DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LEGAL LOOPHOLE
A Message to Wolf Haters: Fight Trigger Itch
By Bill Schneider, 3-28-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Here’s something you probably never heard a western rancher say: “Government is a wonderful thing.”
But that might be precisely what they’re saying down in the coffee shops and saloons in Idaho and Wyoming because they could be thinking the federal government has accidentally given them the opportunity to shoot as many wolves as they can for the next 30 days with no consequences.
To this, I say: Don’t even think about it.
Anybody exposed to news knows that today, March 28, the federal government officially and totally removed the wolf from the endangered species list in northern Rockies. Eleven conservation groups have made it crystal clear that they believe it’s too soon to remove protections and plan to sue to keep the wolf an endangered species.
But most people don’t know about the loophole.
Here’s how it happened, as explained to NewWest.Net by Amelia Orton-Palmer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Endangered Species Act dictates that a notice of delisting must be filed 30 days in advance of the actual delisting. That notice went out on February 28, 30 days before the actual delisting on March 28.
Orton-Palmer also said the Act says a delisting notification, such as the February 28 notice, can’t be dragged into the courts for 60 days after a “notice of intent” to sue is filed, which the eleven conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, did on the first day they could, February 28. That means they can’t actually file the lawsuit and ask for an injunction until April 28, leaving the 30-day loophole or what the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) calls “open season on wolves.”
Actually, I should say, 30 days or more, because there’s hardly a guarantee that a court will immediately rule to halt delisting--or ever will. But Earthjustice has been quite effective in such litigation, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see courts quickly suspend delisting.
Can you imagine a covey of wolf haters convincing themselves this might be their “only shot” to have their vigilante justice and do their part to keep wolf numbers down. After all, the courts could suspend the state agency plans and delisting, which could delay sport hunting or liberal killing of wolves for years.
I hope this isn’t happening, but it wouldn’t shock me to find out about some semi-organized “wolf hunts” starting this weekend. I urge these guys to control their trigger itch because being stupid could be self-defeating.
In Wyoming, 88 percent of the state, including the current home range of five wolf packs and near that of ten more, “anybody can shoot a wolf for any reason,” says Mike Leahy, DOW rocky mountain director, without even having a permit.
“A lot could happen in 30 days,” Leahy told NewWest.Net. “There is supposed to be reporting, but it will be very hard to keep tabs on this.”
And according to Leahy, recent actions by Idaho create almost the same situation.
On March 26, the Idaho legislature passed Senate Bill 1374 and sent it the governor for signature. The bill allows Idaho residents to shoot a wolf if it’s “molesting or attacking” domestic livestock or pets. And “chances are nil that the governor won’t sign it,” Leahy says, “since his own people recommended it.”
“Molesting” is almost comically defined as worrying, annoying, disturbing, persecuting, lying in wait, flushing, stalking, following after, on the trail of, chasing, or driving any domestic animal.
In other words, Leahy says, “If wolves are howling and worrying your cattle, you could go out an shoot them.”
“It’s not much of a stretch” to say Idaho is in the same situation as Wyoming, adds Leahy.
Orton-Palmer admitted that the FWS could have extended the period between notice and delisting to 60 days or more to prevent the loophole, but she said FWS scientists weren’t worried about any impact on the wolf population so saw no need to do so.
Ed Bangs, who was in charge of wolf recovery for the FWS until today, agrees and isn’t worried about the loophole being a big problem--"theoretically, yes, but practically, no. “A few wolves might be killed, but biologically it won’t affect the population.”
Plus, he reminds us that there’s no guarantee the courts will grant the plaintiffs an injunction to stop delisting on April 28, or ever. “It’s hard to get those injunctions, especially in this case with the state plans in place. I’m not sure they will get it at all. The wolf population is going to be fine under any circumstances, but a goofy reaction during these 30 days almost guarantees that there will be an injunction. Any bad reaction from the redneck element only helps those who want to keep wolves on the endangered species list.
“But that’s what’s so interesting about wolves,” he adds with a little chuckle. “People do nutty things. The extreme symbolism of wolves has been going on for a few thousand years and always will be there.”
So, here’s the punch line. Don’t underestimate the passion on both sides of the wolf issue.
The Big Dog is greatest fundraiser ever for DOW and many other green groups, so you aren’t going to see any end to efforts to keep the wolf in the news. Instead, you can expect more fear mongering about the wolf’s upcoming demise, no different than rhetoric you hear from some hunters predicting the wolf will decimate big game herds.
On the other hand, western ranchers and rural communities see the wolf as an agent of change--and a change they don’t want. Wolf reintroduction allows the federal government and eastern greenies to control them, and they refuse to believe ranchers and wolves can peacefully and economically co-exist.
With that kind of disconnect, we’ll always have controversy whenever the four-letter-word is used. So be it, but hopefully, everybody shows restraint during the loophole period because any lack of restraint will likely serve to prolong and intensify the controversy.
[End of article]I cannot imagine how disappointed you are going to be when no wolves are killed. In fact I suspect less than have been killed by Bangs et al.
How does one differentiate between "wolf haters" & "people haters"?
Marion,
Lighten up! How can you say that Bill will be disappointed? And just how does one differentiate between a wolf hater and a people hater?
Bill, the "disconnect" is one of reality, and that's strictly a phenomenon of the Left.
Most Westerners are grownups, it's part of the reason many have hung on so long in the fact of the constant political assault on the western way of life.
In the predator zone (good idea, Wyoming, can we have your Governor?) it turns out the packs that exist are marginal and always in trouble, and only 10 percent of the state official total. Not a big deal from a biological standpoint to hose them off, you could kill every single one and there would be dispersers from the "core" next year -- and will be until Yellowstone erupts.
The important factor there is the current wolves don't behave themselves, and have not. To spread those animals out further would cause nothing but problems, something which quite a number of us wolf unlovers feel is dearly desired or at least intended by more than a misguided few as well as PLENTY of perfectly rational power-tripping pukes.
Other media sources have talked to ranchers who for the most part seem to be willing to accept the presence of wolves as long as they have the option of predator control when they feel a need for it. That's really not asking for a lot.
I think the reality is, there might be a couple road-hunter kills, maybe a few harassment mortalities at ranches where late calving might still be happening, but a bloodbath? Nah.
Read his headline, how about waiting before judging? First I have to know what constitutes a wolf hater, a person who is upset at the uncompensated loss of a few thousand dollars worth of animals? Or would it be the family that has paid out 25,000 or more per year for the last 10 years or more to try to provide some protection for his animals?
Comment By pendejo, 3-28-08A wolf-hater is anyone who thinks only they deserve to be a top predator. A wolf-hater is someone who does not like grizzly bears, wolverines, or wolves because they eat things they want to eat such as elk, deer, and cows; if that is you, then you are a wolf-hater.
A wolf-hater is someone who believes society should try to exact total control over a natural environment; wolf-haters believe that somehow their interests are so far superior to any other that instead of compromise, total annihilation must be the answer. A wolf-hater has no tolerance for natural ecosystems that they cannot control.
Wolf-haters are a sad and miserable lot who must live a lonely life.
But almost no one meets your criteria. On the other hand that sounds like folks who deliberately remove an animal from it's wilderness home and haul it hundreds of miles away where it will be cheap and easy for so called admirers to line up and ogle it, but unfortunately where it will eat the easier to catch livestock already in the area, and have it's life endangered.
There is not and never has been a shortage of wolves, they just required too much effort to even try to see them. The solution was to haul them into an area and require locals to care for them & deal with them.
I don't think someone with a rifle shooting at a wolf in with his now calving cows is a wolf hater. Remember, the rancher does not hate the wolf. He hates what the wolf does to his livestock. Those will be the wolves killed, if any. I really don't think there will be a land rush to hunt wolves. Nobody owns sight hounds anymore. Few Airedales around. There are no Kazaks with wolf hunting eagles in America. Hunting wolves is no easy matter. In the old country, it was a lifetime of learned skills that made one a wolf hunter. In this country, the wolf hunter was a loner without property or other income. They might have been a tad mad, too.
When wolves start in on livestock, they have run out of easy pickings on the native prey. They are beginning to find elk and moose that fight back, and wolves are risk avoiders.
Not one "wolf hater" has said to kill them all or even most of them. All ranchers want is reasonable controls on wolf populations. No control is not reasonable. My opinion. I have not talked to outfitters who now share the game with wolves, but you can be sure there are going to be economic dislocations in that business.
These next 30 days will probably be pretty ho hum. Uneventful. I just imagine there is some intrepid news reporter who will turn over a million rocks looking for some man-wolf interaction that can be sensationalized to stir the wolf faerie emotions. Hell, that is what this news story is about, is it not?
Interesingly enough wolf proponents are as wrong about the ease of killing all of wolves as they are about how little damage and how much good they do. Very often the wolfers (hunters) of the old days had a great deal of respect for them even though they understood the tremendous damage they were doing and the need to remove them.
Comment By Hunter, 3-28-08I keep hearing about how damaging the wolves are, and how bad the wolves are, and how they should be hunted and kept away from cattle/livestock. How come no one ever mentions the damage that livestock do to the national forests? How come no one ever talks about how cattle tear up riparian areas; or the effect this has on big game, like elk? In Idaho, where I spent most of my time dodging cattle on BLM land, most of the cattle were a wetland species indigenous to India. What the hell is a wetland species of cattle doing in the desert of Idaho? It's destroying the few wetland areas around, that's what. Maybe we should restore the wolves and remove cattle. So many westerners are hunters anyway, go get your own meat, don't support the cattle industry! Be a self-sufficient, proud, independent westerner; not a co-dependent leech sucking on the teat of the nearest cattle rancher. Go take a tour of Ted Turner's land. Not a cattle around, only Bison, mountain lions, elk, deer, probably wolves, and healthy wetland areas and creeks whose beds aren't crusted with week-old cow shit. Go ask their land managers how fast the elk population and riparian areas bounced back after they removed the cattle; oh, wait, nevermind. The answer you will get will run counter to your narrow-minded ideology of how the land and the people will benefit. Go fire up a steak on the grill and gorge yourself...before all the cattle are eaten by wolves.
Comment By The Old Sarge, 3-29-08This article is one of the most biased I've ever read. Your thinking on the wolf issue is convoluted and your reporting, if it qualifies as such, is deliberately misleading.
Comment By mostlyMike, 3-29-08The wolf issue is, and always has been, mostly about competing visions of the West.
Economic arguments are attempts to justify attitudes that would be taken anyway.
Hunter,
Most people do discuss these issues. The only ones that don't are wolf haters.
Marion Pulease!!! "Very often the wolfers (hunters) of the old days had a great deal of respect for them even though they understood the tremendous damage they were doing and the need to remove them." First of all I have NEVER read in any account that a wolfer ever had any respect for the wolf, but only for the money he earned in killing them. And as far as the tremendous damage they were doing. Do you mean the tremendous damage they were doing to the REAL tremendous damage causers????? Cattle?????? The simple fact of the matter is that wolf haters have NO ligitimate cause to HATE wolves. They hate them because wolves represent an outside influence over public lands and wildlife issues that they mistakenly believe they have exclusive rights over, to dominate, exploit and destroy.
Look at the work the nature conservancy does by keeping cattle away from the streams, buying up property along a stream to protect it. I use to fish the lower part of Silver creek until the rancher down there started letting his cattle graze right in the creek, I can tell you that the fishing is no longer what it use to be, thats flyfishing and catch & release too. The cattle need to be moved off public land, if the rancher can't make it on his own property then time to find another business to go into. No more government handouts to ranchers too. What ever happened to the notion if you can't make it on your own, then time to re-invent yourself. But then its a waste of time trying to get the wolf haters to see the light as they are spreading so many lies, soon enough they don't know what the truth is.
Comment By Marion, 3-29-08Actually TNC owns some cattle ranches. One I can name off the top of my head is the Red Rock ranch near Lander, WY. They are one of the biggest real estate barons in the US.
Once mroe slowly, ranchers pay for grazing rights in the mountains for summer range, approximately 3 months per year. On the other hand, wildlife graze for free on private land during the year around, but especially during the long winters that we have here (frankly I am beginning to doubt that this winter will ever end, it already seems to have gone on forever). How much feed summer or winter do any of you provide for any wild thing? You seem so full of hate for rancheers that you are willing to sacrifice a goodly portion of the wildlife winter habitat by forcing ranchers off the land. Smart, real smart.
If wolves are the wonderful things you claim, why don't any of you have them where you are?
Marion can you tell me if Red Rock ranch is owned by the TNC or just leased??
Is there a stream nearby, are the cattle allowed to graze right down into the stream??? You have to remember this all of this land once belonged to the animals, so if a deer or elk or even a wolf wants to come and graze in my yard, be my guest. Can you tell me without a shadown of a doubt that cattle do not ruin public land. Because from what I have seen, they do.
I really do not know what kind of management they do except what the release in the press. It is considered private property and you cannot go on TNC property if it is not open to the public without an invite.
By the way our Dem governor tapped the former TNC manager fo the ranch to head the Wildlfie Fund in this state, so I expect enviro groups are getting much of the money. By the way notice how much land they lease for grazing.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/press/press2222.html
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/preserves/art13451.html
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Lander/rec/redcanyon.html
I jsut posted a message that included links to the ranch, but it was evidently marked spam, probably due to the links, so I will try again. Please note it is private property, and I don't know if it is ever open to the public, even TNC members, many of their properties are not, also note the lease 30,000 acres for grazing on public land.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/preserves/art13451.html
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Lander/rec/redcanyon.html
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wyoming/press/press2222.html
I jsut posted 2 messages that included links to the ranch, but it was evidently marked spam, probably due to the links, so I will try again. Please note it is private property, and I don't know if it is ever open to the public, even TNC members, many of their properties are not, also note the lease 30,000 acres for grazing on public land.
I have not seen damage to public land by grazing, mostly becaue in this day and age, the use is closely monitored by the leasing agency. Land that has been successfully grazed for over a hundred years is not likely to be abused land.
Thanks Marion. Links are showing.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Anybody else have this problem? Lately, my comments have been rejected when I use Internet Explorer. My previous message that went thru I used Firefox.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Here we go again. Personal abuse leveled at Marion.
Comment By Marion, 3-29-08Jeff, first of all they are deleting personal attacks and yours is such. Second do you feel only one side fo an issue is to be allowed?
Comment By Marion, 3-29-08The point is why would you impose a dangerous destructive animal on people and force them to provide protection for it no matter what it does or how much it costs? Is it because you hate them? Why would that not be the case as much as calling the folks trying to provide some protection to their animals wolf haters? I was trying to show you, and Bill as well, that name calling helps nothing and could easily be done on both sides of the coin.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08way to switch gears there Marion. holding true to form as usual
Comment By bearbait, 3-29-08To all you who keep calling Marion names, and anyone else who does not march to your drummer: Take the time to read Eric Hofer's "True Believers" from the 50's. He was a longshoreman philosopher off the docks of San Francisco Bay. It is a very deep, probing look at zealots, true believers, political and philosophical tunnel vision. The psychological underpinnings of believing, even after the foundations of your belief have been proven false, was addressed by H. Lamar Keene in the Psychic Mafia. He dug into the plight of those True Believers in his book on people's beliefs in psychic phenomena whose foundations and facts have been dismissed by science and forensic evidence, the people who could not take no for an answer.
The wolf issue is not about intact ecosystems because ecosystems are never intact, but in a constant stage of change as external and internal conditions give rise to the odds favoring different species under differing conditions. There is no polaroid picture of ecosytems, only polarized philosophical prizes awarded by conscience and personal bent, assisted by convenient NGOs who are replacing the church in our ever increasingly athiestic society. There is never going to be a winner in the wolf argument. There will always be too many wolves when they are taking value and property from one segment or individual, and not enough wolves for the people who believe that large numbers amount to success and thus validate their beliefs in anthropogenic ecology assumptions spoon fed by the NGOs.. The NGO cheerleaders chant their slogans, collect their dues for charismatic fauna promotion, and others lose time, effort and personal treasure in the wolf game which has no balance in sight. That it has become a littany of personal attacks on Non-Believers, Ecological Infidels, is true to form as Hofer stated so long ago.
As a lifelong contrarian, skeptic, I know that when the attacks become personal, it is because their Gestapo, NKVD, CIA, are close at hand to enforce their dogma, cleanse the countryside of Non-Believers. The right wing of America does not even begin to scare this puppy. It is the True Believers of the Left that are at war with the Constitution, the American Way, the foundations of our society built on Trust. How many times have writers on this one subject gotten into rants on the failure of economic democracy, the electoral process, and the assumed intellectual prowess of anyone who does not think their way? This article begins assuming that only bad things will happen to wolves in the next 30 days. Where is the trust that the vast majority will do the right thing? Where is the confidence in our people, our society as a whole? This country has a good foundation and hundreds of millions of good people, who do good things. The next thirty days will bear that out. If not, demean me, not people like Marion. I have faith that most wolves will go about their busines unrestrained, and if one gets in the lambing pens or the calving pasture, it could be shot. So what? There are a hundred packs about to give birth to another phalanx of wolf puppies eager to learn how to live off the land.
LEAVE THE PERSONAL ATTACKS OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. If someone makes statements that make them out to be an idiot, the readers will know without your telling them, smarty pants. And if what they are saying is not the truth, then, like Hillary, their pants will catch on fire. If what you are saying is blather, the readers will know that, too. Demeaning someone only makes you less of an expert, useful voice, important contributor, and worthwhile human being.
What I feel to see discussed here or anywhere else is the right ratio of predator populations (black bears, grizzlies, wolves, cougars, and coyotes) in a given environment. Then, what is the proper mix of predators to wild game prey (deer, moose, elk, antelope, game birds) in that environment. THEN, what interdictive measures are appropriate when the ratios become unbalanced?
We keep discussion wolves in a vacuum without regard to the other expanding predator populations. Is this by design or are we just not awake?
should be 'fail' not 'feel.'
Comment By Steve C, 3-29-08Marion, it can be argued whether or not wolves are destructive... but dangerous? You know as well as I do that wolves pose much less of a danger to humans than dogs, bees, horses etc. There you go spreading your filthy propaganda again. Since you have turned the word "enviro" into an insult that links people "human hating", "stealing property", "killing the nation's food supply" and every other horrible thing you can think to blame on them maybe you should stop whining about personal attacks. When the content of your arguments is weak you change the subject and cry,cry,cry.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08The topic here is wolves, hug them or shoot them. Steve, your thoughts? As far as I know Gov. Schweitzer, and Sens. Baucus and Tester favor the bullet.
Comment By Hunter, 3-29-08Marion, you said: "Once mroe(sic) slowly, ranchers pay for grazing rights in the mountains for summer range, approximately 3 months per year." You are correct. According to the USDA, grazing fees for 2006 were $1.56 per head month. That means that a rancher pays $1.56 per cattle per month, or $4.68 per cattle for 3 months on public land. And the land managers talk about a backlog of repair projects and a lack of funds. My guess is that these cattle do way more than that in damage to the places they trample. I wonder how much they are compensated for a wolf kill; maybe they should be compensated the same price they pay to be in the wolves' habitat. In comparison, the fee demonstration program formerly instituted in select western states charged $5.00 per day per person for someone to hike on the trails. Where are our priorities?
Comment By Steve C, 3-29-08Craig, I favor a limited hunt and removing repeat offenders that attack livestock only after all other methods of hazing, negative conditioning, and nonlethal control have been exhausted. I feel that Idaho and Wyoming's stances are way too extreme and they don't deserve the right to manage wolves until they can be reasonable. Bring on the lawsuits!
Comment By gline, 3-29-08"We keep discussion wolves in a vacuum without regard to the other expanding predator populations. Is this by design or are we just not awake?"
Craig: the fact is that wolves were killed almost to extinction in the lower 48 with the exception of MN. That is the problem - why are wolves more hated, poisoned, trapped and killed more than any other predator? Like you said there are other predators. (Including ourselves) However I dont think the Grizzly bear and cougar have expanded to what they used to be 100 years ago. Let us not forget there was a thriving wild land here 150 years ago TEEMING with wildlife, not cattle. Today's picture of wildlife is a mere pittance.
Marion: I've seen your comments many times on wolf related sites. It amazes me how little compassion you have for such a wild and beautiful animal. Your main concern is money. cattle loss. You discuss ranchers paying to use public land to raise 'our' cattle. As Hunter quotes above, that public land is leased for less than $2.00 AU. The damage those cattle do to the natural land is far worse than what you pay to feed your cattle. Then the cost of loss of wildlife such as this huge debacle and nightmare of delisting wolves, a natural, original predator of the western US, Canada, Alaska and Mexico. You act so entitled. and spoiled.
Comment By Steve C, 3-29-08And money is her weakest argument because these states are appropriating MILLIONS to control wolves. Far more money than the value of damage that wolves cause. They would do much better using this money to compensate ranchers for losses and to pay for non-lethal protections for livestock. Western politicians want the wolf controversy to stay alive at any cost to keep distracting weak minded individuals (cough:: Marion:: cough) from the real threats to our wild places and wildlife...
gline, I would say that wolves are a close second to coyotes for most persecuted/tortured species...
Neither Steve nor gline seemed to grasped my questions. I won't belabor it. Now, wold delisting puts wolf management in the hands of the states. What is wrong with that and why does that merit lawsuits? In my opinion, the states are much better situated to do a professional job and balance the interests. Putting it another way, why do the lawsuit proponents oppose state management?
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Sometimes my cursor seems to jump and mash things together. However, 'wold' should be 'wolf.'
Comment By Steve C, 3-29-08I answered your questions and outlined my opinions above, craig. Let me know what you don't "grasp" about my response.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Let's not bicker. Do you oppose state management versus favoring expensive federal litigation? If so, why?
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Did it again. Should have written, "Do you support..."
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Craig Moore says,
"Now, wold delisting puts wolf management in the hands of the states. What is wrong with that and why"
BECAUSE: Wyoming is run as a fiefdom of the livestock industry, and just because the Dick Kempthorne Interior department bent over for Wyoming's management plan does not make that plan legal under the ESA. Idaho's only official stand on the matter as stated by the state legislature is to remove wolves from the state by any means necessary,
And Montana, If the way the bison issue is not a major red flag on that states thinking on wildlife management I do not know what would be.
I feel that this "predator" status in much of wyoming shows that they are not mature enough to manage wolves with limited hunting and killing of problem animals. Their (and Idaho's) aggressive stances seem like many of the practices that wiped out the wolf in the first place will become commonplace again. For that, I feel that the wolf should remain on the endangered species list until these states come up with responsible plans and only through the courts can this happen. Also, many wolf supporters are not opposed to limited wolf hunts and some lethal control.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Jeffe E. and Steve C., are you native to Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming? In what state do you live and vote?
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08In addition as to your status, specifically what objects do you have?
Wyoming wolf management plan: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfPlanFinal8-6-03.pdf
Montana plan: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/management.html
Idaho plan: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
In addition as to your status, specifically what objects do you have?
Wyoming wolf management plan: gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/WolfPlanFinal8-6-03.pdf
Montana plan: fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/management.html
Idaho plan: fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/
Should be 'objections.'
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Craig
and that has what to do with what?
It has to do with why someone may object to state management. Are there real reasons or just biases or control leverage issues if someone is not a western resident and has no vote in the state.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Craig,
I was born in Montana. Dillon to be exact. I live in Idaho, for all of my life except time in the Military and a few years in Utah. I vote. One branch of my family owns SECTIONS of land in eastern Idaho and are livestock producers. I hunt and have from 12 years old and just today bought my Idaho Sportsman package as I do every year. My wife is Native Alaskan and I currently have one daughter getting ready to do salmon counts on the Copper river as she has for the last three years.
As for state management It should happen at some point and I really do not think it should be based on numbers as much as the INTENT of the states which have been proven to be disingenuous at best.
Oh and by the way I own a winter coat lined with a wolf pelt that the relatives in Alaska sent me for x-mas two years ago. I love it.
also... I do not belong to DOW, Earthjustice, Greenpeace or the local save the snail org.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Jeff E, then what are your objections to letting Idaho manage its wolves without federal interference? http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=4231
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08Jeff E, the words by Cal Groen are 180 degrees opposite your previous remark about Idaho.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Craig,
Read the second paragraph of my last reply to you.
Try for comprehension.
Come on, Jeff, answer the question.
State or feds? Litigate now or wait and see?
Shoot or hug?
Cows or condos?
Finally, I'm glad Marion takes the time to fly the flag for the team in white hats.
Jeff E, square your remark with what Cal Groen wrote and the Idaho wolf management plan. Stay on point and off the nonsense.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Cal can say any thing he wants.
The facts of the states(Idaho) Intent is stated pretty clearly with the eleventh hour legislation passed to let any one kill a wolf at any time for among other things, simply being on the same forest trail that some one who does not like wolves who may have a dog with them.
Like I said try for comprehension.
Idahos plan was rejected (17) seventeen times before a minimally acceptable plan was presented.
While Idaho is classifying the animal as big game and the only real value once dead is the pelt, Idahos season covers a significant period of time where the pelt is worthless and unlike bear and cougar there is no provision for not shooting a female with cubs.
Like I said , disingenuous.
Back to Cal, who serves at the pleasure of Butch, look in to his history and ties with livestock.
Jeff E, what a load of manure. What specifically do you object to in Idaho's commitment to wolves and its written management plan?
Please try and get beyond party politics.
By the way, Idaho's wolf management plan was adopted March 2008.
Don't stray into past history.
Obviously comprehension is beyond your ability.
What exactly about my post is not accurate.
Jeff E, I am not going to get into the mud where you stand and trade insults. For those with an open mind please read Idaho's adopted plan and Idaho's wolf commitment expressed in Cal Groen's letter that I linked above. The insults and smear remarks have no place in serious discussion.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08Okay I can see my mistake here was giving you too much credit.
Please address any of the points I have made.
I know it is easier to dismiss them than actually see the bigger picture.
As far as the plan and Cal's letter they have no force of law until passed by the legislature and signed in to law by the Guv. That has not happened.Correct me if I am wrong. Until then all it amounts to is a understanding between the state and fed. What is law is the aforementioned eleventh hour legislation that the guv will sign if he has not already.
Possibly you have heard the expression actions speak louder than words.
What federal interest is there in wolf recovery beyond seeing that there are healthy reproducing populations? That's what the endangered species designation accomplished. HOW those populations are managed are now for the states to decide. So long as healthy populations continue to exist, I don't see a federal interest and it is a matter of state's rights. Every state has a professional wildlife agency, legislature and a governor. If someone objects to state management practices, take it up with them....but it is not a federal interest so long as the populations are healthy. Maintaining healthy wolf populations are embodied in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho wolf plans and in the commitments made by wildlife agency officials such as Cal Groen.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-29-08As of March 28th, Idaho's Fish & Game took over wolf management. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=4325
Comment By JEFF E, 3-29-08You ask what federal interest is there.
How about insuring that the ESA is adhered to, which is law.
It does not appear to be the case certainly in Wyoming and apparently Idaho has, based on the history of the situation, little regard for. Bear in mind that the only official position stated by the Idaho state legislature is one stating that wolves be removed from the state by any means necessary. Also the only reason we have progressed, if you can call it that, is because of the ESA and federal law. I wish I could say with any confidence that the states are totally on the up and up and we can all ride off into the sunset after a hand shake.
Unfortunately, once again, actions speak louder than words.
I believe the misunderstandings on both sides of the fence are due to both intellecual arrogance, as well as just plain ignorance.
I understand that not all supporters of the wolf are as ignorant as the person who wrote this article, so I will not call you all "tree hugging freaks." so I hope, just because I am a hunter, you will not call me a "wolf hater."
I cannot speak for everyone (Which seems to be the problem on both sides) but let me say this. I love the fact that wolves are back. This creates excitment in the backcountry. I would go as far to say that even if wolves were depleting other big game animals, I would be more than glad to step aside and let them have what thay have had for thousands of years.
But, when it comes to delisting, lets not be childish. Lets ask ourselves some questions. Are the Fish and Game people that stupid that they would actualy delist an animal that really was endangered? If you say yes, than look at the history. Has the fish and wildlife people made a huge delisting misake that cost the survival of a species? and if they have, havnt they emediately fixed the problem? EXAMPLE: Bighorn sheep are thriving in the rockies. There is a STRICT quota of animals that can be taken. If the fish and game department were as stupid as you people seem to suggest, then they would alow every person that wanted to kill a sheep, to kill a sheep! No, most hunters in the U.S. will NEVER kill one, even after puting the money in trying to draw. Think for a second. This is just one example.
Also, although every American should have some opinion over the debate, shouldnt we give the responsibility to the people most effected by the wolves themselves, good or bad. Of course i am talking about the ranchers and residents in wolf country. How can you suggest these people are less intelligent, or "wolf hating" just because they want to protect their pets and property? They have More, thats right,more of a say in the matter than ANY of us. You telling them how to manage the wolf, is as ignorant as us telling california they need to manage their ignorant tree-hugging morans that threaten the rest of the country.
I am a hunter AND I love wolves, whether you people want to hear it or not. Dont get your feelings hurt just because they are now delisted. If the fish and wildlife officials fail and make a huge mistake, well then we'll take the neccessary steps and reinlist them, on the endangered species. The truth is, "wolf-lover" are not looking at the facts intelligently, they are going off of emotions just because they wouldnt want ANY animal on earth to be killed. and you claim us hunters are doing exactly what your doing, going off of our "blood-thursting" cravings. I am a hunter. I do not NEED to kill. Killing is merely a part of the hunt, and unless someone has also shared the experience of being in the wilderness, hunting prey, while having other big predators around, i cant take their opinions in such matters.
BY THE WAY: the season on wolves is proposed for the fall of this year. so NO, hunters are not going to have an open season for 30 days. Also, I can garintee the demand will be FAR greater than the supply when it comes to tags available to hunt the wolf. So dont go around puting an ignorant, unrealistic fear in peoples minds that huinters are going to be able to kill every last wolf in a matter of day, weeks or months. THis is pure stupidity.
Yeah, Adam, yer right. Gonna be a lot more tags, and darn few filled. From a game management standpoint, the value of wolves is the skin, and there's really not that much demand for either the fur or the "pleasure" of collecting one. I think I figured it out a few months ago, each wolf has cost about 15 grand to raise and protect and mollycoddle. Wolf tag is 19. Does that mean MT FWP expects to sell a thousand tags per pop or are hunters going to have to cross-subsidize this with money from other programs, which probably would have been better-spent -- on other programs?
Wow, I love government.
More grist for the mill...
According to the USFWS:
Livestock losses until late Nov. 2006 were 170 cattle, 344 sheep, 8 dogs, 1 horse, 1 mule, and 2 llamas in MT, WY, and ID.
In all three of these states (I live in MT by the way) the wolf populations are: MT-316, ID-673, WY-311 (includes YNP)
Let's do the math... total wolf pop= 1300, total confirmed wolf kills= 562 (less than 1/2 of them cattle). Total cattle numbers in these states for 2006= MT-2.4mil, ID=2.1mil, WY= (sorry, couldn't find WY) So, look at the numbers; of 4.5 million cattle in 2 states 170 were killed. That is something like .004% of the cattle population. So, to make a claim that wolves are dangerous seems to be a bit of an exaggeration in light of all these numbers.
When you are a farmer and run 25-30 head of cattle on the side for a few extra bucks and wolves kill two calves, that IS a big deal.
Comment By gline, 3-30-08Then Kai, that would be the time to use non lethal controls, which there are many. you would just have to put the time and money into it. Defenders used to compensate for rancher loss, dont think they are now due to the fact that your state is "managing" the wolf (I'm assuming you are in the west). But the real problem to me seems to be the rancher putting the TIME and money into it. Seems to me most ranchers would rather just kill the wolf instead as it is much easier. only problem being something called the Endangered Species Act.
Comment By Steve C, 3-30-08Hunter, good point about the .004% of cattle loss. That number makes the fact that wyoming has appropriated 6 million dollars for wolf control even more rediculous. They could much more effectively put that money towards compensating ranchers for livestock losses and prevention expenses.
Craig, I am from the northeast and I visit Montana and Wyoming often. I hope to end up out there some day. Geographic location plays no part in many of these arguments as I pay my taxes week in and week out and my money goes towards wolf programs, paying for public lands, predator control programs etc. Also, with a pending wolf reintroduction planned for the northeast these issues are very interesting to me. To answer your question about the wolf plans, I feel that the rhetoric of wyoming and idaho indicate that no matter what their wolf plans say, they don't plan to enforce anything other than the minimum populations required to not trigger re-listing.
On an unrelated note, I read that montana and wyoming are starting pilot programs to haze, capture and slaughter elk at the behest of the cattle industry much like what is happening with bison outside of yellowstone. Seems pretty unbelievable to hear people say that wolves are killing all of the elk/ ranchers support wildlife in light of this being done. And imagine how large the scale will be considering how many more elk there are when compared to bison. I think that hunters and wolf-huggers will find that they are both on the same side against ranching going forward...
The unrealistic ideas of how fast wolves are going to be killed are an example of just howlittle these folks even know about wolves and the nature of them, cute little statements about all of the non lethal means of dealing with wolves add to the lack of reality. The idea that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho ranchers are responsible for the demsie fo the wolf in the lower 48 is another example of the lack of actual knowledge. Likeit or lump it wolves were exterminated across these United states by settlers irregardless of what their business was, and they were eliminated east of the Mississippi long before there was a Wyoming, much less a Wyoming rancher.
Interestingly enough not a single wolf lover is actually trying to deal with wolves themselves, only trying to force others to do so. I do write on a lot of these blogs, and I have yet to see one person who is writing about what they themselves are doing to protect their animals on their property. Maybe becasue they are careful not to live where they want the wolves to live. Guess who'd call an exterminator if they find termites in their house or a rattlesnake. I doubt they would be worrying about how to deal with it on a non lethal basis.
As for the ESA, it had to be changed and the 10j rule put in in order to legally introduce these wolves OUTSIDE of their territory. If you google 10j and wolves you will see that is a fact.
It is most interesting that those who impossed their will on other people irregardless of teh damage are the ones that spew the hatred, including the title of this article (I had actully expected more of Bill).
Thanks to Craig, Dave, bearbait, Adam, and Kai for reasoned comments. Sometimes I get so mad at the expressed hatred by these people that I don't write for awhile, and I'm glad there are others to carry on.
There you go with your propaganda again, marion. Who ever said that only idaho, wyoming, and montana eliminated wolves? It was a concerted effort by every state government and by the federal government. Do you care to respond to my point about wyoming spending 6 million dollars on controlling wolves to prevent a few hundred thousand in losses? There are easy solutions to all of these problems and you continuing to spout this vile "us against them" rhetoric just gets everyone angry. Also please respond to the stalled northeast wolf reintroduction plans, the southwest wolf reintruoduction, and the eastern redwolf reintroduction when you keep up with this "not in my backyard" BS.
Comment By Steve C, 3-30-08I found a good site about putting livestock losses into perspective.
http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/a-d2-depredation-perspective.html
Interesting stuff. For all of the doomsday predictions for the livestock industry with the return of the wolf, Minnesota has a huge cattle industry and more wolves than idaho, montana and wyoming combined. Guess what, their livestock industry has not collapsed in the presence of wolves!
Marion,
Ignoring the majority of your post for the twaddle that it is lets look at your assertion on the 10j rule. Have you even read the ESA? If you have you should know that the 10j rule was implemented by the 1982 amendment to the ESA. 1982 Marion. There was not even a recovery plan for grey wolves, even a rough draft, until 1987. There was not even an assurance that there would be a gray wolf re-introduction in 1994 much less 1982, Marion. And why was there an amendment in 1982? Because then President Reagan (I smile when ever I post that) mandated that the ESA be IMPLEMENTED, to make a long story short.
But hey Marion, you have been presented with these self same facts over and over and over, and continue to misrepresent them once again. Pathetic.
This is one of the reasons that ranchers feel they have been unfairly taxed to feed the wolves. Some families are paying thousands out of their own pockets. Think about that even if you do believe you are entitled to that use of private funds without permission.
Ed Bangs has clearly stated numerous times that wolves are killing for rom 7 to 9 family owned animals that are never paid for to every 1 that is.
quote:"Throughout the West last year, wolves are known to have killed 52 cattle, 99 sheep, nine dogs and five llamas. Ranchers contend the actual numbers may be five to eight times greater than those confirmed by necropsies or eyewitnesses.
Federal authorities agree." end quote
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131716
By the way I know when the 10j was put in and they were already working on planting Canadian wolves where the wolf lovers wanted them easily accessible.
and I am sure that they were planing on using black helicopters piloted by the gestapo, NKVD, or the CIA.
Excuse me, I am laughing so hard I have tears running down my face.
Marion, that makes it even more disgusting that the state of wyoming will spend millions of dollars flying helicopters to kill wolves before they give a cent to livestock producing families who have to deal with wolves on the front lines. Thanks for ignoring all of my points by the way. Marion, you have invented a new form of bullsh*t. I think I will call it Greybullsh*t.
Comment By elfman, 3-30-08I love the wolf. I have had the pleasure of seeing about 10 of them at different times in my life in Montana. I will not forget each and every one of them. What a fantastic and interesting creature. This fact should be acknowledged by everyone on both sides of the fence.
To perpetuate the notion that a wolf is innately "evil" is just asinine. Yes, they kill calves now and then but the damage to the cattle industry as a whole is minuscule and inconsequential. With every business comes risk. It is curious that ranchers do not want compensation for the loss of livestock due to coyote kills considering the fact they are responsible for 20+ times the amount of cattle kills as wolves. Hell, for that matter domestic dogs kill many more cows than wolves!
At least Jeff, you admit what you think the ranchers are doing.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-30-08Hi elf, I think to intelligently discuss wolves people need to see Jim and Jaime Dutcher's film. http://shopping.discovery.com/product-58210.html
IF not but for livestock depredation, there would be no issue. That depredation discussion needs to be scoped to those counties that entertain both wolves and livestock. Dilution across a state is misleading. For example, livestock losses are minimal in Florida due to wolves. However, the losses are much greater in those counties where the wolf was reintroduced. Hence, the reason for compensation for those raisers that have been hurt by the reintroduction.
Marion,
I'm Jeff he is Steve.
Time for a med check.
Jeff E, the constant personal disparagement has nothing to do with wolves and tends to sidetrack discussion.
NewWest gives us this free opportunity. How about respecting that? Do it for our hosts who encourage all points of view.
The Great Falls Tribune has a excellent article on some of these issues, especially as to WHY state management is best. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/NEWS01/803300320/1002
Comment By Marion, 3-30-08I suspected as much Jeff:
quote:
"By JEFF E, 3-30-08
and I am sure that they were planing on using black helicopters piloted by the gestapo, NKVD, or the CIA."
You are right Craig, the cost to individual families out of pocket, as well as loved pets is the big problem with the whole wolf thing. It is an interesting physchological phenomena that it is those who are getting their own way at a heavy cost to other people that are the angriest and most derogetory in their words.
As I've said several times earlier in comment sections, I welcome and respect everybody's comments and opinions, even if they disagree with my opinion. However, I much prefer comments that address the issue and not the person. In this case, my original commentary expressed concerns about people doing crazy things during a legal loophole, but very few of the comments were directed at the original message. Some people hate wolves; some people love wolves, both with equal passion. My point was that it would be counterproductive for those who hate wolves to do take advantage of the loophole because it plays into the hand of their competion, lessening any chance of delisting or sport hunting for wolves....Bill
Comment By Marion, 3-30-08By the way Steve, Wyoming will be compensating livestock owners for wolf kills....at a far greater rate than DOW.
Comment By JEFF E, 3-30-08And here is a point of view that goes with my thoughts, as I have already stated. It is all about the respective states intent at management, not the numbers or what 'THE PLAN' says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802975.html
Bill, the fact remains no one has killed any of the wolves, there is nothing to indicate a trigger finger or anything else. You seem to be making the accusations and calling the names BEFORE there is any reason to do so...if there ever is. I do not think that is fair.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-30-08Caroline Sime of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks makes clear that Montana is open to giving wolves to other states that will welcome them.
Montana's intent is to continue molding attitudes to accept wolves. Those are the facts. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080330/NEWS01/803300319
Marion...If nothing happens, great. That's exactly what I was saying. If people what the wolf delisted and the lawsuit to fail so there can be wolf hunting this fall, control the trigger itch. After something happens, if it does, is too late, which is why I wanted to get out in front of this before anything could happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure....Bill
Comment By Marion, 3-30-08Jeff, I think the difference between articles written by residents and those in the "beltway" (even though he claims to be from Wisconsin) is the difference between those who actually deal with the wolves and are able to deal with reality & those who read fiction and propaganda from fund raisers. Let's face it would anyone send money to them if they showed pictures of elk with their hind ends eaten off while alive, or a pen of sheep torn to bits and left, or a young colt torn apart instead of a cute little wolf puppy?
Comment By mike, 3-30-08I understand and respect Bill's intent for his article, although I'm not sure that any good will be served by having the trigger-happy fringe hold their fire for a few months only to unleash it later.
At the same time, I continue to be concerned by the crowd that always posts here posing as representatives of some monolithic ranching community, its interests and its views. These people are generally not what they seem and should be more forthright in "fessing up" to the fact that they really aren't part of the ranching community, don't have much real experience with that community, and really don't know much about that business or way of life or about what they like to pontificate about. The truth is that, upon reviewing the postings here, we just have the usual gossipers. We have the strutting photographer, who may or may not have taken pictures at a ranch at some time or another. We have the opinionated and outspoken berry-farmer, who may or not have wolves eating his berries. We have the elderly anti-government lady who lives on her government retirement and tries so very hard to get people to believe she is from a ranch background, but who really only got to visit her relatives' sheep and weasel farm as a young girl and has been using it as a facade ever since. We have some maladjusted PETA types, bless their childlike hearts. We have a few loafers who want a guarantee of an easy time having a successful hunt on a ranch owned by a guy like me who will have to clean up their trash afterward; and, if we're lucky, we might still get a comment from the lunatic who purports to speak for the MSLF and may or may not have stood by strutting and watching the hired help work some cattle on a ranch owned by a relative. So many of these people are just flat desperate to use ranchers as the magic rhetorical crowbar to force their political agenda; but, the truth is that none of them have any business or credibility speaking for us, using us, or otherwise putting words in our mouths. Real ranchers face lots of challenges and wolves can be a significant part of those challenges in relatively rare circumstances; but, the argument about wolves is more about politics and the egos of the charlatans that want to manipulate the ranching community than about any real ranching impact. If people truly want to stand up for ranchers, real ranchers, they can start by exposing and reforming the manipulative and monopolistic tyranny of the meatpackers. This wolf issue is just another distraction tailored to keep everyone from focusing on the real problems caused by those who wield the real power over ranchers.
Marion - you say there is nothing to indicate a trigger finger?? How about all the talk we hear so often from those who hate wolves? How about the three S rule we hear about so often? Do you not think these things give one good reason to believe that they may be some out there who would love to take advantage of this loophole? Be real.
I am with Bill. I hope nothing happens but it is ludicrous to suggest that we do not have good reason to believe many would like to exploit the loophole.
And here is the facts in Idaho. This is an excerpt from a letter to the State Attorney General from secretary of state Yasura dated March 2006.
"....Although the Wolf Plan reiterated the State's formal position that all wolves should be
removed from ldaho by the Federal Government, it also recognized the need "to use
every available option to mitigate the severe impacts on the residents of the State of
Idaho" from the wolves' presence and thus provided that "the state will seek delisting
and manage wolves at recovery levels that will ensure viable, self-sustaining
populations" Idaho Wolf Management and Conservation Plan 4 (2002) The FWS
approved the Idaho Wolf Plan....."
The first sentence is still Idahos formal position regarding wolves.
And then signed into law this past Friday"SENATE BILL NO. 1374, One amendment includes defining the conditions justifying the “disposal” of a wolf should wolves ‘conflict’ with livestock or domestic animals such as dogs. A “molesting” wolf is one that is:
41 […]annoying, disturbing or persecuting, especially with hostile intent or injury-
42 ous effect, or chasing, driving, flushing, worrying, following after or on the
43 trail of, or stalking or lying in wait for, livestock or domestic animals."
Which does not need one to have a hunting licence or tag or happen in any take season.
Bill are you saying calling the "victims" as it were, in this situation names and making unfounded accusations is getting out in front to prevent anything?
Surely you live close enough to the land in Montana to figure out that if the locals really wanted to SSS they surely could have and we would have maybe 300 or the 50 they have in the southwest, not the 1500-2000 we now have. Individuals may have acted stupidly, but by and large even though we didn't like the whole thing the residents of these 3 states have acted honorably in the face of name calling and real harship in some cases.
The hatred being spewed out is against the people who have to actually deal with the wolves and pay the cost, not by them.
Anyone that might be looking for a wolf to kill is not going to be reading this, it was written to pander to those who value wolves over humans.....IMHO.
I'd like a count of the wolves seen by all of those who write on here outsdie of Yellowstone NP, in my case, 0. where do you think people are going to find all of these wolves to kill?
Marion - I have seen a wolves in Marion (ironically), MT, Ninemile, Bitterroot Valley... ALL well outside of YNP. It would not be that hard to bait up some wolves in the ninemile valley if one wished to do so.
Comment By Steve C, 3-30-08When the governor of a state says that they want to be the first in line to kill a wolf, what makes you think that they will do anything to discourage someone with a "trigger finger"? And baiting animals in is not difficult at all.
I sympathize with Jeff E's frustration. Marion travels the internet dragging otherwise meaningful discussions into the same old rhetoric.
Craig, loved the film about the Dutchers.
Free speech and opinions for everyone is a pain isn't it Steve. You guys would never know what sites I was on if you weren't' there. I guess you consider name calling and dissing those who are actually dealing with wolves meaningful discussions, I respectfully disagree.
Comment By Steve C, 3-30-08You have a right to say the things you say, that doesnt mean that it isnt a pain when you say the exact same things over and over while at the same time refusing to respond to the MANY people who continuously disprove your points.
Comment By Jeff E, 3-30-08Marion,
Having an opinion is one thing but having an opinion based on erroneous information is quite another. And having an opinion that is based on proven falsehoods over and over.....well that indicates a medical condition.
well said mike. I note no responce from the usual suspects.
As the man said, "call in the hounds and piss on the fire, the hunt is over".