Attacking the wolves
Idahoan Wants Offing Wolves on the Ballot
By Jennifer Gelband, 6-14-06
 | |
|
Stanley resident Ron Gillett has grandkids, and he doesn’t want them eaten by wolves. One option is to not send the kids to his house through the woods wearing red cloaks. Another option is to pledge to rid Idaho of all wolves. He’s going with the latter option.
Gillett is the president of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition. He spearheaded an attempt to place the wolf-elimination issue on the November 2006 ballot. Not only did he not succeed at getting it on the ballot, he failed with distinction, which can only mean that Idahoans must kinda have a thing for wolves.
To get the measure on the ballot, Gillette needed 47,881 signatures from registered Idaho voters. He fell short with only 40,000 signatures. In an interesting spin, it turns out only about 13,500 signatures were from registered voters, which can only mean that 26,500 sheep and elk dressed up as Idahoans and signed the initiative.
Gillett, completely undeterred, is trying again with the 2008 election in his sights.
Aside from the issue of safety to humans, Gillette’s also concerned about hunters in Stanley. He claims that wolves are thinning herds and people aren’t going to the area as often. Interestingly, Gillette is the owner of the Triangle C Ranch lodge in Stanley. "I only had four out-of-state hunters stay in (the Triangle C) last season," he told the Idaho Mountain Express. "I usually have between sixty and eighty hunters."
Idaho Fish and Game manages state wolf packs, and must maintain a minimum of fifteen packs. Wolves are protected federally, however, by the Endangered Species Act. F&G officials have asked for permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce wolf numbers in certain regions of the state. Their reason, according to biologists, is that wolf predation is a significant contributor to waning elk numbers may be preventing elk population recovery.
However, an Idaho Fish and Game rep told the Idaho Mountain Express that wolves are responsible for only about one percent of livestock depredations every year.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The time for a ballot was before they were brought in.
Deer and Elk populations have not suffered the catastrophic declines that Ron likes to portray and livestock depredation is simply unconsequential. Wolf management has become more of a exercise in managing people and their livestock than managing wolves.
Let Ron spend all of that money he raises with his Chicken Little rhetoric on something that won't make a bit of difference in the long run. Either he won't get the initiative on the ballot because he lacks the signatures, he gets the initiative on the ballot and it doesn't pass, or, the least likely, the initiative passes. If the initiative passes do you really think that the IDFG would give up management of wolves now that they have it? If management goes back to the USFWS then that's fine too. They probably would do a better job than IDFG anyway.
Ron's goal of ridding Idaho of all wolves will never be accomplished but he will still be able to raise money for what seems to be a profitable way of life for him. You do know that the Anti-Wolf Coalition is not a non-profit don't you? It is not a 501(c)3. That's one of those inconvenient truths.
I also think that Ron is the best spokesperson for the anti-wolf crowd since his credibility is lacking and much of his rhetoric has no backing in science. People know this and he makes his supposed allies look as crazy as he sounds.
I have been in close proximity to wolves numerous times over the last 5 years and have never felt threatened. I'm talking 15 yards. Not across the valley. Each experience I have had has been an enjoyable one where the wolf has always turned away because it knows that humans tend to be dangerous. Sometimes I wish they were not as visible as they have been for me because some humans are dangerous, stupid, and have a tremendous lack of respect for wildlife in general.
As for the wildlife, it seems to be primarily the one area in the Lolos where their numbers have dropped so dramatically. Do you have specific problem with IDG&F;, or just that you don't like them? They have to have 15 packs too? Not that is matters now, there are far, far more than that in Idaho, it is mostly a credibility issue on how many are going to be enough.
We've had this discussion about wolves in the Lolo area before Marion. I've heard Steve Nedeau, the large carnivore manager for IDFG, say that it is a habitat problem. Do you have an issue with that? It has been the mantra of the IDFG for nearly 20 years that the Lolo/Clearwater/Selway region has had a habitat problem due to roads and or fire suppression.
Let me put my relationship with the IDFG in perspective. I deal with employees of the IDFG on a daily basis. I don't have any problem with the biologists or most of the managers in the department. I do take issue with the commissioners' desire to view this in a political light that has no basis in science. Some people I have spoken to feel that the department is not being very professional or responsible in this matter.
The IDFG employees that work directly with wolves are extremely professional but they are not the people that made the proposal to kill the Lolo wolves. I think that the big game biologists probably were not involved with this proposal. The proposal is the work of a couple of the politically appointed commissioners and the biologists are just following the direction of the commission and the director.
As far as protecting your livestock from predators. Don't graze them in areas where predators are present. If you do, you should be willing to take the risk of losing livestock once-in-a-while, especially on public lands. That's why public lands grazing prices are so low.
The wildlife of this country belongs to everyone not just the chosen few who steal the power to manage it for their own financial benefit. Functional ecosystems have a value unto themselves that cannot be calculated financially.
As far as how many are going to be enough? I think that Idaho could probably sustain more wolves without much more conflict than we presently have. I think that managing for a certain quota would be expensive and be pointless.
Wolves have not been the great disaster you and Ron have hoped they would be. In fact, wolves are not the issue here. It's your childish fear of the wildness they possess.
As for who to believe, I would have to go with fish and game biologists who are on the ground in the area. In order to make a formal request which I understand they did, I would expect them to be biologists with some respect and standing, even if you "know better".
If ranchers can no longer run sheep or cattle on their land because you want them to raise wolves, then they need to be reimbursed big time. And please do not mention DOW, they confirm a tiny percent of wolf kills, and some ranchers have been waiting as long as three years for checks for "confirmed kills", and still were as of a few weeks ago.
The wolves are a disaster to livestock in some places and wildlife in some places, dropping the northern elk herd by nearly 15,000 in 10 years is pretty significant....well maybe not to you.
I am not nearly as worried about a general injury to people by wolves as I am a kid doing chores and coming on a wolf eating or attacking an animal and the kid getting in the way. the other thing is rabies, that does happen out here.
We have 10 times as many wolves as we were supposed to raise to satisfy enviros so they could delist.....ha, it will never happen, they are addicted to power over other peoples' lives.
Defenders of Wildlife does not confirm kills. It's Wildlife services in Idaho. I don't know who does it in Montana or Wyoming but it is not DOW there either.
Gee.... lets also come up with the most unlikley scenario for injury to a child. I thought everyone was worried that wolves were going to pick off kids at the bus stop. You know, I bet they will start sneaking into Gramma's bedroom and eating her, then dressing up in her knickers and waiting for her grand daughter.
If Wyoming came up with a plan that didn't direct everyone and their grandmother to shoot at anything that moves then maybe the wolves would become delisted. As it is the population of wolves in Montana and Wyoming has stabilized and hasn't continued to grow like you and Ron had feared.
The Northern heard may have declined but the heard is still at 8000-9000, which according to my math is only half of the 18,000 that it was in the mid 90's. The late season hunt in Gardiner was meant to reduce the elk population partly because of complaints by those livestock producers you claim seek the best interest of the elk. I've seen the late season elk hunt in Gardiner. People would haul truckloads of elk out of there. I think that had something to do with the decline there too. There was an active management plan in place to reduce the northern elk heard.
Okay, if livestock owners want to graze their livestock next to a wolf den should they be compensated? What about people that lose their job because a Wal-Mart moves into town and puts their small business out of business with cheap crap and low paying, benefits free part time jobs. Should they be compensated. What makes a rancher so holy? I would love it if someone protected my way of life whenever I whined about how hard it is to make a living in my chosen lifestyle. People have to change their lifestyles all of the time due to economic and environmental pressures. Why should ranchers be any different? Why do they deserve to have 900 buffalo and every bad wolf, elk, deer, cougar, coyote and sage grouse killed on their behalf? Tell me Marion? Why? Just because their lifestyle is "traditional"? That's B.S.
If a deer eats the grass in my yard I don't think she deserves to be shot because of it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against hunting. I just want more of all kinds of wildlife and functioning ecosystems to boot.
If you are from Wyoming or Idaho you should probably know that we receive more money from Federal Taxes than we can ever pay. We are welfare states.
Here is a comprehensivie list of attacks. http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html
As for Ralph Maughan, he has been saying the wolves have peaked out for the entire 3 years or so that I have been reading some of these sites. They have more than doubled in that time, and of course no one is able to count them accurately, they can't even keep track of the collared animals much less the uncollared ones. "New" or unknown packs show up every year after the count.
I am not sure why you feel you are so important that you should have the say over a rancher's land and livestock. I do not know of a single rancher who would be so arrogant as to tell you what to do with your property.
the wolves do impact other animals in both Canada and Alaska even though there are some pretty heavy attempts to control them.
As far as attacks on humans, the list provided is reasonably comprehesive but if you compiled a list of deadly attacks by people it would take much more than a single web page to list. In fact you are much more likely to be killed by slipping in your shower than be attacked by a wolf. If you put things in perspective you anti-wolf folks have blown this way out of proportion. It's like being afraid to leave your house because a flying saucer might fall from the sky and land on you.
Get a life. You seem to gather all of the evidence you can to say that wolves are these horrible creatures that kill everything they come across and everything is at risk. It's simply not true.
Ranching will soon fade away in the west. It is not a profitable business unless it is subsidized and the children of ranchers are not continuing the lifestyle because they don't want to have to work at something that doesn't pay. It's an economic thing. I have to make the same choices in life. I have chosen something that I don't make much money doing but I enjoy it. If I couldn't pay the bills though I would have to find another lifestyle. My lifestyle doesn't require the deaths of untold amounts of wildlife for the purpose of raising beef.
You may well succeed in destroying the family ranch/farm, but they will continue to exist because humans must eat. They will be sold to large corporations who will then have the political and financial clout that environmental groups have, then all will be on an even playing field. The ordinary consumer will be the one who pays because of the control and the extra expenses.
The most efficient tools for producing meat in the west are the native wildlife that lives here yet we are still trying to eradicate it for the purpose of raising these stupid animals that can't defend themselves fro predators. Raise buffalo instead. They can and do defend themselves against wolves. Especially when they have habitat that is productive.
On numerous occasions I have seen wolves approach buffalo and be chased off by them. Buffalo defend their whole herd not just their young.
I'd rather sound arrogant than ignorant.
You are on the losing side of this argument. I know I can't convince you of that. If you don't want the corporations to take over agriculture then don't buy their products. It is a choice that I have made and, yes, I pay more for it but it has also created businesses that are willing to make the extra effort to be sustainable with less impacts on wildlife. It has also created more jobs with better benefits for their employees.
How did you come by the 6-8000 elk left in the northern herd? The count was only 3649 this year, now I know they only counted in a few places, but no one can or will compare those areas to where they have counted in previous years. So far as I know FWS has never admitted to the count this year, it was released by others on the count with them and YNP.
Why should anyone compare those counts to previous years? It's apples and oranges. To make a valid comparison you need to have consistency which was not present this winter. Idaho doesn't even count every year. They do it about every three years.
I have mentioned before that I don't think you can put a great amount of certainty on aerial counts. You can't see all of the animals. You also need to be able to ground truth the counts. If you can only do ground counts you have no idea how many you are missing from the aerial counts. You can't have one without the other and even then they can't be uncertain based on conditions.
Why do you think the government is in some conspiracy to cover up the elk numbers? It's ridiculous. Maybe they were using their black helicopters to spy on you instead of doing the elk counts.
I am speculating on the elk numbers. You are right about that, but I have seen no appreciable decline in elk populations in my time on the northern range this year. I get around alot and I do see what's going on. In fact, I see a lot first hand so don't go saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. I also read and have met many of the people involved in this and many other wildlife issues in the area.
Biologists have a lot of insight into these things but they don't know everything. Imagine what we could learn if we weren't wasting all of these billions of dollars on this ridiculous war in Iraq. These issues are not so separate that they can't be brought together in an arguement like this.
I was insulting Marion. Not you Craig.
I did read all of what was listed but I found a pattern that indicates that attacks by wolves in North America are exceedingly rare but that many who try to argue that wolves here are dangerous have to bring up the attacks in Europe and Asia to make their point. There is a subtle difference between the two populations that I can't explain but it is obviously there. Maybe it has to do with the different relationships that people have had with wolves in those areas. Maybe the wolves in those places are not pure wolves or just wild dogs. That could explain some of their behavioral differences. Maybe the habitat and the pressures of human overpopulation have something to do with it. But to claim that wolves in China, India, and other countries in Europe and Asia should be just like the wolves of North America simply doesn't wash. There hasn't been any genetic exchange between the two populations for centuries and that is probably plenty of time for those behavioral differences to develop.
I don't claim that wolves are extrodinarily benevolent creatures but they are nowhere near what the Rons and Marions make them out to be. In the scheme of things they are just a blip on the radar. Where they make the impact is in the imagination of people.
I will continue to ridicule the argument that our children are at risk because of these "vicious land pirhanas that kill everything in sight". It's a ridiculous argument and it will be countered.
I have been in very close proximity to wolves in Idaho and I presume near dens as well. I have never been threatened nor felt uncomfortable. I also know people that have done pup counts where they are between the den and adult wolves, which have every reason to attack, standing right behind them and nothing has happened to them. I can't explain why wolves rarely attack people but it is extemely rare. It's a fact that I am, frankly, happy about. Otherwise I might be one of those people viciously attacked and eaten.
I feel more threatened by a moose, elk, or buffalo with a calf than by any wolf. In fact I have been charged by cow elk before and have unwittingly stood between a moose and its calf. Those are not pleasant situations to be in. Should the elk, moose, or buffalo die because I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Absolutely not. That goes the same for any wildlife if it happens to kill me. I take full responsibility for where I am and my actions. If you haven't educated yourself to be aware of dangerous circumstances then you might just pay the ultimate price. But I will not dwell on the insignificant risks that only happen in such infrequent situations that it will scare me away from doing what I want to do and what I believe in.
Ken, why not just can the insults completely and allow people of differing views just talk to each other respectfully, like two neighbors meeting each other at the fence and shaking hands eventhough they stand on opposite sides.
Sorry, I thought I posted this yesterday, but it does show they made a count this year. My reason for comparison is so we can understand which areas might have been missing from the count. They have been using the 20% calf/cow ratio as a great improvement and a sign of things turning around.
Why do I have a great deal of scepticism, for one thing if they were trying to return the balance to Yellowstone, they would have aimed for approximately the same number of wolves that were originally in the park, which was very few. It took 42 years to kill 56 adults and 80 pups which "extirpated" them. Instead they wanted as many as could live in the park. Is that really any different than what was done in the early days, just a different focus, but still trying to please a segment of the population with a "charismatic" animal.
Another reason for conceren about what we are and aren't told is the fact that Bearman has a list of the wolves hauled into Yellowstone in 95 and 96, it incluedes "10 pups" from Augusta, MT. I had a chance to ask Ed Bangs about that at a meeting in Riverton. Yes, they did bring an unannounced 10 wolves in addition, but he said "that was a mistake". They were part of a livestock killing pack, and 8 of them eventually had to be killed because livestock was their chosen prey, putting even more folks thru a lot of grief.
I am not worried about wholesale slaughter of kids, I am concerned about a yougster going out to do chores and being attacked because his dog is with him or a 4-H lamb or calf or colt. They have attacked animals near homes, as in right outside the doors. In fact the Robinettes had one dog killed on their porch and one attacked while Mrs. Robinette was taking him to the barn to lock him in and try to protect him.
There are radicals on both sides, I consider Gillette one, and Maughan on the other side as one. Anyone who feels the wolves are more important than people and if the ranchers cannot afford thousands of dollars in uncompensated loss every year, tough. Ranchers are food producers, and they should not have to provide entertainment. I suspect where you live was also some sort of wildlife habitat once upon a time, are you willing to give your home back to the animals and continue to pay for it?
I also consider anyone who thinks wolves will go thru a school yard commiting wholesale slaughter a radical also...unless of course a pack got rabies.
I would have had no problem with approximately the smae number of wolves that were historically there, but I honestly feel that the huge numbers were intended to do exactly what has been done, and destroy one segment of our food producers.
One person was told that "predators" got them all. The Yellowstone Park Service has not put out any information on the loss of the swans at all. However I did find the 2005 bird report and at least 3 were confirmed killed by wolves. There weren't that many to begin with, and this is a big loss. Several of us are trying to find out if they were indeed responsible for their disappearance from Yellowstone, or what was. This is not going to be something that can be explained away by "habitat loss".
You asked a great panel of experts there Marion.
The NW Montana wolves were not unannounced. It was known at the time by those who were paying attention.
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/NewtwistNW.html
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/sixmore2.html
Did you happen to read this statement in the elk count article you posted? "Thus, the count was considered poor and inaccurate, and results are not comparable to surveys during good conditions in previous years."
Your speculation that the large numbers of wolves are intended to destroy one segment of our food producers is assinine.
In 1996, I was stillworking and did not have the ne'....or a computer. No one else knew about it either, and Ralph didn't comment.
I did notice the part about the innaccurate report. The first year the numbers dropped into the 9000 range, they put little flyers up all over the park saying it was a poor and inaccurate count, that there were actually 11,000+. The next count was in the 7000 range, so I guess it was a better count than they thought. I have pointed out to others that the calf count is only as good as the rest of the count, if one is inaccurate that is too.
As for not inteding to put the ranchers (food producers) out of business, are you saying that is a surprise that they are eating so much livestock and that there are so many wolves?
Guess you believe Romulus and Remus huh?
I suggest you do a little up to date reading. Wolves killed 3 swans and bobcats 2 in 2005 that were documented. Now all swans appear to be gone, any concern?
Waht elk copunt there was is very low, how many did they misss? Any concern? A wolf bilogist has an article at http://www.jacksonholenews.com he says they were wrong about the extent of the impact on livestock, any concern? All of these are problems unique to this year.
None of this really matters, I seriously doubt there will ever be a delisting of wolves. Minnesota has been trying for well over 10 years as the problems continue to mount along with the wolf numbers, they are no closer than they were then.
Then there is this hair raising story from Idaho. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13127249/
Then there is the story of the Ontario man who met the big bad wolf. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/10/wolf051110.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
The anti-wolf crowd thinks that the end of everything good is near and are so concerned that wolves are going to kill all of the elk, swans, bobcats, other wildlife and small children waiting at the bus stop. There truly are more awful things happening in this world that, if you voted for GW, you are responsible for unleashing than wolves. The total disconnect and fear of wolves is just stunning compared to this stupid, unjustified war.
**Tendency not to respond to the facts or opposing points presented
**Tendency to cast the other side in the extreme eventhough no extreme position taken
**Tendency to shift the subject to some other emotional issue.
Yes, thay have killed people but so have deer. It just seems totally irrational to be afraid of the "big bad wolf".
Whatever Ron Gillet does to try to get rid of wolves in Idaho won't work. I know that he is wasting his and your time but I think he is a good spokesperson for the anti-wolf crowd since he is so obviously irrational that people can't take his arguments seriously.
How am I on the losing side of the argument? Tell me? All you have done is put up links to rare incidents over the last 150 or so years involving wolves and domesticated wolves and wolf dog-hybrids. Do you think that is a good argument to rid the west of wolves?
If, by the same logic you wanted to rid the west of all wildlife that is dangerous to humans, then you would have to get rid of much of what makes the west a good place. Deer, moose, elk, bats, coyotes, mountain lions, buffalo (you did a pretty good job there), bobcats, cranes and numerous other creatures have all been known to attack people. Why do you persist in hating wolves? It seems to me that it is just sour grapes over the fact that they were reintroduced and your side lost.
There are many other pressing issues that should be dealt with that are much more dangerous to our society and way of life than wolves. That's why I change the issue. The war in Iraq is much more likely to kill someone in your family and the consequences of this war are an empty treasury, 2500+ U.S. soldiers, rising fuel prices, massive debt to China who is competing for the fuel, thousands of dead Iraqis, a world that dispises us, the raping of the west for oil, and rising profits for Halliburton, KBR, Exxon-Mobile, and every other corporation that wants to rape the American taxpayer. Wolves are just a blip on this economy and are probably actually be helping some sectors of the economy around Yellowstone to the anger of the anti-wolf crowd that refuses to admit it.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/04/07/news/state/25-wolves.txt
I know you don't like hearing about the wolf problems, most of those who are in favor of them are tired of hearing about problems that others have to deal with, like ranchers for instance. I can assure you that ranchers are the most tired of all of it, they have to deal with the danger of wolf attacks to their animals 24 hours aday, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and it will never change for the rest of their lives, barring a miracle. How would you like to face that...and know it is all for the entertainment value of certain folks who get a charge out of watching wolves kill?
Yes, the elk herds are severely diminished in Yellowstone, in Sunlight Basin of Wyoming, Lolo mountains of Idaho, and other places where there is a heavy wolf population. But officially those places are impacted by drought, bad winters, and so one that wolf free (so far) areas are not impacted by. Now that would be an interesting study.
The Jackson area is doing a study to see why their moose population is dropping so dramatically, and they have eliminated predators as a cause at the biginning. This despite 5 packs of wolves in the Tetons, a very dense population of grizzlies, lions that feed on deer in folks yards.
As to kids being killed by wolves, the 40 some that have been killed in India in recent years were not killed by domestic or hybrid wolves, just wolves.
You can't answer those questions in the affirmative because it's not true. Don't compare the wolves in overpopulated India with those of North America. It's apples and oranges. There are significant differences between the two and you know it.
There is another threat to ungulate herds that wolf haters won't even address. Spotted knapweed in the Lolo is pervasive and it has an effect on elk herds there, yet nowhere is it addressed. There are numerous other examples of invasive species that affect ungulate herds and many of those species are introduced because of ATV's, livestock, logging roads and the like. Why aren't you concerned with those things? Why the single-minded fear of wolves? It's crazy.
This takes me to my second comment about extremism when no extremism has been show. For the record below is my position on wolves that I posted here on New West. If you had been more inquisitive than accusatory you would have discovered that I see the wolf as a noble animal.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/save_the_beavers_kill_the_elk_but_what_about_the_wolves/
By Craig Moore, 4-27-06 Bearman, here is some of the research I have read:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:3gnvUYq-RUwJ:wyoming.gov/governor/documents/Vucetichetal2005final.pdf+yellowstone+elk+decline&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
Now going back to the beginning this discussion began as a question as to what to do with the over-population of elk in RMNP. Given the experience of Idaho and Yellowstone introducing wolves to thin the herd may have unintended consequences that lead to ultimately making the wolf the object of population control. I wince at that prospect as I see the wolf as a truly noble animal. Furthermore, they cannot be fine tuned to perform the right culling as responsible hunters are able to do. The Rocky Mountain states have experienced years of habitat stress from severe drought conditions which leads to weakened animals like the elk. Putting natures dry land sharks on the loose would only seem to exacerbate the problems of game management long term. With the triple combination of drought, uncontrolled predation of the weak, and rapidly rising wolf packs, those animals eventually turn to livestock for their food source. That, in turn, leads to calls for wolf kills which I deplore.
Wolves select their prey based on different criteria than hunters do.
Does "right culling" mean that hunters would take the weak animals? It doesn't seem that the culling pressures accomplish the same thing. Selective pressures can have significant impacts on a herd and increase or decrease the health of the herds. I think that it is important to have healthy herds of ungulates and I think that the selective pressure of wolves makes them, on average more healthy, and hunting can have the opposite effect.
Wolf Questions and Answers
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo elk management zone of the Clearwater Region. Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone. The request is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations.
Q. What is Fish and Game proposing?
A. A detailed proposal by Fish and Game biologists seeks to remove 75 percent of the wolves in the Lolo elk management zone and keep the population low for the next five years while monitoring elk numbers and population trends as part of an effort to increase the numbers of elk in that area.
Q. Where is the Lolo elk management zone?
A. The Lolo zone comprises game management units 10 and 12, covering more than 1.5 million acres of the Clearwater Region north and south of the Lochsa River and U.S. Highway 12 up to the Montana border at the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains.
Q. Where can people get a copy of the proposal?
A. The proposal is available on the Fish and Game Website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov; at local Fish and Game offices, or by calling headquarters at 208-334-3700.
Q. What are the Fish and Wildlife Service's options?
A. Federal officials can approve the proposal, deny it or ask for additional information based on criteria outlined in the 10(j) rule. State officials must show that wolf predation is affecting deer or elk populations at an unacceptable level, as defined by the state. Removal can occur only once the state has identified other possible mitigation measures or remedies, and they have completed a peer-reviewed written proposal that has undergone public comment. The Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether such removal would hamper wolf recovery before it would authorize the removal.
Q. Why does Fish and Game want to kill up to 43 wolves in the Lolo Zone?
A. Scientific research shows that because of the wolf's reproductive capability, reducing the population in an area requires a 40- to 75-percent mortality. Wolves reproduce fast enough to sustain a 30- to 40-percent annual mortality without a significant reduction in population.
Q. How many wolves does that mean?
A. Seventy-five percent of the estimated 47 to 69 wolves in the area means up to, but no more than, 43 wolves in the first year. Fewer wolves would be removed in later years.
Q. Does that mean 75 percent of the wolves have to be killed each year?
A. No. Scientific research shows that to keep a wolf population in check requires a 30 to 40 percent annual mortality. Fish and Game wants to maintain the population between 15 and 23 wolves in two or three packs for the next five years. This would be a density of less than one wolf per 100 square miles, or about three to five wolves per 1,000 elk.
Q. Why does Fish and Game want to start killing wolves?
A. The decision was not sudden. Biologists have been considering the relationship between wolves and elk and the decline in the elk population in parts of the Clearwater Region for several years. Planning for the project began after the 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act was revised in February 2005. The revised rule gave the state authority, with approval by the Fish and Wildlife Service, for lethal control of wolves in areas where scientists could show wolf predation is the primary reason for an unacceptable decline in deer or elk numbers.
Q. Is this proposal related to Idaho getting additional authority to manage wolves?
A. No. The current proposal has been in development for two years. It is not related to the January 5 signing of an agreement between Idaho and the Interior Department transferring most wolf management authority to the state.
Q. Is Fish and Game going to kill wolves in other parts of Idaho?
A. This proposal is limited to the Lolo elk management zone in northeastern Idaho. Fish and Game has no plans for other actions to reduce predation on elk. But Idaho will continue to authorize the removal of wolves in other parts of the state to resolve or reduce conflicts with livestock.
Q. What is an unacceptable decline in deer and elk populations?
A. A decline that reduces the population below management objectives and keeps it there is unacceptable. Population objectives are outlined in elk management plans. Game management requires managers take action when possible and practical.
Q. Why does Fish and Game think killing wolves would help the elk?
A. Wolves primarily prey on juvenile and adult female elk in the Lolo zone. Adult female mortality is the key factor that affects overall elk population trends.
Q. How would wolf removal affect wolf recovery in Idaho?
A. Wolf numbers in Idaho already exceed recovery goals, and limited removal of wolves from the Lolo zone will not adversely affect recovery. Idaho has an estimated 500 to 600 wolves in 61 packs and 36 breeding pairs. The Fish and Wildlife Service considers the population recovered when 30 breeding pairs are confirmed in three states. Idaho alone meets that goal. Federal officials are working on removing wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming from the endangered species list, but the effort is hung up on legal challenges.
Q. The Clearwater Region once was considered some of the best elk habitat and hunting in the country, what happened?
A. Large fires from 1910 to 1930 improved elk habitat in the Clearwater Region. Human suppression of wildfire since 1939 has nearly eliminated large-scale wildfire in the area, allowing dead and downed timber to accumulate across the landscape, increased mid-seral forest stands, and reduced early-seral and open forest conditions preferred by elk.
Q. When did the current elk population decline begin?
A. Before 1992, elk hunting was open in all of the Clearwater Region. In 1992, some changes were adopted to increase bull elk survival. Despite a decrease in the number killed by hunters, the population continued to decline. Game managers thought the decline was density related, leaving too little food available for adequate calf survival. In 1996, managers increased the number of female elk tags to help reduce the density and improve calf survival. But numbers continued to decline and anterless hunts were eliminated by 1999. Only a few wolves were known to be in the Lolo zone before 2000.
Q. If the elk decline began before the wolves were reintroduced, why does Fish and Game suspect wolves in the continued decline?
A. Fish and Game's research and research in other areas with wolves and elk, suggests that wolf predation on female elk can limit population recovery. Before wolf reintroduction, female elk survival in the Lolo zone was 89 percent. Since reintroduction, that has dropped to 74 percent in Unit 12. Research and assessments also show that the elk population in the Lolo is below habitat potential. In addition, scientists say, calf survival is low in the Lolo zone. Though only a few calves are killed by wolves, low calf survival coupled with low adult female elk survival means the herd is not likely to meet short-term management objectives without predator control.
Q. What has the state done, and what does it plan to do, besides reducing wolf numbers, to bring back the elk population in the long term?
A. Fish and Game proposes a three-part program to restore elk numbers: improve habitat; improve calf survival by reducing predation by black bears and mountain lions; improve adult female elk survival by eliminating cow elk harvest and reducing predation by mountain lions and wolves. Without an increase in female elk and calf survival, the elk population in the Lolo zone is unlikely to meet management objectives.
Q. What has Fish and Game done to reduce other predators?
A. Fish and Game has adjusted hunting seasons, bag limits and tag costs to encourage hunters to reduce the numbers of black bears and mountain lions. Despite the significant reduction in black bear and mountain lion predation, the Lolo zone elk herd has continued to struggle.
Q. How will managers know whether reducing wolf numbers actually benefits the elk population?
A. Biologists will continue to monitor the elk population and the sex-age ratios. They will compare available elk population data for the Lolo zone to those of the control area in the Selway zone, where conditions are similar but no wolf reduction is planned. The results will be analyzed for the effect of wolf control on elk population dynamics.
Q. If elk numbers are declining, is hunting still allowed?
A. Fish and Game has restricted elk hunting in the Lolo zone, and the proposal recommends eliminating all non-tribal female elk harvest in the Lolo zone. The proposal also recommends the Nez Perce Tribe take similar steps. Bull elk hunting still is allowed.
Q. Why not simply move the wolves to another area?
A. Transplanting the wolves is not an option. Idaho already has as many as 600 wolves in 61 packs. All suitable wolf habitat has been taken. Wolves are territorial and will kill other wolves moved into their territory.
Q. If wolves still are listed under the Endangered Species Act, why is the state allowed to kill them?
A. The 10(j) rule, among the rules governing reintroduced wolves in Idaho, considers them an "experimental non-essential population" and allows lethal control under specific condition and with the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when state officials can show the cause of decline deer and elk numbers is caused by wolves.
Q. What is the role of habitat degradation and what has been done to improve the habitat in the Lolo zone?
A. The elk decline is not the result of a single factor, but of the combination of several factors, including habitat degradation and predation by black bears and mountain lions. Fish and Game has increased hunting on black bears and mountain lions, and officials have worked with federal land managers to conduct controlled burns and other habitat improvement projects aimed at improving conditions for the elk population. These efforts will continue as part of the three part process to enable the elk population to meet management objectives.
Q. Why can't Fish and Game just issue hunting permits for wolves to reduce the population?
A. Idaho's preferred option would be to allow hunters to control the number of wolves. But because wolves still are listed under the Endangered Species Act, federal law prohibits all hunting of wolves. The law does allow lethal control under certain specific conditions. It is under these provisions that Idaho proposes to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo zone to help the elk population to recover.
Here's another link for you, seems the bilogists weren't expecting the wolves to kill so much livestock. Well what does any wolf lover think a thousand or so wolves eat? A very large amount of meat!
Wolves are killing everything they can, the sick and the weak is a fairy tale when you are dealing with that many predators in that small an area.
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/07/02/news/wyoming/40-herd.txt
I know several hunters that hunt in the Stanley area and have had more success in recent years with wolves present than before. That goes against Ron's argument. I think that he is partly responsible for the lack of hunting in the area because he has made it appear that there are no elk in the Stanley area because of the wolves. It's not true. It does make it easier for the hunters that do still hunt there because there are fewer hunters not that there are fewer elk.
Also, there were a number of people that visited the area this spring due to wolf sightings in Stanley. Ron didn't like that. He heard that a wolf was eating an elk and people were enjoying the raw nature of it so he had to run out there and scare the wolf away when, in fact, it was just being a wolf. There was an economic impact, though minor, due to wolf sightings this spring.
Maybe I am reading your position incorrectly but the term "land shark" belies your perspective.
Regarding culling, as sentient beings we are able to make choices against desires and apetites. The licensing process is useful in this way. Wolves respond to stimulus and instinct.
Regarding comparing wolves to sharks in noway demeans one at the expense of the other. Sharks and wolves are killing and eating machines. They are wired that way. Both are perfection in motion.
I believe it takes 1.7 elk per weeks for ordinary sized packs, there are 20+ sized packs up there. That is close to 100 elk per year for each pack, and I can't remember hwo many packs there are in the whole GYA, I think 15 inside of Yellowstone. As you can see, it racks up pretty fast. On top of that the elk calf survial rate is around 12-14/100 cows as opposed to the 40/100 cows necessary to continue a herd. The calves are admitedly hit hard by bears for the first month. Winter is when the wolves take their share.
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
I have noticed some environmentalists tend to dismiss him as being on the wrong side because he doesn't agree with them.
He nailed it didn't he? And this was 10 years ago. I guess he should be writing on the climate change thread since he predicted the severly diminished elk numbers then and that is being blamed on the drought and bad winters.
Try to go to Yellowsotne to the Lamar Valley or Hayden Valley now also and watch them chase and kill elk and perhaps you will have an idea of what they do to othe animals.
Field sports organizations, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, Boone and Crocket Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and many, many more have invested millions of dollars in habitat and wildlife enhancement and conservation. That's a fact. Regarding wolves and sport killing by them, that's a fact too. IF you don't like the web pictures catch the next PBS presentation of Dick Proenneke and his life in the Alaska wilderness. He documents the same thing in one episode. To claim wolves do not waste their kill is indicative of your blind faith and total ignorance. Many times the "kill" will have its guts torn out and little else eaten. There is a natural reason. To get vitamin C into their systems to counter scurvy, carnivores need to eat herbivores with their stomach contents intact when those carnivores do not eat grass, roots, leaves and such.
But, Peavey said, "The people who're really suffering are big game hunters" who rely on elk that're being killed by wolves.
15 packs??????????? What planet are you from, there are nearly twice that in Wyoming alone....that they have found. There are now in the neighborhood of 100 packs in the 3 state area, well over a thousand wolves.
Boy you know nothing at all about this whole thing do you? Wolves are NOT relocated away from the young, the parents kill, because that is exactly what wolves do. that is why they were hauled in. The pups learn to hunt from their parents, who den as close to pasture as they can many times. One den at Meeteetse is so close to the house that the child cannot be allowed outside without an adult with him. The mom begged Bangs to relocate them, he said nope, they only relocate or manage AFTER there is a problem.
As far as the number of wolves in Idaho there are probably around 600-650 with smaller numbers in Wyoming and Montana. The Montana population has relatively stabilized and the Wyoming population has grown slightly outside of the Park but declined inside the Park. The Three state population estimate is somewhere around 1000 animals. Idaho probably does not have 1020 animals alone. Obviously this is an estimate made by qualified biologists that spend their entire careers working to produce accurate information.
Marion, it is obvious why there are no wolves in L.A. or (I presume you mean) New York City. That argument is stupid for the obvious reasons. You are just trying to stir emotions with that kind of question.
Just because people are scared of wolves doesn't justify that fear. I was scared of clowns when I was a kid. It doesn't justify the fear. Fear is a powerful reaction that is used to avoid danger. It is also something that the reactionary right uses to motivate people to their way of thinking. It doesn't mean that it is rational. It's a political tool that people just love to use and I think that Marion has fallen for it hook line and sinker. Face your fear Marion.
I saw the following in the Idaho Statesman about you:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060701/NEWS0502/607010315/1054
>>Wolves attack
I would like to thank Martin Chapin, Cascade, for his article on "Wolves Attack." I read the March edition of Outdoor Life and the "Wolf Attack" article. Martin, I guess some people are surprised when a predator actually attacks a human. Weird.
Ryan Tannenholz is the leader of the Idaho National Wolf Group and believes that wolves can do no wrong. I also read in Mr. Tannenholz's letter that "The wolf actually serves a purpose ...." "... They only go for the weak, old and sick elk ...." "... and that wolves are in fact native to the state and control the sick elk ecosystem."
Well, did Mr. Tannenholz miss the front page of The Idaho Statesman, July 23, 2004? Remember the Cook Creek pack? About 70 sheep were killed in one night on June 29, said Carter Nienmeyer, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who authorized the elimination of the pack. Guard dogs, cracker shells, sirens, lights and live fire from shotguns did not deter the Cook pack. I guess those nine members of the Cook Creek pack were just hungry and eating the "weak, old and sick sheep." Wake up people.<<
Ryan, trying to pass yourself off as some sort of expert when you don't even know the relative size of a bobcat versus a wolf, don't really know the habitats and character of the wolf strains credulity of your wilderness credentials.
The 1020 count is a minimum number, they are the actual count,not an estimate. Others often show up after the count, the Unknown pack in Yellowstone is an example. Last year the minimum count was around 800, so there has been about a 20% increase in the past year, and this is despite a parvo outbreak that laimed quite a number of pups.
The reason there are no wolves in those places is becasue they were extirpated there, and they were not replaced. Why shouldn't they have to deal with them the same as we do?
Fear is not the main problem, ranchers are paying for your entertainment. They are bearing the brunt of the wolf cost. You may pay a little extra in taxes and/or donate a few bucks to an environmental group. But that si the size of it. A guy in Idaho lost a calf the other day in the same area where a pack killed and ate two dogs. Even though it was on private property, by the time they found it the next morning, they had consumed so much of it that it was designated "probable" instead of confirmed. Since it was eaten they could not determine for sure that it was a wolf kill despite wolf tracks all over. Know why? there was not enough tissue left to determine the extreme trauma that goes with a wolf kill. That trauma is how they can tell! That cost the family about $500, how often can anyone deal with that?
As for fear, yes a family with a wolf den almost in their yard does have some real concern about letting a child out into the yard. I guess you can be like one big shot wolf guru suggested a few years ago, that kids should be carrying bear spray to the bus stop if their parents have to sit there until the bus comes because of the wolves hanging around. Brilliant suggestion.
May 9, 2006, update May 10
> By Lynne K. Stone
> Copyright © May 9, 2006
> About the author
>
> Friday May 5, 2006. Stanley, Idaho. A large gray wolf stirred up our tiny mountain town of Stanley yesterday as it killed a runt yearling elk calf within view of the city limits. Stanley librarian, Jane Somerville, saw the wolf among the local elk herd about 9 a.m., and shortly the wolf had chosen its prey and pulled the small calf down. It was over quick. After the kill, the herd of some 60 elk moved about 100 yards away and continued to forage on the Spring grass.
>
> We have had about 85 elk in and around town all winter and wolves have visited here before. Previous elk kills have not been so visible, though.
>
> A friend called me on my cell and I dashed through Stanley to the banks of the Salmon River to have a look. Someone had also called local resident and anti-wolf coalition leader Ron Gillett who arrived with his .22 rifle. Gillett crossed over the Salmon River on the private Arrow-A bridge into the pasture where the wolf was having breakfast. Seeing Gillett, the wolf grabbed a chunk of elk and trotted up the sage-covered foothills into the timber and disappeared.
>
> Concerned that Gillett would shoot at the wolf (illegal unless it was attacking him) I called our new Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Conservation Officer Brian Reeves and left messages. IDFG has now taken over wolf management in our state. Then I drove up Hwy 75 to have a chat with Gillett when he came back across the Arrow-A bridge to his pick-up truck. The Arrow-A ranch belongs to Jay Neider, another anti-wolf person who resides here in the summer months.
>
> Having lived in the same town as Gillett for over six years, we've had conversations before about "wulfs." He said the rifle was for protection against the wolf. He unloaded the .22 caliber rifle, put the gun in his pick-up and walked over to within about 16 inches of my face to continue our chat. I was mildly concerned about my Canon Digital Rebel camera hanging from a strap around my neck.
>
> Stepping away from me, Gillett shouted at another on-looker saying he was going to report him for chasing elk. None of this was making much sense. On leaving, Gillett said he was going to "get his camera and get the dead elk on page one of every newspaper." To which I replied, "You mean like you got the anti-wolf petition on the ballot." [As of May 1st, his group failed to get the required number of registered voters to sign his anti-wolf initiative.] He said some words that can't be printed on a family web site. We really don't get along.
>
> Then, IDFG officer Brian Reeves arrived along with Stanley city policeman Pete Isner. When Gillett returned with his camera, the two law officers went out to the pasture with him to see the dead elk. Isner told me later that it was a small calf, only slightly larger than a deer. Gillett is a former big game hunting guide and outfitter who has obviously shot and seen many, many dead animals. Why he gets so upset with a wolf killing to eat,is beyond my comprehension.
>
> ROUND 2 - Things quieted down. But just before noon, the wolf returned. My cell rang and I raced back to the riverbank and watched the beautiful light-covered wolf eating the elk. More people arrived and passerby's stopped. Gillett showed up again with his rifle and started for the pasture. I called the law. Officers Isner and Reeves showed up immediately, lights flashing. The wolf took off with an elk leg, again going up the steep sage slope into the White Cloud Mountain foothills to the east.
>
> Gillett roamed around the Neider pasture for awhile, staring up at the hillside where the wolf had disappeared. Neider's son-in-law is Nate Helm, director of an anti-wolf, anti-predator group called Idaho Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. This pasture is not a good place for a wolf.
>
> Gillett then came over to the log fence by the Salmon River, gun and camera in hand, across from where myself and others were watching, and screamed at us to get out where he could see us. It was cold and windy and I was sitting in my pick-up truck. The two law officers stepped behind a log cabin, out of sight. My carpenter friend ducked behind the cabin deck. I stayed in my pick-up. It was a bit of a tense moment. As Ron kept yelling, I finally told him to F--- off. Later I was informed that one cannot swear in the Stanley city limits as it's disturbing the peace. I apologized. Usually Gillett's yelling doesn't phase me.
>
> Things were relatively quiet during the afternoon. Wolf supporters hung around, spotting scopes and cameras out, waiting for the wolf to return. Cell phones were busy. We also went to the Stanley library to see Jane's great pictures of the wolf. A bald eagle came to the kill. Two coyotes showed up. The towns ravens got a change from their usual dumpster fare.
>
> ROUND 3 - Around 5 p.m., the wolf returned. He dragged the remains of the elk calf behind a rock. After gnawing for a while, he chewed off another leg bone and this time trotted south through the Neider ranch into a draw. Gillett arrived shortly after, took his rifle and followed the wolfs route. What Ron was doing up there for an hour or more, I don't know. But he has said repeatedly that wolves must to be removed from Idaho by any means possible.
>
> ROUND 4 - Today, Friday May 5th, by 6 a.m. I was by the Salmon River, drinking coffee on a rustic log deck and conversing with a friend while we waited and watched. The wolf returned at 6:30 a.m. and spent two hours feeding on the elk's remains. At one point, the large male wolf chased seven ravens in a circle. A coyote approached but seeing the wolf, quickly hightailed away. We watched the wolf lift his leg on a sagebrush, confirming that he was a he.
>
> Wolf sightings have been common this winter, especially for the Galena Pack that lives in the Sawtooth Valley and ranges between the Sawtooth Fish Hatchery and Pettit Lake south of Stanley. I saw a lone wolf climb out of the Salmon River two weeks ago. Watched, as it laid down under a pine tree and softly serenaded me with a gentle wolf howl.
>
> UPDATE: Four days have passed since the wolf incident, but I expect it wont be long before my cell rings again and I rush off to more wolf action. The image of Ron Gillett carrying a rifle toward a wolf is not one I can forget.
>
> A word about winter elk feeding - The reason the elk are still in Stanley is that Ron Gillett started feeding hay to them in late January. He turned these animals into welfare elk, taking away their wildness. Until then, the elk were foraging on south slopes, among rock outcrops, the hot springs, and along Valley Creek and the Salmon River. I watched them from early November on, as they came onto their wintering grounds. Elk calves were learning how to survive a Stanley winter.
>
> But, once Gillett started feeding, about 85 elk including four spike bulls and one three-point bull spent the next two months gathered around his place on the west edge of Stanley. Neighbors complained to the Stanley City Council when the baited elk also fed on aspens and lodgepole pine trees in their yards. Myself and others believe that Gillett was hoping a wolf or wolves would come to his elk feeding area. Fortunately the wolves stayed away until now.
>
> Its not illegal in Idaho for a private citizen to feed elk. We have a local elk feeding committee that was established many years ago to determine when elk should be fed in order to survive. The criteria for feeding hay had not been met in late January. It was a long, snowy winter in Stanley and maybe some of the older cows and small calves would have died, but that's Mother Nature at work.
>
> Now the three-point bull has left along with 25 other elk, feeding high above town . But some 60 head of elk cows and calves don't seem to know what to do or where to go, even when a wolf walks through their midst.
> -end-
>
> Note by ed.
> The Idaho Mountain Express ran its story about it on May 10
>
>
>
> Elk cows and calves graze near the Stanley city limits on Monday, May 1st. Note how small the calf is at
>
>
> Neider's Pasture
> The elk were in this pasture near the Salmon River and Highway 75 near Stanley on Thursday, May 4th, when
> the wolf arrived. The Neider ranch buildings are at far right near the snow. The wolf carried elk leg bones up
>
>
> stanley wolf
>
> A gray wolf stands over his fresh elk kill near Stanley, Thursday, May 4th, in easy view of wolf watchers along Highway 75. The elk was a small calf, born later in the summer than other larger, stronger calves in the Stanley elk herd. The fall hunting season disrupts the elk rutting (breeding) season, causing some elk cows to be breed late and have late calves, making them more vulnerable to winter kill and predation.
>
> Anti-wolf activist Ron Gillett shows up in the pasture. Wolf left as he arrived. ]
Can you tell me about anyone in the Northern Rockies that has been attacked by a wild wolf since the reintroduction? I didn't think so. (If you bring up Tim Sundles or the guy that lost Lucky the dog you are really stretching. They never received a scratch.)
I doubt that a wolf would ever survive long in L.A. or New York City. There simply isn't enough habitat. In the west there is suitable habitat so your reactionary response is typical.
As far as the Big Water Pack near Featherville is concerned they only killed ONE sheep. I have confirmed this through personal communications. There are starting to be other incidents where the 2 strike "rule" you talk about is being ignored.
From June 23rd update:
ID WS confirmed wolf predation on sheep the 10th and set traps to capture and euthanize wolves from the Big Water pack near Featherville, ID. Wolves re-visited the depredation site. On the 13th, the herder reported that a lamb was killed by wolves the night before. However, by the time WS was notified and taken to the site, the carcass was missing. On the 22nd, WS captured and killed the suspected grey alpha male of the Big Water Pack on the Boise NF. Trapping efforts are continuing. The wolf’s hide and skull will be turned over to the IDFG for educational purposes.
From June 30th update:
On the 26th, ID WS lethally removed B-188, the alpha female, from the Big Water Pack in reaction to depredations on sheep. Efforts are ongoing to lethally remove other pack members.
Notice that the report does not mention that a second sheep was killed because it wasn't. This appears to be a conscious decision by WS to kill an entire pack and pups for killing ONE sheep. It also appears that they hoped that the incident would go unnoticed because there is no mention of the fact that there are orphaned 2 1/2 month old pups.
It seems you have an ally in WS Marion. This is not the only incident where a single livestock depredation has occured where multiple wolves have been killed.
While the rancher may pay for "my entertainment" I am paying for his public lands grazing and hobby "lifestyle". Most of the wolf depredations occur in areas where there is suitable habitat not in areas that have been totally taken over by agriculture, such as the Snake River Plain of Idaho which is remote from public lands. We might argue about the details of this but, in general, most depredations occur in places where the livestock owner depends on public lands for grazing during parts of the year.
Can you tell me when was the last time a wolf killed a cow at a dairy or a cattle feedlot? I didn't think so. There are suitable and unsuitable places to raise livestock and the public lands are not suitable for many many reasons. I shouldn't have to subsidize a lifestyle. I agree with Ken on that subject.
As to the predation, you will note they confirmed predation of ????? sheep on the 10th and, on the 13th they reported another lamb killed the night before, but the carcass was gone by the time FWS got there, so no confirmation, they lose that money, and that is the case with most of the lambs wolf scat full of lambs woll is often all that is found, that is not confirmation. It was the 22nd when they killed the male, did he come back, it doesn't say. then they got the female on the 26th.
I am well aware that wolves or about any other wildlife would be too much trouble for city folks, that is why they want someone else to sacrifice.
I have a news flash for you, ranchers pay grazing fees for the land they lease, in fact they also pay a fee to drive them up the stock trail, which is generally a rural road. When is the last time you paid to drive on a road, to hike, to do anything out on public land. On top of that wolves do not check to status of the land whether it is leased or owned, they kill wherever they take a notion.
Ron Gillette is a loose canon and makes it difficult for the rest of us to even talk to wolf lovers.
You do realize that there are over twice as many adult wolves right now in Yellowsotne than were killed over a period of 14 years (42) + 14 during the previous 32 years while the army was in charge. What are they supposed to eat?????
FYI I don't live in the city. I live in the mountains where wolves and other wildlife live. I don't take government subsidies and I don't ask the government to pay when I have some kind of loss. I guess that I could say that the government subsidizes the roads and the police that patrol them. In other words I have to pay taxes to drive on the roads and sometimes I have to pay a fee to hike on trails in the Sawtooth Mountains. I also have to pay a fee to enter a National Park and to camp in a National Forest Campground. Those are things that I don't like but grudgingly accept.
What was the monitoring protocol used to document the number of wolves in 1872? Was it the same or was it different? Did they have radio collars and airplanes? Did they document every wolf that they killed? Was there the same prey base and was it hunted at the time? Were the weather patterns the same? Things are dynamic Marion. Populations of all animals fluctuate based on different factors. It is very difficult to compare the situation, with poaching and other factors of 1872 or thereabouts, with the current conditions.
Reactionaries don't like liberals because they make the argument too difficult. Well things are complicated and a little discussion about wolves can't be simplified like that. There are wolves here now and the only arguments for getting rid of them come from those who have a fear of elk losses, livestock losses, or for their personal safety. I discount the personal safety discussion because there are many things that are much more dangerous. Elk populations fluctuate based on several factors, wolves being a minor one. Livestock losses from predation occur primarily in areas where the producer depends on public lands grazing at the expense of the public.
The main reason for considering the stats on wolf kills accurate, if not exaggerated is because they were paid a bonus for each one, not many folks would hide a kill under those circumstances.
Another reason is that explorers of the time remarked over and over again that coyotes were the only canid present in Yellowstone in any numbers, eg: Chittenden 1895, Roosevelt 1903. Remember the great extirpation supposedly started in 1814. Other references do state that 14 wolves were killed during the time the army was in control and 122 from 1914 to 1926, 80 of those were pups. This year there were 95 adults inside of Yellowstone when they counted. I don't know how much better methods are now that then, now they lose packs for months at a time collars and all.
I presume when you say you live in the mountains, you mean private land right? Surely you wouldn't live on a lease. On the other hand aren't mountain dwellers supposed to be a problem for the health of the forests?
I have no idea as to why you feel that you are entitled to free access to NPs and free camping. Do you feel that you are so special that someone owes it to you to pay your way for fun?
No one is paid 4 x market value for losses by the government. Only predators and certain ones at that can be killed on leased land. Other wildlife is perfectly safe, and in fact elk, deer, antelope, and other wildlife feed on ranchers privately owned pastures generally during the winter, but the meadows are often full even during summer, especially deer and antelope. You provide how much graze for ungulates? By the way ranchers maintain reservoirs and other water supplies which benefits wildlife as well as domestic animals, you provide what?
I link will do just as well.
But we all know there is no going back.
Here is a comprehensivie list of attacks. http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html Well Craig i read that article and it was a bunch of schnitzel, that article was writen by the anti-wolf folks and the hunters just to fill peoples minds with hate towrds natures wolves. It is the truth and everyone knows it. Do you hunt? Do you support the anti-wolf people? are you as crazy as Ron Gillett that belives in the wolf myths. or are you a person who likes mother nature or against mother nature and do not belive that the ecosystem in Idaho should be controlled by wolves wich the wolf is an important animal in the ecosystem.
You can read his testimony here:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/ennis-wolfmeeting2.htm
You want numbers? Here they are.
I guess I feel the best way to change the misperceptions about wolves is with the truth and pointing out hipocrosy when it becomes obvious.
Babies, especially sheep and goats are either packed off or consumed on the spot, so nothing but possibly blood on the ground is left. The rancher is not paid unless it is confirmed.
So the ranchers who are paying the majority of the cost of the entertainment provided for wolf lovers are going to be unhappy, no doubt about it.
Come on, get it right.
Eagles eat a lot of sheep every year... maybe we should try to exterminate all the eagles and, in the meantime, compensate sheep ranchers for their losses?
Finally, all this talk about wolves attacking humans may very well be at least partially true but there are many things in the world that occasionally attack humans. Big deal. Is the idea that we should "kill 'em all 'n let God sort 'em out"?! Mountain lions, tigers, bears, elephants (on occasion), hippos. Hell, I know a guy who was attacked by a small hawk while riding his bike. Maybe we should kill all the hawks!?
Conservative ranchers have human nature on their side. For example, the chance of a human getting killed in a car crash is exponentially higher than getting killed in a plane crash. Yet, people are generally much more afraid of dying in a plane crash. Similarly, getting ripped apart by wolves makes for a good fear factor. I don''t buy it.