News Brief
Feds Delist Wolves in Idaho, Montana
By Courtney Lowery, 1-14-09
The gray wolf in Montana and Idaho is once again on its way off the endangered species list, but wolves in Wyoming will stay, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today.
Wolves in the Great Lakes are also taken off the list. Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett said in a release: “Wolves have recovered in the Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains because of the hard work, cooperation and flexibility shown by States, tribes, conservation groups, federal agencies and citizens of both regions. We can all be proud of our various roles in saving this icon of the American wilderness.”
The delisting will go into effect 30 days after the rules published in the Federal Register—which should be in the next two weeks.
The Rocky Mountain gray wolf was delisted in February of last year, but lawsuits filed this summer forced it back on the list, then off, then finally, the wolves were ordered to be relisted in October.
The agency has already approved state management plans in Montana and Idaho, but not in Wyoming, so the wolves there will remain in the list. According to the release: “… gray wolves found within the borders of Wyoming will continue to be protected by the Act due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms ensuring their protection under state law.”
Montana and Idaho’s plans call for keeping the populations at than 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in each state with a target population at 400 animals in Montana and 500 in Idaho. The agency estimates that right now, there are 100 breeding pairs and 1,500 wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg praised the move, saying in a statement today, “Montanans who have eagerly awaited the return of wolf management authority to the state had been dealt another blow when a lawsuit by a group with an extreme agenda obstructed the decision to delist the wolf. As a rancher, I have seen first-hand the impact that the inflexible, federal management of wolves can have on our state’s livestock producers. I am pleased by this decision to recognize the success of the wolf population recovery in Montana and look forward to working with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks as they take over management.”
The Montana Stockgrower’s Association, which had supported the FWS and the state in the lawsuits this summer, released this statement from president Tom Hougen: “While it is unfortunate that Wyoming is not included is this delisting decision, Montana can now take an active role in managing wolves across the entire state in an effort to reduce the troubling increase in livestock depredations currently plaguing our industry.”
But Defenders of Wildlife called the move, characterized the move as “a last-ditch effort by the Bush administration to undermine environmental protections” and its president, Rodger Schlickeisen said this:
“This blatantly political maneuver is hardly surprising. The Bush administration has been trying to strip Endangered Species Act protections from the Northern Rockies wolf since the day it took office – no matter the dire consequences of prematurely delisting wolves prematurely and without adequate state protections in place. The Bush administration is forcing the future of wolves in the region to play out in the courts by finalizing a delisting rule in its last hours in office. We intend to challenge this poorly constructed decision in court as soon as the law allows. It is outrageous that the Bush administration has chosen to create this unnecessary legal problem for the new Obama administration to deal with as it takes office.”
And indeed, Rowan Gould, acting director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tells the Associated Press’ Matthew Brown that the President-elect’s administration may reverse the decision. Also from Brown’s story: “Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said the matter would be reviewed but offered no other details.. Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said the matter would be reviewed but offered no other details.”
[End of article]Terrible decision to delist the wolf in Montana.
This is just a last-minute gift from Bush to his conservative cronies--no relation to the real issue of adequate breeding pairs of wolves.
Under Obama we will have real wildlife science used for policy decisions (as it should be), instead of ex-lobbyists for the timber and ranching industry calling the shots.
President Obama will reverse this delisting decision within a month of his inauguration.
Yes we can!
-Jon Cheever
How does one spell WAA HOOOOO ! !
Comment By bearbait, 1-15-09Ya gotta know this Obama administration will be staffed by ex lobbyists from green groups, peace groups, the education establishment, trade and government unions, and all the other lefty liberal camp followers. That is the way it works. There is now a Democrat President elect, and I imagine that all the natural resource administrative jobs are now going to be held by troops from the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Audubon, ad infinatum. That is how it works. That is why those people have been marking time at the NGOs, so they have their people lined up to serve at regime change. The goring ox is wearing a different party hat.
The Big Three auto makers will be saved no matter the affiliation of the President. Bush would save them to save managers, owners, and stock holders. Obama will save them for the union jobs of the labor force, pension fund stockholders, and rust belt jobs because of their electoral votes as high populated states.
I have no idea how we can have any modicum of success as a nation if we are governed by the extremes of either side, with the rules changing every 4 or 8 years with regime change. We have no working resource policy in this country because one side is seen as exploiters, and the other side sues to block any and all actions and activity because the visualize themselves as saviors. This one foot in an ice bucket and the other in the fire, being the right answer because the temperature average is perfect, does not bode well for governance.
The old Russian saying along the lines of "I don't hate the wolf. I hate that he eats my mare." is the crux of the whole deal. Nobody in Bozeman has a wolf eating their mare. But people living at the edge of public land do have mares eaten. They, too, don't hate the wolf. They hate a government that lets the wolf eat their mare, and then they have to produce the evidence, make the calls, drive the drives, all at personal expense, to gain some sort of compensation for their not being able to protect their livestock in a reasonable and usual way. Few hate wolves. But this is a country of people and laws and representative government, and if that government becomes enforcer of the tyranny of a disconnected, urban majority, then we become less than what we claim to be.
Wasted words. Let the lawsuits begin. The environmental stimulus package: lawyers getting paid by the tattered remains of the foundations and trust funds until they can collect from the taxpayers, as is their desire. s.o.s. a. d.
I truly believe Obama will trust the US Fish and Wildlife Association to run their own operation. Managing the wolf population is the right thing to do.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 1-15-09As much as I dislike the Bush administration, I sure hope this one will stick. As for this being a last ditch effort, they started the process in 2003 when the wolves reached the objectives set by the biologists themselves. I just hope splitting up the three states will hold. Didn't an earlier court ruling (2006ish) decide they were bound together?
Defender's of Wildlife is doing some good work retiring grazing allotments. I wish they would focus on that instead of opposing every effort to recognize that wolves are a recovered species.
You damn treehuggers back east had better just stick to your comfy offices, 'cause if you come out here to the real west you may just get eaten by an "endangered" wolf, or better yet, maybe you will be "managed."
Comment By mostlyMike, 1-15-09I hope "bearbait" is right that "this Obama administration will be staffed by ex lobbyists from green groups, peace groups, the education establishment, trade and government unions, and all the other lefty liberal camp followers."
But I'm afraid he isn't. This is a real test for Obama. It's very symbolic. I don't think he understands the West, and doesn't realize how the cattle establishment grinds our faces in the muck.
This is designed to allow enviros to file lawsuits to make up some of the money they aren't getting from doanations.
Remember in early December, FWS put out a statement that they would have a plan submitted early enough in December for the plan to be in the National Register before December 20, that it had to be on for 30 days before January 20 to take effect? I don't think 6 days will cut it. Obama can toss it Tuesday afternoon if he wishes...it may never even get put on the register. If it does it is only to allow enviro groups to file lawsutis for the "expense" awards.
FWS didn't want them delisted, they sell too many books, get too many research grants, etc to actually try to delist the wolves. I don't believe their "new" plan even addressed the genetic exchange issue, and that was the biggy in the last suit. This is a farce.
I dont believe metapopulation movement was even an issue. Remember the small population in Isle Royale that has been isolated for roughly 50 years? Complete inbreeding and yet the wolf population has yet to suffer from it.
Comment By Treehuggin' Cowgirl, 1-16-09Justin,
The genetic exchange issue was why the recent court case against delisting was successful. USFWS forgot to cross that t. In their original recovery plans, they said genetic exchange was necessary for the wolf population's long term survival. Despite later science to the contrary (i.e. Isle Royale) and testimony to that effect from scientists involved in the reintroduction, USFWS either needed to demonstrate that genetic exchange was occuring or change that portion of their recovery plan. Judge Molloy ruled that Wyoming's management in particular would prevent genetic exchange from occuring, so the feds are hoping it'll stick just for Montana and Idaho.
Is there some old woman who says which male wolf can breed which female? do they keep family trees, and have taboos against brothers breeding sisters? I laugh. The biggest and the strongest will breed no matter who they are related to or not. It is the ones that get run off, shunned to lonely wanderings, who by happenstance meet up with another reject that provide genetic diversity. In a way, being less of a wolf means genes are passed on. But they are and do and will. Evidently Judge Malloy is concerned about the wolves not having a Mormon like ancestral family tree to consult and is holding the Feds accountable for wolf match making services not keeping good records.
Every wolf needs a gps and collar and chip in its head. Only then can the law be obeyed. I have collars for my dogs, and when they are bad, knowingly and by choice, they meet Thomas Alva Edison momentarily. Once or twice, and all you have to do is tone them, give them the electronic audible warning, and they comply with vigor. With gps shock collars, you can keep track of the wolves, who they are hanging with, what they are doing, and remind them to be good, wild wolves (sure), and if they are going to be too close to a wolf they should not breed, you just give them a few volts and discourage the relationship. Too bad we can't do that with teenage daughters and sons, as well. It is the way we are societally heading, and the left certainly wants to keep people from having any freedom to live without Mother Government approving of every action they might make or take. Wolf management is no more than an example of future human controls by the very same thoughtful forward thinkers.
My observation is that having a US District Court judge as the arbiter of science, the man or woman making scientific decisions, having all the skills needed to manage wildlife, is a frigging joke and travesty. That person has to determine if the law has been followed. No more or no less. The ins and outs of genetic diversity, and how it happens, should best be left to science, and not be a basis for eternal litigation by obfuscation experts judge shopping for favoritism.
I just am amazed at the direction of Congress. All the Democrats ran against Bush the Warmonger, and we have heard not a word about war so far. The entire emphasis of the Congress is global warming, ESA, Wilderness, solar dildos, absolute lefty social crap. Holy shit, the economy is shedding jobs like a mangy wolf sheds hair, 30,000 announced today as Circuit City goes Chapt 7., Bank of America is teetering, Toyota losing money, the retail end of America going down in flames, record cold is using energy at huge rates, endowments for universities are deflating like Madoff balloons, and wolf delisting is the major problem in the USA? No wonder the economy is a mess, the wars not won. The whole of the majority has their heads up their collective keisters, and it has taken only weeks to prove they are liars, phonies, and just another crop of self serving wind bags out to make names and fortunes for themselves.
On the political page of my local newspaper, today, are three stories about Oregon's Democrat Governor Taxngougeme suing the Feds. One because he doesn't like a BLM timber management plan because they cut trees; two is over the FERC approval of siting an offloading dock on the lower Columbia River for LNG (evidently he doesn't want a fossil fuel anything built); and three, he is joining a lawsuit against the Feds over the ESA and its administrative changes. Not one action to bring a new job, stop a fiscal leak, drive the process forward to restart the economy, help more kids get a better education. Ranted against the Bush government, ranted against Republicans, railed against job losses, banking losses, poor educational showing, and then spends his time and energy suing the Feds over things environmental. The left does not have their eye on the ball. It will be a short term rule if they don't find a way to focus on the economy.
Very well put bearbait.
The left is acting like a bunch of school yard bullies that just found out the principal is out of town for the week.
They don't seem to care about priorities, just that they get to push people around.
It never WAS about wolves, Tom. Control...bullies want control, of others. Simple as that. The Polish Assassin governor of Oregon is a koolongoski example.
Comment By horst, 1-16-09It is just a question of time until rightwingdolts convince the states of MT and ID it is time to start paying a bounty again...
Comment By Marion, 1-17-09I think we are in for an interesting few years. We'll have a tax evader in charge of the IRS, a member of the socialist party for another cabinet position (actually she resigned when selected I guess) Holder involved with the underworld of Marc Rich and in problems with Chiquita Banana, Immanuel immersed in Chicago politics. The leader is a man who has 3 teams of attorneys involved in keeping his vault copy birth certificate hidden...provided there is one of course.
FWS has not the slightest intention of delisting wolves. One part of their rule, not released here is the fact they intend to haul more wolves into the southwest.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Mexican_Gray_Wolf_011409.html
I think they have written every book possible about wolves here, except of course the impact on elk and moose, and that is unimportant. I wonder if Doug Smith is still doing his research into why the wolves were killing so many bull elk, how many years that research was to run and how much money was involved.
Dave Skinner is right,
It's not about wolves. It's about continued domination by the cattle industry and poverty for the rest of us.
Well mostly wrong, please tell me how forcing killers onto private property to destroy it and put families out of business makes the victim the bad guy.
By your thinking a thief desrves special compensation for putting up with anyone who resists his stealing.
The emerging plan is clear to me -- subsidize cattle growers with more and more benefits and let the rest of us starve or die of easily treatable diseases during the depression.
You're one talk about stealing, Marion.
"Dave Skinner is right."
Yeah.
About as far right as one can get and remain uncommitted.
The wolf lovers of this country are their own worst enemy now.
These sentamental liberals think they are saving the wolf by stopping hunting, and nothing could be further from the truth. Hunting with a great deal of regulating has never deciamated andy hunted spiecies for the hunters are great conservationist.
But we hunters are compleatley fed up on this wolf thing. Every persson I have talked to say that will -olf they see. It will only work if we let it.
Wolf lovers? Sentimental liberals?
You're not paying attention, Kyle. Go back and read Skinner's post.
CONTROL.
Wolves, guns, Joe the plumber, Sarah Palin, whatever they can use to work the liberal masses into an emotional lather.
How about "CORRECT?" Would that work for you, mein kamerad?
Comment By horst, 1-18-09Very seldom, certainly, herr skinner...
Comment By bearbait, 1-18-09ObamaNation assumes power Tuesday. Pelosi has House Rules that all stimulus bills will only be marked up in the Ways and Means or Appropriations committees. She has managed to alienate all the other committee chairs, who think their committees or subcommittees might like to see what is proposed and what they are voting on down the road. I look for some to sabotage the process administratively. The honeymoon will take place on a road getting more potholes and bumpier each day.
If micro managing wolves is to be the bailiwick and emphasis of Congress, we are in for a long, hard recession. Add to that the lefty desire to redistribute wealth, tilt the climate change windmill, and find a way to provide adequate health care to a nation whose major health problems are eating more calories than they expend, using carcinogens for personal stimulus or depression, the almost universal shunning of physical exercise, and the vagaries of genetic predisposition to some diseases, is costly and unrealistic. There is a law of diminishing returns, and medicine needs to recognize and understand that, and pass that on to politicians. As it now stands, half the lifetime medical expenses for the average person accrue in the last six months of their lives. Why not not pay for care, and give them the money to do with what ever they want. Now there is a stimulus package.
That we even have the time, money, and government to be concerned about the number, genetic diversity, health, and generational succession of wolves is a glaring portrait of a country with more wealth than sense. That those people have elected our new leadership might lead some to wonder if we will survive, let alone the wolves.
Bearbait, you are so on the money. It is like something out of an out of body movie or something. We have everyone wringing their hands and tearing their hair over the economy tanking. Then we have the enviros filing lawsuits furiously to stop producing food, or force the producers to feed it to Preble mice or wolves or bears. stop producing power, to impose expensive restrictions on just about anything they can dream up, & give them absolute power over the people. Meanwhile we have all of the gable about a historic election and coronation, it certainly is historic in the cost anyway. And it is historic in the first time a POTUS has refused to allow his original birth certificate to be seen.
God help us all.
Yes, troglodytes, it is just terrible that some homo sapiens worry that other species may be in and of themselves valuable.
Concern for our environment clearly must be subverted to our Box Store bimbettes' consumerism; and/or the pandering required by our livestock subsidists...
For Marion , bearbait, Dave Skinner , horst et al. Yesterday evening about 4:30 pm, a perennially offensive and very large Pit Bull mix domestic dog killed my friend's old mare horse and wounded the other horse ( a Paso Fino ). The dog lives next door in a trailer park. It has a long documented history of nasty incidents.What is unusual is this happened two blocks from the Holiday Inn in downtown Cody Wyoming on East Sheridan Avenue ( Cody's main street); three blocks from a middle school ; two blocks from an elementary school ; in a mixed residential business neighborhood. The owners of the horse demanded that the offending dog be impounded by the Cody Police department animal control officer. He said he could not do that because it " was a private property issue " and he was awaiting orders from headquarters. Overnight, the dog conveniently " disappeared" while city officials sort it out. No resolution or action , yet, as I write this.
What I am saying is the streets run in two directions, and the Wolf issue is not black and white nor cut and dried. But I do totally resent the incendiary remarks that cast wide scorching aspersions on " envronmentalists" and " greenies" without also turning the flames on hunters and ranchers who are not willing to cede any ground and work towards a consensus solution set instead of heaving their verbal Molotovs at the slightest provocation.
Dewey, I am so sorry about the horses. Part of my objection to the wolves is the pain they cause to other species. I fail to see how ranchers are involved in this situation. If it were a wolf situation (and as the nummbers increase sure could be even in a town) the cry would be for more wolves and no one except the victims would have any responsibility for the cost. The dog owners do in this case.
Comment By Tom, 1-21-09If someone saw the dog attacking the horse, why didn't they shoot him?
If I saw a perrenial offensive large dog near my animals or my neighbor's horses, He would be dead. But then we have a leash law in our community, so I would be legally within my rights.
MARION: One thing that gets lost when the statistics start flying willy-nilly is the fact that Domestic Dogs are responsible for as many or more Cattle/Calf losses in a year in Wyoming than Wolves. My latest figures, from USDA, USF&WS;, and the Wyoming ag statistic office showed in 2006 that Wolves accounted for 123 cattle losses, and Dogs took 100. When sheep are factored in , domestic dogs kill far more stock than Wolves. Many years ago when I was still a reporter, we had a pack of farm dogs form up northeast of Cody about halfway to Powell, and they terrorized the country and killed quite a lot of stock and other animals before they were broken up. Some were eradicated. These were people's pets and working stock dogs all . They behaved just like a Wolf pack , because they are after all, Wolves , just in dog's clothing. I just want people to keep some perspective and please factor in all livestock losses due to all causes when they go on a tirade against Wolves. Wolves are not putting stockmen out of business or causing undue monetary losses to Wyoming's beef industry when 150 cows are lost from a pool of 1.4 MILLION. You simply cannot condemn all Wolves everywhere with that low incident rate. It's closer to a statistical zero, especially when over 100 times as many cows are lost due to all causes, including neglect.
Tom: just how would you suggest someone shoot safely at a dog attacking a horse in the city limits surrounded by buildings in a neighborhood and business district alongside a busy through street? Besides the fact that it would be illegal ( discharging firearm in city limits). The dog killed the horse in a triangle bounded by a middle school , an elementary school , and a Holiday Inn just two blocks east of Cody's central business district. And even though it was witnessed by several people, including the 19 year old owner of the 4 year old Pit Bull-Shephard cross, the entire incident was over in a matter of moments. It is entirely up to the municipal judge to decide the fate of the dog , who has a long rap sheet. My bet is he will order the dog destroyed and restitution paid for the horse, which was purchased a few years ago for $ 1800.
Dewey, I someone takes a few thousand out of your checking account, it is negligible to the economy of the state or nation, but I suspect it would be very significant to you. Would it be more significant if you personally had to pick up the cost of the animals killed belonging to even one certain rancher? It is interesting that the dog owner will have to pay for the horse (and he should), if it was killed by a wolf and several horses have been, tough, the wolves belong, the horse doesn't, no reimbursement.
The wolf benefit is pure entertainment for a few.
Sorry , Marion . You are as usual looking at things thru the wrong end of the binoculars. Whether I make or lose money or am impacted by outside forces beyond my personal control has little if any effect on public policy or the workings of my professon and livelihood. For your information , I am selling my stuff for 20 cents on the dollar --not adjusted dollars for cost of living inflation --- than what I got for the same product twenty years ago. I used to egt paid $ 1400/day for my professionals ervices in 1980 , but those same clients are paying me only $ 150/day today if they don;t get the stuff for free from the upstarts.
But you on the other hand seem to think that a lone wolf attack on a rancher somewhere in the hinterlands who loses a cow is somehow an attack on every rancher everywhere in the West simultaneously and a threat to the entire industry collectively . And further that all environmentalists and all of your so-called " greenies" need to be treated as a single giant leper colony without respect to individuals worth , actions, or record. You condemn them all with one smear of the broad tar brush
And what I am really waiting to hear from you and the rancher community is that they are willing to show some progress and new thinking and new policy , instead of trying to eke out a living using 19th century methods that didn't work very well then and were wasteful of resources, and they certainly do not work well now two centuries down the road. Ranchers refuse to change, but they stubbornly want to set policy for all of us. And hold us back. But we have moved on . Really . It's well past the time they catch up to modern times , or get out of the business. Hanging on to a mythology or a long withered heritage of faux economics is not very sensible.
By the way , under today's rules, ranchers seem to get more than adequately compensated coming and going for their wolf losses...like getting paid for seven calves when only one was killed ? And the " free" services of Wildlife Services and other wildlife agencies to hunt down and eradicate problem wolves. Frankly , I am sick and tired of paying rranchers for every little speed bump and minor distress they put in a claim for , or get a healthy subsidy for, because nobody subsidizes me in my profession. It's time we all were at the mercy of the so-called Free Market on a level field. I'm willing to bet the livestock producers of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho wouldn't last three years if you neutralized their incentives, subsidies, and privilege offsets and instead made them pay for all their materials and resources out of their own pockets instead of the public dole.
So it is ok with you to import wolves to kill other people's livestock because it makes you feel good? At least it sounds like your friends horse died a fast death, it wasn't eaten alive like wolves do.
I bet you are one of those who insist the elk in Yellowstoen are just hiding in the trees instead of being disguised as wolf poop.
marion---
your last ''response" is well below the threshhold of qualifying for a dignified response. And please don't do my thinking for me . Thank you.
Dewey: Whose ox is being gored? That is the issue. The killer dog in town getting a pass is no more or no less a killer dog than a wolf. There is a public need to NOT have mean ass dogs running loose, or even being able to run loose. There are places with laws against having, harboring, owning, whatever, some breeds of dogs because people got tired of their behavior which is a direct reflection of who owns them. A dog is a mirror of its owner. And if you say nobody "owns" a dog, then the discussion is off the charts and into woo-woo land.
My question is: do carnivores with a sweet tooth like diabetics more so than other prey?
Great News!
New reports just announced that President Obama is putting a hold on the wolf delisting. As expected, the last minute attack on endangered species by Bush will be reversed.
It's going to be great having intelligent adults in charge of our government for a change.
-Jon Cheever
=================================
Feds rescind rule dropping wolves as 'endangered'
Seattle Times
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
With a new administration in charge, federal regulators Wednesday promised a second look at a recent decision to drop gray wolves in the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains from the endangered list.
The Interior Department said it was withdrawing at least temporarily a rule announced last week changing the wolf's status in both regions. The rule never formally took effect.
It was among many regulatory changes the Bush administration pushed through in its final days. President Barack Obama ordered a review of those 11th-hour measures after taking office Tuesday.
Opponents said they hoped Obama's Interior Department would retain the endangered classification for wolves in the Northern Rockies, where the population numbers about 1,500.
That region's wolf segment includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah.
"Wolves are a success story in the region but their numbers simply haven't reached a level yet where they can be said to have recovered," said Andrew Wetzler, endangered species coordinator for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some advocates see in the review an opportunity to expand the wolf's modern-day range.
The predators historically were found across most of the United States. Vast swaths of public land in Colorado, California, Utah, Oregon and other states could support wolves if given the chance, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity.
"We're not looking to restore wolves to every bit of land where wolves once set foot," he said, "but certainly we have to look at the public lands at a minimum as potential wolf recovery areas."
What amuses me about this discussion, and most political discussions in general, is how people tend to be so far to one end of the spectrum that it skews their perception of others' position on that spectrum. Sort of like looking at a ridge a mile away, which is in front of another ridge another mile away. The two ridges appear to be close together, but in fact are as far away from each other as you are from the first ridge.
Right-wingers, take note: We moderates are actually trying to talk some sense and effect some kind of compromise. Continue to lambast us and dismiss as "greenies" and you contribute to the perpetuation of the extremist views which polarize our country and render all progress unattainable.
Fact is, ranchers are a bunch of selfish, anachronistic whiners and wolf-lovers are a bunch of quixotic hippie freaks. Delist the wolves, manage them properly, hunt them, AND protect them. In short, ensure their success as a viable member of the ecosystem. That is the only way to restore them to a permanent part of the landscape, which they have as much of a right to inhabit as we do. If we lose a few cattle, so be it. If we have to kill a few wolves, so be it. This is called compromising and it's something all you extremists seem utterly incapable of doing!
Just wanted to say hi to everyone
new to the forums, and i'm glad to meet everyone!
Mike, read your first paragraph again, you illustrated it perfectly with your ranting diatribe against ranchers at the end. You do not even recognize the wild eyed liberal fanatic in your own mirror do you?
Comment By Mike, 1-23-09Ha! Gotcha, Marion. That line of mine was bait, no doubt, and by completely disregarding the corresponding "ranting diatribe" leveled at left-wingers (in the same sentence even!), you proved my point perfectly. You're just as bloodthirsty as a wolf, and easier to trap.
I'm sorry, people, but I can't help myself! You're just too darn easy to mess with when you're that far to one side.
you talk about us ranchers holding you wolf lovers back grow up ,everything you learn has been from a couch watching animal planet.it really makes me sick of just your side of being good saveing our planet you concentate on these wolves has if they will save the day.i fed these wolves well in mn. 38 calves 32,000 dollars worth got paid for one and a iou for two you pay me ill feed them again put your money where your mouth is.im not against haveing wolves but its like any other job ranching or whatever you do in the big city you steal the bad apples get termenated period commen sense. come on even marion is fighting for just commen sense.the fact is these wolves kill healthy animals as well when cattle are fenced in its easy prey . what we are talking about is private land owned by us just as you have a house in town would you allow a thief in your house without shooting you have to see both sides and define personal property to me is it just household property both cost money
Comment By Marius, 7-12-09I agree with mnrancher. It's easy to judge these facts when you're a Los Angeles plumber or a manager... and you have no idea about what it really goes on out there.. far away from the city's streets and cars...
Comment By Jon Cheever, 7-12-09Marius-
I object to your dig at Los Angeles plumbers. I was raised in a Los Angeles plumbing family--my dad was a Los Angeles plumber, my granddad was a Los Angeles plumber, and my great granddad was a Los Angeles plumber. That's right--four generations of Los Angeles plumbers.
Plumbers, particularly Los Angeles plumbers, are sensitive to the ongoing battle between Montana ranchers and wolves. From our plumbing perspective we think that wolves and ranchers can coexist. It's similar to plumbers in different unions competing for the same customers--it's better if we cooperate instead of attacking each other. Then everyone wins.
Please, Marius--you can learn a lot about wolf/rancher coexistence from our experience as Los Angeles plumbers. Slandering our profession and experience is uncalled for.
-Jon "the plumber" Cheever
Jon, I am sorry! I didn't want to offense. It's true. I don't know much about plumbing. It was just the first example that pumped in my mind and at a second thought I have to admit you're right!
I was only trying to make a difference between those who leave in a city and those spending their everyday life in the middle of the nature.
Thank you for your objection and your arguments!
- Marius
I for one am quite excited about the delisting. Montana even has tags for the hunting season going on sale this month.
Theres a site covering all the information about the hunting seasons that will be opened up this year:
http://huntwolves.com
Sign me up!
il love it
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/feds_delist_wolves_in_idaho_montana/C41/L41/