Handsprings and Cartwheels! Three more sharp screws in the coffin of American economic, social and cultural freedom. A Trifecta of Change!
Only 3 years, 363 days to go.

This part absolutely blows my mind.

"Changes to the Endangered Species Act would have let public land managers approve projects without considering impacts to endangered species and would have barred global warming from being considered in species decisions. One measure would have stripped requirements for emergency protections on sensitive Interior lands threatened by development."

"Other proposed regulations would have exempted factory farms from air pollution reporting, allowed for the burning of hazardous waste and permitted mountaintop mining companies to dump the waste in rivers."

How can any human being look at this and think that it is a good thing?

The Leftists are bent way too far left. I doubt that they can recover. Our country will survive despite them.

I have said several times since FWS filed the new rule last week, that they had no intention of it becoming law. This is surely no surprise to anyone. The government may have to give money outright to the enviro groups that need the taxpayer monetary award for "expenses" filing lawsuits.
WE are in for a very bad time in the next few years, I'm afraid. Don, I wish I could be as certain that the country will survive.

Don and Marion, you people are nuts. That land belongs to all of us, not just the energy and factory farming industries. Big Energy and Corporate Agriculture have wailed about the slightest curbs on their ability to pollute at will for decades and the country has survived just fine. This time will be no different.

Cheer up...maybe someone will find a way to finance a new nuclear power plant and they can put the waste repository near your hometowns!

I hope the black yuppie is precisely what your nightmares tell you he is. I have been dreaming of the kind of world you fear...

Dave, Don and Marion: You all seem to forget about the national nightmare of the last 8 years, otherwise called the Bush Administration. Your boy Bush left office with what, a 25% approval rating and Uncle Dick was the most unpopular VP in US history? You think the Bush Administration's policies had anything to do with that?

Please explain to me how President Obama's action to freeze Bush's late executive orders is any different than 8 years ago when Bush froze Clinton's late executive orders?

Like Jason pointed out above, how any human being and proud American can bitch and moan that President Obama has put a freeze on Bush's efforts to exempt factory farms from air pollution reporting or permit mining companies to dump waste in our rivers is just bizarre. Please explain to us how American's would benefit from more mining waste in our rivers or more air pollution from factory farms?

Do you people actually read aloud what you write down or do you just enjoy sounding like a bunch of fools?

Ah Skinner/Marion and others,
Freedom of: culture, economy and society, eh??
A culture of: War, genocide, extinction, raoe, ect!!
A Society and Economy of: theft, lies, greed, haves' - have not's, ect!!
WHAT are you all going to do when the next election doesn't go your way - again!! South of the Border looks good - if you have the $$$$ to join the Gov't down there to do all these crimes to those people and land!
STICK a SOCK in IT!!

Hey Vill, I live in Wyoming where uranium already lies naturally on the ground! None of us including the deer and antelope glow. I have no problem at all with nuclear plants. I find it most interesting that libs not only do not want energy from nuclear, fossil fuel, coal fired electric, they want clean plentiful fuel, so far that means wind....unless of course the windmills interfer with their view of whatever, in that case not that either. Any suggestions?
I am well aware of the popularity of President Bush and VP Cheney, it is even worse in Iran. And of course it is near zero among terrorists who would like to attack the US again.
I have not and cannot comment on farms big or little (except sugar beets and beans and alfalfa) I live in ranch country where private familes are required to feed their livestock to wolves to entertain folks like you. Libs do not want food produced in the country if it doesn't grow on air and magically appear in the store. Any suggestions? By the way when you say we can just import it, remember that it takes fuel to import.
Be careful what you ask for...you might just get it.

Marion - AGAIN; total nonesence ranting with NO viable, creative or logical suggestions. To YOU, everyone lese is WRONG - only YOU, or your ilk, are Right.
WEll, right you are - Correct you are NOT!! Don't bother with another foolish tirade/reply - as VILL aid; you shouldread your own post and try to see another pt. of viewe. Everyone of these posts helps to to think clearer - especially about YOU!!
EXPLETIVE......!!!!

Marion,
Have you stopped taking your meds again????

Marion, that's terrific! You've just solved one of the major issues curbing the growth of nuclear energy: Where to store the spent fuel. Please write your elected representatives and encourage them to bring the spent nuclear fuel dump that's been looking for a home for years to Wyoming; I'll do whatever I can to help. Call Sen. McCain's office, he has been pushing for a location in Nevada but I'm sure would jump at the chance to put it even further away from Arizona. Also, tell all your friends and neighbors and the people who rely on tourism in your state that you want it in Wyoming so they can jump on the bandwagon.

Let's do this...together we can make it happen!

Jay J
You sound like a muslim terrorist. If you hate America so much, What's kept you here so long ? If President Obama doesn't deliver
the kind change you want to see, are you going to strap a bomb to yourself and go blow up a bunch of us American infidels?

I wish Marion would have stuck to her 2 best themes. The first is that it is cold at her house and her trick knee is acting up, therefore global warming is a conspiracy (plus Al gore is fat!). The second is that Obama kinda looks like MLK Jr. and since she and her type don't believe in MLK Day, Obama is not a good person.
When she gets off those themes her posts get a little crazy.
P.S. there might be a third topic she is good at, as she doesn't sound the least bit crazy when she lectures us that liberals are scared of Sarah Palin and will rue the day that we made fun of Palin for lying every time she opens her mouth (thanks but no thanks!) and not knowing anything about the world (as someone once said, I can see the moon from my house, I guess that makes me an astronaut).

The people that look at numbers of wolves on a piece of paper need to take into account that wolves have moved into where people live. There just isn't enough habitat for more. Wolves are not just impacting hunters and ranchers. Wolves have killed dogs, horses, mules, even a guard donkey not far from our home. Visitors camping up here have had their animals attacked.

While I'm glad to see wolves restored to the wilderness, I do not think they belong in residential neighborhoods. When you have a pack of wolves around your home howling all night (and you can't run them off because they are not afraid of people) maybe you might change your mind about wanting more wolves.

Its time to delist wolves, they have made an astounding comeback, genetic connectivity has been proved, and they need to be managed just like other large predators.

The regulation regarding concealed firearms within national parks is NOT a last-minute "midnight rule" and should NOT have been included in this article.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 73, No. 238, Pages 74966-74972) on Dec. 10, 2008, and went into effect thirty days later, on Jan. 9, 2009.

Hopefully, the new administration will not try to rescind this ruling. The new Secratary of the Interior, Ken Salazar (D), was one of the fifty Senators who asked for a change to the then-current policy, and feels that this is a "sensible" improvement. (Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Dec. 5, 2008)

Obama is the center piece of ObamaNation. It is those 100 people closest to him that will make the decisions he has to approve or disapprove. Those can be set up, phrased, to leave him no other option than the one they want. Bush is not a bad guy. He had bad advice. Clinton had bad advice. The US bombing Belgrade when Orthodox Christian Serbs took up arms after the muslim assaults on their kind in Bosnia, was wrong. The mujahideen muslims from Bosnia, home from helping to run Russia out of Afghanistan, could not refrain from continuing jihad against the Orthodox Christian Serbs in Bosnia, and began to kill Serbs in the night.

1,500,000 Serbs were executed by muslim mercenaries, Catholic zealots, and Nazi camp followers in WWII with no post war trials, only a getaway path to South America for the war criminals. Serbs suffered greatly, as they have as Christian Serbs since the conquest of Serbia by Sulemein in 1561, and forced sharia law and death to those who did not convert. We, the US through NATO, stopped the Serbian "genocide" by Gen. Clark's bombing of their capitol. Now Serbia is aligned with Russia after having been twice screwed by the West. They have never been subject to justice for the cruelties of sharia law, for the executions of civilians during WWII. I find it cruel, and disingenuous, that the architects of that bombing of Serbia, Holbrook among them, Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, are once again making policy for the Balkans that supports radical Islam, and not the native Orthodox Christians of Serbia and Russia. Evidently 9/11 didn't underline the danger of jihad, of muslim zealots, of US policy not quite protecting Americans as steadfastly as most would like. At least under Bush, no more attacks in our country were suffered. That happened on his watch, but was planned, the infiltration by agents of jihad, all happened under the last Democrat President, Clinton. Now we have once again the same players running the show. It is natural for more than some to be fearful. Jihadists at the door are just human wolves in the pasture of our way of life, and the results just as predictable. Ask any Serb. They have both.

Rightwing bitterness appears near where it was as reconstruction began in the deep south after 1865. I suspect we will soon see revivals of organizations similar to the Knights of the White Camelia and the KU Klux Klan.

After eight years of the worst hatred and bitterness I've seen since the liberals went after Newt and tried to destroy him,after all the hate and bitternes witnessed at the inauguration with the booing of every republican introduced and the hate and bitterness shown as the Bush family flew away in the chopper,
with the willingness of most republicans to accept and work with the new president, I think you have it bawards Redman.
I hope you don't turn on President Obama as he moves to the right, which he'll have to do to successfully govern.
Extremism on either side won't work.

When the colonists were struggling to establish their homes and farms and push back the wilderness the wolf was a major threat.

The wolf was described as “unscrupulous,” “despicable and bloodsucking, the wolf was hated in every settlement along the Eastern seaboard. He slaughtered sheep and cattle, killed valuable dogs and it has been said that he even attacked humans.

The first wolf bounty laws were passed in every colony, payment equaled the budget for all other purposes. Payments of hogs, wine, tobacco, grain, rum, powder and lead were paid for killing a wolf. Maryland residents used wolf scalps as currency. 1632 Virginia issued a permit to kill a wild pig to anyone killing a wolf, as pigs were deemed protected by the colonist.

1642 wolves became so bad in Rhode Island day hunters were hired. Massachusetts paid bounties by method used to kill the wolf, forty shillings to anyone employing hounds, ten shillings any other way.

The colonist knew they could never farm in peace as long as the wolves were near. Diaries, notes, and reports of those times recorded in North Carolina in 1752 stated it was useless to try to raise cattle until the wolves and bears were wiped out, adding the wolves have killed many of our calves.

As late as 1820, a businessman failed in his woolen-goods mill at Ding-mans Ferry Pennsylvania because his sheep were killed off by wolves.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson spoke and wrote with feeling of the wolf problem in Virginia in the closing years of the 18th century.

The war against the wolf killing livestock traveled westward as the people settled the land and provided a home for their families. Even though wildlife present, wolves continue to seek out livestock, capture and eat them alive at great economic loss.

Here in New Mexico:

In 2009 the same problems exist between wolves and livestock that began in the colonial days. Nothing has changed and nothing will change in the future between wolves and livestock.

For the last several years there has been a major problem with habituated wolves that seek out humans and human use areas. The killing of pets in front of children at homes and wolves confronting children has produced documented psychological trauma, “PTSD” post traumatic stress disorder. Still there is no action by AMOC or any of the Wolf Recovery Signatory Agencies to mitigate this problem.

The Endangered Species Act was intended to help animal, but it has been used by pro-wolf organizations to destroy the lives of minority rural people.

If Obama does not look at the adverse effects of wolves then there there is no hope of survival for the rural people...the plain truth, scientific facts are that wolves destroy wildlife, livestock, pets, and cause psychological damage to children...How about addressing these issues....

I hear a lot of hate regarding this article, and while I am not suggestion a rousing rendition of Cum-by-ya. I think there is room for both sides to step into one another shoes and go for a walk.

I think the Big Bad Wolf has been given that name for a reason. Also, I do not believe that President Obama has suffered the plight of a home steader. For the majority of Liberal America the struggle of survival for the Grey Wolf is something they associate with puppies or domesticated dogs.

If the number of these predatory animals is causing hardship among the American people than the animals should be dealt with. They certainly do not belong in neighborhoods.

I miss the days when you could take of yourself and your family. Today we are required to rely on Uncle Sam to look over our shoulder and over the shoulder of the scientist that they hire to determine if there is a problem with the number of wolves prowling the neighborhood. What a waste!

I think the problem is people want sound bites and pretty pictures, not reality. It sounds so noble to claim the wolf has been mistreated and must have it's home again.....well only in certain places. Certainly New England & the east coast are much to important to have to deal with wolves, but westerners have way too much land & should be penalized.
There is as much common sense in planting wolves in ranch country and adamantly insisting that the wolves be protected above the ranch families and their animals as it would be to insist that every department store be forced to provide shelter for the homeless at night when the store was closed. It of course would be up to the store owner to provide enough security to keep damage to a minimum.
No one should have to be under siege in their own home in this country just to entertain others who have no investment and no responsibility.

Three Trees you are right on and you are well spoken. The human habituated wolves the FWS has loosed on the citizens here, continue to wreak havoc on many lives and livlihoods here in the Mexican Gray wolf release area.

Give em hell Marion! You are right on contrary to the babbling of your haters.

Tom Klumker

Absolutely the comments of three threes is on the money. Anyone who wants wolves in historic habitat so they won't deteriorate as a population should definently look into placing full packs into the east coast areas where historically they were present and scientific and historic documentation exists that they existed. Anything less is simply a violation of equal protection under the law. OK lets all have wolves. Pennsylvania needs about 2000 that is the smallest self sustaining wolf population according to the scientists paid by the Turner fund.
Rhode Island about 500 would be right if they are allowed to move accross state lines and establish breeding with other genetic lineages. Throughout california and into Los Angeles as well. Don't try to tell me it is no longer appropriate habitat the ESA says nothing about that.
Obama needs to use his constitutional background to bless the entire country with wolves. Once others who apparently feed they are necessary to the ecosystem get enough I will be happy to tolorate mine in a more reasonable fassion.

I think what really bugs me, is that people Jason included seem to read the spin on Bills or Exectuive Orders or other regulations but seem not to have read the actual documents. Spin put out by radical environmentalists in press releases rather than the actual bill or order. Heck they don't even bother to read the science available or the analysis on it. But then, when you are sheep that is what you do. listen to people who tell you what to think rather than using the brain God gave you to learn on your own.
Marion I believe your lack of suggestions that you note come from ignorance and the constant need to pretend to be intellectual rather than the actual ability to think. You will never see any real suggestions from these people they don't want any and aren't capable of thinking for themselves.

Janice, you nailed it with your need for a wide distribution of wolves. Of course the fact is, wolves are not what enviros want protected, it is power and money. It is no accident that the big enironmental groups have millions in assets each. One can only imagine how much money would be brought into national coffers if they were taxed.
The alternative energy is like all of their projects, a means to impose their will on others and haul in the money for it.

Guys, I'm really afraid of Obama. I think he could really hurt this country. I'm worried that we could have the worst economic collapse since the great depression. I'm worried that we would lose our leadership ability around the world. I'm worried that health care will get worse, the rich will get richer, that college costs willl go up, that gas prices will reach $4 a gallon and that we won't respond when one of our major cities floods. I'm worried Obama may hate public lands and implement dozens of actions against them like a "healthy forests" plan. I'm worried Obama will invade the wrong country and drain us of hundreds of bllions of dollars. I'm worried Obama will grow the size of the government to record levels and spy on it's own citizens. I'm worried Obama will leave office in shame with the worst approval rating of all time, and with the most hated and unpopular vice president of all time.


Wake up, people. The grown ups are back in charge.


Yahoooooooo!

Mike:
If you believe President Bush left office in shame, you're delusional.
If given a chance, Obama might be a good president, but far left morons like yourself are making hard for the rest of the nation to listen to what our new president has to say. Is it your intent to drag this country into the toilet, or are you just too stupid to realize that the country needs to work together if we expect to have a country in 4 years?
What did you hope to accomplish with such childish post?

Amen Tom, a lot of childishness in the far left causes more problems than necessary. I ignore most of what the media tells me even the far right media, becuase it is just the same drivel coming out of Mike besides I know exactly how media handle our issues they completely ignore this side of the story and do what marion says, look at pretty pictures and hope the grocery stores majically re-stock themselves. George Bush did some things not quite right and some things he did wrong and a whole lot he did just fine including stopping the murders of millions of American's short.
I am praying President Obama has good judgement but to say the grownups are back in charge is just silly fantasy.

Ahhh yes, Mike, I'm sure the whole world was impressed by the "grownups" when they saw the photo seen around the world of one of Os top execs, Rahm Emannuel thumbing his nose at those he disagrees with. Perhaps in your world that is a symbol of grown ups. Somehow that is not my vision of the Chief of Staff of the most powerful man on earth. The class clown in a junior high class comes more readily to mind.
The whole world must have been assured by that....not!

I haven't heard reported any "dirty tricks" from departing White House Staff. Bush, like a good steward, left the White House with respect for the incoming President. We cannot say that about Bill Clinton and his staff, including Rahm "Deficient Digit" Emanuel.

When Clinton flew off with the booty at his term's end, his crooked financial supporters pardoned, there was no booing from the inauguration crowd of Republican supporters. That the Dems have no class is understandable and known. Obama is trying to show some, and I hope that he steps on any in his administration who do not, including that one man tower of babble, his Veep Biden. Yackety Yack Biden. Leno showed him last night as the favorite old drunk uncle, with Obama trying to shut him up. Funny. True, uncut, and funny.

I hope ObamaNation is off to a good start, the White House and Executive Office Bldg computers have all their keys, there are no toothpicks in locks, or whatever else childish remains that Bush's staff had to endure as a result of Clinton staff clowns. If you don't think that kind of stuff lingers, and colors relations, shifts responses, you are not in the real world. Having half the White House staff coming from the Clinton presidency is not universally received with grace and goodwill. Robert Reich spouting off about making sure the stimulus does not give jobs to the educated, or to white males in construction is a peek inside the upcoming legislation. Microsoft is laying off thousands, flooding the streets with Geek Nationals. HP is still shedding people. On the left coast, the construction blue collar jobs are gone, and now it is the techies who are getting sacked. That they appear to discriminated against in proposed stimulus legislation is good for the Right, for Conservatives. We might have a vigorous mid term election as an outcome.

Obama seems to at least be trying for bipartisanship, but queen Nancy seems bound and determined not to let that happen.

Oh trust me Tom, Bush did leave office in shame. He had the worst approval rating in presidential history. He is and was a complete failure as commander in chief. Read the story yourself:

http://wilderness-sportsman.com/wsblog/2009/01/17/bush-leaves-office-with-22-approval-rating-worst-in-70-years-of-counting/

8 years of Republican rule ending up trashing this great country. Those of you who are "worried about the country going into the toilet" are oblivious to the fact that it already has.

Marion,

You and your "side" will get exactly what you deserve over the next 4-8 years. You supporters of republican policies affecting public lands, resources, wildlife etc. rubbed it in the faces of environmentalists for years when your side had absolute power. This arrogance created Obama and you will have to live with the consequences. Your whining, complaining and increasingly crazy theories and rants may be the best side effect of my vote for Obama.

Are you nuts? nobody has approved of President Bush allowing wanton destruction of private property through predators. We are already "getting what we deserved under the Republican Administration why do you think none of us voted McCain and your guy is in.
Exactly why is it that liberal greens seem to believe rural people deserve their idealism and contempt? Why is it that liberal greens seem to believe that only their rights matter?
Becuase let me tell you, nothing much was good for us under the endangered species act under the Bush Interior Department.
Can it get worse, I guess if it does some of you might someday be happy..

Wow, Steve, "my side" stopped timbering and turned the forest into beetle nurseries and fire traps? We introduced wolves to kill off the beef supply? We shut down wheat fields to protect mice? We have prevented coal fired electric plants from being built, or prevented oil refineries from being built or protested and prevented wind farms from being built? Boy, no wonder you are so angry.
Once you cool down, you might want to check the facts. Perhaps 24 hours with no coal fired produced electricity, no fossil fuels in your vehicle or home, no American farm or ranch grown food to eat and you might be surprised how your attitude would change.

Marion,

Why do you have to make every argument to the extreme one way or another? Nobody is talking about eliminating fossil fuels overnight. As for the wolf issue, your tired whining means nothing to me now as none of your doomsday predictions ever come close to coming true. Have you considered a career in standup comedy?

Actually Steve, what you were saying was how awful we conservative are, we haver ruined the whole earth. I simply disputed that.

Marion isn't the only person suffering under Bush Administration ESA regulatory practices and environmental legal action. Our "side never had absolute power or we wouldn't have suffered so much under Bush policies in place to placte so called environmentalists who certainly didn't suffer any under a Bush administration environmental policies. They merely said they did but can't really show it. So Marion's tired whining is something you will likely hear more of in the future. Steve, What you actually said is vindictive and sorely lacking in the Obama mandate for balanced rhetoric and understanding of their fellow American's.

"You and your "side" will get exactly what you deserve over the next 4-8 years. You supporters of republican policies affecting public lands, resources, wildlife etc. rubbed it in the faces of environmentalists for years when your side had absolute power. "

What was rubbed in my face for the past 8 years was wolf kills on our livestock, removal of my neighbors for environmentalists extremists whims, and destruction of my childrens well being and future. What did you suffer other some potential harm to your idea through having to fight a modified ESA and I might add winning?

Have You Ever Wondered ?

Have you ever wondered who, or what was behind all the changes that affect our daily lives, our schools, our economic viability, rural customs of life and the extreme environmental changes where we live.

Excluding Multiple-use of Federal Forest, re-introduction of large carnivores like Wolves and grizzly Bears, Endangered Species of every kind and on and on???

Read below and see the link.

The “New World Order” has quietly backed the radical environment movement. In June 3-14, 1992 Mikhail Gorbacev opened the Rio de Janeiro Summit Meeting of Global Warming with: "The Threat of Environmental Crises would be the International “disaster Key” that would unlock the New World Order".

A massive array of countries, Green Advocacy Groups (GAG’s) and Non Government Organizations (NGO’s) are working hand in hand with the United Nations to bring Vast Areas of the United States under UN Control, under the “GUISE” of “PRESERVING the ENVIRONMENT.

UNITED NATIONS ESTABLISHED DIRECTIVES
__\/__

Agenda 21, also chapter 27-NGO’s, UNESCO, UNMAB. UN world Heritage Program (see Yellowstone in danger), UN Convention on Biological Diversity, article 8a-e, UNEP, UN Global Biodiversity Assessment, section 10.4.2.2.3, World Conference on Global Governance.

**Look it up for YOURSELF!!, don't take my word, you decide. Search your computer for the headings above, also search Henry Lamb, he has researched and written numerous articles on the above so you can understand the significance of these directives.

___\/___
DIRECTIVES

NGO’s = Non Government Organizations = Environmental Activist Organizations. The “Machine” that advances the directives of the United Nations (Circumvents the Congress of the United States)
Exp. The Wildlands Project, Re-wilding America, sustainable development "a new vision for your community", etc.

___\/___


Instituted by Lawsuits, Lawsuits and more Lawsuits, Public comment, Legislation, Administrative Policies (On the Local, state and federal Level)

\/
Enacted directives


The NGO Environmental and Endangered Species “spider-web” expands across America to every small rural community. Why, because small communities have no voice, voting power, or funds to defend themselves. The federal agencies work hand in hand with environmental NGO’s because they have the same agenda.

These Federal Agencies need the NGO environmental lawsuits to move forward to close multiple use of Federal forests, and BLM lands.

Stop forest health selective logging and watershed revitalization, grazing, recreation (The Travel Management Plan closes roads and areas from public use), and eliminate private property within these boundaries that were homesteaded in the 1880’s.

Increase re-introduction of large carnivores and do as much to damage economic viability as they can to the rural minority people. You cannot have a “Wildlands Project” with the Federal Forest fragmented with original homesteads established before the enactment of the Forest Service and BLM Authority.

What is the Wildlands Project you ask?

Federal Forest and wilderness established into core areas from Mexico to Canada, 50% of the United States are mapped out. In Core Areas there is no Human Access, or Activity. Out side the core areas there are multiple buffer zones. The outer buffer zone has limited human activity. To tie these core areas together for Genetic Viability of large carnivores there are Corridors. The people who live in these corridors will no doubt be removes by imminent domain.

To have a Wildlands Project with corridors from one to another, environmental organizations have to eliminate the minority rural people, not one but all. Who lives in the projected corridors?? You guest it…Minority Rural People.

All of the things we have seen and the changes being made are the results of a long term plan, and the only part we play in this scheme of things is…… removal…………

\/
END RESULTS

Rural Americans Suffer Loss Of = Sovereignty, Private Property Rights, Individual Freedoms, Customs of Life, Multiple Use of National Forest and BLM Resources, Economic viability, Funding for Schools, Mental Health and Children Safety.


Educating the public, action, and you supporting your neighbor is the only tool we have to fight this war on rural America. So much for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness………….

wow 3 trees nuf said.

Thank you 3 trees. The dupes are so thrilled with the power they have over a few people, that they do not even realize the rights that they are throwing away every day. Czech President Klaus tried to warn folks of just what this environmental control really is all about, unfortunately thsoe who have control or think they do won't listen.

Here comes the black helicoptors.
Quick Marion put on your tin foil hat

The proof is in the pudding people's unalienable rights are violated on a daily baisis and those who support it blithely accuse those who expose it of seeing black helicopters. wow.

And what inalienable rights are you referring to spicificly there janice?

Self Education,

is the only path to truth. Do not let yourself be lead like sheep, look up all the facts yourself then make a decision.

Anyone talking to me in the past about the United Nations I viewed as a wacko. Then I spent months researching all aspects of the UN and directives that effect every aspect of human life.
I then compared those directives to environmental organizations and found them to be the same.

When I finished reading hundreds of copied pages, the realization light went on, I sat there numb in disbelief. I thought how could my fellow Americans support directives from foreign countries??

Do they think they would be better off with a one world government? Do they think they will be part of it with authority over those opposed?

At 61 years I have seen many changes coming so fast before my eyes. In the past you had to go to a history book to read about change.

Clinton did sign onto Sustainable Development, communities could not get a government grant unless they bought into those guidelines. Do any of you remember when your city, town, village, community had a new "Vision" for the future, "sustainable development" (often the name is changed, and they do not use the term sustainable development). It happened in our village, and I provided information but it was rejected and now we have our streets paved, but only one stop light in the whole county. Sustainable Development is alive and well.

Events in the rest of the world are relatively small when your life and the welfare of your own family are in jeopardy.

No answer Janice? Is all you do is stand around and say "wow"

I think 3 Trees has his roots in Timothy Leary's work shop sink.

Sorry Mike,

I was never a hippie in the 60's, though I saw some. It was Johnny cash, George Jones, country for me....I was always in the woods hunting, fishing and running hounds.

No time for dope, long hair and protesting for me. Then 3 years in the Marine Corps, 1966 to 1969 after high school.

Been married to my only wife for 40 years. My values are probably a lot different than yours.

Diversity is what makes up America, I won't try to pass laws to make you believe and live the way I do, will you do the same for me????

Janice,

You mean rights like the private property rights of people living west of yellowstone who have to endure the livestock gestapo hazing bison on their private land at the behest of cattle ranchers? Those rights?

Uhh, Steve, I think you have things backward, those folks want the buffalo and object to trying to keep them in Yellowstone. The idea of spreading infected buffs far and wide is to infect a cattle herd and get rid of cattle that way. It only takes one animal in a herd of cattle to get it destroyed, so they dont' even have to work for mass infections. Since about half of the buffs are infected......

If it is possible to repeal 28 years of anti-nature in four or eight years, January 21st was a good day to have begun it...

I am here but no I don't check this website every 5 minutes to see if I can insult someone on it. Hatemongering is why we are in this boat.
When government is so powerful that it can use an animal species to enforce environmental organizations anti human agenda's, that is a violation of every man's unalienable rights, sadly most don't notice because they haven't been impacted, yet. But some, especially those who actually have been impacted by having livestock killed children harrassed or media savage their family's at the behest of certain pro-activist rags do notice.
Several of my neighbors have been forced out of business by unmitigated wolf kills while government and greens just thumb their noses. By the way the Bush administration did nothing to stop this. When government can allow wolves to destroy peace and security in a small rural community by allowing wolves to follow children around that is a violation of unalienable rights. When government aided and abbetted by environmental extremists refuse to remove a wolf pack that is crapping on someones porch where a 3 year old plays that is a violation of unalienable rights. Just becuase rural communities are often poor and often do not have access to the legal system or to the media doesn't justify unbridled bullying of those people. When children are having nightmares due to wolves coming into their yards and killing their dogs that is a violation of their unalienable rights. When government does nothing time after time and refuses to follow their own rules and regulations and force people to swallow their jack booted thuggery or go to court to stop them or worse risk going to jail that is clealy a voilation of unalienable rights. These were the battles this country grew out of and perhaps it is time people recognized that. You quasi intellectuals who feel everything so deeply should wake up.

Tme thing about enviros, nothing they do affects the environment negatively. Many of them fly around in private jets, and so many of them flew in to celebrate the new dawn of environmental control of people with the new administration. I guess they figure that the commoners can shut their heat down awhile to make up for it. The inauguration was touted as being the "greenist" ever, instead it was the brownest.
This double standard is what drives me crazy. We must have wolves, not where they were first eliminated from, but in the areas where the enviros want to eliminate ranching.

Unfortunately, for them though, Barack Obama has no real environmental record so this unbridled celebrating may be for naught. They may have actually done better under GW.

Janice,
Lets inject a little reality here:
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MWPF06-01.pdf
and
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/MW_mortality.pdf
and
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_without_wolves.htm

Reality is living with the situation, not talking or writing about it. Reality is accomplishing something yourself, not forcing others to do it so you can take credit.

Oh my gosh Jeff is able to run down the FWS Mexican wolf website good for him it is a sure bet he won'tget much reality from that spin or from that incredibly big fibber, Michael Robinson from the anti ranching source. All investigators use both sides then work to learn for themselves which is correct. Darn too bad Jeff isn't able to do that.

Marion,
you have been proven to be a prevaricator for so long by so many people on various websites it would be truly laughable if it were not so utterly pathetic.

Janice,
So apparently it is fine for you to denigrate other people but not the reverse huh?
A little more reality:

"Livestock Losses



Though we have made a significant effort to compile a more complete picture of national livestock losses that covered many more years, the year of 2005 was the only one that had a comprehensive tally. Based on other related figures, it appears that 2005 was not much different than any of the other years, and is fairly indicative of all the wolf recovery programs.



The summation of all these statistics is that the presence of the wolf has had a minuscule impact on the livestock industry or any single rancher.



Highlights of the 2005 NASS Report
Only 0.11% of all cattle losses in 2005 were due to predation by wolves.
Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves



National Wolf Predation and Livestock Losses



Wolf Predation Plays Small Role in Livestock Losses in 2005

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) recently reported the causes of cattle loss in the lower 48 states. These statistics reveal that health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005, followed by weather-related issues. Only 5% of all cattle losses in the continental U.S. in 2005 were attributable to predators. Wolves are grouped into the “other predators" category along with bears, lions, coyotes, vultures and other carnivores. In addition, only 0.11% of all cattle losses in 2005 were due to predation by wolves. Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle, domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.Interestingly, theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.



In the 2005 NASS report, wolves are grouped into an “other predators" category along with bears, lions. vultures and other carnivores. However, even in states with wolf populations, cattle loss due to predation by these “other predators” is negligible. Overall, predation by “other predators” accounts for .7% of cattle losses in the lower 48 states that contain wolves. Therefore the average number of cattle losses specific to wolf predation in these states is less than .7%.This compares to an average of 1.6% of cattle losses due to predation by coyotes and an average of 90% of losses due to non-predator related causes, such as health problems, disease, and weather issues.





Mexican Wolf Predation Compensation
State Cattle Sheep Other Payments
Arizona 67 10 6 $ 42,825
New Mexico 81 0 4 $ 57,780
Total 148 10 10 $ 100,605



The list below shows the percentage of the cattle population of that state that was lost due to predation by”other predators,” including wolves. The percentage of cattle lost to “other predators” in the other states that have wolves averaged .77%.



Percentage of Cattle Losses Due to Predation by "Other Predators" in States with Mexican gray Wolves: Arizona 0.21% New Mexico 0.68%



Wolves are grouped into the “other predators" category along with bears, lions, coyotes, vultures and other carnivores.



Sheep Loss

The list below shows the percentage of the sheep population of that state that was lost due to predation by”other predators,” including wolves. The percentage of sheep lost to “other predators” in the other states that have wolves averaged 2.5%.



Percentage of Sheep Losses Due to Predation by "Other Predators" in States with Mexican gray Wolves: Arizona 2.56% New Mexico 0.78%



Wolves are grouped into the “other predators" category along with bears, lions, coyotes, vultures and other carnivores."

Also, at the end of 2008 there were ~ 52 wolves in the New Mexico-Arizona recovery area. But for the sake of argument let's double that to 104.
total acres for recovery area= 4.9 million acres
Lets see that would be ONE WOLF for every 47000(that's thousand) acres.
Yep there getting totally out of control alright.

Jeff, like those folks who call me a liar, you fail to provide anything to substantiate your claim. You throw it out based on your own feeling of self importance and go on your way.
If the wolf kills brought to us by those seeking to impose their will are so irrelevant in the overall picture of the United States, why do we worry about hurricane victims etc? Certainly they represent a very small portion of the entire country too.
The wolf introduction has taken substantial amounts of money out of the pockets of individuals, and it is delibertly inflicted. Just what good does that do for the people in this country? It has cost 10s of millions of taxpayer dollars to be able to cost these folks their money and untold grief when dogs and horses and other pets are among those torn limb from limb dying horrible deaths. I cannot understand those that revel in the power to do that to other people.

Jeff E,

We both should have learned a long time ago not to waste our times playing these headgames with Marion...

SteveC,
I Know, I,m just a little bored today. How ya doin' anyways?

Marion,
tell us again why you was kicked of the one blog that you would undergo major surgery to be able to hi-jack. I believe it was Steve that proved your marked propensity for falsehood on that one, on this website as a matter of fact and that is just the very small tip of the iceberg with you.

Marion,
I can also quote any number of times on another website"Wild Again" that would take hours to go through and show countless examples of your purposeful deceitfulness.
What I have told you before and apparently you don't get is what ever is posted on the Internet never goes away. It can be searched for and found for all to see and consistently you post some line of BS or another on one website or another and think no one will ever realize it for what it is.

The one website I am banned from is Ralph's, and he doesn't allow disagreement very long by anyone, and most certainly not anyone as outspoken as I am. I don't know just what happened to Wild Again, not enough of a fund raiser I guess compared to filing lawsuits. It is real easy to take potshots and make accusations agaisnt someone as long as you can hide your identity and do not have to prove anything. But then that is pretty much the hallmark of environmentalism.
By the way how deep is the global warming where you are?

Marion,
you were banned from that site for being a troll.
You know it.
SteveC copied the actual post where you were banned right here and the reason you were banned.
See, there you go again.

Marion,
So far it looks to be a average year here;
http://www.id.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/data/snowpack/historic/2009snowmaps.html
Hopefully it will keep that way as we are about 3" of water low as to what an average is

Jeff E,

Would one be considered a troll if they post under a different name for each of their personalities?

Marion,

Since you keep forgetting the truth behind you being banned from that blog, here is the link. It had nothing to do with you disagreeing with him...

http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/08/26/numerous-wolves-shot-for-killing-cow-calves-in-sublette-county-wy/

doh
Marion is exposed.......................again

Hey, I thought I could post on Ralph's site if I used a different name, knowing he can't stand me, obviously he recognized my writing syle and banned me. I've never tried to hide the fact he banned me, actually I consider it a badge of honor. I really enjoy pointing out that all of the wolves we actually have a record of in Yellowstone (which was supposedly the wolves we were "restoring" after extirpation) is the 136 that were killed over a 42 year period, 56 of which were adults and the other 80 pups. Since they were getting a bounty on wolves how many coyote pups do you imagine were palmed off as wolf pups?
It does concern me that he is a taxpayer paid teacher and as intolerant as he is to opposing views, I can't imagine it would be easy for a thinking student who disagrees with him in his class. But I would imagine he is tenured.

Now the tired tactic of miss direction.
It never ends with you. Every time you are pinned to the ground and can not wriggle away like a night-crawler on wet grass; out comes the ol deflection and misdirection ploy.
how sad.
Just tell the truth Marion, it needs no defense.

Dear Jeff E and Steve C,

Enough already about Marion! Put a cork in it! She is legit and makes way more sense and contributes a whole lot more to the discussion than either of you.

For a refresher course on the real world out there please refer back to everything 3 Trees has posted on this subject!

Enough said! Refute him if you can. Whenever he post you guys get all silent and start rattling along about how sorry Marion is. Talk about changing the subject.

I agree. You two have taken up half of this page attacking Marion and said not one word about the subject.
I thought they hadrules about trolling.

Refutation is unnecessary. The guy--3 trees--is clearly a believer in the supremacy of homo sapiens.
People who continue to believe that GOD made man steward over the earth's species is not aware of the awful failure of man's big brain...

it is pretty easy to use statistics to pursue an idiotic agenda guys. Love it that we live here and see the destruction of both livestock and families and you all read a few anti ranching websites and seem to feel you have more information than anyone else. Let me remind you figures lie and liars figure. It is in the best interest of all agency personnel to fudge the numbers and in the best interest of wolf advocates to spin everything to meet their thinnly veiled agenda. I actually heard Michael Robonson on the radio yesterday claiming all he wanted was wildlife where it was historically doing what it did in nature. What a crock if that is the case why has he used his position to denigrate ranchers have investigations launched against innocent people and file one lawsuit after another against ranching. That is even if he believes the fossil and historic record shows wolves were in the SW which it barely shows anything at all.

I have to take a trip to an environmentally sound conference that does something to preserve watershed so I am out for now.
Agree Tom trolls all no middle ground just hatemongering as usual.
I too can't get a word up on Ralphs website it is only for like minded wolf lovers.

Thank you Jediadiah for proving your point about brain failure.

Tom Klumper,
I guess I missed the ballot nominating you white knight for a day.
Marion is what she is. If I feel the need to periodically remind her of that I will. Your opinion on the question does not mater. Understand.
As far as 3trees, whoever that is, should I be moved to engage that person in conversation I will, at my leisure.

Janice,
So provide refutation of anything I post. Not just your opinion or Name Calling which is apparently your strong suit, but actual facts.
If proven wrong on a point I will admit,learn, and move on.
Go for it.

Redman,

I do believe in God....You don't???

Thanks for pointing out that "Big Brain Failure" of man. That big brain failure is scientist, biologist, that put forth facts that are self serving depending on their agenda. One thing that is apparent is the lack of "Common Sense".

One fact is prevalent, a biologist can saddle an endangered species and ride it to retirement!

The rural people who live on the land know the forests, the wildlife, the range and the state of condition there in. They did not learn this from a college book or reading environmental propaganda, they know it by living everyday of their lives on the land.

And you think you know what is best, based on what?????

Dear jedediah Redman,

I don't know your political leanings and don't care but your quip about 3 Trees basically believing that man is the superior beast on ole mother earth and then to say we are failing to consider the shortcomings of the larger humnan brain is quite interesting. I had never thought of the role of mankind in this light before.

Evidently your are not a "believer" and are apart of the new religion of earth worshipper's. They believe in and worship the creation and not the creator. I find most radical environmentalists are in this category and they are the driving force for the radical changes that the Obama supporters are wishing for.

Jedediah I don't know what side of the spectrum you are on, but at least you usually keep the discussions on the "new west" lively.

3 Trees, never the less, even if he is a "believer" in human superiority in the order of things, is on this issue, pretty damn close to right! That is in my humble opinion, even if Jeff E can't spell my name right, and surmises that I might be a "White Knight" for defending this blog's old thorn in your side, Marion. I don't know anything about Marion but I think she must be a believer also.

Tom Klumker,
I guess I did. Oh well. Interesting name. At least I did not write Klunker. What a hoot that would have been. What are the origins? Hopefully not just a small twig on humanity's family tree.
I thought you did not want to make Marion a topic of discussion. Please make up your mind. You seem scattered.
As I said, Marion is what she is. I have a "very" long time of history to substantiate that.

Dear Jeff E.

I guess you have a hard time not insulting people or at least trying to.

The subject is how Obama's policys' in his first days and coming days are changing the West.

jedediah brought up an interesting point which also makes perfectly good sense as to the philosophy and thinking behind the radical environmentalist movement to completely change the West. It seems some of are believers and some are earth worshipers of some kind, or at least non-believers, in God's great creation, mother earth.

Those of us on the multiple use, sustainable yielding conservationists side of the equation are basically conservatives and no, not the neo-conservatism that Bush tried to transform the Republican party into. But your side if you are in fact a liberal leaning eco environmentalist, is falling into the NWO's hands that Bush and his father, the other Bush, want. Once the eco freaks gain control of all of the natural resources, which with Obama, you have alot better chance now, the NWO power brokers will take over the natural resource and develop them at will. Or at least that is what it looks like is coming to the good ole USA. When these Ted Turner types with the help of the 6 major newly nationalized banks get final control over the citizens by removing our 2nd Amendment rights first and then a new currency with no cash money we can say, gosh, I wish those danged old environmentalists would have seen the light. The Obamanites may rule now but our side won't give up the fight.

We survived, somewhat, the 8 terrible years of the Clinton/Babbitt administration but at a very heavy cost to the West. Bush held the line somewhat but Obama, Palosi and Reid will probably take the West down the environmental roller coaster into a black hole with great speed. I hope you are happy! I know most environmentalists are still peeing all over themselves!

Tom Klumker,
It appears that your origins are primarily from Deutschland or what was Prussia with a few offshoots in the Niederland. although it seems there maybe some history in Scotland???
Anyway what Obama has done is merely stop the last minuet midnight moves made by Bush so that they could be reviewed and reversed if not in the best interest of the people.
which is about everything Bush did.
SOP for incoming administrations.
No big conspiracy, Even for Catron county.
So what do you want to discuss next.

And what was the terrible years in the west brought about by Clinton? Examples??

Redman,

Here is some good information not know by the general public.

Recommended Citation: Paquet, P. C., Vucetich, J., Phillips, M. L., and L. Vucetich. 2001. Mexican wolf recovery: THREE YEAR
PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT.

Excerpt:

Wolf-human interactions have been reported consistently and regularly since the beginning of the program. Approximately 25% (1/4 of the wolves are habituated, how can this be acceptable?) of the individuals in the free-ranging population have been
involved with wolf-human interactions. As the wolf population grows, the Program should be prepared for steadily increasing frequencies of wolf-human interactions (what protections have they put in place”none”)

Over time, the frequency of wolf-human interactions (per wolf) may decline with wild-born wolves that are less tolerant of
humans. Because wolves can pass information between generations, the attraction to humans may take some time to extinguish.

The Program has responded well to wolf-human interactions, although documentation and data recording have been poor (Unacceptable). For example, in the databases USFWS provided us no response dates or times were recorded for 7 events (actually there were numerous wolf/human events on the blue where no FWS reports were written). It is critical that the Interagency Field Team keep comprehensive notes on wolf-human interactions(why notes instead or accurate reports?). The Program should continue its practice of responding to all wolf-human interactions with immediate on site inspections and investigations.

The Interagency Field Team appears to have made responsible decisions regarding the recapture of wolves involved in human interactions. (not so, habituated wolves dangers ignored)

Question I have are:

Has habituated wolves declined from 2001 to 2009? NO!

Has habituated wolves caused documented psychological trauma to children? YES!

Have any protective measure to this adte been enacted to mitigate this problem? NO.

The rest of the story.....you bet

Dear Jeff E.,

Ah, the good ole Clinton/Babbitt years! For starters and right out of the box Babbitt listed the Spotted Owl which effectively stopped all logging in the western US except for a few of the big private holdings' logging operations. You don't think this was a severe and crippling blow to a huge segment of rural communities throughout the West. My God man, this is in itself enough to change the West, which it has done and very effectively I might add.

The enviros used this lesson and went full steam ahead with listing all kinds of birds, frogs, fish, wolves, grizzlies as well as all kinds of plant life declaring that the world will end if they don't save all of them, thereby effectively curtailing and shutting down livestock grazing on much of the federal lands as well as mining and even recreation in many areas.

And you say what did Clinton do to the West. Well open your eyes. Our local economies have been dealt severe and crippling blows and are still under a constant barrage from the lawsuits the 12 major environmental organizations are foisting andperpetrating on the sheeple (read Omabma lovers) of the US.

Western NM University's research specialist Dr. Alex Thal did a study a few years ago on how just one enviro group has cost the citizens of AZ tremendously, like millions of dollars and disrupted lives.That would be the Biological Diversity Center.

Then you have the Wild Earth Guardians, Western Watershed and those extremist eco groups and you compound and severely crippling blow to the extractive industries or the consumptive users of the natural resource. Of course this is just what the extremists want and are getting, with the aid of millions upon millions of dollars from unsuspecting and uninformed sheeple across the nation.

In my estimation these extremists and the environmental movement as a whole are crippling the economy of not only the west but the entire nation. I think the Global Warming theorists are a greater threat to mankind than CO2 or anything man is doing on the earth. Mother Nature rules! Natural cycle, i.e sun spots and etc are the culprits way more so than man.

At any rate Jeff E., take off your blinders and see the real world out there. Maybe 3 Trees can give you a few lessons in reality. He lives, and talks, and walks, the walk.

P.S. I can give you example after example of crippling so called endangered species that have drastically effected the citizens of the western rural communities. Enter the willow fly catcher, the spike dace and loach minnows, the leopard spotted frog, the goshawk, the Mexican gray wolf, the snail darter and on and on and on. The ecos are effectively shutting down the economic engine of the West!

Dear Jeff E.,

P.S.S. This is not only the economy but the ruined lives, hopes and dreams, our custom, culture and sense of well being of the rural citizens and as 3 Trees very aptly has described, the psycological well being of many of our rural children and maybe even more crippling, the sanity of the adults whose lives are being turned upside down by these critters and especially the wolf. But that is ok with your kind, who are gleeful there is a "cleansing of the West" and you are ridding the land of all the terrible rapers of the land.

The bumper stickers in Catron County and much of the west read: "Wolf- Government Sponsored Terrorism"

The enviros are very effectively using the courts and The Endangered Species Act to succeed in their efforts to change the landscape of the West, but yet, you don't see it Jeff E.? ?

Dear Jeff E.,

P.S.S.S. One quip or come back I thought of (not impugning your intellect or integrity) in regards to my coming from a small twig on my family tree, well in your case, it appears that, you fell out of your family tree and hit your head.

The biggest problem to understanding the situation is one side has all of the power, and absolutely none of the cost or responsibility, the other carries the entire burden of these big ideas. I imagine most enviros have never really accomplished, invested, or built anything themselves and the environmental movement makes them feel they are really doing something without having to put anything into it or make any sacrifices themselves. They send off their $25. for a "free bag" and save the earth or a species. They do no realize their money does nothing whatsoever for the object of the fundraising, it goes to lawyers to sue for more control over other people forcing them to do the saving and paying. The money they get goes to courts who award them even more money as "expenses".
The funny thing is corporations as huge as some environmental groups are hated by enviros because the actually produce something besides pain and heartache for others. These environmental groups produce nothing and contribute nothing except to their own property and power structure. They are "nonprofits" with 10s of millions in assets each.
The ability to raise money with virtually no oversight is one of the reasons there is a group for each species, that way they do not have to check the effect of their species on another species that another group wants to save. How many articles have you seen about the devastation of the Yellowstone elk? Elk calves are a rarity now days, the rut is a pathetic shadow of it's former glory. It is so pathetic that when a visitor to Mammoth asked one of the rangers what happened, he informed her that the bulls stay in the mountains for the rut and that is why it was mostly a few cows left. The does explain the lack of calves also I guess. What will the loss of elk mean to the bears ultimately? They are forced to go outside to find meat, the question is brushed off and not dealt with because "bears are omnivores". Besides when they get into trouble on ranches, the ranchers can be blamed, not the enviros that put them into that situation. In Wyoming the griz are earning frequent flyer miles at an astonishing rate as F&G;moves them from one area to another and back again as they get into trouble.

Insofar as I can tell, the question comes down to this:
Shall our society be pro-violence?--or and anti-violence?
Nature is inherently violent; but our big brains has thrown out any notion of balance.
Homo Sapiens will kill everything which is inconvenient. No other species will do that.

A grizzly will kill a cub that isn't his, so will a lion. Chimps will form gangs like inner-city thugs and wait for a stranger to come into their territory and attack and kill it. Dogs will form packs and roam the neighborhood looking for something to attack and kill. So will wolves. Man is not a stain on this planet, and I for one am not going to commit suicide so a feild mouse can have it's natural habitat without having to share it with me. This liberal notion that man is the only animal that kills is rediculous. An entire class of so called civilized people who would so oppose killing a wild animal in self defense, yet adamantly support the killing of a new born child who survived a bothched abortioin attempt is a sad testimony of todays liberalism.

Tom K.
Keeping in mind that civilization is a dynamic, not a static condition, and jobs, ways of life, and means of making a living change all the time and have throughout history, usually with some hardship for those involved-------at what point do you think that a species is considered expendable so that a particular way of making a living is maintained. Any and all or do you draw a line somewhere.
And why?

A better question Jeff, would be what you yourself are willing to give up for wildlife to have a home. You do realize that your home, job, etc also displace wildlife don't you? Set by example, not litigation and demands.

Marion,
I don't believe Tom K needs you to answer for him. After all you are more likely to lie as not and personally I find you more than a little repulsive for that reason.
However why don't you weigh in on my question.

Tom sounds as stupid as most rightwingcrazies. Certainly he needs at least remedial training in reading...

Jeff E,

I been reading your posts and name calling. I will bet you live like a rabbit. Before you go out onto the street, you peek out your door and look all around to see if it is safe.

At the first sign of psychical confrontation you will pizzzz your pants. You need your computer to isolate yourself from face to face confrontation.

You would not last 10 minutes were I live talking the way you do.

People that live in remote rural areas have values and customs of life that they are willing to die for. I can't expect you to comprehend this.

I respect your "right" to say whatever you want to. In person, if you insult me you must respect my "right" to whip your azzzzz.

Wow! I'm late to this party, but it sure looks like FUN! Hey, 3trees, if you REALLY want a fella to insult you to your face, you should PROBABLY use your real name instead of a handle! Otherwise, poor Jeff is gonna have to cover LOTS of ground in the "remote rural areas", holding a sign like people do at the airport when they're looking for someone! You know, maybe a sign that says, 3trees, you're a moron! THEN, you'll get some satisfaction, and you can whup some of your "customs of life that you're willing to die for" on poor Jeff's azzzz! BTW, you're NOT from round theze parts, are you, 3? You see, no one out here in Montana talks that way. And just WHAT are them "values" that are SO special to you pioneers out there in the "remote rural areas"? I'd really like to know. Got lectricity out there yet? Indoor plumbing? TV sets? Oh hell, I just KNOW you'd like the Beverly Hillbillies! THEM folks have values too! You're too funny, 3.

Larry,

If you don't know about values and customs of life I cannot explain it to you.

I suspect you are a "New Age Believer". Therefore, there is no use trying to explain it to you, its either part of your life or not.

No, I have not been to Montana even though I know it is a beautiful place, but I have trapped in Wyoming.

Environmental Rangers, wow, have you gotten full control of Montana yet? Have you ran all the rural people off the land for the "Wildlands Project"? If you left any family ranchers in business you are slipping. More wolves should do the trick.

I guess this site is only for you and two or three more of your elitist buddies....To you everyone else is a Moron......Right

Larry,

Is it alright if I call you at 406-727-XXXX

3 tree,
I don't recall giving you permission to speak to me but since you have I'll keep it short as I feel your attention span is probably limited. If the hovel you call home involves defending a proven prevaricator then that is not the same set of values that I have, thank god. As for your customs and culture that can't be more than a few generations give or take unless your Native American. In the face of history that is laughable and I am being polite. and as for expiring to defend such, well the garden probably needs weeded anyway

Dear Jeff E.,

No Marion doesn't have to answer for me but she darn sure has more to offer to the post than anything you have opined on yet.

Jeff, do you really think the ranchers, farmers, hunters and users of the public land want to be responsible for helping exterminate a species whether it be animal or plant life. Most ranchers and farmers are good stewards of the land and most care for and have an untiring respect and ability to propagate these endangered species and if they didn't they wouldn't be able to make an living and survive on these lands. These folk for the most part are the true environmentalists. No one wants to see a species go extinct and especially the conservative folks who have been on the land for many generations.

I for one think wolves have a place in our ecosystem and true wild wolves play a big part in the natural balance of things up in much of remote Canada and Alaska where there are tremendous herds of especially caribou whose numbers need predation to keep not only the caribou healthy but the landscape. In the lower 48 we can have and appreciate a modest number of wolves but their numbers have to be kept in check to protect the wildlife or prey base from over harvesting. Man is and has been the supreme predator for eon's. The radical eco community wants to eliminate man as a predator (read stop hunting) and let he balance of nature be handled by the predators.

All I and the rural people as well as my hunters who come from all walks of life from all over the world and from every state in the union want this ability. All of my hunters or at least 99% are conservatives, and think just like the local rural folks here. It is amazing! I can't think of one bleeding heart liberal that has ever hired me or any outfitter/guide to guide them on a hunt!

Now comes the supposed endangered spotted owl, and in the SW US it is the Mexican Spotted Owl (I think they speak Spanish), (same with our Mexican Gray Wolves).

The spotted owl has never been endangered here and more than likely will never be. This species was used and very effectively, to shut down logging in not only the SW but much of all of the west. Heck, nobody tole them they had to live up in the heavy timbered forests. They are all over. Down in the low country in the canyons and pinion juniper in the ponderosa and up in the conifer zones. They are almost as common as a woodpecker here and I suspect everywhere in the US. the Gila National Forest did a $600,000 study before the Clinton office took over and they found that the spotted owl was not endangered here, not in the timber country or in the Gila Wilderness, where they were plentiful, alive , well and healthy and still are. Bruce Babbitt as Secretary of Interior under Clinton ignored this study. Heck you can't go to sleep at night hardly, on the West Fork of the Gila River in the Gila Wilderness for all of the Spotted owl's hooting and they have a unique and distinctive hoot. "Babbitt was also present when the first release of Mexican Gray Wolves were turned out near Alpine, Arizona." He was rude and insulting to all of the rural residents and news media. What an asshole!

Then come the Willow fly catcher, then the leopard spotted frog and on and on. They (the feds) were even planting the frogs in rancher stock tanks to be able to say hey boys you are going to have to fence off that water because them damn ole cows are going to cause the frogs to go extinct. What a crock. They fenced off all of the river bottoms for the willow fly catcher, in a backroom deal between the US Forest Service and the Environmental Groups, mainly the Biological Diversity Center. These people have made it almost impossible for the ranchers in the Gila to survive.

No Jeff, we here want a healthy landscape and all forms of wild life but we also want true science to rule and not these backroom deals and onerous lawsuit regimen that the radical environmental communtity has foisted upon the rural people in the west.

And by the way jedediah most of the people I know want to use our big brains to protect, conserve and propagate a healthy eco system, contrary to you, Jeff E, Steve C.'s assertions that all of rural America's conservative citizens are morons and are out to ruin the environment. Quite to the contrary!

3trees, SURE! You see, I think I saw your movie! Borat! I now know EVERYTHING about your "customs of life that you're willing to die for"! But I gotta tell ya, the scene where you were rolling around with that naked fat dude was too much! I do like the concept of the marriage sack though. BTW, that PTSD for kids that you're talking about made me laff! Gotta tell you a story. I was up in Heart Butte a while back for a sporting event, and the parents there were told to pick up their kids from school for next couple'a days. Why? Well, seems that there was a GRIZZLY BEAR hanging around the playground! No big deal to them folks, simply don't walk home alone for a day or two. A very common occurence there. And guess what. I didn't hear ONE remark about PTSD for kids! I think that Montanans are just a wee bit tougher than wherever it is that you're from. But still, keep makin' them movies! I luv'em!

Threats of--and a willingness to live with, and romanticize-- violence seems a major theme in this discussion between right wing crazies of the christian and libertarian varieties.
Such a high level debate this has turned into..!

Larry,

Wolves as with your bears.... Its not the fact that they are hanging round for a few days that cause psychological trauma.

If a grizz was sitting by your front door eating one of your pets and your small children could not get back into the house would this cause a psychological problem to those children??

It is the fact that wolves kill pets while children are present as close as eight feet. Children witness at close range the screams, the guts flying and the death of a member of their family. The same would apply to your family. PTSD has been documented by a Child Psychologist and a Psychiatrist from wolf interactions. Does these interactions occur in the federal forest..seldom, it occurs on private property at the front door of homes.

Larry, if you think the ongoing psychological problem is laughable then you would champion the wolf at any cost, even children.

Habituated wolves seek out humans and human use areas. They lack wild wolf characteristics. Habituated wolves did Kill and consume Kenton Carnegie at Points North Landing Nov. 2005

There you go, 3. Lay off the threats and stick to the facts. It's more effective. Now, about the fella that got ate, I have never heard of that. If an animal threatens my grandkids or animals, I shoot it. Wolf or whatever. 'Bout fifteen years ago, we had a mountain lion in my neighbor's tree. If I had seen it, it would'a been DOA. FWP nailed it a couple'a weeks later on the other side of the river. I purposely choose to live with wildlife. I like seeing them, as do most Montanans. The chances of getting eaten are quite slim. So, I just never worry about it and take the necessary precautions. It's simply part of life here. Your wolf comments may have merit, and then again, they may not. Time will tell. One more story. A Californicator moved to Lincoln, Mt. Well sir, one day a big griz walks through his property. He's furious! He calls up FWP and reams them a new one cause he feels that they're not doing their job by keeping him safe from bears! Everybody had a damn good laugh at THAT dumbass's expense. We just sorta live with'em. If you have a close encounter, as we all do, they make for good story telling. I did run into a wolf one time on the Bearttooth Plateau. He scared the crap outta me. I was running down the trail, and I heard a big rush coming out of the brush. I immediately thought griz. I stopped, and the wolf stopped, in the middle of the road. We kind of eyed each other curiously for a minute or so, then he ambled off. It was kinda neat. The wolf wasn't scared, and after a bit, neither was I. We were just a couple'a animals crossing paths. I value those experiences, and teach my grandkids to love the nature around us too! Now, if we could do sumthin' bout them damn rattlers that I see daily!

One wonders if you could extrapolate PTSD in children from several centuries of Russian literature regarding wolves. Fairy tales, children's songs, old wives tales, myths and old songs. Little Red Riding Hood, the Big Bad Wolf, etc.

That Disney did Peter and the Wolf was not by happenstance. It was a distinct piece of Russian literature and culture. Like coyote in Native American past history, tales, discussions of their being, I believe the wolf was that to Europe. A nasty reputation, well earned, in the Northern European culture. People and wolves have a history in Europe, in the Steppes, in Western Asia. Those beliefs and histories travel with cultures as the people inhabit new worlds.

As far the wolf goes, he is a wolf. Not a dog, and not a pet. And not a benign presence in land shared with humans. That the wolf runs free, and has a distinct family life, courage, steadfastness, are all anthropomorphized to a high degree by humans looking for what is lacking in their lives. An admired animal with characteristics and habits parallel to that of the Mexican drug cartels. You have to wonder. But even in historical Russia, the peasants did not hate the wolf, but only that the wolf ate their mare, their milch cow. The loss of the horse that could give you another in time, that plowed your field, that kept starvation from the door, the cow that gave you milk, butter and cheese, those were life threatening losses. The wolf did not care then, nor does it now. People who must live in close proximity to wolves share a common fear, threat, and have for centuries. That most humans now live in urban areas, have only to fear the urban human wolves running in packs, their pit bull enforcers close by, don't have people from Wyoming regulating their lives and obfuscating their attempts at maintaining the common good of the neighborhood. What a shame.

I have always said, as some doctor serves as the chair of the committee that regulates logging, how it should be that a logger sit on the tissue committee as the public member, and evaluate and punish medical treatments and transgressions against patients. Or a rancher sit on the ethics committee of the state bar association to judge and punish lawyers. But the world does not work that way and is therefore inherently unfair. It is unfair for wolves to be foisted on graziers, and it is unfair that forests are burned rather than logged. It is especially unfair, if only the voting public knew, was informed, that wildland fire in the West puts out more greenhouse gases than autos on an annual basis, and is scheduled by benign neglect of land management, to put out even more. Having to purchase inefficient autos for great expense to mitigate and reduce greenhouse gases while forest fires roar to the applause of the green lobby is insane, but insanity does prevail if that is the choice of the urban majority.

The sad part of this thread, this commentary, is the personal attacks, the personal judgements, the personal nature of the defenders of all things "environmental", "green", and "liberal." I find it quite disingenuous that liberal thought is a free pass to humiliate, demean, insult individuals with opposing views. If that is the nature of the beast, and it appears to be an arising beast, then civility being lost reduces the value of our society of freemen, and we are on the path to bowing to gods of the NGO propaganda, the non-profit science of the moment, and anyone whose ass is not in the air, head on the magic carpet, is to be killed, and paradise on earth will be for those who survive.

Push people too far, and reason leaves, and vindication is all that is left. I hope that is not the path the radical left is proposing. One of the enduring qualities that President Obama has shown to this point, is his natural ease and readiness to listen to all sides of the objective, and his earnestness in addressing dissenters to gain consensus in pointing the US on a path to righting the country and putting it on a course of honor and success. This incessant name calling on his behalf by those of you who feel you have superior intellect, grander financial sense, a better love of the land, is childish playground bullshit that the "new" schools and decades of litigation by lawyers encourage by not allowing kids to sort out anti-social behaviors on the playground as was the case years ago. A smart ass mouth might end up being surrounded by swollen lips. Absent that, now kids shoot each other with guns. That did not happen when every kid had a gun, a pocket knife, even if they only had one pair of shoes.

Argue the issues, not the people proposing them. Not all people are geniuses, nor are they all social cripples. If we don't listen to all, we have no idea of the range of thought any one idea can have. My life experience is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Or a wolf.

Dear bearbait,

Very well said, as usual! It is very hard for me to keep from commenting back to those individuals who try and belittle those of us who do not agree with their viewpoints.

3 Trees is a super human being in my book and I don't care what anybody else thinks. I know him personally and I think he is truly a rare and beautiful gem amongst the rural citizens of the West! Period...

We are talking about human habituated wolves and not truly wild wolves here. There is a huge difference. I even like the wild wolves, if managed. The "Spanish speaking" (Mexican Gray Wolf) we have here are 95% human habituated and have no fear of man. When a wild animal loses fear of man and their accompanying scent, they present a highly probable negative risk factor to humans, as I can personally attest to on an experience that happened in my hunting camp in the Gila Wilderness in 2007.

Many of my friends and their children have not only been terrorized by these abominations of human habituated wolves, but traumatized, and this is very well documented by professionals, contrary to the pro-wolfers ideological manifestations and denials. The Mexican Gray Wolf program is 10 years old and millions and millions of dollars of the US taxpayer's money, into a failing social cleansing program of government sponsored terrorism being foisted on the good citizens of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

We do not expect any kind of relief in the near future and especially with the Obamanites in control. Enter folks like Ms. Browner into the frey, which she had been a part of the Clinton administration, and it makes conservatives collective heads spin in wonderment what the nation will look like in four to eight years.

Probably a lot better than it ever did under Bush.

What a bunch of whiny little posts by a bunch of right wing children, here. Marion, whose only answer to anything must be analogous to her own life, bearbait that makes assumptions about every other "agenda" out there but has little to no introspection, Tom K that thinks ranchers are the best thing to happen to wildlife and janice that seems to be a cheerleader without a winning team.

What a thread.

Tom K ,
Your last post to me was actually pretty good, fairly well reasoned. as far as rural ranch and the mindset of the people that have that lifestyle, save for the tourists. My family came to this continent in 1620, six months before the Mayflower arrived, settling in what is now Maryland, and were at the edge of civilization through out the history of this country, also have been involved in every war and a large % of armed conflicts on the journey from the first to the latest. In that time of course there were a great many involved with ranching/farming. My grandfather owned three separate ranches before he retired and sold out, and another branch of the family still owns SECTIONS of land in eastern Idaho running both cows and sheep.
So I am well versed in ranching and one thing that is paramount is that the cow/sheep comes first and anything that gets in the way of that has got to go. Witness the bison and now elk situation going on in Montana. Or the sheep/wild sheep situation in Idaho's hells canyon.
The moronic thing is that in the first situation the holler is that the wild animals are diseased and therefore must be eradicated before the cattle herds are all wiped out. In the second the whine is that the transmission of disease has never been proven from domestic to wild.
Rancher logic. Go figure.
Short and sweet is that ranchers tolerate only so far as it don't eat what my cows /sheep eat or eat my cows/sheep. If it does either then it has to go.

I disagree; I think Bearbait is one of the few moderate, original thinkers out there. The others, yes, for the most part they're right-wingers simply regurgitating tired old conservative ideals. But there are a lot of whiny left-wingers spouting their hackneyed liberal agenda as well.

Here are a couple questions for the wolf-haters... and these are simply questions, not an attack:

In any democracy, the will of the people at large takes priority over the will of the individual. And if the people -- right or wrong, informed or ignorant -- want wolves, then isn't it the duty of the individual to cooperate?

Seems to me, the world has changed and there are new cultural realities. One of those new realities seems to be a widespread respect for the life of a wolf.

Every industry has costs of doing business. In my own business, I deal with tremendous obstacles that seem to serve no purpose and to originate in ignorance. Yet instead of getting angry at that ignorance and its resultant obstacles, I think of ways to accommodate it all and succeed anyway. If I can't continue to do that, well, I'll change my business.

Ranchers: If the cost of wolves is too great for you to accommodate, why not change your business?

Bearbait,

I just got home from our big city of 300.

I agree with your comments 100%.

You also seem to understand "Push people too far, and reason leaves, and vindication is all that is left".

I wish to retract the hateful words I wrote and apologize to all.

You all have a nice day!! Later

Hedgehog, are you also in favor of the right of the majority to move into your home if more of them want to than you and your family don't want them to? If the majority want to increase your taxes to 50% of your income to support their favorite religion is that ok? Environmentalism is a religion.
Beleive me when you allow tyrany by the majority because it is the majority, it is the end of this country as we know it. To say that folks should give up their homes because you have a different use for it than they do, is tyrany of the worst sort, definitely the C word.

Marion,

that was perhaps the most ignorant thing you've ever written. Good job, I didn't think you could top some of the other things, but there you go.

A better way to have answered Hedgehog is that we have laws, regulations and the Constitution to protect the minorities from the majority. Majority rights only extend so far.

However, hedgehog is very correct in his statement that if you can't hack it with the wolves, then change. With populations growing so large that public land is a valued and rare asset, why do you think ranchers should get first dibs over nature?

And the provocative language that "environmentalism is a religion" is another example of the overwhelming ignorance, here. Most environmentalism, at its base level, is based in science and fact. Global climate change/Global warming - fact supported by massive amounts of data and theory. The basis of endangered species acts are based in science. The knowledge that mankind's unnecessary actions are destroying species, species that we may rely on for our own health, is well understood. If you can't see past your own wallet to a future where the wild is still wild, then you're hopeless.

Biologists and other scientists are interested in a biodiversity that keeps all of the world in tune, in balance. Extinctions cause further extinctions. If we can change, why not do it sooner, rather than later?

Oh wait, I know why. It's because Marion might throw even more of a fit because her family is slightly put out by something a liberal did.

There is no more credible evidence of wolves killing and eating a human being than there is that Jesus Christ once lived--in the Holy Land--or Meso-America.
Third-hand statements are simply not acceptable to a thinking person...

Fairbanks Wolf Expert Helps Debunk Canadian Bear Attack Theory
Tim Mowry / Fairbanks Daily News-Miner / November 19, 2007

A retired Fairbanks wolf biologist played a key role in confirming what has been declared North America's first documented fatal wolf attack on a human in the wild.

Wildlife biologist Mark McNay, who retired from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Fairbanks three months ago, testified at a coroner's inquest in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, two weeks ago that he felt certain that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie two years ago.

After sitting through three days of testimony, which included graphic photos and details of how Carnegie was killed and then eaten by a pack of four wolves at a remote mining camp in northern Saskatchewan, a six-person jury agreed with McNay, making it the continent's first documented case of a person being killed by a wild, healthy wolf or wolves. Humans have been killed by rabid and captive wolves in North America before and there have been many documented cases of fatal wolf attacks in India.
Carnegie, a 22-year-old engineering student from Ontario at the time, was found dead on Nov. 8, 2005, at the Points North Landing supply depot in northern Saskatchewan. Co-workers found him mauled to death in the brush only about a half-mile from the camp.

Although no one witnessed the attack, searchers told authorities they heard wolves howling and saw wolf-like eyes glowing in the dark when they went to retrieve the body, which was surrounded by wolf tracks in the snow. Bite marks from wolves were also found on his body, which had been partially eaten when it was found.
In addition, wolves had been spotted feeding in an open garbage dump at the mining camp and had become habituated to humans, based on reports from residents. Four days prior to Carnegie's death, two other men at the camp were approached by what they described as aggressive wolves and had to use sticks to fend the wolves off.

While wolves were initially suspected of killing Carnegie, one of Canada's top wolf and bear biologists, Paul Paquet from the University of Calgary, investigated the killing and said "the preponderance of evidence" indicated a black bear, not wolves, killed Carnegie. Among the evidence cited by Paquet was the pattern of the attack, which parts of Carnegie's body were eaten and the fact his body was dragged approximately 50 feet from the kill site.
"Our primary conclusion was that his death was from a large predator attack and there are only two large predators in the area - black bears and wolves," said Paquet by phone from Calgary. "We couldn't come to a definitive decision but we felt a preponderance of evidence was that it was a black bear."
But Carnegie's family didn't agree with Paquet's assessment and contacted McNay in January, more than a year after their son's death, to review evidence in the case. McNay specialized in studying wolves for about half of his 27 years at the Department of Fish and Game. Based on what McNay told them, the family requested an official coroner's inquest.

"The family felt like there was something wrong," he said. "They were pretty angry."
Carnegie's father, Kim, called the investigation into his son's death and Paquet's theory that a bear killed him "a con job."
"My main focus was to prove my son was killed by wolves and not a bear," said Kim Carnegie, explaining why the family requested an inquest. "I knew it was wolves and everybody up there knew it was wolves."

Dogged debate
The Nov. 3 inquest ended two years of debate about whether wolves or a bear killed Carnegie. Despite the jury's decision and the fact that no bears had been seen in the area for a month prior to his death, Paquet still feels a bear killed Carnegie. He didn't put much credence in the jury's finding.
"The jury's decision was a poor one, which I'd put in the same category as 'O.J. Simpson is innocent,'" Paquet told the CanWest News Service following the inquest. "It's all circumstantial evidence."
Paquet said he has been restricted from releasing the report he wrote on the Carnegie killing for legal reasons.
However, McNay said Paquet's theory about a bear killing Carnegie is riddled with holes and contradictions. The tracks that Paquet identified as bear tracks near the body "are obviously not a bear track," he said. The tracks in question are really two overlapping wolf tracks in overflow, McNay said.
While Carnegie's stomach, kidney and intestines had been eaten, his heart, lungs and liver were intact, which Paquet said is another sign that a bear, not wolves, killed him.
"I've never ever seen a wolf kill where those soft organs are still there," said Paquet, who has investigated more than 1,200 wolf kills. "They're always the first thing to go."
The organ preference cited by Paquet is "largely an invention," McNay said, since both wolves and bears will eat all the organs on a prey animal if given a chance. Based on reports from witnesses, the predators were interrupted by the search party and had not finished eating yet, he said. Also, since this was almost surely the first human the predators had ever eaten, it's impossible to assign certain feeding characteristics based on what remained, McNay said.
On top of that, Paquet acknowledges that wolves fed on Carnegie's body because human hair was recovered from the stomachs of two wolves that were shot in the area following his death, yet he continues to argue that the feeding patterns are characteristic of a bear, McNay said.
"He has continued to fabricate senseless explanations throughout his testimony and his report that on close examination are contradictory," McNay said of Paquet.
Paquet dismissed much of the evidence provided in interviews with the local constable and coroner, as well as members of the search party because "eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable," Paquet said.
For McNay, the absence of any bears in the area before and after the killing is the clincher.
"The bottom line," McNay said, "is nobody had seen a bear in a month."
Kim Carnegie described Paquet as a "wolf protectionist" who tried to distort his son's death for his personal gain.
"What I'm hoping comes out of this is that people will understand wolves are very dangerous animals," Carnegie said.
Wolves are protected in Saskatchewan, he said. They can be trapped but not hunted, though they can be shot if they attack a human or livestock. He said he hopes his son's death convinces the provincial government to open a hunting season for wolves in Saskatchewan.
Human vs. wolves
While this was the first reported fatal attack on a human by a wolf, there have been other aggressive attacks by wolves in Alaska and Canada. McNay spent the better part of two years researching wolf attacks in North America and came up with more than a dozen cases in the past 30 years.
Nearly all those attacks involved "habituated" or "food-conditioned" wolves, such as the one who attacked a 6-year-old boy at a remote logging camp in Southeast Alaska in 2000. The boy was playing in the woods when he saw the wolf and attempted to flee but fell as he was running away. The wolf attacked, biting him several times and attempting to drag him away before it was shot.
In the most recent case, an Anchorage woman walking along the Dalton Highway was chased down and bitten twice in the leg by a wolf last summer almost 200 miles north of Fairbanks. She escaped by taking refuge in a roadside outhouse and alerting some nearby campers.
In 2004, not far from where Carnegie was killed, a man was attacked by a single wolf but the man, who stood more than 6 feet and weighed more than 200 pounds, was able to get the wolf in a headlock and co-workers going by on a bus came to his rescue, McNay said.
"We've had a steady increase of aggressive behavior by wolves toward people," he said.
Experts expect more human-wolf encounters in the future, given that wolves re-introduced in Wyoming 10 years ago have flourished and are now spread across Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
A habituated, food-conditioned wolf is more dangerous than a wild one, McNay said.
"Once they become habituated to people so they lose their natural fear response, they can even have a predation response," said McNay, who has since moved to Kansas following his retirement. "I think that's what happened in Icy Bay and with (Carnegie). Those things are happening more frequently. It's a sign of the times where we have more people in wild lands interacting with wolves."
Even so, the chances of being attacked by a wolf, especially a wild, unhabituated one, are incredibly slim, McNay said.
"The chances of getting struck by lightning or mauled by a dog are greater," he said.
Experts agree that wildlife agencies like the Alaska Department of Fish and Game need to start educating the public about what to do in the event of wolf encounter.
"What's the appropriate response to a wolf as opposed to a charging grizzly bear, those are the things people have to start thinking about," McNay said. "If wolves start to get (food habituated) you have to act like it was grizzly bear.
"We've been told wolves are not a threat and that we don't have to worry about wolves the way we worry about bears, but that's not true," he said. "The chance of getting attacked by a bear is greater than being attacked by a wolf, but people can't assume wolves are just big dogs."

There is also the killing and eating of children in India by wolves. Perhaps less thinking and more research might be in order Jed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/137570.cms

quote: "LUCKNOW: Crying wolf in the context of the recent attack by wolves in the Balrampur area may be a good solution to actually eliminating the
man-eater wolf menace in the area. In the past 6 months the animals have cleverly managed to kill 10 children in villages of Balrampur while the last four killings have been reported in the month of August itself from villages near Laliya and Araiya thana. Currently, 150 sq feet of area in that region is under the grip of this wolf problem.

Principal chief conservator of forest, RL Singh has categorically stated that the villagers in nearby areas must keep constant vigil and immediately alert everyone when the predators that always hunt in packs are sighted. "Since the man eater wolves will not kill grown up humans they can be rounded up and killed. Without the tacit co-operation of villagers and licensed firearm support of the public, the forest officials alone will not be able to contain the wolf menace. This we know from our experience in the worst recorded incident of wolf menace in the history of the 20th century wherein 170 children were killed," he said. " end quote

What do these wolf-killings have to do with anything? Bears kill people, mountain lions kill people, and yet nobody's screaming wildly to exterminate them. Shit, deer kill more people than all the predators combined, in vehicle collisions. I guess I don't understand why the wolf is treated so differently than other animals we've learned to live with, accept, and appreciate, despite the marginal toll on overall human safety. Can someone explain this to me?

Hedgehog,

it has inconvenienced Marion, so therefore they must all die.

Oh, and don't forget, the right-wing thrives and lives on fear. Wolves => Fear. Muslims => Fear. Therefore Wolves ~= Muslims?

They know where the WMDs (wolves of mass distraction) are, they're somewhere north, south, east or west of Yellowstone.

This doesn't have as much to do with wolves as with the government violating state's sovereignty, real or imagined. When the Clinton Crime Family forced the wolves down our throats, they told the states, mind your own bussines. We'll manage the wolves and you and your residents have no say in the matter. This condition still stands.This may work for Hugo Chavez, but do you reallly expect American citizens to lay down and accept that kind of tyrany? What's the differnce between this the the range wars? The environmentalist thugs are hiring crooked polticians instead of hired killers. Same results. Forcing people into submission.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton!

Of course you're for the state in this one, Tom. They have the same plan you do, kill 'em and be damned with the environmentalists and ecologists.

But I'm sure if the state had a well developed plan that included moving ranchers off of public lands, you'd then just switch to attacking the state for that, as well.

Although I hate the entire drug culture, I supported Califonia's right to enact their own laws legalizing pot. I thought it was wrong for other states to influence the vote on prop 8. I don't live in California, so it's none of my business. If I don't like what's going on there, I'll stay out.
I may comment on Montana issues, but I don't get involved in trying to influence ligislation. I live in Idaho, not Montana. It's not my business to vote in another state's affairs. My opinion on Idaho issues is valid. On other state's issues, it's just an opinion. Does not and should not have any validity. As I said, this has little to do with killing wolves and a lot to do with citizen's rights to run their own states. I don't think wolves should be exterminated, just managed by the states. If Idaho wants to protect or exterminate wolves I should be given a voice in that actioin. What ever Wyoming and Montana want is up to them. I may express my opinion, but why should it affect their legislation?

So your priorities appear to be:

Christian First
Republican Second
Idahoan Third
American Fourth
Human Fifth

Do I have that about right? You're willing to allow the extermination of a species because of where that species is located? Or you just don't care?

Do you have any understanding of the roll of predators and carrion eaters in nature? Do you subscribe to the idea that man has dominion over nature, so rape and plunder at will?

Do you want all of the bears, coyotes, eagles and other predators killed off at the same rate as wolves?

Do you think you can go out and train all of the animals about state lines? I think that also might be a very helpful thing to do, because they don't seem to get it right now.

What 3 trees and Marion are trying to get across is the pro-wolf community and the opinion of the modern wildlife biologist is that wolves are not dangerous to humans and use this mantra to help them convince the unsuspecting or uninformed city dweller to think that wolves are nice cuddly creatures and that therefore they should have unfettered rights over all human rights, to kill, maim, and cripple at will, the natural prey base as well as all convienient livestock.

Contrary to what Jeff E. contends most of the ranchers and farmers I know have a much deeper care and understanding of all forms of wildlife and are more than willing to share their resourses with them if given a fair shake by the federal agencies and the radical environmental groups. It is a given that the damn ole rancher and farmer is the bad guy here when that is not the case in most instances.

Jay Kanta, it is well known and documented that there is a new religion prevalent in the world and it is the worship of mother earth. It started back in the 1980's or at least that was when the following statement came into the public arena:"the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development was created in 1982. The commission published the "Brundtland Report" setting the stage for unlimited enactments to take over ecology, and environmental and pollution laws throughout the world. The report stated : "We will have a proposal for very harsh, quasi-spiritual ecological laws for MOTHER EARTH. A MOTHER EARTH COMES FIRST mentality will arise throughout the world."

About this same time Dave Foreman founded the radical environmental group Earth First. We all know what this group of eco terrorists did. Now comes the deep ecology movement formed by Dr. Reed Noss and Dave Foreman. The fruits of this movement is The Wildlands Project. They even used to post on their web site that they equate a human being as no better that a cat, a rat or a snail.

Earth First pretty much sums up that these eco environmentalists, deep ecology or otherwise, whom are obsessed with mother earth and worship it and not the Creator.

One huge piece of evidence that 3 Trees didn't give on the killing of Kenton Carnigie by wolves was the research and evidence put together by Valerius Geist and titled "Death by wolves and misleading advocacy. the Kenton Carnegie Tragedy". This is a very well done piece and should be required reading for all pro wolf advocates and particularly all wolf biologists.

I participated in the Mexican Gray Wolf Three Year Review in Showlow, Arizona about six years ago, which was by invite only and got to meet and talk at length with Paul Paquet. He is definitely a pro wolf advocate and should have been barred from the Kenton Carnegie proceedings. Paul is quoted regularly by Michael Robinson, the wolf man for the Biological Diversity Center, and continually spews his hatred and the lies that Paquet have perpetrated on the whole Mexican Gray Wolf program.

Valerius Geist was until recent years pro wolf or neutral and he has completely reversed his stance. He has done more research and has had more inter action with wild wolves than probably any other human being. His research is right on and should be used to temper the pro wolf movement and bring it back to reality and help reverse the common notion that wolves are endangered and we will lose them for ever in time. What a crock.

Jay: Did you even read my post?
"I don't think wolves should be exterminated, just managed by the states. If Idaho wants to protect or exterminate wolves I should be given a voice in that actioin." Where does that say I want wolves exterminated?
Do you want to discuss the topic inteligently or just troll around until you find an argument?

Maybe the wolf fear deal is ingrained. Why are people, including me, reticent to befriend snakes? I know snakes are important, that they have a place, but damn, I don't like to touch them, hold them, be near them. I was looking out for snakes one hot day, fishing along this stream, and I jumped up on and over a ponderosa windfall, and heard this rattle, and re-launched, in reverse, back over the log, and up the trail, with this rattle sound still audible.....and then I figured out it was the few split shot remaining in their tin case like the old Doans or aspirin cases.....that snake was chasing me....I was out of breath when I stopped. Ten year old kid out of breath. Fear. Irrational snake fear. Or rational if you are one of the many bitten by poisonous snakes each year, many of whom die. And I imagine there is irrational wolf fear left over from centuries of wolves having a detrimental impact on human lives, as they ran off the game, ate the milk cow or the ram, your plow horse, scattered the geese, ducks and chickens, all which could have serious consequences for winter survival.

In that vein, I was reading last night that this winter is so cold, and the economic situation so bad, that some interior, isolated Alaskan villages are suffering from lack of food, and energy to run the snow machines to seek food, or keep the stove running to stave off cold. It has been a bleak, cold, cruel winter for
Alaska Natives entangled in the social welfare system that cannot help them because they make too much to garner help, but have money and benefits that only buy a portion of what they did last year or the year before. And no dogs to eat. The Yukon salmon run in 2008 was a bust, and no fish left to eat, and little earnings from fish to carry them through. Some families have only moose meat to eat for weeks on end. This has been a way colder winter than usual. No wolf stories, though. Yet.

Jay, you are ignoring the fact that the wolves that are now here were NOT natural occuring wolves, they were imported from Canada. They were imported with the full knowledge & intent that they would destroy personal property. You make think that is fine because you do not like ranchers or farmers, make no mistake the same thing can be done to you. It doesn't have to be wolves, it can be anything enough people with enough money and influence to sway lawmakers to take away private property rights.

Marion: "They were imported with the full knowledge & intent that they would destroy personal property."

Prove it or shut up.

The Delphi Technique. What Is It?
By Lynn M Stuter

(Note: Those who have experienced the "concensus process" will immediately recognize this technique. Those who have not will benefit from this article.)

While this article is related to education policy development, the technique is used in virtually all federal policy development areas. The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out."

The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing takeover of the schools. A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method." The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument the "weak or noncommittal". Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member.

Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group. The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition. This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not. The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis.

All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.

The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different - the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process. While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can
say, "we had community input." To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned. If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform - whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process.

They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart. Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in - against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.

First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.

Yes, Tom, I read your post. You don't care what Wyoming or Montana do, you want your own isolated state, limited by invisible lines that keep the bad things out, or something just as silly. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have all submitted their "plans" and those plans were pretty piss poor, especially Wyoming's.

As for wolves not being dangerous? Again, put up the proof. Who said it, when and where? Who calls them cuddly animals? Who downplays their roll in nature as a killer of large animals?

I'm not saying the wolves should be kept from harm, but I'm also not going to sit by while people lie about them, or about the people that are trying to support their reintroduction.

As for them being Canadian Wolves? So what? Their sizes haven't reached the full size of those in Canada, keeping them much more like the original wolves that were here.

Tinfoil hat time.

Jay: I'm not saying that wolves should or shouldn't be protected. I'm only saying it should be up to the state, regardless of the outcome. Make the rules and live with the consequences, positive or negative.

3Trees:
WOW! Very long, but well worth reading.

Occasionally environmental lawsuits cause other damage -- to the very groups that file them.

One such case unraveled in Arizona recently when the Southwest Center sued the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that it failed to "consult" with the Fish and Wildlife Service about cattle grazing's effect on endangered species -- a violation of federal law.

The suit targeted large swaths of federal land leased to ranchers, including a lease held by Joe and Valer Austin, owners of the picturesque El Coronado Ranch in the Chiricahau mountains.

The Austins are no ordinary husband-and-wife ranch team.

Since buying El Coronado in 1984, they have invested more than $1 million to return it to ecological health. They have constructed 20,000 erosion control structures, cut back herds dramatically and reduced the seasons they graze, and worked to restore threatened and endangered species. They have welcomed university and government scientists to the ranch to observe their efforts.

Their work has earned them numerous awards, including the Joseph Wood Krutch Award from The Nature Conservancy in 1996 and, two years later, the W.R. Chapline Land Stewardship Award from the Society for Range Management.

That didn't satisfy the Southwest Center, which alleged in its 1998 Forest Service suit that the Austins' ranching practices were harming endangered species.

"It was a real slap in the face," Joe Austin said.

Valer Austin added: "They just put us in the same bucket with everybody else. They didn't even come out here to see what we were doing."

The Austins didn't stand idly by. They jumped into the lawsuit with the federal government -- and emerged victorious. Senior U.S. District Judge Alfredo Marquez in Tucson ruled that the suit had been brought in bad faith and ordered the center to pay the Austins' $56,909 legal bill.

Still, Joe Austin feels conservation has suffered a defeat.

"Everything we were trying to do to convince other ranchers and landowners that endangered species are not a liability has been lost," he said. "The Southwest Center proved me wrong. The Southwest Center proved to everybody that having an endangered species is a liability."

"In fact, many people think you should just get rid of them," Austin said. "That is the exact thing I didn't want to happen."

What's the center's view? "It's a bummer," said Suckling. "I wish it had not come down this way.

But would I sue again? Absolutely. (The Austins) are having an impact on public land. The fact that they are doing good things elsewhere doesn't excuse it."

Jay the fact they set a plan to at least sort of pay for livestock losses, even though it was inadequate and DOW got out of it as fast as possible is prooof they knew privet property would be killed and eaten by the wolves. The possibility that the property owners might be partially repaid for their losses was supposed to make it easier to impose the wolves on them. Actually some of the wolves are in the 100-120# range. I wouldn't want one chasing me.

So you admit you lied that they had intent?

I'm actually surprised, I didn't think you would admit it.

3 Trees, that isn't the only black eye that enviro groups in Arizona have gotten. The Chilton family in Southern Arizona sued and won $600,000 from the Center for Biodiversity for defamation. That is good, but as you pointed out the fact that environmental groups are doing this to people discourages anyone from cooperating in any way. Sadly most ranchers do not have the money to fight back and are destroyed.
The hunger for power and money drives the enviros like any psuedoreligous sect.

The Delphi Technique or some form of it was used at the Three Year Review of the Mexican Gray Wolf Program of which I was invited as a stakeholder representing our Catron County citizens group.

I referred to this meeting in my last post. It was rigged and stacked from the get go. Paul Paquet was invited as the lead scientist selected by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group which is a branch of the SSC/ICUN or the Species Survival Commission and the World Conservation Union. Michael K. Phillips of the Ted Turner Foundation was the other invited biologist and supposed wolf expert. You talk about a stacked deck. this supposed review workshop was directed and ran by Dr. Ulysses S. Seal who is or was the CBSG Chairman.

Folks, wake up and smell the roses! It is not our US Fish and Wildife Service that is running the show or our very own Endangered Species Act, it is the United Nations and their various endangered species experts and their world programs who are in charge.

Some head in the sand sheeple person keeps mentioned Tin Hats or some supposed derogatory remark. It doesn't take much research to find the root of the problems that the rural citizens of the rural west and all of America are confronted with.

At the Fourth World Wilderness Congress held in Denver Colorado in 1987, over 1500 people from sixty countries participated. and were told to protect the reindeer, the spotted owl and other endangered species. Ninety per cent of the group consisted of conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefellar of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and Secretary of the U.S. Treasury James Baker.

The first three days the group was told that the Wilderness Congress was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain forest back. The following days with only the bankers in attendance, the topic of discussion centered on the creation of a World Conservation Bank with collateral being derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout the world. This bank would have central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve. It would create currency and loans and engage in international discounting, counter-trade, barter and swap actions. Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of the World Conservation Bank. The bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank. In the long term, when the countries won't be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers. Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. World Bank loans as they stand now are not collateralized but may be soon.

When James Baker made his keynote speech at this 1987 conference he stated that "No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks."

Guess at what crossroads we are at now?

The list that the World Conservation Bank has now, stands at and includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth's land mass. Even with this land mass it still won't collateralize the world's debt. The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assests can be termed "real wealth". We are seeing a much bigger role in the federalization of private lands with the Nature Conservancy and other land grab schemes by the government to do just this.

The recent consolidation of the Banks is bringing us one step closer to this control of the worlds wealth. Now the huge trillion dollar bailouts are upon us like a thief in the night. How do they get this money? By borrowing. What are they using for collateral? Are our very own and nationally treasured natural resource federal lands being mortgaged? You tell me. I have witnessed first hand just a taste of the heavy hand of the World control people. It was not pretty and that Mexican Gray Wolf Three Year Review was an eye opener for many of us.

I'm wondering, should those tin foil hats be made from the good high quality aluminum foil, like Reynolds Wrap, or can you just use the cheap store brand stuff?

One world order!!!!eleventy!!!!!one!one!!

Tom K:
That sounds pretty hard to believe. Maybe because I just can't imagine such a thing happening in this country. I'm complaining about losing our rights as states, and you're talking about losing our rights as a nation. I think I'll just bury my head in the sand and wait for it to happen, then join the resistance, of which there will be plenty. Nothing else we can do but enjoy whatever time we have left.

WOLVERINES!~!!!!@!!@!!!

(blatant Red Dawn reference)

I just attempted to post an article about the UN World Heritage removing Yellowstone from it's list of endangered placed there in 1995, I believe by Mike Findley. Findley protested it's removal.
If the other article doesn't show up, google UN + Yellowstone. It makes one think a lot harder about Tom K's post.
Do you want to give Putin as much say as the US about our country under the guise of protecting something.

Dr. Tom Bergerude, one member of Delphi 15 sends this email in response.

Dear Peter, I wrote another email but it would not load and I lost it. The Delphi was a time ago. I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills. Someone picked the 15 experts, ungulate biologists were included. I was a caribou biologist all my life, since 1955 and have worked on herds from the western Arctic to Labrador I proposed that wolves caused the decline of caribou and tested it with a 30 year study and now the biologists of Canada accept that wolves regulate caribou at least the southern herd. I am presently trying to get wolf control to save our Woodland herds that are classified as endangered.

The Delphi committee never met and nobody was told who the other members were. It would be people like Mech for wolves, Peek at Moscow and me for caribou. We were asked only what the impact would be in our opinion and not if we were in favor or not. As you know I said it would cause a major decline in coyotes, elk, and moose and that it should not be done unless management was possible and I said in Yellowstone. I felt I knew about elk and moose because in three years in BC we removed 5005 wolves and the elk plus moose increased from 20,000 to 30, 000 and in 4 years the wolves had recovered so it seem like away to go. It's called pulse removal to take the wolves in March and the young elk and moose et al get a break and no wolves re-colonize at that time.

I also said that Boyicia's estimation of wolves in Yellowstone was wrong it should not based on kill rate but the ungulate biomass (Fuller 1959) including bison because they will switch to bison when the elk are gone based on biomass there would be 20 to 40 wolves/1000kmsq in Yellowstone and of course when the prey gets too scarce your wolves would disperse from the park as now.

The rape of Nanking and the invasion of Kuwait were resplendant with reports of babies being tossed back and forth by the invading soldiers. Homo sapiens long ago learned that to demonize a foe is one of the best way to get the ignorant folks at home behind the troops--or in this case the anti-wolf rightwingcrazies...

Mr. Redman you stated;

By jedediah Redman, 1-28-09
There is no more credible evidence of wolves killing and eating a human being than there is that Jesus Christ once lived--in the Holy Land--or Meso-America.
Third-hand statements are simply not acceptable to a thinking person...

I posted the facts on Kenton Carnegie's death by four wolves and you did not comment?

I have posted facts on issues instead of making a comment because according to you "Third-hand statements are simply not acceptable to a thinking person...

Sir, I see the facts are not acceptable to a thinking person either.
So I ask you, what is acceptable to you?

Your latest post is so far off in left field and not anywhere near the subject of "Obama's first actions could mean new directions for wolves and public lands in the West".

Dear Jay Kanta,

I prefer the Reynolds wrap but am forced to use the cheaper brand because of the economic crisis! Us "right wing children" as you call some of us, wear our shiny hats proudly, by the way.

Jeff E. as far a your earlier post about custom, culture, you seem to come up way short as many Americans have roots going back to our native American ancestors, myself included.

Mexican's are of Spanish and native Indian decent. I suppose those folks who started settling much of the New Mexico and Arizona Territories back in the late 1500's have no customs or culture?

The custom and culture aspects of these peoples is used by most historians and researchers in both scientific and economic studies, done by most Universities.

I am very cognizant of change and accept it and welcome it. My so called right wing crazy attitudes are shaped by the lies and deceit, all the while calling it good science, that is practiced by the new west age thinkers (read eco extremists) who want no consumptive use on the federal land. Hell, I bet I can survive change on the landscape better than most, but that does not distract me for fighting for my fellow human beings and my families' well being to be able to live here and raise our families. I spend a great deal of time in this endeavor setting on the Boards of several groups who are in the battle to save the new west in hopefully a fashion that will enable us to keep living here and raising our families, like many of have been doing since some of my ancestors came into the America's over the land bridge. It is just that with Obama and his followers, it will be a very big challenge and a full time effort.

At least I think I can trace my heritage on the North American Continent back way before you seem to be able to Jeff E.

Actually Mike Findley is another anti-wolf liar, Marion. Perhaps you might find sources that are a bit more reliable.

As for Jeff E not admitting his mistake? I suggest you also ask Marion to admit the hundreds of mistakes she makes in every internet thread. That might take too long, though. The servers are only so big.

I agree with Redman that demonizing and dehumanizing the enemy is considered very effective. Isn't that what the term "ANTI-WOLF RIGHTWINGCRAZIES" is meant to do? How many people do you think are influened just by hearing that term or reading it here in these pages?

Klumker,
1620 would be the one half of my family. the other half is Athabasca. And while "some" of the people have the history going back to the Spanish conquests probably as many or more don't and can usually be identified by there surnames such as yourself. However the culture you are crowing about is decidedly European simply from the fact that cows were brought over to this continent by Europeans as were sheep. If you read my post carefully it says ("a few generations give or take") so as to account for more than one individual or family history.
but I realize that this is probably a little bit complicated for you and that is okay.

Jay Kanta
Marion will never admit to her lying. what has to be done is lead her along until she backs herself into a corner and has no way out and then step on her. I have done it numerous times and it takes a while because she has years of experience, probably her whole life, but then like mold she just surfaces somewhere else and starts in again.
(Citation: a mistake is something done unintentionally or out of ignorance. That's not Marion.)

Dear Jeff E.,

You never quit your holier than thou crap do you!

My heritage and roots go deep and far and in many directions. I do realize however that surnames sometimes connotate different things to different people. As far as this being too complicated for me, well excuse me! If I don't respond to you in a fashion that is pleasing or politically correct in your sense of right or wrong well so be it!

My roots have a dukes mixture of all walks of life and although some of them go back to ranching, that is only a fraction of my proud heritage.

Now if this had been a Catron county wolf then it would have eaten these people and then moved into town and gone from there.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/01/29/news/local/news04.txt

I would like to ask the moderators to demand that Jeff either provide proof of his accusations of lying on my part or insist that he quit posting such garbage. I have asked for proof before and only get more accusations.

Dear Jeff E.,

The only thing the wolf hybrid you are talking about and the hybrid pen raised wolves they released and are releasing here, is the fact that they are hybridized. (3 Trees has the information to back up this statement) This wolf you are referring to was a pet for Christ sakes! Give us a break Jeff E. It seems as if your mind is lost in space or somewhere! Where do you come up with all of this baloney!

It seems you have a deep hatred for those of us in Catron County New Mexico who refuse to be bullied by the eco's and the fed's in their attempts to remove all humans from the landscape here.

re: marion's lies

Here is one just from this thread:

"The wolf introduction has taken substantial amounts of money out of the pockets of individuals, and it is delibertly inflicted."

Delibertly? or maybe that's "deliberately"? You have no proof of this, you will never have proof of this and that is one of the reasons you are labeled as a liar.

I've caught you dozens of times with the claim that wolves are destroying vast swathes of elk. The problem with that claim is causus beli, on one hand. On the other, the numbers are actually at a state where the normal fauna and flora of Yellowstone has been allowed to grow back, instead of being eaten by gigantic herds of elk.

This is for those folks from NY and California who are so inellectual and advanced.

>> Subject: Fw: Archeology Find -
>>
>> After having dug to a depth of 10 feet last year, New York
>> scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and
>> came to the conclusion, that their ancestors already had a
>> telephone network more than 100 years ago.
>>
>> Not to be outdone by the New Yorkers, in the weeks that followed, a
>> California archaeologist dug to a depth of 20 feet, and shortly
>> after, a story in the LA Times read: ' California archaeologists,
>> finding traces of 200 year old copper wire, have concluded that
>> their ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications
>> network a hundred years earlier than the New Yorkers.'
>>
>> One week later, The Buffalo Bulletin, a local newspaper in Wyoming,
>> reported the following: After digging as deep as 300 feet in his
>> pasture near his ranch in Johnson County, Wyoming, Rowdy Spurs, a
>> self-taught archaeologist, reported that he found absolutely
>> nothing. Rowdy has therefore concluded that 300 years ago, Wyoming
>> had already gone wireless.
>>
>> Thank God for Rowdy. Who said Wyoming Cowboys were slow?

Jay, are you denying that the wolves are not intended to end grazing on leased land? The fact that biologists and environmental groups knew the wolves would kill livestock means they intended for them to do just that when they went ahead and put them in ranch country.
As for the elk, it is true that the northern elk herd has dropped from 19,000 to barely 6000, I consider that a dramatic decrease, the fact you consider it wonderful does not make it a lie that there has been a dramatic decrease in the elk. The Madison-Firehole herd has decreased greatly also, just because you are happy with the result does not make it a lie.

Marion,
The truth:
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2006/08/26/numerous-wolves-shot-for-killing-cow-calves-in-sublette-county-wy/#comments

The lie,
"The one website I am banned from is Ralph's, and he doesn't allow disagreement very long by anyone, and most certainly not anyone as outspoken as I am. "

Did it ever occur to you that you may have attributed the wrong cause to the reduction in the northern herd?

Because you have, and you continue to do so.

As well, PROVE that the intention was to drive ranchers off the land. Stop whining and prove it.

Marion blaming the decrease of the NYEH on wolves.
Another, how can I say this politically correct, oh ya, lie

Marion,
On, February 23, 2008 at 10:27 pm
SteveC asked
......."PS: If you want to comment on ralph’s posts maybe you shouldn't have gotten yourself banned from his site. The threads on this blog are complicated enough without you commenting on another blog here. Posting under multiple names was it?"

You replied, February 24, 2008 at 9:13 am
"Nope, I called Ralph and proved him wrong on several occasions on other sites........."

And the "multiple" names? As I explained I used a screen name on his site instead of my own because I knew he Would not allow me on his site. I have NEVER denied being banned from his site.
For all I know Jay, Jeff, and Steve are all one and the same. Do I care enough to find out? Nope!
By the way how many of those folks disagreeing with Ralph on that particular thread are still allowed to post??????????? I have good company.
So what has caused the drop of the NYEH if not the wolves? Remember you are saying it is a lie to blame wolves, and hunting has been dropped so let's hear the TRUTH per Jeff/Jay/Steve.
So far you have posted disagreements with me, but no lies, so what does that make your statements?

Tom is right the CBSG a sub group of the UN was running the Mexican wolf 3 year review I was there too. All three of the so called scientists publicaly admitted there was no data on which to base the 3 year review so they were forced to write subjective recommendations. So enough already with how great the recommendations of the three year review were. They were crap. Non scientific annecdotal recommendations by people who were subcontracted by the UN conservation breeding specialists group. Under the ICUN.
The real breeding of the Mexican wolf can be found at http://wolfcrossing.org/wolf-attacks/the-courts-were-wrong-these-wolves-are-hybridspdf/
Not that facts should get in the way of a good rural cleansing. Or any of the more radical extremist agenda some of these folks feel justified in pursuing.

Marion,
The question is not that you were banned but you lying about the why of it.
As per the Elk; once again and once again you will prove to be incapable of grasping and processing this information
http://greateryellowstonescience.org/files/pdf/Elk_Overview_YELL.pdf

And there you go, Marion. The NYEH was decimated by winterkill, bears, wolves and other climactic variations. Calf numbers have dropped significantly, NOT because of wolves, but because of drought.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your wonderful whining. The anti-wolf crowd should have already disowned you, you're not helping them.

Did you read this article?

quote"Central Yellowstone Herd. The central Yellowstone
elk herd occupies 280 km2 in the upper Madison River
drainage, an area with elevation
from 2,048 to 2,560 m
(Garrott et al. 2003). Snow depths frequently make foraging
difficult, but the geothermal features in this part of
Yellowstone
reduce snow cover in many areas. Because
they remain in the park, these elk are not harvested
by
hunters, but they are preyed upon by grizzly bears and
wolves, and the young and the old are especially vulnerable
to death by starvation during hard winters. The herd’s
density remained relatively
constant,
around 500–550
elk (2 elk/km2) during 1968–2003 (Garrott et al. 2005).
However, wolf packs, which had been absent since the
1920s, reestablished territories
in this area of the park in
1997, with multiple packs totaling 30–40 wolves by 2002.
Moderate kill rates, combined with high wolf densities and
modest elk densities, resulted in an estimated 20% of the
elk population being killed during winter and projections
for a declining elk population (Garrott et al. 2005). There
were less than 200 elk in this population during winter
2007–2008."end quote.

quote "and ranged mostly between 15,000–20,000 animals. After
wolf reintroduction in 1995–1996, the count decreased to
approximately 12,000 elk in 1998 following a substantial
winterkill and harvests of >3,300 elk outside the park
during the severe winter of 1997. Counts increased to
15,000 elk by 2000, but then decreased to less than
7,000 elk by 2007–2008. Predation by wolves and bears,
sustained harvests of antlerless elk outside the park, and
climatic variations (e.g., severe winters, drought) were
implicated as factors in the recent elk population
decline
(Vucetich et al. 2005; White and Garrott 2005). Substantial
winterkill occurred in the winters
of 1988–1989 and
1996–97 and drought-related effects on pregnancy and
survival
may have contributed to some extent because
severe, sustained drought conditions existed on the
northern range during 1998–2007. The number of wolves
on the northern range, which reached 106 in eight packs in
2003, had dropped to 94 in five breeding packs by the end
of 2007 (Smith et al. 2007)."end quote

quote"HELENA -- The winter elk hunt in Gardiner will be cut from 1,180 hunters to 148 hunters, mirroring the steady downward spiral of the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission decided here Thursday.


The hunt is likely to be discontinued altogether in the future, said Kurt Alt, FWP regional wildlife manager."end quote

I'll work on the rest later.

You'll work on what? Trying to understand it?

Give up, there are far too many big words for you.

Winterkill.
Drought.
Bears.

There are other causes. You mentioned the northern herd, and the report states, very clearly, that the numbers are due to many factors, that the wolf packs have declined in numbers and that you're just not very smart. OK, I made the last part up, but we really don't need a report to tell us that little fact.

Trees:
What precisely was it about your post that established it as fact?
There was nothing there to convince me that it was not just more bogus anti-wolf propaganda...

JACKSON, Wyo. — Wolves are reducing cow-calf ratios in elk herds in parts of northwest Wyoming, according to a report by the state Game and Fish Department.

The report finds wolves are affecting cow-calf ratios in four of the eight elk herds where they are present.

In the report, department biologists analyzed statewide elk population data, which the department has collected on an annual basis from 1980 through 2005. There are 35 herd units across the state and 21 of them had sufficient data for statistical analysis.

Wolf reintroduction began in 1995, when the federal government released 14 wolves in Yellowstone National Park. At the end of 2006, there were an estimated 36 packs in Wyoming, including 311 individual wolves.

“We have seen a downward trend (in cow-calf ratios) in many of Wyoming’s elk herds over this 26-year period,” Jay Lawson of the Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife Division said in a news release. “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.”

Game and Fish biologists have set a minimum ratio of 25 calves per 100 cows in order to maintain hunting opportunities and have said there is “little opportunity for hunting” when the ratio falls below 20 calves per 100 cows.

The four elk herds in Wyoming that have wolves present and are experiencing declines have dropped below 25 calves per 100 cows, and two of those herds have fewer than 20 calves per 100 cows.

All four herds had declining ratios before wolves were present, but the rate of decline increased significantly after wolves came into the area.

* Comment:
No matter what the facts are, few are going to change their minds on wolf issues.

Supporters of wolves will only loose sleep if they do not succeed in establishing wolves in every state and county. All negative aspects of wolves are considered collateral damage and simply acceptable to them in their supercilious stance.

widespread elk calf destruction is going on all over the west leading to a severe lack of recruitment numbers and evidence in strong that elk herds are getting older and older and not replacing themselves through successful reproduction. It is out there in all kinds of scientific literature for those who are less faithful to the wolf love religion and actually do care about the bigger picture. So what do we do, remain in denial as so many here seem want to do. If the widescale destruction continues at this rate, due to environmental intervention through legal action, and it seems it will, then starvation for wolves is inevitable unless they are allowed to continue to kill cattle at will with absolutely no repercussions. Once the ungulate herds are gone, then what?

It is my OPINION that is why FWS made the half hearted attempt to delist last year to get DOW off the hook for paying for livestock kills. It was becoming apparent that with elk numbers declining that livestock kills would go up...way up. As it was some folks had claimed to wait as much as 3 years for approved kills and still had not gotten paid. When DOW was interviewed by the newspaper, they said they were jsut awfully busy and hadn't had time.

Mr. Redman,

It is clear that you do not accept anything as fact no matter what the source. I am not trying to convince you to accept anything, others can read the Carnegie Case and read your posts then make up their minds.

The Carnegie death case was an Official Coroners Inquest, the jury found 4 wolves killed and feed upon his body....This is a fact

WHY DID IT TAKE TWO YEARS FOR THIS YOUNG MANS CAUSE OF DEATH TO BE OFFICIALLY DETERMINED????

What are the facts behind this???

When a person dies the official Cause, Manner and Mechanism of Death is determined in a short period of time. Even if the cause is undetermined it is officially listed as such.

3 Trees, it is exactly this kind of sentiment:

"Supporters of wolves will only loose sleep if they do not succeed in establishing wolves in every state and county."

that makes you a grade A lying a-hole.

End of discussion.

And Marion, shove it you twisted lying freak.

My! My! Jay, get a grip already.

As I have told you several times before and I will tell you again I think Marion has way more to contribute to this discussion than you seem to be able to. All you can do is accuse people of telling lies, rant and rave and contribute nothing to the discussion!

I knew Marion seemed to be a burr under your, Jeff E. and Steve C.'s collective saddle blankets, but damn, I think she must be the whole cholla cactus under there.

Marion, in regard to the eco's using the wolf to rid the ranchers from public land is right on. Recently Wild Earth Guardians were even quoted as admitting to this. I will see if I can find the quote for you. The Biological Diversity Center, with spokesman Michael Robinson, frequently prides themselves with the progress they are making in ridding grazing from the public lands. The wild Earth Guardians formerly the Forest Guardians have been negotiating and pushing for legislation to buy out and retire all grazing allotments form the federal lands. They presently have a lawsuit that want cattle removed because of and for the wolf. I will get that lawuit info for you also.

Contrary to your collective state of self denial's Jay, Jeff and Steve, the eco's are working day and night to rid grazing from the federal land. Wolves are just one of their many tactics.

Put that in your collective pipes and smoke it!

Jay Kanta,

It is a true statement, 'you will only loose sleep if you do not succeed, so why state otherwise. You are not putting your pets, livestock, economic viability or your children on the line as the people are who live and are impacted with wolves.

OK Jay, tell me what you will loose if wolves are not recovered the way you wish they were??? Explain it to me....

The people that are effected negatively by the wolf are the people with "documented losses". Loses are not attributed to ranchers alone, but non-ranching families also. You could find the documented losses from official documents if it mattered to you, but I an sure it does not.

So, again to you I,m a grade A lying a-hole....does that change the facts....NO

I still don't understand what's wrong with letting the states agree to maintain a viable population and turning management over to them. Are we too dumb to run our own state's affairs in a way that best benefits us and not some liberal in New York City who thinks meat grows on grocery store shelves?

There are those who have come to believe in the delphi effect. There are those who still have confidence in the new world order.
And then there are those who just plain believe the rightwingcrazies...

Tom: There's nothing wrong with that, that's been the plan from the get-go. Only two problems:

1. leftwingcrazies can't let the endangered species designation go, even though Montana and Idaho have excellent management plans in place and are ready and able to assume responsible control.
2. stubborn rightwingcraziesfromwyoming can't seem to come up with a responsible, viable management plan. they're living in the dark ages and until they join the 21st century, their battles with both leftwingcrazies and moderates will go on uninterrupted.

Mr. Redman,

I have attended USFWS wolf meetings that had hired a moderator and the meeting was conducted as per the Delphi Technique.

If you think a one world order is not on the agenda that is OK with me.

Also, watch out for those "rightwingcrazies"...Liberals could choke on them.........

Klumker,
I want public lands welfare ranching to be gone. It's a losing proposition all the way around and I'm tired as a taxpayer of paying for it on my public lands.

Roy McBride has expert knowledge of the Mexican Gray Wolf more so then any person. Not to mention he has captured wolves all over the world.

McBride was hired as such by the USFWS, and he trapped the Mexican Wolves in Mexico for the captive breeding program. Mr.McBride stated to me he trapped 5 wolves in Mexico, during transit 2 arrived dead. The live wolves were two males and one female that was due to have pups. I also trapped another male that had breed a ranch dog. When he came in to see the pups I caught him. This was the last wolf I caught in Mexico.

Mr.McBride also stated to me: That he was present a lot at meetings during the structuring of the Mexican Wolf Program concerning the Mexican Wolves in captivity, "the Ghost Ranch Linage" (Sonora-Desert Museum), and the "Aragon Linage". 'These wolves in captivity did not look anything like the wolves I trapped in Mexico.

Mr.McBride also stated to me: When Mr. Parsons suggested only a small number of livestock would be killed by the release of Mexican Wolves I laughed and said you are kidding! I know they will kill a lot more livestock than what you are saying.

Note; shortly after this Mr. McBride's job ended.

Below Mr. McBride's Letter to Mr. David Parsons:

June 2, 1997

David Parsons
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service P. O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306

Dear Mr. Parsons:

In reading the recent status report of April 1997, I was shocked to see that the wolves from the Ghost Ranch lineage were being included in the captive breeding program. In the early days of Mexican Wolf Recovery, the origin and genetics of the Ghost Ranch animals were discussed and investigated ad nauseam. In fact, the conclusion by all members of the early recovery team was that the animals were wolf-dog hybrids. This was the primary factor behind the decision to seek and capture the remaining wild population, because it Was the only pure genetic stock available.

I was sent to inspect the Ghost Ranch animals that were in captivity at the Living Desert Zoo at Carlsbad and the private collection of Norma Ames. While some of the animals had some wolf characteristics, some specimens showed more dog than wolf. Nobody, dead or alive on the planet earth, has caught as many wolves in Mexico as I have. But none of the wild wolves resembled the animals that I saw represented in this captive collection.

The explanation that the Ghost Ranch animals "do not look like wolves because of captivity and diet" is science right out of the Twilight Zone. The real reason that many of the Ghost Ranch animals look like dogs is because that is what they are.
With the understanding that the Endangered Species act does not protect hybrids, all the wolves from Norma Ames and Carlsbad Zoo were anesthetized.

Since you have now revised history, and consider the Ghost Ranch animals are actually wolves, wouldn't the anesthetizing of these wolves be considered a "taking" of endangered species? Aren't you likewise guilty, of a "taking" by mixing the hybrids with the wolves? How are these facts going to be handled by law enforcement and have you notified them?

I have remained neutral about the reintreduction of the Mexican wolf in Arizona/New Mexico, because I don't believe it to be any of ray business. But dumping out a bunch of hybrids to fcill livestock, game animals, and restricting traditional activities is just taking it too far.

If the Ghost Ranch animals are true wolves, then what are the animals that I took out of Mexico that are so different? And why was I sent to catch them when these other animals were already available? If you are concerned about genetic variability, why not augment the Mexican Wolf genes with those from Canada? Isn't that exactly what is going to happen in the wild when the reintroduction in Idaho and Wyoming meet with the reintroductions from the Southwest? By including the Ghost Ranch hybrids in the breeding program, you are threatening the validity of genetics of the entire wolf reintroduction program, both North and South.

When the first Mexican wolf is killed by some rancher or trapper, and it enters the courts as a legal matter, you will never be able to convict anyone of killing a true wolf. The early records of the recovery meetings, the credentials of the participants, and their conclusions will be contrary to your case, and they are
a matter of public record easily recovered.

You may put dog blood in the wolves, but you will never take it out. And you will forever cloud the issue of what it is you have released into the wild. I believe you have made a serious mistake.

Sincerely,
Roy McBride

The U.S. currently spends per year in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 to administer public lands livestock grazing which only brings in $21,000,000 in grazing fees and only produces ~2% - 3% of the beef in this country.

So, there is support for uncontrolled wolves killing livestock to eliminate the family ranching permit tee off Federal Lands.

The Mexican Wolf Program has cost 18 million dollars of taxpayers money. I am tired of my tax dollars being spent on an experimental Mexican Wolf Program.

With 52 wolves in the wild, each wolf cost the taxpayers $346,153.85. Talk about subsidizing something with no return.

I guess it is all in how a person views this, that and the other......

Genetic evaluation of the three captive mexican wolf lineages
Philip W. Hedrick, Philip S. Miller, Eli Geffen, Robert Wayne
Zoo Biology
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages47 - 69
Copyright © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Genetic evaluation of the three captive mexican wolf lineages
Philip W. Hedrick 1 *, Philip S. Miller 2, Eli Geffen 3, Robert Wayne 4
1Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
2Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, Minnesota
3Institute for Nature Conservation Research, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel
4Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California

*Correspondence to Philip W. Hedrick, Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1501

Funded by:
Heritage Fund of Arizona
US Fish and Wildlife Service

Keywords
genetic variation • pedigrees • microsatellites • inbreeding • founders

Abstract
The Mexican gray wolf appears to be extinct in the wild and exists now only in captivity. There are three captive putative Mexican wolf lineages: Certified, Ghost Ranch, and Aragón lineages. From pedigree analysis, the Certified lineage has the lowest level of inbreeding and has retained the most founder alleles. In contrast, the Ghost Ranch has a high level of inbreeding and fewest founder alleles. From molecular genetics data, particularly from microsatellite loci, it appears that all of the lineages consist of Mexican wolves, and none of them appear to have ancestry from dogs or coyotes. Further, the molecular data are consistent with the Certified lineage having three founders instead of the four previously assumed. From these findings, we recommend that the three lineages be combined to increase the number of founders and to postpone any inbreeding depression. The combination of pedigree analysis and molecular genetic data allowed us to resolve several long-standing concerns in Mexican wolves. Zoo Biol 16:47-69, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Received: 15 April 1996; Accepted: 12 September 1996

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1997)16:1<47::AID-ZOO7>3.0.CO;2-B About DOI

Relationships and Genetic Purity of the Endangered Mexican Wolf Based on Analysis of Microsatellite Loci
Jaime García-Moreno* ‡ , Majorie D. Matocq*, Michael S. Roy* ‡ , Eli Geffen † , and Robert K. Wayne*
*Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, U.S.A. † Institute for Nature Conservation Research, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69578, Israel
Address correspondence to R. K. Wayne, Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, U.S.A., email .


‡ Current address: Department of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copyright Society for Conservation Biology
ABSTRACT

The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), an endangered subspecies of gray wolf, was native to parts of Mexico and the southwestern United States. Currently, only a few individuals, if any, exist in the wild, so planned reintroduction programs must use captive-raised wolves. In only one captive population, however, designated the certified lineage, are all the founders (n = 4) known to be obtained from a wild population of Mexican wolves. Two captive populations were founded from individuals of uncertain ancestry and have not been included in the species survival plan. To preserve genetic diversity and reduce inbreeding so that fitness will be maintained, it would be desirable to include these two captive populations in the breeding program if it could be shown that they were derived from a wild population similar to the certified lineage. We compared allele frequencies of 10 hypervariable microsatellite loci in Mexican gray wolves with those found in a sample of 42 domestic dogs, 151 northern gray wolves, and 142 coyotes to determine if uncertified Mexican wolves had specific markers from these animals. We analyzed pairwise genetic distance measures to demonstrate that the three captive populations of Mexican gray wolves were closely related to each other and distinct from dogs and northern gray wolves. The three captive populations are genetically more similar to each other than to any other population of dog or wolf-like canid, and they shared alleles that were rare in other canids. The genetic distance between them is similar to that between closely spaced populations of northern gray wolves. As a group, moreover, they are the most genetically distinct population of North American gray wolf. Therefore, the three captive populations could potentially be interbred to augment the genetic diversity of the certified lineage. Source individuals for reintroduction should be derived from the captive Mexican wolf population rather than populations of captive or wild northern gray wolves.
ABSTRACT

Mr. E,

Thank you for the documentation.

"As a group, moreover, they are the most genetically distinct population of North American gray wolf.

Question, What will happen genetically to this genetically distinct population of Mexican Wolves when the Canadian wolf disperses into Mexican wolf territory? Is it a concern to scientists?

3Trees, I can answer that last question. I believe it was in 06-07 a wolf killed over a hundred head of livestock during a period of something like a year. At one point a government trapper had it in sight and was refused permission to kill it as he wasn't "authorized". Months later when it was finally killed, FWS decided the coloring wasn't quite right, and sent if off for genetic testing. Well you knew right then it was to get DOW off the hook for all of the documented kills by the animal. When the testing came back it had Alaskan, Canadian (gasp) and other US (maybe Great Lakes) wolf blood, so they came to the conclusion that it was a released domestic wolf. Accepting responsibility for bad outcomes is simply not a part of the plan.
By the way JeffE for doing a much better job proving my point that eliminating ranching was the goal.

Good job 3 Trees! the USFWS have based the entire wolf program mostly using only the scientists and people who agree with their agenda. This is an excellent case in point. Roy McBride was spurned, ridiculed and ignored by these utopianists. Another credible and very experienced biologist who spent most of his early career studying Mexican gray wolves was also repudiated and sent packing! Why you might ask? Because he had photographic proof of live Mexican Gray wolves up in southeastern Arizona during the EIS phase of the Mexican gray wolf program. To institute the re-introduction program, they had to use their pen raised wolves (hybrids) and to do so knowing there were still true Mexican gray wolves out in the wild. This would have nixed the whole program.

Dennis Parker however went on to bigger and better things, becoming a laywer and his first big case, which was a barnburer I might add, was the Chilton lawsuit in Arizona against the Biological Diversity Center in which the BDC ended up paying the Chiltons $600,000. The BDC tried to smear the Chiltons for their grazing practices in which the BDC used a whole lot of bogus photos to do so. Dennis is helping bring some reality back into this fray and is doing so beating the ecos at their own game. I might add he still knows as much or more about the Mexican gray wolf than any other biologist except for Roy McBride.

Jeff E., about your and your side's bogus interpretation of so called subsidized grazing on the federal land, I guess you haven't really studied the facts. You continue to use ridiculous and un-substantiated facts to prove your point.

First of all the total number of cattle from federal grazing lands (as of a few short years ago, I don't know now because of forced reduction in grazing by the feds, on the federal land) was over 20% of the feeder cattle going into the total meat supply of the US. Yes Jeff 20%. That is a huge portion of the beef supply. You and yours continue to use the 2% to 3% which may be close if you figure total tonnage. Once these federal lands originated cattle hit the feed lot they are fed from 400-500 lbs. to 1200 lbs or there abouts so you then have up to a 66% jump in the tonnage of beef using your calculations.

For some enlightening reading go to the New Mexico State University's Range Improvement Task Force's web site and look up the studies they have done on this subject and you will find an eye opening assessment of the true costs of grazing on the federal lands. If these grazing allotment are so great, why isn't everybody trying to get one. You have got to understand a couple of things. First of all Government Red Tape and Government Management add a huge layer of costs to the equation that shouldn't and can't be used in the light of true economics. Secondly the environmental costs added to the equation by organizations such as the Biological Diversity Center and many, many others primarily the Wild Earth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project have forced the federal Agencies into spending millions and millions of dollars trying to keep up with all the lawsuits and forced regulations to administer these grazing allotments. People like you Jeff E. are not an indirect cause but a direct cause of the huge administrative costs associated with any federal lands program.

I maintain that extreme environmentalism is one of the core roots of this nations economic problems right now.

I also maintain that the global warming issue will take us into an even deeper recession.

Thank you Mr. Obama and Mr. Jeff E. for your green elitist ideals that will ruin this great nation. This is in my humble opinion however!

Tree farms stocked with a population of domesticated animals seems the aim of the rightwingloons who post anti-wolf propaganda...

3 tree
There has always been mixing at the edges of any areas where two species that are able to breed can. That would and does show up in the markers. I would suggest reading "WOLVES,CONSERVATION, ECOLOGY, BIOLOGY" that book explains it better than I can, but what I find fascinating is that Mexican wolves have more genetic markers in common with European wolves than North American sub-species.

but it can be a concern. for example here is the Klumker-Dickinson line
http://alannaonline.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/db2219-inbreeding-personafied.jpg

Marion,
As far as confirming any thing to do with grazing, first of all I belong to no group or organization or even contribute to any. That which I post is either my opinion or facts backed by documentation. Prove otherwise.
As far as the domestic wolf in eastern Montana I proved you wrong on that also and is a another instance of your being proven wrong and then repeating the same proven wrong information over and over again all over the internet . That is called lying Marion and that is what you are.

Dear jedediah,

Your continual jibberish about those of us who only want a fair shake and equal treatment, as is being given to the radical enviro's by our government agencies such as the BLM, US Forest Service, the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the liberal judges who seem to end up ruling on most of the natural resource issues, and who continually rule against most of the credible scientists and resource managers.

I am not agaisnt the wolf per se, only against the junk science being perpetrated on the citizens of the US, that does not fully consider the actions of what is happening and has happened to our ungulate wildlife, our livestock, our pet dogs and horses and our children, not to mention our severely crippled economy as a result of these actions.

No, jedediah I do not want livestock all over the "tree farm". I want a balance. I want healthy wildlife populations including the wolves and all that most of us "rightwingloons" as you call us, are asking is that we have balance. I hate poor management and especially poor federal lands ranch managers who have no care what so ever about the health of the land. Thank God there are not too many of them. There seems to be just enough of them to give the whole industry a black eye. You and your ilk continually rant and rave about this subject and you never acknowledge the fact that livestock growers are good stewards of the land. Quite to the contrary jedediah!


Any old day of the week jedediah I personally invite you down to New Mexico and Arizona to show you the real world out here. I think you would be pleasantly surprised as to the good job the good people here are looking out for your (federal) land. Somehow up in your glass house you have lost touch with reality. All most of really want is to have a fair shake. We are not out to reap the land at the cost of wildlife and the natural resources. We have a deeply ingrained sense of helping all forms of flora, fauna and the earth's grandness and well being.

It all boils down to I don't think I really know any "rightwingloons", but I do know a lot of leftwingloons. I guess it takes one to know one. Refer to the above statement!

Dear Jeff E.,

Very funny!

It seems you can't help yourself!

Can you post without insulting anybody who disagrees with you?

There's a common theme for all of your, Jay Kanta's and jedediah's posts. Ridicule and brow beat anybody who does not agree with your viewpoint. Enough said.

Klumker say's,
"There's a common theme for all of your, Jay Kanta's and jedediah's posts. Ridicule and brow beat anybody who does not agree with your viewpoint. Enough said."

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black

By the way 3 tree there is no species of wolf named Canadian.

I reckon it took two years to convince the coroner's jury that it was wolves, not a black bear, tree; but there is no doubt in my mind the anti-wolf community has convinced more and more of you
rightwingloons to hate the demon lobos...

There may be no Canadian wolf, but there is or was a Canis Irremotus until the "scientists" dropped that classification in order to bring an entirely different larger wolf into the Northern Rockies.
I am amazed that the moderators allow the hatred and venom from those who feel entitled to impose their will and their destruction on others. I wonder how many potential supporters of NewWest advertisers are turned off by the dirty names, filth, and hatred spewed by these folks

probably as many that are turned of by a serial liar

and again Marion, As far as c.l. irremotus, once again your ignorance knows no bounds

Is it ranchers fault the US government robs the American people to hire millions of workers who don't administer the federally administered lands in an efficient and cost effective manner? Is it our fault that whacko environmentalists with entire law firms at their disposal are ready willing and able to sue federal administrators over every single percieved infraction driving up costs of land management astronomically? I think that you should rework your numbers. Federal land ranchers benefit the entire region where they exist the cost is due to mismanagement Not anything ranchers have done. Your argument remains the old bait and switch. We have been here since pre USFS days we own the right to use this land for grazing livestock just as the general public owns the right to access it as well for recreational purposes. One does not usurp the other. Your claim of 2 to 3 % can actually equal 60% of the gross revenue from livestock production in one state. Your talking points don't hold water on a state by state basis.

"By JEFF E, 1-30-09 The U.S. currently spends per year in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 to administer public lands livestock grazing which only brings in $21,000,000 in grazing fees and only produces ~2% - 3% of the beef in this country.
"

Let us not forget that 25% of grazing fees got to rural schools and 25% go to local highway maintenence and government. Just becuase the federal administrators aren't efficient and they never are doesn't mean use of federal lands for economic purposes isn't cost effective. Get rid of the cost of the middle man and reissue allotments and allow timber and it pencils out once again. Stop the environmentalist attacks on anyone using these lands and you will see the change back to prosperity in these small communities.

whatever. Prove any of the data wrong. otherwise your just yapping

Same goes for you pal. Figures lie and liars figure. you folks have been using your own talking points for so long you have forgotten that they are incredibly well spun to reflect your own fantasy not the reality. You hate ranchers have been a hate monger throughout this discussion calling people names and using false data yet I doubt there is any end to the discussion and it is really getting boring with your 20 year old anti grazing cattle free by 93 talking points.

prove any of it wrong, key word being prove

I don't care if you feel yours is proof and mine is not. It is immoral to destroy people for statistics that are made up one side or another.

Prove the data wrong
Or shut up

Mr. E,

I used the reference of "Canadian Wolf" cited by those in publications that they Trapped Canadian wolves and released them into the Yellowstone... As where they came from.

Similar to publications on Texas Mountain Lions trapped and trans located into Florida to bred into the Endangered Florida Panther. When non- endangered Texas Mountain Lions are released into Florida, do they take on the endangered status of the Florida Panther?

Your data may or may not be wrong it is merely nationally defied statistics neither correct or incorrect and subject to statistical error and subjetivity. You seem to want to use it as science when it is not anywhere near scientific.
We American's don't do rule by mob in the United States we rule by representation therefore we don't use national statistics as representations of local ecnomic well being we certainly don't use national subjective statistics to destroy state and local economies who's data is somewhat different and who's 2% on a national scale would equate to total destruction on a local scale as you seem to approve of doing.
Don't tell me to shut up either, that First Ammendment to the Bill of Rights applies to me as an American citizen too, regardless of your idea that what you have to say outweighs what I believe and voice. The fact that you insist on shutting down anyone's opinion or data but your own is pathetic. You can't form the argument so you want to take your ball and go home. Why dont you contribute to solutions rather than dictate your demands using your data that isn't even valid? Get a clue ranchers aren't leaving the wolves probably aren't either, join the discussion for positive solutions and stop the intolerance and demand for destruction of your fellow man.

As far as the small percentage of cattle produced by family ranchers permitted on federal lands (part of the multiple use of Federal land);

to some, it may be compared small in the overall scheme of things, but it is "the" major economic industry here. Livestock provide a major tax base that provide funding for our schools and so on.

One thing to remember, many ranch homesteads were homesteaded in the 1880's and the land grazed by livestock long before the Forest Service and BLM authority. Then, through regulation grazing Federal lands have became what it is today.

All these homestead lands are considered to fragment the Federal lands by some, even though homestead lands have standing prior to regulation. With these homesteads, the only economic viability was grazing. If grazing for livestock is eliminated, then the only option for the homestead land owner is to sell to a developer and he in turn will subdivide it into a subdivision.

I do not like subdivisions because of all the negative effect it brings. Instead of having a few families living within the Federal Forest lands, there will be hundreds and hundreds.

But, I understand that a family rancher has no choice to sell to a developer so his family can survive an alter net life.

I am not a rancher, but I have seen many struggle to survive.

Hey New West, is telling others to shut up considered civil respectful participation or is allowing certain people to be called liars OK on this website? I highly doubt that is considered civil discourse in any dialog but nobody seems to be moderating this post so it continues. I am offended by the liar accusations and the insistance that anyone who doesn't agree with Jeff E "shut up"
Just in case anyone out there other than me feels the terms are being violated.
CAlling Marion a liar throughout this post is a violation of the terms as I see them and is abusive, defamatory and potentailly liabelous as quoted below.
"(i) promotes information that you know is false or misleading, or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous;"
Telling people to shut up is merely disrespectful and abusive. Yet it appears that if certain people want to do these things they are allowed to on this website. I would hope that new west asks certain posters to clean up their act.

This is quickly becoming a contest of intellect.
The average IQ appears to be lower than the average hat size...

Yet another quasi intellectual observation that those of us who don't agree show a lack of intellect. Hmm seems to me the following is pretty high brow. I am done here as I agree there is nothing to be gained here from any further discussion.

By jedediah Redman, 1-31-09

Tree farms stocked with a population of domesticated animals seems the aim of the rightwingloons who post anti-wolf propaganda...

By JEFF E, 1-31-09

probably as many that are turned of by a serial liar
By JEFF E, 1-31-09

and again Marion, As far as c.l. irremotus, once again your ignorance knows no bounds

By JEFF E, 1-31-09

whatever. Prove any of the data wrong. otherwise your just yapping

By JEFF E, 1-31-09

prove any of it wrong, key word being prove

By JEFF E, 1-31-09

Prove the data wrong
Or shut up

Dear Jeff E.

OK here is proof!

Go to NMSU Range Improvement Task Force web site and download Report 32 entitled "The Importance of Public Lands to Livestock Production in the U.S."

The study along with several others done by this agency will hopefully give you the real story of the contributions and importance of federal lands grazing to the US and in particular the western United States.

A few statistics and quotes from the executive summary of Report 32:

15% of the nation's beef cows and 44% of the sheep and lambs were produce on public lands ranches with more than 5% of grazing capacity coming from BLM and USFS lands.

About 8% of the U.S. beef cow herd was authorized to graze on federal lands for part of the year during 1990. These percentages are more than the widely quoted estimate that only 2% of the nation's beef is raised on public lands.

Between 6.7 and 6.9 million head of beef cows per year have been produced in the 11 western states in recent years. This is about 22% of the total 31 to 33 million head of beef cows on inventory during recent years in the 48 contiguous states.

69% of the beef cows(4.7 million head) and 88% of the sheep and lambs (4.9 million head) that were produced in the 11 western states during 1990 were from ranches with at least 5% of grazing capacity coming from either BLM or USFS lands. About 41% of the beef cows in the 11 western states grazed on federal lands for part of the year during 1990.

19% of the total annual forage demand in the 11 western states and 13% of the demand in the 14 western states was met from federal land.

In New Mexico 51% of the beef cows and 68% of the sheep and lambs are on ranches with at least 5% of grazing capacity coming from either BLM or USFS lands.

31% of the beef cows and 40% of the sheep and lambs are produced on ranches with at least 50% of grazing capacity coming from either BLM or USFS lands.

Some states depend much more heavily on federal lands grazing depending on total federal land ownership in each state. For example Idaho has 63% federal land ownership and Nevada has even much more.

Catron County and Grant County in western NM are 95% dependent on federal lands for grazing capacity.

Catron County is almost totally dependent on revenues from livestock sales, and whereas the timber industry used to make up a much lesser proportion of total gross revenues in the county, and now this is almost just barely on the scale. Hunting and recreation have taken up a little bit of the slack but Catron County still relies almost totally on economic and tax dollars from the livestock industry here.

Jeff E. your "sagebrushsea link was done by an individual that is an unknown and his qualifications weren't explained in the link. He may or may not be a credible guy.

I challenge you to dispute the qualifications of the NMSU Range Improvement Task Force members and in particular DR.'s Allen Torrell and John Fowler along with Marc Kincaid and Jerry Hawkes.

Torrell and Fowler are nationally renowned and respected scientists/researchers.

Jeff E. I would hope you take a gander at some of the studies done by the RITF.

By the way Jeff E. I also challenge you to go back through this thread and find where I have intentionally verbally insulted you or any other blogger's intellect. Calling the Kettle Black! Give me a break!

Way to go jedediah, you have again added a real piece of useful information to the thread.

Good work Tom I had forgotten all about those links and really just don't have the energy anymore. Becuase as you have probably noticed none of it matters. NOT ONE THING. these guys are bent on their own ideals and they do not include real dialog so expect another rant. It is not possible to reason with or prove anything in their jaded perceptions. Although the only reason I am here is to hopefully educate someone who might show up and see these posts without any other resourses.

Yes, I think the ole dead horse has had all it can take.

You know, I have read articles that state certain persons are not safe coming into our county. I think that certain persons may feel this way because of their direct involvement on issues. I laugh at the fact some people do wear cowboy hats as a disguise so they won't stand out. There is no reason for this. People are as safe her as anywhere else.

Crime is no different here than in the big city. We have had several unsolved homicides, a triple, a double and a few singles, but compared to the national average these homicides are not above average. I will bet you have more crime where you live than where I live..........

I have to say that a hope of educating thsoe who really have no idea about the wolf situation, in fact have no idea how many tens of millions have been spent on wolves and the damage they do. At a time when the country is in financial difficulty it might surprise to the majority of folks who do not live out here. Folks who come to this site looking at prperty or some of the products sold by advertisers on the site may be enlightened to the methods and goals of environmentalists, and to the harm to real folks from these things. Since so many have no idea unless they read these things and invstigate further, it is worth taking the verbal abuse of some on this site......for a while anyway.

psssst tom,
look at table #6 in that report you cited. pay particular attention to the first column. tell me what it say's.
looks like the authors need to have a proofreader.

Dear Jeff E.,

Continue on to page 19 of Table 6 continued.

Total Beef Cows on Federal is 2,784,996 or for a 41.3% of 11 Western States and 8.3% of U.S. total.

8.3% of the total cow herd in the U.S. is raised on federal lands. this is a whole lot more than the meager 2% you and most of the anti-grazing establishment seem to be stuck on.

I'm not sure what the figures on pg. 18 of Table 6 refer to. I don't think a proof reader was needed but if you go on down the table you get to the numbers cited in the executive summary of the report, which is the 8% figure.

At any rate Jeff E. I think that most of the hard working stewards of the land, the public lands rancher, is for a large part standing in the way of un-controlled sub division and sprawling growth on the deeded private property landscapes bordering and surrounding the federal lands. Wide open landscapes are relished by most folks, including me. He is also care taking the prime landscape and riparian and water sources that much of our wildlife depend on.

Lets take a couple of examples of what happens whe livestock grazing is excluded from the landscape:

Case #1: The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. A big ranch in the Altar Valley south of Tucson down near the Mexican border was purchased by well meaning individuals in high government positions a few years ago. This was done to help protect the Masked Hooded Bobwhite quail. Sounds reasonable enough. In a very short time period the refuge grew up with tall grass blowing in the breeze and boy it looks good. Even today it still looks like a gem in the rough. First the Gov't. let the improved water system deteriorate and become useless with no water. Quail need water. I can take you on a tour of this refuge and it is absolutely alarming. There is no to little wildlife there. The outside boundaries of the refuge are still grazed and don't look nearly as pretty as the abundant tall flowing stands of yellow grass. But low and behold, suddenly you start seeing desert mule deer, Coues whitetail deer and at least two species of quail. Wildlife is alive, well and healthy out where the catle are grazing.

Case #2. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has an aggressive land acquisition program in which they are trying to protect elk habitat, especially wintering grounds and have at least slowed down many potential sub divisions. It didn't take long to find out that after acquiring these ranch lands and removing the cattle that the elk vacated those lands as well. The elk are found where cattle grazing is taking place.. Usually one pasture in front of or one pasture behind where the cattle are at. They prefer tender regrowth. Stagnant grass, especially the bunch grasses that make up much of the range land become rank and unpalatable. I think many of these acquired ranch lands have some livestock grazing re-instituted on them.

Case #3. The XXX Ranch on the Blue River in eastern Arizona, a USFS grazing allotment was retired from grazing going on thirty years ago. The deer, both mule deer and Coues deer were plentiful and grazed and stayed in close proximity with the cattle. After the cattle were removed the deer left and are not there even today. You can ride all day through this old ranch and never see a deer and only a handful of tracks.

What I am trying to impart to you and the readers of this blog is that ranchers have developed much of the water out on the range and all forms of wildlife have benefited. Wildlife for the huge part exist in harmony with livestock and are in fact doing much better when livestock and the caretaker of the water and health of the landscape, the American West's Rancher is present.

How about a laugh.......

A DEA agent, together with an ATF and an FBI agent, as part of a task force, arrive at a ranch in western Nebraska . The agents tell the rancher, "We need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs."

The old rancher says, "Okay, but don't go in that field over there."
The DEA agent verbally explodes saying, "Mister, we have the authority of the Federal Government with us." Reaching into his rear pocket and removing his badge, the agent proudly displays it to the farmer. "See this badge? This badge means we are allowed to go wherever we wish on any land. No questions asked nor answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you
understand?"

The old rancher nods politely and goes about his chores. Later, the old rancher hears loud screams and spies the three agents running for their lives and close behind is the rancher's bull. With every step the bull is gaining ground on the agents. They are clearly terrified.

The old rancher immediately throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs..... "Your badges! Show him your badges!"

ROTFLMBO! I love it.

Dear Jeff E.,

You posted somewhere above some authoritative looking statistics on how much livestock loss has actually occurred since the wolves were turned loose.

I personally know these figures and or so called statistics you provided do not tell the whole story.

I will defer however to 3Trees to provide you with some reality and certified statistics out here on the ground. 3Trees is very involved in this very onerous and damning SOP or standard operating procedure, our USFWS and NMGFD personnel are using as guidelines to establish what constitutes a wolf kill and what doesn't.

Perhaps after he explains what is really going on you will be able to see why the citizens here call the wolf program "Government Sponsored Terrorism" !!

If 3Trees doesn't pick up I will impart some of what I know for instance many baby domestic calves are taken and eaten entirely leaving only a grease spot. How can the rancher document that other than he found a tight bagged cow?

In the case of elk however our wolves here are taking a big toll on the calf elk numbers. In several instances they sport kill and in one day or night may kill 5-10 calves and only eat one or two or just eat a little bit of some of them. Many however are just killed and left laying.

There is a whole different story out here than what the USFWS want people to know about.

What has this have to do with Obama's first days in office? A whole lot. We will only see the repressive arm of big government intervening more in our daily lives starting on inaguration day Jan. 20, 2009. This is not to say I supported the neo-cons" Bush/Cheney/Kempthorne either. Look what they did in delisting the polar bear. That one action alone has the potential to bring down our kingdom, coupled with Al Gore's global warming ambitions.

No Jeff E. we the people out here, think the repressive arm of big brother isn't needed or wanted out here. And we darned sure don't need a bunch of tree huggers and bunny huggers cheering them on!

I don't mind if you ranchers want to share my wolves' range. I will object if you loons start shooting them to make room for your livestock...

Tom,
those come from the USDA NASS. Prove them wrong.

All you have done so far is come up with some 20 year old poorly written guesstamate by NMSU that in one of it's tables gives the same data that I maintain to be fact.
you can't even explain that much less prediction losses.

Tom it doesn't matter that we have economic science on written buy phd's from our state that backs up what we stated about the importance of livestock on federal lands grazing allotments. This guy is only interested in his ego. He insists on us validating his points but refuses to acknowlege our valid arguments that most reasonable American's would certianly acknowlege especially in times of economic turmoil. It certainly won't matter that in the 5 year review socio economic review the Mexican wolf depredation numbers are listed at 100 times what was expected. And all that data was pre Jess Carey data. It is officially recognized by the economic scientists in the program.
This guy gives nothing credibility but his own agenda. Nor does the your cows are on my wolves land guy who has not been able to show a fossile record of this being wolf country and there is no data on wolves being present in this region prior to cattle drawing them in in the 1400's and on to the present. There is no evidence of the whole there were thousands of wolves here pre european settlement claim at all but it matters not one bit.
If you haven't read the petition for rule change put out by New Mexico Cattlegrowers you ought to there are a lot of documents cited there as well.

Tom,

There is no use trying to provide any more documentation or information on this site. Those that champion the wolves will not even concede that wolves killed and ate Kenton Carnegie.

So you are wasting your time here. I suggest you provide your information to the general public, who do not know the negative facts about wolves. The more you educate the general public, the less they will believe and support the propaganda that wolves cause no harm and are cute fluffy little critters. As you have seen, even with peer reviewed documentation there are dissenter's.

You know and I know the ones that manipulate federal agencies to do their dirty work. These same manipulators think there is no personal accountability for their actions because they are shielded behind federal agencies.

One Fact is apparent, as uncontrolled wolves saturate every State their devastation alone will produce more and more opposition. The pro-wolf supporters are not helping the wolf by demanding unlimited numbers of wolves on the landscape. At some point, when common sense rules again these same wolves they have championed will be hunted and killed.

With all that combined intellectual power of the elitists, you would think that they would have been satisfied with a low impact wolf population, maintained as such, so no hunting of them could ever happen.

I guess they figured wolves would maintain full protection status. But, it is apparent that hunters are going to thank the pro-wolfer's for supplying them hundreds and hundreds of wolves to shoot....Go figure

Your wolves Jeff? Does this mean that if/when "your" wolves attack a kid doing his chores or waiting for a school bus that you are taking FULL responsibility for "your" wolves and paying all costs and liabilities?

Marion,
Have you gone totally round the bend? that was Jedediah that posted that. You can't even tell the truth from the information directly in front of you.

Tom, 3 tree, Janice,
It's simple. the paper Tom cited states that, except for New Mexico, all the data is based on guesstimates from other states.
In addition there is Table 6, first column which states the same thing which I said, which Tom, and I expect either of you other two, can't explain. If you actually read the article it states that the data is based on different criteria than other sources such as the one I posted previously. You will also note that the document I posted is completely footnoted which is how a professional document is presented. So any information contained can be cross referenced .
Simply put, tell me what table 6, first column, says in your paper in your own words.

Mr. E, I mist you post of;

By JEFF E, 1-31-09
but it can be a concern. for example here is the Klumker-Dickinson line
http://alannaonline.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/db2219-inbreeding-personafied.jpg

No matter to me; In your pun making fun of folks may result in the last thing you see. They are probably not to good at collaboration, compromising and when offended have a propensity for violence.

I know there are a few counties that they will never put the wolf. The minority people there solves problems their selves. Even now law enforcement does not go out at night. Homicides are solved by homicide. Personally, I do not go there either.

Rightwingcrazies seem about ready to throw in the towel. Their efforts to further demonize lobo have been pitiably ineffective...

Jeff E and his counterpart Jed Red ... My paper is better than your paper we are better than you you you you. I am smarter and you are dumber my whims are more important than you your community and your livlihood and your economy and your safety. anything you say is crap. Typical egomaniacal behavior would rather win a pitiful tiny scrap of an argument that grow something postive out of an open discussion based on the matter at hand.
Whatever I keep promising to leave but curiosity gets the better of me. Frankly I think both are one and the same person. Wonder who that could be.

Mr. Redman,

If you look, there are few that post here. At what point do we stop beating a dead horse. I know and you should know that nothing is going to change the present post positions on anything.

Wolves produce negative results by nature of the beast, which results in their own demonizing. You can paint it whatever color you want but it is still transparent.

Ol' jed has no expectations of change, trees.
He has been posting to internet forums for a long time--and has come to realize the one consistent thing is that rightwingcrazies persistently will not change.
Their two basic ideals are white supremacy and the good old days.
Now that we have at last elected a black man to the presidency the ignorance which has always underpinned all conservativism has become more obvious.

Ol' jed

Are moderate conservatives rightwingcrazies? Are people that believe in sound conservation rightwingcrazies? I do not believe in 'white supremacy' but I do believe in what my folks taught me.

You down people with opposing views as "rightwingcrazies" and according to you all the "supposed" underpinning all conservationism is their fault. Are you really going to give credit to "rightwingcrazies" for loosing sleep?? You make me laugh, people who read all the comments here will also laugh and pity your simplistic position.

So where is this monument driven in the firmament that determines the center and what is the measurement of "right wing crazies" of "loons" or other demeaning description? How many whoseits to the right of said monument do you have to be to be "crazy" or a "loon" or "redneck"? And as long as race and hate is being discussed, how is the J. Redman discussion not race based? Or is it all part of where you lie in terms of that monument, that permanent point from which all thought is measured?

What a crock, Jeff E. and Jedediah Redman are one and the same person.....Go figure....he must have multiple personalities and educated beyond his intelligence to con the people on this site.......sooooo lame!!!

L@@K

"By jedediah Redman, 2-01-09
Ol' jed has no expectations of change, trees.
He has been posting to internet forums for a long time-"

That will come as a real shocker for Jeff's better half, treed.

As for ol' jed--he puts skinner marian, you and barebate in the bin marked rightwingloons--there are others, certainly. I'll leave it to you better educated folks to sort them out and apply labels you find more suitable.
Ol' jed finds it satisfactory to use loons and crazies interchangably; but others may wish to put a finer definition on the multiple sociopathies therein...

You are a joke...................

I suspect the B.S. intellectual posts on this site are employees of New West using fictitious names and are doing their rotation time in the trenches. As most are ext ream environmentalist.

I also suspect as the economy keeps dropping advertisers will jump ship like the crew off the titanic.

You all have a nice day...............