Documentary Looks at Wolf Reintroduction
Of Wolves & Men: An Interview with William Campbell
By David Nolt, 2-04-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: All photos by William Campbell. | |
|
No wildlife species is as iconic and controversial as the wolf. Canis Lupus is a symbol of wildness and healthy ecosystems to some, but to others it is a callous killer and an economic threat.
Loathed and loved, the American Gray Wolf has gone through a tumultuous history in the West. They were hunted as vermin to virtual extinction by the early 20th Century, reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, and now are around 1,500-strong across the Northern Rockies. Biologists say wolves are officially recovered in the West and should be removed from the Endangered Species List, but – true to form – disagreements over wolf management between pro-wolf and anti-wolf groups has delisting at a standstill.
In 1999, journalist William Campbell began a documentary film to tell the story of what wolf reintroduction meant for people living in wolf territory. The result, “Wolves in Paradise,” sheds invaluable light on this story, giving a face and a voice to the many people trying to live with this species.
Campbell’s documentary follows wolf reintroduction and wolf recovery outside of Yellowstone National Park, into the Paradise and Madison Valleys where wolves encounter cattle, ranchers, environmentalists, federal officials and landscapes steadily succumbing to rural subdivisions and vacation homes.
In the Paradise Valley, the Davis family learns firsthand how wolves can affect a small ranch. In the Madison Valley, Sun Ranch owner and former Silicon Valley executive Roger Lang launches a well-funded experiment to better learn how to ranch with wolves. Feeling the effects of the Western migration firsthand, Madison Valley ranchers turn proactive on growth and form the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group. And environmentalists – often at odds with ranchers – begin to change their strategies in an effort to help both wolves and ranchers.
In an issue often convoluted by polarization and simplistic caricatures, Campbell’s film gives viewers an intimate look into the lives of those involved in this unprecedented story. “Wolves in Paradise” captures the beauty and wildness of the Greater Yellowstone Area, the tenacity and grace of the many different people living around the nation’s first National Park and the flurry of changes confronting both people and wildlife in this area.
William Campbell recently took time for an interview with NewWest.Net from his Livingston, Montana office.
How did this project begin?
I was covering land-use issues around Yellowstone, and part of that included the reintroduced Yellowstone wolves. I basically let the animals take me to meet the people. In most cases it was due to conflict situations, but over a period of years I got to know members of the ranching community, the federal wolf managers and a lot of the environmental community. Living here gave me the opportunity to be a fly on the wall in the whole process.
The purpose of the show was to let viewers see what the ranching community has to tolerate and what they’re up against living with wolves. Living with wolves is not easy. What often happens to a small rancher can also happen to a conservation landowner like Roger Lang, who has lots of resources. There’s not an easy solution.
For me, it wasn’t a form of self-expression. I was basically taking the time to give back to the community what I’d observed over the last eight years. It was one of those situations where, although I work for the national media, I thought this documentary could be something that would be very useful locally to help create a dialog for people trying to live with wolves in the years to come.
Did you have any preconceptions about people on either side of this issue, and what did you learn about the people involved in this?
Yeah. When I first started the ranchers were so incredibly vocal against the wolves, at least in the local press and with some of them you’d meet. I went to a branding in ’99 at the Davis Ranch. There were all these neighbors – a lot more of them were in the cattle business then than there are now – so I was assuming the conversation would be wolves, wolves, wolves, but actually wolves didn’t even come up until much later in the afternoon. And this was after Martin had a run-in with wolves.
What I discovered is ranchers are part of the fabric of why we like Montana, especially the smaller ranches. The big corporate ranches don’t add much to the mystique or flavor of the place. It’s the smaller rancher that keeps 2,000 acres open and a couple hundred head of cows.
The Davis family was obviously a very important part of the film. When you first introduce them you show the “Wolves: Government-sponsored terrorists” bumper sticker. You have Martin saying “Wolves and livestock don’t mix,” yet as it goes on you get to see they’re very likeable, thoughtful people just trying to get by in a lifestyle they really love. Do you think the Martins are pretty representative of ranchers?
I do. Martin is very articulate and a very well-spoken, thoughtful person. But I wouldn’t have focused on someone like that if I felt he was one rancher that was different from all the rest. They’re all very decent, nice people. It made sense to cover him because he was constantly moving his cattle onto his private summer pasture in wolf territory – to follow one season where we had no idea what would happen – and also follow the cattle operation at Roger Lang’s Sun Ranch during the same summer.
Talk a little bit about Roger Lang (owner of the Sun Ranch in the Madison Valley) who is definitely representative of non-traditional landowners in the New West.
He’s more progressive than most landowners. One of the things I didn’t get into too deeply was the changing economics of the land. Traditionally, the ranchers in a place like Paradise Valley would expand their ranches by buying their neighbors’. Now it’s impossible to do that; the land prices are such that the last family-owned ranch in either the Paradise or Madison Valleys to expand their ranch by buying their neighbors happened maybe 10 or 12 years ago. The land prices are such that you can’t buy land and make money running cows on it.
In terms of large parcels of land, what we’re seeing out here is people investing in real estate. It’s become an investment for people, and depending on their interests, they can do various things with it. Some close it off and manage the land as a traditional cattle ranch. Others like Roger Lang want to be part of the ranching community and to be part of the conservation community as well.
It seems there is definitely ground being covered on that. One thing I really got from this movie is that this issue and the people involved are not merely black and white. Ten years since wolf reintroduction, have we covered ground here?
We have, and it’s a really good thing to see. When I first started covering the wolf reintroduction, ranchers and environmentalists were at loggerheads. I had people in the environmental community who thought I was a complete jerk for talking to the ranchers and the feds.
Over the last five years we have seen a lot of ranches turning into subdivisions. There is the issue of preserving open space. When you look at 2,000 acres in the Paradise Valley, you would rather see a ranch than a housing development.
Martin Davis started to notice the change. In the show he says, “I’m starting to hear the environmental folks say ‘I like wolves but I like ranchers too. Where there is a ranch there is open space.’” I saw the change as well. There was even a recent essay in the Patagonia catalogue challenging the environmental community to listen to the ranching community.
Some of the smaller, local conservation groups like Keystone Conservation saw a need to work with the ranching community. GYC is working with ranchers. I think that’s a breakthrough. Someone like Janelle Holden – who is the daughter of a rancher and knows the talk and respects them – I think it shows in the way she approaches them and works with them. I think because of that, the ranching community will be much more amenable to accepting help on their land if they have problems with wolves.
I think the ranchers feel more included now. Number one, they were involved in the state wolf plan. Two, they have more control over what they can do if they do see wolves harassing their livestock. I think at the same time they also feel that they’re no longer pariahs in the eyes of the conservation community. They’re getting a little bit of respect.
There is still tension. There isn’t a big Kum-By-Ya, but the wolves are bringing different sides together.
How effective do you think the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group has been?
I haven’t done a serious amount of reporting on them, but I think they’ve been very effective by making newcomers aware to the whole idea of development. There is some dissent amongst the landowners there, but by-and-large they’ve managed to take the idea of development and at least have some sort of say in how land is going to be developed by engaging the newcomers. When someone buys a parcel of land, they automatically get a free membership to the Madison Valley Ranchlands Group and a subscription to the newsletter. So, you immediately feel you’ve been invited to the table, as Roger Lang says.
What do you think the future holds for wildlife in the Paradise and Madison Valleys in respect to subdivisions and development?
The more subdivisions you get the more fences you get. It will tend to push more of the wildlife onto the smaller ranches. It will just concentrate the conflict. It’s really hard to tell what’s going to happen with wolves.
Do you think any of the deterrents are working in regards to preventing cattle depredations?
There were about 60 wolves killed by the time I finished filming in 2006. There are some deterrents that are effective at certain times of the year. They do know that a human presence is a great deterrent, but you can’t have people out there all the time. The range rider program tries to keep people out with the cows on federal and some private land. They know that flaggery [red cloth streamers on fence lines] can be effective if used correctly.
During the first 10 years after introduction the wolves were pampered. They came in and moved around through the valleys, and the ranchers didn’t want to be involved in the federal program at that point by trying to haze the wolves. Over the last few years they’ve become a bit more involved because they realize, “These damn things aren’t going away so we might as well try and scare them.” The idea is to make wolves wary of people, and that’s what they should be if they’re going to be wild.
One way to look at it is to look at how many wolves are actually around and on the landscape outside the park. There are a lot, but if you look at how many depredations there are, there really haven’t been that many. But one of the things I discovered is that I don’t think we found one pack of wolves that weren’t involved in some sort of livestock depredation. Some did it one year and not the next.
How is compensation working? It seems like a no-brainer to help ranchers deal with depredations.
They don’t feel the compensation has been sufficient. Many ranchers that have wolf problems believe they have lost more cattle to wolves than they can prove. They get market value for a loss but if you figure all the time it took reporting the depredation, protecting the scene, returning with the Wildlife Services agent, and then moving the cows, it’s not that much. I think it’s going to be easier for them to accept the compensation run by the state if the wolves are delisted because it will be a compensation program designed by ranchers.
How do they compensate for stressed cattle?
They don’t have a program to compensate for weight loss due to stress. In some cases, stress from wolves is a bigger problem than depredation
Wolves were obviously here before us. Isn’t that just part of ranching in this area?
Yes, but part of ranching in this area was killing wolves in order to make this place accessible to ranching. They weren’t just killed by the ranchers; ranchers didn’t have the time to kill all the wolves. The U.S. Biological Service – the government – killed the last wolves. They were removed in order to make ranching a viable business out here.
Roger Lang talks about how he grew up in California with the idea that cows are bad. They are certainly a non-native species with significant impacts on the land.
It’s true. I think that there are a lot of people who are questioning whether cows should even be on the landscape in the New West and whether or not you can make enough money to make ranching worthwhile. To a rancher that’s been in the business for a long time and owns their land, ranching is a way of life and a viable business. But as the land changes hands at the current prices, the economics of running cows in wolf territory will be challenging.
The Sun Ranch is in an area that is like a funnel to all the wildlife in that region, so they have huge herds of elk that move through that land. They have antelope, deer, grizzly bears. It’s like a little Yellowstone just because of the way the land is situated. Lang uses those cows and moves them around to keep the grass down and the range healthy. But in the long-term, whether or not it’s financially viable to run cows in a place with wolves is still up in the air.
How do you think the three states’ (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) plans will deal with the situation?
They all have different plans according to state politics. Montana formed a state wolf group back under Gov. Racicot, and they got representatives of the environmental community and ranchers together. Also, because wildlife is so much a part of daily life in Montana and the fact that there were naturally occurring wolves earlier up in the northern part of the state – I think Montana just addressed the wolf issue earlier. For that reason, Montana politicians aren’t so politically shrill about wolves.
The government line for wolves In Montana is, “We want to treat them like any other wildlife.” That’s a far different cry from, “They’re a varmint. We want to wipe them all out.” That has been the approach in Wyoming. The feds rejected the original Wyoming wolf plan. They now have an area around Yellowstone and the Tetons where wolves will be treated as a trophy game animal with a controlled hunting season. But for the rest of Wyoming they will be treated like coyotes and you can shoot them on sight with no permits. But until the wolves are delisted, they are still protected under the ESA.
In Idaho they have a plan that will meet the federal requirements for delisting. But, the governor has been quoted as saying he will buy the first hunting permit in an attempt to reduce the population to the minimum federal numbers.
The rewriting of the 10-J rule this year will allow states to take action against wolves that they feel are threatening wild game populations. I think we’re going to see a large number of wolves killed fairly quickly in Wyoming and Idaho. Montana doesn’t have any current plans for population control to protect elk herds, but that could change.
So, if you have a keystone species that can be a bit more delicate than other species around here and you have the challenges with ranching and development and soon hunting, do you think there is a possibility that wolves could be hunted right back to the brink of extinction?
We’ll have to wait and see. In Montana, that probably wouldn’t happen under the current administration. Depending on a particular state’s aggressiveness, if they kill too many wolves, they’re in danger of getting them re-listed as an endangered species again. There are biologists that feel that hunting wolvers will make them more wary of people.
In the film, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Biologist Doug Smith very eloquently explains the controversial nature of wolves. They have this reputation as just awful beasts that will stalk children and torture prey without even eating it. You spent a lot of time around wolves on this project. What’s your take on the myths surrounding wolves and the reality?
Wolves do have a mythical reputation. It is interesting to look at how ranchers see wolves and grizzly bears. A lot of ranchers admire grizzly bears. They dislike what they can do to their livestock, but at the same time they have a bit more respect for the grizzly because they kill quicker and they’re a loner; they rarely kill more than they can eat.
Wolves hunt in packs. The way they kill is not clean. To take down a heifer may take hours. So, the ranchers will say, “You may think this is strange because we’re raising these cows to send them to slaughter, but at the same time we don’t want to see them tortured.” You can understand, in a way, why there’s this animosity. But at the same time, it’s like Doug says: They’re living with a reputation that is undeserved. Most of the time they aren’t in any trouble.
Wolves are going to be here for the foreseeable future. What is the benefit of having wolves on the landscape both for people and the environment?
I feel that we’re really lucky to live in a place where we have wolves and grizzly bears. There are few places in the lower 48 that have all the animals that we have around us at all time. Having wolves back on the land changes the dynamics of all the ungulates. Now there’s a natural predator that hunts them. It makes the landscape whole again.
Unfortunately, southwest Montana is not that wild anymore; this isn’t Alaska or northern Canada. There really aren’t a lot of places for wolves to wander where they won’t come into contact with people or livestock.
-----------------
On Friday, February 8th, the Park County Environmental Council will screen “Wolves in Paradise” at the Livingston Depot at 7 p.m. Following the screening, the public will have the chance to interact with a panel including Yellowstone National Park Wolf Program Director Doug Smith; Former Sun Ranch manager and Greater Yellowstone Coalition Board of Directors President Todd Graham; Montana Wolf Coordinator Carolyn Sime; Paradise Valley rancher Martin Davis; Paradise Valley Rancher Bob Weber; Keystone Conservation Director Janelle Holden; and State Representative and Paradise Valley rancher Bruce Malcolm.
“Wolves in Paradise” was produced by Homefire Productions and KSUM/Montana PBS for the Independent Television Service (ITVS) with funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Humanities Montana, and the Greater Montana Foundation. National broadcast on PBS Plus is scheduled for December 2008.
[End of article]Contrary to what William Campbell has to say, Non-Lethal Methods and Predator Friendly Ranching Practices to prevent depredations without loss of life to either side have been highly successful.
Through the use of cattle rotation, fladry, llamas, livestock protection dogs, many places have reported success.
http://www.heartofthewolf.org/source.html
As far as Doug Smith, he supports the destruction of Wolves. He isn't the advocate of Wolves as this article tries to claim.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/233/yellowstone-wolves.html
And on top of that his book Decade of the Wolf, supports the USFWS and it's members who have been responsible for the destruction of Wolves in weekly livestock issues.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Be wary of this film since the facts have been overshadowed.
Mike Wagner
Founder and Director of Heart of the Wolf Organization
http://www.heartofthewolf.org
I would love to see the movie and how it is presented. One really interesting thing would be to see how Lang was presented in the film compared to his actions when he too was actually impacted negatively by wolves and killed two of them, one in a most brutal way.
One thing never really addressed by anyone is how much of the negative attitudes have been fueled by the heavy handed approach of the feds and enviros in planting the wolves in the middle of ranching communities where they could do the maximum amount of damage. Wolves have done considerable damage to individual ranch families to be sure, but to me the most egregious thing is anyone imposing a dangerous destructive animal on other people for their own entertainment. For anyone to be able to do this is a real assault on American values.
Wolves also use landscapes in ways that teach us the importance of ecosystem connectivity. Biological connecting corridors are key elements in any (protection/restoration) strategy that considers the "big picture." Habitat security is critical to the long-term viability of a living, breathing Northern Rockies bioregion. Wolves will thrive if habitat is not impaired. The relationship between impaired habitat and "problem" wolves needs a generous amount of new inquiry and understanding.
Comment By bearbait, 2-04-08Until you read Will Graves' "Wolves in Russia:Anxiety Through the Ages", this very short term experimental wolf release and any conclusions that might be drawn at this time are premature and without scientific merit. Essentially, what has happened is an exotic predator has been released into virgin territory for those animals, with none of the prey or prey managers are well prepared to deal with the results. Those results are ongoing, and responses are fluid as well.
Graves' book is not science, but more a very detailed historical report on wolf-man interaction, noting depredation of livestock as being a very forceful livelihood impact on humans over the course of written history. The long history of gun control in Europe and Asia left peasants without defenses to control wolves. Fladry is a Russian invention to direct wolves to stationed government shooters, much like the Crow people directed buffalo to jumps with long brush fences anchored by stones. If the government hunted wolves with consistency, then Russian peasants lived better lives, had less conflict with livestock and wolves, and there was more game, healthier game, in the forests. The Russian experience is of wolves being a vector for parasites and disease, with livestock and game suffering in times of high wolf abundance.
Graves, who spent time in his younger years working in Mexico in a joint US effort to control cattle diseases, learned Russian in his military job, and studied wolves in Russian literature and journals, and in civil and church records, whilel he lived in Russia, as a way to hone his skills in Russian language. "Wolves in Russia" presents a far different view of wolves, and rejects the "myth" explanation for European fear of wolves with actual records. My take from the book is that this very, very recent introduction of MacKenzie Valley subspecies wolves from northern Canada is an evolving story, one that has many implications to how life is lived in the New West in the future. Not all will be fairy tales of goodness and wonderment.
Steve, how about you give up your habitat for the wolves instead of taking other folks habitat away to give to them?
Be sure and take a trip to Yellowstone next year to see the wonders wrought on the Yellowstone elk herds by the wolves, if you can find any elk herds that is.
BB, you will totally ruin the lives of wolfers if they have to read the truth about wolves. For so very long they have believed in fairy tales so strongly that they think that is why ranchers get upset when they find their animals killed. It surely is a mirage, wolves are wonderful, and would never kill all of those animals.
I'd have to see the movie as well. Don't expect to like it much.
The reason the outcry has declined is just time -- wasted time. No matter how loud a rancher might scream, no matter how many lawyers may be hired, the law and demographics have rendered the agricultural community powerless. Congress really has failed the people in its duty to respect the rights of citizens in regards to policies that affect those citizens. Ranchers are hosed, they now know that, so the options are to either sell to a movie star or Silicon Valley tycoon or subdivide.
The environmentalists only now understand what they are reaping. Way to go, smarties. Keep up the good work.
Compensation has fallen well short of the hype. In fact, it's funded by a family foundation, not directly by Defenders. But the media fell for the spin like a brick outhouse falling from orbit.
Now the burden for compensation is about to fall upon state sportspeople. They have less of a reason to buy a tag and hunt, and will be paying to "manage" a species not with wolf tags, but out of general game management funds. A total rip, in at least two ways.
Wyoming is the only state that has the approach correct. They have conceded a fair hunk of ground to wolf-directed wildlife populations and drawn a line in the sage. Good for them. If I get skunked here in Montana next year, I'll be making a few phone calls to Wyoming, you betcha.
Why should we worry about a few unnecessary extinctions?
We worry very little about poisioning the air, the streams, the topsoil, the oceans.
And the least efficient method of converting energy to food is by herding and grazing cattle and sheep; so the anti-intellectualism so preferred by folks like marian and davey would very certainly require that wolves again be driven to extinction--so we can continue to underwrite the use of large tracts of our national landscape to do just that...
I assure you that I understand perfectly. Both the plans on what wolves were supposed to do and the age of rocks are computer models. The wolves that were supposed to reach 100/300 in 10 years actually topped 1000 by that time. The family packs with one litter actualy have multiple litters, etc etc.
Comment By bearbait, 2-04-08The Holocaust was efficient. No one wants every wolf dead. But many want no constraints on wolf population, coming at the issue with the myth that wolves will control their own population. That theorem has to be lived to be proved, and all I want is a guarantee that the effort that went into wolves will be put into replacing missing animals and broken ecosytems when the wolves decide to put the brakes on their population.
The ire urbanites have for rural lifestyles and livelihoods is just mind boggling. Now that we have engines and wheels, what need is there for a horse? Packing into wilderness on an introduced exotic animals? Supervision of livestock is all that I can think of, the old riding the range. Rodeo is recreational, as is all the other horsey stuff people do. So when ranches and ranchers are gone, there is no reason for horses, and they should be outlawed as a waste of food and water, and a despoiler of the landscape. Get rid of cows, sheep, horses, the whole maryanne.
So how much environmental damage is produced to make all the stuff a modern wilderness explorer needs to survive? They can't wear wool or leather----those come from range destroyers. So do all the metals from strip mining and its vast energy expenses and destruction of land and air. Or the contrived fabrics from petroleum products. Cotton is just MegaAgriculture, subsidized to ruin the land and the air. The answer is that you ought to be made to visit the wilderness nude. Low impact hiking and wilderness solitude would be better gained in the nude.
If you want to be a real purist, of course, you do have to realize that you are the problem. Not only do you use all these precious resources, and your being the market makes for bad things happening in how those consumer goods are produced. That you want them on the cheap means even more environmental damage. The best way to prevent all those bad things from happening, of course, is for you to hold your breath for a while. Say 27 minutes. Recycle a plastic bag. And at the end of the 27 minutes, one more problem for the earth will be solved. Just like the wolves, you will have constrained your population, you will have matched your numbers to the available goods.
Ah, that was just a fairy tale. A little cultural myth. But have you ever thought how much of the earth's resources it takes to produce a new antibiotic or vaccine to save lives? What is the net cost to the environment? Is there a limit to the cost of saving lives? Even wolf lives? Or a sea lion in the fish ladder at the air saving hydroelectric dam? What is the cost?
Why continue to preserve green mold on a loaf of white bread..?
A world in balance seems to me not such an extreme goal...
Ahhhh, but Jed, we are supposed to get rid of the wheat farmers using the Preble mouse "habitat", so where are you going to get the bread to grow that mold?
Comment By Bruce, 2-04-08Dave Skinner and Marion are on the money. All I can say to Greenies is you are being used. As you whine and cry about the poor wolf rights the landscape is being ruined. Thank you all you green gullible people that support the wolves. If I was a rancher out there force out of business I would go out of my way to find the biggest outfit that would sliced, dice and build house on every single acre of land. Then just maybe the greenies would realize they are just being used to put ranchers off the land. Ranchers gone Sub-division comes less open space less wildlife. Come on it is not rocket science. But most greenies live in Disneyland world and can't be bothered with the truth on how their precious wolves are turning Paradise into a housing devolvement. Disgusted on how easy people are to brainwash and be used to ruin America open space and force ranchers to sell. Good job greenies maybe next time you can see if you can ruin the whole west. Oh that right you are trying to expand wolves into every state.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-04-08Bruce,
I hope you weren't referring to Jedediah. He's an intellectual.
Ol' jed is not much of an intellectual, davie; but neither is he an anti-intellectual whose world is comprised of multitudinous conspiracies like the re-introduction of the wolf to open up ranch land to sub-dividion...
Comment By Marion, 2-05-08Well jed, ol boy, if you aren't smart enough to see that subdivisions and "trophy properties" are a direct result of the harassment of ranchers by greens, then you are certainly right, you're not an intellectual. I suppose green corporate attornies are working even now to figure out ways to force the ranchers to give them their property, rather than sell it for the highest possible dollar.
Comment By jedediah redman, 2-05-08Yes of course, marian!--the entire environmental movement is nothing but a conspiracy to move the yeoman from their property...
Comment By Bruce, 2-05-08Lets see what a waste the whole Green lie has been. Wolves are good for the deer and elk herd. Lie Wolves are slaughtering the herd and certain areas the elk fawn survival is below 10 per hundred cow elk. Before the wolf fawn survival was what 50%. In order for elk to survive as a species you need 20% to survive. But I know don't bother the greenies with facts. The Native Americans never hunted the wolves. Lie only a very few tribes did not, the other 9997 tribes not only hunted the wolves they trapped and poison them too. I know greenies don't care about the truth. Ranchers have been force out of business by the wolves. But the greenies don't care about stealing other people property. You know all greenies are socialist and hate freedom loving people. That must be conspiracies theory because we know the greenies love to support America workers just ask all the loggers in Spotted owl area in the Pacfic North West. Oh that right you can't because they were all put out of business from the greenies that lie again. Oh that must be a conspiracies theory surely not one person lost a job? Just ask the loggers in New Mexico with the other fake endangered species the Mexican spotted owl. Oh that right you can't ask them either because they all lost their jobs. Must be a conspiracy theory everyone knows the greenies love to support Americans sure just ask the 6 ranchers in Arizona that were force out of business from the locust minnow lie. Oh Oh I know what good the greenies did they had the Unabomber killing people to save the trees. Wow so easy to brainwash the gullible. Yep keep going you greenies destroy all the jobs in America. A few more fake endangered species gullible people sent in billions in donations that must be a conspiracy too. Yep the wolves are great for the West just ask all the ranchers that have been force out of business. Oh sorry I forgot socialist greenies don't care about people they only care about their precious wolves.
Comment By David Nolt, 2-05-08It would sure be refreshing to have a discussion about wildlife without the predictable chorus of name-calling. Reducing the players in this issue to conspiracy theorist "greenies" or wolf-hating ranchers is a tired crutch that moves this conversation nowhere but backwards. Bill's film provides a great opportunity for all sides to come together on tackling the issue of living with wolves, though if you judge the film without seeing it or judge people without talking to them I doubt you will get much out of any conversation about wolves or any other subject for that matter. I hope further conversations here prove me wrong.
Comment By bearbait, 2-05-08Perhaps the West is old news to the enviros. All that can be done has been done. At least on the land. And now their resources are aimed at the ocean. On the left coast, every day brings another news story concerning some attempt at ESA listing of some critter to gain control of ocean use and access.
Oregon's governor, the Chief administrator for the State, got chastised by auditors because Oregon's foster care program for children garnered grades of "F" in 11 of the 14 auditable benchmarks (a 0.86 gpa if the 3 passing scores were "A"s, 0.43 if they were "C"s). We should have expected that from a Governor whose impetus is on creating Ocean Wilderness Areas for his Green Legacy. Save a fish, abuse a child. But he is a Democrat deeply indebted to unions and greens for his being elected, and children can be abused by government because there is a scapegoat: George Bush. Blame it all on Bush, and his programs for children. The focus is not and never will be on people who can't yet vote.
Yesterday the news was having all the US waters of the West Coast incuded in an ESA listing on leatherback turtles since gps tracking is showing the those animals are laying their eggs in Indonesia and foraging on jellyfish for several years off the US West Coast. Today it is coho salmon once again listed to "save" them by limiting land use in their terrestrial range, and not allow fishing in the ocean. I have no idea what detrimental or favorable impacts this record snow season will have on plants and animals of the Coast Range and low and mid slope Cascades. Having 6' to 10' of snow on the ground at low elevation is probably feeding the vestiges of the black tail deer population to a huge protected cougar population. Elk have made it to town, and my logging son says every cow pasture in Tillamook county has an elk herd or two in it, including several albinos. But the floods sure to come will change river structure and the late season water will benefit salmon. The ocean changes that have brought this phase of the weather cycle is good for salmon, and their future is brighter for it.
The report from California is that their huge hatchery mitigation chinook fishery is in trouble, and the blame is on irrigation withdrawals, or the same old story, just a different river system (Sacramento-San Joaquin). On the ocean, the fishermen are seeing a better grade of water than the last two or three years have produced. The ocean cycles, just like the weather, and not every year is one of abundance of feed and proper temperatures. Record snow in the mountains for summer water and a cooler ocean, both are ideal for fish. However, with legal definitions that do not address the cyclical nature of weather and oceans, bureaucrats are quick to cry crisis, and slow to recognize recovery.
The one West Coast fishery that has been managed and fished with minimum government interference for the longest time is halibut, and that fishery is the most successful and strong on the West Coast. The warm and less productive ocean has had an effect on halibut, and this season will see fewer fish caught in their self regulation. No ESA, no government blundering, no political paybacks, just conservation and fishing for the harvestable surplus. The International Halibut Commission monitors, test fishes, looks at growth and recruitment rates, and sets the seasons and poundage for each fishing area. The fishermen get their percentage of the quota, individually, because like public land grazing, they own the rights to catch their percentage of the whole. It is private ownership on the commons. And the best conservation of an ocean resource in the world.
I rather think halibut works because there is no terrestrial impacts or interest. I think it works because it has been privatized. In many respects, halibut harvest is very much like public land grazing, without the enviros involved in the every facet because they do not have a better plan, nor will they ever. And there is no ESA involvement. Marine mammals can impact the fishery, and there are conflicts with birds in setting the long lines, which has produced very sophisticated strategies to avoid that conflict. Orcas will still take every fish as you haul the long line, if they are around your boat. You move. And with a cost. But the fishery is not shut down. The sea wolves get their share. Each orca pod has its own food strategy, and some are exclusive marine mammals eaters, a fact that fishermen appreciate.
As the land issues get more mundane, more jaded, beaten one more time, the ocean is becoming the next battlefield over environmental conquest and rule. The Green Jihad is on its way. There will be more movies, more conflict, more people driven from livelihoods and lifestyles. It is how Greens support their lives and lifestyles.
My favorite wolf documentary is Living with Wolves by Jim and Jamie Dutcher. 6 year effort. The Discovery Channel has the DVD for sale. http://shopping.discovery.com/product-58210.html
To many, wolves are like the Palestinians that are not allowed a homeland in other Arab lands, or the snaildarter of the forest whereby they are used as leverage for other means and ends. Far be it for anyone here to look back in history and judge today's struggles with those of the past and the motives of the users.
I can't take it. Now the Green jihad is coming to save the Ocean!
After they've destroyed ranching on the land and made all the wolves eat all the deers and elks? And protected cougars! Their evil has no limits!!
Man, where's that recycled plastic bag? I'm ready to do my part for the planet.
anono, you wrote: "Man, where's that recycled plastic bag? I'm ready to do my part for the planet." Are you going to switch from flushing the toilet to using the reuseable bag? Might give a whole new meaning to 'baggy pants.'
Comment By jedediah redman, 2-05-08The anti-intellectuals are truly exhibiting their colors in this forum.
Their secret philosophy is precisely exposed as the same one pioneered by REAGANISTAs, and perfected by BUSHISTAs:
Kill. Kill. Kill...
The most dangerous word in the environmental dictionary is "habitat". They want to control every inch of it, no matter who owns it. Unfortunately they are entirely too sucessful at getting that control. The results are not nearly so good, but that is always someone else's fault.
Comment By Craig Moore, 2-05-08Marion, for male wolves, the word "co-habitat" is fairly dangerous as it leads to a division of the den and its assets and compulsory cub support payments.
Comment By steve kelly, 2-06-08Habitat is where it's at -- at least for the living. Competition for habitat forces society to make tough choices, which produces "winners" and "losers." When tough choices are delayed or denied, there are only losers. I'm glad there's enough habitat left so we can argue over wolves, grizzies and other native species. Undeveloped habitat is a blessing California, New York and most of the Lower 48 has lost.
Comment By bearbait, 2-06-08California is over 45% public lands. The state has hundreds of millions of dollars by bond issue to buy mountain lion habitat. Surely they could use a grizzly re-introduction and a few pairs of wolves. They, are after all, the Golden Bears State, named after their gizz population. No place. None. Needs grizz more than California. And wolves would make 36 million lives more whole.
Comment By Hal Herring, 2-06-08Why so angry and contemptuous, Mr. bearbait?
Do you hate wild animals like the mountain lion? Or is it all so polarized that the idea of people creating bond issues to buy mountain lion habitat makes you angry? Is that because you think that the KIND of people who say they like mountain lions and worry about habitat might also be the KIND of people who don't want to see the mountains logged, those who are abstracted from natural resource economies? And you view them as the ignorant touch-feely greenies, the enemy of what you view as the "salt of the earth" people who cut timber or dig minerals or run cattle and sheep? Can you write down exactly who you are angry with? and what they have done, exactly, to make you so angry?
To me, reading this, the bitterness seems all out of proportion. The anger seems based more on the ideas or conceptions of people, on abstractions, than on real people doing real things that make you mad. Is it the old scapegoat routine, where economies change, history moves on, and those left behind cast about for some concrete group to pin their anger and disappointment on?
When I look around, I don't see the world as you do. I don't see clear-cut culprits (usually). I have been long known among friends and family for my anger- it is a problem I have- but I'm not as angry as you and others who post here seem to be. I guess I should feel blessed. But I also want to understand, because it is part of the politics, part of the fabric of the West. And that is one of my subjects, of course.
I can answer that somewhat Hal. We are angry at folks who have nothing invested, nothing to lose and no responsibility for outcomes showing up and using courts to control our homes and property.
Why should taxpayers be responsible doubley for buying land for animals that you want? If you want them in a certain place and can afford to feed them you buy the land. Taxpayers not only have to buy the land, but other property owners have to make up the difference when private property is taken off the tax rolls. Of course I realize that California, land of the greens and home of the bright ideas, has one of the lowest tax rates in the country.
Thank you, Marion. I'm listening.
Hal
I think it is that anti-environmentalists are simply unwilling to go that extra step necessary to leave behind their adolescent desire to just keep on keeping on.
American capitalism has exploited an entire continent to such a extent it bears little relationship to what it once was.
Anti-environmentalists, like all irresponsible children, can see the problems but do not wish to adjust their comfortable lives; so it is easier to deny responsibility--Much less stressful to blame those who would attempt to lessen the effects of the crises--or prevent any worsening of the damage.
If you have grandchildren, Hal, simply observe the interplay of relationships. Watch them blame one another for some domestic misalignments.
If you have no grandchildren, just think back to how your children attempted to avoid doing their chores:
Its not my turn.
I did that yesterday!
Its not fair.
If you have no children, talk to young fathers and mothers.
Until I began to listen to anti-environmental folks, I had thought never again to have to listen to such immature denial...
Hal: Not anger. Not immaturity. Irony. Organic farms irrigated from ditchwater from the creek or from behind the fish blocking dam (my brother lives in the Imperial Valley, California, irrigated by way of dams on the Colorado River, where there is a 26,000 acre organic farm). No logging allowed but burning a forest all up is good public policy. People have written books about the fireman becoming the government arsonist. You make the sacrifice and I will do nothing is what I see all to often. The Oregon Governor, raised in an orphanage, runs a government that FAILED 11 out of 14 benchmarks on foster child care and supervision by the State, on his watch! That is really ironic. And according to his program director, the bar keeps getting raised. Really! (Is that the teenage excuse you talk about. Jed?) They raised the bar too high on the time it takes a case worker to respond to a complaint of a child in danger, or even IF they do respond? Or California's Sacramento-San Joaquin River salmon run down to 90,000 fish, but no dams under assault, the millions of acre feet of water to irrigation and cities, over their quotas, is not under assault. The Columbia River dams are under assault. By San Francisco based Earth Justice, the legal arm of the Sierra Club, as the Columbia only had 680,206 salmon and steelhead up it last year. Before white man, the Sacramento-San Joaquin had more fish than the Columbia, but the 49ers had them all but destroyed by 1870, and by 1877, Columbia River packers were asking the government to build salmon hatching stations like they had done on the McCloud River tributary to the Sacramento. Ironic, that. And Earth Justice is so close to the problem but the politicians of California, those almost 60 electoral college votes, keep their precious water for irrigation and cities, so off to lesser states to sue. I find a certain amount of irony in that. Their toilet is plugged but they are doing their plumber work elsewhere. Not ire or hate or anger. Irony. How sad the comedy that determines public policy based on emotions, feelings, and the political might to express those feeling from a position of power, and not by science or pragmatism. Can you guess under which walnut shell the pea is now? If Dr. Jerry Franklin and Dr. Norm Johnson, two of the "Gang of Four" who wrote the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan, now subscribe and testify to a great need to log in order to reduce fuels to keep the "old Growth" forests from burning, does that not inspire some thoughts of irony? The most ardent academic proponents of no more logging have swung 180 degrees on their anchors in 20 years to now pleading for the urgent need to log. I find that ironic. Not anti environmentalism. Ironic. Perhaps fitting. But acolytes of the Green side will find it anti "what-I-believe-in" and attack the messenger, call him names, accusations of small mindedness, of not being a True Believer. Fire away. I can't be held responsible for what your high priests say or do, nor can I bring equality to your table because you won't accept it. I don't have the money, the power, the public personna, to change your mind away from People magazine environmentalism.
Comment By Hal Herring, 2-06-08Well said, bearbait. It is what I was looking for from you, and I appreciate it. I'm genuinely interested, or I would not have asked.
Hal
They raised the bar too high on the time it takes a case worker to respond to a complaint of a child in danger, or even IF they do respond?
No, barebate, I am talking about the immaturity of citizens whose single consistent major protest is too many taxes, who then complain that the agencies tasked with the social responsibilities cannot complete
their tasks due to impossibly high caseloads.
I am talking about the cowardly politicians who listen to the tax protests, cut the taxes, cut the staffs and then say that the government is not the answer to the problem. Government is the problem.
And I am talking about immature blowhards like yourself who blame the government for its failure to accomplish the tasks you refuse to fund.
Your ironies are as superficial as your scholarship is shoddy...
All the money in the world cannot make people do their jobs. Nor can I, by myself, make an elected official do his or her job.
And I will never be intimidated by people who believe citizens can't hold polticians' feet to the fire, or at least should not the ones of their political bent. This immature blowhard thinks Children's Services employees have had the trust to keep foster children safe placed in their hands, and when they fail to keep that faith with the people, your blowhard taxation statements ring hollow. I would like to think there was enough honor and responsibility in the people holding those jobs that dead kids would be a thing of the far distant past. It is not, and you have not advanced the discussion one bit, nor do your rants show one bit of compassion for the children, it being reserved only for those whose job it is to protect children. I find that troubling.
jedediah, actually those who feel it is not their job to make changes are the enviros themselves. How many times have I been taken to task when I point out the hypocrisy of movie stars who live in houses bigger than hotels and fly around all of time making speeches on how others need to cut back? How about the hypocrisy of the guru of environmentalism who feels I should freeze in the winter to save a little fuel, but feels that his private jet, mansion, multiple home lifestyle is irrelevant.
IN actual fact it is the very propenents of environmentalism that are the ones pointing fingers and wanting others to do the hard stuff, while they just think it up. They are classic examples of do as I say, not as I do, and every thing you said about denial applies to them.
The unspoken motto of environmentalism is "someone must sacrifice for the wildlife and the environment, but it is inconvenient for me so we will force you do my share too".
All the money in the world cannot make people do their jobs. Nor can I, by myself, make an elected official do his or her job.
And I will never be intimidated by people who believe citizens can't hold polticians' feet to the fire, or at least should not the ones of their political bent. This immature blowhard thinks Children's Services employees have had the trust to keep foster children safe placed in their hands, and when they fail to keep that faith with the people, your blowhard taxation statements ring hollow. I would like to think there was enough honor and responsibility in the people holding those jobs that dead kids would be a thing of the far distant past.
Year after year for decade after decade the caseload for individual social workers has been expanded by budget reductions and staff cuts. Only a profound ignorance could convince somebody that such affairs can be dealt with by good intentions or dedication.
And I am confounded that anybody in his right mind could possibly be intimidated by anybody posting to these rather inane forums. Tell us barebate, what is it you fancy ol' jed could do to intimidate an independent-minded individualist like yourself?
It is not, and you have not advanced the discussion one bit, nor do your rants show one bit of compassion for the children, it being reserved only for those whose job it is to protect children. I find that troubling.
What you're saying, barebate, is that I have not advanced the discussion in the direction you would like it to advance. It appears to me you are probably a person who spends little time in any mental exercise not easily reduced to a bumper sticker--one who is inclined toward scapegoating. If are truly concerned with waifs at the mercy of the social services, you should be in touch with your representatives requesting that a larger amount of tax money be made available to those case workers you scapegoated in this post.
jedediah, actually those who feel it is not their job to make changes are the enviros themselves. How many times have I been taken to task when I point out the hypocrisy of movie stars who live in houses bigger than hotels and fly around all of time making speeches on how others need to cut back?
It seems comical to me that you rugged individualists spend so much of your time and energy beating up on the relatively few movie stars who have joined the environmental cause.
I am not impressed by the actions of these peoples--pro or con.
Their talents may very well be intellectually admirable; but their talents are not--any more than the tgalents of sports heroes--of the variety I think of as worthy of emulation by the nation,s children--or by the nation's reactionaries.
That is the kind of demonization I regard as comparable to barebate's dependence on bumper sticker thinking. Your thinking is what I call sound-byte thought.
How about the hypocrisy of the guru of environmentalism who feels I should freeze in the winter to save a little fuel, but feels that his private jet, mansion, multiple home lifestyle is irrelevant.
IN actual fact it is the very propenents of environmentalism that are the ones pointing fingers and wanting others to do the hard stuff, while they just think it up. They are classic examples of do as I say, not as I do, and every thing you said about denial applies to them.
What guru of of environmentalism ever suggested you freeze in the winter? That is the kind of falsehood so often used by people of little education to demonize a practice with which they disagree--usually because they cannot understand it. The people who use that kind of logic are nothing less than liars.</b?
The unspoken motto of environmentalism is "someone must sacrifice for the wildlife and the environment, but it is inconvenient for me so we will force you do my share too".
<b>That is such a foolish generalization!
If you were to say to me--a person I consider very definitely an environmentalist--that such a statement is an accurate description of my philosophy, I would feel quite entitled to suggest you were an ignorant rednecked hick--probably also a foolish generalization...
I, for one, would like to see Bearbait and Hal write some 'Point - Counterpoint' columns on the important environmental issues. Both men have much to teach us all.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-07-08Well, David, I think you've been proven wrong. Attempts to have intelligent discussions about wolves, bears, trees, and habitat on this website are well nigh impossible.
Comment By Judiana, 2-08-08Wow, how resistant are some of these comments from the people who do not want to accept that a change in our thinking as HUMAN beings is necessary for our and our childrens existance. It is the narrow-minded, greed and ignoring the truth, just as some of the remarks I have read, that has taken us down a road that is going to a dead end. I have read the criticisms of the wolf from some of you as though the creature is deliberately here on this Earth to bring havoc . The Wolf was created by God and was here long before "man" brought the cows and sheep to herd on the Buffalo, Elk and Deer grasslands. The Wolf is part of the ecosystem, is part of nature and is placed here on this Earth for a purpose. It has been "mans" decision out of fear, greed and possible ignorance that the wolf should not live. When we deny any creature its right to be here then we deny the reasoning of the Creator.
You can hackle pro-environment, pro greenie, pro wildlife supporters till your cows come home, but if we dont ALL start trying to be more open minded, taking care of this Earth, ALL its inhabitants incluing each other,and breaking a way from the comfort zones that corporate industries has bubbled us into, then any simple pleasures, good health, harmony, balance, peace and significant abundance will only be a memory.
Judiana, how many have been planted where you live? Surely you feel your yard should have wolves too don't you? We surely do not want to hog them all, so put a few hundred on the east & west coasts and work to the middle.
It was nice you mentioned elk, so why are you raising so many wolves in Yellowstoen that you are destroying the elk herds?
If you have problems with wolves in your yard, Marion, you need a higher fence.
Don't be asking the rest of us to give up our wolves to take care of your problems.
Your crying about those poor unprotected wapiti strikes me as pretty much the same as the old southerners who worried about the purity of their white women if those ravenous black men were not restrained...
Jed-E-Bare, your suggestion that elk and wolves can mate and produce offspring is probably one of those alarmist arguments over global warming. Just imagine an animal that howls at night, buggles during the day, grows horns, and turns it fangs on hunters who can't shoot straight.
Comment By Craig Moore, 2-09-08That last comment was from me. Coffee hadn't kicked in yet. Sorry Jed.
Comment By Marion, 2-09-08Oh jed, you misunderstand, I'm not asking you to give up "your" wolves, I'm asking that you take them yourself. We won't mind a bit.
By the way do not be shocked by record low elk numbers in Yellowstone this year, but of course it will be the fault of the winter, they were already approaching those record lows last year, and they just couldn't seem to count in March nor December in 2007.
Thats okay, craigie.
I would have probably figured it out.
You're the only rightwingnut who has coined a sobriquet for ol' jed.
I'm sure you neo-frontiersmen prefer the methods prescribed by the state of Montana to deal with excess bison to a balance of predation.
The problem with our environment is homo sapiens.
There are no other problems.
Think of the earth as a piece of white bread.
Think of homo sapiens as bread mold.
In an earlier time it would have been possible to scrape off the mold; and to have continued to use the bread...
i hate this it reallly sucks and it will never go through life .
Comment By Devin Dahl, 3-05-08i have a problem with the comment by jedediah redman given 02-10-08. "the problem with our enviroment is homo sapiens"
now jedediah, i am sure you are a homo sapien and if you have such a big problem with yourself then i suggest doing something about it. perhaps join the republican party for a start.
That is what is wrong with people like you, oh the balance of nature is not in balance you will say. may i suggest you acknowledge that God did not make a mistake in putting us here and acknowledge the balance of nature includes us homo sapiens. thanks jeddy
oh by the way jedediah redman perhaps you are a homo sapien. you are just extra extra light on the sapien part and really really heavy on the HOMO part.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/an_interview_with_william_campbell/C396/L396/