Guest Opinion from Idaho Governor Butch Otter

Idaho is Ready for Wolf Delisting

Comment By matt bullard, 3-06-07

This is what makes me nervous: "The public policy of the state of Idaho to manage gray wolves at recovery levels that will ensure a self-sustaining population." The interpretation of management *at* recovery levels is going to be a sticking point. It is hard to say, but I agree that delisting should occur. That just means that wolf advocates will need to assert our voices at the state level. I hope that Wyoming works out their issues, otherwise I don't see how delisting without an acceptable plan is legal based on the criteria of acceptable wolf management plans in three states.

Comment By Colonel Bain, 3-06-07

Whoooa...a governor commenting at New West?
Hummm seems Gov. Butch Otter got Guts...
Ever eat horse meat Governor? Gramma always told it is quite good.. Better then Mountain Lion.. or Bear
Thumbs up for the posting Gov. Otter from the Colonel... :)

Comment By nk, 3-06-07

Governor Otter might want to go back to the wildlife biology textbook....black bears are not large carnivores but large omnivores. On the other hand, delisting puts the power back into the state's hands, and as long as it is managed responsibly and with a level of accountability on the state government's behalf, it does give us westerners our beloved sovereignty. If only Wyoming would get on board with responsible, accountable management. My worry is that Governor Otter's definition of "problem wolves" will put us back in the period where they were considered a vermin, and every wolf threatening human property was shot. That, we can all agree, is not displaying accountability or good stewardship of the land.

Comment By mike, 3-06-07

This article makes it hard to know which is the real Butch Otter. On the one hand, we have this claim that Idaho will manage wolves responsibly and maintain sustainable populations, although what he thinks is a sustainable management approach is doesn't look all that responsible. On the other hand, the arrogance, defiance, and just plain bad attitude still oozes out of even this probably ghostwritten statement. We also have his recent childish, rightwing sword-rattling on the same topic and the fact that HJM5 is still on the books, with no attempt on his part to repeal or change that fact. Frankly, the tone of this article just reinforces my longstanding distaste for this overblown punk and his high school cockiness.

Comment By Gollum, 3-07-07

What's disingenuous about this essay is that it leaves you thinking that wolves will be "managed" (i.e. killed) only as necessary to preserve deer and elk populations. That's simply not the case. As its been described to USFWS, the Idaho plan is to harvest gray wolves down to a target of 10 breeding pairs, regardless of whether there is any discernible - - let alone dramatic - - impact on local ungulate herds. In other words, Idaho's policy will be shooting wolves for the sake of shooting wolves for as long as they can remain under the federal radar screen. The only "management" will be in keeping wolf kills at the level that prevents further federal intervention.

Comment By Casey, 3-07-07

Governor, in the hopes that you are reading & responding to comments, could you please explain why the proposed cost of a wolf tag is so low ($9.75, I believe)? While I am not particularly in favor of a general season & tag, I would be a lot more on board with it if it were a better revenue-generator for Fish & Game so that they could continue to manage both a biologically and fiscally sustainable wolf management program.

I hope to hear from you. Thanks.

Comment By Marion, 3-07-07

I know I shouldn't even reply on the wolf issue. Our state residents are the ones who have the responsibility and the problems, and the cost of the wolves, we have no say. The say on managing the wolves rests with those who stand to lose nothing.
First of all paying a bounty would not get the wolves back to a manageable number until the prey is gone, both Alaska and Canada are illustrative of that. However if we just ignore facts and price the cost of licenses out of reach that will make the control-a-lots feel better. Obviously even arial killing in those places cannot get them under control.
I would remind you that all three states have always maintained a far superior wildlife base, including predators than any state except Alaska. What have any of you sitting on the sidelines pontificating done yourselves to help wildlife where you live? Every single one of us posting have displaced wildlife that used to be where we are, so why do you feel it is your right to insist on giving you someone else's home to give back to wildlife?

This thing will never be resolved until there is actually no prey species left, then it will be the fault of the humans who live here, not the oppressors and not the wolves.
Right now the evidence is right before us in Yellowstone, virtually no moose, and significantly decreased elk, but no one wants to face the facts and try to blame everything except there are way too many predators in one small spot. It is being ignored and blamed on everything except an over population of predators. Over and over I hear "let nature take over and it will balance", if a single one believed that would happen, we would have let nature take it's course and establish it's own balance BEFORE we trucked in wolves from another country. And how were we able to do that within the law by the way? I can find no record of a law passed to allow that. The fact is there were documented wolves in Yellowstone at the time they were trucked in, but there "weren't enough", enough for whom? Certainly not enough for those who want a designer eocosystem.

Comment By mic metz, 3-07-07

Governor Otter states, "Idahoans are proud stewards of the land and species of our state." This is the same Butch Otter who illegally filled in federally protected wetlands on his property and advocated for the repeal of the Clean Water Act's protection of wetlands. This is the same same Butch Otter who supported the baiting and killing of black bears in the Clearwater National Forest due to declines in the elk population. The fact that the Clearwater Forest had experienced two consective harsh winters with record snowfalls prior to the ungulate populations decline did not factor into the Governor's equation or solution. Obviously, Governor Otter, we have two very different definitions of what it means to be a "good steward."

Comment By Dave Skinner, 3-07-07

I'm with the governor on this one, although I am more with Wyoming than I am with either Montana or Idaho.
Interesting thing here is each state is expected to spend a million dollars per state per year "administering" wolves. Okay, now let's drag that one through the calculator...780 wolves divided, hmmm, about 1,200 dollars a year per mutt. That's just to watch them, not to feed them or to replace the hunting income lost to the state wildlife agencies.
Would I say a wolf is worth over a grand a year? Does your DOG cost you that much? Seems the 9.95, for IDAHO hunters to take on wolf control, is about right. After the first couple of years, when populations are down to a less-impactful level on both huntable ungulates and eatable livestock, the cost of administration will go down.
Reasonably-priced wolf tags, bought as a matter of course by Idaho sportspeople, will then be able to support the minimal administration needed to ensure that the population does not drop below the, um, trigger point. Sounds good to me, even if I probably will never buy a nonresident Idaho tag for wolves, especially if reasonably-priced tags are made available to Montanans.
Of course, the enviros and their lawyers, who would otherwise be unemployable in the West without the handy fundraising foil of wolf "recovery," might object. But I support delisting...toot sweet.
Our hunting and ranching have taken enormous hits. Enough is enough.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 3-07-07

Mr. Skinner,

many facts fly in the face of your rants. For one, the ungulant levels of Idaho and the other states have taken far greater hits from harsh winters and the encroachment of winter feeding lands not to mention the rise in disease and a lack of breeding depth. Shall we shoot the ruralites and trophy hunters for creating this situation?

Second, the cost of ranching in Idaho is so low as to be ridiculous, and almost scandalous. The profit margin per head of cow barely takes a hit from the almost free cost of range for ranchers. Ranchers, however, destroy many of the winter feeding lands that Idaho elk and deer require. Less feed = less deer and elk.

Third, your statement of "just to watch them" is completely off the mark and has no factual basis. Wolves have been culled repeatedly by the US Fish and Wildlife, many times wiping out full packs to satisfy ranchers.

So many biologists have written about the importance of natural selection and predators. Some might say that the future of our ungulate herds is in better hands with natural predators than with the AK-47 wielding gun nuts that roam through Idaho woods.

Comment By Marion, 3-07-07

Mr. Kanta, what harsh winters? I seem to remember someone flying back and forth across the country insisting that we shut off our heat because of global warming.
The wolves are only killed after the second depredation and some of those are given multiple goes at the cows. One female in the Green River Pack went thru several mates teaching them and the pups all to kill sheep and cattle, after a few years they finally admitted she had to go too. But she killed 10s of thousands of dollars worth of livestock while they tried to save her.
Livestock graze a few months out of the year, and ranchers pay for that, the rest of the time they eat hay, grain and graze at home. That land has to be paid for. And where do you think the animal originally comes from, surely you don't believe a stork drops them off, they have to be bought. For some ranchers that mean hauling them hundreds of miles.
I do not know if you have ever been to Yellowstone, I have and it breaks my heart to see the once great herds of elk reduced to a handful, and in some places none.
I do not believe the wolf introduction was done for any thing except entertainment of those who like to watch elk etc torn apart, and those who want ranchers off their own private land. The entitlement generation has become so accustomed to demanding whatever they want that they feel entitled to destroy homes of anyone in their way.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 3-07-07

I find it funny that you lower yourself to uneducated attacks on Al Gore in order to justify your opinions.

I also appreciate that you finally couched your opinion as such. The words "I do not believe..." finally puts some sense into your rant. Because you would have to be looking at this as a belief/faith sort of thing to ignore the scientists, biologists and other wildlife experts that have stated that natural prededation is a necessary thing and that careful, educated maintenance of that prededation will lead to healthier stocks of wildlife.

As for my personal past, yes, I have lived around Yellowstone, I have spent countless hours of my life on it's borders and within it's heart. What is happening in Yellowstone is the same as the fires that destroyed much of it's ageless beauty. Bureaucracy is far more to blame than the mere existance of wolves. Fight for a more sane, stable maintenance system within the boundaries of National Parks and I'll be behind you. That is, if you can give up on the fear mongering and over the top rhetoric.

As for the rest of my life, I'll let my cows tell you the rest.

Comment By Will, 3-07-07

Mr. Kanta stated, "Ranchers, however, destroy many of the winter feeding lands that Idaho elk and deer require." This couldn't be further from the truth. It is ranchers whose private property provides winter range for vast amounts of deer and elk. Most ranchers graze their livestock on federal lands at the most from June through September. Whatever "science" Kanta claims to follow, there is plenty of science that establishes that cattle can be grazed at these levels without detrimental impacts on wildlife populations- especially on winter ranges. Come on, Kanta, up to 80% of a mule deer's diet in the winter is sage brush. Cattle don't eat sage brush. Don't blame cattle for destroying deer and elk winter range.

As for your ludicrous statements about the low cost of grazing permits... it is an old argument and misconception by many people in the public that ranchers who graze on federal lands are somehow "subsidized" by the federal government. Tell me, how many other users of federal lands pay to use them? Aside from recreational fees, there are very few. You can tramp all over Idaho's federal lands and watch wildlife, etc, for free. Grazing on federal lands follows the general theme of "you get what you pay for." It is true, ranchers pay significantly more to graze their cattle on private pastures, but comparing this to grazing on federal lands is comparing apples to oranges.

Comment By Robert T Fanning, Jr, 3-07-07

Governor Otter,
For the permanent public record could you acknowledge the political process has been a 100% failure for 8 years .

The Endangered Species Act is a law, this is a legal matter not a political matter.

It is a great disservice to your constituents in Idaho to delude them into believing that political solution to wolves was right around the corner.

Please explain to your citizens what Idaho has done and is doing on the legal front to get a federal judicial ruling to force delisting of wolves.

Does Idaho have 'standing' to sue?
Why not?

Have your Attorney General explain to you the differences between "Administrative Ruling/ Order" to delist and a federal court judgment based on "best science available" and how our FOTNYEH lawsuit can help Idaho "short step the political process".

We invite your state to join us.

Have your Attorney General call our attorney Karen Budd-Falen in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

FOTNYEH is the only entity in the 9th Circuit with standing to get you into federal court at least a year before the enviro/animal rights groups can get there.

What needs to happen politically in Montana and Idaho will happen faster once litigation is filed in the 9th Circuit.

There already was a public comment period for wolf delisting that ended in April of 2006. This new one adds 3 new states and is designed to stall the political process for at least 18 months. Our attorney tells us ;"the USFWS can take four years to review and consider the public comments."


Robert T. Fanning
Chairman & Founder
Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc.
3,742 members

Comment By mike, 3-07-07

Oh, oh, oh, this is so much fun, getting to watch as one strutting, arrogant, marginally educated, rightwing charlatan feeds on another in a frenzy to see who is truly buried further into the lunatic fringe. It's better than one of those silly vampire versus werewolf movies, even without all the special effects.

Comment By Robert T Fanning, Jr, 3-07-07

Delisting of wolves is a farce
an editorial comment by

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced Monday that it proposes
to move forward with wolf delisting. It would be a serious mistake for
anyone in Montana, Idaho or Wyoming to place much trust in this FWS ploy.
Let me explain.

There is little question but what the FWS wants to be out from under wolves.
FWS knows there is a biological train wreck coming, and they don't want to
be seen as the engineer with their hand on the throttle when the train goes
off the tracks. So, yes, FWS will probably move ahead with some sort of
effort to delist wolves, something they have been promising since 2000.



However, wolf delisting will be decided by the federal courts, not by FWS.
Remember when FWS downlisted wolves from endangered to threatened in 2005.
How long did it take for wolf advocates to cherry-pick a friendly judge in
Oregon to overturn the downlisting? Not long. The exact same fate waits in
store for the current proposal by FWS to remove wolves from the endangered
species list.

With 300 to 500 wolves in Montana, expanding their numbers by 32% each year,
with each wolf killing about 40 elk per year (estimates range from 25 to
100), it won't be long before elk hunting (and maybe ranching) in Montana is
history. So, time is on the side of wolf advocates now that wolves are
loose among us. If wolf advocates can stall with a 15-month process, as FWS
proposes, they have a clean win.

However, there is hope yet. An organization known as Friends of the
Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd (Friends) has kept up with the required steps
and processes of the Endangered Species Act. By virtue of having long ago
submitted a petition to delist wolves, Friends has maintained standing to
sue in federal court today to force court-ordered delisting of wolves. This
soon-to-be-filed lawsuit may be the most important event in the history of
hunting in Montana, not to mention ranching.

The just announced FWS proposal to delist wolves is probably only another
gambit to run the clock and try to undercut the only real remedy for wolves
left to Montana, the Friends pending lawsuit. When this lawsuit is filed,
the out-of-state predator advocates will not be able to cherry-pick a
friendly judge in Oregon to derail the process. If the "wolfies" are in
court at all, they must share the defense table with FWS, while Friends
carries the battle flag for all the rest of us.

Comment By Marion, 3-07-07

Mr. Kanta, who made uneducated attacks on Gore? You said that it is bad winters killing the elk, and I pointed out that Mr. Gore is doing a lot of flying and burning fuel to bring the global warming information before we all cook. Now maybe I'm missing something, but very bad winters and global warming do not seem compatible.
Have you been in the Park in the last year? I go several times a year now that I live close and am retired, and it is a shock even so to see the sightings drop every time. I really hope you can go see what has happened. I'm told the elk are hiding, etc, but they are gone. You can not have that many predators chowing down with a calf survival in the teens or single digits and have a herd survive.
You do realize don't you that an endangered species cannot be killed just because it is causing over all harm of any kind to other species? That is the way the law is written. The NPS, who actually I don't believe have any control over the wolves, nor FWS can control them by law. They can only stand by and if they eat all of their prey and starve or leave, they have "let nature take it's course". Of course it will be up to the states to maintain all of the wolves demanded whether they have food or not.
Unfortunately the ESA is premised on idealism, not reality, and no species except the target species is considered except as potential food.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 3-07-07

Once again I see you bashing others, using fear mongering tactics and providing little to no substance other than rhetoric equal to that of our environment-hating governor. I provided links to multiple governmental sites that show the amounts paid that equal cents on the head for cattle ranchers. I personally have witnessed massive ranges destroyed from one year to the next due to over grazing all across this state. Those sage brush you like to talk about? Trampled, killed, uprooted, destroyed. Watering holes fouled with fecal matter containing massive doses of hormones and E. Coli tell a far more important story than a few lost cows and sheep. We have to change our habits, find new ways of raising our protein sources in order to maintain a healthy environment.

As for elk "hiding", yes. The Yellowstone Elk have had predator free lives through over 5 generations. The sudden reintroduction was bound to change the habits and birthing levels. As well, the amount of disease that has been effecting the Yellowstone Elk has been on the rise over the last 20 years, from scabies to lungworms. The drop in elk due to predators is only an addition to the various other afflictions that predators will assist in removing from the herds, resulting in stronger, healthier elk.

As for your misunderstanding of global climate change, I suggest you stop reading your local right-winger anti-environment screeds and actually educate yourself on how climate change is being modelled, successfully. You see, a 0.6 deg change in global temperature isn't enough to stop cold spells, it's enough to change weather patterns, rainfall patterns, hurricane patterns and more. The mis-labeling of climate change as "global warming" is an unfortunate one, and one that rubes such as yourself jump on in a heartbeat and claim that the latest snowstorm or freezing temperature is proof that it doesn't exist. Global climate change is resulting in higher than normal snowfall, primarily around massive water sources, such as the Great Lakes, around coastal regions and around large river systems. This additional snowfall, along with climate changes at higher elevations and reduced winter grazing areas due to urban sprawl is having a far greater effect on our wildlife than any wolf pack.

Gore's flying is a minuscule amount when weighed against the importance of education, of informing the public of the importance of changing our habits and our lifestyles. Your hatred of Mr. Gore has blinded you to that message, and the message, not Mr. Gore, is the important part. That you need to attempt to ridicule and pick apart any little thing is more a message about you than about Mr. Gore.

Comment By Marion, 3-08-07

Sir, I am not bashing anyone, I really do not care how much energy Mr. Gore uses......as long as he refrains from telling me how to live. The problem is when one is telling other folks how to cut back , one has no idea of how much that person already does. The comparison of the Gore and Bush private homes brought that reality to the spotlight.
It is useless to argue global warming, no one will ever convince this old hen that global warming is responsible for extreme cold, like the winter hopefully winding down. I still believe warm is warm and cold is cold.
As for the elk, severe winter has always been a factor in this country. I guess I don't understand your argument that elk numbers were already at risk because of "diseases for the last 20 years", yet they brought in huge numbers of wolves to kill them off. Why would they do that if they already thought the elk were at risk? And why bring many times the number of wolves that ever existed in the park in the early days? Try to find mention of them in early literature. Chittenden in 1869 stated that coyotes were the only canine predator in any number in Yellowstone, President Theodore Roosevelt made the same statement years later in 1903, read his 1903 address at the arch dedication.
The records indicate hunters killed a total of 56 adult wolves, and 80 pups over a 42 year period for a total of 136, equal to what is killing elk right now at one time in Yellowstone. Yes it can, does, and will have an impact, a severe one. Only time will tell if the elk can survive, there is nothing anyone of us can do at this point.

Comment By Will, 3-08-07

Hey Kanta,

What was that about bashing others? Did you say something about our "environment-hating governor"? It is one thing to bash a nobody like you, but you show utter disrespect for the state of Idaho,the office of the Governor, and the man sitting there. Don't be such a hypocrite.

And what was it you said about accusing others of using "fear mongering tactics? I like how you conclude your paragraph with: "Trampled, killed, uprooted, destroyed. Watering holes fouled with fecal matter containing massive doses of hormones and E. Coli." If that isn't a fear mongering tactic using rhetoric, I don't know what is. Have you tested these water holes? Do you have one ounce of scientific data to back your claims other than "I have seen?" If that is the logic you want to use, I have grazed cattle for over two decades on the sage brush sea. I am yet to see cattle trample, kill, uproot and destroy sage brush in the manner you describe.

Comment By horsebis, 3-08-07

It realy amazes me how politics have to enter in everything in our lives. All I want to do is be able to go up into the Mountains and enjoy them, We enjoy going on pack trips, we hunt, I have hunted for and killed Elk, Deer, Bear, and Cats, and I Hate ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS I have seen first hand what a pack of Wolves will do to calving cow Elk, It is digusting a Wolf is nothing but a killing machine they do not just kill for food, they kill for fun, I have seen a pack pull down livestock and leave it. I had a horse attacked by a Bitch and her older pups I was not at camp when it happened but my husband was, It was dark and he could not see them but he could hear them, the wolves and my Mare that they were attacking, luckily she was able to get off of her picket, she ran away they did not follow because they were practicing, That she wolf was using my Mare to teach her pups how to kill. Well the next morning my husband went to find all the horses that had got loose during the night due to the wolf attack, He found all of them My mare was tore up terribly but she took 3 of those wolves and made hamburger out of them. When I saw my beautiful Mare I cried the look in her eyes is something I will never forget. Since then she has refused to go into any clearing,she will not even go out to pasture with the rest of the horses. The Wolves were run out of and killed out of certain areas for a reason, if they delist them and they go back to killing livestock or ect then they deserve to be killed themselves. What is it going to take For you Jack!@# Animal Huggers to realize that they do not belong around livestock and people. All I can say is if they delist I will be one of the first in Idaho to buy a TAG, and then the skin is going on my wall. In Wyoming outside Cody the Grizzley Bears are so Bad that the school in Wapity has Bear Watchers, They have a 10 ft chain link fence around the school and they have to make sure that there are no apples on the ground under the trees, because the Bears come right into the school yard area if they can. Maybe if these animal huggers had to spend a few nights in the woods tied to a tree, as food do you think they would change their minds? I think they so, they would have no choice in the matter, because they would be too busy screaming for someone to kill what ever it was that was eating them then they would know what it was like. I go by the LAW of the Wilderness the 3 S's Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. And that is what I will do if I ever run into a Wolf. I don't want to have to live with them, I already have to live with you people that move into our beautiful Mountain Comunnities and destroy it by bringing the city with you. You are Wolves enough.

Comment By Jay Kanta, 3-09-07

Ah, I concede the debate to you, Mr. Master Debater. Your knowledge far exceeds my paltry capabilities. Along with your partner, Ms. Hysterical Can't-Find-The-Enter-Key have vanquished me on this day.

Comment By mike, 3-09-07

I'm sure sorry; but, I don't believe a word of it. I think it's all fake. I think it's all cooked up propaganda. I've been living around wolves for years and, yes, they are a nuisance and you have to be smart about it and smart about your choice of livestock and operations; but, I sure don't believe this story; don't believe that there is any reported record of it in any files; and suspect there's more horsemanure here than horse history.

Comment By Robert T Fanning, Jr, 3-09-07

Wolves in Russia

Anxiety Through the Ages

to be released soon

a book by

Will Graves

Edited by Dr.Valerius Geist, Ph.D.



Wolves in Russia unmasks the Disneyesque view of wolves propagandized in the U.S. Wolves is a stunning, fact-laden account of pandemic and devastating loss of livestock, game animals and human beings from wolf predation. Any open-minded person who reads this book will grasp that wolves are a severe threat to our way of life in Montana, and to the people who live here. It is impossible to deny the centuries of recorded wolf predation impact documented in Wolves in Russia. A Russian proverb from the book: "Wolves are not killed because they are gray, but because they eat sheep."

Gary Marbut, president, Montana Shooting Sports Association

Visit this site for updates and book availability (tentatively scheduled for release April 15, 2007)

================================

An email sent to the email list of the Montana Shooting Sports Association on 03/02/2007:

Dear MSSA Friends,

I have just reviewed s soon-to-be-published book titled Wolves in Russia. This book has been researched and written by Will Graves, a career linguist. As a U.S. translator, Will went to Russia with a great curiosity about historic wolf impact there. Over many years, Will gathered and translated many Russian records about wolves and their impact on livestock, game and people.

Yes, people. There are scores of documented instances where wolves have killed and eaten people. For over two centuries, Russians have kept records of wolf impact, including killing hundreds of people every year, maybe thousands in some bad years.

Here's one tidbit from the book. The Central Administration of Hunting in Kazakhstan records that in 1986 there were 300 teams of professional wolf hunters totalling 1104 hunters culling wolves in Kazakhstan. Notwithstanding this effort, it is reported that "Their combined effort was insufficient to hold back the increase in wolf numbers." The following year, 1987, there were 150,000 domestic livestock (mostly sheep, horses, and cattle, but including some pigs, camels, asses, etc.) in Kazakhstan lost to wolves. The year after, 1988, 200,000 domestic livestock were killed by wolves.

I have written Will a dust jacket comment for Wolves of Russia. Here's what I said:

Wolves in Russia unmasks the Disneyesque view of wolves propagandized in the U.S. Wolves is a stunning, fact-laden account of pandemic and devastating loss of livestock, game animals and human beings from wolf predation. Any open-minded person who reads this book will grasp that wolves are a severe threat to our way of life in Montana, and to the people who live here. It is impossible to deny the centuries of recorded wolf predation impact documented in Wolves in Russia. A Russian proverb from the book: "Wolves are not killed because they are gray, but because they eat sheep."

I'll let you know when Wolves is published and becomes available.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Comment By mike, 3-09-07

So, do you jokers give equal credence to other "information" coming out of Russia or, in the case of reports dating back to the 1980s, to "information" that was reported out of the Soviet Union or are you treating these "wolf predation reports" as more reliable than what the same government was and continues to say about, oh, let's say the American human rights record? Do you want to go on record as endorsing all the information that comes out of the illustrious Republic of Kazakhstan or do you just want to cherrypick? You're a disgrace; you don't need detractors; you discredit yourself with your own stupidity.

Comment By Marion, 3-09-07

How exciting Mike, I didn't realize we had someone who lived in wolf territory, where is it? Alaska? You mentioned livestock, are you a rancher? What kind of livestock? Sorry for all of the quetions, but I don't recall you mentioning it before in all of the wolf discussions on here. I am at a loss to understand what you are disputing though. What do you think is a lie?

Comment By Robert T Fanning, Jr, 3-09-07

The book was edited by a renoun Ph.D , who also was one of the Delphi 15.
The book is targeted at scholars in University Biology and Veterinary Science Departments. I have read it and it is stunning.

The author , Will Graves, worked for many decades for the U.S. National Security Agency as a Russian linguist.

Are you a Ph.D. Mike?
Are you fluent in several languages Mike?
Have you spent extensive time in Russia/Eurasia?
Do you have long term {5 decades} relationships with Russian wolf biologists?

A little advice Mike; when you resort to personal attacks , you signal to your opponent and other observers that you have lost the objective, quantitave factual arguement.

Your side had 12 years, billions in resources and a monopoly on the press.

It's our turn now and all you get is a back row seat in the observation galery.

Comment By horsebis, 3-09-07

Mike:

For your information it is not a lie!!
We were up in the wilderness area that lays between Pahaska Tepee Resort West of Cody Wy, and the South side of the Lamar Valley, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS? I doubt it. Since you probably can not find your way out of a wet paper bag. My husband and I have been all over the Wyoming wilderness on horseback as we worked for a outfitter at that time. We also broke and trained saddle / pack (horses and mules) for any one that needed help.

Here is a question for you ???

If you are so smart and know so much about preditors do you know the name of and the year that the 2ed largest Grizzley bear in the YellowStone Eco-system was killed and put on display at the Meteese Museum after he killed over $ 350,000.00 dollars worth of livestock in the Meteese Valley. These preditors are another problem we have to contend with.
I live in North Idaho Now and we have both Wolves and Grizzley Bears. When is it enough when children get killed just because they are playing to close to the tree's WAKE UP!!!

Comment By Robert T Fanning, Jr, 3-10-07

Russian wolves and disease


Our material

shows that – notwithstanding the presence of foxes, raccoons, and domestic

dogs – it was the wolf and only the wolf, which was the basic source of

the infestations of ungulates. The scats of nine wolves showed they were

each infected with taenia hydatiqena with an incident of five to 127 examples.

The damage of carrying cysticercus by wild animals was clearly

showed in the work of the veterinarians, A. K. Starodynova in the

Zavidovskij preserve, and by Litvinov in Berezinskij.

There are numerous articles in the literature about wolves spreading

infectious diseases such as brucellosis, tularemia, listeriosis, and anthrax. It

is certain that this wide-ranging predator, constantly moving from place to

place, plays an important role in maintaining and spreading diseases over

large areas.14 There is one example where a rabid wolf in Belorussia in 1957

in one and a half days traveled 150 kilometres and bit 25 people (19 of

them seriously), about 25 domestic animals, and an unknown number of

wild animals. While there is no doubt about the danger of a rabid wolf

meeting humans, there has not been enough research done on the role of

other rabid animals such as foxes.

In the USSR wolves are infected with more than 50 types of intestinal

worms. Wolves cause noticeable damage to wild ungulates by carrying

echinococcus, cysticercus, and coenurus, parasitic diseases that may also be

caught by humans. In the Leningradskij region when there was a serious

outbreak of cysticercus, not one female moose observed had two calves.

However, in the Murmanskij region where the infection rate was three

times less, all of the female moose had two calves. The same thing was

noticed in the Tambovskij region in 1969 and reported by Kheruvimov.

There are also reports about the loss of moose and calves from cysticerus

and echinococcus. Free ranging wolves can be seriously infected with cestodes.

It is noticeable that in areas where there are no wolves, there are few

infections in wild animals with cysticercus.

Parasites and Diseases 83

Wolves in Russia TEST.qxp 2/23/2007 9:04 AM Page 83

Comment By Wolf, 3-29-07

Dear Republican Wolf-Hating Hicks,
Mr. Kanta happens to be right, not only scientifically, but morally as well. I don't know him, but I've studied his claims and found them true. As far as global climate change goes, that is not the main focus of of these arguments so could we all stop mentioning it. Ms. Marion said there were only 136 wolves killed in a 42 year period in Yellowstone therefore proving there weren't many wolves in the park therefore proving they don't belong there because there are fewer elk. For one thing there aren't fewer elk and for another where is your evidence to support that claim? In The Yellowstone Wolf, written by scientific accounts, it says there were many more wolves than that living there and being killed. Ms. Marion, would you be so kind as to state the 42 year period you were talking about, from when to when? As for Mr. horsepiss I mean Mr. horsebis's comment on "wolves are killing machines that kill for sport." 1. There is no case of wolves EVER killing for sport so where do you come up with that. 2. Wolves eat every part of the animal where as most hunters do kill for sport, don't use or eat all that they kill, and when they can't find "their" elk because the elk have been moving around more because of the wolves, like they used to before hunters killed off the wolves, the hunters need an excuse to tell their buddies why they can't show off a rack this year they blame the wolves. 3. I don't know how you hunt Mr. horsebis, but it should involve leaving your pickup and actually look for the elk. As for you Mr. Kanta I know you were using extreme sarcasm in your last comment, but please get back into the debate, your arguments were right on and supported by valid facts.

Comment By horsebis, 3-29-07

Mr Wolf (That is a laugh in a half)
I lived in Wyoming and while I was there, I saw a Tape that had been Videoed by a tourist that had went out to the Elk Feeding Area just out side Jackson Hole Where the Cow Elk were claving and they documented it happening, copies of this tape were circulating all over Wyoming untill they were confiscated. There were articles about it in the Cody Paper and in the BLM flyer. And what it showed was heart breaking and disgusting. And as far as the way I hunt, you could not keep up with me, I ride into the Wilderness Areas set a camp and then hike and ride for miles to find the perfect one before I shoot my Elk, I don't just shoot the first baby that comes in my sights, after I gut out a Elk I take everything out I do not leave the carcass I have pack horses that carry it all out then it is cut up the way I want it at home. No one else touches it. I know the Shoshone and the Thoroughfare Wilderness like the back of my hand. On one pack trip I made in with a outfitter friend of mine we saw herds that numbered in the 100's Around Yellowstone You are lucky now to see 50 in a bunch. You my friend would get lost in your own backyard, if you had one (you sound like a yuppy that lives in a high rise apartment building with security guards so you are protected from the outside world)

Comment By Wolf, 3-30-07

Mr.horsebis,
I must be honest with you. Thank you. Thank you for eating most of what you kill and actually looking for an elk. Thank you for not wasting much. I'm sorry I so mercilessly attacked you without really knowing you. I was being judge-mental without getting to know you, I am sorry for that. As for me I do not live in an apartment and I hate cities. I love to hike, fish, canoe, kayak, mountain climb, and hunt (though my definition might differ from yours a bit). I highly doubt I would get lost in my backyard or the mountains. Your method of hunting doesn't seem barbaric and it sounds like you don't kill for sport and I again thank you. Could you give me a internet cite that would give me the "Cody Paper and the BLM flyer" because I do not live in Wyoming, but very close. When you said you and your friend see herds of 50 when you used to see herds of 100 and blame the wolves you are mislead. This is simple the bulls compete for the cow elk I'm sure you know. The wolves only eat very old, sick, and young leaving the prime elk to thrive therefore less disease is spread, which is nature's way, but with more bulls in top condition because of less disease they compete more fiercely for the cows (who are also in top condition) therefore many bulls get some cows and separate from the main herd to start their own herd. I would think because of many different herds (instead of one large one) and more importantly for you healthier, bigger, and stronger bulls that hunters would happy about the wolves. Anyway I'm sure, because of your experience and willingness to get an elk every year you would be even more happy about this. Think on it and do some research, please. Read USFS documents and biologist's documents and you will find that wolves ARE NOT big bad beasts that kill for pleasure.

Comment By Jesse, 4-09-07

It is a proven fact that wolves do not just eat the old and the sick, with the name of Mr. Wolf you should know this, even the FWP concede their main prey would be the elk calf, hence the reason for the reduction of the herd. They also will eat Moose Calves, along with beef calves, lambs, they choose the young over the weak and the diseased. The wolf has no known natural predator. This spells disaster, who is going to control the wolf from controlling us?

Comment By wolf2, 2-19-08

Jesse,

The young ARE weak. But yes, on occasion, wolves will kill perfectly healthy prey. The main engine of natural selection is that wolves are MORE LIKELY to kill the diseased or weak; because they can more easily catch them. How that gets turned into the ONLY kill the weak.... is likely a rumination of the ignorant.

As for the rest of your fearful post, its just that; unfounded fear and loathing.

The Will Graves book is a colllection of Russian science, prose, and legend; written by an anti-wolf author, backed and held up as science by anti-wolf groups. The information within is far from scientific fact. But it makes fair reading, if you are into the fearmongering of wolves. Geist wrote the forward and did some editing, but he surely checked no facts, or made any claims to the authenticy of the various stories, etc.


Green and Happy!
Member of: NRA, DU, TU, RMEF, RGS, AFS,...........

Comment By Ian Walsh, 5-09-08

This is so exasperating, it's like trying to talk sense to a two year old. Don't anyone bother replying to this, because I won't be back. However I just want to say that I am ashamed that Idaho has this "Butcher" Otter as a Governor, it's sickening. Just LEAVE THE WOLVES ALONE, and no, I am not some dumb city person that doesn't know that wolves kill cattle and livestock, but the way wolves are being "managed" is disgusting. Going in planes to shoot wolves with shotguns, the deaths often being slow and the blood plentiful...that is savage. Now, if ranchers were just permitted to kill the wolves they saw killing their cattle I would be O.K with that, if wolves were to be killed quickly by park rangers when they went outside of their limits and into neighborhoods I would be O.K with that. Wolves are smart, and if they were shot and not Butchered when any of these cases happened they would catch a hint and stay away from commiting that act again, but slaughtering mother wolves and their pups...I am ashamed of my fellow Idahoans. I will not say anything else, but our Heavenly Father will deal us our punishments in our own good time, and ther is nothing that you and I can say to change that, it is our actions and change of heart that determine our fate. Anyone and everyone can be forgiven, even Butch Otter.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/idaho_is_ready_for_wolf_delisting/C108/L108/