THEY PUSHED TOO HARD, TOO LONG
Pro-Wolf Groups Blew It
Pro-wolfers don't know when to call it a day and now their time may have come and gone. They might have cut a great deal, but now agencies and sporting groups aren't going to "settle." They're going to Congress for a solution. And will likely get it.By Bill Schneider, 9-23-10
Photo courtesy of the National Park Service
Everybody who even remotely follows the wolf issue knows how bad it is, politically. About the only way it could get worse would be a wolf breaking into an urban backyard and biting a child.
Federal District Judge Donald Molloy’s August 5 ruling putting the Big Dog back on the endangered species list and stopping hunts in Idaho and Montana was that proverbial last straw for a lot of people, even a lot of fence sitters who actually like wolves and supported the reintroduction.
I’ve written frequently (here and here) urging stakeholders to sit down, outside of a courthouse, and work out a compromise, but in all these years, at least as far as I know, there has never been even one meeting. Now, I have to think the pro-wolfers blew their chance to cut the best deal they could’ve gotten. I bet they could’ve locked in a much higher minimum population level and won other concessions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the state wildlife agencies, at least Idaho and Montana, but they didn’t even try. Instead, they kept going to the courts, and now, they’ll be lucky to salvage the integrity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
So, we move onto the next chapter in the neverending story. The plaintiffs might think that’s the next round in the courthouse brawl, but not the defendants. They’re going to Congress.
As we languish in this ridiculous ego-centric impasse where neither side wants to show a sign of weakness by making the first move, anger has swollen to a point where some agencies and sporting groups refuse to even say the words, “settle” or “settlement"--let alone do it--because they fear it might imply they gave into the “defenders of wildlife.” (See the end of the article for some irony on that point.) Even if the plaintiffs had a sudden change of heart and made some “first move” calls, they’d likely get a quick “screw you; we’re going to Congress” response.
Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) has already drafted a bill to override Molloy’s ruling by prohibiting the wolf from being listed under the ESA and giving “exclusive” management to the states of Idaho and Montana.
“After hearing from Montanans at my listening sessions around the state,” Rehberg wrote on his website, “I’ve taken a first step by having a draft bill drawn up, but before I introduce it, it’s important to hear what Montanans think.” (Click here to read Rehberg’s draft bill.)
Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both Republicans, have also drafted a bill to override Molloy’s ruling, but it hasn’t been posted online yet.
“This legislation will delist wolves in Idaho and permit the State to manage the species effectively and humanely, as we were doing before Judge Molloy’s most recent decision to relist wolves,” Crapo wrote on his website.
“Idaho has met and greatly exceeded every recovery goal imposed on the state by the federal government for the gray wolf and has shown that we Idahoans can properly manage the wolf just like any other species,” Risch added
The Crapo-Risch bill requires the Department of the Interior to de-list wolves in Idaho and Montana (and amazingly, also in Oregon, Washington and Utah) and leaves Wyoming out there in the cold, by itself, going it alone, just like the Cowboy State likes it.
The clause de-listing in beginning wolf populations in Oregon, Washington and Utah should give the greens a wake-up call. Those populations are small, struggling and obviously still endangered, but if the Idaho Senators have their way, they’ll lose all federal protection.
And moving a little slower, but with the same motivation, Montana’s Senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats, are also working on a “legislative solution,” as are the delegations in Texas and other western states.
To me, all this says something is likely to happen; it isn’t just the normal, knee-jerk reaction, congressional saber rattling you often hear. Forget science. It had its chance. Now, it’s all politics, and nobody is even trying to pretend otherwise. I believe the Rehberg or Crapo-Risch bills, if passed, would be the first time Congress has ever intervened to make a species-specific decision the FWS, the agency charged with administering the ESA, is supposed to make.
I can assure you that the plaintiffs don’t want to see this happen, but if they’d like to blame somebody for it, they should look in the mirror. They pushed too long, too hard.
Anti-environmental, pro-development groups have been chomping at the bit for decades to “fix” or “enhance” the ESA. Now, wolf advocates may have given them their chance and possibly jeopardized the integrity of what’s widely considered the most powerful environmental law ever. When it gets opened up for amendment, for any reason, back at our big sausage factory in Washington, D.C., anything can happen--and it’s unlikely to be a good thing. And once the precedent is set, de-listing advocates will routinely go back to Congress for resolution instead of fighting long, losing court battles.
The plaintiffs and other pro-wolf groups, heavy on the east and left coasts, believe they have the power to prevent any opening of the ESA. Well, regrettably, we’ll soon see if their confidence is well founded.
My reading of the tea leaves tells me we have so much anger and frustration pushing for a congressional “solution” to the wolf issue that it could easily and quickly happen--something like a midnight rider tacked onto a big must-pass bill without debate or hearings (it happens all the time, folks) in the upcoming lame-duck session. And presto, it’s over; the wolf is de-listed.
That might be a the right ending for the neverending story, but it sure seems like the wrong way to write the last chapter.
Plaintiffs: There has been lots of news coverage about EarthJustice suing “on behalf of 13 conservation groups,” but not much on who they are. So, here’s the list: Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Clearwater, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, The Humane Society of the United States, Western Watersheds Project, and Wildlands Network
Irony: Not many people remember it, but the Sierra Club, a plaintiff, and the National Audubon Society, not a plaintiff, opposed wolf reintroduction and actually sued, unsuccessfully, to stop it. Then, as soon as agencies declared wolf recovery a success and started pushing for de-listing, the Sierra Club joined the other plaintiffs and has been fighting in the courts for years to stop it. Go figure.
More Irony, Defending Defenders: Some anti-wolfers generally and incorrectly refer to plaintiffs as the “defenders of wildlife,” and it isn’t a compliment. In fact, “defenders of wildlife “ has become sort of a moniker for radical eastern environmental groups. Yes, Defenders of Wildlife was the lead conservation group responsible for bringing the wolf back to the northern Rockies and worked hand-in-hand with the FWS and state wildlife agencies to cooperatively make it happen, but ironically, then and now, I view Defenders of Wildlife as among the most reasonable and moderate in the Plaintiff Pack.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This column has been corrected. An earlier version incorrectly listed the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club as plaintiffs in a suit against wolf reintroduction.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
That's quite a feat of misplaced blame. The feds approve an illegal delisting plan and somehow they escape any blame. Now you want to hold wolf advocates responsible for the actions of anti-environmental, pro-development groups?
You also fail to mention that the integrity of the ESA was being jeopardized by the fed's illegal delisting plan. In their attempts to reach a politically palatable solution they were willing to radically re-interpret "distinct population segment" and "significant portion of their range". This would have greatly weakened the law and would have applied to any listed species, not just wolves.
This column and the delisting plan are similar in one way; both seem more concerned with delisting the wolf and quieting the controversy than upholding the law.
The sooner many of these unhappy goons in the west stop using guns as some demented religion, the better off we'll all be.
If you're worried about elk populations, you may want to stop shooting them! That *might* be an appropriate first step.
But of course no one will sacrifice such things because of a dangerously low levels of self awareness,
Don't blame wolves or people who like clean water. Blame the angry white guys who have no real life skills and are stuck so they vent on animals.
Well done Bill. All I can add is 'Yup".
It might well be that a law will pass to remove wolves from ESA protection in the Northern Rockies Mountains, but none of the people who are about to do this ever came to pro-wolf restoration groups and said, "how about a deal?," much less a "great deal."
They never said "can't we work out a settlement?" They opposed wolves from the start. Montana is the only state you can make any case for even trying.
The livestock industry wrote Idaho's wolf plan. They didn't bring in conservationists or ask for any advice. The same is true with Wyoming.
The old saying is "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." It might be in this case nothing will have been gained, but at least some of us in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming did stand up and make a venture.
I've got a second irritation with you. When a group did come to conservationists and offer to work out "a deal" good for everyone (El Paso Natural Gas and Western Watersheds Project), you wrote a column calling it "blackmail."
I remember when you were a conservationist yourself. It must be nice now to sit back, test the wind, and pronounce judgment.
No one came to any Pro Wolf goup with a Deal ? What about the 2.5 Tourist who signed the petition to bring the Wolf back ? Not a single one of them asked Wyo,Idaho or Mont what they wanted . They set their tables up in Yellowstone ,Tourists signed it and YOU all went home to watch our Wildlife be butchered on TV.
Molloy showed the world exactly what the ESA is and Liberals have cut their own throats with it......given enough rope. Maughan you have finally run into OUR delete button.
Ralph, you so deserve this ! SaveWesternWildlife offers classes for the "Common Sense Challenged" you are invited to attend . Classes start Nov 2 bring your gun . First class will be "How to Preserve the Elk " TJ Fross will be your instructor, I think you will be enlightened !
But recreation is a big, big, big business with lots and lots of money for our prostitute politicians. The haves versus the have nots - vote the bums out - bring the science back and ranchers start paying your fair share for grazing on OUR public lands.
Hire a few cowboys/park rangers to guard your wandering sheep herds. Heck if you paid your fair share for our public land then the public could train park rangers to protect your herds. The fact of the matter is you're business model would be broke if you had to pay a fair price to graze our PUBLIC land.
You know what they call this false bravado in D.C. - punch the hippies - that's right - that's exactly what they say behind closed doors - time to punch the hippies. From Regan on down its been a back lash against hippies - why - because we shocked the hell out of the establishment. An establishment that wants us all to walk in lock step to maximize their profits. They don't want us going off the grid and rejecting their ponzi rigged scheme of an alleged fair market system.
A market that is so twisted by manipulation that it protects and promotes monopolies, created an entrenched kleptocracy (look it up) and did away with the fairness doctrine in media.
The rah, rah, gun tottin' bible thumpin' conservative mind set is a heartless, unethical, pig headed and corrupt mind set that has destroyed this country. Rugged individualism was glorified by the Hollywood they say they hate, and aped by our politicians and disenfranchised wannabes. In nature their is balance which requires cooperation.
You can't eat money you big dopes and everything we pump into the environment lodges back into our bodies. Take a high school biology class - for gods sake.
But keep pissing in your well water America and wondering whats wrong you'll either figure it out or you won't.
I recommend protecting the environment the way you protect profit margins. But who wants lower health care costs and maximized productivity from a healthy population living in balance and SUSTAINABILITY with what was laid out before us?
Like a huge banquet and feast we enter the Garden of Eden and destroy it like a bunch of wild boars...brilliant America, brilliant!
How many of these groups are extreme? The majority.
How many are based in the northern Rockies? 3 or 4?
Cascadia Wildlands? Nutcases,they hate humans.
HSUS-Wayne Pacelles stated goal is for everyone to become vegan.
Center for Biologic Diversity? more nutcases-all they do is file lawsuits,and put humans last.Deny residential water to almost a half million people in CA,due to a fish that also lives in other rivers and streams. (Santa Ana sucker)
Sustainability? Tell that to the elk,and the moose. the ones that the wolves are killing off,in some areas,they have killed so many that the populations will never recover.
A big part of the problem is that the majority of these groups are from the east coast,or CA,and these people do not live in the northern Rockies. The people who live where wolves were reintroduced had no say in it.
The ranchers pay their fair share to use BLM lands for grazing-you forget that in a lot of areas the ranchers maintain fences,provide water that is used by wildlife,not just cattle or sheep,the ranchers save the BLM money by managing the lands.
The groups who want to tell the ranchers they can't use BLM lands are the same groups-from the East Coast/CA,not from the areas they want to regulate.
The same groups who got the wolves re-introduced,and the original plan was 30 breeding pairs,or 300 animals-that goal was exceeded long ago-and these groups still went to court to ask for more-the author is right-the enviros did themselves in on this issue,and may have a very bad effect on the ESA.
That is what happens when you try to force your views on others.
As I have said before in these wolf discussions-I feel that I am more likely to use the bear spray I carry on some extreme enviro I meet on a trail than I am to use it on a bear.
It's their way,or no way,to them all hunting is wrong.
By the way-for whoever posted it-I am not a fat "redneck", I do NOT drink around firearms,that is stupid,and dangerous.
I also have college degrees,two of them,one is in biology.
I pack out trash left in the backcountry by all these supposed environmentalists every trip. It's not from hunters,because it is left when there are no animals in season to hunt too.
All these enviro groups do is collect money,and use it to file lawsuits,and pay their staff of lawyers-if they put the money into wildlife conservation ,they would do a lot more good.
Livestock that is on public lands will have to expect the risk, and could be issued a 'special use tag' to protect their stock.
But an all out war does nothing but eliminate the 'smart' ones and you get over run with the 'dumb' ones. Very similar to politics/politicians.
"but in all these years, at least as far as I know, there has never been even one meeting. Now, I have to think the pro-wolfers blew their chance to cut the best deal they could’ve gotten. I bet they could’ve locked in a much higher minimum population level and won other concessions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the state wildlife agencies, at least Idaho and Montana, but they didn’t even try."
~~ "i bet they could've" ~ "they didn't even try" ~~
where are these statements coming from ? do you believe it reasonable to lob these suggestions into the public discourse without even knowing whether they are true ? as it turns out, that's as irresponsible as it is inaccurate.
you have no idea what you're talking about.
as far as the political implications ~ wildlife advocates must not allow the threat of political extortion to temper our resolve and willingness to enforce existing protections afforded wildlife and the environment. an unenforced law is no better than a law that doesn't exist ~ wolf advocates' equivocation on enforcement would have been a backslide in itself, and it would have been a backslide that never garnished as much public discourse.
brian ertz
media director
western watersheds project
A number of the comments look as though they are written by folks you are clueless on the affect of wolves (a vicious indescriminate killer that hunts in packs) and the numbers of animals actually around (there are a number of packs that FWS refuses to acknowledge and has been under reporting numbers for a long time). And by the way, these preditors hunt for sport! I think reintroduction of the grey wolf into Central Park would be a good thing!
Some months ago I offered a scientifically grounded recommendation regarding numbers vs. density and distribution as a basis of discussion for wolf conservation, but you blew that off as unworkable, and fell in with the "we need to cap numbers" crowd.
As I have cogently argued, a numbers approach to wolves, and especially a numbers cap, has no scientific basis whatsoever and would undermine not only wolf conservation but conservation in general. I see no reason to agree to it for any reason, particularly political reasons.
I have also pointed out over the years in various forums that Western oligarchs, especially those in Wyoming, are beating the anti-predator drum specifically to energize the ignorant masses, as represented by Save Western Wildlife and other diligently dimwitted organizations, against wolves and grizzly bears to bolster their own historically undemocratic political power over land and wildlife, not to mention people. Power and profit are their motives. They could care less about wolves, bears, or people, except as they can be used and abused.
Basically, what you're calling for is appeasement.
You incorrectly assume that these oligarchs would "negotiate" in good faith over wolves--or anything else for that matter. In the 18 years I've lived in Wyoming and the West and worked as a conservationist, I've watched the oligarchs lie, cheat, steal, and defraud one hundred percent of the time. Acting in good faith simply is not one of their characteristics, and only a damn fool would negotiate with them on the basis of assumed good faith.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of damn fools in conservation.
The Endangered Species Act is worth fighting for, just as Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties are worth fighting for. If we lose one, we'll surely lose them all, because all are under attack from the same people for the same reasons.
RH
Somehow, lions and tigers and bears and wolves didn't drive mastodons and giant elk and giant sloths into extinction. It took the arrival of people armed with spears to drive numerous species into extinction, long before the city of Ur arose in the Fertile Crescent.
What the anti-wolfers are loath to acknowledge is that the greatest predator on earth, in all of history and pre-history isn't T-Rex, giant cave bears or the grey wolf. It is Man, the tool maker, whose tools now include guns. We wiped out the passenger pigeon and the great auk and darned near wiped out the bison. Wolves will never drive any species to extinction, but by our track record we have repeatedly done so and can do it again, and again and again.
So let's place a bet with the odds-makers in Vegas. Which species will we wipe out next, and will any odds-maker with a smattering of high school biology ever bet that wolves will ever wipe out a species before Man does?
I greatly fear you're projecting human frailties on wolves when you say wolves are a "vicious indescriminate killer that hunts in packs."
Ever see what a bunch of drunken, slob hunters can do to a trapped band of deer or elk in deep snow? Slaughter is too polite a term.
The reason Sierra Klub opposed introduction in the first place is because natural repopulation was understood to be slow and random, and would not have Section 10j management "options." In short, natural wolf expansion would be more burdensome over time and take longer to get to delisting.
Wolves would populate at random, hopefully (to Sierra Klub) in places that would be the most socially disruptive.
Then, when the process was jump-started with the Canuckistanian wolves, and the wolf population began breeding at economies of scale, it was looking like ESA constraints would not last as long as hoped. Therefore the lawsuits.
It's not about the wolves, it's about social reengineering, about political control using an animal that gets more popular the farther away you are from the very negative effects.
As for the wolf bills, I'm thinking nothing will pass this lame duck. But in the NEXT session, ESA is going to get some serious reform, at a minimum, wolves will be recognized for what they aren't--endangered.
Some very big heads will roll. That's a fact you can bank on.
Save a herd of elk this year, Kill 1 Canadian wolf !!!
Best article I have read on this subject, since this whole scam began some 15+ years ago. Well Done !!
As to some of the comments on this page, Priceless stupidity !!! LOL. And to the anti hunters, Remember, your name does appear and we Hunters are not all "drunks", and we do know how the legal system works. So keep posting stupid s*&@, we are watching and taking notes suckers!!
rarely do folks get such a complex issue as this right. Great job. Most of the comments here aren't reflective of a deep understanding of the issue, nor do they reflect the real issues at the heart of what's going on. As someone who's worked on this issue for 8 years both in MT and WY, this piece has really hit the heart of it.
Keep kicking butt,
Ben Lamb
you seriously think the livestock industry negotiates anything in good faith. seriously,anything? have you not heard of the Yellowstone bison issue, or the Idahoan bighorn sheep issue, or anything to do with Wyoming. Think of Clem in Idaho, Freudenthal in Wyo. and Schweitzer of Mont. and you believe the states negotiate in good faith or as the livestock industry dictates.
really,seriously.
Looks like Todd Fross has some serious competition for the title of village idiot
So few recipes.
That's it. These mostly angry, older white males are out of the mainstream of society. They are a group of radical and hate-filled goons of which almost no one agrees with, but they hold clout in their largely uneducated states and muck up the wheel of progress.
Josh--Yes, this is about a political controversy that's hurting everything environmental and really needs to be cooled off. You won this deal. Time to call it a day. Any concerns you have could have been addressed in the "settlement" that, now, will never happen because neither "side" would make "the call."
Ralph--Yes, I do believe ranchers and wildlife agencies and sporting groups would have negotiated. Several told me so, but they, like the pro-wolf groups, would never take the first step. Egos really aren't that important, in my opinion, compared to the political damage that is being done right now. I'm no longer a conservationist? Come on, Ralph. You should have thought that one out. I'm the guy who strongly supported wolf reintroduction (and reintroducing the grizzly to the Bitterroots), NREPA, and banning game farming in your fair state of Idaho, to name a few. Instead of being bitter, you should sit down and ask yourself what it means when a guy like me says enough is enough.
Jeff--Yes, I firmly believe ranchers and everybody else would have been able to work out a deal if somebody would have locked them in a room with some pizzas and sleeping bags and told them not to come out until it was done, but that's why they call this commentary. It's just my opinion. The pro-wolf groups had aces in the hold and one ace showing, so they were in the position of strength and, again my opinion, should have made "the call."
Brian--Again, it's commentary, but pro-wolf groups should have tried to work a deal. It's my opinion, obviously, that they'd be farther ahead in the game if they would have. And as far as El Paso and the Ruby Pipeline goes, well, when you say I'm going to keep suing you unless you pay me $22 million, that still sounds like blackmail in my book.
Robert--Yes, I agree: it's not all about the number of wolves. Many other factors would be as important or more important. And I couldn't agree more that the ESA is worth fighting for. That's exactly what I'm trying to do in this column, fight for the best environmental law we have ever had. I'm afraid the pro-wolf groups are putting it on the political chopping block.
Bill Schneider
Very well put. It's nice to hear the voice of reason, even while it's frustrating to see you getting slammed for daring to be that voice.
We need commerce and jobs in this country. Socially acceptable jobs and commercial intercourse. I remember the coffee stand guy in a town that was about fives years into the period after losing the two mills that were the economic basis for the town, after public timber was no longer available. He said that even the crank heads had left town because there wasn't anything left of worth for them to steal. That is a habitat reality. That is the plan for the intermountain West and the Far West. And guess what? Crime is down because there isn't much left to steal. You can buy about anything you want or need to live at a garage sale for five bucks or a quarter. There is nothing left to steal and the thieves and dopers have gone on to greener pastures, leaving the economic brown fields of the rural West.
So, Mike, you can talk like a guy with a paper asshole, but that does nothing to further the discussion. Before you try to rob the West of its remaining jobs, please use your vast intellectual powers to tell us how we can create more jobs, real jobs with real benefits and jobs that last longer than the six weeks the Obama stimulus jobs last, and jobs that are not just a transfer of money from taxpayers to lesser tax payers. That never worked in Old Russia, nor did it in Mao China. How do we keep the jobs we have and make new ones? That will serve the totality of the environment way better than a regulatory fence around any human activity that might use a resource, create a waste disposal problem. Even wolves crap in the trail.
I saw nature at its best a couple days ago. A big boar black bear had a carcass he was burying under some above ground windfall trees, and a younger bear was trying to find a way to get a piece of the action. Mostly you watched that bear running away, until it finally did for good. We went elk peeping in another direction, and came back to see if the boar had new company as there is a huge grizz in that area and we thought maybe he would catch a whiff. Nope, but here comes a huge sow, brown and silver tipped and we thought we were going to see some action and out of the woods behind her came a black cub and a brown cub, and we knew she was just a huge brown phase black bear. And she approached, and nosed, and never penetrated the secure area, and finally she, too, decided that her cubs were more important than a fight with a big boy. The big boy won. He was pure power in his defensive position sprawled out over his buried treasure and under those windfalls. We tried to see him the next day but the mountains were fogged in. But the big boy won.
In this country, the majority is the big boy. Bill's fear is that there will be a change in the majority, and there just might be. And it will be because the current outfit running things is not getting the job done creating jobs or making the conditions right for jobs to be created in numbers enough to preserve their majority. The big boy or big girl will win. One lawsuit too many might have tipped the balance, and made one side the new big boy or big girl.
I'm sick of paying taxes to underwrite industries which steadily erode our environment...
The ESA is the political equivalent of what happens when the insane get their hands on full auto.
If someone can answer me one simple question....."Does the wolf actually serve a purpose?" Wolves rank right up there with me along with mosquitoes...they have no purpose, even in the grand scheme of things. They don't bother me as long as they are managed..wolves that is, mosquitoes will bother me no matter what.
People should realize there is more to these states then "thinking or daydreaming" of little fuzzy wolves running around the countryside. Not in all cases, but in a majority, hunting big game is not only an american pasttime, it is how a lot of family's put food on their table.
Bringing wolves back...this will be a mistake that will be talked about for generations to come. Not to mention the amount of time, and money that has been wasted now in all this mess that has ensued afterwards.
My best guess IH? If wolves were able to communicate and were presented with the same question "Does the human actually serve a purpose?" It would supply years if not centuries, of dialog and debate, among not only wolves, but most other forms of wildlife out there.
I just spent several days in the park as I do frequently. Norris used to ring with the call of bull elk in the fall....silence reigns except for the vehicles filling the campground. The early fall fog fills Elk Park and Gibbon Meadows, and one listens hearing only the sound of the ghosts of the mighty bulls that once reigned there and are no more.
Ahhhh, surely the Madison will renew my dragging spirit....all 4 bulls and 12 cows and three calves that remain oout of the hundreds that roamed since before man came to the area. I was told by a retired ranger that the hope is when the elk are gone the wolves will then kill off some of the buffalo. Is that a plan or what!
The researchers say there are too many elk eating too many aspen.
Do ghosts eat aspen?????
I guess that, after all these years, I've just heard too much of this kind of "you better be good or the boogey man is going to get you" intimidation journalism to take it seriously. Let's run down some of the recent list.
We've got this piece, which tells us to be very afraid because, by not knuckling under to trash like Fanning, Beers, and Otter, we've incurred the wrath of Denny Rehberg. I'm terrified. They told my dad much the same thing, only he was supposed to be afraid of Joe McCarthy. Joe was much scarier; but, in the end, Joe choked to death on his own overused and swollen throat long before he got my old man.
We were supposed to be afraid to oppose whatever Tester was selling. Oh golly, if we didn't knuckle under, he was going to get everything he wanted and we'd be left out in the cold. In the end, it turned out that Tester hadn't even done enough homework to write a feasible bill. It had cut rates higher than the most cut-oriented timber beasts in the Service could endorse. Tester's own party had to rewrite the bill in committee just to get it to make sense, much less pass it ...and the roadless rule is still being honored on those lands.
We've got Glenn "converted to LDS to get the business connections" Beck and FuxNEWS trying to tell us that the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression were wonderful times and proof of how we better line up behind GOP economic policies or we'll all be sorry! Boy, I'm sure worried about what will happen if I don't do what that pack of uneducated carnival garbage tells me.
Schneider, things may not go exactly the way we want them to and we still have a fight on our hands; I'll give you that. But, I've had Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew mad at me. James Watt and Gale Norton have had my name on a list. I'm supposed to get all quivery when you tell me that Denny Rehberg and Mike Crappo are upset? Is Larry Craig angry too? I guess Helen Chenoweth would be after us; but, she's already just a memory, like all these others will be too. I'm sorry; but, my old "be afraid" intimidation button is just flat broken. You'll need to try something else.
And the people who have been spoiled with the easy pickings of elk herds so huge they were over running the eco-systems, are now grousing because they can no longer road hunt, its all the wolfs fault. And what cant be blamed on the wolf is Obama`s fault. Pathetic spoiled "sportsmen" whining like spoiled brats.
If the ESA goes down, the power of the landed gentry that own so much of the inter mountain west will rise, and I will bet a dollar to a do-nut that these few royalists won`t let any of you join their club. So my question is why do you keep carrying water for them? Why do you keep helping them across the street like they are little old ladies? Rep.Rehberg is using the wolf as a diversion so we fight amongst ourselves rather than look at his dismal record as a legislator. How ironic that his first piece of legislation [if it passes] will be to "gut shoot" the ESA. How many of you all have been invited to hunt on his ranch?
Second, it's worth mentioning that wolf recovery was given a kick start by Congress by directing the EIS for reintroduction be written and that Fish and Wildlife Service use the 10j experimental-nonessential provision. So maybe it makes sense they bookend the story with some legislation that delists a portion of the population they directed be reintroduced in the first place.
Thanks for you insights. Though I do not always agree with you I respect your thoughts and it gives me something to ponder. I too have worried about the dismantling of ESA the past couple of years as I watched this wolf controversy continue to escalate. ESA has been a target for a long time, espcially by those who seem not to appreciate the biodiversity we are so blessed with. In the past I have been responsible for addressing ESA and ensuring compliance, but it is not a perfect law and improvements are possible, it is the degradation of its ability to protect declining species that is so worries me.
As a wildlife biologist who favored the reintroduciton of wolves I never viewed their predations as unnatural even when they killed beyond what they needed to eat, that is just part of the biology of this world. The world is a little harsher than some of recent generations seem to understand. And contrary to one poster here, wolves will slaughter deer trapped in deep snow as quickly as his example of slob hunters...for example, a study in MI one winter indicated that wolves eliminated white tail deer slowed down by deep snow in a part of their range for several years. But they came back, the way of nature.
As an elk hunter (I live in MT and amongst wolves) I do not resent the wolf from pursuing the same food I do. They are just making it a little tougher for me to keep my freezer full since there numbers and behavior is becoming more like the past before wolves were eliminated, but I always manage to obtain wild, organic, free ranging protein for my family (we seldom eat beef, chicken, or pork). The wolf and we are making a living, as we have done together for millineum. It is part of both our species DNA. We and the wolf must eat. Vegetables are not the answer, though I eat my fair share. Agrculture has accounted for more species becoming extinct and populations declining than hunting (remember every acre of cropland used to be wildlife habitat, I spent the last four decades trying to mitigate the impacts of agriculture on wildlife).
The barage of unreasonable, emotional, scientifically invalid statements, and even racist slurs that have been posted here (from both sides of the issue) are a lesson to all about why the restoration of wolves is not easy. Wolves belong here, so do people thus lies the challenge.
I admire your willingess to present your ideas knowing you would be assaulted quickly. I am sure most readers took home a perspective to ponder and help inform their thinking on wolves and us living together.
The world would be a better place if people took time to read and understand the facts, but that happens so few times. It seems to be increasingly happening in all issues anymore.
The second reason the ESA is a failure is because it is single species focused and single species advocacy and management can never work.....look at the elk and moose populations in YNP/GTNP.
Wolves, Grizzlies, and buffalo are each managed as though they alone existed, no consideration is given to the impact on each other and other species.
Buffalo advocates are dedicated to keeping each and every brucellosis infected animal alive and spread across the area, moose seldom get brucellosis, but when they do it appears to be 100% fatal. They are also intended to control land use to suit a few people who dislike multiple use.
Grizzly advocates are dedicated to more and more of them, despite signs there is not enough food, brought on in part by competition with wolves, along with other changes in the environment.
The wolves are another land use project, folks do not like food producers using the land, even the land they own, voila wolves will take out elk used by hunters, livestock owned by ranchers, moose just because.
There is not a single historical indication of a wolf population anywhere near the present population in Yellowstone, in fact the total population killed (56 adults) over the many years by the park service and army was only slightly higher than the population introduced over 2 years (31). Now we have over 100 adults to eat less than 20% of the 30,000 elk estimated by the Washburn Expedition.
Elk are common and worse they are enjoyed and utilized by commoners, so no one really cares hwo low the numbers get until the wolves get hungry and leave to eat cattle and are killed after so much destruction occurs.
The Preble mouse is protected for ??? by resticting use of private property in wheat fields and as potential housing developments, in other words to control other humans by enviro groups.
The whatever minnow in California is also used to gain money and power by enviro groups to shut down farm land.
I do not beleive the ESA was ever intended to allow certain groups to control other people and their use of their private property not even public land, and turn into multi million dollar corporations raking in tax dollars.
Oh yes the IBW is another example, a supposed "sighting" of a bird long thought extinct, shut down a dam intended to provide irrigation for rice fields, raked in a 10 million dollar grant, and who knows how much in donations for a hoax.
All of this commentary is an attempt by individuals to feel as though their interests are visualized by others... as is THIS commentary. And in the transference process of ideas to words the truth often becomes cloudy. Let's each take a moment to clear the air, let go of your anthropomorphic sentiments, and watch the truth in action.
"the real Mike", I also just returned from the wilds to witness this somewhat misguided dialogue. And although, at this moment, words seem quite pointless in this muddled expression of personal opinion, I feel compelled to describe a disturbing scene that played itself out in the wilderness for only my eyes (and God's) to witness.
And here's where I reveal my identity in this discussion as an archery hunter and automatically lose the ear of one side of the arguement. Do I feel it necessary to apologize to bring credibility to my choices? Of course, but not to the human faction... I apologize to the elk for assuming that my needs as an omnivore are more precious than it's own as an herbivore.
In my choice to live as close to nature as possible, I've made the following assessments: my body performs better with a partial protein diet, the healthiest, most palatable protein available to me is elk, the most effective way to supply myself with this elk under the current rule of the law is archery hunting.
With all this said, let me get to the meat of this commentary (pun intended). I set up a spike camp (google it if you have to, city dwellers) on a ridge above a basin where I often have encountered elk in the past. I knew that elk were frequenting the area from the sign I'd seen the previous day. My intentions were singlefold. To put a well placed arrow into an unsuspecting elk of any kind, witnessing it's hopefully quick death (I'd been practicing with my weapon ALL year to raise the odds of success because in the past I'd failed only to suffer myself... emotionally) and getting the resultant meat out of the basin without losing it to the elements. In the early hours of the morning before light, I was awakened by a distant cry of what I thought at the time was a bear taking a fawn, which I've witnessed in the past. But as the time went forward and the bleating didn't cease, my curiousity rose, and since I was getting any sleep, decided to crawl out of my bag and get the morning started. Getting out of my bag and into my clothes didn't take long as for gathering my essentials, during which time the distant bleating continued. Up the ridge I went to a vista point where I knew I could look down into the basin and see a good portion of treeless grazing habitat, which is where the sound seemed to eminate. As the dawn added light to the day I witnessed the most disturbing method of taking meat that, until then had only heard stories about. A group of 5 wolves,3 black, 1 mottled, were seemingly playing with an elk calf. Intermittently feeding on the hauches of the still alive and bleating elk. Let's stop there because here's where words seem pointless and the people that NEED to read this will cocoon themselves into mental hibernation. Just be informed for those who continue. The natural world is filled with barbarity of which the western human hunter is not the worst operator... BE GOOD AND BE INFORMED!
Todd prevaricates,"
There is not a single historical indication of a wolf population anywhere near the present population in Yellowstone...."
Todd, I realize that in your case ignorance is bliss but please open the above link and refer to page 42, WOLVES.
My guess is that the statement "exceedingly numerous in all parts of the park" would be just that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone#Official_records_of_wolves_killed.
The number is broken down by yer and whether adulat or pup in Schullery's book:
The Yellowstone wolf.
If you still haven't found it to read the historical record of the breakdown when I get home from church, I'll take time to find the link to the page, which I have posted several times in these forums. It is a book that would be of benefit to everyone in the arguement. I prefer concrete facts rather than "a lot" or "a few" to bolster an arguement.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7te9jmFJcrcC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=schullery+++wolves&source=bl&ots=vs_AHlQkpD&sig=Egdszdc54Se9a8kxnEIGqTbOe_I&hl=en&ei=wzifTLvSIo7ksQOR4ITWAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=schullerywolves&f=false
FOTNYEH has held all along that the ESA is the most draconian law on the books and repugnant to the Constitution.
FOTNYEH has held all along that wolves were a bio weapon directed at rural intemountain people, hunting, ranching Second Ammendment Constitutional rights.
Ream, Phillips, Smith, Turner , Ralph .....this one's for you.
FOTNYEH has held all along that wolves were a bio weapon directed at rural intemountain people, hunting, ranching Second Ammendment Constitutional rights."
Now why can't the crazy wolf advocates just sit down and reach a settlement with these reasonable opponents of the ESA and wolves?
all your references are post 1870, does not take into account the massive market hunting which included the wholesale slaughter of wolves which superintendent Norris is referring to most of which happened prior to 1870. You would do much better without the continual selective editing of history you try to pull off.
If you get a chance to obtain the book Battle Drums and Geysers, which is the story or Lt. Doane, you really should, it is very informative. One section deals with the Washburn Expedition which he guided.
It goes both ways Don Barr; it's called demagoguery.
High density ungulate management vs. extreme predator densities.
It's all about the values of the majority in the 3 affected states in our Constitutional Republic.
Hysteric mob rule over. Game over.
Thanks for an excellent article; you are spot on with your opinion and subsequent clarifications. Keep up the good work.
Appeasement always costs more in the long run.
RH
That agenda has as it's core; hatred, envy, resentment & revenge.
Wolf "recovery" has absolutely nothing to do with animals or balance of nature as evidenced by the fact that it's proponents are never satiated , just like every other adict seeking to mask their misery with "just one more".
"So Jay, what you are saying is that you'd rather make up your own facts rahter than any facts presented by those that were here at the time?"
I've no idea what you're talking about todd; but what are your bases for declaring any of the previous posts factual?
Looks like billy-bob is okay with Marion(Todd) Dickinson spouting the same old tired blather, to the point of not letting her be challenged over the same old same-same, regardless of the screen name; or chicken little fanning calling those he disagrees with addicts filled with hate, rage and envy. But that is all okay eh, Bill
I think your village looking for you
Marion,
Possibly he was referring to Montana DOL entering private property year after year on Horse butte to harass buffalo, including day's old or younger calves, in spite of those residents express wish to not trespass on private property, in a place where cattle don't graze,have not for years, and never will. Is that the trashing of individual rights and freedoms you were talking about?
"I am referring to your claim of "appeasement". Anyone who claims the destruction of livestock and wildlife by the imported wolves is appeasing anyone except themselves. Now if you were talking about the massive destruction that has happened to appease those who insist on eliminating ranching and hunting, I apologize."
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mega-beasts/
Episode: Terror Bird Competition
It's a nice little film about how wolves beat out two of the most fearsome predators there were...the saber-toothed tiger, and the terror bird.
And we think this is a good animal to bring back? Not only bring back, but it's thriving. This animal is a killing machine, pure and simple, that's what it was designed for, it's not just picking off the sick and wounded to help genetics, it's killing the healthy. That's all it does...it kills.
You want to bring back something...bring back the caribou, bring back the buffalo, bring back something useful, something that doesn't thrive on killing. I'm sure your thinking humans are killers, and that I don't want the competition. What competition when I get to buy one elk tag a year, and they kill an elk a day easily?
One day the wolves will definetly move in to the social population with a vengence, and kill a child. Then I wonder how vocal the pro-wolf people will be. These people are nut jobs.
By the way your neighbors are elk hunting awfully early aren't they? How do you get around since you obviously do not want to support the nasty oil companies pulling oil out of the ground? Walk, or try only to buy that produced by Chavez?
Where are you going to get the electricity for the electric car???? Enviros don't want coal fired electric plants, they do not want windmills interfering with the birds, they do not want hydro plants, they do not want gas fired plants, they do not want solar farms, they do not want nuclear powered plants.
Our entire country is dependent on energy production like it or not, and that includes you. You probably even get your drinking water from a system served by electric or gas powered pumps.
None of this has anything to do with enviros using the courts to rake in taxpayer dollars and the wolves to control what the residents do with their property.
Yes the federal lands belong to all of us. Those of us who own property next to those federal lands have a vested interst in our land. Do not confuse our land with federal land. We are tax payers too.
Folks, I'm an elk hunter and a very successful one I might add. Elk need to be managed as do wolves. I hunt with a bow and anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my ass. The Montana Fish and Game had a very conservative management plan that if given the ability to use it, would have favored wolves over elk and believe me (because I live here and know many in the Fish and Game department) they would have never let the wolf populations falter. If fish and game would have been able to keep their ability to manage the populations, everything would have worked out fine.
Now, not just the radical sportsmen but the majority of the sensible guys like myself (I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs) are pissed off.
We are all backing our politicians and believe me, we outnumber the pro-wolf people. I'm talking about every sportsmens group in the nation. RMEF, Ducks unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the NRA, Bowhunters Associations, Mule Deer Foundation, the list goes on. Your totally right Bill. There is way too much focus and attention now and things are going to change.
Sorry to see you get personal. I believe it is you that is yielding to the belligerent demands of environments gone wacko. Groups that pandering to the clueless with their email Alerts showing cute little wolf pups while proclaiming their immediate demise, so send your “generous donation” immediately. Oh how capitalism works and how the marketing of fear sells so well. These groups have learned well from the Republicans and religion. I stand by my endorsement of Bill’s opinion. The arrogance of these wackos pushing this so they can fill their coffers is only surpassed by their complete ignorance of the predator world including hunting.
Has anybody ever called your wrench?
"Mtn. Hunter suggested using bear spray on an enviro", but there's no repercussions.
This is about state control vs. federal control period.
Wolves and grizzlies are just bargaining chips.
Just finished your book "Where the Grizzly Walks" Bill...excellent work.
It's a sad day when Ralph Maugan and Bill Schenider, two of my chapions of conservation are fighting with eachother. Gotta say bill using your support of NREPA and grizzly's in the bitteroots can't be your best examples of being a conservationist considering neither of those things happened.
Wolves need to be managed like other species. Wyoming's plan screwed all that up by trying to go for an open season approach. They're to blame not enviro groups.
Look who's fopaming at the mouth people calling cascadia wildlands project haters of humans. Lumpnig all conservatyionists into categories who hate people, are antihunting etc.
the amount of prejudice is astounding.
Having spent the past spring, summer and fall in grizzly bear recovery and habited areas mostly alone, I know there is enough rooms for wolves and bears.
savewesternwildlife LMAO someone from this group has the gall to insult Ralph Maugan.
Look who's pleased todd, mtn hunter, skinner ...they really care about ecological balance. They are the gun totin, bible thumpin, violent red necks who are a great threat to western wilderness. Them and the politicans who care only about power and control.
Sad day.
"Idaho Fish and Game's Terrorist Threat Against Hunters!"
If this is'nt indicative of the paranoid, angry anti-wolfers I don't know what is.
I knew post 911 the word "terrorist" would be used and abused.
Eco-terrorist if you support wilderness.
Wildlife terrorist if you support wolves etc.
They post youtube videos from pro-wolfers who are obviuosly just young, hippie college kids who porbally don;t understand the whole issue.
It's propoganda that all pro-wolfers are hippie college kids...it's not true.
Continue following these propoganda sites like SWW and lobowatch and continue following your politicans like lemmings off a cliff and claim your all about rugged individualism.
Livestock people have the right to protect their livestock.
Looked to me this past year showed too many of the 'it's a wolf kill it' attitude, instead of trying to educate/protect wolf/property.
Also on the savewesternwildlife webpage is a depiction of a wolf walking through a playgROUND. The headline "coming SOON TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU"
Propaganda in it's shillest form. These people have no right to hold so much sway in western wildlife management, but sadly this very vocal minority walks lock in step with the politicnas and industry and therfore are giving a much louder presence thatn is justified.
If that's not indicative of the all out obcession with the wolf issue by the anti-wolf/elk huggers I don't know what is.
Let us return to a state of nature in all things.
Newsflash really i've seen many a wolf in the wild, and just had a bull moose run right through my camp last week in the clearwater
The only one who really sounds like an idiot is you "really."
In reality in many parts of ID & MT cougars and black bears are impacting elk herds as much or more than wolf packs.
The time in our history when ungulates were at their lowest numbers was during the early 1900's due to rampant over hunting/poaching by humans and loss of habitat.
Perhaps you should do some research before you sound off again, you just sound really dumb.
This is mostly a fight among people inside these states.
This talk about people in New York and California is just typical parochial bull. People in other states have their issues too, and the same talk about "outsiders" goes on in those states.
Bill would strip wolf of protection
print page | send as email | email editor
From AP and Staff Reports;
October 1, 2010
U.S. senators from Wyoming, Idaho and Utah proposed legislation Thursday that would strip federal endangered species protections from wolves in the northern Rockies.
The legislation is the latest in a series of recent bills that supporters say are generally aimed at short-circuiting lawsuits from conservation groups opposed to seeing an end to federal wolf protections.
Much of the environ-mentalists’ concern has centered on Wyoming, where the state has proposed classifying wolves as predators that could be shot on sight in most areas. They support turning management of wolves over to states, but want adequate plans in place to ensure wolves survival as a player in the environment.
Wolves were restored in the northern Rockies in the mid-1990s and more than 1,700 live in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and parts of Oregon and Washington state.
“Recovery numbers and science show that wolves no longer need to be on the endangered species list,” Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said. He is one of the sponsors.
“States are completely capable of managing wolves on their own without the federal government micromanaging them at every turn,” he said. “This bill would finally free our state, ranchers and wildlife from the shackles of federal mismanagement.”
In Jackson, Louise Lasley, public lands director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said management should be based on the best available science, not politics. Conservationists have been successful getting courts to agree either that state wolf plans don’t pass muster or that control offered to states was outside what’s allowed in the Endangered Species Act.
“The Endangered Species Act was to cover all species throughout the United States and it does not make sense to eliminate piecemeal species from protection,” Lasley said Thursday. “The alliance stance has been all along that Wyoming should have management control over wolves, but that the trophy game status should be statewide.”
Trophy game status would require a license to shoot a wolf. Wyoming’s law would classify the wolf as a predator in 80 percent of the state, allowing them to be killed at any time by any means.
In contrast, trophy status “would allow Game and Fish to appropriately manage every part of the state according to the populations, conflicts and needs,” Lasley said.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal’s administration has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service repeatedly, and so far unsuccessfully, to try to force the federal agency to turn wolf management over to the state.
The federal wildlife agency turned wolf management over to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana a couple of years ago but reinstated federal protections after a federal judge in Montana expressed concerns over Wyoming’s plan. The same judge more recently shot down the agency’s effort to remove federal protections in Idaho and Montana, leaving them in Wyoming.
Idaho officials are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the August ruling and Montana is expected to follow.
hat put gray wolves back onto the endangered species list in the Northern Rockies. A second appeal was filed on Thursday by the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation and Montana Farm Bureau Federation.
Montana wildlife officials say they will file yet another appeal Friday.
Wyoming Rep. Pat Childers, R-Cody, who chairs a legislative committee that deals with wildlife issues, said he would welcome an end to federal protections for the wolf that would allow states to set hunting seasons.
“I think by going to the hunting issue, we’ll be able to reduce a number of impacts to the land owners and the ranchers,” the state legislator said. “I’m still a firm believer that if they’re hunted, they’re going to avoid people.”
The bill’s other sponsors are Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.; and Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho.
Dream on, Todd and Dave, et al.
ESA reform will not happen in your lifetime, no matter how much Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the other blueblood hunting lobbies desire it. Hunting is losing popularity. Genuine wildlife conservation is gaining it. Wholesale killing of wolves is not conservation...Montana's plans for " research hunts" are thinly disguised attrition , and will backfire big time, like their stupid bison slaughter.
It might be worth pointing out that last year's Omnibus Public Lands Bill contained a rider inserted by Senators John Barrasso and John Tester to fund a NONLETHAL Wolf Management program , to be met with matching funds by the states and actually managed by the states. $ 1 million worth...half of which was a grant to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to wolves to offset loss of Defenders f Wildlife payouts. That much came to pass. But the NONLETHAL management has not been done, which is wholly illegal in that it directly flaunts to law. I think we can track that back to Wildlife Services not wanting to use much , if any , nonlethal wolf control. They want to kill wolves, no relocate or dissuade them. Which is also wrong, if not also illegal.
Wildlife Services needs to be exposed to bright white light and lots of heat.
Hopefully this election is going to put grownups in charge and bring back some common sense.
As of January 1, this year, the local Wildlife Services agent in Cody , Jim Pehringer, said he and his boys were not using nonlethal wolf control and were ignoring the possibility of same. I got the impression the state WS offce in Casper was ignoring it altogether. Which will come back to slap them.
Wyo G&F;doesn't think much of nonlethal at all. Mike Jimenez , the USFWS wolf coordinator for Wyoming, does authorize some capture-collar-release ops and more rarely, actual relocation. But nonlethal is not given the priority it deserves by anyone in charge.
Simply killing wolves as the only tool in the kit is not acceptable.
what would you know of common sense.....you can,t even stick with the facts of an issue, rather half truths, innuendo, and down right ignorance
Listen to the teabaggers.
+The problem was with the wolf introduction, all of this angst could have been avaided if the wolves had been given to those who want and love them. Wolf lovers could enjoy watching their pets killed and eaten, and the rest of us could have gone on about our business+
Todd, if you really want to be taken seriously ( and I realize blasting back a reply "in the heat of the moment" can tax the mind and add to misspellings, but come on!) get a copy of Webster's and spell check your coments before hitting submit.
And hello?? I live in wolf country Todd and my pets are just fine and have been since the "big, bad wolf" came back on the scene 15 years ago. And forgive me for reading alittle more into the situation but, it would appear my ranching neighbors are just a bit more concerned about their product (cattle) these days instead of allowing them to wander footloose and carefree, over the landscape (as in public lands) As it should be.
How many coyotes, bears, cougars (and a host of other small predators) and now wolves.......... have paid with their lives over the years, so you can trot down to the local market and pick out something in the form of meat, for your dining pleasure?
Think about it Todd. Think about what's left of wilderness areas in this country.
Still I wish you guys that love wolves could be the ones that have them, you could show the proper appreciation and would not mind losing a few thousand dollars worth of animals or even your pets.
Yes I am a born and raised Montana woman, yes I am a hunter and yes, I have felt the pull of the wolf on our hunting season! I dont know anyone montana real hunter that will go out get drunk and just shoot random big game! We hunt to feed our families, we hunt to control big game population just like as we thin our forests to create more room for bigger healthier trees we do that for our big game. We as Montanas strive to get our natural forests healthy, and well the wolves are growing in too much exteem yes i belive we should have wolves it helps in controlling our sick or week animals to provide us with strong game. I also belive that they are growing to numbers that our forests can't with stand. Wolves do help many different ways of stability, however when they are on the virdge of over whelming the natural balance that we have something needs to be done by our people to make sure our forests, ranches and economies are stable and not drasticly effected.
Hunting is predicated on a bunch of artificial handicaps; seasons, type of weapon, times of hunt, etc. Why aren't we looking at more creative use of handicapping for hunting wolves as a control method? It is obvious that wolf hunting will be like a "by-catch", where hunters pick up a tag to be ready in case they see a wolf while hunting something else. I don't see any serious numbers of hunters who go "just" wolf hunting. Why, after so much investment in studying wolves do we use a sledgehammer for managing them? Why not instead offer a hunt, a very EXPENSIVE hunt with different handicaps. If you draw a wolf tag you HAVE TO GO with a certified guide. That guide would belong to a limited fraternity of locals who have passed some kind of certification by FWP which shows that they really understand wolf behavior and pack politics. However, when you draw that tag and engage that guide, you are now free to hunt 24 hours, use night vision, .50 sniper rifles, lazer sights.. whatever you think does the job.
We should be using the hunting option intelligently, removing the expendable wolves to maintain the "numbers" but without destroying pack integrity.
And the real upside.. those guides certified by FWP are going to make a lot more $ guiding photographers during the off season....
The American taxpayer has spent a lot of money understanding wolves and after all that, our return on investment is the income from a (what is it?) $14 over the counter wolf tag? Come on people, we can do better, be smarter than that!
If you think I am going to spend 1 sec worrying about the man going to my house you can...well, like I said, keep blathering your crap.
Wolf haters lap it up.
You just did.
"We" are not there. You might be, with respect to advocating lawlessness , with guns , a serious felony. You have been warned.
NewWest needs to check the server logs and crossreference the comment signins in order to inform the appropriate authorities of the ID/ISP address of the poster who claims persons known to him are illegally using VHF recievers to track down wolves from the collar signals in order to kill them . That's serious stuff , and he made it quite public here. Call him on it. Bluff and braggadoccio ? Truth ?
It's the least you can do.
That is a overt statement advocating illegal acts. The operative words are " guys I know".
To my mind, NewWest has an obligation to follow up on that if they have information garnered at their public forum if there is a probability of crimes being planned or actually committed. One call to a Fish & Wildife agent will do it, and FWS will take it from there.
Any wildlife agent will tell you poaching / illegal taking is an extremely hard crime to prosecute. You pretty much have to have a solid tip or catch the perp in the act. Otherwise , it's a long hard slog of field work and forensic investigation along cold trails.
In a high profile case, Wolf 314-F was killed in northern Colorado in late Feb-early March of 2009 after wandering through five states. To date, USF&WS;still has not released information about her death at the hands of a shooter, because the investigation is continuing , now going for 19 months. 314-F could very well have been radio tracked and killed by the exact method you seem to have personal knowledge of. Radio tracking of wildlife for purposes of hunting, taking, or poaching is illegal under all state 's laws and of course federal statutes.
You are advocating just that . Felony wildlife taking of a protected specie.
This is not personal, because I have no idea who you are and this is a third party conversation. I take your words at face value, as written. They cannot be ignored. If Wild Bill Schneider and his NW staff won't follow up on it, someone else will. One phone call.
I'm pro-wolf and pro-hunting of wolves , in good measure using established conversation principles, not attrition hunts such as Idaho and Montana seem to be reverting to as we speak.
The illegal taking of wildlife---any species---cannot be tolerated. Doing " research hunts" that would result in the taking of as much as 40 percent of the wolf population in a single year is also not tolerable. QED.
There are two ( or more) sides to it, of course. Wolves as prime trophy animals are best hunted in the January-March time frame, a bad time of year for many reasons, but not undoable ( Cougar hunts occur at the same time, and those guys use mechanized infantry and packs of dogs. ). Hunting wolves in mid-winter places undue stress on elk , since they are comingled, but that's when the wolves have the finest pelts and will make the best mounts. Is their any other reason to trophy hunt a wolf than to secure a fine pelt or taxidermy specimen? Will Boone & Crockett ever develop a scoring system ? Will trophy wolf hunting ever rise to the stature of other charismatic game species, since we've gone out of our way to denigrate them and " verminize" them ? Will Safari Club ever sell elite wolf hunts?
On the other hand, when the states sell a huge number of low dollar " General" licenses for wolves , that to me is not really a regulated limited quota hunt. It's wholesaling them. How many $ 11.00 wolf tags did Idaho sell ? 18,000 or something like that , for 200 wolves ? i thought that was cynical , but a good moneymaker for IFG and a feel-good program for the hunting community . More like a PowerBall lottery , inless you actually got lucky and had a wolf in your crosshairs. How many f those successful Idaho or Montana wolf hunters were actually exclusively hunting wolves when they shot one, and not co-hunting for elk or deer at the same time ?
I can ask these very same questions about future Grizzly hunts. Will those be high dollar exclusive hunts ? In Wyoming, we used to get a black bear license with our General elk tag. I always thought that trivialized bear hunts. Now they are separate licenses, but mainly to give Wyo G&F;some additional revenue, not to improve the hunting opportunity or program.
I do say that the pro-wolf community needs to be a lot more assertive about allowing or even encouraging hunting as wolf management , or at least reluctantly not opposed to it.
I do NOT agree with Bill Schneider's primary assertion in this article that pro-wolfers are going to lose this round in the face of the pushback from certain Senators on behalf of sportsmen's groups , to do an end run around the ESA by decreeing wolves are delisted in Montana and Idaho but not Wyoming.
Wildlife management by fiat is not good policy . The ESA has huge support nationwide. It will be a hard law to modify for such a narrow interest.
Having said all that , we need some top drawer high country guided wolf hunts in autumn. If the outfitters are whining about loss of elk opportunity ( I disagree with that ) , we can offer them wolves instead. perhaps instead of Dual Status for wolves in Wyoming...trophy animal near Yellowstone and vermin everywhere else, Wyoming could sell a Dual License...Elk + Wolf ... instead , like we once did with black bears. Of course, a separate wolf license would also be available. I'm just not sure 15,000 of them is wise....
I think there is a good chance there is a market for a particular group of hunters who would be attracted to the chance to be "environmental snipers". And equally as important we could create a new category of guide, one whose in depth knowledge of wolves translates into employment opportunities beyond just the ungulate season.
There are any number of examples, Earthwatch, for instance, where private citizens pay for the satisfaction and enjoyment of assisting both private and government projects that deal with the environment. Those interested in birds or paleontology can find activities they pay for which they benefit from and which support science. Why not have a category like that for hunters?
I just think that it is absurd to have paid so much to know so much about pack behavior and then to call over the counter tags to any and all "management".
You missed the point. When people lose respect for the law we all lose. Coffee shop talk has been turning ugly. When I hear people advocating specific and effective ways to eliminate a game animals, that is wolves, I worry we have passed the tipping.
congrets...you just shot the messenger.
The rank and file enviros are decent grass roots people who mostly don't like lawsuits any more than you do, and most do not belong to a charter organization . But they are well grounded , are not delusional or seeing things not there. The real environmentalist and conservationist has no use for the fringe groups on either end of the dynamic, either the rabid kill 'em all crowd that you belong to, or the radical green eco-terrorists which probably number less than bona fide al-Quaeda anyway ,< 100 nationwide, whereas there are certainly millions of people who would say they are environmentalists, without allegiance or memberships, if asked . You put them all in one big box and call them evil.
That is precisely why the wolf debate is so full of heat and noise and smoke and muck...the anti-wolfers refuse to admit environmentalists may actually be sincere and smart and actually elarned something in their 7th grade science classes. Not every environmentalist is pro-wolf, nor is every wolf advocate an enviro. Those harbingers exist only in your increasingly narrow mind.
I am an environmentalist . I know many environmentalists who support managed hunts. I also know a great many ardent hunters and even some outfitters who are environmentalists , tolerable of wolves, and support managed hunts of same. They are rare but they are out there.
Get real, Todd ( Marion? ). Better yet, get some counseling.
I've told you this many times, but here it is again: Environmentalists are not the enemy . They are your conscience.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_6321f626-cfee-11df-a322-001cc4c03286.html
Stay on topic.
Personally I feel they fit the old adage that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", when you add the fact that they are self appointed and answerable to no one. Lot's of wolf supporters say they are in favor of some controlling the wolves....but the powers that be head to court immediately to keep any management from happening. They could care less how reasonable you are or your plan is, they will not allow it. Nor do they give a d*** how much dmage they cause, the more the better.
First, please don't invoke the "wolves will eat schoolkids" line. That's just preposterous and frankly, deflates any credence that your argument might have. Read the literature. Wolf attacks on humans worldwide are quite rare. Kids here in Montana are at far greater risk right now from death or injury in an ungulate /auto accident.
To your friends who complain there are very few game animals. Perhaps, compared to the easy pickings they were used to. Please advise them to "cowboyup" and hunt harder. That's why it's called "fair chase". It's "fair" because it's not a slam dunk. And what outfitter isn't going to tell his clients that "this year it may be tougher because of wolves". It's a win win for the outfitter. If he can't get his client into them, then it's the wolves fault, if he does succeed then it burnishes his reputation. We have an entire contingent here in Montana who moan about the fact that there is no longer a Gardiner winter hunt. Well, it wasn't a hunt, it was barely controlled chaos or shooting ducks in a barrel, or probably both. It wasn't hunting. If you can't get up early enough, hike long enough, invest in knowing the ground (or a guide who isn't all "blame the wolf") be patient enough and if you are one of those "hunters" who figures he had a sh**ty time cause he didn't kill something, then blame yourself, not the wolves.
blame the gun, blame the wolves, blame the whatevers. But the Elk are there, and more Elk than they sell tags for by a long shot. So unsuccessful hunters have only themselves to blame. Thus it's called a HUNT not a carnival shoot.
So if wolves are so great how come you all you wolf loves hate Moose, Bighorn sheep and Mt Goat? Ask where they are when you visit Yellowstone. Maybe someone will tell you the truth the wolves wiped them out. That is endangered species in the park caused by the fake Endangered species Wolves. Only in America could so many gullible people support wolves and turn a blind eye to facts, scientific study and the truth about controlling wolf populations.
But the Spoiled brats that would be the anti American wolf lovers could care a less about the wolves. They have useful idiots that donate to them to spread their propaganda. They laugh all the way to the bank. Yes you gullible fools Greedy Defenders of Wildlife President collects how much a YEAR? $329,000.00??? It takes almost 10,000 gullible people donating $35 just to pay his salary?
So keep acting like children ignore the facts maybe you can have the wolves wipe out more species of animals. I am sure all the anti American wolf lovers would love a barren boring landscape instead of pre wolf when Yellowstone was teaming with wildlife.
For those posting as Groups Please state for facts your salary you make crying about Fake Endangered species. Anti American like Ralph Defenders of Wildlife and all the rest only care about one type green it is called Money.
Wolf Attack Canada
Wolf attack has sides lining up again over wolf control
WOLVES KILL CARETAKER IN A CANADIAN FOREST AND WILDLIFE RESERVE
Child killed in wolf attack in Russia's Far East
Georgian villagers armed for self-defenses against wolves
Afghan Wolf Attacks
Homeless man eaten by wolves in Iran
India Fighting Plague Of Man-Eating Wolves
Wolf Attacks in Georgia Lead Villagers to Seek License to Kill
Wolf pack kills moose calf
Wolf Attacks Spur MN Rancher To Sell
Wolf Encounters Lead To Fear In Ely
Rabid Wolf Attacks Hunter
Boy is injured by wolf dog used for teaching
Beast at Large: Wolf attacks bring fear to villagers
Attacking wolf pack encourages heightened pet owner awareness
Wolf hybrid kills grandson, 5
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW CAN KILL YOU!!! Wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!
Port Moody kayaker fights off starving, predatory wolf
B.C. senior sustains bruises in wolf attack
Six injured in rare wolf attack
Dog saves family from wolf attack
Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds
More Wolf Attacks in Idaho And Minnesota
4 wolves viciously attacked and killed school teacher 2010 Alaska
Lets see, the drop in Mountain sheep and goats, do you think some of that is from pneumonia that the domestic livestock is spreading thus they (FW&P;) themselves, are killing off the sheep? The domestic spread more disease to the wild than the wild spreads to the domestic. Lazy livestock caregivers?
There are more children killed by their own parents than all the wolves in the world combined. So lets get rid of bad parents. More humans are killed by humans, how do you propose to stop that?
'You' (as in third person) are always saying take the wolves to central park and California. I tell you what the Wolves belong here, and those of 'you' that don't like it can take 'your' livestock and children and go live in Central Park/California where it's 'safer'(?) After all those places are inside 'civilized' communities. The perfect place for those of you that fear the Great Outdoors and what it has to offer.
The forests, Mountains, rivers, streams, Bear, Elk, Bison, etc. belong to the wild that is what makes Montana, Montana. There aren't very many people that make reservations 6 months ahead of time to come here and get photo ops with cattle and or sheep. (not to mention buy a tag to shoot an Angus/hereford, or columbia ewe.)
I guess I'm saying if you can't learn to live among the wild get the heck out of here and go somewhere else.
Either Or is NOT the solution.
I do believe the reason for the 'Endangered' Status is because too many wolf haters would like to eradicate completely. I tried to warn those types last year when they were killing so many so fast. The Enviro's would win by getting them re-listed.
If these so called 'Adults' would act like it when they are out hunting we wouldn't be having these conversations.
The elk are gone from Norris, Elk Park, Gibbon Meadows.
There are 3 bulls, maybe a 4th, reported, but I didn't see. 17 cows and 3 calves counted on the Madison between the junction and across the bridge to Riverside Drive.
The outbreaks of pneumonia in the big horn sheep has been hammering sheep that have had no contact with domestic sheep. I don't know if they have checked for echinococcus granulosus.
The recently retired ranger I talked to was very frank that the elk may well be extirpated from the park, and that they hope then the wolves will kill buffalo. What kind of balance restoration is that?
Again, the Washburn expedition reported approximately 30,000 elk on their exploration, no mention of wolves in their record of flora and fauna.
The Bow hunters I've talked to, have been very successful this year. Some friends last year were able to get two elk a piece. (gun hunt). I see nothing wrong with wolves taking Elk or Bison. That's what the Creator put them on the planet for. Just like Magpies, they help keep diseases down.
Don't forget all the domestic cattle to feed 'your' families. Much easier to 'bag' too. Barely have to exit your vehicle.
Again I say Private property owners should be able to protect their own from wolves. But any wolf on public property should be managed differently.
Too many are trigger happy, thus the re-listing.
Has anyone learned from last year? They shut the 'hunt' down early.
This 'gps' device or what ever to track the pack then obliterate it really makes me nervous. This will shut wolf hunting down all together (un-chaperoned). Thus, those of us with livestock won't be legally able to protect what is ours. (at this point in time I would have to do the SSS to protect my livestock, and I prefer to stay legal.)
It's a fact the domestic sheep passed the disease to the wild doesn't matter when they are guilty just as the cattle/humans are guilty of putting Brucellosis in the Park to begin with.
That is one of the biggest problems in Montana. You have NO rights as a property owner. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the intrests of Livestock producers. So we don't even need to go there.
The problem isn't on one side of the fence, it's both sides.
Come on people Grow UP!
It seems to me there is a kinship between the hunters who blame the wolves for their lack of success and "entrepreneurs" who blame the government when they don't become the business success that they feel is their birthright. Neither seem to me to be very "American" attitudes; looking everywhere to place blame other than looking in the mirror. And, IMHO, the louder the complaining the more likely that the real problem is with the complainer, not these oppressive outside forces.
Getting back to the original topic of this page. It may be that strategically environmental groups have pushed "too hard". But at the end of the day the question is whether management of wildlife is driven by best science or by which political group yelps the loudest.
Wolves are barely- rarely a threat to humans. Those instances you cite...is that about it for the whole planet ?
here is the list of Top Ten animals that cause human deaths , worldwide, starting with 10th place and the numbers of deaths globally You will not believe some of the critters on this roster :
10. Sharks - between 30 and 100 deaths worldwide
9. Jellyfish - yo!
8. Hippotamus --- I quake with fear every time I wade a Wyoming river over this one!
7. Lions- no surprise there. They have been hemmed in by cattlemen and subsistence gatherers and are fighting for survival and any food they can find. Sound somewhat familiar?
6. Bees, Wasps, Hornets, - oh hell...we're doomed. They're everywhere!
5. Elephants - watch your back !
4.Crocodiles- Where's Dundee when we need him ?
3. Scorpions. Yes, the lowly Scorpion , outnumbers even killer bees
2. Snakes - when I was in Thailand I was surprised to elarn they have 1000 kinds of snakes and 150 species are deadly
And---drum roll please---the number one animal killer of mankind is :
( keep scrolling )
1. Mosquitoes ! Actually , it's the malaria , encephalitis , dengue fever , West Nile , Rift Valley Fever , and such , but the delivery mechanism is the lowly mosquito .
----
Please note that nowhere on this list do Bears, Wolves, Cougars, or any other predators native to North America Appear .
Domesticated animals are not included, but they would populate this list mightily ....critters such as rodeo bulls, horses , and worst of all, DOMESTIC DOGS !. Yup, the great killer of humans by canines are Dogs ( which technically are wolves, or at least were thousands of years ago ).
Your wolf evoking fearmongering is laughable. Get real. There are over 300,000 wolves worldwide , but cases of harmful or deadly encounters with humans are exceedingly rare. Try to keep your perspective. That's good advice for anyone chiming in on the Great Wolf Debate from any vector. Stay away from Hippos.
Perspective. Proportion . Pragmatism. All lacking on the anti-wolf side.
Again I say if you don't like what makes Montana's wild country wild. Move, with all your possesions, to Central Park. Then the only predators you have to worry about is a coyote, (fourlegged) and people.
Wolves belong in the mountains and forests. Montana is just that.
An article I read a year ago stated that the wolf population INSIDE the park has remained at a steady number.
Ad hominem attacks (calling people names which are irrelevant to the facts at hand) don't make you look smart or informed, just mean spirited and closed minded.
So what is your biggest concern? the safety of small children or the diminished elk herds? Surely you realize that long before people were a factor that natural forces balanced the number of predators and prey over time. So we're not imagining a complete wipeout of ungulates. So are you just pissed off in general or do you have a coherent point that could be a starting place for productive discussion?
Sieg Heil!
The wolves represent money and power for certain groups, the opportunity to change the use of the land to their sole use is another benefit they see.
I seriously doubt anyone is going to change their minds about the value of cost of the wolves.Lies were used to get them and lies will be used to explain away all problems. If they manage to totally extirpate the elk, we can expect research papers telling us how much better off the park is without elk. Then when they get even mroe aggresive with livestock, it will be the same story that ranchers deserve to lose their livestock because they are: fill in the blanks.
Nowhere in the pre-research or planing was it ever said that going from 0 wolves to 14 is not a "surge" or whatever you want to call it. Those original 14 Yellowstone wolves were broken into three groups, penned accordingly , and dispersed seperately after three months of acclimation. I was there. Helped feed them , even. Fourteen is not an overwhelming number or capable of rendering biological havoc. Not even close.
The following year, they added a whopping 17 more were added. Same argument..not an earthshaking sea-changing radical event for the ecosystem.
Yes, the wolves were ( somewhat ) protected, but so is every other specie in Yellowstone. Duh! Outside the Park, wolf numbers fluctuated a lot due to illegal kills and other mortalities.
Wolves were never and still are not ever "artifically kept in high numbers". Where in perdition or saloon science seminars did you come up with THAT ? How preposterous. For one thing, the various wolf packs that formed up became very territorial and began limiting their own numbers rather dramatically . The saga of the Druids and the Leopolds and Rose Creek and Crystal Creek packs is well documented. Then you can add in several bouts of debilitating diseases, especally parvo and mange and distemper, which have further kept wolf numbers in check. The original wolves were innoculated. Only some of the progeny got their shots, but for the most part natural forces and living in the wild keep wolf numbers in check.
Meanwhile, outside Yellowstone our dear friends at Wildlife Services were killing 1.2 wolves for every known cattle kill. Among other " control" actions.
Any argument claiming that wolves are artificially kept in high numbers either inside or outside Yellowstone a flatulating into the strong west wind...it blows right back in your face. No basis in fact, just poor mental diet and foul digestion of rhetoric, which you are famous for. Which is why I try to stay upwind of you here in Cody .
Your "money and power" arguments are beneath the dignity of a response, not that you would hear any of it anyway . Just more delusions from your camp of one.
All I will say about your last paragraph above is it's time that ranchers quit feeding wolves and started doing a better job of protecting their private property ( livestock) by actually COWBOYING if those cows are so darn important. Double Duh! never mind that livestock losses due to wolves hardly move the needle of All Losses due to any causes. Lightning rods might help.
I reiterate: ranchers need to take wolves off welfare by giving them the easy meat. I'm sorry if that's real work and extra cost, but they get such a great deal on those grazing fees that the money they save can be plowed back into proactive nonlethal wolf control and better animal husbandry. Wolves have negligible impact on the collective Montana-Wyoming-Idaho beef industry. ( I've given up trying to edjikate sheepmen ).
By the way Defenders of Wildlife was never under any obligation whatsoever to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves for 13 years, till they quit that voluntary compensation in 2008 when the states briefly took over management. That was the deal all along. DOW would pa till the states got control. No more , no less. DOW paid put millions in compensation , and now the anti-wolfers are bitching about them NOT paying. You can't have it both ways. DOW is a worldwide group...wolves are a tiny fraction of what the do.
Ranchers and hunters have utterly magnified the alleged negative impacts of wolves on their stock and trade so much that the arguments have become thin and very very distorted.
Funny how the arguments about the POSITIVE value of wolves are never graced. But they , too, exist. Wolves have positive value, and those values can also be expressed in dollars.
But you won't hear any of THAT either. Too much west wind whistling thru your cranial cavity.... the siren song of the anti-wolfer lashed to the mast, driven mad. And the stink is pretty bad, too.
Herr Fuhrer!
How come there was absolutely no effort to conserve the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf subspecies, there were over 300 documented sightings of native wolves in the 1980's and actual exterminations ordered by Ed Bangs. It wasn't even attempted to try and capture a pair of native wolves and put them in a pen, but instead the largest sub species the Mckenzie River wolf of Canada was brought down with no planning on the effect of a non native wolf subspecies?
Shouldn't science have been put first and a slow methodical plantation been used, instead of a rushed and hushed method?
I'm glad the guys in the black helicopters have you in their database and are keeping an eye on you.
Short answer: becasue wolves are a pack animal...a social heirarchy built around alpha male alpha female is required.
There were absolutely no known instances of wolf PACKS in Greater Yellowstone. Not even breeding pairs. Just loners probably dispersers from northern MT-Glacier / NineMile and southern BC looking for mates and not findng any , and or outbreeding with coyotes or dogs, or escaped hybrids to start with .
No packs = no wolves, on the ground. They aren't big coyotes
The subspecie argument has been argued to death . Irremotusm canadensis...doesn;t matter . All same dog. Give it a rest. You don;t really have a distinctly different wolf till you get to eastern Canada ( Grey vs. Timber , roughly) , and even that is not written in DNA stone.
Teh problem is while you may have no problem losing the elk ot the wolves, there are other animals that they impact. Tehy undoubtedly have an impact on the bears, who are moving out looking for food. For instance the bears that killed and ate the guy last summer were malnourished, the sow was termed "thin", but not starving despite being nearly 30% under normal weight at 212#.
Now a sow and 2 cubs were caught on property near Gardiner, eating chickens and refusing to be chased off.
" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 7, 2010
Contact: Mel Frost, 406-994-6931
GRIZZLY BEAR SOW AND CUBS CAPTURED NEAR GARDINER
AND RELOCATED TO INTERIOR OF YELLOWSTONE PARK
BOZEMAN—Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists recently captured and moved a female grizzly bear with two cubs.
The 8-10 year old sow and two cubs of the year were captured after raiding two separate chicken coops near Gardiner, Montana, on Oct. 5. During one of the raids the sow spooked a horse, which ran through a fence causing some injury. The sow showed no aggression toward people.
The three bears were transported to the FWP office in Bozeman so biologists could assess their health and overall condition. The sow was in fair physical condition. The two cubs were small and thin for their age and the time of year. Biologists are uncertain if they will survive the winter given their condition."
You going to blame the wolves for the bear that consumed over half of that guy in 1983 at Rainbow point too?
Read the following sentences out loud:
The Canadian wolves brought to YNP were chosen specifically for their affinity for ELK, not Bison.
Specifically . ELK, not bison.
Elk. Not bison .
***
( your bear story is off topic )
Say something out loud three times and you'll learn t for life.
A boar may chase a wolf or even two off a carcass, but not a sow with cubs, neither can chase off a pack. That "research" is like the 50% decrease in coyotes and the missing jackrabbits.
Actually there were a lot of press releases that there was no food or other attractants in any of the tents or in the area. I bet you can still read that if you google it.
Wolves were "wiped out" and pushed westward by the very earliest settlers and those who followed. I doubt there was a single western rancher back there in the 1500s. The wolves were killed by folks protecting themselves......ditto the west in the 19th and 20th centuries. The wolves were pushed westward as the settlers moved further and futher west.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2010/10/EmailAlert.htm
To allow tent camping in any area bears inhabit is just plain selfish of whatever entity collects the money. No regard for the campers safety just the almighty dollar. Do you actually think Bears give a rat's behind if there is a camphost?
By the way, Know Thine Enemy. The center for Biological Diversity staff pix are here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/
I have to say , those are some of the HOTTEST looking professional working girls I've seen lately . Can't say the same about the bearded smelly sweaty grizzled redneck sociopaths who contribute or work at YOUR causes.... ( see, I can be just as ridiculous and bilious as you )
Still doesn't say the campsites are 'sterilized' after every camper. Still doesn't change the fact had there been a hardsided camping rule those people would still be alive and unharmed. Bears can range a 150 square mile turf so it wasn't if, it was a matter of when that type incident would happen again. And rest assured with the greedy people in the world this will happen again. Still wasn't done by a wolf!
I tell you what tho I have to agree with the Global Warming issue. Hopefully after 2012, there won't be a global warming problem.
(I have a bunch of standing dead 'paul,george,ringo,and john' trees on my property, that are 'curing' for the next winter's heating)
Actually they did test them, one guy roped a wolf, one trapped, and Ed Bangs ordered it exterminated and there was another one that was shot mistaken for a coyote. They were DNA purebred wolves. Which some people feably attempted to press charges on Mr. Bangs in civil court which lost, apparently I can use that argument, since in your view anyone accused of acrime ie saveelk founder, they are guilty. Also, Read the taxonimic description of Mckenzie River Wolf, known for its larger size and the taxonic description of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (medium sized). I'm not making that up, the taxonimists labeled it that. The point is the entire thing was rushed and when people asked for a slow down to study native wolves they were shot down. Even a judge ruled in favor after the initial introduction that native wolves would suffer and the introduced ones would be rounded back up the official order would wait till after an appeal, but it was then overruled in an appeal. The biggest observation I have read about including from trappers journals is lack of large packs, mostly 2's 3's and 4's. I really don't care just spouting the facts, I guess its really your gamble, to me a wolf is just an oversized coyote, I don't see why people would really want to gamble with much more valuable species of animals in terms of very important economic value in a horrible economy. ie elk, moose, and mule deer, which help feed and support hundreds of outfitters and tourism dollars. No one is calling for exterminations, just management, the only real reason enviros are not going to allow management is the real reason behind the there agenda. NO MORE HUNTING
MacKenzie wolf ? Which breed...M.River or M. Valley ? What about Columbia wolf ? Vancouver Island wolf ? Hudson Bay wolf ? Manitoba wolf ? Buffalo wolf ? arctic or Tundra wolf ? Cascade wolf ?
These are all subspecies that various researchers have tried to describe and delineate in the last 150 years or so, and it keeps coming back to one main line of grey wolves , interchangeably. All those conjured up subspecies and subbreeds are just that ...conjured up.
Every domestic dog on earth is also the same basic animal not counting dingos and certain desert dogs). German Shephards are a breed apart from Dachsunds ; Poodles and Newfoundlands; rat terriers and Huskies--- all are " different" but all are domestic dogs and interbreed. Wolves even breed back to coyotes and said dogs, so.....? The differences between wolves are in that same vein ... Canis lupus ( fill in the blank). You won't get very far with the taxonomists trying to fragment wolves into such distinct subspecies , ever. That's bad science.
I'm an environmentalist and I support managed hunts.
I know outfitters who are pro-wolf and support managed hunts , also, the same outfitters who guide wilderness wolf watching summer trips to bolster their income yearround. People want guided wolf watches and will pay
I know hunters who are environmentalists, and many more environmentalists who are hunters.
It serves no purpose to ump all enviros ( or all hunters) into such broad categories , then paint them with the same tar brush. That is a very common fallacy of the anti-wolfers that I encounter continually ...all enviros are evil because they are all the same subspecie of enviros when you scrape the hide off ...anti hunting anti business anti everything. Which is of course utterly ludicrous. It is, however, anti-rational and anti-enlightened to espouse as much. The perils of the propaganda process.
If you believe as you say , "to me a wolf is just an oversized coyote " , then you are sorely in need of education.
Environmentalists are not out to stop hunting. But PETA and other organized folks might be. Watch your back for those militant activist vegetarians. They have zucchini and they aren't afraid to use it.
Yer batting a thousand on the old Anti-enviro delusion game today already , and it's not even 6 AM... you roll out of bed hating enviros and go to bed at night, still hating them , don;t you ?
Tell us, Todd...tell us in no uncertain terms. Can you give us an itemized list of exactly how much enviros have cost you personally over the years and how they did it? Can you be specific to 2 decimal places about environmental damage to your home and hearth and career , and produce a spreadsheet of dollar costs of same ? Tell us all how enviros have affected you in the here and now, in tangible physical defensible manner.
What's your hard evidence personally for a class action lawsuit against those evil enviros ?
When anyone opposed to wolves falls back on the assertion that " we ought to reintroduce them to ( Central Park, Washington D.C. , " back east " , eastern states, etc. )" , that shows a very weak intellect being overridden by basic rage. The real issue is divested, and replaced by emotional knee jerk. It serves no purpose, except to further inflame and polarize. It is an undesireable human trait. It reveals the commentor's ugly side
Go ahead and be that way if you wish , if it makes you feel good. But that kind of argument has zero , or below zero , credibility and cannot be taken serious.
The issue of wolves will only be resolved by constructive discourse.
I'm not seeing much of that ...
Please tell me what good all of this is doing.
It's not our land. A piece of paper at the Courthouse is hardly enough. Natural Law requires no paper trail.
If there are in fact 600 + grizzly in the Yellowstone area, the total number of bears that get mixed up in human affairs and get in trouble ( by our definition or by our hand) is not a large percentage of the bears. Yes, Game & Fish has relocated 50 bears this year. That's 8 percent. Or put another way , 92 percent of bears didn't get in trouble or raise concerns. There appears to me to be more good bears percentagewise than good people.
A more telling number is to date, 39 grizzly have died at the hands of humans this year already ( and hunting season is only half over). What's wrong with THAT picture?
And---How do you know that sow and her cubs won't survive? You don't. Can't.
I cannot believe how many goofy issue rabbits you can pull out of your hat on any given day. Something you heard or saw five minutes ago shows up here as a rush to judgment with the greatest of fatuousness.
Incredible. But you are not credible...
Dewey, how many of those 39 grizzly kills are due to hunter? One I know of that jsut occured when the hunter killed the griz that attacked him.
This is the link to the article about the griz released inside of Yellowstone.
Out of curiosity do you CARE if the griz are starving in the park due to a lack of elk and too much competititon with wolves? Or do you prefer to insist it isn't happening and ignore it?
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens
I'm checking out of this thread . Too many dumbkopfs....
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/13-CauseSpecificMortalityof....pdf
http://www.google.com/search?q=elk+calf+predation&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=usgsnpwrc
Interestingly one of the things ignored is teh impact of winter rpedation on elk calves, which is of course primarily wolves since the bears are hibernating. Most years the winter take was 40% cows, 40% calves, and 20% bulls, or very close to those numbers. I'll be glad to provide you more links if you wish.
In my opinion elk and moose are keystone species because they feed so many predators from man down the chain (or up the chain if you wish). Any major predator with no constraints can virtually eliminate them, as we saw a hundred or so years ago by meat and ivory hunters, and are seeing now a repeat only by 4 legged introduced predators.
It's the Elk and Moose and other ungulates that have been without (necessary ecological) constraints. No constraints = no top tier predators . Elk and Moose went without wolves for 75 years , and it really messed up the herds. It appears that grizzlies and cougars didn't step up to replace their departed workmate the wolf after 1930
We're fixing that now, no thanks to you.
Herbivores and especially Ungulates REQUIRE predation , therefore carnivores such as wolves, right alongside them , coexisiting with them They d NOT require humans , or humans attempting to subduct the vital role that those carnivores filled, but doing a darn awful job of it I'm sorry , but the North American Big Game Conservation Model everyone in the hunting community worships is quite pitiful at ecology. People ( such as you) whose knowledge of the big game dynamic only goes back one or two generations are way short of a load. How did 12 million elk survive all those grizzlies, wolves, and cougars pre-White Man? We humans have once again screwed it all up . The wolf reintroduction and recovery program is designed to un-screw it.
We humans still have a lot to learn , and a lot to answer for, in resolving our abuse of the planet
I'll close with more wisdom 4U , this time in English , from Mark Twain:
" Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge."
( which is his way of saying " you don't know Jack...)
Dewey said:
"It's the Elk and Moose and other ungulates that have been without (necessary ecological) constraints. No constraints = no top tier predators ."
So why are they now working so hard to blame those other predators and everything else for the severe decline in elk and moose? Why are they not bragging that the wonderful wolves have taken out from 60-90% of the elk in various herds? Now we are told everything under the sun is causing the loss, only the "good" decline is due to wolves. If the ranger is right that the Norris/Firehole herd is now 50 animals, down form 650, that is even more than a 90% decrease.
The wolves in 1980's WERE tested, hence the federales sending them to labratories to be tested after they decided to put them down for fear of them interfering with there master plan. I can't believe I just read that sub species don't matter and all dogs are the same, wow, so we could have introduced a bunch of border collies and called it the same thing because all dogs are the same? Wow, so with your arguments they come from the same line, that would be the same thing as saying if our grizzly bear became extinct we could just go get some kodiak bears and bring them down to the lower 48? I suppose
Andy your right, if the native wolves would be decimating elk herds in my units like the Mckenzie Valley wolves are, that I would be supporting wolf management. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, hence the fact that the Mckenzie subspecies is an exploding population that in specific areas has herds at dangerous levels and I support responsible management of these animals. It is not that difficult, I would rather them take a few bullets than kill and eat eachother with the loss of every elk and moose. We in this area of the country cannot afford to lose 25 years of populations for a natural swing of things as the enviros believe we should. You want to take something from our kids, I will not allow that to happen. I'm not to worried though, because the sportsman in the field are managing these populations right know every chance they get legal or not, nobody is playing fair anymore. They have realized that playing fair will get you nowhere with environmental groups constanly suing, becuase of there dependency on having there constinuents and donators favorite animal on the endangered species list.
I will make a deal, we will let the wolves run completely free here and eat all they want as long as they are introduced to all of the other states. THe arguments about human emproachment and how the animals have to live here, that same argument would apply to everywhere the animals existed in the past.
Otherwise, we should be allowed to manage our populations of animals how we see fit without interference from someone sitting in an office in New York city. Sportsman are not drunks running around with guns shooting everything in site. They have more respect to the animals they hunt then those that don't hunt. Especially when you see how inteligent these animals are. We are not exagerating predation numbers, the fish and game are not exagerating them, in areas without wolves they do have some healthy populations, but with areas that wolves do exist you can literally go into the thickest holes and climb the steepest mountains for days and not find a single track. We have to give these animals credit, they love to kill and are very good at it, especially knocking out pregnant females in snow.
Got any other whiz-bang ideas?
Your statement starts out very logical, and sensible.
Then you blow it with your last statement of which I quote; "My thought is trap them and move them to the east coast to their native habitat....................."
This puts you in the same 'class' as the 'tree-huggers' screaming;
"Don't hurt the poor things".
One could turn that phrase around, and say; "If you can't live with what makes Montana, Montana, i.e. hunting 'fresh' out doors wildlife for all kinds of shooters fishing, etc etc., then 'you' (as in 3 person) move to the more 'civilized, less wolf, bear, cat, activity, yourself.
Neither one of those helps solve the situation or in the least, make it more palatable to all involved.
I don't fumigate the Horse Butte peninsula for Ticks, because I fear Tick Fever, I protect myself, and those I 'care' for.
Thus as someone stated that if an SSS happens they aren't a sportsman. I would SSS , if I had to, anything, doesn't matter what species, if it threatens my livelihood, or my family, yet I'm not going out 'gunning' for any of them either.
I quit hunting years ago. I haven't stopped eating meat, besides I don't like hearing vegetables scream for their lives when you rip em out of the ground taking them from the 'breast of their mother' so-to-speak.
So please people that "move em to Central Park" et.al. is lame from the git-go.
I would like to see you go tell the plains Natives they have no respect for buffalo, because they hunted the animal, lol.
I hunt the animals, I view them, practically worship them, and I thank god every time I have an opportunity to harvest one and feed my family with its much healthier substinance then corn fed beef. I have real respect for Elk and I do not advicate eradicating wolves, but managing them just like the rest of our wildlife. I assure you that the wolves will have a viable population while still assuring sportsman have an opportunity to harvest animals.
You comments bring out the real reason of wolf introduction that environmentalists desire, the end of hunting! Well you guys keep your corn fed beef and sleep well at night well your bacon sits in your fridge. I know 99% of anti hunters are not vegetarians and love there bacon coming out of a factory slaughterhouse. How respectful of animals they are!
I will continue living the same traditions as my Grandfather and his grandfather before him, that would include substinance of wild game.
" By JEFF E, 9-28-10
Holy censorship batman,
Looks like billy-bob is okay with Marion(Todd) Dickinson spouting the same old tired blather, to the point of not letting her be challenged over the same old same-same, regardless of the screen name; or chicken little fanning calling those he disagrees with addicts filled with hate, rage and envy. But that is all okay eh, Bill
I think your village looking for you "
TIME TO KILL THE ABUSED AND ENVIROMENTALISTS MISUSED ESA
" Where is outside the Constitution : What are its boundaries; what are its limitations; what is its height and depth, its length and breadth; who governs and who are the governed. No department of Government has any power except in the Constitution; niether the President, the Supreme Court, nor the Congress. The Constitution is the supreme law of all members of the National Union--the source of political authority, of all governmental power. it is the only source of power. "
" Outside you have no president, no judiciary, no Congress, no Union, no government no people to be governed. NOR HAS THE WAR ABBROGATED IT OR ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS or released any department or officer or citizen from its obligations of obedience to it, or addded a whit to the powers or privileges it confers." ( And then along came the 1868 Red Treasonous Communist Amendment ).
" It may have been it has been ignored, disregarded, violated; ( No shit sherlock, you should be alive to see just how much that is the case from 1867 onwards to 2010, Jesuit tutored Karl Marx's manifesto rues the day now man). But it stands today as it did in the beginning--the sole warrant of power, with the full right and expressed power to indicate its offended majesty whenever and whereever it has been disregarded or encroched upon."
" All and every officer of the government must act in its name and its authority; It is their only warrant of power; it is their only shield and protection. Let the President, the judiciary, or Congress go outside of it, excercise a jurisdiction not granted, control over any citizen not conferred, or take from him his life, Liberty, or property by ANY LAW NOT UPON OR AUTHORITY BY IT, is a crime no less atrocious than murder or treason." ( And the uneducated masses who sit in ignorance of this documents true meanings and definitions are no less guilty themselves. Especially when they have been warned many times over the decades by scholars to awaken and defend it, only to resort to scorning those scholars rather than seeking out the facts they presented.)
" Outside the Constitution there is no law, no justice, no protestation, no safety. All is confusion, anarchy, oppression and tyranny. THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON ( by words alone ), no implied guilt; no presumed crime."
How does this pertain to the last several administrations of the twentieth century and twenty first century ? History and the documented actions of constitutional violations speak volumes to those in the know. We can prove as well that the Nineteenth Centuries administrations acted against the Constitution, especially since the Civil War, or rightly known as the war of northern aggression. But one simple way to learn the truth is to spend time, a lot of time, in those very telling congressional globes, annals and records of congress. The last 160 years especially, but most recently, the last 40 years in particular, during all of these congressional debates over Bills, and other legislation one finds it difficult to see where every Bill or measure brought before the House was properly debated as to its constitutionality. Seems these congress animals forgot that part of their jobs.
The OATH taken by Senators and members of the House expressly implies that they will so debate each and every measure. THIS IS THE LAW, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 2; " THIS CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF.'' in pursuance thereof means that the proposed Bill must be expressly implied in the constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution is found any provision, nor is it expressly implied, for an " Anti-Terrorist Act " " Health Care " " Endangered Species Act " No where in the Constitution is it implied that foreign treaties of the United Nations or any other foreign entity have authoritarian powers not recognized by the constitution, and certainly not when they go against it. There is no such provision in the constitution, and another thing, those bills and treaties were not debated as to their constitutional compliance, there is none, therefore those Bills and Treaties are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, null and void and must fall to the ground. U.N treaties my ass, those are acts of outright war !
The opinion above has nothing to do with the intents of anti terrorism or the endangered species act persay, or whether I support terrorism or the death of some animal or other specie ! Any such contention is a red herring across the trail of factual truth. This opinion has to do with one thing, IS THE BILL TREATISE OR MEASURE CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT ? And if it is not how can members of the Senate, the House, and any State legislative body support them without violating their OATH OF OFFICE ? They flat cannot !!!
ARTICLE VI. Section 3 says that all senators and officers of the United States take and OATH to UPHOLD and support the CONSTITUTION of the United States. Part of this Oath in article 2 is that all senators and congressman will DEBATE all proposed bills or legislation as to their constitutionality; that is, they must make sure that all proposed measures are " in pursuance thereof." ( Of the Constitution.) It is therefore crystal clear that by there own admission having failed to spend even one hour on the Anti Terrorist Bill, the Health Care Bill, and even the Endangered Species Act, among many other Bills and measures, including the Treatises with the United Nations, Congress has been acting with no legal constitutional authority. In other words, the Senate and House members during these events did not find any constitutional grants in power for the Bills, Measures, Treatises above. Since there is no grant in power for the Anti Terrorist, Health Care, Endangered Species Act, etc. etc., Those measures fall to the ground and all actions taken under them are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void..
Interesting post, I agree with everything you said, which main part of this applies to wolves and reintroduction?
I guess the whole thing, but what exactly is your main point?
This has every thing to do with the actions allowed or not allowed by the federal government concerning states issues. Either we are a nation of law or we are not.
"now the only way that can happen is if the wolves are all gay or someone is controlling the over population of wolves."
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/11/30/in-defense-of-karen-who-encountered-wolves-in-her-yard-in-idaho/
"I guess all the wolves turned gay because their numbers are staying the same."
http://www.billingsnews.com/index.php/news/35-local-local/images/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2345:paperwork-lets-predators-feast&catid=85:front-page-category
Wolf Watch 2 | Facebook
Bruce Hemming "Ed the Mid West is really corrupt on the whole wolf issue. In Michigan they have gay wolves."
What is this irrational fear of Nazis in America and all the "Gay" refrences? Something to do with the fact that Nazis persecuted homosexuals? Come out of the closet already Bruce. People are getting sick of these incessant Nazi comments!
However, one solution may just be to rent rather than purchase your next television. But is of the fact that right solution? Here are examples of the main benefits of renting, which may help you make your decision:
1) Television along with technology are changing. The advent of HD plus the re-emergence of 3D means TV comes with a world of exciting brand-new developments. With programming now being made exclusively for those who have access to these solutions, you could be forgetting. However, buying a new TV needs a substantial outlay of profit and, within a couple of years, you may want to help upgrade again but be capable of afford it. Renting lets you get the latest technology provides and change it meant for something even newer once your contract is now over.
2) Do you'll need a second TV? If your lounge room TV is fine, but did take your home entertainment spending plan, you could rent an inferior TV for upstairs and get away from another expensive purchase.
3) Sometimes we make a bad decision and there's nothing worse than spending thousands for a new TV only to decide a few weeks after purchase that a great deal more have paid a little more for the next model up. With a rental agreement you'll be able to often upgrade to a lot more expensive model without any kind of problems. You simply pay additional each month and you will be watching shows in a lot better quality.
4) Once your guarantee runs out on a bought TV, any repairs or replacements must come out of your own personal pocket. That could mean looking for money you don't have. With a rented TELEVISION, problems are dealt with in your agreement, so you're never left and not using a TV or forking out and about huge sums of bucks.
5) The problem with developing a great TV is that you really start to realise it usually is even greater with the suitable home entertainment system looking after it. However, once you've spent money for a TV, you may not have any budget left to acquire additional speakers or excellent DVD player. With accommodations, you can add all of these things (and more) to your package and get an awesome deal.
If that's helped you choose that TV rental works miracles solution for you, then you will want to start browsing for anyone next set? With TV repair contained in the package, it really is an effective opportunity to have it you've always dreamed about.
We have a large range of what you need. From our quality white goods, entertainment equipment and furniture to our great exercise equipment, computers and coffee machines, if you need it, chances are we have it. Get your fridge rental perth needs all ready in an instant and never bother about any of your Washing Machine rental in Perth troubles again! :) http://www.perthrentalshire.com.au/treadmillperth