IT'S TOUGH BEING GREEN, BUT WE CAN DO IT
A Wolf Plan that Works
It seems as if most people in the New West would prefer to see the wolf controversy resolved, and agencies could quickly do this. Will it happen?By Bill Schneider, 7-24-08
Photo courtesy of USFWS
Anybody who follows the endlessly volatile wolf issue--and it’s hard not to follow it with all the news coverage--knows the greens won a big victory last week. Judge Donald Molloy of the U.S. District Court sided with Earthjustice and 12 conservation organizations and essentially relisted, albeit temporarily, the wolf as an endangered species.
So, what now? That’s the question I’ve been asking people on both sides of the debate this week, and I might have the answer, a way to quickly get the wolf debate behind us. Does that sound good?
Actually, everybody generally agrees on the current options before us, but nobody will say which option they’ll pursue. It’s complicated, of course, and we must keep in mind that Molloy’s ruling doesn’t overturn the proposed rule to delist the wolf. It more or less says the wolf is endangered while the courts decide if it is, or not, whereas over the last four months, the wolf has been off the endangered species list and under state control while the legal battle over delisting rages in the background. If agencies prevail in the main case, Molloy’s ruling would merely go down as an aggravating delay for agencies in implementing hunting seasons and state management.
This leaves agencies with three choices:
- Appeal Molloy’s decision to relist the wolf in addition to continuing to fight the main legal battle over delisting.
- Ignore Molloy’s ruling and concentrate trying to win the primary delisting case, forgetting about wolf hunting seasons for this year and perhaps next year, too.
- Suck it up, meet with the greens, and have a little “out-of-court settlement” to resolve the wolf issue right now.
I asked both the Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency in charge of endangered species programs, and Chris Smith, chief of staff for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, what their agencies plan to do. Both dodged that question but didn’t rule out any of the three options.
I called Suzanne Asha Stone, northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, and Doug Honnold, managing attorney for Earthjustice, self-acclaimed as “the nation’s leading environmental law firm,” which is handling the case for the 12 conservation groups, to ask them what the agencies would have to do for them to accept delisting and withdraw the lawsuit. Keeping in mind that Stone only speaks for her organization, not the other groups, and that Honnold can only speculate on what his clients might decide, both gave me the same answer.
The two major sticking points are lack of what’s called “genetic connectivity” and Wyoming’s totally unacceptable wolf control plan. Neither Stone or Honnold would guarantee that fixing these two problems would make wolf delisting litigation-proof, but I strongly suspect resolving them would keep us out of court.
The first point, Wyoming’s dual-status plan that declares the wolf a “predator” (Wyomingish for vermin) in 90 percent of the state so, as Honnold says, “it can be killed by anybody anywhere” needs to go away. Radical pro-wolfers are probably loving Wyoming right now because if the state doesn’t give up on dual status, it may hold up delisting for decades allowing the wolf to reclaim its entire former range throughout the western United States. Already, we have indications of wolf packs forming in Washington and Oregon. Soon, Colorado greens will have their dream come true, wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park to control elk numbers. All thanks to Wyoming.
“It’s going to take the other two states (Idaho and Montana) and other interested parties to push Wyoming to develop a safety net instead of a free-firing zone,” Honnold speculates. Even though the FWS had earlier rejected Wyoming’s plan, “when (former Idaho Governor Dirk) Kempthorne came into office (as Secretary of the Interior), the Wyoming plan that had been unacceptable became magically acceptable.”
And, of course, gave Judge Molloy another good reason to enjoin delisting, giving Wyoming exactly what it did not want--more wolves and more federal control. Altogether now, can we all say “self-defeating insanity”?
The Nation of Wyoming has to be a team player and along with the other states give in to the greens, regardless of how much it hurts. Those bruised egos eventually heal.
Addressing the second point, genetic exchange, also seems easy enough. By definition “genetic exchange” means wolves moving back and forth between the three recovery zones (Yellowstone, central Idaho and northwestern Montana) without being whacked. Even though the Yellowstone wolves have prospered, they have done it in genetic isolation.
Like it or not, it’s a numbers game. As I write this commentary, we have somewhere between 1,500 and 2,200 wolves running around the northern Rockies, but not many of them making it from one recovery zone to the other without getting in trouble and being “controlled.”
Collectively, the three state management plans call for killing down the population to about 1,100 wolves. Based on the science he has read, that number minimizes the change of genetic exchange, says Honnold, and Judge Molloy agreed with him and his clients.
“At a population level of 2,000 wolves, we are likely to have genetic exchange if we can maintain it for two years or more,” Honnold says. “If there were a commitment to maintain a population of 2,000 wolves, I think these genetic issues would be solved.”
That’s the winter population, he adds, not the spring population, which includes the new crop of pups, many of which don’t make it to their first birthday.
The recovery plan and delisting documents call for a minimum of 30 packs or 300 wolves. But the greens believe--and again Judge Molloy agrees--this is not enough to facilitate genetic exchange.
So now, I’m scratching my head. How hard can this be?
We have roughly 2,000 wolves, a tolerable but probably not ideal level for agencies or the livestock industry. I say go with it and move on. It sure trumps any alternative we currently face, such as years of expensive litigation while wolves continue breeding and the real possibility of the greens prevailing in court and keeping the wolf an endangered species for a long time.
And, please, let’s not do the is-there-a-number-between-1,100-and-2,000-that-might-work approach. The greens have an ace in the hole, and Molloy flopped another ace for them, so right now, they have the winning hand. Let’s pick up on that and fold.
Stone tells me the decision must be based on science, but that’s exactly what Bangs says. They simply have different views of the available science, which will probably always be the case. And assuming judges keep agreeing with the green view of the science, wolves will be on the endangered species list.
The agencies have already said that having 1,100 wolves is enough, scientifically, to declare the wolf successfully recovered, so 2,000 wolves would only be more recovered, right? It might be more wolves than agencies think we need, but less than we’ll have if we don’t get out of the courthouse soon.
“We need to bring the stakeholders to the table and develop an acceptable plan,” Stone proposes. “Montana did a great job in their plan in bringing all the stakeholders together, but this needs to be a region-wide effort. There are people on both sides who are willing to work together for a good outcome.”
Bangs, on the other hand, has little optimism of any such agreement ever happening, not now at least, because his experience tells him people can’t be rational about wolves. “Wolves will eventually wear everybody out, but right now, emotions are too high. It will work out eventually.”
But do we want “eventually”? How many wolves will we have by then? How many millions will be spent on wolf control that hunters would pay to do?
“Wolf management has nothing to do with reality,” Bangs reminds me. “A rational person could sit down and figure this out in a minute. If this were any another animal, this would already be a done deal, but people aren’t rational about wolves.”
“It’s a mess, “ he admits. “And it’s getting expensive. More wolves do more damage. If you want more wolves in more places, you keep the wolves on the endangered species list.”
Is anybody in Wyoming listening?
Bangs also accused me of being “too rational” (which hasn’t happened too often) in suggesting agencies and greens could settle their differences. Nonetheless, I persist in believing we could resolve the wolf issue by the end of next week. All it would take is the agencies collectively deciding to maintain a population of 2,000 wolves (the status quo) instead of 1,100 and pressuring Wyoming to commit to plan something similar to plans written by Idaho or Montana.
This is doable, folks. In fact, it looks easy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
As well, has their been any discussion of what the top population of wolves would be if allowed to exist without any hunting or control? One anti-wolf scientist that was brought up in these forums said that wolf populations double per year, but did nothing to qualify that number, such as what time of year those populations are queried.
There are going to be saturation levels where the number of wolves limits itself, all natural populations have modes and methods that keep the number fairly consistent. The wolves on Isle Royale are unmolested and yet their numbers remain consistent from year to year, as well as their main prey, the moose.
I'm not saying that all wolves need to be allowed uncontrolled populations, I'm just asking that someone actually develop an accepted theory about the top limits for the main packs and then a discussion of which packs require control and which ones are self-controlling at an acceptable limit, then a much more thorough
control plan can be generated that can compromise with both groups.
Having said that, how much do you want to bet that there was a conversation between Dick Kempthorne and Ed Bangs that went something like:
Dick says" Ed you need to remember which side your bread is buttered on and make your decisions accordingly. It is of course your choice."
Ed says"Yes sir"
Now, let’s talk about the hole in your logic. Your premise is that we should accept the current rough population of 2000 as the target, and personally, I have no problem with that. The problem is that won’t change anything, and it’s related to that “genetic connectivity” argument again. The 2000 number you suggest is based on current populations, but as those 2000 continue to spread (which they’ll do with or without hunting), that number will no longer be enough to maintain genetic connectivity on the fringe populations that are spreading. That’s the beauty of the “genetic connectivity” premise, it allows you to keep expanding the range and increasing the numbers. This tactic of constantly redefining what constitutes the successful recovery of a species has been the bread and butter for the attorneys who continue to get rich off this nonsense.
On top of it, the desire of two of the states to drive wolf numbers into the low hundreds would indeed cause a severe decline in genetic connectivity.
I've heard the concern that enviros will keep using the genetic connectivity argument to expand the wolf's range and keep it on the endangered species list, but I personally don't think this is the case. If we had substantial genetic exchange between the three recovery zones, most detractors would be satisfied.
Bill
Sure, I admit it; people from England, Ireland, and Appalachia look and act a bit weirder with each passing generation; but, so what, that's what biodiversity is all about. Maybe we ought to forget about all this "genetic connectivity" crap for the wolves and, instead, keep them bottled up and breeding with each other in little incestuous groups, like with the people in the woods around Nashville. Who knows what benefits we could reap? I mean we got fried okra and the Grand Ole Opry didn't we?
So this argument of Molloy's is just uberpanderism. He's trying to legitimize the corridor concept of "conservation biology" even though it is objectively not neccessary.
Further, the whole POINT of the zap zone in Wyoming is to keep the wolves from spreading where they are not wanted. Endangered or threatened, wolves are, have always been, and will always be a varmint -- or at least a species in serious need of management.
I am currently living in Helena and I think there is not enough wolves. I want wolves in the city limits of Helena. I would move out of my house and tear it down if it could become wolf habitat. I would drink the kool aid to save one wolf life.
I am a true environmentalist. Would you kill yourself, for the environment??
I would. I think you should too.
Maybe you should find an article on regrowth of tropical forests in order to justify your position. It's the least you can do, right?
Now that's damn funny....made my Friday!!
You can bet somewhere ole Skinner will find a solution by giving states and tribes all the public lands to log to death!!
No, can't say that I have. I just think that the only way to put an end to this is to give the anti-wolfers a little of what they want. The right to kill wolves. Don't get me wrong. I am 100% pro wolf and I believe that the majority of the public has made it clear that they wish to have wolves present on their lands for the restorative benefits. I know we can't deny ranchers the "right" to public lands grazing but we can make it less appealing to participate which means no compensation for livestock killed by wolves on public lands. I fear the only compromise is to let them do what they will on their own private lands and even reimburse them for livestock killed by wolves there. Who knows we might get lucky and they'll miss and take out a few of their own range ruiners. But hands off publicly owned wildlife on public lands.
So tens of millions of dollars are spent keeping large pastures of wild horses in some place to eat, sleep, and poop. I would guess sex is out, and that any genetically male horse in the pasture has participated in a testicle festival of BLM making. Meanwhile, out on the range, the free roaming wildhorse herds grow by 20% per year. You do the old banking rule of 70 or 80, whatever it is called, and you can see that the wildhorse population doubles in less than four years, at which time more horses have to be rounded up, adopted out or sent to the equine old folks home.
The new issue in this frolicsome game is that the people who bought Lady to keep the pre-teen daughter on a horse and off boys, now have a girl who has left home. The care and feeding of Lady is up to Pop. Pop used to be able to take a Lady to the auction, and she either went to occupy some other space between thighs or to chicken feed. If Lady was well fed, and of perhaps had some draft horse in her, she would go to grace the plates of European epicures who think horsemeat is fine table fare. However, due to excellent lobbying, the PETA folks and their ilk have managed to get Congress to outlaw horse slaughter in the US, and are now trying to stop the trade of horses between the US and Canada or Mexico, where selling horse meat is not a Federal offense. So not only are wildhorses, feral horses, off limits to slaughter, now all horses are off limits. It is a left handed smack intended to geld the horse racing industry, and that, along with casino gambling, will kill horse racing in the US in the next decade. Only Arab sheiks, Irish Lords, and Englishmen in the noonday sun will be racing horses, and the US will be out of it. PETA has put us out of the slow horse burger business. Maybe they are afraid of mad horse disease.
I am waiting to see the guy with the backhoe and dump truck, who comes to the ranchette, and for a fee hauls off your dead horse to bury it. For an additional $100, he will shoot the horse for you. I wonder if you have to get a zoning consideration to have a horse burying operation? Horse Heaven Hills pet repository. Cash only. Cold? Crass? Not as cold and crass as the options left to old horse, unwanted horse, unsellable horse, dead horse owners. PETA gave them that. And they gave us the wildhorse dilemma where it could be that some time in the future, the government is feeding a million horses, hoping for a lightening strike, or West Nile to solve their problem. All horses are going to die. And then what? What do you do with "downer" horses? Unwanted horses?
So Pops has a hell of a problem on his hands. What does he do with Lady? Bingo...or would that be Big International Non Governmental Organization, BINGO!, and Pops rents a horse trailer, loads Lady, and drives out into the middle of the vast New West public domain, gives Lady her freedom. Hopefully near a water hole. No matter. Lady is now a wildhorse, and she will only have to poop a few times and some stallion will be around to show her the ways of real horses...
And now let us talk about gene pools. Is Lady a welcome addition to the gene pool or is she buzzard and condor food, lion food, and another strain on the local ecosystem? How about this: wolf food.
The problem with wolves, and wild horses, is that they are not now occupying the same environment. And that needs to happen. Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, all need more wolves in wild horse range so that the wild horses can live in a valid ecosystem, and their gene pool be forged in the crucible of outwitting, outrunning, outfighting a pack of wolves. Since the introduced wolves are of the larger, northern moose eater type, a horse is right up their alley. With radio collars on both horses and wolves, all the wolf faeries would be able to locate them in the wild, and maybe get a glimpse of the struggle to see who eats well and who is eaten well.
Now, in a perfect world, the wolfies would make sure the wildhorse pastures had their own packs to make the golden years of the horses natural and properly frightful. I have read numerous opinions that wolves are needed to keep the ecosystem healthy, and that trees grow, and flowers bloom when wolves are here. The same should be true on the vast wildhorse holding ranches. All those horses cropping the native vegetation don't give the grass a chance, and wolves would bring back the prairie flowers, make it so birds sang again, and that slow horses, lame horses, can feed wolves, which saves hay, farming for hay, and all that pollution from raising food to feed those kept horses. And, that would open more space for more wildhorses to live their lives in the horse tenements, with the local gang of wolves to make life worth living. New West Side Story...The horses and the wolves. Let's make a musical, kids!!
A brilliant observation. Truer words were never spoken. The only reason this plan will not go forth is it makes too much sense. The situation with surplus horses has gotten out of hand especially since the huge rise in the cost of feed and the bottom fell out of the horse auction market. The other solution I fear most is that ranchers will be staking unmarketable horses out for wolves to kill so that they can claim predation and collect reimbursements on them.
On the East Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho, there is a long-standing herd of wild horses, and the wolves have been observed trailing and trying take down a horse.
The wolves were lucky to survive.
Jay, your idea to explore saturation levels of wolves or natural numbers that supposedly would not need any hunting or management tools is fine and good but only in the sense that you take man out of the equation, i.e. ranchers, hunters and other consumptive users. Also you you dead set on the restorative benefits that unfettered wolves will bring to the eco system. The science you use to base your claims on is questionable and is after all, only those of the particular scientists opinions you quote.
Have you read any of Valerius Geist's writings and research? It pretty much blows away many of your idealistic beliefs. You question Mr. Bang's "damage" claim. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what wolves are capable of in the "damage" category. Oh and by the way I never pegged you as an "urbanite" and it is good to know you have raised livestock and have, or are a hunter.
I think like Bill has said, we are going to end up with a lot more wolves in the long run because the NGO's with their litigation successes and tons of money are not going to rest until they get their way. No cattle on public lands and no hunting.
No ranching on public lands? I'd support that in a heartbeat. Given that ranchers on public lands produce less than 1% of cattle across North America, there doesn't seem to be much of a point to it anymore, it is a dying lifestyle and the sooner we're rid of it, the better.
You keep repeating the 1 percent figure on livestock production on public lands. That is very misleading and a far reach at best. for some enlightening information go to NMSU Range Improvement Task Force Publications listing and read Report 32 on "the Importance of Public Lands to Livestock Production in the US."
The west is made up of a checker boarded pattern of land ownership and management, with deeded, lands usually the better lands, river bottoms and etc. and with a huge chunk of "unappropriated lands" in BLM and Forest Service as well as State Lands. The many thousands of ranches that have these unappropriated lands as part of their operations, in many instances wouldn't have viable operations with out these lands. There are many different types of federal and state land grazing regimens ranging from yearlong grazing, seasonal, temporary and etc. If you were to halt all grazing on these dependent lands you would have a economic collapse in many counties and communities across the West and a domino rippling effect throughout the ag sector of the US. As much as 20% of the feeder cattle going into the feedlots nationwide come form these very ranches. 20 % is a huge number, contrary to your slanted and narrow view. You would see a huge subdivision explosion and a much greater eco disruption and ruination if all of these ranches are forced to sell their deeded lands.
Again I encourage you to read some of Valerius Geist's research and you will see where unfettered wolf management regimens will definitely take down wildlife numbers and drastically reduce hunting licenses.
Modern day wolf research is just in its infancy in the lower 48 and one of our NM Game Dept. Elk biologists spent a few years researching the wolf/elk relationships in Montana. New Mexico has started a full fledged study on wolf/elk interactions but will be a few years before any significant results can be garnered. Stewart Liley, NMGFD elk biologist along with three other biologist did a study in the GYA called "Predation Risk Affects Reproductive Physiology and Demography of Elk", and they found a significant definite decline in recruitment of calves. In one site they found the lowest calf-cow ratio ever recorded in 20 cow-calf ratio's measured over a period of 57 years.
If the New West is turned into the utopia you envision Jay, it will require the removal of humans from much of the area you so seem to cherish. Laugh all you want to, but your read on the wolves and how they will restore all of the wildlife and eco systems doesn't leave much room for human beings. Your conservation biology has fell off the deep end, and aligns itself with Dr. Reed Noss's "Deep Ecology" theories. Maybe you and ole Dave Foreman can come up with some more plans to get rid of humans from "their" sacred alter the old "mother earth".
As for your economic collapse? Yeah, right, whatever. Sounds like a weak exaggeration, one that I don't believe you have any proof of, whatsoever.
As for economic collapse, it is very real at the local level which includes a huge part of the western landscape, if what you are advocating comes true and all livestock is removed from the public lands. The local economies which make up a huge portion of county governments in the west are already struggling with their budgets to maintain minimal services to their citizens. This is due in huge part to the lost timber industry and shrinking livestock numbers.
Jay I don't know your situation or if you live in a rural county but most of the eastern Arizona counties and western New Mexico counties are pretty much struggling to stay in the black. Any radical move such as you are suggesting will have a huge economic impact. We have barely survived the Spotted Owl and together with all of the other species, i.e. spike dace and loach minnow, willow fly catcher, goshawk, leopard spotted frog and on and on, and now with the huge negative impacts we are seeing with the wolf program, we feel like second class citizens. The 3 to 12 eco litigation NGO's are working tirelessly to stop the consumptive uses on the public lands. All of this wether you care to recognize it or not. It is true, it is a fact, so quit trying to make people think the wolves are cute cuddly creatures that will solve all of the balance of nature problems and restore the landscape into your so called or so believed scientifically pure utopia. Have you consulted Valerius yet? He has a very realistic and real life analysis of wolves and has researched them possibly as much or more than anyone living. Tell him wolves aren't hard on wildlife. Tell him they aren't dangerous animals to humans. I have first hand experience in this arena. This of course is with our human habituated wolves down here. I spend over 100 days of the year out in the woods and I think I am a fairly observant person so I not only talk the talk, Jay, I walk the walk. Maybe you do the same, I don't know, but it seems you are using a different brush to paint the picture than I am.
With the rising cost of fuel, rural areas are going to feel a lot more of a pinch than anything the conservation groups can throw at them. They are living fossils, bound for extinction.
I'm sick of you putting words in my mouth. We're done here until you can be more civil.
I have just been pointing out what I feel is the repercussions of the wolf reintroduction and how the programs should proceed, with sound science and cooperation of all sides. I feel that predators can be managed successfully in harmony with mankind much as we have done with mountain lion, bear and coyotes for many decades. It shouldn't be man versus beast, it should be man living with beast.
As for the fossils going extinct anytime soon, I am betting on the fossils. They are a tough lot, and they wouldn't be where they are today if they weren't.
Second the Wyoming plan has resulted in the lowest kill number of any of the three states. 22 out of 108 wolves? The problem with the Wyoming plan is it does not give control groups the control over every aspect of Wyoming & it's people that they demand as their right.
Third genetic diversity is a bogus issue. The Isle Royle wolves that are held up as "proof" that wolves will not eat all of theiri prey, are also proof that inbreeding is not a problem. They are decended from what 2-4 animals 50+ years ago?
I do not see this ending short of a higher court, this judge has already said before he even got the case that he did not want wolves killed. Does anyone think anything has changed his mind? There is not the slightest doubt that he will rule for the environmental groups. I just wish we could force the dollar amount of their "expenses" that he awards be made public too.
Fifth, there is no doubt that the wolves are being used to put ranchers off public lands. That is a stated goal of Jon Marvel of Western Watersheds who wins his cases in the 9th District in Missoula. If anyone knows how to find out how much money he has been awarded for his "expenses" over the years, let us know.
I firmly believe litgation to keep them listed will continue as long as there is a cattle ranch still producing food, especially if they use public grazing.
By the way wolves have killed several privately owned horses. Food is food to them.
Thank you for your further explanation of the real world out here. It is hard to try to get the truth out when so many on the pro-wolf side are extremely biased against public lands ranchers.
The Mexican Wolves down here kill horses too. Just ask the Miller family and also Preston Bates (ranchers in the Gila) about that. Like Marion says wolves are killers. They are opportunistic killers, sport killers and hamstringers, and mostly very cruel in the process, and don't just eat the sick and the weak. That is a small portion of the wildlife killed by wolves. And by the way Ann, mountain lions on the other hand kill their prey pretty much always before they start eating on it, unlike the wolves. This observation is only to portray the wolf as not being just some cute cuddly creature.
I also want to point out that Molloy's ruling is nothing more than a signal of his desire to legitimize "conservation biology" precepts about what sort of genetic interchange is "proper." It's to be his gift to the enviros.
Case in point, the USFWS just moved a bear from the McCoy Whitefish Range over into the Hatfield Cabinets. Young female, ripe for the pickings, eh? The CST interviewed Bangs, and he made it clear that USFWS or anyone else has the authority to transport breeding stock between populations when genetic diversity is an issue. It is done all the time. It was done when the wolves were first dropped in YNP in 1994, it is done with the Meskin wolves, it COULD be done with the Isle Royale population should it become necessary.
But to "conservation biology" adherents, that would be too simple, too artificial, although fully scientific in terms of genetic practice, and have too little impact on evil society. Rather set aside zillions of acres with boodles of restrictions all geared to the off chance that a species of charisma will get a wild hair for a road trip and a hot date.
So why sit down with such irrational pukes? Let's see how stupid Molloy gets this time, and hopefully another en banc Ninth will slap him good.
I've watched the Cougar, wolves and grizzlies catch their 'dinner', and I have to hand it to them, they are pretty damn good at it. If all these people that are so concerned about the way death is obtained in the 'wild' would go out and shoot the animal before the wolf et.al. made the kill then there wouldn't be any suffering. But that will never happen so quit trying to make the way a wolf survives any uglier than anything else. For heavens sake Birds do it to fish all the time. Sometimes even eating the fish whole AND alive.
As to anyone's 'totaling' or 'head-count' None are to be believed. Depending on who is counting, you will have completely different numbers.
As I said my whole point being that wolves are not cuddly creatures, quite to the contrary. The radical pro-wolf proponents would have you believe they are some majestic creature (which they are) that are not a danger to humans, not a major threat to wildlife numbers and that they will restore the balance of nature. This may be a truism if you take mankind out of the picture. Unfortunately this constitutes a major stumbling block to the success of the program, but the radicals are trying hard to minimize human impact on the species and on the land. Judge Molloy it would appear is helping them do just this.
Like I've said before, when a dog is behind you it's "Oh, look what followed me home." Yet if a wolf is behind you it's "Oh my GAWD I'm being stalked." And guess what, you are more likely to be bitten by the 'dog that followed you home' than you would by the wolf.
There have been far more than 1 wolf attack even in the last few years. I guess the importance of Kenton Carnagie in Canada depends on your relationship to him. I doubt his parents find it so easy to blow off.
Actually you must have missed the animal planet show about the woman and her two kids attacked by a wolf (that was later killed by authorities) in the Great Lakes area.
I think people could have dealt with the wolves, in fact they did, if the number agreed upon 300 for the 3 state area had been honored.
No matter how much you insist they are jsut wonderful and worth every bit of heartache and money they cost, those that are actually paying that cost and those of us who understand it, are never going to agree.
As to the guy on the snowmachine, That was one wolf that was killed needlessly, and you add all those needless kills up and you got the re-listing. So quit blaming the (I'm not saying just YOU Marion)'greenies' for Molloy's decision, it was all those kill happy wolf haters, that depleted the numbers quick enough for the Judge to take notice. Prejudices even against animals is dumb. Being cautious is one thing, but paranoia is another. Thus putting Livestock owners, such as myself, at risk of breaking the law to protect our animals.
We have areas of our state where elk and moose are still in good numbers, admittedly we want to keep it that way. A couple of weeks ago when I was on the mountain (Big Horns) I saw 19 moose and that was along the highway. You would be amazed at the number of folks who had been in Yellowstone and headed back east who commented on spending a week or in one case 2 in Yellowstone and having to come to the Big Horns to see moose.
The problem is for the wolves to get to where they can eat the moose and elk in the rest of the state they will eat their way thru livestock on ranches. We do not want either one.
You and I are never going to agree on this issue, so it is useless to argue. To me it is a private property, states right issue versus the power of environmental groups to override both.
Marion is right on target.
I would suggest you read some of Valerius Geist's research on wolves and their impact over the centuries on humans and wildlife. He also confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie.
The lower 48 had been pretty much free of wolves for the last 60-70 years so how can you possibly equate dogs are more dangerous and have attacked more people, to wolves being innocent of human interaction. In the settlement days of the US there were many recorded wolf/human encounters. Go back into history and even today in Russia and several other foreign countries where there has and are today, numerous horror stories about wolf attacks. Valerius has really done a thorough study of this history and should be required reading for all who are interested in learning the true story of the wolf , as well as how it relates to modern day happenings.
As to wolves, we have them here where I live, we have moose in the back yard Elk as well. No different than before they reintroduced them. Except for the fact that the moose are multiplying quite rapidly. So are the Elk.
And Marion your idea that the only good wolf is a dead wolf is as ridiculous as the 'greenies' saying NO to protecting your livestock against the wolf.
Like I've said before, The biggest problem we have is HUMAN sprawl and because of the human sprawl the wolves are becoming an 'issue' Maybe we need to reduce the number of humans that are encroaching on the 'TURF' of the wild animals.
And we both know that will never happen. So because of selfish human thoughts like "I have the RIGHT to be there" our wildlife is suffering. And to be honest with you Montana and wyoming do not produce that much of the livestock industry, that if it ended tomorrow it wouldn't be any more than a drop compared to what the rest of the country produces in cattle.
And to talk to 'wolf-haters' is like beating your head against the wall. (I'm sure you can say that about the 'greenies' too) As I've said before, I am NOT a wolf LOVER nor am I a wolf hater. They have as much RIGHT to be in our wilderness (forests, parks etc) as any wannabe cattle rancher or sheep raiser. If you don't like having them around then MOVE, but of course we know that would never happen because of the "I'm better than anything else" attitude of a lot of people out there. I'm one that if I don't like where I'm at I will move. and if something is there I don't like, I ADAPT I know that's a new concept to some, but I've found it makes life a little easier to live.
"Doesn't matter what happened in history, none of the wolves now are any of those in history." Well duh! I don't think the genetic makeup has changed all that much and whereas domestic dogs have been domesticated for centuries and centuries and that makes them more dangerous than a wolf? Get real! If there have been few to no wolves for the last 70 years in the lower 48 you definitely don't have any human interaction reports for that time period.
I have never said the wolves have no place on our landscape, but I do however think they need to be managed and Molloy's decision is going to keep it tied up in the courts, which is what the 12 eco groups want. Like Bill Schneider said, if there is no compromise and soon we are going to have a whole lot more wolves than we do now.
I don't mind change and it it happening all the time, I just don't like it when human beings are left out of the equation, which is what the 12 eco groups are fighting so hard for. Many of them feel that there should be no human presence in wilderness areas and minimal presence in the corridor areas. Many of us thought this idea was far fetched and never would happen but time is proving us wrong. Their movement is making huge strides to remove humans from these areas and their holy grail of eco wilderness wellness is to take mankind out of those areas. It is a new religion Ann, Earth worshipers. They worship the creation not the creator.
Are you really saying that those who do not want to give up their homes are selfish, but those who want the owners chased away so something else will be able to live there, be it wolves or buffalo, or whatever, are the kind thoughtful good citizens of the world?
On one hand you blame sheep and cattle for the areas woes, in the next breath you say it is urban sprawl, which I assume is folks wnating homes. Where do you feel humans may be permitted to live that you would find acceptable?
Tom, I don't think they want everyone eliminated from using public lands, just those who do not think and act like them. In other words only the "true believers" are "good enough" to use those sacred lands.
respectfully
Chuck Cram