WILD BILL
Why It’s Hard to Hail Wolf Delisting
By Bill Schneider, 2-01-07
It’s party time, right? Time to celebrate the amazing comeback of Canis lupus irremotus, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf.
A mere twelve years ago, a handful of wolves hung out in the far north of Glacier Park, a tenuous extension of a Canadian population, plus perhaps a lone disperser or two lurking in the depths of our deepest wilderness looking for a mate. But essentially, the master predator was extinct in the New West.
Now on Monday, January 29, 2007, we hear the brass in the Department of the Interior brag that the wolf is back, recovered, and ready to be removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act, a historic victory in wildlife conservation, the end of the game.
But why am I not celebrating? And why does it feel like we’re in the fifth inning instead of the ninth inning?
First off, there should be agreement, but I see very little. When we delisted other high profile species like the brown pelican, American alligator, peregrine falcon and bald eagle, we agreed the time was right and nobody stood up to protest the delisting. But no such agreement on wolves. Biologically, in the official recovery zone (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming), we probably agree the wolf has successfully re-established itself in this part of its historic range, but this is probably only five percent of its total historic range. Other high profile endangered species re-occupied almost all of their historic range before delisting.
But peregrine falcons eat pigeons, not domestic livestock or elk, so nobody cares. No Pigeon Unlimited to protest premature delisting. Outside my office here on Last Chance Gulch in Helena, a peregrine has moved into downtown Helena and started decimating our pigeon overpopulation, but do we care? No, we cheer. Kill them all, Perry.
Okay, I guess there is some agreement. We can agree falcons are different that wolves and that the delisting process has a double standard.
And wolf lovers and haters have agreed, mostly at least, that we won’t seek recovery in Colorado or Utah or Kansas. Less than historic range, less than total recovery, is acceptable for such a controversial species. In this three-state area, though, we must restore a viable population and guarantee its future, and the backers of wolf reintroduction seriously disagree that we’ve done this.
Before the official announcement conference call finished, green groups were emailing press releases opposing delisting. “Idaho and Wyoming have state management plans that are geared toward wolf eradication, not wolf conservation,” announced Defenders President Rodger Schlickeisen.
“The nation’s progress toward wolf recovery will grind to a halt under this plan,” said Rob Edward, Director of Carnivore Restoration for Sinapu. Edwards says his group and others will sue if the current plan is (when?) approved.
But here’s the real reason why I’m not celebrating. We had a chance to do this right, but failed.
I confess to being from Montana, so this may smack of bias, but why couldn’t Idaho and Wyoming do it like Montana? The Big Sky State does a lot of things wrong, but in this case, they have done the wolf thing a hundred times better than their neighbors. Montana wrote a reasonable management plan and our governor is not out on the statehouse steps whipping up the eradicate-them-again crowd by saying kill 85 percent the wolves or lobbying for an aerial gunning funding in the legislature. Instead, Montana is preparing for delisting by setting up a wolf depredation compensation board.
I’m not in a party mood because I want the wolf controversy to be over. I’d like to write about the great triumph over the forces of extinction, but instead, I’m going to write many articles about protests and lawsuits and continuing conflicts among our citizens. And Idaho and Wyoming made it this way with their hard-line, inflammatory style that only prolongs the debate. Compared to what’s going on in Idaho and Wyoming, the wolf isn’t even controversial in Montana, and those two states are going to string out delisting litigation and bitter controversy for years when it could be over in months. As I’ve already stated several times, it’s so self-defeating. All we end up with is more bitterness and more wolves.
But you have to admire dedication. Idaho and Wyoming have tried so hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
And now, we face the misnamed public involvement phase. I know the FWS has to do it, but I can tell you with scientific accuracy what will happen. Somewhere around 90 percent of public comments will oppose delisting or at least favor delaying it, but it won’t matter. The public input will have zero impact on the final decision, which is firmly dialed in. The FWS will approve delisting after the mandatory public involvement phase, even if the agency gets 10 million comments and 99.99 percent of the people oppose it.
As soon as the courts allow delisting, which I predict will not happen during the tenure of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, we immediately face another bitter battle over the ethics of hunting wolves. All three states plan wolf hunting seasons, and the very idea of it will launch another controversy. And I am not looking forward to it.
I’ve hunted all my life, which is a long time, but I can’t imagine going out to shoot a wolf. I can see people doing it to reinvigorate their hatred of wolves, feds and enviros, but for sport? Seems a little like shooting the neighbor’s German shepherd. Really, can this be fun? Right now, state wildlife agencies are convinced that people will be lined up around the block to get wolf permits, and they might be right, but I wonder what would happen if people didn’t want to shoot a big dog?
Another thing that bums me out is that wolf reintroduction and recovery could’ve have been about science instead of politics. Right now, Idaho and Wyoming have swollen chests and believe they have the winning political hand. Hence the hard-line attitude. After all, they have their man, Secretary Kempthorne, in charge.
Well, Idaho and Wyoming, here’s a political gut check. Because you have made it so easy for them, green groups will file a series of lawsuits and probably win a few of them and definitely drag out the final approval for delisting for at least 696 days, which is when the next President moves into the White House and starts making appointments. And he or she might not be a Republican, and he or she might appoint somebody like Carl Pope or Rodger Schlickeisen as Secretary of the Interior. If that happens, you might wish you had not played political hardball when you could’ve ended the wolf controversy in 2007 and gotten a decent deal.
One thing that does tickle me is that--again thanks to Idaho and Wyoming--we’ll have wolves in other states outside the recovery zone, in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and perhaps other states. While we fight over delisting for the next two or three years, the wolf population could easily double! Wolves aren’t like bears; they’re breeding machines. I feel safe in saying that some of those new wolves will pioneer new territory in other states.
At the end of the day, I know I should be celebrating, but it’s so hard.
Note: Refer to the companion article, How Many Wolves Is Enough?
Bill's right in that Idaho, and especially Wyoming, have made it easy for the green legal machine to stop or delay delisting.
Ironically, Wyoming was offered as liberal a trophy-hunting "take" on wolves as you could possibly imagine (hundreds of wolves), but the ag interests rejected that offer out of hand, shooting for the pure solution of labeling wolves shoot-on-sight predators, with the not-so-secret goal of killing so many wolves that it would overshoot killing all the "predator"-labeled wolves, but also put a considerable dent in the "trophy"-status wolves.
Trophy wolves and wolves with home territories in the parks often follow elk herds into predator country, where they would be vulnerable to an all-out predator control effort. Notification of Game and Fish, that wolves have been taken, is so delayed that the USFWS-minimum number of 15 breeding pairs and 100-150 wolves could easily be knocked down before G&F;could announce that all wolf killing should stop -- predator or trophy.
I don't think that would wipe out all Wyoming wolves -- there'd still be a core population in Yellowstone -- but one hunting/predator control season could knock Wyoming wolf numbers back to dozens, rather than the hundreds of today.
Yet with no Wyoming delisting, wolf numbers and territory will continue to grow, triggering more conflict and possibly allowing Wyoming wolves to expand and set up homes in Utah and Colorado. Ag groups are winning at one level (continuing the fight against the feds), but losing at another (up to their keisters in wolves).
First of all, this could be avoided if the ESA was set up with all of the rules and regulations in place at the time of listing a species. It is silly to think the states are actually writing their own plan, it has to be what the feds demand anyway, so all of the money spent developing it is wasted. The number required to get off the list, who is going to pay to maintain the species and how many they have to maintain and how should all be laid out before hand. Granted that would cost a lot of lawyers to go hungry, but so be it.
Every single one of those 99.9 who want more wolves and live out of state are voting to tax the residents of the three states to provide them entertainment. No amount of money is too great as long as you can force someone else to pay it.
I have never heard anyone address the minimum 7 packs required in Yellowstone, and what happens if they leave, and it is almost a certainty that they will eventually. There is no historic evidence of anything even remotely approaching 7 packs of wolves being able to survive in that limited area. In fact there is no evidence of any permanent resident wolves there.
When they have finished the elk down to where they can no longer survive in Yellowstone they will leave for greener pastures.
Where will that leave Wyoming if we are responsible for maintaining 7 packs?
By the way have either of you delved into why FWS stated on their June 30, 2006 report that they did not do a March population count, but on their January 19, 2007 report they state they counted 6588 in March 2006?
I would think environmental reporters would be very interested in that discrepancy.
Marion -- I wish you would stop saying that only out-of-state people want wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Lots of people in these states like wolves, even in Idaho, where initially 70 percent favored reintroduction. I actually wish the eradicate-them-again initiative would get on the Idaho ballot because then we'd know what percentage of the population likes wolves. I predict it the ballot measure would fail...Bill
Comment By Marion, 2-01-07Bill, when you talk about a 99.9% wanting more wolves, you are talking about overwhelming numbers coming from elsewhere. I have heard the 70% in favor for Wyoming too, but has anyone ever actually put it to a vote, either before or after the fact. The eradicate initiative would get no where because everyone knows that is not going to ever happen. The only "study" I can find for Wyoming was done by Bath and he selected member of environmental groups as well as cities, and towns close to the park, and ranchers, and gave them different weights to come up with his interpretation that over 50% wanted wolves in Yellowstone. The raw numbers didn't really indicate that, but he gave different groups different weights. Covering the state with wolves was never asked.
Incidentally the ranchers who were given the questionnaire were the only ones who actually predicted the problems and even they underestimated them. The two environmental groups of course expected paradise.
Why not transplant the surplus populations to control the pesky coyotes and deer that are raising havoc around cities? The vast majority of the US was once the natural terrain of the wolf.
Comment By Shane, 2-01-07Bill,
This is an honest question and maybe I missed the poll, but who exactly did the poll in Idaho with 70 percent favoring introduction? And when was it done? No one I know has ever been asked including myself. Was it an open house that anyone could attend?
I think that the poll that Bill refers to was conducted by the Public Policy Center at Boise State University. They have been doing this since 1990. I believe that the 70% number that Bill references is from the mid 90's when the wolves were reintroduced. Since then, the majority support has dropped, but there is still majority support. It is unlikely you would have been asked as polls of this nature are conducted by taking a random sample of the population and using statistical methods to make inferences about the population as a whole. You can read the results of all the Public Policy Center polls conducted since 1990 here: http://ppa.boisestate.edu/ssrc/content/ppsurveyhist.htm
Comment By matt bullard, 2-01-07I stand corrected - I don't see the wolf numbers in those surveys. I am still looking for it. Sorry...
Comment By Shane, 2-01-07Matt,
Thank you for looking. I understand it would be hard to poll everyone, but what kind of statistical method did they use or do use? And inferences is taking clues and making your best guess. It is just like seeing the approval rating on president, has anyone that you know been asked? I sure have not nor do I know anyone that has. Just because the news says a certain presidents approval rating is down or up does not make it so, because if we are taking information from 1000 people and then making an inference about something that effects thousand or millions, it can not be trusted. If you tell people long enough that 95 percent of America agrees on something, you'll get the rest because those are just too great of numbers to overcome. If you tell them it is 50-50, now it is not so easy to swing things one direction. It would be interesting to see how the states affected by wolves would actually vote if everyone in those states were given the opportunity to do so. I really have no idea how it would turn out. Thank you.
There is a lot of science to back up sound statistical methods used in surveys of this nature. It is right to question the methods used, but I think you will find that this type of statistical sampling is common and accurate. If sound statistical methods are used, you actually can get a highly accurate representation about the larger body of people from which the smaller sample was drawn. Check out the wikipedia write-up on Statistics for a crash course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_analysis
Comment By Marion, 2-01-07I tried to google up a poll with some actual numbers to no avail. I did come up with the following link. Both the Idaho congressional delegation and the Wyoming senators and lone representative, an unknown guy named Dick Cheney, all protested the wolf introduction and attempted to derail it. Politicians generally are going to go for or against an issue according to theri contituents, which would indicate the majority of folks in both states were against hauling them in.
I found it interesting that this study claims all of the wolves were eliminated by westerners. No mention what happened to the eastern wolves before the west was settled. And of course like all good environmentalists she has to throw in the snotty "Little Red Riding Hood" theory.
Anyhow here the link:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-65.htm
The thing that cracks me up about our beloved Ag Intrest groups is that having wolves up to their keisters isn't really that much of a problem, they just need to control anything that could possibly impact their profits or thier effort. Only stock in the wildest areas with rich wildlife habitat are in danger. Cows don't react like wolf prey and they'd rather eat something there used to eating. Sure there will be some problems...
Comment By Steve, 2-01-07Marion - although it doesn't appear to break things down by state, this article provides a good summary of a whole bunch (38!) of surveys from 1972 to 2000.
http://easternwolf.org/linkedfiles/QuantStudyAttitudestowardWolves.pdf
JR, what's your source for your assertion that "cows don't react like wolf prey"? What does that even mean? Some wild prey animals stand and fight, some break and run, and some appear to just ignore wolves, presumably because the wolves aren't actively on the hunt just then.
I suspect if you talk to anyone who has seen wolves around cattle, you'd find pretty much that same range of behaviors. And the result is the same: sometimes wolves make a meal of cattle, sometimes they fail, and sometimes they weren't trying anyway.
A key difference between cattle and elk is that normal fences (under five feet high) will contain cattle, but not elk (nor bison). Thus, elk can respond to wolf predation by leaving an area, making themselves less predictable. Cattle aren't supposed to do this -- people want cattle in predictable areas for a lot of obvious reasons.
Thus, cattle can be quite predictably located by wolves, which makes hunting them far less costly energetically.
Sure, wolves may take a little while to figure out that those blocky black critters ARE prey, but they do figure it out. Heck, they even figure out that llamas are edible, and they're about as dissimilar to native prey as you can get (maybe excepting emus & ostriches).
The predictability of locating them, along with a higher meat:mass ratio, can even make them preferred prey. The immediate logic is pretty understandable, Barry Lopez and the "conversation of death" nothwithstanding.
The 2003 BSU poll report says this:
"Idaho should have wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas in the central part of the state. Agree or disagree?
This question was asked again since the state’s wolf plan was debated last legislative session. 42% of Idaho residents said we should have wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas in the central part of the state, while 39% disagreed. 18% neither agreed nor disagreed.
• When this question was asked in 1995, 47% of Idahoan’s agreed with the statement, 38%
disagreed, and only 15% of respondents could neither agree nor disagree."
So in both 1995 and 2003 there was a plurality of support, but not a majority, and the support level dropped from 47 to 42 percent over those eight years. In my opinion there has been growing ambivilance as the wolf population grows and causes more depredations on livestock and the perceived negative impacts on big game. Not only that, but the question asked both times was targeted at wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas in central Idaho and now the wolves are in areas with roads and in more than just central Idaho. No doubt Idahoans tolerance of wolves is higher in Wilderness, and I for one am not surprised that there remains a core of opposition to wolves (not that I count myself in that group by the way).
I'm assuming that JR's comment is tongue in cheek. We know that having wolves up the their kiesters is a huge problem for ranchers, and not just on their rented land, but in their yards too.
All of the studies kind of give lie to the theory that 70% of residents wanted wolves.
The residents of the states in the 3 states that have not been affected, namely those in towns far from wolves are not going to be very happy either when they find out how much it is going to cost the residents to manage the things, and they get a bill.
There will always be more support for more wolves among those who suffer no ill effects, have no responsibility, and are getting what they want at someone else's expense.
I do have Bath's study on my computer. He did some interesting things with number, but the question was always about wolves in Yellowstone. Only ranchers correctly predicted what has actually happened.
Here is Bath's study.
http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/wlf520/pdf/BathandBuchanan.pdf
Wild Bill, I throughly enjoy your storys in general and this latest story about delisting in particular. My wife and I have a cabin where we spend every weekend on the east slope of the cascades not far from the Alpine Lakes wilderness area of Washington. During this latest elk season we had fresh snow one morning and while cruising a ridge at day break I suddenly felt that I was being watched, looking to my left 50 yards away stood an almost pure black wolf and smaller gray ( female I assume). I've kept this sighting between my self and my wife to this point as all my quad riding "hunting" cabin neighbors brag that they would SSS if they ever saw a wolf in the area. It is a pleasure to Know that there are other hunters out there who believe that we can live in harmony with our predator neighbors. Keep up the good work!
,
Unfortunately some of our legislators would have Montana follow the lead of the nitwits in Idaho and Wyoming, whose choose to slice off their own nose to spite their face. Next Monday the Montana State House Appropriations committee will hear HB 343 -- a bill sponsored by Rep. Diane Rice that would appropriate $200,000 for Montana to join the Wyoming lawsuit against USFWS for its delay in delisting. Although I'd imagine the state attorney general is smart enough to avoid such a stupid move even if this bill passes, many legislators probably see this as an opportunity to shove a stick in the eye of the feds. They're so blinded by fws-hatred that they fail to see that this is the type of actions that are really holding up delisting. If they had any sense, they'd sue Wyoming instead.
Comment By Kevin, 2-03-07Apparently none of you understand wildlife conservation. Is common sense something forgotten in the college lectureships? Once reintroduced they killed their prey, fed their new pups, grew their packs and now the prey populations in the recovery areas are 1/3 before the introductions. They move on seeking to curve their hunger, finding farm animals and destroying the herds of animals this country spent 100 years to develope and manage. If we left the wolves to continue in this upwards spiral, despite the complaints by humans (farmers) you would then see a downward turn of population due to starvation and disease. Preservation will never happen where man and beast survive together. Therefore, conservation is the only tool we have to balance nature and nuture. Let the biologists do their jobs maintaining healthy populations that benefit all wildlife and humans acrosss the boards. We have gone to far to try and make this country and world a vast wilderness again. We must conserve. We must conserve. We must conserve.
Comment By mike, 2-03-07I have never read such a pompous, condescending crock of out-of-context horse manure. Using common sense and science to dictate the need and extent of wolf management is certainly necessary; but that's a far, far, far cry from the sick and twisted rabble rousing and demogoguery of Butch Otter and Cal Groen and what is being proposed in Wyoming. "Is common sense something forgotten in the college lectureships?" Well, based on your tone, I can't imagine you would be in any position to know. "We must conserve. We must conserve. We must conserve." How pretentious can you get? Come on, try again and let's see.
Comment By ryan, 2-05-07This whole wolf thing is outta control. So there are a few dogs in the wild, what's the big deal? Do you really believe they will decimate elk herds? Elk are plentiful in Idaho as a whole. Sure there are small populations that may be in danger, but those are mostly the results of our human habitat manipulation. No elk in the clearwater? The clearwater never sustained a large elk population until we logged it into a nice prairie. And now that the logging industry isn't there, the trees come back, and the elk move on. Must be those damn wolves.
The real problem is to get the wolves to prey on wildlife and only wildlife. If they do, the system is self regulating and we won't have to manage the predators, we'll only have to manage the prey items so that both preadators and hunters are happy.
If starving wolves couldn't get to domestic animals then we can start focusing on real issues like education, water rights, and civil liberties. How many people's lifestyle is actually threatened by wolves? Their is a handful, and they should have every right to shoot wolves on site and be reimbursed for lost livestock. But truthfully, a calf lost to a wolf is the same as one lost to disease one lost to weather or one lost to injury. Not that ranchers need any more reasons to lose cattle, but I don't think it is putting anyone out of business. And those are the only people that have a right to complain about wolves. 95% of those that are yelling and screaming about wolves aren't even indirectly effected by wolves. It is just something that irritates them. Like gay rights or abortion. Even though their life and family is not directly effected by these things, it absolutely just burns their chaps to know its happening.
Wolves are a welcome site in Idaho. They should be managed as any other lion or bear. They should be lethally removed at the first sign of dining on domestics, landowners and ranchers should be reimbursed for takings involving wolves. Everybody else should clean up their neighborhoods and have a meaningful conversation with their kids.
In the Seattle Times today is a perspective on how one Montanan feels:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003561454_wolves08.html
"Wolves are very destructive of our culture and our ranching and hunting economy. Our culture and heritage of hunting game animals are so important here that they are enshrined in our Montana Constitution. And raising livestock is not a hobby here — it is not done only to provide a movie set for tourists, but it is a way of life for many of us.
For a century, hunters in Montana have fostered huntable populations of deer, elk, moose, wild sheep and goats. It is only hunters who have paid millions of dollars and volunteered millions of hours to cultivate our game herds. We think of these herds as a savings account for our children and grandchildren, that we may pass on the traditions of our culture and our heritage to them.
Without so much as an apology, much less an invitation, outsiders have brought wolves to Montana with the clear intent of feeding them with our carefully nurtured game herds — our savings account for our grandchildren.
Wolves are decimating our game herds. A 30-year game warden with a career invested in the area just north of Yellowstone Park told a legislative committee in Montana that wolves are pouring out of the park "like locusts" and turning the country they invade into a "biological desert." When wolves have consumed the game, they won't feed on grass and bark, they will disperse and turn on the livestock that supports Montana's ranching families and communities."
Those who do not have to deal with them have no concern at all. They feel soembody ahs to sacrifice and as long as it's someone else, no problem.
This article demonstrates the problems that folks have to deal with when the wolves become unafraid of humans, and they have no reason to fear people at all.
http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/articles/0131endangeredwolf31-ON.html
By the way Craig, that is a great article, but I don't suppose it will impress those that believe their wishes should take precedence over anyone else's rights.
Comment By Craig Moore, 2-08-07Marion, what I take from all of this is that passions are strong and tempers are fierce. Protecting a way of life that someone has built legally tends to ignite people like the Seattle Times editorialist. We who have grown up in the rural environment over the past 50-70 years know people who are passionate, like you, over defending what you have established. On the other side there are animal advocates that see us as the problem to be eliminated to re-establish Nature's perceived balance. We don't do a very good job working together. I'm not sure there is a middle ground.
Comment By Marion, 2-08-07You know Craig, I don't know either if there is a middle road, each side has such a different take on things. I must admit it is very hard for me to understand how folks who are afraid they are losing every constitutional right if the government monitors phone calls from terrorists have no qualms whatsoever about tromping on private property rights. Those rights are supposed to be protected too by the constitution.
I don't know if a lot of those who feel what they want should take priority over the right of someone else to use their property are property owners themselves or what.
Some years ago when they disposed fo the beaver in DC who started chewing down cherry trees, I wrote to all of the enviro groups that I belonged to because they had not uttered a single protest over destroying nature that way. Only the editor of the Sierra magazine wrote me back and she said that they could not put up with wildlife in the city, but someone had to sacrifice to make a home for them. When I asked how they chose who had to do the sacrificing, she said "that's why we have elections" . Needless to say that was during the Clinton years. I have never renewed a single membership in those groups since.
I think the same attitude still exists.
Bill did you notice that the Nez Perce hail wolf delisting? http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=617&ArticleID=30369&TM=42794.04
A former Montana game warden seems to think that wolves don't belong on private lands. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/02/09/news/regional/54989f55c5c9f17b8725727b007e5fb8.txt
>>>
Wolves and related canids such as coyotes and dogs contract the disease by eating animals that carry granulosus in larval form. After the granulosus matures inside the host, its eggs are spread through the animal's feces. Grazing animals then pick up the disease by coming into contact with the feces.
The diseased elk near Yellowstone had cysts "from the size of marbles to the size of baseballs" on its lungs and liver, said retired state game warden Hank Fabich, who shot the elk in Paradise Valley.
"I'd killed elk there for 30 years but I'd never seen anything like that," Fabich said, adding that he blamed the incident on the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone a decade ago. "I don't have any problems with wolves in limited numbers. But there's no place for wolves on private property or on ranch lands.
<<<
Here in Wisconsin we heard all the propaganda and all the apologies for the poor old wolf. But now, ask the people involved in the elk and see if wolves are such a good idea. (As they were told go ahead and stock elk with wolves and see what happens.) Ask the bear hunter who looses fine hunting dogs. Ask the cattleman and sheep owner. Now with these lawsuits they grow and grow. No one should have ever of started this without a proper management plan to begin with. It was nothing more than let them grow and then get to it later. Later right now there is no doubt 1000 wolves in a plan that called for 50 at one time. All the special interests groups were hard a work and the icon of the wild got names like Shara, shots to protect them and a host of other things not mentioned in the media.
Now the Native Americans are getting ready to do something since the wolf delisting is so sad for their cultural heritage song and dance again.
None of this makes any sense.
Thank you David, I wish this was posted on one of the more recent articles slamming these three states for not being as thrilled with the wolves as those with nothing to lose are. Wyoming is mandated to maintain 8 wolf packs in Yellowstone, but I cannot find a single study showing that many packs can survive there long term. No studies at all in fact on the effect of that many wolves on the other species.
Comment By Jimurl, 3-01-07If Idaho & Wyoming decimate their wolf packs, where do you all think that the $37 million tourism industry industry surrounding wolves will go? To Montana! Being a resident of that state, I like the idea of extracting $$$ from those "out-of-state wolf-luvers" that Marion and Craig Moore like to talk about. Not to mention the reaserch dollars that will flow to MSU to study a species that can barely be found in the surrounding states.
Idaho & Wyoming can stick with, well, their "highly profitable" ranching industry, disease infested elk, and industrialized landscape. We welcome the outta state tourists here in Montana (just so long as they don't build some obnoxious trophy home right on the banks of the river)
Jimurl, please advise where I have ever referred to "out-of-state wolf-luvers" as you charge.
Comment By Jimurl, 3-01-07Well, you have quoted this from the Seattle PI:
"Without so much as an apology, much less an invitation, outsiders have brought wolves to Montana with the clear intent of feeding them with our carefully nurtured game herds"
Since the PI quote was the extent of your post there, I would assume you agree with the tone.
and in another post:
"We who have grown up in the rural environment over the past 50-70 years know people who are passionate, like you, over defending what you have established. On the other side there are animal advocates that see us as the problem to be eliminated to re-establish Nature's perceived balance. We don't do a very good job working together."
So I guess, no, you never directly referred to "out-of-state wolf-luvers"; but I agree that I may have overstated your tone.
=========================
And I also confess that you imply that much of the rancor over wolves is the result of the hard stances taken by extremists at both ends of the spectrum. And that the name calling (which I think I just participated in...) get us nowhere towards helathy wildlife management.
So in that vein, I will say a couple of things: For an effective wolf population ot be managed, 1) ranchers will need to be compensated for livestock losses due to predation, and 2) Some wolves, which predate on livestock, will have to be killed.
And that SSS as a, shal we callit "wildlife management tool" will have to be genuinely regarded as illeagl poaching by law-abiding citizens.
Without all sides (forgetting the extremists for a moment) agreeing on principles like these, I see only a string of court cases lining the future.
Jimurl, I agree with your statement:
"And I also confess that you imply that much of the rancor over wolves is the result of the hard stances taken by extremists at both ends of the spectrum. And that the name calling (which I think I just participated in...) get us nowhere towards helathy wildlife management.
So in that vein, I will say a couple of things: For an effective wolf population ot be managed, 1) ranchers will need to be compensated for livestock losses due to predation, and 2) Some wolves, which predate on livestock, will have to be killed.
And that SSS as a, shal we callit "wildlife management tool" will have to be genuinely regarded as illeagl poaching by law-abiding citizens.
Without all sides (forgetting the extremists for a moment) agreeing on principles like these, I see only a string of court cases lining the future."
-------
I quoted the Seattle Times article without expressing any opinion of agrement. I brought it to the community's attention as it represented a point of view and tried to tie it to 'my opinion':
"We who have grown up in the rural environment over the past 50-70 years know people who are passionate, like you (Marion), over defending what you have established. On the other side there are animal advocates that see us as the problem to be eliminated to re-establish Nature's perceived balance. We don't do a very good job working together."
Wolves are a heckuva lot smarter than most humans. Better that they control overpopulated elk herds so we don't have to have special hunts to slaughter the elk eating trees in the once-wild subdivisions. At least they take the weak and old, not the trophies.
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-02-07Andy, not a problem with trophy elk. Tags can be issued for cows and calfs and limit bulls. All is possible when common sense prevails.
Comment By Sertvfdnhgjk, 4-03-08Приветствую всех!
У меня такой вопрос,кто что интересное подскажет буду признателен.
Мы с друзьями собираемся поехать в круиз по просторам России и ближнего зарубежья месяца на два на своих машинах,но не как не можем согласовать маршрут,если у кого уже был опыт такого путешествия,может,что посоветуете.Девчонок с собой не берем,думаем,что во все городах России с этим не будет проблем,если у кого будут рекомендации и в вопросе отдыха с девушками тоже буду признателен.
С уважением Сеньчик
Здравствуйте, уважаемые форумчане. Ситуация следующая: всерьёз задумалась о своей карьере, в данный момент имею законченное высшее образование в МГИМО, сейчас хочу повышать свою квалификацию и получить степень MBA. Однако, столкнулась с огромным количеством бизнес школ, и если можно так выразиться, глаза разбегаются. Помню лет 6 назад, когда первый раз узнала об MBA программах, в Москве ведущей школой был Мирбис, однако сейчас, ввиду большого колиества бизнес школ не знаю что выбрать. Поэтому решила спросить у Вас совета: быть может кто-либо из Вас, или Ваших знакомых получали степень MBA и Вы можете мне порекомендовать бизнес-школу. Хочется получить оптимальное соотношение цена/качество. Нашла через google Mba Москвы, где преподают MBA, но по ним нет отзывов, что затрудняет мой выбор. Простите меня, если написала свой вопрос не в тот раздел (долгое время не пользовалась интернетом).
Заранее огромное Вам спасибо за рекомендации, и за ответы на опрос.
С уважением,
Александра.
Приветствую всех
Поделитесь опытом,как вы знакомитесь с девушкой и или парнем если вы хотите просто секс без обязательств.Пробовал завести<a > знакомства </a>на сайте знакомств,в начале вроде все нормально пока идет переписка,а как дело доходит до встречи то мне заявляют,вы хотите<a > досуг </a>нет проблем это стоит денег (поверьте не мало).Что они там думают себе...если бы у меня были деньги я просто бы зашёл на сайт<a > проститутки </a>,там очень многие<a > сауны москвы </a>предлагают,очень хорошие<a > проститутки санкт петербурга </a>,может я еще молодой и не знаю как можно без обязательств отдохнуть с девушкой,а у ребят по старше есть опыт.Так поделитесь с подрастающим поколением.
С уважением ваш друг Игорь
Hello dear gentlemen
advise on how much good for girls <a >toronto vip escorts</a>, I was told that a lot of <a >toronto escorts incalls</a> is a very qualitative and there are many <a >toronto incall escort</a> who offer sex, found on the internet dating site and raised the <a >female escorts in toronto</a>, the value of 1 hour less than in America or Canada and <a >toronto escort services</a> guarantee elite sexual services, advise, who was in Belgium and enjoyed the services of prostitutes, or at one site, and in the life of another offer?
Sincerely, your friend Asres