Boise News

Maybe the reason that Ron's lodge received so few hunters last year is that he is the main reason that hunters are scared away from Idaho. I submit that he is his own worst enemy, business-wise, and that his rhetoric is the primary reason that hunters don't want to go to Stanley.

Deer and Elk populations have not suffered the catastrophic declines that Ron likes to portray and livestock depredation is simply unconsequential. Wolf management has become more of a exercise in managing people and their livestock than managing wolves.

Let Ron spend all of that money he raises with his Chicken Little rhetoric on something that won't make a bit of difference in the long run. Either he won't get the initiative on the ballot because he lacks the signatures, he gets the initiative on the ballot and it doesn't pass, or, the least likely, the initiative passes. If the initiative passes do you really think that the IDFG would give up management of wolves now that they have it? If management goes back to the USFWS then that's fine too. They probably would do a better job than IDFG anyway.

Ron's goal of ridding Idaho of all wolves will never be accomplished but he will still be able to raise money for what seems to be a profitable way of life for him. You do know that the Anti-Wolf Coalition is not a non-profit don't you? It is not a 501(c)3. That's one of those inconvenient truths.

I also think that Ron is the best spokesperson for the anti-wolf crowd since his credibility is lacking and much of his rhetoric has no backing in science. People know this and he makes his supposed allies look as crazy as he sounds.

I have been in close proximity to wolves numerous times over the last 5 years and have never felt threatened. I'm talking 15 yards. Not across the valley. Each experience I have had has been an enjoyable one where the wolf has always turned away because it knows that humans tend to be dangerous. Sometimes I wish they were not as visible as they have been for me because some humans are dangerous, stupid, and have a tremendous lack of respect for wildlife in general.

When was the last time you or any kid was attacked by a wolf? I can't recall a single incident other than the one several years ago when a little girl was bitten near a rest area. The reason behind most incidents of wolves hurting people has to do with the fact that the wolves in question have been habituated to people by being fed. Are you out there feeding wolves Marion? If so you might be putting other people at risk.

We've had this discussion about wolves in the Lolo area before Marion. I've heard Steve Nedeau, the large carnivore manager for IDFG, say that it is a habitat problem. Do you have an issue with that? It has been the mantra of the IDFG for nearly 20 years that the Lolo/Clearwater/Selway region has had a habitat problem due to roads and or fire suppression.

Let me put my relationship with the IDFG in perspective. I deal with employees of the IDFG on a daily basis. I don't have any problem with the biologists or most of the managers in the department. I do take issue with the commissioners' desire to view this in a political light that has no basis in science. Some people I have spoken to feel that the department is not being very professional or responsible in this matter.

The IDFG employees that work directly with wolves are extremely professional but they are not the people that made the proposal to kill the Lolo wolves. I think that the big game biologists probably were not involved with this proposal. The proposal is the work of a couple of the politically appointed commissioners and the biologists are just following the direction of the commission and the director.

As far as protecting your livestock from predators. Don't graze them in areas where predators are present. If you do, you should be willing to take the risk of losing livestock once-in-a-while, especially on public lands. That's why public lands grazing prices are so low.

The wildlife of this country belongs to everyone not just the chosen few who steal the power to manage it for their own financial benefit. Functional ecosystems have a value unto themselves that cannot be calculated financially.

As far as how many are going to be enough? I think that Idaho could probably sustain more wolves without much more conflict than we presently have. I think that managing for a certain quota would be expensive and be pointless.

Wolves have not been the great disaster you and Ron have hoped they would be. In fact, wolves are not the issue here. It's your childish fear of the wildness they possess.

The IDFG biologsts were told to make the formal request by the commissioners.

Defenders of Wildlife does not confirm kills. It's Wildlife services in Idaho. I don't know who does it in Montana or Wyoming but it is not DOW there either.

Gee.... lets also come up with the most unlikley scenario for injury to a child. I thought everyone was worried that wolves were going to pick off kids at the bus stop. You know, I bet they will start sneaking into Gramma's bedroom and eating her, then dressing up in her knickers and waiting for her grand daughter.

If Wyoming came up with a plan that didn't direct everyone and their grandmother to shoot at anything that moves then maybe the wolves would become delisted. As it is the population of wolves in Montana and Wyoming has stabilized and hasn't continued to grow like you and Ron had feared.

The Northern heard may have declined but the heard is still at 8000-9000, which according to my math is only half of the 18,000 that it was in the mid 90's. The late season hunt in Gardiner was meant to reduce the elk population partly because of complaints by those livestock producers you claim seek the best interest of the elk. I've seen the late season elk hunt in Gardiner. People would haul truckloads of elk out of there. I think that had something to do with the decline there too. There was an active management plan in place to reduce the northern elk heard.

Okay, if livestock owners want to graze their livestock next to a wolf den should they be compensated? What about people that lose their job because a Wal-Mart moves into town and puts their small business out of business with cheap crap and low paying, benefits free part time jobs. Should they be compensated. What makes a rancher so holy? I would love it if someone protected my way of life whenever I whined about how hard it is to make a living in my chosen lifestyle. People have to change their lifestyles all of the time due to economic and environmental pressures. Why should ranchers be any different? Why do they deserve to have 900 buffalo and every bad wolf, elk, deer, cougar, coyote and sage grouse killed on their behalf? Tell me Marion? Why? Just because their lifestyle is "traditional"? That's B.S.

If a deer eats the grass in my yard I don't think she deserves to be shot because of it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against hunting. I just want more of all kinds of wildlife and functioning ecosystems to boot.

If you are from Wyoming or Idaho you should probably know that we receive more money from Federal Taxes than we can ever pay. We are welfare states.

Thank you for those articles Ken. The one pretty much was non committal and skated around actually answering the effect of wolves on other wildlife.
As for Ralph Maughan, he has been saying the wolves have peaked out for the entire 3 years or so that I have been reading some of these sites. They have more than doubled in that time, and of course no one is able to count them accurately, they can't even keep track of the collared animals much less the uncollared ones. "New" or unknown packs show up every year after the count.
I am not sure why you feel you are so important that you should have the say over a rancher's land and livestock. I do not know of a single rancher who would be so arrogant as to tell you what to do with your property.
the wolves do impact other animals in both Canada and Alaska even though there are some pretty heavy attempts to control them.

As long as I have argued with you and others like you, I never cease to be amazed at your arrogance, sense of self importance, and total disregard for anyone who doesn't believe as you do.
You may well succeed in destroying the family ranch/farm, but they will continue to exist because humans must eat. They will be sold to large corporations who will then have the political and financial clout that environmental groups have, then all will be on an even playing field. The ordinary consumer will be the one who pays because of the control and the extra expenses.

I agree that corporations will probably take over agriculture but that has more to with the fact that they are subsidized at a higher rate than family farmers. Do you have a garden? Can you make your own food?

The most efficient tools for producing meat in the west are the native wildlife that lives here yet we are still trying to eradicate it for the purpose of raising these stupid animals that can't defend themselves fro predators. Raise buffalo instead. They can and do defend themselves against wolves. Especially when they have habitat that is productive.

On numerous occasions I have seen wolves approach buffalo and be chased off by them. Buffalo defend their whole herd not just their young.

I'd rather sound arrogant than ignorant.

I do raise a garden and I do freeze, can, preserve my food, I do not raise coffee, tea, sugar, nor wheat for flour. Nor do I raise meat.
How did you come by the 6-8000 elk left in the northern herd? The count was only 3649 this year, now I know they only counted in a few places, but no one can or will compare those areas to where they have counted in previous years. So far as I know FWS has never admitted to the count this year, it was released by others on the count with them and YNP.

Ken, in a display of your ignorance you asked, "When was the last time you or any kid was attacked by a wolf?" I gave you a source for you to look up the answer to you question. I added no editorial comment. You then took the opportunity to insult me and then try to change the subject. In reply to Marion you said you would rather be arrogant than ignorant. I would suggest you have accomplished both quite easily without even changing your socks. Take a couple of deep breaths and lighten up.

I had an experience in the Missouri Breaks I'll never forget. We were camped out on a hunting trip. It was about 2 in the morning and I had a knock at the back door I just could not ignore. So I got up put on some clothes and boots and grabbed a shovel and the Charmin. I walked a ways from camp, dug a hole near a tree and assumed the position. Then it started. I could hear them circling and got a glint from their eyes. They kept working closer and closer, and there I was with my pants down in the dark with some unfinished business. They worked within about 10 feet when nervous constipation took control and allowed me to pull my pants back up. I banged the shovel on a rock and they took off. Coyotes, about 10 of them working together. They had absolutely no respect that I was a bipedal sentient being. Another time when I was about 4 years old my family and I had to escape a grizzly that swam across the lake we were fishing in the Two Medicine area which chased us back to our car. Of course this has nothing to do with wolves but snapping teeth has a way of raising the hair on the back of your neck, wolf or not.

Ken, why not just can the insults completely and allow people of differing views just talk to each other respectfully, like two neighbors meeting each other at the fence and shaking hands eventhough they stand on opposite sides.

Nope.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/0616b.htm
Sorry, I thought I posted this yesterday, but it does show they made a count this year. My reason for comparison is so we can understand which areas might have been missing from the count. They have been using the 20% calf/cow ratio as a great improvement and a sign of things turning around.
Why do I have a great deal of scepticism, for one thing if they were trying to return the balance to Yellowstone, they would have aimed for approximately the same number of wolves that were originally in the park, which was very few. It took 42 years to kill 56 adults and 80 pups which "extirpated" them. Instead they wanted as many as could live in the park. Is that really any different than what was done in the early days, just a different focus, but still trying to please a segment of the population with a "charismatic" animal.
Another reason for conceren about what we are and aren't told is the fact that Bearman has a list of the wolves hauled into Yellowstone in 95 and 96, it incluedes "10 pups" from Augusta, MT. I had a chance to ask Ed Bangs about that at a meeting in Riverton. Yes, they did bring an unannounced 10 wolves in addition, but he said "that was a mistake". They were part of a livestock killing pack, and 8 of them eventually had to be killed because livestock was their chosen prey, putting even more folks thru a lot of grief.
I am not worried about wholesale slaughter of kids, I am concerned about a yougster going out to do chores and being attacked because his dog is with him or a 4-H lamb or calf or colt. They have attacked animals near homes, as in right outside the doors. In fact the Robinettes had one dog killed on their porch and one attacked while Mrs. Robinette was taking him to the barn to lock him in and try to protect him.
There are radicals on both sides, I consider Gillette one, and Maughan on the other side as one. Anyone who feels the wolves are more important than people and if the ranchers cannot afford thousands of dollars in uncompensated loss every year, tough. Ranchers are food producers, and they should not have to provide entertainment. I suspect where you live was also some sort of wildlife habitat once upon a time, are you willing to give your home back to the animals and continue to pay for it?
I also consider anyone who thinks wolves will go thru a school yard commiting wholesale slaughter a radical also...unless of course a pack got rabies.
I would have had no problem with approximately the smae number of wolves that were historically there, but I honestly feel that the huge numbers were intended to do exactly what has been done, and destroy one segment of our food producers.

It could be explained away by the mass overhunting of trumpeter swans in the 19th century. Yellowstone isn't exactly great winter habitat for trumpeter swans either. Many of them winter near the mouth of the Madison River and when the winters are harsh they suffer heavy losses. That's why many people are trying to get them to migrate to new areas in the winter.

You asked a great panel of experts there Marion.

I don't think 19th century hunting has too much effect on 2006 loss of swans. There is proof of wolves killing swans already, official proof. I hope they got the**** out of there when they started getting eaten.
In 1996, I was stillworking and did not have the ne'....or a computer. No one else knew about it either, and Ralph didn't comment.
I did notice the part about the innaccurate report. The first year the numbers dropped into the 9000 range, they put little flyers up all over the park saying it was a poor and inaccurate count, that there were actually 11,000+. The next count was in the 7000 range, so I guess it was a better count than they thought. I have pointed out to others that the calf count is only as good as the rest of the count, if one is inaccurate that is too.
As for not inteding to put the ranchers (food producers) out of business, are you saying that is a surprise that they are eating so much livestock and that there are so many wolves?

Actually IDF&G;want to eliminate some wolves in the Lolo area because they have decimated the elk, is that ok with you?
Guess you believe Romulus and Remus huh?

dear tired , it is ok with me because if IDF&G;do kill off the 75% that maybe the anti-wolf coalition will back off and the wolf population will be back to a normal size like only 15 packs. that is F&G;plan and if the petition does pass it will not work out because the management will just go back to the FWS and will be listed as an endangered species. so like i said if the petition does pass the anti-wolf people will just screw up the F&G;plan.

Marion, I find it hard to belive that wolves killed some swans and bobcats, I find that impossible, because a wolf's food source does not conclued it's diet on birds or bobcats, for one bobcats are bigger then a wolf and have sharp claws, and a swan-well its not natural for a wolf to kill birds. I do not know if your one of those anti-wolf people who belive the garbage and lies that the anti-wolf leader Ron Gillett is telling, but you and the hunters need to get out of the past to stop judgeing and start educating instead of beliving lies and the myths about the wolf. the anti-wolf people who think they know everything have minds full of big ideas, images of distorted facts. the petition that Ron wants to do, if it does go on the ballott it will not work out , all it will do is back fire and transfer managment back to the FWS and wolves will remain classified as an endangered species. Yes their will be a de-listing of wolves in the three states if the anti-wolf people back of and give up the fight along with wyomming to come up with a correct plan and stop interupting FWS and IDF&G;'s plan the delisting proccess will go faster.

Bobcats are not bigger than wolves. In fact they are much smaller. Mountain lions can reach sizes of 150 lbs and are bigger than wolves yet they are routinely killed by wolves. I do believe that wolves kill bobcats, swans, and other wildlife but I don't believe that, just because there has been documented kills of swans by wolves, that there has been an appreciable impact on those populations. Swans spend nearly all of their time in water or flight. It would be very difficult fot wolves to make swans a large part of their diet and they are probably incidental and opportunistic.

How about this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

The anti-wolf crowd thinks that the end of everything good is near and are so concerned that wolves are going to kill all of the elk, swans, bobcats, other wildlife and small children waiting at the bus stop. There truly are more awful things happening in this world that, if you voted for GW, you are responsible for unleashing than wolves. The total disconnect and fear of wolves is just stunning compared to this stupid, unjustified war.

What is the problem with wolves as you see it? I feel that the arguments that those who don't like wolves make are not very convincing. They are not killing all of the wildlife, they are not an overwhelming threat to humans, they are just more often seen than mountain lions that prey on some of the same prey and kill livestock, and kill more people than wolves. I don't understand the great fear of wolves. It's ridiculous and a waste of time.

Yes, thay have killed people but so have deer. It just seems totally irrational to be afraid of the "big bad wolf".

Whatever Ron Gillet does to try to get rid of wolves in Idaho won't work. I know that he is wasting his and your time but I think he is a good spokesperson for the anti-wolf crowd since he is so obviously irrational that people can't take his arguments seriously.

How am I on the losing side of the argument? Tell me? All you have done is put up links to rare incidents over the last 150 or so years involving wolves and domesticated wolves and wolf dog-hybrids. Do you think that is a good argument to rid the west of wolves?

If, by the same logic you wanted to rid the west of all wildlife that is dangerous to humans, then you would have to get rid of much of what makes the west a good place. Deer, moose, elk, bats, coyotes, mountain lions, buffalo (you did a pretty good job there), bobcats, cranes and numerous other creatures have all been known to attack people. Why do you persist in hating wolves? It seems to me that it is just sour grapes over the fact that they were reintroduced and your side lost.

There are many other pressing issues that should be dealt with that are much more dangerous to our society and way of life than wolves. That's why I change the issue. The war in Iraq is much more likely to kill someone in your family and the consequences of this war are an empty treasury, 2500+ U.S. soldiers, rising fuel prices, massive debt to China who is competing for the fuel, thousands of dead Iraqis, a world that dispises us, the raping of the west for oil, and rising profits for Halliburton, KBR, Exxon-Mobile, and every other corporation that wants to rape the American taxpayer. Wolves are just a blip on this economy and are probably actually be helping some sectors of the economy around Yellowstone to the anger of the anti-wolf crowd that refuses to admit it.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/04/07/news/state/25-wolves.txt

Ken,
I know you don't like hearing about the wolf problems, most of those who are in favor of them are tired of hearing about problems that others have to deal with, like ranchers for instance. I can assure you that ranchers are the most tired of all of it, they have to deal with the danger of wolf attacks to their animals 24 hours aday, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and it will never change for the rest of their lives, barring a miracle. How would you like to face that...and know it is all for the entertainment value of certain folks who get a charge out of watching wolves kill?
Yes, the elk herds are severely diminished in Yellowstone, in Sunlight Basin of Wyoming, Lolo mountains of Idaho, and other places where there is a heavy wolf population. But officially those places are impacted by drought, bad winters, and so one that wolf free (so far) areas are not impacted by. Now that would be an interesting study.
The Jackson area is doing a study to see why their moose population is dropping so dramatically, and they have eliminated predators as a cause at the biginning. This despite 5 packs of wolves in the Tetons, a very dense population of grizzlies, lions that feed on deer in folks yards.
As to kids being killed by wolves, the 40 some that have been killed in India in recent years were not killed by domestic or hybrid wolves, just wolves.

Are the wolves in India the same as those in North America? In other words are they killing children at anywhere near the rate that they are killing children in India? Are the circumstances the same?

You can't answer those questions in the affirmative because it's not true. Don't compare the wolves in overpopulated India with those of North America. It's apples and oranges. There are significant differences between the two and you know it.

I can't say that I'm too sympathetic to the ranching community over livestock losses due to wildlife. They chose that lifestyle and it is coming into conflict with other values. That's the way of the "free" marketplace that conservatives claim to love so much. Just because they can't control wildlife the way that they want doesn't mean that others can't have a say in the way that it is managed. Livestock interests have controlled the way that wildlife is managed for years and now that they can't control this issue they are screaming bloody murder. "The world is coming to and end!!" seems to be the cry of everyone that hates wolves but are they screaming about invasive weeds the same way? Absolutely not.

There is another threat to ungulate herds that wolf haters won't even address. Spotted knapweed in the Lolo is pervasive and it has an effect on elk herds there, yet nowhere is it addressed. There are numerous other examples of invasive species that affect ungulate herds and many of those species are introduced because of ATV's, livestock, logging roads and the like. Why aren't you concerned with those things? Why the single-minded fear of wolves? It's crazy.

Ken, you wrote: "Why the single-minded fear of wolves?" Any single-mindedness stems from the topic of the beginning article that has to do with wolves. Any follown on posts about wolves are out of respect to the topic at hand which doesn't include weeds, Iraq, and the like.

To get back on track here's what the Idaho Fish and Game wants to do: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_qa.cfm

Wolf Questions and Answers
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo elk management zone of the Clearwater Region. Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone. The request is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations.

Q. What is Fish and Game proposing?

A. A detailed proposal by Fish and Game biologists seeks to remove 75 percent of the wolves in the Lolo elk management zone and keep the population low for the next five years while monitoring elk numbers and population trends as part of an effort to increase the numbers of elk in that area.
Q. Where is the Lolo elk management zone?

A. The Lolo zone comprises game management units 10 and 12, covering more than 1.5 million acres of the Clearwater Region north and south of the Lochsa River and U.S. Highway 12 up to the Montana border at the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains.
Q. Where can people get a copy of the proposal?

A. The proposal is available on the Fish and Game Website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov; at local Fish and Game offices, or by calling headquarters at 208-334-3700.
Q. What are the Fish and Wildlife Service's options?

A. Federal officials can approve the proposal, deny it or ask for additional information based on criteria outlined in the 10(j) rule. State officials must show that wolf predation is affecting deer or elk populations at an unacceptable level, as defined by the state. Removal can occur only once the state has identified other possible mitigation measures or remedies, and they have completed a peer-reviewed written proposal that has undergone public comment. The Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether such removal would hamper wolf recovery before it would authorize the removal.
Q. Why does Fish and Game want to kill up to 43 wolves in the Lolo Zone?

A. Scientific research shows that because of the wolf's reproductive capability, reducing the population in an area requires a 40- to 75-percent mortality. Wolves reproduce fast enough to sustain a 30- to 40-percent annual mortality without a significant reduction in population.
Q. How many wolves does that mean?

A. Seventy-five percent of the estimated 47 to 69 wolves in the area means up to, but no more than, 43 wolves in the first year. Fewer wolves would be removed in later years.
Q. Does that mean 75 percent of the wolves have to be killed each year?

A. No. Scientific research shows that to keep a wolf population in check requires a 30 to 40 percent annual mortality. Fish and Game wants to maintain the population between 15 and 23 wolves in two or three packs for the next five years. This would be a density of less than one wolf per 100 square miles, or about three to five wolves per 1,000 elk.
Q. Why does Fish and Game want to start killing wolves?

A. The decision was not sudden. Biologists have been considering the relationship between wolves and elk and the decline in the elk population in parts of the Clearwater Region for several years. Planning for the project began after the 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act was revised in February 2005. The revised rule gave the state authority, with approval by the Fish and Wildlife Service, for lethal control of wolves in areas where scientists could show wolf predation is the primary reason for an unacceptable decline in deer or elk numbers.
Q. Is this proposal related to Idaho getting additional authority to manage wolves?

A. No. The current proposal has been in development for two years. It is not related to the January 5 signing of an agreement between Idaho and the Interior Department transferring most wolf management authority to the state.
Q. Is Fish and Game going to kill wolves in other parts of Idaho?

A. This proposal is limited to the Lolo elk management zone in northeastern Idaho. Fish and Game has no plans for other actions to reduce predation on elk. But Idaho will continue to authorize the removal of wolves in other parts of the state to resolve or reduce conflicts with livestock.
Q. What is an unacceptable decline in deer and elk populations?

A. A decline that reduces the population below management objectives and keeps it there is unacceptable. Population objectives are outlined in elk management plans. Game management requires managers take action when possible and practical.
Q. Why does Fish and Game think killing wolves would help the elk?

A. Wolves primarily prey on juvenile and adult female elk in the Lolo zone. Adult female mortality is the key factor that affects overall elk population trends.
Q. How would wolf removal affect wolf recovery in Idaho?

A. Wolf numbers in Idaho already exceed recovery goals, and limited removal of wolves from the Lolo zone will not adversely affect recovery. Idaho has an estimated 500 to 600 wolves in 61 packs and 36 breeding pairs. The Fish and Wildlife Service considers the population recovered when 30 breeding pairs are confirmed in three states. Idaho alone meets that goal. Federal officials are working on removing wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming from the endangered species list, but the effort is hung up on legal challenges.
Q. The Clearwater Region once was considered some of the best elk habitat and hunting in the country, what happened?

A. Large fires from 1910 to 1930 improved elk habitat in the Clearwater Region. Human suppression of wildfire since 1939 has nearly eliminated large-scale wildfire in the area, allowing dead and downed timber to accumulate across the landscape, increased mid-seral forest stands, and reduced early-seral and open forest conditions preferred by elk.
Q. When did the current elk population decline begin?

A. Before 1992, elk hunting was open in all of the Clearwater Region. In 1992, some changes were adopted to increase bull elk survival. Despite a decrease in the number killed by hunters, the population continued to decline. Game managers thought the decline was density related, leaving too little food available for adequate calf survival. In 1996, managers increased the number of female elk tags to help reduce the density and improve calf survival. But numbers continued to decline and anterless hunts were eliminated by 1999. Only a few wolves were known to be in the Lolo zone before 2000.
Q. If the elk decline began before the wolves were reintroduced, why does Fish and Game suspect wolves in the continued decline?

A. Fish and Game's research and research in other areas with wolves and elk, suggests that wolf predation on female elk can limit population recovery. Before wolf reintroduction, female elk survival in the Lolo zone was 89 percent. Since reintroduction, that has dropped to 74 percent in Unit 12. Research and assessments also show that the elk population in the Lolo is below habitat potential. In addition, scientists say, calf survival is low in the Lolo zone. Though only a few calves are killed by wolves, low calf survival coupled with low adult female elk survival means the herd is not likely to meet short-term management objectives without predator control.
Q. What has the state done, and what does it plan to do, besides reducing wolf numbers, to bring back the elk population in the long term?

A. Fish and Game proposes a three-part program to restore elk numbers: improve habitat; improve calf survival by reducing predation by black bears and mountain lions; improve adult female elk survival by eliminating cow elk harvest and reducing predation by mountain lions and wolves. Without an increase in female elk and calf survival, the elk population in the Lolo zone is unlikely to meet management objectives.
Q. What has Fish and Game done to reduce other predators?

A. Fish and Game has adjusted hunting seasons, bag limits and tag costs to encourage hunters to reduce the numbers of black bears and mountain lions. Despite the significant reduction in black bear and mountain lion predation, the Lolo zone elk herd has continued to struggle.
Q. How will managers know whether reducing wolf numbers actually benefits the elk population?

A. Biologists will continue to monitor the elk population and the sex-age ratios. They will compare available elk population data for the Lolo zone to those of the control area in the Selway zone, where conditions are similar but no wolf reduction is planned. The results will be analyzed for the effect of wolf control on elk population dynamics.
Q. If elk numbers are declining, is hunting still allowed?

A. Fish and Game has restricted elk hunting in the Lolo zone, and the proposal recommends eliminating all non-tribal female elk harvest in the Lolo zone. The proposal also recommends the Nez Perce Tribe take similar steps. Bull elk hunting still is allowed.
Q. Why not simply move the wolves to another area?

A. Transplanting the wolves is not an option. Idaho already has as many as 600 wolves in 61 packs. All suitable wolf habitat has been taken. Wolves are territorial and will kill other wolves moved into their territory.
Q. If wolves still are listed under the Endangered Species Act, why is the state allowed to kill them?

A. The 10(j) rule, among the rules governing reintroduced wolves in Idaho, considers them an "experimental non-essential population" and allows lethal control under specific condition and with the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when state officials can show the cause of decline deer and elk numbers is caused by wolves.
Q. What is the role of habitat degradation and what has been done to improve the habitat in the Lolo zone?

A. The elk decline is not the result of a single factor, but of the combination of several factors, including habitat degradation and predation by black bears and mountain lions. Fish and Game has increased hunting on black bears and mountain lions, and officials have worked with federal land managers to conduct controlled burns and other habitat improvement projects aimed at improving conditions for the elk population. These efforts will continue as part of the three part process to enable the elk population to meet management objectives.
Q. Why can't Fish and Game just issue hunting permits for wolves to reduce the population?

A. Idaho's preferred option would be to allow hunters to control the number of wolves. But because wolves still are listed under the Endangered Species Act, federal law prohibits all hunting of wolves. The law does allow lethal control under certain specific conditions. It is under these provisions that Idaho proposes to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo zone to help the elk population to recover.

The topic is about the hatred, fear and the goal of removing wolves from Idaho. I submit that those fears are unfounded and that other things should have more focus.

I know several hunters that hunt in the Stanley area and have had more success in recent years with wolves present than before. That goes against Ron's argument. I think that he is partly responsible for the lack of hunting in the area because he has made it appear that there are no elk in the Stanley area because of the wolves. It's not true. It does make it easier for the hunters that do still hunt there because there are fewer hunters not that there are fewer elk.

Also, there were a number of people that visited the area this spring due to wolf sightings in Stanley. Ron didn't like that. He heard that a wolf was eating an elk and people were enjoying the raw nature of it so he had to run out there and scare the wolf away when, in fact, it was just being a wolf. There was an economic impact, though minor, due to wolf sightings this spring.

Maybe I am reading your position incorrectly but the term "land shark" belies your perspective.

Thank you for that link Craig. There are those who insist that IDG&F;are only requesting permission to kill wolves at the direction of thier governor. This shows a great deal of thought and research has gone into it.

These posts have come too rapid fire for me to keep up. You asked a couple of questions that I'll try to answer.

Regarding culling, as sentient beings we are able to make choices against desires and apetites. The licensing process is useful in this way. Wolves respond to stimulus and instinct.

Regarding comparing wolves to sharks in noway demeans one at the expense of the other. Sharks and wolves are killing and eating machines. They are wired that way. Both are perfection in motion.

I went to the western grey wolf site and looked at the stats again. They show a total of 71 packs making up the 1020 total, there are a lot of groups that do not meet the number requirement for a pack, and of course loners. Several of the Yellowstone groups have multiple litters and these do not reflect that.

He was a speaker at the wolf confrence I attended, he has been doing research and writing for many years. He offered free cds with all of his publications on it, and I got one, I haven't had time to read it yet.
I have noticed some environmentalists tend to dismiss him as being on the wrong side because he doesn't agree with them.

Marion, are you having elk or wolf as your meal? ;)

I see how you people think, you think that wolves are evil bloodthirsty predators, well sex offernders are the evil predators, they are the ones who go after kids, the websites that talk about wolf attacks are made up by you damn wolf foes that are living in the wrong century. you and the hunters are rapeing the planet and destroying it by killing the elk and deer only for their antlers, YOU are the ones who waste the elk, the wolves are only serving their reasson. Iv visited the anti-wolf website and saw the images fo the dead elk and i know for a fact that theanti-wolf jerks are the ones who killed the elk and made it look like a wolf did it, thats all you foes do is only think for your selves and blame the wolf for everything. Wolves actually eat all they can with out wasteing their prey. like i said to you pathetic wolf foes, before you open your mouth read the documentry that jim dutcher did, he actually stayed in the sawtooths and he and his wife did stay their for three years and did study all the sawtooth pack's behavior. i challenge you to read the documentry he did. i totaly dispyes the anti-wolf coalltion and their mythical belife in the lies of the wolf.

I read Ralph's page all of the time, and the rest of it is old. there are now over a thousand wolves in the 3 state area, and those are just the ones they have counted. I'm sure you are not interested in facts though.
Try to go to Yellowsotne to the Lamar Valley or Hayden Valley now also and watch them chase and kill elk and perhaps you will have an idea of what they do to othe animals.

Ryan, you have blown a gasket while demonstrating a great deal of ignorance with your misinformation.

Field sports organizations, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, Boone and Crocket Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and many, many more have invested millions of dollars in habitat and wildlife enhancement and conservation. That's a fact. Regarding wolves and sport killing by them, that's a fact too. IF you don't like the web pictures catch the next PBS presentation of Dick Proenneke and his life in the Alaska wilderness. He documents the same thing in one episode. To claim wolves do not waste their kill is indicative of your blind faith and total ignorance. Many times the "kill" will have its guts torn out and little else eaten. There is a natural reason. To get vitamin C into their systems to counter scurvy, carnivores need to eat herbivores with their stomach contents intact when those carnivores do not eat grass, roots, leaves and such.

I do not have a blind fath unlike Ron Gillett does. I am not an ignorant wolf advocate. I do have facts and i have a stack of information about the wolf from reintroduction, kills, and livestock losses. I am a member for defenders of wildlife and the wolves in alaska have been slaughtered by aerial hunting. and more are going to be killed. Idaho will have wolf hunting go on by controled hunts. this is what one person said- a better approach might've been to allow wolves to naturally return to Idaho, rather than through forced reintroduction. She believes that the natural ebb-and-flow life cycles of big game as well as wolves would've evolved and all species would flourish.From a sheep rancher's viewpoint, third-generation rancher John Peavey of Bellevue said that "they (wolves) are here and livestock people are resigned to coexisting with them. There's going to be conflicts."Peavey added, "I feel sorry for the wolves. They were safe and happy in Canada, and here they're netted from a helicopter and tranquilized and imprisoned for a year, tested, put in cages, turned loose."
But, Peavey said, "The people who're really suffering are big game hunters" who rely on elk that're being killed by wolves.

Well , Im impresed on your facts, but i do have alot of facts of my own in stacks of papers, Some day i will take the anti-wolf coalition leader to court and have his coalition closed down before he makes alot of people upset and messes up the ecosystem.Yes an ecosystem, speaking of an ecosystem- Wolves are an important animal to have in the ecosystem. every animal serves an purpose on this earth unlike the hunters because they just don't fit in the ecosystem. Wolf recovery is not trying to run ranchers out of the country. Infact this land and this earth does not belong to anyone. Wolf recovery did not fail like the hunters and ranchers belive, wolf recovery was a great success. do you know how much it cost the government to reintroduce wolves? Watch a documented movie that shows the wolf reintroduction in idaho. The movie is called [coast of freedom] Wolves were not dumped here, the government actually had FWS reintroduce the wolves. wich i belive was a great idea to do because it did fix the ecosystem that the wolf bounty hunters wiped out in the 1930's. This land was once wolf country long before it was claimed by humans, if the wolf populations are alowed to stay to about 15 packs our two species may share this extrodinary planet for ages to come. one fact is and the reasson why livestock gets attacked is because since the FWS had to relocate some wolves away from their young and farmers it is mostley the orphan wolves that go for the easy kill because the wolf pups did not learn how to hunt. Well i not going to ruin the movie for you, you have to watch it your self' besides it will be good for you to know about what the movie shows.

no no old chap, you are not hearing me out i understand that idaho has 1,020 wolves and montana and wyomming has about that many. I know that IDF&G;wants to have their goal, and their plan is to get atleast 15 packs in idaho along with montana and wyomming. You know why the de-listing process is taking soo long? its because wyomming has not come up with an good enough management plan. and when wolves do get de-listed they will be managed as an big game animal and controled like the bear and mountain lion. I said that bob cats are bigger then a wolf and i made an mistake and did some research and i found out that the bobcat are smaller then a wolf. so my bad on that one. I do face the reality about the wolf. I have connections to people like for instance the montana fish and wildlife. the wolf bioligest gave me their packet and data about the wolf reintroduction and what they want to do. I have news articles i saved out of the paper. I own an full breed wolf that i got as a gift. I take it around people and kids, but i am careful about having it in public. It has not attacked anyone. it is a tender loving animal to me and i love my wolf i have. it is an black 2 year old wolf and i named him kodiak. mark my words and please just watch the movie [Coast of Freedom] and you will know where i get most of my facts.

Ryan, you can post as Lone Wolf if you choose to but it seems a little silly to change names.

I saw the following in the Idaho Statesman about you:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060701/NEWS0502/607010315/1054

>>Wolves attack

I would like to thank Martin Chapin, Cascade, for his article on "Wolves Attack." I read the March edition of Outdoor Life and the "Wolf Attack" article. Martin, I guess some people are surprised when a predator actually attacks a human. Weird.

Ryan Tannenholz is the leader of the Idaho National Wolf Group and believes that wolves can do no wrong. I also read in Mr. Tannenholz's letter that "The wolf actually serves a purpose ...." "... They only go for the weak, old and sick elk ...." "... and that wolves are in fact native to the state and control the sick elk ecosystem."

Well, did Mr. Tannenholz miss the front page of The Idaho Statesman, July 23, 2004? Remember the Cook Creek pack? About 70 sheep were killed in one night on June 29, said Carter Nienmeyer, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who authorized the elimination of the pack. Guard dogs, cracker shells, sirens, lights and live fire from shotguns did not deter the Cook pack. I guess those nine members of the Cook Creek pack were just hungry and eating the "weak, old and sick sheep." Wake up people.<<

Ryan, trying to pass yourself off as some sort of expert when you don't even know the relative size of a bobcat versus a wolf, don't really know the habitats and character of the wolf strains credulity of your wilderness credentials.

Jeff, can you tell me when the wolves were killed? Generally speaking they get two chances at livestock before they are killed....if they can be caught. I would look on the FWS site and see if they had killed prior to the one you mentioned. Usually when sheep are involved, they get more than one. Is this a pack that showed up after the count?
The 1020 count is a minimum number, they are the actual count,not an estimate. Others often show up after the count, the Unknown pack in Yellowstone is an example. Last year the minimum count was around 800, so there has been about a 20% increase in the past year, and this is despite a parvo outbreak that laimed quite a number of pups.
The reason there are no wolves in those places is becasue they were extirpated there, and they were not replaced. Why shouldn't they have to deal with them the same as we do?
Fear is not the main problem, ranchers are paying for your entertainment. They are bearing the brunt of the wolf cost. You may pay a little extra in taxes and/or donate a few bucks to an environmental group. But that si the size of it. A guy in Idaho lost a calf the other day in the same area where a pack killed and ate two dogs. Even though it was on private property, by the time they found it the next morning, they had consumed so much of it that it was designated "probable" instead of confirmed. Since it was eaten they could not determine for sure that it was a wolf kill despite wolf tracks all over. Know why? there was not enough tissue left to determine the extreme trauma that goes with a wolf kill. That trauma is how they can tell! That cost the family about $500, how often can anyone deal with that?
As for fear, yes a family with a wolf den almost in their yard does have some real concern about letting a child out into the yard. I guess you can be like one big shot wolf guru suggested a few years ago, that kids should be carrying bear spray to the bus stop if their parents have to sit there until the bus comes because of the wolves hanging around. Brilliant suggestion.

Ryan , I liked that article and thought it was interesting to read. It showed that Ron Gillett is not a nice person to our wildlife. If you want these other people like Marion and Craig Moore to read the rest of it they can visit this web site http://www.wolfcenter.org

Joe, Lynne Stone works for a wolf advocacy group. She no longer partakes in hunting. Some people point to a hostility to hunters by wolf advocates. As to Ron Gillete, I don't know the man. As written, the article makes him out to be a smoldering powder keg. At one time 30 years ago, I knew Phil Dutcher quite well but time and different paths have led to us to losing our connection. We hunted together. He used to talk about Jim and his exploits. In my lifetime I have seen 3 wild wolves. It was thrilling. First time was about 45 years ago east of the Continental Divide in Montana south of US 2 about 5 miles. I was hunting blue grouse with my dad, brother, a Montana game warden and his son. There wasn't suppose to be any wolves back then.

Yes, ranchers pay a about $1.35 per AUM (I'm not sure of the actual amount but that's very close) which is much less than that paid for the use of private lands. Why do you think it is so low? Part of the reason, they argue, is that it is for the extra costs of depredations that occur. They get paid 4 times for that. Once with the low fees, once with the dead wildlife, once with the degredation of the land they cause that the public pays to fix, and once with the payments received from Defenders of Wildlife and state programs (at least in Idaho) for confirmed and probable losses. Can you find a more subsidized program? I probably could but you won't complain about that either.

FYI I don't live in the city. I live in the mountains where wolves and other wildlife live. I don't take government subsidies and I don't ask the government to pay when I have some kind of loss. I guess that I could say that the government subsidizes the roads and the police that patrol them. In other words I have to pay taxes to drive on the roads and sometimes I have to pay a fee to hike on trails in the Sawtooth Mountains. I also have to pay a fee to enter a National Park and to camp in a National Forest Campground. Those are things that I don't like but grudgingly accept.

What was the monitoring protocol used to document the number of wolves in 1872? Was it the same or was it different? Did they have radio collars and airplanes? Did they document every wolf that they killed? Was there the same prey base and was it hunted at the time? Were the weather patterns the same? Things are dynamic Marion. Populations of all animals fluctuate based on different factors. It is very difficult to compare the situation, with poaching and other factors of 1872 or thereabouts, with the current conditions.

Reactionaries don't like liberals because they make the argument too difficult. Well things are complicated and a little discussion about wolves can't be simplified like that. There are wolves here now and the only arguments for getting rid of them come from those who have a fear of elk losses, livestock losses, or for their personal safety. I discount the personal safety discussion because there are many things that are much more dangerous. Elk populations fluctuate based on several factors, wolves being a minor one. Livestock losses from predation occur primarily in areas where the producer depends on public lands grazing at the expense of the public.

Please take down the story copyrighted by Lynne Stone. You did not have her permission to post it.

I link will do just as well.

Ryan, you seem a bit out of sorts. Perhaps this wolf attack article will sooth your prickliness. http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3347243,00.html

In response to the June 20 letter "Wolves Are Menace." Mr. Gilliam, I cannot argue with the numbers that you put forth, but in retrospect, I have a theoretical statement. Let's say, theoretically, that you were going to the grocery store to buy some food for the corresponding meal. And then, while you were picking out the main plate, you were shot down by another shopper who wanted it. That's the wolves' point of view. We are invading their territory, hunting their food for ourselves, and recently have been shooting them out of our own greed for elk. And the wolves, despite popular belief, are actually helping the environment. In Yellowstone, without wolves having their share in their food, the elk completely took out the plains and meadows and caused a receding of the forest line, because they ate all the tree sprouts that came up.Now, I realize that you hunters want your game, but does it mean having it at the expense of the wolves? I realize that they hunt down the cows of ranchers and other farm animals, but where do you expect them to go? What is their alternative when you take their natural game away from them?

This is what i found out from a wolf biologest, and he told me the only decline in elk herds is in the selway bitteroot wilderness area wich is actually the LoLo region where elk numbers are showing low numbers.The elk in other parts of idaho i belive are not declineing as much. The LoLo bitteroot region is a tough terrain for all wildlife i think, but along with the low elk in the bitteroot area it is some of the wolves who live in the LoLo area that are declineing the elk because their is too many wolves in idaho, and it is also the terrain that is causeing the decline. I agree with the biologest. I like the response that Connor Wesslman said. The first part was funny and a smart thing he thought off. Anyway does this answer your quiz.

[DID YOU KNOW THAT] their was a huge fire in that area and the fire was hot enough that the ground changed and it became difficult for the elk. It is documented by the forest service about the fire in the LoLo pass you can find out for your self. The fire happened way before wolves were reintroduced in idaho.And also the elk herds were declineing in that fire. maybe too many hunters are killing elk. don't their tags say the number of elk they can hunt? I think so.

Norm Bishop makes many of the points I have been trying to make in the response to this article for me in this testimony before a hearing set up to make wolves out to be some sort of mass murdering, child and cattle eating demons.


You can read his testimony here:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/ennis-wolfmeeting2.htm


You want numbers? Here they are.

I'm not sure which wolf meeting you are referring to but I am of the mind that, regardless how wrong the anti-wolf coalition is, you and I couldn't close them down if we tried. That being said, I think Ron Gilette and the Anti-Wolf Coalition do more harm to their cause than good. People are not so stupid that they can't see through their lies and warped perceptions and those that are stupid enough to believe them can't be persuaded anyway.



I guess I feel the best way to change the misperceptions about wolves is with the truth and pointing out hipocrosy when it becomes obvious.

That's not to say that I don't think they should have a voice. I just think their voice is innefective and wrong.

Come on Jennifer! Your lead has done more damage to the conservation cause than any politician could have done in a day of speechmaking. It's a well known fact (outside media circles, at least), that there is no known record of a wolf attacking a human. Why didn't you also throw in some of these stinkers: ravens carrying away little lambs, golden eagles lifting off with calves in their talons, coyotes carting off small children, prairie dogs eating fields of corn, river otters stealing fish out of the creels of fly fishers, prairie falcons grabbing parakeets from cages left out on the decks of McMansions?
Come on, get it right.

the meeting at the dobble tree hotel in boise with the IDF&G;about the lolo district wolves and them having comments on their proposal to kill 75% of wolves. after you commented at the meeting i came up to you and said [i liked your speeach] you worte down your phone number on a packet i had. i was wearing a bombers coat and told you i had a petition. Yes we can close down the IAWC because i have an conection with an organization called wolf howl animal preserve ans she said that she will do anything leagle and asked me for any ideas or suggestions.

Its been a while since my last comment YA REDNECKS LISTENEN