GUEST COMMENTARY
Why the Baucus/Tester Wolf Delisting Bill is the Better Choice
We now have a chance to make the right choice on the wolf issue, but will we?By Ben Lamb, Guest Writer, 10-20-10
Photo by Brian Scott
The political wrangling over wolves since the latest relisting in August is now in full force. It’s unfortunate that we’ve arrived at a place where the only solution that most Montanans see regarding wolves is political in nature.
Looking back over 100 years of wildlife conservation in the state of Montana, political solutions have rarely helped wildlife. In the past, hunter-conservationists struggled mightily to remove political influence from wildlife management, and we were largely successful. The management scenario that was developed, known as the North American Fish and Wildlife Conservation Model, has resulted in the largest rebound in wildlife populations around the globe. This is the model that would be applied to wolves if we could get to a sustainable delisting, and get beyond the pettifogging and the political grandstanding. But for now, we’re at a stalemate. This stalemate has led to congressional efforts to delist wolves:
There are three schools of thought on how best to proceed:
1. Exempt wolves from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by amending the act to permanently remove wolves from ever falling under the ESA’s jurisdiction (H.R. 6028).
2. Remove Montana and Idaho wolf populations from the Endangered Species list while following the intent of the ESA by requiring that Montana and Idaho have U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approve plans and require the five-year monitoring period required in the ESA (S. 3864).
3. Do nothing and keep litigating this issue until we’re all so sick and tired of it, and each other, that we throw up our hands and walk away from the table and let the wolves eat everything, including the “wolf warriors” on both sides.
I’m about ready to embrace Option 3.
I’ve been working on the wolf issue for eight years, both in Montana and Wyoming. I’ve heard all of the horror stories, ranging from the anti-wolf crowd’s stories about how “the foals scream when wolves come through the corrals” to the fears of ingesting wolf poop and getting a tapeworm.
I’ve been subjected to cocktail conversations where people have actually opined about whether anybody has bothered to ask the wolves how they feel about being relocated. I’ve had women in multi-colored frocks pray for my soul while declaring me an “enemy of the wolf.”
It’s gotten just plain ridiculous.
One proponent of amending the ESA has stated that this is the beginning of attempts to gut the ESA. Good luck with that; seriously. We can always use a good modern day rendition of Don Quixote in the wildlife world, like the frivolous petition to get USFWS to reintroduce wolves outside of Omaha and Topeka.
These attempts show just how far toward the fringe the two opposing sides have traveled. A few hunting groups, pushing for amending the ESA, are willing to sacrifice the good standing and reputation of hunters in a largely non-hunting nation in order to limit wolf numbers to the absolute bare minimum. I believe they have no eye toward biological sustainability and diversity. They want to strip one animal of their protections “permanently” for conveniences sake. This makes hunters look selfish and petty.
Meanwhile, the environmental crowd doesn’t seem to think that true wolf recovery is anything less than complete saturation of wolves in the continental U.S. They disregard the impacts to cattle producers and the prevailing sentiment that enough is enough. This makes wolf lovers look selfish and petty, and it provides fertile ground for those who truly would love to gut the ESA.
That’s why I got excited when I saw that Montana’s two Senators actually introduced a bill that would get us beyond all the blathering and idiocy--and allow us to start managing wolves like we manage elk, deer and most species of wildlife. The bill itself is really quite simple, and quite brilliant. It gives the USFWS the authority to delist wolves based on political boundaries. It resolves what Judge Molloy (whom I think is a damned good judge) said was the problem. Furthermore, the bill doesn’t weaken the ESA like other bills do through amending the act to fully eliminate any protection for wolves.
Put plainly, this effort by Baucus and Tester has the best chance of passage out of any bill dealing with wolves. It’s politically savvy; it’s sensitive to the desires of most Americans--to have wolves on the landscape--and it allows the two states who have managed this issue to get their homework finished and submitted in order to pass on to the next grade. It’s a reasonable solution to this problem at this point-in-time.
God bless Max and Jon. They hit it out of the park.
Politically, I don’t see how amending the ESA to permanently exclude wolves would ever get the broad-based support needed to pass in Congress. The attempt to attach the Texas bill on to the Continuing Resolution before the fall recess would have required a unanimous vote in the Senate to move on. Yeah, I can see Al Franken or Barbara Boxer going for that.
It also strikes me as odd that supporters of the Texas bill are ardent opponents to the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act based on the fact that non-western lawmakers are telling Western states what to do with their lands. The established courtesy in Congress is to let states affected by specific issues deal with those issues themselves. Why abandon that long held and appropriate belief when trying to delist wolves?
The approach taken by Baucus and Tester can garner broad-based support. Support from liberals and conservatives. It’s statesmanship at its finest. It’s a calculated, intelligent, and thoughtful approach to settling this issue, at least in two states that have met all of the delisting criteria. Sure, many will oppose the measure, especially those who hold the ESA sacrosanct, but the truth is, because of unbending ideology and dogma, we’re now in an unconstructive stalemate. So the caterwauling should be focused in the mirror of those who stand on the platform in western towns rallying folks against wolves, and those who hold fundraisers in skyscrapers to raise millions of dollars to “save the wolf.”
Tying delisting to USFWS-approved plans follows the intent of the ESA. Perhaps other states that have met delisting criteria, and have approved plans, could get on board with this effort, and also seek to delist wolves. I know I wouldn’t be too upset over that. Especially if it silences those on the fringe who constantly fill my inbox with recipes on how to poison wolves, or how wolves are really spirited animals who love to romp and play and happily coexist in wolf towns, with wolf families, driving their wolf cars to their wolf jobs.
Ben Lamb is a wildlife conservationist living in Helena, Montana.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
All the other states are still under the bus, still vulnerable to what you call "complete saturation of wolves in the continental U.S." as outlined in CBD's July petition.
Giving Salazar oversight will result in a politically-set number of wolves which, while being too many and far more than first proposed, then renegoitated, will after being "compromised" to satisfy some "national interest" be way too many wolves on the landscape overall. Never mind that finding the "compromise" will mean even more delay and unregulated breeding.
NWF should be getting a clue that even grizzlies are nowhere near close to being delisted and won't be until Congress acts to change the ESA either partially or completely -- in all cases any reform must be substantial.
The brutal fact is, the Edwards bill as in Option One is the only way state management can be effective. If the Edwards scenario passes, then states get their policy back, with one critical caveat. If in fact the affected states act to render wolves endangered or threatened with extirpation, then Congress can respond by changing the law and placing wolves back under ESA protection.
Greens need to understand that if they do not take the small step of separating the wolves from the ESA, then the issue of fundamental changes in the ESA itself will be on the table -- and the political winds are starting to blow.
What wolf group do you really work for?
It has NOTHING to do with some "North American Conservation Model" or hunting, and everything to do with setting aside public land, protecting that land and enforcing wildlife regulations. The truth is, Montana wildlife has survived DESPITE most ranchers ( not all) who have made wildlife enemy #1 in some deranged philosophy passed down through generations.
There is no wolf problem. It's really a people problem stemming from skill less and unhappy, rural white males who use the wolf as a venting symbol. That's it.
This thing is so blown out of proportion it's embarrassing. The almost fanatical focus on guns and wolves in these states is the real problem. There is a culture of death that unfortunately gets passed down generations.
Let the wolves be. Get a life. Go to a movie. Read a book. Spend some time with loved ones. Better yet, go to a library and read. Four hours a day should do it.
When you're in a fight and feeling the heat, it's always tempting to acquiesce to whatever your assailant wants, just to make the noise and abuse stop; but, that's no way to stand up for what's right. Solutions that address Idaho or Montana or even Idaho and Montana may make a few selfish or otherwise poorly bred people act less abusively toward you and your other interests or projects; but, they still leave the question of Wyoming open, which ultimately opens a crack in the intent and foundations of the ESA in the process. Similarly, solutions that make these same people happy about local control in Idaho or Montana or Idaho and Montana may open the door to an eventual lowering of wolf numbers to a point below long-term genetic viability, which again ultimately weakens the foundations of the ESA in the process. The talk about 100 wolves just won't cut it and neither will snookering the courts to allow state management and then reducing numbers to that level.
I don't see wolves as sacred. I don't mind a bit of hunting and culling of the wolf population. But, I do stand firm that wolf populations and their management, whether by the federal government or the states absolutely must address the requirement to restore and sustain both physical and genetic populations, sufficient to maintain both population strength and genetic viability across their historic NRM range, which includes Wyoming. If people like Rehberg or Otter or whoever want to get this issue resolved, they need, first, to get their counterparts in Wyoming straightened out and, second, to set management policies that will ensure high enough populations to reliably sustain genetic viability over the long haul.
Those of us who have closely followed the wolf and wildlife issues on the ground in Montana for more than 50 years, know that the National Wildlife Federation pushed very hard to get the large wolves selected for elk killing ability hauled here from Canada. The Federation produced a time-line for wolves on the internet "1979--Responding to sporadic wolf sightings in MT in the 1970's biologists capture a wolf just north of the Canadian border and track its movements with a radio collar. This discovery marks the 1st confirmed wolf activity in the U.S. Rockies in roughly 50 years." It was alledgedly a bald faced lie and low numbers of native wolves have always been present in NW and SW Montana.
Ten per cent of historic Montana wolf records were alledgedly covered up or eliminated to get the large Canadian wolves. Those records were those showing more than two wolves, wolf pups and wolf dens.
Reports showing the wolf information were hidden from the public or mis-quoted. Read Status and history of timber wolves in Glacier National Park, GNP Scientific Paper No. 1. 1975 55 pp with 20 pages of wolf observations. Read The Status and distribution of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States by Gary L. Day 1981 M.S. Thesis U. of Montana 130 pp. Gary is the current district judge in Miles City, MT. Read Yellowstone Wolves by Cat Urbigkit 2008 350 pp. which shows the records of wolves in SW MT, Yellowstone National Park and Wyoming prior to 1995.
Regarding Judge Molloy all the economic problems he has caused for Montana and other western states on many issues should be closely examined to get a dollar impact. Then he should be impeached and removed by Congress. Baucus would probably defend his appointee. Wyoming's gain on Lamb was our loss.
Wow. Just wow.
My IQ dropped fifty points.
As for Baucus and Tester would you trust them? Their popularity in Montana has declined measurably are they looking for a way to dazzle us? Who advises these Congressmen tell me. Do they get advice from staff or someone with background and knowledge of the issue? Do they support more 'wolf studies' that go nowhere and say nothing,just employment? The problem with wolves is very serious and will jeopardize the future of hunting in our state as well as Idaho and Wyoming. YNP is a lost cause and the killer wolves have destroyed the "diversity" in YNP. Did you know the US Army had a wolf control program in the early 1900's to rid the Park of killer wolves? They did it as well. Wolves were killing all the ungulate populations in YNP. Now the killers are back,thanks B.Clinton.
Currently the issue is all politics there is no biological understanding of the problem and the impacts to Montana. Yes, they kill livestock but big game animals 365 days a year. No Baucus and Tester won't accomplish anything they are playing political games. Max and Jon go talk to obama and the Sec. of Interior about the problem. Those four that have no idea what the problem is and how to solve it.
Yes Clinton brought the killers down here from Alberta and B.C. under the name of "conservation".The Canadian biologists warned us once you bring them down here they will never be controlled. The politicians had closed ears of course,support the party right?
Two important facts about the introduction. It was 'illegal' from the beginning we already had documented wolves here and they violated the Endangered Species Act by not allowing that population to "recover" and we were lied to there were none also the killers "would stay in the pantry".'The wolves will never leave the pantry' they said. So this is an "experimental population"? Actual words of the NPS and USFWS. Then there was the "mystery wolves" as described in Alston Chase book "Playing God In Yellowstone" Chapter 10. Those wolves were brought down from Alaska in a 'secret experiment' unknown to the public. They all violated federal and state law again,more lies. November 2 we can begin voting incompetents out and we will get to Baucus,Tester and obama in 2012. Hunters you will see the loss of hunting opportunities in a few years unimaginable,uncontrolled wolves increasing 27%/yr. The objective of the introduction was "anti-hunting" from the beginning and we are seeing it now 'mission accomplished' for the anti-hunters and Defenders of Wildlife with the 'aid' of the politicians.Why won't they 'delist' the killer wolves......... not "politically correct" right?
paycheck for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, giving them something to do to earn a paycheck and not caring about our elk and deer herds. I also see the wolf recovery program as a way to end hunting as we know it, and as a way to end gun ownership.
I applaud the governor of Idaho for taking a stand to end state
involvement in managing the wolf, but his political opponent for
governor who is a democrat disagrees, saying the governor whould not hand over all control of the wolf to the Feds. Wake up stupid, they already do!!! And Governor Otter is not handing control to the Feds, he's giving it back to the residents of Idaho!
It's too bad that the Governor of Montana is a democrat, and I'm sure he won't want to ruffle the feathers of Obama's cabinet (Salizar). Too bad we have a liberal federal judge like Molloy
(9th judicial district out of San Francisco) calling the shots on this issue. We need some real changes at the Federal and
State level if we wnat to keep or cultural heritage (hunting,
fishing and 2nd amendment rights). This whole wolf recovery
program from the beginning lacks any commmon sense (something
our forefathers had a lot of). I have seen the pictures of what
wolves do to pregnant cow elk in the spring, ripping the unborn
calf elk from the cow's stomach, eating only part of the calf, and letting the cow lay there and bleed to death and rot. This is the
biggest waste of our wild game resources that could ever happen.
Animal rights activists seem to completely ignore the rights and
protection or our elk and deer herds, over feeding a bunch of
Canadian wolves (Canada is laughing at us). It is time for the
people of Montana to take control of this issue, beginning with
hunting season, if you know what I mean. Too bad the Elk
Foundation is taking a complacent position on this issue just like
they have been all these years, not to ruffle some donater' feathers, and to save their paychecks. Guess I'll lose my breakfast now, the whole situation makes me sick.
I always hafta shake my head at the "they did it for the money" comments; c'mon, get a life!!! Everybody gets paid for doing their job, and the USFWS are the federal governement's department to impliment the ESA; in other words restoring an endangered species IS THEIR JOB, like it or not. Now if can just get these dang things delisted, I may soon have a nice rug on the wall!!!
We should relocate wolves in Pennsylvania, Central California, Massachusetts, etc.
Here in MT like Baucus and Testor there is talk of compromise,
like we were suckered when wolf reintroduction was proposed.
"only 8% loss in herds"
But the pro-wolf people will shout you down the minute they
hear you disagreeing, call you bitter, a "Montanoid" a redneck.
Great article and dialogue Ben.
"There is no wolf problem. It's really a people problem stemming from skill less and unhappy, rural white males who use the wolf as a venting symbol. That's it."
People like you are the problem.
State fish and game agencies,and the USFWS are the reason that ALL wildlife populations in the US have rebounded from historic lows. This was financed mainly by hunters and fishermen.
Hunters have done far more for wildlife conservation than any of the animal rights,save the wolves groups. ALL money from our license,permit,and tag fees go to the state game agencies or the USFWS,we pay an EXTRA 11% tax on firearms and ammunition,which also goes to state game agencies,and the USFWS,the Federal "Duck Stamp" program is what built the wildlife refuge system in this country.
All the save the wolves types have contributed are lawsuits,and people who live in big cities,far from the areas affected,attempting to impose their personal views on the areas involved. Stay in the cities,and leave the states alone to manage the wildlife in their own states without interference from extreme enviro groups.
I say direct release of wolves in every area where the leaders of all the save the wolves people live-right in their gated communities,on their bike paths and jogging trails,release wolves in all the inner city and suburban "green spaces" they like so much. Then when all the suburbs have nothing for the wolves to eat,they will start eating dogs,cats,and attacking the joggers.
Then the enviros would be open to compromise.
There were definitely wolves in both the Flathead,and Kootenai Natl. forests in '95. I saw tracks,scat,and heard the howling when hunting around those two areas.
"No, the Baucus Tester version is complete garbage.
All the other states are still under the bus, still vulnerable to what you call "complete saturation of wolves in the continental U.S." as outlined in CBD's July petition."
The CBD is a fringe group of extreme enviros,who are almost all lawyers,look up their history of lawsuits in CA,and all their "contributions" to the wolf issue. They think humans are the problem,and put a 3" fish,which is not in danger of extinction,and has populations in other CA rivers and streams,before drinking water from an existing reservoir,effecting almost a half million people. (Santa Ana sucker)
The CBD is a dangerous extreme enviro group, and all their lawyers make a living by filing absurd lawsuits to stop any human progress.
You guys really stick together don't you? If the federation had spent as much time as I have looking into the false wolf history and wolf transplant scams you would probably be trying to put former senior vice president for conservation programs for National Wildlife Federation, Jaime Clark in jail. Since you are a PA native and probably haven't spent many years in MT you probably are not very aware of Montana wildlife history and the people who were involved in bringing us the Canadian wolves. Also you probably don't know a lot of the people who saw wolf dens, wolf pups and wolf packs prior to 1995. Have you read the great discovery of a wolf den in 1986 in GNP which was rushed into print in 1989 by Bob Ream et al in the obscure Northwest Naturalist which most people in MT have never heard of or read? It was titled First Wolf Den in Western U.S. in Recent History. It apparently triggered the avalanche of false wolf info about no pups or wolf packs being present in MT and the need to bring in the transplant wolves. It stated ..."In the northern Rocky Mountains wolves have been observed and killed occasionally duirng the past 50 years but no reproduction or dens have been documented.'... "...Wolf surveys in Montana from 1972 to 1979 yielded no evidence of wolf reproduction...". Ream and others ignored and never quoted the 1975, 55 page GNP report by Francis Singer(Frank) whom I knew and whose boss was my MSC, Bozeman office mate Cliff Martinka. Ream et al neglected to quote the report by Ursula Mattson and Ream, Current Status of the gray wolf(Canus lupus) on the Rocky Mountain Front, 1978, 18 pp. which pointed out wolf pups and reproduction and a also a den dug on the SRGR. The wolf den Gary Day reported at Cameron in 1974 with two adult wolves and three pups was ignored as were the wolf packs he and Singer reported. Larry, I saw three wolves myself on the Rocky Mountain Front and saw tracks of others. I know many people in Montana who reported sightings of wolves from the 1940's on including pups and packs and a person who killed a wolf in 1968 on which I collected info. We need to get wolves delisted nation-wide and then we need to get the grizzly bears delisted as soon as possible. Yes Larry, I have done research on grizzlies and I keep up to date on them.
Since you've made some accusations, I'll be happy to respond:
a.)Since you are a PA native and probably haven't spent many years in MT you probably are not very aware of Montana wildlife history and the people who were involved in bringing us the Canadian wolves - I've been in Montana since October of 1980 and have a wildlife management degree so am very aware of Montana's history. Since I wasn't born here, I have probably taken MORE interest in Montana and its history than You or Jack have. Since Shallenberger is as Germanic as my last name, I'm quite sure somebody back your father's line hadda move here too!!!
b.)Also you probably don't know a lot of the people who saw wolf dens, wolf pups and wolf packs prior to 1995. I hunt with Diane Boyd for the past 6 years, so I'd say I know the people pretty well. I simply don't share your paranoid perspective even if I can agree that the feds didn't pay any attention to the state "experts" Ream, Cross, and Boyd. No, you are correct, I didn't read that obscure article you're referring to, I've been too busy actually talking to the people responsible for the discovery.
c.)...I saw three wolves myself on the Rocky Mountain Front and saw tracks of others... I saw my first wolf 5 miles west of Augusta crossing a hay field in March 1993, several years before any intro into Hayden Valley.
d.)...you would probably be trying to put former senior vice president for conservation programs for National Wildlife Federation, Jaime Clark in jail... if you think MWF has any control over NWF, you are sadly mistaken. They have their agenda, MWF has Montana's sporting heritage as our agenda. But just to put things into proper perspective, who was it that filed to delist Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowtone??? I expect you know but wouldn't give any credit because it goes against your paranoid agenda.
I have ALWAYS maintained the intro was unnecessary except have said facetiously they may be needed to control the overpopulation of elk near Gardiner where the browse line was 8 ft. above the ground !!!... only in fun tho. We need to get these things delisted so we can control our own Montana wildlife!!!Yet you imply otherwise so is it any wonder why I call you paranoid?
Maybe, unlike you, I don't look/see conspiracies in this, just some poor decisions that need rectifying. The Baucus/Tester bill is the compromise to get it done. If you would rather see the Edwards bill become law??? Do you really want to see the ESA end??? You two are biologists, act like it! The conservatives have been gunning for the ESA for 35years!!! What's next?? "...Who needs them damn bull trout anyway, they're interfering with our mine in Libby"..., or "...those dang grayling in the Big Hole are a nuisance for my irrigation water rights, afterall, aren't there grayling in Alaska or some dang place like that"... so, I respectfully suggest to both you and Jack, be careful what you wish for!!! Max's bill pays respect to the intent of the ESA, at least which is the point of Mr. Lamb's comment if you really got his point. Delisting wolves is so important to me that I personally don't want people to muck it up by doing something stupid!!!!
You are ignorantly presuming things about me and Mr. Lamb that just don't prove right in the light of day; I'd suggest YOU should know what YOU're talking about. Maybe knowing isn't important to you. I've been in Montana over 30 years (probably longer than DIEWOLFDIE has been alive), maybe next year they'll (read you and Jack) let me be a resident!!! If that sounds ignorant, maybe you should look in the mirror. Next time I'll be more respectful, at least if you'll be respectful in return.
I think everyone is welcome to their own opinions, and that no-one's opinions are absolute!!... but we're entitled to them! But, then again, some people think theirs is the only right perspective and everyone else is an idiot!!!
I guess they didn't teach spelling well in PA as my first and last names have been incorrectly spelled on your posts. Actually my name is Swiss and they are much tougher than Germans if you check out history.
You don't mention how much Montana Wildlife history you learned from your out of state University B.S. Degree. Actually my family history goes back to 1881 here and I have talked to my great-grandmother and other relatives about it. Plus I have read from 100-300 books per year and a lot of Montana history including wildlife reports. I first went to work on MT wildlife research in 1963. You are right you will be qualified as a Montana resident this year if you have survived 30 winters here.
One thing you learn with a graduate wildlife degree and working full-time in research and management is the need for accuracy and how important accurate history and locations are to your work. Take for example your claims about the first wolf den discovered by Diane Boyd in 1982. The 1982 and 1985 dens she discovered were in Canada north of Glacier National Park. The report in the Northwestern Naturalist 70:39-49 Autumn 1989 by Ream, Fairchild, Boyd and Blakesely and financed by the MT FWP Dept. was for a wolf den first used April 15, 1986 in GNP. MT WL Fed put out inaccurate info and you should read the report and correct it. I've never met Boyd. My wife would not let me hunt with her.
You came here when the wolf research was winding down in YNP, Montana and Idaho. Research in the 1970's showed wolves in all those areas and also in Wyoming. The efforts in the 1980's and 90's were mostly to get transplants. I have known Ream and all his blemishes and political proclivities since he arrived in MT. I have known Jim Cross since he became a biologist and also the former two game managers preceding Cross at Kalispell, Richard Weckwerth and Faye Couey. I have never known Cross to speak up on controversial issues at meetings. I knew many of the other people involved on the wolf plans and I have read all those reports and EIS's, many thousands of pages, and found out how the true wolf history was covered and changed.
When you are researching the first illegal wolf transplant to Yellowstone National Park read Cat Urbigkit's book pages 43-46. Contact 5th Generation Native Bill Hoppe at Gardener. He saw those wolf crates with scats in them in the Park.
It is not just about wolves killing wild ungulates. They are also running them off WMA's sportsmen have purchased for millions of dollars such as the Blacktail and Robb/Ledford. They have been doing that since 2001 and also have moved most of the wintering elk in the Blacktail Mountains to Sage Creek in winter. A field trip to the Blacktail on Oct. 16th with FWP indicates they are going to try to move elk off the private ranches and onto the purchased winter ranges starting this winter after pressure from locals including me since 2003.
In many years of working with wildlife and wolf worker contacts in Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta, Yukon, Idaho, Wyoming and other states including Arizona, Maryland, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Virginia and Washington I have learned we need to take a broad view of the unendangered wolves. The simple one sentence from Texas has a lot of nation-wide support and will get the job done. I have closely followed and opposed the ESA from the start and that was before all the lawsuits cost billions of dollars and harmed many industries. It badly needs a major overhaul. I believe strongly in the US Constitution and the 10th amendment in particular for wildlife. I swore an oath in the military to defend the Constituition against enemies both foreign and domestic. You'll start to see progress that will be good for the U.S. on Nov. 2, 2010.
"Option 3: Do nothing and keep litigating this issue until we’re all so sick and tired of it, and each other, that we throw up our hands and walk away from the table and let the wolves eat everything, including the “wolf warriors” on both sides."
So when anyone on this comment board says that wolves are not a problem, they are either stupid...or a liar. Or, perhaps a bit of both.
As for Ben Lamb...he's a wolf in sheeps clothing. I've been at several meetings where he has spoken, and he is as anti-hunting as they come. He has put himself upon a pedestal so he can worship how "sincere" and "caring" he pretends to be. Out of one side of his mouth, he tries to talk the Montana hunter's jargon...out of the other side he comes off as pro-wolf as they come...and talks down to anyone who even suggests taking care of the wolf problem - whether it has federal approval or not. And, Ben ol' boy, that now means you are agaisnt the vast majority of Montana hunters. And the more you talk down to them...the less they will support the Montana Wildlife Federation.
The ESA is broken...and needs to be overhauled. And that is thanks to organizatons like Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity...who have raped it for millions of dollars through the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Baucus-Tester bill does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. (Probably just the way they want it.) Those two clowns could have gotten behind a Senate (Hatch-Reid) version of Chet Edwards' - Denny Rehberg's H.R. 6028, and revised that slop bucket known as the ESA to remove the wolf from its protection. Instead, they drafted their own bill, selfishly seeking "wolf management" only here in Montana and Idaho...not any where else.
So, who's going to support the Baucus - Tester bill? Surely no one in other states where wolves are currently causing wildlife and livestock losses...or where "real sportsmen" would like to have the opportunity to control wolf numbers if and when they mysteriously move into their state.
When Congress reconvenes, watch and see how many wolf bills are proposed. America has had enough of the idiotic wolf project.
Yesterday was opening day of the Montana general deer and elk seasons...and I heard about a dozen shots in the general vacinity of where I was hunting...but come evening, I did not see one deer or elk hanging on any of the meat poles in the half-dozen camps I drove past. Like all who are now ready to take care of the wolf problem, I can only hope that many of those shots were at the wolves which have destroyed the big game herds up and down western Montana.
Wolves will be dealt with...whether little Donnie Molloy likes it or not!
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Hunting used to be something I liked doing, a good way to put meat in the freezer and spend time in the hills. It's not that there's no game anymore -- we rode up to about 9000' on Thursday and jumped a lot of elk. Nope, there's just so much anger and politicization around hunting now that I'd just as soon put a ranch bison or a beef in the freezer and spend my free time some other way.
Ben Lamb is anti-hunting? Wow. Bullies and lynch-mob leaders always like to enforce the extremist ideology through intimidation and threat. "You're either 110% with us, or you're the enemy! My way or the highway!"
The Baucus-Tester bill has the best chance of success because it addresses the immediate problem: we have a fully-recovered wolf population in ID & MT, and need to have state management and a hunt. That approach is more likely to get support from legislators from the 40-odd states that don't have any wolf problems. Keep in mind, California has 53 Congressmen in the US House of Representatives.
Hunting won't miss you.
Also, I wouldn't go up to 9,000 feet anymore. The thin air apparently makes you halucinate.
That mountain you were on...it wasn't in western Montana or northern Idaho...was it?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
I won't disclose my places, because I haven't totally made up my mind not to try for a cow elk. Got a good mule and horse and we can cover the country. I will tell you it's in FWP Region 3. I will also say that the elk there probably benefit from control actions on wolves due to livestock predation.
"Testosterone"
A couple more unfortunate insults. It was testosterone that made you honey. I've heard this insult a lot. If I said the same at work [re:females] I'd be fired. And the top one ... phew. The ethics I teach my sons shooting and hunting. The last time I heard comments like this was in Boston or SF.
Like Garcia I laugh at insults, because it means a breakdown, or you are winning. What do they say "a redneck or bigot is someone winning an argument with a liberal"
Although Mr. Garcia, if the Nez Perce love the native species so much they should get rid of their cattle and horses =)
Just back from elk hunting, in a ruined area... I'm giving up there. And I've taken an elk out of there... until the last five years, for the past thirty. The MT FWP officer, and I'll hardly be specific for the narcs out there... at the trailhead said "there was a herd of 3500 elk up here, now there's about 200."
A lot of these wolf fanatics remind me of the three years I spent in Africa, watching the Save the Elephants/Rhinos Mercedes 4x4s speeding by villages where half the beautiful blessed children die of gastro-intestinal diseases before they are two. I told every African I worked with "I am here to see you not elephants"
and again the first comment, John what do you know about death? [from a grunt whose seen far to much] selah
you forgot to say we have small reproductive organs
I'll leave up to you to describe your organs!
If you are NOT out there telling people to put Temik or xylitol out in the woods to poison wolves (and pointers, border collies, foxes, coyotes), then you needn't accept that label. I think people who are encouraging that kind of stuff are sadists and sociopaths.
And I think people who try to ostracize, exclude, de-legitimize others who don't share their extremist views are bullies. Ben Lamb wrote a thoughtful piece about wolf politics, and here he has people saying his opinion is worthless because he wasn't born here, because he is a big guy, because he works for a non-profit, whatever. Dig for any reason at all to discredit him, rather than address his arguments on their merits in a reasonable way. I think that's bullying.
You are a phony...like so many pro-wolfers. Every aspect of the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project is riddled with lies and deceit. And you have no ammo to defend what wolves are doing to our other wildlife resources. You must have dreamt about going up to 9,000 feet and jumping a "lot of elk".
Lolo Herd...down from about 13,000 elk to fewer tha 2,000...the Gallatin Herd...down from about 2,000 to fewer than 500...the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd...down from nearly 19,000 to fewer than 5,000...the West Fork Bitterroot Herd down from 2,000 to only about 700...
And we could go on and on and on...everywhere wolves are now ingrained, there has been massive destruction of big game herds. Period. So when a blowhard such as yourself comes onto these comment boards, and spouts off about the wonderful wolf and how dumping those non-native, non-endangered Canadian wolves here have been great for the ecosystem, and that elk and other big game herds are doing just fine - the sportsmen who actually do get out into the mountains quickly realize that anyone making such a comment is one of two things...a bold faced liar, or an extremely dillusional individual.
Which are you?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Your "my way or the highway, I know the facts and you couldn't possibly know what you're talking about" reply confirms a lot of what I'd heard about you.
And, you're either irrational or your reading comprehension is at a 3rd grade level. Go back and look at what I wrote. You accuse me of arguing "that the wonderful wolf and how dumping those non-native, non-endangered Canadian wolves here have been great for the ecosystem, and that elk and other big game herds are doing just fine".
I didn't write anything remotely like that.
I said I saw some elk up high (approximately 90 elk in two groups). I also said that they probably are not experiencing that much wolf predation BECAUSE the wolves in that range are being "managed" by Wildlife Services.
Friends in Wyoming are seeing a similar trend -- areas without livestock = unmanaged wolf populations because there's no wolf hunting going on. Areas with or adjacent to livestock grazing = managed wolf populations because Wildlife Services kills wolves there.
My point about mentioning the elk I saw was NOT to argue that wolves are having no effect. They clearly are. But there are still elk out there. I'm sure I saw dead ones in trucks the last two days -- or are you going to tell me that absolutely no one in western MT has killed an elk this season?
Anyway. I'm not concerned about your opinion of me, and I'm not interested in debating you. I am satisfied to confirm that you are a bully, and someone who will play no constructive role in figuring out how we'll live with wolves in the Northern Rockies.
I'm no bully. Anything but. However, I am tired of folks whizzing down my back and telling me it is only warm rain water. And your story about jumping a "lot of elk" is just more pro-wolf whizzing.
Take your story on the road, and see what kind of reception you get. Run over to Salmon, ID and tell them that "It's not that there's no game anymore...", or to the West Fork of the Bitterroot and try to sell that line to outfitters who are facing the loss of their livelihood...maybe up around the Trout Creek area, and have a few beers with boys at the Naughty Pine bar, and tell them there are still plenty of elk out thar in dem dar hillls - and see what kind of reception you get.
Your complacency is sickening. As I said, hunting will not miss you.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
It's a measure of how extreme and polarized this thing has become: I say I saw 90 elk, you call me a liar, and you seem to think I'm saying that seeing 90 elk in one basin means elk numbers everywhere have been unaffected by wolves. And, that if say I saw 90 elk, that I am "pro wolf."
Think about that.
Unfortunately, some people aren't happy unless they making enemies out of those who should/could be their friends...!!! All I hadda do to get one of 'em going was to intentionally misspell his name(s) and he showed how petty he was when he criticized me for it...!!!HA!!!... and I didn't even need to mention what happened to the mountain goats west of Depuyer when he was a biologist there. They know everything and everyone else is an idiot... amazing how that goes, eh? Thanks for your common sense. Last year I saw 200 elk for 2 days in a row AND found a wolf kill in a district that is more than 50% above elk objective. Evidently they won't be there for long, I guess the either sex season will bring the numbers back down unless the wolves getthem first. I guess all those dang wolves will need to grow roots and feed on air since they've killed all the elk and all the deer!
This is not an either /or assessment as clearly toby is both.
"23 of Idaho's 29 management zones have elk numbers within targets or above" "just because a lot of wolves live in the area, it doesn't automatically mean that elk populations there are low" "in fact in three management zones with high wolf densities, cow elk numbers are above target levels" "in some management zones more elk are lost to other factors including Mountain Lions, coyotes, bears, hunters, habitat and weather" "this study is designed to be part of ongoing research to help manage elk and wolf populations"
Somebody's blowing smoke. Guess who?
what everyone should know about toby
"
hmmm tony Myer from saveelk, toby bridges from Lobowatch.
can yousay birds of a feather
Down on the Refuge in Jackson, they usually feed 5500 elk during March. In heavy snow years it reaches 8000 elk being fed. Unless you're blind or crippled, all you have to do is walk about a quarter mile and pick you animal headed for the Refuge. Wyoming Game & Fish and the NPS would like about 300 nice and fat elk to be taken. Other national parks are considering special hunts because they have too damn many Elk and Deer. Rocky Mountain National Park, Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Valley Forge National Historical Park to name just 3. Apparently the Big Bad Wolves in the lower 48 aren't devouring all the Elk and deer in sight. The hunt runs from Oct9 to Dec6 and has occurred every year for the past 60 years except for 2 years.
My friends Don Aldrich and John Gilpatrick are probably rolling over in their graves at what the staff of their Federation are saying.
The ESA has not worked real well since 1973 and was not based on the US Constitution but rather five or six international treaties as I recall. It seems to have been operating on bluff because it has not been re-authorized since 1992. Somehow it keeps getting funds but perhaps that will change as more people become aware of the many problems with it. Also radical enviro groups have badly abused it and U.S. citizens in courts.
The simple one sentence law proposed by Rep. Cliff Edwards Democrat from Texas is a very good solution for the wolf problem nationwide, has bi-partisan support and is the beginning of a much needed overhaul of the ESA. Other states I did not mention which support delisting of wolves include Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico all of which have major wolf problems.
Regarding the wildife history for the front, you not only missed the boat but dived in and stuck your head in the muddy bottom. I was the first full time biologist working on the Front from just north of Helena to the Canadian Border and east including the Sweetgrass Hills. I figured there were about 24,000 big game ungulates I was responsible for and lots of other species including upland game birds, black and grizzly bears, mountain lions and other species including some wolves. For the first five years on the job the local Region 4 game manager had the rule that the biologists in Choteau, Great Falls and Lewistown were assigned specific species reports for Region 4. I wrote the elk report for Region 4. The raw data for other species with no analysis was shipped to Lewistown or Great Falls biologists who wrote the reports and analyzed the data. It was a poor system and we finally got it changed so each person could analyze his own data for the various species. By the way I received a commendation from the USFWS PR inspector for writing detailed and outspoken reports.
Very little data was collected on mountain goats and I was concerned and started a state wide jaw survey to get some age data. I was told by the game manager in Helena at the time in no uncertain terms that I should quit wasting my time on minor species and work with the bread and butter species, elk, deer and antelope. I think we were funded for only two mountain goat flights the whole time I was on the front. On one of them we had to haul a 240 pound person in the small Bell helicopter which was very hazardous and we could not survey much of the rugged area. I told the game managers in Region 4 and in Helena since they were not supporting field work they could set the quotas themselves and which they did by guessing. They badly overshot the animals. I just got tired of fighting the poor system.
In case you think I was sloughing off, I averaged 60 hours per week for 10 years working for FG and in addition spent six years in the USAR. The chief of wildlife management in the 1960's had me analyze my work records and they became the prototype job description for a game management biologist in MT until about 1985 when Kurt Alt's records became the current standard. In my spare time I and a few friends kept the oil and gas industry from destroying the front.
When I left to start the first grizzly research in Montana outside parks and which was on the Front and areas adjacent where radio marked grizzlies traveled I was replaced by two game management biologists.
The ESA is a good tool, perhaps flawed but what happens without it??? You give this crap about how many generations your family is in Montana, which only tells me, you are completely ignorant of the real threats out there. You didn't have your rivers catching fire; you didn't have your elk and deer considered private property like in TX (yet); you don't have houses every 1/4 mile throughout your mountains... well, I had my trout streams getting polluted every other year because you can't tell industry what to do. The ESA changed all that along with the CWaterA and CAirA. The Monongahela River ran black with a pH of 4.3 in 1970 but in 1974 had a pH of 6.8 and eatable crappies and largemouth bass thanks to governement regulation in the Clean Water Act. In WV, the locals feared Fisher intros thinking the predator would eat everything, they didn't. Elk are back in WV, PA, KY. Bald Eagles are delisted, Peregine Falcons are delisted!!! Without a watchdog, this crap happens; now if the Edwards bill passes then what??? It sets the precedent that a species that becomes a nuisance is expendable. You still haven't answered my question about what happens to Montana Grayling if the ESA goes away? Or bull trout??? or Wolverine?? Maybe it just doesn't matter to you, only elk and deer matter. Regradless, if the ESA dies or is gutted like a fish, you could lose other species you actually want to keep; I'm not willing to let that happen, if I can help it. I don't know what Don Aldrich would say but I suspect he would have respect for the ESA for the good it has done instead of throwing it down the crapper because you don't like wolves!!! Let's keep the ESA, fix the process, get wolves delisted, then manage them with hunting. I doubt good biologists would have a problem with sound reasoning, but who knows.
I missed knowing Don Aldrich, but his son wears a remarkable legacy and wears it well for MWF. John Fitzpatrick soured on MWF a decade ago, but I talked to John for a couple of hours back 6 years ago and we parted with mutual respect. Too bad you can't ask him. My mentors George Engler and Jim Phelps respected me and George still does; I have nothing to apologize or make excuses for. But it isn't about me, even though you can't help yourself, you keep trying to make about the people instead of the issues. The old guard saw everything in terms of production of "important" wildlife and eliminating predators which feed on them. In case you haven't noticed, time moves on, it's a different world out there. Our common enemy in the preservationists and anti-hunters whom we can do little about and who could stop hunting given the right circumstances. However, the non-hunter urbanite can either be our friend or our foe; if you can't justify actions based on a balanced conservation ethic and wildlife balance, they'll not support you. Like it or not, that's the current world. But instead you'd build walls between hunters who don't ALWAYS think alike and call THEM enemies; what's wrong with you??? We come by our opinions and positions honestly, as you probably do. My biggest problem is that people like you and Jack are of the mindset that because you are knowledgeable (sorta, in your own venomous way) then everybody else is an idiot!! I can't pay respect to that. Instead of working within MWF you stand on the outside and throw curses; how's that working for ya? Mr. Lamb's logic is sound and reflective of MWF leadership, not a result of venomous reactionism. Besides the Tester Baucus bill will get the right results without sacrificing the ESA, in my opinion, not Edwards' bill. I may not have CHOSEN to be born in MT, but I certainly would have trouble trusting a Texan to fix Montana's ills!!!
The rancher who makes a living or the family who makes ends meet [meat] with elk hunting.
Again reintroduction. There are no more caribou in MT, nor grizzly in CA or CO. or wolves. Or so many states that once had them. Once we subject large population states to the grizzly and wolf we will see democracy get rid of them, hopefully across the board.
Although we might see the huge urban populations, that hardly know where meat comes from, and think rural and small town people are stupid rednecks, and hunters are sadistic bubbas and wolves and bears are cuddly cute fairytale animals get all upset at the stupid ranchers and hunters. "we can buy our meat from Brazil and no one needs to hunt anymore"
sound like deja vu?
Again we should share our wolves with all the pretty states that forced them down our throats.
And the same elitist "intellect" and "I have a PhD, I know what's right" [or a right to experiment with your state] have cute proposals to make wild buffalo ranges in Eastern Montana. "All of the ranches out there are marginal at best." We are told what is best for us.
And don't tell me us westerners or hunters don't want any preservation. I think of the 60s 70s when we made our wilderness areas. WE did that, our people and representatives, not Washington DC or the USFWP. Or what hunters have done.
I see the same general national and elitist ignorance about men who have been in combat, or the wars. They are only noticed when it suits... the media. But they are there every day.
Let them play God in YNP... wasn't that supposed to be the limit of Ed Bangs lies? Man we were sold a bill of goods