Guest Commentary: On the Range
Idaho Wolf Plan Panders to Hunters and Ranchers
By George Wuerthner, 12-17-07
The Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) recently released its draft wolf management plan. Unfortunately, like all wolf plans so far produced in the Rockies, the proposal panders to the interests of livestock operators and hunters, ignoring the interests of the greater public as well as the long term benefits of restoring wolves throughout the state.
There are 1.4 million people who reside in the state. There are 1700 ranchers who graze on Idaho’s public lands with 10% (170) controlling 80% of public land allotments. Only 11% of Idahoans even buy a hunting license! (And I’m a non-resident who also buys one as well.) Nevertheless, why should a handful of ranchers and the minority of Idahoans who hunt, dictate whether wolves live or die? IDFG is supposed to represent all Idaho citizens and a majority support viable wolf populations in the state—not token numbers of wolves as the IDFG has put forward.
DEFECTS WITH THE PLAN
There are three major defects in the draft plan. First, IDFG proposes to treat wolves like deer and elk when carnivores, particularly a social carnivore like wolves, require a different approach.
Secondly, the plan fails to recognize the important ecological benefits that wolves confer upon wildlife populations and vegetative communities. There is far more room for additional wolves in Idaho than the IDFG admits. Keep in mind that Minnesota, a considerably smaller state, with a much higher human population and development, supports more than 3,000 wolves.
Third, the plan fails to include and consider much of the recent scientific literature available on wolves, with many important references not even mentioned, and/or interprets the literature it does cite to support IDFG policies while ignoring other relevant implications.
WOLVES ARE NOT ELK AND DEER
First you cannot treat wolves like elk or deer. Social carnivores (including bears, mountain lion, etc.) interact differently than elk and deer among other members of their species, as well as with other wildlife. Because wolves maintain territories and have a social structure that depends on cooperative hunting, you can’t just say they have a reproductive replacement of X a year and so we can kill X number without the population suffering, as the IDFG suggests. That’s the crudest kind of management--and totally ignores animal social behavior research released in the past few decades. The IDFG is proposing to manage wolves as if nothing has been learned about predators in fifty years.
Here’s the problem. If you permit indiscriminate hunting of wolves as the current plan proposes, you potentially disrupt the social networks of the wolves. For instance, if a pack that currently is not causing any conflicts with humans (i.e. killing livestock) have the dominant pack members removed, less experienced members of the pack may resort to killing livestock to feed pack members. Unable to defend their territory with a reduced number of pack members, another outcome might be their replacement with another pack that might be more inclined to attack livestock. Thus the indiscriminate killing of wolves causes instability between packs, leading to greater stress and potentially greater conflicts with humans.
Indiscriminate hunting also skews the population towards younger animals. With a reduced population of the predators, wolves respond by producing more pups, with more pups likely to survive into adulthood. Since the younger animals are less skillful hunters, they also tend to prey on livestock more readily. More pups is more mouths to feed--again putting stress on the adult hunters and forcing them to chase the easiest prey--namely livestock and perhaps even a greater number of ungulates in order to feed the many growing pups.
All of this then creates a feedback mechanism whereby wolf control results in more wolf predation, which in turn feeds irrational calls for more wolf control. Yet it is a self-created situation that I suspect the IDFG hopes to reinforce by implementing its management plan, since it tends to create public support for limiting wolf populations.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF WOLVES
Wolf predation is an important top-down ecological process which IDFG appears to ignore. The IDFG proposes to manage for “a self-sustaining, well-distributed, viable wolf population so that wolves fulfill their ecological role without affecting the viability and sustainable harvest of other big game populations.”
However, putting that kind of qualifier on wolf populations effectively means they will not fulfill their ecological role. To fulfill their ecological role, wolves will have to reduce big game numbers in some places and times. That’s their ecological role. The plan does not acknowledge or recognize this ecological function.
Wolves prey on different ages and classes of ungulates than hunters. (See Wright et al. 2006, Selection of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Gray Wolves and Hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 1070-1078). Wolves tend to select more calves and bulls proportionally to cows (Smith et. al. 2004 Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone NP 1995-2000 J. Wildl. Manage. 68.), while human hunters tend to take more prime-of-life reproductively-important animals. Where the plan even acknowledges these differences between human hunters and wolves, it treats them as a negative.
For instance, it cites a study that found that elk respond to the presence of wolves by using steeper terrain and remaining in hiding cover longer ( see Creel, S., and J. A. Winnie. 2005. Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Animal Behavior 69:1181-1189.) The IDFG draft document suggests that this “reduces hunting success for some hunters” and suggests this might be a legitimate reason to kill wolves. In essence the IDFG is saying that the desires of lazy “shooters” (real hunters do not mind wolf presence) who can’t hunt as more important than the ecological benefits of elk behavior changes as a consequence of wolf presence.
Wolves may also influence predation influences of other predators. One study in Montana found that compared to mountain lions, wolves preyed more on male elk than cow elk.(See Atwood et al. 2006 Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range, Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4)) Thus different ungulate selection by wolves could affect population dynamics--i.e. removal of bull elk by wolves may increase survival of cow elk due to reduced competition for resources. In addition, the presence of wolves may affect the dynamics and populations of other carnivores--for instance, more wolves could lead to fewer mountain lion and coyotes—which in turn has other ecological consequences.
In Yellowstone it was found that wolves reduced coyote numbers (See Crabtree RL, Sheldon JW, 1999. Coyotes and canid coexistence in Yellowstone. In: Clark TW, Curlee AP, Minta SC, Kareiva PM, editors. Carnivores in ecosystems: The Yellowstone experience. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 429.) And since coyotes were more effective predators on pronghorn antelope fawns, the presence of wolves has lead to greater pronghorn fawn survival. Also, more red foxes are being seen in Yellowstone than in the past, and are presumed to be a consequence of less coyote predation on fox as a result of wolf effects on coyote numbers.
I also suspect we would find that wolves might positively influence sage grouse populations as well, since coyotes are a major predator on these birds.
These subtle ecological relationships between wolves and other carnivores are not even recognized, much less discussed, in the IDFG draft wolf plan.
Because wolves hunt throughout the year, they have two major effects on other wildlife. They create carrion year round. (Again see, Wilmers and Getz 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org). The extra carrion is like winning the lottery for some scavengers. Finding a wolf-killed elk in the early spring when other foods are scarce is a gift for female bear with cubs just out of hibernation. It can make the difference between whether the cubs survive or die, and thus the presence of wolves could enhance grizzly bear recovery and act as a buffer against losses of other foods like whitebark pine. Carrion is also very important to many other animals including wolverine, ravens, eagles, and so on.
Wolf-produced carrion might play a positive role in maintaining other species in the face of climate changes towards warmer winters and less winter kill,. (See Wilmers and Getz, 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org)
Wolves also disperse ungulates. ( For more on how wolves affect ungulate behavior, etc. see Mao, J. S., M. S. Boyce, D. W. Smith, F. J. Singer, D. J. Vales, J. M. Vore, and E. H. Merrill. 2005. Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1691-1707.)
This has several biological consequences. Some of the ungulates will die of starvation or be killed by a predator (could be a mountain lion or bear). These animals will die more randomly scattered over the landscape providing scattered sources of carrion for scavengers. Dominant male bears tend to defend carrion. The presence of wolves might create more scattered sources of carrion for female grizzly bears in multiple places, reducing conflicts between individual bears.
The plan fails to consider the benefits that wolf predation have in regulating big game populations. While it’s true that wolves can temporarily cause a reduction in ungulate populations, the plan views this as a negative, instead of recognizing that reduction in ungulate herbivory pressure on plant communities can have a long term benefit for both plants and ultimately, ungulates. (See Ripple, W. J., and P. L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves, elk, willows and trophic cascade in the upper Gallatin Range of southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 200:161-181.)
Native ungulate populations naturally experience ups and downs in population, yet the IDFG tries to manage them as if they are some kind of steady supply stream of products. This totally fails to recognize or mimic natural ecological processes. Temporary reductions in ungulate populations are usually followed by a reduction in predator populations and ultimately will allow ungulates to increase once more. IDFG fails to consider such issues.
However, it’s important to note that sometimes wolf presence can provide this benefit without reducing ungulates numbers, simply by changing habitat use by moving animals around the landscape more.
It must be noted even with the presence of wolves, all of IDFG units are currently meeting or exceeding objectives, except for two units where habitat quality, not wolf predation, is the cause.
LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS EXTERNALIZE COSTS
You can’t manage wolves like other big game. Any indiscriminate killing of wolves (as opposed to surgical removal of a few individuals) is going to create problems. IDFG should only advocate for “surgical” removal of individual wolves known to kill livestock only if the rancher has already tried to minimize conflicts. Currently the livestock industry externalizes many of its costs of operations on to the citizens as a whole, and one cost is the need for reducing predator opportunity.
Research has shown that there are successful husbandry practices that can substantially reduce wolf depredation on livestock such as the use of calving and lambing sheds, herders, and rapid removal of carcasses etc. (See Chavez and Gese 2006 Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation to Livestock in a Wildland–Agriculture Matrix, Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):1079–1086).
In France, it was found that corralling sheep at night reduced losses to wolf predation by 95% (See Espuno et al. 2004 Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1195-1208). One of the reasons that ranching is inappropriate in the arid West is that livestock producers tend to let their animals roam over huge areas. This is only possible if there are few predators, and so for decades ranchers have externalized one of their costs—reduction in predator opportunity through proper animal husbandry—on to the rest of us by killing predators so they can avoid these costs.
It was found that wolves tended to prey upon livestock most during the period when they are raising pups and were most likely to take livestock closest to denning sites. (See Bradley and Pletcher 2005. Assessing factors related to wolf depredation of cattle in fenced pastures in Montana and Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(4):1256–1265). Encouraging or even mandating that livestock not be placed on pastures where there are active wolf dens could reduce conflicts significantly. This could be a viable strategy at least on public lands where federals agencies are supposed to be managing these lands for everyone—not just ranchers.
The presence of wolves also causes other changes in native predators. In Yellowstone it has been shown that the presence of wolves reduced coyote numbers by 50%. Since coyotes are still the number one predator of livestock, the presence of wolves could actually reduce livestock losses, and pressure to do predator control on all species. This is not even acknowledged in the draft plan.
Yes, such husbandry practices will increase costs for individual ranchers, but this is actually a real cost of operation that should be reflected in the livestock industry’s balance sheets, not externalized on to the public. Such husbandry practices could reduce conflicts significantly--and should be a prerequisite before any wolves are killed. These practices are mandatory in other countries. Such measures dramatically reduce conflicts and costs to taxpayers.
.
The current draft Idaho Fish and Game plan is a plan designed to maintain conflict. It is a plan that ignores biology. It is a plan that needs serious revision. To read IDFG plan, go to http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/surveys/draftwolf/. To comment on the plan go to idfginfo@idfg.idaho.gov Comments are due by December 31, 2007.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer with 34 published books. Among other things, Wuerthner studied wildlife biology and botany at the U of Montana, worked on wolf recovery in Montana, is a former biologist with the BLM in Idaho, and a former hunting guide in Montana.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. If you’re interested in submitting a guest column, contact Deputy Managing Editor Matthew Frank at matt@newwest.net..
[End of article]Excellent column. Glad to see someone calling BS on the ranching and hunting interests that are the true drivers behind this wolf "plan." It's important for folks who care about wolves to submit comments about the plan's deficiencies.
Comment By Marion, 12-17-07Pandering????? Let's see the ranchers wanted no wolves, were told they would be required to raise 100, then 150, now nearly a thousand is not enough and controlling them is "pandering"? What would you consider treating them fairly????? Any control at all is going to cause conflict with wolfers, pure and simple, they want more and more and more.
The pandering to well healed environmentalist groups is what has us in this mess.
Marion, You did not read past the title of the article did you?
Comment By Marion, 12-17-07Oh, yes I did, and it is the same BS over and over again. If the wolves were truly ecologically necessary, the whole country would be falling apart. There would have been for more wolves in Yellowstone pre white man days that the handful that were "extirpated". We see increased rates of brucellosis in some elk herds and of course we had not had the infection in cattle until the wolves come to town. Plus at least one elk was found with a wolf disease.
I was raised to believe that my word was the most valuable thing I had, and keeping it was of utmost importance. Enviros would do well to learn that lesson, instead they try to build in loopholes and make excuses why their word means nothing.
Marion:
Ecologically the country is falling apart. It's just that you're aware of it because you haven't been studying the ecological literature.
Just to give a couple of examples, in the eastern United States, there are problems with high deer numbers feeding heavily on tree seedlings affecting the forest composition. Lack of a top down predator is thought to be the problem.
Other problems we have seen in some places are heavy elk herbivory on aspen and willows which may also be related to lack of wolves. Wolves are suspected to keep animals moving around.
Aspen and other trees are established in pulses. All they need is proper conditions for growth or regeneration (by fire), and they reestablish themselves for the next hundred years or so. But if there are too many elk (or cattle) the aspen seedlings are all eaten. They need relief for sufficient years to grow beyond elk browsing--which is why it may be important to permit wolves to depress big game numbers for a period of years.
And perhaps the suspected decline in wolverine (early accounts of Yellowstone mention many more wolverine) could be related to limited carrion which may be a consequence of reduced wolf predation. Wolverine are highly depended on finding carrion in winter.
Geo.
Great column George!!..This is one of the most thought out and well written column on this subject I believe I've read. Hope info like this helps the powers that be make an educated responsible decision based on fact, not hype.
Comment By Craig, 12-18-07Anybody who sites HSUS drivel is no hunter. The writer is clearly an anti-hunting enviro-nutcase.
Comment By Skeets, 12-18-07I disagree completely Craig. He's not against hunting, he's against indiscriminate elimination of vast amounts of wolves based not on science or fact but hype
Comment By Jake, 12-18-07So what is being proposed here? That somehow the IDFG should restrict hunters to only shooting subordinate pack members (like they are going to hold still for that!), like the carrion chain created by wolves somehow is a critical factor for bears (magpies and ravens maybe), that studies based in an over-crowded and artificial system like the Park apply directly to a system like the Middle Fork of the Salmon, etc., etc.,? Grasping at straws, clearly. This is what will happen once the shooting starts; there'll be some wolves shot the first season, the wolves will catch on quickly and shut down. You'll be hard pressed to fill a wolf tag after that. I've hunted both B.C. and Alaska and in each place, although the season was liberal on wolves and they were clearly around, they are hard to find let alone SEE. A neighbor of mine shot a black wolf on the Yukon this year (a long time Alaskan resident moved south) and was thrilled and considered it a rarity because they just aren't hanging around in the open waiting for the tourist photo-op. Packs were clearly pushing the caribou hard and howling each night but were practically invisible otherwise. They move alot, cover distance quickly and don't like people. The animal rights-nature-deficit-disorder-crowd love to paint a picture of slaughter. But then what would you expect; they never get outside suburbia to figure it out. We're not talking traplines and strychnine-laced buffalo carcasses here. Get a grip.
Comment By Chuck, 12-18-07Ok guys ponder this, in Idaho they don't let the hunters shoot mama bears with cubs, they don't let the hunters shoot mama cougers with kittens. But this plan has no provisions for mother wolves with pups. Also consider this, the Idaho govenor is buddies with the largest cattle producer in the state of Idaho (Simplots), IDFG does not want the wolves in Idaho any more then most other people. But if they fail to keep a bare minimum of 15 breeding pairs of wolves (a male and female that has 2 pups that survive the year) the feds start watching, once the the breeding pairs drop down to 10 Idaho looses control of the wolves and goes back to the feds and the wolves are relisted. There are groups like Sportsman for fish and wildlife (Ron Gillette) that are spreading lies and promoting haterd towards the wolves. These people will never be happy with even 1 wolf in Idaho. Come on people we caused this animals to go extinct once before and it can happen again. I'm not no tree hugger against hunting, I am a big game hunter and want to see the wolves succeed in Idaho.
Comment By Marion, 12-18-07Another problem that is going to emerge is counting, right now FWS counts those out there waving to them and miss probably somewhere between 20-40% of the actual wolves. New packs show up all of the time, but they are never counted unless they are hanging around in plain sight at counting time. As soon as they are hunted lo and behold they will become wild acting and hard to find. It has proven hard for FWS to find those with collars much of the time, so uncollared wolves just do not officially exist if they aren't seen.
The Yellowstone wolves are rapidly eating themselves out of prey, and they will disperse. You can bet your bottom dollar that the wolfers will scream and cry that it is due to hunting, and demand that they be protected again....if we ever get them completely off the list to begin with.
Why does anyone even bother with trying to convince Marion of anything. Facts don't matter to her.
Comment By Frank N, 12-18-07Great article, George. I think that the second paragraph pretty much says it all.
Comment By April, 12-18-07I think sadly that alot of folks in Idaho and Western Ranching & hunting states are raised to think and feel the way they do. They are very closed minded, not open to new ideas, and are to lazy or cheap to try to implement them, I mean why, the tax payers and Bush administration will take care of the problem for them, they ask to have wolves and any predator species to be "managed" meaning they want them all killed and out of the state, and our elected officials and wildlife services cater to them. It is so sad that so many people feel the way Marion do, and some are even worse. The only way to change it people is to write to IDFG, US Fish and Game and your local representatives, let them know you are aware of the politics and that they are not working for the better of the PUBLIC's interests. If you are a regular visitor to Yellowstone for instance let them know that if Idaho, Wyoming or Montana pass these ill written and advised wolf hunt let them know you will not spend one dime in those states when you visit, get a tent, RV whatever, bring your food, no souvenirs, hit them where it hurts in the pocket!!!! That is what I will be doing when I go to Yellowstone from now on
Comment By Buffaloed, 12-18-07I attended a meeting about the plan and witnessed a person blame his lack of hunting success on the wolves then claimed that the wolves moved a heard of elk out into the open (where there had been a fire this year and there had been a late green up so the elk went to the only place with food) and claim that there were too many elk shot by hunters. First he says that wolves make it harder then make it too easy when wolves had nothing to do with either. He just hates wolves and there is no rationality to any of it.
Comment By Tony, 12-18-07As an Idahoan and a big game hunter, I say "let there be wolves". The ranching industry has controled the west for too long. We must have a balanced approch to all species management. Get the cattle off of public land, let the native species regain their proper foothold. After a couple of generations we will see a much more diverse and ecologically sound region. IDFG is only in buisness to promote hunting, not sound ecological principles.
Comment By Tim, 12-18-07Marion, your calling BS on the author who's educational and career resume is clearly listed and quite impressive. Would you please post your educational background and your career history doing biological research so I know who's opinion I can trust on this issue.
Comment By Chuck, 12-18-07Personally I sent the ranchers need to get their cattle off of public land, they have had a free ride long enuff, if they can't make a go of with out the assistance from the government then bye bye. We are all tresspassing on the animals property, they were here first and they seemed to get along before us humans got involved. To many of these lazy hunters ride around all day on their atv's and wonder why they can't find a deer or elk. My father inlaw and I got our deer first day out and my wife got her's the next weekend. So don't tell me the wolves are to blame for you not getting your deer or elk. If these stupid elected officials would realize the value of these animals and capitalize on it. Look at all the people that go to yellowstone just to view the animals.
Comment By Chuck, 12-18-07excuse me I meant to say I think the ranchers need to get their cattle off of public land, they have had a free ride long enuff, if they can't make a go of with out the assistance from the government then bye bye. We are all tresspassing on the animals property, they were here first and they seemed to get along before us humans got involved. To many of these lazy hunters ride around all day on their atv's and wonder why they can't find a deer or elk. My father inlaw and I got our deer first day out and my wife got her's the next weekend. So don't tell me the wolves are to blame for you not getting your deer or elk. If these stupid elected officials would realize the value of these animals and capitalize on it. Look at all the people that go to yellowstone just to view the animals.
Comment By bearbait, 12-18-07Reindeer people in Siberia have lived with wolves for 15,000 years or more. A domesticated caribou is a reindeer. A castrated male is a beast of burden, a bell wether, a steed. The different ethnic groups of reindeer herders have wolf hunters in their social organization. They bell their reindeer, and a rodeo is when the herders run into a caribou herd, as they can lose many animals to the wild bunch.
The result is that when wolves get close to belled reindeer, they get shot at. Not over your head warning shots---shots to kill. In some areas, there are great bears as well as the few remaining Siberian tigers, but those animals stay well away from belled reindeer. Those Russians are using Pavlov and AK-47 to train the wolves over generations. Hear them bells, hear them bells, can't 'cha hear them bells. and they wolves run like hell---take appropriate steps--great long ones away from the sounds of the bells.
What ever the means or the results, those people have been herding reindeer in Asia and northern Europe for perhaps 15,000 years. Tattooed, preserved bodies have been dug up in Asia that have reindeer tattoos on their skin. The wolves have had a long time to adjust and survive, as have the indigenous peoples. Perhaps it is time to train the newly arrived wolves of the Canadian boreal forest to belled cattle and sheep, along with gun shots and sometimes death. Boot camp for wolves.
You have to wonder if the people who came across the Bering Sea land bridge were just trying to get away from too many predators eating their livelihood. Let's go to some different ice and snow and see if we can live a little better. Or perhaps they had already reduced their food supply by hunting and were looking for a better and more provident area to live and hunt.
They came with dogs, and dogs are no more than domesticated wolves. You have to wonder if that domestication was a result of finding and following the carrion trail of humans. In later times, that has been called battlefield sanitation.
Humans are the apex predator. That is who we are, and how we got here from there. Lots of protein and brain development. So why stop now? Why must we always be addressing our very humaness in these discussions? I have said before that George hates people, and the more I read him, the more I am convinced of it. There are enough wolves out there right now that they will never, ever, be extinct unless broadcast poison is again allowed, which I would oppose vehemently if only because of collateral killings that go with it. Let wolves be once more gun shot shy and elusive and wary. This stuff about not killing Wolf #1 because he has a plan for universal health care or Wolf #437A because she has yet to birth, is just more social planning, which always goes awry, and is how we got here from there. They are only the top predator in the food chain if humans are not a part of it. Well, no human involvement is how we got to this forest fire conflagration place, how we have forever changed some ecosystems because we were not wise enough to see that the prior 15,000 years of human interaction in the forest was allowed to go extinct. I am fully in favor of keeping people involved in the whole of ecosystems, and George is not. We are in disagreement...180 degree disagreement.
First of all ranchers do NOT get a free ride, they pay for their leases. They provide and care for reservoirs and keep other waterways open for wildlife as well as livestock. During a very dry summer, that can be the difference between life and death for antelope, deer and other wildlife. That is in addition to their lease money, and in addition they also have wildlife on their private property that eats their grass, hay, forage, etc. Eliminate the rancher and you eliminate some extremely important habitat for wildlife on private land.
There really is only one group that get to push their cost off onto taxpayers. That is the recreationalists. They contribute nothing except lawsuits to force other users off of "their land".
There is another thread presently on this site about getting rid of fees in some forests. Now most are admitting they need to be getting some of the timbering money back in, but it was pushed out for the same reason as the attempts to push ranchers off the land.......the claim that they did not pay enough. It hasn't been enough for recreational activists to have a free ride, they want it all to themselves, well folks if you push the paying folks out, you are going to have to pony up a little yourselves.
Maybe all of you eat just granola, but the vast majority of people in this country need and eat beef, wear leather shoes, drink milk, etc, and we would like it at a reasonable price & not a shortage of it. Montana is the second largest producer of beef in the US, Wyoming produces lesser amounts, but it is all very important.
Ranchers pay fees to graze on public lands because they are, at least in theory, a profit making business. That is different from the public using its land for its own enjoyment, and not for profit.
Furthermore, ranchers pay less than it costs to manage the allotment, much less accounting for all the impacts. The same for most logging. If you account for all the environmental impacts, neither logging or ranching is a paying proposal. It's costing taxpayers to have these activities on our lands.
So George, the whole country benefits from beef that is affordable, how does enviros out there playing and pooping all over the place & contaminating the water systems benefit anyone but yourselves? Instead you expect the whole country to subisidize your leisure.
The fact remains, no matter what the big shot enviro groups say, money is short now that there is little timbering going on, it will get shorter if you get rid of the ranchers. Now you can call that subsidizding if you want to, I don't.
Marion, I am an "enviro" as you call us, I do not poop in the back country, I do not contaminate any water, I am a firm believer of pack it in and pack it out, and leave no trace, as almost all true enviro's believe. I do not expect any one to pay for my leisures, I do that myself, I pay taxes! I do believe that ranchers and hunters can do more to protect themselves from the big bad wolf and Grizzly, but they do not care to, they just want what they want, the hell with anyone else. You want to point fingers at stubborn, set in their ways, no I am not going to change, look at ranchers and your self. The more you talk/write the more all can see you really do not know the facts of anything you complain about but you sure can put down everyone else, even when what we are discussing is backed up with scientific research. And I love a great steak, and if I had to pay more for it to save wolves, and other wildlife from the likes of you and people like you, I sure would. Are you even a rancher? A hunter? for once back up your statements with some hard core proof!!
Comment By Cathy Bestland, 12-18-07Marion,
You know very well that it is not the "Enviros" hiking and camping that contaminate the water supply. Humans are required to camp 200 yards from a lake or stream in most publicks. Cattle on the other hand, are allowed mill around riparian areas and even to deficate IN our water sources repeatedly. You also know that Montana is NOT the 2nd biggest cattle producer in the US. Less that 3% of the beef produced in the country comes from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming combined. The tiny eastern state of South Carolina produces more beef than Montana. You start these arguments with your nonfactual dribble, over and over again. Your purpose is not to engage in beneficial dialogue but only to hijack the thread and keep those dedicated to the protection of wildlife and the environment from enjoying meaningful conversation. No one is saying that you shouldn't post but please bring something new to the table.
This was an excellent article. I hope Rocky Mountain National Park Officials read this and reconsider the planned elk mega-slaughter by hunters in favor or reintrocucing wolves to regulate and maintain elk populations.
Well, this blog has gone off on a tangent, but while we are all on the topic of destroying Marion's pathetic arguments let me help. Now Marion, I believe you accused us "enviros" of "pooping everywhere and contaminating the water". First of all I would like to say I love being in the outdoors, fishing, backpacking, camping, and coincidentally I have a hunting license. I live in Idaho, so all the recreational activities are easily accessible and beautiful. I, like April, am a firm believer of "pack it in, pack it out" as are every "enviro" I've met. However, I have seen "hunters" trash the outdoors by littering. That isn't hunting. Anyway back to the "pooping everywhere and contaminating". That is hypocritical. I used to live in a small ranching town in Montana, the cattle were everywhere and they were beautiful to look at. The ranchers however did little to stop their cattle from seriously polluting the river that ran through the town. Us "enviros" on the hand haven't polluted anything I've seen. For the record, a study was done and it showed that America got much of its beef from other countries. As much fun as this is arguing about whose polluting water, that was not the intended issue that was to be brought up in this blog. So if we could all please get back on the main issue of wolves. P.S. Marion, either get some sources or get someone else on this blog that can corroborate what you are saying.
Comment By Marion, 12-18-07I'm glad to hear that April, nonetheless, folks on blogs talk about urinating on rocks because deer will come back to that rock for the salt, and refer to certain places as throne hill. I suspect if you check a small minority carry the bags to bring their waste back with them.
Surely you realize that ranchers and locals pay tax too, in fact more because so much land is federal in our states, and federal land pays no property tax, but some PILT, so we make up the difference. I'm sure you realize the taxes you pay do not begin to cover the cost of trails, parking lots, etc, they must be made up by others. Timbering and ranching has been picking up a lot of that cost for you, without them you will have to start paying, not expect others to pay higher taxes to cover it.
It is true that ranchers could do more to protect themselves from wolves and grizzlies, but it is illegal at this point to shoot them.
I'm glad you are able to pay more for your beef, not everyone is that lucky.
GET BACK TO THE TOPIC OF WOLVES. Marion you mentioned wolves once in your recent two paragraphs and you said that ranchers could do more to protect themselves from wolves and grizzlies. Do you mean protect themselves or their livestock?
Comment By JB, 12-18-07Bearbait claims that people "have been herding reindeer in Asia and northern Europe for perhaps 15,000 years." And then goes on to claim that the only way to successfully do this is with AK47s and other high-powered weapons.
Hmm...I'm not a historian, but I'd be willing to bet that guns have only been successfully used to kill wolves for a couple of hundred years--certainly, machine guns have only been around since the turn of the century. Thus, for 14,800+ years of the previous 15,000 reindeer were successfully managed by humans without the use of guns. Tell me why again we need to shoot wolves?
Sheesh, if you're going to spend that much space making an argument, at least think it through before you post. You're simply wasting mine and other readers time.
I apologize for getting off track, but it is very upsetting to me to have folks wanting to take away the livelihood of other people....and expect them to pay for it. That was the main purpose of trucking in wolves. I have trouble believing that one American can feel they have the right to chase another family away because they tink they have a better use for their homes. I can never come to terms with the idea that playing is more important than food production.
I cannot come to terms with being told we had to raise 300 wolves in the 3 states, and then being told you never meant that, it was every wolf you could stuff in here until it meets your dreams. Sadly you cannot seem to see that even if you rid the area of food producers, the private land will be sold and totally off limits to you. Why lie in the first place, why not admit there would never be enough wolves?
Marion...having read through all the comments, there seems to be one common and often related question....Why don't you ever back up your statements with science based facts? Is it because there are none?
Please do some research before wasting everyone's time because you are an embarrasment to the ranching community.
Thank you for realizing that we were all getting off track. Nobodies livelihood is being taken away by the wolves. In Idaho wolves account for a measly 1.7% of all livestock depredation (source Defenders of wildlife) and (Idaho FWS 2006 wolf report). That is hardly enough cattle being killed to make anyone lose their livelihood. And for the record over 70% of Americans want the wolves here. Most of the other 30% is indifferent. Only part of that last 30% really don't want the wolves here. The wolves might as well be here, there is no point in killing them.
Comment By George, 12-18-07Marion:
The 300 wolf number in the recovery plan was the minimum number put forth as acceptable. The plan says nothing about how many wolves could live in the area.
Given that even densely settled state like Minnesota are supporting almost three times as many wolves as thought to exist in the Rockies today, biologically the region could likely support a much larger wolf population.
I did a preliminary study of Oregon's potential for wolf recovery about ten years ago and calculated that the state could support 2000-2,500 wolves based primarily upon ungulate populations.
Using that estimate, as well as other studies that have been done for western states as a basis, I would suspect the three states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho combined could easily support 5,000-6000 wolves and perhaps up to 10,000 wolves.
Obviously that's the biological carrying capacity, but we are not there politically yet.
George,
I find your article to be VERY informative and well written. I hope some of your points will be utilized in upcoming suits against Rocky Mountain Nat. Park as well as against Idaho and Wyoming Wol (slaughter) Management plans. I am also excited to learn that it is becoming more apparent that wolves' may play a possitive role in helping to curb the rise in wildlife diseases caused by the unnatural practice of supplemental feeding of elk and deer herds at feeding grounds. It seems that this unnatural congregating of herds at these feeding grounds increases the chances of disease transmission. Wolves will help keep the herds on the move not only having a possitive impact on disease transmission but also in protectiong against over grazing as you mentioned. It is particularly disturbing to know that these so called "supplemental feeding grounds" is not done to benefit the elk and deer at all, but to preserve the range for the grazing of cattle.
Marion- You claim "I have trouble believing that one American can feel they has the right to chase another family away because they think they have a better use for their homes." Does this also apply to the fact that RANCHERS drove the Native Americans away from their homes becaust they thougt they had a better use for the land?????
George,
The news that Idaho could sustain 5,000-6,000 wolves was exciting. That would be great if that would happen.
Cathy,
You have a point with the Native Americans and the ranchers.
Marion,
The wolves won't make anyone bankrupt or chase anyone away from their lands.
To my fellow wolf activists, I have a plan to save the wolves and I need help and feedback carrying it out. For those of us who live in Idaho we should all buy wolf tags. We could then burn the tags that we buy. I wish out of state folks could also help with this plan, but the price for them to buy a hunting license and a wolf tag would be close to 400$. For those of us who live in Idaho a hunting license and a wolf tag would be about 35$. If every wolf activist in the state buys a tag we could save most of the wolves. What do you all think?
Ahh, George, some honesty in this whole thing at last. I suspect that 10,000 was always what those with nothing to lose had in mind. But of course if you had admitted that in the beginning it would never have flown, so it was a big lie from the beginning. All they had to do was bring in close to a hundred wolves and nature would do the rest.
We are right close 2000 now, I'm sure, if they were all counted.
As for financial harm, how many thousand dollars could any of you afford to have taken away from you without notice? remember the ranchers are "paid" for about 1 out of every 7-9 animals lost.
One sheep rancher was paid for 1 1/2 out of 30+ sheep killed in a pasture and not found until enough decay had prevented the detection of extreme trauma that has to be present to confirm a wolf kill. That cost him over $3000.
The benefit the ranchers receive from the feed grounds is keeping the elk and buffs out of their haystacks and grain lines, NOT off of public grazing. The livestock are not on public land at that time of year. They need the meadows for graze, which is now private land, the snow is too deep in the high country forests where they summer. Yes those private ranches have displaced wildlfie....as have your homes. Are you willing to give your home back to nature? But you seem to demand that others do so.
Wolf,
I have already proposed this very same plan. Apparently it won't work because if the population of wolves is not decreased by the amount of tags issued. The Dept. of Wildlife will simply issue more tags until the number of wolves have been "taken". I wish that it would work, even though I am from out of state I would gladly pay the price of $4oo to save a wolf. I do have some other ideas that I am reluctant to discuss in an open blog. Interested?
Just thought this was interesting, wanted to share since it kind of goes along with this tread. I just opened my January issue of NG and a full page ad ran by Allianz states this: The more dangerous thing on the planet is? A) a pack of wolves B) a herd of cows
The answer is LIVESTOCK is one of the largest sources of the worlds green house gases. Like we all did not know that, but even the big companys are acknowledging this fact. they also piss and poo in the streams and lakes, destroy the habitat that they graze on...so keep them on private land not PUBLIC land.
Just wanted to share....
Here is mountain grazing country just prior to the cows being brought in
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/81217276
Same area, but wihtout the fence in the picture a few days before the grazing ended for the season.
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/89180030/small
I realize to you this is just terrible, but I think it is beautiful.
I guess what would be the most dangerous thing might depend on how much food was available.....unless you want to graze those mountain meadows yourself. Did they mention a pack of environmentalists on the list by chance? that is what I consider most dangerous to our food supply, fuel supply, etc.
I will take the first picture any day! Have a good day Marion!!!
Comment By Marion, 12-19-07True, april, but the spring wildflowers only bloom in the spring. I'm sure as astute as you are you are aware of what makes the flowers so profuse and beautiful don't you? Fertilizer, another word for cow poop.
How many fruit trees do you see blooming in Septemeber....everything to it's season.
To Cathy Bestland,
You bet I'm interested! Anything to save the wolves. I respect you for your willingness to pay 400$ to save a wolf. It sucks that the old plan won't work.
To Marion,
I think George's 10,000 wolves idea is great. No offense Marion, but I also think you have a severe case of paranoia. There is no lies or conspiracy, there is just fact. The proof is in what George said about Minnesota. About how the state is smaller than Idaho, has more people than Idaho, and yet they have a wolf population of 3,000. Also back to the cattle thing. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that wolves only account for a MEASLY 1.7% of livestock depredation in Idaho. Furthermore, the 1.7% of livestock that was killed by wolves has been paid for. The ranchers have received compensation for livestock losses to wolves. Besides it sounds to me like the ranchers just need an animal to blame their laziness on. Yes, I'm calling American ranchers lazy. I have reason to say this. In Italy and France, their governments also started bringing wolves back. It is a different species of wolf in Europe. It is said that the European wolves are more aggressive towards humans and livestock. The sheep and cattle ranchers in Italy and France will go to jail for just shooting a wolf even if the wolf is attacking their herd. The Italian and French ranchers are out with their livestock almost 24 7. They don't watch T.V. Ranching is their life and they are with their animals night and day. They have zero to no predation on livestock because they are not lazy. Maybe American ranchers need to decide if they really truly want to be ranchers or not. If it is your main source of income and the livestock matters so much to the ranchers then they would be outside with their animals all the time, just like the Italian and French ranchers.
Devil’s advocate here, but I read a neat story from ranchers’ point of view that might put a different perspective in light:
Rancher: When I was a boy, I remember seeing all the rats in Boise, how sad that they are all gone. I would like to see the rat reintroduced into its native habitat. Such social creatures are interesting to study and watch, and provided beneficial environment cleanup. A group of us would like to put forth a bill to reintroduce the rat to Boise.
The story was more detailed than my short version, but I think you get the point.
Wolf and anyone interested,
One such plan that can be discussed and is on Ralph's blog is the one of a gathering of pro-wolf activists during "wolf" hunting season on public lands. It has been suggested that obstructing a hunter while hunting is illegal but upon discussing the matter with IDFG, I have not found this to be true. However, if anyone can cite legal authority on this matter I would be interested to follow up. I believe it to be a myth perpetuated by hunters. So it seems that it is perfectly legal to gather as many people as we want on public lands during wolf hunting season. We could have our own "wolf hunting" party, much in the same way that activist came between the dolphins and their killers recently in Japan. We would have to do the same thing. This will not be an opperation for the faint of heart as we may actually be witness to the slaughter of wolves anyway and will be in the presence of wolf hating hunters armed to the teeth. But I am convinced that if enough people know about it, they will come. It has been suggested that we open a page on my space to get the word out. I believe that we need to explore every legal avenue open to us. I am open to suggestions.
Chris,
There may be a point to your story if rats were an ecologically necessary keystone predator. But in fact most rats were brought to this country on ships.
Cathy,
You are right, when humankind dabbles with the order of things, inevitable change happens. But there is a real point in the story; nobody wants things that threaten them economically or physically in their back yard. All species should be given respect, including human kind.
I am so glad we live in a country where we can still openly debate such policy, and together effect change that will benefit all.
To Cathy
It sounds like a great idea (if it is legal). I would be willing to do this. Please tell me more about "Ralph's blog".
Uhhh, Cathy, you might want to read about the rat thing, someone is wielding a lot of power claiming they are very important and their habitat must be saved....in other folks homes of course.
First there is the "Preble mouse" that is being used to stop developers that might compete in the housing market and make homes more affordable and is also used to prevent planting of wheat on wheat farms because it interferes with their habitat.
I saw this today and realized Colorado Wyoming aren't the only places forced to raise rats.
http://www.pacificlegal.org/?mvcTask=pressReleases&id=883
By the way just how do you think they are going to hunt wolves when the time comes? You surely do not think the wolves are going to be standing in a field waiting for dozens of hunters and hundreds of enviros do you? That is hilarious. There will no hunting in the Lamar or Hayden you know.
I'd like to see you buy licenses and be required to take a pack home to where ever you live with each license.
Marion would you please just tell me straight why you don't like the wolves.
Comment By Cathy Bestland, 12-19-07Wolf
Ralph's blog is the Ralph Maughan Wolf Reports. You can Google it and when you get it click on "posted to my blog". Then put it in favorites. A lot of wolf issues get discussed there.
Marion.
Prebble mice are not rats. I'm sure they have some ecological value or there wouldn't be an effort to save them. I am also sure you would have absolutely no understanding about that. It surprises me though that you now trumpet the developers cause. You usually claim they are the cause of loss of wildlife habitat. When the time comes, I don't care how or where they hunt wolves. I guarantee you that I can hang with the best of them. I immagine most "enviros" can as well. They wouldn't have to require me to take them home. I would gladly volunteer. I live in some of the best wolf habitat in the country, although I don't think your wolf hunting buddies would appriciate your suggestion.
Wolf,
Marion doesn't like wolves for the same reason every other anti-wolfer/rancher doesn't like them. There is no real threat to their source of income or to their lives as they claim. They see the wolf as a symbol of the government or environmentalist interference in their lives. They think someone is trying to force them to accept something that will threaten their control of public lands and their ability to profit from them. They do not want to relinquish that control or their misguided belief that they have the right to dominate, exploit or destroy everything in their domain including what belongs to the public. Much in the same way that Old time southerners saw Civil Rights workers as a threat to their way of living. It is not the wolf itself, but what it represents.
Thanks Cathy for the "Ralph Maughan Wolf Reports". I checked it out a bit and it looks like a great cite. Thank you.
Also thanks for clearing up the fog with Marion. I guess I asked a rhetorical question. No matter how much evidence and facts we present the anti-wolf rednecks are still going to be anti-wolf rednecks. I'd love to participate with your plan for saving the wolves from hunters. Please keep me posted.
What kind of elitist bs is this calling anyone who does not agree with you a redneck? I pity your folks, what with a hundred million sperm to chose from and they got you.
Comment By Marion, 12-20-07Cathy, mice are of the rat family, period, so your contention that you should not have to preserve them is being hypocritical. Protected species is all about control of other people, and it is time to exert some over environmentalists.
Frankly I don't mind being called a redneck, we are the folks who work for a living. At least as a redneck, I can have some concern for those who have hundreds or thousands of dollars in uncompensated wolf losses taken away from them, while you folks seem to feel their families deserve to be robbed by your wolves.
Cathy, please describe how you envision a wolf hunt, I get the impression you think it will be much like the buffalo hunts, everyone all together in groups.
Hunting will never control the number of wolves we have now, it will take planes and or trapping. Even using those things Alaska cannot keep them under control. Unless disease wipes them out, they will continue to grow.
Yeah Marion,
And wolves are of the dog family. Why not eradicate all of them too. And thanks for making my point that it is not the wolves that are the problem but what they represent. As far as a wolf hunt, I don't know how it will unfolf. I guess I'll find out when I get there. You seem to know so much how many have you been on? Oh thats right, there haven't been any yet.
Wolf,
The other great thing about Ralph's blog is that it is a Marion Free zone. She is personna non gratta there.
Hey bearcrap........ I mean bearbait I believe I can say whatever I want. Besides I'm sure Marion doesn't mind me calling her a redneck anymore than I would mind if she called me an enviro, granola eating, tree hugging hippie; I take it is a compliment. I don't just call people who disagree with me rednecks, it's how they disagree. If I present all the evidence in the world and then my opponent presents their opinion and nothing else and then they continue to be closed minded then I call them rednecks. As for Marion's claim "hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncompensated wolf kills" this is not true. I don't know how many times I have to say this but ONLY 1.7% OF CATTLE LOSSES ARE DUE TO WOLVES in Idaho and that pathetic 1.7% is what is making the ranchers flip out even though that 1.7% is COMPENSATED for. Sources (Defenders of Wildlife) and the (Idaho FWS 2006 wolf report)
Comment By Marion, 12-20-07Cathy, you are so right, I am banned from Ralph's site as are most of those who disagree with him. I consider it a badge of honor that he is unable to debate facts, so must eliminate those with whom he disagrees. He must be a great professor with that attitude.
Wolf, I did not say hundreds of thousands, I said hundreds or thousands are what are lost by individual families. Ed Bangs estimates up to 9 animals are lost, but not "confirmed" for every one "confirmed", others estimate from 6 to 7. That loss comes directly out of the pockets of families working their tails off to make a living. That does not count a registered animal bought to improve a herd, it is market price if "confirmed".
What makes confirmation? Not wolves eating on a carcass, there must be enough tissue left to determine the extreme trauma that determines a wolf kill. If there is not enough trauma it is chalked up to bears or something else. It does not take one of the mega packs in the area long to consume so much of the soft tissue that it is impossible to determine that trauma. Of course the babies are either carried away or so rapidly consumed, that confirmation would be difficult even if one saw it happen. After the kill, while you guys are sitting on your behinds extolling the virtues of wolves, the rancher is trying to bury or other wise dispose of 30-50 head of sheep, or a couple of cows.
Marion,
You continually overlook one thing. The Rocky Mountain West is NOT cattle and sheep country. The arid ecosystems are too delicate to sustain them and the land is historically predator (wolf, bear and lion) country. It is the equivalent of opening a fish hatchery in the middle of the shark infested waters of the gulf of Mexico and then Not attending to them. If ranchers insist on running livestock there, they MUST be understand that they will lose some of them to predators. If they don't like the odds they should be willing to better guard their herds. After all, programs are available FOR FREE for them to take advantage of that will help with this problem. Defenders and Nature Conservancy both offer range rider assistance and trained guard dogs FOR FREE. Their refusal to avail themselves to these programs leads the observer to believe that the rancher does not want to protect his herds at all, but that he wants compensation without effort and wants to blame all his problems on the wolf which as we all know is a mere scapegoat for the ranchers hatred of environmentalist. Their hatred for the environmentalists exists only because the "enviros" have exposed the environmentally dissastrous consequences of ranching in the arid western ecosystems.
Marion,
You are wrong about the Wildlife Reports Blog. There are numerous dissenting opinions expressed there.
Gee, Cathy, where were you 140-150 years ago, all of the cattlemen who moved into this country from Texas, etc. and started cattle ranches, that are now successfully run by their descendants or others. Just because they were cattlemen and knew good feed when they saw it doesn't mean they had your expertise. Amazing.
As for the predators, we had more left in this area than anywhere else in the country, except Alaska, and we dealt with them. Granted there were no wolves wagging their tails and begging at the road in Hayden, but there were wolves even. The problem is environmentalists with lots of lawyers trying to take control of the land. In fact it was the elitist do gooder program that nearly destroyed the Yellowstone grizzlies. They closed all of the dumps at once, bears that didn't invade humans starved to death, but those that survived ate natural foods.
What about the east coast, you surely do not believe there were no predators there do you? They would be rather inconvenient there though huh?
And not because of cattle.
Go count the number of posters on Ralph's site and tell us how many opposing view points there are. It seems more like you are right if those who have different ideas are kept off. Sometimes those who oppose you are essentially holding a mirror up so you see what others see, and it isn't so pretty.
Marion.
What the Ranchers from Texas saw was FREE land that had been stolen from the Native Americans and given to them as an inticement for them to settle. And yes there were predators in the east but livestock did not have to be spread over thousands of acres to acquire enough forage to sustain them. They were kept in pasture that was capable of supporting them. They were not forced upon a land that could not sustain without suffering irreparable damage to that land. In the livestock compatable east it takes only 1 acre to feed 2 cows. Here in the west it can take as much as 50 acres to feed 1 cow. Most of the available forage in the west is within riparian areas which suffer the most because cattle congregate in them. Riparian area are (were) habitat for numerous forms of necessary wildlife. The entire ecosystem suffers when cattle are allowed to destroy them.
There are many apposing points of view on the Wildlife Reports blog. The only thing that is not tollerated is intentionally insulting or vulgar language.
All,
Again, it is so nice that we live in a country where things like this can be openly debated.
What is the next step, humankind has many differing opinions, how do we solve these differences? I used to think that the truth lay somewhere between opposing views, but have come to a new understanding…biology is not a point of view, but life. So the argument becomes over life, of many differing species including humankind.
Rather than federal or state control, a new idea is forming, and like anything forming is really in an infancy stage. Bioregionalism
The link below is to a piece from Jim Dodge on bioregionalism. Jim lived on my family’s ranch (a large cattle ranch), and has had much direct observation, education, and interaction with politics, philosophy, and biology. Although the piece does not address wolves directly, it introduces the idea of how we are the stewards of earth.
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/envphilsummer/readings/Wk12Bioregionalism/dodge.pdf
I would take the position that it should not be majority rule from a federal or state level, or even “best science” of the year, but regional stewardship. Like the piece from Jim states, bioregionalism is yet to be defined let alone followed.
Chris
Cathy,
Idaho 2007 Big Game Regulations page 16, " It is Unlawful to Intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or lawful predator control by another"
Chriss,
Very interesting read. I take it the peice was written some years ago. I believe this Bioregionalism theory has morphed into current progressive environmentalism. A good example of this would be the book "Welfare Ranching, the subsidized destruction of the American West" by a collection of conservationists and environmentalists and edited by George Weurthner and Mollie Matteson. I think you will appriciate it if you haven't read it already. In it you will find an enlightening combination of environmentalism, spiritualism and economic/poitical information.
In Jim Dodge's peice I was particularly impressed and in agreement with his observations that we do not save certain species out of a sentamental desire but the realization that with out them we are "diminished" on every level. And that we cannot survive if the natural systems that sustain us are destroyed. The point that affluence can be attained either by the environmentally unhealthy practice of increased production or reducing the need is certainly applicable with extractive industries of the west including ranching. It is certainly true that "bioregional/environmental process represent intelligence, excellence and care" I cannot help but also believe that the "heartlessness" (of extractive industries including ranching) "represents a greed so lifeless and foresaken, it can't even pass for ignorance" parenthasis mine. All in all an excellent peice.
Shane,
"Rats" We'll have to work around the interference.
To Marion,
Ed Bangs made an ESTIMATE when the 2006 Idaho FWS wolf report came out (that he helped orcastrate) he found that he was mistaken. Livestock losses due to wolves are exaggerated. Because you seem so keen on protecting the ranchers point of view I have some questions I'd liked answered. Are you a rancher? If you are were is this ranch? Have you lost any livestock to wolves? Biologists were astounded when the livestock depredations were less than half of what they'd expected after the first years of the wolves reintroduction. Wolves don't cause enough damage to start hunting them.
Another interesting point: Domestic dogs kill more livestock than wolves.
Comment By Marion, 12-20-07Wolf, my history is well known on these sites. I have never lost an animal to a wolf, I have lost bum lambs to coyotes. To me it is an ugly painful sight to behold the body or what is left. I guess to you it is exciting to hear the screams of the animals and watch them being eaten alive, at least that seems to be the case with those who thrill to the kill in the Lamar.
Aside for the compassion for families who face financial difficulties for the uncompensated losses, that affects the communities they live in too. They must cut back on purchases they make, and that trickles down thru the community, which really can be an impact if several different ranchers are hit hard.
I have not heard anything about how fast DOW pays (the paperwork puts IRS to shame), but I was at a meeting in June of 2006 and some payments were as much as 2-3 years of waiting despite being "confirmed". How'd you like to wait that long if your car was totaled or a fire consumed your house?
By the way Cathy, it doesn't matter if you kept your livestock in cages, the fact remains virtually ALL predators were eliminated in the east, we didn't, we have always had all of the predators, including wolves....there just were not "enough"....and still aren't for those who live by demanding more and more.
Again, I remind you that a lot of the land you are talking about is private land. You may be able to force the economy of the west from agriculture (food production) to trophy homes, but you will be the ones totally out in the cold when you cannot access public land at all instead of sharing. How wildlife and the land will fare in that new world is anyone's guess. While you are working so hard to destroy the agriculture way of life out here, more of the land is being sold every day.
Marion, you're always threatening that the choice is either ranching or trophy homes--as if ranchers don't have any responsibility for what happens. Isn't this a free country? If ranchers are all so concerned about subdivisions and trophy homes than why do they sell to a developer? I get tire of this club of subdivision threat being used all the time to silence any critics of livestock production. Ranchers have a choice. Any rancher can put a conservation easement on their property and no one will be able to develop it. It's time for ranchers to take some responsibility for their own decisions.
Comment By Cathy Bestland, 12-20-07Marion,
I know lots of ranchers that live in "trophy homes". There is a big reason why the east cannot support the number of reintroduced wolves as the west. It is called POPULATION DENSITY. Even so there are several wolf reintroduction programs in eastern states. You don't hear anyone complaining about them.
So we should feel more pity for the poor animals who die naturally to feed predators than we do for those who suffer horrendous torture in transport to slaughter houses and filthy holding pens for days and even weeks before they are slaughtered, often with broken and mangled limbs?
sorry, George, jsut how do you expect a rancher to make a living by putting conservation easements on his land that will limit his options? He is still going to be a target if he does what he has always done and raises cows.
Pray tell why he should take lesser money to provide an exclusive paradise for enviros, the very ones that are doing their best to chase them off their land? Encorage ranchers, they share their private land with wildlife and provide critical habitat and food and water, but you want them gone, if so then take what comes!
Marion states in reference to ranchers"...but you want them gone, if so then take what comes!" Take what? Restored ecosystems on our public lands, clean water sources, abundant and well ballanced wildlife populations, less greenhouse gasses, less taxes paid out in subsidies to ranchers, restored populations of endangered species???? We'll take it. Gladly.
Comment By Marion, 12-20-07....and the trophy properties that lock folks out, and unfortuantely the wildlife too.
Comment By No Secret, a wolf fan, 12-21-07Go vegetarian/vegan and the economic impact on food animal producers, which include ranchers, will lessen due to the market. And, reduce/end misery for food farm animals, as less animal-based products are consumed by us humans. Less public land used for grazing means more land for wildlife and wolves won't be competing with humans, as much, of course. With conservation easement opportunities, more and more land is conserved. The mentality of culling and "harvesting" animals of all kinds, is the old, tired and nasty way of thinking and sustains the attitude of commodifying animals into objects to destroy by some. I will never understand the "joy" some folks get when they "bag an animal". If someone was doing this to humans, they would be socio-paths and murderers.
Comment By Chuck, 12-21-07Marion I need for you to tell who did the land belong to before the ranchers stole it??? The ranchers have a had a free ride long enuff, its high they get their cattle off of public land, if they can't make an honest living and not rely on government handouts, then move on rancher.
Comment By Marion, 12-21-07Chuck and no name, you are doing a fine job of getting rid of the food producers (not all of us want to be vegetarians, and last I knew we were supposed to be free to choose what to eat). Once you get rid of the cows, pat yourselves on the back and do not complain about the big trophy home developments that shut off your access to your "me only" wildernesses. Of course thsoe developments will never be able to sustain the wildlife that the rancher did, but that will be fine with you, getting rid of independent ranchers is the goal, not preserving wildlife.
Chuck I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone has stolen their ranches, any more than you stole your home.
No Secret,
I agree 100% with the vegetarian lifestyle. I have been one for 17 yrs. I encourage everyone to switch from the violent beef based diet. I started by just cutting out beef and found that it was then easy to eliminate other meats from my diet.
Marion,- "Trophy Developements" as you call them are no worse than cattle ranches as far as the public accessing the land. They are built on private property which generally was formerly private ranches. I live next to one. The first thing they did was the very wildlife action of removing hundreds of miles of barbed wire. Everyone in the area (including ranchers) agree that there are more deer and elk here than before. The previous owners (ranchers) killed the elk anytime they wanted to because the elk competed with their cows for forage. Private developements CAN NOT shut off anyone's access to public lands. And that is the issue here. Privately owned livestock destroying PUBLIC lands. The "ME ONLY" wilderness is of course open to anyone who would respect the land including ranchers who will put out enough effort to enjoy it. (Without their cows of course)
I'll tell you where Chuck and everyone gets the idea that the ranches were stolen. FROM HISTORY, something you would know if you ever bothered to crack open a book. All lands in the west were wrenched,often in bloody massacres from the Native Americans who owned it, by the US Calvary and distributed (for free) in enormous parcels, to anyone who was willing to settle there. It had nothing to do with the suitability of the land for cattle ranching. It was free land and those displaced by the Civil War, and the Mexican American War among other reasons were more than willing to take advantage of the missfortune of Native Americans. When Native Americans were torn away from their homes, so went the respect for the land. It became home to the largest greed based and environmentally distructive industry the world has ever known. The Cattle Industry. This also, is something you would know if you ever bothered to read any of the scinetific information availablle.
I thought this was a very sound article. The discussion though, sounds more like a gang bang with Marion on the losing end. I'd like to ask all commentors if you've ever had a wolf encounter in the back country.
I'm not asking if you've heard a wolf howl on a war summer full moon night (que the strings.) But an encounter where you could see more than one wolf at a time or felt a wolf you saw had an observational intrest in you.
Cowboy,
If you are in the woods in wolf country, you can bet there are wolves that take and interest in you. Not that they want to eat you, but out of warriness and concern. The same is true of any predator bears, lions, if you are in their territory, you can be sure they know it.
And from today's Anchorage paper:
"Wolves blamed in two Eagle River attacks. A KTVA Channel 11 story reports on a group of at least seven wolves that waylaid three women running with their dogs on Artillery Road in Eagle River. The pack, despite being pepper-sprayed by one of the women, circled the group for a time before attacking and injuring one of the dogs, according to the story.
The women were not hurt in the episode, but a bulldog, Buddy, underwent surgery to fix his wounds. “They were not afraid of us, and I’m afraid that if I was out here by myself, they would attack me,” Buddy’s owner, Camas Barkemeyer, says in the story.
The rest of the article is here
http://www.adn.com/newsreader/story/243761.html
Marion,
It is a known fact that wolves will go after dogs. It is a territorial thing. This is nothing new. Notice NONE of the women were harmed. Everyone should be aware of this fact if they live in wolf country. If the wolves had wanted to, they could have easily killed all of the women. Would you go swimming with your dog in shark infested waters????
Marion,
This is more pertinent information which states that in the last 10 years 28 People have been killed by CATTLE.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais35.pdf
Marion,
Here is another study cunducted between 1992 ande 1997 that states that cattle are responsible for 142 deaths in the US. The first study was in the UK
http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=012&issue=03&page=0168#i1080-6032-012-03-0168-t01
Cathy, not only would I not swim with my dog in shark infested waters, neither would I force other people to put sharks in their swimming pools
As for the cattle, stay out of strange pastures.
Hey Marion I do not enjoy pain or suffering, the fact is that wolves have to kill to survive. Marion, there is no reason to get rid of the wolves. They're here to stay.
To Cowboy in Idaho,
I've seen wolves in captivity and once in the wild, there is nothing quite like it. When you gaze into their eyes, you can see such a sense of understanding, such beauty, such wisdom. They belong here.
Marion
Those wolves are in their own territory. It is the rancher who has invaded the wolf's territory with cattle. I guess you could say that the rancher dove head first into wolf infested waters. With all his cows. If you don't want confromtation with wolves, don't take dogs into known wolf territory. According to the report it was the handlers that were killed by the cattle. Murderous beasts, to kill the hand(ler) that feeds them.
The point is that there are no known fatalities due to wolves in North America. Cattle kill lots of people. Lets step up our campaign to get rid of the dangerous beast.
Whoa, Cathy, you are getting carried away, what about the young man in Canada that was killed and eaten by wolves? Granted a wolf loving "expert" tried to blame the death on a hibernating bear in February that no one had ever seen, based on 1 melted tract that was not definable.
We are no more in wolf territory than any other state in the union, including the cities that have "too high a population density". Just another excuse for NIMBY. so much for keystone species, if it is only necessary where it will serve the purpose of eliminating an industry that you don't like.
I guess not. I'd really suggest that people on both sides of this discussion get off thei respective soap boxes and spend some in close proximity to wild wolves. Let'em watch you, track you, be surrounded by a circling growling pack.
Comments like this "If you are in the woods in wolf country, you can bet there are wolves that take and interest in you. Not that they want to eat you, but out of warriness and concern. The same is true of any predator bears, lions, if you are in their territory, you can be sure they know it." are true to a point.
Wolves do not "want" to eat "you", but if chance and circumstance are on their side they will.
and comments like this:
"I've seen wolves in captivity and once in the wild, there is nothing quite like it. When you gaze into their eyes, you can see such a sense of understanding, such beauty, such wisdom. They belong here."
I beleive they have a place here as well. But thoughts like these are romantic nonsense.
Cowboy,
Perhaps those who have been conditioned to consider the presence of the wolf a threat would take it that way. Childhood stories like "Little Red Riding Hood" and the "Three Little Pigs" have conditioned people to always be threatened by wolves. My experience has been different. In the few chance encounters I have experienced, I am struck with awe. Of course I have been in the company of others and without dogs or horses. I felt a sense of ecological completeness, not threatened in any way. The book "Predatory Bureaucracy" recounts numerous experiences of early westerners having VERY close encounters with wolves, and none of them were frightening. A little bothersome maybe as some of them had wolves chew on the very saddles on which they rested their heads as they slept. I believe it is a matter of conditioning.
Cattle on the other hand are KNOWN people killers. Maybe ranchers should be required to put up a Huge bond (in terms of Millions) in order to run these dangerous animals on public lands where people hike and children play. Cattle are a "Clear and Present Danger" on our public lands. The statistics speak for themselves. Marion once suggested that a bond shoud be placed by environmentalists for wolf reintroduction.
Marion- This is another case where you should READ before you blab your mouth. Of course ALL the land in the Rocky Mountain West is historical wolf territory. The Federal government has designated the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as current wolf territory by the act of re-introduction to those states.
I will start out this way."I felt a sense of ecological completeness, not threatened in any way."
My calving time is coming/ In February and March most of my calves are born and Cathy is right. It is a time ogf awe and wonder. I do feel a sense "of ecological completeness, not threatened in any way." Except of course by the Moma cows as they defend their babies against the injection I give to save their lives.
Cathy you come here to my ranch and you watch them "killer cows" be born. If after you have done that and watched the calf struggle to its feet, to nurse at a patiently waiting cow who has just tried to run you off with every power she has in her body and mind, then I will hand you a rifle and you can kill them both. If you like.
What I'm saying here folks, is it seems to me from the course of discussion is, there is very little REAL experince here.
I will be glad to take anyone in this discussion group to have a talk with wolves. I will take you to where the wolves live, I will see you are adequately supplied with shelter and food. And I will leave you there until the discussion has ended.
Any takers?
Cathy, here's a video you will probably enjoy no end.
http://community.adn.com/mini_apps/vmix/player.php?ID=1611172
Cowboy, there is only one thing I know that is sweeter than a new baby calf, that's a new baby lamb. well one of my sons was given an orphaned baby pig, and that was pretty cute too.
Cowboy,
I worked for the largest cattle rancher in Southwestern Colorado. I have sat through many a night during calving season. I have also bred and raised Thoroughbred horses all of my life. I agree there is nothing sweeter than being a part of a new beings first moments on this earth. If you feel as I do about the sacredness of these new lives, how can you turn around send them off to slaughter.
I'm not quite sure what point your are trying to make about leaving someone well supplied and sheltered where wolves live. That sounds like paradise to me. You'd be leaving me there a LONG time.
Marion- you're wrong about the babies. Foals are sweeter than almost any other animal. Except maybe a beagle puppy. Or a kitten.
Actually humans babies are without a doubt the most beautiful, and I've delivered hundreds of them.
I still think lambs are the cutest.
Fawns
Comment By Cowboy in Idaho, 12-22-07"how can you turn around send them off to slaughter." Cause they taste good.
"You'd be leaving me there a LONG time." as long as you lasted.
Many here seem to forgt that wolves are predators.
[pred-uh-ter, -tawrz] Pronunciation Key - –noun 1. Zoology. any organism that exists by preying upon other organisms.
They have no tender feelings for humans. They don't care if you support their rights or defend their presence here. You are prey. More dangerous than most, but prey all the same. It is only a matter of time until that a becomes a fact here in Idaho, or Montana or Wyoming or wherever woves and humans interact.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/11/01/wolf-verdict.html
Cowboy, I have to chuckle, you realize one of the things that is objected to in the Wyoming plan is that we call wolves predators, imagine that and want to manage them as predators. Here these folks seem to believe they are Gods put upon the earth to rid it of ranchers, they are stunned that anyone would consider them a "predator".
Comment By Wolf, 12-22-07Marion, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that video. It looked to me like you were supporting my point. NONE OF THE WOMEN WERE TOUCHED. As for that young man that you said was killed in Canada I can confirm that. That young man was killed in winter in Saskatchewan Canada. Biologists think that there is a 99.9% likely hood that the wolves killed him. I do believe the wolves killed him. The fact still stands that "there has never been a recorded case of a HEALTHY wolf attacking a human sense Europeans first came to this continent". Even anti-wolf outdoor magazines admit that the wolves that killed the man were not healthy and that they were used to humans.
Cowboy in Idaho- Its not romantic crap, what I said before. You talked about experience. Have you seen wolves up close? Have you made eye contact with them? As for your offer- I live in Idaho, I'll give you my address, I'm looking forward to it. Does your offer still stand?
Wolf, you seem very similar to Ryan Tannenholz, aka Lone Wolf, that commented here: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/idahoan_wants_offing_wolves_on_the_ballot/
The arguments, and the credentials of the experts, have not changed.
I said the following on the previous wolf column:
By Craig Moore, 7-02-06
This report seems to sum up much of the wolf story. http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=6 It is written by Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. in wildlife ecology, adjunct professor of political science at Utah State University, and a Research Fellow for the Independent Institute
Table of Contents
• Number of Wolves
• Do Wolves Limit Ungulate Numbers?
• Do Predators Limit Hunting Opportunities?
• Wolf Control
• Livestock Predation
• Why Should Wolves Be Reintoduced to Yellowstone?
• Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in Yellowstone
• The Envirnomental Impact Statement
• Hidden Agendas
• Epilogue
• References
By Craig Moore, 7-03-06
Ryan, you wrote, "I am not an ignorant wolf advocate." In addition to all your inaccuracies that I pointed out aren't you the one who erroneously believes, "...bobcats are bigger then a wolf..." It's those types of distortions that leave me shaking my head. In my opinion, wolves are to you what the snail darter was to those trying to stop dam building. Both are starking horses to some other issue. In your case, seething venom for hunters and ranchers is revealed in your comments. That's what Dr. Kay was pointing at when he wrote: >>As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, “wolf recovery is [only] a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change.” Even environmentalists have admitted that “on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. [Instead] it is about control of the west” (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmental-ists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and antihunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife. Is this what Congress had in mind when it passed the Endangered Species Act? There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it is.<<