WILL STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS WORK?

Coming Soon to a State Near You, Giant German Shepherd Hunting

By Bill Schneider, 2-28-08

This week, thirteen years since reintroduction into the northern Rockies, the federal government says the Big Dog, the wolf, is no longer an endangered species, which means the state wildlife agencies take over wolf management. The state agencies are already in the starting blocks to give us something we've never, ever had here in the New West, regulated sport hunting for wolves.

Regardless of the agency readiness, though, wolf managers expect delays as conservation groups drag delisting through the court system. But regardless when seasons open, will sport hunting accomplish the goal of reducing wolf numbers to target levels?

The lawsuits will say politics not science has dictated wolf delisting, and I'd hate to be the guy who had to convince us that politics wasn't a driving force behind it. New West politicians all want the wolf quickly delisted, in not eradicated again, but there's another, and powerful, political dynamic out there. For conservationists everywhere, the cover story is scientific integrity and biodiversity, but let's be honest. Many, many people simply can't stomach the idea of hunters shooting majestic dog-like creatures.

	Most hunters don't want to hunt things they don't eat, especially things that look like the neighbor's best friend

But alas, there is one point of agreement among wolf lovers and wolf haters. At some point, the wolf population will need control. The recovery plan established a minimum of 300 wolves in 30 breeding pairs in the three-state region. Pro-wolf groups believe the 300-wolf minimum is too low; anti-wolf groups think it's too high. So, eventually, after months or years in the courts and re-drafting of plans, we'll have a number, and then, we'll need control.

When we get to that point, even those who hate the thought of a single wolf being killed probably will sign on to sport hunting as the preferred method. Look at the alternatives--trapping, poisoning, aerial gunning, smoking pups out of dens and clubbing them to death, or more of the status quo--expensive "management actions," which usually involve shooting wolves from helicopters or trapping and euthanizing "problem wolves."

Under state management plans, wolves will be "trophy animals," which means hunters aren't required to eat the meat but are required to take the trophy, in this case, the pelt. But here's the rub. Most hunters don't want to hunt things they don't eat, especially things that look like the neighbor's best friend. Ask yourself how many avid hunters you know who don't own a dog.

To help answer this question, I called up my friend Ed Bangs, who has been coordinating wolf recovery for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since his agency let the Big Dogs out of their boxes down in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. He agrees that the majority of hunters won't be interested in wolf hunting, but he has confidence that enough will to accomplish state management goals.

"I think hunting will be very effective here in the northern Rockies," Bangs believes. "In areas that are accessible and in open country, wolves are very vulnerable."

In fact, he predicts, hunters could kill them all if that's want we wanted.

Bangs reminds us that we're already "harvesting" wolves. Illegal shooting, management actions, road kills, and other mortality already take out 26 percent of the northern Rockies wolf population every year. This means we already have a lot of control on wolf numbers in contrast to the common belief among wolf haters that the population is growing exponentially.

But will hunters want to do hunt wolves? I did my little survey at the coffee shop and saloon, and none of my hunting friends have any interest in wolf hunting.

Bangs concedes that not many hunters will go out specifically after wolves. "Wolf hunting is almost always associated with hunting something else, like elk. Very few hunters go out just for wolves."

And will it be hunting or killing? Right or wrong, there's a lot of anger among the hunting community over wolves. Some hunters will want to kill one just to have one fewer wolf left on earth--and probably consider it a public service, not sport hunting.

"Some will just want to kill wolves," Bangs concedes, "but some will want the hunting experience. I sure hope hunters will want to hunt wolves because it's a challenging hunting experience."

I hope so, too, but because I'm not sure what I'll think about Plan B if regulated sport hunting doesn't work. [End of article]

Let me be the first to say, I, and most hunters I know would shoot a wolf for the money. Wolf hides are worth hundreds of dollars. A wolf skull alone is worth over $100.

Giant german shepards? Really?

Twister, you dirty doggie! What else might you do for money, out there on the street corner peddling your hide. . .

I hadn't heard of commercial hunting licenses being available. I suppose it's the perfect "job" for all those displaced (by wolves) welfare ranchers.

When the delisting occurs, I'm not planning on hunting them. I'll leave it up to someone else. When I'm in the woods, I'm not after multiple game species. Sure I might shoot a grouse with my bow and take it back to camp for some fresh game but that's the exception. When I've got my rifle with me, I'm not going to jeopardize spooking the elk or deer to lace a wolf.

The sad thing about all this is the tax payers dollars that are going to be spent in court to fight the suits by the groups aiming to protect these animals. Let the FWP do there job! There good at it!

Excellent article Wild Bill!

Bill

Scientifically speaking, wolves do a pretty good job of controlling themselves, in conjunction with the ups and downs of the prey base. It just doesn't happen fast enough for the impatient, the greedy, and the ecological knowledge-challenged. That's the nature of wolf control up North.

Historically, few recreational hunters have hunted, or do hunt, wolves specifically to hunt wolves; it's somewhat difficult,and wolves, although not as smart as coyotes, aren't stupid. Up North, a wolf tag was thrown in along with the ungulate tags, if a wolf tag was thrown in at all, just to encourage the hunter to take a wolf if a wolf in the serfice of natural selection presented itself.

Also up North, the primary (sustainable) take of wolves was trapping; bullet holes in pelts tend to lower the value of the pelt, as anyone who knows anything about the fur trade knows. Hunting wolves for the pelt just isn't very smart. On the other hand, trapping wolves takes lots of skill. I don't see that kind of skill-oriented discipline in today's ATV bound hunters; they aren't going to take up trapping. Running wolves to ground in exhaustion and then assassinating them is more their style.

What really controls wolves, as we all know, is throwing on Judas collars and tracking wolves down in aircraft and blasting them with a double ought 12 gauge. Not at all sporting, and it offends the Big Wolf in the sky. Thing is, the Big Wolf is friends with the Big Bear in the Sky, and you really, really don't want an unhappy Big Bear tromping through your dreams, or maybe into your camp, looking to balance the scales.

In other words, it's the predator control mentality, a mentality that is fundamentally immoral, because rooted in selfishness and greed and contempt for the natural world, that really controls wolves, and that's the Big Problem. There's no limit to it, and Big Bear's patience is limited.

In short, the predator control mentality is what principled hunters such as myself--who also happens to have a bit of experience with wolves--object to.

Well, the drama has moved to the courts. It's better than the Sopranos.

RH

uncle Earl
I use every part of everything I kill or trap. As for street corner peddling, you would be better to ask your wife about that.

Good one Twister. Not really.
(Let's get off the mother's, cause I just got off yours).
Oldy, but goody.

I hunt every year in wolf and grizzly infested country. I will not hunt wolves.

I don't need to scrounge around and trade what little morality I have left for "hundreds of dollars" worth of wolf parts. I ain't that broke.
Trappers are the slime of today's earth. Get a clue.

Hey Bill, I've got a new angle on this you might want to consider. Stay with me.

I've spent a lot of time Elk hunting in an area with a significant number of wolves (The Big Hole), and have seen tons of sign, but have never actually seen a wolf, much less been in a position to shoot one. And neither have my friends that I hunt with. So, I've got to believe it will be no easy task for the average hunter to actually get a wolf in public land areas.

Also, like many of the hunters you talked with, I'm generally not interested in shooting a critter I don't intend to eat. So given those two facts, I would not be inclined to put in for a wolf license.

Much has been written lately about declining opportunities for average hunters on private lands and deteriorating relations between land owners and hunters.

So, what if a hunter such as myself did put in and get a wolf license. I already know I'm not going to have much of a shot in areas that I normally hunt Elk. But who does regularly see them AND have a vested interest in having them removed? The landowners (aka ranchers) of course. So, could a hunter like me use a wolf tag as a tool to establish relations with a rancher or two? Basically, as a way of getting your foot in the door by saying, hey, I'll remove a wolf from your place if you don't mind me also bagging an Elk. Once the relationship has been established and assuming the hunter treated the landowner with respect, it might be much easier to come back the next year (without a wolf tag) and hunt again.

Now for that, I'd be willing to put in for, and pay for, a wolf tag. What do you think, wolf tags as a tool for hunter access?

It's not the hunting, for most wolf conservationists (unless the season is unlimited and allows for all kinds of artificial methods of attraction and take). It's direct wolf reduction by Wildlife Services such as Wyoming plans and Idaho plans beginning with the wolves in the upper Clearwater as soon as they have deployed enough Judas collars.

In the interests of all wildlife, not just wolves, this agency needs to be terminated.

Oh Yeah! Give all your tags to me...Stacks and stacks of wolf hides, ready for the tannery. Sharpen yer skinnin' knives, boys! Glory days a comin'!

Hmmm.... hunting wolves for the money?! I guess I shouldn't judge what others decide to do but I personally cannot imagine spilling blood for money. I prefer the "you kill it you eat it" rule.

Whomever wishes to comment on this please do not try to tell us that you need the money from killing wolves to feed your family. The cost of your hunting rifles, camo clothes, scent lock suits, bows, arrows, gas money to get to where you are going to hunt, etc. would buy a lot more groceries than you can legally kill.

Miles City.... you realize you will not get to (legally) kill them all, do you not?

Charismatic predators abound in these United States. During hippy times, when back to the land was prerequisite to getting a job in the public sector later on, the woods was full of dogs running deer and elk in packs. Some never made it home to Butterfly and Hemp, and the organic garden.

In the big Waremart store I shop at, maybe 10 linear feet of shelf space, six or eight high is devoted to baby food. A whole aisle, both sides, half the length of the store is devoted to pet food, primarily cats. The peer reviewed science says that domestic cats, kept and feral, are killing at the LEAST, one billion or more birds per year in North America out of an estimated yearly peak season population of perhaps 14 billion. Some studies suggest maybe the take is as high as 3 BILLION birds per year. So who gives damn? Nobody. Cat people pay money to the wolf worshippers, share their love. And they are millions of votes in every election. No politician will kick that crusted over cowpie. It is a third rail issue. Which leads me to say extirpation of neo tropical song birds, and many of the year long residents, is not far off.

This was the quietest winter of my life, the paucity of birds apparent. The Audubon winter and summer backyard counts will tell us more. Habitat loss to subdivision is a factor, but wolf faeries don't care that they hasten the process as every chance. As I write this, I am occasionally watching an Anna's hummingbird fighting off chickadees and building a nest. Tough little bugger to winter out here.

Unbounded predation will kill the last critter. A look at bird extirpation and extinctions on islands after cat, rat or sailor introductions, or foxes in the Aleutians, shows the hard evidence. There is no limit to predation. Predators will kill the last prey, and then both will be gone or the predator moves on. Whatever benign coexistence folks think wolves once had in the Rockies left with those wolves, and the new kids in town are not constrained by prior environmental modifications that might have been present as to how local wolves once acted. That is apparent by the mantras of wolf self regulation we have heard, and the evidence on the ground that multiple litters in packs has become the norm. It is probably a result of abundant food supplies, and when the prey begins to run out, the wolves will either move or breed less, and have more territorial disputes and fratricide.

It is rather dismaying to see the USFWS aerial shooting mangey wolves. That is playing God, and none in that Agency has those trappings to my knowledge. Having USFWS being the "deciders" should send a shudder through us all. Paid assassins in the employ of government getting lots of practice is troubling.

The Will Graves book on the Russian wolf experience dramatically illustrates that having to depend upon government to control wolves is not always a good deal for the people on the ground being harmed by excessive wolf presence. Governments can be stopped by people who have "no dog in the fight" as it were, as happened after the Mowat book came out and was read by many. Or government can be busy elsewhere, or out of money, or the people being harmed are ethinically or culturally not desireable to the majority, and thus wolf control is carried out with discrimination as a driver. I can see that in the New West as ranchers are demeaned on an hourly basis by wolf defenders. It is an old tactic, the one of demeaning your victim before you smash them. I heard enough "beer swilling rapists of the forest" name calling directed towards loggers to last a lifetime. One person has been backhanded in my life for calling me a rapist, and the same will happen to any other who calls me that to my face, even though it would now probably kill me in my dotage. That anger has not dried up, gotten old, even though my body has.

Rhetoric won't control wolves, and neither will serendipitous hunting contacts. It has to be done with a plan, which each of three states has, only the obdurate wolf lovers won't have any part of it. Lawyers love our way of life. Their prey base expands with every meeting of legislators, and they can expand their territory and numbers and flourish.

There is a whole lot more to this endangered species thing than just the ESA. It has already been adjusted to make what certain people want fit in.
Take a look at the Earthjustice commondreams website. It says Taking Back America. I want to know exactly who are they taking it from and who are they planning to "have" it?
Hunting will not control the wolves, the predator status in Wyoming will not control the wolves. Sooner or later enough people are going to have to figure out that protecting a major, rapidly reproducing predator like the wolf above other animals is a recipe for disaster. A big part of the problem is the fact the majority of the country lives in big cities and has no clue as to reality. They certainly would not want wolves in their yards, but that is "different", someone has to "sacrifice".

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0227-10.htm

bearbait... you rapist!

Kidding aside, you MUST acknowledge the rape of our forests if you expect to impart any credibility. You may be a logger... one of the good ones perhaps... but there are also far too many who will not be happy until the last old growth stand is gone if for no other reason than to stick it to the "environmentalists". If you cannot acknowledge this then you are completely full of it.

Yeah, my kept cats also kill mice. You know, the hanta-carrying kind. Hanta is very dispersed and a hell of a lot more common than most people think.

And what about the owls that have taken a cat or two of mine away? Aren't they just being owls? Do I blame them for being themselves? Do I go out and post that all owls should be forever banished because they ate my cat? Golden eagles also imbibe.
Maybe you meant songbirds, and not the all inclusive bird category.

Predators will not kill the last prey, and then both are gone. That's not the way nature works, dude. Are you serious with that? Do you proofread any of those uncontrolled, long-winded ramblings you constantly post? Or do you just shoot from the hip?

The smart ones will wear sheep's clothing like Cabela's.

Well, Bill, that tells me which hunters you hang with. The hunters I hang with are pretty much without exception ready to shoot and skin theirs. Soonest. I'm one of those.
I went through the list of new litigants and have to laugh. Defenders is there, so much for being cooperative. NRDC. Sierra. CBD. HSUS. JHCA. FoCL. AWR. OrWILD. CWP. And last but not best, John Marvel's WWP. Two of these are the biggest eco-litigants on the planet. And EJ is the home plate for the lawyers. Usual suspects, same old garbage.
This isn't about science, nor is it about justice. It's about people who would and should otherwise be irrelevant maintaining a political power base upon the foundation of a fundamentally inept act of a fundamentally inept and cowardly Congress.
Pshht.

It is absolutely amazing in all of the diatribe above that several of you profess to be hunters and outdoorsmen, but appear to have a very shallow knowledge of predation and predator control. Also the digs into loggers, so-called welfare ranchers, Wildlife Services, aerial gunning, and anything else that makes sense in the West, are very disturbing. I think we are in trouble in the West if what I read here in the above "New West" columns is any indicator. For some good read go to http://www.wolfcrossing.org .

Those of us in the southwest are being saddled with the pen-raised hybrid variety wolf. These habituated wolves have no fear of humans or human scent and are inherently dangerous.

Marion's read on the Earthjustice commondreams is just what it says. They want to "Take Back America" (Federally managed lands) from all ranchers, loggers, miners, hunters and all consumptive users on the Federally managed lands. They have a lot of support and help. The Biological Diversity Center and WildEarth (formerly Forest Guardians and Sinapu) are the two big eco freak groups here and they are working very hard to rid the forests of consumptive users, mainly the rancher and the hunters.
These same groups will keep state wolf management tied up in the courts for along time to come. I don't think any of us will be hunting wolves anytime soon.

The spotted owl got the logger and now they are using the wolf to get rid of those damed old welfare ranchers (pun intended) and those blood thirsty hunters.

Wake up folks and get on the right side of the fight. Some of you are part way there.

elfman, when the last old growth forests are gone you can watch the smoke, because they will burn, not be used. And now it appears that they will not be able to use the fire retardent in use since the 60s because it kills fish. It appears the judge thinks the fish kills started with President Bush being elected.

As someone else said, Your Are a Dirty Dog. Comparing a wolf to your neighbors dog is a sad commentary on you. I hunt but I won't buy a license to hunt wolves. The wolver are here to stay because bleeding hearts Liberals think they should be, they don't see dead sheep, calves, dogs or Moose calves, Elk calves or deer fawns. The wolves have killed off most of the Yellowstone coyotes, Elk are on the decline so I guess the wolf reintroduction is a sucess for some people, NOT ME.

Marion - if you understood the nature of the problem then you would know that true old growth forests are the least likely to burn (lest they fall victim to arsonists). Do you know what ladder fuels are?

Do YOU want to cut the old growth forests? I assume that you do by your response. Shame.

Ugggh. It sucks to see all the emotion leading up to the use of bad - not even pseudo- science (ungulate research ie). Those rants don't convince people, they just cause readers to dismiss a lot of what is said. I think hunters, ranchers, loggers, enviros,....everyone has something good to say here. Please stick to the issue at hand, make your point and contribute to a discussion. It gets old hearing exaggeration and name-calling.

elfman, the wolves have nothing to do with old growth forests. the fact is all forests are at ever increasing risk of burning as disease spreads because cutting out of diseased trees is not allowed by environmentalists.
Ben, I wish we could dismiss a lot of the environmental nonesense, but the fact is there is nothing too radical to get thru if they put it before the right judge.
Read how Jon Marvel uses one specific judge:

http://rangemagazine.com/features/spring-08/sp08-oz.pdf

uh,.... I am talking about BOTH sides, but I wrote that in response to the drastically overused and under proven wild and domestic ungulate claims....there is a lot going on there. See, you just trashed enviros above. It doesn't do any good....I get it: you dislike enviros, non ranchers, and people who disagree with you. That is okay, but at least respect them, right? Elfman, you can also ask Marion what she thinks and have a discussion. Ya;ll both have strong feelings about policy, .....why not discuss them?

The problem with wolf hunts is not just that the "bleeding hearts" don't want it; they don't and neither do I....It lays with the fact that there are SO MANY ignorant fools out there just drooling for a wolf tag..."caus its gonna be soooo cool to take one out man - hand me another beer and another bullet!"
Man cannot be trusted to handle this "right" responsibly. I hear all the idiots talking where I live in Idaho and I already know that the general public hunting of wolves is a HUGE mistake. I don't know what the answer is, but it is not let every Tom, Dick and Harry go out for a killing.
Wolves have a delicate pack system that we do not fully understand - (especially Tom and Dick mentioned above) - so when the pregnant female gets taken out and the alpha male gets killed, what becomes of the pack? Most likely more rogue hunters out of the pack without the direction of its leaders...more "problem" wolves.
And the fact that sheep and cattle ranchers want to cry about their losses all the time - I say you graze on public land virtually for free so cut your losses or quit grazing where the sheep and cattle don't belong to begin with! I see what they do to "our" streams here in Idaho - a true disgrace.
And the elk population - try factoring in every single element that is leading to their decline in number and I am willing to bet you all the wolf is not at the top of that list.
Typical Tom and Dick (and George)...find an enemy, kill the enemy, find out the enemy wasn't really an enemy after all...oh well. Can we find someone else to blame? "Maybe it was them cougars after all.....hmmmm"

Marion... I do not recall EVER saying that wolves had anything to do with old growth forests. Where did you come up with that?

Diseased trees are indeed a huge problem. Why do you think we have so many diseased trees? Historical fire suppression resulting in overcrowding coupled with global warming and drought means disaster for the forests... very ripe for insect infestation. I would agree that disease needs to be controlled aggressively. However, the fact is that so many unscrupulous resource extractors want to use disease as an excuse to cut down the healthy trees too. You know it is true. Everybody is chasing the dollar and big, fat healthy trees are green in more ways than one.

Lastly, range magazine is the most despicable source of misinformation I have EVER encountered. If you are reading that filth you might look elsewhere for a more balanced view of the world.

Rhiana, here's a scienific study for you to check out:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5814/960?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT;=&fulltext=elk+wolf&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

I know, that's one awful url; hopefully you can get it to work.

From an interview of Scott Creel, MSU Ecology scientist:
"Most people assume that low numbers of calves were due to direct predation. The paper says in large part it's because of the effect on pregnancy rates," said Scott Creel…In the Gallatin Canyon herd, there were just eight calves per 100 cows. Generally, 30 calves per 100 cows is considered a solid ratio to sustain a herd.

Carefully read that study, and then tell me that wolves are not "at the top of the list", as you state.

Jim, until the increased populations of both bears and cats are eliminated from elk decline consideration, we really don't know much about the effect of wolves.

Rhiana, your total ignorance in the effects wolves are having on elk not only in Idaho but also in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico now, absolutely amazes me. How can you possibly be so blinded by fairy tales or whatever it is you use for your knowledge sources. Go to http://www.wolfcrossing.org and take a look at what your cuddly little wolves are doing to the elk.

Also the old tired saw that welfare ranchers and their livestock are the ruination of the west, only further professes your lack of knowledge. You might try and research the studies done by New Mexico State University and their Range Improvement Task Force and what they have found. It is more expensive to graze on Federal lands than it is on private lands and by a rather large margin.

Elfman, you show your true colors by bad mouthing Range Magazine, evidently the truth hurts. It is right on, and it is hard for the other side to accept what really is going on, in the West. The "New West" needs a dose of common sense.

T. Klumker, your opinion regarding Rhiana is total BS. You don't know her. No need to insult people...unless you have your intellectual pockets turned out and can't formulate real arguments.

Klumker - I have held a subscription to Range for many years and I recently canceled it because it became painfully clear to me that they are not interested in disseminating the truth. They publish some articles that are good and truthful and others are so asinine and full of distortions, lies and baseless crap it makes my blood boil. So, before you talk about my "true colors" you should know the facts. Range does not care about the facts.

By the way, I was not responding to the particular article that was referenced above. Frankly, I did not even look at it because I saw "Range Magazine" and I know from experience they cannot be trusted regardless of the truths that may or may not have been present in the article referenced above.

gee whiz, folks, so many comments. some lame some comendable. i have a simple idea. why not consult the native americans who know about the balance of nature and allow them to come up with a management plan. the trouble with indiscriminate killing of any species is that short sighted trophy hunters kill the best genes and remove them/weaken the species. 'have gun, will kill'. i'm sorry but most hunters succomb to the lowest motivation, other than putting meat on the table. man has destroyed the natural balance and 'best management practices' are a very poor substitute for letting Nature do what she does best.

sid... yes, you are right about hunters in one sense. I am a hunter, however, and there are a few of us who truly loathe the typical hunting conversation which almost always is completely devoid of any respect for the process or the prey. It is all about killing, blood and filling the freezer. If you are a hunter and you feel like responding to this feel free but please pause and be honest with yourself. How many times have you heard a bowhunter say "Yeah, I stuck that bitch good!" or some other deplorable comment such as this. How many times have you heard a gun hunter say "I filled her full of lead..." etc. You hear it every freaking day in the hunting world and it sickens me. It is no wonder there are so many who hate us hunters.

In one case years ago I was even witness to a particularly sick individual who, after killing his first elk, got down on the ground on top of the animal and pretended to be humping the animal like a dog in a sex act. This was all to show his manhood and domination I suppose. These are not exceptions to the rule. I have seen this kind of thing time and time again though, fortunately, there are some respectable hunters out there. Non hunters have difficulty seeing the difference, however.

I find it revealing that I am taken to task for suggesting that wolfs have economic value to rural populations. It was a test girls. you can take the boy out of the city and educate him at a cool western school, hell give him a gun and let him shoot his deer. You will still have a city boy. If you didn't grow up at the end of a dirt road you don't get it.
Repeat after me:
A wolf is a house payment
a coyote is a tank of gas
2 beaver is a pair of boots
a deer hide is a pair gloves

Mr. Twister... if wolves have such a high economic value to rural populations then why are some members of the rural populations fighting so hard to see them exterminated!? Also, I would think a real subsistence hunter like you would see a higher value in tanning the hide yourself and making clothes for your family rather than simply turning your hide in to the plant in return for a shitty pair of gloves that will wear out within minutes of encountering any real work!!

By the way, you must drive a prius if a coyote is worth tank of gas. Not what I pictured you driving.

Alright, I want you all to immediately stop being mean to Mr. Twisted. Yes, yes, I know he's... well, twisted ...and is clearly making absolutely nothing productive out of his life, which is why he has nothing better to do than skulking around the woods and skinning things to make what most of us would consider pretty shabby lunch money. Alright, okay, I guess that does constitute a waste of skin. Nevertheless, I like his comments; they're quaint and funny, in an odd sort of lowlife way; and I don't want the rest of you being mean and driving him back under his... Well, I just don't want to see him driven away from the site. I'm getting too many good and useful quotes. He's almost as useful as that R. T. Fanning, Jr. fellow.

Agriculture is a dying industry in the Bitterroot anyway. I say let the wolves take over. Let it be a study on weather or not we humans should intervene anymore with the return of the wolf.

The politics behind the state-sponsored hunts for the wolf, is that the Federal Government sunk a lot of money into the wolf recovery program and the states are just trying to capitalize on that little venture, just like every other conservation effort in this country. It's always in terms of dollars and never in terms of our future.

Think how much money we could have saved by going to a German Shephard rescue group, and hauled them into Yellowstone to kill elk.

Clinton and Babbitt hauled wolves into Yellowstone to get ahead of the wolves already there. And let's not forget the photo-op. It's hard to take credit for something happening all on its own. Natural recovery would have required full ESA protection. USFWS and the big NGOs got big kudos and budget boosts for their misuse of (Sec. 10j - "experimental, non-essential" status) of the ESA. Congress and high-doners ("players") showered the speedy listing-delisting process with money to show ESA "victories," which was all pre-planned to stem the rising tide against the Act in Congress. Now, ya' gotta' admit that's going to piss off almost everyone paying attention to details. Post-modernism at its best.

And yet nobody corrects me on the pedigree jab. A guy suggests I would "sell my hide", I defend myself. I understand that a wolf is a fur bearer, again taken to task. The poor bumkin insult is rich, I make an absurd amount of money for very little work.
I only wish to point out that all wildlife has value. F&G;has a price for every game animal. Don't be such cry babies, reread McGuane if you have to. Ortega maybe.
I have respectfuly killed my own meat my entire life. I imploy a hunting method none of the above could master on their best day.
But enough about me, I prefer to bait new west lattie rabble.

Craig, did you even read the study? In the very first paragraph is the statement "Data from five elk populations studied for 16 site years showed that progesterone concentrations (from 1489 fecal samples) declined with the RATIO OF ELK TO WOLVES". I believe they did adequately factor out lion and griz influence, but it would be interesting to pose that question to Dr. Creel (his contact info is in the study).

I do want to give you some credit though, as I've posted this study in 3 different wolf discussions, and you're the first person to make any kind of comment.

One of the things I like about this study is it demonstrates that wolf-elk dynamics are more complicated than simply looking at how many elk the wolves are killing.

Mr. Twister: You do not make an "absurd" amount of money and, even if you did, why the hell is that relevant to this discussion? Your pedigree comment was not worth responding to. The city boy argument is just plain silly... you are just trolling.

I know I will regret this but I must ask... what is this 'hunting method" that you have so masterfully perfected? Do you throw rocks out of trees, use an Atlatl? Perhaps a Rambo knife?

You were taken to task because you suggested that wolves (and other critters) have an economic value benefiting those who hunt. The pure economic value that critters have is found in the defrayment of all the fun and games expenses that comes with hunting. The "feed and clothe" my family argument is crap.

Did I hit a nerve there elfboy? I mentioned income because it was suggested that I was skulking about for shabby lunch money. I never said the F&C;argument holds water. The city boy argument is valid and you just proved it. You think you stand atop a higher plain than the unwashed sons of the earth. You depict hunters as dead-elk-humping animals. Do you have any other hunting stories you would like to share? Get over yourself.
I won't reveal my hunting method because you would think better of me and I don't need your approval or respect.

Jim Greer, I read that study and I do not beleive it ever got enough media attention. The non take down and kill effect on both wildlife and livestock has been totally ignored by the so called biologists as well as the media. A big deal has been made of the bone marrow indicating the elk are not getting enough to eat, of course being run constantly could not have any effect on them not getting enough to eat.
I suspect we will see the bears in particular getting pushed further and further out from the park as the food source dries up. I won't hazzard a guess about the lions.

Whatever makes the ranchers happy. That is what is important. The entire west revolves around ranching so we are lead to believe. wildlife watching, National Parks, etc are irrelavent, it's all about ranching. The republicans say there are enough, so there must be. Just as we did not evolve from apes, and just as there is no global warming because it's snowing somewhere, wolves will eat children if we don't hunt them. That is what they do, eat children and cows. And God knows without cows, the people will starve because we can't eat chicken or turkey or pork.

Matt, wake up and smell the coffee. The wolves are systematically destroying the moose & elk herds. There are 6200 elk left in the northern herd and about 1/3 (2000) left inside of the park. They haven't even got the courage to count the moose, maybe they can't find enough to do more that wake folks up to what is happening to the wildlife.
Wolves are coming from all over the place that are unknown and breeding like rabbits under the adoring eyes of the wolfers.
This is not about ranchers, except your desire to destroy them, this is about a little common sense.

http://wolves.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/kathie-lynch-reports-on-the-wolf-dating-scene-in-yellowstone-park/

Shucks - did you ever think maybe there were too many elk in the park before the wolves arrived? I did. Sure it was wonderful to see so many animals but it was easy to see evidence all over the park of overgrazing. You are just upset because the herd is being cut down to healthier numbers resulting in less animals for you to hunt. Boo hoo.

Twister - My nerves are immune to trollers like you so don't flatter yourself. This is pure fun and recreation for me. So, on to the point. YOU were the one who suggested you were scraping for lunch money by saying that a "coyote = a tank of gas", etc which is, of course, ridiculous given how much your average hunter spends on toys. You presented hunting as a livelihood issue which it is not unless you are on the north slope of the Brooks Range killing a moose every fall to get you and your dog team through the winter. Also, generally speaking, too many hunters ARE, in fact, "dead elk humping animals"! I have seen this type of behavior all too often. You probably have too and just do not want to admit it. Do you not understand that I too am a devout hunter and that I am simply making an honest observation as to the slovenly nature of so many hunters. I will reiterate there are fortunately exceptions to this rule and many of them so it is a same hunting gets the bad press that it does without making the distinction. As for your hunting method, I would imagine you think that the skill you have purported to achieve with a particular weapon (let's say it is a sharp pointy stick) makes you more of a man than a guy who uses a more technologically advanced weapon. I disagree but, regardless, good for you. You go out there into the world, beat your chest and prove yourself to be a man. Let us know when we are supposed to "Oooooh" and "Aaaaaaah"!

Oh yeah... the city argument. I almost forgot. Do you know me or where I am from? Do you know where I grew up? This is just an incredibly stupid and assumptive point you try to make with this. Even if I was born and raised in NYC (which I was not) it does not mean that I would not be capable of understanding the fallacy of the "economics" of hunting. I kill an elk almost every year and have meat in the freezer but I am not stupid enough to believe that the pure economic value to me of that meat is operating in the black! On the contrary, hunting puts almost all of us at a net financial loss. The other gains, however, are substantial or most of us would not be doing it.

Oh, you wanted another hunting story. Here you go.... there was a kid in Florida who shot his first deer with his bow and was naturally very excited. He was in the company of a friend and, presumptively hoping to prove his manhood, ran over to the animal which he thought was dead and spun him over so he could slit his throat and spill more blood. As soon as he got the doe on its back she convulsed and kicked its front hoof up under the boy's ribcage actually piercing his chest and heart killing him instantly.

There was also the time that a hunter in Alabama sitting in a tree stand along an old logging road early one foggy morning pulled the trigger on the second of two deer that crossed that logging road. The deer went down and, curiously, the deer that first crossed the road came back to "check out" the other deer. Despite the fact that Alabama has a very generous limit (1 buck or doe per day) this guy shot the other deer too which then fell on top of the other where they both lay dead or dying. Then, the man got out of his tree stand, walked over to the two dead deer only to discover that it was actually two men dressed in hunter orange from head to toe. The flat light of the fog made it difficult to see and apparently he didn't notice they were standing on two legs. True story. Believe it or not.

Oh, and then, of course, there is the exemplary Dick Cheney.

Nice stories elfdog

Uh oh, back again with all of my ignorance....haha
Jim,
Thanks for the forward - I did read - understand that ONE particular study on this very broad issue. That is the problem isn't it? One scientific way of viewing the issue versus another...how can so many people view things so differently? I guess it depends on what data supports your cause. Which brings me to...
T. Klumker,
Nowhere in my post did I claim to be an expert or to have done any research myself about my claims. My thoughts above are just that, thoughts. I was making a point about the inability of most men/women (especially the ones I have been talking to or overhearing) to see this possible hunt as anything but revenge on an animal they do not understand. Not one of these persons has been personally or adversely affected by the wolves. Oh, that's right, "their" elk they wanted to shoot (and kill) next fall might instead fall victim to a real predator - not their bullet. By the way, I don't have anything against ethical and proper hunting (leave your 4-wheeler at home)- so don't label me anti-hunter.
I don't live in a fairy tale, I live in a true state in which I can speak my mind and don't have to back it up with other people's words or research. I was not trying to prove a scientific fact - nor am I now. Also, you and your research did not address how the "cuddly" grazing sheep and "fuzzy-wuzzy" cattle are destroying riparian areas with no consequence to the rancher. It seems as though Fish and Game and Forest Service have only one eye sometimes. I don't need other people's research; I have seen this and the effects first hand. And you want to know something else, I love the fish too! Oh the humanity!
And to Craig,
Thank you for the back up. Mr. Klunker didn't really hurt my feelings - just gave me a good laugh. He doesn't know how to just shoot the sh*t! I know I am not coming to this blog with other people's research and facts and I cannot drop really important names and numbers, but I don't have to. As for all you liberal hating, right wingin', elk lovin', wolf bashin' folks know really well, THIS IS AMERICA and I can indeed speak my mind. Thanks folks!

wolf talk sure does stir the pot eh ELFMAN.
Nice story about the boy killed by the deer. Here's another, a few years back my nephew tripped and discharged his shotgun and blew his head off. Want to move on to war stories now hero or just let it go?

Rhiana, truly controlling the wolves is just that control. Supposedly we were to have to raise 300 for the 3 states, wwe now have many times that, and they are doing many times the damage...to private property as well as wildlife. For the record no they have not killed any of my animals (I personally only have 1 little dog), but they have cost individuals families many many thousands of dollars in uncompensated damages. All of this is for the entertainment of those who want to watch them from the convenience of Yellowstone.
Make no mistake main value of the wolves is entertainment. They are not even benefitting the wildlife, the YNP elk herds are being trashed. The northern herd si the only one they actually count, and they count into Montana becaue part of that herd winters there. A population of 19,000 was touted as a big reason we needed wolves, they jsut counted 6200 left and only about 2000 of those inside the park. The wolves are breeding like rabbits, and the elk cannot stand much more overall, moose are very scarce now. When the ungulates go, the wolves will too. Now I understand the wolves in Yellowstone cannot be controlled no matter what happens, but those outside definitely need to be.
The biggest benefit outside of entertainment is the trees are growning and that is probably as much from the loss of moose as elk.
Sadly there does not seem to be a firm number that wolf proponents will settle for, certainly the near 2000 now are not enough, what is enough? Can you tell me? There is no natural control of them, they breed way too fast.
The residents of the three states kept their word and did not SSS for the most part even as the numbers soared way beyond what was supposed to be. Now they use fear that we won't provide enough protection as an excuse to break their word.

Twister - my cousin became addicted to crack while the mother of an infant girl. What is your point? Are we supposed to compare personal tragedies? Hero? Who has ever claimed to be a hero here? You do not make sense. I am off to the hot springs for a couple of days. Good night.

Devout hunter!
I think I have never before seen it stated quite so succinctly...

Elfman: I have thought about "the rape of our forests", quite a bit. All those trees that got made into lumber. And the lumber built factories, schools, hospitals, churches, homes, docks, warehouses, an endless list. So much good to so many people. Jobs, educations, the growth of a third world nation into a world power.

Lands stripped of trees became farms, towns, cities. The "skid road" was bastardized into "skid row" by linguistic illiterates of the media, but no matter, it was a road on which logs were dragged by oxen or horses on skids to the water where they could be "boomed" to mills. Along those skid roads were boarding houses, bars, merchants of vice, merchants of hard goods and groceries. Those roads went through the heart of the city in the beginning. All built on the land "raped" of its trees.

Now that there are 300 millions people living in these United States, we have to know that many live in housing built on once timbered acres across our once forested lands.

Out here in Oregon, there is more timber on the land than ever before. Trees grow on lands logged over. First, it is the law that replanting follows logging, and a minimum number of trees per acre is always present. There are some who say the tree goal is artificial, and is at the heart of growing forest fire intensity and scope. We have too many trees, and not enough meadows, prairies, fens, wet grass lands, and savannahs.

So, Elfman, in my view, logging removed trees that existed because of centuries of Indian burning, landscape management by set fire, and those trees have been replaced by younger, smaller trees. If that Indian burn maintained forest is what people think we should restore, and I think that is a good goal for public lands, we have a lot of work to do.

First, we have to fight wildfire vigorously. Then we have to remove all the excess fuel, and follow that with controlled underburns. And then get on a schedule of regular underburning at pretty frequent intervals. The whole of that is called management. It involves cutting and removing a lot of trees to get there. My bet is that we cannot get there from here, and in the end, following the True Believers of "Let it Burn" will be our fate, and all those unlogged, and "protected" forests of heritage trees left from Pre-Eurpean contact will be nothing more than a giant snag patch on scorched earth.

So, Elfman, I don't think the forest was raped as much as it is now being raped by neglect and management roadblocks thrown up and litigated on every USFS and BLM decision on a daily basis. There are acts of commission, and acts of omission, but both can be a path to ruin. You end up at the same place. Doing nothing did not save one Serb, Jew, Gypsy, handicapped person from the Holocaust. Doing nothing is not going to save our heritage forests, the balance in animals the majority wants from public lands, or save one head of livestock, pet or endangered animal. Have the wolves killed the less than 20 woodland caribou in Idaho yet? I see no census reports, no annual media reports, no NGO activity, and because I see none, the more certain I am they are probably gone.

So, here we are, a thousand or more wolves breeding like flies, expanding like Zebra mussels, all the wolf sociology rules being broken by the out of compliance wolves throughout their rapidly expanding range, and control of the wolf population is nowhere in sight or near. Nor will it ever be. The game animals lost are primarily on public land, all public property, so if there are none left to hunt, that is the public's business. The majority shall prevail, I would hope.

However, the public's wolves have no right to private livestock.
At some point, growing livestock losses will bring about less support for an unbounded population of wolves. Better the wolf population issue be addressed now than later, because wolves are going to die. There will be blood. Less now than later.

"the public's wolves have no right to private livestock".

How about private livestock have no right to the public's lands?

Cattle devestate ecosystems. Ranchers stand in the way of wolf recovery, grizzley recovery, native grass recovery,prarie dog recovery, bison recovery,etc.Of all the things ranchers love to hate, the thing that belongs to the land the least is the cattle.

Matt, are you the one to decide who can use public lands? Is it ok if your tents, backpacks etc are destroyed while you are on public land? Should we extend every protection possible to anyone who would tear your stuff up and destrooy it? Maybe even import a few of those criminals from cities for you? Again, ranchers pay for the grazing rights of thier cattle.
Just to make you feel good, here is an example of some of that devastation from grazing. I took the photo last spring.

http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/81217276

Here is what the Big Horns looked like as the cows were getting ready to come home in the fall. Notice hwo that grass is eaten down to the roots, and tell me again how the ranchers destroy everything.

http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/89180030

Marion,

Do I get to decide? I ask do you? Why do you get to decide that teh American people cannot retore this badly damaged ecosystem? Why do you get to decide that a destructive industry continues at the expense of all the living things on the land? The native animals have lived on native grass for thousands of years. Don't try and convince me that bighorns are more damageing than cattle. Ranchers have allowed over grazing for so long, that many native grasses have almost been erdicated. Many non native species have taken over,intentionally put there by ranchers. The reason prarie dogs are legal to shoot with no limit, despite the fact that many biologists are alarmed at their declining rates, is because the wildlife "managers" have pressure put on them by the ranching industry. Cattle cause far more damage than they are worth economically, especially as America wakes up to the health effects of beef and switches to turkey and chicken.

Please describe the damage that you saw in either of those two pictures of graze. You do realize the grass has to be at a certain level and if it is being eaten down and not growing due to drought, then the cows ahve to come down.
Or do you prefer to ignore actual facts, and make up your own to match your desires?
Every single activity has an effect on the earth, including yours, I seriously doubt you walk on air.

Marion,

Here are the facts.

Many native grasses have been eradicated from over grazing and competeition with intentionally planted non native grasses.

The plains and other grass lands were historically taller, providing more cover for newborn herd animals. This is why wolf and elk co existed for thousands of years without "help" from humans. This is why herds elk and antelope were able to survive in sustainable numbers along with wolves for thousands of years. The new grasslands have shorter grasses and provide less cover, thus wolves have more of an impact than they would otherwise.

Attempts to restore bison to their former range have been met with resistance because they compete with cattle for grasses, and ranchers have a fear of brucelosis.

Prairie dogs have long been considered "vermain" because they too compete with cattle for food resources, and ranchers complain cattle break their legs stepping in burrows. Bison never had this problem,nor did they overgraze.

The disappearance of the black footed ferret can be directly linked to the reduction of the prairie dog,which again,is directly linked to rancher politics.

The spread of the coyote,also considered a villian by ranchers and other nature haters, can be directly attributed to the eradication of wolves,which hisotircally kept coyote populations in check.

Is that enough facts for you? The North American ecosystems have been damaged to acomodate cattle. The American public is waking up to the facts and the tide is turning.We are not going back to 1850 no matter how bad you want to stay there.A new attitude towards nature is here to stay.Sorry. You'll have to cope.

Those that will shoot a wolf to "sell it's pelt" are the lowest of the lowest sleaze bags.

Why not just shoot your mother for the right price, or your German Shepherd, for that matter, if MONEY is all that matters to you?

Hey T. Klumker!

If you seriously think "Range Magazine" has any credibility, think twice!

It's a magazine full of NOTHING BUT PROPOGANDA and SCARE TACTICS designed to preserve the lifestyle of the rancher at the COST of our native predators.

Their view of predators is (add in the requisite hand wringing) "Oh, those scary dangerous animals! They're "eating" all our livestock and we're going broke!"

Hmmm... what would you expect leaving your livestock out UNATTENDED in open spaces for months? Do you REALLY think predators are not going to go after it? Livestock owners who do this are INVITING AND BAITING PREDATORS!

Here's some facts to consider: Predators do not understand that certain animals are "owned" and others are not! Animals do not understand property boundaries, i.e., --those who are killing bison who are "straying" (i.e., LIVING) outside Yellowstone. I guess the bison forgot their maps?

Use some common sense!

"SHUCKS SAYS: The wolves are systematically destroying the moose & elk herds. There are 6200 elk left in the northern herd and about 1/3 (2000) left inside of the park."
*************

If that is "true," which I seriously doubt (more propaganda), consider that the wolves need MORE range to hunt.

Currently, they are "confined" to "certain geographic areas." That is NOT how Mother Nature works!

Until man can accept wild predators without having to "control" or "manage" "dominate" (KILL) them, this fight will go on and on and on....

I, for one, will continue to protect magnificent predatory animals such as wolves, coyotes, etc. LONG BEFORE I'd protect arrogant Western ranchers who think they own the freaking West running their cattle all over the place and displacing OUR NATIVE WILDLIFE! (and using our tax dollars to do so!)

Leave our predators alone!

There are homo sapiens for whom speech is only a means for them to communicate their beliefs.
They seem incapable of receiving someone else's thoughts.

Our civilization has been wholly sublimated by the various aspects of our economic culture. To tell a rancher his beef would be better raised in a feed-lot is to remove from him his raison d etre'.

The same applies to Cheyenne cowboys wherever they may live...

Here is how livestock owners particularly in the West actually think: (they have zero responsibility for watching their livestock... even in Colorado and many other Western states, the "Free Range" laws say the livestock owner IS NOT RESPONSIBLE if his animals are on YOUR PROPERTY!

This is beginning to sound like the Mafia!

"Those damn predators-- who do they think they are going after my livestock? If I even see one near my ranch (whether it's on my property or not), I'm going to shoot the damn thing or call "Wildlife Services -- they'll take care of it for me. Good thing I don't have to pay for it!"

Well, who do the predators think they are?

They don't think they are anyone but a wild animal trying to survive. It sees a delicious steak dinner left completely unattended.

And these ranchers are BLAMING the PREDATORS (as if it has the sense to be "devious") for their "problem."

Hey, some advice: Put up a fence if you don't want predators going after your livestock! If you can't afford it, get out of the business. Don't kill OUR PREDATORS due to your lack of responsibility!

Dear bearbait,

It isn't the wolves breeding like "flies." It's the wolf and coyote haters who are breeding like rabbits.

Perhaps we can figure out a way to legally dart all of you with contraceptives so you stop breeding!

bearbait - you speak as if I am referring to the rape of our forests as being back 100+ years ago. Forests are have been raped in the last few decades and continue to be raped by outfits such as Plum Creek Timber every single day. This is not to say there are not some very responsible timber outfits out there. Look at Green Diamond Resource Company (formerly Simpson Timber - NOT Stimson). They do an amazing job. Why? Because it is a family owned business owned by a family who cares about the sustainability of their operation. Plum Creek is a REIT and has a great incentive, if not a duty, to rape and pillage in the name of profit as much as possible. When they finish they sell the land to wealthy, recreation enthusiasts or, worse yet, garner public funds via a conservation easement so they can take their money to places like Maine, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, buy more timberlands to rape, pillage and sell.Yes, trees grow back on cut ground but it would take hundreds of years to replace the old growth forests that have been trashed.

Marque, the numbers of this year's elk count have been published far and wide. So what part do you not believe?
Can someone please explain the hatred of the human haters? Even the folks that have been impacted the most almost never use the vile name calling that the imposers seem to feel they have to use. Is that the only way you can justify what you are doing to the lives and property of other people?

bearbait - there will be lots of blood any way you look at it. If there is not enough cattle blood at the slaughterhouse there will be plenty of wolf blood in the field.

Marion, you said: "Is that the only way you can justify what you are doing to the lives and property of other people?"****************

Justify what? "Doing what" exactly to the "lives and property of other people?" Trying to protect our native predators who have been harrassed, shot, poisoned, snared, trapped to "protect" the livestock industry? Just who do YOU think YOU are?

Those animals "belong" to all of us --

You expect to let your livestock roam wide and free on OPEN LANDS "without interference" from natural predators. You and your Mafia organization, Wildlife Servicees, want the countryside SANITIZED of any animal you do not find conducive to doing that.

That is the most ridiculous part of it.

If you're the same "marion" who has posted on other sites, I've seen enough of your extremist postings!

You are not capable of caring about native predators -- as far as you're concerned, they are only a "nuisance" in the way of you earning a profit.

So, just like any facist thinks, if something is in the way, if you can't dominate it, kill it.

And that is exactly what Wildlife Services is doing yearly to our animals. They are killing over 1.5 million of them (100,000 predators) to keep livestock owners happy.

What a crock as are "Open Range" laws!

It is high time to ABOLISH "Open Range" laws in the West.

By the way, for those who think all who wish to protect natural predators are from "the city" or "new York," (albeit not informed of "reality") may I inform you that the PUBLISHER of "Range Magazine" is from none other than New York?

One doesn't need to live in or even experience an area to understand the problems. Do you need to live in the inner city of Detroit to understand its problems? There is plenty of research and information available for anyone who wishes to educate themselves.

Wolves (and other predatory animals) need to be PERMANENTLY protected from hunting on a national level, as the Bald Eagle has.

The REASON wolves were on the endangered species list is not because of "loss of habitat," but DIRECTLY due to persecution!

We owe it to the wolf to permanently protect it from those in states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho (especially) from those who just hold a deep seated "hatred" for this magnificent animal.

I truly feel sorry for people who "hate" wolves and other predatory animals. How could anyone who is educated "hate" certain animals? It just shows their ignorance.

Studies have shown, too, that the more educated one is, the higher likelihood they support wolf protection.

That isn't propaganda - those are the facts.

Sometimes I think the "wolf hatred" is not always directed at the animal itself, but at those who support wolves.

The livestock owners see wolf supporters as 'ruining their way of life.'

It's a silly and very dangerous way to think, of course, as the alternative is "sanitizing" the countryside of predatory animals for the benefit of a few livestock owners, many of whom are actually rich large corporations such as Simplot's spread (whom incidentally is one of our famous Welfare Ranchers).

I don't think anyone in their right mind would support that idea. But guess what -- our taxes are paying for that exact idea right now through "Wildlife Services."

They are "servicing" 1.6 million animals per year (killing them) with OUR tax money.

You asked:"Justify what? "Doing what" exactly to the "lives and property of other people?" Trying to protect our native predators who have been harassed, shot, poisoned, snared, trapped to "protect" the livestock industry? Just who do YOU think YOU are?"

The wolves attack and kill animals in their own yards, please understand that. I know you want to believe that they only chase and kill livestock and dogs, horse, sheep, etc on leased land, but that is not the case. When they were first brought in, they killed two dogs of a ranch family at Dubois, the lady who owned them was walking the last dog to the barn to lock it in for the night where wolves couldn't get to it and a wolf attacked it while she was walking with it. Do you really feel you have the right to use the wolves to invade someones home and peace of mind like that?
We don't hate wolves, we hate what they do to our animals, and our peace of mind. Why do you hate people so much that you want, no demand the right to put them thru this? And please don't come up with the wolves were here first bull, they were hauled in to try to chase folks out of their homes. Why don't you have every animal that once lived where you do in your yard?

First of all I don't live on acreage which would be large mammal habitat. If it were, I'd LOVE to have all the native animals.....

Second, I don't "hate" people but I vehemently disagree with those who held a hatred for predators such as wolves.

No one is "using" wolves to do anything. They have a right to be in their native habitat.

If they go onto your property, I believe you can legally shoot them now that the wolf haters will have their way with delisting them.

Of course shooting would be your FIRST line of defense of course, not your last?

I assume you are not interested in non-lethal methods?

You keep saying "brought in." Wolves weren't brought "in," they were brought BACK.

You should read the story of the extermination of the wolf courtesy of the U.S. government and livestock interests, and then engage in this discussion.

I can certainly understand why you'd "hate what they do to your animals;" but what about what the SLAUGHTERHOUSE does to your animals? That's not real pretty either!

Oh, sorry, you get paid then. $$$

It doesn't matter how much land you have, the wolves & without a doubt, a lot of other wildlife were there once upon a time so get rid of your houses and move away to???? That way the wolves & others wildlife can have your habitat BACK as you said. Surely your desire to have the wolves restored to all of their habitat includes your home to, no matter what it costs. Surely you don't jsut expects other to make all of the sacrifices do you? You would be willing to sacrifice whatever you have for the wolves right?
No, I didn't like when our animals went to be sold, but the fact remains that is where your food, shoes, glue, and a host of other things you consider vital to your life comes from.
Predators, like anything else have to be controlled, that is why they were eliminated from "habitat" where bunches of people congregated (cities) first. They were eliminated back east hundreds of years before there were ranches out here, or anything but the natives who lived here.
I think you need to understand how wolves and other predators were eliminated from coast to coast. That really illustrates the old saying when you point your finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you.

Why is it that the Indians co-existed with wolves for thousands of years, but modern people can't. Maybe it is because:

a) we breed to damn much. 300 million in the USA. Isn't that enough?

b) we consume too much. Do we really need all the crap we have?

c) we are spoiled rotten. We want comfort, cheap goods, and we want it now. We want to get anywhere is a matter of hours. If something is in the way, kill it, blow it up,dam it, pave it over.

quote:"c) we are spoiled rotten. We want comfort, cheap goods, and we want it now. We want to get anywhere is a matter of hours. If something is in the way, kill it, blow it up,dam it, pave it over.

Or take it away form someone else or make them give it to us. Sounds like a lib plan to me.

Is marian for real or is somebody posting foolish posts just to create a strawman for progressives..?

Holy Cow Or Wolf,
What is it, greenie queer day on the old wolf battlefield? Get ahold of yourselves folks!

So Marion,

It sounds like you are for "predator extermination."

Is that correct?

As far as your comment "it doesn't matter how much land you have..." It doesn't?!

Sure it does! How could 1/4 acre support wolf packs?

Are you for real?

Who is "taking what away from you?" Are people "taking" your land?

A few questions:

1. Do you know what a fence is?
2. Can you afford one?
3. Just tell me a bit about yourself -- did you finish high school? Do you have any education or have you just raised animals for your livelihood your entire life? I am interested in finding out.

It is true that Native Americans co-existed with wildlife including predators for 10's of 1,000's of years. The reason? They did not see any animals as "bad" or "threatening" the way this "Marion" does.

They also used restraint with producing more Indian babies -- unlike "settled" people who breed like rabbits.

Indians did not kill buffalo out of trains for the "fun of it."

So, who's really smarter-- white man, who "drinks from the pond in which he lives" or the red man, who co-exists in harmony?

Red men had no diseases until white man brought them here from filty Europe.

Now those old-thinking European immigrants are succeeding in ruining North America with too many babies, pollution, etc..... treating animals as if they are a "commodity" or "merchandise" without feelings -- corporations stuff animals in dark pens where they live their lives. Baby pigs and calves are taken from their mothers early in life until they are sent to slaughter. Factory Farming is one of the worst evils there is today.

Raising animals on open spaces SEEMS a lot 'nicer.' The fact is, it has COST OUR NATIVE PREDATORS THE ULTIMATE PRICE -- THEIR LIVES.

"Marion" (if she is for real) perfectly exemplifies the hysteria by some livestock owners (not all --some are effectively using non-lethal techniques to control predation) where they think "Oh my God-- the wolves (it's coyotes really --96% of depredation is from coyotes, not wolves) are eating ALL our animals! We're going out of business! Quick -- call in Wildlife "Services" (the feds) to KILL THEM ALL!"

That is not very intelligent, Marion.

You also refuse to answer Marque's question about FENCING.

Why is that?

Do you not think you have a responsibility to fence in your animals from natural predation?

It is no different than if your dog went after a rabbit.

IT'S NATURAL.

Uhh, do you guys ever read anything but what you post? I explained very carefully in my post last night, that livestock is being killed inside of their fences.
I see no reason why you guys that want wolves cannot sacrifice for them, instead of designating others to do it for you. Talk about an entitlement mentality.
Interestingly enough, it was so called wolf lovers who insisted on taking wolves out of their wilderness homes, and bringing them to live on ranches and among people where they could only get into trouble, and get killed. Isn't it most interesting that those who were most insistant on having wolves planted among people just happened to live where they don't have enough land to allow wolves to impact them?
The follks that had the wolves pushed off on them didn't want to , but they agreed to the 300 originally agreed upon, now many times that is not enough, in fact I can get no one to say what they consider enough. Our word is good, the wolf lovers word is no good, they are liars and cheaters.

Marion - you make zero sense. Is english your first language?

I think it would be better to address the issue at hand, wolf hunting or whether hunters will actually want to hunt wolves, and refrain from personal attacks on each other. Everybody understand that there is a lot of passion on both sides of the wolf issue, and I welcome and encourage everybody to comment, but I believe it's al3ways more productive to address the issue, not the person. Thank you....Bill Schneider

Bill... good point but it is hard to address the issue when one of the commentators does not have a very good command of effective communication via the English language.

Obviously I have not expressed things clearly.
The livestock is inside of fenced property, even on grazing leases.
The wolf kills on private property are happening in fenced pastures and some inside of smaller fenced pens. Some of these pens have had fladry, rags, and some are electrified.......to no avail. They only keep the wolves out until they realize there is no danger from those things.
We need to go beyond ranchers are bad so they deserve bad things happening to them.
When the wolves were imported it was with full knowledge that some would have to be killed by FWS. It was also with the agreement that the states had to raise 300 of them.

Marion - the use of the word "imported" implies that these creatures are new to the area. No, they have been "RE-introduced" and are "RE-establishing" themselves after they were exterminated from the country. Do you wish to kill them all or would you like to see a healthy population of what used to live here naturally?

OK, so Marion, what do YOU want "done?"

PS: Re: Grazing leases -- that kind of subsidy is going to end in the future -- hopefully the NEAR future. Cattle do not belong on public lands. They are displacing our native wildlife in the offensive way.

With wild animals, Marion, they do not understand "private" vs. "public" vs. anything else as far as land territories go. They are just animals.

We have coyotes in our area; they don't bother anyone, yet the town wants to kill them because they have eaten some small dogs (it's prey to them) and has asked for a license to do so. It's ridiculous.

No one seems to be telling the pet owners to be responsible for their pets.

Co-existing with wildlife is not a novel idea-- the Native Americans did it for years and there were 10's of thousands of wolves then.

White man killed all the buffalo and brought in cattle; which is non-native and cannot effectively fend off predators very well.

You're asking for something that's not natural (predators to "know" to leave your animals alone).

You are talking in vague generalities; please tell us more about YOUR particular situation -- not others. What kind of animals do you have -- what kind of fencing do you have?

Marion:

If I was rich enough to afford acreage, I would buy vast amounts of it -- not to raise livestock -- but to give native predatory animals and other wildlife a much needed respite and home from the constant harrassment and killing by Wildlife "Services" on behalf of the AG community. :) My reward would be watching these incredible animals fro a distance acting naturally.

Barb: what about "community" do you not understand? People like Marion are part of a community. It is their community that is being harmed. Not yours. Not New York City's. Not Seattle's. But rural Wyoming.

That community is a collection of people, close neighbors and remote neighbors. They send their kids to a common school, many go to a common church. They shop, trade, and work with each other. People like Marion hurt when anyone in their community hurts. I know that does not address any synapses you are familiar with, but it is real.

Some people have the time to comment on a space like this. Most are too damned busy trying to keep all the pieces working to be able to be witty and wise on the internet. A retired person who cares about her community, like Marion, has the time. She talks for her neighbors, her friends, her community. She listens to what they are saying. She is a messenger. You should listen.

Wolves are predators, and are a part of the workings of a wild ecology. They do not belong on ranches. Until the government builds a wolf proof fence around their wildlands, with a half mile fuel free zone inside it, wolves and wildfire that come from your wildlands will negatively impact the people who live like you, on private land. Their precious estate. Not the king's. That is why this is America and England. You evidently think that you are royalty, or part of a soviet commune, something that gives you the right to impose your communal wolf on a private rancher. That is wrong. It also cannot be defended in court. There is a line between the State and the People. In time, perhaps by the wolf conflicts, there will be a case heard at the Supreme Court about who has sovereignty over wolves off the public estate. And, a revisit of ESA in terms of private property impacts without compensation.

The blind, total commitment to the wolf and nothing else, in a community of humans, will not serve either the wolf or the humans in the long term. Never is the social order perfect or truly balanced. Just last week, an Oregon State U. grad student working on a pine marten project in the Northern Sierras found her motion/heat operated cameras had taken a photo of a wolverine, and no wolverine has been documented in CA since the 1920's.

The wolf deal was a political ploy for Green Votes by the Clintons, and a payoff for campaign help. An artificial speed up of getting wolves to Yellowstone. You know it. I know it. And they did not do it in Ohio, Texas, California, but in Republican public land heavy states with few electoral votes. Wolves, like the wolverine in California, will make their way to protected habitat over time, if the habitat is sufficient to support them. Importing the largest subspecies of timber wolf from way north in Canada is biologically flawed, and hurtful to the local livestock economy. All the shibboleths about self limiting population growth, alpha only breeding, have been proven wrong.

It is too early to know the full extent of how wolves will impact game animals, which are important to rural economies. The issue of non-resident hunting is that large fees bring money to rural areas. If that game is going to be mostly missing to feed wolves, that part of the local economy and those who used to come from out of state will feel the loss. It will also detract from the ranching bottom line for hunting leases and guiding fees.

The urban American need for energy, food, fiber, and mineral resources far beyond what livestock grazers require, is being mitigated by taking even more from the least powerful and least numerous, the rural population. It makes those cement and steel greedy, energy hogs feel good about their impact on the world when they can make someone else suffer for their greed. In time, importing our daily needs will prove to be a disaster for America.

So no matter how you justify introduction of exotic wolf dna into the rural communities, those people have to live with it, don't like some of the regulation, and they are the ones that suffer economically. You don't need to beat up on people who express their feelings about how they are being treated. You can't hear your own whining and until you do, you shouldn't denigrate those who differ with you. Argue, but do not demean them personally. And Elfman, didn't your parents tell you it was wrong to beat up on girls, to show them no respect?

"political ploy for green votes"?! Hilarious.

Bearbait: You have said that wolves do not belong on ranches. Just curious... where do they belong, in your opinion?

By the way, people earn respect in my world... it doesn't come with gender automatically.

I'm not bearbait, but I can say that wolves belong in the wilderness....like their natural habitat prior to being brought into inhabited areas.

elfman, your respect is the last thing in the world that I want or need. Neither do I need to force others to do the hard work and make the sacrifices to give me what I want. It is useless to explain the concept of caring about others to you.

Marion - So, I take it you were FOR the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone's wilderness? Is that correct?

I was not offering you my respect so your sentiments work just fine between us. However, it is amusing to me that you would assume that I do not understand the concept of caring about others. On what information do you base this? Do you know me? Have you ever spent any time with me? You think just because someone appreciates wolves means they couldn't possibly care about others?! Strange logic you have there.

Bearbait, I "appreciate" the lecture, I completely disagree with most of your points. Please don't speak for someone else. I'd rather talk directly to Marion.

I too am very busy. I have three children, a household to manage, and a full time job. I have no cleaning services, etc.

However, the way our natural predators have been treated by livestock owners and Wildlife Services with my tax money is infuriating.

They, TOO, have a RIGHT TO EXIST AND BE HERE. You make it sound as if they don't -- as if you'd be glad if they were all "exterminated" again.

You are in the minority of public opinion, Bearbait.

What the heck does "bearbait" mean -- that you "bait" bears in order to kill them? That's immoral and shows a lack of respect for God's creatures.

Bearbait,

Why do you think ranchers or livestock owners (small ones) are the ONLY ones economically affected by things outside of their control? I appreciate your sympathies with them, but what about other industries where people are having a hard time? I wonder if you have compassion for them too.

Many people I know have been laid off in recent and not so recent months -- are they whining how it's "so unfair?" Are they asking the government to do something for them (besides unemployment?) No. The "market" will determine if their jobs are viable.

Your type seems to want to force your ways down OUR throats. I appreciate that some want to raise livestock.

But it is simply unrealistic and foolish to expect that animals will be "fine" left unattended.

Walmart has 24 hour security. What about ranchers? No, they want the predators to "pay the price," or Defenders of Wildlife, or Wildlife Services, or anyone but themselves.

That's certainly how it looks at least.