SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE HIGH ROAD ON WOLVES
Montana, Don’t Be Another Wyoming
By Bill Schneider, 3-29-07
 |
|
 | |
|
I hate being wrong, having to recant earlier statements believed to be fact, but it looks like I might have to do just that. Frequently, when writing about wolves and the delisting process, I’ve praised Montana while criticizing Idaho and Wyoming. To date, Montana has taken a reasonable, professional stance on the controversial species. Instead of continuing to whine about greenie-weenie outsiders and the evil federal government and hoping wolves would just go away, Montana has concentrated on professional management.
Meanwhile, the Idaho Governor is up on the capital steps whipping wolf haters into a frenzy, and Wyoming has refused to do anything on wolves except want them restricted to the national parks and killed as vermin everywhere else in the state. Both Idaho and Wyoming plan massive immediate reductions in wolf numbers upon delisting, but not Montana. Instead, Montana plans to continue to responsibly manage wolves--and kill them when necessary--with little controversy.
The Montana Legislature now stands ready to veer off this high road and lower itself to the level of Idaho and Wyoming.
Earlier this week, the Montana House of Representatives, on a 58-41 vote, passed an appropriation to send at least $150,000 in the hard-earned tax money to a Cheyenne law firm (Budd-Falen) to sue the federal government--at the same time cutting money for programs like all-day kindergarten, assistance for the mentally ill and foster care for Meth babies.
The apparent purpose of the needless lawsuit, yet to be filed, is to force the feds to delist the wolf from the protection of the Endangered Species Act and give management back to the states.
All I can say is: Earth to the Legislature, you have your man in charge, staunch anti-wolfer Dirk Kempthorne, now Secretary of the Interior, and he is already delisting the wolf as rapidly as possible. A hundred lawsuits couldn’t make it happen any faster than it’s happening right now, but could slow down the process.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency in charge of wolf recovery, is in the mandatory public involvement period, which will also be a waste of time and money because we already know what will happen. Over 90 percent of the comments will oppose delisting at this time, but the FWS will do it anyway. (I really don’t see the FWS wolf team calling back to D.C. and saying, “Dirk, I’m sorry we can’t do this wolf delisting thing because most people don’t want it.” Not unless they’ve already decided to retire at the end of the week, of course.)
The lawsuit is to be filed on behalf of a group called Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, a radical anti-wolf organization. I found the group’s recent comments on wolf delisting, and it shocked me that our elected officials would line up with these folks, let alone fund their frivolous litigation.
The “Friends” wants green groups like Defenders of Wildlife and the Turner Endangered species Fund to be “financially responsible for the decimation of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming game herds.” And the group doesn’t want state wildlife agencies to manage wolves, instead petitioning to have livestock departments take control and ask for federal money to nothing but kill wolves.
Here’s my favorite part: “Friends petitions the court to recognize that wolves are being used as a bio-weapon targeting the civil rights, economy, customs, culture, and heritage of the citizens of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.”
You get the picture, right? And now, the Montana legislature plans to pay for their pointless lawsuit?
I only hope the Montana Senate can see this as a terrible precedent and an embarrassing step backwards and spike this appropriation.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
>>>>>>>>
New Report Examines the Effects of Wolves on Elk
CHEYENNE, March 23—A new report released today by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department takes a detailed look at the effects that wolves are having on elk populations in northwestern Wyoming. In the report, department biologists analyzed statewide elk population data from 1980 through 2005.
Wolf reintroduction began in 1995, when the federal government released 14 wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Wolf populations reached recovery goals established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002 and continue to grow. At the end of 2006, there were an estimated 36 packs in Wyoming, including 311 individual wolves.
To determine the impacts wolves are having on elk, biologists looked at trends in calf:cow ratios over a 26-year period, both in areas where wolf populations have been established and in areas where wolves are not present. Of the 21 elk herds included in the analysis, eight are currently occupied by wolves.
“We have seen a downward trend in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” said Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Chief Jay Lawson. “That trend is likely due to long-term drought and other habitat related factors. But in half of the herds occupied by wolves, we saw a significantly greater rate of decline after wolves were established compared to herds without wolves. We can’t attribute that increased rate of decline to any factor other than wolves.”
Biologists feel an elk herd’s population can be maintained at objective and provide some hunter harvest when the ratio of calves to cows is around 25 to 100. Once ratios fall below 20:100 there is very little opportunity for hunting. Four elk herds in Wyoming with wolves present have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds are below 20 calves per 100 cows. All four herds had declining ratios before wolves were present, but the rate of decline increased significantly after wolves were established. Currently, the only elk herds in the state with recruitment rates that will not support hunting, or possibly even stable populations, are those with significant wolf predation.
“There are a lot of different factors affecting wildlife throughout the state, and wolves are a relatively recent addition to the challenges facing our elk,” said Lawson. We’re very concerned about the effects of wolves on the state’s elk and reduced hunting opportunities for the public. This report helps us understand how wolves are contributing to changes in our elk herds. We also hope this data will provide us tools to work with federal agencies in charge of wolf management to minimize the effects of wolves on elk and elk hunting opportunities.”
<<<<<<<<<<
The problem is we have close to 500% the wolves we were told we had to have, and they are doing 5 times the damage, and it isn't enough, so we have no trust in anything said by either environmental groups or FWS. On the other hand environmental groups/FWS knew in the beginning they were just using 300 wolves as a way to get them in the door, they had no intention of it stopping there, so they figure everybody is as truthful as they were. That brings us to a big part of the problem, no trust anywhere.
That brings us to a huge problem that environmentalists refuse to consider, the impact on other wildlife. There is absolutely nothing we can do to protect any other species from the wolves, nothing. We are watching the moose and elk populations melt in front of us, and we are helpless in the face of increasing wolf numbers and years of environmental lawsuits.
A team of at least 5 lawyers worked for seven years to get the people of Montana their day in court.
The enviro/ animal rights lobby gets to court any time they feel like it.
Why can't the people of Montana have their day in court since Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc has the standing to get to the United States Supreme Court and invited the state of Montana to come with them?
Our goals are the same as Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal---defense of game herds and
> wolf densities consistent with the values & civil rights of the people
> forced to live with wolves.
Why is it that those who write this drivel can annoint themselves with the power to place labels on other human beings like "wolf hater" and "radical" when the fact of the matter is that federal officials announced wolves were " biologicaly recovered " in January of 2000. Seven years is a long time .
What should we call the folks who stalled the delisting process for seven years?
Bill,when you can't support your arguement with facts and law ---call names.
The people of Montana through FOTNYEH have standing to get to court and a blow is struck for the little guy.
Get over it.
R.T.Fanning
Chairman
FOTNYEH
Marion, raises a great point about there not being an end-to-end wolf plan at the beginning. Your impugning the professional integrity of all state agencies in Wyoming is not something that buys you much favor in support of your opinions. Introducing uncontrolled eating machines into concentrated, stressed elk populations appears to have further endangered those animals. That is the point. Where was the humane plan to control these eating machines before walking down this path?
"Even in our national parks, many species are in serious decline due to poaching and habitat destruction on their boundaries; even the lions and other large predators which attract tourists to our parks are being speared and poisoned into extinction.
In that same 30 years, South Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe have seen an immense increase in wildlife numbers, as thousands of cattle ranches have been turned back to wildlife production (sadly, much of Zimbabwe's regained wildlife was snared after 'land reform'). Wildlife continues to do very well in Tanzania and Botswana.
WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE COLLAPSE of wildlife in of Kenya while it has increased enormously in the southern countries? Human populations have grown in most countries, so that does not explain the difference.
One difference is that in those countries, wildlife outside of parks has great value for sport hunting, whereas in Kenya wild animals are just a costly and expensive nuisance to the rural people who share the land with them. Kenya banned trophy hunting in 1977, just as landowners and communities in southern Africa found that their land was worth far more when producing wildlife for high paying foreign hunters than it was for cattle."
Yep, stalked, while horseback not far at all from Livingston. One big black with pumpkin orange eyes and one grey, reprted from FWP that there should also have been 5 pups with them. It is not the issue of "killing" the wolves, but rather teaching them fear: of man, and of man's livestock. We need to have the right to shoot any wolf that threatens our lives or those of our stock. If we teach the wolved fear, they will stay in the habitat that was intended for them. But with that point, they will kill all the living creatures in that habitat to survive. Case in point: Two men out training their hounds in Idaho, were attacked and their dogs killed and EATEN by the wolves because there was no game left in the area.
And why hasn't anyone mentioned that there were still wolves in the Crazies at the time of the "reintroduction"? Not to mention that they reintroducted the WRONG SPECIES of wolf...
First the 3 states combined must have 30 packs/300 wolves. That was passed many years ago, now enviros say that many times that are not enough, they just said that to get them in....lying in my book.
Second the very huge number of wolves now roaming around despite the number killed by other wolves, by FWS, by disease, indicates that the residents fo the 3 states kept their end of the bargain. If there had been a lot of illegal killing we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would not be so many wolves. It would help if enviros could stand by their word as well.
"I'm a rancher, in Montana, and am fortunate to have and protect a full gamut of wildlife, including wolves and other predators, on the place, although I sure don't advertise it; I don't want "help" from the public. I've had some minor livestock losses and some focused actions have been taken to prevent one animal from teaching others and to keep things from getting out of control; but, again, I don't whine or advertise.
I graze a combination of public and private lands, which I know irritates George; but, I still have to agree with him on many of these issues. Although I learned to hunt more than fifty years ago and hunted frequently in the past, I have come to not be very fond of today's hunters in general. Under the circumstances, I would vote for wolves over hunters for elk control and I'm sure not in favor of any hunting at all in any of our national parks. In fact, I finally had to quietly fence the public land under my control, with the agreement of the government, because of the damage being done by off-road vehicles and the large amounts of trash that motorized vehicles can carry and that almost always gets left behind. People can still walk in, at least those who will still stoop to use their own power; but, many will not and those who will can't carry cases of glass bottles, which reduces the time that I have to spend picking up broken glass. No, not all of the damage and littering comes from hunters; but, the pace sure picks up in the fall. A wolf kill is dispersed and going to soil within a couple of years in this country; human damage seems to last forever. Frankly, I also find wolves better company than today's class of hunters anyway. I could tell you just horrific stories of hunter behavior and attitudes; they're just not the kind of people that they used to be and just not very well bred today."
Interesting don't you think? This is how slanted our MFWP is and how these agencies work together to facilitate their end goals. Mike is only a pawn in their game. Alot more insight in his whole post worth reading.
We leave our campsites better than we find them. We pack out all trash that we find, we offer to fix fences that running elk have pulled down, or to help with branding if the rancher let us hunt his place. It's the way it was, and the way it should be. But these days, we find ourselves and our horses in the minority. There are more and more out of state plates on pick ups drving up and down the roads, the guys inside drinking their Starbusks in the morning and their fancy beers in the evening. These are the people that we see disregarding the requests of the landowners and public trails. We have turned them in. If the rancher says don't go there, and we see someone go there, we call. If you don't respect the rights of the landowner, you will loose access.
And reintroduction does'nt work- Clone them.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200703/kt2007032621435411790.htm
RTF and FOTNYEH are upset that wolves get to kill more elk than them - plain and simple. 'Only FOTNYEH has the standing to go to the Supreme Court.' That means money and equally, legal resources - also plain and simple. I'd like to know RTF's and FOTNYEH's position on game farms. We'll see what kind of friend he is to the elk then.
Elfman has some valid points about WY (like it or not) and the ranchers have valid points about protecting their livelihood (like it or not). However, a rational logic flow is that if we kill one native carnivore to protect non-native livestock, should not we have to kill all the native carnivores that threaten livestock? Is that reasonable? In this day and age, is that the only solution they can produce?
And lets get this out of the way right now - timber wolves, grey wolves, and Canadian wolves are the same wolf species. That's right, Canadian wolves are no different than the timber or grey wolves, eh. There was a species of red wolf in the southeast at one time, but that's not the point. SUBSPECIES of wolves are nearly limitless and are difficult to identify, and they can interbreed. Wolves can travel immense distances and their gene pool is deep. However, I frequently stop wolves I see in the wild to check their passport, if it says Canada, I call ICE on them and back they go.
Stop with the 'wrong wolf in Yellowstone' crap already.
They are even willing to destroy Yellowstone ungulates for that control. There were the same number of wolves killed over a 42 year period as there are in Yellowsotne today (that they have actually counted, probably more in back country areas)....136. the difference is 80 of those early killed wolves were pups, only 56 were adults.
The USFWS invented the words delay and stall. Now the USFWS going through a other 'govenment process'. That process will drag it on for another 2 years. The if they decide to delist in all their wisdom the Defenders will appeal it. Like they did with the grizzly.
Look who is in charge of the Defenders now the former director of the USFWS who promoted wolves with Clinton and Babbit.Jammie will tell the USFWS to wait another 8 years until wolves are recovered in all the western states including California.
You are wrong Bill the Friends are on the right track to challenge the USFWS in court in Montana and have "legal standing". The Friends have done a commendable job and I support HB343 fully.I am tired of seeing our cherished Montana big game populations chewed away by wolves already recovered and increasing at 27%/year. The wolves are also displacing elk off of winter ranges in Montana purchased with sportsmens-HUNTERS dollars.
The sooner this gets into court the better. THANK YOU FRIENDS OF THE NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK HERD. Stay with the facts Bill you are drifting again.You are right on to Jesse.
2/3 of the Northern herd are gone at a minimum, probably a larger percent of the Norris herd, you won't find them calving in the meadow there any more, seldom there in the rut. Yearlings are hard to find. A larger percent of the Madison are surviving....so far, but I see the Hayden pack has moved onto the Madison so that should take care of them too.
The problem can only get worse as the predator numbers increase and the prey numbers decrease. And yest the elk and moose are being destroyed, like it or not. NPS rangers have even removed the moose kiosk from Willow Flats, where it has been for years. The sad thing is we can never go back because the wolves have such protection that they cannot be controlled, and we are dealing with all 5 major predators in the area.
I didn't say you hated ungulates, only that you hate reality and having to face what the wolves are doing.
I do think you and most enviros hate ranchers who produce what you eat, because they have what you don't, land of their own out here.
I see what the wolves do but I do not believe it will render ungulates extinct. It WILL definitely affect huntable populations, however. There is a balance that must be found so I do not disagree that they (wolves) need to be managed but how is the question. I have met so many ignorant assholes who just want to kill everything that even remotely looks like a wolf and then follow what they call the 3 S Rule.... "Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up"! It is these folks that I am wary of and there are ever so many of them. I think seeing and experiencing wolves in the wild is a fantastic experience. So, if I get to shoot a few less elk during my lifetime is it worth it? ABSOLUTELY!
Where does Marion get the nerve to say "most enviros hate ranchers"? Are you out of your freakin' mind, Marion?
Is not the point of this article that MT had a nice little plan for wolf management (lets call a spade a spade and just use the word "hunt"), but the House decided to circumvent the inevitable and waste a little more of our money? Has anyone here said they're against delisting? I'm not, but I'm certainly for limited hunting that sustains a vital predator population. Oh, that's right, many of you want to be the only elk predator out there. Bummer for you.
By the way ranchers, where did you get your land anyway? Inheritance? Family farm? Or did you spend millions to buy it yourself so you could scrape by a living in this god-awful country, infested with all kinds of pesky wild creatures, not to mention having to deal with the market failures of globalization and those worthless Canadians. Ever heard of the city? Go there, you'll make more money and you won't have to deal with those pesky mega-fauna and enviros. Or possibly you're hear for reasons other than money; well now we're getting somewhere. It's damn nice in this part of the world, isn't it? Pesky enviros aside.
Even better ranchers, don't graze your livestock on public land. Pay market value for grazeable land for a change, see how you like that. Taxpayers, including those that appreciate wolves as a part of the natural ecosystem, are subsidizing the livelihood of every rancher that grazes on public land, so the very least they could do is show a little appreciation for my tax dollars.
People like RTF and Marion and Jack and FOTNYEH are so misguided about the new reality, it's astounding they've managed to make it this long. Farming and ranching is the most subsidized industry in the history of the planet. Don't be so ungrateful and greedy.
Either way, RTF and FOTNYEH, have your day in court, it's your right and you should exercise it. But history shows your cause has always been good at one thing - losing.
Long live the wolf, the grizzly, and a few Canadians. Shania's pretty hot.
I'll incite a riot by asking all y'allwhy can't you just give up hunting elk if it threatens the existence of wolves.....Wolves have as much right to live and reproduce as any living thing. I understand that compensation for livestock killed by wolves is available. If ranchers get paid for cattle killed by elk, then what in the world is the problem? It's not like cows and sheep are pets. And anyway, even if they were, wolves kill things to eat them. If you have your dog in the backcountry and he's killed by a wolf, well, that's what wolves do, it's natural, Much as I love my dogs I would accept that. If somebody told me that my very favorite hobby was harmful to others, the world in general, the environmentor animals I would give up my hobby without a problem. I think of the world and others first, before myslef. What would really happen if you gave up huntging, would you die or something?
I don't think people hunt to save money on meat. That sounds like a big fish sotrey to me
Preserving the balance of nature doesn't seem to enter in to any of the thinking here that I can tell, but maybe it is and I don't see it??
Now yhou can all tell me what an ignoramus I am, because that seems to be the tone here.
When you ride as much back country has I have, and can count on one hand the number of elk calves you have seen, it scares the CRAP out of you. When you ride all day, and see dozens of wolf tracks, it scares the crap out of you. When you have to hike 20 miles out because wolves caused your string to pull up stakes and take off, you get real scared, hiking out on foot, in the dark. I carry a leathel hand gun (with armor piercing ammo, bones are very hard in bears, ask the poor sap who shot the Alaskan brown more than 6 times and was still eaten, well I guess you cant ask him) everyday when I am out.
Just as we do with ALL wildlife, we need to have a threshold on a population. When elk numbers are down, tags are down, and vise verse. We need a wolf "hunt". It will instill the fear of humans in them, control the distribution of packs, and reduce the chances of another disease wiping out upteen pups. We manage all other species, why not the wolf?
Mike Lommler
Missoula
Julia sounds like you have had some hair raising experiences, for the people that don't understand the over population of the wolf and their lack of fear towards humans, I think they would have to reconsider if they have been through what you have. To much of anything is not a good thing. I don't know of one animal that preys on wolves, do you? They do not have a natural predator to curb their growth, that I am aware of.
I have encountered wolves the last two years while hunting on the Middle Fork of the Salmon. They create a challenge for hunting. The wolves probably are not killing ALL the elk but they are changing the habits. No more "cow calls" for communication amongst us and no bugles from the prey.
This whole arguement should be about the numbers, whether it is cow/calf ratios or wolves/state. It seems pretty simple but the problem is emotions. I think most rancher/hunter would be satisfied with the original numbers for success under the reintroduction plan.
As in some nameless movie " Can't we all get along?"
If you want to protect the ecosystem, we need to protect the wolf, even if it is from themselves.
Oh and that idead of wolves in Colorado...ha! Do you really think that the people in Estes Park are going to live with wolves eating their poodles? no..... The feds push sh*t on to Montanas (speed limits, etc) because they think very little of us. But Colorado is different. They will never be required to maintain a wolf population in/around the Denver metro area, even though Rock Mtn National Park backs right up to it. Altough I'd love to see it!
All of this nonsense could be avoided if the ESA were amended, and some absolutes for delisting added. I did a lot of research on this article I wrote for newwest and made some suggestions.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/esa_too_broke_to_fix/C147/L38/
so that you have your facts straight, among many other biased comments, that animal N. of Jordan last year was not a wild gray wolf.
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_5296.aspx
Marion, please see "Myths of delisting at http://www.idaho.wolves.org about wolf species. These wolves are no different than the wolves that were found here 1000s of years.
Julia, about livestock losses: coyotes and dogs take more sheep annually and the biggest taker of cattle is guess what, respiratory disease and digestive problems. Wolf predation is less than 5% of total losses annually.
Apparently some folks either (A) are ignorant of what conservation is and how it works, or (B) don't care and seek only to impose their narrow, selfish interest upon everybody and everything else.
Wolves can be successfully integrated into the Montana ecosystem - but not without scientific management that employs recreational hunting as a self-funding control method. To do that the species has to come off the PRESERVATION list and become a conserved, managed species. (There is no such thing in the 21st Century as maintaining healthy wildlife without human manipulation and management - we've already screwed up Eden to much to go back)
The trouble here is that Montana hunters have lost public trust because we allowed the livestock industry to trump the conservation ethic so long that preservationists had to step in and use the ESA to impose a re-introduction of wolves. That means the greater, non-hunting public opinion now does not trust the historic political force for conservation to stand up to industrial resource users in state legislatures.
The livestock industry seems not to have had a new idea for dealing with city people since approx 1912. The propaganda trick being played by FOTNYEH to claim they speak for "the people of Montana makes them look like idiots to everybody who don't share the cultural tribalism of that faction.
The people labeled here as "environmentalist" look just as idiotic when they advocate for a utopian edenic relationship between people and wildlife that agriculturalists and conservationist know has been impossible since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution.
By a majority of one the Montana House of Representatives has proven itself to be a ship of fools. As the author points out - Montana has been on the right track. Let's hope the State Senate keeps us on the right track.
In the meantime our wildlife deserve a calmer, more knowledgeable human support system than they are getting from the non-hunting urbanites and hindsighted agriculturalists who are being so loud in this debate.
Wolves are highly respected by N. American native cultures, who in and of themselves, were some bad-ass hunters. Wolves were seen as equals by early hunters because of their devotion to each other and their hunting ability. Apparently todays hunters see wolves as superior hunters, so they want to eliminate the competition. It is true, despite what a few above indicate, that too many hunters today see the wolves as threats to their hunt success, which is largely for recreation these days, or to fill some kind of psychotic urge to kill something big and hang it on the wall to show everyone how tough they are. (I'll take a cow over a bull any day - much better meat.)
Again, true hunters (a rare breed) aren't in it for the kill - that is the worst part of a hunt, although still a part. Today, true hunting is not for food, although we eat a kill, we will not starve if our tags aren't filled. It is stalking, isolation, rare glimpses at natural ecosystems and its components, and occasionally running into something more powerful than you, if you're lucky. How many of you out there have let perfect shots pass because the situation was too special to ruin it with a kill?
Elk numbers are 'managed' by FWP, and when wolves eat elk, less are available for recreational hunters, and the available tags decline, as they should (see not everyone is always ragging on FWP). Therefore, when will these so-called friends of the elk hunters get to use their 4-wheelers?
Fact: That story about the brown bear in Alaska shot ?? times and still ate the shooter is total bullshit. There are piles of websites that describe the real story.
Myth: Wolves were imported from Canada, a different wolf species. Total bullshit.
Fact: Only one wolf species exists in all of the N. American west: the gray wolf (again, there is a southeast red wolf but that is not the point). SUBSPECIES (i.e. timber, Alaskan) vary little and are virtually genetically identical.
Important fact: More people who live near wolves want them maintained, same as the grizzly. I am surrounded by 8 FWP confirmed packs, where I hunt and play. I want the wolves there.
Fact: FOTNYEH will lose. Period.
Ok if only one species of wolf exists why were they able to come up with Canadian, Alaskan, Great Lakes, and "lower 48" genes in the notorious east Montana wolf?
Are any of you wolf supporters willing to support the wolves after delisting instead of dumping your entertainment costs onto states? You may not realize thathunters license fees pay for wildlife maintenance. With no hunting licenses to sell, that mean folks can buy their kids closthes at a second hand store to pay the extra taxes to maintain wolves and pay for thier damage, so enviros can hear them howl.
What makes you feel you are entitled to the control, but none of the responsiblity?
Here's why I feel I have a say in the wolf issue: I live in MT, own a home and land, pay taxes, buy game licenses, and have never once indicated I want total control, as your side seems to want. I want limited wolf hunts made available, with hefty price tags so the wolf-haters can bear at least some financial burden. Or, should I just pay for all of it because you don't like it?
Also, I would bet my life I've read far more books than you. Here's why, you bullshitter: There's a difference between SPECIES and SUBSPECIES. I have always said there are only two N. American wolf species: Gray and Red. And check this out, genius, modern genetics is controversial. Top scientists still debate a particular strains placement in taxonomy. I will not do the research for you, but the info. is free to you, all you have to do is be interested in being informed. Are you?
Apparently I have to keep repeating myself for the less informed, so here goes. Wolf SUBSPECIES are virtually identical, and numerous. They also interbreed and travel large distances making their aggregate population practically homogeneous.
One more thing, if you're a rancher or farmer, you don't have a leg to stand on. I have been subsidizing your very existence since you began. For the record, your welcome.
And, of course I was joking, those were not excellent questions at all.
This is well documented in Alaska, Yukon,B.C. Alberta and Minn. on wolves mauling and killing game animals and most healthy, all age classes like in YNP today.Just look it up and ask the wildlife agencies other than Montana. Alaska uses a combination of hunting,trapping and aerial gunning. Look at Alaska F&G;web page and under 'wolves/ungulates'. Wolves and grizzly bears are the primary predator for moose and caribou and 85% of the loss of big game species is from predators on areas surveyed.Hunting accounts for less than 10%. Also this information is published in the Jour. of wildl. Mgt.
Aerial gunning remains the most effective method to reduce wolves. So how will FWP do it when the wolf population is increasing at an alarming rate of 27%/year?
So with the increasing wolf population flexiblity must be allowed for private land owners to take wolves since most will end up there. Yes,that will help maintain and restore big game populations.We will see wolves running all kinds of animals into fences as well including horses.
After delisting, if ever, FWP must devise a plan that will work to bring wolf population down to a level stated 4 years ago for 'recovered'.They will not be able to accomplish it. I predict some drastic impacts on SW Montana big game populations in the next 4 years and loss of hunting opportunity and also it will impact the economy just look at the Gardiner area for example.We will see who is correct.These same facts are in testimony in Washington before wolves were introduced in 1995.I have copies of many of the testimonials presented in Washington in 1994 and research on wolf/big game impacts and food habits of wolves... 95% meat.
We were falsely told wolves would stay in YNP and not impact big game populations outside at all.FWP will never have a enough money for wolf compensation to livestock producers but no money at all for compensating the loss of big game animals ..heads will be turned the other direction as now. Criticize me if you wish but all the information is there for anyone who cares to look up the facts and published reports and scientific papers and I won't comment anymore.
Can we verfiy this please?
annual wolf recovery report released
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released its annual report on Rocky Mountain wolf recovery.
The report for 2006 includes a summary of wolf recovery activities in Idaho, which is available on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's Website at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.
Biologists estimated that by the end of 2006, at least 673 wolves lived in Idaho, and they documented 72 packs. Those packs included 53 known to have produced about 185 pups this year. But only 41 packs qualified as breeding pairs.
The annual report for Idaho shows that during 2006, 41 cattle, 238 sheep, and four dogs-three hunting hounds and one guard dog-were listed as confirmed or probable wolf kills.
Non-lethal techniques were used to reduce wolf-livestock conflicts when appropriate. And a total of 68 wolf deaths were documented in 2006-39 wolves involved in livestock deaths and injuries were killed by Wildlife Services, six were killed by livestock producers, in addition 14 died from other human causes, including illegal kills; seven died from unknown causes, and two documented deaths were from natural causes.
In recent wolf control activity in Idaho, federal wildlife officials got a call late on March 4 from a rancher near Ellis, who thought wolves had killed one of his calves.
The rancher had placed a tarp over the calf carcass to preserve the evidence. But when officials arrived to investigate the complaint on March 5, a wolf or wolves had been back, pulled the calf carcass out from under the tarp and eaten most of it.
Agents of the federal Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services found a fresh wolf track at the scene, but there was not enough left of the carcass to confirm whether wolves had killed the calf, so it was deemed a "probable" wolf kill.
Traps were set in an effort to capture and radio-collar a wolf. A wolf was captured, but it pulled out of the trap as the trapper approached. The unsuccessful trapping attempt seemed to have one positive outcome in that the wolves appear to have left the area. These might be wolves from the Morgan Creek pack, which currently has no radio-collared animals.
On March 8, Wildlife Services officials investigated a complaint that wolves killed a calf on private land near Darlington. They did not find enough evidence to confirm the depredation, but officials determined that it was "probable" that wolves killed the calf.
Wolf control actions, authorized by Fish and Game and carried out by the federal Wildlife Services as part of the wolf reintroduction program, do not jeopardize wolf recovery in Idaho. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the wolf recovered in the northern Rocky Mountains and has started the process to remove wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah, from the endangered species list.
Detailed wolf history reports were written in the 1970's, The History and Status of Wolves in Northern Glacier National Park, Montana, Apr. 1975, GNP Scientific Paper No. 1, 55 pages. It included 20 pages of wolf observations ( about 130 total) up till that time including wolf packs up to 15 animals and evidence of pups and dens. Gary Day, now Judge Day at Miles City did his M.S. thesis on wolves in 1981. Status and distribution of Wolves in Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States 130 pages. He spent 1974-1977 collecting information and reported wolves on the Rocky Mountain Front and in SW Montana, including wolf packs up to 11 animals, wolf pups and a wolf den. He still has material he collected from that den at which two adults raised three pups just south of Ennis, MT. All this info was ignored in the late 1980's and early 90's when preparations were being made to bring in the wolves. Also no intensive wolf research was being done in the 1980's and 1990's in YNP, most of MT, WY and Idaho. How do I know? I spent hundreds of hours reviewing all the reports and EIS's, managment plans etc. I found that pups and dens were ignored, wolf packs larger than two were ignored (about 10 per cent included more than two wolves of all observations) and wolf dens were ignored. It was claimed that the first wolf den in 50 years was found in Glacier National Park in 1986 and that was rushed into print in 1989 in an obscure journal few people read. John Weaver 1978 had collected wolf info records in Yellowstone National Park The wolves of Yellowstone. U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service Natural Resource Report 14:39 pp. He supposedly had about 488 records for the park. In 1988 he wrote a one page addenda to this report disavowing it and said bring on the transplants. I also found that someone had put a hold on Gary Day's MS theisis at the U. of MT and supposedly it was not available for reading. Gary is a friend, and I had read it when it came out. I contacted the U of MT and told them I was investigating wolf fraud and would go to the highest levels of the state to get a copy of that thesis. One soon appeared. Undoubtedly the great corruption involved with the 2nd wolf reintroduction will soon come out in court. Some of us believe the 1st illegal wolf reintroduction occurred about 1967 or 1968 and was made up of wolves from MT McKinley in Alaska. See Chapter 10, Playing God in Yellowstone by Alston Chase. Perhaps more wolves should be checked for Alaska DNA.
My guess is keeping the anti-wolf parade going allows people to continue to deny the root of their problems. Things are changing, which is scary if you aren't sure you can or know how to adapt to the changes. The wolf receives the end of a long line of xenophibic rhetoric that blames everyone but oneself.
My advice, for what it's worth is, adapt. Life is change, and unless you admit that and work with it, you will be left behind, a human statue in the midst of a bustling street. Make a conscious decision to join the world and contribute something positive and relevant. I'm a lot more concerned with developers counting on my being distracted, killing tradition by building second homes to save this economy (when most evidence shows that houses always cost taxpayers more than open space)--before I'd worry about an animal.
If you want wolves, etc please help yourself, or better yet move to a place where they are already plentiful.
Every time you force a rancher off the land, you are encouraging, almost mandating developments. They too are a part of the 21st century.
I suggest you design your area the way you want it and we will do the same.
Ben, you wondered about the size of wolves. Generally it is related to climate and the food they eat. As you move north in latidude wolves generally get bigger--examples the northern Canada wolves transplanted here and size of Alaska wolves. Animals with larger body mass do better in cold climates. Larger size also aids them in killing large moose one of the important diet items there.
Mexican wolves are scrawny specimens compared to the northern wolves.
Wolves that existed in YNP and surrounding areas prior to the reintroduction of the 'exotic' wolf from Canada should have been allowed to recover under the EPA.Canadian biologists also warned us not to bring them here. Records show at least 20 existed already in YNP. The NPS/USFWS flawed the records and showed no wolves and 2 years before there was 16 in YNP.Look at Alston Chase book "Playing God In Yellowstone" chapter on "Wolf Mystery". Also look at the NPS research notes,G.Cole,biologist and his own observations of those wolves. There is indication also wolves were brought into YNP illegally by the NPS/USFWS and Missoula coop. Wildlife Unit in the late 1960's from Alaska. Ben as I say you are 100% correct and brought up a very interesting point.
These exotic wolves were fully recovered 4 years ago and still not delisted. How many does the USFWS want? Three more years at 27% increase /year we will see a major impact on native big game species and the livestock industry as well as economy associated with hunting.Write your congressmen and ask what they are going to do about the problem. Will they set back supporting more wolf money to be 'wasted' on a species already fully reovered? Follow the wolf money trail and see where it leads.
"We should be saving wolves, not killing them."
Dear None,
What in the world are you trying to say? Didn't we already "save" the wolves...oh no, we didn't. We KILLED the NATIVE WOLVES when we "reintroduced" the Canadian wolf...why is it called a Canadian wolf if it is native to America???
Only an editor from Sierra Club took the time to respond. She informed me that of course they couldn't put up with wildlife where they were, but "someone has to sacrifice so they have a place". I printed and kept that reply and have never sent a dime to one of them since. That to me has summed up the whole environmental movement, that someone else must sacrifice for what enviros want, or think they want.