Guest Commentary: On the Range
Idaho Wolf Plan Panders to Hunters and Ranchers
By George Wuerthner, 12-17-07
 | |
|
The Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG) recently released its draft wolf management plan. Unfortunately, like all wolf plans so far produced in the Rockies, the proposal panders to the interests of livestock operators and hunters, ignoring the interests of the greater public as well as the long term benefits of restoring wolves throughout the state.
There are 1.4 million people who reside in the state. There are 1700 ranchers who graze on Idaho’s public lands with 10% (170) controlling 80% of public land allotments. Only 11% of Idahoans even buy a hunting license! (And I’m a non-resident who also buys one as well.) Nevertheless, why should a handful of ranchers and the minority of Idahoans who hunt, dictate whether wolves live or die? IDFG is supposed to represent all Idaho citizens and a majority support viable wolf populations in the state—not token numbers of wolves as the IDFG has put forward.
DEFECTS WITH THE PLAN
There are three major defects in the draft plan. First, IDFG proposes to treat wolves like deer and elk when carnivores, particularly a social carnivore like wolves, require a different approach.
Secondly, the plan fails to recognize the important ecological benefits that wolves confer upon wildlife populations and vegetative communities. There is far more room for additional wolves in Idaho than the IDFG admits. Keep in mind that Minnesota, a considerably smaller state, with a much higher human population and development, supports more than 3,000 wolves.
Third, the plan fails to include and consider much of the recent scientific literature available on wolves, with many important references not even mentioned, and/or interprets the literature it does cite to support IDFG policies while ignoring other relevant implications.
WOLVES ARE NOT ELK AND DEER
First you cannot treat wolves like elk or deer. Social carnivores (including bears, mountain lion, etc.) interact differently than elk and deer among other members of their species, as well as with other wildlife. Because wolves maintain territories and have a social structure that depends on cooperative hunting, you can’t just say they have a reproductive replacement of X a year and so we can kill X number without the population suffering, as the IDFG suggests. That’s the crudest kind of management--and totally ignores animal social behavior research released in the past few decades. The IDFG is proposing to manage wolves as if nothing has been learned about predators in fifty years.
Here’s the problem. If you permit indiscriminate hunting of wolves as the current plan proposes, you potentially disrupt the social networks of the wolves. For instance, if a pack that currently is not causing any conflicts with humans (i.e. killing livestock) have the dominant pack members removed, less experienced members of the pack may resort to killing livestock to feed pack members. Unable to defend their territory with a reduced number of pack members, another outcome might be their replacement with another pack that might be more inclined to attack livestock. Thus the indiscriminate killing of wolves causes instability between packs, leading to greater stress and potentially greater conflicts with humans.
Indiscriminate hunting also skews the population towards younger animals. With a reduced population of the predators, wolves respond by producing more pups, with more pups likely to survive into adulthood. Since the younger animals are less skillful hunters, they also tend to prey on livestock more readily. More pups is more mouths to feed--again putting stress on the adult hunters and forcing them to chase the easiest prey--namely livestock and perhaps even a greater number of ungulates in order to feed the many growing pups.
All of this then creates a feedback mechanism whereby wolf control results in more wolf predation, which in turn feeds irrational calls for more wolf control. Yet it is a self-created situation that I suspect the IDFG hopes to reinforce by implementing its management plan, since it tends to create public support for limiting wolf populations.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF WOLVES
Wolf predation is an important top-down ecological process which IDFG appears to ignore. The IDFG proposes to manage for “a self-sustaining, well-distributed, viable wolf population so that wolves fulfill their ecological role without affecting the viability and sustainable harvest of other big game populations.”
However, putting that kind of qualifier on wolf populations effectively means they will not fulfill their ecological role. To fulfill their ecological role, wolves will have to reduce big game numbers in some places and times. That’s their ecological role. The plan does not acknowledge or recognize this ecological function.
Wolves prey on different ages and classes of ungulates than hunters. (See Wright et al. 2006, Selection of Northern Yellowstone Elk by Gray Wolves and Hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 1070-1078). Wolves tend to select more calves and bulls proportionally to cows (Smith et. al. 2004 Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone NP 1995-2000 J. Wildl. Manage. 68.), while human hunters tend to take more prime-of-life reproductively-important animals. Where the plan even acknowledges these differences between human hunters and wolves, it treats them as a negative.
For instance, it cites a study that found that elk respond to the presence of wolves by using steeper terrain and remaining in hiding cover longer ( see Creel, S., and J. A. Winnie. 2005. Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Animal Behavior 69:1181-1189.) The IDFG draft document suggests that this “reduces hunting success for some hunters” and suggests this might be a legitimate reason to kill wolves. In essence the IDFG is saying that the desires of lazy “shooters” (real hunters do not mind wolf presence) who can’t hunt as more important than the ecological benefits of elk behavior changes as a consequence of wolf presence.
Wolves may also influence predation influences of other predators. One study in Montana found that compared to mountain lions, wolves preyed more on male elk than cow elk.(See Atwood et al. 2006 Comparative Patterns of Predation by Cougars and Recolonizing Wolves in Montana’s Madison Range, Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4)) Thus different ungulate selection by wolves could affect population dynamics--i.e. removal of bull elk by wolves may increase survival of cow elk due to reduced competition for resources. In addition, the presence of wolves may affect the dynamics and populations of other carnivores--for instance, more wolves could lead to fewer mountain lion and coyotes—which in turn has other ecological consequences.
In Yellowstone it was found that wolves reduced coyote numbers (See Crabtree RL, Sheldon JW, 1999. Coyotes and canid coexistence in Yellowstone. In: Clark TW, Curlee AP, Minta SC, Kareiva PM, editors. Carnivores in ecosystems: The Yellowstone experience. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 429.) And since coyotes were more effective predators on pronghorn antelope fawns, the presence of wolves has lead to greater pronghorn fawn survival. Also, more red foxes are being seen in Yellowstone than in the past, and are presumed to be a consequence of less coyote predation on fox as a result of wolf effects on coyote numbers.
I also suspect we would find that wolves might positively influence sage grouse populations as well, since coyotes are a major predator on these birds.
These subtle ecological relationships between wolves and other carnivores are not even recognized, much less discussed, in the IDFG draft wolf plan.
Because wolves hunt throughout the year, they have two major effects on other wildlife. They create carrion year round. (Again see, Wilmers and Getz 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org). The extra carrion is like winning the lottery for some scavengers. Finding a wolf-killed elk in the early spring when other foods are scarce is a gift for female bear with cubs just out of hibernation. It can make the difference between whether the cubs survive or die, and thus the presence of wolves could enhance grizzly bear recovery and act as a buffer against losses of other foods like whitebark pine. Carrion is also very important to many other animals including wolverine, ravens, eagles, and so on.
Wolf-produced carrion might play a positive role in maintaining other species in the face of climate changes towards warmer winters and less winter kill,. (See Wilmers and Getz, 2005. Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org)
Wolves also disperse ungulates. ( For more on how wolves affect ungulate behavior, etc. see Mao, J. S., M. S. Boyce, D. W. Smith, F. J. Singer, D. J. Vales, J. M. Vore, and E. H. Merrill. 2005. Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1691-1707.)
This has several biological consequences. Some of the ungulates will die of starvation or be killed by a predator (could be a mountain lion or bear). These animals will die more randomly scattered over the landscape providing scattered sources of carrion for scavengers. Dominant male bears tend to defend carrion. The presence of wolves might create more scattered sources of carrion for female grizzly bears in multiple places, reducing conflicts between individual bears.
The plan fails to consider the benefits that wolf predation have in regulating big game populations. While it’s true that wolves can temporarily cause a reduction in ungulate populations, the plan views this as a negative, instead of recognizing that reduction in ungulate herbivory pressure on plant communities can have a long term benefit for both plants and ultimately, ungulates. (See Ripple, W. J., and P. L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves, elk, willows and trophic cascade in the upper Gallatin Range of southwestern Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 200:161-181.)
Native ungulate populations naturally experience ups and downs in population, yet the IDFG tries to manage them as if they are some kind of steady supply stream of products. This totally fails to recognize or mimic natural ecological processes. Temporary reductions in ungulate populations are usually followed by a reduction in predator populations and ultimately will allow ungulates to increase once more. IDFG fails to consider such issues.
However, it’s important to note that sometimes wolf presence can provide this benefit without reducing ungulates numbers, simply by changing habitat use by moving animals around the landscape more.
It must be noted even with the presence of wolves, all of IDFG units are currently meeting or exceeding objectives, except for two units where habitat quality, not wolf predation, is the cause.
LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS EXTERNALIZE COSTS
You can’t manage wolves like other big game. Any indiscriminate killing of wolves (as opposed to surgical removal of a few individuals) is going to create problems. IDFG should only advocate for “surgical” removal of individual wolves known to kill livestock only if the rancher has already tried to minimize conflicts. Currently the livestock industry externalizes many of its costs of operations on to the citizens as a whole, and one cost is the need for reducing predator opportunity.
Research has shown that there are successful husbandry practices that can substantially reduce wolf depredation on livestock such as the use of calving and lambing sheds, herders, and rapid removal of carcasses etc. (See Chavez and Gese 2006 Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation to Livestock in a Wildland–Agriculture Matrix, Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4):1079–1086).
In France, it was found that corralling sheep at night reduced losses to wolf predation by 95% (See Espuno et al. 2004 Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1195-1208). One of the reasons that ranching is inappropriate in the arid West is that livestock producers tend to let their animals roam over huge areas. This is only possible if there are few predators, and so for decades ranchers have externalized one of their costs—reduction in predator opportunity through proper animal husbandry—on to the rest of us by killing predators so they can avoid these costs.
It was found that wolves tended to prey upon livestock most during the period when they are raising pups and were most likely to take livestock closest to denning sites. (See Bradley and Pletcher 2005. Assessing factors related to wolf depredation of cattle in fenced pastures in Montana and Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(4):1256–1265). Encouraging or even mandating that livestock not be placed on pastures where there are active wolf dens could reduce conflicts significantly. This could be a viable strategy at least on public lands where federals agencies are supposed to be managing these lands for everyone—not just ranchers.
The presence of wolves also causes other changes in native predators. In Yellowstone it has been shown that the presence of wolves reduced coyote numbers by 50%. Since coyotes are still the number one predator of livestock, the presence of wolves could actually reduce livestock losses, and pressure to do predator control on all species. This is not even acknowledged in the draft plan.
Yes, such husbandry practices will increase costs for individual ranchers, but this is actually a real cost of operation that should be reflected in the livestock industry’s balance sheets, not externalized on to the public. Such husbandry practices could reduce conflicts significantly--and should be a prerequisite before any wolves are killed. These practices are mandatory in other countries. Such measures dramatically reduce conflicts and costs to taxpayers.
.
The current draft Idaho Fish and Game plan is a plan designed to maintain conflict. It is a plan that ignores biology. It is a plan that needs serious revision. To read IDFG plan, go to http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/surveys/draftwolf/. To comment on the plan go to idfginfo@idfg.idaho.gov Comments are due by December 31, 2007.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer with 34 published books. Among other things, Wuerthner studied wildlife biology and botany at the U of Montana, worked on wolf recovery in Montana, is a former biologist with the BLM in Idaho, and a former hunting guide in Montana.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. If you’re interested in submitting a guest column, contact Deputy Managing Editor Matthew Frank at matt@newwest.net..
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The pandering to well healed environmentalist groups is what has us in this mess.
I was raised to believe that my word was the most valuable thing I had, and keeping it was of utmost importance. Enviros would do well to learn that lesson, instead they try to build in loopholes and make excuses why their word means nothing.
Ecologically the country is falling apart. It's just that you're aware of it because you haven't been studying the ecological literature.
Just to give a couple of examples, in the eastern United States, there are problems with high deer numbers feeding heavily on tree seedlings affecting the forest composition. Lack of a top down predator is thought to be the problem.
Other problems we have seen in some places are heavy elk herbivory on aspen and willows which may also be related to lack of wolves. Wolves are suspected to keep animals moving around.
Aspen and other trees are established in pulses. All they need is proper conditions for growth or regeneration (by fire), and they reestablish themselves for the next hundred years or so. But if there are too many elk (or cattle) the aspen seedlings are all eaten. They need relief for sufficient years to grow beyond elk browsing--which is why it may be important to permit wolves to depress big game numbers for a period of years.
And perhaps the suspected decline in wolverine (early accounts of Yellowstone mention many more wolverine) could be related to limited carrion which may be a consequence of reduced wolf predation. Wolverine are highly depended on finding carrion in winter.
Geo.
The Yellowstone wolves are rapidly eating themselves out of prey, and they will disperse. You can bet your bottom dollar that the wolfers will scream and cry that it is due to hunting, and demand that they be protected again....if we ever get them completely off the list to begin with.
The result is that when wolves get close to belled reindeer, they get shot at. Not over your head warning shots---shots to kill. In some areas, there are great bears as well as the few remaining Siberian tigers, but those animals stay well away from belled reindeer. Those Russians are using Pavlov and AK-47 to train the wolves over generations. Hear them bells, hear them bells, can't 'cha hear them bells. and they wolves run like hell---take appropriate steps--great long ones away from the sounds of the bells.
What ever the means or the results, those people have been herding reindeer in Asia and northern Europe for perhaps 15,000 years. Tattooed, preserved bodies have been dug up in Asia that have reindeer tattoos on their skin. The wolves have had a long time to adjust and survive, as have the indigenous peoples. Perhaps it is time to train the newly arrived wolves of the Canadian boreal forest to belled cattle and sheep, along with gun shots and sometimes death. Boot camp for wolves.
You have to wonder if the people who came across the Bering Sea land bridge were just trying to get away from too many predators eating their livelihood. Let's go to some different ice and snow and see if we can live a little better. Or perhaps they had already reduced their food supply by hunting and were looking for a better and more provident area to live and hunt.
They came with dogs, and dogs are no more than domesticated wolves. You have to wonder if that domestication was a result of finding and following the carrion trail of humans. In later times, that has been called battlefield sanitation.
Humans are the apex predator. That is who we are, and how we got here from there. Lots of protein and brain development. So why stop now? Why must we always be addressing our very humaness in these discussions? I have said before that George hates people, and the more I read him, the more I am convinced of it. There are enough wolves out there right now that they will never, ever, be extinct unless broadcast poison is again allowed, which I would oppose vehemently if only because of collateral killings that go with it. Let wolves be once more gun shot shy and elusive and wary. This stuff about not killing Wolf #1 because he has a plan for universal health care or Wolf #437A because she has yet to birth, is just more social planning, which always goes awry, and is how we got here from there. They are only the top predator in the food chain if humans are not a part of it. Well, no human involvement is how we got to this forest fire conflagration place, how we have forever changed some ecosystems because we were not wise enough to see that the prior 15,000 years of human interaction in the forest was allowed to go extinct. I am fully in favor of keeping people involved in the whole of ecosystems, and George is not. We are in disagreement...180 degree disagreement.
There really is only one group that get to push their cost off onto taxpayers. That is the recreationalists. They contribute nothing except lawsuits to force other users off of "their land".
There is another thread presently on this site about getting rid of fees in some forests. Now most are admitting they need to be getting some of the timbering money back in, but it was pushed out for the same reason as the attempts to push ranchers off the land.......the claim that they did not pay enough. It hasn't been enough for recreational activists to have a free ride, they want it all to themselves, well folks if you push the paying folks out, you are going to have to pony up a little yourselves.
Maybe all of you eat just granola, but the vast majority of people in this country need and eat beef, wear leather shoes, drink milk, etc, and we would like it at a reasonable price & not a shortage of it. Montana is the second largest producer of beef in the US, Wyoming produces lesser amounts, but it is all very important.
Furthermore, ranchers pay less than it costs to manage the allotment, much less accounting for all the impacts. The same for most logging. If you account for all the environmental impacts, neither logging or ranching is a paying proposal. It's costing taxpayers to have these activities on our lands.
The fact remains, no matter what the big shot enviro groups say, money is short now that there is little timbering going on, it will get shorter if you get rid of the ranchers. Now you can call that subsidizding if you want to, I don't.
You know very well that it is not the "Enviros" hiking and camping that contaminate the water supply. Humans are required to camp 200 yards from a lake or stream in most publicks. Cattle on the other hand, are allowed mill around riparian areas and even to deficate IN our water sources repeatedly. You also know that Montana is NOT the 2nd biggest cattle producer in the US. Less that 3% of the beef produced in the country comes from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming combined. The tiny eastern state of South Carolina produces more beef than Montana. You start these arguments with your nonfactual dribble, over and over again. Your purpose is not to engage in beneficial dialogue but only to hijack the thread and keep those dedicated to the protection of wildlife and the environment from enjoying meaningful conversation. No one is saying that you shouldn't post but please bring something new to the table.
This was an excellent article. I hope Rocky Mountain National Park Officials read this and reconsider the planned elk mega-slaughter by hunters in favor or reintrocucing wolves to regulate and maintain elk populations.
Surely you realize that ranchers and locals pay tax too, in fact more because so much land is federal in our states, and federal land pays no property tax, but some PILT, so we make up the difference. I'm sure you realize the taxes you pay do not begin to cover the cost of trails, parking lots, etc, they must be made up by others. Timbering and ranching has been picking up a lot of that cost for you, without them you will have to start paying, not expect others to pay higher taxes to cover it.
It is true that ranchers could do more to protect themselves from wolves and grizzlies, but it is illegal at this point to shoot them.
I'm glad you are able to pay more for your beef, not everyone is that lucky.
Hmm...I'm not a historian, but I'd be willing to bet that guns have only been successfully used to kill wolves for a couple of hundred years--certainly, machine guns have only been around since the turn of the century. Thus, for 14,800+ years of the previous 15,000 reindeer were successfully managed by humans without the use of guns. Tell me why again we need to shoot wolves?
Sheesh, if you're going to spend that much space making an argument, at least think it through before you post. You're simply wasting mine and other readers time.
I cannot come to terms with being told we had to raise 300 wolves in the 3 states, and then being told you never meant that, it was every wolf you could stuff in here until it meets your dreams. Sadly you cannot seem to see that even if you rid the area of food producers, the private land will be sold and totally off limits to you. Why lie in the first place, why not admit there would never be enough wolves?
Please do some research before wasting everyone's time because you are an embarrasment to the ranching community.
The 300 wolf number in the recovery plan was the minimum number put forth as acceptable. The plan says nothing about how many wolves could live in the area.
Given that even densely settled state like Minnesota are supporting almost three times as many wolves as thought to exist in the Rockies today, biologically the region could likely support a much larger wolf population.
I did a preliminary study of Oregon's potential for wolf recovery about ten years ago and calculated that the state could support 2000-2,500 wolves based primarily upon ungulate populations.
Using that estimate, as well as other studies that have been done for western states as a basis, I would suspect the three states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho combined could easily support 5,000-6000 wolves and perhaps up to 10,000 wolves.
Obviously that's the biological carrying capacity, but we are not there politically yet.
I find your article to be VERY informative and well written. I hope some of your points will be utilized in upcoming suits against Rocky Mountain Nat. Park as well as against Idaho and Wyoming Wol (slaughter) Management plans. I am also excited to learn that it is becoming more apparent that wolves' may play a possitive role in helping to curb the rise in wildlife diseases caused by the unnatural practice of supplemental feeding of elk and deer herds at feeding grounds. It seems that this unnatural congregating of herds at these feeding grounds increases the chances of disease transmission. Wolves will help keep the herds on the move not only having a possitive impact on disease transmission but also in protectiong against over grazing as you mentioned. It is particularly disturbing to know that these so called "supplemental feeding grounds" is not done to benefit the elk and deer at all, but to preserve the range for the grazing of cattle.
Marion- You claim "I have trouble believing that one American can feel they has the right to chase another family away because they think they have a better use for their homes." Does this also apply to the fact that RANCHERS drove the Native Americans away from their homes becaust they thougt they had a better use for the land?????
The news that Idaho could sustain 5,000-6,000 wolves was exciting. That would be great if that would happen.
Cathy,
You have a point with the Native Americans and the ranchers.
Marion,
The wolves won't make anyone bankrupt or chase anyone away from their lands.
To my fellow wolf activists, I have a plan to save the wolves and I need help and feedback carrying it out. For those of us who live in Idaho we should all buy wolf tags. We could then burn the tags that we buy. I wish out of state folks could also help with this plan, but the price for them to buy a hunting license and a wolf tag would be close to 400$. For those of us who live in Idaho a hunting license and a wolf tag would be about 35$. If every wolf activist in the state buys a tag we could save most of the wolves. What do you all think?
We are right close 2000 now, I'm sure, if they were all counted.
As for financial harm, how many thousand dollars could any of you afford to have taken away from you without notice? remember the ranchers are "paid" for about 1 out of every 7-9 animals lost.
One sheep rancher was paid for 1 1/2 out of 30+ sheep killed in a pasture and not found until enough decay had prevented the detection of extreme trauma that has to be present to confirm a wolf kill. That cost him over $3000.
The benefit the ranchers receive from the feed grounds is keeping the elk and buffs out of their haystacks and grain lines, NOT off of public grazing. The livestock are not on public land at that time of year. They need the meadows for graze, which is now private land, the snow is too deep in the high country forests where they summer. Yes those private ranches have displaced wildlfie....as have your homes. Are you willing to give your home back to nature? But you seem to demand that others do so.
I have already proposed this very same plan. Apparently it won't work because if the population of wolves is not decreased by the amount of tags issued. The Dept. of Wildlife will simply issue more tags until the number of wolves have been "taken". I wish that it would work, even though I am from out of state I would gladly pay the price of $4oo to save a wolf. I do have some other ideas that I am reluctant to discuss in an open blog. Interested?
The answer is LIVESTOCK is one of the largest sources of the worlds green house gases. Like we all did not know that, but even the big companys are acknowledging this fact. they also piss and poo in the streams and lakes, destroy the habitat that they graze on...so keep them on private land not PUBLIC land.
Just wanted to share....
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/81217276
Same area, but wihtout the fence in the picture a few days before the grazing ended for the season.
http://www.pbase.com/mariond/image/89180030/small
I realize to you this is just terrible, but I think it is beautiful.
I guess what would be the most dangerous thing might depend on how much food was available.....unless you want to graze those mountain meadows yourself. Did they mention a pack of environmentalists on the list by chance? that is what I consider most dangerous to our food supply, fuel supply, etc.
How many fruit trees do you see blooming in Septemeber....everything to it's season.
You bet I'm interested! Anything to save the wolves. I respect you for your willingness to pay 400$ to save a wolf. It sucks that the old plan won't work.
To Marion,
I think George's 10,000 wolves idea is great. No offense Marion, but I also think you have a severe case of paranoia. There is no lies or conspiracy, there is just fact. The proof is in what George said about Minnesota. About how the state is smaller than Idaho, has more people than Idaho, and yet they have a wolf population of 3,000. Also back to the cattle thing. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that wolves only account for a MEASLY 1.7% of livestock depredation in Idaho. Furthermore, the 1.7% of livestock that was killed by wolves has been paid for. The ranchers have received compensation for livestock losses to wolves. Besides it sounds to me like the ranchers just need an animal to blame their laziness on. Yes, I'm calling American ranchers lazy. I have reason to say this. In Italy and France, their governments also started bringing wolves back. It is a different species of wolf in Europe. It is said that the European wolves are more aggressive towards humans and livestock. The sheep and cattle ranchers in Italy and France will go to jail for just shooting a wolf even if the wolf is attacking their herd. The Italian and French ranchers are out with their livestock almost 24 7. They don't watch T.V. Ranching is their life and they are with their animals night and day. They have zero to no predation on livestock because they are not lazy. Maybe American ranchers need to decide if they really truly want to be ranchers or not. If it is your main source of income and the livestock matters so much to the ranchers then they would be outside with their animals all the time, just like the Italian and French ranchers.
Rancher: When I was a boy, I remember seeing all the rats in Boise, how sad that they are all gone. I would like to see the rat reintroduced into its native habitat. Such social creatures are interesting to study and watch, and provided beneficial environment cleanup. A group of us would like to put forth a bill to reintroduce the rat to Boise.
The story was more detailed than my short version, but I think you get the point.
One such plan that can be discussed and is on Ralph's blog is the one of a gathering of pro-wolf activists during "wolf" hunting season on public lands. It has been suggested that obstructing a hunter while hunting is illegal but upon discussing the matter with IDFG, I have not found this to be true. However, if anyone can cite legal authority on this matter I would be interested to follow up. I believe it to be a myth perpetuated by hunters. So it seems that it is perfectly legal to gather as many people as we want on public lands during wolf hunting season. We could have our own "wolf hunting" party, much in the same way that activist came between the dolphins and their killers recently in Japan. We would have to do the same thing. This will not be an opperation for the faint of heart as we may actually be witness to the slaughter of wolves anyway and will be in the presence of wolf hating hunters armed to the teeth. But I am convinced that if enough people know about it, they will come. It has been suggested that we open a page on my space to get the word out. I believe that we need to explore every legal avenue open to us. I am open to suggestions.
There may be a point to your story if rats were an ecologically necessary keystone predator. But in fact most rats were brought to this country on ships.
You are right, when humankind dabbles with the order of things, inevitable change happens. But there is a real point in the story; nobody wants things that threaten them economically or physically in their back yard. All species should be given respect, including human kind.
I am so glad we live in a country where we can still openly debate such policy, and together effect change that will benefit all.
It sounds like a great idea (if it is legal). I would be willing to do this. Please tell me more about "Ralph's blog".
First there is the "Preble mouse" that is being used to stop developers that might compete in the housing market and make homes more affordable and is also used to prevent planting of wheat on wheat farms because it interferes with their habitat.
I saw this today and realized Colorado Wyoming aren't the only places forced to raise rats.
http://www.pacificlegal.org/?mvcTask=pressReleases&id=883
By the way just how do you think they are going to hunt wolves when the time comes? You surely do not think the wolves are going to be standing in a field waiting for dozens of hunters and hundreds of enviros do you? That is hilarious. There will no hunting in the Lamar or Hayden you know.
I'd like to see you buy licenses and be required to take a pack home to where ever you live with each license.
Ralph's blog is the Ralph Maughan Wolf Reports. You can Google it and when you get it click on "posted to my blog". Then put it in favorites. A lot of wolf issues get discussed there.
Marion.
Prebble mice are not rats. I'm sure they have some ecological value or there wouldn't be an effort to save them. I am also sure you would have absolutely no understanding about that. It surprises me though that you now trumpet the developers cause. You usually claim they are the cause of loss of wildlife habitat. When the time comes, I don't care how or where they hunt wolves. I guarantee you that I can hang with the best of them. I immagine most "enviros" can as well. They wouldn't have to require me to take them home. I would gladly volunteer. I live in some of the best wolf habitat in the country, although I don't think your wolf hunting buddies would appriciate your suggestion.
Marion doesn't like wolves for the same reason every other anti-wolfer/rancher doesn't like them. There is no real threat to their source of income or to their lives as they claim. They see the wolf as a symbol of the government or environmentalist interference in their lives. They think someone is trying to force them to accept something that will threaten their control of public lands and their ability to profit from them. They do not want to relinquish that control or their misguided belief that they have the right to dominate, exploit or destroy everything in their domain including what belongs to the public. Much in the same way that Old time southerners saw Civil Rights workers as a threat to their way of living. It is not the wolf itself, but what it represents.
Also thanks for clearing up the fog with Marion. I guess I asked a rhetorical question. No matter how much evidence and facts we present the anti-wolf rednecks are still going to be anti-wolf rednecks. I'd love to participate with your plan for saving the wolves from hunters. Please keep me posted.
Frankly I don't mind being called a redneck, we are the folks who work for a living. At least as a redneck, I can have some concern for those who have hundreds or thousands of dollars in uncompensated wolf losses taken away from them, while you folks seem to feel their families deserve to be robbed by your wolves.
Cathy, please describe how you envision a wolf hunt, I get the impression you think it will be much like the buffalo hunts, everyone all together in groups.
Hunting will never control the number of wolves we have now, it will take planes and or trapping. Even using those things Alaska cannot keep them under control. Unless disease wipes them out, they will continue to grow.
And wolves are of the dog family. Why not eradicate all of them too. And thanks for making my point that it is not the wolves that are the problem but what they represent. As far as a wolf hunt, I don't know how it will unfolf. I guess I'll find out when I get there. You seem to know so much how many have you been on? Oh thats right, there haven't been any yet.
The other great thing about Ralph's blog is that it is a Marion Free zone. She is personna non gratta there.
Wolf, I did not say hundreds of thousands, I said hundreds or thousands are what are lost by individual families. Ed Bangs estimates up to 9 animals are lost, but not "confirmed" for every one "confirmed", others estimate from 6 to 7. That loss comes directly out of the pockets of families working their tails off to make a living. That does not count a registered animal bought to improve a herd, it is market price if "confirmed".
What makes confirmation? Not wolves eating on a carcass, there must be enough tissue left to determine the extreme trauma that determines a wolf kill. If there is not enough trauma it is chalked up to bears or something else. It does not take one of the mega packs in the area long to consume so much of the soft tissue that it is impossible to determine that trauma. Of course the babies are either carried away or so rapidly consumed, that confirmation would be difficult even if one saw it happen. After the kill, while you guys are sitting on your behinds extolling the virtues of wolves, the rancher is trying to bury or other wise dispose of 30-50 head of sheep, or a couple of cows.
You continually overlook one thing. The Rocky Mountain West is NOT cattle and sheep country. The arid ecosystems are too delicate to sustain them and the land is historically predator (wolf, bear and lion) country. It is the equivalent of opening a fish hatchery in the middle of the shark infested waters of the gulf of Mexico and then Not attending to them. If ranchers insist on running livestock there, they MUST be understand that they will lose some of them to predators. If they don't like the odds they should be willing to better guard their herds. After all, programs are available FOR FREE for them to take advantage of that will help with this problem. Defenders and Nature Conservancy both offer range rider assistance and trained guard dogs FOR FREE. Their refusal to avail themselves to these programs leads the observer to believe that the rancher does not want to protect his herds at all, but that he wants compensation without effort and wants to blame all his problems on the wolf which as we all know is a mere scapegoat for the ranchers hatred of environmentalist. Their hatred for the environmentalists exists only because the "enviros" have exposed the environmentally dissastrous consequences of ranching in the arid western ecosystems.
You are wrong about the Wildlife Reports Blog. There are numerous dissenting opinions expressed there.
As for the predators, we had more left in this area than anywhere else in the country, except Alaska, and we dealt with them. Granted there were no wolves wagging their tails and begging at the road in Hayden, but there were wolves even. The problem is environmentalists with lots of lawyers trying to take control of the land. In fact it was the elitist do gooder program that nearly destroyed the Yellowstone grizzlies. They closed all of the dumps at once, bears that didn't invade humans starved to death, but those that survived ate natural foods.
What about the east coast, you surely do not believe there were no predators there do you? They would be rather inconvenient there though huh?
And not because of cattle.
Go count the number of posters on Ralph's site and tell us how many opposing view points there are. It seems more like you are right if those who have different ideas are kept off. Sometimes those who oppose you are essentially holding a mirror up so you see what others see, and it isn't so pretty.
What the Ranchers from Texas saw was FREE land that had been stolen from the Native Americans and given to them as an inticement for them to settle. And yes there were predators in the east but livestock did not have to be spread over thousands of acres to acquire enough forage to sustain them. They were kept in pasture that was capable of supporting them. They were not forced upon a land that could not sustain without suffering irreparable damage to that land. In the livestock compatable east it takes only 1 acre to feed 2 cows. Here in the west it can take as much as 50 acres to feed 1 cow. Most of the available forage in the west is within riparian areas which suffer the most because cattle congregate in them. Riparian area are (were) habitat for numerous forms of necessary wildlife. The entire ecosystem suffers when cattle are allowed to destroy them.
There are many apposing points of view on the Wildlife Reports blog. The only thing that is not tollerated is intentionally insulting or vulgar language.
Again, it is so nice that we live in a country where things like this can be openly debated.
What is the next step, humankind has many differing opinions, how do we solve these differences? I used to think that the truth lay somewhere between opposing views, but have come to a new understanding…biology is not a point of view, but life. So the argument becomes over life, of many differing species including humankind.
Rather than federal or state control, a new idea is forming, and like anything forming is really in an infancy stage. Bioregionalism
The link below is to a piece from Jim Dodge on bioregionalism. Jim lived on my family’s ranch (a large cattle ranch), and has had much direct observation, education, and interaction with politics, philosophy, and biology. Although the piece does not address wolves directly, it introduces the idea of how we are the stewards of earth.
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/envphilsummer/readings/Wk12Bioregionalism/dodge.pdf
I would take the position that it should not be majority rule from a federal or state level, or even “best science” of the year, but regional stewardship. Like the piece from Jim states, bioregionalism is yet to be defined let alone followed.
Chris
Idaho 2007 Big Game Regulations page 16, " It is Unlawful to Intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or lawful predator control by another"
Very interesting read. I take it the peice was written some years ago. I believe this Bioregionalism theory has morphed into current progressive environmentalism. A good example of this would be the book "Welfare Ranching, the subsidized destruction of the American West" by a collection of conservationists and environmentalists and edited by George Weurthner and Mollie Matteson. I think you will appriciate it if you haven't read it already. In it you will find an enlightening combination of environmentalism, spiritualism and economic/poitical information.
In Jim Dodge's peice I was particularly impressed and in agreement with his observations that we do not save certain species out of a sentamental desire but the realization that with out them we are "diminished" on every level. And that we cannot survive if the natural systems that sustain us are destroyed. The point that affluence can be attained either by the environmentally unhealthy practice of increased production or reducing the need is certainly applicable with extractive industries of the west including ranching. It is certainly true that "bioregional/environmental process represent intelligence, excellence and care" I cannot help but also believe that the "heartlessness" (of extractive industries including ranching) "represents a greed so lifeless and foresaken, it can't even pass for ignorance" parenthasis mine. All in all an excellent peice.
"Rats" We'll have to work around the interference.
Ed Bangs made an ESTIMATE when the 2006 Idaho FWS wolf report came out (that he helped orcastrate) he found that he was mistaken. Livestock losses due to wolves are exaggerated. Because you seem so keen on protecting the ranchers point of view I have some questions I'd liked answered. Are you a rancher? If you are were is this ranch? Have you lost any livestock to wolves? Biologists were astounded when the livestock depredations were less than half of what they'd expected after the first years of the wolves reintroduction. Wolves don't cause enough damage to start hunting them.
Aside for the compassion for families who face financial difficulties for the uncompensated losses, that affects the communities they live in too. They must cut back on purchases they make, and that trickles down thru the community, which really can be an impact if several different ranchers are hit hard.
I have not heard anything about how fast DOW pays (the paperwork puts IRS to shame), but I was at a meeting in June of 2006 and some payments were as much as 2-3 years of waiting despite being "confirmed". How'd you like to wait that long if your car was totaled or a fire consumed your house?
By the way Cathy, it doesn't matter if you kept your livestock in cages, the fact remains virtually ALL predators were eliminated in the east, we didn't, we have always had all of the predators, including wolves....there just were not "enough"....and still aren't for those who live by demanding more and more.
Again, I remind you that a lot of the land you are talking about is private land. You may be able to force the economy of the west from agriculture (food production) to trophy homes, but you will be the ones totally out in the cold when you cannot access public land at all instead of sharing. How wildlife and the land will fare in that new world is anyone's guess. While you are working so hard to destroy the agriculture way of life out here, more of the land is being sold every day.
I know lots of ranchers that live in "trophy homes". There is a big reason why the east cannot support the number of reintroduced wolves as the west. It is called POPULATION DENSITY. Even so there are several wolf reintroduction programs in eastern states. You don't hear anyone complaining about them.
So we should feel more pity for the poor animals who die naturally to feed predators than we do for those who suffer horrendous torture in transport to slaughter houses and filthy holding pens for days and even weeks before they are slaughtered, often with broken and mangled limbs?
Pray tell why he should take lesser money to provide an exclusive paradise for enviros, the very ones that are doing their best to chase them off their land? Encorage ranchers, they share their private land with wildlife and provide critical habitat and food and water, but you want them gone, if so then take what comes!
Chuck I'm not sure where you get the idea that anyone has stolen their ranches, any more than you stole your home.
I agree 100% with the vegetarian lifestyle. I have been one for 17 yrs. I encourage everyone to switch from the violent beef based diet. I started by just cutting out beef and found that it was then easy to eliminate other meats from my diet.
Marion,- "Trophy Developements" as you call them are no worse than cattle ranches as far as the public accessing the land. They are built on private property which generally was formerly private ranches. I live next to one. The first thing they did was the very wildlife action of removing hundreds of miles of barbed wire. Everyone in the area (including ranchers) agree that there are more deer and elk here than before. The previous owners (ranchers) killed the elk anytime they wanted to because the elk competed with their cows for forage. Private developements CAN NOT shut off anyone's access to public lands. And that is the issue here. Privately owned livestock destroying PUBLIC lands. The "ME ONLY" wilderness is of course open to anyone who would respect the land including ranchers who will put out enough effort to enjoy it. (Without their cows of course)
I'll tell you where Chuck and everyone gets the idea that the ranches were stolen. FROM HISTORY, something you would know if you ever bothered to crack open a book. All lands in the west were wrenched,often in bloody massacres from the Native Americans who owned it, by the US Calvary and distributed (for free) in enormous parcels, to anyone who was willing to settle there. It had nothing to do with the suitability of the land for cattle ranching. It was free land and those displaced by the Civil War, and the Mexican American War among other reasons were more than willing to take advantage of the missfortune of Native Americans. When Native Americans were torn away from their homes, so went the respect for the land. It became home to the largest greed based and environmentally distructive industry the world has ever known. The Cattle Industry. This also, is something you would know if you ever bothered to read any of the scinetific information availablle.
I'm not asking if you've heard a wolf howl on a war summer full moon night (que the strings.) But an encounter where you could see more than one wolf at a time or felt a wolf you saw had an observational intrest in you.
If you are in the woods in wolf country, you can bet there are wolves that take and interest in you. Not that they want to eat you, but out of warriness and concern. The same is true of any predator bears, lions, if you are in their territory, you can be sure they know it.
"Wolves blamed in two Eagle River attacks. A KTVA Channel 11 story reports on a group of at least seven wolves that waylaid three women running with their dogs on Artillery Road in Eagle River. The pack, despite being pepper-sprayed by one of the women, circled the group for a time before attacking and injuring one of the dogs, according to the story.
The women were not hurt in the episode, but a bulldog, Buddy, underwent surgery to fix his wounds. “They were not afraid of us, and I’m afraid that if I was out here by myself, they would attack me,” Buddy’s owner, Camas Barkemeyer, says in the story.
The rest of the article is here
http://www.adn.com/newsreader/story/243761.html
It is a known fact that wolves will go after dogs. It is a territorial thing. This is nothing new. Notice NONE of the women were harmed. Everyone should be aware of this fact if they live in wolf country. If the wolves had wanted to, they could have easily killed all of the women. Would you go swimming with your dog in shark infested waters????
This is more pertinent information which states that in the last 10 years 28 People have been killed by CATTLE.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais35.pdf
Here is another study cunducted between 1992 ande 1997 that states that cattle are responsible for 142 deaths in the US. The first study was in the UK
http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=012&issue=03&page=0168#i1080-6032-012-03-0168-t01
As for the cattle, stay out of strange pastures.
To Cowboy in Idaho,
I've seen wolves in captivity and once in the wild, there is nothing quite like it. When you gaze into their eyes, you can see such a sense of understanding, such beauty, such wisdom. They belong here.
Those wolves are in their own territory. It is the rancher who has invaded the wolf's territory with cattle. I guess you could say that the rancher dove head first into wolf infested waters. With all his cows. If you don't want confromtation with wolves, don't take dogs into known wolf territory. According to the report it was the handlers that were killed by the cattle. Murderous beasts, to kill the hand(ler) that feeds them.
The point is that there are no known fatalities due to wolves in North America. Cattle kill lots of people. Lets step up our campaign to get rid of the dangerous beast.
We are no more in wolf territory than any other state in the union, including the cities that have "too high a population density". Just another excuse for NIMBY. so much for keystone species, if it is only necessary where it will serve the purpose of eliminating an industry that you don't like.
Comments like this "If you are in the woods in wolf country, you can bet there are wolves that take and interest in you. Not that they want to eat you, but out of warriness and concern. The same is true of any predator bears, lions, if you are in their territory, you can be sure they know it." are true to a point.
Wolves do not "want" to eat "you", but if chance and circumstance are on their side they will.
"I've seen wolves in captivity and once in the wild, there is nothing quite like it. When you gaze into their eyes, you can see such a sense of understanding, such beauty, such wisdom. They belong here."
I beleive they have a place here as well. But thoughts like these are romantic nonsense.
Perhaps those who have been conditioned to consider the presence of the wolf a threat would take it that way. Childhood stories like "Little Red Riding Hood" and the "Three Little Pigs" have conditioned people to always be threatened by wolves. My experience has been different. In the few chance encounters I have experienced, I am struck with awe. Of course I have been in the company of others and without dogs or horses. I felt a sense of ecological completeness, not threatened in any way. The book "Predatory Bureaucracy" recounts numerous experiences of early westerners having VERY close encounters with wolves, and none of them were frightening. A little bothersome maybe as some of them had wolves chew on the very saddles on which they rested their heads as they slept. I believe it is a matter of conditioning.
Cattle on the other hand are KNOWN people killers. Maybe ranchers should be required to put up a Huge bond (in terms of Millions) in order to run these dangerous animals on public lands where people hike and children play. Cattle are a "Clear and Present Danger" on our public lands. The statistics speak for themselves. Marion once suggested that a bond shoud be placed by environmentalists for wolf reintroduction.
Marion- This is another case where you should READ before you blab your mouth. Of course ALL the land in the Rocky Mountain West is historical wolf territory. The Federal government has designated the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as current wolf territory by the act of re-introduction to those states.
My calving time is coming/ In February and March most of my calves are born and Cathy is right. It is a time ogf awe and wonder. I do feel a sense "of ecological completeness, not threatened in any way." Except of course by the Moma cows as they defend their babies against the injection I give to save their lives.
Cathy you come here to my ranch and you watch them "killer cows" be born. If after you have done that and watched the calf struggle to its feet, to nurse at a patiently waiting cow who has just tried to run you off with every power she has in her body and mind, then I will hand you a rifle and you can kill them both. If you like.
What I'm saying here folks, is it seems to me from the course of discussion is, there is very little REAL experince here.
I will be glad to take anyone in this discussion group to have a talk with wolves. I will take you to where the wolves live, I will see you are adequately supplied with shelter and food. And I will leave you there until the discussion has ended.
Any takers?
http://community.adn.com/mini_apps/vmix/player.php?ID=1611172
Cowboy, there is only one thing I know that is sweeter than a new baby calf, that's a new baby lamb. well one of my sons was given an orphaned baby pig, and that was pretty cute too.
I worked for the largest cattle rancher in Southwestern Colorado. I have sat through many a night during calving season. I have also bred and raised Thoroughbred horses all of my life. I agree there is nothing sweeter than being a part of a new beings first moments on this earth. If you feel as I do about the sacredness of these new lives, how can you turn around send them off to slaughter.
I'm not quite sure what point your are trying to make about leaving someone well supplied and sheltered where wolves live. That sounds like paradise to me. You'd be leaving me there a LONG time.
Marion- you're wrong about the babies. Foals are sweeter than almost any other animal. Except maybe a beagle puppy. Or a kitten.
I still think lambs are the cutest.
"You'd be leaving me there a LONG time." as long as you lasted.
Many here seem to forgt that wolves are predators.
[pred-uh-ter, -tawrz] Pronunciation Key - –noun 1. Zoology. any organism that exists by preying upon other organisms.
They have no tender feelings for humans. They don't care if you support their rights or defend their presence here. You are prey. More dangerous than most, but prey all the same. It is only a matter of time until that a becomes a fact here in Idaho, or Montana or Wyoming or wherever woves and humans interact.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/11/01/wolf-verdict.html
Cowboy in Idaho- Its not romantic crap, what I said before. You talked about experience. Have you seen wolves up close? Have you made eye contact with them? As for your offer- I live in Idaho, I'll give you my address, I'm looking forward to it. Does your offer still stand?
The arguments, and the credentials of the experts, have not changed.
I said the following on the previous wolf column:
By Craig Moore, 7-02-06
This report seems to sum up much of the wolf story. http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=6 It is written by Charles E. Kay, Ph.D. in wildlife ecology, adjunct professor of political science at Utah State University, and a Research Fellow for the Independent Institute
Table of Contents
• Number of Wolves
• Do Wolves Limit Ungulate Numbers?
• Do Predators Limit Hunting Opportunities?
• Wolf Control
• Livestock Predation
• Why Should Wolves Be Reintoduced to Yellowstone?
• Historical Distribution and Abundance of Wolves in Yellowstone
• The Envirnomental Impact Statement
• Hidden Agendas
• Epilogue
• References
By Craig Moore, 7-03-06
Ryan, you wrote, "I am not an ignorant wolf advocate." In addition to all your inaccuracies that I pointed out aren't you the one who erroneously believes, "...bobcats are bigger then a wolf..." It's those types of distortions that leave me shaking my head. In my opinion, wolves are to you what the snail darter was to those trying to stop dam building. Both are starking horses to some other issue. In your case, seething venom for hunters and ranchers is revealed in your comments. That's what Dr. Kay was pointing at when he wrote: >>As University of Wyoming geography professor James Thompson (1993:165) recently noted, “wolf recovery is [only] a ‘stalking horse’ for the larger issue of land use change.” Even environmentalists have admitted that “on the deepest level the issue of…wolf recovery is not about wolves. [Instead] it is about control of the west” (Askins 1993:5). Simply put, environmental-ists are using wolf recovery and the Endangered Species Act to run ranchers out of the country and to thwart multiple use of public lands. It is also a way for animal-rights and antihunting groups to ban all hunting and use of wildlife. Is this what Congress had in mind when it passed the Endangered Species Act? There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it is.<<
I'll have the time to take you in July next summer so you think about it and let me know if you're serious. I'll pack you in, leaqve you with the wolves and come get you in a week.
But I have a more important post following.
Have you seen this study?
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2007/09/elkpredation.pdf
It's interesting because I've never seen this topic discussed on any wolf site. For those of you who don't want to follow the link, the science says where there are wolves elk respond by having fewer calves.
Any comments?
I want to say again I do beleive the wolves have a place in Idaho, in alll the rockies actually. I just want the anthropomorphic idealization of this deadly predator to go away and for those of us who use the high country and those who make their living there to be able to defend ourselves and livliehood.
That said here is something I would recommend highly to ANYONE who wants to know about wolves. Sounds like great fun actually and provides support for a pre-wolf organization.
http://www.wolfcenter.org/news/news072907.html
The "Wolf Tracking Trek" indeed sounds like a lot of fun. If you live in an area where you could run a similar type opperation, why not do so? It sounds as if you may be in the perfect situation. What you are offering to do for free could probably make you a lot more money than the economically and environmentally unsound business of cattle ranching. I'm sure there is funding available from government and private sources to help innitiate such a venture.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/245094.html
Dr. Kay pretty much predicted the wolf situation we have now BEFORE the first one was hauled in. Certainly he was a lot closer than Mech et al with their 300 in 10 years.
Your referenced article from the Independant offers absolutely zilch as far as supporting evidence to the claims made by Dr. Kay. He offers his opininion only. For instance He claims that more wolves = fewer ungulates = fewer trees. There is nothing more than mere speculation to support his biased opinion. Numerous studies have recently been completed that show that wolves have the exact opposite effect on the safeguarding of trees and other natural fauna. http://www.cof.orst.edu/aspen/
For every piece of misrepresented fact in this article there dozens of studies by accredited sicentist that indicate that the opposite is true. One only needs to read the entirity of many of the books and articles referenced by Dr. Kay in his own article.
Environmentalists have NO desire to control public lands. We simply wish to keep those who are bent on the destruction of these lands from doing so. We care about the future of OUR public lands, water sources and wildlife. All of which have suffered from the constant missuse by the cattle industry. The land does not exclusively belong to them although they have acted as if it does for far too long. These are PUBLIC lands and the public wishes to see that they be managed properly. This includes the proper management of it's wildlife which ecologically and historically speaking, belong there. Cattle on the other hand are an invasive and parasitic exotic species which has no place in the delicate arid ecosystem of the west. If the ranchers cannot manage the land properly then SOMEONE else HAS to do it.
THIS IS NOT ALASKA. And notice NO ONE has been killed. When you go hiking anywhere do you not consider and are you not prepared that their may be and encounter with some sort of predator. It would be stupid not to.
as Dr. Kay said, "I am committed neither to having wolves in the West nor to keeping them out. I am committed, though, to science being used responsibly in policy debates, something I have not yet seen with wolf recovery. My analysis indicates that the federal government and other wolf advocates have taken liberties with the truth, with science, and with the Endangered Species Act."
He testified before Congress this past March. See: http://www.sosforests.com/?p=482
The population of wolves in Alaska is estimated between 7700 and 11,200. The human population is 670,053. This makes for an average of 1 wolf for every 73.4 people.
The combined population of wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is estimated at 1300 according to the latest report by Ed Bangs USDFW. The human population of all three states is 2,926,101. That is an average of 1 wolf for every 2250.8 people.
Now, of course it is more likely to see or have an encounter with a wolf in Alaska than there is in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming.
Many of the references cited in Kays article are studies and research compiled in FAVOR of wolf reintroduction. Much of the evidence presented by Kay appears to be extrapolated from apposing arguments found within the research compiled by those listed as reference. Apposing arguments are often addressed in research material as well as any evidences to the contrary that would prove up the authors claims.
I asked him about my watching the helicopter fly over a pack of wolves on private ground, do a short banking turn, and in a heartbeat, 4 wolves were dead, and I wondered how they determine which wolf to shoot, when, and why.
He said that particular deal was about a wolf or two that had become habituated to people in Yellowstone NP during the winter wolf watching hootenany. APHIS, nor the Wolf Recovery Team, could do anything about the wolves while they were in Yellowstone, but since there was a collar on a pack member, they became fair game for extirpation once they left the Park. They had left the Park, following elk to Dome Mountain country, and being it was a sort of snowless winter, elk were scattered and this pack had eaten some newborn Angus calves the night before. So the fixed wing tracker plane found them, and I watched the wolves trotting along as the tracker plane made a big turn and in a minute or two the helicopter was there, the Benelli spoke, and then we watched the shooter dismount and sling each wolf to a strut, one at a time, and they were flown to an anonymous marshalling area. But, they shot 4 because it was out of the Park school time and this was the lesson: fear man. It was not a livestock depradation alone case, (a real handy official reason), because the problem wolves had also become habituated to people in the Park and they did not want to ever, ever, have a bad deal with a wolf and a person injured or worse.
Now that was the shooter's story. What the party line from the wolf fairies is, or the Ed Bangs official public line is, I don't know. But the way I interpreted what I heard (this is heresay, and I know it) was that the USFWS was very concerned about wolf habituation and their fearless behavior towards people, and were not in any way going to let it be a threat to the general population. Those wolves died out of the Park, but were killed by wolf afficionado behavior in the Park. That is the way it works when you look into their eyes: you might just be setting them up to be killed. If we are to have wild, free ranging wolves, the wolves MUST fear man to keep their freedom.
So when you organize your wolf encounters, just remember that they are an experimental population, governed by Federal rules outside the ESA, and can be killed by the Feds at anytime when they become a threat to people. And some already have, it appears.
Once again, government "sharpshooters" get the honors. Once again, savor your second Amendment rights.
This is exactly what many groups are trying to do. I am very much in favor of grazing lease buy outs. It is a win/win situation for all concerned. My point on public land is not that any environmentalist group is claiming public land as their own. On the contrary we are saying that the land belongs to EVERYONE. And one group (the cattle industry) has exerted control over it for far too long to the detriment of the land and its' resources. The rancher has lost the right to continue to abuse the land and destroy its' resources including its' wildlife. The wildlife too, including wolves who were reintroduced at great public expence, belong to EVERYONE.
There will never be enough wolves in the Rocky Mountain west to threaten the lives of responsible humans. Thank you for the APHIS employee story. I will pass it along to the proper authorities.
Cattle grazing has only been allowed on allotments determined by the federal and state authorities. It was dominated by ranchers because no one else cared until now. And it specious rhetoric to accuse ranchers of abusing land. No defined group has a finer record of stewardship than ranchers and farmers.
Much of what we know about the envirnment and how best to care for it has only come about in the last few decades and farmers and ranchers are changing the way they manage their crops and livestock in response to that knowledge the same way you stopped beleiving in Little Red Riding Hood.
I'd sure like to have you define "responsible humans." As long as humans and wolves interact in the wild humans will be threatened.
Then there is the fact that quite a large number of the wolves do not see humans as a problem, the are accustomed to them and have no reason to fear them. Many more Yellowstone wolves are accustomed to humans being around them than Alaskan wolves. They are more or less pets in YNP, predators in Alaska.
As for the ranchers ruining the land that is just so much male bovine fertilizer. I have posted photos, but you don't want to know that, you want to believe that somehow enviro lawsuits make grass grow, trees green....and why not supposedly wolves do?
The worst rancher contributes far more to wildlife with his fields and water sources than every lawsuit ever filed to force your wishes on someone else. All they accomplish is deplete the money available for responsible agencies to manage wildlife and habitat...and of course improve their own self image in the mirror of their own making.
Now I think you are believing in some romantacised fantasy about ranchers and their desire to dwell in harmony on the land. "No defined group has a finer record or stewardship than ranchers and farmers"??? I believe that most Native Americans would beg to differ with you. Most environmentalist would also. Read the book "Welfare Ranching, the subsicized destruction of the American West." Public lands ARE being destroyed by overgrazing and irresponsible grazing at an allarming rate. It is naivite' to believe otherwise. You may be in a micro-chasim relatively uneffected as of yet. But it is only a matter of time.
I mean "responsible" in terms that if they live, play, camp, hike, bike, hunt, fish, or anything else in "wolf" habitat, they expect that there "could" be encounters. They should be prepared. In the same way that if a rancher chooses to graze his livestock on public lands in wolf habitat, he SHOULD expect predation. The sensible and responsible thing to do would be to keep his cattle on his own land where he can better guard them or to enlist the use of range riders and guard dogs (both of which there is a free program provided by Defenders and Nature Conservancy) to guard his herds on public lands.
This is where I got my Information.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt06/Northern_Rockies_summary_2006_annual_report.pdf
In you're case Marion it is not naivite' that makes you imagine that ranchers are in some way beneficial to public lands and wildlife. It is absolute absurdity. There again you may reside in a micro-chasm of area not destroyed as yet. But with current grazing practices, it is only a matter of time.
http://www.publicland.org/weedExplo.htm
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
Be sure and check out the phot galery on this one.
http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/GrazingRules.pdf
I know I cannot convince you that ranchers are helping the land becaue you do not want to believe. None the less a little common sense sould tell you that there would be no flowers, nothing if there had been a hundred years of abuse.
More good news about the pups. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hoope some more of them make it to Colorado.
http://www.publicland.org/weedExplo.htm There is no evidence that livestock are responsible for the noxious weed invasion.
There are no mentions of US public land use in this article
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE
http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/pdfs/GrazingRules.pdf
It is poor public poicy and another example of the Bush adminstration's misgovernance.
You have to start at chapter one. The link took you to chapter 6 which is about the same problem in other areas of the world. All you have to do is click on chapter one.
I really love this comment. I suppose Ron Gillette has told nothing but the truth. Hogwash & BS. Its usless to try and convince the anti-wolf people of the truth. They can't see past the nose on their faces. They are affraid of the truth.
To Craig: Your right I do sound a lot like that Ryan guy. I have been on many blogs some with Mr. Kay, but I assure you my name is not Ryan.
To Cowboy in Idaho: Please keep blogging so we can keep in contact. I am serous and July works great for me to disappear for a week. All take the offer....... Is all this for free? Cause I don't have a lot of cash.
Where do you live in ID. Just give the city that's all. If you can get to the trailhead I'm thinking of (2-3 hours from Boise.) I'll be glad to take you into the back country, and come get you again.
You'll need your own sleeping bag and personal stuff but I can supply the rest of the camping gear and the supplies you'll need to get by for a week.
I know a perfect area where there are at least 2 packs running close by, maybe more by now. And its not so far in you couldn't walk out if you had to.
There are over 150 wolves in Yellowstone itself at this time. I have posted the actual documented wolf kill during the 42 years that wolves were hunted and a bounty was paid inside of the park, that total was 80 adult wolves and 56 pups. The wolf population never remotely approached the present population. that number can be found in Doug Smith's first book on the introduction and in Alston Chase's book.
Yellowstone was remade to fit the dreams of enviros, no attempt was made to match the early history. There were most likely more adult wolves in that first truckload that had ever been in Yellowstone at one time in at least recorded history. The Washburn expedition gave a careful listing of flora and fauna, and never mentioned wolves. President Roosevelt in 1903 stated that coyotes were the only canine in any number in Yellowstone.
So Joel, if there is manipulation and destruction of wildlife it is being done by those who are trying to fulfill their dream of paradise....and really do not care what is destroyed to make them happy.
To Marion- I don't know what tabloid you've been reading, but whoever the editor is, they should be shot. First of all Canis lupus irremotus is the twelfth sub-species of gray wolf. That means that that certain sub-species is so alike in their appearance, SIZE, bone density, bone structure, and overall characteristics. The wolves brought from Alberta were the same sub-species (and size) of the wolves that lived in Yellowstone before they were exterminated. The Predator Removal Act saw to it that the wolves were destroyed. By the late 1920s all the wolves in Yellowstone were wiped out. Not one sighting of a wolf, a paw print, or a wolf howl has occurred since the 1920s until 1995. There were no wolves in the park or within a 200 mile radius of the park in any direction. Those are FACTS. To clear up some confusion you should read THE YELLOWSTONE WOLF. It is a book compiled of wolf reports, sightings, first hand accounts, and some general information about Yellowstone and what really to the wolves. It was a federally put out book so there is a low level of bias from both sides. Its a little dry in some parts, but its still an interesting read. Its almost a must if you want to debate about Yellowstone wolves and know what your talking about while still having evidence to back your arguments up.
Then "Bearman", Kevin Sanders photographed one on a kill inside of the park prior to the introduction.
Shortly after the first wolves were hauled in, a ranchernear Pinedale had a wolf around his livestock and called FWS, they told him, it could not be a wolf etc etc. He called severl more times and finally roped the animal and put it in his horse trailer, and called them and told them to come get it.
And if you read Alston Chase's book you will also find information about a pack photographed inside fo Yellowstone in 1967. It is always a good idea to get your information form more than one source.
With 2 wolves documented prior to introduction, but not being enough to satisfy folks, think of how many of the near 1000 in Idaho you have seen...but they are definitely there.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/weeklyrpt07/wk09272007.htm
I have seen another report that indicates over 800 in Idaho, and no I didn't attend Idaho meetings since I live east of Cody, WY
Would you rather have had that scenario? I doubt it.
And yes remember several years ago when all of the dogs were poisoned? FWS released information that they had found 4 dead wolves that were supposed to have been poisoned and they were sent for autopsies. When no further info was forthcoming after more than 1 year, I emailed Bangs and asked about it, after being shuffled thru several people, Jimenez finally told me they were still "investigating", and I guess they still are.
Interestingly enough the poisoning stopped after a guy was caught in Jackson wearing a long rubber glove after midnight. Local news releases said the guy, who was a known wildlife advocate that disliked dogs was questioned and released. That news was never a national release, the guy was not identified, and the poisoning stopped right then.
Remember the wolf numbers reported are only those actually seen and counted, the actual numbers are probably from 10-40% higher since some of the wolves are undoubtedly wild enough they aren't seen. We know new packs show up all of the time that have not been previously known. This happens even in Yellowstone that is pretty well super saturated.
Since e have had no control over the introduced wolves to all intents and purposes, yes we'd have been much better off if the wolves had been allowed to recolonize naturally, but control of other people is the big thing with enviros.
The animal you are refering to is one of 3 spotted in that area this year and the only one that was killed. You would think with all of the speculation a carcass sent for tesing 3 months ago would have been identified by now. Wonder why they haven't released the results......
George, you also mention that you are in possession of an Idaho non-resident hunting license. Please disclose to this blog what you hunt in Idaho and what (and when) was the last animal you harvested. Since you are representing yourself as a hunter and former hunting guide, this information is important in ensuring your credibility.
I'm not sure how you are working Irremotus into this, that wolf was declared extinct prior the the introduction of Canadian wolves. Even if there were a couple left in Yellowstone backcountry, I'm sure they'd have been taken out pretty fast.
I have no doubt that Yellowstone wolves and Great Lakes wolves can travel far enough to breed without help from anyone, and that was jsut an excuse to save DOW money.
I don't know about conspiracy theory, but certainly credibility is an issue with FWS:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/WeeklyRpt06/wk04072006.htm
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/WeeklyRpt06/wk06302006.htm
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/weeklyrpt07/wk01192007.htm
The March 2006 entry has been altered since I kept raising the issue that it originally stated that they were unable to do a classification or anything, and yet Montana G&F;released the 3649. You will note the second says they were unable to do a regular count that the 3649 was mere classification, then in January thy said the 6738 was a 150 more than the 6588 they counted in March. I emailed Bangs asking him about this too and he said he only writes what he is told, he doesn't know why the discrepancy. Then this year they gave no count at all since the December 2006 count. So far all we know about hat is that wolves have taken 40% bulls, 40% calves nd 20% "old cows", does that mean young cos all escaped?
As for Geoff, I'll be a jerk to you. Who do you think you are? Explain to me how George's hunting harvest success has anything to do with his credibility. Idaho's big game harvest success is only 17% so why does it matter if George successfully harvested an animal this year.
To Cowboy in Idaho: Where are you? I am still serious about the wolf thing but I can't do it without communication.
Surely you cannot think the elk situation in Yellowstone is good. Granted the wolves are killing each other, but I don't know if it is for what food is left or jsut for fun. On the other hand, according to Kathy Lynchs report, there are new wolves not seen before and they are all getting themselves ready to make new wolves. this does not sound like their numbers drop as the prey drops, elk numbers may well be at historic lows this year.
It sounds like you want to manage for the maximum wolves and to **** with the elk. This is one of the biggest problems with environmentalists, they want "their" species managed for the highest number, and nothing else matters. The buffalo people are the same, only lots of buffalo matters.
If hunters are pushed out by wolves/enviros, then the money that has been used to manage, provide habitat, etc will be gone, because the vast bulk of that money comes from hunters and fishermen, environmental groups provide lawsuits and harassment, nothing of substance.
What birds and fish have the wolves brought back? Lake trout in Yellowstone Lake? The ever increasing number of crows that prey on the sage chicken nests and babies?
Tell me Marion, if there were only as many elk as there are wolves, would there even be talk of hunting them??? hell no
I believe that the pro wolf people just want the wolves to have a fair chance at survival.
Let's face it the very title of this article makes an erroneous statement. There is nothing about the wolf thing that panders to ranchers, it panders to wolf people. I won't even say environmentalists because it is single species management and that can never work.
Each wolf eats approximately 2 elk per month, 4000 elk per month in the area, that is going to drop the numbers severely within a very few years. It is always necessary to have more prey than predators.
I suspect you want to do away with hunters as well as ranchers, but if you eliminate hunting, you are eliminating the money for wildlife management....and dumping predators and protecting them at any cost is NOT management. If you eliminate ranchers you are eliminating a tremendous amount of wildlife habitat. The only solution would be to put a tax on every single species advocating group to pay for all of this.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5814/960
http://nades.blogspot.com/2007/02/study-wolves-alter-elk-breeding-pattern.html more complete transcript of above.
http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/12/17/news/agingelk.txt
Note that between 2005 when this was written and Dec 2006, the herd decreased another 1/3. That is 2 years
FWS program pretty much and how science is misused to attain a certain goal. The question is why, idealism or research grant money, power? Who knows?
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_73.pdf
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/elk.html
Many of yours were news articles. So are many of mine. Here are some more.
http://wolfsaga.blogspot.com/2006/12/idaho-researchers-say-wolves-arent.html
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles12/wolves_thrive.htm
Your sites seem to support what I said. The biologists that were quoted said that wolves weren't as responsible for elk depredation as other factors. I don't think the wolves are responsible at all.
Wolf, what you think is irrelevant, the fact remains YellowstoneNP and Rocky Mt NP are very similar in most ways except for wolves, the elk herd had dropped by 2/3 in just over 11 years in TNP, they need to control the over population in RMNP. Granted Yellowstone has grizzlies, but Rocky Mtn has lions, lots of lions.
This is one of the biggest boodoggles by the government in many years, that is why Bangs keeps trying to say that elk are dying all over the place from lack of forage,when it is clear above their bellies. Last year he got so carried away that he included buffs, and had to retract it. I went in opening day, May 5th and did not see a single uneaten carcass anywhere, much less everywhere.
So the elk are being helped by the wolves 1) taking the larger bulls 2) disrupting breeding by keeping cows in fear flight 3) growing aspen trees for migrating neo-tropical birds 4) making life easier for great bears so that calf predation is increased 5) keeping the old and lame out of the gene pool (which goes against the aging cow research numbers) allowing coyotes to flourish (and bite Old Faithful watchers) 6)keeping the elk population in synch with the available food 7) killing trumpeter swans wintering YNP that eat fish food, therefore expanding fish numbers and 8) keeping the runaway bighorn population in check.
I think Marion might not know it all about wolves, but I would bet she does not have a subprime home mortgage, either. Those are for people who thought they could get a good deal right now and there would not be any extra costs down the road.
Wolf, the reason that elk and wolves existed together is very simple, the balance. There may have occassionally been a dozen wolves in Yellowstone at anyone time, but from the records my guess is that the wolf population was mainly traveling through and varied from none to a few. We now have a concentration inside of Yellowstone that far exceeds any possible balance. There is only one possible scenario, a total crash of the elk population and either mass migration out of the park by wolves or a crash of their population. Either way, the elk will pay the price, and so will ranchers.
I think it is pretty funny that the wolves were brought in to decrease the elk, yet when it is obvious that is exactly what they are doing, & very rapidly & efficiently, all sorts of excuses are made to try to blame the loss on something else. The wolf experts who were warned this is precisely what would happen, are blaming the weather, it's too hot, too cold,too wet, too dry, the elk are hiding, etc, but they just can't believe that the wolves would impact the elk.
As for bearbaits claims 1) "taking the larger bulls" most of the bulls are big and strong therefore it is unlikely that the wolves will prey upon them becuase wolves only prey on the old, sick, and (depending on the condition of the mother) the young 2) "disrupting breeding by keeping cows in fear flight" Yes its true that the elk are moving around more, but because of this vegetation has time to grow therefore providing more habitat for more animals. Also because the elk are moving around more Darwin's "survival of the fittest" comes into play. That means that the weak elk that won't adapt will die, which is unfortunate, but nature can be cruel. With the survival of the fittest the elk herds will prosper because the will be more healthy3) "growing aspen trees for migrating neo-tropical birds" that goes back to the more vegetation part, more habitat is always a good thing. 4) "making life easier for great bears so that calf predation is increased" I am not sure what you mean here. How are the wolves responsible for increasing bear hunting success. 5) "keeping the old and lame out of the gene pool (which goes against the aging cow research numbers) allowing coyotes to flourish (and bite Old Faithful watchers)" The gene pool part is correct. No offense, but I think the coyote flourishing part is fictional. Coyote numbers have been cut in half sense the reintroduction of the wolf. 6)"keeping the elk population in synch with the available food" Could you clarify what you mean here, I guess I don't understand what you are saying. 7) killing trumpeter swans wintering YNP that eat fish food, therefore expanding fish numbers "I don't know how many trumpeter swans are actually killed by wolves, but I agree with you that fish numbers have increased sense the return of the wolf. "and 8) keeping the runaway bighorn population in check". I assume that you mean bighorn sheep in which case the herds are more healthy because of the survival of the fittest. So bearbait, are you for the wolves or against the wolves?
Actually the big bulls are harvested post rut when they have depleted their food stores for the winter. Ralph Maughan posted a study of wolf predation in YNP and it was like 50% of kills were bulls. So contrary to populare belief they DO kill LOTS of bulls.
Elkhunter
You did not provide an author for the book, but if that si the one bu Doug Smith, I believe he uses the same 136 total that I have used. I don't remember if he listed 14 of that number to the Army during their 30+ years in charge, but that was the case. 80 of those 136 wolves were pups. A grand total of 56 adults were killed in 42 years. I think the elk herds woould have been safe with that number of wolves.
Your sources seem valid. Even if the wolves eat more bulls the elk herds haven't shown any major decreases. That is a fact (I have stated my sources in previous paragraphs). It only takes one bull to make many calves. Marion you are right when you said "the elk herds would have been safe with that number of wolves". And I am right when I say the elk herds are safe with our current population of wolves and they would be safe with many hundreds more.
They have not showed any signs of major decreases? Are you being serious? The northern herd is dropping by the THOUSANDS each year, and they only offer 100 tags for that ENTIRE AREA. What its down from 19,000 to 6,000? That is not a decline, obviously the 19,000 is way to high. And Wolf what is the herd objective? Do you know? And if you feel they are safe, why do you feel that way? What makes you feel that way? Just curious.
Elkhunter
"The State Elk Plan calls for a winter population objective of 3,000-5,000 elk north of Yellowstone with 2,000-3,000 of those animals wintering on or near the state-owned Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA). In the last 4 years, an estimated total of 3,200-4,000 elk have wintered in the area with 2,100-2,800 elk using the Dome Mountain WMA. By the end of this winter, biologists expect elk numbers north of the park to remain within the management objectives. In contrast, during the late 1990s, 5,300-8,600 elk wintered north of the park with 3,500-4,500 elk in the Dome Mountain area. Wintering such large numbers of elk could lead to long-term habitat decline and increase the likelihood of game damage problems on private land.
“From a winter elk management perspective we are currently meeting State Elk Plan population objectives. The number of elk wintering north of Yellowstone Park has been within State Elk Plan objectives since 2003,” added Lemke."
I don't know where you are getting your pieces of fiction. You sited no sources about elk herds declining. I have sited over fifteen on how they are doing fine. Perhaps you could give me some evidence. As for the herd objective, Jeff answered that. I feel the elk herds are safe because they are healthier than ever THE SAME cow to calf ratio is being observed. Its the same from when the wolves weren't here. I also feel safe about the elk herds because habitat for all of the animals is benefiting from the return of the wolves. I think that covers your questions. Are you for or against the wolves? I know hunters who are for them. If you are against them why? JUST CURIOUS.
To Marion,
Math might not be my strong point, but correct facts and spelling sure aren't yours. Biologists say that in Yellowstone, Montana, and Idaho. Biologists say almost as many elk calves are surviving to adulthood as before the wolves came. The main thing that has changed since the return of the wolf is how much the elk move around and where they move around to.
Thanks for the info. I can't believe this is actually happening.
By the way the total northern herd was 19,000 prior to birning in wolves, it was 6700 last year, we do not have any numbers this year.
I highly doubt it. You know its not all about us humans.
Its true that the elk herds overall numbers have dropped, but that doesn't mean the elk are dead. The elk are splitting up because the wolves are making the herds more healthy, which means more competition among the bulls. Groups of bulls will gather their own cows and strike out on their own. The wolves ARE causing this, but that doesn't mean all the elk are being killed by them. The environment is benefiting from the wolves return. Chucks right, the area probably wasn't meant to support 19,000 elk. He is also right when he says its not all about humans. Its not all about elk, or cattle, OR WOLVES, its about making the environment better, and so far the wolves have done just that. They are balancing the ecosystem. Whats wrong with that?
Elk numbers have risen and fallen thru history naturally. Now they have been artificially reduced to very low numbers, what will a really bad winter do? The winter of 1919-1920 was thought to have killed off 10,000 elk, although "only" 2000 carcasses were found. What will the loss of either number do to the remaining elk if we have another bad winter? And we sure can.
I don't agree with what you just said, but we are forgetting the obvious here. If wolves decimate elk like you say how come the wolves have preyed upon the elk for thousands of years, and guess what there are still elk. They have gotten along fine why take the wolves out of the picture.
I really haven't found any evidence of the huge mega packs we now have, in or out of Yellowstone, that too has an impact.
The numbers today far exceed that, in fact this years count is close to 200 and probably higher if all of them could be found and counted. That is a dramatic difference. Hopefully hunting will not only trim the numbers down, but also concentrations of wolves. I hope it also frightens them into spreading out. It probably will not help the situation inside of Yellowstone.
If there actually was anywhere that had a wolf concentration like we now have artificially growing inside of the park, they may well have wiped elk or other species out and gone on to other places without humans ever being aware of it.
By the way Craig, thank you for the link to Dave's article.
What you are saying isn't possible. If there was never a large population of wolves in Yellowstone then how come that in the first few years of the Predator Removal Act, several hundred wolves were killed in and around the park. As for the current wolf numbers in Yellowstone, your right the population is dense, but nature has its own way of controlling that population. In recent years biologists have found a disease that controls wolf population. I can't give the exact name of the disease, but the disease kills 2/3 pups in every litter. This keeps wolf population right where it should be. There is no need for a wolf hunting season, at least not yet.
As for disease, I think it was the 2005 litter that got what they thought was Parvo, then thought might be distemper, but I don't know that they ever determined for sure. At any rate, it has not reoccurred. The count this year was unofficially 167, and I read today that they were unable to complete the official count this year due to weather. That is just inside of the park, and that is jsut what they can actually see to count.
Jeff E. knows the link. You can google 2006 YNP elk report and it will come up. Calf ratios in the LOW TEENS. That is NOT a healthy herd. And the herd declining is pretty obvious. Read Jeff's comment, YNP elk herds have been declining for years. If you need a source to realize that then I dont know what to tell you. You do realize the Northern Herd at one point was 19,000. That is obviously WAY to many elk. But the last count was around 5,000. Once again thats a pretty big decrease. Hence I was talking about declining herds. Now if this bad winter keeps up, it will be very bad. What was the cow to calf ratio 10 years ago Wolf? Last year it was 20-25 per 100 cows. For 5 years before that it was in the teens. And Lemke also said that the average of the herd is way above average. Is that healthy? I dont think so, its because wolves/grizz kill all the calves. Eventually that will catch up. Here is the link. http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/0616b.htm
Elkhunter
All of these numbers games smacks of human arrogance. No one knows what the right number of elk is for any particular point in time. And that is the point will vary from year to year, decade to decade due to many factors, including wolf predation. Natural processes, including wolves, along with disease, harsh winters, other predators (bears take more elk calves than wolves) lower productivity due to drought, etc. will adjust the herd to whatever is the ideal capacity for that point in time.
If this winter continues, we may have a good idea of the impact of winter on an already depleted herd of old elk that has been short on calf recruitment for several years. Old man global warming is getting quite a little frost bite this year.
Again, there is no difference in the decision to manage wildlife for what is most popular, jsut like it was done in the early days of Yellowstone. The one and only difference is the species given priority. when all is said and done, no one has learned form their mistakes and the animals are being managed by emotions, not science.
I am currently reading Will N. Graves book "Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages." I do suppose all the American wolf people will be downplaying this book. I haven't looked for nor have I seen any attacks on it yet, but I expect there will be many.
Somewhere between the experiences of Russia, and the reality of this country, there will be an answer to how wolf control will be addressed down the road. Hopefully.
It doesn't look like we will have any firm or even sort of firm numbers this year. I saw in the report that they were not able to finish counting wolves due to the weather. I don't know if they counted elk or not. And I guess it doesn't really matter except for something to worry about. There is nothing that they can do even if they knew the elk were on the verge of being wiped out...except of course make excuses.
I have a favorite picture of 60 or 70 herd bulls in one group I took with a point and shoot camera a few years back. I will never see that again in my life time.
My only bitch against Montana is that they allow shed horn hunters to run elk all night long with night vision help. Anytime you go up to Daily Lake from the middle of next month on, you will see the same pickups there running bulls through the trees so that their horns fall off. At the most critical time of the year, the most vulnerable elk, big bulls, are being stressed to death so that some swell can have a chandelier or fancy drawer pulls. It is sort of like snagging salmon on the spawning beds for their eggs. Not right. With wolves running them most of the time, you cannot have shed hunters running them also. My opinion.
I will tell you that the Russian experience with wolves was greatly impacted by gun control over the ages. The peasants did not have them. So when a wolf ate the milk cow, children died. When the wolves ate the plough horse, children died from hunger later on.
Your article didn't say wolves were directly responsible for the elk herd population decrease. It said that less wolf predation and "LESS HUNTING" led to an increase in elk numbers in that particular elk herd.
To Marion,
As for your arguments, you seem pent on blaming the wolves and the grizzly bears for the "decrease" in elk numbers. Doug Smith did a study in Yellowstone and it was found that wolves, grizzlies, black bears, coyotes, cougars, and even eagles killed the same number of elk calves during the spring; so to pin the decrease in elk numbers on just two species is ridiculous. Also more elk are killed by hunters, cars, and poachers every year than wolves.
To bearbait,
I don't know what your fetish is with Russian wolves, but your arguments are holding no case value because of two basic things. The wolves in Russia are a different species than that of the wolves in North America and the Russian wolves are on a different continent than the wolves we are talking about; so get a different argument.
There is a simple answer to your question. I live in Idaho and I know many people. Idaho is full of ignorant rednecks. They are so ignorant and so afraid of the wolves that they use their "fix all solution"................... shoot them.
I live in Idaho also and still have yet to see an Idaho wolf. I know they are there. I can go to yellowstone and go right to them. Maybe one of these days I will be able to go out and see Idaho wolves, if the rednecks don't kill em all first.
As for taking your dog into the mountaisn, it is sure a good way to see wolves if they are there, and you seem to imply they are not.
Tell the folks in Anchorage how the wolves are afraid fo them.
You are so ignorant it is baffling. The wolves were here first, not the ranchers. Wolves don't even kill that much livestock. Would you please find something else to bitch about because blaming the wolves for your insecurity is just getting old.