Ready, Aim, Fire Up Controversy
Idaho Approves Wolf Hunt, Stirs Ruckus
Wolf advocates decried the decision.
By Amy Linn, 8-18-09
They pulled the trigger, as expected: Idaho’s Fish and Game Commission yesterday approved the first wolf hunt in the state—and in the Lower 48. According to a story in the Spokesman-Review by Betsy Z. Russell, Idaho will start selling tags at 10 a.m. on Monday, August 24, “to give hunters from both inside and outside the state a shot at up to 220 of Idaho’s wolves—a quarter of the wolf population.”
The commissioners voted 4-3 for the wolf-hunt plan, the article says. The three dissenters wanted to allow hunters to shoot more wolves, or up to 430 of the roughly 1,000 wolves Idaho. About 70,000 hunters will get a wolf tag, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission estimates. The hunting season begins in September.
Wolf advocates decried the decision. “We fear that under the guise of wolf management, what’s about to happen is a wolf massacre, said Stephen Augustine of the Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance in a press release. “Why are we hunting wolves when they just came off the Endangered Species list less than six months ago?”
Defenders of Wildlife released a statement saying the group intended to join with other conservation organizations to file an emergency motion in court that would suspend the hunts and temporarily place wolves back on the endangered species list. (Defenders of Wildlife, in a coalition with other groups, has a pending legal challenge to the delisting of wolves; that legal mater has not yet been heard.)
The Defenders of Wildlife press release continues this way: “Idaho’s announcement comes on the heels of Montana’s plan to hunt 75 wolves starting in October. These numbers would be over and above the wolves already killed each year by other means of lethal control in response to conflicts with livestock and natural deaths. All these actions combined threaten the recovery of the still-vulnerable regional wolf population in the Northern Rockies.”
To read the Idaho wolf hunt rules, click here.
The Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance is slated to hold public demonstrations against the upcoming Idaho wolf hunting season on Friday, August 28th in Coeur d’Alene and Monday, August 31st in Sandpoint. for more information.
[End of article]
Will Defenders put up the lost revenue used to manage all wildlife if they succeed with the motion?
IDFG estimates 70,000 hunters will buy tags for $11.75/each. That's just for the in-state folks.
A low-ball estimate of revenue lost if the hunt is tabled: $822,500.
This is so barbaric. There are NO other options here than putting bullets in an intelligent animal like the wolf? How dark is ones soul they would load a gun and shoot to kill an animal that has survived 300,000 years until man started playing God and Mother Nature. I will pray for you.
Comment By horst, 8-18-09Measuring ones manhood--magnified by the power of the killing tool--is only one of the rewards.
The myths surrounding agrarian entitlement, fear of nature, and hatred for wolves enter into the attractions.
Not even to mention Idaho's level of sophistication in relationship to deep south states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
To gigi,
While you are conjuring up images of dark souls regulating the numbers of these highly prolific dog relatives, also think of the thousands of elk, hundreds of sheep, dozens of cattle, horses, family dogs, mules and llamas that have had their throats ripped out, or are disembowled or eaten alive from the stomach cavity or rump, as they lay bleeding out on the ground. These are your innocent, intelligent, animals who you find distaste in controlling.
Their numbers increase by 26 percent per year. The Idaho and Montana harvests won't even net out to a zero increase from 2008 to 2009. There will be many hunters and livestock owners who seek a tag, solely for the purpose of regulating their numbers.
That was the plan when they were reintroduced in 1995, so you better get used to it.
this is wolf management. just like the wolves manage the ungulates, deer and elk, hunters will manage the wolves by thinning them.
Comment By R.K.S, 8-18-09One must think that the slaughter houses is a quick and easy death for cows,chickens,and sheep,huh Scatcounter?
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-18-09I don't mind wolves being hunted. It just that I think that the political climate and the people in charge of determining the numbers may be excessive by a factor of 2.
Comment By scatcounter, 8-18-09To RKS,
I'm guessing the answer to that question is about as obvious as your question was ...dumb. Or, maybe you would like to ask your dog after an encounter with a wolf pack.
Mickey, the number of wolves picked by MT was exceptionally conservative, at 75. Since ID has about three times as many wolves as MT their number at 220 is not even going to cover the increase in the next year's population. The official wolf population numbers is about 20% below the actual numbers according to Dr. David Mech, the chief wolf scientist for USFWS.
There was very lively discussion by the Commission that could have resulted in a 400+ harvest target for ID. I do not know how they will account for individual harvest targets within each management unit, which seems to be about 15-18 for most. Dr. Mech who has studied wolves for over forty years, seems to think it won't be that easy even to get that many in the heavily forested areas of Central and Northern ID. Not to worry, there will be plenty left for genetic exchange.
Any dog could as easily be killed by a pack of wild dogs,not just by wolves.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-18-09I agree that it won't be that easy to bag a wolf in some units once the wolves realize they're being hunted.
Comment By Todd, 8-19-09Enviros need have no fear, the 9th District will ride to the rescue of the wolves, jsut like they always do to keep enviros happy. They can always use the lack of adequate DNA tests as an excuse. Remember the Western Great Lakes wolves were relisted recently, it is going to take a congressional rule to ever delist, enviros will keep the lawsuits coming against anyone except them having any say over anything.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/02/gray-wolves-relisted-as-endangered-in-great-lakes/
To RKS,
Wolves inherently do not like dogs. They view them as intruders in their territory, as they should. They usually kill them on sight. How many packs of dogs, ready to kill other dogs, do you see in the wild? Wolves are protected under state/federal law. If dogs kill another dog that is sometimes just a property matter between private individuals, with help from the local sheriff or other local law enforcement. If wild dogs kill sheep they are usually summarily destroyed. Problem wolves are protected wild game animals and with a few exceptions must be directly handled by authorized federal or state officials, or a rancher with a limited permit. Only individual wolves are disciplined, either with rubber bullets, or destroyed. Sometimes whole packs are destroyed if they do not stop killing livestock. The numbers of these wolves are not included in the recently announced permitted harvest, and estimated to be over 100 wolves destroyed in 2007 in Idaho alone.
Viva las ninth district!
Comment By Ann, 8-19-09Scatcounter; I have to ask you and the rest of the people claiming wolves are bloody, killers, causing such enormous pain to their victims. How would you survive if all you had is what you were born with to do it? You ever try to imagine how you would kill an elk? Or Deer, or Dog or any other item on the ‘menu’. I could almost bet wolves get the job done quicker and with less mess than any human could. What about the plants that get eaten, Just because you don’t ‘hear’ them scream, or see them bleed red blood doesn't mean the vegetation doesn’t suffer horrendous deaths? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a noise? Come on people you can't have life without death.
I would much rather see the animals getting shot than trapped. There is nothing on this planet that doesn’t need managed. People especially. I can see the ‘red-necked’ beer drinker on his four wheeler destroying the efforts, of management, “Just because they can, and it’s a mean old wolf” It’s too bad people have lost their common sense, and let their ego’s get in the way.
Too many trophy hunters out there, and really how tough is it to shoot and kill something. Not very dam hard. Heck Any body can do it. Little kids are making kills everyday.
Ann, you are absolutely right. Survival of wild animals, especially predator prey is not pretty, or humane by human standards. But we as humans do not have to deal with the hypothetical you pose, now do we? Of course, we can watch all that in the national parks if we choose.
My comment to Gigi was only to counter the distaste she found in the killing of wolves, by "dark souls" with rifles and all that. Gotta remember if the wolves had not been reintroduced as experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, or allowed to migrate down from Canada we wouldn't be in the moral dilemma of what to do with needing to control a very rapidly growing population. But for the growing population (and conflicts with humans - their livestock, hunting expectations and domestic pets) the choice to control their numbers and confine them to certain habitat, would not be before us today.
I keep wondering what kind of scarey "blood and gore" tactics the wolf advocates will use if a metapopulation reaches 2,000-5,000 and then have to be thinned down by even larger numbers than those contemplated in this hunt. Their war cry will then truly be of massacre proportions. Can you imagine the annual harvest goals of say, 1,500 wolves just to keep the numbers in check, and keep them from doing even more damage to the elk populations, or those pesky livestock, or even other predators with which they conflict like cougar and bear. They do fight and kill each other, but the Defenders of Wildlife don't like to raise those issues.
Out of 220 licenses less than 50 will be filled with a wolf, I would bet.
Since most hunters can't find the energy to get out of their trucks or off their ATVs, 50 would be a pretty high number, really.
The only way to do this by using civilians is to give the licenses to the guides. They're the only ones that know the areas well enough to actually kill enough wolves in certain areas for control.
This should actually provide a short lived comedy before the feds realize the state doesn't have a clue what they're doing and just take it over out of pity.
Remember the wolves were brought into cattle country, knowing they would be hunted and killed and they have been since almost the very beginning. The entertainment factor for wolf lovers was more important than the long term well being of wolves, their competitors, or their prey.
If "balance" had been the goal they would have been planted somewhere where there were no competing predators like the Adirondacks, instead of where there were a full complement, including a few wolves already present.
Fabulous News! Can't wait---Thankyou IDFG for the chance of a lifetime! Twin Falls will be buying up all the tags so the rest of you all need not bother! Mister Lobo will be pretty scarce once the war's on---- Using coyote howlers should produce, Sportsmen's Warehouse better stock up!
Comment By Bennett Larsson Barr, 8-19-09Actually Old one, your cattle were brought into Wolf, Grizzly and Salmon Country...turns out you're the new kid on the block and not so "Old" after all...
I hear Oklahoma is a good state to raise cattle...
Salmon?
What about your home, why do you not move out and return it to the wildlife that lived here first? By all means, lead the way in turning homes back to nature!
Hey getatag, perhaps you could getalife, because obviously you canned hunters won't even come close to a wolf, without your usual hunting aids like hounds, bait, snowmobiles, and other tools that the pathetic trophy hunter is used to.
Comment By Ann, 8-19-09Well Scatcounter, there are a lot of what if's. What if we hadn't killed all the wolves to begin with? What if the "white-man" didn't try to control everything that walks, swims or flies? What if the Native people were allowed to live in peace and harmony among the wildlife like they did for centuries before the invasion? WHAT IF Humans actually used their head for something besides a hat rack? (now that's a novel idea)
But I do agree with you on some. I NEVER agree with somebody completely, makes for a boring life.
The point is the wolves are back, and doing what they do, and for sure not doing it the way humans would like them to.
Jay; I don't like the part where the guides/outfitters only get the tags, I know this area probably better than most guides or outfitters, and bet I could drop a few if the urge hit. But unlike so many, I won't destroy something because I think it's going to do something, If I kill something there is a dam good reason, and I have no qualms about doing it. I don't like poodles, but I'm not out there running them over or shooting them or poisoning them because I think/know they are worthless. (although that's not a bad idea)
From what I understand, Yellowstone National Park is an eco-system, and for it to be complete, it needed the wolf population back. There are far fewer cattle, sheep, etc. hanging around the park, so why NOT put the wolves here? Cattle, not un like the Europeans, brought disease to this area, and people want to destroy the wildlife because they are surviving/thriving disease or predator.
Why don't I move out and leave this land for the animals? because, I'm not complaining about the wildlife around me, nor am I preventing the wildlife from doing what wildlife does. I would prefer the humans to skidaddle, and just come for a visit. But that will never happen.
So with a little common sense, and level heads, this wouldn't need to be a Pi$$ing match on the old outhouse.
Yes Old one...Salmon are a species of fish that travel all the way from the Pacific Ocean up a couple of rivers to a little lake in the middle of Idaho...I think some folk around these parts call this lake "Redfish" or something like that.
My understanding is that these little fish have been making this migration for tens of thousands of years (if not longer)...also turns out the Federal Government with assistance of Tribal Groups and NGOs have been spending billions of dollars trying to "restore" populations of Salmonids much like the "restoration" efforts of the Wolf that we have witnessed here in Idaho.
My "homes" scattered across Idaho and Washington are already open to the wildlife visitors should they dare to enter them. So in a sense, I've already beat you to your suggestion.
Open up them dams and bring back the Salmon Old one and you may see a different prey base for the Wolf...
What's you definition of "accountability"?
Ann,
I'd rather not have to see the wolves killed. However I would like for it to be done right, if it is determined that it has to be done at all. There are no perfect solutions. I recognize that cattle are going to be grazing on public lands and/or private mountain lands no matter what is done. Those people believe that it is their life, and they won't give it up, even if they have to guilt their children into following in their selfish footsteps. But I also recognize that most hunters are from cities or flatlands, and while they may think they know the hills, through their 5 days of vacation each year, they really only know a small little portion of it. Guides, however, live there for months at a time. They have to have a decent understanding of their surroundings, and they are probably going to be the only ones that see a significant amount of wolves. They are also a much smaller group and can hopefully be better educated on what "kind" of wolf to shoot (killing the Alpha male/female is a bad thing). The fed's can pay them a decent wage for it and things get done. We need some sort of solution, leaving things as they are will result in bad things down the road because we are already here and humans aren't going to pack up and change because of the wolves.
If the feds are going to drop out of this mess and leave it to the states, it should not be handed over to G. Willy Got-A-Gun. It won't work. It will not be effective and things will just get worse. How it will get worse, I don't know. But it is pretty evident that the status quo isn't sustainable, for lots of various reasons, not just hunter success rates (and lets be honest, it isn't about how many elk are in Idaho, it is the hunter success rate that is driving this).
Trust me, I'm no friend of the rancher. I think they're selfish, ignorant and they will always have a negative effect on the ecosystems they are involved in. They don't serve society as a greater whole, and their constant political whining costs the states more than any sort of revenue they might bring in. Just my opinion, mind you.
Jay; And a pretty darned good opinion if I do say so. Why not just hire a 'wolf-vigilante' group? I still feel most of the whiners, would cry if we hung em with a new rope.
It is possible to educate without eradicating.
You and I both know that. BUT.............................
Hunting Wolves will help keep the population in check and will not hurt the current balance. We need wolves but we don't tens of thousands of them. They are amazing creatures and I hope to bag one this year.
Comment By Old one, 8-19-09Bennett, I know what salmon are, I jsut do not see the connection to wolf hunts, are you trying to tell us they will be buying little guns and shoot the wolves when they show up to get a drink? Your homeS? I can understand why you feel the need to tell others how to live, a true enviro, your use of anything is good, only other people are bad.
The thing that puzzles me, we know that wolves were being killed in the east in all of the settlements long before Lewis and Clark heard the call to "Go west, young man, go west", and those are the folks that really, really want wolves along with the Californians, so why not let them have all they want there instead of depriving them by taking wolves somewhere else. Think of the fuel that could be saved by having the wolves right close.
The wolves were hauled to the one area of the entire country that already had all four major predators, grizzly, blackbear, coyote, and mountain lion. Explain how in the world the most complete predator system in the lower 48 would be the one lacking enough predators. There were already an establishing population of wolves in all 3 states, 2 wolves were confirmed in Yellowstone prior to the introduction, and almost stopped it, but the judge got the sob story of how the wolves were already trapped and had to be delivered immediate to save their lives, and ok'd it to continue.
To scatcounter
Wow, gory images you describe. Throats ripped,disemboweled, eaten alive. How does that compare, say to an elk shot in the leg by a hunter and not retrieved. Can you describe how that elk will die? On another note I can ensure my pointers safety in wolf country. I can not make the same claim for "wolf tag country". With 70,000 wolf tags there are bound to be a few idiots out there. No forest grouse hunting for me this fall. Darn it I am admitting that the wolves are going to impact my hunting this year.
Old one,
I had a hunch you knew what Salmon(ids) were and also had a hunch as to your lack of a connection between them and Wolf Hunts. I certainly won't hold it against you as I think we could find this lack of connection to be true throughout general American psyche and politics in general of the "Old" West.
Missing this connection would be like missing the connection between Christianity and War. Like missing the connection to Native/Indigenous Peoples and their connections to the wildlife that surrounds them.
Now I'm going to do my best not to tell you how to live your life but merely point out or suggest how your so called, "old" ideals are based on Piracy. Your reference to the alcoholic adventures of Lewis and Clark are a case in point.
Lack of "accountability" permeates your culture and its values. Piracy at its best...a culture that includes an hour glass.
Well Frank, You make a point. There are elk or deer that suffer from the hunter's error, whether it be a bow or a rifle, and that is a sad thing. How often, I cannot say. You can bet that wounded elk won't escape any predator if present. I only used the imagery to counter a comment by "Gigi," as you will note.
However, I can tell you something more certain, based on research over the past 20 years. Each wolf in the NRM, will manage to inflict its will on between 8-23 elk from October to April each year. Of course they kill in packs so, that makes it a kill about every two days or so, depending on pack size. Say ten wolves = death to 100 -230 elk, or more per year. And then, according to studies conducted by Dr. Scott Creel at Montana State University and recently published by the National Academy of Science, those same wolves keep the elk from the good winter feed and they starve to death or lose body mass in large numbers at higher elevations. This also results in fewer successful calf births, including lower weight calves, on which the wolves also feed. I think the study is available on his web page at MSU.
I am with you on the wolf tags. Some idiot may well mistake a hunter for a wolf. Funny this didn't have to happen at all, if the wolves weren't reintroduced in the first place. Keep them in Yellowstone or other NP's where they will be safe, and find a non-lethal way to control their numbers - birth control anyone?
Scatcounter; first I want to respond to your 'birth-control' remark. The wolves aren't screwing the elk they are eating them.
Also we should never have HAD to reintroduce the wolf. But because of greedy men, a few 'old-wives tales' and the typical mentality of kill kill kill the wolves were all but eradicated. I for one am pleased I have wolves within a 20 mile radius. Along with the Grizzlies a few big cats, etc. Better the four legged than the two legged. (never had my car stolen by a Bison or a wolf let alone a Grizzly)
Contrary to a lot of thinking Yellowstone National Park is NOT a Zoo with cages and scheduled feeding times, it is a Park. It is a place for the animals as well as the idiots that drive here to watch them and the many other splendors we have here. Where the animals roam free. (keyword free) How would you expect wild animals to stay within an imaginary line, when humans don't and they can read the signs? It is a known fact that management needs to happen, but only because there are way to many stupid humans in the world, and they are spreading across this country quicker and thicker than knapweed but that's a completely different story.
I hate the thought that people, like one of the posters here, will actually have the opportunity to get a tag and a wolf. Those are the kinds of people that shouldn't be allowed to get any where near a weapon for any reason. They are the ones that think they know it all and can do it all. When in reality, they wouldn't be able to pour urine out of their shoe with the instructions written on the heel. No matter how you look at them Wolves are a majestic, completely self sufficient animal that deserves respect, even through a scope.
So the point of ensuring that a species does not go extinct is that they be allowed to reproduce and re-populate so that there are enough of them to shoot? I thought we were teaching our children ecology and conservation of our wildlife--a large part of our national heritage? This whole business is shameful. And to compare the cruelty of man to the predator/prey system that was put in place by whatever entity created all life on this planet is just ignorant and arrogant. Any man (or God forbid, woman) who would shoot a wild wolf in the wilderness for "sport" is forever shamed.
Comment By CBear, 8-20-09Elaine, spoken like a true urbanite. There is no chance of these wolves going extinct.
Idaho offered its excess live wolves to the states who don't have any, and has to date received 20 negative responses - no thanks, keep em. And, no affirmative responses. Why do you suppose that is? Many of the states are in the historic ranges of the gray wolf, but they don't want them, or the headaches they cause - just like this population control / wolf hunt issue that will plague any state who takes them. One would think Colorado would take as many as they could get; they have the largest elk population in the US.
ID, MT and WY don't want so many wolves, and in fact were promised by USFWS that they only needed to take a few. They are being chastised for holding the federal government to its promise of fifteen years ago. MI, MN and WI are ready to manage theirs, and at least WI will consider a hunt in the next two years. All the states want to manage them under approved plans. And, where are we with this, in court time after time, before federal judges who know zip about wildlife management, and are compelled to make legal rulings on esoteric technical legal arguments of interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, advanced by Washington DC based activist groups, who tell lies to their memberships to raise funds.
First off, Ann, that is an old saying taken from a sheep rancher who was at a meeting where enviros suggested coyotes be given birth control instead of killing them. The problem is the wolves are screwing each other and not just the alpha pair, that means more wolves to kill more elk.
We should never have had to reintroduce them since there were already wolves in the area, but enviros are never satisfied unless they are in court imposing their latest whim on other people. Interestingly enough I never see enviros offering to move to make room for any wildlife, but they seem to feel perfectly justified in taking others property to satisfy their whims.
CBear is absolutely right, so Elaine, how many wolves is your state willing to take? How much are you personally willing to give up for them? You seem to have no problem demanding that others donate a few hundred or even thousand dollars worth of livestock to feed them.
I am so sick of the claim that "greedy men/ranchers" eradicated wolves, what about the wolves that were killed and displaced by the early settlers on the east coast, were those folks also greedy? Are you trying to say no "good" person would try to protect their property? If you find termites in your house are you willing to let them continue to eat it up and "learn to live with nature"? Or are you "greedy" enough to call the exterminator? It is really easy to make demands of other people, but dam hard to live your own demands, as the 20 states refusing wolves made very clear.
As for Bennett Larsson Barr, how can any enviro speak of accountability when that is the one thing they have no amount of? They use the billions of dollars they raise to use the courts to force other people to do what they want and take no responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes.
The unfortunate fact is the wolves must be controlled, and the environmental groups must face the fact they cost the taxpayers of this country millions to bring in the wolves to satisfy a whim and they can either charge the taxpayers millions more to continue to pay the government to control them or they can let the taxpayers go shoot them themselves.
Wolves belong in wilderness areas and I don't mean areas laced with trails and campsites, I mean the Canadian wilderness they came from. They were brought in to satisfy the egos of environmentalists who were "restoring nature", but in their own image. There were wolves in all 3 states recolonizing from Canada and maybe even some of the Canis Irremotus that originally inhabited the area. That classification was conveniently dropped to avoid any conflicts with the newly designed wolf population.
I have posted ad nauseum the total wolves killed in Yellowstone during the entire time they were killed in the mistaken idea that they would decimate other wildlife was 56 adults and 80 pups. The most adults were killed in 1918, and that was 21, every other year was in single digits, yet they hauled in far greater numbers than had ever existed. Environmental meddling did not restore any balance, they destroyed a natural balance to satisfy their egos, and as a result hundreds of wolves have been killed by the government, wolves that would have lived if they had been left alone in the true Canadian wilderness they came from. Pat yourselves on the back guys for playing God....or being the devil's advocate.
Elaine, I have one more statistic for you. The state of ID and USFWS authorized kills that resulted in the death of 108 problem wolves in 2008. That is double the number that were dispatched in 2007 (Idaho annual wolf report 2008, page 6, available on the USFWS website). Human - wolf conflicts are the problem, and the people and livestock are not going away.
This is not just about hunting, it is about controlling the wolf population in an economical manner. The government could do it, but that costs money. Having hunters do it, generates revenue for the states, targets areas where the wolves are apparently negatively impacting elk populations, and gives some who want a wolf the opportunity to take one (I personally do not agree with this and would not kill a wolf, but respect the rights of others who do it).
The federal government spends huge amounts of money keeping the coyote population in check in most states from NJ to CA to ND to TX. Just what the H.... makes you think that won't need to happen with wolves as the populations expand. The Mexican wolf has been reintroduced to the Southwest, and they will eventually require control in AZ, NM and to other locations they migrate. Mark my words, this will happen within 10 years or less.
The problem is that so many people who comment on blogs like this know little of the specifics of the intoduction in the states, the biology of propagation or the promises made to state governments when the introduction was sold. By the way, these wolves in ID are what is called a "non-essential experimental population" under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, which allows for their management. Alot of people lose site of this distinction, if they even know about it.
READ READ READ - go to the USFWS website and learn more before you spout off your uninformed opinions colored by the likes of the wolf advocacy groups who give you practiced one liners that promote their view.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
good post marion,, you explained it well... wolves were reintroduced on us for political reasons ,,, now theres too many,,, that has to be fixed,,, hunting them will not decimate their population
Comment By Ann, 8-20-09Well HELLO Marion I was wondering where you were? Glad to see you are still "forked end down" (aka standing and not belly up)
Actually that was used at a homeowners meeting when some tree-hugger suggested they use birth-control on beavers to keep them from damming up the streams. Better than 15 years ago.
Why should someone move if they are happy with the animals that frequent their area and property? I'm happy with the wildlife around here. That's part of why I'm here. I welcome all of them. Skunks too. Why should some rancher get preferential treatment over me?
To answer one of your questions about greedy easterners, Of course they were/are greedy. Just like everyone else. Are you trying to tell me Ranchers aren't greedy? Get real. They want to destroy every possible threat to their herds no questions asked. Even when the science doesn't back their complaints. how do these stats equate to devastation of livestock producers? "Since the state of Montana began recording livestock losses due to wolves back in 1987, only 1,200 sheep and cattle have been killed. 1,200 killings in twenty years is not very significant when in the greater Yellowstone region 8,300 cattle and 13,000 sheep die from natural causes."
Taken from this site; http://www.answers.com/topic/gray-wolf#Current_.26_Historical_status
Another interesting fact that contradicts yours is this; "
"As early as 1877, wolf hunters used strychnine-poisoned ungulate carcasses to kill wolves in Yellowstone National Park (Weaver, 1978: 7). Federal efforts to eradicate the wolf escalated to such a degree that an estimated 80,000 wolves were killed in Montana alone between 1884 and 1918 (Dawidoff, 1992: 40). By trapping, poisoning and shooting, Animal Damage Control, the federal anti-wolf hit squad, was able to wipe out virtually every wolf native to the United States in a few short decades." http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-65.htm
I have to get some horses out so will cut this one short.
Again Marion I'm glad to see your 'type'
Ann, if you remember Dr. Mech admitted that ranchers are only confirmed/ compensated for about one out of every seven to nine animals actually killed. So the "greedy" rancher families are being required to subsidize the entertainment of those sainted, caring environmentalists who are so willing to donate someone else's property to the cause. I'm still around I just get so frustrated with the self importance of those who can dismiss the private property of others so easily, that I give up commenting. Besides I seem to get a lot more spam when I post on this site.
Comment By Ann, 8-20-09Marion; What makes a livestock Ranchers private property rights more important than someone that doesn't have livestock? i.e. cattle. When I was raising Dobermans and Rotts, I didn't get compensated for a single pup that died. And that was my TOTAL income (at the time). So why should livestock producers? As I've said many times, if you can't pasture your livestock on your own personal property, safely or otherrwise, then cull your animals. Less conflict with both humans and wildlife.
What's good for one is good for the other.
You can bet the Ranchers try to get compensated for every animal that dies or comes up missing, but they have to prove how it died, or where it went. They can't. Not my fault. I know we (when we had cattle etc) could tell exactly what, where and when an animal disappeared. How it was taken etc. But of course we were in the herd every day rain or shine. How many ranchers do that today unless it's calving time? That's what I mean about getting lazy or having too many animals to 'manage'. If that's their income then they should dam well keep an eye on it and not expect someone else to. Sounds more and more like the far left wanting to blame the Bar for them getting drunk and wrecking. Or not taking responsibility for their own actions.
Make sure you vist <a >www.huntwolves.com</a> to find out what you need to bag a wolf!
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-20-09Marion, why don't you actually tell people that disease kills far more cattle than wolves ever will? Why are you still touting the lies that wolves are destroying ranching?
Why are you back at all, did they kick you off the other forums?
This will be an excellent chance for the outfitters to recoup lost revenue due to dwindling elk. Get some guys out into the Frank Church and trim the packs a bit. But then, that's only if you can't do it yourself. I hear guys are lining up charter flights ahead of the season to do some scouting. Best wishes, All! Hope you fill your tags ---AFTER I fill MINE! Great job Idaho Fish and Game, and thanks for having the guts to do what's right.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-20-09Sometimes its refreshing to look at the big picture over a large chunk of time instead of bickering about the details to realize where this is all going to end up. Somewhere between 40 thousand and 15 thousand years ago, humans began domesticating a sub-species of wolf, the dog, the first animal domesticated by humans. About 15 to 9 thousand years ago humans in Asia, Europe and North Africa began domesticating ancestral Sheep, Goats, Pigs and Cows. In a few thousand years, parts of Asia, the Mediterranean area and North Africa became severely overgrazed,evolving noxious weeds that only goats could eat. Columbus, on his second voyage to the "New World" in 1493-94 brought livestock to the Americas from the "Old World" destined to contaminate the "New World" with seeds of noxious plants of the "Old World". So now, about .5 millennium since the second voyage of Columbus, much of the Americas have been severely overgrazed and infested with noxious weeds. The Wolf has been eradicated and is being brought back to parts of its previous range and humans are attempting to restore the predator-prey balance that existed before the white man arrived from Europe with his domesticated herds of ungulates.
I would suggest that Wolf Lover's time and resources would be better spent supporting organizations that are attempting to buy up grazing allotments on public lands so that domesticated animals grazing public lands will become a thing of the past sooner rather than later. But make no mistake about it, even when most ranching of domestic live stock is relegated to the dustbin of history, Wolves populations will still have to be managed but not as much as some would have you believe is necessary. Predator populations generally are prey dependent, when prey is hard to come by, predators die back pretty rapidly from disease, starvation and fighting over territory.
I'm sorry, Mickey, but that is too rational of a post.
I would kindly suggest, however, that the term "Wolf Lover" is fairly antagonistic and really not needed. I wouldn't call ecologists "wolf lovers", nor the scientists that study wolves and suggest control methods/levels.
Also, I don't think that people like Marion will willingly give up grazing allotments that they have held for generations so that cattle/wolf interactions can be minimized. They'll hold on to their unprofitable and worthless "lifestyle" when you pry the deed from their cold dumb hands.
You know why I hate the idea of this proposed hunt? Many reasons actually, but especially because of posts like this from seemingly ignorant, hostile, lazy and otherwise worthless Idahoans who are just drooling to kill something:
By getatag, 8-19-09
Fabulous News! Can't wait---Thankyou IDFG for the chance of a lifetime! Twin Falls will be buying up all the tags so the rest of you all need not bother! Mister Lobo will be pretty scarce once the war's on---- Using coyote howlers should produce, Sportsmen's Warehouse better stock up!
First of all getatag - read the regulations before you get all gussied up to hunt. Regulations clearly state that no electronic calls can be utilized - no trapping, no baiting, no dogs - basically no B.S. I don't know if you "Twin Falls" folks can park the four wheeler and walk far enough to harvest a wolf. I can tell you right now they are not waiting by the shitter to make your day. This is not an assumption - I see your kind every deer and elk season - you lazy piles! And to think you throw your kid on the back of that four wheeler and show them that's actually an acceptable way to hunt. P.S. During your (hopefully) unsuccessful hunt don't forget to pick up your beer cans.
Wolves aren't stupid.
A few may get lucky and be able to take a shot from their ATV, but most will have to spend a fair amount of time tracking and actually hunting these awesome killing machines.
There is nothing like being a predator stalking another predator.
Also a Howler is not an electronic call, it's like a woodwind instrument, and it takes a lot of skill to be able to locate and call wolves.
These will not be "bagged hunts."
The good news is...wolves are finally going to be killed.
Those of you who oppose these management hunts must live in a protected bubble somewhere...like Boston, San Francisco, maybe Seattle??? Wolves are wiping out our elk. It's that simple. Now, sportsmen...who have footed the bill for real conservation in this country (not the likes of the clueless Defenders of Wildlife)...are going to eliminate some of the pestilence the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has forced upon us.
Whether or not Judge Don Malloy stops the hunt...wolves are going to die. Sportsmen have had enough of the political posturing, and with or without federal approval...bullets re going to fly and wolves are going to die.
If it's a war the enviros want, it's a war we'll give them.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Enough of your threats, Tony. Your overreactions are becoming legendary, your lies as well.
Find a new hobby.
Toby, I somehow think you are not one of the sharper knives in the drawer. Comments and threats like that accomplish nothing.
And, just a technical point here, you don't understand the issue - USFWS wants the managment and harvest to go forward, and believes the science supports it. The very creative lawsuits by the environmental groups have it all gummed up, and put judge Malloy in a tough spot. Remember he is accountable to federal appeals courts to properly interpret the Endangered Species Act.
You sure as H.... do not speak for most hunters, sportsmen or informed people on this topic, and you definitely do not speak for me.
Hey Pocatello--- speaking of charter pilots for scouting; there's a few operating out of Hailey/Ketchum that have been great to work with for flying in drop camps and pre-season scouting...Are your pilots coming out of SE Id.?
Comment By RollingBlock, 8-21-09Love that post about "electronic" coyote howlers!! Ha-ha! Duh*! Yeah...you BLOW into the thing and it makes a sound like a coyote howl...There are some things out there that are not IPOD-esque and actually require some MANUAL operation. Good point, tho--- as a territorial pack would surely come charging in to attack the yote interlopers. Actually, a good tactic would be for hound hunters to set their dogs onto a fresh bear strike ---then have their wolf tags handy when the pack shows up to eliminate the trespassing "new pack".
Comment By Mike S., 8-21-09These guys are great to work with and can get you into the wilderness units in pretty fine style; should be no problem to find some wolves to harvest that will get little pressure after the opener commences. Call McCall Aviation Main Office, McCall, ID (208) 634-7137
The following backcountry airstrips are covered and have an abundance of LOBO:
Airstrip Hunting Unit
Big Creek 26
Bernard 27
Cabin Creek 26
Chamberlain Basin 20A
Cold Meadows 20A
Indian Creek 27
Flying B 27
Lower Loon 27
Mahoney Bar 27
Soldier Bar 26
Thomas Creek 27
Upper Loon 27
Root Ranch 20A
Pistol Creek 27
To RollingBlock:
The Canadians and Wisconsin bear hunters would tell you its tough on the dogs. I think there have been about a half dozen bear dogs killed in WI by wolves so far this year. The Cannucks have figured out that killing wolves first makes the bear hunting a little easier on the dogs.
What I would like to know is how Defenders of Wildlife shill, Suzanna Stone, keeps her dog from being attacked by wolves when she's out among them. Or is it, Lynne K. Stone? They are both wolf advocates, but I can't remember which has a dog. I wonder if they are related.
Toby - I oppose management hunts and I live in the heart of the matter - dead center central Idaho. The wolves are not wiping out the elk or the deer, and they are not killing household pets and eating children in the night. If you want to tell stories do it at a library.
And if you choose to pull that trigger if these hunts are not approved, that is called POACHING and I hope so dearly you would be caught (by me especially) and loose your license to hunt FOREVER! That is what happens when you POACH.
Your tough guy talk is the exact reason I am against a general hunt for the public. You are not educated enough about the delicate nature of this situation. You are not rational enough to do the right thing (especially with a weapon). And you are not enough of a citizen to abide by the laws should they disagree with your view.
A war indeed - but I am no "enviro" - I am a resident of the great state of Idaho and this awesome nature that surrounds me is the reason this has been home for 20+ years and will be forever.
Rhiana, I think most of us can agree Toby is misguided in his views, maybe even an idiot.
However, your observations that wolves are not "wiping out elk or deer and they don't kill household pets..." are just not accurate. The ID game department disagrees with you and produces annual reports every year documenting wolf status and what they do during the reporting period. They are always a year behind on the data, and each year has been worse than the one before as the population increases. The number of problem wolves killed by agents doubled from 50 to 108 last year. That's alot!
It really doesn't matter what you have personally observed unless you are all over the state, tracking wolves, collared elk and knowing the specific formation of new wolf packs, where they feed, breed and disburse to create new packs. There are areas of the state where wolves have decimated elk herds - the Lolo, Elk City or Dworshak, for example. The Sawtooth region is scheduled for a removal of 58 wolves, alone. Wolves eat elk (or deer where elk are not present) - about 8-23 elk per wolf, per year. That is the statistic. It isn't always the weak, injured or old animals, according to recent research. Wolves also keep elk away from low elevation winter browse too, causing them to lose weight and have fewer calves. This really messes with the age structure of the herds and how they are distributed on the landscape.
I don't know where dead center Central Idaho is for you, but if you are somewhere near Stanley (east edge of Sawtooth Region), you are not in the highest wolf concentration areas, but there are lots and lots of wolves to the North, and to the Southwest of you. Not to worry, you will get more soon, unless they are thinned a bit. They have been removed from Copper Basin for chomping on sheep, I think.
If you are much south of Sun Valley, ID game department says there are no reported wolves around you, and that probably has to do with lack of habitat and prey.
Scat:
Elk numbers in Idaho and in the GYP were too high for local biosystems to sustain for a long period of time. Your ranting sounds more like the truck hunting yahoo looking to "get 'im an elk!" rather than a rational person weighing all the facts. Granted, the Lolo herd was decimated, but that was also a combination of factors, something in which the anti-wolf groups have yet to admit.
But please, keep supporting those that lie and that act like drunken clowns with guns, as well as the ranchers like Marion that wouldn't know the truth of wolves if it were delivered by Dick Cheney himself.
Jay, I am afraid you generalize a bit too much, and draw conclusions that are not warranted. Almost as good as the lies you accuse others of.
Please note, I confined my comments to Idaho, and to certain areas therein. Idaho game department, based their wolf quotas on management objectives which included balancing ungulate populations and known high wolf population areas.
I have hunted the same Idaho GMUs for the last twenty years. Our group of four hunters are very experienced, physically strong and hunt hard for up to 8 days at a time, across country and off trails into the brush. No vehicles are driven except the occasional ATV to get us to drop points. We know the area very well, including adjacent drainages. Wolves moved in two years ago, and last year we saw more wolves than elk. These elk do not move with the weather, and browse is always available in the area. We never see elk in groups larger than four or five, so there is no herd migration, and the rut is over. All variables are accounted for except wolves. We saw more wolf poop on trails and old logging grades, than fresh elk tracks or droppings.
We spoke with other hunters on the way out and they had similar experiences and low success rates. Sure, some of these elk have been temporarily driven to higher ground and more dense vegetation, and maybe that is ok. But, the elk were gone, and maybe the wolves have moved on, which might result in some elk eventually moving back in. Funny thing is, ID annual wolf report and maps don't even acknowledge wolves are there, which means they are not accounting for them AT ALL. I told the ID chief wolf guy, Steve Nadeau, of our experience and he confirmed they had no knowledge of individual wolves or packs with collared members to track. I expect to see more wolf data for this area in the next annual report, if they got in there to collar a couple.
As a scientist I am just trying to add reason and good facts to the dialog, like a couple of other posters here. It helps keep the radicals on either side of the issue a little more honest. Don't be so quick to label me.
Quite frankly, I don't want hunters in the woods trying to bag a wolf. I would prefer selective control activities be done in winter by the state or feds, so they can cull the ones they want. But I guess that is too rational, and it would deprive the state of additional license/tag revenues, and cost taxpayers more.
"As a scientist" -- and a comedian?
Anecdotal evidence is for those with no proof or data, not a scientist. I too have had similar experiences, except replace "wolves" with "cattle" in your rant. I, however, didn't generalize my individual experience and proclaim that all cattle are killing elk.
As you can see above, I have no problems with controlling wolf populations. I do have a problems with Rambo's like yourself doing it based on your own lies and subterfuge.
To Jay Kanta,
Did you not read scat's last paragraph? He specifically said he didn't like "Rambo's" (to use your word) in the woods shooting wolves. You strike me as one of those guys who talks so much he doesn't listen to the other guy, and winds up stepping on his own .... tongue.
And yet he uses the talking points of those "Rambos" which is exactly like I pointed out in my first response to him. Later, he felt the need to talk of his own prowess hunting, something I would easily attribute to a gun toting yokel incapable of using anything other than personal emotional "facts".
So who needs to learn how to read and listen?
Jay, I don't know where you came up wth this Rambo crap. I am far from it.
And, I just don't understand you first paragraph. Perhaps you missed something.
As for the Idaho game department's elk management plans, those pretty much speak for themselves, and managers will admit they do not have all the answers- lots of variables in nature.
Same for the wolf programs, whether its Steve Nadeau in ID or Carolyn Simes in MT, Ed Bangs for the USFWS, or Doug Smith, Dan Stahler or some of the other folks at Yellowstone, Dr. Mech at U of Minn., and Dr. Scott Creel at Montana State. There are many others who work with them, or independently. These folks are in the woods all the time, or studying the data compiled by themselves or others. Their observations are consistent and usually verifiable.
Wolves impact elk behavior and numbers- whether you view that as negative or positive is the subject of great debate. If there are more wolves there will be fewer elk, they will occupy different habitat and they will be more wary. Apparently, professional game managers think different from you, and that is why they want to manage their elk, and now wolves. What's your background that makes you an "expert" of sorts?
I tried to describe an experience last fall - and it could have been just as easily been observations from a fall camping trip, which is really the reason I hunt elk - to be with friends and family. So my observations are anticdotal - big stinking deal. What I and others saw seems consistent with the need to control wolf numbers. What's wrong with that?
And, if your answer is there are too few wolves - inadequate genetic exchange and all - my answer is the experts say there are enough, especially Mech. That will probably come out in the Montana litigation, if Judge Molloy takes the time to review the data and listen to the experts listed above, and others. He may grant an injunction in the meantime, and this first hunt might not happen - and that's OK with me.
Now if you have a beef (pun intended) with those public welfare cattle and sheep grazing leases on federal land, I'm with you. I would love to see better preserved habitat - year round for elk, deer, sage grouse and other animals.
Instead of wasting your time blogging, why not get out there and make some $ and put land into conservation for wildlife...or WORK to have more land designated as wilderness? The National Parks have become insular disneyland-like areas for human recreation and wildlife observation. Killing is by no means the Best or singular "management practice.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-21-09"Apparently, professional game managers think different from you, and that is why they want to manage their elk, and now wolves."
Fiscal decisions are rarely made with the best available science.
You implied that wolves are wiping out elk and deer. That doesn't pan out with the science. You seem to claim that control numbers are indicative of a greater need to kill wolves, yet you show no knowledge of the balance of predator/prey on the population of the predators, and how they are more precipitous due to many of the current conditions, such as diseases due to rising winter temperatures.
I don't believe that these numbers, or decisions, are made with the best science, nor with even a fair knowledge. They give every indication of a desire to stoke those like Toby that have all the brain power of a pack of angry molerats.
You and I may agree on a lot of points, but the anecdotal evidence and your disagreement with Rhiana says that you're more swayed by emotional pleadings than with the actual science behind the ESA and its intentions. Controlling wolves by using hunters is not going to be successful, it will lead to more Toby's that will rampage through the state, hunting wolves whereever and with no direction. Shoot, shovel and shut-up isn't just a cute saying, it is a way of life for people like Toby and Marion. They just don't have the intelligence for anything bigger than that.
I was wondering, How far back do the population studies go for the elk. It seems that the only reason why people feel that the wolves are dwindling the elk population is maybe because the only numbers we can compare to are from post-wolf era 1930's to now. Has anyone asked what was the population like when this country was inhabited by all predators, including this "fearsome" creature. Maybe because we have not had wolves since the '30s, the populations grew to numbers so large that the elk became complacent and 'safe'. Face it...bears and mtn lions dont need as much to eat so its obvious to me whats happening....Didnt wyoming spend like a ton of money trying to kill the coyote to end up realizing that nothing worked because they control their own populations(naturally). Without wolves here, the hunting for big game became more popular because its herds that were hard to find many years ago, grew to numbers of 20,000 and 30,000...That sure does make picking one out a little more enjoyable. I hear people say all the time now in this SW corner of MT that "its getting harder to get my tag filled in all my normal places. Ive had to go much deeper".
Well isnt that what hunting is.....and besides isnt hunting for the meat...wolves probably taste like dog.
Here's something that everyone fails to mention, but the Beaver...yes the mighty once thought disappeared beaver; is making a comeback since the reintroduction of the wolves..Its a fact..look it up..I have my own theory on why this is; but it does remind me of a fable I heard a longtime ago at a rendezvous about the Wolf and the Beaver, in short
The wolf needed water and was at the riverbank having a hard time when it spotted a beaver. The wolf tod the beaver it needed a drink. The beaver responded by telling the wolf to never prey on him and it will see to it that the wolf would have a place to drink. So the wolf has left the beaver alone ever since..
That story was told to me long before wolves were reintroduced and I recently heard that the beaver is making its resurgence. Funny how naturally nature can manage itself.
First of all, wolves do kill beaver, I have photos of it. The Washburn Expedition kept a very good description and count of the flora and fauna, 30,000 was the elk report (it was September). No wolves mentioned, but Mr. Evarts reported hearing howling the last night of his 37 day episode of being lost and without food except weeds. Lt. Doane's report (which was officially reported to congress) is very complete and can be found in his biography, Battle Drums and Geysers by Bonney.
Another book by Schullery on Wolves in Yellowstone, documents 5 wolf reports, msot of which were sounds, between 1869 and 1880.
Schullery's book is one of the msot complete documents of the wolves. I'm going to try to post the link, on google as it is all online, don't know if the site will take it as it is long.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7te9jmFJcrcC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Norris+Firehole+elk+herd&source=bl&ots=vsXvIlTkmD&sig=ncKkNUywAem1qxKyu0aq5_wwVT0&hl=en&ei=PbyKStWHCJLuswPltIHODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q;=&f=false
The Fearsome Beast: Before white Europeans began poopulating the new world, there were millions of native ungulates, Deer, Elk, Antelope, Bison and hundreds of thousands of predators, Wolves, Coyotes, Grizzles, Black Bear, Bobcats, in balance. If the wolves were capable of driving ungulates into extinction, they would have done it long before the white man arrived. Native American tribal lore does not view the Wolf as a fearsome beast. If you're looking for a real Fearsome Beast, take a look in the mirror before you grab your gun and run out the door to kill something, paleface.
Comment By CBear, 8-23-09Coyotes are controlled by the food of their prey base (large number of rabbits means large number of coyotes followed by down cycle of rabbits means fewer coyotes - so the biology texts say), but that is all screwed up because man supplements the base with all kinds of things, like chickens, lambs, calves, dogs and cats. That is why FWS, and agency of the Dept. of Agriculture spends alot of time and your tax dollars controlling coyote numbers across the entire United States.
Don't know what is going on in WY, but suspect lots of coyotes are still lethally exterminated by government and ranchers who don't like the coyotes getting lambs or calves. Wolves also feed on some of the carrion of natural mortality wildlife, depriving coyotes of some - and that may even affect coyote numbers in some area, but probably not by much.
I don't know where you got your information on bears, but they too kill elk calves - lots of very young ones in the Spring, then wolves are the biggest killers of elk calves after about 6 months.
And your question about historic elk populations goes back alot further than the 1930's since so many factors have affected numbers. Before Europeans showed first in the East and then the West, in large numbers, there was lots of everything. Even wolves and elk in the East. In some areas elk were plains animals, as were buffalo. There was market hunting in the 1800's, for all edible large game before the turn of the century, and that is when the elk herds started going down in great numbers, to the point that in the 1930's some elk herds had to be reinvigorated by new transplanted elk to wiped out areas. Wolves were viewed as competition for what game remained, and expanding livestock operations, so they were systematically extirpated. However, at the same time logging and clearing of forest overstory allowed for revegetation of plants that were great for elk. This worked much the same way that forest fires allowed for succession of plants. On the down side, man has eliminated or made unavailable much critical winter habitat by developement and stock grazing. If elk do not have lower elevation winter habitat they starve in the deep snow with no forage. An increasing present day population of wolves is also keeping elk from even their reduced winter range habitat, according to recent studies, making them lose weight and have fewer calves.
Does anyone realize that wolves were killed off in the east long before the west was settled? Surely even the most ardent wolf lover doesn't think that was the fault of the western rancher.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 8-23-09Todd,
what point do you have to make with that triviality? Join Marion wherever it went.
The point would be that wolves have been killed by man for survival since the beginning of time. I am sick of hearing how the greedy western rancher killed them all off & must be forced to feed and care for all of the wolves enviros can stuff into a predator crowded ecosystem, no matter the cost to said ranchers.
Comment By scatcounter, 8-24-09Jay, I think if you do your research, you will find that most Northern Europe, Russia, China, India and other societies that have had wolves present in areas they have inhabited have reduced or eliminated wolf populations over the last 400 years, as technology allowed them to do so (gunpowder and accurate rifles). This has been done for the very reasons we are discussing on this forum. In India, for example, where wolves are sacred to the Hindi, they killed or seriously injured 74 humans in a two year period. (Source: Wikipedia - "wolf attacks on humans" I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the source, but seems well documented)
Scandanavian countries - Norway, Sweden and Finland have nearly wiped out all their wolves for longer than the US -predation on livestock seems to be the problem there. These countries maintain small populations, and some of the research that has been done on those populations has been the basis for the reintroduction the gray wolf in the NRM.
There have recently been a fair number of attacks on dogs in Eastern Canada, and in the US the Department of Agriculture -Wildlife Services Division has had reports of 131 wolf attacks on dogs so far this year, a number of them in Wisconsin with its growing wolf population. That is about twice the reports of last year.
It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers the states will show in their annual reports for 2009, early next year.
Scatcounter is correct about the wikipedia article. Look at the stats on humans killed by wolves over the last couple hundred years around the world. Invention of firearms seems to have been the big deterrent that reduced the number of wolves and/or educated them that they should stay away from humans.
I am amazed, however, to learn of the huge number of children that have been killed historically, and the recurring incidents involving rabid wolves. Of course, lack of reports or documentation that goes back more than a hundred years probably results in severe underestimation of numbers of incidents to livestock, pets and humans, as well as human deaths.
I continue to be amazed by wolf advocate assertions that "no human has been killed in the US by a healthy wolf." First that is not a true statement based on the data shown. Second, even if the historic attacks are attributed to rabid wolves, it makes no difference to the person injured or dead, or to their families. Rabies is still a risk factor for any wolf in the woods.
The above being said, more people and dogs are injured or killed by grizzlies, black bear and cougar, than wolves. But then, wolves have not been present in larger numbers the US for the last 70 years. Perhaps the statistics will change.
Todd, do you even remotely understand the conversation here? Do you understand that it isn't that Americans wiped out the wolf populations back in the 1800's, but it is the fact that a reintroduction is being fought by greedy ranchers? And what do the east and the west have to do with each other in reference to wolves? Idaho has more wilderness where wolves can roam than any other state.
Did you actually think comparing east and west was some kind of argument against wolves? Or were you just throwing out some kind of lame argument in order to try to remain relevant?
And scat, yes, I know read about most of those. Wolves consider dogs and coyotes to be rivals for food and will kill them when they first move into a new territory (seek them out for killing). For some strange reason that I haven't been able to find, wolves also wipe out large numbers of prey when they are forced to move territories.
kanta,
i think you dont see the point here. nowhere in the article does it mention ranchers. IFG is not trying to exterminate all wolves. this is the first attempt at a hunt to control the population. their job is to manage wolves. they will do a good job and base next years hunt on its results.
try to stay on the subject jay
Jay, I certainly do not profess to speak for Todd, but let me take a crack at responding to your comment.
'And what do the east and west have to do with each other with reference to wolves?"
Wolves were present in the East, and Mid-West, and across much of America before large scale human settlement. Several wolf advocacy groups are pushing a "national wolf management plan." That seems to entail reintroduction to much of the historic range that once accomodated some 300,000 wolves throughout the country. I have not researched the geographic areas where they want wolves, but say Upstate NY, Pennsylavania, Vermont and New Hampshire were target locations. The issues that are currently present in the West, will undoubtedly be some of the same that would come up in those areas. The North Atlantic states would be concerned about impacts on moose and deer, as well as dairy and cattle operations. Penn and NY and a number of other states would be concerned about deer and dairy/cattle operations, as well as impacts on newly reintroduced elk. Yes, elk are being reintroduced in many states. Wisconsin will likely have an elk hunt next year. And, of course everybody would be concerned about more direct human - wolf interactions, like the family dog, or some 8 year old kid waiting at the rural bus stop in winter. Also see my post above, regarding rabid wolves.
Why do you suppose those 20 states rejected Idaho's offer of excess wolves a few months ago? I would like to know how many states will step forward to embrace the wolf advocates' proposed "national wolf management plan."
If we were to send back about 15-20 million illegal aliens to their countries of origin (mostly south of the US southern border), we might have room for a few more wolves. Human population growth and development is the biggest threat to wildlife. Now there is a subject the Sierra Club and Defenders should take on.
And let me close the logic loop for Dave. Wolf numbers must be controlled wherever they are reintroduced. ID and MT have been very responsible in their selection of initial harvest numbers, especially since the reported and verifiable wolf population is in reality probably at least 20% higher than the reported numbers.
WI will likely have a wolf hunt next year, with MI, and MN to follow. Maybe WY will have one under the close supervision of USFWS (I see no reason they could not do an intergovernmental agreement to cover just that), if they can't come up with their own management plan that gets rid of the ridiculous Predator zone.
"they will do a great job"
Yeah, sure. 220 licenses, how many Shoot-Shovel-Shutup kills, and when will actual science manage wolves instead of allowing hunters and greedy ranchers to determine the management criteria?
As for back east, they don't have wolves, yet. So yes, I was trying to stay on topic, unlike Todd that thinks that he can remain relevant through posting nonsense.
And there you have it...those who think wolves wiping out our elk are the greatest thing since Swiss Cheese...and those of us who think otherwise and fully plan to turn wolves into a substance resembling Swiss Cheese this fall...with enough holes to get the job done.
I plan to have one of those Montana wolf tags in my pocket when I hike into the Bob Marshall next month. And I could care less about killing a wolf as a trophy...but I will kill wolves to do my part to stop the carnage of our other wildlife. And like the majority of sportsmen, who really do value our elk herds, I plan to take at least one wolf out - whether the wolf hunt gets the legal go ahead or not.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Scatcounter,
I'm not sure if you had the time or gumption to scroll all the way down to the topic in your source sub-titled "In folklore and mythology" under "Relationships with humans" but you may want to do so in order to understand the hatred or disdain towards wolves that continues to run rampant in Idaho and the rest of "your" 400 year, modern world.
Your source clearly links the "Christian" Doctrine within European Cultures to the near demise or extermination of the Wolf.
Would it then be fair to argue that the "near" demise of the Wolf in the U.S. as a whole is also linked to the dominating "Christian" Doctrine found prevalent in the State of Idaho as well as the rest of the US?
I would certainly argue that it is.
To Bennett,
Sorry sport, I am agnostic.
The sub-article you refer to says. "Humans historically have had a complex and varied viewpoint of wolves. In many parts of the world, wolves were respected and revered, while in others they were feared and held in distaste. The latter viewpoint was notably accentuated in European folklore beginning in the Christian era, though wolves did feature as heraldic animals on the arms and crests of numerous noble families."
The text then follows with a number of negative references to wolves in non-Christian cultures.
I have no idea what the author meant by that overview. I suspect management of wolves in modern times has very little to do with religion. The kinds of crap some of you pinheads come up with never ceases to amaze me.
You make way too much of this...I speak of the "Sportsman's Doctrine", if you must put a title to it. And it simply goes as follows...
Circa 1880-1900...Susbsistence hunting and market harvest of elk, deer and other big game brings big game populations in the West to an all-time low (not sport hunting). Likewise, as the West is settled, predators such as the wolf were drastically reduced, and eliminated in many areas, to permit viable raising of livestock to feed a growing human population (the same humans that elk and deer once fed).
Circa 1900-1910...Continued ranching in the West (to feed a still growing human population) called for further removal of major predators, primarily the wolf.
Circa 1920s-mid 1990s...Sportsmen who valued healthy elk, deer and other big game populations (wildlife in general), invest billions of dollars which finance conservation efforts (and wildlife departments) to rebuild big game populations from near nothing to record numbers (without any help from lame "environmental" organizations such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, or the so-called Center For Biological Diversity).
1995-Present...The foolish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a very misguided federal court system force the "Wolf Recovery Project" upon the Northern Rockies - and big game populations which took nearly a hundred years (and billions of sportsman dollars) to rebuild quickly decline as an uncontrolled and unmanaged wolf population is allowed to run rampant and spread like a disease on the land. Elk herds in some areas drop 30- to 40-percent due to wolf predation, and elk calf survival in others is so low that the numbers cannot sustain a huntable herd - just as the anti-hunting "enviornmental" groups want it.
Present-????...Sportsmen take up arms, with or without federal government approval, and totally eliminate the gray wolf throughout the American West - for the second time.
If it is war the enviros want...it's war they're going to get.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Gee Toby, If you really wanted to make your point, you would shoot your wolf and carry the carcass to the federal courthouse steps and wait for the federal marshal or other law enforcement to arrest you.
Doing it your way scares the h.... out of me, and is kind of disinegenuous to the cause, truly illegal (if delisting gets stopped) and maybe even un-American. Get some cajones, dude.
Scatcounter,
The reference to "Christian" Doctrine and it's link to the European decimation of wolves and other predators appears to be over your "head" as you proclaim to be agnostic. Chances are you're most likely of European stock so we'll stick to your references of Europe and historical human/predator interactions or relationships and how this has transcended into American psyche and management/politics of natural resources today, inherent or not.
Your statement of "I suspect management of wolves in modern times has very little to do with religion." is my case in point. If you recall, the "Nez Perce Tribe", via the "dropping of the ball" of US FISH & WILDLIFE and IDFG, were instrumental in the restoration efforts of Wolf populations in Idaho. Myriad of publications, folk lore etc. link the Nez Perce Tribe and the Wolf as "cultural cousins" with both societies exhibiting severe impacts to their survival. However, as an agnostic, I suspect you wouldn't understand that relationship. Nor the relationships of the noble families who held out with wolves on their shields, despite the pressure to take on this "newly" founded hatred of other predators.
As I type these words on a piece of ground where the Nez Perze and Coeur d'Alene Tribes once met for trading, I can visualize (or in this case romanticize) what it would have been like to be indigenous and those interactions with a wolf including an actual taking and the weight that comes with it.
So if you're on this forum to talk about historical human/predator interactions as well as cultural survival, you've come to the right place. And if you're hear just to call ENVIROs names, my hopes are that you will stay and take home some historical "cultural" or "religious" messages.
And the "Pinhead" title would have been a group I would have fitted into well 25 years ago learning how to telemark ski up at Pilot's Peak at the age of 12...these days though, the Fat Bastards and Hammerheads put me into a different "cultural" category. One that spans 10,000 of thousands of years. And one that you will probably never relate to.
Toby,
do you ever tire of being a complet putz.
I second Cbear, go shoot a wolf, I'll send you a picture of one so you don't nail the neighbors poodle, and go down to the federal courthouse in Missoula on the 31st of Aug and show us what you are made of.
However I suspect that you are all talk and no show.
Yes, Jeffe, we are aware that Malloy has given you a hearing the 31st on whether to stop the wolf hunt, and since he has never to the best of my knowledge ruled against the rich enviros, I'm sure he will stop the hunt again, there are still ranchers around.
Comment By lulz, 8-24-09Malloy is an activist judge and is most likely, if not guaranteed stop the hunt.
Comment By Todd, 8-25-09I'd say the chances are 99.9% that he will stop the hunt. You know the wolf introduction is one of the reasons I and others are not impressed by what our politicians say they are going to do with the health care or anything else for that matter. They SAID 300 wolves in the three states, they WROTE a lot of legalese into a big bill that gave them the right to have unlimited wolves and keep them protected forever. What lawyer politicians say is totally different from the way they write a bill. that is why it takes a thousand pages to hide real intentions, and make sure lawyers can interpret it anyway they want.
Comment By logger, 8-25-09Toby..I.Suppose you'll be armed when you "go into the Bob".
That kinda gives you an advantage, doesn't it? But, then, that's the only way your kind operate....big gun, little dick. Makes up for amounting to "Nothing" in life....gives you the "power" you never have otherwise.
Bet you have a big rig, a snowmobile and an ATV also.
Toby sounds like a poacher. As a hunter I will turn his pathetic ass in if I hear of wolves being killed illegally anywhere near him. You people are missing the point. Judge Malloy is going to stop the hunt because the management plans are not sufficiently changed to address his concerns when he gave wolves back the protections. READ HIS DECISION. Then tell me how the western states have changed their management plans to accomodate Malloy's decision. People like Toby and Gov Otter are the ones that are politicizing this issue
Comment By JEFF E, 8-25-09Todd,
Yes he did.
And I think that to give the states the best chance of prevailing Toby should be made the official representative in the scheduled hearing.
What say you?
However I believe Toby will fold up like a cheap suit if he ever had to actually back up any of his statements.
Hunters snatch up more than 4,000 wolf tags in first day
By Nate Poppino
Times-News writer
JEROME - Hunters lined up across the state Monday morning to purchase wolf tags, as a federal judge agreed to hold a hearing exactly one week later on whether the hunt should go forward.
Responding to a motion for an injunction against the hunts filed last week in Montana, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy on Monday announced he'll hold a three-hour hearing on the morning of Aug. 31 - the day before Idaho's earliest hunts are set to begin.
The injunction, requested by the environmental groups that argue the wolves shouldn't have been taken off the endangered species list, is similar to a successful injunction that stopped hunting last year - including an argument that the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana won't be able to interbreed enough to sustain a healthy population. The two states will allow hunters to shoot up to 295 of the estimated 1,350 wolves in the region, not counting wolves allotted to tribal hunts.
South-central Idaho hunters, though concerned about the possible injunction, joined a wave of their peers across the state that led to about 1,200 tags sold within the first half-hour, despite some computer troubles. Small groups lined up at businesses such as Silver Creek Outfitters in Ketchum, and about 30 people waited to buy their tags at the regional Idaho Department of Fish and Game office near Jerome. The agency has said it will refund hunters if the season is blocked.
Shane Harrison of Jerome arrived at the Twin Falls Sportsman's Warehouse shortly after 10 a.m. He said he was buying a tag because of the effect wolves have had on elk herds where he hunts by Mackay.
"I've been watching the calendar," he said.
Not everyone standing in line at the store was aware the tags had gone on sale. But a couple of people argued that the animals have caused so many problems that Idahoans shouldn't have to buy tags to shoot them.
"A human being's going to have to be killed by one before they say, 'Open it up,'" said Jeannette Hathaway of Twin Falls.
Hunters were split on how easy their hunt would be. Standing outside Fish and Game regional headquarters near Jerome, Gene Dulling recalled recently stumbling on a pack in the Little Wood drainage and declared the canines wouldn't be hard to hunt. Others figure the wolves will catch on quickly.
"The first little bit will be easy because they're not shot at that much," said Gail Lewis of Jerome, adding the wolves will hopefully pull back into the backcountry once they realize what's going on.
Supporters of the wolf-reintroduction effort stayed largely quiet on Monday. One exception - Washington, D.C.-based Friends of Animals, led by Priscilla Feral - called for a national boycott on Idaho potatoes, criticizing Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's support of the hunt.
About 4,000 tags were sold statewide by mid-afternoon. Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Jerome Hansen said agency staff are hopeful the hunt will go forward, and are excited to both manage the wolves and offer the hunt as a recreational opportunity. Not sure how many people to expect Monday morning, the office set out coffee and zucchini bread for people standing in line.
"It's kind of a momentous day," Hansen said.
Come on boys, stop crying...all your type ever do is to analyze things to death...and never accomplish anything.
You'd think the lot of you are Democrats who work for the government, waiting for another government hand out...without a worry how, who or what will have to pay for it down the road. Hey, come to think of it, because of folks like you we're in the trouble we're in right now - with wolves destroying our other big game populations.
If you don't think so, then you boys don't get out much...do you?
Plan A is in place now...if Malloy screws it up...rest assured Plan B will take care of the problem.
Wolves are going to die.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Hey toby- like I said before- if I hear of one wolf shot anywhere near your pathetic ass, I will personally turn you in to the authorities- you are nothing more than a common poacher coward.
Comment By Todd, 8-25-09C'mon, hunters nor poachers nor both together can possible take as many wolves as the feds have killed. That is why you had them hauled in isn't it?
Comment By Toby Bridges, 8-25-09budpg...
Please do...then I can keep them busy while other concerned sportsmen knock a few more of the elk killing bastards off.
Takes more than the baby doll crying of an out-of-touch-with-reality anti-hunting enviro-nut to get someone arrested. Plus, there isn't enough jail space for all who are going to pull the trigger on a wolf this fall. Likewise, there's more law enforcement here that will side with hunters than you wolf huggers. You see, they hunt as well...and they are also sick and tired of the damage wolves are doing to our big game herds.
One of the local TV stations here in Missoula conducted a poll to see who was in favor of a wolf hunt and who wasn't. And 77% voted for the hunt, and just 22% voted against it...with only 1% undecided.
We might not get 'em all...but we're going to put one hell of a dent in their numbers.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Toby,
IF the hunt is stopped you will just roll over and stick your butt in the air just like always. All talk, no action.
Jeff E...
Just keep on thinking that way. Got a couple of really long range tactical rifles that need to be put to good use...and I know where there are four very brazen wolves that are already "targets of
opportunity".
I have a feeling you wouldn't know "action" if it ran up and bit you on the ass.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Personally I don't think Toby is big enough to hold a rifle, seems he has trouble marking the outhouse wall with what he does have. The mentality he shows is the same as the people that say they will start shooting cattle if the elk get the same treatment the Bison have been getting. Talk about childish.
Comment By logger, 8-26-09You're right, Ann......chances are he was abused as a child. One of the symptoms of this type personality.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/idaho_approves_wolf_hunt_ruckus_ahead/C559/L559/