New West Analysis
What’s Behind Judge Molloy’s Questioning of ‘Experimental’ Status for Wolves?
Molloy has asked attorneys for wildlife management agencies and the environmental groups that have sued them to prepare briefs by Feb. 22. At issue: whether Northern Rockies wolves are genetically diverse enough to still fit original reintroduction rules.
By Brodie Farquhar, 2-07-11
Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy asked attorneys for wildlife management agencies and environmental groups to answer this question: Can the Northern Rockies wolf population still be considered an “experimental” population, or has there been enough cross-breeding with Canadian wolves to declare there’s no danger of genetic isolation or inbreeding?
The answer may be critically important, because the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-90s was predicated on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calling those wolves an “experimental, non-essential species.”
This designation not only allowed wolves to be reintroduced to the tri-state region of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, it also gave the FWS the flexibility to essentially consider the wolves a large-scale experiment in reintroduction. Without that designation as experimental, the wolves would have fallen under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act and could not be so readily killed when they got into conflicts with livestock. (Great Lakes wolves are not experimental and do occasionally attack and kill livestock, which does prompt control measures.)
Molloy wrote that in the special rule published in March of 2010, FWS noted it does not intend to reevaluate the “nonessential experimental” designation given to the reintroduced wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains. Instead, the service indicated it would not alter the 10(j) status until the gray wolf of the northern Rocky Mountains is recovered and delisted.
Citing relevant statutes, Judge Molloy said distinct populations can only be considered “experimental when they are wholly separate geographically from non-experimental populations of the same species.”
Yet according to the service’s own research and Dept. of Interior attorneys, wrote Molloy, there has been documented dispersal and genetic exchange between Northern Rockies wolves and Canadian wolves – enough to raise the question of whether the 1,700-strong Northern Rockies wolves are still so genetically isolated from the 12,000-strong population of Canadian wolves, as to retain the status of “experimental.”
Molloy has asked attorneys for both sides to prepare briefs (not to exceed 2,500 words) by Feb. 22, to answer whether Northern Rockies wolves are “experimental.”
Molloy’s order, issued Jan. 28, emerged from a lawsuit filed in 2008 by environmental groups (Defenders of Wildlife, et al), objecting to newly proposed rules, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which could make it easier to kill wolves so as to protect deer, elk and moose herds.
That rule, no doubt, was prompted by widening concerns that herd numbers are going down and the widespread perception by many hunters that wolves are to blame. Trouble is, science doesn’t pin all or even most of the blame on wolves – not when there are other predators, human hunting, drought and forage conditions to consider as well.
Interior attorneys have extrapolated from studies that wolves are dispersing widely and breeding. Yet those studies could be attacked as being fairly weak, rather than statistically robust. Just because a few Idaho and Montana wolves have moved toward Canada and Canadian wolves have dispersed down into Idaho and Montana, does that really mean widespread genetic exchange? How much is enough? Do we have enough data to answer that question?
Opposition to wolf reintroduction from the ranching community might have been even more forceful had there been no experimental 10(j) designation. While the environmental community might have preferred a straightforward reintroduction with no caveats about the reintroduced wolves being experimental, that designation was widely understood to be a political compromise, designed to get wolf reintroduction off dead center.
The implicit deal for ranchers is that wolves that attacked livestock would be quickly killed. The implicit deal for the environmentalists is that wolves would quickly spread into good habitat that had abundant prey species and little opportunity or need to attack livestock.
To a great degree, both the environmental groups and the wildlife agencies (federal and state) would like to maintain the status quo, because 10(j) does create flexibility in dealing with wolves that attack livestock. If 10(j) goes away, so does the flexibility of targeting individual wolves and packs, or of allowing wolf hunts to draw down wolf numbers.
On the other hand, there may be those in the environmental community who would like to have wolves under straight ESA protection, and thereby have fewer losses to the guns of Wildlife Services or state big-game hunters. It might be viewed as a triumph for reintroduction, that Northern Rockies wolves now have genetic connectivity with their Canadian relations, and that genetic isolation is no longer to be feared.
And yet, that very triumph might set the stage for declaring the grey wolf to be recovered, or well on its way to recovery, and no longer needing ESA protections.
It gets complicated when law gets mixed in with biology and ecology. Add politics, and the complication factor grows by levels of magnitude. There are bills afoot in state legislatures and in Congress to turn wolf management over to the states and to strip wolves of ESA protections (regardless of law or science).
However the attorneys reply to Molloy’s order on Feb. 22, the semantics fight will only continue.
Brodie Farquhar is a natural resources freelance writer who has covered the salmon wars of the Northwest, water controversies in Colorado and Arizona and, for the past 10 years, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Northern Rockies. His home is in Casper, Wyoming.
... time for yet another NewWest medieval jousting tourney to commence. The squires are horsing the knights. Sir Todd, Sir Bigsky , Sir (Wolfhater)(Wolfbaiter).
Comment By dave, 2-07-11okay dewey, the same goes for the other side, get a grip.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-07-11Aside from the fact that the 10j aspect of the Yellowstone/Central Idaho wolf reintroduction has been a disaster--that political compromise has not lead to any compromise or ecological understanding or acceptance of wolves from the livestock industry, that's for sure--the real sticking point in delisting wolves is still Wyoming's dual status law that allows for treating wolves emigrating outside of NW Wyoming as "predatory animals" liable to be shot on sight.
The original federal regulation that authorized reintroducion in 1994 specifically declared that delisting could not occur as long as wolves were classified as "predatory animals" in Wyoming. That 1994 regulation still applies.
In short, the state of Wyoming has deliberately undermined the delisting of wolves by its own intransigence over dual status. Had Wyoming gone with "trophy game" status for wolves in 2002, which means statewide regulation of hunting, the species would have been permanently delisted 5 years ago.
Wyoming's intransigence over dual status simply means that no one would now accept Wyoming's word that it would sustainably manage wolves under any legal designation.
RH
Interesting debate when it comes to science and policy and how issues can arrive between the two and then throw in some social challenges, as well... Izilwane, a new non-profit conservation-oriented ezine, recently published a similar discussion about how the conflict OVER wolves is often more costly and more stressful than the wolves themselves. It poses similar arguments and ideas, and can be found here: http://www.izilwane.org/lessons-from-wolves.html
Comment By Dewey, 2-07-11Dave et al - mount up and ride right in. I'm staying out of this one. It would be just another fete of flinging of feces at the same old same old intransigent wolfhaters and angry trogs. I no longer enjoy your company, wouldn't sit next to you on a public bus, and the discourse is meaningless after the first few posts. Just another unmoderated NewWest circle jerk
Seen this movie before.
Groundhog Day.
Six more weeks of wolf baiting.
Besides, Hoskins' comment above is all that need be said. QED.
Oh, phooey, Dewey.
Molloy's ruling has two angles.
In general, the "fill all niches" plaintiffs in this case (14-DWM) want to vacate a rule emplaced under 10j, when it was modified to allow predation of wildlife herds.
In case 56, part of the problem was not only evil Wyoming, but a lack of genetic interchance.
But in case 77 Consolidated, it was an "undisputed fact" agreed by both sides that genetic interchange and interbreeding is occuring, and with a 10j supposed to be isolated from any "real" endangered critters, are they, or ain't they.
Angle One: Molloy clears his docket by declaring any discussion of 10j moot. Case 14 is dismissed. That might cost Defenders an EAJA paycheck, as well as their argument that the Hatfield wolves are not boinking the McCoy wolves, but they should be happy with that. Why?
Molloy also gets to vacate the 10j rules completely because the experimental population has now become part of The Endangered Blob. No shootie no more by anyone except USFWS. Defenders wins on the ground.
Angle Two: If Molloy vacates the 10j status, then the specter is raised, if these wolves are in fact all Hatfields now, running the hot-date circuit from Dubois to Fernie, then they become part of the larger, connected, contiguous population of not-endangered, not-threatened Canuckistanian/North American wolves.
Seems to me that Molloy is being too clever for his own good. If he rules that connectivity is functional, but insists on keeping the wolves on the list, such a thing might be the trigger point for Congress to go ahead and render Molloy moot.
Will Defenders move to dismiss without prejudice? I would. But I'm sane, and Defenders are kooks. They'll ride this one in, fer shure.
The science Farquhar? Ha Ha , What science? Funny how wildlife herds are diminishing at an alarming rate where ever wolves have been established for more than a few years. The science that the number of elk in yellowstone is down 70% because of habitat loss? Moose numbers to 114 last year, no doubt alot less than 100 now....all because of habitat loss? The human hunting angle is out the window. Not enough elk to have much of a season anymore and only the token moose tag to bring in money for the fish and game coffers.
The genetic angle went out the window awhile back. This just puts it on paper.
What I don't understand is if they are no longer an experimental population and have ties (breed) with their canadian cousins, then why are they considered endangered? Why not consider them part of the canadian population, which has never been put under the endangered status? Apparently political boundaries have no meaning to wolves.
Thinking you maybe covered that dave.....
Really does not matter what the environmental judge does anyway.
The rules are about to be changed to protect the people and the wildlife of our states.
Good Dewey, I don't wanna have lunch with you either......
Wolves have been here in my watershed, the upper Wind River Basin, for 15 years. We now have 3 packs. Nevertheless, G&F;is proposing increased cow-calf licenses to bring the elk herd within objective. I suppose Big Sky has no rational explanation for that.
Moose have been in trouble here for some time. The reason? Habitat. Willow communities are decadent and seriously overbrowsed in many watersheds. We haven't had the necessary flooding that would regenerate the riparian plant communities that moose depend on. Wolves have had nothing to do with the sorry state of the vegetation.
Unless Big Sky is going to claim he knows my watershed better than I do, I suggest he listen more than speak.
RH
Well, Mr. Hoskins, I don't believe you, but I will check it out......
Comment By big sky, 2-07-11Well, I can see you are an advocate of wolves, Mr. Haskins.
Ask Fritz Meyer, your neighbor out there. He has a different opinion......
Your elk numbers are dropping, dropping, dropping.....
Moose about nonexistant.....
Keep making excuses about habitat, forest fires, etc. Your moose will be gone in another 10 years......just like yellowstone
Sometimes its better to look at the whole picture, and also to put PEOPLE into the equation.....
It's precisely when we put people into the equation that the problems begin...you can plainly see that by looking at the whole picture.
GIGO
GIGO?
As in GIGO Molloy? Sounds about right.
See Dewey, thats your problem....
PEOPLE are in the equation, and they can't be taken out.
What you are alluding to is the dream of NO PEOPLE in the area. Would be better then? Oh, I forget, YOU will still be here to enjoy it.
You can't solve problems of this nature without feedback from the people who live and work in the area. In particular, the people who are most affected by this wolf disaster. Government employees don't count. They live off the rest of us.
Big sky, it's so funny seeing an unknowledgable person such as yourself accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about just because they may like wolves unlike you. I think anyone on here can perfectly see you are an anti wolf extremist. Don't bother denying it either. Anyone whose opinion you don't agree with, you accuse them of lying. I also believe it was you who said before on here that you went out to shoot wolves. Not very bright of you. You are the typical ignorant rural low iq redneck from Montana.
Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-08-11Big Sky
Figured you'd call Fritz. Problem is, Fritz is wrong. G&F;data don't support him. You can find the annual herd unit reports on the G&F;website. Happy reading.
RH
Oh Ron, why must you stoop to bigotry in attempting to push your hate for those who do not agree with you?
You might want to reread his comments as he is making some very valid points.
The truth is, there just isn't any science that makes any valid reason while these wolves should still be protected, none. And the more Molloy tinkers with it, the more he risks federal actions.
You wolf huggers have seriously overreached, thought you would never be called on the carpet for it, but you are wrong.
So many of the claims have been shown to be complete BS.
Like Hoskins claim of over browsing by elk. I am sorry, but the elk didn't seem to be the problem as they still aren't recovering even after a 70% drop in elk populations.
The claim that elk were overpopulated in Yellowstone, yet we now learn that YS held in excess of 14,000 elk in the Northern herd the very day the park opened and has traditionally held 12,000 plus elk. The only time elk numbers have dropped below that was due to human intervention which included large scale slaughter and the creation of unnatural predator levels which now have them locked into a predator pit.
Genetic connectivity? Another pile if wild claims that has no real foundation in science. The obvious ignoring of Dr. Mech's testimony and vast experience in this area of wolves, further highlights the willingness to ignore real science to keep the cash cow for animal rights groups alive so they can continue to leech millions of tax dollars off the system to fill their coffers.
Molloy's last ruling further highlights the hypocrisy of his beliefs where he rules that political boundary's have no meaning to wolves, and then implements political boundary's in his ruling. And now he seriously stretches his authority. I am still trying to get an answer where he has authority to issue an order to show case since the case is already under appeal and moving to higher court.
Barry
Actually I was clearly referring to moose overbrowsing in the Dubois area, not elk.
We do have a real problem of elk overbrowsing in Jackson Hole due to too many elk on the National Elk Refuge, a problem that Olaus Murie first reported 70 years ago. I made no comment about the Northern Range.
Jumping to conclusions the way you do, you don't have any credibility.
RH
Barry just got owned. Take ya anti-wolf butt back to some anti-wolf blog.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-08-11Actually,
I don't think Molloy has a consistent view of the genetics at all. Not with his leftie history as an activist trial lawyer for TPLJ. But he's going to outmaneuver himself here.
If he vacates the 10j status, that's a huge green light for a delisting.
If the 10j is vacated because the population is now a unit, then the reasoning for denying the predator zone goes out the window, too. There's no population to interchange with between Minnesota and Wyoming -- and the linkage concept is not operative by any stretch of the imagination.
Only if Colorado puts wolves on the ground is there any possible need for "corridors" -- and given the punishment inflicted on the wolf states, Colorado sportsmen will not take that sitting down. Such a thing will turn them into single issue voters.
A delisting may be what Molloy wants in order to keep Congress from acting on the exemption bills by defusing the issue.
Might be where he's going -- he's clever enough to think that way. But the fact remains that the man has burned through his welcome from the vast majority of non-Greens, and we can't wait for him to finally leave the stage. We'll certainly support anything that takes away some of his unjust powers.
Would there have even been a wolf introduction in the begining without the 10(j) rule, which allowed importation of the wolves from a foreign country? Now that the wolves are all "American born" and greatly multiplied, enviros want them fully protected.
Comment By big sky, 2-08-11Personally, Robert or Ron, I could care less what you think.
Allowing these wolves to destory the livihoods of people is not in the best interests of your country, or mine.
Put some reality into the equation and quit lying to make your point.
Your moose are going because of wolves, not habitat destruction. Keep pretending, and you will be looking at no moose in the future.
The real issue here is whether people like you have the right to destory other wildlife populations and livihoods for people for the sake of these killers.
Whats the matter, Robert? Can't stand it that even your neighbors don't agree with you?
Todd
The 10j provision of the ESA is a management provision relating to geographically isolated populations of an endangered or threatened species, nothing more. Politically, the 10j provision is a compromise that assumed that a reintroduced species such as the wolf would gain more support from locals if it could be controlled, an option not available under normal ESA designation. That assumption has proven false.
Be that as it may, without the 10j provision, wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone would have been placed under the full protection of the ESA, regardless of where the individual wolves came from. The ESA did not and does not restrict the source of individuals for restoration programs, to include "foreign" countries such as Canada.
Indeed, wolves had been coming into the States from Canada for years. That's why wolves in NW Montana that entered from Canada on their own four feet have always been under the full protection of the ESA.
When are you going to do your homework before making absurd, factually incorrect statements? Your credibility has long since slipped to negative numbers.
RH
Big Sky
I am a scientist. My neighbors are not. Science matters a hell of lot more than politics or ideology.
The facts do not support your claim that wolves are wiping out either moose and elk, either here or elsewhere in the ecosystem. The facts do support my claim that moose habitat is degraded and decadent. The facts do support my claim that the Wiggins Fork Elk Herd is at or over objective, which is why we continue to see late season cow-calf hunts here.
As I said, you can find the facts on the G&F;website in the Job Completion Reports for each species. If you're too lazy to look into the facts, that's your problem, not mine.
RH
Sorry Robert, but you just made my point.....
Any research done by prowolf biologists is suspect. I do now hold scientists (as you call yourself) in high regard in any sense of the word. Nor do I think you know much more than the common man who spends much more time out actually seeing what is left to see of wildlife.
The problem with people like yourself is that you cannot see people in the equation. You want your natural system to be competely natural; which of course it cannot be with people living in the area.
But there is really not much sense talking to someone who thinks they are an "expert" on a topic they have already made their minds up about.
When the last moose is gone from wolf predation, many will be looking for people like you to blame for it, be sure of that, and they will be right.
Afterall, there is no money for research into wolves without a controversy.
Facts conjoured up magically about how all those elk and moose disappeared because of a lack of habitat. Ridiculous at best.
Big Sky
I'm going to try one more time. Wyoming G&F;Herd Unit Reports are located here: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/index.asp. We are in the Lander Region.
Prove me wrong.
I'll close with a quotation from Fritz' website (http://www.windrivermountainoutfitters.com/hunting.html):
"We have had over a 90% kill on bulls for many years with about 50% being 6 points."
We conduct most of our elk hunts from our wilderness base camp. It is very comfortable with a large cook tent and several wall tents supplied with cots, pads and wood stoves and more. Wolves have not been a problem for our camp....yet."
Sounds to me as if Fritz' elk hunting is going pretty well so far.
RH
once again Honeywagon Dickinson shows a remarkable lack of comprehension of the issues involved, but will continue to live up to her moniker and spread manure throughout the blogosphere.
Comment By Barry, 2-08-11Actually Robert, if you really want to talk about credibility, perhaps you would be so happy as to tell us how many paychecks you have ever pulled that didn't come out of the public coffers.
You can make any claim you want, but the truth is, there is no evidence of over browsing in either place, by either species.
When it comes to credibility, someone who has lived off the public their entire life and perpetuates the federal takeover of everything that rightly belongs to the states, I would say that kind of take away your failed claims that you and you alone in your area claim.
And again I see you are throwing more misinformation. The 10(j) wasn't about acceptance, it was about providing management WHEN their predator began impacting the people who lived in the area they chose to dump them in. The introduced wolves were required to be kept separate, which means the USFWS dumping 'problem' wolves into the area of NW Montana violated the ESA, if in fact there were truly wolves in that area, which there is very very limited and questionable evidence of. So, are the wolves in the NW and North of I-90 truly migrants? Or descendants of Ed's troubled dogs?
And again, any study put out in the recent years is more than suspect as we have never witnessed so much outcome based BS presented as 'science', most of these studies can be easily seen through by anyone with even limited common sense and any real outdoor experience. When 80 years of science has been completely rewritten with 15 years of short studies, one has to take it all with a grain of salt.
As time passes by what we seen coming forth is that the old science is proving far more accurate than anything recent.
And Robert, it isn't anything special to see short term burst in localized hunting as wolves push elk into smaller regions and out of others. Nice try though, but in 5 years or less, it will be toast, just as we have seen across Idaho. We have two more elk management zones in trouble this year for a total of 6 and the rest in decline, even if currently in the rewritten objectives.
And big sky, you are very correct, I keep a running list of names of those responsible and those who push this agenda on people. When the moose are gone, in the very near future, and the elk are in serious trouble. I wonder if the likes of Bob will even be capable of admitting they were so wrong. Somehow I suspect they'll just reach into their global warming grab bag of excuses.
So, I guess Robert's science is much better than every other scientist out there, including Mech's, Bangs and about a dozen others that plainly admit wolves are recovered and need delisted and controlled.
I guess he is willing to ignore the scientist's that have found wolves to be the main cause of the declines and inabilities to recover of the Idaho elk herd.
Yeah.......I guess Robert is the all knowing. What a joke.
How can robert be expected to stick to facts when the head biologist, Doug Smith was telling folks a few months ago that there wee still 10,000 wolves in the northern herd, when now he admits there are only 4000...then goes on to chirp that he isn't worried. Why should he be, he has made tons of money and is probably a millionaire as a result of "research grants" and book deals?
Comment By the real mike, 2-08-11"Doug Smith was telling folks... there were still 10,000 wolves in the northern herd" you say? How many elk did Doug think were out there with those wolves?
Comment By Todd, 2-08-11Oops, make that 10,000 elk. In fact National Geographic printed an article in the March 2010 issue quoting him to that effect.
Comment By Ron, 2-08-11"We have two more elk management zones in trouble this year for a total of 6 and the rest in decline, even if currently in the rewritten objectives."
Barrt, Nice try there pal. Both deer and elk numbers are meeting management objectives in most parts of the state in Idaho. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Female elk meet or exceed objectives in 23 of 29 elk management zones; they are below objectives in six zones. Bull elk meet or exceed objectives in 20 zones and are below objectives in nine zones.
Yeah, you just loving posting misinformation, don't ya Barry.
Female elk meet who's objectives in 23 of 29 elk management zones? Bulls meet or exceed who's objectives in 20 zones ? You mean those words on a screen coming out of IDFG's pro wolf guesstimation department ? The department that dare not let on how screwed Idaho's elk herds are ? The Department that flys over 100 cow elk and writes down 400 cow elk.. Sure Ron.
I suggest while the snow is still all over the place and those elk are at their usual wintering grounds IDFG fly it all and put this "100,000 " elk on video for all to see, then we'll see who is right. The imagination models, or the boots on the ground and tires on the road, with eyes that see. And minds that know they've been lied to.
Somebody had best see to it a few Ombudsman flies with em to keep the lying down to a minimum.
Come to Idaho and buy those elk tags, it's all good ya hear !
Take a look at WHERE the elk are declining.....anywhere wolves have resided in any number for over 5 years, elk numbers decline. Some to the point where hunting elk by humans is more of a way for the fish and game to sell tags than any real chance to harvest an elk.
How many moose were counted in the greater yellowstone ecosystem this winter? Last year it was 114, down from 1200 in 1995. How many more years before that population is zero? I certainly hope that does not happen, but it is now in the realm of possibility. The 100 or so wolves in the greater yellowstone ecosystem still have some elk to eat, but it makes you wonder that the occasional moose they find is much easier prey. Due to the fact that there are still elk to eat, it appears that if indeed moose are easier to prey on and the number of elk still left in the park will allow the wolf population to stay at a higher level. Moose could be doomed.
Allowing biologists to play god is not a good thing to do......
Ron
Do you not possess the ability to read, or do you simply not have the ability to understand simple English. Last Year we had 4 zones below objective, this year we have six, just as I stated. Then notice how they jump to the bull count but dodge the cow situation in all other units, that although meet the current objectives, are declining.
One also has to consider that all of the elk management zone objectives were rewritten and every one of them is far lower than the previous plan. One also has to consider that IDFG hasn't even conducted their counts this year, the skewing of numbers and the tweaking of their computer model. You can bet your last doughnut that they will push the count up as much as they can get away with.
Which also exposes yet another issue with game departments and our beloved scientist. Undulant numbers are always estimated higher and wolf numbers are always forced down in the methods of counting.
As far as Dug Smith, he has promised an increase in the Northern YS herd this year. I have the clip of the interview he made that promise on. I would suspect at this point, even if they have to resort to midnight wolf removals, they will. Unless they really think they can convince people of micro climate change. But, there are a large population of shallow thinkers that just drink up the garbage being thrown out there by these people without ever taking a deeper look, so they may try that. They throw out a lot of bs to see what sticks.
"Allowing biologists to play god is not a good thing to do...."
--big sky
So, big sky, who should be allowed to play game management god?
Hunters?
Conservative, flat-earth politicians?
And on what basis should they make decisions?
Wishing-will-make-it-so harkening back to the "good old days?"
Paranoid hunches?
Coffee klatch, bar-stool yammering by the biggest loud-mouth?
Or science that stands up to peer review?
Are scientists perfect? No. But the process of peer review is a more reliable process toward truth than the exaggerations, distortions, myths, spin and don't-bother-me-with-facts used by the wolf haters.
You guys assume that wolves, and only wolves must be to blame for declining herd counts.
You assume that wolves will eradicate elk, deer and moose -- contrary to biology and conservation history.
You assume that wolves will destroy the livestock industry.
Other than fevered anecdotes and bar talk, you got nothing.
One point I disagree on Barry, I don't think they will destroy any wolves, I fully expect Smith to get a few hundred thousand in a grant to study how a severe winter killed off most of the remaining elk. I do not expect them to ever acknowledge that they did a terrible thing when they hauled so many wolves into a relatively small area like Yellowstone, even to themselves. But hey it has made certain environmental groups, as well as Doug Smith, very rich and powerful......I guess that is all that matters to them.
Comment By Barry, 2-09-11"Peer Review"?? hahahahaha
That's nothing more than asking one like minded moron if they think the other moron is right.
The sad truth is, science had been bastardized to the point it can not longer be considered science.
Science use to be asking the question, conducting valid and repeatable experiments, and accepting the answer without opinion.
It is now, I have the answer, how do I conduct a study to prove it. Modern wildlife biology has been turned into a complete joke, and yes, that pisses me off, because there is nothing function to gain from it. Outcome based studies have no validity and it doesn't matter who may agree with it.
I am not a wolf advocate, nor an anti-wolf advocate. I am an advocate for the truth. And in searching for that truth and trying to validate it has show me some of the most atrocious BS I have ever witnessed trying to be pushed off as science.
Peer review, yeah, they have shot holes in that bucket now too.
"Barry" ( and Todd and bigsky) demonstrate in sterling vessels why American science education is falling behind the rest of the world. Science as good public policy and science for American innovation is no longer a priority. The people have spoken . They want dumb, they want special interests to do their thinking for them, they think science is too complicated and has no role in the everyday life of fixing fence and feeding cows on cold mornings .
When science is no longer relevant, the American dream has gone dark.
Critical thinking and considered opinion are also failing. Obviously. These comment forums are Exhibit A.
Sorry, Dewey, science had nothing to do with the wolf importation, money and power had everything to do with it.
The very fact they now want to change them to fully "endangered" protection when there are thousands of them reveals the true agenda is control of people and what they do.
Sorry, Todd- science was the specific reason for bringing wolves back to Yellowstone. Where did you get the idea that it was not ? Wolves were almost the first species identified under the new Endangered Species Act as being threatened, scientifically so. Not that it took a scientist to see plainly that the elimination of the wolf from Yellowstone c. 1930 allowed the elk population to enlarge way beyond carrying capacity and spin out of control, then begin endemic starvation that spilled outside of the the Park's borders, into northwest Wyoming in the late 50's and early 60's. Even if the ESA hadn't come along at all, it was obvious---scientifically---that a huge mistake had been made and major predators were the only viable solution to rebuilding Yellowstone's ungulate matrix to something approaching a new norm. Other unscientific human solutions had failed , miserably , e.g. The Gardiner Firing Line.
Your reading of history is faulty.
Worse, your allusion to wolves being an instrument of money and power is a DELUSION , Todd. Typical of you , though. Never let the facts muddy a good waking Daymare.
Molloy's redress of the 10(j) rule will bring some clarity, one way or the other. And thankfully , it will not be Money and Power ( as vested in the Stockgrower's and other special interest groups) going down the road with their best buddy Ignorance driving Molloy's thinking process.
Dewey is exibit A of the establishments model of the indoctrinated modern man. A mushroom man living relying on his science bullshit paradigm.
Science is a good thing when used properly, as Barry described it above, agenda driven science is for fools. Science can be used to bring forth truth, and it can be used to bring forth agenda driven results for the power grasping of dictators.
All of those OTHER countries do not allow critical thought. And this country is fast approaching the same decline in Individual free critical thought and expression, you Dewey and others of your ilk are living proof of that. You protest critical thought while claiming only yourself is capable of critical thought. You bore the hell out me you little twit.
Progressivism
"1) A political philosophy advocating change and progress, especially as led by " science." Colloquially, a "progressive" refers to a very liberal person.
Agenda driven political science has very little truth.
The prior system of management worked, YOU are breaking it, permanently.
We can see this and are refuting your desired change.
Conservatism
1) The disposition to preserve tradition and resist change. 2) A political philosophy calling for reduced government and greater individual freedom in the private sector.
Your WELL of Scientific data is partial truth, tainted with deception.
IDFG-Dissimulator--- You prove my "Decadence of Science" point precisely. Now shoot your other foot....
Comment By IDFG-Dissimulation, 2-09-11The conservative recognizes fake change, thus attempts to stop it. You represent fake, reverse actions, an ideaology which does not even originate out of your own mind, but has been planted there, which does not support truth, only pretends to offer a better result, when in fact the result reverses the previous good intention acted upon, (albeit that previous existing idea could use some improvement, the dogma you push is not it) this is not progress, it is self destruction, and while you want to jump off the precipice into that darkness, we say no, we will not jump with you. We even try to stop you, at this point I would urge you to do it. Screw you. Jump fool.
Dewey is just another result of the 10th Plank "public schools" which trained his young mind to work for the perpetual communist debt system that enriches the World Bank, another name for that is the Department of " Education" Indoctrination in reality. The NEA and Outcome Based " Education.."
More dicta he believes in, right out of Karl's Manifesto;
" There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc.., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes all religion, and morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." (establishment rigged up scientific dogma)
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." (Destroy the free market capatilism, Private Property Rights, and give the corporate collecticists capaitalists our resources, and no more family.)
" The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities." (tear down the hunting heritage, by any scientific dogma possible).
This clown Dewey is a dead corporation serving a corporate institution not recognizing him as a human, and he has the balls to talk about education ?
Barry, are you the same Barry that posts on Tom Remington's black bear blog? I check that blog out from time to time. If you are indeed the same person, why did you say that these wolves in Idaho need to be removed (as in killed)? I thought you said you weren't an anti-wolf advocate. You wanting to kill off the whole wolf population in your state is unquestionably proof that you are an anti-wolf advocate. I doubt any real scientists would recommend this extreme measure.
Comment By big sky, 2-09-11Agreed Barry. The so clled "biology" is just politically driven. The money the tax exempt side will lose, the money the pro hunting livestock side will lose.
The only true science the common man can look at is if he visits winter ranges and actually knows how many elk used the range in the past. It is even getting harder to find data on that.
The problem with people like mikey is that he cares little for other people or thier livihoods. Wolves, Wolves, Wolves, the scrounge of the west.
Of couse, this will invite the inevetable comment that people cause all destruction......wolf advocates, environmentalists, whatever, they are all nonpeople and should be treated that way.
Bioligists should not play god, inkless. They should not have planted mysis(?) shrimp into flathead lake, thus destorying the kokenee salmon runs and the the annual feast by eagles now lost because of bad science.
In the same sense, people should not play god either, as is witnessed by the introduction of walleye into Canyon Ferry lake. If those walleye migrate up the missoure to the jefferson, galliton, and madison, they have the potential to destory all of that trout fisher, thousands upon thousands of miles of trout streams, all the way into yellowstone.
The wolves were a bad idea, and are still a bad idea. When the last moose is gone from yellowstone mikey, you had better make up some good excuses as to why. (less than 100 left now....)
bigsky, you are right. People should not play god. If you people like you did not wipe out the wolf decades ago, there would have been no need for reintroducing wolves again. You bit yourselves in the ass. The wolves were a bad idea according to someone like you? I'm not surprised.With comments like that, all it does is show that you hunters dislike predators plain and simple. As for the moose in yellowstone, what scientific evidence do you have that proves wolves are the SOLE CAUSE for lower moose #s? Do you have anything or just an assumption on your part? Assumption is not scientific evidence. Sorry. try again.
Comment By big sky, 2-09-11Little Mikey, you are right. We should have never gotten rid of the wolves. After all, the PEOPLE who moved here were trying to survive, and they should have let the wolves kill as many cows and sheep as they could. It would have been a good thing to have happen, and those folks who starved to death would have kept the human population down, right?
I propose that we talk all federal land and open it up to homesteading again. In this way, we can get people back on the land farming and caring for the environment. There is much BLM land that could be divided into 160 (or more) acre plots that would allow many folks an opportunity to earn a living. Many new towns would sprout up and business for our country would boom.
This solution would even make the liberals happy because we could make for much more room for immigrants. Many of these immigrants would jump at the chance for free land.
Wolves are and always will be a bad idea mike, regardless of what you pretend to know.
What we do know is that where ever wolves are found for any length of time, all other wildlife suffers, and we are witnessing this in yellowstone now, and in every other area that these canadian wolves have colonized. We may completly lose the moose population in yellowstone.
Hmmmm, funny how we always had moose before canadian wolves were introduced. Appears that these larger wolves are to well suited for killiong our smaller than canadian moose.
Maybe they should collar or emplant every single moose left in yellowstone. That should not be to hard to do with so few left. Then lets see how many starved to death from lack of food and how many became wolf scat. Of course, with the made up science from fellas like Mr. Hoskins you cannot believe a word of what comes out of thier research. First thing to ask a biologist is the question "who is funding your study?". That will tell you what the results will be right off the start.
I'm sorry, but people have no right to wipe out species. So next time you complain about wolves being back, remember, this reintroduction would have never had to happen if it weren't for people like you. Payback is a bi^%$. Wolves are not a bad idea. They are a bad idea to you simply because they eat deer and elk, a perfectly natural thing for wolves to do. You just can't accept that. If we relied on what people like you think about wolves, they would have never been reintroduced. The majority spoke and wanted wolves back. I noticed how you did not respond to what Mr. Hoskins said. What's the matter, have a hard time debunking his facts?
Comment By IDFG-Dissimulation, 2-09-11" People like us wiped out the wolves "
You mean government called for that, the same government you enjoy licking up to.
They wasted the Buff also, to destroy the Native American Heretic Savages. Steal or destroy the resource and you control the indigenous rural people, 1870s- 1995 to 2011, no difference, nothing has changed.
You Mike are the modern day model of the 1870s progressive screaming to get rid of the heathen savages. The self motivated self sustaining, none independent survivors are your enemy.
You're nothing but traitor to mankind.
I'm guilty of Striving after rational scientific knowledge and insisting upon scientific integrity. Agenda driven sciences leading to regulatory domination of human action, has no credibility nor integrity, this science of today is taking truth and twisting it to suit the purpose of enslavement of man.
The entent is and always has been to cheat man out of his identity, and to cheat man out of his link to the past, hunting, real history, and ownership of resources wealth, the worst crimes man is guilty of in my opinion, wars and deaths have been another aspect of this fraud etc, etc.
There is always some degree of error in science. Some variable that is unaccounted for or that cannot be controlled. There will always be things that happen in science that are unexpected. Science is not perfect. Otherwise it would have come up with one solution everyone agreed on.
That is why so many do not agree with this so-called science you wolf lovers are pushing onto them. The errors and intentional sabotage involved are blatantly clear. And your snotty arrogance and self rightious we are right and you are all stupid mentality's so often displayed by YOU are disgusting to say the least. Keep up your insults and censorship, keep up with the pick pocketing of the gullible, and offering no disclosure of the actions of those free funds.
Keep on with the willful ignorance while helping disguised corporate interests swindle all of us out of these lands and resources, we'll arrive at a place in the not to distant future, and you'll be the first to scream out " This is not what we meant" of course not, it's what those conmen meant who sunk you with their rotten sciences. We see you people for what you are, a cracked and chipped none transparent stained glass window.
Come on little fishy ! Isn't it about time for you to be calling me a child stalker ?
I did look up that site, and spent about an hour trying to figure his angle.....
I cannot agree habitat loss is why the moose are suffering so many losses. Do some transects, make some conclusions based on them, but the overall picture is lost.
Habitat loss? I know of several places in Montana where moose abound where people have sudivided many sections. If anything, it provided more brouse for them. It must have, there are more there now than ever before. Of course, that has changed now that wolves abound in the area.....
This fire thing these fellas keep bringing up.....if anything, fires produce more forage for moose than what was there before. I don't buy it.
His "facts" are not what I hear from the people I care about....the people most affected by this experiment gone bad.
Who said anything about wiping out wolves? We want some control, but keep it up and enough folks are gonna say to heck with wolves period. You better convince the people who actually live there that they are godlike animals. Said it once, and will say it again....when the first person gets killed by a wolf, the game is over.
Dumping the wolves on a certain group of people to punish them for wolves being wiped out on the east coast and all of the way to the west coast is not really very smart. I suppose if you find out your kid did something wrong, you go beat up the neighbor's kid to teach him a lesson huh? Same thing.
No one in any of the 3 states killed any more wolves than you did, nor than anyone living in Virginia did. This idea that a few people and a LOT of elk and moose have to pay the bill you think is due for what your ancestors did is ridiculous.
Todd, sorry, I do not feel bad at all. You people had it coming. You thought you were going to get rid of wolves decades ago and here we are, decades later and wolves were brought back because of your forefather's mistake. If your forefathers decided not to play god, wolf reintroduction would have never had to happen. I bet now you wish you had a time machine where you can go back in time and convince your forefathers not to kill off the wolves because bigger "canadian" wolves would be reintroduced decades later. People like you created this problem and now karma has come for you.
Comment By big sky, 2-09-11nuts
Comment By Todd, 2-09-11No one now living killed a single wolf, are you making restitution for what you think your great great grandparents might have done or what some idiot thinks they done? That is the worst reasoning for the wolf importation that I have ever heard. So are folks of the future going to make your grandkids raise elk and moose in their yards to replace those killed by the wolves?
I will admit my great great grandparent carved their names on Independence Rock, but I do not know if they dared kill a wolf to save a cow or horse or not.
Only a liberal could come up with such nonsense to justify destroying elk and moose herds to get even with those mythical folks form the past.
Oh goodie, lots of reply's and lies....where to start.
Dewey: First your attempt to play down reality and claim I am the reason science today is a pile of dung, is typical. You once again seem to want to claim all people opposed to you as idiots. Well pal, I would bet I probably have a far higher level of education than you do. And one thing I learned while earning my degree, it that there are plenty of morons that come out of the modern education system with letters by their names. Science has been bastardized, no one is to blame for that but the people who bastardized it. And anyone unable to see through the reality of that, has no place calling anyone stupid.
And I see you also make the typical talking point claims concerning wolves. Does it make no difference to you that you were lied to? Are you so opposed to the reality that what you were sold was in fact a lie? Case in point, the YS elk herd populations. You are still making the claim that YS was over populated, when there is very clear evidence that it wasn't.
The very day YS opened, the Norther herd of YS was estimated at 12,000 - 14,000 elk. In the history of the park that herd only ever dropped below 10k on two occasions. In the 1960's when the park slaughtered thousands of elk in a population control scam. And NOW!
Even before the native wolves were eradicated by the government you love so much, remember hunters didn't kill off wolves, the government did, Yellowstone contained in about 300% more elk than it now has. they will not recover as YS is locked down in a predator pit created out of worshipers of failed science.
Same line of BS concerning over grazing and the alder and willow issue. That study was conducted 40 years ago, and over grazing was eliminated as a cause. The fact that YS now has the lowest elk numbers in known history and the willows and aspens are not recovering. I would say they got it right, and the over grazing crowd got it wrong. You see, the evidence is there, if one is only willing to look. yet you people just keep spewing the same old tired lines even after the failures are shown.
Same line of BS concerning genetic connectivity. Geezus man, if you can't see through that lie, you have got to be completely blind about that too. Isle Royale has been clicking along for 50 years on the DNA of three wolves. And as Mech pointed out in his testimony, they are showing no ill effects from it. Yet the claim is still made out here, amazing.
Only one thing has happened, bad science. The fallacy of natural balance is so failing right before your eyes, you must be incapable of logical thought to not see it. Seriously, go study the history of elk populations of YS before you just digest some garbage put out by some government goon looking for a cushy lifetime job.
Mike: The species was never wiped out, it was never endangered and any claims of that rely on ignoring every fact in this debacle. In fact, they had to prove the wolf wasn't endangered before they were allowed to remove them from Canada. This is nothing but a argument over who you are willing to cause hardship on. You don't give two shits about wolves, you only care about being as hostile to the people who are now forced to live with this unchecked predator as you can be.
Every one of your statement screams that fact out. I am always amazed at how many haters are pro wolf people, hateful of their fellow citizens and their country. I have exactly zero use for people like you. You are a simpleton who would support a simple majority democracy in this country. Ignorant of history and ignorant of facts, ignorant of constitutional content and values. I rest assured your day will come. Nuff said.
Barry-Todd(Marion)-BigSky-IDFGley ----reading your attempts to play the Science card is like watching a long lost Marx Bros. skit. So, Harpo ,Groucho ,Zeppo ,Chico ---I knew as soon as I saw this article's headline mentioning " wolves " and " Molloy" that the thread was descend into yet another farce.
You do not disappoint.
Plus ca change...
...and the seldom remembered Marx bro , Dave skinner as " Dingo".
I'm checking out of this thread. Had enough Marx Brothers for two days.
bye
Todd, you can think whatever you want as to what the reason was for bringing wolves back. Clearly, scientists and biologists thought they should come back as well as a lot of people throughout the united states. This whole wolf fiasco wouldn't be what it is today if your forefathers did not wipe wolves out in the first place. People like you who don't want wolves are paying the price for what your forefathers caused all those decades ago. Don't blame the enviros or whoever, your forefathers are the main reason why wolves were brought back. No one wants to destroy elk and moose herds Todd. Gotta remember, that is the wolf's food source and if they die, the wolves will die, eventually anyways. Some speak of the eradicated wolf as a nice little wolf that didn't cause any problems. Todd, if they didn't cause any problems, why were they wiped out?
Comment By big sky, 2-09-11Fairytails.....Ha Ha....why were they wiped out? Hmmmmm. Same today but today, alot of PEOPLE live here. We will see how the experiment wraps up.....nothing good has come of it yet.
People and wolves do not coexist well, as we are witnessing now....
Clearly, scientists and biologists have found of pot of gold in this wolf issue......if it gets resolved, the pot of gold disappears. No more books about the magical wolf, not much grant money, studies will be curtailed....the rainbow will evaporate.
How are heck are ya honey wagon dickinson??
Comment By Todd Wilkinson in Bozeman, 2-09-11Dear "Big Sky," For a long time you've weighed in here, seeming to have an opinion on, and an expertise with everything, taking potshots at people while conveniently hiding behind a pen name. Why don't you have the guts to use your real name?
Comment By Todd, 2-10-11Todd, I am at a loss as to why you picked Bigsky to complain about using a false name when right below him is an example of your side name calling, and you seemingly do not object to that? I would not object to using my full name on here if EVERYONE did, but those calling for real names are often taking pot shots and making poorly veiled threats against conservatives they consider vulnerable. That makes it a concern about using real names.
Actual facts and science have played little part in the wolf importation form the beginning. There was no attempt at all to even come close to the number of wolves originally in Yellowstone, I suspect a part of that was an attempt to eliminate the food producers outside of the Park and the hunters.
Thank You Todd, but I really don't need the help.
Todd Wilkinson, journalist, naturalist, wolf advocate (it appears that way) bison advocate, etc. etc. Came from ummm Minnesota and set up shop in Bozeman. Have written several books and I read one article you had something to do with concerning some fella running cattle on a grazing area that has wolves and griz on it. From the flavor of that discussion, you were in favor of removing the cattle and taking more land out of production for hard working people. I guess some might call you a radical enviromental writer. At least you are a runner. I have alot of respect for runners.
See my point?
Maybe take into consideration the people who are trying to make a living on the land. Not everyone has a journalistic career and the luxury of pecking on a computer to make a living.
Oh, sorry about the "nuts" comment. Thats about as far as I go with the "potshots". I admit I have used the term "wolfhugger" and "bison worshipper" at times, but just in jest.
The "nuts" comment came from a historical comment given to the germans during the battle of the bulge. It describes a feeling of being surrounded but never giving up. Sort of like how alot of folks out here feel towards the environmental movement. Just seemed fitting at the time.
I will admit I am an expert in nothing, and do not profess to be. But as we argue this war across the three states, it appears that the losers are the wildlife and the people, as we are witnessing in yellowstone, the lolo region, the bitterroots, and who knows how many other areas will be affected in the future.
People are in the equation, whether you like it or not.
Real men shoot dart rifles.
Comment By Immer Treue, 2-10-11@Barry
When you write things like this, one can only imagine what else you have made-up, paraphrased or lifted completely out of context.
"Isle Royale has been clicking along for 50 years on the DNA of 3 wolves. And Mech has pointed out in his testimony they are showing no ill effects of it."
Mech made no such comment about Isle Royale wolves, but di talk about the interconnectivity of wolves in the NRM as probably providing enough of a conduit to prevent inbreeding.
Back to Isle Royale:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402171440.htm
@ Barry, again
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=wolf-packs-in-jeopardy-2009-04-07
Please do some research. I know you have posted about Isle Royale wolves doing just fine genetically elsewhere, but the fact is, it's been known for quite some time about the affects of inbreeding on Isle Royale wolves. Mech and Peterson(who has carried on Isle Royale research) keep in contact with one another. So please tell us where is your support for what you write about Isle Royale?
@Barry
Just one more
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/wolfbones.html
@Barry,
Oh heck, how about one more.
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/news/media_relations/849/documents/1.pdf
Hey Todd Wilkinson, that's the same snipe you posted on the bison thing.
Why don't you ask the same of Dewey, Jeff E, "real Mike," Immer, Coyote, blah blah?
So while I agree with you, please keep in mind that the world cuts both sides on anonymous slaggery.
I've been told that a rally against wolves will be taking place in Missoula in conjunction with hearings on Molloys latest scheme. There are a couple of us (MI -sportsman) looking into taking a road trip in March to be there to show support against these vermin. How late does the MT coyote season run? Maybe we could get in on sssome sssuper coyote huntsss?
Comment By Richard, 2-10-11MIsingleshot, the only vermin is you.
Comment By Barry, 2-11-11@Ima notsotruthful
Again, you make failed claims and attempt to stand on exactly the failed science we have been discussing in this thread. When someone like Dr. David Mech stands up in court, under oath and states this, I think it very much makes my case. It takes a lot for a man who has been studying wolves as long as Dr. Mech has to state something like this in COURT! I have done my research sweetheart, I just don't buy into the garbage science that isn't proving reliable.....
"No genetically effective immigration has been
found in the closed Isle Royale (IR) wolf population for 50 years, yet the population
persists at the same range of levels (12-50, average about 25/per year) as it has for 50
years. In fact the Isle Royale wolf population is informative for several reasons.
Contrary to the 3 NRM wolf populations it was founded by only 1 female and 1 or 2
males (Wayne et al. 1991) and has inbred for 50 years. The IR wolves look and act like
any other wolves, prey successfully on one of the species’ largest prey animals, the
moose (Alces alces), and survive at as high a level as any other wolf population. It has
6
Case 9:08-cv-00056-DWM Document 37 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 of 22
even withstood a bout of canine parvovirus for decades (Peterson et al. 1998; Fuller et al.,
2003:189-190.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Response to Wayne Declaration
14. Based on my long history and experience studying wolves in Yellowstone and throughout the world, I disagree with several of the conclusions drawn by Dr. Wayne’s Declaration. Dr. Wayne’s conclusion that “an effective metapopulation dynamic . . . has yet to be achieved” in the Northern Rockies is based on data collected from 1995-2004 from only a fraction of the actual population. Wayne Decl. at ¶3. More recent data demonstrates connectivity between the YNP population and wolves elsewhere in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Moreover, the life span of wolves in the wild is at least 13 years (Mech 1988), and they breed from ages 2 (sometimes 1 year of age) – 13. The fact that no “genetically effective immigration of wolves to YNP” was found for a 10-year period from 1995-2004, Wayne Decl. at ¶3, is neither relevant nor important to
long-term wolf persistence.” Mech Case No. cv-08-56-M-DWM (emphasis mine)
His entire testimony can be seen here: http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Declaration_L_David_Mech.pdf
Or.....are you stating publicly that you think Dr. Mech is a perjurer?
I am sorry, but it is exactly situations that drove me to the position I now stand on. When a man of his position and experience testifies in court, that testimony holds a lot of validity. I have also noted how the pro wolf science generators have began to ignore him as soon as he began stating the truth. I can only imagine how angry they were when he did in under oath.
Don't you find it just a little too convenient that the crap you posted was released right on the heels of Mech's testimony. Those people will do anything or put put anything to keep their cash cow alive and listed.
They have simply run out of excuses and they now face people who have seen beyond their smoke screen. They have overplayed their scam to the point that even politicians are seeing through it, and sweetheart, that takes one pile of corruption to accomplish.
Samo old shit-the pro-wolf people continue to deny the fact that wolves ARE reducing elk numbers in areas with high wolf populatuions-that is FACT.
The moose populatuion is not dropping due to drought,fires,or any lack of riparian habitat-the numbers are dropping due to wolf predation-another FACT ignored by the pro-wolf people.
The gray wolf is not an endangered species-there are plenty of them in several U.S. states in the lower 48,and even more in Alaska,there are plenty of wolves in Canada-the species is in ZERO danger of going extinct,and needs to be managed.
The wolves are here,they are not going away-but the population needs to be kept in check. The wolf does not need,and should not have the protection of the ESA,there are many packs in the three states that have the reintroduced wolves-far,far more than the original agreement of 300 animals or 30 breeding pairs-the wolf huggers want more,and more,and more wolves-fine-start introducing them in the east-NY,Pa, Maine,WVa, NC,Va,release them all along the Appalachian trail,they can eat the hikers.
@ Barry,
Not calling him a perjurer at all. He said the Isle Royale population persists, you misquoted him as saying the Isle Royale wolves show no ill effects from it. Two entirely different conclusions.
I provided four sources for you, there are more that will show you that the ill effects, as concluded by scientists in the field, are very real.
The stuff I posted has been well known prior to Mech's testimony, so no, it was not posted on the heels of Mech's testimony. Look at the dates that the studies provided.
And as far as Mech saying the genetic health of wolves in the NRM would be fine, I have never argued that point, as long as interconnectivity of wolf territory remains open.
I've put facts out there, you cherry pick what fits your position, and even change wording to fit your position more.
Mech, from the same testimony
"In contrast, Isle Royale lies 25 km from the mainland, is rarely connected to the mainland and has only received immigrants once in 51 years, and they failed to reproduce. The Isle Royale wolves have reduced genetic variation including N[sub:e] of 3.8, 60% loss of neutral genetic variation, 50% loss of protein variation, 13% increase in inbreeding coefficient per generation, and skeletal deformities from inbreeding and genetic drift that are consistent with the population's history. Whether these factors reduced individuals' fitness is uncertain but is a reasonable hypothesis. Nevertheless, despite inbreeding, the population has survived, the ultimate test."
Yes, he was quoted as saying the population has survived...but he also sited the data about the effects of inbreeding becoming more and more available to the general public, that even though the wolves have "persisted".
You stated Mech as saying the wolves show no ill effect from ~60 years of inbreeding. He did not.
If you want to discuss these issues, and remain
The only one who is "bastardizing" the science is you, and I am most certainly not your "sweetheart.
Before you get too comfortable with Mech quotes, here are two more. Throw these around to your acolytes.
"The wolf is neither man's competitor nor his enemy. He is a fellow creature with whom the earth must be shared." -L. David Mech
"If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, out financed, and out voted. Their narrow and biased attitude must be outweighed by an attitude based on an understanding of natural processes." -L. David Mech
Here is some damming truth concerning the fires in yellowstone and the moose population....
"The prior, 100-year-old policy of extinguising any fire, regardless of its cause, permitted an unprecedented buildup of fallen deadwood. The winter of 1987-88 and the spring and summer of 88 were extremely dry. Three of the five fires originated outside the park, and burned their way into it.
45% of the park was burned, but only 18% of its forests were destroyed.
With few exceptions, these burned areas began began to regenerate within weeks. Firewee, the most common plant to return after a fire, began to appear, and most of the burned areas are now dense meadows, luch with grasses, clover, bushes, and a suprising number of young pine trees.
These areas are a boom to der and elk, and many of the small ground mammals that populatie the park. They now have a much more abundant supply of the round cover on which they subsist.
Some "experts" states that due to the intense heat of th fires, some areas would never regenerate and were sterilized. Today those "sterile" areas are showing new growth
I always wondered how those moose ate those old pine trees BEFORE the fires.
It appears that after the fires there should be more ample vegetation for moose to survive.
Funny how we are down to 114 moose in 2010 from 1200 in 1995 while habitat is now BETTER than it was before 1990....
Only one thing has changed for the moose since that time....only one thing.....
I misquoted him? Really?
I copied and pasted that right out of his testimony. And I included the link to his entire testimony, pretty hard to 'misquote' do that.
The two quotes of his you so kindly provided were from a long time past. One thing about Dr. Mech, he asked the question and over time has evaluated those questions and has since changed his position based on those observations.
So you can dredge up the long past and try to claim them as current, but they aren't.
His recent observations have caused him to very seriously question 'natural balance'. It was what was taught to him in acquiring his degree so it would be natural for him to assume that. But close to 50 years of work have proven to him otherwise.
He has recently questioned the 'trophic cascade' theory also. Just because someone is willing to accept that their original belief has been proven incorrect by research doesn't make him a hack, but a scientist. It is when one stick to the theory and attempts to prove it at any cost, that it becomes bastardized.
So much of the outcome based science can be easily seen through. A perfect example being the study to 'prove' wolves weren't causing the catastrophic elk loses in Yellowstone. They conducted a 90 study, which just happened to coincide with the short time period that grizzly bear prey on elk, then pulled up tent stakes and ignored the other nine months of the year, and concluded that bears are the main predator of elk. That is such a shallow and obviously skewed study even a fool could see through it. And it is but one, of hundred of studies that have been conducted for the sole purpose of exonerating wolves at any cost.
I have never claim wolves an enemy, only those who use them as a tool to push their money or emotionally driven agenda.
So you can keep throwing out you one liners from times past, or you can recognize the mans transition of opinion over time he acquired through observation.
When looking at Dr. Mech's testimony you have to also consider the math he used in comparison. The genetic base used in the NRM would take hundreds of years to even thin down to the current genetic inbreeding at Isle Royale, if ever, and the fact they have shown no real effect from it pretty much makes the genetic connectivity claims completely invalid.
The simple fact remains, that none of the big players that have been touted out for all these years as experts still claim that wolves should still be protected or are endangered in any way. It was an invalid position in the first place, but there really isn't a leg to stand on anymore.
It is simply time to delist them, give the management over to the states where it rightly belongs anyway, and move on. All the bad science in the world isn't going to change that fact.
MH, and? Elk are also not an endangered species. As a matter of fact, there are many more elk than wolves in the united states. This is a fact. Yes, we all know that wolves kill elk. Get over it. There is nothing unnatural about wolves killing elk. You seem to think so though by your tone on here and in your past comments.
Comment By inthefurwest, 2-11-11As i understand it, the crs report to congress explains it this way
"
Experimental Populations
In 1982 Congress added the concept of experimental populations to the ESA as
a way of reintroducing species without severe restrictions on the use of private and
public land in the area.
38
Experimental population designations are sometimes
referred to as Section 10(j) rules. The practice allows introduction of a species
outside its current range to restore it to its historic range.
Two criteria must be met for an experimental population to comply with the
law. First, DOI must have authorized the release of the population. Second, the
population must be wholly separate geographically from other animals of that
species.
39
Congress required the separation so that the introduced population could
be clearly distinguished.
Members of an experimental population are considered to be threatened under
the act, and thus, can have special rules written for them.
40
In fact, Congress referred
to special rules for experimental populations as a way to reduce public opposition to
the release of certain species, using the red wolf as an example.
41
Congress suggested
in a report that the special regulations could allow killing members of the species:
The committee fully expects that there will be instances where the regulations
allow for the incidental take of experimental populations .... The committee also
expects that, where appropriate, the regulations could allow for the directed
taking of experimental populations. For example, the release of experimental
populations of predators, such as red wolves, could allow for the taking of these
animals if depredations occur or if the release of these populations will continue
to be frustrated by public opposition.
42
Unlike DPSs, experimental populations may not necessarily have the same
protections under the ESA. FWS will first determine whether the experimental
population is of a species that is in imminent danger of extinction. That decision is
based on whether the loss of the population would appreciably diminish the species’
prospect for survival. If so, the experimental population is deemed essential and is
treated as an endangered species. Currently, there are no essential experimental
populations. If it is deemed nonessential, the experimental population is treated as
a species that is proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. There is no critical
habitat designation for an experimental population if it is nonessential. Also, federal
actions that may take a member of the population do not require a Section 7
consultation under the ESA, unless the species is in a national wildlife refuge or a
national park.
Examples of species with nonessential experimental populations are the
Colorado pikeminnow (or squawfish), the southern sea otter, the gray wolf in the
Southwest and in the Yellowstone area, the black-footed ferret, and the whooping
crane.
the eye opener here is the " Also, federal
actions that may take a member of the population do not require a Section 7
consultation under the ESA, unless the species is in a national wildlife refuge or a
national park."
would this not mean that malloy is trying an end run the wolves in ynp in an effort to try to get wyoming to bow to his interpitation of the law since wolves outside any refuge or fed park would be immune to malloys tinkering under the current law.
@Barry,
Yes, you misquoted Mech
Nowhere in that testimony does it say Isle Royale wolves are showing no ill effects from inbreeding. It says they persist. The 4 sites I gave you tell you there are ill effects form genetic bottle necking. Mech has admitted as much, but then says, yes, the wolves still persist. He does not say, I repeat, does not say the wolves show no ill effects from inbreeding. They have shown very real effect, as the studies/necropsies of IR wolves have shown. This is in and has been in response to your 2/9/11 post here, and elsewhere where you have made the same claim
Also, I have no arguement with genetic bottlenecking in the NRM states. I don't think I have ever brought that up. I do believe though it would be in the best interest of all wildlife in the NRM that genetic corridors must be maintained, including wolves.
@Barry,
The Isle Royale wolves have reduced genetic variation including
Ne of3.8, 60% loss of neutral genetic variation, 50% loss of protein variation, 13%increase in inbreeding coefficient per generation, and skeletal deformities from inbreeding and genetic drift that are consistent with the population’s history.*** Whether these factors reduced individuals’ fitness is uncertain but is a reasonable hypothesis.***Nevertheless, despite inbreeding, the population has survived, the ultimate test.
Mech March 2010
Consistent with the 4 sites I gave you
You have misquoted Mech
IT,
Yes the IR wolves have shown inbreeding. But consider they were laboratoried and have been completely and totally isolated ever since establishing themselves for FIFTY Freaking Years. From a handful?
That's like the Romanovs. But if you plug in a Tudor or two, whole different game.
The IR population could be "fixed" with a tankful of whirlybird gas or one whackin-cold winter. But IR has value now as a true representation of genuine inbreeding consequences. At some time the experiment should be ended, of course, either they will all die, or man will call an end.
All real population scientists know that, it is cake to head off inbreeding with a very small number of dispersers, or transported animals. That was done in Florida to save the panthers....a couple Texans got dropped in.
One or two per generation is all it would take, if not natural, then certainly through transport of a hot young female. That is done with G-bears all the time and works great, with no objections from any G-bear lovers.
Why can't the same thing work with wolves? No good answer there.
Greens are on the wrong side of science on this one, and people are figuring it out toot sweet. No matter Molloy's legal gymnastics, wolves are on the way off the list, and hopefully their departure will be permanent.
@notsotruthful
Nowhere did Mech say the implications of inbreeding were affecting the wolves survival. I will let his testimony stand on it's own two feet. Somehow I doubt you are willing to do that. You can try to stand on claiming a misquote or you can prove his testimony incorrect.
His testimony has completely undermined the claimed genetic connectivity issue in the NRM wolves. It also showed the fallacy in the claim hunting them would harm them and he testified to the need of much larger population reductions to maintain wolf populations than any wolf advocacy group could choke down.
And with the irony not being lost on me, he has been ignored by these groups intent on keeping the wolves listed. He was there god for years, now, completely ignored.
Which is just another perfect example of the money mongers being unwilling to use anything that doesn't benefit their income. The tides are turning and the loons that keep insisting on overreaching are losing ground by their own actions.
The best thing they could have done was let it lay when they were delisted and under management of scientifically failed wolf management plans. Those plans were completely failed in managing wolves in any valid manner. But it's hard to make money under that situation, even if the wolves would have prospered beyond reason. You see, it isn't about wolves for groups like DoW and the CFBD, it is simply about money, money, money.
Now.....well, Idaho is out from under that BS plan, finally. My greatest fear was that we would be stuck with it. Now we are back to the original number, which will be plenty to insure wolves in Idaho without them destroying the entire ecosystem. Everybody wins, wolves and other wildlife, hunters, citizens, everyone. Well, except the biologist's and AR groups pilfering money from it.
While many of the people I work with were out of their minds the day Molloy ruled, I wasn't. It was just solid proof that even the created science wasn't being used anymore, and in the end these wolves are going to end up exactly where I predicted they would over a year and a half ago. Don't ever say Dr. Mech didn't try to save his wolves, he did, it was just that no one was going to listen.
Spending time discussing this 10j, or any other wolf issue with the emotionally intoxicated wolf cult is utterly pointless. Tom Remington, and Barry nailed this argument, and the weight of their analysis will be ringing in the halls of Congress. Molloy, a Leftist radical environmental whore will do whatever he pleases, regardless of the rantings from the Cult.A Deal is a Deal. The cult continues to change like leaves in the wind whenever their latest blunder fails.
A Deal is a Deal!
Re: This comment from "Rockholm": "Molloy, a Leftist radical environmental whore will do whatever he pleases, regardless of the rantings from the Cult." Besides being a slanderous depiction of a federal judge, this comment seems to violate the New West comment policy, unless "Rockholm", who does have the courage to reveal his/her real identity, can provide proof of the assertion. Want to know what is wrong with anonymous posters? This is it in spades.
Comment By Todd Wilkinson in Bozeman, 2-12-11Re: This comment from "Rockholm": "Molloy, a Leftist radical environmental whore will do whatever he pleases, regardless of the rantings from the Cult." Besides being a slanderous depiction of a federal judge, this comment seems to violate the New West comment policy, unless "Rockholm", who does NOT have the courage to reveal his/her real identity, can provide proof of the assertion. Want to know what is wrong with anonymous posters? This is it in spades.
Comment By JEFF E, 2-12-11now the losers are trying to make out that the 1994 EIS was some kind of deal.
Rockholm has no facts, not one. only some kind of Machiavellian rhetoric that losers always resort too. Trot out your lawsuit or STFU.
Tom Remington couldn't nail a harlem whore. If you want a text book example of Cherry picking facts the PPP blog would be the dictionary definition.
Barry Coe-another nobody.
Lmao............the drivel will never end, will it?
Comment By JEFF E, 2-12-11no. everytime you open your mouth
Comment By Anthony, 2-12-11Rockholm, I want to thank you. Because of your hilarious antics, Randy Budge was reappointed as Idaho fish and game commissioner. People like you are hurting your own cause and having the opposite effect that you intended. If you think you are more of an expert than Idaho fish and game, wanna you get a job with them? It only makes sense since you like to fancy yourself as some kind of "expert".
Comment By Barry, 2-12-11Oh, lookie who has shown up, Ralps minions come in full force.
This is just another perfect example of the uninformed spewing their talking points without knowledge. I am sure the reference was to 50 CFR Part 17, which is a legally binding entry into the federal register that even the USFWS referred to as "The Final Rule" and it outlined the legal definitions of non essential, experimental areas and recovery goals, control measures and legal responsibilities of the USFWS and the states, and the recovery numbers. It is not the EIS.
So, Jeffy, maybe before you open your pie hole, you should get a few facts straightened out. Idiots, I swear.......
Note to all. This will be my last entry into this thread. The standard operating procedures of drawing people into the simple antics of name calling rants to get threads shut down and valid comments sections removed. Sorry Jeffy, I have passed the word to not play your childish game. Later........
I hope those who are looking for valid information, read, think and do some of you own research before just buying into talking points bunk that has been put out by those who are using this issue for personal income at the detriment of everyone else.
Todd W.,
You need to get caught up. Rockholm is Scott Rockholm, Rockholm 66. Certainly not anonymous by any stretch.
Molloy is certainly as described. Before he was appointed, he was carrying a case for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, one of Ralph Nader's creations, which his biographer wrote was intended to "forge new public policy in the process" of litigation. That's pretty activist, certainly Naderite? Not of the Right, fer shure.
Molloy is smart, competent, clever, creative, but he is a Naderite whack job, and Baucus bears the blame for suggesting him to President Clinton, and further making a deal with Trent Lott to pry him loose from a hold.
The Lincoln County commission finally called Molloy appropriately. He's a "social and economic disaster." And how. In a way, his gymnastics have been good, because now Congress is really upset, and so are voters.
....and Barry runs away....like always.
Comment By Dewey, 2-12-11Agreed. Scott Rockholm has libeled a sitting federal Judge here.
In some places in the world he would be shot for that . If only...
Typical S. Rockholm. He negates his own credibility , when his lousy video production hasn't already done so ( that's an informed opinion , by the way , not a libel . His videos really are awful. ).
..but Dewey, it is only the pro wolf side that calls names and slings s+++. haven't you heard.
Meanwhile the magic lawsuit is nowhere to be seen, going on 4+ years that I know of.
Jeff E, is trying to get the comment section torn down again. How is your friend Bonnie J. doing down in Salmon, Idaho. Last time we heard from her she was e-mailing death threats out to IFW members like Valentines.
When she made the mistake of calling an Outfitter on the phone and threatening her entire family, children, and all IFW members we did some background checks on her. She is friends with all of you, and with major IDFG employees.
http://www.ktvb.com/news/Lawmaker-proposes-no-punishment-for-people-who-kill-gray-wolves-115955529.html
I'm proud to know Phil Hart, and he is a real legislature that looks out for his constituents.
Scott Rockholm has libeled a federal judge. Haha That is funny. Libeled a corrupt paid off federal judge.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/whats_behind_judge_molloys_questioning_of_experimental_status_for_wolves/C41/L41/