relisted
Wolf Protections Restored in Northern Rockies, Hunting Halted
By Peter Metcalf, 7-18-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Click the image to download a PDF of the preliminary injunction order | |
|
A federal judge in Missoula ordered today that gray wolves in the Northern Rockies be returned to the endangered species list, effectively halting planned fall wolf hunts in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy granted the preliminary injunction to reinstate Endangered Species Act protections for the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf, as requested by the twelve conservation organizations that filed suit in April to reverse the delisting.
“It’s an incredibly important first step,” said Suzanne Asha Stone of Defenders of Wildlife, one of the plaintiffs. “It’s literally the difference between life and death for hundreds of wolves in the region.”
In granting the order, Judge Molloy wrote that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the wolf does not meet the 1994 EIS recovery criteria, in part because of genetic exchange.
He concluded: “The reduction in the wolf population that will occur as a result of public wolf hunts and state depredation control laws in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is more than likely to eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur between subpopulations.”
“Absent genetic exchange,” he continued, “the wolf will not likely be able to withstand future environmental variability and stochastic events.”
Ed Bangs, the ex-wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said he’s disappointed with the order, but thinks Judge Molloy exercised “caution” with the decision.
“I think we had a pretty strong case,” Bangs said, adding that perhaps the agency hurried in allowing hunting as part of state management plans. Even so, Bangs believes the state management plans are more then adequate to ensure the long term survival of wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Under the injunction, day-to-day wolf management responsibilities will remain with Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. But the states will now manage wolves under the federal regulations in place prior to delisiting.
The injunction primarily impacts the circumstances under which the state or private citizens can kill wolves, said Carolyn Sime, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Wolf Program Coordinator. Wolves in northern Montana will again be listed as endangered, which means people will not be able to harass, haze or kill wolves threatening their livestock, pets or other property, Sime said.
“For a private citizen in Montana we’re back to where we were a few months ago,” Sime said.
Despite more malleable rules governing lethal control, the state of Montana has not seen a dramatic increase in the number of wolf mortalities this year compared to 2007, Sime said. The state documented just more than 100 wolf mortalities from all causes last year. So far, 60 deaths have been documented this year.
The injunction also puts an end to private citizens hunting or shooting wolves on sight in Wyoming’s predator zone, the area where the most wolves have died from human causes since delisting. The classification of wolves as predators jeopardizes the future of wolves, the plaintiffs claimed, and Molloy agreed in granting the injunction.
“Certainly, based on today’s ruling, it’s not possible for any of the three states to implement a hunt in the fall,” Sime said.
She said it’s too early to speculate if the defendants will appeal Judge Molloy’s ruling, but didn’t eliminate the possibility.
In the lawsuit, filed in late April challenging the decision to remove the wolf from the endangered species list, the conservation groups argue state management plans fail to provide adequate protection for the species, especially against indiscriminate public hunting.
The lawsuit also argues present wolf numbers are too low and the populations in greater Yellowstone, Idaho and Montana too isolated from one another to meet the biological criteria for a recovered species. Wolf advocates contend 2,000–3,000 wolves are necessary to ensure the species’ long term survival and genetic viability.
State and federal officials maintain that state management plans provide adequate protection and sound management that will maintain wolf populations between 900–1,250 animals, more than enough to ensure their long term survival.
Bangs expects the lawsuit to be resolved within a year.
"Genetic exchange." You gotta be s41++ing me. If you have Hatfield and McCoy Syndrome in wildlife herds, or any other, what do you do? Sling the Hatfields in a chopper and haul them over to McCoy Country. Works pretty well....
Never mind that USFWS had no problems flying the Canuck wolves down and dropping them on the GYE. Didn't seem to bother the wolfies all that much.
I can imagine where this is going to go, the ruling will probably result in a bunch more land-use restrictions so the wolves can have "migration corridors" and all that ideologically-driven "conservation biology" whatnot.
What a straw-grasping weasel. Conrad Burns should have blueslipped this turkey, but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Boy, Ralph Nader must be proud of his former Trial Lawyer for Public Justice.
Skinner probably practices his marksmanship on picket pins...
Comment By Mr. Twister, 7-18-08dang! Wolf queers win! Guess I'll go back to slinging'em in the river.
For now.
Great ruling by Malloy, I'm glad wildlife groups aren't the only ones looking at the big picture.
Comment By WOLF, 7-19-08To Twister,
Maybe while your throwing the wolves in the winter mother nature will do us a favor and was your scum away. It was a good call and the environmental groups have the evidence to back it up.
Persistence pays off. Conservation biology is finally being understood by the courts, and Congress. If habitat fragmentation is the cause of species decline and extinction, maintaining and restoring connecting corridors is the remedy. Linkage is not just important for wolves, but they demonstrate the way large, wide-ranging mammals use landscapes when security is restored.
Comment By Wyoming Resident, 7-19-08I believe that the first rule in wildlife management is regulated sustainable hunting. The Wyoming plan offers unregulated hunting. Is this sportsmanship? Also if you are not eating what you kill, then it is not hunting but killing. Remember, thou shall not Kill! Oh yeah, the 10 commandments, the christian west seems to forget their principals. People, who have chased wolves down with snowmobiles for 50 miles until the wolf was exhausted, pinned it with the sled and killed it, are not sportsman.
Comment By Dewey, 7-19-08This powerful rebuke to the Wyoming Game & Fish , its Legislature and Governor, the Wyoming Stockgrowers , and the sportsmen and hunting lobby is most welcome. Maybe---just maybe--- I will actually live long enough to see all the above recognize and actualize the fact that Wolves are wildlife, too. I cannot speak for the Montana and Idaho aspect , but the Wyoming Anti-Wolf alliance's blind insistence on "protecting" Woves in less than ten percent of the state and treating the animal as a nuisance predator in the remainder was just plain stupid all along. We tried to tell them that four years or more ago, but they chose to waste the last four years and huge resources in litigating and legislating a doomed plan. I am glad I am on record saying back then what Judge Molloy put in his decree yesterday ; that Wolves must have numbers, habitat, interaction opportunity , and a certain level of real conservation protections in perpetuity to be fully delisted. Anyone who didn't see this coming....
Comment By Binkyboy, 7-20-08Wow, Skinner, you've gone way above your usual slime slinging and now you're treading close to the line of encouraging vigilantism. Congratulations!
Now maybe you can tell everyone about ungulate studies that focus on Aspen recovery and say how it shows that the wolves are responsible for evil, or something along those lines. You haven't been above lying about wolves before, so don't stop now!
108 wolves killed in 118 days (since delisting). If you do the math, the conclusion is "delisting" means death and so-called "management" isn't happening. Take note, the 108 wolves were killed "before" the proposed hunting season. I'm in full agreement about hunting "don't kill it, unless you eat it". I thank Judge Malloy for this decision.
Comment By Mule, 7-20-08At least we can still protect our pets under the 10 (j) rule. There are too many wolves in urban areas. They have already saturated the the wilderness and taken all available habitat and moving closer to larger towns. I guess when they are running thru subdivisions picking off pets (and maybe kids?) the huggers might realize that Pandora's box has been opened. I still can't understand why people put this predator on a pedestal, you don't see anyone getting all excited over bears and cougars being managed. Hypocrites!
Comment By jb, 7-20-08Mule and Skinner.....read the full decision, then comment intelligently. If you can't understand it, find a 3rd or 4th grader to interpret it for you.
No wonder these 3 states have a reputation for being culturally retarded.
To Mule,
Were you always this ignorant or did you take lessons. "Too many wolves in urban areas". You've got to be kidding me. First of all I don't think there is any "urban" areas in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. Secondly they haven't "saturated" the wilderness. There are over 3,000 wolves in Minnesota. These wolves occupy only one third of the state and Minnesota has more people and less habitat than Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming and they haven't seen any negative environmental effects from the wolves. Logic tells me that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming can support many more wolves. Biologists estimate Idaho alone can support a minimum of 5,000 wolves without any negative environmental effects. As far as "picking off pets and kids" wolves prefer their natural prey and they are usually scared shit less of humans. If pets are in their territory then there will probably be some losses. In regards to that ignorant kid comment. There has never been a documented case of healthy wolves EVER attacking humans in North America, so that argument is crap. The reason why this predator (and the Grizzly for your information) is on the so called "pedestal" is because they DON'T have a stable population and they can't withstand a hunting season. Cougar and black bear have a stable population with their numbers well into the thousands in each of the three states. Pandora's box would have been opened if a hunting season had been allowed. Who's the hypocrite now.
Let's see, it is the wanton killing by Wyoming that is the cause of this???? Wyoming has killed 21 of thsoe supposed 108 wolves, who killed the rest? How could other states kill more if Wyoming has the bad plan?
Let's face facts, it is the judges own prejudices that resulted in this ruling. FWS had ELEVEN days in which to reply to the suit form enviros. Yes they knew they were going to sue (no matter when and now matter how many wolves), but they didn't knwo the specifics. The judge plainly stated he did not want more wolves killed so he wasn't giving more time.
His ruling was based on his ideology like every ruling he has made. Just like numbers didn't matter (2000-3000 wolves instead fo the 300 that was to bring delistingweren't enough), neither did the actual low numbers of wolf kills. The judge and the enviro groups want mroe wolves, when there is no rancher left then maybe we'll cut back.
My daughter and I encourage all who support the wolves staying on the endangered species list (maybe some of you who don't should too!!) to visit a wolf conservation center to see what beautiful wildlife the wolf is. Wolfkeep is right past mile marker 11 on 200 E. 22 miles from Missoula. The Wolf Education and Research Center in Winchester, Idaho.
Educate yourself! Stand for Something!!
Perhaps you are right Grace, but by all means take your daughter and go see the dead sheep and cattle that wolves have left behind in someone else's home. Be sure she understands how much money that takes away from the family, and that they are paying a heavy price for her to enjoy wolves. I'm sure you want her to know all of the facts about the wolves.
Comment By Binkyboy, 7-20-08Evidently to Marion a wolf a day is a "low" kill rate. Only a year to go and she'd never have to worry about them being on her lawn again!
What a whiner.
It is certainly fortunate for homo sapiens and others species that canids aren't so vicious as hominids...
Comment By Dewey, 7-21-08MARION--- I have always advocated that everyone be allowed to visit slaughter plants and big meat packing plants. Expecially children about 10 years old, as part of a school field trip perhaps. Don't neglect the Killing Floor. I think it is very important that people know where their beef products, pork , poultry and all other meat comes from and how it gets to their table or between their Whopper buns. Wolves are no less vicious or kill crazy than humans, they just do it out in the open. The result and the reasons are the same: Need-To-Eat. By the way , Marion , I also strongly advocate a STATE OF ORIGIN labelling bill for all American and foreign meats sold ins tor , so the consumer knows where their meat is coming from...Wyoming, Montana , Iowa, Argentina, Brazil, etc. This would be very handy to know int he case of Wolves, because I for one would completely boycott Wyoming MOntana Idaho beef until the stockgrowers in those states poull their heads out of their....uh , hats...and start working with Wolves and Griz instead of against them. What's fair is fair.
Comment By Sneaux, 7-21-08Stop grazing cattle on public land and you'll decrease the "mortality". What do people expect? Put a dumb, slow animal out in the wilderness, then complain when it gets killed?
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-21-08Yes, Sneaux, which is always why I can't believe Marion is still around.
Comment By Ann, 7-21-08It was bound to happen with the mind-set of most "Wolf-Haters". The kill kill kill attitude now puts the Livestock owner and his families in jeopardy. Why is it always 'Feast or Famine'. Why can't people 'police' themselves? Do they LIKE(?) having the Government get involved in everything that happens? There is way to much "SPITE" in this world, and this is a perfect example.
Comment By Ann, 7-21-08I kind of agree with Dewey, in that, I wish they would mark the packages of meat as to origin. For the main reason I want to Boycott Montana Beef, but I want to buy the Guy in Wyoming's 'infected' beef. If he could get it to market I would rather buy his burger and steaks than someone elses. The guy has guts, and he needs the support of all Beef eaters.
Comment By Kai Eiselein, 7-21-08Not all cattle kills are on open range. My brother in law had two killed (yes, they were confimed wolf kills) in a pasture less than a mile from his house and about 300 yards from a neighbor's home.
Dewey, I agree, it would be a great way for students to learn anatomy. My then-11-year-old-daughter daughter spent about an hour poking through the entrails of two steers we slaughtered, asking all sorts of questions. She was there for the whole slaughter process and learned more in an afternoon than she would have in a week in class.
Sneaux,
"Put a dumb, slow animal out in the wilderness, then complain when it gets killed?"
Does this include "urban morons" who wander into the woods and get lost or chewed on?
Not sure I would whine about the 'urban moron' as much, if at all.
Comment By Beau, 7-21-08Sounds like you lobolovers like yur 4 to 5 bucks a gallon fuel. I say the only good wolf is a DEAD WOLF! What are you gonna do when they tell us in the oil busness that we CAN NOT DRILL FOR MORE OIL BECAUSE OF SOME STUPID LAW THAT SAYS WE GOTTA PROTECT A WOLF THERE ON THAT LAND WITH OIL UNDER IT! Give me a break!
Comment By Dewey, 7-21-08Dear Beau--- thanks for showing us that the Ignoramus Westernus is far from going extinct. I challenge you to produce the documentation of a single acre of public land that has been closed to mineral development to protect Wolf habitat. A single acre anywhere in Wyoming, Montana , or Idaho. Can you back up your statement with a fact ?
Only an Ignoramus Westernus would put the Wolf and the current high price of gasoline on the same page. Of course, the Ignorami of the West blame the Wolf for everything wrong with the world these days...Wolves are responsible for the mortgage meltdown , stock market crash , Obama, Hillary , the demolishing of Yankee Stadium after the All Star Game , Hurricane Katrina , drought, brucellosis , the high price of beer and milk. Why , Wolves are evenr esponsible for sunspots and asteroid impacts, say the Ignorami ...
For your edification in hopes you'll go back to junior high and begin working on your G.E.D. , the only instance that I am aware of where any access at all to any public land is restricted due to Wolf activity is inside Yellowstone Park near active denning areas. That's more the Park Service being authoritarian jerks than reasonable management. The YNP rangers close trails and lands on either side of the hghway for many small impertinent reasons, just because they can. Wolf dens on public land in Wyoming , whether on Forests or BLM or whatever, have no such restrictions. You obviously know nothing about modern mineral leasing and drilling practices...wildlife cannot defray or deter the juggernaust that are Big Oil , Big Gas, and King Coal. Not in Wyoming, anyway. Not in the least . Your comment is just a witless tirade.
Dear Dewy--in the area of restrictions to oil exploration and drilling, you say "...the only instance that I am aware of where any access at all to any public land is restricted due to Wolf activity is inside Yellowstone Park near active denning areas."
See. And that's only the BEGINNING!
I rest my case!
Beau--- read what I wrote. Please. You flew off the shovel handle again. You left my words behind you when you went . Read them again.
Just how much drilling and mineral exploration occurs inside Yellowstone National Park anyway ? ( Answer: absolute zero) Out in the real world ---away from YNP fairlyland--- where Wildlife and the oil companies routinely collide or overlap ---state lands, Forest Circus lands , Bureau of Livestock and Mining lands , and even private lands--- the Wolf is never ever given preference over minerals . The rules are never changed to accomodate the Wolf. There are no closures.
There is a monster of a dogfight in Wyoming now over the Wyoming Range. Oil companies want to explore and produce there, but real sportstmen and outfitters are pushing back because of the possibility of Elk and Deer hunting being impacted, and wildlife migration corridors affected. BUT---under current rules, any Wolf can be shot on sight there , for no reason , without license. Sportsmen do not give the Wolf any favors, and it never had any from the mineral industry. In the Wyomng Range , which is outside Wyoming's trophy Wolf zone, the Wolf is fair game.
Yellowstone's management of its own lands and resources seldom make sense, and do not apply outside its boundaries ( thank the gods for that!!!) Any temporary closures due to Wolf denning ---or Grizzly activity , or black bear activity---are just that : very transient and short, and apply only to the backpacker and hikers and horseman . It's mostly the Park Service cadets and bureaucrats being stupid and overreactive. They , too, are Ignoramus Westernus but happen to be given Make-Work jobs to do , unfortunately. The highways stay open . The Park stays open.
Anyone who works around all the various state and federal resource agencies just rolls their eyes at the Park Service . Your original point that the rpesence of Wolves will somehow bring energy exploration to a screeching halt somewhere would be laughable , were it not so evident you really believe it.... which makes it scary.
Marion is pretty much right on. Liberal judge bias rears its ugly head again. The radicals won't be happy until all public lands ranchers are removed and all hunters are gone, as well as any other consumptive user of the public lands. The battle lines are pretty simple really, it is a battle over who controls the public lands. The radicals along with their huge sums of money to sue and or force the issues into liberal courts are having a hey day, with judges like Donold Molloy and ole judge Winmill. How many green groups were involved and pushed this injuction? If the wolf doesn't put the people off the land especially down in our area (Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Area), then they will put the Grizzly in on us. They are a beautiful animal also but along with the wolves were removed from this area for a good reason or at least to the resource users of the early 1900's, and still makes since to the present day resource users. I think it is possible to have wolves but their numbers have to be managed and hunting is still the best way because I know many of the readers of this blog really hate trapping. For a hunter to eat a wolf that he has killed might be alright, I hear some Native Americans make tacos out of their excess dogs. Mountain lion meat is good if you can get past the thought of eating cat. Bear meat is good on some bears and some you need to put in a lot of green chile. I don't know of anything that will eat a coyote, unless of course you are really hungry. The Donner Pass party would have probably relished one.
Comment By Binkyboy, 7-21-08And again, no proof offered, just empty anti-wolf propaganda.
Where has anyone been put off their own land for wolves?
Thanks Tom, Marion and yourself make it really easy to have this debate, you offer nothing of substance except for personal opinions that don't even stand up to reality or logic.
Binkyboy,
Perhaps you need to crawl out of your cocoon and look all around. Reality(wolves) have put at least three ranchers out of business in the last two or three years in the Gila and my neighbor to the east has really been hammered the last few years and especially the last three or four months. He is on the verge of bankruptcy. Tell these hard working folks that logic and reality is lacking here. Just about every ranch in this part of the wolf recovery area is up for sale. These are all public lands ranches with little deeded acreage. The ranchers here have been under fire for many years by the Endangered Species Act and in more particular the green groups that are using it to purge the land of these ranchers. Wether it be the Willow Fly Catcher, Spotted Owl, Spike Dace and Loach Minnow, Goshawk or Leopard Spotted Frog, these all have and are playing a role in removing the ranchers. The Gila used to have about 140 grazing allotments and 285,000 AUM's of grazing as little as 25 years ago and now there is just a fraction of that. When the wolves and all of the above creatures fail to bring the resource users to their knees here you can bet they will turn the grizzly loose. The Biological Diversity Center is already making huge strides in making most of southern Arizona and New Mexico critical habitat for the Jaguar. Critical habitat listings are particularly damaging to the land owners and resource users. Case in point: Spike dace and loach minnow critical habitat designations on much of the river systems in southern New Mexico and Arizona along with Willow Fly Catcher on much of the same, and the result livestock can't reach the river for water. More restrictions are being put into play on even man made dirt tanks due to the supposed endangered Leopard spotted frog. Add to this restricted areas for breeding Spotted owls, wolf denning areas and on and on and on. Maybe, just maybe if you got out on the land and open your eyes Binkyboy you can start to get a glimpse of what is happening to rural western US. Google up the "Wildlands Project" and see what is happening. We thought this was really a stretch when it first started but they are making huge strides in their goal to make most wilderness areas off limits to mankind and have minimal human intrusion into the corridor areas that will link all of this together.
Yes Binkyboy there is a big movement by the radical eco's to do just this, and it is very obvious to those of us under the gun. Maybe you are part of the problem in that you are in self denial or ignorant bliss.
Look at many of the elk hunting outfitters in Idaho and parts of Wyoming who have been put out of business the last few years. I know some personally and one told me a couple of year ago that the outfitters in the Southwest just as well kiss their butts goodbye because the wolves will do it for them. I have a friend who was put out of the Moose and Caribou hunting business in Alaska after they basically stopped controlling excess wolves (aerial gunning).
To blatantly ignore or disregard the resource users that are being harmed economically and psychologically and their custom, cultures and lives that are being turned upside down, is easy for you to overlook or ignore I guess. Of course the rural residents who are being dramatically affected here must be in a state of non-reality and logistically deficient.
Tell this to all of the small business owners also in the wolf recovery area and how this is affecting their lives and ability to stay in business. Unfortunately eco-tourism hasn't and probably never will replace the loss of livestock and hunting revenues to the local economies.
It's easy for you guys to laugh, it is someone else's money that is being forcibley taken from them for wolves. Now tell us that you will not mind a few thousnad taken away from you willy nilly and no chance to plan for it, and all just some one else thinks it's cool. This is not the America I grew up in.
Everry cow is worth at least $1000 more if it is registered. The rancher is forced to give it up to feed wolves if they decide to come eat it. If it can happen to us, it can happen to you if they want to use your home for their own purposes. You'd better think about that.
The wolves are not the only thing forced on people in their homes. In southern Wyoming and northern Colorado wheat farmers cannot use certain parts of their farms because Preble mice have priority on that private land. Those folks cannot have a cat if it can get outdoors where it might eat a mouse.
Yep, those poor poor resource users that pay pennies per head and destroy ecosystems really have it hard.
I'd ask you to cry me a river but you'd probably blame the eco-terrorists for something else.
You've had your haydays of destroying public lands. Get off and let someone else use it.
What is amazing is that none of you seem to have any experience understanding extinction rates nor coextinctions and how interconnected species are and always will be. Wipe out one species and ten more may go with it, and with those 10 more another 20 go extinct and it snowballs.
Your insane antipathy towards endangered species is a reason why Idaho and the other NW mountain states are looked at as refuges for the ignorant and backwards people. Marion continues to only become a poster child for that vision of Idaho.
None of you want to do anything positive about these endangered species, none of you want to change, to find solutions, you just want to whine, pout, shoot, shovel and shut up. You're disgusting neanderthals that do nothing for tomorrow's societies.
Jay, I can already envision "tomorrow's societies" that you speak of. We'll have to learn how to gather roots and berries or starve if the ecomaniacs are successful enough in curtailing the ability of farmers and ranchers from producing from their land. This along with the quest to stop energy development could leave the groceries shelves bare if taken far enough. Hunting, of course, will be forbidden since that would be competition for the prey base of the wolves. I suppose the greenie elites will still be allowed to use the earth's resources to their heart's content though. Marxism has taken a new form under the guise of environmentalism.
As far as endangered species go, the wolf biologists (i.e. actual scientists) with the USFWS were satisfied that the wolf populations in the Northern Rockies had far surpassed previously established target levels and were biologically recovered. Also that the state management plans for wolves were satisfactory to maintain recovery levels just as they do with such species as black bears and mountain lions. Lack of credentials aside, I suppose Molloy and you know better.
Real nice,your characterization of the residents of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as "ignorant and backwards". We're so ignorant and backwards that we still have an abundance of wildlife, blue-ribbon trout streams, and wide open spaces. If you are a resident or migrant from the East coast or California as I suspect, you really have a lot of room to talk. Besides that, your racist attitudes towards fellow humanoids (i.e. neanderthals) really floors me. Have a nice day.
There are so many folks in favor of having wolves under foot, I don't understand why they didn't get the wolves to begin with. They could see them every day as they picked up what was left, if anything, of Fluffy or Bowser. They could worship them without driving hundreds or thousands of miles and burning that nasty fossil fuel.
Comment By Dewey, 7-22-08DRAY--- Nobody wants ranchers and farmers to go away. We all like to eat. But it is not asking too much to have them concede some intrinsic worth to the Wolf and adjust their animal husbandry work to accomodate the Wolf. In other words, start Cowboying again and protecting your stock. Wolves are not that hard to dissuade. If cows are so darn valuable ( did I hear the $ 1000 per Registered cow figure somewhere here???) then I would think their owners would be moer vigilant and protective. When cattle and sheep get lost to Wolves it is because (a) the Wolf met no resistance, and (B) the stock was unportected, slow moving , exposed, and very very available...often on a public land allotment at least in the case of Wyomng. Why is it that Ranchers believe that the moment that newborn calf hits the ground under its mother in February that at the end of the year the rancher is entitled to a thousand dollars for that calf , regardless. I sure wish I had so much guaranty of income and so many subsidies and tax breaks in my business. Ranchers need to learn that nobody owes them a living, and their use of resources is contingent.
Your second point about USF&WS;outside peers and scientists signing off on Wolf numbers some years ago as being adequate for delisting falls flat when you look closer. The Devil is in the Details. It isn't just about the numbers of Wolves in a region. The numbers were arbitrary , but alarmingly low. The distribution and viability factors were all f%$ked up. State management plans were not yet developed adn I'm sure " shoot on sight, no license required " was not in the forward planning as a requirement for sustainability. Judge Molloy was totally correct in trashing that notion.
FInally , I am 4th generation Cody WY...only a handful of families have been in the Big Horn Basin longer than mine. Born and raised and schooled here, and done a large portion of my life on or around ranches , hunting camps , irrigation farming , and a huge portion of my life the outdoors and Wyoming wilderness , I find I am spending w-a-a-a-a-a-a-y too much of my time apologizing to the rest of the world for my truely ignorant an backwards fellow natives. Sorry, but it's true. Wyoming never progressed out of the 19th century in many ways, and they choose to prop up a failed economic model ( public land cattle ranching) with the pseudo-mythology of the rugged individualist cowboy and tall hat rancher/ cattle baron. In Wyoming, it's 500,000 against the world. Problem s, the world always wins. Lack of diverse economy ( =nonranching) , sparse education opportunities , severe drought of culture and ethnicity all coupled with extreme racial and social biases, an insanely conservative belief system coupled with a genuine hatred of government have branded Wyoming a backward province. And it fully deserves to be called ignorant and backwards. From what Ic an see, much of Idaho and Montana are no better, but Ic annot speak for them. That's a tough thing to say , but unfortunately true. It all comes to the fore when the talk turns to Wolves.
Hey Marion, try again, that made no sense whatsoever... But now that I think about it, thats pretty much all of your posts.
Dray, you have no idea who or what I am. Your assumptions make you weak and ignorant and your arguments even worse. You appear to be nothing more than a local rube that believes any conspiracy theory that justifies your particular beliefs and needs.
Dewey;
If I didn't know better I would say I knew you. I have pretty much the same opinions, lived and living the same life as you but in the Gallatin Valley. It's nice to see another 'Ranch' person not seeing the wolves as complete devastation, and something that can be taught the respect of a rifle, without death, and learn to stay away from livestock for the most part. But too many Ranchers, have gone 'high' tech and don't take the time to 'maintain' their 'property' and are more dependent on the Gvt. doing it for them. They are too 'busy'.
When did ranchers get promised they could live in a world with no risk? "You guys laugh, but each of those cows is private property worth MONEY! And the big bad gubmint is making us risk losing our money cows to wolves!" If you don't like dealing with predators, I'd suggest ranching may not be for you. Our ecosystems can't do without predators. Our ecosystems CAN do without hundreds of thousands of trampling, moo-ing, shit machines crawling all over our public lands. We prevent my neighbor from selling crystal meth --- even though it could make him money and he does it on his own private property! --- because it's better for the world-at-large. We look out for wolves --- despite a handful of ranchers' financial best interests --- for the same reason.
Comment By Marion, 7-22-08Are the sh** machines you are refering to cattle or environmentalists playing in the woods? I don't believe either use bathrooms. I have a good idea which are most inclined to be diseased and spreading it.
Basically the whole controvercy boils down to how good someone's word is. Teh ranchers pretty much kept their part of a bargain they didn't want to begin with. The wolf proponents word is wothless, it means nothing. The "only" wanted 300 in the 3 state region, then it was 450, now numbers don't count since we are in the thousands. There still aren't enough and they didn't mean what they said any way. Honesty is for fools.
Marion, do I need to point out how many lies are contained in that last post of yours? Even if I do, though, you'd just ignore it and go on with more, right?
Comment By Tom Klumker, 7-22-08The rural people, ranchers, businessmen, sportsmen and our ungulate wildlife were doing just fine without the wolf. We had a healthy population of predators already to take what excess game the State Wildlife Departments weren't managing by hunting and trapping. That's not to say that there should not be any wolves but mainly that their numbers should also be controlled. The debate is at what point should their numbers be controlled. Many including a big share of the eco groups who sued for the injunction want unlimited wolves, or so it seems.
Binkyboy, yep all of those damned ranchers have ruined the eco system and the land. Oh and they are subsidized too! What a bunch of crap. Yeah I can just see the new use of the land and that would be ole Binkyboy tip toeing through the tulips sipping koolaid while sporting his rose colored glasses!
Dewey I am glad you are so enlightened and most of the rest of the natives of Wyoming are ignorant and backwards. What an arrogant attitude! A born again know it all?
Jay our supposed 'insane antipathy to endangered species' is far from what the people I know, really are all about. I think most of us have a deep care and understanding of the consequences of species going extinct. What we don't like is species that are not truly endangered being used by the most radical eco groups as a means to rid the land of consumptive resource users. Two of the biggest purveyors of this reign of eco hatcheting are the Biological Diversity Center and Wild Earth. Their whole goal is to get rid of the rancher first and secondly the hunter. I even doubt their true sincerity to save any endangered species. As far as the neanderthal statement and contributing to tomorrow's societies, what is it that you are doing that makes you think your contribution is any better or worse than the next guy?
Brian, it doesn't look like you have a clue either. Your Koolaid must be the same brand Binkyboy is sipping on.
Of course all of the above is just my humble opinion.
Be my guest Jay, list them and provide documentation for your point of view. Name calling is not enough. Show anything that mentioned needing thousands of wolves until we had thousands they you wanted more.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-22-08Marion:
The wolf proponents never said 300 was a genetically viable number. The 300 number was not made with the help of experts, yet you tag the "wolf proponents" with your accusation.
There are not "thousands" of wolves, there are slightly over one thousand wolves after the Wyoming extermination attempt.
And can you please try to be grammatically correct or at least close? Your rantings are getting more and more difficult to decipher.
Hey Tom, would you like to back up a few of your more extreme claims with actual facts and links?
Where do you get that the Diversity Center or Wild Earth want a complete removal of public land ranching?
As well, can you backup your statement that everything was "fine" without the wolf and that they are not fine with the wolf? 1% predatory death rates (cattle) since the reintroduction isn't a radical rise from the previous rate. The elk and deer populations are as high or higher than before and aspen regrowth is better than ever recorded.
Maybe you can get Dave Skinner back in here to regurgitate some of his prior lies and exaggerations. He's pretty good at that.
Jay, the plan originally called for 10 packs/100 wolves per state or 30 packs/300 wolves for the 3 state area. Since ranchers and local citizens had no part in drawing up the original plan, it would seem likely that environmental groups told FWS what they were going to insist on.
There were 1569 counted wolves at the end of 2007. That is only counted wolves, the estimate by Dr. Mech in his written statement to the court was around 2000. He estimated that there would be some 3000 by the time all of the pups were born this year. By the way Wyoming has killed 21 wolves so far, the least of any of the states.
Here is his testimony. Do you deny that he is a wolf expert?
http://www.skinnymoose.com/mechdeclaration.pdf
"it would seem likely that environmental groups told FWS what they were going to insist on."
Proof?
And you need to get ecologists vs. environmental groups correct. So far you're lumping people together.
Congratulations on the grammar, that post was actually readable!
As for your link, you still haven't come close to the "thousands" and the number of killed wolves in the ID-MT-WY area was not included in his deposition, nor the increase in unreported wolf deaths.
Further on Dr. Mech makes a pretty critical mistake: that pack levels will always remain above the 75 member number. That is an assumption and Dr. Mech should have been grilled by an attorney worth a dang.
As well, Dr. Mech notes that between 28-50% of wolves need to be killed in order to keep their numbers stationary, however he offered no proof of the source of these numbers. If you extrapolate the 108 wolves over 118 days into a year, over 300 wolves will be reported as killed, far over the 28% value and this doesn't include the SSS kills.
Jay, is is a well known fact that the Diversity Center and Wild Earth have ulterior motives, even by some of their own members admissions over the years. It doesn't take too much sense to ferret out their motives. Right now they are suing the Forest Service to remove all cattle from the grazing allotments in the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Area to give the wolf unfettered use of the public lands. Western New Mexico University did a study on how much Diversity Center lawsuits have cost the livestock industry in Arizona the last few years and it is staggering. There are several more lawsuits they have filed that directly impact grazing permittees, one having to do with unfinished EIS studies done on several allotment in the Gila. The Diversity Center was sued last year by a ranch family in Arizona and the Center ended up paying the family $600,000 for lying and publicly posting damaging propagada to make the family look like reapers of the land, when in fact they are excellent stewards. Once in a while they lose one of their ridiculous suits, but for the most part they win and are keeping up extreme pressure to rid the public land of consumptive users. It is real plain to those of use here in the line of fire, even if you refuse to take note of it.
1% where? Tell that to my neighbor who is estimating that as much as 50% of his this year's calf crop is gone do to unprecedented and relentless attacks by two packs of wolves the last three or four months and then add how many head he lost the last several years. They have even hired extra range riders but the country is rough and the wolves operate mostly at night. Several of the ranchers have had extreme losses over the last several years.
Couple this with relentless killing of calf elk and at least two different herds of 40 to 50 cow elk with only three or four calves left that I know of and we are finding most of the dead calves uneaten, just sport killed. Yeah things were alot different before they brought these superior predators back in here. There is a reason they were exterminated and the early day settlers with the aid of the FWS removed them so to be able to make a living.
"The elk and deer populations are as high or higher as before and aspen regrowth is better than ever recorded." seems to be an oxymoron. I would think that exactly the opposite would occur if you had more elk as they are very hard on aspen regrowth. The Clearwater elk herd in Idaho has been reduced greatly I understand and they claim the average age of cow elk in Yellowstone is 9 years with little to no calf recruitment. I guess we talk to different people and read different publications because I can't see any evidence that things are so hunky dory where wolf packs have and being established, except of course the aspen regrowth in Yellowstone is probably way up do to a greatly reduced elk herd.
Jay it seems like maybe you are the purveyor of some questionable statistics and scientific analysis. Take note, I am not calling you a liar and Skinner actually has a great deal of knowledge if you really took time to read and appreciate much of what he says. I'm not saying he is perfect either though, as am I. Maybe we are as Dewey espouses, "truley ignorant un backwards fellow natives". Hell, Dewey can't even spell! Obama is probably even more correct, we are klinging to our guns, our religion and our simplistic way of life. Give me a break!
Well I'm proud to be a "truley ignorant un backwards fellow native". Because I was taught by the Best truley ignorant.....
and he taught me to respect the land, and all that inhabits it. I try my damndest to do just that except when it comes to humans. Wolves have their place, they are here, doesn't make a rat's behind how or why, they are. The Cattle Rancher should be allowed to 'protect' his livestock, but that doesn't mean they need to go out and exterminate every wolf there is. Why have a hunt yet, why not just allow livestock owners, to protect, and FW&P;to handle any other 'problem' wolves, THEN if needed open a hunt. But chasing a wolf for 35 miles on a snowmachine, just to kill it is ridiculous at best.
Why is it that now-a-days it seems even adults need babysitters?
Here you go Tom:
"The annual winter census by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department estimates 91,555 elk in Wyoming, nearly 9,000 more than what the agency considers the optimal number." - 2006
"Montana’s elk herd is as large as it’s been since the state was first settled. Biologists estimate that there are somewhere between 130,000 to 160,000 elk in the state" - 2007
"At this point there is very little evidence that the presence of wolves has caused a decline in elk numbers anywhere, especially in Central Idaho," said Jim Peek, a retired professor of wildlife biology and a member of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation board of directors. - 2007
During the EASY research on these numbers I came across quite a large number of outfitters and ranchers claiming that the wolves have decimated elk herds,and surprise there are absolutely no evidence to back that up. So if you really want to work with wolf proponents for a compromise, stop pushing these people as credible and start telling them to stop lying.
On top of it all, wolves have decimated the coyote populations, resulting in a much safer environment for smaller animals that aren't normal prey for wolves, such as those pets that you all seem to have such a great place in your heart for.
I tire of the exaggerations and lies. I've caught Skinner before when he tried to pass off another scientist's work as indicative of wolf over-predation when that scientist ended up only studying aspen regrowth and the wolves effect on such. Skinner has made the claim to be a journalist, but he's little more than a political activist with a grudge.
OF WOLVES AND MEN
Perhaps it's just because I'm a descendent of many generations of livestock breeders and small family farmers. Or maybe it's because I came to the Green Party from the conservative tradition, rather than radical, revolutionary politics. But I've always had problems with "protecting" predators like wolves or even grizzly bears - at least outside of public land and other designated wilderness and conservation reserves. If I'm a rancher, and a wolf or grizzly is attacking my livestock, or even just "trespassing," I'm going to shoot it whenever I have the opportunity to do so, and whether or not I tell anyone about it, later.
A hundred years ago or more, the federal government paid a bounty on wolves. There's even a picture in my grandparent's family photo album of the last wolf pelts from the Highwoods nailed up to dry on the side of a log cabin. My grandfather had an old .45-70 single-shot army rifle, and one of the family stories was about him seeing a wolf feeding on a carcass. It was so far away that he could barely see it, but just for the hell of it, he set the sights at 1100 yards and took a shot. When he finally arrived at the scene, thinking he had missed because there was no wolf there, he was surprised to find that he had killed the wolf, and it had collapsed inside the rib-cage of the dead steer it was feeding on.
Wolves are very hard to eradicate, once they get a foot-hold. While grizzlies really are endangered, and are not prolific breeders, wolves can increase from a few dozen individuals to thousands in only a decade or two. There are now estimated to be 1500 wolves in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem. They do good service in controlling deer, elk, rabbit, and other populations. They will also have some effect on controlling the bison population in the Yellowstone herd, which seems to be a problem with no solution, otherwise.
My main concern is the knee-jerk reaction of "environmentalists" to always protect the predators and other "bad guys" against the people who are trying to make a living off of the land. I won't second-guess Judge Molloy's decision because I'm not an expert, but politically, it is disastrous for the environmentalist cause, and one of the reasons why no Democrat in Montana will proudly claim to be an environmentalist. It has become political suicide for them to do so. Which may have been the point all along. And why we need a Green Party which will support the economy as well as ecology - the "Greateco" which I use for my blog name.
A good ruling would allow any farmer or rancher to kill wolves on private land. Whether or not those with grazing permits on public land should be able to protect their herds with lethal force is another question. That's where the dogs and llamas come in, I suppose. How about tranquilizer guns? -- PHS
Paul, that is a great comment. Unfortunately the environmentla movement has evolved to the point that it is less about protecting a truly endangered animal (an wolves were never in danger of disappearing altogether), it has become a means of one group of people controlling others to the nth degree.. I believe that is why they fight so hard and use the courts to the unbelievable degress that they do. The fact the courts award them "expenses" keeps that bottom line increasing.
As for coyotes, they are everywhere, the wolves did nothing to diminish their numbers. The Northern Yellowstone elk herd dropped from 19,000 to 6000 last year.
Nice lie, Marion.
The Northern Yellowstone elk herd had a population of 19,000 in 1993. NINETEEN NINETY THREE!
You seem to have forgotten to provide that bit of evidence, I wonder why? Also, the great die off from an extreme winter and the following years of drought throughout the late 1990's reduced that herd's number down to 13,000. That region also has more predators per square mile than any other region, with Grizzly bears being the main culprit of calf killing.
You're getting as bad as Craig Moore, Marion. Why don't you at least try being honest once in a while.
When for purposes of advancing or retarding the argument of Wolves as ungulate herd population controlers , the Yellowstone Elk situation has much to say. When I was a kid in Cody in northwest Wyoming in the 50's, we were privileged to be able to roam Sunlight Basin and Crandall areas of the Clarks Fork watershed in winter by snowcoach , over open country , trips ranging 150-200 miles per day in the Bombardier beast over and thru what is now called the Cheif Joseph Scenic Highway and its surrounds. There were countless Elk that had migrated out of Yellowstone for the winter. We'd see thousands at one one sweep in places like Russell Creek. But they were too many , and in too poor condition. Neither Yellowstone's northern range nor the adjacent Shoshone Forest winter range could support that many Elk. The herds had grown too much from having no predators ( read: Wolves ) in the past 40 years since the last Wolf was killed in Park County for bounty back in 1913. The Elk multiplied beyond the carrying capacity ( and yes, Marion , even today that same Clarks Fork herd unit is STILL over objective ).
In Yellowstone , I seem tor ecall the population of the northern herd was somewhere in the 22,000 to 30,000 number range, but I'm hazy on that. Let's just say the numbers don;t matter ( they don't) and go with the fact there were simply too darn many Elk.
Does anyone reading these forums recall what the National Park Service did to alleviate the high Elk numbers ? The drastic action they took in the early 1960 's ? It was called the Gardiner Firing Line. Professional sharpshooters were grought in to shoot Elk by the thousands. What meat was desired was packed off by the Tribes, but it was only a fraction. Some may have gone to the schools ( hazy again on that ). The carcasses were bulldozed into mass graves. The national outcry was fierce. To anyone who didn;t understand why it was being done , it was tanatamount to a Holocaust, capital H. And it was a political firestorm.
But there is an overarching lesson about the Gardiner Firing Line. That we had to brutally thin down the Elk numbers was almost entirely due to LACK OF WOLVES for the previous 40-50 years.
Droughts may come and go , but the Predator-Preyr elationship is timeless to our corner of the world. Since the Pleistocene, Elk and Wolves have coexisted successfully and properly in the natural order, and the long time scle is essential to understanding this. It is only since the advent of imported cattle and free range ranching in the Yellowstone region c. 1880 that the balance has gone haywire . In the long timescale view , the cattle barons were a sudden virus and the vast numbers of cows they injected into the Yellowstone ecosystem were for all purposes a bovine version of a viral plague. And the cattlemen killed off the Wolves ( and Griz and Cougar et al ) that were White Blood Cells and T-cells that heretofore had kept things in check and healthy. The cazttle began consuming the resources that had gone to wildlife...grass , water, cover, mostly trashing the riparian areas and changing the landscape by degrading it. What had taken thousands of years to create and nurture and achive in balanced flux was suddenly threatened int he wink of an eye...less than 125 years. Which in the long timescale view is but a Day.
Yet all the Comments in this forum and all the ranting and raving is coming from folks whose total life experieince in this matter is a fraction of that day. A Mayfly moment. It's all occured in less than two heartbeats and three breaths of the Absaroka Range. And yes, there has been a drought for most of the last twenty years ( recall the huge Fires of 1988 and the seasons since being so abnormally dry ) which all by itself would've dropped the Yellowstone lk populationd dramatically , as it has doe for Moose . The USF&WS;initiative to reintroduce Wolves into Yellowstone following the debacle of the Gardiner Firing Line and exploding populations of ungulates actually began in 1975 or so . This was not Bruce Babbit or Clinton's idea . It went back to the Ford administration and research of thate ra which has stood the test of time: It was a BAD idea to eliminate the Wolf from the ecosystem of Greater Yellowstone in particular and the Rockies in general.
It was , and is, and will be, a GOOD idea to have reintroduced the Wolf. What is sorely lacking from current management of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem in many aspects is serving notice to the cattle industry that they are at best a guest here, and more aptly they are interlopers , and at worst usurpers of the Yellowstone. They need to be put on supervised probation, with enforcement.
Elk and Wolf numbers will stabilize and the GYE will find an equilibrium again , given time. I frankly do not know what to do about the Bison situation , but I am very comfortable with the relationship today ebtween Elk and Wolves in my corner of the world if it is allowed to follow its own path . We simplay cannot allow the cattle industry to interfere with that . We are already taking dar too many Wolves for " management actioons" in Wyoming as it is....last year, we took out more Wolves than the actual number of cattle that wolves themselves were responsible for predating. That is utterly senseless.
The nation and the market do not need the cattle grown around Yellowstone. But the nation and the world very much need the Wolf. The entire cattleindustry surrounding Yellowstone could vanish tomorrow, and the effects of that would be fully absorbed in a month. Feedlots in Oklahoma and Iowa and the great cattle producing states of Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, and Ohio will easily make up the difference. Wyoming---for all its bluster---is 27th on the list of cattle producing states.
There is but one Yellowstone, and its top tier predator is the Wolf, and the Wolf is both necessary and vital. Cattle are expendible, mobile, optional ,nonessential. The range and domain of the Wolf should rightfully include most of western Wyoming, central and western Montana, mountainous Idaho, and north central Colorado and its southwest San Juan Mountain provinces. Ranching in those same areas has proven to be a failed economic model and a huge diversion and lockdown of resources like grass, water, and land.
Reintroducing the Wolf and allowing it to expand into its former range was precisely the right thing to do. It goes a long way to making amends for a hugely misguided mistake made when we allowed cattle and cowboys to come into the country like Mongol hordes on horseback. In fifty years, the wisdom of bringing back the Wolf will be evident. Fifty years ago, we were assasinating Elk by the thousands and bulldozing them into mass graves.
Take the long view, people . It's not all about you and your generation. Not at all.....
You just repeated the number, Jay, so why is it a lie? the wolves were trucked in January of 1995. I realize there was a bad winter just as there was this winter, that is to be expected in Yellowstone. The need to decrease elk numbers was one of the reasons given for introducing Canadian wolves despite actual and photographic evidence of wolves already in Yellowstone. That too took a judges order to go ahead with the plant despite proof of wolves already present.
Bears prey on elk calves the first month of life, there are no bears around in the winter when about half of the elk kill is calves. They just never follow the calves after the first month...or at least they do not publish it if they do.
It's called a lie of omission, Marion. You attempted to plant the seed in people's mind that the drop from 19,000 to 6,000 was caused entirely by the wolf, which it wasn't.
Give some thought to this: If your side didn't lie so often about this issue maybe you might be taken more seriously. As it is, you're just the ones that look bad all the time. I'm actually for regulated control that is monitored by responsible biologists, not just a free for all that drives pack numbers so low that protection is demanded over and over again.
If ranchers can't survive in wolf territory, maybe they're in the wrong place. Just as was explained by Dewey, you're no longer needed, you've been replaced by much more successful beef producers and you provide no goods or services that would justify any sort of public support for public range ranching.
As well, grizzlies feed on elk calves anytime they need to, mainly when berry production is late or too low to sustain them, they'll turn to pursuit of elk.
Don't let the facts get in the way though, Marion.
"The study, "Multi-Trophic Level Ecology of Wolves, Elk, and Vegetation in Yellowstone National Park" will continue another 3 years. Data collected the first year showed that bears took more elk calves than wolves."
Very interesting viewpoint Dewey. I tend to agree with you. And the more the rancher allows the Gvt. to use them as a pawn in their silly games, the more I am apt to push to remove all cattle from this area. I have more involvement with the Bison situation, although I did have a wolf among my horses this spring. The wolf wasn't causing a problem, but the people around here sure got in a tizzy. Strange how when a wolf is behind you it's stalking you, but when it's a dog, it's "Look what followed me home!" How many people are injured by wolves compared to dog attacks?
Comment By Tom Klumker, 7-23-08Dewey & Jay,
Most of the rural folks I know, even though we are here on this earth for a blink in time, recognize that wolves are needed in Yellowstone and maybe in Rocky Mountain National Park where no hunting is allowed, to help control ungulate numbers. They are needed probably in a lot of Canada where Caribou herds number into the hundreds of thousands. Having said that we can even use a few in all of their former range but their numbers need to be controlled to allow for hunting which is a very large and ever growing segment of our society. The livestock operators need to be able to protect their livestock also. Contrary to your rantings that the livestock and hunting industry lie about the wolf predation problem is really a stretch. For every elk killed by the wolves it translates into roughly one less hunting opportunity. One, two three,... beefs translates into big bucks and a lot less hamburgers. For both elk and cattle it is not always just what the wolves are killing but a very big factor is lost reproduction do to the constant running and pressure put on the animals by the relentless wolves. Nature is cruel and wolves are sport killers and they eat most of their prey while it is still alive. They hamstring many animals leaving them crippled. Yep, with the rancher gone and the wolves established everywhere we can have utopia, no doubt!
As far as public lands ranching and its contribution to society they until recently produced about 20% of the feeder cattle going into the feedlots. That is a huge amount of beef going into the food supply and all off of a naturally renewable resource. Add to this the huge sum's of tax money's going into the local economies by the ranching community plus there support of local businesses brings to bear a huge impact on the rural west's economic well being. Wolves have a place but not as you two guys envision with unlimited uncontrolled killing fields. As I have stated many times over the wolf is being used to displace the public lands rancher, especially here in the southwest and both of your skewed public lands rancher views are exactly what is fueling the debate, with no regard for the consequences to the vitally affected rural people here, who by circumstance or choice want to be able to continue to live their lives out here (even though it is only for a blink in time).
You know, Tom, I think I'm done talking to you if you can't read or tell the truth.
"but their numbers need to be controlled to allow for hunting which is a very large and ever growing segment of our society."
This is a contentious point that you really need to provide proof. The numbers of Idaho hunters might be increasing slightly, but IDFG had to raise the price of hunting licenses many times in the past due to lower numbers of licenses sold vs. predictions.
"For every elk killed by the wolves it translates into roughly one less hunting opportunity."
<a >Wrong</a>. Causation is not linked directly. If this were true hunter success rates would have dropped significantly as the number of wolves increased, along with elk populations. As I've shown above, the herds are as strong or stronger since wolves have been reintroduced. Hunter success rates also have remained steady.
"Nature is cruel and wolves are sport killers and they eat most of their prey while it is still alive. They hamstring many animals leaving them crippled."
Your point being something useful? Nature is a cruel place, death isn't pretty. Wolverines have been known to disembowel elk, but that has no use in this discussion, either.
"As far as public lands ranching and its contribution to society they until recently produced about 20% of the feeder cattle going into the feedlots."
20% of a small portion of American cattle is just an even smaller portion. Again as Dewey said, they could disappear tomorrow and there would barely be a blip in North American cattle production.
"Add to this the huge sum's of tax money's going into the local economies by the ranching community plus there support of local businesses brings to bear a huge impact on the rural west's economic well being."
Nice claim, care to back it up with proof while also providing the necessary costs to the state that the ranching community also absorbs?
"Contrary to your rantings that the livestock and hunting industry lie about the wolf predation problem is really a stretch."
A small google search will quickly prove you wrong. But so far you're becoming a huge waste of time.
"Wolves have a place but not as you two guys envision with unlimited uncontrolled killing fields."
Neither of us has stated such, you made this up, which makes it a lie. In fact, above I stated that control of the wolf population by qualified biologists should be done. I don't know Dewey's viewpoint and I won't speak for him.
So far, Tom, you've supplied little in the way of facts, you've exaggerated your claims and you've misstated other people's positions. Why should you be treated with any respect or given any credibility in the future? Your stories, much like Marion's, are based on your personal viewpoint and have little to do with the reality of the entire situation.
By the way, I've also raised cattle, chickens and other animals. I've dealt with predators, I've had massive losses and I've had successes. So you might as well stop with calling me an urbanite. I've been hunting for 20+ years in the northwest and I've worked on quite a few conservation efforts outside of wildlife. Your assumptions about me make your arguments weak and ineffectual.
I WANT TO HUNT WOLVES! but I also want their numbers and range to increase. Simply put, I want a hunt that allows for the continued expanse and population growth of wolves. I believe there are many like me.
Comment By Ann, 7-23-08Everybody always talks about how 'cruel' the wolf is in killing it's food. I would like to see anyone or anything do a quicker less painful 'kill' when using nothing more than what you were born with.
Comment By howlin' mad pendejo, 7-23-08Jay,
Marion's completely full of shit and rambles endlessly and pointlessly with absolutely no factual basis for anything written. My suggestion is to move on because ignorance is bliss and that Marion is one happy person. You simply can't fix stupid (thank you Mr. White).
Once again, agriculture is the most subsidized industry in the history of the world. By far. Farmers and ranchers tend to think pretty highly of themselves, the 'free and independent' mentality when the complete opposite is actually true. They are so reliant on government it's staggering, but this reliance is hidden deep in the Farm Bills, so they probably don't understand that if we take away their subsidies, and almost all will go under. It's frustrating and equally, sad, how ignorant most of them are. Truth is, we need ag. and they need us so how about this: Don't fuck with the wolves or I'll fuck with your funding.
BEEF, It's what's for dinner (for me and my brother, the wolf).
The big question why are we not putting grizzly back in the San Francisco and wolves back in to
Detroit and Chicago
You have to be realistic. Would YOU like to live in San Francisco or Detroit and Chicago? If you would then by all means go live there. But any self-respecting four legged animal wouldn't want to live in those places, nor would I that's why we live here.
Comment By chip westbrook, 7-25-08You got me ann
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 7-31-08I was for wolf reintroduction but now that the lying environmentalists are moving the goal post now that the agreed upon, recovery has been achieved I now must become an opponent of the wolves and their reintroduction.
I am a <a >wildlife photographer</a>, and there is hardly a bigger photography thrill than photographing wolves, they are beautiful animals and I believed until now that Yellowstone was a good place for them but since environmentalists are not people of their word I am going to start shooting for wolf pelts instead of photographic images. Wolves make warm coats and fine wall decorations for the log cabin.
I love wolves but I love my farming neighbors more.
I wonder how many folks like myself are going to flip from acceptance of wolf reintroduction to opponents because the environmentalists are a bunch of lying SOB’s that don’t keep their word.
Where I live in Idaho a handshake means something but to environmental wackos like Earth Justice, the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Western Watersheds Project, and Wildlands Project a handshake don’t mean crap, these ethically challenged, goal post moving, organizations have the integrity equivalent of the lying bastards that signed treaties with the Native American Indians that they never intended to honor.
Honor now there is a concept.
Seems kind of petty to me, that because you are mad at the "greenies" The wolves are who you take it out on. Sounds like you are the type of person that if someone shot your horse, you would go and shoot the horse of the person who you THOUGHT may have shot yours instead of having the internal fortitude to confront the individual face to face. Pretty petty.
Comment By Marion, 7-31-08Ann, I can understand why you would feel that way, on the other hand, I do not understand what makes folks willing to lie about their intentions, and hate others so much they are willing to destroy a lifetime of work. I have to say wanting not only cows, horses, and sheep to die horrible painful deaths because you hate their owners raising them is pretty petty, downright cruel actually..
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-31-08Lie about their intentions, Marion? You have a lot of nerve charging others with that.
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 7-31-08Ann,
The environmental wackos needed support of people like me to reach their compromise, it is the farmers that need my support now because of the environmentalists reneged on their deal.
You see Ann, farmers are more important than wolves, a necessity if you will, wolves are a luxury!
Before there were wolves in the region we didn't need wolf management plans and since we don't have honest deal brokers we need to return to the previous system.
I was once a wilderness advocate too - http://www.free-press.biz/usa/wilderness.htm - but my fellow advocates became folks I didn't want to be associated with.
Does 300 wolves between the 3 states ring a bell??????????????
Comment By Ann, 7-31-08Marion tell me this; How in the world would you kill something to eat if all you had were your teeth and hands and feet. NO weapons rocks sticks etc.? Don't try getting any sympathy from me about how ANYTHING kills anything to survive. Maybe wolves kill for 'fun' as you people claim ( I have never seen wolves do that but I have Grizzlies) so I can't vouch for the fact that wolves do. But Humans are on the very top of that list. And in more horrendous ways than any animal could. Does that mean we can go out and 'eliminate' them? No But sometimes I wish we could. I am the last person to try to 'run' any hard working ranch family out of their livelihood, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stand by and see the rancher be used as a pawn in the Government and political game of budget and control. If I did my dad would come back and kick my a$$. He taught me to respect authority but don't hesitate to question it especially when it is so obviously screwed up.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-31-08Ah, disinformation. It smells so desperate in here.
The lawsuit that stopped the delisting also outlined that one part of the ESA had NOT been documented and therefore the delisting was done incorrectly and possibly illegally. That is why it is going to court. If the USFWS had done their work right, and Wyoming had had a more comprehensive control system in place, then the delisting probably would have been completed and all you wolf haters could have gone out and killed a few.
As is, blame the USFWS for their screwup and quit lying. The proof of genetic diversity and the use of corridors by the wolves themselves is required before the wolves can be delisted.
According the managing agency - the Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/delist_02202008/QandA.pdf) "In late 2002, the wolf population achieved its recovery goal of at least 30 breeding pairs and more than 300 wolves well distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for at least three consecutive years. At that time there were an estimated 663 wolves in 49 breeding pairs. The recovery goal has been exceeded every year since, and threats to the species have been addressed. Currently, the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming exceeds 100 breeding pairs and 1,500 wolves."
This was the agreement/compromise - LET THE SHOOTING RESUME!
If the wolves can't achieve genetic diversity with these numbers, they should have never been reintroduced.
Regarding ddiversity, during the February breeding orgy in the Lamar there were unidentified males from unidentified packs breeding with some female members of some packs, most folks were unsure who was breeding who. So now we have to do DNA tests to see? Are we to believe that is the only place they breed back and forth so freely? C'mon.
I realize that is how wolves kill Ann, the point is, they were brought in to impact ranching. I do not believe there will be enough to rest the lawsuits as long as there is a cow left.
By the way, I was listening to the news tonight and now some are afraid that with the country overall wanting drilling, the Dems are afraid to allow even debate becasue of their obligations to environmental groups. Now who has power?