DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LEGAL LOOPHOLE
A Message to Wolf Haters: Fight Trigger Itch
By Bill Schneider, 3-28-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Here’s something you probably never heard a western rancher say: “Government is a wonderful thing.”
But that might be precisely what they’re saying down in the coffee shops and saloons in Idaho and Wyoming because they could be thinking the federal government has accidentally given them the opportunity to shoot as many wolves as they can for the next 30 days with no consequences.
To this, I say: Don’t even think about it.
Anybody exposed to news knows that today, March 28, the federal government officially and totally removed the wolf from the endangered species list in northern Rockies. Eleven conservation groups have made it crystal clear that they believe it’s too soon to remove protections and plan to sue to keep the wolf an endangered species.
But most people don’t know about the loophole.
Here’s how it happened, as explained to NewWest.Net by Amelia Orton-Palmer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Endangered Species Act dictates that a notice of delisting must be filed 30 days in advance of the actual delisting. That notice went out on February 28, 30 days before the actual delisting on March 28.
Orton-Palmer also said the Act says a delisting notification, such as the February 28 notice, can’t be dragged into the courts for 60 days after a “notice of intent” to sue is filed, which the eleven conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, did on the first day they could, February 28. That means they can’t actually file the lawsuit and ask for an injunction until April 28, leaving the 30-day loophole or what the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) calls “open season on wolves.”
Actually, I should say, 30 days or more, because there’s hardly a guarantee that a court will immediately rule to halt delisting--or ever will. But Earthjustice has been quite effective in such litigation, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see courts quickly suspend delisting.
Can you imagine a covey of wolf haters convincing themselves this might be their “only shot” to have their vigilante justice and do their part to keep wolf numbers down. After all, the courts could suspend the state agency plans and delisting, which could delay sport hunting or liberal killing of wolves for years.
I hope this isn’t happening, but it wouldn’t shock me to find out about some semi-organized “wolf hunts” starting this weekend. I urge these guys to control their trigger itch because being stupid could be self-defeating.
In Wyoming, 88 percent of the state, including the current home range of five wolf packs and near that of ten more, “anybody can shoot a wolf for any reason,” says Mike Leahy, DOW rocky mountain director, without even having a permit.
“A lot could happen in 30 days,” Leahy told NewWest.Net. “There is supposed to be reporting, but it will be very hard to keep tabs on this.”
And according to Leahy, recent actions by Idaho create almost the same situation.
On March 26, the Idaho legislature passed Senate Bill 1374 and sent it the governor for signature. The bill allows Idaho residents to shoot a wolf if it’s “molesting or attacking” domestic livestock or pets. And “chances are nil that the governor won’t sign it,” Leahy says, “since his own people recommended it.”
“Molesting” is almost comically defined as worrying, annoying, disturbing, persecuting, lying in wait, flushing, stalking, following after, on the trail of, chasing, or driving any domestic animal.
In other words, Leahy says, “If wolves are howling and worrying your cattle, you could go out an shoot them.”
“It’s not much of a stretch” to say Idaho is in the same situation as Wyoming, adds Leahy.
Orton-Palmer admitted that the FWS could have extended the period between notice and delisting to 60 days or more to prevent the loophole, but she said FWS scientists weren’t worried about any impact on the wolf population so saw no need to do so.
Ed Bangs, who was in charge of wolf recovery for the FWS until today, agrees and isn’t worried about the loophole being a big problem--"theoretically, yes, but practically, no. “A few wolves might be killed, but biologically it won’t affect the population.”
Plus, he reminds us that there’s no guarantee the courts will grant the plaintiffs an injunction to stop delisting on April 28, or ever. “It’s hard to get those injunctions, especially in this case with the state plans in place. I’m not sure they will get it at all. The wolf population is going to be fine under any circumstances, but a goofy reaction during these 30 days almost guarantees that there will be an injunction. Any bad reaction from the redneck element only helps those who want to keep wolves on the endangered species list.
“But that’s what’s so interesting about wolves,” he adds with a little chuckle. “People do nutty things. The extreme symbolism of wolves has been going on for a few thousand years and always will be there.”
So, here’s the punch line. Don’t underestimate the passion on both sides of the wolf issue.
The Big Dog is greatest fundraiser ever for DOW and many other green groups, so you aren’t going to see any end to efforts to keep the wolf in the news. Instead, you can expect more fear mongering about the wolf’s upcoming demise, no different than rhetoric you hear from some hunters predicting the wolf will decimate big game herds.
On the other hand, western ranchers and rural communities see the wolf as an agent of change--and a change they don’t want. Wolf reintroduction allows the federal government and eastern greenies to control them, and they refuse to believe ranchers and wolves can peacefully and economically co-exist.
With that kind of disconnect, we’ll always have controversy whenever the four-letter-word is used. So be it, but hopefully, everybody shows restraint during the loophole period because any lack of restraint will likely serve to prolong and intensify the controversy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
How does one differentiate between "wolf haters" & "people haters"?
Lighten up! How can you say that Bill will be disappointed? And just how does one differentiate between a wolf hater and a people hater?
Most Westerners are grownups, it's part of the reason many have hung on so long in the fact of the constant political assault on the western way of life.
In the predator zone (good idea, Wyoming, can we have your Governor?) it turns out the packs that exist are marginal and always in trouble, and only 10 percent of the state official total. Not a big deal from a biological standpoint to hose them off, you could kill every single one and there would be dispersers from the "core" next year -- and will be until Yellowstone erupts.
The important factor there is the current wolves don't behave themselves, and have not. To spread those animals out further would cause nothing but problems, something which quite a number of us wolf unlovers feel is dearly desired or at least intended by more than a misguided few as well as PLENTY of perfectly rational power-tripping pukes.
Other media sources have talked to ranchers who for the most part seem to be willing to accept the presence of wolves as long as they have the option of predator control when they feel a need for it. That's really not asking for a lot.
I think the reality is, there might be a couple road-hunter kills, maybe a few harassment mortalities at ranches where late calving might still be happening, but a bloodbath? Nah.
A wolf-hater is someone who believes society should try to exact total control over a natural environment; wolf-haters believe that somehow their interests are so far superior to any other that instead of compromise, total annihilation must be the answer. A wolf-hater has no tolerance for natural ecosystems that they cannot control.
Wolf-haters are a sad and miserable lot who must live a lonely life.
There is not and never has been a shortage of wolves, they just required too much effort to even try to see them. The solution was to haul them into an area and require locals to care for them & deal with them.
When wolves start in on livestock, they have run out of easy pickings on the native prey. They are beginning to find elk and moose that fight back, and wolves are risk avoiders.
Not one "wolf hater" has said to kill them all or even most of them. All ranchers want is reasonable controls on wolf populations. No control is not reasonable. My opinion. I have not talked to outfitters who now share the game with wolves, but you can be sure there are going to be economic dislocations in that business.
These next 30 days will probably be pretty ho hum. Uneventful. I just imagine there is some intrepid news reporter who will turn over a million rocks looking for some man-wolf interaction that can be sensationalized to stir the wolf faerie emotions. Hell, that is what this news story is about, is it not?
Economic arguments are attempts to justify attitudes that would be taken anyway.
Most people do discuss these issues. The only ones that don't are wolf haters.
Marion Pulease!!! "Very often the wolfers (hunters) of the old days had a great deal of respect for them even though they understood the tremendous damage they were doing and the need to remove them." First of all I have NEVER read in any account that a wolfer ever had any respect for the wolf, but only for the money he earned in killing them. And as far as the tremendous damage they were doing. Do you mean the tremendous damage they were doing to the REAL tremendous damage causers????? Cattle?????? The simple fact of the matter is that wolf haters have NO ligitimate cause to HATE wolves. They hate them because wolves represent an outside influence over public lands and wildlife issues that they mistakenly believe they have exclusive rights over, to dominate, exploit and destroy.
Once mroe slowly, ranchers pay for grazing rights in the mountains for summer range, approximately 3 months per year. On the other hand, wildlife graze for free on private land during the year around, but especially during the long winters that we have here (frankly I am beginning to doubt that this winter will ever end, it already seems to have gone on forever). How much feed summer or winter do any of you provide for any wild thing? You seem so full of hate for rancheers that you are willing to sacrifice a goodly portion of the wildlife winter habitat by forcing ranchers off the land. Smart, real smart.
If wolves are the wonderful things you claim, why don't any of you have them where you are?
Is there a stream nearby, are the cattle allowed to graze right down into the stream??? You have to remember this all of this land once belonged to the animals, so if a deer or elk or even a wolf wants to come and graze in my yard, be my guest. Can you tell me without a shadown of a doubt that cattle do not ruin public land. Because from what I have seen, they do.
By the way our Dem governor tapped the former TNC manager fo the ranch to head the Wildlfie Fund in this state, so I expect enviro groups are getting much of the money. By the way notice how much land they lease for grazing.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/press/press2222.html
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/preserves/art13451.html
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Lander/rec/redcanyon.html
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/preserves/art13451.html
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Lander/rec/redcanyon.html
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/press/press2222.html
I have not seen damage to public land by grazing, mostly becaue in this day and age, the use is closely monitored by the leasing agency. Land that has been successfully grazed for over a hundred years is not likely to be abused land.
The wolf issue is not about intact ecosystems because ecosystems are never intact, but in a constant stage of change as external and internal conditions give rise to the odds favoring different species under differing conditions. There is no polaroid picture of ecosytems, only polarized philosophical prizes awarded by conscience and personal bent, assisted by convenient NGOs who are replacing the church in our ever increasingly athiestic society. There is never going to be a winner in the wolf argument. There will always be too many wolves when they are taking value and property from one segment or individual, and not enough wolves for the people who believe that large numbers amount to success and thus validate their beliefs in anthropogenic ecology assumptions spoon fed by the NGOs.. The NGO cheerleaders chant their slogans, collect their dues for charismatic fauna promotion, and others lose time, effort and personal treasure in the wolf game which has no balance in sight. That it has become a littany of personal attacks on Non-Believers, Ecological Infidels, is true to form as Hofer stated so long ago.
As a lifelong contrarian, skeptic, I know that when the attacks become personal, it is because their Gestapo, NKVD, CIA, are close at hand to enforce their dogma, cleanse the countryside of Non-Believers. The right wing of America does not even begin to scare this puppy. It is the True Believers of the Left that are at war with the Constitution, the American Way, the foundations of our society built on Trust. How many times have writers on this one subject gotten into rants on the failure of economic democracy, the electoral process, and the assumed intellectual prowess of anyone who does not think their way? This article begins assuming that only bad things will happen to wolves in the next 30 days. Where is the trust that the vast majority will do the right thing? Where is the confidence in our people, our society as a whole? This country has a good foundation and hundreds of millions of good people, who do good things. The next thirty days will bear that out. If not, demean me, not people like Marion. I have faith that most wolves will go about their busines unrestrained, and if one gets in the lambing pens or the calving pasture, it could be shot. So what? There are a hundred packs about to give birth to another phalanx of wolf puppies eager to learn how to live off the land.
LEAVE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. If someone makes statements that make them out to be an idiot, the readers will know without your telling them, smarty pants. And if what they are saying is not the truth, then, like Hillary, their pants will catch on fire. If what you are saying is blather, the readers will know that, too. Demeaning someone only makes you less of an expert, useful voice, important contributor, and worthwhile human being.
We keep discussion wolves in a vacuum without regard to the other expanding predator populations. Is this by design or are we just not awake?
Craig: the fact is that wolves were killed almost to extinction in the lower 48 with the exception of MN. That is the problem - why are wolves more hated, poisoned, trapped and killed more than any other predator? Like you said there are other predators. (Including ourselves) However I dont think the Grizzly bear and cougar have expanded to what they used to be 100 years ago. Let us not forget there was a thriving wild land here 150 years ago TEEMING with wildlife, not cattle. Today's picture of wildlife is a mere pittance.
gline, I would say that wolves are a close second to coyotes for most persecuted/tortured species...
"Now, wold delisting puts wolf management in the hands of the states. What is wrong with that and why"
BECAUSE: Wyoming is run as a fiefdom of the livestock industry, and just because the Dick Kempthorne Interior department bent over for Wyoming's management plan does not make that plan legal under the ESA. Idaho's only official stand on the matter as stated by the state legislature is to remove wolves from the state by any means necessary,
And Montana, If the way the bison issue is not a major red flag on that states thinking on wildlife management I do not know what would be.
Wyoming wolf management plan: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfPlanFinal8-6-03.pdf
Montana plan: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/management.html
Idaho plan: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
Wyoming wolf management plan: gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfPlanFinal8-6-03.pdf
Montana plan: fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/management.html
Idaho plan: fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
and that has what to do with what?
I was born in Montana. Dillon to be exact. I live in Idaho, for all of my life except time in the Military and a few years in Utah. I vote. One branch of my family owns SECTIONS of land in eastern Idaho and are livestock producers. I hunt and have from 12 years old and just today bought my Idaho Sportsman package as I do every year. My wife is Native Alaskan and I currently have one daughter getting ready to do salmon counts on the Copper river as she has for the last three years.
As for state management It should happen at some point and I really do not think it should be based on numbers as much as the INTENT of the states which have been proven to be disingenuous at best.
Oh and by the way I own a winter coat lined with a wolf pelt that the relatives in Alaska sent me for x-mas two years ago. I love it.
Read the second paragraph of my last reply to you.
Try for comprehension.
State or feds? Litigate now or wait and see?
Shoot or hug?
Cows or condos?
Finally, I'm glad Marion takes the time to fly the flag for the team in white hats.
The facts of the states(Idaho) Intent is stated pretty clearly with the eleventh hour legislation passed to let any one kill a wolf at any time for among other things, simply being on the same forest trail that some one who does not like wolves who may have a dog with them.
Like I said try for comprehension.
Idahos plan was rejected (17) seventeen times before a minimally acceptable plan was presented.
While Idaho is classifying the animal as big game and the only real value once dead is the pelt, Idahos season covers a significant period of time where the pelt is worthless and unlike bear and cougar there is no provision for not shooting a female with cubs.
Like I said , disingenuous.
Back to Cal, who serves at the pleasure of Butch, look in to his history and ties with livestock.
Please try and get beyond party politics.
Don't stray into past history.
What exactly about my post is not accurate.
Please address any of the points I have made.
I know it is easier to dismiss them than actually see the bigger picture.
As far as the plan and Cal's letter they have no force of law until passed by the legislature and signed in to law by the Guv. That has not happened.Correct me if I am wrong. Until then all it amounts to is a understanding between the state and fed. What is law is the aforementioned eleventh hour legislation that the guv will sign if he has not already.
Possibly you have heard the expression actions speak louder than words.
How about insuring that the ESA is adhered to, which is law.
It does not appear to be the case certainly in Wyoming and apparently Idaho has, based on the history of the situation, little regard for. Bear in mind that the only official position stated by the Idaho state legislature is one stating that wolves be removed from the state by any means necessary. Also the only reason we have progressed, if you can call it that, is because of the ESA and federal law. I wish I could say with any confidence that the states are totally on the up and up and we can all ride off into the sunset after a hand shake.
Unfortunately, once again, actions speak louder than words.
I understand that not all supporters of the wolf are as ignorant as the person who wrote this article, so I will not call you all "tree hugging freaks." so I hope, just because I am a hunter, you will not call me a "wolf hater."
I cannot speak for everyone (Which seems to be the problem on both sides) but let me say this. I love the fact that wolves are back. This creates excitment in the backcountry. I would go as far to say that even if wolves were depleting other big game animals, I would be more than glad to step aside and let them have what thay have had for thousands of years.
But, when it comes to delisting, lets not be childish. Lets ask ourselves some questions. Are the Fish and Game people that stupid that they would actualy delist an animal that really was endangered? If you say yes, than look at the history. Has the fish and wildlife people made a huge delisting misake that cost the survival of a species? and if they have, havnt they emediately fixed the problem? EXAMPLE: Bighorn sheep are thriving in the rockies. There is a STRICT quota of animals that can be taken. If the fish and game department were as stupid as you people seem to suggest, then they would alow every person that wanted to kill a sheep, to kill a sheep! No, most hunters in the U.S. will NEVER kill one, even after puting the money in trying to draw. Think for a second. This is just one example.
Also, although every American should have some opinion over the debate, shouldnt we give the responsibility to the people most effected by the wolves themselves, good or bad. Of course i am talking about the ranchers and residents in wolf country. How can you suggest these people are less intelligent, or "wolf hating" just because they want to protect their pets and property? They have More, thats right,more of a say in the matter than ANY of us. You telling them how to manage the wolf, is as ignorant as us telling california they need to manage their ignorant tree-hugging morans that threaten the rest of the country.
I am a hunter AND I love wolves, whether you people want to hear it or not. Dont get your feelings hurt just because they are now delisted. If the fish and wildlife officials fail and make a huge mistake, well then we'll take the neccessary steps and reinlist them, on the endangered species. The truth is, "wolf-lover" are not looking at the facts intelligently, they are going off of emotions just because they wouldnt want ANY animal on earth to be killed. and you claim us hunters are doing exactly what your doing, going off of our "blood-thursting" cravings. I am a hunter. I do not NEED to kill. Killing is merely a part of the hunt, and unless someone has also shared the experience of being in the wilderness, hunting prey, while having other big predators around, i cant take their opinions in such matters.
BY THE WAY: the season on wolves is proposed for the fall of this year. so NO, hunters are not going to have an open season for 30 days. Also, I can garintee the demand will be FAR greater than the supply when it comes to tags available to hunt the wolf. So dont go around puting an ignorant, unrealistic fear in peoples minds that huinters are going to be able to kill every last wolf in a matter of day, weeks or months. THis is pure stupidity.
Wow, I love government.
According to the USFWS:
Livestock losses until late Nov. 2006 were 170 cattle, 344 sheep, 8 dogs, 1 horse, 1 mule, and 2 llamas in MT, WY, and ID.
In all three of these states (I live in MT by the way) the wolf populations are: MT-316, ID-673, WY-311 (includes YNP)
Let's do the math... total wolf pop= 1300, total confirmed wolf kills= 562 (less than 1/2 of them cattle). Total cattle numbers in these states for 2006= MT-2.4mil, ID=2.1mil, WY= (sorry, couldn't find WY) So, look at the numbers; of 4.5 million cattle in 2 states 170 were killed. That is something like .004% of the cattle population. So, to make a claim that wolves are dangerous seems to be a bit of an exaggeration in light of all these numbers.
Craig, I am from the northeast and I visit Montana and Wyoming often. I hope to end up out there some day. Geographic location plays no part in many of these arguments as I pay my taxes week in and week out and my money goes towards wolf programs, paying for public lands, predator control programs etc. Also, with a pending wolf reintroduction planned for the northeast these issues are very interesting to me. To answer your question about the wolf plans, I feel that the rhetoric of wyoming and idaho indicate that no matter what their wolf plans say, they don't plan to enforce anything other than the minimum populations required to not trigger re-listing.
On an unrelated note, I read that montana and wyoming are starting pilot programs to haze, capture and slaughter elk at the behest of the cattle industry much like what is happening with bison outside of yellowstone. Seems pretty unbelievable to hear people say that wolves are killing all of the elk/ ranchers support wildlife in light of this being done. And imagine how large the scale will be considering how many more elk there are when compared to bison. I think that hunters and wolf-huggers will find that they are both on the same side against ranching going forward...
Interestingly enough not a single wolf lover is actually trying to deal with wolves themselves, only trying to force others to do so. I do write on a lot of these blogs, and I have yet to see one person who is writing about what they themselves are doing to protect their animals on their property. Maybe becasue they are careful not to live where they want the wolves to live. Guess who'd call an exterminator if they find termites in their house or a rattlesnake. I doubt they would be worrying about how to deal with it on a non lethal basis.
As for the ESA, it had to be changed and the 10j rule put in in order to legally introduce these wolves OUTSIDE of their territory. If you google 10j and wolves you will see that is a fact.
It is most interesting that those who impossed their will on other people irregardless of teh damage are the ones that spew the hatred, including the title of this article (I had actully expected more of Bill).
Thanks to Craig, Dave, bearbait, Adam, and Kai for reasoned comments. Sometimes I get so mad at the expressed hatred by these people that I don't write for awhile, and I'm glad there are others to carry on.
http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-d2-depredation-perspective.html
Interesting stuff. For all of the doomsday predictions for the livestock industry with the return of the wolf, Minnesota has a huge cattle industry and more wolves than idaho, montana and wyoming combined. Guess what, their livestock industry has not collapsed in the presence of wolves!
Ignoring the majority of your post for the twaddle that it is lets look at your assertion on the 10j rule. Have you even read the ESA? If you have you should know that the 10j rule was implemented by the 1982 amendment to the ESA. 1982 Marion. There was not even a recovery plan for grey wolves, even a rough draft, until 1987. There was not even an assurance that there would be a gray wolf re-introduction in 1994 much less 1982, Marion. And why was there an amendment in 1982? Because then President Reagan (I smile when ever I post that) mandated that the ESA be IMPLEMENTED, to make a long story short.
But hey Marion, you have been presented with these self same facts over and over and over, and continue to misrepresent them once again. Pathetic.
Ed Bangs has clearly stated numerous times that wolves are killing for rom 7 to 9 family owned animals that are never paid for to every 1 that is.
quote:"Throughout the West last year, wolves are known to have killed 52 cattle, 99 sheep, nine dogs and five llamas. Ranchers contend the actual numbers may be five to eight times greater than those confirmed by necropsies or eyewitnesses.
Federal authorities agree." end quote
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131716
By the way I know when the 10j was put in and they were already working on planting Canadian wolves where the wolf lovers wanted them easily accessible.
Excuse me, I am laughing so hard I have tears running down my face.
To perpetuate the notion that a wolf is innately "evil" is just asinine. Yes, they kill calves now and then but the damage to the cattle industry as a whole is minuscule and inconsequential. With every business comes risk. It is curious that ranchers do not want compensation for the loss of livestock due to coyote kills considering the fact they are responsible for 20+ times the amount of cattle kills as wolves. Hell, for that matter domestic dogs kill many more cows than wolves!
IF not but for livestock depredation, there would be no issue. That depredation discussion needs to be scoped to those counties that entertain both wolves and livestock. Dilution across a state is misleading. For example, livestock losses are minimal in Florida due to wolves. However, the losses are much greater in those counties where the wolf was reintroduced. Hence, the reason for compensation for those raisers that have been hurt by the reintroduction.
I'm Jeff he is Steve.
Time for a med check.
NewWest gives us this free opportunity. How about respecting that? Do it for our hosts who encourage all points of view.
quote:
"By JEFF E, 3-30-08
and I am sure that they were planing on using black helicopters piloted by the gestapo, NKVD, or the CIA."
You are right Craig, the cost to individual families out of pocket, as well as loved pets is the big problem with the whole wolf thing. It is an interesting physchological phenomena that it is those who are getting their own way at a heavy cost to other people that are the angriest and most derogetory in their words.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802975.html
Montana's intent is to continue molding attitudes to accept wolves. Those are the facts. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/NEWS01/803300319
At the same time, I continue to be concerned by the crowd that always posts here posing as representatives of some monolithic ranching community, its interests and its views. These people are generally not what they seem and should be more forthright in "fessing up" to the fact that they really aren't part of the ranching community, don't have much real experience with that community, and really don't know much about that business or way of life or about what they like to pontificate about. The truth is that, upon reviewing the postings here, we just have the usual gossipers. We have the strutting photographer, who may or may not have taken pictures at a ranch at some time or another. We have the opinionated and outspoken berry-farmer, who may or not have wolves eating his berries. We have the elderly anti-government lady who lives on her government retirement and tries so very hard to get people to believe she is from a ranch background, but who really only got to visit her relatives' sheep and weasel farm as a young girl and has been using it as a facade ever since. We have some maladjusted PETA types, bless their childlike hearts. We have a few loafers who want a guarantee of an easy time having a successful hunt on a ranch owned by a guy like me who will have to clean up their trash afterward; and, if we're lucky, we might still get a comment from the lunatic who purports to speak for the MSLF and may or may not have stood by strutting and watching the hired help work some cattle on a ranch owned by a relative. So many of these people are just flat desperate to use ranchers as the magic rhetorical crowbar to force their political agenda; but, the truth is that none of them have any business or credibility speaking for us, using us, or otherwise putting words in our mouths. Real ranchers face lots of challenges and wolves can be a significant part of those challenges in relatively rare circumstances; but, the argument about wolves is more about politics and the egos of the charlatans that want to manipulate the ranching community than about any real ranching impact. If people truly want to stand up for ranchers, real ranchers, they can start by exposing and reforming the manipulative and monopolistic tyranny of the meatpackers. This wolf issue is just another distraction tailored to keep everyone from focusing on the real problems caused by those who wield the real power over ranchers.
I am with Bill. I hope nothing happens but it is ludicrous to suggest that we do not have good reason to believe many would like to exploit the loophole.
"....Although the Wolf Plan reiterated the State's formal position that all wolves should be
removed from ldaho by the Federal Government, it also recognized the need "to use
every available option to mitigate the severe impacts on the residents of the State of
Idaho" from the wolves' presence and thus provided that "the state will seek delisting
and manage wolves at recovery levels that will ensure viable, self-sustaining
populations" Idaho Wolf Management and Conservation Plan 4 (2002) The FWS
approved the Idaho Wolf Plan....."
The first sentence is still Idahos formal position regarding wolves.
And then signed into law this past Friday"SENATE BILL NO. 1374, One amendment includes defining the conditions justifying the “disposal” of a wolf should wolves ‘conflict’ with livestock or domestic animals such as dogs. A “molesting” wolf is one that is:
41 […]annoying, disturbing or persecuting, especially with hostile intent or injury-
42 ous effect, or chasing, driving, flushing, worrying, following after or on the
43 trail of, or stalking or lying in wait for, livestock or domestic animals."
Which does not need one to have a hunting licence or tag or happen in any take season.
Surely you live close enough to the land in Montana to figure out that if the locals really wanted to SSS they surely could have and we would have maybe 300 or the 50 they have in the southwest, not the 1500-2000 we now have. Individuals may have acted stupidly, but by and large even though we didn't like the whole thing the residents of these 3 states have acted honorably in the face of name calling and real harship in some cases.
The hatred being spewed out is against the people who have to actually deal with the wolves and pay the cost, not by them.
Anyone that might be looking for a wolf to kill is not going to be reading this, it was written to pander to those who value wolves over humans.....IMHO.
I'd like a count of the wolves seen by all of those who write on here outsdie of Yellowstone NP, in my case, 0. where do you think people are going to find all of these wolves to kill?
I sympathize with Jeff E's frustration. Marion travels the internet dragging otherwise meaningful discussions into the same old rhetoric.
Craig, loved the film about the Dutchers.
Having an opinion is one thing but having an opinion based on erroneous information is quite another. And having an opinion that is based on proven falsehoods over and over.....well that indicates a medical condition.
As the man said, "call in the hounds and piss on the fire, the hunt is over".
Doncha think maybe the press might be a little to blame for that? And Jeff, didn't you say you live in Idaho? I wouldn't call the Statist a very good paper, or the Salt Lake Tribunal. Never mind the Northeast, where Steve has to rely on his ever-trusty New York Times and WABC et al for all the facts? Like they never make an error -- and the alternative media you both consult, and perhaps the environmental groups you clearly symp with, might not shade their "information" just a wolf hair?
As for repetition, answer me why anyone should stop repeating themselves if their conclusions are correct, hmmm?
The fact of the matter is that wolves have had impacts concentrated upon sportsmen and livestock producers almost exclusively. Those who think wolves are cool are, for the most part, absolutely not impacted while, because they don't see the consequences, feel the benefits are limitless.
The bottom line here is that the costs are absolutely not connected with the benefits in any way shape or form. The only exception is those ranchers and sportspeople, such as hunter, who feel wolves are worth it...so far. And in order for wolves to remain "worth it," then there needs to be options for when the costs, tangible or not, exceed the benefits...tangible or not.
We are at that point, and have been ever since wolf populations hit their agreed-upon target. Let's just say I hope to hit mine.
If you dislike wolves so much why dont you leave? turn the tables on you for once. your comment "Interestingly enough not a single wolf lover is actually trying to deal with wolves themselves, only trying to force others to do so." is absolutely ridiculous. Have you been on Ralph Maughn's site lately? Heard about Lynne STone, wolf advocate, being assualted by Ron Gillette, anti wolfer? What planet are you on?
Wolves have been here millions of years, yes the Dire wolf, a prehistoric wolf roamed the world with all other animals. Not one animal became extinct because of the Dire wolf. The Gray wolf lived along right along with this prehistoric predator. There was a balance that played out... when a species like homo sapiens comes along, that balance seems to fall to pieces. The Gray wolf, which had been here for millions of years was just about exterminated by your ancestors Marion. What makes you think people have a right to do that? And not just a right to exterminate a species you dont like but disregard the positive things it adds to the ecological landscape? Again, what planet are you on? I would like to see you survive in the Bronx for awhile. see what you think then.
Edward D. Mann researched the pop culture history of people and wolves.
For a lighter side of the issue, read his journal notes at:
http:/www.spatialinterest.info/eds_blog.html
Also, I think it is important to mention that I am pro-wolf. I have seen wolves outside of YNP; 4 of them. I am also concerned about the hate being thrown around by both sides of this issue. Hate = blinders. There is no way anyone will be able to be objective and thorough when driven by hate. Of course numbers thrown around won't be accurate, any number I have posted here is subject to rebuttal by anyone with a computer and internet access. I also caution those of you out there to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt. Just because it is on the internet on a government supported site doesn't mean it is accurate! Be informed and don't try to change anyones mind, they are the only person that can change their mind. Be open to discussion, and keep it civil. Leave the name-calling for the 1st graders.
Hang in there Marion! Your comments are appreciated and endorsed by many!!!
Thank YOU, bearbait, for the wisdom and logic of your comments ~ as always!
I can assure you that I have no bias against Marion bearbait, or any other commenter, which is why all comments remain in the comment sections. In fact, I very much admire the tenacity with which Marion stays with it in the face of adversity.
NewWest.Net doesn't remove any comments from the comment sections. In three years, I have had many thousands of comments, and the only one that was ever removed was one posted by a researcher who pasted it so much material that the volume locked up the site. I couldn't remove comments critical of Marion or myself, even if I wanted to do this.
I suppose it's fair to say that Marion and I don't agree on some things, but probably more than she thinks, but that doesn't really matter. I still welcome and respect her comments.
Like you, I wish commenters would refrain from personal attacks and address the issue at hand, but as you may suspect, I can't control that.
Bill
The wolves were destroyed in the first place by every one being shot and by ranchers hiring trappers who became wolf experts and were able to track, trap, poison, shoot and so on. In otherwords many ways that could not be sued today.
There is a book by Norman Bailey in 1930, called wildlife in the Yellowstone National Park. He mentions having so many wolves in 1915-1916 that they felt the elk herds were in dnager. How many were lots" Well they killed 2 half grown pups in 1915, then killed 4 adults and 7 more pups in 1916, that seemed to pretty much take the pressure off of the elk, although they felt there may be others that will breed really fast and become a problem again.
By the time the pups are born there will be around 200 in the park, now that may not seem like much to you, but to follks who know how much problem they can be that is a lot. Remember each wolf is killing approximately 2 elk per month.
The reason there is still plenty of elk is because the wolves seem to congregate in a few places, but be assured they will move on when they eliminate the game in one spot and will go to another. Look at the moose in the Tetons, they are decreasing pretty dramatically, everything but wolves is credited with that, yet in the Snowies where we fortunately do not have wolves yet, they are doing well.
As for the collars being a help, remember FWS lost a 22 pack for what, about a year from Yellowstone, lo and behold someone finally reported them in the Tetons on the refuge. The collars only help if they are over them. Then of course the gunners have to be able to shoot and HIT if they are going to accomplish anything.
Jeff, I would welcome any FACTS that you can provide that refutes any information that I post.
Do you realize that elk and wolves co-existed on this continent long before white man came along? Why is it so hard for you to understand this? It is a simple fact. You act as if these wolves came from some faraway planet to destroy our elk populations. There have been wolves in the Ninemile Valley west of Missoula for 15+ years and there are still plenty of elk to go around. This is to say nothing of the deer. My God... they are like rabbits. I do not care if hunters have a few less elk to hunt and that is coming from an elk hunter. Yes, believe it or not, I LOVE hunting and eating elk. However, I would be more than pleased to miss out on some tags if it means I have a shot at seeing a wolf in the wild.
Marion: Do you believe in God? If so, who do you believe created the wolf and why? Cruel joke on you?
And Steve, I would love to see an economic analysis of forestry, mining, ranching. To participate in it would be even more fun.
For example, how is it that state, tribal and private ownerships manage forests at a profit while the feds no longer can? The reason is NOT economic.
And how much would it really cost to graze a cow if you didn't have to spend zillions paying ologists for preparing legally bomb-proof EISs?
And how much would wolves really cost if people could shoot them at will? And would wolves disappear without paid wolfers like we used to have? Darn few people would volunteer, that's fer shure.
All that said, I have to laugh at the snarling fit this column sparked. Bill, your premise was flawed. Enough people realize they don't want the ESA boom lowered by killing "too many" wolves that your warning was superfluous...probably why the discussion wandered away from the topic.
2006: Cows lost to wolves in the GYE: 184. Wolves killed in retribution: 142.......2007: Cows lost to wolves in GYE: 183. Wolves killed in retribution: 186.
Here is a good recent article on mining welfare:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/356450_joel26.html And i doubt the cost of cleanup (paid for by you and me) are ever included in these analyses.
FYI: We are all WAY off the original topic of this thread. Probably mostly my fault...
"Word on the street from the town of Cora is they had a hell of a fine weekend wolf hunting–a town wolf hunt. Four wolves were shot. Sounds like maybe 1 in Black Butte and 3 in another pack near Daniel. They saw 5, but only got 3–1 radio collared wolf. It will be interesting to see where the radio collar came from.
The person from Game and Fish who gave me the information didn’t know anything else, as they have no authority in the predator area.
Weekend 1 and they killed about 15% of the wolves believed to be in the predator area. And that on a weekend when most of the rednecks were in Jackson for the Snowmobile Hill Climb. Should be a hell of a hunt next weekend."
Quite frankly I do not know any wolf haters, I presume that Ron Gillette is one, but I don't know of others. On the other hand many folks hate what the wolves do, it is heartbreaking to find your dog killed by your house, worse when it is several dogs and a new colt as happened to one family. It gets worse when one is not allowed to do anything about it. And even worse when the cost did come out of one's own pocket. The family did get paid market rate for a registered pure bred colt.
A rancher may get paid a thousand dollars for one cow, but the calves of her and others in the pasture have disappeared the smae night, (carried away by the wolves) and may end up costing the family approximately 5-7 thousand to replace out of their own pocket. They are not going to be real happy about wolves being real close.
For those of you who live away from the wolves and want them, there is no cost, no responsibility, no hardship. It is easy to love wolves without reservation.
I have a college education, as a matter of fact as many others here know, I am a registered nurse and certified nurse midwife. It does not take a college education to realize that anytime you have a very controversial situation as the wolves are, that controversy is going to be exagerated when all of the benefits are on one side and all of the cost and problems are on the other side.
If you stop to think, there is absolutely no downside or problem or cost to those who want wolves, so there can never be too many. On the other hand the costs and losses can be overwhelming to those who had the wolves forced on them, and there is absolutely no benefit.
Steve, the wolves in Canada were in the wilderness and brought to inhabited areas in this area to live. Problems increase when they were taken away from the wilderness. Look what happened to the fellow in Canada, and there have been other attacks on humans, his was the only fatal one documented recently.
Why do you think Alaska is willing to take the heat of enviros threatening boycotts etc and going ahead with areal hunting of the wolves, it si becaue the wolves are decimating the caribou, and the natives are unable to hunt enough for food.
Why were the wolves removed from where you live?
wolves do not decimate elk populations. otherwise you would have never seen an Elk ...read the statistics. We have an overabundance of Elk here in Montana so much so they are thinking about birth contol...
Actually marion ranchers have been compensated thousands of dollars by DOW for loss - on confirmed cases. We all know there are ranchers/people that will blame a wolf any chance they get, even if it is a neighbor's dog, I have seen the fake reports. that is why unfortunately, the reports need to confirmed kills by a wolf, not anything else, to be compensated.
I call BS marion. you do know wolf haters. you know a lot of them in your neck of the woods. why lie?? trying to be objective now? Does that make people hate cougars for being cougars? bears for being bears? wolves are not the only predators in others words. just obviously discriminated against. Jeff E. has quoted the stats on the amount of cows killed by wolves - very very small. look it up on the dept of ag website yourself. the cattle, dog, lama, colt kills arent the point. those statistics are small. and besides that is part of living in the west. put your dog in the house. put the colt in the barn at night. You would be stupid not to.
I hope you welcome and respect Marion's comments as you say you do. I sure agree with what she has to say but that does not mean you have to ... "respect" being the key word here me-thinks. She has earned and deserves that ... and MORE!
I think we are all very much aware that our voices agreeing with Marion are in the minority on New West but it IS important those voices be heard without the abuse.
Common Sense may NOT be dead forever you know!!!
WE may be The New West personified and you just haven't figured that one out yet!!!
Since I do not personally have to deal with The Wolves ~ YET! ~ maybe I should start an Abused Wolf Rescue Operation and adopt them out ~ whacha think?
All you guys that want a dozen or two of 'em to love ~ and FEED ~ raise your (good) hand and I'll see what I can do to help!!!
thats the point right there Marion - "wolves forced on them." you hate them because you feel they were forced on you. In reality the ESA brought back an endangered species that was wrongly poisoned, trapped, snared, baited, and shot almost to extinction. Were looking at round II now thanks to ignorants like you. Glad you have a nursing degree but that has nothing to do with wildlife biology. The ESA was created by Congress, which is representative of the people of this country. Not one small state in the west. I live in the west, I live near them and I want them here. It pains me to know they will be exterminated again. for what? pure ignorance.
An example of that a few years ago was a herd of 33 sheep in a pasture that were found all dead several days after being killed, one body was in water and protected enough from the effects of the sun to be confirmed, another was a probable. The other 31 came out of the ranchers pocket, although it was clear all were killed at the same time.
Do NOT call me a liar, I do NOT know any wolf haters, I do know a lot of folks that hate what they do to animals.
Before you talk about our responsibilities protecting ourselves and our property, please remember the wolves were brought here to do EXACTLY what they are doing.
Aside from the private property that is destroyed by the willful introduction of Canadian wolves, look at the wildlife, over half of the moose are gone in the Tetons, they are almost gone in Yellowstoen, you're more likely to see a grizzly than a moose now. The northern elk herd was over 19,000 they year before the wolves were hauled in, there were 6000 this year and only 2,000 of those left inside of Yellowstone.
As to your challenge to me a little while ago, while I could go through the times we have discussed how you will go on a blog , hi-jack a thread and then provide no factual backing, calling names, and making accusations, and other people even more so than I could provide examples, ad nausea, as they encounter you more than I do on different sites, I will just let this statement by one editor who screens all posts of one site kind of sum it up in reference to you .
"[Editor’s Note: As has become custom with this commentor, she makes assertions repeatedly that she refuses to back up with reputable data......"
So it should not be any wonder that you are the recipient of criticism often bordering on derision.
I have great disrespect and disdain for almost everything that Marion has to say here because it is all spawned out of willful ignorance and a sense of entitlement on her part. Marion appears to have a great disrespect for God and his creations which, like it or not, INCLUDE the wolf! You can say I am attacking her if you wish. However, I "respectfully" disagree.
3.1 Posting. You acknowledge and agree not to not use, display, distribute, submit, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. You agree that you shall not submit any Content that:
(f) is patently offensive to the New West online community, such as Content that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
(g) harasses or harms, or advocates the harassment or harming of another person;
(f) is a no brainer. (g) I suppose you could argue some type of harassment but that would be pretty far fetched. I could make the same weak argument about everything she says here. I have only pointed out the difference between respecting someone's rights versus respecting their actual opinion. If I said "I believe black people are inferior to white people" [and, by the way, I most certainly do not] would you respect my sick and twisted opinion or would you simply respect my 1st amendment rights?
1. Bill, has kindly asked that we focus on issues are forego personal attacks
2. I have seen NewWest step in and rap people on the knuckles and remove their comments they become personally abusive.
I think we are all capable of honoring #1 and avoiding #2.
By the way I don't think you have any 1st Amendment rights here. I've heard tell only the govmint can impinge those rights and give you cause to poke them in the eye for such infringement. Private parties can shut any of us down for no reason at all if they so wish especially if we piss them off by failing to honor #1 and triggering #2 with an itchy keyboard finger.
I am not concerned with being "rapped on the knuckles". If New West wishes to remove my comments they are free to do so but, in this case, it will clearly NOT be because I violated any policy (at least not the one you have stated above). If I am shut down for #1 then every single other post herein that does not directly address the 30 day loophole referenced in the above article should also be removed if fairness is an objective of the publication.
You are absolutely correct in stating that my first amendment rights do not guarantee my publication here. My invoking the 1st amendment was only to point out that I do recognize Marion's right to have and express an opinion from the mountaintop. The 1st amendment (nor New West policy) does not require me to agree with or respect (in regard to the "honor" definition) her opinion any more than I am required to respect a racist's.
Elfman, I agree. "Respect" comes in many forms. I have seen Marion hijack every thread on the sinapu blog and steer it towards her tired wolf rhetoric whether or not the original story was even about wolves. She also did the same thing at ralph maughn's blog before she got herself banned for posting under multiple names. You might say that she lacks "respect" for those with whom she disagrees.
It may make you uncomfortable to have anyone post the problems that those who have to deal with wolves actually have, but sorry, you only have to hear about them, real people have to deal with them.
What I have posted is facts, not opinion, there is no reason to go into it further, the facts are there for anyone to face if they are willing to.
The wolves deserve respect for the role they play within native ecosystems. Yes, ecosystems are not stable, but that is not a good rationalization for one species to eliminate another. I support certain subsidies for people that make a living off the land, but when those subsidies are viewed as entitlements, then that is not in the best interest of the other Americans who are stakeholders in our national, natural, heritage. Reintroductions restore the balance. Unnessary wolf killing will set back the cooperative efforts that the ranching/farming/environmental/oil and gas interests have been slowly cultivating. I for one would welcome the wolf back to Colorado. Should I even dream about seeing the return of the grizzly??
your logic is very strange marion. why would someone see wolves as a way to rid the world of ranchers? why would someone want rid the world of ranchers??? for fun? The issue is not about portecting ranchers. It is about protecting the remaining wildlife we have as opposed to continuing overgrazed pasture, monocultural forests and ruined riparian areas due to overgrazing. What you post is purely your opinion.... which is skewed. you are not in a rational world at all.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/minnwolf/problem.htm
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/minnwolf/problem.htm
http://www.news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200203/27_rehab_wolfstudy-m/
I'll present the other states as I find the info and time permits. By the way if you can watch Animal Planet on tv, they ahve a program called "After the Attack" . Last week or the week before it was about a family attacked by a wolf in the Great Lakes area.
In a bold “Put Up or Shut-Up” move, the Wyoming, Montana and Idaho state legislatures, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, have authorized a new Interstate Wolf Relocation Program to reintroduce wolves across the nation. "Our states are already maxed out with numbers, so now we can move to fill up these other states that haven't yet reached their wolf quotas to repopulate the historic range. Our extra wolves will be humanely trapped and relocated to new territory in these other states across the U.S. where we are optimistic they will fit into those new ecosystems in harmony."
The wolf shipments will be delivered to the doorstep of the office of the journalist or environmentalist that wrote the most outspoken article demanding more wolves are needed in the United States, thus ensuring the parties most passionate about wolf proliferation and range expansion become actively involved as part of the solution to make it happen. As a requirement, at least three breeding pairs and packs must reside in the county of the local vocal wolf advocate. "No one will be able to use the 'Not in my backyard' argument any more. Wolves will easily adapt to the suburban residential environment. They will serve to bring back the predator/prey balance to the out-of-control deer overpopulation problem faced by many urban communities, downtown parks and state forests."
“Sure, we’ll take them!” list to date (150 wolves to each sponsoring organization):
California - getting 300 (courtesy Sierra Club and Earthjustice)
Washington
Oregon - getting 150 (courtesy Oregon Wild)
Nevada
Arizona - getting 300 (courtesy Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project)
North Dakota
South Dakota
Texas
Colorado
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Iowa - getting 150 (gift from the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance)
Missouri
Wisconsin – getting 150 (courtesy Washington Post)
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New York - getting 150 (courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council)
Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Isl