STOP NEGOTIATING?
Now Anti-Wolf Groups Are Blowing It
The pendulum swings. Pro-wolf groups pushed too hard and too long, but now anti-wolf hunting groups are taking extreme positions that worsen an already almost unbearable situation and make any reasonable outcome even more unlikely.By Bill Schneider, 10-27-10
No reasonable deed goes unpunished, eh?
That must be how wildlife managers or advocates who actually want to resolve the wolf-delisting impasse must feel.
On September 23, I posted a commentary with the title, Pro-Wolf Groups Blew It where I criticized the left-leaning plaintiffs in the various lawsuits for pushing too hard, too long and turning fence-sitters and most Western politicians into the anti-wolf camp and possibly endangering the integrity of the Endangered Species Act.
Now, the pendulum has swung to the far right.
Energized by newfound support from basically every Western senator and representative, anti-wolf hunting groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation and Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife have not only insisted on extreme actions but, incredibly, also want to keep wildlife agencies and green groups from even talking to each other about a possible compromise.
If you followed my commentaries on the wolf issue, which I call “The Neverending Story,” you know that I have frequently and fiercely urged the stakeholders to sit down and work out a deal. I have even fantasized about being in charge of the negotiations, so I could order the stakeholders to bring a sleeping bag and a stack of pizzas, because we’d all be locked in a room until we can agree on a solution.
More Than Numbers
The wolf delisting controversy is much more than numbers, but the number of wolves does seem to be a key sticking point.
Anti-wolfers don’t want any “surplus wolves” around eating elk and deer, so they insist that the original recovery goal of 300 wolves (100 animals or 10 breeding pairs per state for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) is all we need, period. Well, guys, that goal isn’t even close to reality, so give it up.
The 300-wolf number is the “minimum” recovery goal, not the population levels states should shoot for in management plans. Although the original recovery plan states 300 wolves constitutes a “viable population” (assuming travel corridors secure enough to assure “genetic connectivity"), it doesn’t say states should manage at that population level. Montana’s management plan, for example, which is the best of the bunch, already calls for maintaining a wolf population of 400 to 450 animals, just in Montana.
The final delsting rule written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three “triggers” which require a “status review,” or actual relisting, under the ESA:
1. If wolf numbers in any state fall below 100 wolves. (In other words, Montana could have 500 wolves, but if Idaho’s population fell to 90, the wolf would probably be relisted.)
2. If wolf numbers fell below 150 per state for three consecutive years.
3. If a state passed a new state law or approved a new management plan that could cause a significant threat to the wolf population.
Yet, anti-wolfers want only 300 wolves? Hello?! At the least, that’s totally self-defeating. Having only 300 wolves would virtually guarantee the FWS would relist wolves and take management away from state wildlife agencies.
Even managing for 150 wolves per state would be “knife-edge management.” Any other factor could come into play, such as a canine disease, and put the wolf back on the endangered species list.
Face it: There will always be more than 300 wolves running around the northern Rockies. If hunting groups can’t back off this extreme position (and stop calling it “moving the goal posts"), we’ll never get to the finish line.
All Wolf News is not Bad News
A few weeks ago, EarthJustice representing the plaintiffs and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department (FWP) actually started talking about a settlement that could end the impasse, at least in Montana. Proposals and counterproposals have been made. Suddenly, it seems like something good could happen. Eureka!
Such talks are touchy, and they need to be conducted in private, not on the Internet, so I hope the press stands down to give the talkers a chance to succeed. I’m not sure what all might be involved in such a “settlement” or how it would affect Judge Donald Molloy’s August 5 ruling that relisted the wolf as an endangered species, nor do I know if any kind of Montana-only plan might fly. But let’s keep talking, OK?
Two things I’m sure will be in any such settlement are (1) a minimum, sustainable Montana population level way north of 100 wolves and (2) assurances from the plaintiffs that they’ll help Montana be exempted from the current court ruling and hence restore state wolf management.
Power Tripping?
Then, out of the blue, comes this press release and letter from the bosses of the three hunting groups. In their letter to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and FWP Director Joe Maurier, they say stop negotiating with those evil animal rights groups. You can’t trust them, they say, and we should use science to determine wolf populations.
Yes, this really revs up my motor, but where do I to start?
For starters, I suppose I should say that I often agree with the policies of these hunting groups, but on this issue, they need to be called out.
They criticize FWP for talking about something other than “science-based wolf management plans,” which, incidentally, Montana already has--and I’m quite sure wouldn’t consider anything less. Yet, on the other hand, these same groups want a totally political solution. They’re pushing Congress to amend the ESA to disallow listing of the gray wolf in all 12 states where the species occurs, even in those states with obviously endangered populations and, I might add, with zero scientific basis for doing so.
They criticize FWP for “closed-door settlement talks” when emissaries of these same groups are just back from Washington, D.C., where they had closed-door talks and tried to--and almost succeeded--tack a midnight rider on a Continuing Resolution to remove the wolf totally and forever from being protected under of the ESA. That’s scientific, eh?
They criticize FWP for not including other stakeholders in the settlement talks or having “public comment periods,” but again, these same guys are back in D.C. lobbying for a midnight rider without including other stakeholders such as representatives of wildlife agencies or agricultural groups. And congressional riders don’t allow for any public input or have a recordable vote.
They criticize the plaintiffs for using the wolf to sell memberships and as a fundraising tool, but they’re doing the same thing. I don’t imagine it hurts membership sales and donations for hunting groups to stay up on the soapbox publicly ranting about hundreds of “surplus” wolves running around the northern Rockies eating all the elk and deer.
I could go on, but you get the point. No wonder it takes us forever to get nowhere.
The Art of Reality
As I’ve suggested several times, reasonable people can agree on a reasonable reality. Accuse me of being a “wolf moderate,” but we really need to treat the wolf issue like a labor negotiation. Just hunkering down and refusing to negotiate is not an option. We must move on. Montana’s wolf management plan pretty much embodies that coveted middle-ground concept. The plaintiffs don’t worship it, of course, but they agree it’s better than Idaho’s plan and way better than Wyoming’s non-plan.
Green groups will oppose any Congressional action to resolve the wolf controversy, but now that’s the name of the game. Unless something happens soon, Congressional action will become our default position. And it could happen very soon, such as in the upcoming lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.
If Congress ends up “solving the wolf problem,” I certainly hope lawmakers won’t consider extreme approaches such as H.R. 6028 sponsored by Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX) and 14 co-sponsored including Congressmen Denny Rehberg (R-MT) or S. 3919 sponsored by senators from Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, all Republicans.
Another bill, S. 3864, sponsored by Montana Democratic Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester is a more moderate approach, but it could be problematic because it calls for leaving the wolf on the endangered species list until the FWS approves state management plans, which might not happen or not happen expeditiously. At least S. 3864 only covers Idaho and Montana and doesn’t include states without plans, like Wyoming, or states with beginning, obviously endangered wolf populations, like Oregon, Utah and Washington.
I can’t say I buy the Baucus-Tester bill completely, but at least somebody is out there trying do something reasonable that might become reality.
In conclusion, here’s one point on which we all can agree: We outdoor writers will have a lot of wolf stories to write about for a long, long time thanks to all this futile polarization.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
The ESA needs to be eliminated and rewritten to protect truly endangered species of merit. The money for so called non profits to rake in must be taken out of the equation. As long as these self appointed people can legally rape the American taxpayer with absolutely no responsibility nor accountability, they will.
The time for research was BEFORE they started hauling wolves in. There was absolutely no record of wolf numbers even remotely approaching what we have now, and we can see the effects. The Norris Meadows are empty of elk, Elk Park is empty of elk, Gibbon Meadows is empty of elk. The Madison had 3, possibly a 4th sharing less than 2 dozen cows this fall. The grizzlies are in trouble because there is no meat when they come out of hibernation in the spring, and little when they are getting ready to hibernate in the fall. When the white bark has a bad year, they have to depend on grass and whatever the wolves might leave them, especially the Moms with cubs.
America is broke, yet we are spending millions on wolves every year while we destroy our elk and moose, even the swans have been destroyed by "predators". What will it cost in money we don't have to "reintroduce" what has been destroyed?
The griz were put on the ESA list because of low numbers caused by NPS policies although they tried to blame hunters & ranchers for that.
Wolves and grizzlies are not the only problem with the ESA, look at the acres and acres of wheat fields taken out of production to protect a mouse, more acres of farmland (where our food is produced) taken out for a minnow. How about the millions in tax payer dollars spent to buy and protect habitat for the extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and the rice farmers unable to produce food because the dam to provide the necessary water was stopped to protect that non existent bird. The tax payers got the bird.
It is insane to spend our country into bankruptcy to enrich a few enviro groups who contribute nothing except lawsuits.
It's too bad that the anti-wolf people are more interested in evisceratating the ESA than they are in having the wolf delisted and managed. If they wanted to solve the problem, they'd be in Cheyenne trying to get a plan that would pass muster.
They're not, because they don't. Instead, they're looking for fundraising and some kind of culture war victory.
The people who protect the wolves protect any and all animals because that is what they do, with your money. My foray into deer hunting so far this year was a fine day spent glassing and trying to find a bedded buck to stalk. No luck. Never saw a deer all day, from well before daylight in the headlights as we traveled, to after dark in the headlights as we drove home. Not one deer. But two cougars. Did see two cougars. Not one. Not a lifetime event, that of seeing a cougar in the wild. Two. I somehow see a connection between a paucity of deer and a plethora of cougars. And now we are beginning to get Idaho wolves, one of which died violently, which immediately prompted a posting of a reward of $10,000 for information leading to an arrest. Funny, people are being killed daily and no rewards offered for information leading to an arrest. Maybe we could change society by having standing rewards for information leading to an arrest. The new industry on the other side of the tracks: ratting out killers for money. Have a standing reward for any and all acts of mayhem or murder. Have an arbitration board determining validity of the claim. Say!!!! Maybe that is what they need to do with the wolf kill deal. Pay a reward to the rancher who.....nah..never work. Maybe instead, pay the rancher for his loss to the public's predator. Nah. That has yet to work. The wolf is always innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, complete with official government attorneys provided for the wolf, and the public attorneys fighting every claim on evidentiary exclusions. The livestock owner is set up to lose by armchair urban wolf protecters, all the while they claim to be paying for every proven wolf kill. Of course, finding and proving is made as hard as possible, and therefore there is not enough evidence wolves are actually killing livestock. No proof, you see. No dna being looked at. No carcass being subjected to the same sort of forensics as a human body. Or so we would assume most human bodies get that kind of attention. Who knows when the whole process is masked by official barriers to information in the ever closing doors to government actions and decisions. Remember, money is speech, and it also can buy no speech. Quiet. Cover. In a time and place where individuals flow freely from NGOs of protection to US Govt protective agency jobs, and back, in seamless transitions from non-profit jobs to government jobs and back, we do have a 5th Estate in the NGOs, with tax protection, laundered money, and access to insider Federal decision making. If you don't trust government, you do because they give plenty of reasons not to. The wolf deal, from inception, is one of those situations. A created Endangered Species Act situation which could or could not be a veiled attempt to change how private property can operate across the country.
Powerful corporations yearn for control. They consider unexploited resources wasted resources.
It pleases me--personally--that a tailor in Flatbush has as much to say about Federal land and the resources on it as the governors of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana or Nevada.
It saddens me that anybody--any damned fool--can file a mineral claim on that land.
And now even more hapless folks can shoot a wolf--just to prove he has brains enough to pull a trigger and use a shovel!
http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_c37a1482-e21c-11df-b1d2-001cc4c03286.html
Jay is saddened by the fact the the U.S. has the ability to access it's natural resources.
No one who actually proposes that we take out wolf numbers to 100 per state posted here. I think this is a fairly clear indicator where most of the nut cases are in this debate.
http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=2194
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2152
A quote form the second:
"Lack of food pushes habitat away from park"
This is a point I have been making for several years, the elk population has dropped by 60-70% since the wolves were hauled in. Now I realize they are not responsible despite the fact they were brought in because nothing else could kill enough elk, which is an interesting concept. The fact is there is little to eat in the early spring when they wake up, the wolves have killed/eaten everything that they could, so there is no winter kill left lying around to feed them. There are very few cow elk left and they have a low pregnancy rate due to being chased all the time and being unable to eat enough to reproduce. What elk cows that do have calves do not have nearly enough for all of the hungry predators waiting for them to drop....or in the case of wolves tearing the calf out of a living (for a little bit) mother so they have first shot at it.
The fact is that coupled with the loss of whitebark is pushing the bears out of the park to search for food near humans, that is an extremely dangerous situation.
The fact is the wolves are increasing every year and are destroying every other animal in the park except the buffalo. They coyotes and foxes are the only predators that seem to be able to hold their own. We have not seen the worst yet.
Apparently the NPS and FWS are hoping that the wolves will fianally prey on buffalo seriously when the elk are gone or so I was told by a retired ranger. As I told him I do not believe that will be the case, I think the wolves will move out onto private land and again fight with the griz for livestock, pets, and whatever they can.
It seems that absolute power does in fact corrupt absolutely.
With that in mind, the B/T bill might seem like a "compromise," but still leaves the final say in the hands of Interior, which in turn is loyal to a "national" constituency, however illusory and narrow. Given the constant moving-the-goalposts behavior of the Greens, leaving Interior in charge is a non-starter.
Let's consider the simple fact that the Montana wolf plan was supposedly negotiated in "good faith" while the same groups that made all those promises and then ran to court. Let's also consider that the Montana wolf plan was put together by a Democratic administration and FWP that depends on Greens for at least part of its political support. And let's remember that it was put together by people who, if not afraid of ESA enforcement, were and are sympathetic to ESA's ancillary social and economic impacts. It was no more than a negotiated surrender.
Delisting wolves through Congress would put the decisions back in the hands of the communities most affected in real terms, once again making decisions based upon consent of the governed.
But it would not be an absolute grant of power. If in fact the Edwards bill passed and wolf-containing states went down the path of extirpation/extinction, then Congress could always exercise its authority and change the law again to re-list wolves.
Uhhh, Ken, the wolves were imported becasue the elk population was 19,000, it was 6000 last winter and they tried to avoid counting until Montana released the number of elk remain there as part fo the Northern Elk herd...2235.
<a >Reduce Stretch Marks</a>
<a >Stretch Mark Cream</a>
The bears are hungry, and when they hear a hunter or a shot they come to take it away, some may be spooked, but the fact remains if they are killed by someone protecting himself so be it. It was tough enough for the bears when there were still elk in Yellowstone, now that the wolves have taken over the park, the griz are being pushed out. Again, do you have the numbers of bears killed by hunters?
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_fc6c1186-b140-506e-afd9-d7399137e5f4.html
Federal officials say there were 48 bears killed by humans last year, out of 71 total deaths. At least 20 of the bruins died at the hands of hunters who shot bears in self-defense or after mistaking them for other animals.
It is obviously higher know as we know about the recent grizzly bears that were shot by hunters.
Where can I get one of those cute cuddly puppies?
Todd when you have some time, do alittle research on just how much America's spent in the last few decades destroying anything and everything in the way of wildlife that might remotely resemble a threat to the rancher's and farmer's way of life out here in the west........... Its called Widlife Services.
All sorts of wildlife, totaling in the millions (not to mention habitat) pay dearly and annually, to keep that "historic" way of life going, a way of life that unfortunately contributes a tiny fraction to the overall food chain in this country.
Did ya find the Planet Earth Series Todd (5 set DVD - BBC) and watch it? We humans are soon going to be our own worst enemies unless we wake up and realize ITS JUST NOT ABOUT US and our selfish needs on this planet.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/wolf-compromise/
Is compromising with the lawless in the best interest of wolves, wildlife, or the ESA?
By Ken Cole, Ralph Maughan, and Brian Ertz.
Ever since wolves were relisted as an Endangered Species by Judge Molloy of Montana there has been a persistent drone of editorial opinion, political grandstanding, and accusations made about and against wolf/Endangered Species Act (ESA) advocates.
Backlash.
Just recently, a piece was written that claimed wolf advocates “blew it” by fighting too long and too hard to protect the integrity of the ESA via fighting to keep protections for wolves. It went on to say that wolf advocates should have made an offer to settle rather than fight for the integrity of the ESA and now they are responsible for giving their opponents ammunition to threaten the integrity of the ESA.
The fact of the matter is that wolf advocate plaintiffs have been in settlement discussions with defendants, sadly enough, even after the court victory re-instating protections for wolves. It’s been wolf-opponents such as representatives of the state of Idaho that have declined to participate, refusing to even send anyone to these discussions. So who’s being too strident and why?
Furthermore, any settlement agreement must be reviewed by the public which means that it is an action that could be litigated by any number of groups for various reasons.
You can read about what is publicly known about the discussions here:
Montana Says Settlement Possible In Wolf Lawsuit.
WKRG.com
And here:
Federal officials deny Montana request to hold a ‘conservation hunt’ for endangered wolves.
Canadian Business Online. Be sure to read both pages.
Wolf conservationists have been also accused of “moving the goal posts” by demanding that all the delisting criteria for the program be met. Instead the claim has been the only required goal was reaching a minimum 300 wolves among all three states, but even this number was dictated by the government. It wasn’t set by some deal conservationists made.
These criteria are detailed in the USFWS wolf recovery plan which requires, in part, that wolves achieve at least 10 breeding pairs in each of the three states and that each of the three states produce wolf management plans that are acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The first goal laid out as the minimum requirement for “recovery” was met early on but Wyoming stands apart from the other two states by demanding that their plan allow anyone, for any reason, to kill any wolf by any means in any part of 80% of the state outside the National Parks and wilderness areas in the northwest corner of the state.
Yes, the wildlife management agencies of Idaho and Montana have committed to maintaining wolves at levels higher than 100 wolves in their states, but these commitments are hardly secure. . . far from it. The state management plans were not written by these wildlife management agencies. They were written by the legislatures of their respective states. The Idaho and Montana legislature have made it clear they are not shy about demanding the state wildlife agencies manage only for the minimum population levels that they committed to in their plans. Just such an effort was made in the last Idaho legislative session. It was put on hold because the wolf delisting was still being litigated. Such a resolution could be made more powerful by being turned into a bill, which would likely pass now that wolves have been relisted. Legislators have made a point of saying as much in private conversations with wolf advocates and they are on record in the 2001 HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 5 demanding that “wolf recovery efforts in Idaho be discontinued immediately, and wolves be removed by whatever means necessary.” It’s not a matter of if they’ll do it, but when.
We are told that wolf advocates made a “deal” that wolves would be delisted once the minimum population goals of 10 breeding pairs for three consecutive years in each state was met. Not so. What group set this number or made a deal? Where is it written? “Deals” such as this could conceivably been made by certain unrepresentative individuals, but the ESA and NEPA are clear, and ,under these laws, decisions such as these have to be made using the best available science. They cannot be made based on a whim and the political flavor of the day. Currently the best available science indicates that thousands of individuals are required to maintain genetic and population viability.
Wolf advocates have been accused of not compromising on wolf management issues, but many forget the biggest compromise made by wolf advocates and many, many others made since. That compromise, seen as a mistake by some and not by others, was the reintroduction itself. There were wolves in the Northern Rockies before the reintroduction. These wolves had full protection under the ESA. There were not classified as an “experimental and non-essential population.” They could have slowly reestablished populations in Idaho, and eventually Yellowstone, on their own but with much less genetic diversity and over a longer period of time. That also means that they could not have been killed for any reason other than protection of human life. Most wolf advocates compromised on this issue by allowing the USFWS to reintroduce wolves to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park as an experimental, non-essential population.
Furthermore, at the time of the reintroduction, as Peter Steinhart wrote in his 1995 book The Company of Wolves, even Republican Idaho Senator James McClure, seeing the writing on the wall, supported reintroduction because it would allow ranchers the ability to kill wolves in defense of livestock.
“….Senator James McClure of Idaho introduced a bill calling for the removal of wolves from the endangered-species list, and subsequent reintroduction into Yellowstone. In effect, he was conceding that wolves were inevitable, and that the ranchers would be wise to compromise in order to protect their ability to deal with depredations. Congress, however, rejected McClure’s bill as an attempt to circumvent the Endangered Species Act, and instead called for the preparation of an environmental impact statement for wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park. That amounted to tentative approval of reintroduction.”
Since the reintroduction over 1,200 compromises have been begrudgingly made in the three states to avenge livestock depredation by wolves.
Wolf advocates also compromised by giving support to monetary compensation for livestock losses in hopes that it would gain tolerance. After originally supporting it, in our opinion, this turned out to be a farce — it never accomplished its original goal of gaining tolerance amongst those who were compensated. Worse, it created a moral hazard which allowed ranchers to continue feeling a sense of entitlement without changing any of their behavior.
While both sides have endured threats over this issue wolf advocates have also endured threats to their physical well being from those with a different opinion brandishing weapons and have been physically assaulted. They have been investigated by the FBI for trying to document the actions of Wildlife Services. They have been made to jump through hoops just to have simple questions answered about what is happening on the ground.
Anti-wolf forces have perpetuated myths about “vicious Canadian wolves” when not a single wolf scientist believes such as sub-species of wolf exists. They make wild claims about 200 pound wolves when they are really only around 100 pounds.
Wildlife Services, the agency which conducts livestock depredation investigations for the various states and conducts wolf controls by various means including gunning them down from helicopters, has been lawless with regard to Freedom of Information Act requests made by many groups and has not responded to or fulfilled its duty to provide the public with information about its management activities or spending.
The Idaho Fish and Game, as well, has issued a directive to its employees that they should not discuss any wolf management activities over email, but rather over the phone. Furthermore, they can’t even see fit to update their monthly wolf news update page. Right now, it hasn’t been updated since June.
Yes, wolf advocates are worried, but that worry is well founded. We are worried that the states will move forward with their goals of reducing wolf populations to the minimum they define in their legislative management plans if wolves are again delisted under their plans. We are worried that a strident faction in Congress will gut the ESA using a “midnight amendment,” but that does not mean that wolf advocates should gut the ESA themselves nor hunker down and apologize for winning in U.S. court. The ruling by Judge Molloy was not decided on a technicality as Cal Groen, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and others would have you believe, it was won on a simple reading of one of the most popular environmental laws ever. The USFWS acted arbitrarily when they used state lines to delist wolves rather than biologically meaningful lines and the judge saw that.
It’s not as if we have been dealing with a rational opposition when you consider all of these facts. In fact, the future of wolf recovery is not secure even without legislative intervention. The blatant disdain for wolves by those who will direct how the agencies maintain a secure future for wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, among other states is obvious to those who are paying attention.
So, I ask you, who hasn’t compromised? And who isn’t following agreements to manage wildlife using the best available science? Should the country let the recent bills submitted by Danny Rehberg, Mike Crapo, and Jim Risch, Max Baucus, Jon Tester and rank outsiders like Chet Edwards of Texas dictate how the ESA is implemented thus gutting the ESA? Have the advocates of the ESA lost because they refuse to gut the ESA themselves?
"d- what does that stand for- dipshit! You teach a seminar on how to blow. You people are ignorant."
This from someone who has added exactly zero to the discussion.
Name calling is all you can do,you have no facts to back up anything you say, and proves by what he writes that he is the one who is prejudiced,bigoted, ignorant, and cluless about the facts concerning the wolves,and is likely just one more ani9mal rights activist from one of the coasts,or big cities nowhere near Montana,trying to tell others what to do.
Your comment about the hillbillies and rednecks complaining that the wolves are decimating the elk and deer herds are not just unfounded claims,many, many times in the never ending wolf debate,on this site,the information about wolves decimating SOME elk herds has been posted.
Not just in blowing spitballs at each other. Go out and learn everything you can about wolves. Then, if you must demonize them or consider them "lower" than humans - on your scale and no other scale - at least you will know what you want gone. However,what I find interesting is that every writer who hates wolves and wants them all suffocated, drowned, sterilized, etc because they might kill and elk a hunter wants to kill out of some sort of right to kill them, feels that he or she must the the "Great One" to decide the fate of one animal on the earth. Humans are the greatest killers--killing for money, greed, out of fear, or for no good reason at all.
Until everyone on this earth realizes that everything we do to the world around affects more than our little circle, we all are going to be in a diminished world.
Either we learn to remember how to understand everything on this earth or it will all be demonized (animals and certain groups of people included.
Nice article
As for Ken/Ralph compromising, only a liberal narcissist could call trucking in wolves from another country and imposing on individual families compromising. Especially when they had to use the money making courts and judges to impose this "compromise" on those who were smart enough to know what was going to happen. I guess they are still "compromising" by forcing many times the amount of wolves listed in the reintroduction plan on folks. On the other hand I am sure they tried to figure a way to make the ranchers pay all of the expenses of the "compromise" introduction, instead of the taxpayers across the country....excepting the "non profits" of course. They just rake in taxpayer money, but I suppose that too is a "compromise" in their view.
I swear your dementia gets worse by the minuet. have you talked to you're doctor about upping your meds?
So all you flatlanders when you decide to camp with your babies in our country keep this in mind. We have had Children taken by Mt. Lions in the past, bears have charged killed and maimed people so now we have wolves too. At least bears and Mt. Lions don't kill for fun as the wolves do. Now please don't jump on me as my husband spent many years as a wildlife biologist, retired now, and this was one of the stupidest stunts our gov't has pulled, as they will exterminate the deer, elk, livestock, and you people won't be able to relish the juciy steak you like unless you eat a wolf. Oh throw in people too in that lot. Europe lost quite a few back in the 1800's before they controlled them.
The woman is shamelessly trying to extort you into babysitting!
that would be line of HS
That being said you and Cindy said it very well. Teh problem is there were wolves documented inside of Yellowstone, but "not enough" for those hoping to steal other folks property with them.
SFW, RMEF Safari Club etc are out of control, and have a much broader (dare I say sinister) agenda than simply restoring wolf management to Montana and Idaho. They represent primarily wealthy, conservative, out of state, trophy hunters, who are using to wolf to advance other policy and electoral agendas--agendas that are not necessarily in the best interest of sportsmen.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf
And an article by Dr. Charles Kay, who predicted waaaay back there exactly what the enviros and researchers were going to do:
http://evergreenmagazine.com/app/portal/mm/Kay16WolfRecovery-Charles.pdf
But of course; while the fiction of man-eating animals is not HS?
I do know that USFWS has never discussed a ceiling on the number of wolves that could live (or be allowed to live) in the N. Rockies. Nevertheless, many wolf opponents have been misrepresenting the MINIMUM recovery numbers of 300/30 as a ceiling, and calling for wolves to be managed down to that level. That scares the crap out of environmental groups that worked hard on restoration, and should at least bother sportsmen as well.
Now is that not enough for delisting, nope, because the enviros do not like the Wyoming plan, what do they want? That their little secret, they will just keep filing a lawsuit if they don't like what Wyoming comes up with and they won't until primarily ranch land with little wildlife is "protected" for the wolves. Besdies those lawsuits give them tax dollars that the rest of us pay.
There could have been a carefully managed population of wolves - a protected game animal carefully regulated to balance the needs of man and prey.
But not now.
The technology for private wolf control is orders of magnitude better than our grandfathers had, and the word is out. Get your pictures while you can.
Watch and learn what happens when we play cowboys and enviros.
The season for large experimental coyotes has been open year round, no limit, no tags required, since Molloy’s rejection of scientific game management.
• SSS if you like, but better yet, gut shoot the whole pack. A wound is as good as a kill. Never inspect the shot, just keep shooting and keep moving. Most Montana hunters are used to using a caliber large enough to make a clean, ethical kill. They need to adjust their thinking when trying to inflict maximum wound damage on these scourges. A very well sighted Ruger 10/22 or AR with extended magazines used from a tree sling over a yipping bait dog can inflict a lot of damage that will eventually be fatal. Go into the forest to small clearings under 100 yards. Of course, I’m talking about coyote and rabbit hunting, which is open year round with only a conservation license.
• Sweeten all gut piles and carcasses with Xylitol – the artificial sweetener that is lethal to canines specifically. About 10 grams per 100 lb of large experimental imported coyote.
• Scatter parvo / distemper feces from infected dogs near den sights. The Reservations, unfortunately, are an excellent source of parvo and distemper infected nose candy. There’s is always some extremely virulent strain making the rounds in Browning.
• Dogs that howl and whine (husky types) can be staked out and are sure fire bait – irresistible to large experimental imported coyotes.
• Learn to use Gregerson snares – cheap to make and deadly for coyotes. Think of those Gregerson snares as choke chain leashes with draggable logs attached. Don’t anchor them too securely. A well placed Teepee set over a carcass can catch a whole lot of big coyotes since they keep coming back to collect their group members mates!
http://www.pdksnares.com/snares.html
• Of course, follow all Just laws. BUT
Don’t ever talk to cops or any type of game warden or enviros. Ever.
Remember, angry wives and girlfriends always talk. Always.
Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
• Always request a jury trial. No jury in Montana will convict IF YOU ACCIDENTALLY kill a wolf.
Remember, a juror has the right and the obligation to judge both the facts and the law of the case!
http://fija.org/
• It’s a sad day that we’ve come to, but our grandfathers had to eliminate scourges, and now it’s our turn. It literally makes me sick to my stomach to have to post tips like these, but desperate times require desperate measures!
The Chucks of the world will be what they are, regardless of the situation. The question is, how many people that would turn Chuck in as a poacher in any other situation, will turn a blind eye because they know justice is already being thwarted by a broken ESA law?
JayM,
I was agreeing with you.
So what you seem to be saying Todd, is you couldn't give a crap about what disc 5 had to say about mankind's ongoing, mindless, reckless destruction of other species and this planet, as long as you've got some great shots?
"Ann, it is evident that you can write. It is unfortunate that you can't read. What a useless and mis informed post. Thank-you for demonstrating very clearly the idiocy of the radical pro-wolf crowd."
Justin Boggs-I think that Ann is the same Ann who made some comments a while back when there was a proposed trapping ban. She was one of the few who actually discussed sensible comromise on the issue. Many6 in the dicussion actually did agree on quite a few points,I do not think this l;ady deserves to be put down for her comment-there was a lot of truth in it.
"mh, you live in OH, so who are you to talk about others not being from Montana? I believe you said you live in Ohio. You have no room to talk. You just try to discredit others because you yourself cannot stand the lies and misinformation people like you use to paint a negative and false image of the wolves. You also don't care about protecting wildlife in its true meaning. You want elk for yourself. You want to protect elk from wolves so hunters like you can shoot them."
Lets correct the first mistake first-I do NOT live in Ohio-I had to go through a very difficult series of surgeries,due to a bone infection in a badly broken leg. The break was years ago-but the infection in the bone (osteomyelitis) is very hard to get rid of. The Dr. cut out about 31/2" of bone-then I hade a steel frame around the leg,with things I had to turn every day to stretch the opposite ends of the bone.Long process,started 2-23-09,and 11-17-10 will hopefully be my last Dr. appt and I can come home.
We raised three duaghters in Montana,and one of them,and her husband was abnle to maintain our property,and care for the horses while we have been here,so no-I do not live in Ohio,I have a sister here where I am staying. The next Dr's appt shoul be the last,and I can go home,not in shape to do much hunting this year,but I will be next year.
I do agree that there shoul be wolves-but-when they start killing livestock,and family dogs and cats-then it is time to do one of two things-trap and relocate,or cull some by limited hunting.
Too many wolves in an area is a bad thing,there needs to be a balance-right now there are too many wolves in Montana and parts if Idaho. Wyoming could solve the whole problem by submitting a reasonable wolf management plan.
I and hunters like myself have done far.far more than any of the animal rights/save the wolves groups,for wildlife conservation-the extra11% tax we pay on firearms and ammunition,the money we pay for licenses,tags,permits,all goes to the state fish and game agencies,so THEY can manage wildlife. Us waterfowl hunters,through the purchase of the required federal "duck stamp" are what built the wildlife refuges all over the US. Let's not forget all the hunting groups who help with conservation-RMEF,Pheasants Forever,Ducks Unlimited,Whitetails Unlimited,
and on and on,there are hundreds of groups,national state,and local who help with wildlife conservation.
So,Don't you EVER try to tell me I do not care about wildlife.
At least hunters and our groups/orgs. actually do things to benefit wildlife-we do not just file endless streams of lawsuits-taking all the money collected from members to pay for lawyers,and court filing fees/costs.
Animal rights activists have harrassed hunters so much that a lot of states have had to enact laws to stop the harrassment.....
Hunter Protection Legislation
Every one of the 50 states has passed hunter protection legislation that protects sporstmen from the interference of "http://www.nraila.org/Issues/DidYouKnow/#Archiveanimal rights" extremists
Also-fwiw-way back in the late seventies/early eighties,in NW Montana,near the Idaho panhandle/Canadian border-I personally saw wolf tracks,and saw them every year,then in about the past 3 or 4 years-far too many wolf tracks-far too few deer and elk tracks.So,yes the wolves do decimate elk herds in SOME areas.
The wolves would have eventually repopulated the Northern Rockies by themselves,and there would likely have been far less drama.
I'll be hiking in those same areas soon. Hunting by next year for sure. Maybe even hunting wolves,before they eat everthing in the ecosystem,and there is not only no elk,or deer,there would then be no wolves,as there would be no food source.
I based my post on this comment.
"The trio of states have made it abundantly clear that they intend to kill the wolves in their state down to the minimum needed to prove their existence."
I have followed the wolf debate in Idaho pretty closely and can tell you in no uncertain terms that no one with authority in this state has stated intentions to kill all wolves except for the minimum. Ignorant and hyperbolic statements such as that don't help the debate at all. If Ann truly has better, she didn't put it in that post. I will, however, keep your endorsement in mind for future engagements.
As to trapping controversy and any good compromises there, I am not aware of that particular issue and can't speak to it. I just know what I see here. Actually pretty much everything I have seen posted here has been entirely useless. There are smart people addressing this issue, but they don't seem to be well represented here.
Suzanne Stone said she fears Idaho´s leaders will try to dramatically cut the current population of 650 wolves in 70 packs back to near the 15-pack level set as the recovery goal by the state´s plan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Per Rocky Barker 01-12-2007
9th paragraph
paragraph "grey wolf hunt"
Mickey, thank-you for setting the record straight.
There is some evidense that the wolves are pushing the bears out, Wyoming has had 251 grizzly incidents so far this year. The griz that killed the guy in Montana and ate him were severely underweight. A sow and 2 cubs were captured in a yard in Gardiner, again under weight and in fact FWS stated tehy did not expect the cub to survive the winter.
The decrease in cut throats and white bark pine are more or less natural occurances. Planting many times the historical population of wolves in Yellowstone and the surrounding area and intentionally increasing the population to historic highs is NOT natural.
There are many things negatively impacting our world, and one of them is the artifical introduction and protection of an abundant species, and the wolves are and were abundent on this continent.
Worry about what you are doing that impacts earth, not what others are doing. Professional environmentalists are some of the most damaging folks in the world in my opinion, they are interested in power and money, and they use various species to accomplish that.
If you folks manage to force teh ranchers off their land what are you accomplishing? You will be the cause of one more subdivision that will eliminate that much more habitat for all wildlife, you will decrease the food supply for Americans causing that much more fuel that you do not want recovered from the earth to be burned to bring food from a country that isn't worried about saving teh land for hikers. On top of that since you do not like drilling and mining, we will end up buying fuel from other countries to haul the fuel we buy from other countries.
No country, including the United States of America can survive as consumers and not producers.
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/08/02/news/doc4c575e9aa2183659558295.txt
All of the government officials in charge of the bears are facing some pretty heavy duty lawsuits in both cases and they are scrambling to cover their tails to the extent they can. by the way they are darting and colalring griz all over, but they are not releasing any weights at all for these bears for say the last 20 years so we can detect if there is a weight trend. They only admit they weigh less than when the garbage dumps were open.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0f91dadc-9e6e-11df-9d65-001cc4c03286.html
The sow was at least 10 years old but had healthy teeth indicating it was not a geriatric animal, said Andrea Jones with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Some grizzlies live more than 20 years.
It weighed 221 pounds - less than the average of 300 to 400 pounds but still within a healthy range.
Still within health weight range and you consider that "severely underweight"?
I love how you twist things around Marion. I also heard that you got banned from certain blogs for posting under different names trying to pass yourself off as different people. I guess I can't say that i am surprised given the fact that you are a female pretending to be a male and posting as a male's name you kook.
The sow had not had any meat for what was it 1 year, 2 years, I guess that is because the kindly wolves are falling down on the job of providing all of those carcasses to bears that wolfers claim. We can argue until the cows come home, all of the facts will come out during the lawsuits, at least for any of the info still in the records.
“Interested” is Marion Dickinson. She is spamming (posting under more than one name). She is hereby banned from this group. Ralph
"Todd", who knows for certain how many names you post under.
I knew Ralph would never let me post on his site if he saw my name, he would have banned me the minute he saw my name. He doesn't tolerate any dissention.
Now in the interest of fairness I think New West owes it to all of their readers to let us know who you are...JeffE is my guess, since you have made an issue of my name while using part of yours...as I have. It is my belief that you have access to email addresses since you started this thing. If forcing me to quit posting was your idea it would have done no good since you made sure any nut reading the site would know how to find me. If this is not Jeff E, you got this mess started and are as responsible as whoever is stealing identity.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_4d098f2a-e3e4-11df-b0be-001cc4c03286.html
I started no mess except in your imagination. You mindset, from your upbringing in the livestock industry I wager, is of blaming any and everyone else if things do not go your way, mean while standing with hat in hand looking for the next govt handout.
The one reason i or anyone else even notices your existence is due to your non-stop miss-representation of the truth in nearly every subject you comment on, which should be and is challenged just out of basic decency. After that I can't think of any reason to so much as cross the street for any thing that would include you.
Whether you like it or not, I think it was wrong, very wrong for our government to borrow money to plant and manage a destructive animal like wolves which are costing individual food producing families a huge amount of money and hardship and grief. I will also do everything in my power to stop the rape of the American people by those using "endangered species" to control what other Americans can do and enriching those huge corporations with taxpayer dollars.
I will continue to point out the fact the wolves are being used to change land use to suit a certain click of people and make money for them. And I will continue to point out the markedly decreasing elk herds in Yellowstone, also the fact there are some indications that the huge number of wolves is negatively impacting grizzlies.
You know that I have been commenting on your articles fro a long time, that I have strong opinions and like to stir things up with the rednecks, and that I don't use my full name for obvious reasons, including property protection in the rural areas where I hold property. BUT, you also know or can easily verify that I post as a single entity and participate honestly in the debates on a one person, one voice, basis, kind of like ethical democracy.
The argument above, over whether Marion Dickinson is posting under one or more pseudonyms, has been going on for quite a while. I've even tried to post some humorous comments to highlight the issue by poking fun at it.
The issue is not whether Marion or her friends post under pseudonyms; there are always reasons for anonymity; but, it is a very different matter when a smaller group of people post under multiple pseudonyms to appear as a larger group of voices and try to swamp the debate in this way. This is a form of malicious and unethical spam. It degrades the credibility, such as it is, of the site and the discussions on it.
Yes, I do know that fringe tea party and GOP groups deliberately teach this technique to their activists and encourage its use and that it is now everywhere. I guess they haven't yet figured out that we're watching. But, it is still a despicably malicious practice that unethically undermines the fundamental equity and democracy of the web, a principle that is still highly regarded by many of us, which is why I don't engage in it. It should not be allowed, if it can be technically avoided.
With all of that said, I respectfully ask that, if this practice is being used by Marion and her cohorts and if you can take steps to block it, please block it. I am not suggesting that Marion or anyone else be disenfranchised from posting, under their own name or a pseudonym, but that efforts be made to restrict them to one identity in any one debate. Let's have each person in these debates speak with a single opinion, one person, one voice, just like ethical democracy is supposed to be.
Thanks...
Intimidating and harassing an old lady to the point of publicizing my name and the town where I live is not enough, it didn't' get rid of me? Now you are whining that you think I my expressing my opinion too often and it is "unfair" to you? What whiners! I neither know nor care who posts what, nor how many times. I can see what has happened and is happening. I also know the history of how many wolves were killed over the years inside of Yellowstone and the fact that many more were planted. I have posted many time in many places that a total of 56 adult wolves were killed over the 14 years that wolves were killed for bounty and with the blessing of NPS. We have double that many wolves there now and they are killing elk to the point that wolf advocates are trying to deny the wolves are what is killing the elk herds.
Locals who live on and deal with the land are not particularly impressed by hwo many people say what, we can see what has and is happening due to the wolf introduction
The people of Wyoming that you love to call all sorts of names have increased habitat and numbers of wildlife, not by lawsuits to force others to do our will, but with our money from hunting licenses, ranchers providing habitat, etc. We are no impressed by your BS, whether anyone replies, writes an opposing view or a dozen of them or not.
Grow up, if you cannot defend your position without name calling accusations, intimidation, or harassment, tough!
Again, I wasn't picking a fight with you. I am fighting over a bad practice. I'll be happy to resume slinging feces with you later; we're had some good times doing that in the past and I look forward to more in the future. But, right now, I'm simply focusing on a specific unethical practice and trying to ensure that does not become the norm with regard to improperly tainting the debate here.
dont chatter about unethical when you call name call by, " stirring it up with the rednecks".
you posted your name and place of residence on this site yourself;
http://www.newwest.net/themindfullife/
the sad thing is that you continue to blame everyone else for your actions.
typical livestock industry mindset
This is easily the most pathetic exchange I have seen on this board in a long long time. At least try to argue facts and science instead of lobbing insults back and forth across the net. Or better yet, just stay out of this altogether. It's people like you that muddy a good discussion for everyone.
Get over yourselves.
Ya know unreal mike your a real POS. nough said.
Marian is the way most women spell it...
Now the statistics and empirical knowledge indicate that wolf introduction has had damaging results on game herds across a broad landscape. People who had a vested interest in hunting from bullet sellers, guides, meat cutters, are being impacted. That is just another business in rural America being sliced from our economy, another thin slice of the economic salami, and when you add them all up, the slice pile is now much larger than the salami, which has grown noticeably small. The small salami is our collective economy, as the slices to out sourcing, environmental shut downs, the welfare state, unsupportable wages and benefits, myriad governmental decisions "to protect" the people have kept on slicing the salami. Somehow, we have to grow the salami. Find jobs, create jobs, and demand that people find ways other than the State to support themselves. I saw a story on a small effort to put the unemployed to work in ag in harvest season, and the effective placement rate was 3% of the open jobs taken by American citizens not of Hispanic origin. The illegal alien is doing the work Americans will not. And I can imagine that is true in other fields than agriculture. Our culture of welfare is a better way of life than third world residents ever had, so why work when you can live, stay warm and dry, and eat, all provided by Progressives seeking votes?? And, you don't have to pay to send your kids to school or see the doctor. How much better can it get???
We have exported our older workforce jobs. To nations with a large young workforce. Over 50 and you will most likely never find another job that utilizes your experience and education. There is a young third world person, with education, to do that job. In India, there are more kids in talented and gifted programs than there are kids on school in the United States. I say that because my experience with ranching families is that they send their kids to college, if only because the ranch can support but one family at a time. The kids have to get educated to be able to support themselves. That public land rancher is producing calves for the feed lot and students for the university and our educated work force. Look at who leads in this country and you find ranch kids like Sandra Day O'Conner, Bruce Babbitt, Montana Governor Schweitzer, and many, many others. I would defend ranching as an incubator for future leadership in this country, all based on the stark reality that the ranch can only support one family at a time, and so the ranch families have to educate their kids to thrive elsewhere. The work ethic, the goal oriented mindset, all work to produce a pretty good kid for the country, the ranch kid. Of course, the trust puppy types who so hate ranchers must know that for every rancher, there is a couple or more of his or her kids working elsewhere just as hard as mom and pop. And God knows America is always in dire need of goal oriented, hard working young people to try and keep our American ball in the air...if that is still possible. Tomorrow we will find out our direction for the next couple of years.
Us Westerners have all this public land, and we actually have a huge rock on our backs to pack, as all the benefit now is amenity and sensibility based, on the cheap. So our local taxes have to pay the cost of roads to the USFS land, the courts n which trespassers get cited, the schools the Gummint kids go to, and all the rest of the local public costs.
Don't mechanically manage fuels, but burn it in conflagration because forest fires are "good." If they are good, why do we have a USFS?? Their whole purpose, and their being managed by the USDA, is that USFS lands were thought of as crop lands and produced crops of trees, water, grass, to be used. Interior, the old General Land Office, was the manager of "unclaimed public domain" by law. The Parks Service was a division and is a division of Interior, as are USFWS, Indian Affairs, and other public land holdings, "improvents", and responsibilities. All except the forests and rangelands that were put under control of the Dept. of Agriculture. Now we expect Ag to act like the Park Service, USFSWS, and all the rest. We don't need USDA "managing" forests by benign neglect, as that just creates another government welfare program we no longer can afford.
We cannot afford to placate the muslim world, nor can we be an expensive peace keeper. Let the rotten bastards kill each other forever. Let Islam take its place in the world protecting and lionizing women as chattel, to be disfigured to make them unattractive to anyone other than the person they are married to. And let Interior manage public lands now that the USFS is no longer in the natural resource use business. It is time to shrink government at all levels, from Defense to nanny state caretakers. Shrink it all. Let the public sector lose some jobs, which does have to happen when the private sector is shrunk by poor public policy and disinterested congressmen and women. We lost our ability to pay for Big Government. Spent much more than we can now even service. If your credit card payment was 48% to interest and 52% to paying a bill, you would soon be bankrupt, and those are the numbers, the percentages, that our US Govt is paying out of the budget. 48% goes to paying interest on buy outs, bail outs, and borrowing to buy votes. INTEREST!!! Not a dime on principal. Anyone remember "shrinky dinks", the deals you made as a kid and put in the oven for a minute and it shrunk your art work??? We have now shrinky dink government. They take your money and shrink it, and then tell you how pretty it is. Just like mom and dad did with your art work. When your government is up to its ass in debt to where half of their income goes to pay interest, and interest is at an all time low, you know that we are screwed if we keep on going with the same players. Screwed, blued, and tattooed...Hey!!! That looks just like the under thirty crowd of today!!!! They dress the part!!! They KNOW what their fate is!!!
I grew up on a ranch, was riding horses, bareback, when my daddy did not have to change my diaper, helping to round up the range stock. I married a wildlife biologist and we raised 4 children and have four great-grandchildren at the moment. My husband has been a snow ranger, mountain rescue, fought major forest fires and then went into the wildlife field which was his college degree. Our children spent much of their growing up days in the back country even at the ages of two (2) months using a suitcase as a bassinet in a tipi while my husband did his job. I am not “Formally” educated by books but I believe my life has educated me concerning the management of our lands and wildlife.
My husband debated Professors in a College when the Endangered Species Act was being debated in Congress. At the time it was considered as something that was needed but my husband saw “beyond” the good use of the act into the abuse such as it is now. He also was among the first to mention that this very act could lead the way into gun legislation and how dangerous both could be in the wrong hands. We are seeing this now. Forests are dieing as proper management is not being used, Wildlife is being decimated due to an animal that is not even a pure wolf, which is illegal. Mankind no longer has the rights to manage his or her own life as the gov’t wants to put everyone into servitude. Free enterprise is slowly going away and gov’t give aways have become the medium making younger generations stand in line waiting for their handouts.
Yes, Bearbait the country kid is the one who will turn this nation around as he knows what its like to enjoy the good feelings of accomplishment of a job well done. One of our neighbor’s sons has now been in Iraq four terms. He has been blown up and shot, but is still on his post as it is something he believes in. He also said that those rural boys and girls were the ones the commanding officers wanted as they already were good “sharp-shooters”. Wonder why.
Oh yes, did I say, “I don’t play bingo, I do shoot a bow and a rifle”. Those that show little respect get little respect as that is something which is earned and not automatic.
Mansfield was a standout because, LBJ knew he was a wussie he could manage; but before and since the kowboy kulture has graced Montana with statesmen like Melcher, Burns and Rehberg--and the milquetoasts who sent them there deserved them all...
Horse story: years and years ago, this guy I used to fish with lived in a logging camp turned small town, and his dad was a two moonlight rides and a picnic lunch railroad logger. The guy I knew was a typical country kid, full of piss and vinegar, and self sufficient as hell. One night he and his brother go spot lighting, and right away they see some eyes and drop it like a rock. Shit! A horse. A frigging horse! They just boogied. Went home and said not a thing about it. When they got up for breakfast, at 'ought thirty in the a.m., 'cause that is when mom made breakfast for dad, built his lunch, and the kid's lunch, and made sure everyone was off to work or school on time, the two boys come down out of the attic for their morning bowl of mush and a couple of eggs over easy, and when things were good, maybe some backstrap or bacon. The morning after the ill fated spot light session, they came down to breakfast, and not a word was spoken to them, but there was a shovel leaning against both of their chairs. As pop left for work, he said in parting "Get your chores done, and don't be late for the school bus." He told me that was maybe the worst week of his life. Ridicule at school, dirty clothes on the bus, and the neighbor talking to them about summer and how they were going to pay for a horse. How did parents know?? How did they find out?? This guy did not have a telephone, and there was only one phone in the whole of the town at the logging company office. If they got a fire, a speeder flew into town to tell the office inkslinger that they had a fire and needed help...and the trust fund puppy's dad paid their way out of scrapes. Do you think Baucus ever spent his own money on stuff? Or someone else's?
Mansfield in Montana, and Wayne Morse from Oregon. They, along with the first Senator from Alaska, (I can't remember his name), were the peaceniks of their time. Voted against war at every opportunity. Probably were right every time.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_419e28e4-e62d-11df-a5c9-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story
There were a few wolves around at that time but nothing like it is now. We had a lot of deer, elk and grizzlies as well without the planting and interfering by the gov’t. The type of wolf that has been introduced into this country is not the ones we used to see then. We had real respect then but today it is far worse now. It’s the same with the grizzlies.
Kind of like T Jefferson said:
We need a revolution every 15-20 years to keep the ponds from filling up with pond scum.
I apologise for any mixed metaphors...
Have you checked to see how much "wildlife" is killed where you live by the government or do you care?
What wildlife specifically are you complaining about the government killing? Wolves? They were brought in from another country as an experimental non essential predator with the plan to kill those who killed livestock since they knew from the get go they would kill privately owned livestock and pets. So I guess you could blame those that wanted them brought in and those who brought them in. The ranchers are the helpless pawn in the whole mess.
The planet can only be saved by each person starting in their own home instead of trying to contorl folks who live far away. that is true starting with the size of your home, figuring out what life is displaced by your home as well as residences where you are, how much resources you use to maintain your home, what kind and how many vehicles you have. What do you personally do about feral pets and what ultimately happens to them. Deciding you know what is best for people elsewhere is just never going to work.
Why don't you complain over this Marion instead of wolves eating elk and livestock?
All of those animals atleast most of them were killed to benefit ranchers. Where is your anger for this?
The wolves are only endnagered in the part of Montana where they already were prior to the introduction of wolves from Canada. The are still under the 10(j) non essential, experimental rule in the rest of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Someone posted a breakdown on Yellowstone net awhile back and other than the wolves most of the APHIS killings are in eastern highly populated states. Look it up and object to the killings in your own state before you worry about ours.
Can you give specifics about too many deer and elk? Are you aware that they cut the hunting days in the Tetons by some 30 days? Grizzly can you provide some facts about the wildlife killed for ranchers, or do you know the specifics?
Just because Repubs are winning big does not mean anything needs to be extirpated, including the bed bugs in fancy hotels in big cities. We do need the ESA dumped and redone to protect truly endangered species & not enrich enviro groups.
What we have are too many people.
But, after today, that may--rather swiftly--become less problematic.
Teabaggers will translate into another great depression--and quite probably a lot of civil strife--rather soon. I think the general motif will quite quickly become quite oligarchic.
Central governments wiill rather quickly be replaced by the middle eastern standard of "strong men" who gain power by armament; but I think the Asian power shift will encourage financial Baronies to quickly replace raw power--Think Japan just before Roosevelt's "White Fleet"...
Wolf reintroduction is dead. It will never happen again. Get depressed about it. I don't hear Obama or Salazar proposing any more. A failed experiment. Deep ecology is dead. Citizens on the coasts may coo at the warm fuzzy wolf, but the idea of shoving this kind of thing down the throats of very unwilling locals leaves a bad taste in their mouth.
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2010/11/01/13
All legality aside if the wolf lovers would have had common sense and actually cared about this country instead of their own personal agenda they would have recognized this and not attacked just because of non-compliance in a legal issue. Or maybe they did this because they wanted to make sure they were patriots and that everyone should uphold the law...now that is a good joke, no way they have that much spine.
No one can really take a side of NO WOLVES or WOLVES, it has to be managed now that they are here, what is wrong with these wolf huggers that they can't just recognize that and let it happen, they are digging a deeper hole for themselves by letting them go on without management to the point that they are in fact a serious threat, then the methods, and determination of people to get rid of them will be even more so. This country lacks so much common sense it's disgusting, along with politics and all the hoops to try and get something done...nothing gets done.
United States...the only thing that unites them anymore is the blanket of federal oversight over them all, and the money that private individuals put in the pockets of politicians so they will side with their cause.
that is so much HS I had to hike up my pant legs. so what you're stipulating that in a nation governed by the rule of law, that rule of law should be ignored in this case. Why this law? Why not ignore the laws against stopping at a red light for example. that should be okay by your logic. shouldn't cause any damage to anyone one, right? The simple fact is that the fed, or the state as the case may be, is in violation of one or more laws. want to stop it? Stop violating the law. Dumbass Wyoming would be a good place to start.
You know that was coming!
http://trib.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_7ee1c742-6d36-568d-aaa2-7ed71d70e03a.html?mode=comments
I'm pretty sure it is out along the hi-way in greybull