Oral Arguments Heard Thursday
Federal Judge to Decide Soon on Lawsuit Over State Wolf Management
By Peter Metcalf, 5-30-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: A wolf in Wyoming, unknown location. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | |
|
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula heard oral arguments Thursday in a case brought by environmental groups to return gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Molloy did not rule, but his decision is expected in the next several days on whether to grant a preliminary injunction and return wolf management to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service while a lawsuit challenging the federal decision to delist the wolf proceeds.
The plaintiffs, a coalition of 12 environmental and animal rights groups represented by the environmental legal firm Earthjustice, asked for the injunction to immediately stop the killing of wolves under state management and prevent wolf hunts proposed for the fall.
Since Idaho, Montana and Wyoming assumed full management responsibilities on March 28, approximately 40 wolves have been killed by people in the region. This includes 16 wolves killed legally by the public in Wyoming’s predator zone, where wolves can be shot on site year round.
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit contends that state management plans fail to provide adequate protection for the wolf and will reduce wolf populations to levels that threaten the health and genetic diversity of the species. They argue the wolf population in the Greater Yellowstone region remains genetically isolated from wolves in central Idaho and northwest Montana and any reductions in population, such as through public hunting, minimizes future opportunity for genetic exchange between these populations.
The federal government was joined by the three states, as well as representatives from state stockgrowers associations and several hunting organizations in arguments against the injunction. They argue the region’s wolf population far exceeds recovery goals laid out in the reintroduction plans under the Endangered Species Act.
Recent estimates place the Northern Rockies’ wolf population around 1500 individuals and 100 breeding pairs. Federal recovery goals call for a minimum of 100 individuals, including 10 breeding pairs, in each of the three states, a level reached every year since 2002. State management plans will maintain a minimum of between 900 and 1250 wolves according to federal officials.
Arguments on behalf of the defense stress that state management plans and the ESA both provide adequate safeguards to ensure a viable future for the wolf on the region’s landscape. Furthermore, they argue, public hunting harvest quotas have been designed to ensure wolf populations will remain far above established minimum population levels and will not threaten the species’ genetic viability. Harvest limits can be adjusted downward if overall wolf mortality from all causes—human and natural—exceed annual allowable limits.
Wyoming recently announced its proposal to allow hunters to kill 25 wolves in the trophy game area of the state this fall. Montana tentatively proposes a hunter quota of 120 wolves this fall, on a wolf population that was estimated this past winter at just over 400 wolves.
Last week the Idaho Fish and Game Commission established a wolf population goal of 518 individuals for the entire state at the end of the year. An estimated 732 wolves roamed Idaho at the end of 2007, a population that is expected to grow to about 1000 before the start of the fall hunting season.
[End of article]There was an incident near Olney the other day: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/05/30/news/mtregional/news08.txt
>>>>>>
KALISPELL - A black bear hunter who shot a wolf Tuesday west of Whitefish says he killed it in self-defense, and wildlife officials agree that appears to be the case.
“Based on the evidence, this was a justifiable self-defense shooting,” concluded Lee Anderson, regional warden captain for the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
According to Anderson, Kalispell resident Zachary Harms was driving his truck up a forest route near Olney when he saw movement on the side of the road.
Harms climbed out of his rig, and thinking he might have glimpsed a black bear, began walking along the road, rifle in hand.
Two wolves then bolted from the forest.
The larger of the pair crossed the road and ran up the hillside opposite, Harms reported. The smaller wolf turned and ran down the road directly toward Harms, Anderson said.
The hunter waited until the animal was within 10 feet before he fired, killing the female with a single bullet to the head.
The wolf, Anderson said, appeared to be in good condition, and showed no outward signs of sickness or injury. Harms said it was not growling as it approached, but still he felt the wolf posed a threat to his life.
<<<<<<<<<<
The judge announced several weeks ago that he did not want any more wolves killed. That seems a pretty clear signal of where this is going.
Comment By Horst Wagner, 6-01-08Yes, of course.
It will become necessary to once again eradicate these maneaters from our presence.
so it seems as if his options were 1) to get back in the truck or 2) kill it.
And this was self sefense?
I am in my early sixties. Since I was a teenager, I have spent hundreds of hours every year hiking, backpacking and camping in the back country (mostly alone). Since I retired (about twelve years ago) I have spent more than ever. I have had all manner of animals run toward me. Bear, wolves, elk, bison and mountain lion (once), to name the most memorable. In most cases it turned out that the animal was simply going in a direction that happened to be behind me, and they went on by. In a few cases i got out of the way; stepped behind a tree, got into dead fall etc. Of all these, the only animals that actually scared me were the elk and bison. The bison because they are so darn BIG, and a cow elk when I inadvertently stumbled on her new born calf in the sage. I was already on my way out, when she showed up out of no where to make sure.
For about the last ten years I have carried bear spray, at the insistence of my kids. It has never been out of the holster. I have never owned, possessed or handled a gun.
In reading this story about the hunter, my impression is that something spooked these wolves. Not the hunter, but something in the woods....perhaps a bear? As they ran out of the woods, the female had the misfortune of turning in the direction of the hunter.
Since it was not acting aggressively, growling, baring teeth etc., and since the other wolf went in the opposite direction (wolves hunt in packs, remember?), it is very unlikely that this hunter was in any danger. I guarantee you that if that wolf was going to attack, its eyes would have been locked on him, teeth bared and it would have been running full bore. A yell, stomped foot, maybe a stick or rock thrown at its feet, the sound of a warning shot fired in the air, would have alerted this animal that it was heading in the wrong direction, and would have sent it scurrying after its companion.
That's the complaint I have always had about bear spray. It tends to make people leave their common sense at home. Over confidence in a can, I call it. The same is true with a gun. You can leave your brains at home, and think with your trigger finger.
Did you read the Idaho Statesman where Dr. Mech estimated there are probably 3000 wolves now that the pups are born? He also made the point that biologists never planned for the 2000-5000 wolves that the enviros want.
"• In any case, the number of wolves projected to be killed under state management should not jeopardize the viability of the NRM wolf population. Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups (average = 6/litter [Mech 1970]; most packs produce a single litter, but several YNP packs produce 2 or 3 litters per pack). For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 but 3000 wolves!
• Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when the population is at the annual nadir. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further ensure that management remains conservative. As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationary. (P13)"
rest here:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/05/29/rockybarker/scientists_clear_that_wolves_are_recovered_at_current_population
I am amazed how the "count" of wolves in the Northern Rockies keeps going up and up. The official count at the beginning of the year was 1,500. Then Idaho started talking about how, by the time of their hunt there should be over 2,000. Then 2,000 to 2,500 NOW started getting bantered around. What? Now they are over 3,000. The population has doubled since the first of the year. There is a reason that wolves (and other wildlife) are counted in the winter. Besides the fact that they are easier to spot on snow. Most offspring (of all species) do not survive their first year; therefore, a winter count is more accurate with regards to the actual increase (or decrease) in population. If we are going to do that with wolves, then we should count elk in June and include all those new born calves in the population.
Wolf populations will "regulate" themselves once available good habitat is filled. This has been clearly demonstrated in Yellowstone (where populations actually declined a few years back), on Isle Royale and elsewhere. This is also true in Minnesota, where hunting is not allowed. The only control necessary is to keep wolves away from livestock.
Frank, if you remember the "official" number was 1545, and I'm sure you know that they only count the wolves that they can positively record. If you remember they never did count the "Unknowns" and that was a pretty big pack. The first Green River Pack just showed up one spring, because of their taste for livestock, they were eventually "wiped out" time after time, and more showed up every spring.
It does not appear that Dr. Mech made any claim that the number would stay at 3000, but did indicate it would probably be in the 2000.
It is going to be interesting to see how the judge is going to handle the professional testimony compared to his statement that he didn't want wolves killed.
I'm sure all of the lawyers involved are delighted with the whole thing.
Why must we maintain such strict control over the wolf population? Are the numbers what is most important here? I agree with Frank, "Wolf populations will 'regulate' themselves once available good habitat is filled." Shouldn't we be focusing on reinstituting the natural healthy balance rather than a number? Perhaps we should look at the root of the problem here, that human control has done nothing but harm the natural balance in the past.
Those of you who believe that human prosperity (not survival, but prosperity) is more important than the survival of the natural balance will disagree with me, I know. But this natural balance, in theory, actually must be maintained to provide for the indefinite survival of humankind.
I'm not speaking of wolves alone. Our preoccupation with the wolves issue for the past several decades simply bears testament to the mind set which I believe is the root of the problem, the problem that will perhaps bring about the ends of many species. The problem is, the natural balance is not a number that can be figured and maintained by humankind. The balance is a process, subject to fluctuations in populations of each different species. Until we realize that the balance must have these fluctuations in order to continue, our ecosystems will not be healthy. The simplest solution to this problem? Live and let live.
Why not allow the wolf population to expand and then decline again when its environment limits it? Why can't we let nature be and protect these keystone species by allowing them to reinstate their natural balances. The problem will solve itself, if only we let it.
Laura, how are you impacted by wolves? Some folks are losing thousands of dollars worth of animals to them. Do you think that is just fine? The country is not the same as it was 300 years ago, pure and simple. Trying to force some Americans to live as though it were is not realistic....nor fair.
If it was absolutely necessary to have wolves reintroduced, it should have been started where they were first eliminated and worked west. That would have had he benefit of restoring them in the order they were removed and it would have eventually given everyone wolves to enjoy.
Obviously you don't want to live too far back in the 18th or 19th century, you are using electricity and a computer. Even if you do not eat beef, own a horse, raise sheep, have dogs, others do & they do not like having them torn apart by wolves.
Marion,
How have you been impacted by wolves? You seem so concerned about it? What is your stake in this?
This was not self defense, this was a trigger happy wolf hater looking for an excuse.
Marion,
My point was mainly that the natural balance needed to sustain our ecosystems (and in turn our lives) is being disrupted by trying to control animal (and plant) populations.
What would happen if (in this example) wolves were allowed to repopulate until they reached their environmental limit? Yes, ranchers would lose animals. Yes, they would lose economic gain. But would ranchers survive these losses? I believe they could. Aren't there other ways they could supplement their income?
But this issue isn't just about business and economy. Is current economic gain more important than humanity's (plus countless other species) survival/prosperity in the future?
Shouldn't ranchers also have to make sacrifices so that the survival of our species (and many others) can continue? Shouldn't we all consider our future generations?
This isn't just about wolves and ranchers. This is about humanity accepting that their existence does depend on this natural balance, that the functions of the world's ecosystems are what allow us as a species to survive. If we destroy these ecosystems, we are destroying our future.
But I suppose my arguments are all more philosophical than scientific. And I think you and I, Marion, differ somewhat in our philosophical or moral views. I accept that, but I also believe that the roots of most problems are on the philosophical level. Therefore I think it's important to think about problems on that level as well as on a more scientific level.
So what is more important to people of our time: current economic gain that perhaps jeopardizes future prosperity, or economic sacrifices in the present that will help stabilize existence in the future?
Which should we ultimately work towards?
Laura, what you are calling economic gain for a ranch family is their living. How long could you manage if some one took a couple weeks paycheck every now and then from you? Some of the ranchers and the ones most likely to get hit live far from a town, many of them have had to hire an extra hand to try to keep their animals safe. At a minimum of $25 thousand a year, those folks have now paid out over a quarter of a million individually over the last few years. How much are you individually willing to pay to have wolves running everywhere? And do you also want them in your yard?
If you are looking at wolf introduction philosophically, shouldn't they have been put in the area they were first removed from to begin with?
It is not philosophical to decide that some folks should pay the price for what someone else wants, that is selfish. We simply cannot turn back the clock 200 years.
Can you name me a benefit from the wolves being brought into ranch country that offsets the economic loss?
Marion,
Ranchers have benefited from posting no tresspassing signs on public land, locking gates that access public land, cutiing down trees to block mountain biking and hiking trails on public land because they did not want their cattle disturbed by the public. They have benifitted from predators on public land being killed with my taxdollars. They have overgrazed public land and sprayed herbicides on public land to kill native grasses in order to make room for non native grasses they consider better forage for cattle. The death of the bison, Grizzly, Jaguar in the southwest, prairie dog, etc have benefitted ranchers. Essentially, the enitre western ecosystem has been modified for the benefit of ranchers. As for wolves, they have a right to exist. They were created by God or evolution or perhaps some combination of both as were you and I and therefore have as much of a right to be here and humans.
"they have a right to exist"
That statement only has significance when there are sentient beings who make discriminating value judgements within the context of an organized and disciplined society. Nature has no such value weighing process. Winterkill, drought, disease, starvation are indiscriminate.
Matt, first of all, ranchers unlike other lease holders on public land are not allowed to post that land. If it is posted it is most likely privately owned. That being said, if you think you can just use anything on public land because it is leased, try saking out at a room in Yellowstone, or pulling into a campground without paying because it is "our public land".
If you truly believe wolves have a "right to exist", start with your yard. The wolves were removed from inhabitted areas of the east coast long before Wyoming was even a part of the US, so please don't blame us for what you did. The buffs were killed on the great plains where they were most numberous long before a cow or sheep was brought into the Rockies. The griz were eliminated from everywhere EXCEPT Wyoming and a few in Montana and Idaho. Those grizzlies became imperiled when the early greens for NPS were politically correct and removed the dumps where the griz had fed, then had to kill a bunch becasue they were endangering people.
Marion,
Ranchers post public land as private in an attempt to make the public think it is private. I know this to be a fact as I have worked for land management agencies in the past.
I am aware there are rules to use on public lands. Thank you. There have to be rules because of our overpopulation.
Griz and buffalo cannot be re-established to much of their former range because the ranchers throw a tantrim whenever a bison steps foot out of yellowstone.
My yard is the state of Arizona. We have some wolves, but not enough. The ranchers won't allow anymore.
There. I just diasected your argument.
I hope the wolf faeries protect the wolves like their green brethren have protected the spotted owls. Lots of draconian land management decisions, restrictive regulations, economic dislocation, lawyer full employment opportunities, and an ever declining owl population.
Judge Molloy can't keep the tea out of Boston Harbor. Too many wolves affecting too many people, and the wolf tea will get dumped in the harbor. The tyranny of the absentee landlord won't be tolerated forever. Human nature will prevail over time. Clever people, those awful humans, always finding a way to smuggle across borders, defy the "man," not pay taxes, buy their way in or out, defy authority.
If some Chinese geriatric Lothario is told a wolf gall will produce an erection, you can bet wolf galls will be leave the country without the wolf. And don't let your German shepherd out of your sight. The cheapest way to preserve many forms of wildlife is to give Viagra away in China. That should be the emphasis of the Pew Fund or some of the NGOs. Help all those rich old Chinese men "Go see Alice."
Craig,
It was not winterkill, drought, or disease that nearly wiped wolves of the fsce of North America. It was human greed. Your statement is anthropocentric. Wolves are sentient beings. Since when did you get to write the rules as to what lives or dies? Go ahead and say it because we all know what your source is.
Bear bait,
The only people who think the laws are draconian are those who seek to rape and pillage the land. I spend many days every year enjoying public land and find the ecperience very enjoyable.
The problem with China is that they are overpopulated. But you anti environmentalists still won't acknowledge that human overpopulation is a problem.
matt, what? Your reading comprehension seems out of whack today.
Since you asked, the source of my thoughts were the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
That part about governments created by mankind is what I had in mind when I wrote: "That statement only has significance when there are sentient beings who make discriminating value judgements within the context of an organized and disciplined society. Nature has no such value weighing process."
Hope that helps.
Matt, if over population is a problem, does that include you, or only those besides you? What is your solution? More carnivores?
Ranchers don't object to the buffalo, they object to the disease the buffalo carry, which can wipe out a lifetime of work.
Are you saying you alloow every single living thing that is or ever was live in your home? Flies? Ants? Cockroaches? Mice? Termites? Are you not displacing animals by living? It is obvious that you want to arrange the earth to suit yourself. Who is going to feed you if you eliminate all of the food producers?
Matt: Evidently spotted owls don't share your experience. All that protections have brought to them is fewer owls and incinerated habitat in the millions of acres. Some protection your Green Protectors have wrought. The Grifters of Grief for the critters, for habitat. Save it all so that it might burn. No, will burn. Maybe not this year or next. That it has to burn at all is the most terrible of human direction and care.
You anti-humans, here to point out China's population in light of their 30 year program of infanticide for female babies, is disingenuous at the least. The best possible action a proponent of population controls might take is to off themselves as soon as possible. Do the right thing. You, by your own definition, are the problem.
I was merely trying to point out that the best laid plan of all the brightest minds of owl protection, which has brought two decades of misery to vast areas of the rural West, was not enough, did not work, was based on incomplete science and fostered by strident anti-human political force, and all that has come of it is huge fuel loads in the forests and certain incineration of forests unlucky enough to catch fire in the perfect storm of high fuels and summer's hot, dry weather. It is apparent that in some management camps that is to be cheered. Not by me, however. It takes 500 years to replace a burned and killed 500 year old tree, just as it does to replace one that was logged. There is some mental compensation for me that some of those old trees still are part of old buildings and bridges, and other man made structures. 100 year old halibut schooners fishing the Bering Sea as I write are testimony to the endurance of old trees and what was created from them.
The wolf part of the deal is that there is a very proactive segment of the population that will not let wolves run amok just because they exist. The best wolf plan biologists could conjure, like the owl plan, has not produced the predicted results. Both learned bioplans have been wrong from the git-go. That vast areas became off limits to logging is to be celebrated, it is not because owls have profited. It is because the stalking horse for land lockouts worked, and the surrogate for protection got the job done. So now there is concern for the owl, because without it, habitat will never again be the issue. Wolves, on the other hand, will die every time they become habituated to humans, not deathly afraid of them, not inclined to do anything but run from them as fast as they might. The long, long history of conflicts with wolves is ingrained and anthropomorphic propaganda will only put a thin, short lived veneer over that history. Ranchers, having had the owl plan and owl governance to show them the way, will not go away like the sawmillers did. They know the chicanery afoot, that ending ranching has been the goal, and making wolves charismatic representatives of all that is wild has been the stalking horse for the job of ranch obliteration. You know that, and I know that.
Marion is, if nothing else, consistent. She makes it sound like small, family ranchers are being driven out of business left and right by hordes of bloodthirsty wolves. Folks are terrified to go outdoors, children are starving (Daddy can't find an elk to kill), and scared to go to school. Family pets are being slaughtered all over the place; and five generation, God fearing people are being forced to sell out and move, with the family bible, to the city (where, presumably, they will be safe), as wolves rip their homesteads to pieces.
The truth is that predation (any predation) is a very minor source of loss to ranchers. Ranchers loose hundreds of animals every year to everything from dysentery to weather. Yet if they loose a dozen to a predator, they will scream like hell. Especially if it was to a wolf. Why? Because, frankly, ranchers are pissed off that wolves were re-introduced. Great granddad got rid of them, and how dare anyone bring them back!!
When I reach my property line, I figure my influence over the land ends. Most people feel that way. But for some reason ranchers seem to think that they not only control their 500 acres (or whatever), but that they have some God given right to control the public and private land for a hundred miles around as well, and the wildlife that lives therein. The heck with the private property rights of those who want bison or wolves on their land. The heck with the private property rights of someone who gets their garden trampled by cows moving to their summer range (my fault, cause I didn't have a fence around it!)
The real issue here is not about ranchers. Most ranchers have not, and will not, be affected by wolves. My neighbor, who has a fairly large operation, has never lost an animal to wolves; even though a pack denned this spring about a quarter of a mile behind my house.
He has lost a few animals to other predators; but he lost a lot to weather this past winter. RANCHERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEIR LIVESTOCK. Wolves, coyotes, cougar in among your stock? Protect it. If you can do that without killing, fine. If not, fine.
This IS about hunting and shoot on sight of an animal fresh off of the endangered species list. This is about running an animal into the ground on a snowmobile and killing it just because it's a wolf. This is about laying in wait at an elk feedlot and shooting wolves who have never bothered cattle. This is about spending millions of dollars and countless man hours to re-introduce wolves into the Northern Rockies, only to return to the days of extermination.
Marion,
The overpopulation problem does not include anyone that has two children or fewer.
I don't allow ants in my home, but they are welcom on public land. Wolves also should be welcome on public land,which is all anyone is saying. Public land is not the home of the ranchers despite what they and you may think
Craig,
I believe the founding fathers wrote those words in response to monarchy and dictatorship, not environmentalism.
bear bait,
Perhaps the forests would be more fire resistent if the resistent old growth trees had not been removed by loggers. Environmentalists tried to protect old growth trees and then were told that would cost jobs,so loggers pillaged the forests. Our forests were turned into tree farms full of young,skinny trees. Once again, trying to blame environementalists for the world's ills flies in the face of science and historical fact.
Infanticide in China is a desperate response to a terrible situation. America has a chance tolearn from the mistakes of Asia, Africa, and Europe. We have a chance to prevent overpopulation BEFORE it happens and we too have to take desperate measures.
Anthropomorphic propaganda? History shows that the propaganda has almost always bee anthropocentric.
matt, my point being that 'rights' for humankind or animals do not exist sui generis. They take sentient beings to conceptualize them, collectively recognize them, priortize them, and enforce them in an organized society. Otherwise, such statements of 'rights' are just words. Nature could care less about such ponderings.
Comment By Craig Moore, 6-05-08...and by the way, the founding fathers wrote those words in response to perceived tyrrany. In that regard hostile environmentalism may not be that much different from taxation without representation.
Comment By matt, 6-05-08Ranching is a great example of taxation without representation. How many taxpayers would be happy with cyanide canisters poisoning coyote pups on public land if more of them knew about it?
Comment By Marion, 6-05-08Well Frank, if they lose a dozen cattle that is about 12 grand, that my be nothing to you, but to me and to most ranchers it is very significant. The problem with protecting their animals is the fact wolves sneak in during the night.....in order to avoid detection. Some are more aggressive and show up during the day, but the rules for a long time stated they had to be in the act of killing not tasting (ok, tasting is an exaggeration), but certainly not just chasing.
Let's be honest, wolves were NEVER in any danger of disappearing, there 10s of thousands on this continent. They were endangered where certain folks want them to be, namely ranch country. No one even suggested them being planted where they were first eliminated. I firmly believe enviros wanted ranchers off the land, especially leased land.
The buffs are not the problem , the problem is the disease they carry. Long before they proved a problem for the ranchers they would be a big problem for drivers etc. I can see a few hundred of them migrating down I-90 during rush hour. This is the only infected herd in the country, and the only one being pressured to turn them loose to roam. I have never hear the most adamant buffalo person insisting that any other state or national park turn their disease free animals loose to roam freely. Have you?
So Canada gets wolves and we don't? Mexico gets jaguars and we don't? Bison are not allowed to roam millions of acres because of a few ranchers? You say we enviros are trying to make the land over to what we want? That is the pot calling the kettle black. What sort of natural heritage will weleave to future Americans? Not much of one. But at least ranchers will get to play cowboy.
Comment By Craig Moore, 6-05-08matt, very short sighted on your part. I don't remember whether it was Marion or Rose Mary, but someone ran this list before of the products that stem from cattle, sheep, and hogs raised by ranchers who you derisively claim "play cowboy."
http://www.rense.com/general6/cow.htm
GENERAL MEDICAL & HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS
antibodies (immunoglobins)
beef insulin
bovine collagen - used as injections to fill in scars
bovine fibrinolysin (brand name- Elase) ointment for necrotic tissue
bovine super oxide - dismutase cream (Orgotein) - cosmetic skin cream to
prevent tissue aging.
bovine thrombin (brand name- Thrombinar) clotting agent for blood
culture medium - diagnosis
fetal bovine serum - tissue cultures
Hyaluronidase - efficient drug use
PTH - control tetany
pegademase - bovine derivative (brand name- Adagen)
- for patients who are immuno-compromised...helps prevent
white blood cells from breaking down.
pill capsules - GELATIN
whole serum - vaccine manufacturing
PRODUCTS FROM OVARIES
estrogen
progesterone - a reproductive hormone
PRODUCT FROM STOMACHS
pepsin - aid in protein digestion
rennet - aid in milk digestion
PRODUCTS FROM THYROIDS
bovine thyroid (Thyrar) a thyroid replacement
TSH - thyroid diagnosis
thyroid extract - hypothrodism
thyroid hormones
myxedema
cretinism
PRODUCTS FROM ADRENALS
cortisone - for arthritis, skin allergies, anti-inflammatory medicine
epinephrine - aid in raising blood pressure, heart disorders, and allergies
PRODUCTS FROM LIVERS
heparin - anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
liver extract - treatment of anemia
intrinsic factor - pernicious anemia
Vitamin B12 - prevention of B-complex deficiencies
PRODUCTS FROM LUNGS
heparin - anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD
plasma protein
blood albumin - RH factor typing
Fraction I - hemophilia
Fraction V - kills viruses
iron for anemia
thrombin - blood coagulant
protein extracts
diagnostic microbiology
PRODUCTS FROM HOG HEARTS
heart valves for human transplant
PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES
medical sutures - surgery
PRODUCTS FROM BONES
bone marrow - blood disorders
bone meal - calcium and phosphorous source
mineral source in supplements
collagen and bone for plastic surgery
soft cartilage - plastic surgery
xiphisternal cartilage (breastbone) plastic surgery
PRODUCTS FROM PANCREAS
chymotrypsin - contact surgery
diastase - aid in starch digestion
glucagon - treat hypoglycemia
insulin - diabetes mellitus
pancreatin - aid digestion
trypsin - for burns, wounds, and infection - promotes healing - aid in
protein
digestion and in cleaning wounds
PRODUCTS FROM PITUITARY GLANDS
ACTH - arthritis, allergies, rheumatic fever, skin and eye inflammations
pressor hormone - regulates blood pressure
prolactin - promotes lactation
vasopressin - controls intestinal and renal functions
PRODUCTS FROM SPINAL CORDS
cholesterol - hormone products
OTHER MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS
nitroglycerine
antibodies (immunoglobins)
beef insulin
bovine collagen - used as injections to fill in scars
bovine fibrinolysin (Elase - brand name) ointment for use on necrotic
tissue
bovine super oxide - dismutase cream (Orgotein) - cosmetic skin cream to
prevent tissue aging
bovine thrombin (Thrombinar - brand name) clotting agent for blood
culture medium - diagnosis
fetal bovine serum - tissue cultures
Hyaluronidase - efficient drug use
PTH - control tetany
pegademase - bovine derivative (Adagen - brand name) -
- for patients who are immuno-compromised
- helps prevent white blood cells from breaking down.
pill capsules - GELATIN
whole serum - vaccine manufacturing
*** GENERAL FOOD PRODUCTS ***
PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE, SHEEP, HOG FLESH
a huge variety of fresh, frozen, and pre-cooked meats
and prepared and processed meat products
PRODUCTS FROM MILK/DAIRY
butter
casein (proteins)
cheese and cheese products
cream
food ethanol
ice cream and ice cream mixes
lactose (carbohydrates)
milk powder
sherbet
whey (proteins)
fats (lipids)
yogurt
PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible)
chewing gum
lard
oleo margarine
oleo shortening
oleostearin
pharmaceuticals
rennet for cheese (sheep)
rennet for cheese (sheep)
shortening
PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD
blood sausage
bone meal
cake mixes
deep-fry batters
egg substitute
gravy mixes
imitation seafood
pasta
whipped toppings and coffee whiteners
PRODUCTS FROM BONES
whitener in refined sugar
PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES
gelatin capsules
gelatin deserts
ice cream, malts and shakes
marshmallow
potted meats
PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES
sausage casings
PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS
sausage casings
gelatin
candies and confectionery
flavorings
foods
gelatin desserts
ice cream
marshmallows
mayonnaise
yogurt
*** INDUSTRIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS ***
PRODUCTS FROM MILK
adhesives
animal feed
buttons
carriers for human medicine
cosmetics
glue
pharmaceuticals
sizing
specialty plastics
veterinary medicines
PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD
adhesives
bone marrow
bone meal
fabric printing and dyeing
leather-treating agents
livestock feed
minerals
plaster retardant
plywood adhesive
diagnostic microbiology
from colloidal proteins - glue for automobile bodies
protein source in feeds
sticking agent
textile sizing
PRODUCTS FROM BONES
bone charcoal
pencils
high grade steel
bone handles
bone jewelry
mineral source in feed
fertilizer
dried bones
buttons
bone china
glass
porcelain enamel
water filters
whitener in refined sugar
PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES
adhesives
bandage strips
collagen cold cream
cellophane wrap and tape
crochet needles
dice
dog biscuits
emery boards and cloth
fertilizer
glycerine
laminated wood products
neatsfoot oil
photographic film
plywood and paneling
shampoo and conditioner
wallpaper and wallpaper paste
syringes
PRODUCTS FROM BRAINS
anti-aging cream
cholesterol
PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible and inedible)
animal foods
biodegradable detergents
biodiesel
cellophane
cement
ceramics
chalk
chemicals
cosmetics
crayons
creams and lotions (sheep)
deodorants
detergents
explosives
fertilizer
fiber softeners
floor wax
glycerin
glycerol
antifreeze
herbicides
horse and livestock feeds
industrial oils and lubricants
insecticides
insulation
linoleum
livestock feed
lubricants
makeup
matches
medicines
mink oil
nitroglycerine
oil polishes
ointment bases
oleostearin
paints
paraffin
perfumes
pet foods
pharmaceuticals
plasticizers
plastics
printing rollers
protein hair conditioner
protein hair shampoo
putty
rubber products
shaving cream
shoe cream
soaps
solvents
stearic acid (sheep)
tallow for tanning
textiles
tires
water proofing agents
weed killers
PRODUCTS FROM GALLSTONES
ornaments
PRODUCTS FROM HAIR
air filters
artist's paint brush
felt and rug padding
insulation material
non-wovens
plastering material
textiles
upholstering material
PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS
belts
collagen-based adhesives (from trimmings)
bandages
emery boards
glues -for papermaking, bookbinding, cabinetmaking
sheetrock
wallpaper
drum head (sheep)
pharmaceuticals
photographic materials
leather sporting goods
leather wearing apparel
luggage
pigskin garments, gloves, and shoes
porcine burn dressings for burn victims
shoes and boots
upholstery
wallets
PRODUCTS FROM HOOVES AND HORNS
chessmen
combs
buttons
fertilizer
horn handles
imitation ivory
inedible bone meal
livestock feeds
ornaments
piano keys
plant food
PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES
instrument strings
sausage casings
tennis racquet strings
PRODUCTS FROM MANURE
fertilizer - used in gardens, lawns and farm cropland
nitrogen
potash
phosphorus
minor minerals
OTHER PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE SOURCES
airplane lubricants and runway foam
car polishes and waxes
hydraulic brake fluid
Stearic acid - helps rubber in tires hold shape under steady surface
friction
steel ball bearings containing bone charcoal
textiles for car upholstery
various machine oils and viscous fluids
PRODUCTS FROM WOOL
asphalt binder
carpet
clothing
cosmetics
fabrics
felt
insulation
lanolin
medical ointments
paint and plaster binder
pelt products
rouge base
rug pads
upholstery
woolen goods
worsted fabric
yarns
Marion,
Since you are looking at this in a completely monetary/anthropocentric fashion and I assume there's no way for any of us to change that, have you given any consideration to rancher reimbursement?
In Montana, there are several ways a rancher can go about getting reimbursed for any livestock that is taken by predators (even if it was on public land, not private land). One example is Defenders of Wildlife, a national nonprofit conservation program that receives no government funding and maintains a $100,000 Wolf Compensation Trust to reimburse ranchers (at 100% market value) for verifiable losses due to wolves. They even compensate 50% market value for livestock kills that can't be proven were caused by wolves. This organization has been reimbursing ranchers since 1987.
Also, the Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act, which passed this spring, would authorize federal money for state trust funds to reimburse livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves.
So there are several ways for ranchers to reclaim most of the income they lose from wolves.
However, despite the huge amount of publicity for wolves, the number of ranchers they actually effect is relatively small. While a few ranchers may experience more than one wolf kill a year, most don't even experience one.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Montana livestock operators reported losing 66,000 cattle last year to disease, birthing difficulties, accidents, and other causes. The total number of cattle losses from predators was around 3,000, only 75 were reported for wolves, and only 27 losses for sheep in 2007 (according to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks).
Aren't we making a very big deal out of comparitively very few wolf kills??
Laura writes: "According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Montana livestock operators reported losing 66,000 cattle last year to disease, birthing difficulties, accidents, and other causes. The total number of cattle losses from predators was around 3,000, only 75 were reported for wolves, and only 27 losses for sheep in 2007 (according to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks)."
If wolves were evenly distributed in the concentrated numbers where they now live, I believe the statistics would be far different. Including the experience of the vast majority of Montana stock raisers where they do not have wolves dilutes the effect and is greatly misleading. Those statistics should only include those ranches which experience stock losses from both wolf and non-wolf causes, and they should reflect the accelerating upward trend as wolf populations increase. Then the numbers mean something.
Please remember one reason the wolf killed livestock numbers seem to be so low is because of the difficulty proving a wolf kill. It requires evidense of extreme trauma that is the hallmark of a wolf kill. If too much of the victim is eaten, if too much time has passed, etc it is not confirmed, there fore only about 8-10% of kills are compensated. Lambs for instance are virtually never paid for becasue they are so small and there is so little left...if anything.
Now that Wyoming is the one responsible for kills in our state, we are more realistic than DOW and of course the state does not get millions in donations for every thousand they pay out.
It is really silly to argue this, wolfers feel they are entitled to have someone else pay the bill for their entertainment, and ranchers are never going to be happy about it.
Hunters who have gladly paid millions for habitat and management of wildlife are not happy about seeing theirr hunting opportunities go down the toilet either.
I think that the point that Laura was trying to make (forgive me, Laura, if I am wrong here) is that there are a multitude of agencies, federal, private and at the state level standing in line to help ranchers who have predation losses. No program is perfect, but even if ranchers end up only getting 50% for loses to predators, the compensation for loses to weather, disease, giving birth etc. is exactly ZERO PERCENT. Seems to me that if I were a rancher, I would be praying to God every night that any losses be to predation. Indeed, this is EXACTLY why Defenders was insisting on proof of wolf predation: they knew that the temptation would be great for ranchers to claim losses to other causes as wolf predation.
Even in the GYE, where wolves are "abundant", loses to wolves are minor COMPARED TO LOSSES to other predators; and losses to all predation minor compared to weather, disease etc. 75 cattle lost to wolves in Montana last year? My neighbor alone lost more than that to weather this winter. Once again, if there's a wolf in the hen house, shoot it; but the "hen house" does not include the millions of acres of public lands (including over ten million acres of designated wilderness) that we have in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Those areas are benefiting from the return of the wolf.
Regarding the list above of products from cattle: impressive; but very few items on the list could not be replaced by another source. Chessmen? Give me a break! I have been an avid chess player all of my life, and never owned a set of pieces made out of bovine hoofs; but then again I've never owned any made out of ivory either. Wood does just fine.
Theoretically, if all ranches in the Northern Rockies disappeared tomorrow, it would hardly be a blip on the cattle radar screen. The difference would soon be picked up by other producers. Frankly, the Northern Rockies is poor ranch country. It is too arid, the weather too harsh. I don't remember the movie, but I remember John Wayne saying, "You have to be an idiot to try and raise cattle above 5,000 feet in these mountains." If ranchers choose to make a living here, God bless them; but in my mind it would make a lot more sense to raise bison. Hardier, easier on the land, able to fight off predators (ever watch a cow bison fight off a pack of wolves while defending a calf? I have!) and able to produce every item on the list.
Finally, Marion, I don't ever want to hear you complaining about the size (or lack there of) of that Northern Range elk herd again. Elk are in no danger of going extinct. There are plenty in Canada and Alaska. In fact, there are plenty in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming....more than each state wants according to their management plans. What, are we supposed to kill wolves just to make it convenient for you to see your elk?
Balance, my friends. That's the key. Nature's balance.
I will repeat one more time: Deer eat my apples. I have two questions: 1) Where do I apply for compensation? 2) Can I start shooting every deer I see?
Comment By Craig Moore, 6-06-08Frank, if you think you have a compelling case, just apply to the DFWP to conduct a game damage hunt on your land.
Comment By bear bait, 6-06-08Frank N.: so didn't you just make Marion's case? By saying there are plenty of elk in other states, in Canada, that elk are in no way endangered, isn't that exactly what she and others have said all along? Wolves are not in danger of extinction. Their proponents just wanted them in places where they are not, to the chagrin of some who live there. The wolf issue is not about ESA listing, if that process had ever been honest, but about expansion of wolf territory. The Big Zoo needed wolves. Now it has them. Why does every other acre of land in the West need them, also? Like elk, they are in existence in plenty of other places. There is no danger of wolf extinction. Europe, Asia, all across the Northern Hemisphere. Just like elk. Or wapiti. Or moose. World wide in dispersion.
Comment By Marion, 6-06-08Frank, whether you like to hear me complain about the Northern herd or not, makes no difference to me. There is not record fo a wolf density anything liek the artificially created density in Yellowstone, anywhere that I can find a record of. Certainly as I have posted many many times, The records indicate a total of 136 wolves killed in Yellowstone over the 42 years they were killed. 122 of them during the 12 years that NPS killed them and paid a bounty, the other 14 during the 30 years the army was in charge. Now I see no way that anyone can claim 150-200 wolves on a permanent daily basis can be anything resembling a restoration to normal. There were probably never more than a dozen or so at any one time in the early days.
Unfortunately environmentalists think if they want it and it makes them feel good, then it has to be good for the environment, just because they want it. A little thing like facts are not going to get in their way.
bear bait,
I think what Frank was saying was that elk and wolves in Canada co-exist, which makes since because they are both pieces of a bigger ecosystem.
Marion,
What environmentalists want? For the past 150 years it has been what so ranchers want. We are restoring the ecosystem to what it should be.
bear bait and Marion,
Again, you missed the point and ended up twisting Frank's words. At the end of his post, he said that natural balance was the key. He's not saying "protecting species from going extinct is the key."
Let's all get this into our heads. It's not about protecting individual species! It is about protecting our ecosystems. These ecosystems must include all these species and are disturbed, if not destroyed, if one of these species is missing. Not extinct from the world, just missing from that particular ecosystem. Then the ecosystem cannot provide the resources that it once did for humans.
"Enviros" don't want to see wolves in every acre of the west, as you suggest. We also don't want to see elk in every acre of the west. We want the natural balance to be restored. It has nothing to do with enjoying seeing wildlife. I would argue that those who you are fighting for are actually guilty of that which you accuse. You said, "Hunters who have gladly paid millions for habitat and management of wildlife are not happy about seeing theirr hunting opportunities go down the toilet either." I don't speak about every hunter, but in general the management of wildlife that they support is in favor of increasing game populations to an unnatural level. The very reason hunters want to reduce wolf populations is to see more elk? Isn't that causing us (our ecosystems, and in turn the future prosperity of our species) harm for something they want? Same argument with the ranchers: they want fewer wolves for their own benefit. We want to see the natural balance restored for the benefit of all mankind. Now who is working to protect human interests instead of a minority group?
By the way, thanks for clearing that up for me, Frank! Wonderfully put!
Also, Marion, there is no real record of wolf density in Yellowstone before 1975 because there was no effort to count them before they were eradicated. Would you do extensive research (for which they didn't even have the technology at the time) to count numbers of an animal that your goal was to eradicate completely? Your argument of historical wolf density in Yellowstone is therefore irrelevant. We have no way of proving or even speculating the natural density of wolves in that region. In fact, the eradication of wolves began before there was any protection for them in Yellowstone Park.
Between 1870 and 1877, bounty hunters employed by the United States government killed approximately 55,000 wolves each year, for a total of 385,000 wolf deaths in only seven years. In 1907, with westward expansion in full-swing, "the United States Biological Survey declared the extermination of the wolf as the paramount objective of the government." Thereafter, the United States government launched a full-scale campaign aimed at the total elimination of the wolf in the United States.
And although the Yellowstone National Park Act (1872) directed the Secretary of the Interior to prevent the "wanton destruction of game within the park, and to protect against their capture or destruction," the act somehow excluded wolves and the effort to elimate the wolf continued within the park.
With the mass extermination across the country, we can only surmise, then, that wolves in the Yellowstone region had been killed by hunters, trappers, and then bounty hunters in great numbers, usually unrecorded, long before anyone even thought to count their numbers.
Without the ability to look at the undisturbed ecosystem, you may ask how we can now find the natural population density? It's simple. We let the population increase until their natural environment regulates them, like it always has for all species.
Thanks Laura, you took the words right out of my, eh...fingers! The GYE is one of the last, reasonably large, intact temperate ecosystems on the planet. As such, it has far greater value than someone's "amusement". It has far greater value than the ranchers, subdivisions and towns around it. It is a gauge, a "canary in the mineshaft" as it were, for the entire planet. The only way that we can truly tell how much damage we are doing to other ecosystems is to have something to compare it to.
Of course my comment regarding the elk in the Northern Range was facetious. Elk are as vital to the health of that ecosystem as the wolves are. I need not elaborate further, because Matt and Laura did such a nice job.
Remember that only 66 wolves were re-introduced to Yellowstone. The numbers expanded, and then pretty much stopped expanding, because of Nature's balance. An ecosystem will support only so many of any species. It may take a few years for a population to adjust, but adjust it will.
Let's look at the "facts" regarding wolf numbers in Yellowstone historically. In Montana alone, for example, the state paid out $340,000 in bounties for the death 81,000 wolves. This is more wolves, in the state of Montana alone, than currently live in all of Canada and Alaska combined.
One of the last places for the wolves to live in the Lower 48 states was in Yellowstone Park. The wolves killed there was a remnant population and not indicative of the historical numbers that migrated freely between the park and the states of Montana and Wyoming. Just as the few bison left in Yellowstone at the turn of the century was a remnant population, and not indicative of the historical levels. 81,000 wolves killed IN MONTANA ALONE!! A substantial number.
Finally, regarding a "game damage hunt" on my land: I solved the problem by putting up a fence. I know that non-lethal problem solving with regard to wildlife is really thinking "out of the box" for the Northern Rockies, but I read somewhere that it actually works in many other parts of the world! After all, I wouldn't want to lose my free "lawnmowers".
First of all, let's deal with the Yellowstone wolves and it has nothing to do with the wolves killed across the country. There were few ranches in Wyoming and Montana in the 1870s. When the Washburn Expedition made the first exploration of Yellowstone itself, they kept journals, or at least several of them did. We are indebted to Lt. Gustavus Doane, who kept a detailed report of the flora and fauna they saw on the trip. It even included a small warm in the trout above the falls. I'm sure you know by now what animal he made no report of the group seeing....wolves. Mr. Evarts who managed to get himself lost for a full month with absolutely no equipment reported hearing a wolf howling the last night he was out. They did report hearing lions a lot. They saw buffalo foot prints around Yellowstone Lake, but no buffs themselves.
Of the 136 wolves that bounties were paid on, 56 were adults, that means the Bangs/Smith expedition introduced more adult wolves than had been recorded in all of the years of Yellowstone. Anyone want to guess how many of the 80 pups were actually coyotes or even German Shepherds? In fact I'd bet that there was a lot of that sort of thing went on everywhere in the country where wolves were removed if money was involved.
Do you have the years that were included in the removal of the 81,000 wolves in jsut Montana was it?
I do know one of the early books on wildlife in the Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming mentions that wolves seemed to move onto ranches at the end of the 1890s and there was speculation that they were being pushed westward by increasing populations of people moving into Kansas and Nebraska.
The wolf population inside of Yellowstoen did drop the one year that they got Parvo or whatever it was and when the "unknowns" (who have never been counted) kept the females in the dens. Thsoe things are going to happen when there is an over population, but the numbers are going up again, and despite predictions for years that they would level out, they haven't. They probably will when they can no longer get adequate food without dispersing.
Like it or lump it, much of the so designated GYE is private property. If ranchers are unable to make a living ranching, they have no alternative except to sell for either a "trophy ranch" or development.
Now drive thru the Lamar wolf area and tell me how much respect for the environment etc the wolfers are showing. Yellowstoen is regarded as a giant petting zoo, and far too many are there for their entertainment, and no thought of saving anything.
Having said that I go hoping to see bears and elk, and maybe a moose, myself.
The wolves were brought in partly to attract visitors, even though they were talking of restricting visitors at that time. Go figure.
It's been proven that wolves, being the intelligent and cautious animals they are, avoid humans whenever possible. On the Washburn Expedition, isn't it possible and even probable that wolves avoided this relatively small number of people.
My whole point in my last point was that we simply cannot prove how many wolves there were in Yellowstone. However, the significant numbers that were killed across the U.S. (and the 81,000 in Montana-where did you get that statistic Frank?) leads me to believe that significant numbers WERE actually killed in the GYE as well.
I saw wolves in the wild for the first time in the Lamar valley last summer, and I'm no stranger to Yellowstone. I have spent several weeks every year (last year I went spring, summer, fall, winter) in Yellowstone and I hadn't ever seen a wolf until this year. The only reason I was able to spot wolves in the Lamar valley this year is because I knew they were going to be there from following tracking vehicles or seeing several other people watching. Had I not been sitting there, watching closely for hours, I never would have spotted them.
It seems likely that it would've been even easier for wolves to avoid detection with a relatively small number of people keeping an eye out for them. The people on the expedition wouldn't have been sitting around for hours searching for them in the distance like many people must do to catch a glimpse in Yellowstone now. The number of wolf sitings also has more than one variable... there is both the wolf density and the human density to consider.
I'm glad you mentioned the Bighorns! I am actually originally from Buffalo, a town in the foothills of the Bighorns. I spent several months out of every year in my family's cabin in the Bighorns until we sold it three years ago. Therefore I know quite a bit about the past a present of ranching and wolves there.
Turns out the first cattle and sheep ranchers established operations along the base of the Big Horn Mountains in the 1890's, at the earliest 1880. Before that it was mostly trappers and gold miners. It would have been difficult for ranchers to have had a comprehensive idea of the number of wolf sightings in the past had they first began their operations in the 1890's, when the wolf population was supposedly being pushed from Kansas and Nebraska.
It's not just wolves having a difference of opinion with ranchers.
See: http://www.goldentrianglenews.com/articles/2008/06/04/cut_bank_pioneer_press/news/news2.txt
Strange that wolves could elude humans in 1870's, but the 2 that were confirmed in the 1990s absolutely had to be all there were, after all they said there were none until those two showed up and nearly stopped the introduction.
We can not know how many wolves were in Yellowsotne at any give time, it is true, but we do know how many it took to extirpate them, 136, and how long it took, 42 years. Since a bounty was paid, and 80 were pups................
Adapted from: Walter, David (staff historian for the Montana Historical Society). Montana Campfire Tales: Fourteen Historical Narratives. Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot Press/TwoDot. 1997.:
"For all practical purposes, no "wolf problem" existed in the state after the early 1930s. A population of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (capitols mine) of wolves in 1880 had been eliminated within fifty years. In 1933, the Montana legislature abolished its general bounty on the wolf-although such a bounty remained a county option. Lawmakers agreed that this predator no longer posed a statewide threat to the determined, politically powerful stock growers. Between 1883 and 1918, state officials had paid $342,764 in bounties for 80,730 wolves"............With the disappearance of the wolf, ranchers found over time that their stock loss began to increase. Having rid the prairie of the wolf, one of the major predators of the rabbit, the rabbit population increased. A prairie rabbit doesn't dig a hole to live in, but makes a depression in which to hide and raise its young. As the cattle and sheep roamed over the range, they would trip into these depressions and break their legs. When the rancher finally found these animals, they were either dead by starvation or had to be destroyed. Killing off the wolf population and taking them out of the prairie food web adversely disrupted the food web, causing more harm then good. ...............One might reasonably assume that wolf predation on livestock must be a common event: the fox in the chicken coop and the wolf in sheep's clothing have become metaphors for negligence and cunning. But the strength of these images may belie the frequency with which the actual events occur. In surveys where a large proportion of "kills" are unverified, a great majority of animals "killed" by predators may have died from other causes. Other reports have shown that coyotes were responsible for approximately 10% of the deaths attributed to wolves, and nearly 50% or more of the sheep deaths attributed to wolves were actually killed by feral dogs. Because ranchers are compensated for losses due to wolves but not for other causes of livestock mortality, kills known to have been made by coyotes, foxes, or feral domestic dogs are called wolf kills so that a rancher can collect compensation. "......wolf's return to their Rocky Mountain habitat, their human proponents face(d) strong, rancorous opposition from Montana's livestock industry. For a full century, the state's ranchers have hated, fought, and killed the wolf. Any attempts to return this animal to Montana .... face(d) this angry, determined, well-organized force of Montana stockmen. Hating the wolf is ingrained. It's highly emotional. It's the Montana rancher's heritage. One need not look hard for the answer to the question, "Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?" He needs only to look at the historical record."
Unfortunately Frank, the fellow you quoted is expressing his opinion, not necessarily facts. Surely there are archival records showing wolf kills and where they occured.
This quote was particularly disturbing because it indicates a modern interpretation:
"Because ranchers are compensated for losses due to wolves but not for other causes of livestock mortality, kills known to have been made by coyotes, foxes, or feral domestic dogs are called wolf kills so that a rancher can collect compensation."
Wolf kills have to be confirmed and extreme trauma is the defining characteristic to determine the cause of death. Those animals who were clearly killed by wolves but were too far consumed or whatever to absolutely confirmed were called probable, which gave the rancher 1/2 of the "market value", even though all knew that wolves had killed the animal, it simply could not be proven beyond any doubt.
It really concerns me that a "historian" would make as many judgemental comments as this one apparently does.
In the 19th century, the demand for pelts sent hundreds of hunters out to kill every wolf that they could. At the same time, ranchers moved into the western plains to take advantage of cheap and abundant grazing land. Livestock took over
and the wolves’ natural prey base retreated. Wolves began depredating on livestock and this led to a massive campaign
to exterminate wolves completely in the west. Professional “wolfers” working for the livestock industry laid out
strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and
inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites. Barry Holstun Lopez writes in Of
Wolves And Men, "[people] even poisoned themselves, and burned down their own property torching the woods to get
rid of wolf havens."
Between 1870 and 1877, bounty hunters employed by the United States government killed approximately 55,000 wolves
each year, for a total of 385,000 wolf deaths in only seven years.
In the state of Montana alone, between 1883 and 1918, 80,730 wolves were exterminated and $342,764 in bounties
were rewarded.
....Rocky Mountain Alliance
By the 1880's the majority of the bison were gone, so the wolves had to change food sources. This meant that they turned their attention to domestic livestock, causing farmers and ranchers to fight back. There were even some states offering bounties for the wolves. Montana had a bounty on wolves that totaled more than $350,000 on 81,000 wolves. Due to the lack of a food source, as well as the bounties being offered, a wolf was no longer safe in the lower 48 states......University of Wyoming (uwyo)
No one knows, no one can even reasonably estimate the numbers of wolves slaughtered on the prairies, high plains, and in the mountains of North America during this period. One source sets the number of wolves killed in the region between 1860 and 1900 at one million, another at two million...... geoci>ties
The near-elimination of the bison led to a lull in wolf killing, only to be revived in the 1880s and 1890s as livestock owners successfully lobbied for bounties on dead wolves. In Montana alone, more than 80,000 wolves were killed by bounty hunters between 1883 and 1918..........National Wildlife Magazine August 1998
Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites. In a 25-year period at the turn of the century, more than 80,000 wolves were killed in Montana alone.........Kid's Planet, A History of Wolves in America
As they traveled through present-day Montana, the men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition were struck by the great number of gray wolves in the area, often seen feasting on bison carcasses. They watched with some fascination a group of wolves bringing down a large elk. Today's biologists estimate the number of wolves in Montana at that time at around 200,000........Outside Bozeman Magazine
Montana's first bounty law, passed in 1883, paid $1 for every pelt. Within the first year, 5,450 wolf hides were collected.
Soon, a cottage industry of "wolfers" cropped up. Between 1870 and 1877, they killed more than 55,000 wolves a year, according to a 1986 article in Montana Magazine.
Bounties fluctuated over the years, reaching a high of $15 in 1911.
Between 1883 and 1918, Montana paid $342,764 in bounties for 80,730 wolves, the article said.
The war on wolves was escalated in 1901 with a change in the law allowing bounties for wolf pups, which allowed wolfers to directly target dens, Lehman said........Jackson Hole Star Tribune April, 3, 2007
At the same time that the Nez Perce were being "pacified," white settlers were also waging war on the gray wolf. These settlers viewed Canis lupus (the ancestor of domestic dogs) as a menace to both people and livestock. This attitude, coupled with a demand for wolf pelts, led to killing on a massive scale in the late 1860s. Hunters would kill a bison, lace the carcass with strychnine and return the next day for wolves poisoned by scavenging on the carcass. At the peak of the practice, "wolfers" commonly killed 1,000 wolves a winter this way. In Montana alone, more than 80,000 wolves were killed by bounty hunters between 1883 and 1918.............National Wildlife Federation website
Shall I go on? Opinions are opinions, but these are historical facts.
It is highly unlikely, in fact impossible to believe, that wolves existed in these numbers outside of what is now known as Yellowstone National Park, and not within it. It is likely that most packs moved freely in and out of the area, and that by the time the Park Service got around to killing them, that most had already been killed outside of the Park or, with bounties being offered by Montana and Wyoming, by poachers in it.
In the 19th century, the demand for pelts sent hundreds of hunters out to kill
every wolf that they could. At the same time, ranchers moved into the western
plains to take advantage of cheap and abundant grazing land. Livestock took over
and the wolves’ natural prey base retreated. Wolves began depredating on livestock and this led to a massive campaign
to exterminate wolves completely in the west. Professional “wolfers” working for the livestock industry laid out
strychnine-poisoned meat lines up to 150 miles long. Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites. Barry Holstun Lopez writes in Of Wolves And Men, "[people] even poisoned themselves, and burned down their own property torching the woods to get rid of wolf havens." Between 1870 and 1877, bounty hunters employed by the United States government killed approximately 55,000 wolves each year, for a total of 385,000 wolf deaths in only seven years.
In the state of Montana alone, between 1883 and 1918, 80,730 wolves were exterminated and $342,764 in bounties were rewarded.....Rocky Mountain Alliance
By the 1880's the majority of the bison were gone, so the wolves had to change food sources. This meant that they turned their attention to domestic livestock, causing farmers and ranchers to fight back. There were even some states offering bounties for the wolves. Montana had a bounty on wolves that totaled more than $350,000 on 81,000 wolves. Due to the lack of a food source, as well as the bounties being offered, a wolf was no longer safe in the lower 48 states......University of Wyoming
No one knows, no one can even reasonably estimate the numbers of wolves slaughtered on the prairies, high plains, and in the mountains of North America during this period. One source sets the number of wolves killed in the region between 1860 and 1900 at one million, another at two million...... geocities
The near-elimination of the bison led to a lull in wolf killing, only to be revived in the 1880s and 1890s as livestock owners successfully lobbied for bounties on dead wolves. In Montana alone, more than 80,000 wolves were killed by bounty hunters between 1883 and 1918..........National Wildlife August 1998
Wolves were shot, poisoned, trapped, clubbed, set on fire and inoculated with mange, a painful and often fatal skin disease caused by mites. In a 25-year period at the turn of the century, more than 80,000 wolves were killed in Montana alone.........Kid's Planet, A History of Wolves in America
As they traveled through present-day Montana, the men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition were struck by the great number of gray wolves in the area, often seen feasting on bison carcasses. They watched with some fascination a group of wolves bringing down a large elk. Today's biologists estimate the number of wolves in Montana at that time at around 200,000........Outside Bozeman Magazine
Montana's first bounty law, passed in 1883, paid $1 for every pelt. Within the first year, 5,450 wolf hides were collected.
Soon, a cottage industry of "wolfers" cropped up. Between 1870 and 1877, they killed more than 55,000 wolves a year, according to a 1986 article in Montana Magazine by Dave Walter, reference librarian at the Montana Historical Society.
Bounties fluctuated over the years, reaching a high of $15 in 1911.
Between 1883 and 1918, Montana paid $342,764 in bounties for 80,730 wolves, the article said.
The war on wolves was escalated in 1901 with a change in the law allowing bounties for wolf pups, which allowed wolfers to directly target dens, Lehman said........Jackson Hole Star Tribune April, 3, 2007
At the same time that the Nez Perce were being "pacified," white settlers were also waging war on the gray wolf. These settlers viewed Canis lupus (the ancestor of domestic dogs) as a menace to both people and livestock. This attitude, coupled with a demand for wolf pelts, led to killing on a massive scale in the late 1860s. Hunters would kill a bison, lace the carcass with strychnine and return the next day for wolves poisoned by scavenging on the carcass. At the peak of the practice, "wolfers" commonly killed 1,000 wolves a winter this way. In Montana alone, more than 80,000 wolves were killed by bounty hunters between 1883 and 1918.............National Wildlife Federation
Shall I go on? Opinions are opinions, but these are historical facts.
I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that wolves existed in such numbers outside of what is now Yellowstone National Park and not within it. It seems more likely that, with these bounties being offered outside of the park, that wolves were being poached in Yellowstone long before the Park Service began its campaign against them.
I think calling Yellowstone National Park "the Big Zoo" is insulting and repulsive. Yellowstone is a treasure of the United States of America and one of the greatest places left on the planet and for angry, soul blighted people to demean and try to diminish that by calling it names is sick. Take a walk off the roads, go from Gardiner to the Thorofare and back and then write here that you think its a big zoo.
Comment By Marion, 6-11-08Frank, according to Hiram Chittendens book on the American Fur Trade, there was little market for wolf furs, and trappers didn't take them, although there were some tribes who gathered some and they took those to keep on good terms with the American Indians. Do you have a reference for trappers to be trapping and killing wolves for clothing trade?
I know Montana passed a law directing someone to inoculate the wolves with mange, but I can find no record of anyone doing so. As for such massive numbers for bounties, do you have the number for coyotes? Were they maybe lumped together? Even if they weren't don't you suppose the trapper passed off all kills as the animal getting the highest bounty, on top of which coyotes were called prairie wolves in those days.
Do you have a link or a book where the first hand information can be found?
Wolves have been eliminated where there are settlements all over the world since recorded history pretty much, maybe they really did know something.
Completely off that topic, you do go to the Park often don't you? Have you noticed a lower number of babies? Elk, deer, etc? I stayed again last night so I could look early this morning and late last night for calves with moms...very skimpy. No I'm not blaming wolves, rather the very bad winter. One of my sons mentioned a scanty pronghorn baby population too, maybe births are jsut delayed or something? I got caught again waiting for Sylvan to be opened, so it may be awhile before I go over again. I was hoping you might have noticed.
I haven't been in the park in a couple of weeks, and I haven't been to the lake or Sylvan since the road opened. My impression was that wildlife has been hit pretty hard by this winter (and spring), not just bison by any means. I'm not enough of a biologist to know if "delaying" birth is possible. Seems like when it's ready, it's ready! Unless breeding was later. There were a fair amount of bison calves in Little America, and several bighorn lambs in the usual places. In fact we were fortunate enough to see the birth of a lamb (in the cliffs with binoculars). I understand that, with one or two exceptions, very few wolf pups are being seen; and no coyote pup "shows" like last year, to my knowledge (though once again I haven't been, personally, for a couple of weeks).
Elk calves are tough, until they get a little older, because mom keeps them hidden so well. We had quite a few elk in Paradise Valley this winter, and late into the spring (much later than normal); but I am concerned that, with all the winter kill bison, we have lost quite a few elk as well. I saw several very pregnant pronghorn.
Overall the park almost had the feel of a war zone. The Northern Range a little better, but south of Mammoth was desolate (when I was there). I plan on getting into the park this weekend, and hope things have improved. It snowed here at my house yesterday.
Sorry about that last post getting entered twice. The first one got caught in the filter, so I reentered, then they both showed up.
Thanks Frank, I was thinking more of delayed fertilization, usually when it is tiem to deliver, they deliver, at least in humans the baby can be in big trouble if it goes more than a week late. It is only a guess, but I think there may have been a big loss of pregnancies during the winter, some of the cows looked bad earlier. The Mammoth elk look to be in pretty good shape, but I still only saw 3 or maybe 4 depending on whether an earlier one was one I saw Tues evening. Only 1 calf on the Madison and those elk seemed to be really hard hit and skinny, I'm amazed that even one was able to carry a baby to term.
A deer delivered twins Tues at Roosevelt, which created a lot of excitement and photos of course.
I suspect the elk numbers are going to be down dramatically overall the park, but I don't know that anyone counts them. Winter was really rough in the whole area....and it can end anytime as far as I am concerned!