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.
Comments
Add your comment below
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 Island - getting 150 (gift from the Friends of the Clearwater)
West Virginia
Washington DC – getting 600 (Courtesy Sierra Club, Washington Post, Defenders of Wildlife, and Humane Society of the US. Way to go Washington DC!!)
http://www.pinedaleonline.com
Simple solution in my mind would be allow the hunts of wolves to go forward, and make it a felony to poach any animal out of season, or in season. Then those fools that do ignore fair play and ethical hunting pratices get gone, first offenders could lose the right to hunt for 5 years, second time your out for ten, third time is the charm, your gone for good, no more hunting period in any state. I wonder why no one is asking for this solution. The fines could be extensive as well. Then your stupid wolf hater neanderthal littering morons would get thinned out, and you would notice that those types are few in the first place, kinda funny to as when there is a big bust here, guess what hunterhaters, it is never one of us rural people living here, it some out of state city bum from your neck of the town.
Now, having said that, many of the states you mention have plenty of suitable wolf habitat. Some have even expressed a desire that wolves migrate there (made extremely difficult by the wolf management plans put in place by W, M and I). The numbers that you mention may, in fact, be a little low. California, for example, which has more wilderness than any state outside of Alaska.
Suggesting wolves in Washington, DC is kind of like suggesting cows in your living room.
If my assumption is accurate then it would be followed by a second assumption: that you would have the funds to actually invest in personal property that might be encumbered by any/all of the "... plants, insects, wolves and fish ..." that call on you as an advocate of them? Knowing the land use curtailments of the Boulder area that have succeeded in structuring the area to a high-income living units ONLY is the basis for my assumption in that regard and my only side-notation would be that if this assumption is accurate then an additional assumption might be that you could financially afford a personal financial investment in your areas of personal advocacy.
I know that might sure be WRONG in every regard. Is it?
I ask only to fully understand if your comment saying "If we work together we can protect the land." has anything to do with your own personal financial investment in the land you strive to "protect". Am I correct in assuming you have NO such investment?
And in an attempt not to single you out for any reason (since I have NO such reason to do so), this is also a question I would love to ask every one who has posted their expectations and demands on this page.
Or, to put it on a more understandable level, perhaps:
Just how many of you all HAVE put your money where your mouth is? (Above and/or beyond those funds that every citizen contributes via the IRS and the federal government at large.)
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!!!
Greg: You really hate city folk, don't you? It is a shame for you to use that hatred to attempt to pin littering and unethical hunting on city people. I have hunted amidst all kinds of people as well and in my personal experience the littering fools and slob hunters that one finds out there in the woods are mostly NOT from the city. They are your average run of the mill idiotic redneck who did not have parents that instilled any sense of responsibility. Not many city folk even know how to change their own oil so it is pretty bold of you to convict all the city folks for the oil changes you have cleaned up without really knowing who did this. Also, I hate to give you any bright ideas but if you want to kill a wolf try baiting them in with a carcass. They will be there if they are around.
Brilliant. Baiting wolves into carcasses. Like the local pack does not know where the ranch or dairy bone pile is right now. But a brilliant idea for the growing national unwanted horse surplus. Now that horses can't be slaughtered for meat, and a bill prohibiting their export to either Mexico or Canada for slaughter, to service the horse meat market in Belgium and France, is somewhere in the Congressional bill bucket brigade, what to do with old, sick, lame, unwanted horses is a growing problem. The answer right now, it to hire a backhoe, dig a hole x distance from any water resource, y deep, lead said horse (if mobile) next to hole, and put a bullet in its brain. If the horse dies of natural causes, you will need the backhoe to dig the hole and drag the horse to the horsey graveyard.
So in wolf country, it might just be a lot better deal to have a ranch bone pile and a public lands bone pile area. Having areas on public lands (it is the public, of course, who do not want horses to be slaughtered for food, and thus have put extreme limits on humane treatment of unwanted or in serious disrepair horses), located at convenient distances from urban areas, for the dumping of dead horses to feed wolves and grizz might kill two birds with one stone. It would be a commercial enterprise, replete with permits and fees, in an area not open to the public, and the fees can be used to supplement the loss of logging and grazing income. In the event of a wildland use fire, all that new barbeque will be essential to keeping the local predators in food and perhaps prevent any dislocations due to a paucity of food.
The haulers should be charged an amount per dead horse mile for road use, an amount per horse for bone dispersal and law enforcement, and all the trucks should be equipped with a fire extinguisher, axe and shovel, plus radio communication.
The Elfman Solution. Great ideas are borne of informed discussion by an educated public. Thank you Elfman, for the insight and inspiration for a grand solution how to keep wolves fed in the wildlands, and that horse grandpa gave Missy to keep her off boys for another two years a place to finally lay its head in eternal sleep, knowing his life was not in vain. The Elfman Solution.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_339451
Although given the usual suspects in this thread, I don't believe any apologies will be forthcoming.
Yes, baiting wolves is probably illegal but some who wish to kill wolves are not all that concerned about the legality of the situation. My point was well made by someone else in here who pointed out, with sarcasm, that 100 years ago we managed to get rid of wolves without all the technology we have these days. If the problem gets that far out of hand we are more than capable of controlling them again by necessary means.
bearbait - cute little diatribe you went on there but far too ridiculous to even comment on.
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/08/26/numerous-wolves-shot-for-killing-cow-calves-in-sublette-county-wy/
"I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. In fact I suspect less than have been killed by Bangs et al."
Looks like the little boys were out with their guns over the weekend killing wolves and it also looks like your ability to predict the future is about as foggy as your recollection of the past.
I hope these rednecks completely blow it and the wolf is relisted...
The voters have endorsed the approach with four different ballot measures over the past 30 years.
There is an overview of the program and result at:
http://www.spatialinterest.info/trading_sense.html
The story title is A Boulder Approach to Open Space.
However the high number of reported "wolf hunters" throughout the state should be an indication that many more were killed or wounded.
And yet the Wyoming elk herd continues to be afflicted with chronic wasting disease, something which only the wolves can cure entirely....
I'm still watching for that apology.
I for one live 'among' the wolves, Grizzly, Bison, etc. My father raised me to learn to live WITH the wildlife. That is what I have been doing for the over 50 years I've been on this planet. For one thing, I'm far from the 'norm' I am a care-giver for my mother, so that gives me the opportunity to stay home and keep an eye on my livestock pretty much all the time. Agreed reintroducing the wolf was done a little in haste. They should have thought things through a little more but what is done is done. In my lifetime on the West side of the Park, we have had to 'dispatch' ONE rogue Grizzly,
That was back in the late '70's, and NO it wasn't because they had closed the garbage dumps.
That was the only cattle killer (confirmed) other than humans 'rustling' that we had up here. IF I were to see a wolf in close proximity, i.e. in the same pasture as... I would shoot AT it, and make sure it knew what and where it came from. Depending on the circumstances that the wolf does, would depend on how many times it got shot AT. I would NOT hesitate, to 'take it out' if it were necessary, as to reporting it again that would depend.
Seems to me that Ranchers, that are 'in' the area of Wolves could handle the problem in the same manner, and have the 'authorities' issue 'permits' or whatever, so they know how many 'permits' are out, keep a tally on how many wolves NEED to be killed, are killed, etc. Let the individual state handle their individual Ranches, and see how things pan out before opening up a "land-rush' ie wolf killing field.
Wolves need to learn that 'Old' McDonalds farm is NOT quite as good as going out and getting something a little 'safer'.
Thanks for the post. It was a pleasure to read.
I would really appreciate it if you would provide documentation of wolves curing or preventing CWD....or for that matter affecting it in anyway.
What did you want an apology for Jay? Because some wolves were killed this weekend legally?
By Marion, 3-28-08
I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed.
Reality:
By CHRIS MERRILL
Star-Tribune environment reporter
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 2:06 AM MDT
LANDER -- At least three wolves were killed by Wyoming residents over the weekend, after the animal was removed from the federal endangered species list.
Large numbers of hunters reportedly prowled the state’s newly designated wolf predator area in Sublette County Friday, Saturday and Sunday, locals and outfitters said.
I wish they had not killed the wolves, other than the one after the cows, mostly to keep the wolf people from going balistic. The wolf in the cattle had to be killed, he most assuredly would have killed cows sooner or later.
I aplogize to anyone who feels I should apologize for the 2 dead wolves. teh other was jsut killed by a person defending his property.
I do suspect He is more distressed over the human babies that were killed today in the name of "choice".
MattM, before you lose too much sleep worrying about the wolves that will not protect the pronghorns, please note that the researcher that brought that revelation, also found that no jackrabbits had been seen inside of Yellowstone since 1991. At least they hadn't been seen until all of the biologists working in the park started calling him about all of them that are seen on a regular basis, including the day his "no bunny" story was published....peer reviewed I believe, but obviously not by local biologists.
Now if you are longing to see antelope, drive along I-80 across southern Wyoming. You're not likely to see a wolf, maybe a few coyotes, but lots of antelope.
And it ain't no April Fool's Day joke either.
But it sure very well may be far too REAL for those who store their heads somewhere beyond the light of day to fully understand or relate to.
Obviously you haven't kept up with the State of the Union address re horses in latter day life and/or the so-called-"successes" of the so-called-"Humane Society" ~ which can now be anointed without doubt as the most INHUMANE Society on the face of this earth.
If you don't see any salvation in bearbait's suggestions, maybe you'd like to join up with the so-called-"horse mafia" who are just about to be confronted with the largest increase in so-called-"feral horses" this Nation has ever seen. Wait till that bill arrives in your mailbox!
Of course, judging from the vile hatred of all domestic livestock that I see spewed all over this website, watching the repositioning of The Domestic Horse to The Feral Horse to The Starving Horse to The Wolf's Gut might be the "Make My Day" event of the year for a bunch of you who seem to think that All Wild is better than Any Domestic as far as the eye can see.
Since I own about 75 of those Domestic Mamas who have produced those horses grandpa gave Missy to keep her off boys for another two years who all might well be headed down that trail in the very near future to find that place to finally lay their heads in eternal sleep, at peace in death, they know and I will know their lives were not in vain because they will have given new life to the INHUMANE Society and the All Wild Folks who can then look around and smile at a job well done ~ perhaps through the window of a townhouse that will follow in their wake?
The Elfman Solution? Is that a tax deductible conduit for donations? Will bones be recycled through the guts of pine beetles? ~ raked into a stack and ground up for gardens? ~ or just left as objects of Historic Art in honor of the wide-spread hatred for Any Domestic by the All Wild Folks?
By the way, I would love to hear about your beliefs (or not) in God and what YOUR suspicion is as to why God would put these creatures here (if you believe in God). Perhaps you are an aetheist?
I take it that you find a spiritual acceptance in having wolves shot. Personally, I am revolted by it. I could shoot coyotes all day long, but I can't accept shooting wolves.
;>)
Matt m: Abortion is an awful process but I understand your point. The rate at which humans are choosing to reproduce is killing the earth. People really need to stop having babies. 6+ billion and counting. It has DOUBLED in the last 50 years. This is truly sickening.
As for those Sublette County wolf getters, yay for them, hurray and leave me some. I guess from now until forever, some reporter will call WY DFG asking for the "show and tell" report...especially come trophy season.
Three? Think of all the work saved by not having the agency people trot out and do the same thing. Snrk. I am really looking forward to the emotionalistic crybabying and crosshairs-encrusted fundraising screeds my spies will be forwarding.
Why not remove all the mountain lions?
Why not remove all the bears?
These animals are both dangerous and kill livestock and other game. What is wrong with a regulated, licensed wolf hunt (not a free-for-all hunt)?
Also, if those of you out there are using the logic of "we can't safely go out in the woods anymore because of the wolves; they may kill my pet"; get real, what about mountain lions, bears, moose, etc. What about all the traps that have been set; don't they also take a toll on pets? There are more things out there in the wild that could hurt you or your pets/livestock that have been around for longer than the recently reintroduced wolves!
I think that using the tired excuse of fear is played out.
Comments that violate our terms of service by engaging in personal attacks have been and will be removed in this thread. If you're unwilling to engage in civil discourse, I ask that you take your comments elsewhere.
Keep it clean.
No, I have not had my tubes tied and I do not plan to because my significant other is unable to have children. I do have one child, however, and I always planned to do my part in reducing the world's population by limiting myself to one. I hope others will try to do the same because virtually all the world's problems come down to one thing... overpopulation. I should hope we could agree on this. It is very akin to the carrying capacity of a ranch. If you overstock and overgraze you will kill your land. We are killing the earth.
Those of you that don't believe overpopulation is a problem should go ahead and sell all your hunting gear because there will not be any wildlife or land left in the near future.
Surely it can't be so!!!
Surely "enviros" don't believe
It's PEOPLE makes us "grow"?!!?
So are you wolf-ers leadin' now
Right down the "smart growth" trails??!!
Is there ONE chance you might have noticed
REASON "Growth" prevails??!!
And all this time I've been believin'
RANCHERS caused that sin!!!
Where have you wolf-ers all been hidin'?
WHERE have you all been??!
'Cause up till now I've been misled
By those who are soooooooo sure
There'd be "NO Growth" if money grubbin'
Ranchers weren't the burr!!!
So are you REALLY tellin' me
That money grubbin' folks
Ain't ALL the problem of ALL sins
So often bashed by jokes??!
Go figure ... says I now to me ...
... who'da EVER thought
The lovers of the wolves would FINALLY
Have a thought I've sought??!!!
On land-use pages can I quote
Your comments posted here?
'Cause surely ALL "enviros" would
Accept YOUR words so clear!!!
Read now, its just the beginning of this consequence of delisting.
But thanks much for your "concern" ... what more could a girl want, I says to myself says I.
how about answering elmans question: do you believe in God?
"...It does seem unamerican to harrass and endanger folks in their own homes then charge them for it."
“Interested” is Marion Dickinson. She is spamming (posting under more than one name). She is hereby banned from this group. Ralph
Now can I call you a liar Marion? I believe so....
Uh oh ... there you go again ... is it alright if I share some of your "concern" for me with Marion?
There is enough to share, I'm sure.
Here ya go, Marion ... consider yourself gifted with "concern" from "gline" ~ my treat.
What good is having such a nice gift without being able to share it!
Thanks, "gline" ... considered it shared on your behalf.
Now go to bed and hopefully tomorrow you won't get up on the wrong side of the bed again. Who knows! You may even bump into a dumb broad you actually like someday!
Rosemary: I am not concerned for you. believe me. and your personal attacks may just get you kicked off this site like Marion's jet off of Ralphs.
To take you back to the point of this blog: wolves. Not you.
Maybe you people should start to think about other things besides yourselves.
Hey: so do you believe in God?
Can any of you explain why you feel that "our side" of the situation should be kept silent?
"Your side" gets to put a lot of wolves here, we have to pay the costs of taking care of them, we are the ones that lose private property to them, we have to deal with them, we are the ones that have to hire extra help our of our pockets to try to protect our livestock from them. You get to enjoy them and tell us what we have to do, and that is the only side you want the general public to know?
In other words, the cattle rancher is the ONLY private property owner, whose rights should count? What about the Private Property land owners whose rights are ignored in the name of the Livestock industry? For instance most all the people and land owners on the Horse Butte that want the Department of Livestock to stay off of because there is no livestock. YET they Department of Livestock IGNORES those rights and tramples, and destroys fences and vegetation in the name of cattle that are no where near the place?
I don't agree with an all out war against the wolf any more than I condone the all out war against the Bison. Numbers need to be kept in check, but not by a bunch of gun happy wolf hating fanatics. And with no concern or consideration of the eventual outcome.
Small steps need to be taken and what the Rancher did by shooting that wolf that was ON his property, and within his cattle, is a GOOD first step. But NOT the 'hillbilly' type "I'm gunna go kill every dam wolf I see because.........."
This is NOT a Bison post, so I will try to keep my feelings of that issue out of here, but there IS a similarity to the two.
will not do you any good. Marion has never been presented with a fact she won't ignore, sidestep or twist.
another thing about the Internet Marion; whatever you post never goes away. adds a dimension to telling the truth you never considered before huh.
If there is a risk to something you have on YOUR property, and you border MY property, the State of Montana has a 'Fence to keep out' law that should be applied.
HENCE FENCE out the 'pest' 'perpetrator' as a first step, and when that is breeched go to step 2. Again there is NO need for an all out war against the WILDLIFE.
Now I've tried to keep this as un-personal as possible, because there are almost a half a dozen offenders on this post alone that argue from an entirely fact-free position and know only of wolves what the other hunters and ranchers tell them. They ignore every amount of data put forth, even shoving aside their own comments in their emotional post spamming.
Instead of arguing from these fact free positions, I would suggest that anti-wolf people read some information on wolves, understand their ability to reduce diseased animals from the herd, and understand that killing them just to brag about it or because of a sense of personal vengeance is rather juvenile. If that is too difficult, then I have to wonder why you're in this conversation in the first place.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_3547.aspx
If it is the same wolf, just on a different continent, why would it be presented in literature, newspaper reports, and scientific journals in such a different way in Europe than it is here? It appears the real difference between the USA and Russian frontiers was that Americans had the right to bear arms, and the ability to care for their property, and that was not the case in Russia. The state had control of guns and wolves, and only when the state controlled wolves did peasants live without painful and fatal interactions with wolves. That is just historical fact, read from the literature of European wolves.
I guess the peasant class in the USA is in town, and not affected. Their interests are protected by the left, who cannot yet fathom why the urban poor grow in numbers and diminish in education on an annual basis. And Cod only knows, the urban intelligencia has all the answers, and the rural oligarchs should not have a say in all things wild, deferring any sovereignty over their land to the tyranny of the urban majority. Or so it sounds all too often in these posts.
Wolf re-introduction has worked. Wolves galore. Wolves off to where they were not wanted and were not to be protected in the rules by the Federal government. The wolf is never going to be worshipped by all or even a majority. Some wolves will try to make a living in the wrong place. Smart as their anthropogenic apologists deem them, like teenagers and urban drop outs, many wolves will make bad decision after bad decision, and will pay for it. They are just victims of Bruce Babbitt's Preparation H diplomacy, prescient political thinking, shoot from the hip regulation. Makes me really happy he didn't get a tour with the Supremes.
or one from High Country News that also links to all of Margaret Wild's studies.
The fact is is that the wolves' areas and CWD areas are just now starting to overlap. As for brucellosis, there is the argument that the forced mobility of the elk due to wolves is increasing the spread of the disease, which may be a false causation made by Dave Skinner himself. The warming climate may also be part of the extended range of elk, due to increases in snowfall the elk may be ranging further to find food.
"I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. "
Come on, Marion, thats just impolite towards the author, and when proven absolutely wrong, you change the subject.
I too have read the Graves book (thanks bearbait), and they actually have studies showing that wolves spread disease. This makes sense because they carry tissue from one place to another to feed pups. Also they carry specific diseases, and one of those was found just last year in a elk outside of the park during hunting season.
The area of Colorado where the CWD got such a toehold has lots of lions, but that certainly did not halt the spread. When it comes to speculation, I speculate that predatory and scavanger birds may be responsible for the increased spread.
By the way, you'll have to wade thru all of the posts, but I did apologize to anyone offended by my poo pooing the killing of wolves the first weekend, that would include Bill.
I just wish you guys considered 3 wolves as big a deal when they are on a ranch as you do dead.
Hunter put up some numbers earlier and I refigured them according to Marion's quote of Bangs saying for every 1 confirmed there are maybe 7-9 others. If we figure the same # of cattle: 4.5 million and slightly overestimate the # of kills at 1800 in a year (4,5 million from the USDA website and 1800 an estimate based on all info presented) we get a percentage of .04% of cattle killed by wolves instead of .004% (even these numbers are a little high as I couldn't find cattle numbers for WY). In contrast, the 3 wolves killed represent about .23% of the total wolf population and .96% of the WY wolf population.
Although your recent postings were addressed to Marion and I certainly do not speak for any other person, if you are concerned and speaking in regard to private property rights vs. other issues being discussed, you may have gotten the wrong impression somewhere along the line. Of course, I do not know what state you live in or by what right/title/interest under specific state law might come into play in your location, but as far as the Feds are concerned they do NOT have the right of trespass on private property anymore than a private citizen might have ~ which is NONE. That includes the US Fish and Wildlife Service and others that come under the "ownership" of the U. S. Department of Interior. However, those employees who operate "in the field" are decidedly prone to failing to acknowledge that FACT while crawling over private property fencing and attempting to trespass on private property at will. They get away with it in many instances because private citizens are unaware of the FACT that a federal or state employee (with RARE exception) can NOT break the law anymore so than any of the rest of us can.
This FACT may be tempered to some degree IF your state has some sort of law that would override federal law in that regard. In my state that is not true so they do not have any state-specific right of trespass here. Yep. That *has* been proven in court in my area.
As I said initially, I do not speak for anyone other than myself ... but in my not-so-humble opinion ANY private property owner ~ "private property" being voiced here to include ALL of it, including but not exclusive to both land and livestock of ANY kind ~ should have the right to "defend and protect" that privately owned property to extent of their ability to do so. That is an opinion I strongly hold whether or not the subject of any conversation is about wolves. Wolves are only one of many predators that can enter onto private property and destroy private property.
So if your primary concern voiced in your comments is related to your personal rights to "defend and protect" your land or your livestock, rest assured that you do have a very large number of people throughout the West and throughout this Nation who have their feet firmly planted on that same side of the fence with you! Their numbers are NOT simply related to either rural properties or wildlife of any kind.
Beyond the boundaries of private property ownership ~ again, "private property" being voiced here to include ALL of it, including but not exclusive to both land and livestock of ANY kind ~ another issue is implanted which seeks to define "and then what happens" on publicly owned property. On that issue(s) each and every one of us who are citizens of the USA have one equal voice.
It is my opinion that the anger and retorts arise from private property owners when "the hands of The Public" seek to reach across those private property boundaries (of all kinds) and dictate to owners of privately owned property what they are "supposed to" do regarding any/all property to which an individual owner(s) holds that right/title and legal interest and thereby retains, and should always retain, that personal right to "defend and protect" it ~ whether that amounts to one velvet covered stool in a living rooms or one Bison mowing a yard.
Furthermore, I totally agree with the portion of your statements saying that you should be the one who decides what and/or who enters upon your property and just what or who that is and for whatever reason you think it is okay/fine for them to be there is absolutely the way it ought to be!
My state also has a "fence out" law regarding domestic livestock. The legality and/or practicality of attempting to "fence out" wild predators is a horse of an entirely different color and I know of no law in this neck of the woods that voices such an expectation of any citizen.
The one issue I have with the urban majority is that they are not paying their way on these wildlife management issues. The use of tax forgiven money to litigate against government agencies in wildlife issues takes license and tag money from hunters and fishermen, and transfers it to lawyers and enviro groups. I would like to see all litigation awards come from the State treasury, or the Federal treasury. As it stands now, all too much of the time and treasure of habitat and critter management litigation comes from a limited resource, the sportsman by his purchase taxes and license and fee payments.
I see in my state, facing a no salmon fishing season, is gearing up to raise their license and fee income to make up for the loss of fishing revenue. Commercial fishers pay a poundage fee on all landings, plus a license fee in a limited entry fishery. You have to buy the license to be able to fish in the future, even though you will have no income this year to pay for it. Sportsfishermen just don't buy this year, with no penalty for future opportunities. The tyranny of the urban majority. If the habitat and critters are in the public domain, then all the public should be bearing a portion of the cost. Wolf management is going to cost money. Rigs, fuel, airplanes, transponders and collars, biology, monitoring, law enforcement. That should not be borne by hunters alone. My opinion. My idea is that basic societal fairness is not now being addressed. And if that is not happening, the problems and solutions will never be fully addressed. The last thing we need is wolf management by the inner city public school model where special interests financed by mandatory union dues prevail for themselves and the kids go wanting. Wolf care taken over by the left with their bankrupt government models needs the oversight provided by general fund support in the legislatures.
There are many comments on this site that indicate that discrimination is deep seated in the enviro left, what with all this redneck, queer baiting, personal attack garbage. My observation. But not unexpected from that societal segment. They do funny things when they are not getting their way.
No proof of that claim, just emotional claims.
"There are many comments on this site that indicate that discrimination is deep seated in the enviro left, what with all this redneck, queer baiting, personal attack garbage."
But of course, you aren't making it personal with the first quote, right?
"Wolf management is going to cost money. Rigs, fuel, airplanes, transponders and collars, biology, monitoring, law enforcement. That should not be borne by hunters alone."
Proof is not offered that Idaho Fish and Game or any other F&G;organization is funded solely through tag fees. Cite? The evidence that F&G;receives federal and state grants is very easy to find with Google.
bearbait, you offer a lot of anecdotal and emotional pleas with little substance. Would it hurt to offer a few sources for your more outlandish claims?
As well you make your claims that so many "wolf-huggers" are urban in origin, would you care to back that up with some proof?
Increased snowfall causing elk mobility? Ever noticed that except for this year there's been a screaming DROUGHT since 1997? And have you read Ripple's reports on "trophic cascade" effects of "keystone predators" on elk?
Finally, as for wolf lovers being a bunch of urbanites, go check out the BSU and IDFG surveys for the demographics of the respondents. The closer to town you are, the more lovey-dovey you be. That's a fundamental finding.
Your comment on Ripple's study is also unsourced and useless, given that he mostly writes about predation studies on elk behaviors in regards to willows and aspen regrowth. I think you just throw out things like that to sound like you have data backing you thinking that people won't actually follow up, am I right?
As for drought conditions in the area that we are talking about, mainly the Yellowstone region along with the immediate surrounding areas (the only place in NA with brucellosis) most years that region received a high maximum of snowpack with drastic spring melts that depleted the long term availability of water. What I'd like to see is a REAL study (without the state of Wyoming involved) that actually makes wolves the sole culprit behind the spread of brucellosis and not the increase in snowpack and close proximity to cows due to feed access.
Oh, and a nice document with more links that proves my points about snowpack can be found right here.
Have any more big words and science-y things you'd like to just randomly throw out that would impress the girls at a cowboy bar but have no relevance on this discussion?
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405015&showpars=true&fy=2004
SO the idea the Yellowstone Bison, Elk, etc. are the only wild population containing the Disease, and that they need to eradicate it is just more proof of the insanity in the IBMP. There is another article in the Chicago Tribune that states they are about a year away from a vaccine, and the ability to eradicate the disease. I don't know where the Chicago Tribune got their information, but the link to it is :
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0328edit2mar28,1,7534354.story
Not that this has anything to do with Wolves, except for the fact that they can't be blamed any more than the Bison or the Elk for Brucellosis floating around in the eco-system. It's out there and it's time to get THE better vaccine for the domestic.
Ann: Thank you so much! I never knew that there was an issue with the feral pig population in the south.
Now all that's left for you to tell us is WHERE they threw those grasses and animal speicies TO.
Please be sure to state the exact location where they landed after being thrown or you just KNOW you're gonna have a LOT of trouble with Jay, right?
Of course, Rose Mary's snark is a pretty sad testimony to her own baseless arguments, but hey, thats what she's here for, right?
Ranchers lease OUR public land at a very small price, make a profit, and still charge too much for beef. Meanwhile, we taxpayers artificially prop up the ranching industry by supporting the Wildlife Service which is a nightmare to wildlife. Ranchers overgraze the grass (scientific fact) which has had implications for all species. They resist any attmept at the re-introduction of bison, wolves, jaguars in the southwest, grizzlies, prairie dogs (there are entire parts of the west where there are none), etc.The North American ecosystem is crippled in large part due to ranchers. Water has always been there for wildlife, until of course it was sucked away from the natural environment so people could have nice, green lawns and the dazzling lights of Vegas. They provide wildlife habitat? Please be specific with examples. What do I do for wildife? I drive a fuel efficient vehicle, I recycle, I live simply, I buy used goods when possible, I check books out from the library rather than buying them when possible, I live in a smaller house, I plan on having no more than one kid, I take short showers, I donate money to organizations that help wildlife, and I eat chicken and turkey rather than beef.
The cooperation of ranchers and local F&G;and hunters have worked for over 150 years restoring and improving life for wildlife. It is beyond my comprehension why there has been a move to try to force ranchers off the land and just use it for recreation. That benefits no one but the recreationalist, and eventually it will decrease the wildlife habitat.
As for the cost of beef, a rancher gets what he can sell it for, he does not set the price, and believe me the price in the store does not reflect what a rancher gets for his beef on the hoof. Now if you want to see the price really high, force American ranchers off the land and import beef like we do fuel.
Here's an example of a rancher contributing to wildlife that I took along the highway, it is even more noticeable in the off road places.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82934288@N00/1878669252/
Now what I see in that picture is a pasture that still has it's bales left out in it, no CATTLE, (if there were the bales wouldn't still be baled) And a bunch of mulies eating grass doing no harm to any one or anything. Since there are no cows in there the grass is 'free-game' so-to-speak for the wildlife.
It looks like a very peaceful setting.
All those deer in that pasture will do less damage to that pasture than 10 head of cattle would do.
Human consumption habits and human numbers have a great impact on wildlife. Changing one's daily lifestyle will do more to help wildlife than digging some water hole somewhere. As for large number of deer and elk, that is to be expected considering the predators that prey on them have been wiped out. So are you saying ranchers help wildlife by wiping out other wildlife? That makes about as much sense as...well, it really doesn't. As for the photo, I see a bunch of deer becoming dependent on human provided food, which ultimatley harms wildlife more than it helps. Maybe if that land had not been so altered by grazing, it could support wildlife on it's own without human help. What have ranchers done for wolves, bears, and prairie dogs? They have blasted them to oblivion. Also, most ranchers have a legal right to shot those deer. "They came on my private property and are endangering my livelyhood by eating my hay".
The deer grazing in your picture look a lot like the deer that graze on the lawns and apple trees of the subdivisions around here. They, at least, don't seem to have noticed the decline in ranches and boom of subdivisions. I can drive in the hills, where there are neither ranches nor subdivisions, and find plenty of wildlife as well. They got along just fine before people were here, and would if we were gone.
There is little question that (some) ranchers, F&G;and hunters did, in fact, do much to restore wildlife populations that were pretty much devastated in the early 20th Century (mostly BECAUSE of ranchers and hunters....loss of habitat and over hunting). Environmentalists, conservationists and nature lovers everywhere have much to thank good, responsible hunters for. They were the first environmentalists, even if many of them do not like the word.
The problem is that wolves, bear, coyotes, mountain lions, hawks, badgers, prairie dogs etc. are ALL wildlife as well. I have a good friend who is a rancher (we simply agree to disagree on politics!). He loves deer. He even occasionally puts out a little grain for them (illegal in Montana BTW) so they will come up to the house where his 101 yr. old mother can see them. Yet in the winter, when the elk come down and eat his hay, he calls it predation! Just like predators killing his stock, he says. I've seen him out in the middle of the night with a starter pistol and dogs chasing them off. Last Spring he shot a coyote family (mom and pups) on his back forty. Right by the den. Weren't doing anything wrong...but they might. Trouble waiting to happen, he said. His walls are adorned with fox pelts that he has shot or trapped over the years. He loves to tell the story of this one "dumb" fox that walked right up to him (curious?) and he shot it between the eyes. Also about all the prairie dogs he has "had to" poison over the years, and how mad he is that this poison or that isn't available anymore because "a couple of eagles" MIGHT have gotten poisoned!
Now, if I didn't know better, and I just drove by his land during the summer and saw hundreds of mule deer, white tail and maybe some pronghorn grazing in his fields, it would be easy for me to think, "Now there's a wildlife friendly landowner!"
Now, I live on a forty acre plot. I used to have a few sheep (they came with the property), but got rid of them. I put in a pond and naturalized it, put up bluebird boxes, planted natives shrubs. I have deer, pronghorn, occasional elk, occasional bear, rare wolf or two (I think there is a small pack in the hills behind my property) and even a moose once last fall down by the creek. I even have a couple of prairie dogs that have moved in.
Now, which is more wildlife friendly? My neighbor's 800 acre ranch, or my forty acre subdivision? That's why I always say that one is not necessarily better for wildlife. It depends on whether we're talking a few select species, or we're talking WILDLIFE.
I have to argue with you on the deer being 'dependent on human provided food..." I don't see them eating the 'hay' which is just dried baled grass, I see them eating the grasses that would be growing there whether there where cattle fields, hay fields, or anything else. They are eating vegetation that is growing out of the ground. The other thing I notice is the ground isn't all torn up like it would be if cattle were on it.
You are impressed that cows haven't torn up the ground, jsut where do you think the cows are during the inter? Yep on the hay fields right with the deer, elk and whatever else comes in.
Frankly I think you guys like to concentrate on the damge to "nature" by ranchers so you do not have to deal with the damage done by city dwellers. I have never seen any of you mention the impact on nature by yourselves and your lifestyle, not once. If you can force someone else to go the extra mile for wildlfie that seems to make up for the damage you do, at least in your own mind.
Thank you for the kind comments on my photos, I love nature, but I am also a realist, and realize that some things are what they are. There is no such thing as perfection, nor balance for that matter. What is today may not be tomorrow. Buffalo were brought into Yellowstone to restore the balance, now we have a mess, wolves were brought in for the same reason, now we are seeing the moose and elk herds melting away.
It's good to see that Marion is on every post I find in reference to Wolves and her comments rarely change. She even has supporters here, too. It's even better to see that people are still calling her on her 'not fact based opinions'. Thank you to all of you that do.
Bill's original article was a good one and pretty accurate for being written before the fact. There are some great comments here and I can't quote them all so I won't even try. But I'll say this.
I believe that Wolves should be managed by professionals, just like all other wildlife. WY's "management" plan is not management at all. The "Predator" status in 88% of the state proves that.
As far as numbers go there shouldn't be a limit in my opinion. If wolves can survive in any area without interfering with livestock, endangering pets or 'human life' on private property then they should be left to thrive.
As far as Ranchers and Farmers "allowing" other wildlife to graze/live on their land, Why do you think that is Marion? Why aren't they wanting to kill them off as well? Aren't they taking money away from them as well, if your claims are true?
I could go on about other absurd accusations and speculations on here but it would have nothing to do with the original article.
Don't ask me what I give to the area or to wildlife protection. No I don't live there, but I spend a lot of time and money in the area, over 90 days in the last year. And don't ask me if I want a Wolf in my backyard. It wouldn't/couldn't survive here. That would be like me asking you if you want an Aircraft Carrier parked in your back yard. You don't, Oh you must not think we need them around then. And it has no bearing on my right to want there to be Wolves in area's that they can survive. After all, you may live in WY but it's part of the same country that we all are citizens of and like it or not we all have a say in what happens in this country. Yes, even WY.
Marion as far as you leading everyone to believe that you personally have losses from Wolves and their 'vicous' nature goes. I'm sure a lot of people on here know it's not true. But in case they don't, well I just let them know.
Kevin
It is puzzling when I see someone claim to believe in God refuse to speculate as to why our Creator would have placed things here like mosquitoes and wolves. Seems like a slap in the face to God if you ask me. You vilify these creatures and ignore God's role in their creation and purpose.
I have yet to see Rose Mary respond to the God question. Wonder why?
By the way, what the hell is “queer baiting”?
I ask this question in all seriousness and not being facetious:
What the heck is the purpose for a tick? That's the only one I've never been able to find a reason for!
It is true the deer and elk, etc may eat a few thousand dollars worth fo hay every winter, the water tanks etc are cleaned anyway so the rancher doesn't mind sharing. The wolves tear animals apart and eat on them alive, cruelty is a hard thing to deal with even if it is nature, and it is harder fi it happens to be your dog or a pet calf that you raised on a bucket, or a 4-H lamb.
Can you honestly tell me with all of the time you spend watching wildlife in the park that you have never seen a wolf or coyote or eagle carrying meat from one place to another? In fact an eagle can carry an antelope fawn when it is first born. Predators either wait to carry away a newborn or start eating on it as the mother is delivering it and helpless. Now if you think there is no brucellosis in any of that tissue you are funny, it all has a blood supply.
I made that point that city folk cannot and do not make any sacrifice for wildlife directly, but leave that up to those they decide can do the sacrificing.
Many urbanites love wildlife just as much or more than you.
Yes, I have seen Wolves, Coyotes, Eagles, Fox, Ravens and even Uinta ground squirrels carrying away pieces of meat, while watching wildlife. But there has always been traces of the animals that meat is from left behind. You make it sound like the Wolves suck them up in their mother ship and whisk them away.
"...disappeared the smae night, (carried away by the wolves).."
You choose to live in the environment that you do, a place near wildlife. Wolves, Bears, Coyotes all predators are a piece of that ecosystem. From your opinions it seems that the only part of the wildlife that matters are Elk, which I know you love, as do I. But with any understanding of an Ecosystem you will realize that those predators are key to maintaining a viable and healthy population for all other species. You mention the decline of Moose in the area since the REintroduction of the Wolves. You don't however mention the Beaver returning (because of fewer coyotes, that were running rampant without the wolves present), along with, marsh area and Aspen stands beginning to regrow (because of TO MANY Elk foraging in the open) which has brought back marsh and song birds in greater numbers. Fox numbers have increased because the coyotes have other things to worry about than taking them out.
These are just a few of the things that have changed back since the REintroduction.
If you could at least accept that the Wolves are a viable part of the ecosystem and accept that they are BACK to stay and get over the "bringing them out of Canada" thing and the "forced on us" thing. Stick to the "Ranchers have a right to protect their livelihood" thing (which I agree with, just not to the degree that you do to support it) it would be easier to agree with you on some of what you say.
But the constantly going back to "enviros" forcing their will onto others, you dont' want the wolves thereand the wolves were only brought into force ranchers out of business, gives all your other, viable, comments less impact on others. But it is your right to say what you want.
I don't think you are a bad person. I think you have probably been fighting this fight for a long time and it's hard to change. But talking about things that were supposed to be and personal beliefs passed on from others, aren't helpful to any situation. There is good and bad in the wolves being back depending on how you look at it and your perspective.
But the fact is they are back and further fact, back to this article, if the 'reduction' of Wolf numbers continues like it did last weekend for the next month or two, I think the states very well lose their right to manage the wolves.
As I said, I think the wolves should be managed just like all other wildlife. But they should be managed, not slaughtered as predators. There were all ready a process in place prior to delisting for 'taking care' of wolves that preyed on livestock. That could and should remain in affect. Of course my views of 'Public Land' differs from yours as well. But that is another matter.
With your logic of a Rancher being able to shoot wolves that harrass, get near, might eat his livestock, should the same be true for the Farmer who has Elk/Deer that get near or might eat on his crops? Because if that is the case I'm going to move down there and be me an acre or two and plant some corn.
Kevin
Kevin
I didn't mean to imply that I thought you had all the answers... I've just been trying to figure that one out for years - I really do want to know! Thought others maybe are more enlightened than myself.
By the way if you read Doug smith's book on 10 years of wolves, you will see that beaver did not magically appear with the wolves, they were planted north of the park and migrated. A question will be how long they will survive.
Ranchers do not kill deer or elk, nor do folks like me with a couple of acres. If you are not cogniscent of the difference between a grazer and a predator, I don't know what to say.
http://ozarque.livejournal.com/190764.html
You have "no problem with naturally occurring predators"?
Oh, I see... so if wolves had naturally repopulated to the levels they are now then you would be singing their praises? Ha! I doubt it.
The Wolves ARE there no matter how they got there.
I, personally, had nothing to do with that. Am I glad they are there? Yes. But let's see what was I doing in 95'-96'? Oh that's right defending your right to free speech. What does that pesky U stand for in USA? Oh right, UNITED. It's not your state. It a piece of this great Country and Wyomingite's are not the only ones that have a say in what happens on PUBLIC land or in NATIONAL parks.
I know the difference between a grazer and a predator. But you didn't answer my question. Which is exactly what you always do. Along with lumping everyone together that doesn't have your same point of view.
I see why so many people get so tired of debating anything with you. I was raised to respect my elders. That is why I have refrained from attempting to converse with you in the past on these matters. And that is why I will not discuss it further now.
All in All Good story, Bill. Sorry more of the "good ole' boys" didn't read it and follow your advice.
How long, not IF, before relisting occurs is the question. But time will tell.
Lastly, you say the "wilderness in Canada is good" but fail to make any mention of the wilderness in the USA (of which we have plenty). The Selway-Bitterroot wilderness comprises 2.5 MILLION acres not to mention the GYE, Glacier and Bob Marshall complex. Seems like you have a bad case of NIMBY in regard to wolves.
Can youtell me who gets to choose what wildlife 'belongs' in "settled" area's and which ones don't?
And can you tell me which "settled" area the Wolves were reintroduced too?
Again, I'm all for management. But "Predator" and "Management" go together like,........, like, well like Wolves and Cattle.
One last question. If I'm a land owner in WY and someone's cattle wander onto my property and eat my grass, get near my residence or harrass/upset my dogs, scare my children, can I shoot them?
Didn't you know that every acre of America has been settled whereas Canada is a vast and pure wilderness? There are no people or ranchers up there!
I can't really vouch for Wyoming, but in Montana I know for a fact, (because I asked point blank) that you can CONTAIN the person's cattle, and make him pay restitution, BUT that does NOT mean you can contain them in your freezer. Already tried that, and I believe Containing in one's freezer constitutes 'rustling'
I'm one of the FIRST to shoot at stray dogs that are NOT on their property, or with their 'owner'. I may start out small as in BB's but It get's bigger believe me. Dogs are like kids, and should be kept track of at all times. Not allowed to run around on other people's property.
But that's a whole nother story.
I suppose if you had top dollar dogs you might get away with it but a dead cow is only worth the butcher weight, and a Live cow can run up a feed bill, and destroy all kinds of property, by just standing there emitting gases, etc. If you catch my drift? Restitution can get pretty dang costly.
They did not plant the wolves in wilderness in Yellowstone, hte wolves might have behaved differently if they had been taken truly into back country, and then the back country closed to human use. They might have stayed wild.
I think it is pretty obvious those who wanted the wolves got to choose what settled areas they wanted them in, and it was NOT where they lived.
Elfman, I see your point about the contradiction on the dogs. Growing up on a Ranch in CO I saw plenty of 'good' cow dogs began chasing and harrasing cattle when they sat around not working for to long. With dire consequences from the Rancher to his own dogs.
Marion, I see that you still can't answer a direct question. If you could do that alone, debating with you would be so much easier. I thought that giving you some of my views that you may agree with would assist in us actually having an intelligent conversation. But I've come to the conclusion that you don't want to do that. I'm sure I should have reached that conclusion a long time ago. All you want to do is continue to spout off your rhetoric, rumor, lies ,speculation and fears in the hopes of getting a few more people to believe your side.
If it was in the back country of YNP or not it was still in YNP. Last time I checked, (Monday) there isn't one "Settled" area inside of park boundaries. Again, Marion, Rhetoric and lies. I'm sure you'll convince some, but anyone that reads more than a few of your comments, as I have the displeasure of doing, will see through your petty scheme.
Actually Mammoth is settled year around, and as I said the wolves were planted just a few miles from Gardiner, Cooke City, Silver Gate, Red Lodge. The wolves were not aware of any border.
We have a lot of whining about a predator filled with emotional pleas and little facts.
We have a so-called "journalist" making claims about studies that don't agree with the actual studies or demographics in any way possible, who when confronted with challenges to his claims appears (almost 48 hours later) to have run off, tail between legs.
Then we had a wonderful discussion about Intelligent Design filled with all sorts of yummy hubris!
And to finally close out the thread, we get a few more emotional cries about how the wolves are on someones grass, just like those darn kids are all the time.
Yep, good times.
"A Message to Dog, Cow and Kid Haters: Fight Trigger Itch"!
What more could a fellow have hoped to accomplish, fer-pity-sakes!!!
I live in His church, as a matter of fact, under a ceiling that He painted and carved with great Love that is held aloft by the Strength and Glory of His right-hand-girl, Mother Nature. He blessed me with the "accident"-of-birth to have been born a citizen of the USA, and for that I thank Him on a daily basis. And, although He has also blessed me with many hard times and long troublesome days, those lessons He teaches are only reminders of the Grace and Good Fortune He has given me with the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of my labors. He has given me the Gift of Hope and the Strength to survive in a world not always friendly or prone to reflect His Love, His Compassion or His Forgiveness. He has gifted me with both the Duty and the Responsibility to care for those I love to the best of my ability using the resources that He has provided for that task.
And when my final days are done ... when many wars have not been won ... my sins on Earth will be off-set ... by TLC to beasts I've met. Those opportunities diminish ... as my life heads to a finish ... as "the public" seeks to "take" ... decisions now I'm forced to make. He did NOT gift a money tree ... He gifted kids, grandkids to me. And those 2-legged beasts I love ... are greatest Gifts sent from Above.
So here you go, Dear Pointy-Toe ... MUCH more than you have right to know:
I see a fence; it’s fallin’ down; I see a weed that grows;
I see a post lopsided, bent; on it a gate that bows.
I see the top broke from a tree; strength in the wind it lacked;
I see the hay is nearly gone; once in the barn was stacked.
I see the aging apple trees are starting now to die;
a shingle from the crinkled roof; on the ground it lies.
All these reasons, even more, do remind me why
a ranch is but a money pit half empty ‘til you die.
No matter that you’ve poured it in one dollar at a time,
the pit is never full enough for us to hold the line.
Every time the sun comes up there’s more work to be done;
it’s hard sometimes to recognize a ranch as something fun.
But then I saw the morning sky, sun creeping o’er the hills;
the graceful deer in my front yard made me forget the bills.
They scampered through the failing fence; they bounced as though on springs;
they never seemed to even notice all those broken things.
I saw the cows stand up to eat the grass between the weeds;
cloven hoofs pressed on the earth planting this year’s seeds.
As the sun rose in the sky they gathered in the shade;
tree top broken in the wind no difference to them made.
Until the snow falls months from now why should they look for hay?
If they notice that it’s gone ‘twill be some other day.
A hawk is swooping low, then high; robin’s on the fence;
an elk is standing, silhouette, a rack that is immense.
The bottom of the lake needs sealing; nesting ducks don’t know;
beavers build their dam upstream; prepare for winter snow.
The scent of pine is in the air; mountains, rolling hills.
Why would I ever think this place is all about the bills?
Perhaps it’s not the drain that’s clogged; it’s just a home for slugs;
perhaps the weeds are all wild flowers brought home to mom for hugs.
Perhaps it’s not a broken fence; it’s just a wildlife trail;
perhaps a change of vantage point will make the joys prevail.
Perhaps the pit that looks half empty really is half full;
can borrow money at the bank and buy another bull.
That’s the way a rancher thinks; senseless, dusk or dawn.
If we’d win the lottery we’d ranch ‘til it’s all gone.
And when we finally give up hope that someday we’ll break even,
houses can go up in rows on the land we’re leavin’.
If we all forsake the dream, give up and go to town,
I somehow know that on God’s face there’ll be a silent frown.
...... a musing from the West by Rose Mary ___ ©
To exterminate means to obliterate ~ to reduce to nothing. I have neither read in this total MESS of comments, nor have I ever heard even ONE person express the desire to "exterminate" the wolf or any other creature on Earth.
So far there ARE no wolves on my ranch so there has not YET been any reason on my part to include them in my poetry. However, you will also see that I have not made room in my poetry for either coyotes or mountain lions that do reside on my ranch ~ and that also prey on the many species of 4-legged beasts I raise and love.
When I kill or seek to kill either species it is because I have made the CHOICE to do so. God gives us gifts AND He also gives us hard CHOICES that we must make every day of our lives. Should those who seem to think that it is THEIR job, not God's, to "reintroduce" wolves to my ranch ... where they have certainly NOT been for at least the last 50-or-more years and where GOD has not chosen to "reintroduce" them ... which I certainly believe He has always had the capacity to do at His will (if He ever put them here to begin with ... which I have never been able to substantiate in my area) then I will make the CHOICE to defend and protect the 4-legged beasts that I love.
Although there are many differences between a coyote and a wolf, the wolf is much more prone to KILL IN EXCESS of any need that wolf might have to fill it's tummy on any given day. It also is much more prone to HALF-KILL and leave HALF-ALIVE the prey it attacks than is the coyote; and, the wolf is much more prone to hunt and kill and rape and plunder in PACKS than are the coyotes that I have personally witnessed.
On my ranch a coyote is a disposable animal WITH GOOD CAUSE.
I have seen HOW they stalk and HOW they kill the beasts I love and it IS my God-given duty to protect my beasts, entrusted in my care BY God.
On my ranch or anywhere else in the world a 2-legged beast who stalks to KILL the 2-legged beasts I love is also a disposable animal.
It is extremely obvious to me from comments here and those frequently made on NewWest.net that FEW IF ANY of you have actually WATCHED how either a wolf or a coyote attacks or kills.
Unfortunately, I have not been so lucky. I have no experience with the wolf ~ YET ~ but I certainly have too much experience with the dastardly METHODS of the kill done by the coyote on my ranch. Any woman who has delivered a baby or any man who has watched his child be delivered would share my sentiments IF they watched the way a coyote kills.
A coyote will sit and watch and wait ~ with an inborn sense when a cow or a mare is in the last stages of her pregnancy and delivery of the calf or the foal is pending. As any mother knows, there does come a time when that baby IS going to be delivered whether or not the mother is ready or whether or not the inborn senses of that mother knows that to deliver that baby at that time is HIGH risk to both herself and her unborn child.
A coyote knows ... and waits ... and when that cow or mare is forced to lie down on the ground and her labor begins the coyote approaches ... and AS THAT BABY LEAVES THE BIRTH CANAL THE COYOTE EATS IT ... and it will OFTEN also eat the rear end and the birth canal out of the mare or the cow before she can complete the labor and struggle to her feet in an attempt to defend herself and her baby.
For all of you so-called tough guys who like to sit in judgment of others ... how would YOU like to be in a delivery room watching that happen to the mother of YOUR child?
I assume from your comments that you would be perfectly willing to just stand by and watch YOUR child being ravished in such a manner? ~ along with the mother of it?
Well, I would not and I am not prone to do so. Not only is that cow or that mare a living/loving creature of God's making, God blessed me with care of it and it is my job to honor those duties to the best of my ability ... so I certainly WILL make that CHOICE to kill any such predator.
If you all wish to sit on your velvet cushions and value the LIFE of one of God's creatures over the other that is your CHOICE to make also. My choice and my loyalties lie with God's 4-legged beasts entrusted to my care. When the coyote ... and IF the wolf ... approaches them their lives will always be in danger and their death will only be pending until such time as I can eliminate them, with or without the endorsement of any other human being. That is a CHOICE God has given me and one that I have accepted as my duty and my obligation to the living creatures that I love.
I do NOT recall God's Word ever mentioning a time or a circumstance or His Desire that any person on this Earth was put here to sit in Judgment of all others. To the best of my knowledge God reserved that Right of Judgment only unto God.
The SELF-righteous comments you and others have made are not accompanied by pictures of those well-worn moccasins you borrowed from others who have worn them.
Go forth and prosper, Pointy-toed-one.
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. I wish for you the latter as I do for myself.
A couple of years ago, wolves ate oen elk right by the steps of the Mammoth Dining room in winter, then they started on another that fought for her life despite very bad injuries for 2 days, on the 3rd, reality got to be too much and the ranchers took her away and killed her so folks didn't get too much reality. Oh yes, it was February and they were "afraid it would attract a bear & endanger folks"
Please write another stupid wolf rant so the 6 people left babbling on this one can amuse the rest of us yet again with even more and interesting ways of making fools of themselves.
Marion, Did you mean Rangers?? Not sure what Ranchers would be doing at the Mammoth Dining room let alone killing Elk in the area.
Anne, seems the "Judgement" you mention is going both ways. Nice Poem by the way.
Mr. Twister, great idea. But I think I'm going to lose this bookmark. One site is more than I can or care to keep up with. As this is my first time posting on a newspaper website and I've already figured out it's senseless. Seems like everyone that cares to read or post on these things are to set in their ways to even listen to an opposing view. Even if that opposing view is similar to their own. All they see is the little bit that isn't the same.
Since we turned to religion here is a thought for you that are God fearing people. The Golden Rule is Pro-active, not Re-Active. In other words:
"DO unto others as you would have others DO unto you" That means you act first, second and always, regardless of how they treat you. That is the test of a Christian. Not how often or loudly you praise his name. Actions do speak louder than words, especially in God's case. I don't fear my Judgement day in the least.
Peace Out
Haven't you ever heard of Marxism? Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
A lot of people opposed to the wolves talk about the people that enjoy them/want them not having to deal with them. We all have things in our lives that we enjoy, but that we don't have to deal with the ugliness of. Would you want a coal mine in your back yard? An Oil refinery? (that gas you put in your tank doesn't come out of the ground that way) A power plant?
You may see these as ridiculous examples, but some people do live by these things and many more that create or give us the luxuries we have in our lives.
Again, I go to the fact that the Wolves ARE there. Regardless of what was thought would be the final numbers or when delisting would occur or what everyone thought that would mean. I've stated over and over again that there should be "management". This includes protecting ones way of life and property. But Pubic lands do mean public, regardless if they are in WY, MT, ID or FL. So all citizens have a right and a say in what happens on them.
I do not currently live where I want to end up. If my current ambition in life pans out I plan on moving to that area. I will gladly deal with the issues of living in Wild Country first hand. I would love to own some land and livestock. If that day comes I will take all necassary precautions for them, because I chose to live in that environment. But until then I will just be an outsider/frequent visitor, looking in.
Marion, maybe some day I'll run into you in the park and we can 'shoot' some Elk together. (By shoot I mean photograph of course)
Kevin
Follow some of the Bison vs idiots posts, and then make up your mind.
It shouldn't be too tough.
this is old news but I thought it would add food for thought re: this discussion. From: http://www.westernwatersheds.org/news_media/newsmedia_2008/nr_aum_fee.shtml)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELEASES PUBLIC-LANDS
GRAZING FEE FOR 2008; LOWER THAN EVER,
DESPITE RISING COSTS TO TAXPAYERS
February 6, 2008– Today, the federal government announced the public lands grazing fee for 2008: a mere $1.35 per cow, per month to graze on our National Forests and BLM lands on 235 million acres in the West.
A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2005 showed that BLM and Forest Service grazing receipts fell far short of their expenditures on grazing by almost $115 million. The fee decreased from $2.36 per AUM (animal unit month) in 1980 to the current rate of $1.35, or over 40% while grazing fees charged by private ranchers increased by 78 percent for the same period. To recover costs of administering the federal grazing program, BLM and the Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per AUM[1] .
The fee is set by a formula established by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and calculates the fee based on the amount of forage required to sustain one AUM (a cow and her calf) for one month. This new fee is as low as the government formula allows it to go despite increasing costs to administer the grazing program. The new fee and formula do not account for inflation or the increasing size of those “animal units.”
“Adjusted for inflation since 1980, the new cost to graze a cow and her calf is worth about $0.54 in constant 1980 dollars” said Jon Marvel, executive director of WWP. “It costs more than that to feed a hamster, and it’s not fouling streams, ruining wildlife habitat, or accelerating erosion as livestock do. This is a huge hand out to public land ranchers. If the fee had been adjusted for inflation, today’s rate would be $5.94 per AUM.”
In addition, based on figures from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the average weight of cows increased from 1050 pounds in 1984 to 1242 pounds in 2004, or an increase of 23%, while the forage consumption of their calves is not counted. If the current weight and forage consumption of cows and their calves were counted, the actual forage consumed is over 40% greater than the agencies charge for, further devaluing the fee recovered. These “super-sized” cows are eating more forage than their smaller predecessors, raising the profits for the livestock industry and reducing the amount of vegetation available for wildlife."
This in combination with the low statistics on wolves eating cattle as Jeff E so long ago pointed out. .... hmmm common sense. why scapegoat the wolf? Mad at the big bad parental Feds? More immature behavior. ...
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/04/06/news/39803d131de89bc78725742200268abe.txt
It does seem like for an area reported to not have many wolves, what 20-30, they are pretty plentiful. I think only the last 2 are of a pack, and we know 253 had not been counted for a couple of years. I'm wondering if there are lots more wolves than the estimate even if they are more or less habituated, it seems like a lot of sightings and killings for only 20-30 animals.
Can't help that trigger itch can you??
"When people made wolves the symbol of evil, that was wrong, But it's just as wrong to make them a symbol of all that's good, some mysterious icon of the wilderness.” John Vucetich, a researcher studying wolves in Michigan.
Those wolf populations you speak of have been artificially suppressed to make room for cattle which not belong on the land. You speak of there not being enough to amuse city folk. What about artificially inducing large numbers of deer and elk to provide game to hunt for recreation? Your argument contradicts itself.