the cause of death is nearly impossible to determine.

"It's possible females are in poor enough condition, they give birth to calves of poor health so they don't survive outside of the womb," Becker said. "The only known mortality we did have last year was a calf got hung up on a fence."

It's possible the research has something to do with it. Of 20 cows fitted with GPS collars last year, only three were observed with calves later, according to a report by Becker. Of "non-handled" cows, about 75 percent had calves.

But for the most part, researchers agree that moose are suffering because of dwindling habitat.

Predation

One thing Becker and Berger seem to agree on is that predators are not having a big impact on moose numbers.

In Berger's decade-long study, research pointed to malnourishment as the primary cause (60 percent) of adult female moose deaths. Predation by bears was the second-leading cause (14 percent), followed by hunting (10 percent). Predation by wolves was less than 2 percent. Roadkill amounted to 8 percent of deaths.

Becker agrees that predation is not having a big impact, though he says the point of his study is to look at survival rates, not mortality rates.

"It doesn't appear predators are having much of an impact on adult survival," Becker said.

The Game and Fish Department agrees.

Reg Rothwell, supervisor of biological services, said the decline in moose numbers appears to be habitat-related.

"Anything that has to do with the environment, it's seldom one thing that's the cause," Rothwell said. "A lot of times, it's a lot of history building up, not necessarily something new."

Years of drought, Rothwell said, could be catching up to northwestern moose populations. Moose here have the lowest numbers of cows having twins "on the planet," Rothwell said, suggesting an overall health problem.

When driving from Pinedale to Jackson, Rothwell said, people can see drainages with extensive willows. Some of those willows are hammered by moose. That could mean moose are over-utilizing the willow species they like and are more nutritious to them, leaving less-nutritious and desirable willow.

"If you take that problem and compact it by drought, it may be some kind of compounding thing," Rothwell said.

Bob Wharff, executive director for the hunters group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said moose population declines cannot be laid "solely at the feet of predators."

But, he said, there has not been a comprehensive study on the physiological effects of predation -- the stress the predators cause in moose. That stress, he said, can lead to lower pregnancy rates, low calf survival and even animals leaving an area to get away from predators, causing population redistribution.

"It only goes to reason if you're something that can be killed by a lot of different predators, the more those predators increase, it's going to add to the stress you're going to have," Wharff said.

But moose populations in the Sublette herd are also declining -- an area generally without wolves and grizzly bears.

Both Berger and Becker said they have not seen any indication of predators chasing moose in their studies.

"Honestly, from what I've seen this winter, I don't think it's too much of an issue," Becker said. "It may happen in some cases, but in all the winter up here I was watching these moose, I rarely saw a wolf actually chasing them around. There was only one cow I saw with wolf tracks around, and I know she was harassed. It's another theory out there that we're going to try to find what the cause (is) for the decline."

In the field

Becker said his study expands on Berger's, in part because of a bigger budget -- about $250,000 over three years. Berger collared 18 animals; Becker has 62. Berger tracked the animals on foot; Becker has the help of helicopters.

Becker's study, funded in part by the Game and Fish Department, the Wyoming Department of Transportation, University of Wyoming and Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, also seeks information on highway crossings. He also intends to plug population numbers into a computer model to see if that helps determine what population segment is limiting population growth.

Although some have taken the Game and Fish Department to task for being anti-predator, Becker flatly denies his study's role is to implicate predators in moose declines.

"This is a survival study; the cause of mortality is secondary," Becker said. "If adult survival is within normal ranges, there's no need to look at that."

But there is a need to track moose, which was Becker's objective on a recent day at the foot of Teton National Park.

The cow moose's collar near the Tetons continued to blip off the antenna. Becker wanted to see if his "gal" had a calf.

The arrowleaf balsam roots were opening and turning their heads to the sun. The cow apparently was turning her head, too, making radio-tracking more difficult. At every turn, Becker insisted she was "just in the next bunch of trees."

A swift and high Ditch Creek prevented further travel. So today, the cow moose will remain unstudied, illustrating again the complexities of understand moose populations around the Tetons.

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at .

###

In closing Marion, when are you going to get your facts right?

He only studied about 25 moose over several years as I remember, replacing those that died.
1) Why would predators that only take the sick and the weak ignore starving animals? What was the age of the starved to death animals? What time of year did they starve? Where were they located? How did they know it was starvation, did they do bone marrow tests?
2)If one is trying to find out why the population is declining, why would a low calf retention rate be ignored?
I do have hopes that the WYG&F;study will come up with some definative answers.
I am always concerned about research that reaffirms a predetermined outcome, and loss of habitat is one of the things always claimed by enviros for everything. It is kind of funny that Jackson would be the culprit, considering how "green" they are.

Read Aldo Leopold's Game Management (1933), the very first textbook on game management, to see how far back the scientific recognition of the importance of habitat loss for wildlife goes. The critical role of habitat loss is one of the pillars of wildlife conservation. It is not a predetermined outcome; it is a brute fact. Only someone absolutely ignorant of wildlife science could make such a claim.

What greens in Jackson? The place is full of wealthy, pampered snobs in their trophy homes who barely know the difference between a moose and a mule.

By the way if you go to this site, you will note that he determined carcasses were "scavenged", not predation. INterestingly enough there is no mention of the tremendous trauma usually associated with wolf kills.
Why was he looking for signs of a struggle if the animals were at death's door?
I dispute the claim of no predators in 1994, both blacks and griz were present. I will have to do some research to find those numbers.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/grte/bus/current/moose.pdf

Regarding something Marion said several comments ago:
"Considering the number of lions in the area where it was loosed, and the fact that lions prey heavily on deer, it does seem if predation was the answer, things would be improving, not getting worse.
There is a study where they tried collaring cats and tracking them to study their predation. They had a lot of problems with the collaring and tracking, but they still documented not one kill of an infected animal. I cannot find a single case of an infected animal being predated upon. Can you?"

The idea, Marion, is not that the predators kill and eat the infected animals. Predators are not going to elimate CWD. Rather, the part that predators play is to keep herd numbers lower (i.e., a natural check on population) and keep ungulates from congregating in huge herds. Since it is thought that transmission of CWD is lateral (from animal to animal) and that environmental contamination may be a possibility, these feeding grounds in Wyoming are just a bad idea -- plain and simple. Sure, there will be many animals that starve when the program is ended, but ultimately that is what needs to happen.

The problem with that idea is if predators are only preying on healthy animals, the pool percent of sick animals increases. Chasing them around and around over wider areas doesn't seem like a good idea either. Both elk and deer are going to herd together because that is their nature. If we find out that heavy predation is making it worse, there is no going back. Wolves may turn out to be a scourge on the land as far as CWD goes instead of a panacea. Either idea is pure specualtion.
I agree that the feedgrounds will have to be phased out, the tough way is figuring out how to do it with the least impact. Plus Wyoming runs some of them, but the big one in Jackson is federally run.
The impact from lost hunting license revenue is also a problem, that is what and who funds G&F;. Nearly all of the money for managing wildlife comes from hunters and fishermen, and Wyoming, like the other 2 states is being faced with dramtically increased costs managing endangered species, as well as the plethora of regular wildlfie we are blessed with.

Seems teaching a "chicken little" is much like a dog chasing his tail. :)

This is unbelievable, the comments above about wolves not killing more than they will eat? Who are you trying to BS. What about the 70 some sheep that were killed by wolves in Idaho last year in one night? What their eyes were just bigger than their stomachs? As for waiting for science to determine the cause of the decline of the game animals. The game animal will be the endangered ones. Of course this is what your agenda for the new west is anyway. As for Mr. Becker not being able to determine the cause of the loss of newborn calves, could it be that this is when the wolves are are having pups and they eat most of the newborn calves. So alas there is nothing to find? I do suppose the cows are in poor shape from being harassed by the wolves and the calves don't live long outside the womb in the jaws of a wolf so techinically I guess he's correct.As far as wild Bill goes wolves may have been native to Idaho, but these are hybreds Canadian and Alaskian variety not the same animals that was native to Idaho. So the sooner we can make em all good wolves the better it will be.I believe I'll pass on being a member of the new west.

I can see the anti-wolf cronies are out in force. 70 sheep killed in one night? Elk populations decimated? Haven't you learned by now that the story of the big bad wolf is a myth.

Let's face it - the reason a small minority of Idaho residents want wolves eradicated is because, god dammit, yer daddies killed wolves, and now the damned feds are telling you that yer daddies are wrong. It's not based on science, it's not based on number of elk...it's based on hate and time engrained myth.

Yes, it's true the wolves currently in Idaho are not native to Idaho. The reason for that is simple - your ancestors (or perhaps you?) killed them all. The wolves that came from Canada, however, are Grey Wolves - not some super wolf bred with arctic wolves. That's a lie you have perpetuated. Grey wolves WERE native to the Idaho Rocky Mountains from about 100,000 BC to 1950 AD, however, until you killed them off.

Jesus, the logic is so skewed. Let's kill all but 100 wolves so we can hunt more elk? Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you? What gives you more domain to elk than the wolves? Besides, elk numbers in the northern Rockies are actually increasing! In Yellowstone it has been shown that the entire ecosystem is improving. Contrast that to Estes Park, Colorado, where elk are overrunning the park, destroying vegetation and dying of disease. They have no predators, are stagnant, and unnatural.

You know what though...I'm ready for a battle, and so is THE MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. We're not all yoga participating, chai drinking hippies. We got guns (and there are a lot of us)...I'm a nationally ranked biathlon ski athlete...and if we need to go to war over this issue we will. Personally, I'm willing to die to stop the proposed massacre and so are many others. We'll make the White Supremist bad publicity Idaho got back in the 1980s and 90s look like a damned Disney movie.

Wolves are getting de-listed, except in Wyoming. No trustworthy rules in place to prevent extinction in Wyoming. Tch. Tch. When this whole wolf thing matures, down the road, wolves will be every where there are large public land blocks, and enough to eat. Food and security cover. The public lands will not provide adequate food over time, only security cover. The food will come from private lands, provided by people who keep domestic livestock and other animals. Unless, of course, the alleged population self determination mechanisms of wolf society limit their numbers. That should be allowed to take place, with a caveat for census, and a limit on the time allowed for self determination. If population self determination doesn't happen, then the surplus should be captured if possible, and turned loose in urban areas East of the Mississippi with large green space holdings. Those green spaces should have validity, and wolves would provide that. Think of it as a gift from the West, a four footed tithe. Wolves can eat eastern whitetail, feral cats, livestock, what have you. But whatever, never kill one wolf.

We can't risk a civil war between people who advocate for wolves and people who would not have wolves in their lives if it were possible. I tend to now believe our society is composed mostly people polarized in their beliefs about something, willing to do harm to infidels, non-believers, and academic bottom feeders.

Oregon, a place where on February 2, 1843, the settling ex-trappers and some newer residents met for what was the origin of the first government and taxing authority. The meeting has been referred to as "The Wolf Meeting." Wolves and cougars were wreaking havoc on the livestock, and the settlers met to hire someone to be a full time predator trapper and shooter, and to tax themselves to have the ability to pay for the animal control in common. The founding moment in government in the Oregon Territory, and it was about wolf predation.

I have not read about anyone at that meeting who thought wolves would limit their population if given a chance. What was really going on was the landscape was without its Native American hunters and landscape burners, mostly dead to introduced disease. A rebound in game numbers, and a parallel rise in predator numbers had followed the demise of Native American hunters, and landscape vegetation managers. The wolf self limitation gene had yet to kick in, and the predator diminished game was replaced with domestic livestock. There was conflict, and although wolves are quite smart, the retired mountain man hired to control wolves must have been a little smarter.

But, (and nothing counts before "but"), wolves will repopulate Oregon, Washington, Nevada, California, etc., and those states have laws on the books, today, that will preclude any wolf population control. The wolf is a State listed endangered species, with total protection. Federal de-listing holds no water in that light. The end of the Wolf Wars is far in the future. But, please, no bloodshed, armed threats. Scares me, if not the wolves.

Chill out DVS, you don't have to kill people to get what you want, load up all of the wolves you want and take them home with you. If you can time from being so important you might want to read thru the FWS reports and see the reports of 30-70 sheep at a time being killed by wolves in one night, it has happened, and it is documented.
You know bearbait, it is scary to see the lengths some will go to to force their will upon others.....and interestingly enough they feel rightous doing it. Once folks have this idol, and the wolf is definately an idol to many, they feel they must protect it and believe in the attributes they have given it. Facts have no place in any of the discussion. The rule that Yellowstone must have 7 or 8 packs mantained is one of the things not even remotely based on any facts nor any hisotry. When the elk are gone, we may have to build a fence to keep them in there as is being ruled the law.

Marion - Can you explain to me this. Why do you value the life of an elk more than the life of a wolf? Or, for that matter, why do you value the life of a sheep more than the life of a wolf?

If Butch Otter's desire to kill 450 of Idaho's existing 550 wolves happens, that will certainly be something that you would be opposed to (based on your own logic) as it seems you care deeply about the lives of animals.

I'm not going to hurt anyone - violence begets more violence - but I have no qualms about non-violent civil disobedience to prevent the upcoming wolf massacre. If that means using a human shield to block this massacre, so be it.

By the way, what's up with Ron Gillet chasing wolves away from elk kills with a .22 (http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/stanley-wolf-gillet.htm)? Perhaps that why all the photos of elk killed by wolves on his website are uneaten.

You claim I'm violent, yet you are the ones tromping through the woods with guns.

DV8 says......I'm a nationally ranked biathlon ski athlete...and if we need to go to war over this issue we will.

thanks for the laugh...you sound like a real WARRIOR....i wear spandex and like to fight......im serious that has got to be the funniest thing ive read all week....

you may also note that estess park does not allow hunting therein lies their problem

DV8 then rattles on about Let's kill all but 100 wolves so we can hunt more elk? Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you? What gives you more domain to elk than the wolves?

1. nope seems about right to me
2. i guess the food chain and my financial contribution gives me more domain.

being a nationally ranked spandex wearin ski bum you should understand the concept of competion...wolves and hunters compete........there was a reason they were eliminated once....it was not a mistake...

I enjoyed forwarding your intelligent message onto the wolf plan commenting panel.

It took the american farmers and ranchers until the mid 1930's to do away with the livestock killing wolf. There was a reason for total eradication then as there is now. The best rifle then was a 30-30 carbine, now we have the high powered fast, flat shooting rifles. It won't take long this time to rid ourself of them.

First off I would like to say that those who think wolves are causing no harm should put them in their back yard with their children and pets. We live in an area where we weren't supposed to have wolves. Three times in the last 2 years they have been within a 100 feet of our home and grandchildren. While working cattle we have to make a decision which dogs we are willing to sacrafice to the wolves in order to get the cattle in. We worry about riding young horses to collect as we have had the wolves in on us and can't take the chance of getting bucked off when they scare a young horse. The funny thing is the bleeding hearts that fought to bring the wolves are not living in the affected area. They just want the opportunity to get in their electric cars and drive out to see them in the wild. Not caring about those of us that live and make living from ranching. We have personally seen a tremendous decline of deer and elk since the wolves have moved in. We aren't speculating, we have physically seen the kills. I may seem a little bitter but last night the wolves killed a fawn in the pasture with our new foals. So my solution to those of you that want to see them in the wild. Go the the back country where they have always been and tie your youngest child to a stake and when the kid starts screaming and sounding like a hurt animal you can watch them come in and hunt.