Wildlife Management
Opinion: Wolves Under Fire in the Rocky Mountain West
With no quotas planned for Idaho's hunt and Montana planning to issue permits that could take out one-third of its wolves, it's time to step back and realize what we should have already learned in Yellowstone.By Hayden Janssen, 7-19-11
![]() |
|
| Grey wolf. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. | |
If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.
– Aldo Leopold
The wolves of the Rocky Mountains are under attack. Idaho recently released its proposal for the 2011 hunting season, which calls for no limit on the number of wolves that can be killed. Yes, you read that correctly. The state that professed it will not manage its wolves has followed through and issued a public plan expressing there will be no limits on wolf hunting for this year. Based on the fact that Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are required to maintain a specific number of wolves in the three-state region, an undue burden has been placed on the other two states. One hopes Wyoming and Montana will take heed; however, at this writing, Montana has announced it expects to issue 220 permits, permission to take out roughly one-third of the total Montana wolf population.
There are those who argue that all wolves should be protected, no matter what. This is not an acceptable management approach when even endangered grizzlies that cause harm to a rancher are being culled. The other end of the spectrum is represented by a vocal and polar-opposite. These individuals profess a vested interest in nature, albeit a nature of their own design.
They call for the complete eradication of the wolf. Has it been so long that these individuals cannot remember the elk herds of Yellowstone and how they prospered at uncontrollable rates? Perhaps it is these same individuals who called for the removal of the wolf from the Yellowstone ecosystem decades ago. It took some time, but eventually the scientists of that day recognized that wolf removal was a terrible decision. Owing to uncontrolled elk populations, countless biotic populations suffered, most notably the aspen groves of Yellowstone. These groves dwindled, becoming mere representations of their former selves.
It took many years until the correlation among wolves, elk and aspens was made, but eventually the National Parks Service admitted the error of its ways in removing this predator from the ecosystem. This begs the question, are we so short-sighted today, so absent of memory, that we are willing to once again make the same mistakes, even with the benefit of hindsight? Has the benefit of time not afforded humanity the opportunity to realize that meddling in nature, displaying our Roman thumb either up or down for each and every species, only serves to devalue our own existence?
Surely we have become more astute in our interference.
At present, the vocal minority calling for the removal of the wolf from the Rocky Mountains is banal, believing that their ideals carry a bigger stick than the one carried by the facts representing the science of biology. Wolves are necessary. The purposes they serve and what they provide to the larger ecosystem is something that cannot be replaced by any other animal. (Once again, have we already forgotten Yellowstone?) The main constituencies supporting the decimation of the wolf are ranchers, hunters and those who fancy themselves either. Unfortunately, their literal call to arms is entirely unwarranted, yet their fear-mongering has somehow prevailed. Remember, we are meant to be living in rational times. So, let us address the underlying causes behind each of these different individuals’ desire to see the wolf quelled.
Ranchers of the Rocky Mountains receive vast subsidies for their undertakings (most notably: low fees for grazing on public lands, taxpayer-supported research grants, lower property taxes for their own grazing lands, drought relief, livestock feed programs, etc.). Despite the benefits afforded many in the ranching community, many ranchers continue to insist that wolves are compromising their way of life. Keep in mind, when a rancher reports, and proves, that a wolf has killed one of his herd, the government steadfastly compensates him for his loss at a value greater than what the unit was worth. Today’s ranchers will receive more cash for their range operations than in any time in the history of our country. This seems ironic as the direct effect of their occupational undertakings leave a far greater imprint on the ecosystem of the Rocky Mountains than any pack of wolves ever has. The damages incurred by the ecosystem directly from the flood of cattle and sheep on public lands is far more detrimental to a biotic system than are any single group of predators.
Now, the argument may be made, “Well the predators are undermining our way of life, our ranching.” This is true, and to determine which species should rightly prevail in this battle of bovine versus Canis lupus, one must only iterate which was present in this region first. Lastly, let us note that coyotes and mountain lions kill more livestock and elk than wolves do.
I have several ranchers who are close friends of mine. So, please feel free to ask any rancher if the above is true. If they are honest, as I’ve found most ranchers to be, they will support the above statements. If you do not believe these facts, you are either in denial, a rancher who feels attacked, or both. Do not fret; you are not being attacked. The simple fact is, every time one ventures into the forests, one is guaranteed one thing: cow shit. The ubiquitous presence of cow pies is a contemporary certainty, one that most certainly does not add to the outdoor experience. To stumble upon a wolf kill, while possible, it’s so very unlikely as to be absurd. Thus, while the ranching community of the Rocky Mountains may possess an ideal in which they are continuing to pursue Manifest Destiny, this delusion is unwarranted and timeworn. Humans have already left their indelible mark, and to continue on this same trajectory will prove irreparable for many species, ours included.
The second faction calling for the decimation of wolves in the Rocky Mountains are hunters. I am a hunter. I have no issue with competing for my game with another creature. I possess a rifle and, some would argue, higher intelligence. Therefore, one must question, is the competition that the wolf has provided the true underlying cause of the hunting community berating the wolf? Do hunters despise wolves so much that they are unwilling to contend for their game? Granted, wolves seek food outside of our recognized hunting seasons. Nevertheless, the arguments continue, “Well, wolves run game off.” So do subdivisions. When I witness a “hunter” shooting a semi-automatic rifle at an elk from 500 yards, I feel only pity. Not just for the elk, although I am confident he is not afraid as the bullets bury themselves 50 yards from him, but also for the “hunter.” For a true hunter you are not. You are an embarrassment to yourself, to true hunters and, if you actually take down game, to the animal that lost its life to you after your 20th round. Still, you will be the one at the local watering hole espousing how you took down that bull elk from 500 yards.
As a hunter, I respect the intricacies of nature, the freezing mornings and frying afternoons. I accept that true hunting, seeking game and pursuing one’s own food is what should be done. The beef at a grocery store is not manufactured on site, contrary to popular belief. A true hunter recognizes that he or she is a part of nature. And while it is easy to proclaim oneself the apex of nature while holding a rifle, this is not the case. Perhaps the reason that some hunters loathe the wolf so dearly is that when the bullets are gone, the hunter can no longer look down the food chain upon every species below.
Humans are merely a cog in the machine of nature. In the absence of an understanding that expresses this fact, we will surely continue to be the cog that destroys the machine, the snake that consumes its own tail, only recognizing the error of our ways once it is too late. Wolves need to be managed, but irresponsible management, such as has been expressed by Idaho officials, and undoubtedly will soon be by Montana officials, is not the answer. Until humans learn to live with and within nature, we will never fully understand all that can be offered to us by nature. As Leopold has said, “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” It’s high time that those who have gained so much from the land, be it livelihood, recreation, or food, willingly begin to see all of its components with love and respect. To do otherwise only serves to denigrate our own, human existence.
Hayden Janssen recognizes that he is but a cog within a much larger machine. New West welcomes guest columns and would consider a counter-opinion to the views presented here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Knocking the populations back down to manageable levels is not reason enough to go all Leopold on us. When we get back down to 300 and 30 in the Northern Rockies I'll listen up, until then how about we cool it with the hue and cry?
I doubt hunters will take out enough this season to bring populations under control and there will need to be additional culling via air or gas in dens.
Look closely at wolf advocates and you'll find two things, an urban background and a sled dog pet, and those are the two unifying reasons for wolf reintroduction.
One would think wilderness areas and National Parks are turning to desert without Mr Lupus. That's funny, down here at RMNP, we have elk numbers exactly where we wanted them in 3 years, and no wolves.
I feel for those that think this will all lead to extermination of wolves, on both sides.
Waiting in the wings is the odiferous approval of the Wyoming wolf plan by USFWS/ DOI. The latter are caving in fast to the special interests. Wyoming may very well be rewarded for its years of boneheaded regressive anti-wildlife pro-ranching wolf stance with a blessed bogus plan that stills brands wolves as nuisance animals in 3/4ths of the state, able to be shot on sight sans license or controls. Outfitters will get free fellation, too, up there in their high country bootleg casinos.
Then you can expect Montana and Idaho to demand---and recieve---their own version of Predator Status.
If the impasse is in fact broken and Wyoming's wishes granted by a wave of the Magic Wand of Political Corruption , then Wyoming will eagerly begin the elimination of fully 70 percent of the state's wolf numbers forthwith, " by any means necessary " to " manage down" to the 100 wolves/ 10 breeding pairs threshhold from the current 26+ wolfpacks with an estimated population north of 360.
It will be genocide, of sorts, not wildlife management or anything I would call " conservation". It's a total sellout that to my mind violates the letter and the spirit of the ESA, then goes on to annihilate any reasonable policy towards genuine ecological wildlife management . For starters.
Stay tuned. We should see some Wyoming wolf fiat here soon , maybe even before the August congressional recess.
You are correct when you argued that "Hunters do not own the deer, elk, or any other wildlife", at least until legal possession occurs after a "legal take." Up until then, these animals are owned by the respective states in which they exist.
Doubt it?
Read the law.
you can thank the continual law suits for the over reaction that's taking place today. Ed Bangs knew that without local support of the wolf, he would be doomed. The extremist environmental groups didn't know when to say when.
The enviros didn't do it. The lawsuits came later after mediation went nowhere, and the Wyoming Stockgrowers / Woolgrowers/Farm Bureau/Mountain States Legal coalition filed the heavy lawsuits, not the enviros. Then came the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and other hunter lobby groups wit theirs. Check your history better.
And by the way , the enviro groups are not "extreme" just because they file lawsuits, although that is the prevailing folk tale. Unless, of course, you are also willing to use the perjorative " extreme ranchers" and " extreme hunting lobby" in the same breath...
I get mighty tired of that ' extremist' label being tarred onto the enviros. They really have little choice by that point. But it's a 2-way street leading to the Courthouse.
Yellowstone elk and moose are at all time lows, and no way to stop the loss.
By the way can the author document one grizzly killed for predation on livestock? The state of Wyoming move them back and forth over the mountain to other areas, but I can not think of any killed for predation on livestock, just the two who killed humans last year.
FYI---Several grizzlies have been offed for preying on cattle, especially at that Walton allotment down on Union Pass. Wyo G&F;has a "3 Strikes" rule for problem grizzlies, but they are sometimes eradicated after just two encounters. Just because you can't think of an instance says more about your aging neurons than grizzly control.
Do you ever Google or Bing anything before you erupt ?
http://www.igbconline.org/html/y-reports.html
Reading that , you find out 17 Yellowstone area G. bears were taken out for being repeat cattle/sheep predators, and a total of 44 other grizzlies were purposely removed for other human conflicts in the 9 years between 1998-2007. Of course we can add in the last 4 years' worth one of these days.
Try doing basic research before loading and firing your blunderbuss.
By the way , I admit I have digressed here. The topic at the fore is Wolves, not Bears. But you brought 'em up...
That doesn't cahnge the fact that the article is full of misinformation. Coyotes and lions do NOT kill more elk than wolves, the wolves were brought in specifically to kill off the elk and tehy are extremely succesful. The 19,000 number thrown out before the wolves were imported was down to 4000 last December and still dropping I'm sure.
Every cow on public land or private represents food on the hoof for the American people. I have seen too much grass and too many wildflowers growing in a cowpie to buy into the "cows are bad" BS (pun intended). Neither am I offended by the sight of deer droppings in my yard.....year around.
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_6c49f6d0-b2cf-11e0-b4bb-001cc4c03286.html
There were wolves seen in Yellowstoen on and off right up until the imported wolves were trucked in. There are photos taken just before the wolves were put in the pens, also a video. A wolf was hit & killed by a car just outside the north entrance in 1988. A coyote hunter shot one he mistook for a coyote just out side of Yellowstone in 1992.
I don't really see how anyone could argue that wolves are absolutely bad. Like the article says, science has proven that is not the case. Maybe we should spend more time focusing on how to effectively manage the wolf and elk/moose populations.
Where do you get your figures about there being 80%-90% fewer elk? From when? From when Settlers came? Where did you get your figures that 56 adults and 80 pups were killed over 14 years? Was the eradication only 14 years, or did it start when settlers came? The elk population was higher when there were more wolves (before WE came and migrated West). So the argument that it is the wolf killing all of the elk is kind of silly. But I really would like to know where you got those numbers. As far as I know the states are the only one doing the studies and they don't show a 90% decrease since 95'.
The guy runs when he get called on things like this...... can't answer the tough ones when the truth speaks. He expects everyone to give him reverence and not bring to light the kind of Judge molloy truly is!
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_8e5649a9-cb6a-5924-8a42-ee2e2da63dc6.html?mode=comments
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/yellowstone_to_yukon_conservationist_advocates_for_key_wildlife_corridor/C41/L41/
I just know when to let the idiots vent their spleen till they turn livid and delirious and begin quoting the fine print and surgeon General's Warning on the ketchup bottle.....
I dare you to read this when your spleen runs dry:
http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.15/how-green-is-judge-molloy
p.s. the High Country news isn't an environmental newspaper. It's a newspaper about environmental topics. Can you make that distinction , or are the blinders and earplugs still installed ?
What a miserable neurotic life you must lead , always tearing down , never adding to the civil discourse, making it personal, carping about things you really know nothing about three states away from you.
Did you somehow forget that Judge Molloy is all but retired now ? Dana Christensen of Montana has been submitted to the US Senate as his replacement. The chair is empty come August.
You can keep mischaracterizing and flaming me all you want, but for the umpteenth time I remind you publically that I am not the issue, except behind your own eyelids. You don;t have Judge Molloy to fling feces at any longer, either.
It's about Wolves. Got it ? Wolves.
Wolves would be fine as a managed driver in the system. But the emphasis is on managed, which is functionally nonexistent due to policy.
It's too bad we can't jump in a time machine and really study game populations and locations and vegetative communities for, say, the last 200 years before Columbus showed up and smallpox "cleansed" the continent of Indians. We'd know who is lying today.
Whatever the truth might be, the fact is that Judge Molloy has a ruling to make and it's going to be huge. Either he takes the slap from Congress or throws double down....and senior status is NOT retirement. He'll keep the fun stuff for himself as long as he can.
Now last December, they counted 4000 head of elk in the northern herd extending it clear up into Montana, that is admittedly an 80% drop. The Norris Firehole herd has been a steady 650-750 ever since man first started counting them and they do not migrate. There were about 50 left last fall.
There is a Yellowstone newsletter and the spring edition states that Yellowstone is changing from an elk based ecosystem to a bison based system. Is that really the purpose of NPS to change the ecosystem to suit themselves?
We know the number killed by NPS because they paid a bounty and kept records. The numbers are in Chase's book "Playing God in Yellowstone", also in Schullery's book on Yellowstone wolves.
We now have a whopping 6 percent of the Elk numbers after a hundred years of the great North American Big Game Conservation Model, and 0.05 percent of the former wolf population.
Your constant harping about the Northern elk herd and the Firehole-Madison herds go nowhere and are not relevant nor defensible .
Wolves are just wolves.
Nat, You didn't happen to get the name of that Federal employee giving you a load of doo doo..... If so, please drop it here. I'm sure there is enough balance people to get the matter cleaned up!
The rangers there have wildlife discussions every morning. There were two there and they said they were just over 19,000. I just checked out the nps.gov site. http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/elk.htm There it says that 30,000 summer and 15,000 to 22,000 winter there. There are also another 10,000-12,000 that winter in nearby Teton. Those are facts from the park biologists. I ask again, where did you get your facts? Who did the count? Who is doing counts on the park populations other than the park biologists? I don't know where you heard your information, but on the Park website it gives the population. I am really not sure it is as bad as some people make it out to be.
reality22, I only got their first names, but you will have to take them up on their site. What makes you think they are lying? If they had the initiative to bring them back I think they would have the initiative to manage them. I am sure they see the need of having a healthy Elk population just as they see the need of a healthy wolf population.
Somsai, huh? We have DNA and bones from the earth. What do you mean?
I blame the non (anti-hunting) element for not stepping up to the plate & heading this off. Wolves and grizzlies will never live in harmony with livestock. Letting predators become so saturated that they drags prey herd down below sustainable population goals don't win you any environmental sympathy!
Doug Smith gave a talk in the fall of 2009 and he stated that the northern herd was down to 10,000 head, he gave the same info to National Geographic for an article published in March 2010.
The quote:
"Loss of superabundant prey is another issue, Smith says. There are still close to 10,000 elk wintering in Yellowstone and perhaps double that number summering in the park. "But wolves are very selective hunters," Smith says. "What counts for them is the amount of vulnerable prey"
The only other herd that I know of being counted and numbers released is the Norris/Firehold herd and that study was done in 2008, I believe it was by Dr. Robert Garrott from the U of Montana, they counted 108 and a 0-4 calf retention rate. A ranger is who told me last fall that the herd is now about 50.
States are already having a hard time keeping them in check & out of trouble! Playing the extinct card will bring in more cash to the enviro's than "you won't recognize the landscape"
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11005.htm
"The annual aerial survey of the herd conducted during December 2010 resulted in a count of 4,635 elk, down 24 percent"
"Predation by wolves and grizzly bears is cited as the major reason for the decline in elk numbers."
The only good news is that the wolves are eating their own.
I found the numbers you are referring to. There are 4,600 elk in the Northern population of Yellowstone. That consists of 25% of the park. So the numbers they quoted and that they have on their site. Also, it was an aerial survey not a ground study.
Somsai,
I understand that Wolves are a major cause of the population decline. That was never the debate. Elk are their main food source so I would think their decline in numbers would come from that. The point was that Elk numbers are not as low as some people have made them out to be (80%-90%). All of the numbers I have found show a 20%-30% decline which is what they anticipated. Other articles site liberal harvest numbers coupled with predators as the reason for the decline. That article also says that wolf numbers are down. There were over 100 wolves in just the northern part of the park, now they are down to 37. I am sure that the elk population will balance as the wolf population drops.
I'm obviously pro wolf. However, I understand people wanting to hunt. I see nothing wrong with that. However, I think we all need to find a middle ground here. We know that allowing hunting of wolves, mountain lion, bear, elk, moose, deer or any other creature means BIG, BIG money for state governments. Money is what makes the world go round and is the root of the issue of having wolves back in their natural habitat.
We need to remember that wolf were all over the west before we killed them off. It's not like we are introducing them into an ecosystem that cannot support a wolf. So far, the reintroduction of wolves to this part of the country has been highly successful, despite some ranchers losing their livestock. Ranchers have been losing livestock to predators ever since we started ranching in this country. That isn't going to change, unless we wipe predators out completely... which I sincerely hope and pray never happens.
The herd dropped 24% in 9 months from March 2010 to December 2010, and hunting in the Montana part that is counted had been stopped for at least a year and down to 100 animals total for several years.
I am aware a lot of the wolves have left for greener pastures (ranches), the question is whether enough will leave in time for the elk herds to survive or will they continue to kill until all is lost?
I understand you urban folks have "feelings" and "opinions" but I'd say that report by the NPS is fairly unambiguous. There's a predator pit centered around YNP.
I don't want to be saved from wolves, I need to be saved from pop ecologists who think the west was some kind of garden of Eden prior to Lewis and Clark and all we need to do is let nature take it's course and all will be in balance. Those sorts of attitudes show not only a lack of education but also a supreme ignorance of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation that saved all these animals to feed that thing from Canada that resembles the sled dog in your SUV.
Sure hope those guys in Wyoming can shoot.
This is also not a discussion of one side being "city folk", "urban folk" or "suburban folk" and another being "country folk", "red necks" or "hillbillies". This is about maintaining wolf. (yes, I am trying to have wolf re-introduced to the state I live in, as well as grizzly bear).
I am pretty shocked that you assume to have the ability to determine where someone lives or what type of setting I live in either urban, suburban, or coutntry side.
@ Somsai, if you truly have "walked over a good part of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana from the late 70s to the late 80s" I'd love to hear some of your stories. I'm sure you have a ton of them. That is a lot of land to traverse considering the three states total up to more that 3330,000 square miles. I'm sure you have some great stories about your travels. I'm surprised Nat Geo hasn't approached you for a story or two ;). Seriously though... I'm sure you have some great stories from your treks.
Orgins do matter. In an interview recently Ed Bangs said he can tell your perspective on wolves by where you come from (originally) doesn't matter if you are from Mongolia or Spain or South Pass, ranchers, hunters, and urbanites (or urban refugees) he can accurately predict your stance on brer wolf.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/rocky-mountain-wolf-recovery-leader-is-not-your-average-bureaucrat#1311282212990246
I think the Elk will survive. An interesting part of the discussion was that the strongest predators cannot defeat the strongest prey. They don't have the ability to do so. And that is reflected now in the wolf population. It has declined 60% in the last 3 years in Northern Yellowstone. There is no doubt that the pendulum swung in the wolves favor in certain areas, but it will swing back naturally before too long.
Somsai,
I don't understand some of your points. Because you walked around and saw beavers means that the populations weren't down? I just walked around Yellowstone and other areas and saw lots of Elk, it doesn't mean the population is just fine.
I understand that humans should play more of a role in managing the ecosystem around us. You say it shows a lack of education and a supreme ignorance of wildlife management to think that nature can just take its course and everything will be OK. Does it show your supreme intelligence when you elude to killing off all the wolves or other predators and pretend like they don't play a vital role in the success of our ecosystem?
Yellowstone is not an island! Just as elk were above what is good for the park without hunting, do you think that the environmental groups will ever admit that a long term low population of prey without hunting is also not a good thing for the Yellowstone ecosystem?
"The natural environment, as it is currently understood by science, is in a constant state of flux.
Upheaval, not balance, is the norm."
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/belief-in-balance-of-nature-hard-to-shake-4785/
We wiped out Mamoths and dire wolves, and it turns out we didn't need them. We don't need gray wolves to have beaver, or elk, turns out they get along just fine without the wolf. It turns out even that the elk were in no way harming the trees and riparian habitat of Yellowstone. From the NPS "elk do not appear to have had any significant effect on the overall biodiversity of native animals and plants." Thanks for that link Nate. http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/northrng.htm
Leopold wrote another book. It was called Game Management (changed to wildlife management) I wish people such as the writer of this article would flip through it.
Man has taken and developed the majority of the prime grazing areas around Yellowstone areas to put up schools, churches, grocery stores, homes and wheat fields. It has forever changed what will and will not thrive within the park and bordering public areas. Adding a predator such as the wolf and giving it a hall pass is not balance and will not add balance anything.
The "hall pass" does four things:
It turns the local people sour on the wolf.
It brings to light the destructiveness of the wolf.
It swings predator rich areas into the un-huntable areas. (just as HSUS and DOW want)
It burdens the taxpayer and rancher with its destructiveness.
It's sad that these groups have to fight tooth and nail for the hall pass for this animal. The local people will never accept the destructiveness. Just think of the dollars that were and continue to be spent to change the population of wolves from 800 to 2000. What could be accomplished if every one of those dollars were spent on preserving and restoring habitat? The saddest part is that we are headed back to the 800..... where the population should have been to begin with. What a waste!
I heard an advertisement for HSUS promoting their "habitat fund".... maybe some of these groups will eventually get it!
A computer model reflects the information put into it and therefore the bias of the person putting the information in, it has no independent information, and that is the weakness. Obviously the prediction that wolves would take 20-30% of Yellowstone elk and minimal livestock was totally wrong. All of their predictions were wrong, and at this point we have no idea whether elk will survive in Yellowstone or not.
For one thing there simply is nothing in any record to indicate there were ever wolf numbers like what were introduced at any time in the previous history of Yellowstone. And of course there is the very real possibility that there were true C Irremotus wolves left in the area. It is clear that the folks in charge of the situation did not want any indication of that. When the wolf killed in 1992 DNA did not match any DNA in their database, they declared it not a wolf, then admitted it was a wolf, but what kind? They never allowed another wolf that was killed or captured to be tested for DNA. The wolf captured near Pinedale shortly after the wolves were brought in was sent to Texas and died and Bangs allowed NO DNA testing.
The final judgement of this whole thing will take place a generation or two from now and I suspect will not be real favorable, if for not reason other than changing the face of Yellowstone forever if the elk are unable to recover. The mandatory number of wolves and continual lawsuits are going to make that very difficult.
The entire ESA is a transfer of money from taxpayers pockets to the non taxable "non profit" multi million dollar asset environmental groups.
Cat Urbigkits book is an eye opener, number one to see the politics that were and are at play in the environmental movement, and as to the facts that were covered up. The wolf that was roped by a rancher and put in a horse trailer was not collared so it was not one of the imported wolves. Bangs would not let anyone do DNA on it and I I said it earlier it was sent to a facility in Texas where it died and still NO DNA.
Why has so much money been spent on the black footed ferret, it also was "extinct"?
I do not understand your question about the elk, it would be worse than useless to bring more elk into Yellowstone, it would just keep the predators fed a little longer.
BTW, the largest wolf killed in Montana during the 09 hunting season weighed in at 117 lbs. Most are around 80.
Lewis and Clark's Journal stated that the wolf they found in Western Montana was the largest species they ever saw. Check that out. Read the journal.
My own opinion was & is an attempt to end hunting and ranching.
Doesn't matter about any wolf that was here previous. They would have been over ran, with or without re-introduction. You think the Federal Gov. wants to end hunting and ranching? Then why do they let ranchers lease grazing for next to nothing. All they would have to do is bump that fee to twice what you pay on private leased lands, and stop all the tax incentives that a rancher is afforded. Give me a break.
In addition, researchers note that although the gray wolf (canis lupus) was once divided into many subspecies, so many subspecies have become extinct that most scientists no longer differentiate between subspecies.264 Scientists now typically classify wolves as belonging to one of two species: the gray wolf (canis lupus) or the red wolf (canis rufus).265
With regard to the assertion that “Canadian” gray wolves are neither threatened nor endangered and therefore are not appropriate for use as a reintroduced population, the ESA itself speaks to this charge.266 It is a unique feature of the ESA that it applies state by state.267 “Hence the abundance of wolves in Alaska, Canada, or Russia has no legal bearing on the question of their endangeredness in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.”268 Thus, that gray wolves are abundant in Canada has no bearing on their status in the individual United States, and they are therefore acceptable for use as a reintroduced population.269
[*PG455] Accordingly, the defendants’ use of Canadian gray wolves for the reintroduction program did not violate section 10(j) of the ESA.270 The conclusions of the Wyoming district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit should be upheld if this issue is appealed to the Supreme Court.
I don't like the wolves at these numbers, but just like lions, and bears, they will have a place. The question as to whether wolves will be here is long past over. You are going to live with them so I suggest you figure it out.
Some people get a better Idea of what happened when you look at it via thinking of them as colors....years ago we had a "yellow" gray wolf in the southern Rockies Mexican gray wolf - Canis Lupus Baileyi. In Northern Canada & Alaska we had the "blue" gray wolf - Canis Lupus occidentalis. Some of the original taxonomy categories included Canis Lupus irremotus a wolf not quite occidentalis and not quite Baileyi or "green = yellow+blue" (....... Instead of letting the "greenish blue" wolves that were migrating back to Montana & Idaho or getting greenish blue wolves from Southern Canada, they illegally brought in the "blue" wolves from Northern Canada! They were sued & Judge Downes agreed that what they did was "unlawful" .... but because the only way of correcting the situation was to kill all the "blue" wolves in and around Yellowstone.... they let the illegal "blue" wolves stay!
If they are all gray wolves what is all the fuss about with the Mexican Gray wolf?
No, it was a gray wolf.
The logical conclusion is that Congress intended the ESA to preserve the entire species of gray wolf (canis lupus), not to distinguish between relatively obscure subspecies variations.263
In addition, researchers note that although the gray wolf (canis lupus) was once divided into many subspecies, so many subspecies have become extinct that most scientists no longer differentiate between subspecies.264 Scientists now typically classify wolves as belonging to one of two species: the gray wolf (canis lupus) or the red wolf (canis rufus).265
Todd, New Mexico abandoned the Mexican wolf program & for good reason. Local support was/is nill & Spending a million Federal & state tax dollars per wolf for the program just didn't add up.
Andy wants to protect Baileyi (as a subspecies), but could give a hoot about Irremotus. To me, I just find it interesting that the ones that argue the most against Irremotus can still defend Baileyi as a subspecies......all gray wolf Canis Lupis. I believe the word is hypocritical! Me, I'm entertained at the fact that these people argue that rules of the ESA were broken by bringing in occidentalis the way they did & yet they can file law suits for technicalities (MT/ID delisting & not WY) & procedural (Great Lakes 3rd attempt at delisting) things.
Just as the large whitetail deer of the North gradually change to tiny deer Florida Keys, I believe that wolves did the same north & south up and down the Rockies. I'm very curious to see what would happen if a wayward pack of occidentalis infiltrated NM & AZ . Would the Andy's of the world try to protect the subspecies Baileyi?
The bottom line is that this animal needs big areas of habitat in order for it to be good habitat, they don't live well around people. Would the Mexican Gray wolf lovers have been better off preserving & protecting habitat then spending 50 million forcing it upon local people? This animal need the support of local the local people something lost in NM! If Andy wants to claim something different, so be it!
It is pretty obvious that the areas that have wolves have reached the limits of sustainability. Those limits should be determined by the folks familiar with an area, if more wolves are wanted then wolf lovers must be willing to make the sacrifices themselves, because wolves do require a lot of sacrifice on the part of those who have to deal with them. Some of that responsibility should be taken by those who want ever more of them.
Which sacrifices are you referring to?
Those are just some of the costs involved. some ranchers have had to hire extra riders to help at the cost of about $25 thousand per year, those are expenses off the top before there is anything left to sell.
Enough rancher welfare. Time to end the entitlements and make these greed-driven men stand up on their own two feet and stop living off of the public teat. Just because federal land is in their state does not mean it's their land, or their state's land. It's America's land, and if you don't like it, move along, little puppies.
Ranchers pay nothing for using the land. They are subsidized by the govt. Will you ever stop spreading your cow worshiping manure
Dinx, Andy and JeffE you guys just don't get it.....the reason that the wolf is a failure is because of you. The constant trash talking of the very people you need to support from for success has gotten you nowhere! The wolf is hated from one end of the country to the other by the local people.... because of you. Thanks for making my job as a wolf management advocate so easy! I encourage others to post the last page of this blog down at the feed mill & on the board in the grocery store.... It will make some more friends of the wolf.
By the way ranchers pay serveral millions in grazing fees every year. Roadless area hikers and campers pay????????
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/07/23/montana-fwp-euthanizes-grizzly-bear-that-“frequented”-campground/#comment-87218
Bloggers Phil & William Huard among others are real good sources of hate & toxicity towards the hunter and rancher! The site filters out bloggers that don't follow the script!
Someone needs to write the IDFG and complain about the amount of blogging Mark Gamblin (IDFG) does on the site. His posts are great & pretty much the only balance allowed on the site. Still, blogging on a site that filters out almost anyone with differing views is not a place our public servant should be showing up!
the only one I see advocating hate and dis-information are the likes of you and Honey-Wagon Dickinson. If it threatens the stranglehold that the livestock industry has on state governments and resources, willing dupes like you rush out of the woodwork yammering about stuff you know nothing of. Honeywagon Dickinson spreads so much manure she does not even know where reality ends and fantasy starts. As for worrying about what is or not posted on some other blog, I have never seen so much blog envy in my life. Freud would have had a whole new career.
Total BS.
Hunters do not want to "wipe out all wolves" just manage them,and keep the numbers at a reasonable level.
There were wolves in NW Montana long before the Yellowstone re-introduction.
All the lawsuits, wolf "studies" etc. have been an endless supply of funding for the eivironmental groups,and benefitted no one, but the lawyers.